I wish all casters would man up and metagame in this regard but most seem to have brain hemmorages at the thought of being in melee and prepping for it as asking for it.
spellcasters already metagame in other regards, this makes no difference, all my spellcasters carry a "minimum" of a dagger. tell me, is it metagaming when you cast scorching ray on a troll? yes it is. is it metagaming when you make a knowledge check? yes. when you build your character? yes. when you figure common archtypes? yes. taking a feat? yes, shopping for better gear? yes. minmaxing an attribute? yes. every moment you play, you metagame to some extent.
|
spellcasters already metagame in other regards, this makes no difference, all my spellcasters carry a "minimum" of a dagger. tell me, is it metagaming when you cast scorching ray on a troll? yes it is. is it metagaming when you make a knowledge check? yes. when you build your character? yes. when you figure common archtypes? yes. taking a feat? yes, shopping for better gear? yes. minmaxing an attribute? yes. every moment you play, you metagame to some extent.
I wish all casters would man up and metagame in this regard but most seem to have brain hemmorages at the thought of being in melee and prepping for it as asking for it.
I view metagaming more along the lines of knowing aspects of the adventure, then using what you know of those aspects in order to defeat the encounter. For instance, say one of your players owns the adventure you're running, and has read the whole thing through. Building your character around specific things/skills you'll need for the adventure, that I consider metagaming. I view normal character creation to be a fast forward of the character's life up to a certain point (i.e. the minimum age for class/race).
Use of knowledge skills (not counting metabuilds) seems more to me like what a character would try to remember in a situation more than a term of metagaming. For example, if I were stumbling around a wooded area and came upon a certain plant, I would use a knowledge check to remember the things I've seen to determine if I just faceplanted /pun/ into poison ivy, or some innocuous bush.
Shopping can easily be attributed to character experience or common knowledge. Sharper sword = better slicing, more horsepower = faster car, etc.
Personally, I hate minmaxing. Point buy makes it easier than rolling, especially since you can drop a stat to pump another. This is probably the biggest form of metagaming, and the hardest to work around, IMHO. Though it can be said that the character knew they wanted to be a strong person, so worked out, or intelligent, so studied, etc., and that the deductions were due to neglect in other areas in favor of their desired ones. To me, this seems way more cheeky than the rest of the examples. I'll usually keep my stats around average for the dump stats, even if it means I can't get an 18 in something at first level. For me, it helps me feel the least like I'm metagaming/cheating the system, optimizing be damned.
Lets not forget another aspect of this as well, Damage Reduction, the Sneak Attack will only occur if the primary damage is enough to harm the foe in question.
If a Rogue deals damage to lets say, something with Damage Reduction 10/Cold Iron or Good and he doesnt have a Good or Cold Iron weapon, it doesnt matter if he deals out 10d6 Sneak Attack or not - if he doesnt bypass the Damage Reduction of an opponent then he has failed entirely to harm the creature (and thusly the added Sneak Attack never occurs since the primary attack fails to harm the foe). I am pretty sure that the chosen attack of the Rogue MUST deal damage after deductions to the opponent if it is to deal Sneak Attack, after all, the damage reduction effectively prevents the attack from piercing the opponent regardless of where you 'sneak attack' it - in a artery or whatnot, the principle damage still has to overcome DR (there are feats to help overcome DR of any kind, so this is a very feasible scenario)
And for instance if the Rogue is armed with lets say, a 'Flaming weapon, even adding that 1d6 to push his meagre (and frequently low strength) base damage above that 10 (lets assume the monster doesnt have resitance to fire for now), it STILL is not a sneak attack, because the Fire Damage is an added effect and not the principle attack form (which is why its never multiplied on a critical, etc.)
So while Rogues are indeed useful, they tend to gravitate to lower strength scores than most characters in favor of dexterity and two-weapon fighting type builds. (Also remember, without the right feats, off hand weapons deal only half the strength adjustment the main hand deals). There are of course pitfalls to Rogues in that case.
Concealment, if a Rogue doesnt have a way to overcome this hes never dealing his Sneak Attack damage, even a Blurred enemy when flanked cannot be sneak attacked unless the rogue can somehow overcome it. Lets not forget that either friends.
