>Rogue/Thief class
>Always about hitting with a super high damage multiplier
>They don't use the biggest weapon they can carry
Why are game designers so bad at making classes that make sense?
 |
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
>Rogue/Thief class. >Always about hitting with a super high damage multiplier
It's called being stabbed in an artery.
Pretty sure being stabbed in the artery with a greatsword hurts more than a tiny stiletto
>main thing is about being stealthy
>carry a zweihander with you everywhere you go
We don't shoot a cow in the head with a .50BMG in the slaughter house either, when a bolt gun can get the same results with less of a mess.
Depends on the cow. Can your typical cow take 20-30 bolt gun hits to the head before dropping? (like in D&D) If so, the .50 cal might be a good idea.
>Can your typical cow take 20-30 bolt gun hits to the head before dropping? (like in D&D)
Except cows in D&D can't do that. it has at most 15 hit points and at minimum 6 and at maximum 24. Assuming a bolt gun equates to a pistol as per the DMG and a +3 DEX, that's one shot on average at minimum HP, 2 shots on average at the listed HP (averaged HP), and 3 shots on average at maximum HP (2d10+4, 24).
If you're going to be a whiny homosexual about D&D, at least know the game you're whining about so you can properly critique it instead of parroting lies fed to you by /tg/ about a game you've never even read, let alone run or played, because you're a nogames election tourist.
He's more referring to the HP bloat of D&D, which you also highlighted with saying how many shots it takes on average.
Since the enemies adventurers face rarely, if ever, go down in one hit, maximizing damage is almost always the way to go.
Doesn't matter if it hurts more. A knick'd artery means you're a dead man.
The abstract idea is, that the small blade is easier to conceal, and can strike the key vitals with raw physical power not being required.
Realistically, though, you're partly right, being clubbed in the head with a 2hander is just about as deadly as being sliced near a vital spot. Ambush damage should work with heavy weapons, too.
The trick to ambush and sneak attacks is silence, and while it's hard to conceal a 2hander, that wont always matter, as long as you can stay out of sight outright. What will matter, though, is making noise in armor, and mobility.
I'm all for rogues with big weapons, but they should still have light armor, it just makes sense.
yeah but bigger swords do more sound meaning you lose the stealthattack bonus damage
Unfortunately, trade-offs are often intrinsic to opportunity. The fact the writers didn't bother to say only light weapons can be used to inflict Sneak Attacks (or whatever random variation you're pretending you're not talking about D&D by using) doesn't mean that was not the intent, nor that the source material being replicated doesn't assume a degree of real-world sense in its fantastical emulation of violence.
Good luck stabbing something the size of an elephant in an artery with a fricking toothpick,
"Game designers", funnily enough, don't have the obligation to make anything make sense, neither in terms of believability nor when compared to the other options in their system.
They're just meant to pump out the product and tell people who don't like it to rewrite what they bought.
Anyone with a real passion for game design will make what he wants, specifically for himself and/or his group.
TTRPGs have the lowest bar to entry when it comes to creation/modification; it's not like you're chopping down your own trees, stripping their bark, planing your own wood, and forging your own nails for IKEA instructions that came with no parts; it's just a set of rules that challenge the skill and luck within established boundaries.
You should get a job at WotC
I've never seen a system give a penalty to stealth for the weapon you carry.
When the idea is to make someone dead, and that person has loads of HP, it seems like you want the biggest weapon around.
I agree, heavy weapon, light armor is the kino combo and any game that doesn't support it is trash.
AD&D is only partially right, since Thieves had some shitty fricking weapon access.
With dual/multi classing though the backstabbu bonus could be solid.
>heavy weapon, light armor is the kino combo
It's my personal powerfantasy. Not even that anon.
I can understand why a game with more tightly designed archetypes/classes would want to retain the thief/rogue as the sneak attacker and only allow him to use the emblematic dick-ass thief weapons for that sake. Some games want to retain some purity in their classes and strict roles.
You could also simply make it that outside of combat, sneaking up at someone always leads to a coup de grace, the enemy is just taken out of action regardless of the weapon at hand. What the rogue however is really good at, is actually getting in that position in the first place.
During combat, an argument can be made that it's easier to make precise strikes with a more nimble weapon, aim for gaps or vitals. Someone with a bigger weapon will ultimately just whack at them without his opponent being able to defend themselves.
A more open system could still make it that only weapons of a smaller size are allowed to strikes precisely for what falls under "sneak attack", with the added benefits of ignoring armor or stabbing vital organs or muscles. Anything else simply falls under an ambush attack. Add something like strength requirements and the sneaky dexterous thief guy will naturally go for stabby knives without being pigeon held. Or he has both the option to switch between heavier and smaller weapons.
