4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Cadfan]

Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.

I agree with this sentiment.

But I think it is bizarre to claim that "rogues are useless versus undead" is using nerfing "judiciously."

As evidence, I submit that in your attempt to defend rogue's inability to usefully fight undead, you have been forced to take the position that it is ok if "party of heroes saves kingdom from undead menace" isn't something D&D can do well without special treatment from the DM.

I think that's absurd on the face of it, and essentially makes your argument disprove itself.

 

[Reynard]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is an obligation to prove that undead are more common than anti-magic zones?

No. I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations. It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No. I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations. It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?

It is as easy to say and as true as "The sky is blue," or "Water is wet."

It is easy to say precisely because it is so obviously true.

The only situation more common is in regards to the paladin's warhorse, an ability which is so often completely unsuitable to typical play that the ability truly might as well not exist.

But the warhorse is an insignificant portion of the paladin's power as compared to sneak attack.

EDIT: It also bears mentioning that the rogue's problem isn't simply un-crittable targets. It includes unflankable targets as well as the difficulty already inherent in setting up a sneak attack in the first place. The rogue's viable sneak attack opportunities are already a small enough subset of typical play without further creature type limitations.

EDIT 2: I also agree with Cadfan, re: your statement that "Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game." Absolutely agree with you there. I don't think all PCs have to be all things at all times in order for the game to be fun. It's a tendency in 4e that I am dreading.

 

[GlassJaw]

EDIT 2: I also agree with Cadfan, re: your statement that "Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game." Absolutely agree with you there. I don't think all PCs have to be all things at all times in order for the game to be fun. It's a tendency in 4e that I am dreading.

Same. I like specialized abilities that are unique to certain classes.

Let's take two "comparable" abilities:

The first is relatively weak but can be used fairly often and against a wide range of targets.
The second is very powerful but limited as to when it can be used.

Sneak attack obviously falls in the second category.

I see both as viable design parameters and from a "power" vs "frequency" standpoint, both abilities could be perfectly balanced.

While I don't have a huge issue with sneak attack as-is (and never felt the rogue was "hindered" in spite of its limitations), I can see some kind of variation of the ability that the rogue could select (maybe as a special ability at level 10 or higher) that could be used against non-crittable/flankable creatures.

 

[kennew142]

How is the rogue useless in these situations.

Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that really matters.

This attitude is borderline ridiculous. Of course combat isn't the only thing that matters, but it does take up a significant amount of the time at the gaming table. Taking away the only ability that makes a class viable in combat may be acceptable occasionally, but having entire categories of foes (extremely popular foes at that) that are completely immune to that class ability is very poor game design. When it's predicated on unreasonable definitions of what can and can't be affected by a sneak attack, it is an even worse design.

I see people (in this forum, although nowhere else) laugh at the concept that a game should be fun for all players involved. I don't understand it.

Personally, I have never used an anti-magic field, or a rust monster, or any other trope designed to add nothing to the game while making certain characters sit out the adventure. When the alternate build for rogues appeared allowing them to give up trap sense in exchange for getting half their sneak attack dice versus undead and constructs, I had three reactions.

1) I said, about time.
2) I kicked myself for not thinking of it first.
3) I houseruled a half sneak attack versus undead and constructs as a class feature for all rogues, without taking away trap sense.

Until 4e comes out, I will be using this rule. The day can't come soon enough for me.

 

[Rallek]

You know I played my share of rogues way back in the 2nd ed days. I had a blast with them, as I recall. I never got backstab damage versus undead, constructs, or a whole boatload of other enemies. Heck, I even failed to backstab the vast majority of plain vanilla humans and orcs that the party got into combat with. I never really felt short changed because I did less damage than the fighter, or because I had fewer hp than the cleric. I even failed to properly begrudge the wizard his ability to use spells.


I even failed to notice that we couldn’t do “tomb raiding”. In my defense I could have been thrown off by the fact that we actually did a fair bit of tomb raiding style adventures. I seem to recall finding traps that could have killed or seriously crippled our (the party’s) frontline fighter or, gods forbid, the cleric. Some of them I disarmed, a large number I simply found a way around. I picked locks to open doors because we were sure that there were terrible things in here with us, and the sound of the fighter bashing the door down would likely be heard by them as a dinner bell of sorts. The wizard could have popped the locks with a knock spell, but he didn’t have any memorized at the time. Since there was a thief in the party, he felt an acid arrow or the like would serve better in case (read: when) something went wrong. Besides, a single knock spell can only open two locks, and any door that is really hiding something would have at least three locks, right? He could have cast knock twice in that case, but 2 2nd level spells to open a door seems a touch... wasteful.


