Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[LostSoul]

Its not "Strange" at all it is one of the 'features' of a class-based system.

I think I've heard this argument before...

 

[LostSoul]

Training for it just doesn't prepare you as well for stand-up, in your face fighting.

That's not the real problem. A Fighter who takes Rogue to get Sneak Attack also gains the ability to find traps with DCs higher than 20 as well as 8 skill points and a whole smack of class skills. What's more, he can't get better at Sneak Attack without learning Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and getting more skills.

If a Fighter wanted Sneak Attack but wanted to focus on his combat skills, I'd let him take a Sneak Attack +1d6 for every level he takes d6 hit points and Rogue saves. He can trade the other abilities of the Rogue for +1 BAB and the Fighter's typical 2 skill points per level and poor class skill list.

Or I'd just make it a Feat at the beginning and run with it, giving Rogues the choice not to take it if they'd rather have Skill Focus or something else.

If you find that D&D doesn't give you the flavor you want, find something else that does.

Not everybody might be able to do this. If I tried to switch systems with my current group, I'd be left by alone. Some people will only play D&D. So leaving it for other systems isn't always the answer.

I think it is reasonable to try and tweak - or totally re-work - the system until you and your group is satisfied with the end result.

 

[Ma'varkith]

For a Fighter learning to "fight dirty", you have yet another option, via Feats.

Check out Rokugan for its Scorpion Clan Feats. There are several that focus on "dirty fighting styles".

Bayushi's Technikue = +1d6 Sneak Attack Damage, and can be taken up to 5 times.

 

[Gez]

All fights are dirty. Violence is never clean. Why should slithing a throat be more dirty than ripping open a chest ? Why killing in a long and painful swordfight is more noble than killing painlessly without even letting the victim the time to be afraid ?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm.
Just an idea: If you don`t want the rogue to be sneak attacking, and don`t like the bard casting spells, why not just strip the sneak attack and add Bardic Music & Knowledge? Perhaps it will still need some tweaking, but it might work...

D&D 3.Edition was designed (at least in its core, I don`t talk about some splat books and so on) to balance all classes against each other, so that no one will ever outshine someone, especially in combat. Combat does have much to do with the statistics, but Roleplaying a "social encounter" does also need some "actor" talents, and it also takes much fun if you make it only by rolling dies... (You can use the game mechanics to decide difficult situations ...)
So, the designers focused on battle. Characters are only balanced when all of them can get in a battle and dish out damage (very direct like fireball casting wizards and sword swinging Fighters, or indirect like Bard`s using their songs to improve the other`s combat abilities).

Unfortunately, many groups may find D&D and other D20 based systems to become boring, because D&D is very much about combat. But I think may DMs do also find a way to handle this. They won`t be able to use many published materials (especially adventures that use special "power" assumption", but with some creativity, everything is possible.

If you want "less power", you might perhaps wish to try "Wheel of Time"...

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Regarding the absence of the bard due to their spellcasting abilities:

First, I'd say that the bard would be better suited for this concept, & the fact that the class can cast spells isn't really that bad of an issue. Why?

Look at the bard's spell list. Supportive spells, primarily. No fireballs, no nagic missiles, no massively damaging spells. If you're still not happy with the bard spell list, then customize it so that it'll work better for you. More spells with maybe less visible effects than exploding balls of fire or blinding sprays of colored light. The DMG addresses this via the Witch class.

Second, what exactly is the backstory for this diplomat? Why has he been selected to join the adventurers? If he's supposed to be able to live, deal, & negotiate with barbarians in the wilderness, then maybe he should have some experience living in the field---better the chance for the barbarians to accept him & thus listen to his point of view, etc.

As to the high-magic orientation of D&D---works great for some games, not so great for others. I think that if some information/rules for a 3E Lankhmar game were presented (a greatly low-magic setting in comparison w/ most D&D settings), then that will provide better rules for a low-magic setting. I know that 2nd Ed. Lankhmar rules accounted for only white wizards/black wizards/elemental wizards as spellcasters---all other classes that had some spell abilities lost them.

 

[Umbran]

Not everybody might be able to do this. If I tried to switch systems with my current group, I'd be left by alone. Some people will only play D&D. So leaving it for other systems isn't always the answer.

I think it is reasonable to try and tweak - or totally re-work - the system until you and your group is satisfied with the end result.

I am about to engage in some topic drift....

I didn't say it was unreasonable to tweak. I suggested that it would be more reasonable to find a new system. I don't think that tweaking and rewriting is bad. I think that beyond a certain point, it is usually better to find a different system.

Now comes the topic drift - Note that I am speaking in generalities, since I don't know the group personally. If you've got a group that categorically refuses to play any other game, you've probably got bigger issues than the conundrum of giving rogues sneak attack. I'm all for playing a game that everyone likes, but flat rufusal to try something new isn't what I'd call a healthy mode of behavior.

It's rather like a kid who only eats hot dogs, and pitches a fit if mom serves anything else. Not only is it a poor choice if you want to grow and develop, but it hampers your ability to fully appreciate what you normally have, and is in general a bullheaded, peevish, childish behavior. It's irrational. On all counts, it isn't a good thing.

Honestly, in my experience, groups like that are exactly the ones who most need to be encouraged to try something else.

 

[PenguinKing]

magic and spells should belong to wizards and sorcerers. Its PLAIN silly that assassins for example get spells!!!

No, it isn't - you've got your head stuck up your own conceptual bias. If you don't like the "mystical ninja" interpretation of the assassin class, that's a problem - but it's your problem. Don't try to tell us that it's "silly" - in most cases, the perception of "silly" is the product of conceptual tunnel vision.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[S'mon]

No, it isn't - you've got your head stuck up your own conceptual bias. If you don't like the "mystical ninja" interpretation of the assassin class, that's a problem - but it's your problem. Don't try to tell us that it's "silly" - in most cases, the perception of "silly" is the product of conceptual tunnel vision.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

It is a bit silly - and the assassin prestige class isn't written as a 'mystic ninja', anyway.

 

[apoptosis]

I thought it was odd that assassins by default use spells.

I think without some sort of explanatory flavor it is weird.

I changed the assassin PrC to a divine caster and they were then followers of the cults of Bane and Cyric and Myrkul (yeah i know he doesnt exist but i like him).

I could have had explained away their spells by an assassins guild that teaches some mystic arts (but just didnt really like that idea as much).

Apoptosis