[SKILLS] Backstab / Circle Stab

[Llaytan]

Hello!

As everyone has noticed, now more than ever mobs because different reasons mobs are able to deal a great deal of punishment to characters, not that it's necessarily a bad thing as long characters can retaliate but whereas other characters have high strength + good hp base / powerful protective & offensive spells / moderate fighting skills + self-healing in the end of the day thieves must (or should) be able to rely in his sneak attack to get the work done, be known that besides their role as scouts rogues in PnP are also known for their capacity to deal top damage to their enemies if well there are several restrictions (Some races are immune to sneak attack, you must be either hiding or flanking).But failing to do that they are left with a very humble hp and little else. Since stat conversion is locked and so they can't rely in elite scores in all their physical attributes is for that that I humbly ask that the sneak attack mechanics are revised, so they have an easier time and are brought closer to their PnP counterparts as most classes are recently leaning towards and you can plan a strategy using as base one of their defining skills.

I simply ask the following;

-Sneak attacking when you should be able; Right now you don't trigger a sneak attack every time that you should be able. What I propose is triggering sneak attacks according the PnP rules, if you are hiding and you attack an enemy, for that round all the attacks that land on your enemy are considered sneak attacks. Furthermore if an enemy is not attacking you, but you are attack him all your attacks against that enemy should be considered sneak attacks.

-Escalate sneak attack; The lowest possible value in the skill (inept?) would grant a +1d6 damage, the top a +10D6 and then play with the values in between and make it the only function of these skills, since if attack is a sneak or not will be decided by the PnP rules, not a skill roll. Making it increase a bit more faster that does currently would be nice although isn't critical.

Bringing this aspect of thieves to FK would make a much more interesting class, and also a much more viable class to play. I know that nowadays thieves aren't a particular popular class but this is something they really need. Thank you for your time for reading this and all your constructive critics.

[Kallias]

Without listen/spot checks to spot a hiding PC/NPC, I feel sneak attack is the wrong thing to revise. But I agree that rogues are absolutely useless in FK.

[Raona]

I've been thinking of testing class vs. class combat in the following way, on the test port:

Set up a PC of Class 1 and level X, with reasonable skills

Set up a PC of Class 2 and level Y, with reasonable skills

Pit them against each other, in purely melee combat, using the combat skills most commonly used (say bash for fighters, eyegouge for rogues).

This seems like a good test case; though I trust thieves are generally considered underpowered, this should be able to quantify by how much. Say Class 1 is fighter and level X is 20. What level rogue, if any, should be able to go toe-to-toe with a level 20 fighter in melee combat?

Questions for those with thoughts on the matter:

• What's a "reasonable" skill level for each PC in the scenario above?
• What are the key combat skills a thief would use (I don't play one)
• Is there a better way to test this? (Have each of the PCs above go up against goblins, see how many they can get through, or see how close they come to dying against a hill giant?)

[Llaytan]

Thanks for your answer Raona, the thing is that that the signature attack of rogues is only used in those special circumstances described above, a thief that goes toe-to-toe with a fighter of a similar level will (and deserve) lose by far, circle stab is a special skill in which you actually need others to use it not so backstab, with which you (perhaps) will start the fight, although this is a very unlikely case if you are grouped.

Assuming that they have the same constitution, the fighter has average dexterity and X strength, and the rogue has average strength and X dexterity, a point where roughly meet in hp and hit bonus would be fighter 25 and thief 35, but I think that the fighter still will beat badly the rogue since the fighter will be able to add to all their attacks their strength bonus to damage and the thief will be unable to use sneak attack in that particular scenario, but mind that is how is supposed to be.

Rogues as the support character that they are with their low hp and no so good BAB are meant to kill their enemies in their first turn (or leave them severely wounded and then finish the task) or sneak attack their enemies to oblivion when they are fighting members of their party. In a straight combat they have all their odds against them and in a certain way that is sort of unnatural to them (their class isn't tailored towards that)

Answering your questions, the defining combat skills of a thief are backstab and circle stab, more likely circle stab since is the more you will likely be able to use (as long you are grouped), also keep in mind that even if rogues are fragile they are actually one of the classes that can dish out more damage in a single turn (providing the right circumstances take place).

