Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12

[BobTheNob]

If you want to dish out damage in combat, play a fighter.

This whole idea of rogues being able to do ridiculous damage in combat... ugh. It's frustrating and utterly nonsensical, to me. I can understand increasing damage dealt when you have some kind of advantage, but rogues in the last couple editions have been ridiculous.

When I hear "thief" or "rogue," I shouldn't immediately think "oh, this is the guy that will stab everyone's faces off."

They could make the rogue the skillmonkey. There's nothing wrong with that. Building a fresh system from the ground up, you could easily find a way to make that function. Reserve the sneaky stabbiness for the assassin.

I do empathise with our frustration. To be honest, the evolution of the rogue through 3e and 4e hasnt thrilled me.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I dunno, the Essentials Thief is pretty awesome. And it's not because of his ninja combat skills (which he admittedly has), but because he's a Thief. A thiefy thief Thief.

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you want to dish out damage, play a Cleric, Druid, or some kind of caster.

The overabundance of high damage output spells of spellcasting classes is another discussion entirely. I'd argue that, in order for spellcasters to not outshine everyone else, the vision for casters needs to be given an overhaul.

If you want to be good in combat, play a fighter. That is the way it should be.

There are lots of different interpretations for rogues, we shouldn't need a "rogue that does damage" class and a "rogue that has skills" class. That's just redundant.

They've said they're bringing back the assassin. What is an assassin but essentially a rogue that deals damage?

If you know that you want both the rogue and the assassin in the game at the outset, you can design them so they don't occupy the exact same niche: give rogues more variety in their skill selection, make assassins capable of more damage.

 

[GreyICE]

I dunno. I feel the game is a tad simplistic if the only measure of combat effectiveness is damage.

What if the assassin has crippling poisons that deal ongoing damage and inflict conditions? What if the assassin can make a called shot where he focuses on his target for 2 rounds then hits with an auto-critical attack with huge bonuses to hit?

Why does the assassin have to be solely defined as 'damage dealer?'

Also, if the fighter is the highest damage dealer, where does that leave the monk and the ranger?

 

[GnomeWorks]

I dunno. I feel the game is a tad simplistic if the only measure of combat effectiveness is damage.

This is D&D. There's only so many knobs and dials that can be adjusted.

What if the assassin has crippling poisons that deal ongoing damage and inflict conditions? What if the assassin can make a called shot where he focuses on his target for 2 rounds then hits with an auto-critical attack with huge bonuses to hit?

Poisons deal damage. Crits deal damage.

Conditions are a good way to make combat interesting, but they'd need to be (1) varied enough to keep it interesting for the player, (2) simple enough to keep track of reasonably, and (3) balanced with normal damage.

Why does the assassin have to be solely defined as 'damage dealer?'

That is generally how you deal with threats in D&D.

I also didn't say that. Assassins could be - essentially - what the 3.5/4e rogue is, high damage output with some sneaking skills. The rogue could be more skill-focused and less combat-focused.

Also, if the fighter is the highest damage dealer, where does that leave the monk and the ranger?

The monk... is a conceptual mess. I'm not sure what you'd do with it.

The ranger has the whole nature theme going on. They're not just about combat, they're also about wilderness exploration and survival.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I dunno, the Essentials Thief is pretty awesome. And it's not because of his ninja combat skills (which he admittedly has), but because he's a Thief. A thiefy thief Thief.

How ya figure?

The E-Thieves I've seen aren't any more thiefy than a your basic rogue or whatever. They've got about the same skills. About the same ability scores. About the same abilities. They're generally more accurate (CRAZY accurate!) and able to blow holes in the opposition (WIDE holes) and move around a lot, but that's all ninja combat skill, not thiefery.

That's kind of the disappointing thing about 4e rogues and thieves to me. They're combat beasts, like every other 4e character. Their ability to contribute out of combat is exactly like every other 4e character's ability. That homogeneity makes me a saaad panda.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Their ability to contribute out of combat is exactly like every other 4e character's ability. That homogeneity makes me a saaad panda.

So you'd like to see something like this?

 

[Viking Bastard]

How ya figure?

The E-Thieves I've seen aren't any more thiefy than a your basic rogue or whatever. They've got about the same skills. About the same ability scores. About the same abilities. They're generally more accurate (CRAZY accurate!) and able to blow holes in the opposition (WIDE holes) and move around a lot, but that's all ninja combat skill, not thiefery.

