Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5918109">The bigger question is: how does this affect the game?&nbsp; 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!).&nbsp; I've seen how not allowing the rogue to backstab on an important target plays out.&nbsp; The rogue basically sits down and goes to sleep while the rest of the party beats up the monster.&nbsp; He's literally got nothing to do.&nbsp; Oh sure, he can hit for 1d4(assuming daggers)+str(maybe 2 if he's good).&nbsp; So what, 6 damage, maybe twice?&nbsp; Being at a disadvantage is fine.&nbsp; Being utterly useless is not.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Smite made the paladin BETTER in certain occassions.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Not the his target is immune to magic or has high spell resistance, that's got it's own loopholes.&nbsp; But try setting up an encounter in an anti-magic zone that the wizard cannot leave.&nbsp; That's how a rogue feels when he can't backstab.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5918109"] 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 [I]literally[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification