Rogues and Full Attacks, Not "Too Much Sneak Attack Damage"

[Kintara]

This is a spin-off thread about a proposed house rule where Sneak Attack is only applied once a round. (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=356419)

Human Rogue 9
Str 10 Dex 21 Con 13 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 8
Feats – Improved Initiative, Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (short sword), Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Equipment - +1 flaming short sword, +1 frost short sword, +4 Gloves of Dexterity, +1 studded leather, +1 ring of protection, and 500 gp.
Class Features – Sneak Attack +5d6, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge Trap Sense +3, Trapfinding.

Attack – 1 short sword (+13 3.5+1 plus 3.5 elemental damage) if Sneak Attack (…+17.5 damage)
Full Attack – 2 short swords (+11/+11/+6/+6 3.5+1 plus 3.5 elemental damage) if Sneak Attack (…+17.5 damage)
AC 20

Human Fighter 9
Str 21 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8
Feats – Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Quick Draw, Iron Will, Great Cleave, Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Initiative, Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Improved Critical (Greatsword).
Equipment - +3 Greatsword, +4 Belt of Giant Strength, Masterwork Full Plate, 350 gp.

Attack - greatsword (+19 7+14) if Power Attacking -6 (+13 7+26)
Full Attack – greatsword (+19/+14 7+14) if Power Attacking -8 (+11/+6 7+30)
AC 19

These two characters are basically built to be able to approximate the damage of an offensively minded Rogue and Fighter. I tried to make the stats and equipment and such pretty equivalent. I used the standard array, with SRD only material.

So, the Rogue will do 25.5 damage on an average hit with one short sword. If the Fighter Power Attacks so that the chance to hit is equal, the Fighter does 33 average damage. The Fighter just does more damage.

On full attack the Rogue will hit twice as often, so we’ll double his damage. Let’s say they always hit. The Rogue does 102 damage, with an average damage “roll.” The Fighter does 74 damage if he Power Attacks to match the Rogue’s attack bonus. If you count the difference for Improved Critical, it’s another 7.4 damage, totaling 81.4 damage. Everything but the crit damage is always damage, with no need to worry about flanking or discernable anatomies. And I think this is being extremely favorable to the Rogue because the real world situation would allow a more favorable allocation of Power Attack. Really, Power Attacking down to the Rogue’s chance to hit is a statistical shortcut. And let’s just say the +3 Greatsword is me being lazy.

So, let’s assume that the DM is pretty light, but not totally free, on monsters that just couldn’t be sneak attacked. Tactics play a role in this because a monster might technically be eligible for a sneak attack, but the opportunity might not present itself (no flanker, no tenable flanking position, etc.). Let’s say that the chance a given attack will trigger a Sneak Attack is about 75% of the time (so 75% of the attacks the Rogue makes would apply sneak attack damage if they hit). That brings the total down to 84.5 damage. It’s getting pretty close, isn’t it?

I think Rogues should be able to do good damage when they stand right there on the line and make a full attack against an appropriate opponent. But the Fighter is tougher and does more reliable damage, and even surpasses the damage potential of a Rogue if making a single attack.

So, what would happen if you made Sneak Attack damage only apply once a round? Well, the standard attack doesn't change at all. The Fighter soundly trounces the Rogue, even if the Sneak Attack always applied. On a full attack, the Rogue's damage drops to 49.5 damage, which is about 30 points less than the Fighter (very roughly).

What does that prove? Well... I guess you can answer that for yourself. I think I was being pretty favorable to the Rogue in this example, and I wasn't blown away by his numbers as compared to the Fighter.

Edit: If I were to propose a half-measure, I'd say that if sneak attack damage is only applied once a round, the sneak attack dice should be a higher die type. A 5d10 sneak attack would make the single attack damage considerable, but the Fighter would have the advantage of more reliable damage and better full attacks.

[vuron]

It really depends on where you view the roles of Rogues and Fighters overlapping. By limiting sneak attack to once per round you reduce the striker role of the class. This emphasizes the role of the melee specialist not only as core defender but chief melee damage dealer. The role of the rogue under this ruleset is much more focused on skills use and non-combat interaction. It also tends to encourage rogues to be ranged combat damage dealers rather than melee specialists as it's not worth the risk to get stuck in there.

Overall it reinforces the fighter schtick of combat at the reduction of capabilities for the rogue. I'd actually rather see the fighters gain additional non-combat abilities that allow rogues to remain strikers but fighters to gain utility out of combat.

