D&D Class Lore: The Rogue
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Let's learn the origins of D&D's sneakiest class!
WORLD ANVIL, 20% with code: XPTOLEVEL3: worldanvil.pxf...
MERCH: www.bonfire.co...
PATREON: / xptolevel3
TWITTER: / xptolevel3
DISCORD: / discord
this, I like this
How has no one responded to you? You are the god of youtube dnd
Oui
I seen you somewhere 🐱👍
100th like. Your welcome oh mighty Jocat creator of art and D&D vids
yes
Original rogue: “I rolled an 18 so I fail to stealth”
5e rogue: “I rolled a 2 so that’s a 37”
You mean 3.5. 5e wont get to 37 with a rolled 2 ;p
Yeah you will.
Reliable talent, +17 to stealth checks
And if your Druid isn’t casting pass without trace you’re missing out.
@@jackdog06 my party's rogue literally got a 38 on a stealth roll in lvl 3 because I cast pass without trace on the entire party.
One time my friends and I tried to see the highest skill check you could roll (this is practically impossible and doesn't apply to all skill checks) and also needs a whole party.
So Mark of Shadow Battle Master Elf. With Stealth Expertise
20 (+5) dex. So 17
Nat 20
Ambush to give Battle Master Superiority High Lvl (d12)
Mark of Shadow intuition (d4)
Max Bard gives you a d12 inspiration
Cleric 1 used bless
Cleric 2 used guidance
Artificer (+5 int) with Flash if Genius
Then a pass without trace
So...
20+12+12+4+4+4+5+10+17
=88
@@chefkoch4589 Its a Critical Role reference I believe
"A character that hunts for backs. He's coming for your spine."
Dark Souls
This is 100% why i wish i could sneak attack with non-light non-finesse weapons.
Puts on hornets ring
Erik Burzinski with malicious intent
You better work on that pivot backstab or SaintRiot will visit you at night and "Quiet Resolve".
@@Esproth ask your DM about flavoring your nat20 crits as Dark Souls backstabs.
Becoming an assassin in 3.5e:
"You sleep rather soundly for a murderer"
Hail sithis!
What is life's greatest illusion?
Innocence
I thought the exact same thing ^.^
Exactly
I just realized how old I am when I saw the part about "3rd ed" and "flatfooted" and felt that it was very recently published.
3rd edition/ the D20 system was a fun as hell edition though, as janky as it could be at times
I mean, Pathfinder is still widely played and its basically 3.75e, so... its not like those mechanics vanished completely.
3.5e and pathfinder 1e are still my favorite tabletop games, and I am far from alone, there are at least 3 groups in my small town 2 of which still play them.
It was recently published. It was only 20 years ago... Shit, I feel your pain. If it makes you feel any better I've played every edition in the era that it came out.
i recently got into pathfinder 2e and i'm very sad that flat footed isn't as sever as 1e. theres a ton of things i think would be so much fun from 1e, but also 3 action system is glorious
Amazing titles there Gary, "FIGHTING-MAN"
'what does he do?'
"HE *FIGHTS* !!!"
I've heard about that class before, but I can't help but laugh everytime because it's gotta be the funniest thing I've ever heard🤣. Like..... WHY!?😂
I mean, how different is "FIGHTER"
Can I be a female fighting-man?
@@rafaelbordoni516 Yeah, but I think it was a -2 to Strength back then if you chose that. lol
@@rafaelbordoni516 sure why not. Fightingman is gender neutral :p
Jacob describes Assassins prerequisites “you need to kill someone for no reason except to join the Assassins guild”
Video immediately cuts to Ad 🎶What would you do oo oo for a Klondike bar🎶
I literally laughed out loud.
I just got an indeed ad, saying "We get people jobs.". Oh my fucking god lmao
That's hilarious. Also, I forgot ads existed.
I know it's been a year since Jacob touched this "pilot series," but I wish he would revisit and expand on it. Not just the classes, but with races, monsters, items, or campaign settings since we seem to revisit them fairly often. It was a great video then, and still is now.
He did say he wanted to do that with a bunch of other classes like the bard but I think a bunch of other stuff just got in the way then he had a baby
Same
@@ericgropuis I hope the baby issue is removed so he can do more of these.
Wait... That came out wrong.
@@knixie*War Machine Has Entered The Chat*
I hope this is a series that everyone enjoys especially Jacob.
No joke, we love your stuff Jacob, don't it just for us, do it because you want to.
