Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

This is exactly why I want the Fighter class to die.

It's bad enough when you have one class whose sole purpose is to "be the best at fighting" and cast a shadow over any other martial character. It gets even worse when said class is the one that no one wants to have any supernatural or magical abilities and to remain the mundane guy that beats things to death and walks place to place even at epic levels when other classes can teleport and fly and alter the fabric of reality.

If grognards want their weak crappy class that can never do more than get a big AC and roll melee attack and damage, fine. But don't try and strangle other classes trying to actually remain balanced with casters by that noose!

Rogue should be a "dodge tank" just as fighter is a "traditional tank," and also put out good single target damage and have out of combat skill use. Does that make fighter seem pointless from a mechanical/optimization standpoint? YES! The Fighter class most people on this forum seem to want SHOULD feel worthless compared to other classes!

The big four need to be about how they overcome challenges. Give each of the big four a toolbox.

The fighter's tool is a hammer, thus everything looks like a nail. If they are not the best at martial combat, they are nothing. When asked the question, how do we get past the guards, the fighter should reach for his sword.

The Rogue has a dozen tools in his toolbox, hammer included. The hammer isn't as big as the fighter's hammer, but when forced, he should be able to hit the nail. When asked the question how do we get past the guards, the rogue should have a several answers spring to mind (poison their food, fast talk, sneak past them, etc). Fighting the guards should be the fall back position after the other tools have failed.

Just like you don't want the wizard to take the rogue's share of the pie, you don't want the rogue taking the fighter's share.

Edit:
As for getting rid of the fighter, you need a better reason then to balance the combat capabilities of other classes. Fighters are everywhere in literature and mythology: Beowulf, Hercules, Hector, Sandor Clegane, or Gimli the Dwarf. These characters rely on brute force and skill of arms to defeat their foes.

Rogues and Thief are everywhere as well: Clever Oysseus, Locke Lamora, or Bilbo Baggins. These characters are defined by their ability to out wit and out sneak their opponents. They lose in straight contests of martial prowess.

Saying that Bilbo Baggins should fight as well as Gimli the Dwarf robs from both characters something that makes them special.

 

[infax]

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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."

I certainly agree that any of the example tactics I presented previously depend on a number of factors. Among them, I assumed the rogue was in a position to be a skirmisher. If he has a team contributing to the overall combat it certainly helps. If the GM has a interest in letting the rogue play his part it helps too.

If enemies are better archers than the rogue and do not have to move away from a wall, the rogue may go away, wait until later, approach, deliver a surprise volley and sneak away again, slowly killing his unmoving targets. Or not. I guess trading tactics and counter-tactics only go so far on an internet forum. I will suggest that we agree that most simplistic tactics can be worked around with sufficient thought and a group (players and GM) willing to make things work. If you disagree, I'm willing to keep debating.

I may be biased in that I have, mostly, played with reasonable GMs and reasonable groups with an interest in having everyone having fun. The game world is supposed to be consistent, but if a standard tactic requiring little or no thought makes a class ability useless, the group brainstormed to find an alternative either to the tactic or to the class ability.

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.

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.

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.

On that, I agree. I am not stating - not at all, really - that 2e rogue was a better class than 3e or 4e rogue. It was very much worse for what I want out of an RPG. What I am stating is that Sneak Attack was not a good alternative. It was too reliant and model the sneaky assassin very well. Maybe it modeled the acrobatic fighter, but that was not how I was used to thinking about the "Thief" and the Rogue came as a replaced of the Thief.

FWIW, I seem to remember AD&D 2e backstab was a multiplier to the thief's damage. It was x2 at first level and rose at some rate that I can't recall up to x10 at high levels (20th level?).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

This is per 2nd edition rules. Per 1st edition, only A, and partially D apply.

He can use any melee weapon normally allowed to thieves. Any thief worth his salt doesn't rely on his hide and move silently skills to backstab unless he's fairly high level. He used the surprise rules. Our 15th level thief will be doing 8-43 damage per attack and he may have up to 5 of them. He will also likely be dual wielding, since he can't use a shield or a two handed weapon, and he's likely to have a high dex or he wouldn't bother being a thief. So that's an additional 1-4 per attack. And a total of up to 10 attacks, assuming maximum surprise results. Even with a non-magical dagger, that's a possible 375 points of damage and will kill any creature in the multiverse, assuming hits with all attacks, which is likely, considering he will hit ac 0 on a 7 or better. He can do 120 damage at FIRST LEVEL. Of course, the above is assuming optimal conditions and rolls, but even at middling level, a party can do a lot to hedge the thieves bet. Invisibility, disguise, silence spells, etc. There is a ton of ways to set up an ambush by the thief and a smart party will help all they can. With a bit of planning and luck, a well-played thief can end an encounter before it starts.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but it seems there are a ton of people here who complain about how weak the thief is who are ignorant to the rules of 1e AD&D.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

This is per 2nd edition rules. Per 1st edition, only A, and partially D apply.

