The Return of the Sneaking Man

[Salamandyr]

Just wanted to say that I can't respond to much of anything right now. The wife is having medical testing this week so we're gonna be busy with that.

Appreciate the comments, not ignoring them, but busy at more important things right now. Back when I can.

Jack.

Hope everything turns out well.

 

[Glade Riven]

Wow. Another demand that a class be weeabooed.

There are good rogue builds, there are bad rogue builds. There are good DMs that will give everyone a chance to shine, and then there are DMs that end up leaving a player out in the cold. There are players who handle the class well, and there are players that try to do something with the class that it isn't designed to shine at.

"We want the class to be better at combat!"

Know your rule set, know your options, and learn to work tactically with other players. A fighter supported by a rogue in combat for 3e, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e makes a deadly combination.

"But we want to take on a fighter directly!"

Sorry, no, that isn't your job. That's the fighter's job. Or the barbarian's, or paladin's. They are the walking walls of meat and steel.

"We want to sneak up and backstab guards"

And if you roll well enough, you can catch a guard flat footed and shank them with your sneaky sneak attack. Roll poorly, bad thing happen. Nature of the game. Oh, you want an auto-win? Not in my game.

"We want more than just a pass/fail for scouting!"

Talk to your DM. How a DM handles it is really up to them. The system isn't the problem, the mindset of the DM is. Me, I use a "gradient scale" for success/failure rather than a hard set pass/fail. Unless you're wanting an auto-win, and that ain't happenin' in my game.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I think the tension between a rogue's ability to have fun playing scout and the desire to keep a table full of players engaged is a big one -- and it's really just one example of that bigger problem. After all, a Wizard doing research in a library, a druid talking to chipmunks to find out information about goblin activity, a fighter's drinking bout with the local toughs -- these are all opportunities for individual gaming fun that have the potential to leave the rest of the table talking about their favorite episodes of Glee or something.

I love rogues/thieves/scouts. When I play MMOs, I'm addicted to stealth. But when it comes to D&D, at the table, it's damn hard as a DM to create the sort of fun play experience for a stealthy player that doesn't leave everyone else bored.

Skill Challenges are probably one of the better solutions -- get the stealth stuff out of the way fairly quickly, without giving up too much game time -- but that doesn't really scratch the stealther's itch. It's still better/closer to a good solution than we've had in previous editions, IMO.

When you really look at the way the rogue is built 4e, it's clear (at least to me) that he's meant to be the uber-sneak. I mean, in most cases, only a rogue is going to have the ability to be sneaky at speeds faster than 2. Other classes may have training in stealth, but they have to move real slow to be sneaky.

That speed differential practically never comes into play, IME, but that doesn't have to always be the case. The problem is that to create a situation where that actually plays out means that the DM/Adventure designer has to specifically sit down to write an encounter designed to make a specific character class shine -- and that simply doesn't happen very often, if ever.

In a lot of ways, that's much like ritual magic. Off-the-shelf adventures can't assume that there will be ritual casters capable of casting a specific ritual in the party, so it's not good to write an encounter that requires that specific ritual.

Perhaps one of the failings of the way 4e has been designed -- with an eye towards making the work of the DM easier, has been very little discussion/treatment of the ways good DMs can adapt print adventures -- or write their own -- to make them more individually engaging and exciting for their specific PCs. And print adventures never spend the column inches required to discuss customizing an adventure for a specific party. But I think that sort of specific treatment could really help DMs and players in ANY edition find a way to tune their game to their specific needs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Exactly how many times per four-round encounter should the thief deal meaningful damage? Once? So, like the 4E assassin?

Depends on whether it's a combat-focused thief or not. If not, once if he sets things up right. If he is less of a thief and builds a character for melee, then probably 2-3 times per 4 rounds, accounting for tactical movement and the occasional miss.

I find the 4-round combat a strange example though. Some last one round with very effective setups. Others last a minute or two in-game. The mean length might be four rounds, but I wouldn't call that typical.

Your words expressed a party of one. If you meant that, in a game designed for a party of one, which is not what D&D is built for, a rogue is as viable an option as any other class... well they are in 4E. Probably much better than most defenders, even. If that was not what you are trying to communicate, I can only ask that you try again.