Oh Im enjoying and hope he continues up to mystic his most hated class
I fucking love it I’ve been playing this video on repeat lmao. it’s giving me Ideas for my own D&D edition
I gotta say, the fact that you looked at the "fallout" from that Bard incident, you went and researched the origins to give a new perspective on the class...and then decided "perhaps other people would also benefit from diving in to the evolution of these classes so they can see how we got to where we are..." Well, it's really great man. Way to makes lemonade out of lemons. I hope this series does well for you and that a lot of newer players get a little bit deeper a perspective on the game's current state because of it. All in all, really respect that this is what a creative and open mind does in the face of criticism.
what "bard incident"?
@@empoleonmaster6709 He made a video criticizing the bard class, then made an update video saying he was wrong. In that update video, he said he was curious if his fanbase would like a new DnD series where he looks at DnD classes throughout the editions.
I'm glad he's learning where stuff came from too many 5e youtubers have only ever played 5e. It's like someone claiming to be a video game expert when they've only ever played fornite.
@@tobimakkura He did have some good ideas about the bard class in that video though, despite having some moot points that did not quite make the grade. Also the not enough unique spells bit was funny, as each class that has access to spells might get 2 to 4 unique spells only that class can use, it's not exclusively a bard problem in that regard, or it could be fine as it is depending who you ask. Fact is though is that Bards tend to be the weakest link of any party, and could be made more viable as a class without sacrificing the jack of all trades aspect, as for how, well wait for the next edition and hope for the best or just make a few minor tweaks to the class that make it more effective but not unbalanced like say Mystics. Mystic class has the opposite problem, it can do a lot, and is very good at many things, essentially jack of many trades and master of most to the point of being game breaking. Bards could use a bit of a boost in viability where as Mystics need to be less game breaking.
The series didn’t do well :(
"Come on, show some spine!"
-The Rogue, probably
"Put your backs into it!"
-The Rouge, referring to his dagger
After the Paladin gets done lecturing the Rogue for being a Rogue, the Rogue mutters under her breath "Better watch your back..."
Spine or gtfo
Alright Jacob, it's been a year. You do understand you can't do this for the rogue and not expect us to want you to do the same for the Fighter Man, Magic User and Cleric!
Fighter man
fighter man
does whatever a fighter can
"What if bard was Edgelord instead of Horndog?"
- Gary Gygax, probably
What if bard was some horrifically byzantine prestige class that required like three classes to get? -whoever then proceeded to write that into the second edition rules.
More like future players saying the other way round
"There are two ways of stabbing people from behind in this game."
-Gary G-Dog Gygax probably
"What if bard, but knight"
-the dude in 2e that made the gallant kit
8:42 . Your welcome
Can really tell this is a passion project. Super excited to see this series go forward
Thanks! It definitely was
@Payton Storey that's a good question. I believe the answer is yes.
Considering the errors and massive condescending tone he has through everything but 5e, this definitely isn't a series he's qualified to make before making considerable personal growth.
@@seigeengine look everyone Gygax came back from the dead to get all pissed off again
@@TheGIJew. Do you know how many losers have pulled that exact spiel on me?
Next time you get the urge to spam that crap, just hold your breath until you no longer have that desire.
Let's petition Wizards to make "Fighting Man" its own, independent class.
Where do I sign?
Yeah, and they all have to have Ruffian Cockney accents.
They have two superior fighting styles to Monks, Do-si-do and Pugilism.
Magic User need a comeback too
Subclasses include squaddie grunt and Peaky Blinder.
"A character that hunts for backs"
sounds like the spy from tf2
Gentlemen.
But can the Rouge sap sentries
Third level thieves reading 80% of languages is pretty wild.
I'm above third level IRL and I can only read in 2 languages :'(
Does math count as a language?
@@christophersteadman1402 if you use the word "language" in the literal sense, yes.
Does programming languages count ?
Hey! Two languages is still pretty impressive! ...especially if you live in america...
You know I actually want to play a rogue like Jonathan wild.
class lore looks to be a pretty fly video series
I love how you read cutpurse as "catpurse" then you were so disbelieving like it was some sort of rogue subclass that carries a cat around in a purse and now i want to see that.
Multi into Druid?
@@asdasd-ty9se I love how that makes this a genuine character idea now.
@@maximillionchaoswolf or you could do arcane trickster and just have the mage hand be flavored as a smart, loyal, maybe magical cat
@@asdasd-ty9se Or you could just use find familiar to get yourself a magical cat
A Tabaxi with a Bag of Holding.
Why wasn't this made into a series going over all classes.
because it's a lot of effort and no reasonable person heard his condescending tone and didn't get an urge to use violence against him.
@@seigeengine I think it’s just you 🧍♂️
Cant wait for warlock lore!
Y E S
Oh my yes!
Lorelock
i cant wait for paladin
It might be a short one, Warlocks were introduced in like 4e
Looking at old DnD just makes me realize the we would always complain about 40-75% of the content.
