"Backstab", please come home to your Rogue


Classes: Bard, Monk, and Rogue

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

what about rogues having slightly bumped sneak attack (+2d6 at first level and +1d6 per every other level) and remove the least logical part of 3.5 rogues, flanking sneak attack. I have to admit that im a bit retro and still like the idea of "backstab", but i still think it will get more at the hide-and-stab combat style that a Rogue should be operating with.

and before you say that its not backwards compatible you should remember that the ninja has just this ability (called sudden strike instead)

(a battle that im not going to fight is the introduction of facing, i cant even get my group to go with the goodness from the unearthed arcana)


Truthfully Sneaky while I understand and appreciate your suggestion and the reason you make it I really hope it doesn't happen.

When I played rogues in 1st and 2nd edition I could never get off a backstab, there where just too many components to align to make it happen. Once "skills and Powers" came out I usually just didn't buy backstab.


The sudden strike ability of the ninja is what makes him such so hard compared to rogues, he'd still suck even if he did twice the damage of a rogue of the smae level. If a rogue cant sneak attack through flanking anymore, he becomes useless as soon as he is in a party in which there is only one character who is not entirely relying on sneakyness.
Rogues need the flanking sneak attack to be useful after the party was spotted and that is usually after the first attack has been done. So what do you want the rogue to do? Stab one enemy down and then sit in a corner and read a beauty magazine until the rest of the party is done killing the rest of the enemy horde?


The ninja is not the rogue, and neither his he open content.

And I'm absolutely, passionately, totally and completely against the return of backstab. Sneak Attack is here to stay.


The problem with AD&D thief backstabbing is that there wasn't a really clear set of guidelines as to when exactly you could do it. For instance, can I run behind my enemy's back every turn and backstab him every turn? (We used to do that a lot in V&V which also had a bonus for attacking from behind.) Or can you only do it on a surprise round (or the equivalent)?

The introduction of flanking was pretty elegant, IMO: if someone's attacking an enemy from one side, the rogue can backstab him on the other side.

Scarab Sages

Ooh. Bad memories of when 3rd Edition debuted, and my DM at the time required my rogue fulfill all the following in order to Sneak Attack:

1) Enemy must be flanked.

2) Attack must be from behind.

3) Enemy must not be aware of your presence (Hide and Move Silently).

Headaches.

The Exchange

arg! i thought this post was ate yesterday!

I can understand peoples reluctance to "nerf" the rogue. I will just try to introduce the facing rules from the unearthed arcana to get the "real" rogue feel in my games

i will say that is should be a fighter feat to pay FULL attention to a flanking rogue. it is HORRIBLY annoying that you cant ignore the cleric flanking one side doing 1d8+1 points of damage, to fully pay attention to the rogue stabbing you in the heart from the other side. i dont care if the other guy gets auto confirm to crit (or auto crit) to make up for the utter lack of concern from the flanked.

The Exchange

Threeshades wrote:
Stab one enemy down and then sit in a corner and read a beauty magazine until the rest of the party is done killing the rest of the enemy horde?

...why every good rogue has darkvision.

Contributor

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
...remove the least logical part of 3.5 rogues, flanking sneak attack.

Not illogical at all, and I know from experience. As a medieval reenactor, I often fall into the role of meatshield, and I can tell you that I get 'killed' more often from back-stabbing flankers than from the front. The ability to sneak attack while flanking simulating well the fact that most combatants can truthfully only fight in one direction at a time, and its usually better to pay attention to the two big guys with shields and bastard swords barreling down on you than the weedy guy running around the sides of the field (and hope you get a warning or hear him before it's too late).


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


i will say that is should be a fighter feat to pay FULL attention to a flanking rogue.

There's house rules for that. We must be sure to mention this when the proper playtest period comes around:

You can ignore one flanker. You're no longer flanked, but the guy you ignore has you flat-footed, and he gets an AoO.

Don't let two rogues flank you.

The Exchange

good one


KaeYoss wrote:
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


i will say that is should be a fighter feat to pay FULL attention to a flanking rogue.

