Some Questions

[Sutek]

But Pirates also don't have the same sneak damage progression of thieves.

I suppose the conclusion is that in a one hit, first round potential, or if a flank can be achieved (which really isn't hard, even if outnumbered) then thieves can generate lots more damage and be more effective in the short term. Since only one such blow is necessary in Conan to fell any opponent, because of the 20pt Massive Damage threshold, thieves have a better chance to deliver such damage in that initial round of combat.

Are they too powerful? I'll conceed that they are not, but I will stick to the notion that they are more powerful in the short fight, not a protracted trading of blows. Soldiers and Barbarians will excell there, but only be able to deliver more damage on a lucky crit, which will usually be far more than even the thief can hope for.

Fighters rely on luck, power and big weapons, being most effective with 2HWs.
Thieves rely on mobility and finesse with a consistant abilty to do multi-dice damage via sneak attacks.

Fair enough?

 

[Oly]

But Pirates also don't have the same sneak damage progression of thieves.

True, but I'm not just talking about the amount of damage that they can do but rather the number of times that they get into a position to do that damage. In the many fights that I've had the pirate really wasn't able to get into the right position too many times. The same would apply to the thief, the only difference being that when they were in the right position the thief would do a couple of dice more damage.

Since only one such blow is necessary in Conan to fell any opponent, because of the 20pt Massive Damage threshold, thieves have a better chance to deliver such damage in that initial round of combat.

In theory they do have a much better chance yes. In practice not that many fights start in such a way that the pirate is able to do the sneak attack.

Basically the rules may suggest that a certain thing looks very powerful. However after many fights with my players and with a guy who really knows the sneak attack rules the situation really hasn't arisen that often.

The Barbarian is far more effective in every fight and without being played with an in depth understanding of the rules.

 

[Harlequin Jones]

Basically the rules may suggest that a certain thing looks very powerful. However after many fights with my players and with a guy who really knows the sneak attack rules the situation really hasn't arisen that often.

The Barbarian is far more effective in every fight and without being played with an in depth understanding of the rules.

That's been my personal experience as well. My 2nd level barbarian is tougher than my 5th level thief was. Sure, she could dish out some serious pain with a sneak attack - but she was Left for Dead on more than one occasion when she tried.


Harley
(And her tumbling skill, with modifiers, was like +13!)

 

[Sutek]

But I'm not talking about "tougher". Hit points makes a character tougher, but what I've been trying to argue is that thieves have the better attack capability, almost bordering on being far superior to soldiers and barbarians in the first round (especially the surprise round or by INIT count).

Put it another way: If the thief takes Improved Initiative, with ability increases going to DEX and higer than most classes ther already meaning an equally higher than normal INIT anyway, they'll strike first more often. You don't need to flank or get multiple attacks to deal loads of damage or catch an opponent flat-footed.

After poring over it a lot, thieves have the definite edge in the single, pre-emptive strike combat category. The fighters (soldiers, barbarians) can last longer and can be stronger and can land blows better, but that thief can still use a two-handed bardiche to deal 4d6 sneak attack damage at 8th level....without rolling a threat/crit.

 

[Oly]

But I'm not talking about "tougher". Hit points makes a character tougher, but what I've been trying to argue is that thieves have the better attack capability, almost bordering on being far superior to soldiers and barbarians in the first round (especially the surprise round or by INIT count).

What you appear to have been trying to argue was that "multiple attacks plus sneak attack is excessive" or that in general sneak attacks were just too powerful and made the thief far more dangerous than the "fighter" classes.

After poring over it a lot, thieves have the definite edge in the single, pre-emptive strike combat category. The fighters (soldiers, barbarians) can last longer and can be stronger and can land blows better, but that thief can still use a two-handed bardiche to deal 4d6 sneak attack damage at 8th level....without rolling a threat/crit.

Yes if a thief/pirate can get into a position where he can attack in the surprise round and/or attack before his opponents can in the first round then he's deadly. He's the sneaky assassin killing his unsuspecting target before they can react.

Once that situation has passed though they are outclassed in combat by the "fighter" classes.

Throw into the mix that the thief/pirate doesn't get the pre-emptive strike in many combats then I think that the class feature is balanced, is not excessive and doesn't make them a more useful "combat" class than the others.

Oly

 

[argo]

After poring over it a lot, thieves have the definite edge in the single, pre-emptive strike combat category.

Yeah... thats kinda their niche :wink:

The fighters (soldiers, barbarians) can last longer and can be stronger and can land blows better

Exactly, and since you only get the chance to win initative once per combat the warriors come out better over the long haul.

Really, what you just said right there is prety much how it usually works out IME. The sneak-attackers get a couple of glory-kills a session but are clearly no competiiton for the warriors; everybody gets a chance to shine, everbody wins. Thats what I think of as balanced.

Later.

 

[Bregales]

After poring over it a lot, thieves have the definite edge in the single, pre-emptive strike combat category.

Yeah... thats kinda their niche :wink:

Yeah, I totally agree with this. This is the inherent game design of both OGL and Conan systems. Thief players will WANT to win initiative so that they can get their flat-footed opponent and drop him unsuspecting, before he can react. That's the basis of their character build. Soldiers as a class don't try to win initiative, they try to win a fight. Against a quick-acting, sneak-attacking thief, that's their weakness (as any class is so dis-advantaged in this situation). Their strength lies in not getting sneak-attacked/surviving the sneak attack.

The fighters (soldiers, barbarians) can last longer and can be stronger and can land blows better

Exactly, and since you only get the chance to win initative once per combat the warriors come out better over the long haul.

Really, what you just said right there is prety much how it usually works out IME. The sneak-attackers get a couple of glory-kills a session but are clearly no competiiton for the warriors; everybody gets a chance to shine, everbody wins. Thats what I think of as balanced.

Later.[/quote]I agree, I think I just wrote this immediately above as well.

So basically what these replies are saying to Sutek is that, in situations, a Thief is far more deadly than a Soldier, just as in other situations a Soldier is far more deadly than a Thief. It's not a matter of game balance, the game really IS balanced; it's a matter of style, not just stats and rolls. Play your guy the way he's designed, take advantage of the perks of your class, and you'll excel. Go outside of your class' parameters, then you risk losing big time.

So don't fret the Thief. He's good in his way, as every class is good in their own way; (actually, I think sorcerers' progressive power curve rises above other classes, whereas thieves are more in line with soldiers and barbarians over class levels, but that's a topic for another thread). :lol: