Ampersand: Sneak Attack

I think the biggest thing people who are saying "there are not enough options for the class" or assume that large chunks of the class description are missing are thinking in terms of a 3e mindset. In 3e (and prior editions as well) the class was the primary way the character was defined. That's why we had such a proliferation of kits, prestige classes, substitution levels and alternative class features, and not many new character races. Heck, there weren't even as many feats as we expected.

I think there are more rogue powers than what we currently see, but otherwise I'm sure that what you see is pretty much what you get. The limited weapons list, the limited skill list, and the smaller sneak attack is probably indicative of the class being about a 1/3 of the character's abilities and powers, rather than the 70-80% it was in 3e.

So here are my guesses for how it will go down. We've been told that a elven fighter will play significantly different from a dwarven one right? It seems that weapon lists will be part of that, judging by the elf racial entry which not only got proficiency in bows, but gets an "elven accuracy" ability as an encounter power. Thus, if you want to play a rogue good with a shortbow playing an elf is probably your best bet.

I also think feats will be a bigger part of the equation as well. I would be very surprised if a fighter can take wizard training and trapfinding, but a rogue can't take abilities which train him in other weapons in the list. I imagine training in the rapier and shield buckler will hopefully provide enough mechanical benefits to make it worthwhile. The rapier was a shortsword with a higher crit range in 3e, so I imagine that the rapier in 4e will help with precise strikes and parrying. They've also already said that shields are going to be better than a flat +1-3 to AC, so we'll have to wait and see about that.

I am also sure you could also use your with a shortbow, but I imagine that it will always be difficult to be equal to an elf in archery.

I also imagine that feats and powers will allow you to add to class abilities. For example, I don't think all rogues will sneak attack equally. I imagine if you spend feats or powers to be a good swashbuckler, you'll still be doing +2d6 sneak attack at 10th level. If you take feats or powers to make you a dirty rotten cheater, I imagine sneak attack will get a lot more interesting.

Oh, as a final note on the avoid armour class by targeting a defender's reflex save... yeah I can see that being annoying to a defender. But I also fully expect that defenders are the guys rogues want to annoy with stabbing the least. That's probably why Mouseferatu doesn't use it very often.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Jeff Wilder said:
True, but after each takes, say, three attacks from a longsword, they'll no longer have the same hit points, right? (Most likely.)

There's really no need to randomize both "damage taking" and "damage dealt." In fact, if you randomize both, you increase the effect of bad luck, which as we all know by now disproportionately affects PCs. So you randomize only weapon/spell damage, because that makes things more uncertain in combat, thus adding excitement. And if you get unlucky in the "HP and damage" department, it's only for one encounter, not for the entire life of the character.

Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.

I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs). Just as DMs usually use tougher variants for monsters against a more "effective" party (i.e. a party that has "combat-maximized" builds or powerful magical items).

My favourite PC of all time was a (AD&D) half-elven 8th level fighter with 39 HPs (including +2 HPs/level for Con). It didn't make him "unplayable" or "unlucky", because his foes had lower-than-average HPs, too. And I never felt that he'd have been *more fun* to play just because he'd have doubled his HPs.

IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play. For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly. A concrete example:

Player 1 (Warlord): "So this Elven Wizard holds an Orb but does not have any rings on his hands? Alright, he's probably 10th level in that case... he's got 50-60 HPs, assuming Con 14."
Player 2 (Wizards): "Yeah, and since it's an orb, we can expect Acid and Lightning... so I'm using my Fireblast ability at first round to dish out 25-30 points. Can you deal with the rest? Rogue?"
Player 3 (Rogue): "My First Strike ability combined with Precise Strike and Sneak Attack will dish out about 25 damage and since it's a Wizard, it's against his Ref defense... yeah, 25 from me."
Player 4 (Fighter): "I'll use my Bulwark of Defense to bolster your Defenses and it'll make him target me anyway, so no worries! Warlord, scream that 'Shaft yon beas... er, wizard... for me!' and you get all extra attacks just in case!"
Player 1 (Warlord): "Hell yeah! So we can take him out on round 1? Kewl beans..."
DM: "Alright, roll for initiative!"
 

Primal said:
I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that

Every time someone replies to "this rule doesn't work" with "but the DM can do..." or "but the DM can change...", GOD KILLS A KITTEN.

Please, think of the kittens.
 

Primal said:
I never thought rolling badly for HPs would make a character "boring" or "unplayable", as long as your DM realizes that PCs with less-than-average HPs are mechanically weaker in combat and this needs to balanced in some way (e.g. by giving monsters less than average HPs).

Which leads to the exact same gameplay experience as having standardized hit points. Why not just have standardized hit points and save yourself a lot of paperwork?

Plus, if you have a player who has had several bad rolls of the dice, and the rest of the party has had average rolls what do you do? Direct the enemies away from the weak one? I introduced a second wind mechanic to a one-shot 3.5 game and it was the best decision I made. I could actually attack the wizard with a melee-based monster and take a good chunk out of her without shattering wizard like glass. It still hurt (and it contributed to her not surviving to the end of the combat) but it allowed the players to react in time to pull her away from that monster. I hope 4e, unlike 3e, can have all players handle aggro for a round or two, and standardized hit points will do a lot to help that.

Player 1 (Warlord): "So this Elven Wizard holds an Orb but does not have any rings on his hands? Alright, he's probably 10th level in that case... he's got 50-60 HPs, assuming Con 14."
.....
Player 1 (Warlord): "Hell yeah! So we can take him out on round 1? Kewl beans..."
DM: "Alright, roll for initiative!"

That doesn't happen in 3e? That pretty much describes most conversations before a fight begins in the campaigns I play and DM...
 

Primal said:
Alright, seriously, I was disappointed -- it seems that while combat may have fewer *rolls*, it's become a *LOT* more complex and tactical in nature.

And here, it's the first thing that's really gotten me excited. I love RPing and storytelling and plot, but plot is about conflict, and if conflict resolution is too simple/boring, then, the game as awhole fails for me. I like crunch. Lots and lots of crunch. If there's a simple underlying system, bot lots of options which really matter, without a single obvious 'best choice' round after round...sign me up. The sign a game is boring is when combat consists of a lot of 'I do what I did last round'.
 

tombowings said:
This is one of the first things about 4e I really don't like. Mainly the skills. I thought (hoped) that we were getting rid of class skills. Also, all the skills I never take seem to make up the rogues class skill list. As least Bluff is there, but what happened to Diplomacy? What happened to Gather Information?

Streetwise, I guess.
 

I wonder how crimson edge stacks up agains dragon's tail CUT!!!

Oh and what was the ability the rogue used in Rodney's traps article/blog?? Obviously it included a slide effect.
 

IMO All this reducing of "randomness" will probably increase *meta-gaming* a lot during play. For example, you can pretty guesstimate any NPC BBEG's HPs, and everyone just chooses their actions accordingly. A concrete example:

Is this different from 3e where bad guy HP's are stated in the Monster Manual?

Or, could this possibly be another example where monster design and PC design might be different?
 

MaelStorm said:
Why is everybody jumping out of the roof!

I mean, at first, everybody was like: Oh Cool!

And now: What are they doing to skills? Grrrrr!!!

Hey, I was BOTH. And skills are what started me on the long, rocky, path to whiny grognardism -- SWSE scared me. Scared me like seeing Tammy Faye Bakker naked.
 

Remove ads

Top