There's house rules for that. We must be sure to mention this when the proper playtest period comes around:

You can ignore one flanker. You're no longer flanked, but the guy you ignore has you flat-footed, and he gets an AoO.

Don't let two rogues flank you.

It's called improved uncanny dodge


reese cochran wrote:
It's called improved uncanny dodge

And should be availaible for selection as a Fighter bonus feat (as should uncanny dodge, which would be the prereq.).

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Psst. There's no facing in 3.x, unless you're using an Unearthed Arcana variant. Having it in the game for only rogues would be... dumb.


Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Psst. There's no facing in 3.x, unless you're using an Unearthed Arcana variant. Having it in the game for only rogues would be... dumb.

Are you referring to the original poster? Because he explicitly rules out using facing in the first post.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

hogarth wrote:
Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Psst. There's no facing in 3.x, unless you're using an Unearthed Arcana variant. Having it in the game for only rogues would be... dumb.
Are you referring to the original poster? Because he explicitly rules out using facing in the first post.

Oh! Somehow I missed that. Still don't get how you'd get backstab to work without facing, though. DM fiat?


Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Oh! Somehow I missed that. Still don't get how you'd get backstab to work without facing, though. DM fiat?

He suggests it should work like "Sudden Strike" from Complete Adventurer (i.e. he thinks that flanking shouldn't be good enough, you should actually have to hide).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

In hindsight, with the class section over with for the moment, I wish the rogue's sneak attack was 1d6 at 1st level, 2d6 at second and an additional 1d6 per 2 levels for the rogue, with it topping out at 11d6 at 20th level.

why the change? That way, Sneak attack would have the same progression as fighter feats, so the feat rogue and sneak attack fighter would have an even trade.

Also you could extrapolate and make the fighter tank guy and the rogue skill guy, make sneak attack a feat, and voila! combinations galore!

As to back stab, is it more fun to say 'sneak attack!' or 'backstab' in a PSA?


Hey everybody!

It's quite some time that I posted my last... post.

This topic always concerned me from the beginning and I see that it's still not done yet.
So here are my 2 cents:

1) The fighter HAS to get Uncanny Dodge and Impr. UD!

2) The Barbarian should lose it - especially when raging!

3) The Ranger SHOULD get it, maybe some levels slower than the fighter

With this changes done, the flanking rogue is still powerful against most monsters and "none-main-combatants" but should be careful when attacking equal-level warriors.

Oh and as to backstab back in AD&D.
This ability was never ment to be useful in combat.
The THIEF had done something wrong when caught in combat!
It was mainly to sneak behind a guard and secretly take him out.
For this it was perfect.

Sovereign Court

Why does everyone want nerf the rogue? No rogue would be any equal match for a fighter in a straight up fight anyway but no rogue would be caught dead in a fair fight anyway. Flanking, 2 vs one = Not a fair fight and perfect for the rogue to take his shot at combat usefulness.
Keep the sneak attack and everything else just as you have it now. All the characters should be diverse enough to be some good in most all situations. Why should a fighter get uncanny dodge as a class ability? Just to take away the rogue's ability to be useful in combat? Maybe something like was mentioned earlier, such as "Disregard Flanker" as a feat, allowing the meat shield, err fighter to ignore one enemy and focus their attention on their most dangerous opponent, while giving the other a flanker a bonus (AoO and/or no dex).
It seems some would like to re-relegate the thief to checking for traps, opening locks and fetching your wizard a drink. It would be akin to the old "carry along cleric", who's only purpose is too buff the fighters before combat, healing everyone after and staying the heck out of the fighters way when things get a little rough.
May as well take away a woman's right to vote while you're at it... Send em back to the kitchen, barefoot and prego. Finally the DM doesn't need to run NPC clerics and rogues with every party because no one wants to play them. Equality amongst the classes has been a long time coming.

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


i will say that is should be a fighter feat to pay FULL attention to a flanking rogue.

There's house rules for that. We must be sure to mention this when the proper playtest period comes around:

You can ignore one flanker. You're no longer flanked, but the guy you ignore has you flat-footed, and he gets an AoO.

Don't let two rogues flank you.

I like that alot.


