I believe it because I have seen it. I've seen it way to much, and it is not fun for anyone but the Rogue(s). Rogue is way to easy to Min/Max and PowerGame. It is not something the Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin did wrong, it is the fact that there is not much they can do that a Rogue can't also do, and usually better. Sneak Attack is that good. It barely qualifies as a circumstancial, because what is needed is very easy to get. (Proficiency with a big weapon, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Charge on the first round destroys most things, or dang near close to it, before anyone else can even act. Toss in Cleave, maybe a Longspear, or a few other feats and the Rogue takes down not only the boss, but mocks the Fighter by saying he could finish the cleave and drop him.)
I do agree that anything should be able to be critted. That makes sense to me. That helps everyone out more rather than one single class, because even the Sorcerer out of spells can drop someone with a lucky crossbow shot. However, I'm on the opposite side of what should be able to be sneak attacked. In my opinion, I see no reason that Oozes and Constructs shouldn't be able to be sneak attacked. I can see a Rogue sneaking up behind a warforged and shoving their dagger in and it gets stuck in some gears and there is a big grinding noise and steam and than a loud clank and a lot of shaking. Or they stab and Ooze and it pops like a jellyfish. Undead though, no.
Why would anyone bother making undead to guard tombs from thieves, when the thieves will probably destroy the mummies (for example) before they even crawl out of the sarcafigi? Zombies are now useless, because the party just takes their tea while the rogue goes around "Taking 2" to sneak up and get rid of all the guards to the evil Necromancers cave.
Wait, your example rogue is taking a blatantly Barbarian feat tree? I suppose that can express the power of sneak attack, but I swear, the rogue who did that tactic in my game better kill the critter on round one, cause if not he dies on round two. Even with high dex, light armor and mid-range hit die only give you so much to your survivability. A rogue may be a nightmare for a spellcaster, but a giant should pound him into dirt without backup.
I do admit, I have seen the two weapon rogue get into a flank and destroy things. There are 3 counters for that which I have seen work well and fairly.
1. Turn give precision damage the same limitation on the off-hand as strength. So the rogue with 6d6 sneak attack gets his 6 with his main hand, and 3 with any off hand attacks.
2. Allow enemies to "focus" on the rogue, provoking an attack of opportunity from all other enemies, but eliminating the flanking bonuses each round.
3. Show reasonable bad guy intelligence. In a world where high level casters are living artilery, bad guys look for the heroes wearing robes or holding holy symbols. Likewise, in a world where high level assasins kill you mid-step, you also look for the sneaky guys with two weapons. Whether its a rogue, or a ranger, who cares, as long as he isn't putting those swords in your kidneys. Kill them hard and fast. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Goad feat (which I give all fighters for free at level 3, there is no way for a fighter to hold a monster's attention short of doing higher damage than anyone else (which rarely happens). As such, intelligent monsters will prioritize other targets, and less intelligent monsters will be one step behind them as they react instinctively to the bad man who hurt them the most.
Regarding the sneak attack, I respectfully disagree with you regarding oozes. By the rules, you are right about warforged. They only have partial fortification, so you can sneak attack them. An ooze has no vital organs, no important parts at all. Its not a giant amoeba with a visible nucleus, its a giant blob of protoplasm/muck/algae/snot thats heaving towards you like the rolls on an overweight man.
I am of the camp that crit/sneak attack should stay together, and what can be affected by one can be affected by the other. Keeps it simple for new players, makes sense 99% of the time. But I view crits as being skill just as much as being luck. Improved critical is not a "luck bonus", its training.
I know that I can pop off a kneecap on a skeleton, might slow it down, reduce its combat effectiveness a little. Or I can slide a blade between the two bones of the arm and twist. Classically, taking a zombies head off will stop them in their tracks. Zombies and Skeletons should have heavy fortification, hard to sneak attack, but possible. Ghouls still digest meat with their innards, still see with eyes, still even think with brains, still move with muscles. They are very close to a "still living" unliving creature. Light fortification seems good to me. Vampires need their heads to stay on, and need their hearts to keep beating, and those are the two main target points most combatants are trained to aim for. But most fighters know to go for the "softener" blow to the stomach before going for a "kill shot". Imagine their suprise at the moderate fortification!
Homogenous constructs like golems shouldn't be crit/sneak attacked, but clockwork ones are fair game.
Just my 2cp.
There seems to be an emerging trend of:
High level (15+) campaigns.
Enemies without the vaguest degree of 'tactics'.
Enemies who are far too few in number.
Munchkinism.
Evil overlords do create legions (ponder that word) of Undead to protect them from thieves - that's thief, not rogue. The thief could be in leather, platemail, or wearing a bathrobe.
If a single element of your party (ie 1/6th) is able to romp through your dungeon solo then you as a GM need to think about what sort of two dollar operation your Evil Overlords are running down there. If Trump were their boss he'd be uttering "You're fired".
Personally my head spins wondering what on Earth a bunch of players post level 10ish would even be doing down a dungeon anyway - that's so level 6.
That being said, the above poster was correct in that even the village idiot is savvy enough to know that the Wizard types and 'assassins' need to be locked up fast in a fight to prevent them operating, whilst the rest of the horde pile into the nastiest piece of work on the battlefield - the Tank.
Other than that guys, as a hot tip, if you like game balance and some semblance of sanity try playing back in single digit levels... OR start your Campaign at level 1. People don't dip and min/max when they have actually had to spend time with sucky combos to unlock cool stuff later... Mr Rapiers from a similar thread would be a classic case in point.
'Nerfing' classes is no substitute to good GMing.
|
Wait, your example rogue is taking a blatantly Barbarian feat tree? I suppose that can express the power of sneak attack, but I swear, the rogue who did that tactic in my game better kill the critter on round one, cause if not he dies on round two. Even with high dex, light armor and mid-range hit die only give you so much to your survivability. A rogue may be a nightmare for a spellcaster, but a giant should pound him into dirt without backup.
I do admit, I have seen the two weapon rogue get into a flank and destroy things. There are 3 counters for that which I have seen work well and fairly.
1. Turn give precision damage the same limitation on the off-hand as strength. So the rogue with 6d6 sneak attack gets his 6 with his main hand, and 3 with any off hand attacks.
2. Allow enemies to "focus" on the rogue, provoking an attack of opportunity from all other enemies, but eliminating the flanking bonuses each round.
3. Show reasonable bad guy intelligence. In a world where high level casters are living artilery, bad guys look for the heroes wearing robes or holding holy symbols. Likewise, in a world where high level assasins kill you mid-step, you also look for the sneaky guys with two weapons. Whether its a rogue, or a ranger, who cares, as long as he isn't putting those swords in your kidneys. Kill them hard and fast. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Goad feat (which I give all fighters for free at level 3, there is no way for a fighter to hold a monster's attention short of doing higher damage than anyone else (which rarely happens). As such, intelligent monsters will prioritize other targets, and less intelligent monsters will be one step behind them as they react instinctively to the bad man who hurt them the most.