[Wossisname]

Why should a Rogue and Fighter do equal damage in combat? Shouldn't a Rogue be worse than the Fighter in combat in order to balance out the Rogue's substantial non-combat abilities compared to a Fighter?

[Eurhetemec]

Why should a Rogue and Fighter do equal damage in combat? Shouldn't a Rogue be worse than the Fighter in combat in order to balance out the Rogue's substantial non-combat abilities compared to a Fighter?

Apparently we all have to ret-con Rogues into always having been "Strikers" and thus doing more damage than Fighters. Sure, it flies in the face of most fantasy fiction, where the Rogue/Thief-types usually use trickery/surprise to kill one guy, whilst more Fighterish-types kill multiple ones - admittedly there's always the "assassin"-types to, but D&D seems confused as to whether Rogues are "assassin"-types, who typically have less out-of-combat skills, or "thief"-types.

Of course, my experience has been that, even with multiple Sneak Attacks, Rogues generally do somewhat less damage over an entire fight than a Fighter, unless the party is working extremely hard to keep every Rogue's target flanked etc. I know people's mileage varies on that, though.

I would certainly agree that, if you're going to only apply Sneak Attack once per round, then up the damage dice to d10 or d12, to make it so the Rogue still can instantly kill some enemies (rather than just pissing them off).

[vuron]

Why should a Rogue and Fighter do equal damage in combat? Shouldn't a Rogue be worse than the Fighter in combat in order to balance out the Rogue's substantial non-combat abilities compared to a Fighter?

I think the implication is that in order to hand out that sort of damage the rogue is risking being hit by a full-attack as well. Considering the rogue has less HPs and a lower AC he's effectively risking a bit hit in order to deliver a big hit. Add in the large number of monsters and classed NPCs that can avoid sneak attacks and the percentage of encounter that the rogue is a big damage dealer goes down.

Further by only looking at one point in the career of these two adventurers we don't know how much one or the other adventurer tends to pull away in terms of damage potential. Does the Lvl 20 Rogue with 3 chances of doing +10d6 outclass the Lvl 20 Fighter with 4 power attacks.

I'd prefer the math be done without the elemental weapons as they add another random element that's hard to evaluate. In addition elemental weapons tend to lose value rapidly after a certain point because elemental resistances become much more common.

[Ferrus Animus]

Why should a Rogue and Fighter do equal damage in combat? Shouldn't a Rogue be worse than the Fighter in combat in order to balance out the Rogue's substantial non-combat abilities compared to a Fighter?

How about balancing the d6 HD and light armor?

And I'd say that the lack of non-combat abilities of the fighter is a problem with the fighter and not the rogue.

[Wossisname]

In most games I've been in with 3.5, the Rogues typically have better ACs than the Fighters. Consider that a Fighter with a 12 DEX and Full Plate has +9 AC and a Rogue with an 18 DEX and Chain Shirt has +7 AC, there's not that big a difference. Sure the Fighter can use a shield (the Rogue often has 2 Weapon Defense and Dodge as well), but then they lose the 2x effect from Power Attacking which lets them keep up with the Rogue. Also, any DEX booster pretty much goes straight to a Rogue's AC, while the Max DEX on heavier armors limits how much the Fighter can benefit, allowing the Rogue to draw ahead (all equipment bonuses otherwise being equal).

At higher levels, Flanking is less of an issue since there are lots of ways to negate a target's DEX bonus. In the case of the Epic Rogue from my Campaign, he had a Ring Of Blinking. A Blinking person attacks as if Invisible, so in exchange for giving all his attacks a 20% miss chance, he could Sneak Attack all the time (the 50% miss chance against enemy attacks was just a nice side benefit in his view).

[sankarah]

Rogues already suck wind, so there's no reason to limit them further. Seriously, any opponent of note at the high end will likely be immune to sneak attacks (either they're undead or something more exotic, or they're in fortification armor, or they're smart enough to deny flanking opportunities (and are effectively immune to feint attempts), or whatever), and between terrain and force of numbers even mooks likely have little to fear in many cases. SA 75% of the time is awfully freakin' generous IME; 25% is more likely. And I have no problem with giving the rogue his chance to really shine on the rare occasions it comes up (kinda like rangers and their favored enemies).

[Wolfwood2]

Why should a Rogue and Fighter do equal damage in combat? Shouldn't a Rogue be worse than the Fighter in combat in order to balance out the Rogue's substantial non-combat abilities compared to a Fighter?

