The Niche Protection Poll

[Starfox]

I haven't found that to be the case at all. Rogues work perfectly fine with or without those things.

You above said your rogues generally don't backstab past the first round. I guess your game contains a lot of exploration and intrigue, or what do rogues in your games do? Well, perhaps this is food for a new thread.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You above said your rogues generally don't backstab past the first round.

I said that the good old 2e thief doesn't. In 3e, I see a fair amount of feinting and flanking.

I guess your game contains a lot of exploration and intrigue, or what do rogues in your games do?

Regardless of whether we're talking rogues or not, there are a lot more skill checks than attack rolls in my game. Rogues get a lot of use out of stealth/perception and social skills in my game. Wizzards get a lot of use out of knowledge. I think the former amounts to more (though the latter is quite important).

 

[Starfox]

Regardless of whether we're talking rogues or not, there are a lot more skill checks than attack rolls in my game. Rogues get a lot of use out of stealth/perception and social skills in my game. Wizzards get a lot of use out of knowledge. I think the former amounts to more (though the latter is quite important).

Considering the amount of skill use going on in games around here, one would think the rogue would be a popular class. Somehow, it is not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Considering the amount of skill use going on in games around here, one would think the rogue would be a popular class. Somehow, it is not.

I don't see a ton of rogues either. At least, not as much as I would like. I did a really substantial PF/TB/UA rogue rewrite recently and it's yet to see use as anything other than an NPC. I think the last rogue I saw was a rogue/warlock. If anything, I think the ranger is the one that overshadows the rogue, not the wizard.

I also saw a lot more rogues in the early 3e days (and thieves in 2e) than I saw later on in the 3.5 and post-3.5 era. I'm not sure if there's a macro-level reason for that or just a quirk of my group. Maybe people got jaded by so many things being immune to crits.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The thief as commando - striking hard from stealth - was one of the major ways known to play a thief.

Also, just to go back to this notion and the role/niche for a second, this was one of the ways to play a thief. Other ways did not include this notion at all. If anything, the rogue served to broaden the class's scope and further deemphasize the whole striking from stealth angle. The PF rogue has numerous archetypes, and 3e has numerous prestige classes, both of which spread out even farther.

There are some good combat rogue builds to be sure, but that's only one branch of the rogue tree. So a rogue as a "striker" is really a large departure from any previous iteration of the thief/rogue, simply in how narrow it is.

 

[Starfox]

I don't see a ton of rogues either. At least, not as much as I would like. I did a really substantial PF/TB/UA rogue rewrite recently and it's yet to see use as anything other than an NPC. I think the last rogue I saw was a rogue/warlock. If anything, I think the ranger is the one that overshadows the rogue, not the wizard.

I also saw a lot more rogues in the early 3e days (and thieves in 2e) than I saw later on in the 3.5 and post-3.5 era. I'm not sure if there's a macro-level reason for that or just a quirk of my group. Maybe people got jaded by so many things being immune to crits.

We used to have a lot of multiclass thieves in 1E and 2E. In 3E, not so much. And yeah, its the other skill classes that kill the rogue - monk, bard, ranger, and various house-ruled archetypes now in Pathfinder. Guess traps and sneak attack just doesn't make a very interesting character. Even tough crit immunity no longer helps against sneak attack in Pathfinder, few people seem to know that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

We used to have a lot of multiclass thieves in 1E and 2E. In 3E, not so much.

The thief/illusionist and fighter/thief were both awesome. 3e never really duplicated them perfectly, I agree.

And yeah, its the other skill classes that kill the rogue - monk, bard, ranger, and various house-ruled archetypes now in Pathfinder. Guess traps and sneak attack just doesn't make a very interesting character.

No, traps and SA in and of themselves aren't enough. I would have hoped that some of the PF changes would favor the rogue, such as being able to SA more things and some of the combat maneuvers, but they weren't implemented adequately.

Even tough crit immunity no longer helps against sneak attack in Pathfinder, few people seem to know that.

Like I said, I think people became jaded to an extent. Fortification armor is also really inappropriate (I changed it to a bonus to AC against crit confirmation rolls).

But I also think that expanding SA to include flanking pushes the rogue away from that classic playstyle. Making it easier to use than backstab was looks like a raw power increase, but it pushes the player away form all that planning and thought that was needed to get a true backstab. There just isn't the sense of being rewarded for setting up the perfect kill, nor the same sense of consequence if someone does see you. I've tried to restore that, but it's a shame that it was lost in the first place.

 

[Starfox]

Making it easier to use than backstab was looks like a raw power increase, but it pushes the player away form all that planning and thought that was needed to get a true backstab. There just isn't the sense of being rewarded for setting up the perfect kill, nor the same sense of consequence if someone does see you. I've tried to restore that, but it's a shame that it was lost in the first place.

In 1E, a successful backstab could actually kill a "level-appropriate" monster. Combat was quicker and deadlier then. 3E gave everyone much more hp, making a big initial attack less useful. That said, we used to try and get backstab opportunities by flanking then too - monsters had to decide which way to turn, and you could move around them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 1E, a successful backstab could actually kill a "level-appropriate" monster. Combat was quicker and deadlier then.

The idea of bonus dice also makes things much less swingy. Triple or quadruple damage was scary, and this was in addition to the potential for critical hits.

Moreover, while backstab rewarded base damage, SA actually deemphasizes it. This is good for halfling rogues, but in fact is really too good for them at the expense of everyone else. SA is one of those things that seemed cool at first but turned out to be a terrible idea, one that PF unfortunately didn't want to rewrite.

 

[Starfox]

I support sneak attack being static instead of a sumtiplier - it allows rogues to fight with tiny weapons to great effect. Blowguns, anyone? Sadly, sneak attack damage just doesn't seem to be sufficient. Compare it to the cavalier's challenge - challenge works regardless of the situation, does increase on a crit, and does 57% as much damage. It is easy to get several challenge-enhanced attacks in a round, but hard to get several sneak attacks.