>Some games want to retain some purity in their classes and strict roles.
Which isn't a problem on its own, but it clashes when you bring in modern game design ideas that say everyone needs to participate together in any given scenario. In (very) old school RPGs where role protection is serious and it's okay that characters are shit/useless in some situations, I see it as perfectly valid to heavily restrict equipment choices.
The issue however is that the thief, especially the thief/rogue with backstab, is typically a sign that the system doesn't actually care for that kind of niche protection, as for the thief to exist there either needs to be a reason no one else can learn the skills that he has, or if it's the thief with backstab, one needs to justify why he's not just doing the damage of the dedicated damage/fighting type.
So if you're going to have this role, you might as well go rule of cool with it instead of trying to have your cake and eating it too.
>You should get a job at WotC
As much as I appreciate the vote of confidence, I really shouldn't.
I actively encourage not buying any TTRPGs, including D&D, and just making your own. I also espouse the sentiment that games are about their tests of skill and luck judged in neutrality by the GM (or oneself when solo) and shouldn't be swayed by the GM's personal whims. I don't believe the rules of a game should be changed while a session or campaign is in progress, but I'm massively in support of creating whatever rules are desired by group majority. Worst of all, I think narrative elements such as plot, character, and setting shouldn't outshine the aspects of wilderness exploration, dungeon crawling, and tactical combat.
A guy like me on their team would hurt their image and their sales on so many levels.
But I'm also open to the possibility that your post was stated ironically or sarcastically, in which case this was a massive waste of time.
>I've never seen a system give a penalty to stealth for the weapon you carry.
If you need a rule that specifically says "Carrying a greatsword under your shirt is impossible but you can conceal a dagger" you're too far gone in your own autism to be helped
>it seems like you want the biggest weapon around.
Only if you're trained in the biggest weapon around, which thieves are not.
>heavy weapon, light armor
That's nice and all homosexualron, but this isn't a rogue. It's typically some gaylord glass cannon class called something dumb and chuuni like Avenger or Ambusher.
Or, you know, just play a Barbarian like god intended.
Seems like barbarians should just be able to sneak attack.
Really raises the question why thief/rogue classes are allowed to exist when all they do is prevent other people from practicing skills.
>Really raises the question why thief/rogue classes are allowed to exist when all they do is prevent other people from practicing skills.
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard. That's the only classes that should exist and they should have meaningful, mechanical distinctions. Everything else is either a combination of classes, or a subclass of these.
I'm tempted to agree, but then the issue is, how many skills and tools the Fighter has the pick off/needs to invest in compared to the Cleric or Wizard.
I'd happily break it down into 5 classes, Warrior, Scout, Guildsman, Priest, Mystic
Just make it so the cleric/wizard need skill investment as well.
>Cleric needs religious knowledge/lore, needs practice at doing various rites, needs communication skills to preach to the laymen, etc
>Wizard needs to be able to study spells, craft spells, cast spells, magic lore, monster lore, alchemy, etc
Indeed, but I think the vast array of skills a Fighter in the tri class version gets to look at/needs to worry about is still much broader even with what you mentioned. For example:
>Fighting styles alone.
It's reasonable to assume a Fighter could be good with a bunch of weapons and still have some skill in other non-combat areas.
>Survival.
Maybe a Woad type Barbarian would be good at that, but why would a richman ever do anything other than hunt game in that regard? Picking berries is for children! As for knowing how to move through those difficult areas, a specialist could lead them instead. How about Scouting ahead? Mapping a route through? These aren't Fighter skills.
>Stealth.
Rationally, a Fighter could be good at this, but that depends on what he carries with him. A weaponmaster will be carrying too much, and any Fighter in good armor is already too loud. Ambushing is likely what we're thinking of when we think of a stealthy Fighter, but just avoiding detection? Moving carefully?
>Traps.
Complex enough to require an expert to detect most of them, and disarm, or set up. A Fighter isn't likely to have enough time between training to learn how to make little toys on the side, but it's possible.
>Dungeoneering.
Fit and strong, a Fighter could be at least decent at this, but it again depends on what they carry with them and what they wear as part of their role as a Fighter. Narrow ledges, tight spaces, submerged areas, large gaps, some Fighters can deal, but many others can't.
>Towning.
Some Fighters may have some connections depending on their reputation, or even status thanks to their skill in battle. Would a Woad even want to be in town? Would a Fighter know their way around the black market?
All of these things can be answered with a yes independently, but there's no way all of them will be a yes at once. This isn't a full list, either. My thought is that it's maybe too much, but I like open systems more than rigid class ones anyway, so -
Or it could just be you can't possibly cover every base so some people are better in some circumstances than others.
