Sneak Attacks in the Rogue Class, WHY?

[mmadsen]

Err.. I think a fighter who wants sneak attack should pay for it with the necessary levels in a class.

Paying with a Feat isn't paying for it?

But paying with a Level and getting lots of Skills and other Special Abilities is?

And he shouldn't be whining about the rogue levels, anyways; getting Evasion and Uncanny Dodge (protection from other sneak attackers!) along with +2d6 or so additional damage dice whenver you win initiative, flank someone, or (worst of all) have Improved Invisibility cast on you, is good.

No one's complaining that the Fighter wouldn't get enough goodies for multiclassing; the point is that it doesn't make sense. Learning to perform a Sneak Attack shouldn't necessarily mean learning Evasion and Uncanny Dodge along with eight Skills, etc.

As a side note, the assassin spell list is actually VERY specialized.

The problem isn't that the Assassin's spells are inappropriate; it's that an Assassin shouldn't have to be a spellcaster, since it's not intrinsic to the character concept.

 

[mmadsen]

I've always rationalized it by saying the Rogues have special training in quick, precise strikes to opponents vital spots when they are unaware, or unable to defend themselves properly. Fighters recieve no such training, and so they do not get Sneak Attack.

Rogues have training?

 

[reapersaurus]

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 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

and

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)

I'll stick my neck out here and say "Well Said, simonski"

Don't take it too hard that there are some people here bashing you (yes, Henry, they are being quite harsh - i think it's ridiculous you took his line as being criticizing).
Lots of people like D&D exactly the way it is: with high-powerred magic dwarfing a classic sense of adventuring when you get to higher levels.

I have made posts that bemoan this intense magic-saturation over the past few months, and there are a few people that agree, but many more simply say "You should play D&D the way it IS! Love it or leave it!"
Some have even said that we should not even TRY to tweak the system as it is too intrinsic in D&D to ever not be magic-drenched.

I say "Bah".

Dropping a couple spells and tweaking a few things here and there doesn't ruin a system, or make it "not D&D".

If I wanted to be spurring on discussion, i would contend that if you play D&D straight out of the box, you are participating in a game that is only a couple steps removed from a CRPG like Diablo, or something.

But i won;t go there, since people more knowledgeable than me have been pointing out this "l33t killer" nature of 3E since it came out.

Basically, simonski - you stick to your preferences in your game, and make sure you keep the sense of Epic Heroic Gaming in your campaign, and just know that most people on these boards, at least, have a different opinion of what Heroic Fantasy is all about.
And their picture includes LOTS of magic items dwarfing the power of the CHARACTER, and tons of spells being flung about that tend to dictate the sway of battle.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I see that you've met my older brother. Yep, he has a stick up his ass. For years and years I've been trying to get him to look at something other than D&D, but he just won't have it. He even dislikes any changes to the rule set.

Oh well. If it was just a D&D thing I wouldn't mind, but he's like that all the time.

Sorry for the venting, now back to the topic at hand...

 

[rounser]

Dropping a couple spells and tweaking a few things here and there doesn't ruin a system, or make it "not D&D".

Nope. It's a pity they didn't seem to design 3E with this in mind, though, because everyone I've met tweaks D&D to a degree, and the rules interdependencies mean that there are repercussions for doing so.

For instance, I'm playing in a campaign which is a low magic world and has an invisible "18" you put into a "magic" stat if you play a spell-user of any sort (yes, anything except a fighter, monk or rogue), effectively meaning that fighters/monks/rogues get a bonus 18 points to spend on stats (1:1 point distribution).

This throws game balance out of whack to a degree for the original system, and has repercussions like "what if I multiclass?". Does it ruin the game? No. But you can see why some people frown on this sort of thing, because such balance is higher priority than perhaps to you.

 

[mzsylver]

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

keep in mind that the Bard is the Jack of all Trades. shouldnt the Jack of All Trades know a bit of magic along with the zillion other things he knows?

i recommend the Expert for your would-be diplomat since the best choice, bard, is disallowed.

What I don't understand is why Fighters can't learn Sneak Attack.

they can. it's called critting.

 

[simonski]

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"...

Yes alot of groups indeed find that too much combat becomes boring, but d&d is a good system WHEN combat occurs, the only thing that bugs me about the system is that all the classes is to focused on combat, if you want to make a pacifistic priest the book tells you to take the Cleric class, which is very combat oriented. If you are a master of skills you should take the rogue class, which lets you strike vulnerable points in combat (sneak attack). Now this worked several years ago, when we all were young and found combat VERY exiting because it was new and fresh, but it grows old after awhile, atleast with TOO much combat. So what they really should do is make a good noncombat class or a class that is more customizable That I would like, but instead of telling them what to do, I ask you guys, cuz you seem good at making new rules, classes etc

The only two things that really bug me about d&d is Hitpoints and BAB. The rest is fine... but nevertheless, its a fast system and thats what counts.

 

[simonski]

keep in mind that the Bard is the Jack of all Trades. shouldnt the Jack of All Trades know a bit of magic along with the zillion other things he knows?

i recommend the Expert for your would-be diplomat since the best choice, bard, is disallowed.

they can. it's called critting.

Learning "a bit of magic" seems absurd, wouldnt it take ALOT of hard work and training to learn "the art". I see magic as something very special, something that few can learn.

But isnt the Expert class alot worse than all the PC classes, Im not sure if I remember correctly but doesnt the Expert class get less skill points than the Rogue class?

 

[simonski]

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!

An Assassin in my eyes does NOT equal a Ninja, but maybe thats just me?

 

[simonski]

I disagree. Magic items do make D&D great, among other things. Simply because you draw upon magic item resources to a lesser extent than others doesn't change this - you still have the choice, and can pick and choose from this massive resource, and that's what matters.

Take away D&D's monsters, spells, magic items, class archetypes and, IMO, you no longer have D&D because you've thrown most of the intellectual property of the game in the trash. You can create a low-magic world with no spells and no magic items, but you'd probably still use the monsters. If you don't use those either, you're probably still drawing upon the class archetypes. If you don't use the class archetypes either, consider using a different system!

You're right that one of D&D's strengths has always been having a ruleset simplistic enough to not get in the way of building and playing in your own pulp fantasy world, but implying that the simplicity of the rules are the primary reason why it's prospered is, IMO, oversimplifying and ignoring it's primary fortes as a "pulp fantasy construction kit".

Sorry, I didnt speak for all of you. I meant to write that simplicity is what I like about d&d. Sorry for the misunderstanding