No, the goal is for everybody to have an interesting and fun role to play both in and out of combat. Having everybody take turns sucking is no solution.

Anyway, it's not like players avoid playing fighters in order to be a rogue. Players avoid playing fighters in order to play other high hitpoint, full-BAB martial combat classes with more interesting out-of-combat options and more fun mechanical choices to make in-combat.

The rogue class competes with bards and... well, that's about it. The rogue actually does a darn good job at filling its role as is.

[vuron]

In most games I've been in with 3.5, the Rogues typically have better ACs than the Fighters. Consider that a Fighter with a 12 DEX and Full Plate has +9 AC and a Rogue with an 18 DEX and Chain Shirt has +7 AC, there's not that big a difference. Sure the Fighter can use a shield (the Rogue often has 2 Weapon Defense and Dodge as well), but then they lose the 2x effect from Power Attacking which lets them keep up with the Rogue. Also, any DEX booster pretty much goes straight to a Rogue's AC, while the Max DEX on heavier armors limits how much the Fighter can benefit, allowing the Rogue to draw ahead (all equipment bonuses otherwise being equal).

At higher levels, Flanking is less of an issue since there are lots of ways to negate a target's DEX bonus. In the case of the Epic Rogue from my Campaign, he had a Ring Of Blinking. A Blinking person attacks as if Invisible, so in exchange for giving all his attacks a 20% miss chance, he could Sneak Attack all the time (the 50% miss chance against enemy attacks was just a nice side benefit in his view).

Well the default assumption seems to be that Greatsword Fighters will eventually get a floating shield of some sort. Floating Large Shield or Tower Shield goes as long way towards giving the fighter some parity at higher levels. Of course I detest the floating shield ;)

Blinking is a nice ability but hopefully most epic foes have some sort of See Invisibility or Blindsight :D

[vuron]

No, the goal is for everybody to have an interesting and fun role to play both in and out of combat. Having everybody take turns sucking is no solution.

Anyway, it's not like players avoid playing fighters in order to be a rogue. Players avoid playing fighters in order to play other high hitpoint, full-BAB martial combat classes with more interesting out-of-combat options and more fun mechanical choices to make in-combat.

The rogue class competes with bards and... well, that's about it. The rogue actually does a darn good job at filling its role as is.

I concur, any attempt at reconciling the role of the fighter should involve giving the fighter more of an out of combat role rather than reducing the combat role of other classes (possible exception reduce the power of the CoDZilla).

[Wossisname]

In that case I would focus the Rogue on being the set up man for the the pure combat classes, rather than being a direct source of damage. Otherwise they just are just a different variant on 'guy who hits people until they fall down'.

[sankarah]

Well the default assumption seems to be that Greatsword Fighters will eventually get a floating shield of some sort. Floating Large Shield or Tower Shield goes as long way towards giving the fighter some parity at higher levels. Of course I detest the floating shield ;)

Blinking is a nice ability but hopefully most epic foes have some sort of See Invisibility or Blindsight :D

Those only partially help against Blinking. To offset it altogether you need some ability to see ethereal, which is not altogether common even at epic levels.

[B Nakagawa]

It really annoys me that nearly everyone regards rogues as delivery systems for sneak attacks.

It would please me greatly if the designers for 4thEd disengaged the sneak attack from the rogue class and made it into a chain of feats instead.

Rogues are in no way uncompetitive with fighters or most other classes as long as one thing is kept in mind: There is more to the game than combat.

Rogues are by far the most versatile character in the game as long as the game is more than dungeoncrawling.

[vuron]

It really annoys me that nearly everyone regards rogues as delivery systems for sneak attacks.

It would please me greatly if the designers for 4thEd disengaged the sneak attack from the rogue class and made it into a chain of feats instead.

Rogues are in no way uncompetitive with fighters or most other classes as long as one thing is kept in mind: There is more to the game than combat.

Rogues are by far the most versatile character in the game as long as the game is more than dungeoncrawling.

I find even if the game is predominantly dungeoncrawling the rogue definitely earns it's keep. Assuming that the DM uses even a small percentage of difficult traps the Rogue allows the party to function without constantly relying on Find Traps spells.

Personally I feel sneak attack is useful but the essential bread and butter of the Rogue class should be the skills, the scouting ability, and the ability to complement other character classes. Turning the rogue into a pure striker, something I think is inevitable, sells short the value of a skills monkey. Personally I'd prefer the ranger to be the optimal striker class but I don't think that's going to be the case.

[sankarah]

It really annoys me that nearly everyone regards rogues as delivery systems for sneak attacks.

In a dungeon setting that's exactly what they are (well, that and trap monkeys; I know some folks regard that as their sole redeaming quality).

Rogues are in no way uncompetitive with fighters or most other classes as long as one thing is kept in mind: There is more to the game than combat.

Rogues are by far the most versatile character in the game as long as the game is more than dungeoncrawling.[/QUOTE]

But you can't assume that. Some groups just prefer dungeon crawls when it comes to their D&D experience, and rogues should serve them as well as anyone. Hence, rogues have to be competitive in combat to pull their weight (and fighters damn well out to be competitive/useful outside of dungeons; the fact that they aren't is a great failing of that class).

[Ferrus Animus]

(the Rogue often has 2 Weapon Defense and Dodge as well)

:eek: Why would anyone do that?


Besides, given how hard it is to use Sneak Attack without the others contributing, SA is not too good, but allows the rogue to hit hard where it counts a few times per battle.
Every change to one thing often changes another thing of that equation.
The blinking rogue might hit hard every time, but hits a lot less, and that's really bad, when it counts.

[sankarah]

:eek: Why would anyone do that?

No reason a rogue would. A defense oriented fighter might, though.

Every change to one thing often changes another thing of that equation.
The blinking rogue might hit hard every time, but hits a lot less, and that's really bad, when it counts.

It's not even every time. All it really means is that the rogue doesn't have to flank/feint. That's great, but he's still useless against anything with unusual physiology or immune to crits (mainly constructs, elementals and undead, but also plants, oozes, fortified targets, etc.).

Sneak attack has to be awesome, particularly at the high end, because rogues just don't get to use it all that often.

[Kintara]

Heh, I was kind of...um...under the influence when I wrote this up, but I mostly stand behind my analysis. ;) I think some of the idiosyncrasies of the example are from how I tried to favor the Rogue whenever possible (and also to make it so I can compare them more easily). Personally, I think level 9 is a pretty nice sweet spot for the Rogue for the purposes of this example because he gets another die of sneak attack and acquires Improved Two Weapon Fighting. If you bring it down just one level, the Rogue's damage drops rather precipitously. Conversely, the Fighter doesn't gain a bonus feat at level 9, and hasn't gotten his next iterative attack yet. Also, I think the Fighter struggles a bit in Core only because of the feat selection.

Anyway, I'm not making any value judgments on how a Rogue should be played. But I just don't find the way sneak attack works to be much of a barrier. Focusing on two weapon fighting and lots of sneak attack damage is one way of doing it, but spending feats and skills and allocating ability scores differently can change the focus quite a lot. I think there's enough give in the class to work pretty darn well. I know some people don't like being forced to take Sneak Attack if they are playing a different sort of Rogue, but I would totally work with such a player to swap out sneak attack for something else (like feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogue)), and then maybe even pointing them in the direction of the Exemplar (the skill-focused prestige class from Complete Adventurer).

[Ferrinus]

Rogues already suck wind, so there's no reason to limit them further. Seriously, any opponent of note at the high end will likely be immune to sneak attacks (either they're undead or something more exotic, or they're in fortification armor, or they're smart enough to deny flanking opportunities (and are effectively immune to feint attempts), or whatever), and between terrain and force of numbers even mooks likely have little to fear in many cases. SA 75% of the time is awfully freakin' generous IME; 25% is more likely. And I have no problem with giving the rogue his chance to really shine on the rare occasions it comes up (kinda like rangers and their favored enemies).

What stops the rogue from either spamming Bluff in order to create distractions and let themselves Hide, or using Hide in Plain Sight from their Assassin/Shadowdancer/whatever levels?

Actually, is that even a sound strategy? I've never really played high level D&D but I'm in a fairly low level game now, and I'm curious as to how our rogue/assassin might eventually look like. It seems like there's no counter to him besides having Sense Motive and/or Spot in-class, and not everyone gets those.

[Kintara]

What stops the rogue from either spamming Bluff in order to create distractions and let themselves Hide, or using Hide in Plain Sight from their Assassin/Shadowdancer/whatever levels?

Actually, is that even a sound strategy? I've never really played high level D&D but I'm in a fairly low level game now, and I'm curious as to how our rogue/assassin might eventually look like. It seems like there's no counter to him besides having Sense Motive and/or Spot in-class, and not everyone gets those.Well, you can create a distraction to hide (if there's a suitable place with concealment nearby), but keep in mind that you can't sneak attack a creature with concealment of his own (so plan accordingly). Also, it's time consuming (combat might be over by the time you pull off your next attack) and requires a lot of skill checks.

Anyway, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's only 25%, but I would agree that 75% is pretty generous. It's probably somewhere in between those numbers, in my experience. Edit: It's sort of interesting because it's both better and worse than it seems at first glance for a Rogue trying to make sneak attacks. Spells and other tricks usually give a Rogue a good chance of getting of an opening sneak attack for a round or two. Sometimes the enemy might even be practically helpless against a Rogue with something simple like Improved Invisibility. But it seems that just as often you're stuck trying to position yourself effectively for the whole friggin' fight, or you're fighting the list of enemies that is immune, or they have concealment.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Can we officially change the name of the Rogue back to Thief? I've always hated the bland, genericness of "Rogue". Hell, since it's going to be relegated to the role of 'striker' in 4e, let's just rename the class as "Backstabber". It's more fitting that way.

[Kintara]

Can we officially change the name of the Rogue back to Thief? I've always hated the bland, genericness of "Rogue". Hell, since it's going to be relegated to the role of 'striker' in 4e, let's just rename the class as "Backstabber". It's more fitting that way.Well, if you're gonna go that far you might as well just call them Ninja. ;) Seriously, though, I think you're reading way too much into the whole Striker thing. We really don't know jack about what the Rogue is like in 4th Edition. I don't even think we really understand what "striker" really means yet (except, possibly, as a fuzzy generalization).

[OldKentuckyShark]

What stops the rogue from either spamming Bluff in order to create distractions and let themselves Hide, or using Hide in Plain Sight from their Assassin/Shadowdancer/whatever levels?

Actually, is that even a sound strategy?

Not spectacularly, no. Hide in Plain Sight works well enough, providing effective immunity to people without Spot scores, but on an action-per-action-basis it's not a super effective method of generating damage. Hiding requires movement, which means a move-action, which only leaves a standard left over, which means one attack per round, or one Full Attack every other round; half or less than the damage output from simply flanking and standing still.

What HiPS lets you do is, in conjunction with Spring Attack, effectively attack with impunity if your Hide score and movement rate are high enough. Hiding while full-moving is only a -5 penalty: I've seen conjunctions of races, templates, items, and classes achieve Hide scores of level + 40 or more (beware goblin vampires, folks). Dive in, smack them once, and then just fade away. Repeat round after round until they finally smoke you out with readied actions and area effect spells.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Well, if you're gonna go that far you might as well just call them Ninja. ;) Seriously, though, I think you're reading way too much into the whole Striker thing. We really don't know jack about what the Rogue is like in 4th Edition. I don't even think we really understand what "striker" really means yet (except, possibly, as a fuzzy generalization).

Well, if they're using MMORPGs as influence, the role of "striker" is damage-dealer. Fighters are "defenders" aka. "meat shields" whose major function is to keep aggro and soak damage while the strikers or nukers kill the mob.


.....I sure as hell hope that they don't base it off MMORPGs. Table-top games have an entirely different dynamic, and shouldn't be modeled off modern MUDs.

[Kintara]

Well, if they're using MMORPGs as influence, the role of "striker" is damage-dealer. Fighters are "defenders" aka. "meat shields" whose major function is to keep aggro and soak damage while the strikers or nukers kill the mob.


.....I sure as hell hope that they don't base it off MMORPGs. Table-top games have an entirely different dynamic, and shouldn't be modeled off modern MUDs.I play WoW, but, again, I consider that a fuzzy generalization. People read either the very best or worst possible things into that analogy. But then analogies often seem to have that effect.

[AmesJainchill]

Well, if they're using MMORPGs as influence, the role of "striker" is damage-dealer. Fighters are "defenders" aka. "meat shields" whose major function is to keep aggro and soak damage while the strikers or nukers kill the mob.

How is this not the way it works in D&D?

[Lisa Nadazdy]

How is this not the way it works in D&D?


Not entirely. Different classes often fill more than one role, depending on what's needed. A Fighter can be both a striker and defender, depending on gear or Feats taken- they can strike a monster for significant dame, and soak damage. A Rogue can be a striker or fill other spots in a party because of broad skill selection. A Cleric can heal, be a striker, or a defender (making the cleric arguably the strongest class). No class is relegated to just one role, for the most part.