Yeah, that too. It just seems to me that Fighter has waaay more in it's pool than the other two, so I prefer a 5 way if classes are a must, two martial, two caster, one unique.
Wouldn't mind if the generic fighter has a lot of options like this when it comes to skills. He should be a pragmatist that picks up whatever helps him to survive, not overly specialize in something. The specialization is what defines the others.
>Crafts
Maybe repairing their own gear or basic smithwork is reasonable? Weaponcraft would be a timesink to learn, but a smith Fighter makes a lot of sense. They likely wont be making anything fancy, though. That's for Guildsmen.
>Work
They have the strength and endurance for it, but they really need to save it for Fighting. Large crafts would be a Guildsman's job.
>Leadership
Certainly, for some Fighters. Absolute no for others. Expressly, though, it would be for combat purposes, not likely for other coordinated efforts. Priests would be better suited for those things, or even Guildsmen.
Basically, splitting Figher into Guy who can fight you straight up and Guy who can fight you a bit, but is mainly about making it happen in the first place, is what I'm going for. Guildsman is kind of everything in between that and hard spellmaster.
>Cleric
We don't even need Cleric. It's just Fighting Man and Magic User.
Nothing stopping a ranger from using a two-handed weapon
>but muh dual-wield
Always a stupid thing to make this class fighting style.
Based. I WILL use a longspear while my wolf is close range, and it WILL be kino.
Heavy armor, light weapon is the superior kino option
>"Game designers", funnily enough, don't have the obligation to make anything make sense
Incredibly moronic non-argument that amounts to DURRR IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE GOOD.
They're also about stealth, infiltration and subtlety, which are pretty hard to do with a greatsword. In fact, they're not even meant to be fighty-dudes at all, but out-of-combat skill characters. The whole crit/sneak attack/whatever else shtick they often get is more so they can do anything at all in a fight.
homosexual. Black person. wiener muncher.
>moronic bullshit nogames coomer spam thread number ten million
>homosexuals still reply
Unbelieveable
Better than moronic bullshit nogames /misc/shitter spam thread number ten billion. I'll take coomers over /misc/ and /leftypol/ puritans any day, because at least they aren't authoritarian subhumans.
>I have only played 5e and I must complain about something I don't like about it as if it applies to everything
every past edition of (A)D&D save 4e let you sneak attack with what-the-frick-ever
>every past edition of (A)D&D save 4e let you sneak attack with what-the-frick-ever
I don't think 4e has any weapon restrictions on its version of sneak attack either.
it requires you to use light blades, crossbows, or slings (I looked it up before I made the post and someone called me out)
Okay you're right, I was confusing it with the Backstab power which I'd thought replaced Sneak Attack entirely.
After a bit more research, turns out there's a shitload of feats that make Sneak Attack work with other weapon types. This includes the Monk Unarmed Strike and somehow dragonborn's dragon's breath.
Can't be bothered to double-check everything but from a skim I think only spears and two-handed weapons are truly barred from being sneaky.
In PF, you take a level unn unchained monk, and gain proficiency with unarmed combat and every single weapon with 'monk' in the name, including polearms, swords, and all sorts of weird weaponry. And you can do lethal and nonlethal with your bare hands, making k-o's easier.
Yes, when a game uses dissociated mechanics you end with morons like you op making these out-of-your-ass gamist "reasonings". Play other games if you don't want to engage with these premises.
The dynamic you described is a natural outcome of sensible (on the surface level) game design combined with Thief types *not* using the biggest weapons and bestest armor, combined with the need to make classes capable of pulling their weight in combat.
>Thief class fantasy is using shitty weapons and garbo armor
>Can't keep up with anyone at anything because see above
>Needs some special sauce to catch them up
>Thief class fantasy doesn't include being unkillable and passive bricks are trash anyway so needs to be damage related
>Small Weapons < Big Weapons so can't just dial up damage
>Solution - instead, make thief jump through hoops to get their damage, ties into class fantasy
>Solution means that thief combat is riskier than just hitting with big weapon in big armor, needs bigger payoff to compensate
>End result is that a dude in a shirt with a dagger can deal more damage than an armored knight with a greatsword sometimes, because otherwise that dude with the dagger is shit in your combat focused RPG
Note the underlying assumption that damage is the primary contribution that characters make. Most RPG design is so uninspired and poorly balanced that the only things you can give a character are more damage, more not dying to damage, or broken CC that modern design minimizes because it totally takes over the game if not nerfed into the ground. Dagger throat stab man is a product of that game design philosophy.
