Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[infax]

I would really like backstab to be back as a special attack that happens once, or maybe twice per combat, not every round. 3e/4e style Sneak Attack didn't feel situational at all. Perhaps at 3e's launch it was hard enough to manage that it happened at least every other round, but too soon there were trivial methods to get into position and deal sneak attack every round.

I'm with it, except for the whole biding your time for a surprise attack bit. Too many bad memories of the 2e thief's backstab being totally useless. People fighting back to the wall, or back to back was so common, you'd think everyone in the world had cast protection from backstab 10' radius.

I would think that those tactics wouldn't be too hard to circumvent. A fighter trying to keep his back to a wall would have little to no mobility, allowing the rogue to wither his HP away with ranged attacks. A wizard should be squishy enough that a rogue coming out of the shadows just by his side would represent sufficient threat to make him move away.

If two fighters fight back to back, the rogue can wait for the first to move and take advantage of the gap to strike.

All in all, it may require a little extra thinking - in the same way that choosing to fight with one's back to the wall took a little extra thinking - but those tactics should be easy enough to foil.

If the ranger hits for 1d8 damage per weapon, and the rogue hits for 4d8 damage with an every-other-round backstab, they're balanced.

The ranger may distribute his d8 of damage more tactically than the rogue. If a target dies before the 4th d8 of damage is delivered, that attack is not wasted, simply redirected at another foe. Alternatively, the ranger can keep two targets on their toes simultaneously attacking twice per round. The rogue's damage may need to be higher than 4[W] if it is meant to be tactically as efficient as the ranger's two attacks per round over two rounds.

I should say, however, that I don't believe the rogue should deal exactly as much damage as a two weapon fighter to be considered to meaningfully contribute to a fight.

 

[Dausuul]

There's another thread on this, but I disagree. Some players will be happy with that, and some players won't. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I have players who like to play different classes, but really are more interested in the combat aspect of the game than the exploration, and wait for me to say "roll initiative". Rest of the time, they are observers, and though they are not bored, they are not too big into contributing either. As such, when that player plays a rogue, I need that character to contribute as much to the fight, as the fighter, or ranger, or what have you, instead of having to tell that player, sorry, you always have to play a fighter if you want to be good at fighting.

I'm not saying the rogue should suck in combat--just that it's okay if the rogue is not as good as the fighter. If the rogue is worth, say, 80% of a fighter of the same level, I think that's reasonable, especially if the rogue can also do things like silently kill lone sentries.

 

[Remathilis]

Thankfully 5E rogues are going to need more than a 5' adjust to deal obscene damage. 12 years ago Wotc lowered the bar too far for rogues to get their damage bonus. An attack that represents punishing a foe with a lowered guard should take more than just a 5' adjustment to activate.

Backstab / Sneak Attack should be something that happens occasionally, not an ability expected to kick off every round.

3rd edition's crime of Flanking = Sneak Attack was a gross violation of every intelligent creature's right to prioritize threats. And I find it great to hear that standard is on it's way out of the D&D ruleset.

Unfortunately, the opposite effect was in place for most of early TSR D&D. A thief couldn't backstab if

a.) The foe was aware of him (so a headcount at the beginning of a fight ruined the potential backstab)
b.) The foe was already in melee
c.) The foe had any sort of non-normal biology (not just undead or amorphous, we're talking non-humanoid like beholders or dragons) and wasn't of sufficient size (yes bugbears, no hill giants).
d.) Wasn't an appropriate weapon (which varied by edition, some required stabbing weapons, others merely a one-handed weapon). either way, no missile weapons.
e.) The PC ruined his Hide/Move Silently rolls (two rolls depending on the conditions).

Even if he made all that, his backstab only added an extra dice or so based on his weapon. A 2nd level thief with a longsword did 2d8+strength, while a 15th level thief with a longsword did 5d8+bonuses. Assuming no strength bonus (aka a thief with a str less than 16) and a +3 sword, our 15th level thief went through all that for 8-43 damage once in the combat; hardly enough to dent a worthy 15th level challenge.

