The tank slant in DDO

[haggis]

Why is DDO so slanted toward tanking around killing stuff. I only play a rogue or a cleric, so when I play my rogue I play as a rogue should play, stealthy slow using backstabbing and sneak attacks avoiding a fight if possible. The problem is I do a great job of fooling a small boss, get him away from his chest go to open and oops lock not able to be picked. That is stupid. If I go kill the boss then it magically unlocks and don't need to pick. Then there is the timed quests. You can't play a rogue running unless you not really playing a rogue you are just playing a toon that has some rogue abilities. I realize that some bosses will not be fooled that's ok then don't let them leave there treasure unguarded, I have no problem with that.

[ErgonomicCat]

Why is DDO so slanted toward tanking around killing stuff. I only play a rogue or a cleric, so when I play my rogue I play as a rogue should play, stealthy slow using backstabbing and sneak attacks avoiding a fight if possible. The problem is I do a great job of fooling a small boss, get him away from his chest go to open and oops lock not able to be picked. That is stupid. If I go kill the boss then it magically unlocks and don't need to pick. Then there is the timed quests. You can't play a rogue running unless you not really playing a rogue you are just playing a toon that has some rogue abilities. I realize that some bosses will not be fooled that's ok then don't let them leave there treasure unguarded, I have no problem with that.

kinda /signed. ;)

That whole "Chest/door only unlocks when you kill them all" thing has frustrated me at times too. I've done it with my sorc as well - lead them away, hypnotize them, go get the chest.

[tihocan]

There is an explanation: monsters hold keys to some chests and doors (whose locks are too complex for a rogue to pick), and by killing them you get the key, allowing you to open them.
Why doesn't a key drop then? Because dropped keys can be a source of many problems...

Also, chest loot can be seen as an abstraction of "looting the corpses". What you get in the chest is what you would have found on the bodies... that must be dead ;)

[haggis]

I buy that. However, the timed quests are another matter.

[A_Sheep]

The fact that any lock is too complex to pick is silly to me.

[spifflove]

Its not. It is slanted to damage dealers. The optimal party will have two damage dealer fighters, a cleric, an arcane, and rogue, and a 6th man that can be anything.

No rogue, the vol trap will eat you to pieces.

No cleric, the damage dealers cannot function

No wizard, no cc and wipe will occur.

No tank, no problem.

[Vordax]

There is an explanation: monsters hold keys to some chests and doors (whose locks are too complex for a rogue to pick), and by killing them you get the key, allowing you to open them.
Why doesn't a key drop then? Because dropped keys can be a source of many problems...

Also, chest loot can be seen as an abstraction of "looting the corpses". What you get in the chest is what you would have found on the bodies... that must be dead ;)
NM

Vordax

[Litz]

Think what the OP is touching on is why is DDO a Hack & Slash in most of its stuff. Missions like Stealthy Reposession where you can complete it without killing everything, and infact its better if you don't provide as much if not more of a challenge than walking in and leaving a wake of body bags. I remember several times in PnP talking my way out of a fight. It was the only reason I'd take up certain languages. I guess I could of taken the kill-em-first strategy, but usually it didn't pay out the XP as much as a untraditional win would have. I agree that more options besides the single path, that has been coded for almost every mission, should become more common.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I remember several times in PnP talking my way out of a fight. It was the only reason I'd take up certain languages. I guess I could of taken the kill-em-first strategy, but usually it didn't pay out the XP as much as a untraditional win would have. .

Then your DM did it wrong... At least from 3.0 on you get the same XP for successfully bypassing an challenge as you would from defeating it.

[ErgonomicCat]

Then your DM did it wrong... At least from 3.0 on you get the same XP for successfully bypassing an challenge as you would from defeating it.

Indeed. The XP is awarded for overcoming an encounter, whatever method is used.

The "easiest" way to overcome an encounter is typically to kill it, especially in a game with entire sourcebooks devoted to killing better, and a subsection to skills.

It's the nature of the game. Also, it's a lot easier to make rules for combat than it is for stimulating debate....

Because of that, many DMs will give bonus Roleplaying XP for overcoming it via conversation.

I've never been able to convince my DM that, since I'm playing a half-orc frenzied berserker, it's good RP for me to kill everything in sight....

[Tulmeel]

We were discussing this last night: The trend of the moment is to play caster/something. More pugs are being formed with one or at the most 2 tanks. I've noticed the increasing number of groups with WF clerics and Rangers as the main DPS dealers. (Speaking of lowbie groups< 6)

[Scalion]

The fact that any lock is too complex to pick is silly to me.

I agree with this 100%

The reality of the game is this.

Bottom line is that most dungeons are specifically designed for a group to work together to defeat. This means that there is supposed to be some dumb tank rushing ahead, some rogue lookin around for traps, some wizard buffing and nuking, and some cleric keeping everybody standing in every single mission in the game. The exceptions to this are so few that they aren't even worth mentioning.

If more dungeons were designed specifically for those with stealth skills or some other particular skill then it would be a different story, but I believe the developers have a goal to give a purpose to every class in the group and nobody's purpose is stealth any more.

The only thing I use stealth for in the game as it exists now is to hit stealth before I know a fight is coming up so they aggro on someone other than me initially. In a new quest I can see stealth being important so the rogue can stay in the front of the group to watch for traps while not getting initial aggro if it's monsters instead of traps.

[Aranticus]

Its not. It is slanted to damage dealers. The optimal party will have two damage dealer fighters, a cleric, an arcane, and rogue, and a 6th man that can be anything.

No rogue, the vol trap will eat you to pieces.

No cleric, the damage dealers cannot function

No wizard, no cc and wipe will occur.