I was just looking at my old 2nd edition collection and going "wow, I just ignored half of these" lol
Bring the Lore series back. Its fun and I enjoy learning in a way that doesn't geel like reading an entire history text book.
I remember the Ragnar story... Poor Ragnar.
I loved the "The complete X" handbooks.
Damn bro, I love this but you should’ve called it History Classes
Could also have called it History Check.
@@apexkonchu2234 dear god, that is such a good name and I'm crying, mostly cause both of these puns were good but so....SO painful
I'd love for them to do a revamped, updated version of "Spelljammer."
Totally, that and Planescape
Ross Cranham planescape
I believe in one of the live shows or interviews it was revealed a spelljammer like setting was being worked on.
@@viator_eagle5936 that's awsome! Using old material from that game in dnd 5e is... interesting
Also Dark Sun
I really wish that you would make a video in this format for each of all the other classes - this is just so cool to listen to.
Why isn't there more of this series? This was really interesting.
Damn feels like I'm talking to someone who got a nat 20 on a history check.
If youd like more videos like this, AJ Picket's channel has hundreds of videos exactly like this, but for monsters, locations, and famous characters such as gods, and notable villains.
Nat 20 equals word vomit critical hit. ELOCUTION!
@@brosephnoonan223 yep.. and DMitall... he has "super extensive" videos of the rouge and monk evolution, as well as the game from chainmail (the original rulebook used for the very first DnD) to DnD 5e. ^_^
Y E S this series is great. My only request is make a warlock one. Also this is already a great video.
Not only was this amazing lore, this was an incredible introduction to the other editions for a 5e-only player. I wish there were more videos like this. Learning about the other editions is awesome!
5e: "Our rogues have concepts from 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e"
"What about 4e?"
5e: "4e? What's that?"
F in the chat for Ragnar. He deserved better :(
There once was a hero named Ragnar the Red...
RIP Ragnar
Failed his stealth check
I love the new intro, very smooth.
Damn, we're just beginning and this looks SO well-made. Nice job man.
This looks like a great series in the making!
Don’t sleep on 4e too much though. The at-will/encounter/daily powers are nearly recycled in 5e with cantrips/short rest/long rest recharging mechanics. It just calls it something less “gamey”
People just regurgitate memes about 4th edition, they don't discuss its attempts to actually move the game forward.
That would hurt their brain meats.
@@fraidnaught9067 Is it really a meme that the game felt like an offline MMO?
@@VinceValentine I could see someone saying it played like a turn-based tactical video game like FF Tactics or Tactics Ogre, but I have no idea where the MMO comparison comes from as no MMO I know plays like that.
@@fraidnaught9067 I've was in a 4e session with a group of terrible murderhobos and one small fight against some low level druids took four hours. All they did was use those fixed class abilities like Reaping Strike, which felt really WoW-like to me. I was playing WoW at that time and thought D&D shouldn't try to emulate video games.
@@fraidnaught9067 I mean, Jacob even calls it "the World of Warcraft phase" at 12:35
"33 seconds ago" is not a time I thought I could see on a video
so far this is my favorite series you've done. I appreciate you doing a full series that's not mechanics based and more of a discussion experienced players may learn something in
I wanna see the leprechaun class now
Check out Basic D&D; their non--human races were actually classes. They're included in Tales of the Wee Folk, along with about a dozen other fairy races.
You get precision with marshmallow-based cereals and a terrible Hollywood Irish Accent.
WHEN WILL YOU RELEASE THE NEXT EPISODE? YOU'RE KILLING ME HERE!
How you holding up?
This is going to be an AWESOME series. So happy this was born from the recent bard conversation! Excited to watch these.
Also Jacob you're awesome thanks for all you do :)
That intro tho, this looks so official. Can't wait to learn more about all of the classes, especially the Ranger
I get that it's cool to dunk on fourth edition, but it really needs to be said that in fourth, Rogue was like THE BEST CLASS. Like, you take the brutal scroundrel path, make it so you have high dex and strength and you are INSTANTLY scary. Scoop up a few specific feats (like the one that upgrades your sneak attack dice) and you become a monster in combat. It's especially interesting, because 4th edition did suffer from a bunch of power creep, but Rogue remained one of your best options for the striker role all the way through.
I get that may not be what the "traditional" rogue was about, but I feel like rogue has always been one of the most fun classes to play in any edition, so if nothing else, 4th edition stayed consistent in that department.
/rant
This deserves to be more popular.
honestly the 4e stuff of choosing powers/abilities doesn't sound that bad. I'd highlx prefer it over the 5e fighter's "choose a class, choose a subclass, and maybe choose a fighting style. that's it, everything you will get until level 20 is fixed.".