Greatsword rogue?. At 1st level, a TWF rogue dual-wielding shortswords is dealing 2d6 with each hit twice on a full attack action, for a total of 4d6 damage. The greatsword rogue is only hitting once for 3d6 (when sneak attacking, of course) but has a higher chance of succeeding in that attack. Also, he isn't beholden to needing a full attack action to get his damage in.
How is a Rogue getting 4d6 with short swords?
Wouldn't it just be 2d6 if both primary and off-hand hits are succesful? At least that's how my Rogue at 2nd level is getting 1d6+1d4 with a shortsword and a dagger
Unless you are assuming all hits are sneak, which in that case it would still only be 3d6, would it not? First attack would be the only hit that is sneak attack.
Maybe I didn't get the whole conversation, or you're talking about an attack routine coming out of stealth or something?
All attacks against an opponent that is vulnerable to sneak attack damage get bonus sneak attack dice to damage. That's why TWF is so good with rogues. You get full sneak attack dice on all attacks as long as you're flanking.
I was just asking how he was getting 4d6 on every attack with a rogue. I was wondering if he was assuming all hits came in the form of sneak attack then 2 standard attacks?
And I apparently misunderstood sneak attack, as I thought the first hit in a series of hits would be the only attack defined as a sneak attack. I.E.- If I am flanking, the first strike is sneak attack (1d6), the next two attacks use my full round and are NOT sneak attacks, they are just Primary and Off-hand strikes.
all attacks that a rogue makes when flanking are sneak attacks. including extra attacks from feats. even if you do not bypass damage reduction.
a strategy to combat underweight 2WF rogues w/ low strength strength scores is to use the weather to your advantage. try being 5 feet and 80 pounds in an intense windstorm. you will most likely be flying against your will.
heres a sick poem referencing your standard 2WF rogue.
oh how the poor little girl will fly. better pray she doesn't get carried too high. she might fall and die.
A good strategy against any Rogue is simply to use Blur or Displacement or suchlike, unless hes seeing through it somehow, hes not getting any of that tasty Sneak Attack damage.
Something as simple as a Darkness spell can easily spoil a Rogues day unless hes got something to counter or see through it, that 20% concealment bothers Rogues more than any other character, since ANY amount of concealment completely negates precision based damage such as Sneak Attack. It doesnt matter if hes got Darkvision, he suffers like everyone else does.
A good strategy against any Rogue is simply to use Blur or Displacement or suchlike, unless hes seeing through it somehow, hes not getting any of that tasty Sneak Attack damage.
Something as simple as a Darkness spell can easily spoil a Rogues day unless hes got something to counter or see through it, that 20% concealment bothers Rogues more than any other character, since ANY amount of concealment completely negates precision based damage such as Sneak Attack. It doesnt matter if hes got Darkvision, he suffers like everyone else does.
why must we try to screw rogues over? they are already underpowered enough as it is. so we do not need to exploit concealment. and the windy day flight is even more overkill. if concealment wasn't overkill enough. we should let the pathetic rogues get thier flank, even if it means spoonfeeding it to them. if said rogue is a little girl, she should be guarenteed to catch all opponents unaware of her flat footed. due to underestimation. hide in plain sight should be a rogue talent too.
Rogues arent really screwed over - since 3.5 they have been able to Sneak Attack so much more than they used to, some creatures that were normally off limits to them, etc. If anything they have been made even better - Concealment has been around since 3.0/3.5 and its perfectly logical as a defense against Sneak Attack.
Rogues when rolled into other character builds can be devastating with their Sneak Attack, Evasion at low levels, and good Skill Points. (A Wildshaped Druid Octopus in water gets Sneak Attack with all its tentacles in theory or a Wildshaped Druid as a Tiger can get Sneak Attack with the bite, foreclaws and with the rake....either that or a Monk/Rogue build gets to add it to his Flurry of Blows, etc.)
Not saying the Rogue is weak - far from it, they need to see their foe precisely to be able to deal sneak attack damage, any degree of Concealment, even a paltry 20% means the Rogue cant clearly distinguish the opponent physically - only enough to strike at it generally. The whole precision based damage means you have to strike a specific point on the opponent, if you cant see it clearly, then of course you are denied your sneak attack.