That's kind of the disappointing thing about 4e rogues and thieves to me. They're combat beasts, like every other 4e character. Their ability to contribute out of combat is exactly like every other 4e character's ability. That homogeneity makes me a saaad panda.

Dunno, awesome flavor? It hits all the right beats for me, which the Core Rogue didn't. I'll totally buy that you can probably easily build something very similar with a Core Rogue or Ranger, but it doesn't happend by default.

4e put a lot of weight on the shoulders of flavor, but that's a complaint of 4e, not the 4e Thief.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you want to be good in combat, play a fighter. That is the way it should be.

I vehemently disagree. Multiple classes should be good in combat. Fighters should also be good outside of combat.
If the game is essentially divided up into thirds(combat, exploration, socialization), I think it's fair to say the fighter might be a 60/20/20 by default. Maybe the rogue is more of a 40/30/30. I honestly think that the decision to be "good" in combat should be available to all classes, because not all campaigns will evenly balance the three prime elements. I don't want to see people start going "well if you play a combat heavy game you have to be a fighter, if you play an exploration heavy game you have to be a rogue." That's an even worse use of roles than 4e, in fact it's even worse than most MMOs.

They've said they're bringing back the assassin. What is an assassin but essentially a rogue that deals damage?

There's been a lot of discussion about "what is an assassin", and some of the premises people have presented don't even involve damage. Some are the "silent killer" guy who studies his enemy for weeks and then makes a single SoD attack in the dark of the night. Some are more of a "damage dealing" guy.

If you know that you want both the rogue and the assassin in the game at the outset, you can design them so they don't occupy the exact same niche: give rogues more variety in their skill selection, make assassins capable of more damage.

See, I don't want to see clone-variant classes get their own class. I'm a big favor of having a few "base" classes and each one having archetypes or builds or just bits and pieces that people can use to construct what they think the class should be.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I vehemently disagree. Multiple classes should be good in combat.

Right... I'll agree that combat is a large part of D&D. There are going to be many classes good at it, but when you distill them down, they're almost always "fighter with a different flavor/approach/other non-combat stuff."

Fighters should also be good outside of combat.

Meh? I think I disagree. It's right there in the name: Fighter. If you want to be good at other stuff, too, don't play a fighter. Or multiclass. Or some other option. But the default stance of the fighter should be all about fighting.

I honestly think that the decision to be "good" in combat should be available to all classes, because not all campaigns will evenly balance the three prime elements.

You're right, they won't. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to be good at everything.

You are not your class. If they have any kind of functional multiclassing, this should be an obvious statement. Fighters should be, to use your metrics, 100/0/0 (or close to it). If you want more variety, invoke multiclassing. In this manner, if you want a mage who has some combat skill, take a level of fighter... likewise, if you want a fighter good at social stuff, take a level in a class that is good at that. Treat the classes more as parts of a buffet that each level grants you things that say "I am good at X," rather than considering them as strait-jackets.

I don't want to see people start going "well if you play a combat heavy game you have to be a fighter, if you play an exploration heavy game you have to be a rogue." That's an even worse use of roles than 4e, in fact it's even worse than most MMOs.

You don't "play a fighter." You play a character with fighter levels. An important distinction. This (hopefully) isn't going to be 4e with its weird roles and heavy-handed restrictions and take on multiclassing. Character design via classes will hopefully be a lot more fluid, similar to 3.5, without the higher-level fail that that method entailed.

There's been a lot of discussion about "what is an assassin", and some of the premises people have presented don't even involve damage. Some are the "silent killer" guy who studies his enemy for weeks and then makes a single SoD attack in the dark of the night. Some are more of a "damage dealing" guy.

I'm not really sure what I think an assassin should be, but it would be a useful dumping ground for the rogue's combat ability. *shrug*

See, I on't want to see clone-variant classes get their own class. I'm a big favor of having a few "base" classes and each one having archetypes or builds or just bits and pieces that people can use to construct what they think the class should be.

In which case you would probably be of the opinion that the few base classes should cover as different ground as possible to ensure maximum coverage of the in-between areas.

It doesn't make sense, in that vision, that both fighters and rogues should have combat ability, even if it's different. Rogues should be more exploration-focused, and fighters combat-focused. If you want to mix and match, then mix and match classes.