Now that I think about it, I didn’t even feel the obviously unfun nature of my plight when the big fight with the master of the tomb and his undead minions finally went down. As the fighter drew his blade and charged, the cleric held forth his holy symbol and made a turning attempt, and the mage began hurling all of the spells he didn’t waste trying to out thief/scout me, I was busy working my way over to the large statue/idol of the terrible demon/god that this unholy place was consecrated to. We had heard that the eyes were a large pair of flawless rubies, and as my gaze traveled the 12 or so feet up to this thing’s head, I saw that it was true. As my companions fought for their lives (and to keep the enemies off of me) I used my uncool and very, very unfun thief abilities to climb up, find and disarm some traps, and manage to pry the eyes loose. I used my lame tumble non-weapon proficiency to avoid damage as I jumped off of the now animated statue, and proceeded to yell “I’ve got them!!” and make tracks out of there.


Eventually some of the monsters caught up with us, though we had managed to stop the statue, namely by using some of those traps I had unfunly found, and uncooly routed us around rather than disarm. In my ignorance I managed to enjoy the combat I was forced into even though my short sword damage didn’t compete with that being handed out by the fighter and cleric of the party. I even found it kind of exciting… lame, I know.




That’s just one example of a “tomb raid”, not to mention of all the times I used a rogue to fast talk our way past a guard, pick-pocket some coin for an inn room or meal when the party was broke and starving, or plant some choice evidence on an NPC who thought that he was too clever to get caught.


In short I find arguments that thieves need to deal out the big damage in straight-up combats in order to be fun to be untrue on their face.

 

[Voadam]

No. I am suggesting that one of the arguments for making the rogue's sneak attack ability available versus all types of enemies is the assertion that non-critible enemies are so common that the rogue is unfaily punished compared to other classes' situational limitations. It is an easy thing to say, but is it true?

Undead, Constructs, Elementals, Oozes, Plants are all immune by their creature type.

Versus Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants, Dragons, Animals, Vermin, Magical Beasts, Aberrations, Outsiders whose subtypes don't alone make them immune to sneak attacks.

Add on opponents with concealment (such as in poor lighting), fortification armor, uncanny dodge, blindfighting/blindsense/blindsight, and unflankable creatures and it gets reduced even further.

Undead and constructs come up a lot IME. Often they are chosen by designers because they can plausibly be left in dungeons and such as guardians for long periods of time without food or upkeep. Also created undead minions are common because they can be made by relatively low level NPC spellcasters.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Undead and constructs come up a lot IME. Often they are chosen by designers because they can plausibly be left in dungeons and such as guardians for long periods of time without food or upkeep. Also created undead minions are common because they can be made by relatively low level NPC spellcasters.

Right. In addition, you can end up with an adventure theme such as "hunt down the evil Necromancer." Guess what most of those combats are against?

Having played a Rogue in a campaign where almost all we fought were undead and constructs, I can say it gets frustrating to have a class ability you never get to use. That being said, I also do not feel that every creature needs to be susceptible to sneak attack in order to be fun.

 

[fuindordm]

From what it sounds like, they're planning on solving this problem at the monster level rather than the PC level, which is just fine with me.

The rogue will get a sneak attack. The ability description will probably just point out that the creature to be attacked must have obvious vulnerable points.

As a default, all undead and constructs will have vulnerable points. Only a few (animated statues, ghosts...) will be immune to sneak attacks and critical hits.

I too had fun with rogues in earlier editions, but I have more fun with rogues in 3rd edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know I played my share of rogues way back in the 2nd ed days. I had a blast with them, as I recall. I never got backstab damage versus undead, constructs, or a whole boatload of other enemies. Heck, I even failed to backstab the vast majority of plain vanilla humans and orcs that the party got into combat with. I never really felt short changed because I did less damage than the fighter, or because I had fewer hp than the cleric. I even failed to properly begrudge the wizard his ability to use spells.

Clearly you were playing the game the wrong way, with the wrong attitude, and thus are guilty of wrongbadfun. Of course, I note that you are referring to an edition where combats were relatively fast, and where there was no Take 10/Take 20 to let you find any trap that is findable. You were also apparently playing in an exploration-style game. This is also wrongbadfun in 3e, although not (apparently) in 4e.

RC