If you actually mean you would like solo rules for D&D, you should focus on your desire for support for that type of game in itself rather than a particular class.

The idea of solo play is a separate and interesting topic. That said, the game is designed (or should be) to provide tools for whatever you want to do. Plenty of people run solo D&D or split the party up to that effect. There's a subtle issue here; the designers should *assume* a 4-PC party (or thereabouts) because it's common, but it's not a prerequisite to play. Every character should be independently functional.

Heres the thing. I'm 27. The people I play with have jobs and kids and wives and other hobbies.

We like not sitting around for extended periods while other people eat up game time with solo play.

We want to play.

I hear that.

I have, however, had some success with intercutting different storylines. Some players enjoy watching others if things are handled right. I can see where the rogue/thief sneaking off alone might not always be fun, but sometimes it works. In any case, the game doesn't need to force people to play a certain way (i.e. all PCs together). That's for the people at the table to decide. The DM can easily prevent the party from splitting up.

Know your rule set, know your options, and learn to work tactically with other players.
...
Sorry, no, that isn't your job. That's the fighter's job. Or the barbarian's, or paladin's. They are the walking walls of meat and steel.
...
And if you roll well enough, you can catch a guard flat footed and shank them with your sneaky sneak attack. Roll poorly, bad thing happen. Nature of the game. Oh, you want an auto-win? Not in my game.
...

Talk to your DM. How a DM handles it is really up to them. The system isn't the problem, the mindset of the DM is. Me, I use a "gradient scale" for success/failure rather than a hard set pass/fail. Unless you're wanting an auto-win, and that ain't happenin' in my game.

Shame I couldn't XP that post, but yes.

 

[The Human Target]

I hear that.

I have, however, had some success with intercutting different storylines. Some players enjoy watching others if things are handled right. I can see where the rogue/thief sneaking off alone might not always be fun, but sometimes it works. In any case, the game doesn't need to force people to play a certain way (i.e. all PCs together). That's for the people at the table to decide. The DM can easily prevent the party from splitting up.

Oh yeah, for sure splitting up happens and it should happen. This past session all 4 of my party members split up and had their own little scene.

I just don't think the idea of creating a class designed to not hang out with the other players when doing its shtick is a good idea.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Oh yeah, for sure splitting up happens and it should happen. This past session all 4 of my party members split up and had their own little scene.

I just don't think the idea of creating a class designed to not hang out with the other players when doing its shtick is a good idea.

So you would say that all classes should be designed as team players?

I just don't think every character should or can be one, in D&D or anywhere else.

 

[ferratus]

"But we want to take on a fighter directly!"

Sorry, no, that isn't your job. That's the fighter's job. Or the barbarian's, or paladin's. They are the walking walls of meat and steel.

So you are saying that after I've thrown acid in the face of a trained hand to hand combatant, and stuck a knife in his leg to cripple him, I shouldn't be able to beat him to death with a lead pipe? Of course I can, its only logical that crippled, disoriented, and blinded opponents are easy prey.

The thing that D&D doesn't have is rules for the thief to fight dirty other than a surprise knife attack. What the thief needs are good solid rules to disable opponents before/as they engage in melee with them. It only makes sense that this is how smart and amoral criminals fight.

"We want to sneak up and backstab guards"

And if you roll well enough, you can catch a guard flat footed and shank them with your sneaky sneak attack. Roll poorly, bad thing happen. Nature of the game. Oh, you want an auto-win? Not in my game.

The problem comes of course when no amount of sneak attack damage is enough to down a common town guard, nor are there any rules to knock a guard out.

Would it really be so bad if the thief had an attack based on a fortitude defense that allowed them to essentially put one guard to sleep, as per the sleep spell? Would it be really so bad to give the assassin a death attack for lesser enemies?

"We want more than just a pass/fail for scouting!"

Talk to your DM. How a DM handles it is really up to them. The system isn't the problem, the mindset of the DM is. Me, I use a "gradient scale" for success/failure rather than a hard set pass/fail. Unless you're wanting an auto-win, and that ain't happenin' in my game.

So you've houseruled in exactly what people in this thread want as part of the rules. So you're beligerantly agreeing, I guess? After all, I haven't seen anyone clamoring for an auto-win, just a mechanic for handling scouting ahead quickly and without a straight up pass/fail.