Regarding the sneak attack, I respectfully disagree with you regarding oozes. By the rules, you are right about warforged. They only have partial fortification, so you can sneak attack them. An ooze has no vital organs, no important parts at all. Its not a giant amoeba with a visible nucleus, its a giant blob of protoplasm/muck/algae/snot thats heaving towards you like the rolls on an overweight man.
I am of the camp that crit/sneak attack should stay together, and what can be affected by one can be affected by the other. Keeps it simple for new players, makes sense 99% of the time. But I view crits as being skill just as much as being luck. Improved critical is not a "luck bonus", its training.
I know that I can pop off a kneecap on a skeleton, might slow it down, reduce its combat effectiveness a little. Or I can slide a blade between the two bones of the arm and twist. Classically, taking a zombies head off will stop them in their tracks. Zombies and Skeletons should have heavy fortification, hard to sneak attack, but possible. Ghouls still digest meat with their innards, still see with eyes, still even think with brains, still move with muscles. They are very close to a "still living" unliving creature. Light fortification seems good to me. Vampires need their heads to stay on, and need their hearts to keep beating, and those are the two main target points most combatants are trained to aim for. But most fighters know to go for the "softener" blow to the stomach before going for a "kill shot". Imagine their suprise at the moderate fortification!
Homogenous constructs like golems shouldn't be crit/sneak attacked, but clockwork ones are fair game.
Just my 2cp.
Not sure if this got eaten or what. It kept showing a response was made, but then not shoing the response.
Not sure why it is a Barbarian Feat tree. It is in the Complete Adventurer after all. As for the why Oozes and Golems, but ot undead, it is partially the way I can see it happening, but mostly just mechanics. Of all the things immune to sneak attack racially, undead are the most common by far. Next would be Elementals. Then probably Constructs, than Oozes.
Besides Undead, I am just guessing, and it is also a major factor of the Dm's preference. Oozes generally are not a big threat by themselves. In fact, in nearly every Ooze encounter I have ever seen, it is the environment that makes the Ooze a threat rather than it itself. That's why, mechanically, I have no problem with oozes being sneak attacked. They are generally non-intelegent and not major threats, so why not let Rogues have a little fun, they are pretty rare usually anyway.
Constructs, and Golems in particular, are very strong against almost everything thrown at them. That is the point of them, though. Why would any Wizard create a guardian that just any warrior or spellcaster or common thief could kill normally. Most are completely immune to all but a few spells, have high DR and fair AC, and deal a lot of damage. The truth is, if a Rogue could sneak attack them, the DR would still negate a lot of it, so they are doing some damage but not super damage. It also, (as in the warforged example) makes sense to have them vulnerable to sneak attack, though I can see having some resistance. In this case, as above, you are allowing the class a little more option, but since the encounter is uncommon, it is not a huge advantage, and doesn't overshadow anyone else.
With Elementals, and Plants I don't really care one way or the other, personally, but can see why both can not be sneak attacked.
When it comes to Undead though, it is like PC's using Poison. It just doesn't work the same (in reverse). It makes being a necromancer (undead controlling) a very pointless character option or NPC threat. Why would anyone want to play a Cleric when their spotlight is almost nonexistant now (you don't play a Cleric because you want to be a healer, you play one because you want to rock undead, or something like that).
Well first, let me apologize. My last post seemed kind of snarky when I reread it. (It's really late/early here in Japan so I'm maybe a bit cranky)
Now that you give a bit of feat description for your rogue, I can understand the problem a little better, but as the above poster pointed out; he's basically taken a rogue and deliberately made him a front-line fighter. The easiest way to handle him would be a good melee character/monster who has a high initiative. They're not in short supply, and he might regret any smart-mouthed comments at the fighter who decides to do something other than help him flank.
I don't know that this "breaks" sneak attack though. I've personally made much more broken builds that are less likely to get my character killed. Try an old 3.5 druid/rogue that polymorphs into something with lots of natural attacks.
I imagine that the motive for using undead to guard things is that they're scary and last a good long time. Normal zombies were kind of always useless, and I doubt that they're really valued much as guards by any decent necromancers. (Actually I've played necromancers, zombies can be quite good but only under certain circumstances)
Besides, don't vampires and mummies typically have class levels? Frequently in fighter, which would give them much more close combat skill than a rogue; or as clerics which rarely have anything to fear from rogues. Aren't vampires often rogues anyway? I guess that would all be anecdotal. Still, I think there's quite a bit that rogues have to fear from undead even with a large, applicable SA. In fact, I know it. I played a rogue/skullclan hunter with the saint templant in Age of Worms. I was constantly S****ing myself and more or less useless in the final battle/s. Friggin' undead with vorpal swords kept taking my head off, too...
Black Bard, the idea of making hard/soft undead by giving them inherent fortification levels is actually pretty elegant. I don't agree with you on the golem aspect, as I feel that if it has limbs it has exploitable weaknesses (which is how I feel about undead as well) but I wouldn't have a problem with fortification there too.
Oozes and elementals still seem impossible to sneak but possible to crit. If you can damage it you can damage it more, but maybe not cripple it; if that makes sense.
Need sleep...
Oh, two quick addendums.
A: Necromancers ARE useless. It takes tons of work to make them any good, and generally it relies on a certain amount of "well you COULD interpret it THIS way" with a DM who's tired of arguing.
2: Who plays an anti-undead cleric? It's much easier to make an anti-everything cleric. Mid to high-level builds, even with some decent nerfs in PF, typically result in clerics taking over as tanks and damage-dealers from what I've seen. Sure they've got smaller HD, but they can heal themselves. That's why I was so pleased to see the fighter get SOMETHING to try and keep up with the other classes in PF. Clerics can obliterate undead the same way other people breathe air and the new turning rules let them do it while healing. Crazy awesome. The only people who really seem to focus on one type of enemy is the ranger (by default) and the paladin (because of all the paladin prestige classes that do it)
|
|
Didn't really come off as snarky to me.
The only problem I see is there are really only two types of theives in D&D (besides going into all the 3rd party or non-core stuff). There are Warriors and there are Rogues/Ninjas. Warriors are the theives that really suck at it all and probably flunked out of Rogue school, and couldn't even get into Bard school.
|
|
A: Necromancers ARE useless. It takes tons of work to make them any good, and generally it relies on a certain amount of "well you COULD interpret it THIS way" with a DM who's tired of arguing.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. What is interupted?
The necromancer I am referring to is the undead controller type, not Specialist Wizards. Specifically that you've just made their primary spedialty pretty weak.
Not interupt, interpret. ie: read in a certain way.
Example, I don't recall the Leadership feat saying anything about being available only to PCs. Same with Undead Leadership in Libris Mortis. So since it's nearly impossible to make an undead army with spells, it's much more effective to specialize in buffing undead and take Undead Leadership to snag yourself one very powerful cohort and an army of followers; build the cohort with Undead leadership for a slightly less powerful cohort/smaller army aaaaaaand repeat until your DM gets sick of it and says "no". (Almost certainly right away, unless he's like my most frequent DM who will just laugh it off and throw armies of paladins right back.)
"The only problem I see is there are really only two types of theives in D&D (besides going into all the 3rd party or non-core stuff). There are Warriors and there are Rogues/Ninjas. Warriors are the theives that really suck at it all and probably flunked out of Rogue school, and couldn't even get into Bard school."
I'm... not sure I understand what you mean. If it's that all rogues are basically poor fighters or stealthy assassins... well, not really. There's tons of rogues who prefer to deal with all their problems via skill roll and don't like sinking points into perform enough to become bards. As for being stealthy or a sub-par fighter... they can be both. Heh. I've actually set out several times to make a rogue that can dish out damage like a fighter, and it always ends in pretty much the same way. They've got more health and better options in a fight. If it looks like a rogue can hit my fighter as hard or harder than I can hit him, I smack his sword out of his hand. Believe me, the CMB of your average rogue isn't impressive to a guy that goes around trying to grapple dire bears. Better yet, sunder the stupid thing. Then make fun of him. Getting into grapple with a rogue is also good, if they went all "strong rogue". They're still no good at grapple checks because it involves BaB, and they probably don't have the dex/defensive type feats of more traditional rogues.
I love them, rogues I mean, but I guarantee you I could make a fighter to take your problem child down in no time. In fact, I'm pretty curious about his build since you mentioned how... unusual it is. Would you mind seeing if you could post his whole stat block?
|
|
It is not one character. This is a lot of characters.
One went 1/2 Rogue, 1/4Barbarian, 1/4 Fighter and was just rediculous. This one was the absolute worst. Pure Min/Max BS. (sneak Attack, Power Attack, Impr. Init., Wirlwind Attack, Spiked Chain, Great Cleave, and Leap Attack, and another feat to bump Initiative). Player didn't bother with armor. I've literally see him charge into a room (Leap Power Attacking for max 10ish) and wipe the room of 7 monsters, dealing 80+ damage to all of them and killing them all in the first round. The only non-core part of his character was Leap Attack.
A Rogue can build up the Two Weapon Fighting Spring Attack tree from PHB2 and do some serious damage, too. Worst part of this is it makes them really hard to hit back.
Robulars Gambit?
Wand of Wraith Stike?
Yeah, but all that is pretty much stuff anyone who's willing to sink in the feats can do.
And 80+ damage on each attack isn't that hot compared to some builds, although I'm too wiped out to give examples at the moment.
Honestly it doesn't sound too different from what I've seen come out of the Book of Nine Swords.
Man, I hear you on the wraith strike though. That spell is BS, especially on a wand. Robilar's Gamibt isn't so hot if you can't reach the person attacking you, so there's wiggle room there. Plus I believe it lowers your AC for all purposes, which means that a smart enemy who's seen it before (particularly in the last round) would just use improved grapple or trip or something.
If I ran across someone using a "come hit me" fighting style, I'd happily Power Attack the bejeesus out of them. Teach 'em a lesson in damage.
In fact, here's a character I made for a friend to use as an NPC a while back. He's a bugbear, but you can do much the same with Human or Half-Orc or whatever. He's not that tough either, but that's because I was attempting to make him absurdly offensive:
Banger NE Bugbear Barbarian 4/Frenzied Berserker 5
ECL: 13
Str: 28 (30 Enlarge) (34 Rage) (36 Frenzy) (40 Rage & Frenzy)
Dex: 18
Con: 20
Int: 6
Wis: 16
Cha: 12
Type: Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Size: Medium
Speed: 40
AC: 20 (+4 Dex, +3 Natural, -1 Size, +4 Armor)
HP: 138
BAtt: 11
Fort: 14
Ref: 9
Will: 6
Attacks (While Raged/Frenzied):
Huge Earthbreaker: +27/22/17 Damage- 8d6+22 x3
Improved Power Attack: 12/7/2 Damage- 8d6+88 x3
Leap Attack: 12/7/2 Damage- 8d6+220 x3
Racial abilities:
Darkvision 60
+3 Natural Armor
Class abilities:
Fast Movement
Rage
Trap Sense +1
Uncanny Dodge
Rage Power: Increased Damage Resistance
Rage Power: Swift Foot
Frenzy 3/day
Diehard
Deathless Frenzy
Supreme Cleave
Improved Power Attack
Rage Points:
30
Feats:
Power Attack
Cleave
Destructive Rage
Intimidating Rage
Leap Attack
Instantaneous Rage
Skills: Name Ranks Ability Misc Total 43
Acrobatics 5 4 3 12
Climb 5 6 3 14
Intimidate 5 2 3 10
Perception 13 3 3 19
Stealth 5 4 7 16
Survival 5 3 3 11
Swim 5 6 3 14
Possessions:
Strongarm Bracers
+1 Huge Earthbreaker Enchanted with continuous Greater Mighty Wallop (enchantment cost 48,000 & 2,000 for the +1)
Permanent Enlarge Spell
Belt of Giant Strength +4
Leather Armor
As you can see I did my best to adapt the Frenzied Berzerker to Pathfinder rules, curious what anyone thinks of my effort there. Meanwhile, even if you removed some of that craziness, I'd still match Banger here against your average "I'm gonna charge him!" rogue.
|
I once had a player abandon his rogue character when he released that the main antagonists of our campaign were necromancers. He felt that the game was slanted against his character, even though it was established early in the campaign his importance.
I like the new Sneak Attack rule... I just think it needs a little more defining.
Personally, I have allowed Sneak Attack against anything except incorporeal undead and oozes in our Beta test. With 3.5 prior, I had house-ruled that with proper training (5 ranks of the appropriate Knowledge skill) a rogue could Sneak Attack just about anything, with the exception of the aforementioned. This house-rule came about as a result of the player leaving our game, as previously noted. Not much of a change for me.
|
|
I also think it needs more defining. Personally I think that people are taking the sneak attack anything with a weakspot a little to liberaly. What I am hoping happens is that either specific monsters can be sneak attacked (rather than all but specific monsters) and/or the Rogue must have the specific weapon to do so, (a magical silver improvized stake for Vampires, a magical flaming, bludgeoning weapon for Mummies, a magical Adamantine weapon for Golems, things like that). I also hope that they have to "know" what they are trying to sneak attack is, leaving room for a DM to say no without some BS gear just to make them sneak attack proof.
Any 2 cent Barbarian will have a good laugh at a Rogue and his feeble attempt to sneak attack, and also fellow Rogues should have a good chortle too. In fact, just about any NPC with the spend of 1 feat will nix a Sneak attack.
I have a question on the "crippling attack".
In fact, the bleeding attack can be used only one time on an foe (because it doesn't stack with it) but what about the crippling attack. Can a rogue make a crippling attack more than one time on a same foe, making him loose 2 stretch damage every time he sneaks this same foe or is it only usable one time like the bleeding attack?
I have a question on the "crippling attack".
In fact, the bleeding attack can be used only one time on an foe (because it doesn't stack with it) but what about the crippling attack. Can a rogue make a crippling attack more than one time on a same foe, making him loose 2 stretch damage every time he sneaks this same foe or is it only usable one time like the bleeding attack?
I don't see why not.
If a shadow hits you and drains 2 STR, then hits you again, it will drain more STR.
This kind of stuff isn't exactly stacking.
Just like if a kobold stabs you with a sword and you take HP damage, then the kobold stabs you again and you take more HP damage. It's not stacking, it's just more and more damage.
Same with other kinds of damage, like losing Strength.
Bleeding is different because that is an effect, like Blind or Stunned or Unconscious. Like most effects, it causes something else to happen. For example, Blind causes you to be unable to see. Every foe you attack has total concealment against your attack. Unconscious causes you to fall to the ground and become helpless. And Bleeding causes you to take some damage every round. (Yes, those are simplified).
And just like you cant become Unconscious x2, or Blind x2, you also cannot become Bleeding x2.
(Sure, in reality you could. A deadly rogue could slice open your right femoral artery this round, causing you to bleed heavily, then next round could slice open your left femoral artery making you bleed even more, then the following round he could go for the carotid artery - it's overkill, but there is no reason in the real world that it could not be done. So this is a gamist rule, putting limits on the Rogue class to keep them from stacking tons of bleeding damage on any one target).
I don't see why not.
In fact it is written in the beta player: "Crippling strike : An opponent damaged by ONE of her sneak attacks also takes 2 points of Strength damage."
So I understand that you can't use the crippling attack more than one time on the same foe.What do you think about that?
I don't see why not.
In fact it is written in the beta player: "Crippling strike : An opponent damaged by ONE of her sneak attacks also takes 2 points of Strength damage."
So I understand that you can't use the crippling attack more than one time on the same foe.
What do you think about that?
I think if a fighter with a longsword attacks an opponent, the opponent damaged by one of her attacks takes 1d8 HP damage.
You're reading too much into the word "one".
It's not a limiting factor of this rogue ability. The guy who wrote that paragraph could just as easily have written "an ooponent damage by her sneak attacks also takes 2 points of damage" and it would mean the same thing.
Except, then people would argue that it doesn't say how many sneak attacks, so arguably, if the opponent is hit by one, or two, or two hundred of her sneak attacks, he also takes just 2 points of Strength damage.
So they guy who wrote it made it clear that one sneak attack does 2 STR damage in addition to all the usual damage and sneak attack damage.
If he had wanted to limit it so it could only be applied once to any given target, he would have added a sentence just like the one in Bleeding Attack to make it quite clear tht it doesn't stack with itself - but he didn't.
So don't read too much into every word of every line written.
And if you do, ask yourself what is the simplest, and most likely reason for that word to be there.
This word, "one", simply indicates how many sneak attacks you must land in order to inflict 2 STR damage. Do that twice, and you'll inflict 2 STR damage twice.
It's as simple as that.
You're right!
In fact, it's only meaning that if a rogue lvl 10, can make 2 attacks per round (so 2 sneaks per round), he can only make loose 2 strength points par round, but in the following round, he can once again make him loosing 2 points of strength.
Excellent! Evil but Excellent!
"You're right!
In fact, it's only meaning that if a rogue lvl 10, can make 2 attacks per round (so 2 sneaks per round), he can only make loose 2 strength points par round, but in the following round, he can once again make him loosing 2 points of strength.
Excellent! Evil but Excellent!"
What? No, DM_Blake said basically that ANY given sneak attack, if successful, can apply this damage. So if you make two sneaks in 1 round, you could deal 4 Str; take two-weapon fighting tree and make six sneaks, 12 Str.
It's not per round, it's per SA.
And you can SA more than once per round. A lot more.
Curse your typing speed, Beckett!
OKY!
So another question concerning the sneak attack, in the 3.5 it is written that it can be used only on living creature but nor in the beta, so, does it mean that a rogue can sneak an undead?
That's been bandied about quite a bit in this thread, but according to Beta RAW, yes.
You can sneak attack nearly everything.
Tricks like those used to be used as alternatives to keep the rogue viable when fighting non-SAable enemies. Sort of how Weakening Touch was used to get around the Monk's crappy Stunning Fist save DCs.
Ah, I get you. Yeah, I highly doubt you can do stat damage to undead unless it comes from a spell or the BoED.
Okay, it seems like there were parts of my beef with rogues that were ignored. I understand, I do it all the time.
One: Rogues having to get into close range while wizards and Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent, rangers) can blast things from range isn't that big of a downside to rogues. Why? Because the ranger doesn't do that much damage in general, and Sorcerers and Wizards only have a few of certain spells throughout the day. The Wizard blasts a few guys for a 6d6 fireball. That's his action for the round, and he has 3 or 4 more 3rd level spells for the whole rest of the day. The Rogue sneak attacks for 6d6 4 times on the same target, then get's to do the exact same thing every subsequent round. The comparisons are not equivalent. Oh, and the rogue can sneak attack from 30 feet away, and I've seen many rogues dual-wielding hand crossbows. So even at range, 12d6 damage. Fireball, eat your heart out.
Two: Even with the sneak attacks the way they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them if Rogues didn't get EVERYTHING else under the sun. They have singly the most skills in the game, they can use magical items. True, they don't have the hit points of a Fighter or Barbarian, but every rogue I've seen takes Imp Initiative, plus their insane dex bonus (usually), so they very often go first. It's not so much that they do a bunch of damage. If they just did a bunch of damage, and that's all they had, then I'd have no problem. But that's not all they have. They can also use most of the skills in the game, and they can use magic items. They remove the need to have any other class.
Three: Is it possible for a canny DM to come up with intriguing encounters to foil the rogue? Yes. Does that get old? HECK YES. There are a few monsters that the party can go up against. But the whole problem with that is that now the DM is planning out every encounter for the rogue. Again, the Rogue has taken over the whole party.
Four: The Rogue has never been primary DPS in old school DnD. They're primary DPS in WoW. If I wanna play WoW, I'll re-activate my account. Rogues are a utility class. And again, it's not that they can do the damage. It's that in 3rd ed they are BOTH utility and damage. Bards have fallen to the wayside completely, because they are only utility. Bard used to be a cool class when they were rogues with just a few less skills but more magic. Now you have to be in a VERY specific campaign to have bards be useful, and that campaign usually has little to do with combat. My problem with them isnt' so much that they can do all kinds of damage, it's that they can do everything else under the sun too.
If rogues are supposed to be damage dealers, then reduce them back to d6 Hit Die and give them 2 skill points a level instead of 8. If the utility aspect is important (and it VERY is), then change sneak attack to be separate from a normal attack. I do kind of like the knowledge skill checks, but that would slow down combat a bit, and also make knowledge skills the rogue's most important skills (Yeah, I know we need disable device, but I need those ranks in Knowledge: Religion!). That's my problem with rogues, that they have become the most powerful class. And yes, I don't care how close you need to get, 24d6 damage in one round is more than any other class can do, including a raged out barbarian.
