Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?
- Thread starter simonski
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Hoo Boy
There are simpler systems than D&D out there...
But, yeah, someone who focuses entirely on diplomacy is an expert, not a rogue...or perhaps an Aristocrat. The PHB classes are the people of the world that go into dangerous areas and come back with treasure. Other characters are mostly NPC classes.
Yeah, they kinda suck, but so does a Rogue without sneak attack.
Personally, I'd allow you to switch out sneak attacks for feat(even though that's not the best idea, balance-wise), but I'd more encourage you to take an NPC class that fits your character type better than the sneaky Rogue.
3e D&D is about lots of magic...you just can't avoid it. If you want to remove or weaken spellcasting powers, and that's fun for you, go for it, but that's not what the game was designed to handle.
What happened to dark and gritty? It's still there. Limit your PC's to NPC classes and see how gritty it gets. If you want a common-man-against-impossible-odds kind of quest, Commoners and Warriors and Adepts work very well for the purpose, making battles harder and more deadly, while perhaps playing up on the non-combat skills of each. Dark and gritty is about atmosphere...D&D is not, by default, about dark and gritty. It is, to a certain extent, about flash-bang-kaboom.
You can make it dark and gritty with a little work, but you can't expect WotC to make it dark and gritty as a default.
There are simpler systems than D&D out there...
But, yeah, someone who focuses entirely on diplomacy is an expert, not a rogue...or perhaps an Aristocrat. The PHB classes are the people of the world that go into dangerous areas and come back with treasure. Other characters are mostly NPC classes.
Yeah, they kinda suck, but so does a Rogue without sneak attack.
Personally, I'd allow you to switch out sneak attacks for feat(even though that's not the best idea, balance-wise), but I'd more encourage you to take an NPC class that fits your character type better than the sneaky Rogue.
3e D&D is about lots of magic...you just can't avoid it. If you want to remove or weaken spellcasting powers, and that's fun for you, go for it, but that's not what the game was designed to handle.
What happened to dark and gritty? It's still there. Limit your PC's to NPC classes and see how gritty it gets. If you want a common-man-against-impossible-odds kind of quest, Commoners and Warriors and Adepts work very well for the purpose, making battles harder and more deadly, while perhaps playing up on the non-combat skills of each. Dark and gritty is about atmosphere...D&D is not, by default, about dark and gritty. It is, to a certain extent, about flash-bang-kaboom.
You can make it dark and gritty with a little work, but you can't expect WotC to make it dark and gritty as a default.
UofMDude
First Post
simonski said:
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
The basic d20 rules are simple - but then they have to be to be applicable to a wide range of genres. DnD is not simple though. Try running a combat with a wizard that is blurred, inside an obscuring mist, and has the shield spell up (or other such nonsense).
If you want simple rules, go back to the original Star Wars game from WEG:
"player: I roll a 12, do I hit? GM: um. sure, sounds good"
As for flavor, that's your choice. Core DnD is designed to have a certain flavor. You obviously do not like it. Get over it and move on.
UofMDude
Ok, seems alot of you out there are playing D&D with loads of magic, magick items and whatmore. Im not looking down on either of you. And its up to each DM to run his game as he sees fit. Either way, personally I dont like flashy magic, it reminds me of Boris Valejo and his 80s paintings with bimbo-barbarians with bikini chainmail hurling firebolts all around. I have been able to run D&D without flashy magic for a LONG time, even 2:ed D&D and I players can get what magic spells they want, but most of them have taste and dont go for the "inflatable castle" spells and the like. Regarding magic item, I still think they should be rare, heal spells should as well and YES a party with loads of magic items has a better chance against a monster than a party without. But is D&D about winning? And against whom, the DM?
If they have magic items and equipment, dont throw overly powerful monsters at them.
And yes, I am one of those DMs that think level 1-9 is the most fun levels to roleplay on. And above all the most theatrical levels as high level characters tend to be more cliché than low level ones.
If they have magic items and equipment, dont throw overly powerful monsters at them.
And yes, I am one of those DMs that think level 1-9 is the most fun levels to roleplay on. And above all the most theatrical levels as high level characters tend to be more cliché than low level ones.
Re: Hoo Boy
Im not talking about a man against all odds quest, just because its dark and gritty doesnt mean the players are more likely to die But ofcourse D&D is flashy by default.
