Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[Gargoyle]

Rogues have Sneak Attack so they can hold their own in combat. Remember, the classes presented in the PHB are designed specifically for adventurers, who are going to be in combat at some point or another. Therefore all of the classes have some way to contribute meaningfully to combat.

If your player really wants to be just a Diplomat, which is not very practical, have him take the Expert NPC class.

All true, but it's also because the rogue is really a redesigned 1st and 2nd edition thief class, and WOTC wanted to replace the backstab ability with something more useful in combat that was similar.

WOTC didn't want to change the game too much with 3rd edition, and having a "thief" type class with no "backstab" would have been risky. You have to remember that WOTC wasn't sure 3rd edition was going to be a success. They knew it was a good game, but were worried that players would be upset if there were too many radical changes. I was at GenCon when it was released, and every WOTC employee I talked to expressed relief that the game seemed to have been received well. At the last GenCon, many of them expressed that they wished they had gone farther with 3E with more changes.

But I agree with MasterOfHeaven; rogues need sneak attack for gameplay reasons as well. And rogues aren't really diplomats or merchants, they're spies, pirates, bandits, scouts, adventurers, etc. They have lots of skill points, but they don't typically spend them on Knowledge skills. Hide and move silently don't require much in the way of book learning.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

But is d&d really all about combat? Rogues are ok without the sneak attack skill, alot better than mages are in melee, so the sneak attack seems way off.

No, they are not. Rogues without the Sneak Attack ability are next to useless in combat. Put a Rogue in situations where he can't use Sneak Attack, like when fighting Undead or Constructs, or a monster with concealment, or someone with Fortified Armor, and so on, you'll find he generally just takes up space.

Of course Rogues are better in melee than Wizards. That's because they don't have awesome attack and defense spells to make up for a major defiency in that area. Who needs to be proficient in melee when you can incinerate the enemy from hundreds of feet away?

It isnt that much fun to pic a NPC class either, they kinda suck

A Rogue without Sneak Attack is about as useful in combat as the NPC classes, perhaps less so.

A diplomat could be of great use for a group. Especially if he had alot of diplomacy and bluff skills.

Yes, in social situations such a character would be of great use. However, whenever the party enters combat, is this character going to do anything other than stand around and try not to get killed?

And what about simple thieves. Robin Hood for example wouldnt backstab nobody....

Seems like WotC think all thieves are murderers... wierd.

You do not seem to understand the idea of Sneak Attack. The idea is that a Rogue has trained in exactly how and where to hit a person when they are at a disadvantage (no Dexterity bonus to AC). A Sneak Attack is not a simple backstab, the idea is using your weapon to inflict damage on a particularly vulnerable area, like the throat or groin. That's all. And again, without that ability the Rogue class is mostly useless in combat.

 

[DMaple]

But is d&d really all about combat?

Erm yes. At least that whats the rules are written and designed for. Why do you think the majority of spells have combat application, the is massive chapter on Combat in the PHB but a few pages on character description. The DMG is basically all about how to run and set up combat encouters and reward combat encounters. The magic items are mainly useful in combat.

If fact there is very little on 'roleplaying' a character in the core rule books at all.

So yes D&D is really all about combat. Roleplaying on the other hand involves a lot more but the D&D rules are pretty much 90% about combat.

 

[simonski]

A Sneak Attack is not a simple backstab, the idea is using your weapon to inflict damage on a particularly vulnerable area, like the throat or groin.

Robin "nutcruncher" Hood

I understand what you mean, although what I'm trying to say is that even thieves could fight honorably. Kicking someone in the nuts is NOT honorable. So WotC have made rogues "dirty fighter" it seems...

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Robin "nutcruncher" Hood

I understand what you mean, although what I'm trying to say is that even thieves could fight honorably. Kicking someone in the nuts is NOT honorable. So WotC have made rogues "dirty fighter" it seems...

Yes, Rogues can be considered "dirty fighters" in one way. If this really bothers you (and your player) have you considered using the Bard class? It seems to be more of what you want from this character concept. They have Knowledge skills, they are often diplomatic types and the party spokesman, and so on. It might work out better than using the Rogue class.

 

[simonski]

Yes, Rogues can be considered "dirty fighters" in one way. If this really bothers you (and your player) have you considered using the Bard class? It seems to be more of what you want from this character concept. They have Knowledge skills, they are often diplomatic types and the party spokesman, and so on. It might work out better than using the Rogue class.

We kind of banned the Bard class because they have spells, seems kinda ridicoulus that almost ALL classes in 3E uses spells on higher levels. What happened to dark and gritty adventures and combat. In 3E on higher levels it seems like it New years Eve in each encounter...

I must say that regardless I love the new 3E over the old Dungeons and Dragons. Although I'm not that fond of the high magic stuff...

 

[Storm Raven]

Come on, we all now its about backstabbing, regardless of what the books dont tell. Why would it otherwise almost always be done when you flank or stand behind the target???

How do you stand behind a target? 3e doesn't have any facing. There is no "behind" any target.

Either way, what happened to thieves honor

I refer you to the quote from the 1e DMG: "There is no honor among thieves."

 

[simonski]

How do you stand behind a target? 3e doesn't have any facing. There is no "behind" any target

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

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

We kind of banned the Bard class because they have spells, seems kinda ridicoulus that almost ALL classes in 3E uses spells on higher levels.

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.

 

[Tonguez]

And what about simple thieves. Robin Hood for example wouldnt backstab nobody....

Um sorry to tell you this but Robin Hood used sneak attack all the time!
He and the Merry men dressed in Sherwood green would hide up in the trees and shoot the guards IN THE BACK before swinging down and taking Prince Johns gold.

Of course you also know that Diplomats are all sneaky untrustworthy conartisit-spies who will STAB YOU IN THE BACK as soon as you look the other way (gee I wonder where that saying came from?)

COME ON the term used is ROGUE not BOYSCOUT

also yes all the rules parts of the PHB are combat focussed cause thats the only part of roleplaying that needs rules - the rest should be freeform and DM judgement imho

seems kinda ridicoulus that almost ALL classes in 3E uses spells on higher levels

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

PS Monks suffer arcane spell failure -like effects when using armour so in can be assumed that the Monks ki powers are spelllike at the very least