The barbarian does a lot of damage because, well, he has no skills, can't really wear armor (and let's face it, 5/- DR at level 20 is going to stop very little of the damage you're going to be taking at level 20), and they have the rage ability because they have normal feat progression. The spell casters can dish out a lot of damage, but they have very limited applications for their spells too. They can't cast that many during the day, and they may not have the right spell either (Wow, a long, thin corridor. I wish I had learned Lightning Bolt instead of Fireball...), and they need to stay at range because they can't wear armor, and they have VERY low hit points. They're AC is low too because Dexterity isn't a huge concern for them either. Their spells are all they have. Rogues do it all, usually better than the class they're replacing. That's my problem with them.
There is one more problem I've had with the number of sneak attacks equal to the number of regular attacks. It makes little sense that a rogue would be able to stab something 4 to 6 times and hit an exact weak point every time with pinpoint precision in 6 seconds. Yeah, there are sharpshooters today that can hit things from far away, but they don't take out an Uzi and let it rip. They take slow, precise shots, usually one every 6 seconds. This is the other reason why I think that Making it so sneak attack is a separate attack usable once in the combat round instead of your normal attacks would be balanced. The rogue is still doing 6d6 damage, and the rest of the rules for sneak attack don't need to be changed. It's just a separate attack-equivalent action.
Four: The Rogue has never been primary DPS in old school DnD. They're primary...
I get your points, and Ill come back and debate them later.
With regards to sneak attack, I provide you with a dramatised re-enactment of how it works and then you can make comment.
+++WARNING+++
Not necessarily safe for work
Contains depiction of violence - 15+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaiSZG2Z3o
-about 3 mins in, but watch it all - good movie.
Contains depiction of violence - 15+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaiSZG2Z3o
Okay, I know the point you're making here, the guy gets stabbed several times in the span of about 6 seconds. And I could even see the first one maybe being a sneak attack, rather than a regular attack, but once you rupture and organ (like the eye or the liver), it's ruptured. Hitting it again isn't going to do more damage, the guy is going to die at the same rate as before. Alternatively, that right there could also be considered one sneak attack, not many, or maybe a crit, instead of a sneak attack all together. Also, we have no knowledge of any other skills this guy has other than 'stabby stabby.' So he could just as easily be a fighter that uses knives (which , back in 2nd ed, was actually pretty freakin' powerful). In any case, it's a good scene (if violent), but ultimately not intrinsic to any part of this discussion. No offense.
Okay, it seems like there were parts of my beef with rogues that were ignored. I understand, I do it all the time.
One: Rogues having to get into close range while wizards and Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent, rangers) can blast things from range isn't that big of a downside to rogues. Why? Because the ranger doesn't do that much damage in general, and Sorcerers and Wizards only have a few of certain spells throughout the day. The Wizard blasts a few guys for a 6d6 fireball. That's his action for the round, and he has 3 or 4 more 3rd level spells for the whole rest of the day. The Rogue sneak attacks for 6d6 4 times on the same target, then get's to do the exact same thing every subsequent round. The comparisons are not equivalent. Oh, and the rogue can sneak attack from 30 feet away, and I've seen many rogues dual-wielding hand crossbows. So even at range, 12d6 damage. Fireball, eat your heart out.
Two: Even with the sneak attacks the way they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them if Rogues didn't get EVERYTHING else under the sun. They have singly the most skills in the game, they can use magical items. True, they don't have the hit points of a Fighter or Barbarian, but every rogue I've seen takes Imp Initiative, plus their insane dex bonus (usually), so they very often go first. It's not so much that they do a bunch of damage. If they just did a bunch of damage, and that's all they had, then I'd have no problem. But that's not all they have. They can also use most of the skills in the game, and they can use magic items. They remove the need to have any other class.
Three: Is it possible for a canny DM to come up with intriguing encounters to foil the rogue? Yes. Does that get old? HECK YES. There are a few monsters that the party can go up against. But the whole problem with that is that now the DM is planning out every encounter for the rogue. Again, the Rogue has taken over the whole party.
Four: The Rogue has never been primary DPS in old school DnD. They're primary...
1) It's not supposed to be a downside, it's supposed to be a limiting factor. Getting in close gives people with lower skill checks the possibility of discovering a rogue through blind luck if nothing else. And it means that if/when the rogue's cover IS blown, he's close enough to be potentially minced by any combat focused characters. Rangers in particular often have an animal companion with scent, which completely defeats most rogue's ability to hide. Not to mention all the critters that have got it. Anyway, in your example the rogue can deal 12d6 to one target from midrange. Big deal! A rogue doesn't have to be a thief, many are accomplished assassins (sans PrC) and murderers. They're very good at killing a single baddie in a short period of time. Meanwhile rangers with their various options for hitting multiple opponents (guaranteed two-weapon or ranged combat feats) and bonuses to minimum damage from favored enemy means that they are excellent at taking out swarms of certain types of enemies. Honestly I would only play a ranger if I knew a campaign would deal with lots of a particular type of enemy because they're not warriors per se, they're hunters of one or a few types of critter. Suggesting they should be good at killing anything runs contrary to their own class abilities. Casters on the other hand, while even more capable than rangers at taking out masses of weaker combatants are even better at weakening major threats. I've watched a rogue launch a full attack made entirely of sneaks from flanking and have them bang off the hide of a monster largely without penetrating AC. I've then watched the party caster smack the same combat brute with a couple shots of spells that drain MENTAL attributes and basically solo it without doing any HP damage at all. It's not the rogue's fault if the caster is working harder rather than smarter. Anyways, no rogue will ever be able to drop more than a handful of enemies a round. Casters can wipe out more individual threats on a round by round basis simply with the use of area spells.
2) I see we're not afraid of hyperbole! First, they don't get EVERYthing under the sun because magical items are inherently limited. Just about anything that produces the effects of a spell has a set number of uses, and that's GP sunk into something that you never get back again. If it's found in treasure, someone needs to be able to make use of it, and the casters already HAVE spells. Anyway can't you put points in UMD as any class now? You just don't get the +3 bonus? It's not like it's easy to UMD. You have to sink a lot of points in if you want to be sure you're not going to be disappointed when it comes time to use any given item. But it goes off of CHA, so with the Beta skill rules there's no reason paladins and clerics shouldn't take something other than ride and knowledge religion. In fact, it's not easy to do just about anything a rogue does with skills. They constantly have to max 4 or 5 just to fulfill the role that gets foisted on them by parties too lazy to memorize knock spells or push lifestock down trapped corridors. Anyway, being able to use the stray scroll of cure serious or wand of magic missiles hardly removes the need for the party cleric and wizard, you do them a disservice to suggest it.