A level 10 fighter in D&D only have as additional damage to their attacks whatever derived from his and whatever feats of specialization have in their chosen weapon (so the total can roughly range from a +2 to a +6), a level 10 rogue has a +5D6 sneak damage plus whatever bonus has from feats and strength (if any)

Edit:

I have been giving it thought and really if anything thieves should compare with wizards in which they are perhaps the two classes that can (or should) deal more damage in a turn.

Taking as reference whatever damage cause certains spells in FK and the numeric values how relate as per the rules in D&D, each single sneak attack should deal the following damage:

At inept level: Whatever damage causes Chain Lightning at the lowest possible level
At whatever point is the middle point between inept and GM: Whatever damage causes Chain Lightning at that point /1,66
At GM level: Whatever damage causes Chain Lightning at GM / 2

As important as dealing the right damage is that the sneak attack is always triggered when it should, otherwise their main skill is pretty much watered down.

[Kallias]

In 3rd edition the rogue classes main advantage is they get to do a lot of "cool" skills that other classes don't get to. The class' worth is entirely based on how cool you think the cool skills are, and how often the DM sets up the PC to use said abilities.

In this medium, everything that rogues are good for in PnP (solving problems in unique ways which other classes are unable to) is out the window in a mud. Without interaction with NPC's on an intelligent level or DM intervention to allow things to progress, the rogue class is widdled down to being a crappy fighter that hides and ambushes and can pick the locks of things that don't have anything of value inside.

I don't think the pen and paper rogue can be appropriately recreated in FK. What I do think can be done is to create an atmosphere where a rogue is absolutely needed. So they may be subpar fighters, but if they are the only class in the game who can pick complex locks that magic is unable to...the class now has worth. Giving them Track wouldn't be a bad start either.

I don't think the damage increase route is the best to take. Rogues just don't do the damage fighters/wizards/clerics/druids/monks/barbarians/sorcerors do. They do special jobs that no one else can, typically these jobs require unsavory skills....not turning into a sneak attack blender.

-------

In DnD you get XP for overcoming obstacles. Killing is by far the most straightforward way of doing this. Rogues specialize in avoiding confrontation. They are the masters of overcoming obstacles without resorting to combat.

[Llaytan]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/Classes/rogue.htm

Well, a character that in each in attack potentially can deal a bit more of 10D6 certainly can positively qualify as a "blender" and it is a class feature, if we want a bit of diversification among classes, all the classes should have something to offer most of the time. In a medium like a mud is really difficult to cope with the all or most the possible solutions that rogues might offer in D&D, and sadly barring the stealth aspect of the class (Scouting/Disarm traps/Lockpick) what else could offer rogues is dealing all the damage they can. And really, playing a substandar fighter who occasionally can disarm a trap or two is something that would be liked by a very limited numbers of players. Their skills don't lend themselves well for a medium like this and so we are left what with little have, and this one of the few things that they have, that we could have.

[Kallias]

That "potential" is incredibly difficult to get without being a jank. With any reasonable situation/dm it's 1 round, and you'll likely miss anything past the first attack. They are not a damage class, you'd really have to tweak. Something as simple as being able to aim that backstab attack, may be enough.

But that's not the point. They are underpowered. My point is, I think they would be better off boosting the areas they are meant to serve (in my eyes), as opposed to boosting the combat side.

[Dovan]

Well... not to get too far off track, but another MUD I played way back in the day (gemstone 3) allowed rogues to aim their attacks on an opponent. For those better trained with it and their weapon, they could take and debilitate a fight from the get go. Sneaking up in the shadows then going for a sword arm and severing it, or plucking out an eye, hell... I've even seen decaps (but that was rare at best).

Perhaps if there was a way to give rogues a skill of aiming, they might find life a bit easier in some aspects. That though I'm aware would probably take a feat of coding. Just throwing out a suggestion of sorts.

[Kallias]

GEMSTONE! That's 3 of us who have our roots there. I loved rogues in that game. Ambush leg/ab/head/arm was precisely what I was basing that on. Also what I was basing them on with the locked boxes.