D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[GMforPowergamers]

Stat increases, magic weapons (or inherent bounuses) and the half-level bonus do not scale with monster defenses. If you don't use your feats to improve your accuracy the amount of damage you can do will go down dramatically as you level, never mind the difference with a character built to actually increase their accuracy with level. This 'tyranny of accuracy' affects all classes in 4e not just strikers. I don't even see what the contraversy is here. Every character guide in the WOTC forums will emphasize the importance of maintaining and improving accuracy in 4e. I feel as though if we were only talking about building 4e rogues as opposed to comparing rogue/thief classes across editions, you wouldn't even being disagreeing with me on this point. Would you really advise a newbie at your 4e table to ignore Weapon Expertise and take Skill Focus instead, because their rogue character would be just fine without it?

1st I am a BIG proponent of expertise not being a needed feat (I really don't want to bog this down long and short I feel higher damage+ more encounter/daily powers as you level and more 1/2 on a miss stuff evened out with less to hit, so where it is always optimized to take it it isn't always needed) however yes I would recommend a new player take expertise because it is a simple feat that adds once and forget. However if a player told me they made the choice to focus on out of combat stuff and took skill focus: Arcana, I would not berate them...

I think there are a few flaws with your example.

great... lets do this then...

* You're using 13th level (the minimum level a thief finally gets that x5 multiplier). In AD&D 13th level was hardly ever reached or played by most players. That's at the top end, with only a very small % of PCs actually playing that high. The equivilant of a level 20 PC in 3e. The vast majority of actual gameplay was between levels 4-10.

I really thought the average player saw 8-15th level play to be honest, with few or far between seeing 16+, and as such 13 was a good "High as you needed to worry about" level... I don't think it is the equivilat of level 20 3e, because I doubt many more people saw 20 in 3e then did in 2e, I would say both were the beginning of the end... I did choose it because it was the x5, so not a flaw, it was the thing that gets better (and to be fair I don't remember what level it changed I know x2 at 1st and x5 at 13th)

* you're assuming the thief can do backstab every or nearly every round. In order to backstab, the thief has to attack from the rear with surprise--the target can't be aware the thief is there.

nope... you didn't read what I have to say... my assumption was 90% of fighte you get it at least once (and 10% of fights you don't get it at all) of those 90% maybe 30% you get a second one... more then 2 back stabs in the same fight are rare enough to not really matter (it did happen, but those are the OMG stories we tell, not the average at all)

example: One of the guys who I know who still play pathfinder will to this day tell anyone who will listen his story about his elven fighter thief with the anti mage short swords (2 weapon fighter) who back stabbed all 4 enemy spell casters in 1 fight... with improved invisbilty and a cloak of bamfing

* the thief still has a lower AC and a MUCH lower HP threshold than a fighter. A thief could only ever have a max +2 hp per level from Con, and uses a d6. A thief remaining in melee combat wouldn't last long.

yup and this is why one of the hall marks of striker is "Hits hard and not had tricks to negate damage because less hp"

Someone who can get one shot off for an entire combat round that does significant damage isn't a striker, IMO. Not when the fighter is dealing out a lot more damage every round.

so if I hit for 80 damage 1 hit in round 1, then 7 in round 2 and 13 in round 3 for a total of 90 damage, but the fighter hits all three rounds for 30 damage and does 90... you don't see how that is burst damage? it is very front loaded... and in a great circumstance ends the fight much quicker...

example: 3 targets have 65hp each
team 1: 3 fighters... 3 rounds they take down the targets
team 2: 3 thieves....1 round all three down
team 3: 2 fighters 1 thief 1st round thief takes his out, two fighter hurt there... round 2 1 fighter and thief take down 2nd, and other fighter hurts his... round 3 third falls

It doesn't even compare to later editions where you can apply sneak attack damage to most of your attacks, and beefing them up to boot by applying DEX bonus to damage (not applicable in AD&D) or feats.

1st of all if what you are saying is true (it atleast has some merit to it I will admit) then 3e and 5e are as guilty of this as 4e, and 4e doesn't stand out any more then 3e or 5e except it tell you on the tin...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Remember, in AD&D, 9th level was "name level". That's when you started dealing with running castles, maintaining followers, etc. I've been playing AD&D since 1981 continuous (still play it), and I've only had 2 PCs go higher than level 12 naturally (i.e., didn't start them that high or play in a monty haul). It takes a while to get an AD&D PC up to level 10. So most of the actual game play, the thief is only getting a x2-x4 modifier.

Also, not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

A thief backstabbing with a +2 short sword with a x4 modifier is looking at 25 points of damage on that sneak attack, then 5-6 points every round after that. And that's assuming a hit every attack, which won't happen nearly as often as a fighter. A fighter is with a +2 long sword and specialization and a STR bonus with 2 attacks is doing probably (1d8+5)x2, or 20 points every round. Combat hardly ever lasts just one or two rounds.

