Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

I for one think the thief class needs a ton of help. I think if it were strengthened slightly we would see more around. I like seeing thieves

Anyways, I think with the addition of this ONE skill it would help them a ton. Dual Backstab that is.....

Unless something has changed, I know its coded and in the game....just not available to the thief class. I think it would be great if it became a part of their skill list and would help them out greatly.

Thoughts?

Jake, Its ok if I am horribly wrong lol

Personally, I don't think the thief class needs much help at all. I have seen many thieves who were more than a match against a fighter of the same level. Add that to their non-combat skills, and I'd say you have a pretty nice class. Not to mention the fact that already backstab alone can kill a mob in one hit... A dual backstab is just, well, overpowered I think.=\ Just my opinion, though.

At my last count, it took me two hands to count the number of thieves that are now roaming around Waterdeep... I don't think the thief class needs much incentive right now. We actually have more thieves signed on at any given time right now than rangers and clerics. You may miss some of them, since they are not all sticking out with black studded leather and the like.

But as far as dual backstab goes, I think it would be an imbalancing skill. As Argentia said, you can kill most mobs with a backstab, and I have seen a lvl50 thief's backstab sap 20% of my lvl50 ranger's hit points. And I have seen a dual wielding thief take down a dual wielding fighter in a straight spar.

Just my 2 copper.

I have never seen a thief take a fighter. Somehow, I must have missed this over my days. I suppose it could be possible, but it would have to be quite uneven in training.

As for killing mobs as you say..... Yes you can kill some in one hit....but most of these mobs are pretty low level in my experience. Thieves for the most part that I have seen have trouble going into high level areas(I am saying WITH a group). If they never catch aggro they can be fine, yes.....but otherwise its pretty nasty.

Currently, its hard with the group system to keep the thieves away from aggro and it seems more random as to who will catch the fury. I have been in multiple groups where we keep trying to set formations, etc and have no luck protecting a player. This, to me, sways thieves from going into the "funner" areas (IMO) of the game.

Then again, I only have a ton of fun when there is a larger chance of death. This only leaves the strongest of areas.

As for the backstab hurting your ranger. It very well may have, but how quickly did the thief drop afterwards? Without checking extremes.....

A decent fighter vs. A decent thief

Not even close. Not that I have ever seen, and I have seen many fights. Even with dual backstab I don't think the thief would win easily with similar skill training. I don't even think they would win most of the time. I bet it would be close though....thus my point of bringin it up.

Jake

Keep in mind thieves aren't supposed to be able to best a fighter; in melee combat there is none better than a fighter. Thieves are not supposed to be a purely offensive class, they are more RP-oriented and their skills lie elsewhere, with many more non-combat skills than a fighter.(IE stealing, sneaking, detrap, haggle, pick lock, peek, track, and disguise) If you want to be able to beat a fighter so badly, fight fire with fire and have a fighter character. But when you need a lock picked or you're headed into a dungeon filled with perilious traps, bring along your friendly(or not so friendly) neighborhood thief. It's what they're there for. Just be sure to protect them with your fighter because, hey, that's what THEY'RE there for.

All in all, if a thief was meant to be powerful he would be a fighter instead. Every class has its benefits and drawbacks, and a thief's drawback(its lack of physical strength) is counterbalanced with its unique skills that all other non-rogue classes lack.

Tretch wrote:I have never seen a thief take a fighter. Somehow, I must have missed this over my days. I suppose it could be possible, but it would have to be quite uneven in training.

One I know of right off was a match between Sylvester, everyone's fave little Tymoran rogue, and a ranger (no, not mine in this case) in an all's fair spar (which of course, meant thief could disarm and use his unique nasty combat skills.) These turned out to be the equalizer in his case. As I watched, blinked, and saw Sylvester come out on top.

Many of the thief's skills (circle stab, gouge, dirtkick, sap, etc.) can be very nasty against opponents who do not possess these skills. Provided they are allowed in a fight.

Argentia wrote:Keep in mind thieves aren't supposed to be able to best a fighter; in melee combat there is none better than a fighter. Thieves are not supposed to be a purely offensive class, they are more RP-oriented and their skills lie elsewhere, with many more non-combat skills than a fighter

While I agree there is more RP needed for the thief class, I must disagree that a thief, or rogue for that matter, is not intended to be an offensive class. In D&D rules, a thief, with their sneak attack, can outdamage a warrior class any day of the week. However, in order for that skill to be used properly, the thief needs that warrior. See, Sneak Attack only works when the bad guy is looking away from you, the thief, and you can plant that bagger in their back. However, if the thief attempts to tank an enemy (What a warrior should be doing), they will be ripped to shreads AND unable to use such skills.