3) Is it possible for a canny DM to come up with intriguing encounters? Yes. Does intriguing encounter necessarily mean designed to put one player in his/her place? No. If your DM is planning every encounter around a rogue, then he needs to take a serious look at where things fell apart. Is your rogue human? Because he can't sneak attack if enemies have any concealment whatsoever. Try a fog spell. Or just night time. That's hardly planning the encounter "around" the rogue. Try including enemies with Uncanny Dodge or more levels of rogue for that matter. These are hardly world-shattering ideas. A mage that takes a moment for a Bigby's xing hand can pretty much consider one rogue handled. Pardon the pun. Then they can get back to hitting the fighter with will saves. That's not planning the encounter around the rogue, that's planning the encounter around the party you're running. Anyway, if your rogue is taking up the entire spotlight then consider the possibility that the rogue's player would manage the same regardless of what class they're playing. Some people are attention hogs.
4) The rogue could put out a serious hurt in old school D&D. They weren't nearly as good at it, but then they weren't nearly as good at stealth either. Or climbing. Or... well, just about anything. Rogues got bumped a lot between editions, because previously they were rather underwhelming. Part of that bump was giving them new options because you shouldn't HAVE to play a certain character a certain way. If you want to be a thug who can't pick a lock but can unexpectedly murder the crap out of someone in a dark alley, the rogue class is a better place to start than the fighter. IMO.
The old school fighter didn't have feats you know! And nobody had skills in my day, we had non-weapon proficiencies! You can have an AC that gets better than 20 points from where it starts? Insanity!
It's a different edition and very much a different game. And it's a superior game in every way. You know it, I know it, Zorak know it.
Okay, I know the point you're making here, the guy gets stabbed several times in the span of about 6 seconds. And I could even see the first one maybe being a sneak attack, rather than a regular attack, but once you rupture and organ (like the eye or the liver), it's ruptured. Hitting it again isn't going to do more damage, the guy is going to die at the same rate as before. Alternatively, that right there could also be considered one sneak attack, not many, or maybe a crit, instead of a sneak attack all together. Also, we have no knowledge of any other skills this guy has other than 'stabby stabby.' So he could just as easily be a fighter that uses knives (which , back in 2nd ed, was actually pretty freakin' powerful). In any case, it's a good scene (if violent), but ultimately not intrinsic to any part of this discussion. No offense.
Contains depiction of violence - 15+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaiSZG2Z3o
On a purely first-aid based point, let me continue to harangue you. Trust me, two crushed kidneys is waaaaay worse than one. So are two punctured lungs. Heck, two popped eyes = friggin' blind. Don't be so sure that increased trauma doesn't equate to a more rapid death. In fact, if you were to get one side of your neck slashed open, you've got good odds for survival with medical care. But the other is a very brief period of uh-oh followed by extreme cold and a journey into a white light. Multiple attacks to critical locations have very serious consequences. Trauma surgeons will always tell you that they'd rather deal with one lacerated ventricle than two.
Multiple attacks to critical locations have very serious consequences. Trauma surgeons will always tell you that they'd rather deal with one lacerated ventricle than two.
Exactly.
The guy was 'flat footed' - very much surprised.
The attacks were all rapidly and repeatedly to a critical location (hey we even got the 'bleed talent' happening!)
After the first one hit, the victim didn't 'adjust his position now he was aware to limit further Sneak goes', he just got taken to the cleaners.
The attacks were delivered in what would notionally be a 'D&D round'.
That scene pretty much sums up how I see Rogue sneak attacks... the Rogue gets in close and hits with a rapid ferocity into a critical area. The more experienced they are the more likely they will knife repeatedly - as opposed to relatively green rogues who may be more affected by nerves and a bit of shock themselves. Think of it as 'combat nerves' or 'coolness under fire'.
Oh, hey. Just a quick bump, see my barbarian above for an example of just how much more than 24 measly d6 a barbarian can do.
|
|
So, just as a sort of poll or opinion, who thinks Rogues should be restricted to one sneak attack a round, (maybe more under specific conditions like being invis and AOing). I mean this in a mechanically balanced perspective, not Rogue=Awesomeness.
Does Sneak Attacking most anything change this view?
I think for sneak attack everything might works best with a skill check such as knowledge. A rogue needs to determine where the weak spot is. A rogue would need to know where the week spot is in a vampire for example. With out that knowledge the sneak attack will always fail. It would be automatic for most living creatures but for undead I'd require the knowledge same for constructs or any other monster that normally in 3.5 couldn't be the target of sneak attack.Apart from the fact that it'd add further overhead to combat, logically having successfully fought and sneak-attacked them before (or maybe even specifically preparing for the combat) would allow for sneak attacking without the knowledge roll... and even more overhead. I can't see it catching on, to be honest; there's enough going on as it is, in 3.x combat.
To prepare they need to know about the strength and weakness of their foe. To know that either they asked someone who made a knowledge roll or they made a knowledge roll. If you fought them but did not sneak attack them, that aint enough. Even knowing sun light hurts them aint enough to know the weakspots.
It might be adding too much complexity for some, but I think it is justifed. I would asssume rogues know the weak spots of those who can be critted in 3.5, but anything that can't be they don't know. Thus they need a knowledge check from someone to discover them. And of course if you mistake a creature (vampire) for another (human) you're not going to like the results. Though in some cases it might not matter, mistaking a human for a half-elf aint a problem. Long run it wont underpower them in a undead heavy campaigne, because eventually they will learn the weak spots, or take some points in knowledge religion. I'm not sure I would give flesh golems weak spots though....that's just me but I have always thought of golems as magically moved piles of material (flesh, clay, stone, or iron).
It's a different edition and very much a different game. And it's a superior game in every way. You know it, I know it, Zorak know it.
I disagree. It's a different edition, it's a different game, and it is a better game in many ways. But it isn't superior in every way. Old school, not 2ed with non-weapon prof, but 1st ed still has a charm, a character that no edition has ever achieved. It's pure, it's fun and it isn't diminished by time. Sure there are newer ways to do thing, sure 3.X improved the classes to bring more balance to them and to make them more flexible, but 1st ed laid all the ground work for it. 1st ed thieves were not damage dealers, they got one back stab and then did medium damage. Now they leveled like crazy, that was their advantage over most other classes, in a party that thief was almost always 2 or more levels higher with the same XP as everyone else. That gave him a better THAC0 then you might expect just looking at the charts on page 76 of the DMG, that and because of how two weapon fighting worked meant most thieves were good at it. Their damage was ok, but their skills were vast and saved the day many times. Anyhow I prefer pathfinder/3.X and play it now, but while it has many fine points 1st ed is still superior in some ways and to my mind always will be.
Okay, it seems like there were parts of my beef with rogues that were ignored. I understand, I do it all the time.
One: Rogues having to get into close range while wizards and Sorcerers (and to a lesser extent, rangers) can blast things from range isn't that big of a downside to rogues. Why? Because the ranger doesn't do that much damage in general, and Sorcerers and Wizards only have a few of certain spells throughout the day. The Wizard blasts a few guys for a 6d6 fireball. That's his action for the round, and he has 3 or 4 more 3rd level spells for the whole rest of the day. The Rogue sneak attacks for 6d6 4 times on the same target, then get's to do the exact same thing every subsequent round. The comparisons are not equivalent. Oh, and the rogue can sneak attack from 30 feet away, and I've seen many rogues dual-wielding hand crossbows. So even at range, 12d6 damage. Fireball, eat your heart out.
