Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[rounser]

True, true.

A short list of D&D's main strengths might be:

1) D&D's rules are simple enough to not get in the way of telling a story.
2) The player base for D&D is massive. (Dancey seems fond of pointing out this strength.)
3) D&D has a huge number of adventures written for it, many of which cater for the appealing theme of dungeon crawling.
4) D&D has multiple, highly detailed campaign settings, is not married to any particular published setting, and is easy to worldbuild for.
5) D&D has a host of imaginative and varied monsters to populate campaign worlds, not just ones drawn from mythology.
6) D&D has a wide variety of quirky and powerful magic items to serve as rewards that players can lust after.
7) D&D has a wide range of flavourful spells, some still bearing the names of their in-game creators.
8) D&D has simple archetypes to latch on to, and a rules system that reinforces these archetypes.
9) D&D is easy to modify and house-rule, which is appealing to gamers with a designer streak (which is just about all of them).
10) D&D is easy to create adventures for. (Often overlooked; stat intensive systems often aren't easy to make NPCs for.)
11) D&D uses a wide range of polyhedral dice, which is fun. It also uses what is arguably the funkiest die, the d20, most of all.

Any others?

 

[SableWyvern]

Monsters that the PCs should be able to easily defeat become much more dangerous and can often destroy the entire party because they do not have the appropiate amount of items and magic that an average party of their level would have. The balance that exists in D&D is designed based on the assumption that certain levels of magic will exist, and if you tamper with that it creates problems.

I think this situation only applies to particularly inexperienced DMs (who probably shouldn't be running high-level campaigns anyway). It doesn't take much common sense to work out when the party lacks the appropriate equipment/skills to deal with an adversary.

Unless a DM has somehow managed to contrive a party of 4, with the standard class mix, the precise treasure (spent in a specifically generic fashion) these issues come up regardless of power level.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

SableWyvern: Not really. Certain classes have more intrinsic power than others. To use an extreme example, if given no items whatsoever, which class would be more effective... A Monk a Fighter, or a Sorcerer? If Fighters, do not have weapons, armor and other goodies, the abilities they possess are far less effective than those of a Monk or Sorcerer, who don't really need items to the same extent as a Fighter does.

If you (and your players) do not mind Fighter types being less effective than the spellcasting classes, that's fine, it is your campaign. But it is a fact that Fighters rely on items for their power to a far greater extent than Sorcerers, Wizards or Monks.

 

[SableWyvern]

I can see that balancing Wizards against Fighters with no items at 20th level requires some skill. What I was commenting on was the relative ease of comparing a party's abilites vs the requisite abilities to combat a particular creature.

Balancing an encounter using more information than merely average party level and CR/EL is a requisite skill, regardless of the power level of a given campaign.

The major stumbling block to effective use of CR (apart from non-standard party make-up) is DR - and it's painfully easy to realise that a party without a +3 or better weapon is going to struggle against a creature with DR 30/+3.

While other encounter balance issues can be a little more abstract, they are something all DMs need to take into account - I think most people agree that blind adherance to CR/EL as the guide for balancing encounters won't work.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

I can see that balancing Wizards against Fighters with no items at 20th level requires some skill. What I was commenting on was the relative ease of comparing a party's abilites vs the requisite abilities to combat a particular creature.

Balancing an encounter using more information than merely average party level and CR/EL is a requisite skill, regardless of the power level of a given campaign.

The major stumbling block to effective use of CR (apart from non-standard party make-up) is DR - and it's painfully easy to realise that a party without a +3 or better weapon is going to struggle against a creature with DR 30/+3.

While other encounter balance issues can be a little more abstract, they are something all DMs need to take into account - I think most people agree that blind adherance to CR/EL as the guide for balancing encounters won't work.

It's not just DR that creates a problem, though. Many monsters have special abilities that will be far more effective in a low magic campaign than in a regular campaign. Beholders are a good example of this. They are a CR 13 creature, meaning it should only take 25% of an average party of four members to defeat it. This assumes regular amounts of magic equipment.

The Beholders eye rays have a DC of 18. This is not that hard to save against if you have the standard magical equipment for a party of that level, which should include some save boosting items. However, if you do not have such items, your saves are generally much lower than another PC in a regular campaigns would be, so the Beholders eye rays have a much greater chance of effecting you. Two or three PCs could easily die because of this, making it much more of a challenge than it should be.

If you're willing to take the extra time to eyeball such abilities, and your players do not mind having certain classes more powerful than the others, it's not that hard to still have a great campaign, but it will require extra work and effort to do so. And your players may not like the fact that their character is less effective than another character because they do not rely on intrinsic class abilities so much as powerful items. Still, it's your campaign, and your call.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

About Assasins & Bards casting spells:
In D&D, the general assumption is, unlike in Starwars or Shadowrun, that Magic is something you can learn if you are:
1) intelligent (Wizard),
2) have a strong faith (cleric/druid/ranger)
3) or have some inborn talents (bards, sorcerer). (and due to the fact that everybody can multiclass in these classes, everybody has some talents, he just has to "discover" them)
Even if you never learned to actually cast spells, you can be trained to use magic devices (see rogue skill list).

A result of this assumption is that, if every could learn casting spells, that many people do this, and that many people create magic items.
In a world where magic creatures and outsiders do exist in greater numbers, there you can also expect that some people do invent or create equipment against them.

This assumption does not work for everybody, and especially not for every setting. In a low magic setting, you won`t see many high magic fantasy creatures. If you would, than humanoids couldn`t survive a longer time ...