Currently, I am unsure how "Backstab" and "Circle" are working. I know that Circle is in the battle, and Backstab is to begin it. However, you can only do 1 per fight, leaving the theif with few options. 20% instant drain is great. But if you can't repeat the damage, you sit there and watch the enemy or demon sit on 80%, while he dominates you.

Tretch wrote:I have never seen a thief take a fighter.

Kregor wrote:One I know of right off was a match...

We're getting sidetracked here. The object was never to create a game with classes designed for pk (Player Killing) and pvp (Player versus Player). What we have tried to persue is a game in which classes balance each OTHER out, and therefore, people will group to take down that dragon or save that (insert damsel in distress name here).

So, saying that Thieves are unable to solo a Fighter... Is really a moot point. So what?

Dual Backstab
As far as Dual Backstab goes, I'd rather see the game move more towards the Sneak Attack ideal, and the intigration of Circle and Backstab into one skill. Even if the damage of Backstab and Circle are scaled down, I'd love to see the thief gain more utility with increased damage per battle, rather than a large amount of damage, only when the conditions are right (you have initiative, you have the proper skill level, the enemy hasn't been backstabbed / circle stabbed in 30 mins, you have 10% moves).

Suggestions?

Basically, increase the ability for thieves to deal damage, while simotaniously decreasing the fighters ability to deal it. Now, I can already see everyone angerily writing posts on how gimping a fighters would be a huge mistake, but lemme add something here -- Give the fighter the ability to withstand decent amounts of punishment and a way to direct the conflict towards himself (like rescue and formation).

That way, you have a tank (the warrior class), a physical damage dealer (the thief), a magical damage dealer (the mages), and a healer / support (the priest and bard for support). Everything a healthy adventuring group needs. But these are vague ideas.

Edit: I updated this with the final section after Tretch posted. So I'm not sure if he agree's with the last bit

basically the same idea I am looking for cyric. You just have a better plan than I.


And for this....I hate you j/k


Anything to make thieves an excellent group element would be very nice to see. You would see thieves in groups more times than not.....instead of...we need a lock picked, so lets get a thief.....you could need them to stay alive

Tretch

I know of atleast one thief, whom I would bet heavy odds on winning a fight with a fighter. Wether he would or not, I could not say as I have never seen him battle one, but having seen some of his skills, I would not hesitate in laying odds on him.

As for the changes suggested for thieves class, I would like to say (and this is just my opinion) I don't think they are needed. The first pc I created here is my thief, and I have to say I think the thieves class is fine as it is. Those changes, would be nice granted, and I certainly would not object, but I don't see them as needed.

Do I hear a spar being set up?

I place 20 billion platinum on Tretch. You set up the rest


I agree with all that Cyric posted. It would create the "balanced" classes that we all speak so much of. I think formation tweeking would do a lot to help out.

Although, I am not strong with the actual rules of how everything should go when it comes to formations.

I do like the basic idea of:

Fighters are TANKs, but not damage dealers

Thieves deal DAMAGE, but cannot tank.


That works very well IMO

Jake

I think decent fighters (Tretch, Agerlor, Timaeus, etc) could be classified as damage dealers...

IMHO thieves work well lurking around the fringes of combat, backstabbing, etc at will and using their more unique talents to their advantage.. they can`t sit there in the front rank and duke it out with fighters...

So TANK = meatshield? or the ability to absorb damage?

Tank is a term for meatshield. Basically, someone that has both defense and the hitpoints, and would be considered the ideal canidate to take the hits. That way, priests aren't ineffiecently pumping mana into cureative spells on classes with high hp and low def, or scurrying to heal low hp characters before the enevitable DEATH hits them.

Course, when I say defense, that doesn't nessesarily mean magical defenses as well. I think a tank should not have those, and allow the mage or supports (such as the bard) cast those upon the tank in order to make them fully capible of holding the enemies at bay while the damage dealers do the damage.

I'm still going to have to disagree with the idea that fighters are not the damage dealers while everyone else is... To me, all a fighter has is his ability to take, and deal, damage. A fighter cannot steal, heal, hide, sneak, cast buff spells, fly, sing, cast prayers, backstab, or do any of those wonderful things other classes can do. What they can do is pick up a heavy(and hopefully sharp, if not, then blunt) object and hit things with it. Hard. Oh, and wear heavy armour. It is why fighters are required to have high strength to join the fighter's guild, and why fighters tend to have much higher attack bonuses than others.

