Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[simonski]

Why would you consider this to be a specific problem of 3rd Edition D&D? In 2nd Edition AD&D, all of the following classes had spells:

Paladin.
Ranger.
Cleric.
Druid.
Bard.
Mage.

The only two classes that didn't use magic were the Fighter and the Thief. In 3rd Edition, the following classes have spells:

Paladin.
Ranger.
Cleric.
Druid.
Bard.
Wizard.
Sorcerer.

So one extra spellcasting class from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition, while the non spellcasters got two more classes in the Barbarian and the Monk. So I think, if anything, 3rd Edition has reduced the percentage of classes that use spells.

Sorry, meant including prestige classes.

Even rogues gain spells if they take the assassin class, which also seems wierd, why would assassins have spells. Someone at WotC must be a Lysergic Acid user

This results in a whole group of spellcasters on higher levels and its sad that this should be the place. Magic is cool and all but when EVERYONE is using it, destroys more than it improves gameplay and atmosphere.

 

[rankarrog]

So WotC have made rogues "dirty fighter" it seems...

Not dirty fighters just "specialists for anatomy"

Oh and for the honorable rogue: Just that you know where to hit so it really hurts doesn't mean that you have to do it...

I don't thinks it's overpowerd if you let the players take extra feats instead of each sneak attack +1d6, but I would only allow nonoffensive feats (else whats the point in doing so).

However I belive that this weakens the character a lot (sneak attack is the only possibilty for a rogue to shine a little bit in combat, and no feat can really balance this out).

By the way isn't a "rogue" from the word not from the class supposed to be a bit dishonorable?

 

[LordMelkor{Talos}]

Just give Expert more skill points and special abilities like bonus skill focus or skill mastery. I am modyfiing classes on player requests on regular basis.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Sorry, meant including prestige classes.

Even rogues gain spells if they take the assassin class, which also seems wierd, why would assassins have spells. Someone at WotC must be a Lysergic Acid user

This results in a whole group of spellcasters on higher levels and its sad that this should be the place. Magic is cool and all but when EVERYONE is using it, destroys more than it improves gameplay and atmosphere.

Well, at this point, I have to ask, are you sure D&D is the system for you? It is designed with the idea that certain levels of magic, and magic equipment will be available. If you change this, you are greatly changing the balance of the game, and that can create quite a few problems.

 

[S'mon]

got to agree here - my BIGGEST gripe about the 3E system is too much magic turning EVERYONE into suprhero-demigods

I agree about that. OTOH the beauty of 3e is the ease of multiclassing - you can create your diplomat with a few levels of Bard for diplomacy and multiclass to something else - maybe a few levels of Ranger, say. No powerful spells but stronger than an Expert.

I don't think Robin Hood would count as a straight Rogue by the way - maybe Ranger/Rogue?
Or Ranger/Fighter. The NPC Rangers in my low-magic game generally take a few levels of Ranger, then switch to Fighter, getting decent combat ability and no spellcasting (which is against their religious beliefs, in-game!).

BTW in my experience the non-spellcasting character classes are often the most popular, which can cause trouble when the PC group ends up with no spellcasting ability!

 

[Henry]

What? So you cant stand behind a target because its not in the rules? Come on.....

However, you didn't originally make that claim. You said it "...otherwise almost always [is] done when you flank or stand behind the target." This is not the case. A rogue can sneak attack when flanking, when catching the drop on someone (ambush), or when the victim is unaware of the rogue's presence. It may include literal back-stabbing, but it is intentionally left vague, so as to be possible kidney-jabs, eye-gouges, nose-busts, groin-stabs, tendon-slashes, etc. etc. The best damage is not always given by a literal "stab in the back" - hence the vagueness of the altered concept.

DnDChick once posted a great example of a "frontal sneak attack" from the Old Testament of the Bible. I only wish I could remember the chapter reference.


There is no question what sneak attacks are descended from, but by the rules they only have to come from situations where someone is denied full mobility and concentration.

If I had my way, sneak attack damage would also be allowed during attacks of opportunity, but I could see where that might be slightly unbalancing...

 

[Frostmarrow]

Simonski, you are my new idol.

 

[simonski]

Simonski, you are my new idol.

PUSS

 

[simonski]

Well, at this point, I have to ask, are you sure D&D is the system for you? It is designed with the idea that certain levels of magic, and magic equipment will be available. If you change this, you are greatly changing the balance of the game, and that can create quite a few problems.

What makes d&d great is not that its full of Magic items and Equipment, nor that that you can be a high level magician. What makes d&d great is its simplicity. Its a good system because its fast and one can focus on roleplaying, theatrical dialogue and atmosphere instead of rules.

Ive been running alot of campaigns without alot of magic items and equipment and ressurection is NOT something that exists in my campaign, unless something VERY extraordinary is in the works. And this works very well, I find it disturbing with Churches that heal people with divine power for money and ressurect people and Its also absurd with normal people selling magic items. I mean each magic item should be unique and special. Its only silly with a barbarian wearing a necklace, 10 special rings, magic armour etc etc... What happened to raw, dark and brutal barbaric power. What happened to dark atmospheres and eerie settings.

Too much magic ruins alot if youre not running something similiar to the dungeons and dragons movie heh

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

What makes d&d great is not that its full of Magic items and Equipment, nor that that you can be a high level magician. What makes d&d great is its simplicity. Its a good system because its fast and one can focus on roleplaying, theatrical dialogue and atmosphere instead of rules.

Ive been running alot of campaigns without alot of magic items and equipment and ressurection is NOT something that exists in my campaign, unless something VERY extraordinary is in the works. And this works very well, I find it disturbing with Churches that heal people with divine power for money and ressurect people and Its also absurd with normal people selling magic items. I mean each magic item should be unique and special. Its only silly with a barbarian wearing a necklace, 10 special rings, magic armour etc etc... What happened to raw, dark and brutal barbaric power. What happened to dark atmospheres and eerie settings.

Too much magic ruins alot if youre not running something similiar to the dungeons and dragons movie heh

Question... are you another one of the DMs that believe adventuring careers end around 9th-10th level? Because if you lower the magic level you will create serious problems in the balance schematic, especially at higher levels.

Certain classes will be far better than others because their power is intrinsic (Sorcerers, Wizards, Monks, Clerics and so on) while others will suffer because they rely on items more than the others (Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and so on).

Monsters that the PCs should be able to easily defeat become much more dangerous and can often destroy the entire party because they do not have the appropiate amount of items and magic that an average party of their level would have. The balance that exists in D&D is designed based on the assumption that certain levels of magic will exist, and if you tamper with that it creates problems.