Rogues can get around this however, invest in some items that give you Blindsense/Blindsight (plenty in the Magic Item Compendium) that bypasses Concealment or have some other items that grant the ability to get around the concealment (such as a Daylight spell to get rid of a Darkness spell read from a Scroll with a Use Magic Device roll. A Rogue should ALWAYS prepare that on occasion, hes gonna get hit with concealment sooner or later and should rely on his companions to help or have a method to bypass this constant (and increasingly occuring at higher levels) menace.
Rogues / Ninjas / Scouts are all lumped together in this category (with very few additions) to classes with Precision Based Damage, there has to be a limitation somewhere and Concealment is it. It doesnt matter if the tough fighter is flanked by two Rogues if hes in a dark area or within a Darkness spell, coupled with Blind-Fight, odds are hes going to split the Rogues skulls if they cant overcome the Concealment in some way.
|
|
Something as simple as a Darkness spell can easily spoil a Rogues day unless hes got something to counter or see through it, that 20% concealment bothers Rogues more than any other character, since ANY amount of concealment completely negates precision based damage such as Sneak Attack. It doesn't matter if hes got Darkvision, he suffers like everyone else does.
Can you explain why the rogue is still out of luck even if he/she has darkvision? I though someone with darkvision could see "normally" in Darkness, thus no concealment, thus sneak attacks are okay.
low str rogues should blow very easily in the wind.
new trait; petite.
you are very lightweight for your height and thus very frail
Drawback; any creature of at least a size category larger than you treats any melee weapon attacks that they make against you as an awesome blow. creatures of your size category can treat thier melee weapon critical hits that they make against you as an awesome blow. for the purpose of windstorms, you are teated as one size category smaller.
Benefit; you gain the slight build ability. and you may treat acrobatics and escape artist as class skills.
special. you must be very short and lightweight for your race. and your permanent unenchanced strength score cannot exceed 10.
Something as simple as a Darkness spell can easily spoil a Rogues day unless hes got something to counter or see through it, that 20% concealment bothers Rogues more than any other character, since ANY amount of concealment completely negates precision based damage such as Sneak Attack. It doesn't matter if hes got Darkvision, he suffers like everyone else does.Can you explain why the rogue is still out of luck even if he/she has darkvision? I though someone with darkvision could see "normally" in Darkness, thus no concealment, thus sneak attacks are okay.
You are correct, if the rogue has darkvision he can see through darkness and sneak attack. Deeper Darkness, the spell, makes it harder though since then it's "supernatural darkness". I believe this is a change that came with PF and one I rather like, because in 3.5 you would be wrong.
Sure a Darkvision using Rogue is immune to Pathfinders 'Darkness' spell and to non-magical darkness, assuming for a moment a Rogue has Darkvision then sure he can Sneak Attack his opponent all day long till the cows come home.
In 3.5 Darkness used to affect creatures with Darkvision so thats my bad and I retract that statement given that I checked the Darkess entry in Pathfinder (which frankly makes more sense than 3.5's version). But it does say specifically under Deeper Darkness that this miss chance applies even with creatures that have Darkvision due to the darknesses magical/supernatural nature, so in those cases the Rogues would be disadvantaged again.
Another second level spell however, 'Blur' is different, a fighter chugs a potion of that (a modest 300 Gold Pieces, not bad for moderate to high level characters) and even in bright light situations the two (or more) Rogues arent getting through that 20% miss chance unless they can somehow dispel or get around his Blur' effect due to the same rammifications of not being able to pinpoint his foes anatomy precisely enough. Thats where 'Blindsight' and comparable abilities come into play wether natural to the Rogues race or through items.
|
I'm surprised this topic is still going on, to be honest.
Two Weapon Fighting is optimal in name only. In any actual campaign, a Strength-based, Two-Handed-Fighting rogue will out damage TWF.
TWF only does better if it can spend every round, including the surprise/first round, full-round-attacking and never run out of targets that are vulnerable to sneak attack AND never need to make more than a 5-foot step to keep on doing this for the entire fight.