(yes i know that an eldritch knight can choose spells and a battle master can choose maneuvers, but seriously, there is not much customization in 5e)
Palo Kan and it gives you more options in combat other than “I attack the guy”
i remember reading a rewiev about DnD 5e that said: It works because it makes everybody think they are good at playing the game. And that's because you have little to no posibility to messup your character, since you can't really customize it beyond picking an option that doesn't really change much about your character mechanics and when you do realy have to pick something important, they are all good options from a selection of 2 to 5 paths and no branches from there.
DnD 4e, 2e, and 3e had a lot of options (too much for some people aparently).
In DnD 3rd, for example, you had to pick a feat at 1°, 3°, 6°, 9°, 12°, 15°, 18°... level, one extra feat for humans at level 1, and fighters goth extra feats every even level (related to combat) and sometimes optional extra feats or class abilities depending on your buid. There where also skill tricks (unlockable special maneuvers or habilities you could do if you had certain skill proficencies), and optional alternative class features depending on race or arquetype (the variant classes). The problem with 3rd is that... while you can literally build ANYTHING and combine everything, you could totally messup, if you multiclassed fighter with wizard (half and half in terms of levels) you got a mediocre spellcaster that can't really cast with their armor and horrible attack bonus... and terrible skillpoints since both classes where bad at skillpoint amount. Also 3rd is full of "trap feats" (things that where super situational and wasn't wort a feat at all... or that were just plain bad in comparition to other feats besides "it will go well with my backstory") and "feat chains" (you need feat X to get feat Y, and feat X and Y to get feat Z, and also meet these 4 prerequisites or you won't be abole to pick them). There were prestige clases (arquetiques are based on this and on 2nd edition kits), but again, some of them where super specific for certain campaigns or types of games or just were bad in comparition to other classes.
In DnD 4e, they tried to fix 3rd edition problems in terms of balance... the way to succes? remove all the "important and dangerous" options, you can't mess up, characters become better on their roles at leveling up, and got options that will always work at their current level with little customization. If you picked a striker/DPS class, you won't be able to find a way to make it work as a tank or a support class (in 2nd and 3rd edition you totally can find a way in most scenarios), and every "option" you got was about doing your thing better, but not anymore about "letting you try new or diferent things" like in older editions. everyclass got special attacks and maneuvers (those weren't spells, but worked the same . since you could use them every short rest, or encounter, or daily).
DnD 5e... is not THAT diferent from DnD 4e actually... lots of critiques about DnD 4e are still alive in 5e, and lots of things they created in 4e are an importantpart of 5e design. The changes from one edition to the other came because they discovered that what people disliked some specific things that could be solved: "too many options for non casters" (yes, i know... they even tried to fix 4e with 4e essentials, that got rid of some of these and simplified the classes), "too many options in general" (lot of people get confused and frozzed when comfronted with so many alternatives), "too gamerlike in terminology" (roles like: striker, support, leader, controler... there are still roles in 5e, but now they don't tell you wich role is each class in combat, so you can feel like you can be anything, and added some diferent options to make it less obvious), "Too many specific rules and precision" (in 3rd and 4th edition there were rules for tactical combat.. and 3rd have rules or modifiers for anything (how long you can jump with or without running, with or without encumbrance, in favorable or dangerous situations, if you where in a hurry or could take your time, if you have 2 or more legs... they had diferent modifiers for: attacking prone oponents, atacking oponents with half, 1/4, or full cover, attacking unseen attackers, attacking while blind or deaf, attacking someone behiind mist, a traped oponent, a ropped oponent, an unconscious oponent, someone that was distracted, someone that was confused, someone that was kneeling or crawling, shooting while proning, shooting while in ducking, attacking from a higher position... and you could combine them all, instead of just adventage Vs disadventage)). Now the game is more about "lets the DM decide without any guide of anykind, there are no rules for that"... while this is aesome for experienced DM's or DM's that know the kind of fantasy VS reality they want to play, it mess with new DM's and players that need some kind of guide... this is why reedit, forums and facebook groups are FULL of players and DM's asking for advice on rullings or people seeking 3rd party rulings for things... because the game, as it is, is just lacking in that part).
Thankfully DnD had the rule 0 since 1st edition. any problem from any edition could be solved if the master was okey with houserulling thing or adding new content. You could totally add special attacks or specific rules from older editions to 5e and the oposite. There is no better or worst edition, they are just diferent, and as players we can and will always mod the game into the kind of playstyle we are more content with. ^_^
@@sannamy3132 You actually liked feat creep? Because at mid-levels, you would be swamped with feats, many of which were useless (yay, I can now move before and after my action! I can now push people!).