He can use any melee weapon normally allowed to thieves. Any thief worth his salt doesn't rely on his hide and move silently skills to backstab unless he's fairly high level. He used the surprise rules. Our 15th level thief will be doing 8-43 damage per attack and he may have up to 5 of them. He will also likely be dual wielding, since he can't use a shield or a two handed weapon, and he's likely to have a high dex or he wouldn't bother being a thief. So that's an additional 1-4 per attack. And a total of up to 10 attacks, assuming maximum surprise results. Even with a non-magical dagger, that's a possible 375 points of damage and will kill any creature in the multiverse, assuming hits with all attacks, which is likely, considering he will hit ac 0 on a 7 or better. He can do 120 damage at FIRST LEVEL. Of course, the above is assuming optimal conditions and rolls, but even at middling level, a party can do a lot to hedge the thieves bet. Invisibility, disguise, silence spells, etc. There is a ton of ways to set up an ambush by the thief and a smart party will help all they can. With a bit of planning and luck, a well-played thief can end an encounter before it starts.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but it seems there are a ton of people here who complain about how weak the thief is who are ignorant to the rules of 1e AD&D.

How are you getting 120 pts of damage at 1st level? I played a LOT of 1e thieves and can't conceive anything close to that.

 

[Ellington]

I've got no problem with the rogue gaining an advantage while flanking.

I just don't think it should be as big of an advantage as when attacking from stealth.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

How are you getting 120 pts of damage at 1st level? I played a LOT of 1e thieves and can't conceive anything close to that.

You get your normal number of attacks per round per surprise segment, so, if you are lucky and roll a 6, and the bad guy rolls a 1, that's 5 surprise segments. Assuming twf, that's 10 backstabs. With a 17 dex, he has no penalty to his main weapon and only -2 to the offhand, with the +4 from behind, so even with a poorer dex, he's probably using twf. That's 10 backstabs. And that's before initiative is rolled. Assuming longsword and dagger, that's a potential 10d8+10d4. 120 damage max with no strength modifiers. There's your one shot, one kill. At first level.

 

[Dausuul]

You get your normal number of attacks per round per surprise segment, so, if you are lucky and roll a 6, and the bad guy rolls a 1, that's 5 surprise segments. Assuming twf, that's 10 backstabs. With a 17 dex, he has no penalty to his main weapon and only -2 to the offhand, with the +4 from behind, so even with a poorer dex, he's probably using twf. That's 10 backstabs. And that's before initiative is rolled. Assuming longsword and dagger, that's a potential 10d8+10d4. 120 damage max with no strength modifiers. There's your one shot, one kill. At first level.

Not sure what this proves, since the fighter can presumably do about as well with a solid Strength bonus.

 

[Gryph]

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've been in games where we blow through the fluff, to get to the crunch combat.

There are various styles of play. The system needs to be agnostic of, or able to service these various play styles.

I think that if the designers do not draw some lines about supported styles then the game will be an abysmal failure.

If there are classes designed and clearly labeled as "strongest" in combat then players have no rightful beef when they avoid those classes and are not then strong in combat.

At some point of departure from the class system it's just time to say "D&D is the wrong game for me." There are many good systems that let you build exactly the character you want. D&D has never been that game and the more WoTC has tried to make it massively customizable over the years the more they have fractured the community.

 

[Trance-Zg]

No. 4 seems to me that a rogue is likely to have better version of "take 10", like "take 12" or even "take 15".

that way he only need to roll for really big and epic stuff.

 

[Gryph]

Not sure what this proves, since the fighter can presumably do about as well with a solid Strength bonus.

Only if the fighter starts the surprise segments in melee range, which was nearly impossible for them. The Thief's Hide/Move allowed them to gain surprise in melee range allowing them to fully take advantage of the segments.

A fighter/ranger with a prepped bow was able to do similiar damage on surprise, but in 1e they had better change weapons afterwards cause ranged weapons couldn't fire safely into melee.