If you were playing a game like mine is going to be, all you'd need to do is:
>begin with fighter (bonus damage to weaponry & access to trick weapons, knave (stealth art for bonus damage), & either monk (which has strikes to cause vulnerability status) or witch (which uses fire that causes burn status, which does DoT & have vulnerability effect) arts
>learn cleric art to get access to the mystic gem equip
>buy/find a sword
>learn fighter skill that prepares a sword to turn into a trick weapon
>learn cleric skill that prepares the gem to turn into a trick weapon
>invest all coins into upgrading gem and sword
>improve all skills that cause vulnerability/burn by extending status timers & increasing status magnitude, depending on which you chose from monk/witch
>bonus points for having both monk & witch arts
>improve all knave skills that increase damage dealt while in cover/hidden & that specifically increase sword damage while in those states
>in battle, spend a turn to join your sword & gem into the greatsword weapon & take necessary actions to make yourself hidden
>risk exposure with appropriate monk strikes/witch spells to cause vulnerability/burn
>strike with sword on debuffed target while enjoying bonuses from hidden status for massive damage
>set up focus & get appropriate skills improving all relevant aspects for even more bonus damage
>just don't expect too much from striking heavy-armored and/or spikey targets, because the former resists blades & negates fire & the latter punishes unarmed strikes
>He doesn't understand thematic abstractions and how game mechanics help enforce them
Are you autistic, OP?
Did you know? There's actually nothing specifically preventing you from doing that. Just build your character in such a way that gives them proficiency in large weapons and prioritize strength instead of dex.
They do use the biggest weapons they can carry.
Those are the only weapons that can take advantage of the damage multiplier.
Those are daggers and such. You twit.
>Why are game designers so bad at making classes that make sense?
Why don't you be more elaborate on what it is that doesn't make sense.
I think it simply doesn't make sense to YOU.
Let me give you a hint....
Rogue/Thief Characters require maintaining a low profile to be successful at their "jobs". Being discreet...
Why the frick would they risk lugging around "the biggest weapon they can carry"?
about hitting with a super high damage multiplier
>>They don't use the biggest weapon they can carry
>Why are game designers so bad at making classes that make sense?
It's usually not a damage multiplier. There ARE games where they get a damage multiplier and are incentivized to make one single attack with the biggest, heaviest weapon available, but that's not any traditional "Rogue/Thief", since Sneak Attack isn't a damage MULTIPLIER, it's an ADDITIVE bonus that's the same regardless of what weapon you're using, having the opposite effect of encouraging multiple smaller attacks. A 3.5/PF1E rogue would rather sneak attack with a bunch of 1d4 and 1d6 daggers, bites, claw attacks, talons, wing buffets, a tail attack, etc natural weapons than hit somebody with an oversized greatsword once.
Any game with a "shatter" mechanic where you apply a debuff to an enemy that's something like "the next attack taken deals 300% damage" would incentivize what you're talking about. But sneak attack isn't normally a "shatter", it's just bonus precision damage for meeting some requirement (usually flanking or feinting or whatever)
>Be rogue
>Be roguing with a zweihänder
>Can't conceal the weapon so I get spotted often
>Can't rogue bread for my rogue family
>Rogue wife unhappy
Classes don't make sense anyways, much less with a min-maxer mindset.
… because they’re specifically striking at vital areas you absolute moron. Jesus fricking Christ.
Big weapons do more damage generally, rogues strike precisely with smaller weapons to achieve a high level of lethality. How the frick have you avoided grasping this?
>Rogue/Thief class
>Always about hitting with a super high damage multiplier
>not about sneaking and stealing
And that's why only stupid idiots without imagination play dnd.
I would like to show her my giant sword. She could use two hands on it even.
Thief backstab was very hard to achieve consistently in ad&d, as it should be. Modern rogues are homosexual wow shit doing their combat rotation hotkey macros. They suck so much. Mythras mogs all editions of d&d though.
Thief was utter shit in AD&D.
Rogues being "about hitting with a super high damage multiplier" is cancerous
The fantasy is sneaking around and stabbing people who don't know you're there (which should work with any weapon), not dealing out single target DPR in active combat.
She's pretty I would like to fondle her boobs and kiss her on the lips, if you know what I mean.
>its another thread where OP pretends to be moronic
>why'd they design the Fairbairn-Sykes if they could just carry a Bren gun for their stealth missions?
Conceivably anyone could be taught to aim for weak spots like the eyes, throat, or organs with a knife, but being able to wield a massive weapon that can obliterate someone's body in one attack requires a level of anime strength that most people, especially a low-level character, probably couldn't manage.
No.
Why not?
>WHRP 4E Assassin
>All about being a giant thug with a crossbow
>PF 2E
>Ruffian Rogues who specialize in intimidation, medium armour and strength weapons
Have you tried not playing DnD?