Well, if you've got an 11th level rogue hanging out with a 6th level wizard, you shouldn't be surprised that the rogue is more impressive. At 6th level, the rogue only does 3d6 sneak attack damage.
At 6th level, the rogue might have 3 attacks (TWF and Haste), which will get 9d6 damage. Add in weapon damage and you've got 12d6. That requires 3 rolls to hit and flanking/improved invisibility or some other way to deny dex to the opponents. That's also against one target. That 6d6 fireball might hit 3 or 4 enemies, so it's effectively 24d6 of damage.
Also, it takes two hands to load a hand cross bow. After the first round, they're not going to have a very good rate of fire.
I've seen many rogues dual-wielding hand crossbows. So even at range, 12d6 damage. Fireball, eat your heart out.Also, it takes two hands to load a hand cross bow. After the first round, they're not going to have a very good rate of fire.
Not my rogue, no sir. I mean rouge.
My rouge has the patented Hacker and Krush hand repeating crossbow. 15 in the mag, one in the chamber. Fires 4 bolts per round.
In each hand.
At 6th level, my rouge was dishing out 8d4 +24d6 sneak attack per round, for 4 rounds.
And he could reload clips from his belt like Laura Croft. Just a free action to depress the clip release lever, then swift action to bang the H&K hand repeating crossbow down on the fresh clip, then it's back to 8 sneak attacks, all in the same round.
Deadliest rouge evah!
My rouge has the patented Hacker and Krush hand repeating crossbow. 15 in the mag, one in the chamber. Fires 4 bolts per round.
Crossbow dude from 'Hawk the Slayer' much? :p
Seriously though, the knowledge checks are a pretty poor idea guys.
Lets think about how many skill points Rogues would now be having to pour into a large number of Knowledge checks (which means a high Int is now mandatory) for the benefit of using the skill a very very few number of times.
So they buy the skill, make the check vs zombies once, then never have to roll against a Zombie again. Wha?
Also, if the GM introduces a new monster to the adventure the rogue will be nixxed until he levels up so he can go learn the new applicable skill to deal with the foe, now depriving him of a key class ability for up to several adventures. What player would ever accept that?
Low level rogues would be punished the hardest for this as they wont have the skills to burn, high level rogues would be able to buy the skills as they'd have bought any non-core skills to a decent level already. So all you are doing by Knowledge checks is giving a punishment to the wrong people... it wont 'fix' your high level Rogue 'problem'.
Also, nerfing classes is no substitute for intelligent GM'ing.
Just so I'm clear on this, you feel that 1st edition was charming because the "thief" was 2 or 3 levels higher than everyone else and STILL fairly useless in combat?
O_o
I think the nostalgia you're feeling for 1st ed. is no different from what some 12-14 yr-old just starting RPGs today will feel for pathfinder in a couple decades. I can't really argue with it, beyond saying that I disagree.
But oh how I disagree! I disagree SO hard. I remember looking over 1st ed. books in the days of AD&D and shaking my head in bemusement.
When 3.0 came out I came close to laying all my AD&D material (minus adventures, of course) on the floor and dancing on them.
Every edition has improved on the mistakes of the previous (except that abortion - 4E), and I think that Pathfinder may be coming close to the pinnacle of what D&D can be. I'm not a paizo-zombie, I dislike one or two things yet, but I keep hearing the same complaints about fighters and rogues. And I keep thinking - you're doing it wrong.
I'm not trying to be rude, but Pathfinder is looking to give some classes a certain amount of "oomph" because they have historically lagged. I have it on good authority that 1st edition thieves, for example, would regularly be a couple levels higher than everyone else and still only capable of dealing medium amounts of damage on rare occasions.
As for non-combat, there are skills governing every kind of social/non-social situation under the sun. If you want your gaming group to engage in more of them, it's something you really need to take up with your DM/players.
I need to get a few more of the people I've gamed with regularly to join these boards, they'd get a kick out of hearing how rogues are too powerful...
So, just as a sort of poll or opinion, who thinks Rogues should be restricted to one sneak attack a round, (maybe more under specific conditions like being invis and AOing). I mean this in a mechanically balanced perspective, not Rogue=Awesomeness.
Does Sneak Attacking most anything change this view?
Obviously, I'm for one sneak attack a round. It's balanced. Though attacking when invisible or under other special conditions, that I can see getting more. Not 6 to 12, but a few more.
And no, 3rd ed is not a superior game to 2nd ed. You like it more, I like 2nd ed more. That's a matter of opinion. And besides, that's not what we're talking about here. And you all STILL don't seem to be getting what my problem with rogues are. You're still going on about how the damage is balanced, but then going on with things like "deadliest rogue evah!" My problem is that rogues CAN do everything. Yeah, they can't cast spells better than a cleric or wizard, but they can still cast spells. They DO, however, usually do much more damage than the normal damage-dealing classes. I have routinely seen rogues in every game I've played of 3rd ed, 3.5, and Pathfinder out-damage fighters, barbarians, wizards, sorcerers, everything. And again, if that was ALL they had, I wouldn't have a problem. But they still have those skills and abilities. No one is refuting these points, which leads me to the conclusion that no one CAN refute these points. Why doesn't the Fighter get the ability to use wands and such? Why can't the cleric sneak around at 1st level? Because they have specific roles that don't encroach on other people's roles. And the Rogue is encroaching on the roles of every other class. The main problem still stands.
As for making combat rogues rather than skill rogues, well, those skill points don't go away, and the rogue can still do nasty things, like bleed, and ability score damage. And now they can sneak attack almost anything (though I don't think that undead should be able to be sneak attacked, but then again, I don't think that much of anything should really affect undead, they're supposed to be nearly unstoppable killing forces, after all, but that's a topic for another thread), they are never useless in combat. I'm not arguing against the ability to sneak attack most anything. I'm arguing against the amount of damage they can do in relation to all their other abilities.
Oh, and as for the hyperbole, no, I meant EVERYTHING under the sun. The rogue can feasibly replace ANY other class in the game. They are not always better, but they sometimes are. The fighter can't do that, the wizard can't do that. Other than the rogue, the cleric came the closest, but they are always regulated to the role of heal-bot, and they're attack bonus isn't that great, not to mention their prime requisite stat (wisdom) isn't all that helpful in combat (except the will save. Whoopie.). The fact is, the rogue as is is just munchkiny. They can do to many things. No other class gets those options. No other class has as many skills. No other class has so many abilities. THAT is my problem with rogues. Please stop with the whole argument of "rogue's damage is just fine, quit crying noob" (which, by the way, the insults are not helpful to the GMs trying to improve the game). The rogue's damage would be fine if they didn't have everything else they have. But they do. Pick one way the rogue should go and be done with it. Should they be utility, or should they be damage? They shouldn't be both.