Do we really need ANOTHER combat feat?
Especially for something anyone could do without training?

Sovereign Court

Flanking to sneak attack makes complete sense, to me. No sane person is going to ignore one real, genuine threat 'behind them' to concentrate on the other, so the lack of attention gives the rogue the opportunity to do some precision damage, as it ought.

Also, without sneak attack working that way, rogues would just be lame. Indeed, in many cases they were lame because of the amount of crit-immunity in certain scenarios, so the new expansion of sneak attack damage to just about everything is entirely welcome (and I'm hoping that it'll include crittability being expanded, too).


Bagpuss wrote:
Flanking to sneak attack makes complete sense, to me. No sane person is going to ignore one real, genuine threat 'behind them' to concentrate on the other, so the lack of attention gives the rogue the opportunity to do some precision damage, as it ought.

The problem is that some threats aren't particularly "real" and yet they still act as flankers (e.g. if I'm being flanked by a tyrannosaurus rex and a poodle, my eyes are going to be on the T. rex).

But I'm willing to allow that in exchange for the simple elegance of the current flanking/sneak attack system.

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:


The problem is that some threats aren't particularly "real" and yet they still act as flankers (e.g. if I'm being flanked by a tyrannosaurus rex and a poodle, my eyes are going to be on the T. rex).

But I'm willing to allow that in exchange for the simple elegance of the current flanking/sneak attack system.

Yeah, anything that can do damage is pretty much a threat, which is sort of silly. However, like you, I'm happy to keep it anyhow (although I should add that I think ditching facing and going to squares was something of a mistake; I'm used enough to it now, though, that I can live with it).


Bagpuss wrote:
However, like you, I'm happy to keep it anyhow (although I should add that I think ditching facing and going to squares was something of a mistake; I'm used enough to it now, though, that I can live with it).

Actually, I like having no facing; it just doesn't work very well in a turn-based game. As I said above, whenever I used to play V&V, half your time was spent running behind your opponent's back before attacking him. Then on his turn, your opponent would do the same thing to you!


Callous Jack wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:


i will say that is should be a fighter feat to pay FULL attention to a flanking rogue.

There's house rules for that. We must be sure to mention this when the proper playtest period comes around:

You can ignore one flanker. You're no longer flanked, but the guy you ignore has you flat-footed, and he gets an AoO.

Don't let two rogues flank you.

I like that alot.

I think that is a GREAT IDEA! It is a feat every fighter should and probably would take.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:

But I'm willing to allow that in exchange for the simple elegance of the current flanking/sneak attack system.

QFE

Seriously, we want things to run smoothly and streamlined. We start putting too much "reality" into the system and its going to start getting bogged down when what we WANT is to speed the game up a bit.

The Exchange

4th ed has fast gameplay, but it isnt for me. i would like depth to this system. i just want to see rogues be able to one-hit-kill unaware monsters, and not Drizzting the other side of a sword and shield fighter. rogues should at least have two sneak attack scores, one for the much harder to get "unaware strike" (this should do massive damage) and a lesser one for flanking (enough to be useful but not enough to shame fighter types and instantly draw aggro)

i just dont see rogues wasting there time trying to line up ambushes, and why would they when they just have to tumble past the melee characters foe and stab repeatedly. its just not aesthetically cool at all.


I hate the idea of "backstab".

But, on the other hand, rogues are weaklings in combat. Maybe they need some nerfing. Sneak attack, talents, incredible skills, decent hit point, decent BAB, uncanny dodge, evasion...these guys are cool. A friend once asked "Who would you rather fight: two fighters or two rogues?" Two fighters, designed for battle, worried me less than two rogues.

But...hey, I like the new rogues. I like sneak attack the way it is. I like talents. All in all, pretty cool. Its a lot, but not too overpowering, I think.

So, not really interested in Sudden Strike replacing sneak attack.

Sovereign Court

Backstab sucked. I think in 10 years of 2nd edition gaming I saw it happen two or three times. Like a previous poster said: too hard to make it happen (if you followed the rules as they were written anyhow)


One thing that the Conan RPG allows is for Theives to select a single weapon at 1st and a nother weapon at 4th and every 4 levels therafter that they can deal d8 Sneak damage with instead of the usual d6 (however many dice they get, it's just d8s instead).