Also, you seem to be assuming sneak attack WAY higher than it actually occured. 90% of every encounter at least once? Not even close, in my experience. The opponents need to not be aware of the thief first, and then a successful hide in shadows/move silently roll needs to be made. Backstab in AD&D is a lot rarer than you think.

so no, I don't consider the 1e thief a striker, by the modern definition of that term. I think a striker has to be able to reliably do large amounts of damage on a consistent basis. And the 1e thief just doesn't do that. Especially at lower levels

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Remember, in AD&D, 9th level was "name level". That's when you started dealing with running castles, maintaining followers, etc. I've been playing AD&D since 1981 continuous (still play it), and I've only had 2 PCs go higher than level 12 naturally (i.e., didn't start them that high or play in a monty haul). It takes a while to get an AD&D PC up to level 10. So most of the actual game play, the thief is only getting a x2-x4 modifier.

in my experience about 1/3 of game died by level 9 and 1/3 died by 14th, and the last 3rd rant he spectrum from not getting past 1st to all the way to 20+...but to be honest (not counting a start with high level campaign game like you said) only once we made it to 17th level, and once we made it into the 20es...

Also, not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

go back then...I showed my work...

A thief backstabbing with a +2 short sword with a x4 modifier is looking at 25 points of damage on that sneak attack, then 5-6 points every round after that.

lets do this out then... +2 short sword 1d6+3 avegage 6.5 min 3 and max 9 with x4 that would be 12-36 average 26...

And that's assuming a hit every attack, which won't happen nearly as often as a fighter.

you know when your most likely to hit... when you get +4 and enemy looses it's dex...

A fighter is with a +2 long sword and specialization and a STR bonus with 2 attacks is doing probably (1d8+5)x2, or 20 points every round. Combat hardly ever lasts just one or two rounds.

that is very different then... I can't remember more then a hand full of times in 2e where combat lasted 5 or more rounds, 3 seemed our average

Also, you seem to be assuming sneak attack WAY higher than it actually occured. 90% of every encounter at least once? Not even close, in my experience.

so what did thief do in combat?

The opponents need to not be aware of the thief first, and then a successful hide in shadows/move silently roll needs to be made. Backstab in AD&D is a lot rarer than you think.

yea, so most fights that PC start are with thief pre stealthed and ones not do take a round to duck into a hiding spot...

so no, I don't consider the 1e thief a striker, by the modern definition of that term. I think a striker has to be able to reliably do large amounts of damage on a consistent basis. And the 1e thief just doesn't do that. Especially at lower levels

the only times I played 1e was after playing 3.5 so I'm not sure, but the 2e one (witch I can't remember what made them different) defiantly where low hp, need tricks to avoid hp damage, had the ability to deliver burst damage (aka not every round) so they fit striker... just not as well as the 3e rogue did... the 3e rogue took this little unreliable trick and made it the core of the class... so again if you dis like the striker thief take it up with 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 5e equally... just because one labled it doesn't mean it wasn't in all 4... and all of it was based on the 2e way just expanded on....

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think your problem is that you're confusing editions, and that's why you think the thief was more powerful than he actually was in AD&D. For example, you don't lose your AC bonus if you're backstabbed in AD&D. The thief only gets a +4 to hit. And as I mentioned, you don't automatically hide every time. You have to make a successful roll. An 8th level thief only has roughly a 50% chance of doing so, and that's providing there is a place for them to hide AND the target walks by you. If you have to move to the target, you have to make a move silently roll in addition to your earlier hide in shadows.

In AD&D, both 1e and 2e, the thief is not a striker. It seems you're applying 3e rules to it, and that's not the case. To answer you question as to what a thief does when he can't do a backstab? Whatever you as the player think is appropriate. Often a regular attack. Or throwing caltrops, or oil, or whatever. Combat is not the thief's specialty. But just because he can't do a backstab doesn't mean he just stands around and does nothing.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

to all of you that think that striker is gone, and those of you that think striker wasn't in 3e... or 2e for that matter I have a question about rogue/thief.

Lets say I sit at your table (2e,3e,4e doesn't matter, and it just surprised someone in my 5e character creation night) and I say I'm making a social rogue that isn't very good in a fight. I don't really know how to stab people, I just am a face and a sly trickster... as the game levels how do you keep that feel?

when we made characters Tuesday night the player in question found himself having (with only leather armor and a dagger) was the 2nd best AC, 2nd best HP, good attack, and most important highest melee and ranged weapon damage potential in the game...

in 2e if you strike from hiding (and later if you flank... now in 5th if another player is attacking that target) you deal extra damage. x2 and later x3 damage enough to be more then a critical... later editions changed that to +xd6 sneak attack...

in my Tuesday night game that striker feature is at +3d6... the rogue had a 14 Dex (not high at all) and the fighter with an 18 str and an axe is doing less damage if both engage the target... 1d10+4 (9.5) compared to 1d4+3d6+2 (14.5)

I mean even if you don't like the word striker (witch in this context means doing good single target burst damage) then you have to admit the rogue and even the thief was always built to do good single target burst damage, and as far as I know has no option not to...

In 3E, the rogue actually sucked as a damage dealer and really was necessary for countering traps. Pathfinder made this worse and removed the need for a trapfinder specialist for the most part; in the one AP they have where it is a good idea, they include the ability to turn anyone into a rogue-like trapfinder.