[Kintara]

Not entirely. Different classes often fill more than one role, depending on what's needed. A Fighter can be both a striker and defender, depending on gear or Feats taken- they can strike a monster for significant dame, and soak damage. A Rogue can be a striker or fill other spots in a party because of broad skill selection. A Cleric can heal, be a striker, or a defender (making the cleric arguably the strongest class). No class is relegated to just one role, for the most part.Well, my understanding is that the "role" is just something that the class can do "for free." In other words, they can be a striker with out having it cost you anything. So you can spend your combat actions (and skills and feats and ability scores and maybe talents) to do other things, and you'll probably be able to multiclass a lot more effectively from what I've read in the playtest reports (which, in my opinion, really puts the boot in on the MMO analogy, but whatever).

[sankarah]

What stops the rogue from either spamming Bluff in order to create distractions and let themselves Hide, or using Hide in Plain Sight from their Assassin/Shadowdancer/whatever levels?

Who cares? If the target is immune to sneak attacks the rogue can bluff all day long. It won't do him a bit of good. And even if they aren't they can still be immune to flanking (via feats if some sources are used) or have high enough skill checks to blow off everything but flanking (and there are other ways he can deny that).

So knock yourself out. Just hope your opponent isn't on the list, and doesn't have concealment or good checks in Spot and Sense Motive (and between the lot of them you're leaving out undead, constructs, oozes, plants, elementals, fortified folks, dragons, outsiders, ethereals, anything with concealment (which in practice means casters), anything with blindsight, etc).

Actually, is that even a sound strategy?

Not really, no. Apart from the fact it takes too long (move actions ftl) there are just too many ways to crack it.

[delor]

Let’s say that the chance a given attack will trigger a Sneak Attack is about 75% of the time

This seems high to me. Unless every fight is against sneak-attack vulnerable enemies in a situation where flanking is possible, the rogue's going to have a hard time pulling that off. Plus, remember the lower HP and quite probably lower AC. Even when it's possible to make a sneak attack, the rogue will often have to choose not to to avoid getting stomped in retaliation during the enemies' round.

Let’s say they always hit.

Probably not a good assumption. The fighter can lessen his Power Attack to hit hard targets, whereas the rogue's already attacking with a pretty bad attack bonus for his level and he loses all of his sneak attack damage when he misses.

At least in the general case, I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Obviously, in your particular campaign the situation may make the different classes more or less powerful. (or the players may, too; one thing I will say is that it's a lot easier to make a suboptimal damage-dealing fighter than a suboptimal TWF rogue)

You might want to consider sticking in more undead/constructs, giving the enemies minions to make flanking harder, making sure you're applying all the rules that make sneak attacks hard (no sneak attack if target has concealment, can't hide if someone is watching you), let the enemies get the drop on the party occasionally, and creating the occasional situation where the rogue's talents are needed elsewhere (such as a "flight" or "speed is of the essence" scenario where the rogue is disarming traps and picking locks while the party holds off the incoming hordes). That'll probably help even things out if there is a problem in a much more interesting fashion and without pissing off any rogues in your party. (as players tend to get miffed when the DM plays amateur game designer and nerfs them arbitrarily)

How is this not the way it works in D&D?

Because in D&D fighters can deal an excellent amount of damage? Even if they probably won't have the burst damage of a rogue without some min-maxing, over the course of a fight- and especially over multiple encounters including undead and encounters where the party is surprised- they'll probably deal more damage than the rogue because the rogue will need to spend more time getting in position to sneak, healing, and avoiding threats.

Plus, given the way D&D doesn't rely on a "taunt" mechanic like a MMO the fighter's ability to "tank" requires him to be a legitimate threat in his own right, unless the party is always going to be fighting in narrow-corridor situations where you can create a man wall to block it.

[Thanatos02]

This is the first thread that I've heard of Rogues sucking, and I'm also really surprised to hear that people only find them useful for Sneak Attack; two things I have absolutely never experianced before.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Here's the rub.

This is WHAT I EXPERIENCED IN MY GAMES, AND I'M GLAD NOT EVERYONE HAS HAD THIS HAPPEN TO THEM:

If it's something that can be crit, and thus flanked, the Rogue will usually crush his foe first. It's not so much that the baddie is focusing first on the Fighter and ignoring, it's that on the round that the Rogue comes in, usually by tumbling in, he usually hits so damn hard that it's over.