In playing D&D, we allowed the d8 increase if you took the Weapon Focus feat for each time/weapon you appied it.

The Exchange

im okay with people not liking "backstab", but i know people like "stealth kills". games like metal gear and thief really bring that to life. i want a mechanism for better showcasing that within the PFRPG system. I know that PFRPG isnt a solo game, but there is nothing wrong with a little espionage on the side. in a perfect world, the rogue should be able to near one shot kill equal CR's IF they have total surprise. flanking sneak attack is just to EASY to do.

Sovereign Court

Stealth allows you to get good position. Unfortunately, the rules as they are don't give enough benefit to that, perhaps, and they certainly don't prevent getting to that position via other means; even with opponents set up to perform attacks of opportunity, tumbling isn't that hard (particularly for a rogue...). So, other than getting that missile sneak attack off, stealth doesn't seem to me to have a particularly large combat value even before invisibility is considered (and I am beginning to think that invisibility, like flying, has always been achievable too early and generally undervalued in the design economy for its value in the actual game economy).

Sovereign Court

Invisibility is annoying, and useless against those with True Seeing. Therefore, it is properly valued in both "design and game economies" you so eloquently speak of.


Not to mention that if magic is used to do it the magic itself can be detected (possibly without even alerting the invisible to that fact). By the time Invisibility is available, so is glitterdust and see invisibility. One thing that annoys me about all this is that these second level spells can automatically counter the 4th level greater invisibility... it always seemed to me that Greater Invisibility should be able to resist detection better.

The Exchange

i think having detect invisibility counter greater invisibility is fair. there are a handfull of spells that you can use to deal with someone who has greater invis cast on them, if you dont your up s#$t creek. by all means, a party is full of dullard if you dont have seeing invisible covered (i guess my gaming group is a bit slow sometime because sometime we forget to memorize detect spells)

Sovereign Court

I also think that glitterdust is annoying and not for its value against invisible creatures.

However, my point is not that there are no countermeasures to invisibility but that just because someone on the opposition can see you doesn't mean that you still can't use invisibility to attack one of the others (particularly if you're a rogue). Also, as I say, it devalues the stealth skills but then, that's not surprising in a game that started off with pretty much no skills other than for the thief, at fixed values per level.

Sovereign Court

Invisibility will grant you one free attack. One. Stop thinking of invisibility as a game breaker. It's gone after one offensive/hostile action. It's detectable with detect magic. It's not uber.

Greater Invisibility is a lot more useful to a rogue, but it's a 4th level spell, and thus properly valued. I also think see invisibility working against Great. Invis. is good. Removing that "would" unbalance Great. Invis. greatly.

It's great to be able to counter invisibility. Talk to me when you've DMed a 25th level mage with Superior Invisibility (this one is THE ONE... it's completely undetectable by any* means ever developed in the D&D game, including natural senses -- i.e. the recipient of that spell emits no odour, no sound, no vibrations, etc.) Your only hope against it is to pick the right square and make your 50% chance.

*the only measure against Superior Invisibility, that I've found, is a character with all three Mage Killer feats from Complete Arcane (one lets you "bypass any magical concealment from an enemy caster", so one could make a case that it's good against Superior Invis; but a stickler DM who sticks to the strict definition of Sup. Invis. could overrule these feats).

Sovereign Court

Are you replying to me? Did I call invisibility a 'game breaker' somewhere up above?

Also, what does the "talk to me when..." sentence mean? Seriously, are you after a discussion or do you just want to tell people what to think? I recall in another thread you telling us to "be honest with ourselves" or something similar, which was somewhat risible?

I am somewhat bemused.

Liberty's Edge

Apologies before hand if I come off as a jerk or something, it's not intentional.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Talk to me when you've DMed a 25th level mage with Superior Invisibility (this one is THE ONE... it's completely undetectable by any* means ever developed in the D&D game, including natural senses -- i.e. the recipient of that spell emits no odour, no sound, no vibrations, etc.) Your only hope against it is to pick the right square and make your 50% chance.

