Ranger/Thief backstab question

[Fisk]

So according to some of you "wise ones" this board is to regurgitate what is already in the rule books and could be found and figured out by anyone? Well you do quite a service spoon feeding the inept who either don't have the mental capacity or reading comprehension skills to gather and process the material that is laid before them. They are your bread and butter. Without their questions who would you have to point out the obvious to and stroke your egos? Heaven for bid if you were to "flame" them for their weak research ability. Instead you focus on misspelled words.

And I am sure that those other "wise ones" at WOTC thoroughly play tested everything and that everything was in perfect order before they published their product. I am sure their desire to bring their product to market had no impact on how thorough they were play tested. I missed the part in the description of this board where it said the rules couldn't and shouldn't be challenged.

From MeanGenes

"Rogues have a BAB that is only 3/4 that of the fighter, and will only end up hitting about 3/4 as often. "

Do Rogues still only hit 3/4 as much when they have added their bonuses from a flanked position and the creature is denied his Dex modifier (if they have one)?

And to MMU1.

You are truly a piece of work. Here you have the opportunity make a stand and say, "ya I've got a little cartoon guy under my name. I like it. Who cares if you don't like it or what you think." But instead you make some lame comment about me trying to impress people and end your post by groveling that my remarks cut you.

Windows to take a stand even if it is for your "cartoon" don't come to often and its too bad you didn't rise to the occasion.

To the rest of you if you have nothing to add except what the book says, then copy down what the rules say and move on. What more could you possibly add? Are you going to quote the book again? That’s helpful.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Rogues have a BAB that is only 3/4 that of the fighter, and will only end up hitting about 3/4 as often. "

Do Rogues still only hit 3/4 as much when they have added their bonuses from a flanked position and the creature is denied his Dex modifier (if they have one)?

3/4 as often as a Fighter adding his bonuses from flanking attacking a creature denied its Dex bonus? Pretty much, yup.

-Hyp.

 

[CRGreathouse]

From MeanGenes

"Rogues have a BAB that is only 3/4 that of the fighter, and will only end up hitting about 3/4 as often. "

Do Rogues still only hit 3/4 as much when they have added their bonuses from a flanked position and the creature is denied his Dex modifier (if they have one)?

OK, I'll give you some credit for this one. Haing 3/4 of the BAB does not mean they'll hit 3/4 as much; that's a fallacy. However, let's run the numbers:

Given typical allocation of stats, a fighter has 2-4 more Str than a rogue. Combined with Weapon Focus that a rogue won't typically have on first level and better BAB, the fighter has +3 to +4 better than the rogue. If the fighter hits 50% of the time, the rogue hits 30-35% of the time, thus 54% more often.

Given a 10th level fighter and 10th level rogue:
Fighter: +10 BAB, Weapon Focus
Rogue: +7 BAB, Weapon Finesse

If the rogue's Dex is as high as the fighter's Str, the fighter has a net +3 to attacks rolls; if the fighter hits, say, 60% of the time, the rogue hits 45% of the time - 75% of the fighter's total.

Yes, the rogue can catch targets flat-footed and flank them - but so can the fighter. The rogue can (in most cases) deal more damage against sneak-attackable foes, but always deals less against other foes (undead, plants, elementals, constructs, oozes, Monte Cook's vermin, most barbarians, most rogues, and creatures with armor of fortification). The main difference, though, is the difference in hit points. Even with equal Con scores (fighters tend to have better Con), rogues usually have 10-20 hit points less than fighters - and it gets worse on higher levels. This means they can't stay in combat as long todeal out the damage...

3E is very well balanced. Don't worry about it.

 

[Fisk]

The question was not to get tic-tac with the 3/4 of the time issue. Some of the seasoned poster will nit pick the sentence for its deeper meaning long before I will.

The question became one of… if the fighter is doing his standard attack..(play the generalities here-- being the front line guy) and the Rogue is doing his standard attack (from the flank ) is there as great a difference as was implied by the poster who professed so adamantly that rogue must have all his attacks be eligible for the bonus because the rogues to BAB is so low?

The bigger question at this point would be what is the Rogue's role is in an adventuring party. I think that all the other skills he brings add value to his presence other than being another "fighter type specialist". It would appear that you would like the rogue to be more of an assassin. I say that because according to the original poster's post his players complained that the rogue was taking down creatures before the fighters could get in on the action. I say assassin, because while the rogue's targets don't have to make saving throws against death, they are subject to such a large amount of damage that I'm sure the victim wishes he would have had the opportunity for a saving throw.

And if 3E is obviously so balanced why would you waste your time trying to point out the obvious. If it is as obvious as you claim, then we who can not yet see the obvious should be able to recognize how obviously it is balanced in a very short period of time. So why we thank you for you pointing out the obvious it should be obvious that we don't need you to.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The bigger question at this point would be what is the Rogue's role is in an adventuring party. I think that all the other skills he brings add value to his presence other than being another "fighter type specialist".

Go and read this thread... that point has been brought up and argued, and nobody seemed to change their minds that time. The people who thought full sneak attacks are overpowered still do; the people who thought the rules are fine still do.

But you'll find posts from people who agree with you.