Personally, I'd like to see some almagam of 2e's backstab with 3e's SA. Something like: a rogue in flank adds his dex bonus to damage (along with str) but one who gains advantage (via stealth or some skill trick) can do 1d6 damage per 2 levels. It gives the rogue something for flanking, but it really behooves him to get advantage and bust out the bucket o' d6.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I would think that those tactics wouldn't be too hard to circumvent. A fighter trying to keep his back to a wall would have little to no mobility, allowing the rogue to wither his HP away with ranged attacks. A wizard should be squishy enough that a rogue coming out of the shadows just by his side would represent sufficient threat to make him move away.

It really depends on a number of things if those work. I mean, if they enemy has ranged attacks and they are better than the rogues(because rogues aren't good at fighting head on) then they can stand there by a wall firing back and win every time.

If a rogue does so little damage that he is not an effective combatant without a Sneak Attack/Backstab...then perhaps the Wizard isn't afraid of him appearing next to him because he can just unleash a Burning Hands(or something else) and kill him instead.

If two fighters fight back to back, the rogue can wait for the first to move and take advantage of the gap to strike.

What happens if they never move? They know that if they move they'll die, so they do everything they can to stay precisely where they are. Or the DM says they move in unison to avoid a gap.

Or worse yet, if Backstab is worded the same way it was in older editions and it only works when the enemy is unaware of your presence making such tactics completely unneeded. Given that every DM I've played under said that if the Rogue was visible even once in the combat, the enemies were aware he was present and it didn't matter how many times he hid and jumped out of the shadows, his Backstab didn't work.

Plus, the number of DMs who said "You can't hide, they can see you. While someone is watching you, hiding doesn't work. Maybe if you ran down the hallway completely out of sight and then came back, but when you enter through the doorway, they are going to see you again. You can't keep hiding in a room with no cover and light enough to see."

All in all, it may require a little extra thinking - in the same way that choosing to fight with one's back to the wall took a little extra thinking - but those tactics should be easy enough to foil.

I should say, however, that I don't believe the rogue should deal exactly as much damage as a two weapon fighter to be considered to meaningfully contribute to a fight.

No, but it should be close. I find that "meaningfully" ends up meaning something like 50% of the maximum damage dealer in the group. Anything less than that and people start wondering why they brought you around.

So if a Ranger gets 4 attacks per round for 1d8+10 damage a piece then the Rogue who is only able to Backstab once every 3 rounds needs to have a Backstab that does at least 6d8+60.

When damage starts getting that high, it starts to worry me, however. Then you end up with situations like this:

"I am Lord Big Evil Guy! I have ruled this land for 1000 years. No one has ever defeated me for I live forever and am all powerful! Cower before me worms for I will...URK"

Rogue: "So, I snuck up behind him and Backstabbed him for 100 points of damage. That kills him?"

DM: *sigh* "Yes"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd like to see "sneak attack" as something any class can do with a weapon, with the following qualifications:

• If you can't hit, it doesn't matter. So being good with a weapon helps.
• If you can't move well, sneak well, bluff well, etc.--something to get into position, you don't get the opportunity.
• "Sneak attack" is a nice but modest rider that you can get quite a bit if you work at it, but modest enough that it is not always the best choice to work at it. Sometimes the rogue is better off throwing a knife.

That makes rogues naturally better at it than other classes, and there will thus be more opportunities fitting that third criteria where they can use it. But the modest bonus isn't meant to equal what a dedicated warrior type can do each round. And if you do let the fighter and paladin "sneak" on you--well, ouch!

Then, on top of that, give the rogue some "backstab" riders on "sneak attack) that apply more rarely, but use the same mechanics. This makes it less all or nothing, and gives the rogue a fighting () chance at hitting that 80% mark that Dausuul mentioned.