*the only measure against Superior Invisibility, that I've found, is a character with all three Mage Killer feats from Complete Arcane (one lets you "bypass any magical concealment from an enemy caster", so one could make a case that it's good against Superior Invis; but a stickler DM who sticks to the strict definition of Sup. Invis. could overrule these feats).

I think you should really read the spell's description before going of on a tangent like this (doubly so because the spell seems to have given you so much trouble).

First of all, superior invisibility is a 9th level spell (as I'm sure you know). That alone means it'd damn well better be VERY powerful. However, you seem to not know how the spell functions. It can be bypassed by true seeing, a spell which any party at 17th level should have access to in some form or another.

I've checked both versions of the spell (Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium) to make sure that they're affected by true seeing. They are. The only difference between them is that the Complete Arcane version is also detectable by blindsight whereas the Spell Compendium version is not. If you're using a version that isn't from Complete Arcane or the Spell Compendium I apologize for wasting your time.


Since we are off topic anyways, In my opinion the Blink is much better than any of the invisibility spells.

I think most of the points from the above posts where that invisibility isn't that big of a deal, and it's not. Generally it's better to be a mage to handle it, but nothing else fling out some flour in the area.

As for getting past Superior Invisibility? That's the one area that big AOE's spells excel. Figure out a general area to target and let loose. I don't need to see you or even know the exact square you stand in, I just got to hit the room you are in.

Reminds me of a quote an old artillery man shared with me once, "Accuracy grows exponentially with the amount of munitions used... If I use one shot I could miss and then I never hit, if I use 1,000 shots and only hit once... will I hit so it doesn't matter anymore."


I had a character once that had a pet dinosaur.

Liberty's Edge

cliff wrote:
I had a character once that had a pet dinosaur.

Aren't they swell? :D

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:

Since we are off topic anyways, In my opinion the Blink is much better than any of the invisibility spells.

Blink only affects the caster, though, I think (although UMD would presumably be helpful in this regard). So at least in some respects, it ought to be better.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Since we are off topic anyways, In my opinion the Blink is much better than any of the invisibility spells.

Not for a Pathfinder rogue; it's been nerfed to remove the possibility of sneak attacking while blinking.


hogarth wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Since we are off topic anyways, In my opinion the Blink is much better than any of the invisibility spells.
Not for a Pathfinder rogue; it's been nerfed to remove the possibility of sneak attacking while blinking.

Makes sense in a way, after all you have a certain chance of flat out missing still becuase of the jumping back and forth between planes, and the fact that they can still see you. Seems like it should make Feinting easier though since they don't know how or where you'll come back though. Outside of rogues however blink is a great spell, with the sipulations that Bagpuss points out of course.


Gene wrote:
cliff wrote:
I had a character once that had a pet dinosaur.
Aren't they swell? :D

Yep. But not more swell than straying off topic. That's the swell-est!

Are we still talking about "backstab" and how people don't think that Rogues already do that, except it's called Sneak Attack and is both much easier to accomplish and more more deadly than mere "backstab" ever was?

Roll nat 20 and do double damage, or Flak/hit/deal base damage plus minimum +2d6 damage, which could be said to be nearly tripple damage with most light weapons.

Am I missing something???

Sovereign Court

Cliff, I think that just about everyone that has played prior editions realises that sneak attack is the 3.x backstab equivalent and it's better than backstab was (or as some, including me would put it, "it's worth having, unlike backstab which was often useless in practice").


cliff wrote:
Are we still talking about "backstab" and how people don't think that Rogues already do that, except it's called Sneak Attack and is both much easier to accomplish and more more deadly than mere "backstab" ever was?

Everyone knows that "backstab" => "sneak attack". The original poster's point is that by allowing a rogue to sneak attack when flanking, it's sort of like a "frontstab" instead of a "backstab" (i.e. you can still get the extra damage even when your opponent knows exactly where you are).

I don't have a problem with it, but I can see the argument against it.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Bard, Monk, and Rogue / "Backstab", please come home to your Rogue All Messageboards