 

[Stormonu]

So you are saying that after I've thrown acid in the face of a trained hand to hand combatant, and stuck a knife in his leg to cripple him, I shouldn't be able to beat him to death with a lead pipe? Of course I can, its only logical that crippled, disoriented, and blinded opponents are easy prey.

I wouldn't call that "take the fighter on directly", myself. That's dirty fighting, not "honorable combat".

The thing that D&D doesn't have is rules for the thief to fight dirty other than a surprise knife attack. What the thief needs are good solid rules to disable opponents before/as they engage in melee with them. It only makes sense that this is how smart and amoral criminals fight.

I don't know about 4E, but 1E-3E certainly allows you fight dirty and do more than massive damage via knife attack, and you usually don't need special rules to do it* (though you might need some equipment at times, such as blinding powder). It does, however, depend on the DM being open to more than the school of "I swing my sword" combat methodology.

* You can do some of these tricks as follows:

1E - special equipment, magic items or DM fiat
2E - called shots, special equipment (especially Complete Thief & Aurora's Whole Realm guide), magic items or DM fiat
3E - feats (Complete Adventurer, Complete Scoundrel), special equipment (Arms & Equipment), magic items of DM fiat
4E - powers?

Would it really be so bad if the thief had an attack based on a fortitude defense that allowed them to essentially put one guard to sleep, as per the sleep spell? Would it be really so bad to give the assassin a death attack for lesser enemies?

I don't think it'd be bad policy, but you do have to be careful on how it is allowed so it doesn't become SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) to handle every enemy.

 

[Incenjucar]

4E has page 42. It's like DM fiat with teeth.

Magic items and special equipment exist, and DM fiat is kind of universal.

 

[Glade Riven]

So you are saying that after I've thrown acid in the face of a trained hand to hand combatant, and stuck a knife in his leg to cripple him, I shouldn't be able to beat him to death with a lead pipe? Of course I can, its only logical that crippled, disoriented, and blinded opponents are easy prey.

Step 1: there's a poison for that, at least in 3e.
Step 2: I think Unearthed Arcana had something for that in 3e. I know Pathfinder has called shots in Ultimate Combat.

Besides, sleep (drow) poison is much more effective. Then you could just slit their throats as the attacker was rendered helpless. And like someone else said - that's dirty fighting. I know there's a lot of 3.5 stuff for that scattered throughout suppliments, there are decent options in Pathfinder. 4e I'm just not as familiar with.

4e had a bunch of powers that had "x condition applied until your turn comes back around."

The thing that D&D doesn't have is rules for the thief to fight dirty other than a surprise knife attack. What the thief needs are good solid rules to disable opponents before/as they engage in melee with them. It only makes sense that this is how smart and amoral criminals fight.

Really. I seem to remember all sorts of poisons, plus UMD opens up plenty of options. Pathfinder has CMB/CMD.

The problem comes of course when no amount of sneak attack damage is enough to down a common town guard, nor are there any rules to knock a guard out.

Depends on a level discrepency, and luck of the rolls. Sneak attack with a non-lethal strike from a sap on a guard designed for you to be able to take down would work fine. Not the system's fault if a DM chooses mooks who are too tough for a rogue to handle it.

Would it really be so bad if the thief had an attack based on a fortitude defense that allowed them to essentially put one guard to sleep, as per the sleep spell? Would it be really so bad to give the assassin a death attack for lesser enemies?

I'm not that familiar with the full library of 4e stuff, but there's probably a power for that.

So you've houseruled in exactly what people in this thread want as part of the rules. So you're beligerantly agreeing, I guess? After all, I haven't seen anyone clamoring for an auto-win, just a mechanic for handling scouting ahead quickly and without a straight up pass/fail.

No, I houserule because I find a more dyanmic scale of success/fail makes for more interesting game. 4e has skill challenges. 3e & Pathfinder can have just a couple of skill checks (roll a sneak, roll a spot/perception). Some skills, as written, did have different checks to beat for information gathering (10/15/20, etc). Failure of a sneak roll should result in a roll by the baddies for spot/listen/perception. And if the player does something stupid, well, as DM I can't fix that. At best, there should be a note in the DMG on how to let each player shine, and not just for stealth.