No tank, no problem.

vol trap? which one? the one to the key? lol if its that one then i'd say a rog not needed as well.... time it and u can run thru it. my wiz did too

clerics are not needed. did cursed crypt w/o a clr, did von6 w/o a clr, was in a vol group w/o a clr. there is a misconception that clr are indispensable.... they are not.

no wiz no problem too. a bard will do just as well for cc with dancing sphere! nukage can be replaced too... at least i built my clr to laydown maximised blade barriers with her sup potency VI

no one class is indispensable. but having some classes do make stuff alot easier :)

[VonBek]

I would like to see the game evolve into more than hack and slash. Could we see some occasions where certain actions:

luring a monster away,
charming it,
or picking the locked chest while it sleeps
result in a challenge defeated condition? I certainly haven't been through all the content, but what I've seen so far leaves me thinking there's room to work in a few scenarios in adventures which require finesse over force.

[Scalion]

no one class is indispensable. but having some classes do make stuff alot easier :)

I think there may be a few exceptions. The only one I know of that comes to mind is VON 5 traps. Can't really get a full group of people down there without a rogue. You either need a rogue to disable or everyone needs evasion.

[ErgonomicCat]

I would like to see the game evolve into more than hack and slash. Could we see some occasions where certain actions:

luring a monster away,
charming it,
or picking the locked chest while it sleeps
result in a challenge defeated condition? I certainly haven't been through all the content, but what I've seen so far leaves me thinking there's room to work in a few scenarios in adventures which require finesse over force.

The issue is that if you *require* finesse over force, you've just excluded a large percentage of the game. If you have to open a chest while a monster sleeps, that's pretty much either sneak or invis. If you can't sneak and can't cast invis, no quest for you!

When you're designing a quest, you can design one for everyone in the game, or design one for 30% of the game. It's a matter of economics.

That being said, I think we have enough quests now where you can legitimately release a couple for each class, and be okay.

[Aranticus]

I think there may be a few exceptions. The only one I know of that comes to mind is VON 5 traps. Can't really get a full group of people down there without a rogue. You either need a rogue to disable or everyone needs evasion.

actually no. with stoneskin, elect resist, elect prot, jump and ff, you can avoid most of the damage. my wiz with 144 hp could also get to the other side

ps if u jump to the corner where the pillar meets with the force wall, you should not get hit by the traps

[VonBek]

The issue is that if you *require* finesse over force, you've just excluded a large percentage of the game. If you have to open a chest while a monster sleeps, that's pretty much either sneak or invis. If you can't sneak and can't cast invis, no quest for you!

That being said, I think we have enough quests now where you can legitimately release a couple for each class, and be okay.

We have similar views, I think. Let me clarify: I am not advocating quests that shortchange any party such that one class becomes vital. I'm looking for a way to include content,within an otherwise normal quest, that that lets skill or cunning succeed.

What I'm trying to describe is an either/or challenge resolution: Either beat the monster, and loot his chest, OR loot it while it's away/sleeping/charmed. This wouldn't have to be for every chest, every quest, or mission completion. I'd prefer it to function so the party decides the approach. Two rogues and a caster might want to solve the challenge in a clever manner. A six tank crew can just beat on it 'til it gives.

As you say we're far enough along that some quests could be tailored to specific classes or style of play. But I wouldn't want such novelty quests as the norm.

[maddmatt70]

vol trap? which one? the one to the key? lol if its that one then i'd say a rog not needed as well.... time it and u can run thru it. my wiz did too

clerics are not needed. did cursed crypt w/o a clr, did von6 w/o a clr, was in a vol group w/o a clr. there is a misconception that clr are indispensable.... they are not.

no wiz no problem too. a bard will do just as well for cc with dancing sphere! nukage can be replaced too... at least i built my clr to laydown maximised blade barriers with her sup potency VI

no one class is indispensable. but having some classes do make stuff alot easier :)

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome is people's preconcieved notion on what makes a proper/successful group. My bard is a healing bard and is built for healing; hence, I don't need to run with a cleric and have run without a cleric in all the quests in the game at this point. I absolutely feel that no class is necessary to finish any quest in this game. I can not tell you the number of times I have been in group as leader or with 4 other players and they cry that they need a cleric. Then after the quest they are surprised at how we successfully completed the quest without any issues despite not having a cleric - bah...

I like your offensive spell casting cleric because it shows the continued evoloution of the game. Clerics are not just healing bots, but can be a deadly killing machine especially at the current level with level 7 spells. I hate it when people are typecast into a certain role. Often the people who typecast others into certain roles are poor players who are ignorant of the full abilities of many of the classes in this game.

Norg

[Hence]

The issue is that if you *require* finesse over force, you've just excluded a large percentage of the game. If you have to open a chest while a monster sleeps, that's pretty much either sneak or invis. If you can't sneak and can't cast invis, no quest for you!

When you're designing a quest, you can design one for everyone in the game, or design one for 30% of the game. It's a matter of economics.

That being said, I think we have enough quests now where you can legitimately release a couple for each class, and be okay.

Who said anything about "requireing" finesse? Why not make finesse an option, and force an option. Let us choose how we play?

Instead we are forced on a cingular path, with no choice but to kill or be killed.

[Idracab]

Good ideas, and I'd like to see just the reverse as well, let us bash open chests on occasion. I have a hard time believing that my 30 str ftr, who can destroy a stone sarcophagus with a single punch, is going to let a little ol' lock on a wooden chest keep him from his loot.

[ErgonomicCat]

Who said anything about "requireing" finesse? Why not make finesse an option, and force an option. Let us choose how we play?

Instead we are forced on a cingular path, with no choice but to kill or be killed.

Now the new AT&T.

As options, I'm *mostly* in favor of that. If you got a ransack bonus, or an invisible bonus (but not both) or the like, yes.

As long as it doesn't delay monks. ;)