 

[LostSoul]

4) D&D has multiple, highly detailed campaign settings, is not married to any particular published setting, and is easy to worldbuild for.
9) D&D is easy to modify and house-rule, which is appealing to gamers with a designer streak (which is just about all of them).

I'm not sure about these two.

4) Once you get up to higher levels, it is really hard to set up adventures if you don't run them in the dungeon. Some classic D&D elements can ruin low-magic worlds.

9) All games are easy to house rule; however, since D&D is "balanced" if you use what the core rules suggest, implementing house rules can cause unforseen effects.

 

[Metheus]

Yes

I agree with what simonski is saying for the most part. I also agree strongly with reapersaurus. After playing 3E for a little over a year, all I can say is that it feels exactly like Diablo and Baldur's Gate. While this may be the campaign, its also partially the 3E philosophy.

What most games become, unless everyone playing agrees, is running through a dungeon looking for items and gold to take back to town so you can look at the magic items shopping list. Magic items used to be somewhat rare, even in high level 1E and 2E campaigns. Now every mid level character has 5 pounds of magic baubles on them at any time.

One thing you never heard in any of the previous D+D incarnations, but comes up quite a bit now: "I only need 1200 gp more until I can get that sword +2" Seems to be straight out of a computer game.

I like the idea more and more of going with feat lists instead of character abilities. That way, higher level rogues can take things like death touch without becoming assassins, or mages can pick up sneak attack. I know its a different system than 3E D+D, but, as I said, I think 3E has some serious weaknesses in terms of roleplaying over rollplaying.

Forgotten Realms, which is a great campaign setting (if not exactly original in its ideas), is the perfect example of this change in philosophy. In previous editions, most of the land was not detailed, and things like spellfire, Chosen of Mystra, and drow were only peripheral. The 3E version has drow everywhere, every 3rd person is a Chosen of Mystra, the desert is full of shades, and any bum you come across in the street could be a 12th level mage just brimming with items to wipe the smile off your face. Did there really need to be a 26th level illusionist brothel owner? The population of the Realms has blown up too. Take a look from even the newest Volo's guide (2E) to the FRCS and you can see huge increases in every town. Archendale goes from something like 1500 to 9000+ in a matter of about a year of Realmstime. I guess all the Godswar survivors just reproduced for a year, and in this period when no adventurer or commoner left their beds, the drow and shades decided it was safe to come back. Since reproducing that much was strenuous work, and since everything you did in 2E got you an XP bonus, everyone in the Realms gained 5 levels going from 2E to 3E. Just a thought...

Yes, I know the rules are going to be combat oriented, but its also the core rules that allow the shopping list of vorpal weapons mentality, where magic items prices no longer become suggestions but a hard and fast bluebook list with the same prices from Faerun to Oerth. The rules do not in any way encourage roleplaying. While it might be tough to add rules on how to roleplay, the utter lack of roleplaying hints and suggestions (I'm not talking about the extra books they came out with like Song and Silence, which is just a weak, watered down Complete Thieves' Guide) leaves the game way too wide open for munchkinism, CRPG thinking, min/maxing (how many threads have you seen on the board that say 'create me an interesting character' as opposed to 'min/max me a cleric, mage, monk, or combo'), and a lack of roleplaying finesse to get through situations (why ask the shopclerk when you can just roll a Gather Information check and have the info drop in your lap; why try to talk tough to get results when you can just roll an Intimidate check). Why roleplay a fighter that is sneaky and slightly crafty when you can just slap on a level of rogue and forget all that backstory/roleplaying silliness. Why would you want a scout-type rogue that can run longer and faster than other rogues when you can just slap on a level of barbarian and get fast movement. Or better yet, why waste skillpoints teaching a barbarian to read when you could just slap on any other class and BAM, instant scholar.

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...

 

[SableWyvern]

It's not just DR that creates a problem, though. Many monsters have special abilities that will be far more effective in a low magic campaign than in a regular campaign. Beholders are a good example of this. They are a CR 13 creature, meaning it should only take 25% of an average party of four members to defeat it. This assumes regular amounts of magic equipment.

...

If you're willing to take the extra time to eyeball such abilities, and your players do not mind having certain classes more powerful than the others, it's not that hard to still have a great campaign, but it will require extra work and effort to do so. And your players may not like the fact that their character is less effective than another character because they do not rely on intrinsic class abilities so much as powerful items. Still, it's your campaign, and your call.

Hence my final paragraph:

While other encounter balance issues can be a little more abstract, they are something all DMs need to take into account - I think most people agree that blind adherance to CR/EL as the guide for balancing encounters won't work.

I don't disagree that normally the DM would have to work to balance the discrepancies between organically magical classes and those dependant on items, in a low-magic setting.

Making grand reductions in the amount of magic items and saying "I now have a low magic campaign" is just plain silly. There are definite ramifications when making such a decision, that require thought.

Personally, I think your beholder example applies to all campaigns. A DM can't blindly assume that because his PCs have standard wealth that they have a standard spread of benefits. Perhaps many of the characters do not have magically inflated Will saves, but big bonuses to hit, AC and Ref saves instead.

Hence my main point, that this sort of eyeballing is required from a good DM in any and every good campaign, regardless of power level.

I think that's my point stated as clearly as I can. You may or may not agree; either way I'll leave it at that so as not to completely highjack this thread.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

SableWyvern: I agree.