The NPC classes suck, not because they are "bad in combat" but they are not very detailed, and they seem kind of rushed and they VERY much seem like NPC classes not PC classes. Perhaps a diplomat could have an ability that lets him naturally "sense motive" better than the skill allows, there are tons of things that could be done that are "non combat". I think its too bad that d&d is about combat 90% (as someone said). And I understand now that this is how people like to play it (with a focus on combat)
Kamikaze Midget said:
Im not talking about a man against all odds quest, just because its dark and gritty doesnt mean the players are more likely to die
But ofcourse D&D is flashy by default. The NPC classes suck, not because they are "bad in combat" but they are not very detailed, and they seem kind of rushed and they VERY much seem like NPC classes not PC classes. Perhaps a diplomat could have an ability that lets him naturally "sense motive" better than the skill allows, there are tons of things that could be done that are "non combat". I think its too bad that d&d is about combat 90% (as someone said). And I understand now that this is how people like to play it (with a focus on combat)
MasterOfHeaven
First Post
simonski said:
Im not talking about a man against all odds quest, just because its dark and gritty doesnt mean the players are more likely to die
The NPC classes suck, not because they are "bad in combat" but they are not very detailed, and they seem kind of rushed and they VERY much seem like NPC classes not PC classes. Perhaps a diplomat could have an ability that lets him naturally "sense motive" better than the skill allows, there are tons of things that could be done that are "non combat". I think its too bad that d&d is about combat 90% (as someone said). And I understand now that this is how people like to play it (with a focus on combat)
The reason the rules are focused on combat is because that is the area of the game that _needs_ rules. As another poster stated, roleplaying is up to the DM and the players, not the rulebooks.
I'm just pointing out the fact that it requires a lot of changes to the system for it to remain balanced if you are restricting the amount of magic in your campaign. A Sorcerer is a much better class to be in a low fantasy campaign just because his power is intrinsic, and he doesn't really need items to maximize his power in the same way a Fighter or a Rogue does.
Like I said, this is less of an issue at lower levels, but it is still something of a problem, in my opinion. As for higher levels versus lower levels, I disagree that higher level PCs are "cliched" and it's better to play at lower levels. If anything, I find more similarities between two characters at low levels than at high levels. If you don't mind my asking, how many campaigns have you played in or DMed that lasted beyond 9th-10th level?
Epametheus
First Post
No offense, but I find the notion of the Bard -- one of the weakest classes in the game, if not THE weakest PC class -- being banned because spellcasting makes it too powerful to be laughable.
Okay... So you're upset that the rogue can actually hold its own in combat, and you banned the Bard for having spellcasting ability (are sorcerers and wizards banned too? they're vastly more powerful than bards are), and now you want a different class that can be a good diplomat.
Your options are pretty limited, then.
Option A -- since you seem to want a class that can't contribute to combats, you might as well take levels in aristocrat or expert. Yes, they're crap, but they're NPC classes -- they're supposed to be crap.
Option B -- take the Noble class from Wheel of Time or Star Wars and convert it to 3rd edition.
Option C -- write up a new base class.
Okay... So you're upset that the rogue can actually hold its own in combat, and you banned the Bard for having spellcasting ability (are sorcerers and wizards banned too? they're vastly more powerful than bards are), and now you want a different class that can be a good diplomat.
Your options are pretty limited, then.
Option A -- since you seem to want a class that can't contribute to combats, you might as well take levels in aristocrat or expert. Yes, they're crap, but they're NPC classes -- they're supposed to be crap.
Option B -- take the Noble class from Wheel of Time or Star Wars and convert it to 3rd edition.
Option C -- write up a new base class.
MasterOfHeaven said:
Well alot of campaigns considering Ive been playing d&d for the last 6 years, and before that I played alot of other fantasy RPGs (swedish though
). Well, theoreticaly it should be the same amount of roleplaying regardless of levels, but it just seems to me that at higher levels, the rules start to slow down the games, hence less roleplaying...Well sorcerers should be powerful shouldnt they?
Henry
Autoexreginated
simonski said:
I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but that sounded like a nasty little insult. Gaming styles ranger across all scenarios, levels of power, and roleplaying depths.
Do keep in mind however, that non-spellcasters now rely on at least a minimal level of magical items to remain balanced with the inherently magical party members. At the very least, you will find that cutting off magical items really won't hurt power levels if the wizards and clerics keep magic vestment and greater magic weapon spells around. It really won't make a difference since buffing spells are so plentiful - unless you take them out too.
And no, I never like Vallejo's art either - because of the lack of verisimilitude, and because you get sick of tattered loincloths, plate-mail breast covers, and bronzed skin after a while.
I would point to Piratecat's Story Hour as a ready example of how higher level play can be just as character driven and fun as lower-level play. At lower levels, PC's tend to not have enough power to deal with baser needs, just as in real life. However, as in real life, more power means that you trade in one set of problems for a totally different set of new ones.
Epametheus said:
The bard isnt banned because it is too powerful, it is banned because the idea that bards are magicians is absurd.
magic and spells should belong to wizards and sorcerers. Its PLAIN silly that assassins for example get spells!!!
Ive already explained my points about the NPC classes though if you read above.
Ill go with option B - But convert the rogue into a new class, similar but without combat abilities as a primary focus
Similar Threads
