A club works just fine as well.
Please step away from the 4th edition "effect everything" abilities.
A club works just fine as well.
I would highly advise you to go and study the game a bit if this is the conclusion that you came to.
Like I already said, a club works just fine.
Belphanior
First Post
We're talking about a first level rogue with a club and without a Str bonus. In what way is this character not exactly as effective as a first level commoner with the same equipment and stats? What class feature of the rogue puts him above the commoner?
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
Could. Not. Disagree. More.
I suggest playing a 3X rogue in an all undead campaign for a few sessions and then returning. Or choosing a race for your ranger to hunt that never shows up in the course of the campaign.
It's a terrible idea to make a character significantly more or less effective by choices like this.
I suggest playing a 3X rogue in an all undead campaign for a few sessions and then returning. Or choosing a race for your ranger to hunt that never shows up in the course of the campaign.
It's a terrible idea to make a character significantly more or less effective by choices like this.
I havent read this whole thread, just going to respond to OP.
Agreed on this one. The whole "everything effects everything" 4e'ism sounded so good on paper when we started playing, but it sort of lost its luster as play went on. To me, sometimes players SHOULD be at a disadvantage. Thats just part of the challenge of the game.
The rogue cant backstab that golem? Suck it up. As a DM I will indulge you to find creative solutions to get around this foe. But dont expect that your "stab you way out of this mess" approach is going to work every time.
I always make sure that when you have enemy specific capabilities (like turn undead, or backstab, or ranger favored enemies) that you will get a chance to use it and you will get a chance to steal the limelight, but its not going to happen every time.
There is always room for adjustment (like, for instance, making sure the rogue class is more than just a "stab-monkey") but I like that not every enemy can be combatted through.
Agreed on this one. The whole "everything effects everything" 4e'ism sounded so good on paper when we started playing, but it sort of lost its luster as play went on. To me, sometimes players SHOULD be at a disadvantage. Thats just part of the challenge of the game.
The rogue cant backstab that golem? Suck it up. As a DM I will indulge you to find creative solutions to get around this foe. But dont expect that your "stab you way out of this mess" approach is going to work every time.
I always make sure that when you have enemy specific capabilities (like turn undead, or backstab, or ranger favored enemies) that you will get a chance to use it and you will get a chance to steal the limelight, but its not going to happen every time.
There is always room for adjustment (like, for instance, making sure the rogue class is more than just a "stab-monkey") but I like that not every enemy can be combatted through.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
The bigger question is: how does this affect the game? Backstab IS the rogue's bread and butter once he's got 2+ attacks per round and his backstab is 3d6 or so(which happens about the same time!). I've seen how not allowing the rogue to backstab on an important target plays out. The rogue basically sits down and goes to sleep while the rest of the party beats up the monster. He's literally got nothing to do. Oh sure, he can hit for 1d4(assuming daggers)+str(maybe 2 if he's good). So what, 6 damage, maybe twice?
Being at a disadvantage is fine. Being utterly useless is not. Even if he couldn't smite, the paladin still had a massive two-hander that did 1d12+str(3-4), which he could usually make two attacks with, so he could dish out a whopping 32 damage, three times that of the rogue, no need to smite.
'cause here's the trick. Smite made the paladin BETTER in certain occassions. Backstab makes the rogue NORMAL at all times, because without it, he's worthless in combat.
Putting players at a disadvantage works just fine, but taking away a player's ability to contribute AT ALL is not. If you're going to have encounters in which a rogue cannot backstab, at least give him something else to do, ya know, like try to disable the control panel that's running the golem, or disable the traps shooting poison darts from the walls.
Telling the rogue he can't backstab is like telling the Wizard he can't cast spells. Not the his target is immune to magic or has high spell resistance, that's got it's own loopholes. But try setting up an encounter in an anti-magic zone that the wizard cannot leave. That's how a rogue feels when he can't backstab.
slobster
Hero
Can't xp shidaku, but this is the truth. Being at a disadvantage in a combat is fine. Setting up encounters that are beyond the players' ability to fight through, and must be circumvented by other means, is fine.
Rogues had to deal with fights that were basically in the second category for them, where they couldn't hope to harm the enemy meaningfully, but everyone else was hacking away as normal. In 3rd it wasn't a rare thing, either. Elementals, constructs, undead, and plants were all blanket immune to sneak attack, and some of those categories could fill up substantial portions of an adventure.
Setting up an extremely unbalanced fight like this might have it's place, when used extremely sparingly and spread around the group. Superman had stories where his powers were gone and he had to find ways to be a hero without being a superhero (as a random but hopefully apt example), and when that happens once or so a campaign (inserted deliberately for a certain purpose) it can be interesting.
It shouldn't happen by accident every other fight.
Rogues had to deal with fights that were basically in the second category for them, where they couldn't hope to harm the enemy meaningfully, but everyone else was hacking away as normal. In 3rd it wasn't a rare thing, either. Elementals, constructs, undead, and plants were all blanket immune to sneak attack, and some of those categories could fill up substantial portions of an adventure.
Setting up an extremely unbalanced fight like this might have it's place, when used extremely sparingly and spread around the group. Superman had stories where his powers were gone and he had to find ways to be a hero without being a superhero (as a random but hopefully apt example), and when that happens once or so a campaign (inserted deliberately for a certain purpose) it can be interesting.
It shouldn't happen by accident every other fight.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I houseruled it thusly and solved all the problems, while not allowing rogues to backstab everything.
If the creature can reasonably be said to have a discernable front with no alternate-direction facing eyes, it can be backstabbed.
If a creature is intelligent enough to be capable of focusing on a target, or unintelligent to not give to doops what's behind it, it can be backstabbed.
Undead was the most ridiculously generic category ever, as it assumed these things couldn't be backstabbed because they lacked vitals. Backstabbing doesn't just mean you're vital-stabbing, it also means you're hitting where a creature isn't paying attention and can't react quickly enough. You don't have to have vitals to get hit where you aren't protecting. And also: vampires? WTF. Vampires are all about stabbing them in the heart when they're not looking!
slobster
Hero
I had a player who had a similar wtf moment the first time he fought a zombie. Wait, you can't score a crit? Then how am I supposed to destroy its brain?
We houseruled on the spot that you can, and indeed should, crit zombies early and often, lest the zombiepocalypse overtake the world.
Similar Threads