IMHO thieves are more defensive. With their good dexterity and the proper armour, they can be nearly untouchable with a good AC. But I have never known a thief in a game to be powerful, except with a ranged weapon in hand, or when backstabbing. Perhaps we need not increase their attack, but rather give them a bonus to dodging? Thieves are, after all, the slight of hand and the quick of foot. That way thieves could more easily "tank"(And I use the term loosely because I really just mean they won't die immediately if in the front row) and leave wizards/bards and priests in the rear ranks to do their magicy/holy thing. Unless, of course, they are a battle priest. Then that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I have a fighter who is more of a dodger than a meatshield. He deals out great damage per hit, he can dodge almost anything and he doesn't use a massive amount of armor. Get him with more than two or three enemies though and he's done for. Not every fighter is a "meatshield" quality fighter. Keep that in mind as well. A thief suffers from the same thing, lower hitpoints means that they can't deal out massive damage, and relying on dodge means that they can't take on more than maybe three opponents. A thief, in my opinion, is a "single enemy" type of class. If it's one enemy in front of him, then yeah, I'd say he could do it. (barring dragons and such) If it's more than that...eh...sorry, bring in that fighter with that ten tons of metal and the big axe.

I'd have thought a thief ought to work best with careful, well-planned attacks every so often, when an enemy shows a weakness. They should be nimble enough to dodge attacks rather than having to sit there behind someone else, but should generally make carefully planned or ranged attacks. Theives, while they are capable of dealing damage, shouldn't be the primary damage dealers: that should still be the fighters. Fighters are a completely combat-oriented class in terms of skills, attributes and what have you, whereas thieves have many more useful qualities outside battle. This doesn't mean thieves can't fight any more than it means fighters can't do anything but fight, but I definitely disagree with the idea that fighters shouldn't be able to deal damage as well as thieves...

This is rather funny to me, as my thief is constantly having to remind people "I am not a bloody warrior!" lol

Hmm I also think it depends a lot on the group you are in. (using my thief as an example here) when she groups, if there are big strong warriors, and she feels threatened, will she duck behind one and use him as a meat shield? Heck yeah! But on the other side of the coin, if she is in a group with a warrior, and she feels that he is too young/skilled etc to handle whatever is there, she will step up take the slack off him (assuming she wants him to live..). If she is in a group with a priest, she will stand before them, letting them take second rank. If grouped with priest and wariror, well, she always lets the priest stand behind her, if they want to, and then it depends on the warrior + enemy wether she stands behind him, or beside him.

I imagine there are many other different groupings and examples others could give, but for me that works. My thief needs fighters, and there are more then a few fighters who come to her seeking aid as well, personally, I think the two classes compliment each other nicely.

I agree that fighters, in addition to being damage takers, have also always been the highest damage dealers, and that has pretty much always been the design in D&D from early on.

Fighters have always had the best hit table, thus the best chance to land a blow, they have also had the highest combat bonuses. Up thru 2nd ed, only warrior classes had the benefit of exceptional strength bonuses (18/01-18/00), which basically gave them hitroll and damroll bonuses unachievable by other classes. All this in addition to the unmatched selection of martial weapons enjoyed by warrior classes.

That said, one of the benefits of rogue/warrior grouping is limited in the FK mechanics. In tabletop, one could assume that while under the distraction of fighting warriors, an opponent might not notice a hidden thief sneaking up from behind. in FK code, everyone is assumed to be head-on with the opponents (no flanking or rear attacks assumed), so the thief who wants to try and attack from behind with a backstab gets told "no way, you're still fighting"

I don't know that there is a way to overcome this as a code limitation. It would greatly enhance the benefits of grouping in combat, to see the warriors as the front row tanks taking and dealing out damage (after all, tanks pack big guns as well) casters from the rear offering aid or offensive/defensive magic, and the stealth fighters picking them off from behind, using the techniques that allow them to deal the maximum damage they can deliver.

Would it be possible to allow thieves and bards to backstab mobs and PCs that are already in combat? Currently it's not possible, but I think that would be a way of introducing 'flanking' and that sort of thing. The thief can set config -autoassist and then go about hiding/backstabbing enemies.

There would have to be some kind of balance to this, if it were implimented. The thief should probably have to be hidden (possibly sneaking as well). Another possibility is making each successive backstab in a fight more difficult to pull off, as some of the enemies might notice their companions being routinely murdered from behind. Also, a longer coded lag time could be included for backstabs during combat, so that we don't have one person engage all of the enemies and the thief quickly mowing them down. Finally, should the thief fail to kill the enemy with the backstab, (whether by missing or not doing enough damage), the mob might have a % chance to start fighting the thief instead of what it's already fighting.

To summarize:

-Backstab allowed against mobs/PCs in combat if the thief is not currently in combat.

-Thief must be hiding/sneaking to backstab someone in combat.

-Each successive backstab is more difficult to achieve.

-Longer lag time on backstabs against enemies in combat.

-% chance for enemy to fight the thief instead of what it was already fighting if the thief misses the backstab.

Speaking of backstab, I have seen pc's getting into a spar and backstabbing the opponent. In my books that's a no-no. For backstab to work, you need to have access to the pc's back and for that pc not to know you are sneaking in for the kill. In a spar, there is no chance of this to happen. So please, you thieves out there, refrain from using that skill when in such a situation.