Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[rounser]

...enough to make multiclassing incredibly detrimental to long term power.

Don't the 3E rules already fit that description? Multiclassing got nerfed majorly for all but the most complimentary class combinations as revenge against it being broken in earlier editions, it seems.

 

[mmadsen]

Splitting first level into 4 other levels seems pretty odd. First level characters have little in the way of skills, offense, or survivability. About the only thing they do have are stat bonuses. From my experience in other RPGs, starting DnD characters are weaker than other starting characters, and I think it's somehwat crazy to weaken them further.

How would splitting first level into multiple levels weaken first-level characters? From the description I gave, nothing would change -- except that the current system obviously wouldn't work with respect to hit dice. Well, unless you want everyone starting with four hit dice...

What I'd like to see would be "first level" characters starting with four levels worth of Skill Points (no change), four levels worth of BAB and Save bonuses (so a Fighter would have a better BAB than a Wizard, by more than +1), the Feats and Special Abilities they currently have (but spread over the four levels they start with), and much smaller Hit Dice (or, rather, just a Hit Point Bonus) plus base hit points equal to 10 or Con (as with Wound/Vitality systems, but not necessarily with the complication of two separate pools).

Thus, a starting character would be fourth level (whatever we decide to call that), a starting multiclassed character could be second/second (or third/first), and characters who multiclass wouldn't wake up with vast new powers equal to those of a specialist who'd been training since birth. You could actually have apprentice Wizards (first level under this system) with just a few known spells -- but starting Wizard PCs wouldn't be single-spell weanies.

 

[Corinth]

Exactly!

I still don't see the point behind the gripe here, but I think I see the fundamental paradigmal problem. Gaining a level does not represent a point where the PC is ready to learn something new, but the point where the PC masters what he's learned previously. This is why the rules allow a player to choose what class his PC gains a level in when the PC's XP total reaches the next point.

 

[SableWyvern]

Don't the 3E rules already fit that description? Multiclassing got nerfed majorly for all but the most complimentary class combinations as revenge against it being broken in earlier editions, it seems.

I'd say that's debateable. But, even assuming multiclassing is already detrimental, I don't see how that's a defense for making it dramatically more so.

Don't think sorcerers have a big enough hit die? Won't hurt to give them a d2 then, since they already have too few hp...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

An interesting thing I wish to know though, do any of you use Deadly Puddings, oozes and abberations/beholders in your campaigns?

Of course! Deadly puddings, oozes, and such are one of the things that make D&D cool! If there were no oozes and jellies who would Jubilex rule?

 

[novyet]

Re: Re: Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

As you've discovered, many of the core classes aren't very flexible. The Fighter is, and the NPC Expert is, but the rest aren't. Unless your character conception is "agile backstabbing lockpicker", the Rogue class won't fit.

I just wanted to say that just because you have an ability does not mean you must use it. I play a rogue right now, sort of a crazy professor type, and I've never used sneak attack

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Re: Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

I just wanted to say that just because you have an ability does not mean you must use it. I play a rogue right now, sort of a crazy professor type, and I've never used sneak attack

But if you ever found yourself in a Flanking position, or getting the jump on a Flat-Footed opponent, would you (or have you) decide not to roll the extra damage?

Also, consider that all classes are balanced, and ignoring a feature of that class means you are weakening your character in comparison to his peers.

 

[simonski]

Re: Yes

I know what you're talking about Simonski when you mean to recapture the grittier epic adventure of earlier editions. A campaign can be epic without having god-like uber-characters pitted against 2 dimensional uber-monsters. Even community stuff like Fight Club and the Pit help promote the statblock vs statblock mentality while trying to find the most min/maxed combos in the game. Thats not roleplaying, its statistics.

I dont know, I guess I've gotten to the point where if given the choice between 'love it or leave it' I have to say leave it...

Long post there A good read, you seem to point out exactly the things I have been thinking for the past few weeks. Forgotten Realms is very weird now, the population is ridicolous.

I agree with the CRPG thing, it seems like wizards tried hard to get younger gamers into the hobby so they could make a quick buck. If any of you have been playing for example Everquest you should know that the BARD and his new abilities/spells is VERY VERY similar. Nevertheless the new system is good. But they should REALLY tone done the magic items etc...

 

[simonski]

Of course! Deadly puddings, oozes, and such are one of the things that make D&D cool! If there were no oozes and jellies who would Jubilex rule?

LoL

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: Re: Yes

Long post there A good read, you seem to point out exactly the things I have been thinking for the past few weeks. Forgotten Realms is very weird now, the population is ridicolous.

What do you mean by "Forgotten Realms is very wierd now, the population is ridiculous"? Very little has changed with respect to the FR population in its 2e and 3e incarnations. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

I agree with the CRPG thing, it seems like wizards tried hard to get younger gamers into the hobby so they could make a quick buck. If any of you have been playing for example Everquest you should know that the BARD and his new abilities/spells is VERY VERY similar. Nevertheless the new system is good. But they should REALLY tone done the magic items etc...

Umm, in what significant way is the 3e bard different in his abilities from the 2e bard? It is much more likely that Everquest copied the D&D bard than the other way around.

And how is the level of magic items in 3e different from the level of magic items in previous editions? They aren't any more powerful overall, and the prices seem much the same as the ones given in previous books.

Context is important. You seem to have not placed these elements in proper context.