@@VinceValentine sounds like we are talking about 3e with that comment... if that's the case, yes... the thing was designed poorly on purpose in that part.. the ideas was actually yo make people feel frustrated if they picked wrong, while making players who spent extra time reading and weighting the adventages and disadventages of each choice would feel ike they're doing awesome... juuuust like a cardgame at the moment of building your deck. I didn't liked that either. I do actually like that 5e and 4e tried that hard to make things easier for players and get rid of the useless options... saaaadly i feel that they lost in the customization departament while trying to fix that (specially 4e).
That's why i homebrew heavily both 3.5e and 5e whenever i DM them.
@@sannamy3132 Yes, I meant 3.0/3.5. Which I really loved, but it was really bureaucratic about its approach to Rules As Written. In roleplaying-heavy games, where your build didn't matter, you could pick what you want. But in high stakes games, wrong decisions could lead to crap characters. Homebrewing is always a good idea, I do that too to make things easier for me and my players.
Me upon seeing the thumbnail just now before watching the video: HE DID THE THING! WE ARE IN FOR A FRIGGING TREAT
Just finished the video. It was indeed a frigging treat. Excited for the rest of em
"Now, you normally don't want two Strikers in a party..."
Well, that sentence just completely invalidated the notion that 4e plays like a video game.
Thats the sort of thing i hear from the people who almost exclusively play damage before we start a match that is ulitmately lost.... Works sometimes though.... Not most of the time.
Try support sometime, it can be fun and rewarding.
@@skybladebloodheart4247 I'm not saying you want an _entire_ team of damage-dealers, but generally speaking, if you have a team of 4-5 characters in an RPG, you want at least two to be damage-focused. And even then, you expect the tank, healer, and support to at least do _some_ damage in between.
@@skybladebloodheart4247 preposterous! That's your friend's job! Not your job!
@@alnu8355 whatcha mean "not you are job!", nobody is their job? (sorry for making fun of your typo, i just kinda had to)
I wake up in a cold, soggy sweat at 3am in the night, tears rolling down, my eyes my chest heaving up and down. I lie awake until the sunshines its half-hearted rays beaming through the crack of my window curtain and I know its going to be an awful day. All because, I know he will never being this series back.
Excellent, fantastic, wonderful, this is a spectacular video in every way; informative, funny, succinct, but detailed in its own way. Top tier content. Nothing but good things to say.
I have been studying older editions of DnD (I started in 3.5), and while I find old editions VERY confusing, I do have something I discovered that I don't think you mentioned; at least in Advanced 2nd (which is the book I've invested time in studying out of curiosity), there is a completely randomly placed paragraph in the class description on the page AFTER the percentage of your special rogue skills (page 55) that says as thus: "The scores arrived at in the preceding paragraph do not reflect the effort a thief has spent honing their skills. To simulate this extra training, all thieves at 1st level receive 60 discretionary percentage points that they can add to their base scores. No more than 30 points can be assigned to any single skill. Other than this restriction, the player can distribute the points however they want." So if it seems like those numbers (again, at least in 2e, I can't confirm this rule existed in 1e) are very low, they are! You're supposed to sprinkle 60 more points in between them as you choose. Since a level 1 rogue starts with 60% climb walls, if you wanted to just be the fucking beast at climbing walls, you can add +30% to it at level 1 and have a 90% chance to parkour up a wall as you choose. The next paragraph also states that you get 30 more points to distribute per level, with a cap of 15 on any single skill this time, so as you level, those skills will all increase rapidly. You can't hit a skill up above 95% tho, because there's always gotta be that chance you could mess up.
#JusticeForRagnar
This. It's like looking at the point buy rules and concluding your ability scores are permanently all 8s.
There is also a small dexterity modifier to these scores, which increases with a higher dexterity (a dex of 18 would +10% most of these abilities).
Can't wait for the Bard segment of this series.
He kinda already did bard in his response video, though I can definitely see a more polished and focused version down the pipeline. Maybe he'll save it for last since it was the class that led to this new series to begin with?
man, same
"Troubleshooters" basically existed in the Wild West: pseudo lawmen who were really outlaws themselves, often hired by rich farmers to take care of certain problems that required a heftier approach. "Have gun, will travel" types.
this was awesome, I only got into d&d with 5th edition so i dont really know what the classes used to be like, i would love to see more like this!
This was really cool! Hope you keep doing this with other classes, I really enjoyed it.
Also, I'd love for you to actually discuss 4e-- I actually started with 4e and don't understand why it's loathed, though I understand why it's not anyone's favorite.
Check out Puffin Forest, I'm sure he has a video on just that as he too started in 4E
4e isn't a bad game, it's just drastically different from other editions. Since this community is full of elitists, that didn't go down well.
There are a lot of people who complain about everything that's not 2e or 3.5e, despite the fact that they could just ignore it and keep playing 2e or 3.5e.
I also started dming with 4e. I love the edition and its prolly my favorite edition, especially how no one's turn is just "I make a basic melee attack" and kept the wizards from feeling like they had 10000 options while fighters have "do I power attack or not?"
I get that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it may he the most throughly designed game out of the bunch.
From what I understand, the people who loath it are typically people who played 3.5 at the time and really didn't like how different it was. I personally wasn't a fan, but I didn't hate it either. I ended up switching to Pathfinder, since that was basically created to be a rebalanced and streamlined 3.5e as the alternative to 4e
Its loathed probably primarily because it is basically a entirely different system then different editions and thus in practical terms is not D&D as a result of this it has little relevance on fifth so its not really useful for historical perposes.
Would love this series to keep going, you could even do classes that aren't in 5e, or are only in 5e as a subclass too
Having been playing D&D since the Second Edition days, all I can say is that ya nailed it. Only thing I would comment on is that the 2E "Rogue" is not a class so much as a header for classes, same as how Fighter and Paladin are under the "Warrior" header and Cleric, Druid, and Specialty Priest are under the "Priest" header and so on. It was a kind of superfluous way to organize the classes, which is why they got rid of it in later editions, I think. That and the kits of 2E are kinda somewhere inbetween 5E subclasses and backgrounds, so yeah... some of them have little to no mechanical oomph while others are very mechanical. In fact, some class kits just become backgrounds in Fifth Edition.
What I really enjoyed seeing pointed out is how 5E really does its best to synthesize the most interesting elements from all the editions that came before. It is part of what destines 5E to be one of the classic editions in the future.
Great video, and I think you really raised the bar on these kinds of "History of..." videos.
This would be a badass series for a few of the base classes. Your bard video that led to this was great too.
watching this right off the tail of your last 2 vids is actually really interesting. First you bring up concerns of how you feel about the bard class and what you feel its role should be and even introduce home brew to enhance that aspect of the class. Then you revive quite a bit of feedback and criticism and put out a response about how your views have changed and how doing more research has been super helpful to further your understanding of the classes purpose role. Then to top it off you become an IRL bard delving back into old lore of D&Ds past and make it into easy to digest videos to help others understand where there fave classes come from and how they have changed.
I really love the idea of this series and look forward to seeing future eps
Cool concept! However... "You don't want two strikers in your party"? The way 4e combat works ensures that striker is the very first role you want to double up on, I find.
Also, you didn't look into any of the rogue stuff outside of PH1. Loads of ideas that were present in earlier games came back, such as Arcane Trickster.
Also, don't forget 4e Essentials, which is basically 4.5 edition, but compatible with the previous material. This brings us a completely new rogue, whose setup is closer to that of 3.5.
Daniel Fawcett yeah, no way this guy is putting any effort into 4e beyond phb1. Even if he says he puts in a lot of effort it won’t be much
@@Solereaper21 because nobody cares about 4e.
Definitely into this, even if I’ve played most of these editions. It’s really interesting to see a breakdown of something over time.
why is this not an actual series? it's actually some of the best content on the platform.
also I'm stealing deathstrike.
6:10 Did... did you just pronounce "cutpurse" as CAT-purse?
It's a rogue that uses animals.
Meow
Sad that this series seems like it won’t continue. I thought it was a great concept that was executed very well!
Man said "Catpurse" instead of "Cutpurse", incredible.
As someone who started with AD&D in '79, this was full of fun stuff. Man, I had that Thieves book with all the sub classes.
Great video loved it!
One nitpick. Sneak Attack in 3.5 did not have a traditional limit on uses per round and was answered in old FAQs. It is when ANY of your attacks meet the pre-requisite of a sneak attack which was denying dexterity bonus to AC (essentially flat-footed but allows weird status effect shenanigans) and from flanking. Meaning if you could set it up so that the enemy was flat-footed for long enough, you could use your full turn action to do multiple sneak attacks.
What the arcane trickster stated was that you can declare any attack to be a sneak attack. You declare it, it does not have to meet the requirements. You want your maximized empowered fireball to deal sneak from 300ft away? Go for it. It’s fricking hilarious. I do want to note any ranged attack can be a sneak attack so long as it meets the any of the conditions and is not further than 30ft away (which is really hard to do).
This video was amazing, I would love a whole series on this
LOVED the video. Sad to see this was the only one he made. :(
Loved the video! Couple of nitpicks about the early editions:
1) Backstab was in 1st Edition AD&D. It was their only real combat option, because their to Hit table was somewhat lame.
2) The idea of having to strike the back was due to the miniature play style of the earlier editions. Prior to 3rd Edition, the game was largely meant to be played using miniatures. It is all about battlefield positioning in order to gain advantages in combat.
This was a bonus that most classes could make use of, because anyone striking from a flanking position negated the shield bonus to AC of the defender, and anyone attacking from behind ignored shield and dexterity bonuses as well as receiving a +2 to hit. This meant that backstabs were especially lethal, because it dropped the opponent's AC so dramatically that the thief had to roll super poorly to miss and not deal 4x damage or more depending on a set level range.
Again, I loved the video and I look forward to seeing all the others like this. Your effort shows and I appreciate it as a DM for 1st Edition AD&D. It's wonderful to see the older editions given some light and love, I wish more people gave them the time of day to try them.
Weird. I perceive it as the opposite, with 3/3.5e being clearly designed for miniatures, while earlier editions were clearly designed for theater of the mind, unless perhaps you're going right back to the beginning with chainmail stuff.
@@seigeengine D&D was always about the miniatures, and largely an expansion for the miniatures war gaming rules called Chainmail. (For clarification to those reading, as I gathered you're in the know.)
Theater of the mind comes from the idea that the actions of your characters play out in your mind, rather than you standing up and smacking your companions/DM with pretend weapons. (Basically, TotM makes it so you aren't LARPing indoors.)
Take a look at how distances are defined in AD&D 1e: 1 in = 10 feet indoors or 10 yards outside.
Distances were measured in inches because it was expected that you would either use graph paper, or you'd use a miniatures ruler like in Chainmail. Specific to miniatures usage, this changed in 3e when the rules were recoded to make mini's an optional addition to the game.
Legend has it we’re still waiting for bard to this day.
we should have more class lore i really liked the video and i would love to see more class lore
How on earth did you make this so quickly?! I was expecting this to come out in like a month, not one week!
I like this type of video. Wish it went a bit longer, but that's just my want of more details on the classes through the editions.
But I really liked this video. It was refreshing. More please.
The Rogue has been my favorite class since ad&d. Your research didn't go to waste, the video is amazing. Thank you
I know its a joke.. But giving every class essentially "spells" in 4e was dope af and let you do more than... "I attack!"
I'm actually homebrewing a sort of thing like this in my game for Martizl characters. They all like it.
5e:wack,wack,wack,wack,ACTION POINT,wack,wack,wack,wack
4e:I tell every enemy in range to come and get it and they move adjacent to me to receive a beyblading
Rogue in particular had some great ones, when I played a rogue in 4e I had a combo that spent multiple daily powers in order to do enormous damage in one turn that felt like a full-meter combo in an anime fighting game every time I used it
It was a direct response to how boring and helpless every non-caster class was in 3.5 - or at least players commonly considered them to be boring and helpless - and how overpowered "full casters" like the cleric and especially the wizard were thought to be. 5ed borrows a lot from the innovations that Pathfinder brought to the table.
Except combat is more than simply attacking, and those classes that could basically only attack were specifically the classes who were specialists at combat, and prior to 4e, would likely have a lot of bonuses to let them fight better.
Basically you're just mad you don't get to be a mary sue.
1:45 Ok, am I the only person who looked at that title and read "The Manual of a Urania"??
I like how Jacob took his mistakes from the Bard video and took it as a great opportunity to create a new series. I'm interested to see more!
This is a pretty sick history lesson. Not only do I appreciate the rogue info but it's cool to learn about overall D&D changes through its editions, like the 3 different ACs.
Unpopular Opinion: I like the cleanest of the 4E books layout. 5E looks messy after spending so long with 4th Edition.
I’ve mostly been disappointed by the layout of D&D books. At this point it’s a feature.
Come to Pathfinder 2e? Also you get class feats, ancestry(race) feats, skill feats, and general feats, or in other words, character options.
I also personally liked 4e a lot. Had a lot to offer.
I actually love 4e more than 3.5e or 5e. They just aren’t all that fun to play.
@@magicelemental Pathfinder 2e is one of the messiest books ever.
AD&D 2e rogues: "gimme your spine, it's holding you back"
@@silcrow4045 yeps, wrote this when I was kinda sleep deprived, thx
@@J1nx_exe cheers, deleting my comment
I’m looking forward to if Jacob does one on rangers so that the crushing disappointment of that class can be made even more apparent
Dude high effort content is sooooo good the editing is top tier and the sponsor was actually not rlly bad like they normally are loved everything about this vid
If this is a new series, I'd love to see Ranger done, as I have heard it has changed drastically with every edition but don't know the specifics.
With Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and the class feature variants in it, we might be at the verge of a new change.
@@ataberkdedemen9802 I am so excited for that. The idea of a well-balanced Ranger or Beastmaster might make me actually wanna play one.
Can we talk about that how wizard has been the strongest class since the first edition throughout all editions and is still the strongest one even with all the weird classes that pathfinder created?
not really? i mean i have heard about how horribly broken the wizard was in the age of control casters in 3.5e, and if an 2e or 1e wizard could survive their first level where they have one shitty spell and that is it and also a random amount of starting HP, in 5e they are a lot more fun to play becuase you do not have a limit on cantrip usage and no prohibited schools and less shitty hp, but they are not the most powerful class when compared to the cleric, the bard, the druid, the sorcerer, all the wizard has are a few tricks up their sleeve with a slightly larger than average handful of exclusive spells and the gimmic of getting to loose all the spells they have aquired over their journey if they are unlucky and getting to waste gold if they wanna be able to choose from as many spells as an cleric or druid when preparing their spells
Sad this series will (likely) never continue. This was always one of my favorite videos from Jacob
And thus began Jacobs journey to becoming a lore bard himself.
wish we got more of these :(
"Women's Lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing." damn, Gary's a chad
“Very nice knife, do not touch or die.”
I think the intro to this video is very underrated. I really liked the aesthetic of it. Overall, amazing video, especially with my only knowledge of the game being 3.5/PF and 5e.
"4e bad because different"
Thanks, Jacob....
Completely different but still called D&D. TSR/WOTC/Hasburo have sold a lot of things that are different from D&D that were liked. They didn't sell them as D&D.
It's bad because it's bad
10:49
Incorrect, I feel an optimal 4E party included two strikers, one defender and one leader. Controller was a swing class that could sub in for a striker or leader (if people had good self-healing through other abilities). It was also what you'd want to add if you picked up a 5th character.
The whole 4E section of this video sort of felt haphazard and kind of leaned into the hyperbole surrounding "4E is bad" when it really isn't that hard to understand. He made it seem like you had 30-40 powers you could do at any time when in reality you start with 2 At-Wills, 1 Encounter, and 1 Daily (along with other minor features you may have). Sure there were a bunch of choices to fill each slot but, once you picked some, that was it unless you retrained 1 on a level-up.
As someone who started with 3.5e, this was a blast to the past. Awesome video man, hope to see even more of these in the future!
I really liked this video format. As much as I enjoy the memes, I super appreaciate all the work that must have gone into research, writing the script, and recording. Awesome work, and I hope you continue this series!
lots of shade on 4e. the whole class is only on one page, and all those encounter stuff are essential level up feats. must have not actually played 4e. and the role thing was just a guide for what you do in combat, it didnt limit how many of any class you had in a party.
"Gary Gygax being sexist"
I mean I dunno about you but I thought that line he wrote was pretty amusing.
I'm loving this type of video. Sure I could read the history myself, but it's so much more interesting to be essentially told the story of a class
So my dad grew up in the 70s and played all the first editions of DnD. This is what he used to teach me DnD, everyone you said for the first 3 minutes reminded me of the fun my friends and i would have in these early editions. Also i remembered the trauma of losing every single character because the game was really hard and my dice started to hate me. I had a level 3 fighter human get one-shot by an owlbear because the thief devided to punch it after we already snuck past it.
I wonder, will you only do the classes currently in 5e, or classes that existed for a few editions?
is there a class that might be added to 5e?
@@maximillionchaoswolf war mage, beguiler, Dragon shaman and duskblade all existed in 3.5e (same edition Warlock was added in) and were much better designed then Warlock was at the time, sadly none of them are in 5e (and a number of their abilities didn't get rounded into the other classes either).
@@goolabbolshevish1t651 alright then I look forward to whatever sort of attempts to see how they are translated over or turned into subclasses ends up happening.
@@maximillionchaoswolf a couple could be turned into subclasses like beguiler, duskblade and warmage.
Others like Dragon shaman and wujen however are just far too different.
@@goolabbolshevish1t651 it probably completely different from dragon shaman but I do have someone in my party who is playing Dawnforgecasts homebrew shaman class and I will say it seems pretty fun.
Okay so I can tell that you hated 4e and wanted to skim past it. However, I think you did a slight disservice to the history of the rogue by skimming past Striker as a damage dealer and moving on. Strikers in 4e did heavy damage, yes, but they were single target heavy damage and had to rely on superior mobility to survive. Cunning action in 5e is the direct echo of this choice. Before 4e if a rogue went in, he was in. That was it. 4e introduced the idea of a rogue dipping through a fight to deal damage and dipping back out. But everyone hates 4e so I understand glossing over these kinds of things.
I think because its the history of rouge in D&D.
And 4e wasnt really D&D.
As he said, if they would of call it something else, it would been bigger success.
@@grosslittlegoblin1358 Whilst 4e had some fairly big departures, it is interesting how much people gloss over it considering that 5e rips out entire pages of 4e design wholesale. There were a lot of really good decisions made in 4e that were understandably carried over to 5th where they suddenly receive praise.
He skimmed past and had a condescending tone towards everything pre-5e, filthy 4ephile.
Please continue this series. Had me hooked from the first minute