Also, most of my players who played mages don't cast at those engaged in melee combat. And the few times I've had the bad guy focus on the rogue, ignoring the fighter, it felt... Well, fake and contrived. And it turned out to be pointless anyway, as the Rogue usually has a high AC, due to armour and Dex combo (Often outclassing the Fighter in terms of numbers. Plate armour sucks) meaning it's easier to HIT the fighter.

This last was assuming that the opponent in question didn't go straight for the clothie.

If the opponent was uncritable, or worse undead? Neither the Fighter NOR the Rogue was effective here. This is where the Wizard or the Cleric would start to shine. Power attack is of little use when one can turn or outright destroy undead. Most constructs have such a high AC, that unless they're immune to magic, the arcane or divine is the way to go!

But notice how, in my experience, which I've only mentioned combat for now, the Fighter doesn't seem to be really effective?

[sankarah]

But notice how, in my experience, which I've only mentioned combat for now, the Fighter doesn't seem to be really effective?

That's because your players don't seem to know how to build effective fighters. I mean, these are the same people who build rogues because sneak attack is a "sure thing", right? And the same ones who think power attacking with a rogue is somehow a good idea? And the ones who think plate armor sucks (despite the fact that it is the single largest source of AC in the game, and is easily the cheapest AC per point)?

If your rogues can hit with any regularity, fighters should be dominating. They should be hitting more often and, as noted in various threads (including this one), they should be doing about the same damage as an equal level rogue, even when sneak attack is available. If they aren't, you just aren't building them right. I find this bizarre, since it's really easy to build an effective fighter and a bit harder to build an effective rogue, but whatever. It's your game. Your experience is what it is, but it sure ain't typical.

[Ferrus Animus]

Your experience seems to me like this:

Casters kill everything the rogue can't kill.
The rogue kills everything he can kill and that is distracted by the fighter.
The fighter tanks, but doesn't deal damage.

To put it simply:
It's your players fault.
They just don't use the fighter as a damage dealer and thus the rogue is better in that role. And the casters are careful to keep it that way.

[Christopher V. Brady]

So what it boils down to is that a half-assed fighter is more or less useless, thus has to be optimized to be 'useful'.

While every other class can be half-assed and STILL be useful.

Wow, I never knew I was playing World of Warcraft at the table longer than the game's been out.

[sankarah]

So what it boils down to is that a half-assed fighter is more or less useless, thus has to be optimized to be 'useful'.

While every other class can be half-assed and STILL be useful.

Uh, no, just about any class that's played half-assed is more or less useless. In fact, it's less true with fighters than with most; a fighter with plate and Power Attack will be plenty useful, while a rogue is a crapshoot depending on campaign style and setting. And spellcasters who choose sub-par spells will wind up sucking wind more often than not.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Here's the thing. NONE of the players I had were 'optimizers'. They took spells, skills and feats for what they liked to try. And yet the Fighters were always outdone by the other classes.

[sankarah]

Here's the thing. NONE of the players I had were 'optimizers'. They took spells, skills and feats for what they liked to try. And yet the Fighters were always outdone by the other classes.

So what? I get that your group is either unable or unwilling to make non-rogue meleeists shine, but beyond that what's your point?

[Christopher V. Brady]

So what? I get that your group is either unable or unwilling to make non-rogue meleeists shine, but beyond that what's your point?

One that apparently, you're not getting.

I'm out. I made my house rule for it, and I'm good.

Happy gaming.

[Yakk]

Uh, no, just about any class that's played half-assed is more or less useless. In fact, it's less true with fighters than with most; a fighter with plate and Power Attack will be plenty useful, while a rogue is a crapshoot depending on campaign style and setting. And spellcasters who choose sub-par spells will wind up sucking wind more often than not.

No: a fighter, in plate, using a two-handed weapon, who concentrates on keeping his strength as high as he can, is plenty useful.

That same fighter built for TWF? MAD'd and low damage. Gimped.

That same fighter, built for sword+board? A low-threat high-defense low-control character. Gimped.

And even the power-attacking 2H fighter needs to work out how much power attack to do, and is gimped if he is fighting a high-AC or high-mobility target (the melee combatants problem in D&D).

So there is a fighter build that is easy to do and effective, but there are many fighter builds that are quite sub-par.