Strength based, Two-Handed-Fighting does significantly more damage with a single attack, and has many more feats to play with, so it is infinitely more mobile and significantly more flexible. It can adapt to a wide variety of battlefields and deliver precision damage where it is needed most, instead of having to wade in and stand right smack dab in the middle of the enemies, which is where a TWF rogue needs to be in order to actually use all of the attack he gets.
If TWF can't use all of his attacks, he's not doing anywhere near the damage he should be and its his own fault for not being able to create the situations he needs.
Two-Weapon-Fighting is a better theoretical build, but it doesn't function at the gaming table. Strength-Based Two-Handed-Fighting is the real optimal choice.
<sighs>
...and the GM for my Rogue only allows SA with the Rogue's CLASS weapons...
On the bright side, she has a feat that allows elves to use elvish weapons and one that allows a 15+ dex to use Finesse weapons...
Lets not forget another aspect of this as well, Damage Reduction, the Sneak Attack will only occur if the primary damage is enough to harm the foe in question.
Where do you get that?
Just as the title suggests, I'm looking for a compelling MECHANICAL reason for a rogue not to take Two-Weapon Fighting. I can understand all kinds of role-play reasons for it, but I'm looking for something crunchy. Some alternative for rogues to dish out their damage without using TWF and still being somewhat effective in combats. I'm not necessarily looking for something BETTER, but something that at least doesn't horribly suck by comparison.
Mechanically? Dependency. Non-mechanical? Experience. Full attack at sneak attack damage is great. I played a TWF rogue from level 8-12 (or 13, I can't remember), and I think I got to open up with a full TW SA once or twice in that entire time.
More often, a flanking position wasn't available at all, or I spent a move to get into position (getting at most one attack), and by my next turn either I was down, the target was, or my flanking ally was. Or the target wasn't subject to sneak attacks (which was why I carried a Magic Missile wand and maxed out UMD, because if I couldn't sneak attack it, I wasn't going near it). Or it just moved out of position.
All in all, the overwhelming majority of the time, my optimized TWF sneak-attack feat chain was uselessly taking up feat slots on my character sheet. When it works, it's nice. Most of the time, it's not.
Under other circumstances, you might have better luck. It depends on too many things. It depends on what you fight. It depends on your party and your DM. It depends on the number and HD of the foes. It depends on the foes' inability to recognize you as a threat when you're standing next to them. And after all that, you can still have a crappy dice-rolling day.
A mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.
|
|
A mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.
Doesn't work. If your mount takes more than a 5ft step then you can only make a single attack.
The logic is, it's not just "actions", its "time". You can run by someone and trade 2-3 strikes (which is a "single attack" in game terms, thanks to parry and such being automatically incorporated into AC), but you can't launch a full blown offensive when your horse is streaking across the battle field - you aren't in melee range long enough.
The combat system in pathfinder is rather abstract.
Maybe this veers into house rules, but what would makeTWF worth it? If it worked more like Rapid Shot and only cost a single attack action for both primary and off-handed weapon attacks?
The trick is making the feat chain "worth it" without turning it into "the very best choice all the time for every melee class ever". You also have to watch out for throwing weapons, which can use both ranged feats and two-weapon fighting feats.
The two-hand strength option gives more base damage, requires a lot fewer feats, is significantly more mobile, and frees up additional gold for gear. The Two-Weapon Fighting option doubles your damage, but only if you can actually pull it off.
The trick is to "fix" the mobility issue that TWF has and cut the damage down at the same time. The Two-Handed option should still be good, though not necessarily the best, and new player "I'm a rogue! rapier-stab! I don't need any combat feats!" finessing builds should still be reasonably functional.
Maybe let someone with the Two-Weapon-Fighting feat have the option each round to either make a full-round attack or make one attack with each weapon at a -2, and cut off-hand sneak attack damage in half across the board.
A mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.Doesn't work. If your mount takes more than a 5ft step then you can only make a single attack.
Exactly. What you need is someone else to use their turn to put you there. There's a spell in the Spell Compendium called Baleful Transposition, which swaps the placement of two people in the fight. They don't have to be willing, but if they're not willing, they get a save. If both are willing, no attack/save is necessary. So if your DM allows this spell, the caster with BT has to use his turn to put the monster within reach of you, or, slightly easier, put you within your reach of the monster (before your turn) by running up to where you want to be, and casting this spell.
|
|
Exactly. What you need is someone else to use their turn to put you there. There's a spell in the Spell Compendium called Baleful Transposition, which swaps the placement of two people in the fight. They don't have to be willing, but if they're not willing, they get a save. If both are willing, no attack/save is necessary. So if your DM allows this spell, the caster with BT has to use his turn to put the monster within reach of you, or, slightly easier, put you within your reach of the monster (before your turn) by running up to where you want to be, and casting this spell.A mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.Doesn't work. If your mount takes more than a 5ft step then you can only make a single attack.
But then the question becomes: is the extra potential damage (which will only work against a single target, and thus could be wasted) worth not only the rogues full action, but the full action of the warrior (to move into flanking) and the spellcasting action and spell slot of the mage, who has to move the rogue into position?
Or is it better to let the mage cast a party buff or enemy debuff or control spell, while the warrior moves in and a mobile rogue gets off a single attack on a foe that could drop it (thanks to the damage the warrior did) a better tactical choice?
Which is better depends on that example combat you use. But the real question is: which will be the better choice more often? Which is better: a fluid tactic that lets each party member work somewhat independently, or a super move that requires everyone to do the same thing every single round in order to eliminate a single target?
Floating disc, on the other hand... very good for a ranged based characterA mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.Doesn't work. If your mount takes more than a 5ft step then you can only make a single attack
How so?
|
How so?Floating disc, on the other hand... very good for a ranged based characterA mount that can maneuver you into position so you can always Full Attack.Doesn't work. If your mount takes more than a 5ft step then you can only make a single attack
They can get on the floating disk, which moves with the wizard automatically. This means that it doesn't take the archers movement, so they can still take a full attack action.
|
|
...my post got swallowed.
okay, here it is again:
I do not believe the "disk trick" is in the spirit of the rules, so it shouldn't work. The book does not cover every single possibility - in fact, it's scientifically impossible for a rule system to completely address all possible issues. So the real question is: can an archer riding a horse make a full-round attack? Can an archer riding a moving wagon or chariot make a full-round attack? If not, then the disk trick shouldn't work.
I do not believe the "disk trick" is in the spirit of the rules, so it shouldn't work. The book does not cover every single possibility - in fact, it's scientifically impossible for a rule system to completely address all possible issues. So the real question is: can an archer riding a horse make a full-round attack? Can an archer riding a moving wagon or chariot make a full-round attack? If not, then the disk trick shouldn't work.
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
So the disk trick should definitely work with ranged attacks, because it works with mounts in the first place.
Incidentally, I think that wording is pretty bad, because it seems to assume a single attack roll ("you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement"), yet in the next sentence says you can make a full attack - can you spread these shots out across the entire movement, or what? The wording also only details how you can attack during your Mount's double or full-round (run) Move Actions, not if you want to attack during a SINGLE Move Action of your Mount's - if that's possible (presumably, as we are given the blanket statement "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving" and then nothing else pertinent to single Move Actions of the Mount), would there simply be NO attack penalties?
I also think the wording on Mounted Combat needs to be cleared up in the same manner that Spring Attack is, namely the action and allowed types of attacks:
If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
So just like Spring Attack, is the 'single melee attack' of a Mounted non-Charge attack able to be an Attack Action, and thus use Vital Strike? If so, what is stopping you from doing the same with a Mounted Charge?
And this is contrary to the RAW that only a single melee attack (whether attack action or not) is allowed when your Mount moves more than 5'), but it seems that going with the concept that ranged Full Attacks ARE allowed when your Mount is moving, why couldn't one make a Melee Full Attack AGAINST DIFFERENT OPPONENTS along the movement of your Mount? That doesn't conflict with the "time as well as action" dynamic, because it is expressly acknowledging it by targeting each Iterative at a new enemy further along the route. ...???