-Hyp.

 

[Albereth]

The question became one of… if the fighter is doing his standard attack..(play the generalities here-- being the front line guy) and the Rogue is doing his standard attack (from the flank ) is there as great a difference as was implied by the poster who professed so adamantly that rogue must have all his attacks be eligible for the bonus because the rogues to BAB is so low?

Yes, there is that big of a difference when you consider that there are quite a few creatures out there that are normal encounters that rogues can not sneak attack and do their, as you call it, "salsa damage". I play a 10th level rogue and have weapon finesse with my rapier and a 20 dexterity. The fighter in our group, who just reached 9th level, has a attacks of 3-5 points more than me which is 15%-25% higher attack rate. He consistantly does more damage than I do and that is with my +5d6 sneak attack on each of two attacks, if I am lucky. He also has 98 hit points to my 62 so can stand there and take the punishment much better from those creatures that are doing 20-30 pts of damage per hit. So yes, there is a great difference.

The bigger question at this point would be what is the Rogue's role is in an adventuring party. I think that all the other skills he brings add value to his presence other than being another "fighter type specialist". It would appear that you would like the rogue to be more of an assassin. I say that because according to the original poster's post his players complained that the rogue was taking down creatures before the fighters could get in on the action. I say assassin, because while the rogue's targets don't have to make saving throws against death, they are subject to such a large amount of damage that I'm sure the victim wishes he would have had the opportunity for a saving throw.

And also, in the original posters question, which I thought you might have read but must be wrong, he stated that the ranger/rogue was getting a lot more attacks then he should have been eligible for which would have accounted for the amount of damage that he was doing. We pointed out where in the rule book this was gleaned from and helped him to understand how the rules for that section work. The game is designed and balanced for the Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard party. In this group you only have one true fighter, your healer/fighter, your wizard and your rogue. The rogue is the utility person who puts themselves in danger to help the other two get flanking positions, and then getting out before they die. If you have a large enough party where the rogue has the option of sitting back and doing nothing until the traps and locked doors are found then good for you. Not all have this luxury unless each player wants to play 2 characters.

This part of the message board is for questions related to how the rules work and how to interpret them. There is another section in the General Board area that is for House Rules.

And if 3E is obviously so balanced why would you waste your time trying to point out the obvious. If it is as obvious as you claim, then we who can not yet see the obvious should be able to recognize how obviously it is balanced in a very short period of time. So why we thank you for you pointing out the obvious it should be obvious that we don't need you to.

AHHHHHH, I see!!!! You were able to take the PHB, DMG, MM and all the other rules books and after reading them completely understood how all the rules related to each other and worked together with absolutely no questions. Now I see where you are coming from....... Forgive us for being so small and insignificant.

 

[Fisk]

You are forgiven and now you can rest the rest known to those who have come to the realization of their station.

Wow... there is a section for House rules? That too falls under the obvious category. The questions were about a challenge to the rule. I did suggest a possible solution that could be considered a house rule if I hadstate it as such.

Here are some more obvious things that I feel silly in bringing forth but since it does seem to be protocol to point out the obvious I will.

Other than making a profit on new products that will be sold to a loyal consumer base do you think that it is possible that the reason 3E came out is because they saw that there were some improvements that could be done with 2E? With that said then don't you think that there just could be some things that could be improved upon or that aren't perfect?

Because if there isn't why didn't they just name it what it should obviously of been named if that were the case. " Final Edition"

 

[mmu1]

You are forgiven and now you can rest the rest known to those who have come to the realization of their station.

Congratulations, you've just made my ignore list.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Other than making a profit on new products that will be sold to a loyal consumer base do you think that it is possible that the reason 3E came out is because they saw that there were some improvements that could be done with 2E? With that said then don't you think that there just could be some things that could be improved upon or that aren't perfect?

Because if there isn't why didn't they just name it what it should obviously of been named if that were the case. " Final Edition"

Ah, but you're a sly one. No one said that it couldn't be improved upon; the statement was that 3E was well-balanced. Balance was not much of an issue in 1E and 2E, and the game wasn't balanced (at all). The balance isn't perfect now, but it's many times better.

When Wizards finally releases a new edition, it will focus on things that need improvement in 3E. Balance won't really be one of the improvements needed, though it may be slightly improved. There are other aspects - realism, simplicity, depth, verisimilitude, etc. that can be bettered.

 

[Fisk]

You are correct well balanced isn't perfect, and I think the argument has been a rule challenge or, the origin of “slight modifications” that either may or may not happen in the next addition. So to those who have made the argument for the game being in balance I think you have been persuasive to point where I will give it another chance to see if it is obviously balanced.

If it still doesn’t appear to be then I will categorize my “possible solution” under a house rule. Now where is that forum?

While I said that a guy who has a cartoon under his name to represent him could never make me feel bad. I lied… I feel bad for the guy with a cartoon under his name that represents him if he is so ignorant to use an “ignore list”. Because it seems that sometimes the guys I dislike are the guys that have made me think the most, because my opinions and style were so opposite of his. Did they offend me? Please… it’s a message board and if your skin is so thin to be offended by some anonymous person on a message board then that is red flag to bigger problems.