Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9621627" data-attributes="member: 7635">Backstab required your enemy to my unaware of you, humanoid in body type with discernable vital organs and medium sized, and required successful sneak rolls. And this is where if the DM was on your side mattered. Because a generous DM would let you disengage from the battle, hide, and set up your strike again. A strict DM could read unaware as being lost once you attacked and you could not hide again in combat. (The enemy is aware you are there and won't drop their guard for such an attack again). I've seen DMs run it both ways. Sneak attack at least had finite rules for flank and surprise style strikes, guaranteeing you can do damage more consistently. (Further, the damage was nothing to write home about. Double dice, then add bonus. A thief with a longsword did at max 2d8+2 damage at low levels. With good rolls, to might take out a lone orc, but try it on an ogre and you're a dead thief. And scaling to 5d8 at level 14 basically is too low against anything of reasonable challenge.) Hence why I felt the rogue was a better designed class. Sneak attack is more reliable and consistent. Evasion and uncanny dodge gave access to defensive tools to help survive. The weapon finesse feat allowed for better melee ability. The thief when it wasn't sneaking was a half-level fighter with lock picks and unless your DM was good about letting him shine in stealth sequences (and was liberal with applying the rules to thief skills). Hence why you were almost always better as a multiclass. You could do something useful when you weren't in the stealth sequences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9621627, member: 7635"] Backstab required your enemy to my unaware of you, humanoid in body type with discernable vital organs and medium sized, and required successful sneak rolls. And this is where if the DM was on your side mattered. Because a generous DM would let you disengage from the battle, hide, and set up your strike again. A strict DM could read unaware as being lost once you attacked and you could not hide again in combat. (The enemy is aware you are there and won't drop their guard for such an attack again). I've seen DMs run it both ways. Sneak attack at least had finite rules for flank and surprise style strikes, guaranteeing you can do damage more consistently. (Further, the damage was nothing to write home about. Double dice, then add bonus. A thief with a longsword did at max 2d8+2 damage at low levels. With good rolls, to might take out a lone orc, but try it on an ogre and you're a dead thief. And scaling to 5d8 at level 14 basically is too low against anything of reasonable challenge.) Hence why I felt the rogue was a better designed class. Sneak attack is more reliable and consistent. Evasion and uncanny dodge gave access to defensive tools to help survive. The weapon finesse feat allowed for better melee ability. The thief when it wasn't sneaking was a half-level fighter with lock picks and unless your DM was good about letting him shine in stealth sequences (and was liberal with applying the rules to thief skills). Hence why you were almost always better as a multiclass. You could do something useful when you weren't in the stealth sequences. [/QUOTE]

Verification