D&D 3E/3.5 Combat Roles: Did The Striker Exist Pre-3e?

[Scholar & Brutalman]

My initial reaction to the combat roles announced for 4th ed - defender, leader, controller and striker - was that WotC was returning to the basic four classes of OD&D with new titles that weren't power source specific.

Now I'm not so sure, because I don't recall the Thief's backstabbing ability really coming off very often in OD&D combat. The original fighter was certainly a defender, at least when in a dungeon, the original cleric a "leader" aka healer, the original wizard an awesome controller if he lived past the first 2 levels. The Thief was really more of a second line fighter, useful for the out-of-combat sneaky stuff but with no real combat role. I don't recall them being much different in 1st ed AD&D. I never played much 2nd ed though.

It seems to me that the striker as a combat role was really introduced in 3e when they designed the rogue to be able to use their signature ability more than once a combat. And though I hear others have different experiences, I've never seen many pure rogues in 3e either. Usually someone just multiclasses as a rogue for a few levels to get the skills and trapfinding. I think that's due to the common monster types that are immune to sneak attacks and the fact that scouting is better done by divination spells rather than sending out the halfling to be a snack.

But my experience may be particularly restricted. Does your mileage vary?

 

[Creamsteak]

I'm a bit curious how the striker role will play out. Is it primarily just a word for a "damage" class? That doesn't mesh well with my personal thinking. In my opinion, every class should be a "damage" class.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I think that's due to the common monster types that are immune to sneak attacks and the fact that scouting is better done by scrying rather than sending out the halfling to be a snack.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there are people who believe that the rogue should be more than 20-40' in front of the party?

And furthermore, that people believe that Scrying is useful for scouting?

Divination spells, I might believe. Arcane Eye, Prying Eyes, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, I can see them being pretty useful for initially mapping dungeons or checking behind doors or similar things...but Scrying?


Anyway, I think there will be a significant variation in reports, but from what I remember from reading my old books, you could only back stab once a fight.

 

[Gloombunny]

I think, early on, thieves were deliberately sub-par during combat, because they had all these non-combat skills that fighters didn't. And I think WotC has been trying to move away from that, because most of the actual time at the table is taken up with combat, and getting to make a few skill rolls outside of combat isn't worth spending all that time as a third-rate shmuck when the fights happen. The striker stuff is their way of finding a way for the rogue to be fun and useful in a fight without stepping on fighter's niche.

(Hopefully they'll also address the other side of this issue and make fighters a bit less useless out of combat.)

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there are people who believe that the rogue should be more than 20-40' in front of the party?

No, I'm saying that people believed that one of the roles of a rogue should be to scout out the enemy and then to report back to the party. I certainly believed that when I first started playing 3.0. We quickly discovered that this wasn't the case. Scouts always seemed to be detected one way or another.

And furthermore, that people believe that Scrying is useful for scouting?

Divination spells, I might believe. Arcane Eye, Prying Eyes, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, I can see them being pretty useful for initially mapping dungeons or checking behind doors or similar things...but Scrying?

I meant divination spells. I'll correct the original post.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I think, early on, thieves were deliberately sub-par during combat, because they had all these non-combat skills that fighters didn't. And I think WotC has been trying to move away from that, because most of the actual time at the table is taken up with combat, and getting to make a few skill rolls outside of combat isn't worth spending all that time as a third-rate shmuck when the fights happen. The striker stuff is their way of finding a way for the rogue to be fun and useful in a fight without stepping on fighter's niche.

I agree that that's what they seem to be doing, and I applaud them for it. I find the idea that players may not get to play much because a session (or a campaign) is heavily social or heavily combat a particularly poor design choice.

(Hopefully they'll also address the other side of this issue and make fighters a bit less useless out of combat.)

Absolutely. All the classes should get something to do. Ideally the game should engage everyone at the table all the time.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I've realized that I have another question: does the striker role exist at all?

 

[FadedC]

Hmmm....well if there ever was a striker class I'd say it's the fighter. It seems most editions he ends up being the one who dishes out the most insane damage to single enemies, weither it's by dual wielding and weapon specialization in 2e, or by two handed weapons and power attack in 3.x. I guess we could throw barbarians in there too, and I remember how popular and insane the archer hybrid was in 3.0 before bows were nerfed in 3.5.

Certainly rogues were never strikers, in pretty much every edition they served the role of utility class who's long term utility was eclipsed by spell casters. But at least they aren't anywhere nearly as insulting in 3e as they were in 2e.

 

[Imp]

Archers were pretty solid in late 1e/(early?) 2e with twice the attacks of a melee fighter early on and weapon spec bonuses that could get pretty big in certain circumstances...

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I didn´t find any information that you could backstab only once in the Rules Cyclopedia. All you had to do was go completely unnoticed to the enemy - Move Silently could be used before combat to do that. +4 to Hit, double damage.

AD&D Backstab is basically the same, only you get an additional damage multiplier per 4 levels (up to X5).

2nd edition is basically 1st edition, but clarifies a lot of stuff: Target loses dexterity or shield bonus, damage multiplier factored in explicitly before strength or weapon bonuses, one one backstab per round, and only humanoid enemies.

So, the thief was not really a high damage dealer in previous editions, but if you want to give him something to do in combat, it was a really good idea (and building on the "tradition", if that is of value to you) to make backstab / sneak attack more useful. YMMV.