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

[BryonD]

Originally Posted by Bedrockgames
For me including mundane encounters and dailies would be a bit of a deal breaker.

Even if you didn't have to take them?

Keep in mind that "deal breaker" comes down to whether or not the new game is better than what you already have. And the bar is very very high.

If the game is designed with the intent accounting for the presence of a bunch of optional elements that I'm not using, the potential for it to be even better than what I already have is very slim.

If they can do that, then by all means, pass the dice.

But the idea that you didn't have to take them is one thing. The idea that they can be ignored and the game is not only seamless but also just happens to be better than games that were designed without this extra burden of working around various contingencies and alternates is very much another.

 

[Sunseeker]

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."

Because magic has traditionally been useless in combat right?

I think the argument that most martial classes are essentially fighter variants is a powerful one, and I think it's a good argument for archetypes, builds, trees or what have you to allow people to turn the basic martial package into the martial "class" they want to play.

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 hate multiclassing. It requires extreme system mastery and is generally an excuse to make poorly thought-out classes(which I would consider any class that is only good in one area). Not to mention, having a fighter only fight is just plain BORING. You're basically encouraging players to walk away from the table when they're not in their element. I do not want to see players encouraged to walk away from the table because their character is useless at everything but fighting/skilling/socializing.

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

Now you've stopped listening and are reading what you think I said and not what I actually said. I did not say that everyone should be good at everything, I agree that everyone should not be able to do everything equally. However, no class should be completely cut out from a given element of the game, because that means a player is cut out from a given element of the game. If you actually read what I wrote you should take note of my breakdown.
The fighter should be GREAT at combat, probably good at exploring, and bad at socializing.
The Rogue should be good at combat, pretty good at exploring, and pretty good at socializing.
The Wizard should be good at combat, bad at exploring, and okay at socializing.
Every class and therefore every player should be able to contribute to all aspects of the game. They shouldn't all be equally good at everything, but they should have something to bring to the table. Fighter has high Intimidate, Rogue has high diplomacy. Wizard has high Knowledge. By these skills combined the party is powerful.

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.

No. Just, no. That is quite frankly not the D&D I'm interested in, in fact it doesn't even sound like D&D.

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.

You know what Pathfinder fixed about 3.5's multiclassing? You don't need it. Most brilliant decision it could ever have made. You shouldn't need to have extreme system mastery(which is what multiclassing requires) in order to function normally. You are right that we're not playing "a fighter", we're playing a person who likes to fight. That person however can do a lot more than just fight. To not represent this and instead make classes into extreme charactachures is just plain...bad.

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*

I really can't do anything other than facepalm at this statement. It says so much about what you think of classes and class design. "Dumping ground", yes, lets tell players that they only have combat ability because the designers considered their class a "dumping ground". Why doesn't their class work well? Because the designers didn't care, their class was just a giant trash bin.

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.

Why? Why is it so hard to believe that two people who lived and trained differently fight differently? What part of that "doesn't make sense"? Wizards cast magic because they trained in it. Fighters wield swords because they train in it. If we're playing well-rounded characters, why should a fighter be useless at anything other than fighting? Real people don't act like that. To be any use in any game, most people would have to be fighter1/rogue1/something 1 and that's just silly. It's indicative of bad game design.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Thing is, that approaches a classless system. "Everyone's an Adventurer and you can cherry-pick what that means to you!"

Ain't nothin' wrong with a classless system. I think I'd even really enjoy a hypothetical classless D&D.

But D&D isn't that system. D&D is the class-based RPG. Classes are an iconic D&D element.

Now, you can have part of your cake and eat it too, with 3e-style multiclassing. In that case, you're never really just one class. Fighters can be ALL FIGHT, because if you want to do something other than fight, you will take a bard level, or a rogue level, and you won't be all fighter all the time anymore. You could also have a rogue who blows at combat, because if you want to rock the combat, you can just take a level of fighter.

The trick in that is to get all the multiclass options to play nice with each other, so that you don't wind up with accidental suck, and so you don't wind up with a killer combo, and that can be very difficult. That's something I'm reasonably confident, with 4e as a starting point for better maths, the design team can get very right.

 

[Sunseeker]

Thing is, that approaches a classless system. "Everyone's an Adventurer and you can cherry-pick what that means to you!"

Ain't nothin' wrong with a classless system. I think I'd even really enjoy a hypothetical classless D&D.

But D&D isn't that system. D&D is the class-based RPG. Classes are an iconic D&D element.

Approaches, yes, but doesn't become. A lot of classes are redundant, and those specifically should be merged into their root tree. A barbarian is a fighter with no armor and a bigger sword, and rage powers. Any fighter can use a big sword and no armor. So all a barbarian really has going for them is "rage powers", to me, that's just not enough to qualify it as it's own class.
The Paladin has smite, lay on hands, heavy armor, big sword/sword and board, aura's and other effects that neither fighters nor clerics have. Take away the fighter bits and the cleric bits and we've still got smite, lay on hands, auras. That's a much better base for a class, though I'd like to see more.

Now, you can have part of your cake and eat it too, with 3e-style multiclassing. In that case, you're never really just one class. Fighters can be ALL FIGHT, because if you want to do something other than fight, you will take a bard level, or a rogue level, and you won't be all fighter all the time anymore. You could also have a rogue who blows at combat, because if you want to rock the combat, you can just take a level of fighter.

Even in 3.X, fighters could still do a little out of combat. I'm okay with classes having few abilities in any of the given triad, but I'm not okay with them having none. That means players are going to be forced to sacrifice what they want to play for what they need to play. It basically screams "WE NEED CHAROP BOARDS!" just to play the normal game.

The trick in that is to get all the multiclass options to play nice with each other, so that you don't wind up with accidental suck, and so you don't wind up with a killer combo, and that can be very difficult. That's something I'm reasonably confident, with 4e as a starting point for better maths, the design team can get very right.

That's why I prefer 4e's much more well-rounded classes to the "I only do one thing and one thing ever." class. That's why I play Pathfinder instead of 3.5, because multiclassing should be because you want to, not because you have to.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Because magic has traditionally been useless in combat right?

What is a combat-focused mage but, essentially, a fighter with a different approach to combat?

I think the argument that most martial classes are essentially fighter variants is a powerful one, and I think it's a good argument for archetypes, builds, trees or what have you to allow people to turn the basic martial package into the martial "class" they want to play.

I'll tend to agree with this. However there has to be a trade-off. Like I said, the base fighter - again, using your metrics - should be 100/0/0, and modifications to gain other things (be it through multiclassing or packages or whatever you want to call them) lose something from that "100" and put it elsewhere.

I hate multiclassing. It requires extreme system mastery and is generally an excuse to make poorly thought-out classes(which I would consider any class that is only good in one area).

It doesn't have to. You seem to be arguing against one particular take on multiclassing. I'll agree that 3.5 multiclassing did encourage extreme system mastery, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Not to mention, having a fighter only fight is just plain BORING. You're basically encouraging players to walk away from the table when they're not in their element. I do not want to see players encouraged to walk away from the table because their character is useless at everything but fighting/skilling/socializing.

You seem really insistent on the idea of class as a strait-jacket. That baffles me.

If you view classes as things you invest in, rather than as things that define you, your issue goes away. If you want to be all gung-ho about combat, just be a fighter - chances are good you weren't going to be interested in the other aspects anyway, if you do that.

Now you've stopped listening and are reading what you think I said and not what I actually said.

You need to chill, man.

I'm sorry if I misread what you wrote, but you don't need to be a prick about it. It's not my intent here to misinterpret and argue with strawmen.

However, no class should be completely cut out from a given element of the game, because that means a player is cut out from a given element of the game.

This only matters if you view class as a strait-jacket. I'd argue that it shouldn't be as such.

Every class and therefore every player should be able to contribute to all aspects of the game. They shouldn't all be equally good at everything, but they should have something to bring to the table. Fighter has high Intimidate, Rogue has high diplomacy. Wizard has high Knowledge. By these skills combined the party is powerful.

I can see where you are coming from, but this still just seems unnecessary and muddies the waters a lot between classes.

No. Just, no. That is quite frankly not the D&D I'm interested in, in fact it doesn't even sound like D&D.

Funny. Sounds a lot like 3.5 to me.

You know what Pathfinder fixed about 3.5's multiclassing? You don't need it. Most brilliant decision it could ever have made. You shouldn't need to have extreme system mastery(which is what multiclassing requires) in order to function normally. You are right that we're not playing "a fighter", we're playing a person who likes to fight. That person however can do a lot more than just fight. To not represent this and instead make classes into extreme charactachures is just plain...bad.

Again, you seem to be assuming a rather specific take on multiclassing and what it means to take levels in a class.

Classes are archetypes. Archetypes basically are charicatures, at their most basic level. I don't see anything wrong with this sort of take on them.

I really can't do anything other than facepalm at this statement. It says so much about what you think of classes and class design.

Here, let me put it out in the open for you: I hate classes. I think they are utterly ridiculous strait-jackets, even as open as they can be when you involve multiclassing and themes and all these other fiddly bits DDN seems to be introducing. Mechanically-convenient packages, yes, but their existence is unnecessary and, in my mind, conceptually-limiting for players of the game.

However, D&D has them, and they're not going away. I'm sorry that we know next to nothing about the assassin, but it seems a reasonable place to put the face-stabbing aspects of the rogue.

Why? Why is it so hard to believe that two people who lived and trained differently fight differently? What part of that "doesn't make sense"? Wizards cast magic because they trained in it. Fighters wield swords because they train in it. If we're playing well-rounded characters, why should a fighter be useless at anything other than fighting? Real people don't act like that. To be any use in any game, most people would have to be fighter1/rogue1/something 1 and that's just silly. It's indicative of bad game design.

Why are we assuming well-rounded characters? That seems to be silly - why should we assume that people want to play characters capable in multiple areas? It's easier to make the baseline assumption that a class is good at X, and next to useless at anything else. Make multiclassing clean, simple, and effective, and then you can build characters that have a variety of good at X, by taking differing number of levels in the class.

You don't ask the English major questions about Physics. You don't ask the Philosophy major questions about Computer Science. When you focus on something, you sacrifice the ability to focus on other things. If you want well-rounded, you give up mastery. The fighter who has been a fighter all his life will deal with combat situations like nothing, but will have little ability elsewhere because he has spent all his time training to learn how to fight. If you want to expand outside of fighting, you invest in a class other than fighter.

 

[GnomeWorks]

And on another note, related to class design...

These pillar things keep getting brought up, what are they, combat, exploration, social?

Yet I keep seeing the same basic four classes thrown around: fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric.

Where the heck are the classes that are 15/15/70? More social than anything else? Where is the 10/80/10 guy, whose job is to get you from Point A to Point B, but isn't so good at dealing with monsters or talking to people?

This is part of my issue with the rogue having sneak attack. The rogue could very well be the exploration-focused class, with a little combat thrown in. But sneak attack just ratchets up the combat aspect.

 

[Savage Wombat]

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?'

Well, apparently because other players were griping about the excessive number of conditions and wanted them removed.

Some people apparently hate the idea of having the concept of "stunned" using the same rule regardless of source.

Weird.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Where the heck are the classes that are 15/15/70?

I'd rather not see any class hard-coded to 15/15/70. What I'd like to see instead is a class that has options available in proportion to each other as 15/15/70. That way, the player could decide to focus solely on the smaller list of combat options and end up with a character that is 100/0/0 or any combination they wish to pursue. With this idea in mind, I definetly do not want to see a class that starts with a zero in any of the three categories, thus lacking options for the player.

 

[zlorf]

Blog: Sneak Attack vs Backstab 3/28/12

hi,

not sure if anyone mentioned it in a previous post, but it looks like in 5e you can sneak attack anything ala 4e. This is one of the things that seems to erk the 3.5 players i play with. Sneak attack if i remember in 3.5 allows someone to strike a vital area of the monster/NPC/PC and do extra damage, but this wouldnt work on most undead and constructs. I think they should add an addition section to the monsters (ie called it advanced stats) that state if the monster can be sneaked etc. It's there in the core, but optional depending on your style and the players.

I hope they do alot of optional rules, especially when considering how often you play, how experienced your group is or how fast/streamline you want to the rules. Might end up with Core rules basic and core rules advanced...with other books, supporting both. Maybe to much for WOTC to handle..will see

Cheers
Zlorf

 

[WizarDru]

Pathfinder only. Not 3.5

Empower Spell, however, is a 3.0 and 3.5 feat that is core.

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

When we played D&D 3.X up to Epic, the high-level wizard always had some empowered fireballs handy, which did 15d6. To say nothing of Delayed Blast Fireball (also core) which could do up to 20d6.