 

[triqui]

If you need to disengage or run away, that is a VERY thin line to walk in terms of being bad at fighting.

Green Berets disengaging to hide in the jungle and prepare an ambush are bad at fighting?
Go figure.

 

[triqui]

No, but it should be close. I find that "meaningfully" ends up meaning something like 50% of the maximum damage dealer in the group. Anything less than that and people start wondering why they brought you around.

So if a Ranger gets 4 attacks per round for 1d8+10 damage a piece then the Rogue who is only able to Backstab once every 3 rounds needs to have a Backstab that does at least 6d8+60.

When damage starts getting that high, it starts to worry me, however. Then you end up with situations like this:

"I am Lord Big Evil Guy! I have ruled this land for 1000 years. No one has ever defeated me for I live forever and am all powerful! Cower before me worms for I will...URK"

Rogue: "So, I snuck up behind him and Backstabbed him for 100 points of damage. That kills him?"

DM: *sigh* "Yes"

That's not exactly true. Being able to do 200% damage in the first round (especially if sneaking), and then nothing in the second round, is much much much better than doing 100% damage per round in two rounds. Much, much better. 200% damage on the first round might mean no retaliation. I'd go as far as saying that 200% on the first round, while sneaking, might be on par with 100% damage per round during three rounds.

 

[howandwhy99]

1. The rogue doesn't fight fair.
I agree. In fact, in the game called Thief the thief isn't seeking out combat most of the time. They're up to other stuff (and rogue just means going solo).

2. Rogues are skilled.
I have to say mundane skills are class skills and I don't care for any class being somehow better than every other one at all of them. I'll be dropping any skill or feat system though, so this won't be an issue for me.

3. The rogue exists in a world of myth, fantasy, and legend.
In terms of NPC persuasion I think magic is much more of an override of the NPCs knowledge, personal control, opinions, goals, and preferences. This is only one way to do it, but I think magic works as a "poof!" the king believes I am his friend when that spell has a Charm effect. As his "friend" I still need to convince him of certain positions, but that's not as difficult now.

Any other class can play the standard game of convincing and informing NPCs through communication, and that stuff does stick longer, but it takes longer to perform too. Neither is it somehow the realm of the Thief, but I could see the realm of deceit as something a thief could specialize in. That probably means dividing the reaction roll into bluffing and diplomacy or something like that, but if the skill system is dropped it won't be necessary.

4. The rogue makes the routine look trivial.
I disagree with this. If it was kept strictly in the abilities of the thief instead of every ability imaginable, then it could be made to work, but it basically ends up with the class evolving into another race instead of working within the abilities of a chosen race. Is there a distinction between swapping in new body parts and training the ones you have so they improve? That's the question I see here.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I want th rogue to be the best at finding traps. Last week we played in a dungeon, and the druid was the best at finding hidden things. Just sounds wrong...

 

[seregil]

Thankfully 5E rogues are going to need more than a 5' adjust to deal obscene damage. 12 years ago Wotc lowered the bar too far for rogues to get their damage bonus. An attack that represents punishing a foe with a lowered guard should take more than just a 5' adjustment to activate.

Backstab / Sneak Attack should be something that happens occasionally, not an ability expected to kick off every round.

3rd edition's crime of Flanking = Sneak Attack was a gross violation of every intelligent creature's right to prioritize threats. And I find it great to hear that standard is on it's way out of the D&D ruleset.

One thing that I would like to see in 5E is a return of facing. Then, we could differentiate between a backstab and the damage bonus (sneak attack) that a rogue gets when attacking a flanked creature.

If I get behind you (assuming you have a definable back) and I get all the bonuses of the current sneak attack, then BOOM!

If I simply flank you, well, I'll get a bit more damage once in a while using a specific ability or type of attack, but nothing like the massive damage we have now.

Just an idea, but if we want backstab back, we need to have a 'back' to stab.