Ranger/Thief backstab question

[Fisk]

You guys kill me.... In other posts you have made you proclaim common sense and with this subject you throw it out the window..

My guess is that a majority of you love to play a rouge and want to keep dealing out "Salsa Damage".

I think that to percieve the sneak attack in any other words other than "backstab" is silly.

Play it however you want.. you will anyway but common sense says that a "rouge" performing a "sneak attack" does so on an unaware opponant.... (no dex bonus... blah blah... define it how you will...) He should get his primary weapon and off hand weapon bonus damage on his initial thrust attack...

Any additional attacks that represent the rest of his 'full attack ability' would be made as normal.

Since the combat round is over a 6 second period its pretty niave to think that the creature is simply going to continue to let some one make his back side into pulp.

And it is completely ludicrous to have to put undead and constucts into each adventure just to balance out the rouges...

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

balance out the rouges...

I really really don't want to flame you for this, but I feel almost obligated. Before you start insulting everyone's favorite class, learn how to spell.

I have to admit that when I first started looking at 3e I was quite distressed by the amount of extra damage that a rogue can deal while flanking. However, after looking at a few statistical analyses it became apparent that while the rogue can deal a little bit more damage than a fighter of equal level, over the short term, that gets balanced out by both fights with crit immune creatures and the fact that the fighter actually gets to stay in combat instead of running back to the cleric for healing.

 

[Vaxalon]

...rouge ... "rouge" ...rouges...

I saw this and just laughed, and laughed.

Thanks Fisk, you have, in your own way, argued eloquently that things are fine the way they are.

 

[graydoom]

[rant]
Format:

Quote

"Sarcastic remark that really should not be said, but I'm sarcastic." Lesson that should be followed in discussions like this.

You guys kill me.... In other posts you have made you proclaim common sense and with this subject you throw it out the window..

"Hmm. Or maybe we think this is a legitimate interpretation of the data and maybe, just maybe everyone doesn't think exactly like you!" Lesson 0: Insults, accusations of hypocrisy, and so on never help.

My guess is that a majority of you love to play a rouge and want to keep dealing out "Salsa Damage".

"And my bet is that you just hate rogues and want them to be crippled." Lesson 1: Saying that someone is a "class-hater" or "class-lover" contributes nothing to a discussion except a greater tendency to become a flame-war.

I think that to percieve the sneak attack in any other words other than "backstab" is silly.

"Hmmm. Or maybe we think of it as when the rogue is able to attack the opponent when the opponent cannot effectively defend himself, and strike a vital spot for extra damage, just like the PHB says on page 47." Lesson 2: Sarcasm may make you feel better, but it just gets other people sarcastic. Like this. Heck, I'm feeling a lot better right now.

Play it however you want.. you will anyway but common sense says that a "rouge" performing a "sneak attack" does so on an unaware opponant.... (no dex bonus... blah blah... define it how you will...) He should get his primary weapon and off hand weapon bonus damage on his initial thrust attack...

Any additional attacks that represent the rest of his 'full attack ability' would be made as normal.

Since the combat round is over a 6 second period its pretty niave to think that the creature is simply going to continue to let some one make his back side into pulp.

"Hmmm. Or maybe we don't think of sneak attack as the same as the near-equivalent of it from 2e. Maybe we think of it like the PHB seems to on page 47. Maybe the creature will continue to be unable to "effectively defend itself" for as long as the conditions for the rogue to be able to make a sneak attack exist." Lesson 3: References to "common sense" rarely help. Nor does it help to claim that only one interpretation of how things can work is the only way it can work.

And it is completely ludicrous to have to put undead and constucts into each adventure just to balance out the rouges...

"Yeah, and it's totally insane to have to think at all! I mean, the DM shouldn't have to think! Why should I have to put in monsters to balance out the players?" Lesson 4: All balance is dependent on a well-balanced adventure. A hackfest adventure will make combat skills more valuable. A adventure with absolutely no combat will make combat skills less valuable and diplomatic skills more valuable. You cannot isolate an atypical, unbalanced campaign and say that the conditions in it are true for all campaigns. And just like that, a campaign with absolutely no constructs, undead, plants, oozes, or armors of fortification will make sneak attack more valuable, and a campaign of only constructs, undead, plants, and oozes will make sneak attack less valuable.
Claiming that you have to put in undead and constructs to balance out rogues is like claiming you have to put in monsters other than ones with low HP and AC to balance out fighters. Well, duh.

Any class will become imbalanced if the campaign that it is in is imbalanced. And pretty much any class can do massive damage is you set it up just right. This does not mean that said classes are overpowered.
[/rant]

Normally I try to stay calm, but sometimes I get sarcastic. Sorry about the above if it gets anyone mad . But you really shouldn't insult people and stuff like that when you are making posts like this, or use loaded words like "naive" and so on. I probably do stuff like that way too often myself... that's why I try to stay away from discussions that go nowhere .
Please, don't post things like "My guess is that you all just hate rogues. I picture Sneak Attack like this, and any other interpretation is silly. Common sense says that a rogue performing a sneak attack should be godly. It's pretty naive to think otherwise. And it's completely ludicrous how rogues can't affect constructs or undead."

 

[CRGreathouse]

Graydoom - I heartily support your rant. Heated discussions aren't productive at all.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Common sense says that a rogue performing a sneak attack should be godly.

But, Greydoom, rogues performing sneak attacks should be godly. I've always house-ruled that rogues get 5d6 of sneak attack damage every level, and that's the only way it should ever be done. Otherwise, the next thing you know, fighters are going to start insisting that they should get a chance to fight in combat.
---------------------

Rogue: Come on, all you have to do is walk down this little hallway before anyone else. After all, did I complain when all you did when the ogre showed up was stand there?

Fighter: But you killed the thing before I even had a chance to turn around. Besides, we've already lost three party members to your little walks in the dungeon tonight.

Oh, all right!!

(Crash, Bang, Whizz, Slice, Splatter, Drip Drip Drip)

Rogue: Well, that was impressive. Next up!!

------------------------

Seriously though, job very well done, Greydoom.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But you really shouldn't insult people and stuff like that when you are making posts like this, or use loaded words like "naive" and so on.

In Fisk's defence, the loaded word he used was "niave".

Now, I don't know the word myself, but maybe it's not as bad as "naive"

-Hyp.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

This is just geting meen!!

Bad spellers of the world untie!!!!

 

[Albereth]

Greydoom,

/me applauds!!!

Hyper - niave pronounced knee- ave - this could be another term for a genuflection but if it is I have no idea where it might fit in with the discussion

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyper - niave pronounced knee- ave - this could be another term for a genuflection but if it is I have no idea where it might fit in with the discussion

Hmm.

If we're going with Latin pronunciation, we get pretty close to "Knee Away".

Which might be a Feat that combines Knockback with Dirty Fighting... good for a Fighter/Rogue, maybe?

-Hyp.