From what I've heard about 2E, rogues were actually far more competent at dealing damage in the video games than at the table-top (and for the video games, there's strategies to make certain you don't need a dedicated thief); it really wasn't a class you had along if you wanted to deal damage.

So, I don't honestly think the thief was ever an example of a class with a combat role; I think it's traditionally been more of a utility class. I'm very glad to see 4E made a huge effort to fix that and, by appearances, 5E modeled the rogue after 4E's paradigm. The codification of the striker role was seriously beneficial to this class.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm probably going to regret this...

to all of you that think that striker is gone, and those of you that think striker wasn't in 3e... or 2e for that matter I have a question about rogue/thief.

Lets say I sit at your table (2e,3e,4e doesn't matter, and it just surprised someone in my 5e character creation night) and I say I'm making a social rogue that isn't very good in a fight. I don't really know how to stab people, I just am a face and a sly trickster... as the game levels how do you keep that feel?

Just, as an off the cuff, spitballin', off the top of my head, I would say you roleplay the PC to be a face and sly trickster.

I don't see how what level you are has baring on how you play a "social rogue that isn't very good in as fight." [or anyone else, I feel I need to point out. But that is a different discussion.]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think your problem is that you're confusing editions, and that's why you think the thief was more powerful than he actually was in AD&D.

very possible in the last 10 years I have played 1e with the leather bound books, and a 2e retro clone (myth and magic... infact running it right now) but not 2e... so my memory is far from perfect.

your skill thing made me google this and

Backstab: Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back. When attacking someone by surprise and from behind, a thief can improve his chance to successfully hit (+4 modifier for rear attack and negate the target's shield and Dexterity bonuses) and greatly increase the amount of damage his blow causes.

no shield no dex and +4...

For example, you don't lose your AC bonus if you're backstabbed in AD&D. The thief only gets a +4 to hit.

For some reason I am remembering shield only in front and loosing dex with surprise (neaither right in back stab but very often associated with it.

And as I mentioned, you don't automatically hide every time.

of course not... no edition was auto...

An 8th level thief only has roughly a 50% chance of doing so,

I may not remember a lot...but I'm googling this one...

Skill Base Score

Pick Pockets 15%
Open Locks 10%
Find/Remove Traps 5%
Move Silently 10%
Hide in Shadows 5%
Detect Noise 15%
Climb Walls 60%
Read Languages 0%

then hide in shadow is upto +10% race and if you have a 16+ dex...

then you get 60pts and no more then 30pts in one skill, every level 30pts upto 15 per skill, so 50% could be hit at level 3 5%+10%+30pt+15pt= 60%...

and that's providing there is a place for them to hide AND the target walks by you. If you have to move to the target, you have to make a move silently roll in addition to your earlier hide in shadows.

there is 0 way to know how often that is or isn't an issue...

In AD&D, both 1e and 2e, the thief is not a striker.

I disagree they are what became 3e and 4 e and 5e rogues... aka strikers

It seems you're applying 3e rules to it, and that's not the case. To answer you question as to what a thief does when he can't do a backstab? Whatever you as the player think is appropriate. Often a regular attack. Or throwing caltrops, or oil, or whatever. Combat is not the thief's specialty. But just because he can't do a backstab doesn't mean he just stands around and does nothing.

no one suggested standing around doing nothing... so who was that addressed to? I had in my 3 round example 2 rounds of regular attacks... so I am very confused.

you appear to be adding extra restrictions(the back stab dex thing) and making skills harder (8th level to do what I can do at 2nd) it almost seems like you don't want it tbe true that they got a combat only ability as one of there class features and it was to do massive burst damage...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm probably going to regret this...



Just, as an off the cuff, spitballin', off the top of my head, I would say you roleplay the PC to be a face and sly trickster.

I don't see how what level you are has baring on how you play a "social rogue that isn't very good in as fight." [or anyone else, I feel I need to point out. But that is a different discussion.]

my point (that has been missed) is the "no good at combat" wasn't in 3e or 4e or 5e... they are totally damage dealers because they can add +xd6 to attacks easily...


edit: [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] you normally can atleast answer a question, even if I disagree with it, so what do you think the purpse of backstab and sneak attack is? and Can we atleast agree both are sometimes increase to damage?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In 3E, the rogue actually sucked as a damage dealer and really was necessary for countering traps.

compaired to what?

a fighter gets 3 attacks the rogue has 2, the fighter gets 4 attacks the roge has 3... so he is at most 1 attack behind... he can use a d1 weapon and add Xd6 damage where X equals half his rogue levels...

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

compaired to what?

a fighter gets 3 attacks the rogue has 2, the fighter gets 4 attacks the roge has 3... so he is at most 1 attack behind... he can use a d1 weapon and add Xd6 damage where X equals half his rogue levels...

Compared to the druid, wizard, paladin, barbarian, cleric... Plus, in 3E, finesse weapons really didn't exist and those that did tended to be too low in damage to be worth it.

Keep in mind that, in 3E at least, the fighter also sucked.