If you seriously don't believe what I'm saying about rogues, try this out. Run a test campaign, you know, an encounter, a dungeon corridor (with traps and secret dorrs and such), and a role-play encounter (merchant or other friendly NPC). First run it with Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue. Then run it with Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue. See what it's like. I've done this, and I've seen the difference.
Obviously, I'm for one sneak attack a round. It's balanced. Though attacking when invisible or under other special conditions, that I can see getting more. Not 6 to 12, but a few more.
And no, 3rd ed is not a superior game to 2nd ed. You like it more, I like 2nd ed more. That's a matter of opinion. And besides, that's not what we're talking about here. And you all STILL don't seem to be getting what my problem with rogues are. You're still going on about how the damage is balanced, but then going on with things like "deadliest rogue evah!" My problem is that rogues CAN do everything. Yeah, they can't cast spells better than a cleric or wizard, but they can still cast spells. They DO, however, usually do much more damage than the normal damage-dealing classes. I have routinely seen rogues in every game I've played of 3rd ed, 3.5, and Pathfinder out-damage fighters, barbarians, wizards, sorcerers, everything. And again, if that was ALL they had, I wouldn't have a problem. But they still have those skills and abilities. No one is refuting these points, which leads me to the conclusion that no one CAN refute these points. Why doesn't the Fighter get the ability to use wands and such? Why can't the cleric sneak around at 1st level? Because they have specific roles that don't encroach on other people's roles. And the Rogue is encroaching on the roles of every other class. The main problem still stands.
As for making combat rogues rather than skill rogues, well, those skill points don't go away, and the rogue can still do nasty things, like bleed, and ability score damage. And now they can sneak attack almost anything (though I don't think that undead should be...
I thought it was pretty clear that my 3rd > 2nd was tongue in cheek. But yeah, I do like it a lot more and I'm confused why you'd be trying to swing 3rd back to 2nd. I'm sure you still have your old materials, so if you wanted to return things to the poorly-balanced past it's as easy as using them.
You STILL don't understand that the "problem" is in your head. The deadliest rogue EVAH was built to be a damage dealer. Something you can do with ANY CLASS. You can make a combat monster ranger/druid/wizard/sorceror/fighter/bard/paladin but when you do it using rogue you're suddenly violating some unwritten rule? **** that. I've watched the party bard, the guy who SINGS as a primary class feature, SOLO various combat threats in age of worms and you want to talk about how rogues are this unbalancing factor?
Your complaint about skills is a red herring, because anyone can put points in any skill. The only thing you don't get is the +3 for class skills. If you have a decent intelligence (and the only reason you would as a rogue is if you wanted a bunch of skills) you can pump out quite a few points. Added to that the beta ability to gain 1 skill per level in your favored class and a bright fighter is getting a surprising number of ranks in UMD or whatever. So if skill ranks are all it takes to replace any character, then any class can replace any other. Which is obviously untrue.
Anyone who can take a feat (and fighters get tons) can do nasty things like ability damage and bleed! Just about any class can go about unseen in one way or another, casters especially, and you don't hear rogues complaining about people stealing their personal right to stealthiness.
As for lots of class abilities, they're not the only ones who get a variety. My favorite foil springs to mind: the monk, a showcase of useless (but frequent!) abilities.
I'm genuinely sorry if my responses have offended you. Believe me, I edit myself quite a bit already in order to try and avoid that. It just happens that I type like I talk, and I talk to people who share my hobbies as if we already have a certain amount of familiarity. So if I say "your opinions are insane" rest assured that it's in the same way I'd say it to my brother or someone I'm smiling at across the gaming table. I didn't mean to imply that you're new to D&D either, your preference for 1st ed. makes that obviously false, but I stand by my inference that anyone who has this much trouble with rogue versatility simply hasn't experienced the options that every other class offers.
I've actually run rogue-only campaigns. They're a lot of fun and show that rogues don't have to rely on other people to survive. That's why they have guilds that don't fall apart. Never have I ever run a rogue campaign where someone didn't multiclass into cleric or wizard or fighter. Why? Because there's no substitute for having someone who actually knows a few feats/spells.
I've got a challenge for you. Try running a cleric only campaign. Your suggestion that cleric always gets shunted into healbot is a mirror of what you're trying to do with rogues!
"You've got spontaneous healing, you have to heal."
"You've got skills, you can't do anything but use skills."
I can count the number of clerics I've seen that consider healing to be their primary position on no hands. Try four wizards! Your NPCs/monsters will drop like flies and no social gathering is dull with a pocketful of cantrips. Not to mention that INT is actually a primary stat, and typically I always see wizards having pretty respectable skill point totals.
As it stands, D&D is a game that doesn't require ANY mix of classes. You can play as all fighters, you can play as all druids. I happen to prefer a game that doesn't penalize you just because no one wants to be the designated anything.
Just to stress this:
"Why doesn't the Fighter get the ability to use wands and such? Why can't the cleric sneak around at 1st level? Because they have specific roles that don't encroach on other people's roles. And the Rogue is encroaching on the roles of every other class. The main problem still stands."
They CAN!
I have yet to see any RAW in the Pathfinder Beta that says you can't crossclass UMD.
And I know for sure, beyond any argument, that a cleric can sneak.
If you seriously don't believe what I'm saying about rogues, try this out. Run a test campaign, you know, an encounter, a dungeon corridor (with traps and secret dorrs and such), and a role-play encounter (merchant or other friendly NPC). First run it with Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue. Then run it with Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue. See what it's like. I've done this, and I've seen the difference.
Hang on, run a CAMPAIGN, or run two non attached single issue encounters?
In a CAMPAIGN the F/W/C/R combo will win, as they have a breadth of skills and abilities allowing them to deal with the countless multitudes of encounters and obstacles a CAMPAIGN represents.
In a ROLE-PLAY encounter, neither will have an advantage as it comes down to the role-playing skills of the players - so there is no class dependency. Of course the F/W/C/R combo could be seen as having a slight situational advantage in a range of circumstances, as villagers are more likely to talk to a Cleric than a dodgy looking guttersnipe.
In an ENCOUNTER area of Dungeon with doors and traps, well the F/W/C/R can do this with detect traps/poison/magic or by being Elves walking past the door... so once again, its a tie.
In a SINGLE MELEE encounter, theres no saying who will arbitrarily win and under what circumstance, of course, once again, the F/W/C/R group will be less dependent on a particular set of auspicious circumstances.
So in just about anything you mention here I can't see your point.
Which one feat?
Any 2 cent Barbarian will have a good laugh at a Rogue and his feeble attempt to sneak attack, and also fellow Rogues should have a good chortle too. In fact, just about any NPC with the spend of 1 feat will nix a Sneak attack.
Woops, my bad.
Uncanny Dodge is a freebie to Rogues and Barbs.
No sneak attacking those.
I have often enjoyed combining rogue or barbarian with ranger for this and other reasons.
Woops, my bad.
Uncanny Dodge is a freebie to Rogues and Barbs.
No sneak attacking those.