Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

So is flanking foil considered to be overpowered by a lot of folks?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

I recently took note of this feat and I was wondering the opinion of others around here on this feat.

Flanking Foil (Combat).
Fighting multiple foes is easy for you.
Benefit: Whenever you hit an adjacent opponent with a melee attack, until the start of your next turn, that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you. It can still provide a flank for its allies.

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
...The only more broken/unbalanced feat to the mechanics of combat in all of PF is the Flanking Foil feat. A DM that doesn't ban that is a DM I refuse to play for. Even if I'm not playing a sneak attacker. I expect a certain level of empathy and decency from the guy who controls all of the game environment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Having run this before, it's not all that bad. That said, I think it should have some kind of prerequisite. I was surprised to see it didn't.


I think it looks pretty weak as far as feats go. I don't think I'd ever take it on any character I would ever make.

The guy you quoted might just be butthurt from playing a Rogue or Vivisectionist or something and finding out that the BBEG randomly happened to have this very specific feat that stopped what he was doing.

It's easier to complain about your weakness than doing something about it, as he could have tried an alternative way to get sneak attack (feinting, hiding) or foiling the flanking foil feat (avoid letting the enemy adjacent, buff your AC/miss chance so you don't get hit in the first place, etc.).

Now, if, on the other hand, every enemy always had that feat, I'd take that as a declaration of war on Sneak Attacking and teamwork, and I would not be happy with the GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't see much of an issue with it myself. It offers a tactical option to help mitigate a potentially lethal situation at the cost of a feat. Less powerful than a class ability(uncanny dodge), while not so limited that you gain no use.

Sooo...yeah. not sure what the big deal is, I'd be inclined to say your quote there came from someone who got shut down by the feat, or feels like they missed their moment in the spotlight due to it.

Meh.


16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

meh... yeah, sucks for rogues... maybe it should have required a Save? or work like Imp Uncanny Dodge with level limits?
really, it's not about power level as much as making class abilities less distinctive... what's new there?

but honestly, I think the line "and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you" is a problem.
it's pretty clear that the RAI is 'they can't flank you' and the no-SA is due to that,
but the RAW would preclude them from doing SA BY ANY MEANS, which I believe is unfair and not intended.
i don't believe the feat should negate SA from invisibility/etc, from scout archetype, or other means.

i hit the fAQ button...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

meh... yeah, sucks for rogues... maybe it should have required a Save? or work like Imp Uncanny Dodge with level limits?

but honestly, I think the line "and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you" is a problem.
it's pretty clear that the RAI is 'they can't flank you' and the no-SA is due to that,
but the RAW would preclude them from doing SA BY ANY MEANS, which I believe is unfair and not intended.

You raise a good point on that actually. I had read it as "You cannot sneak attack them with flanking", which I feel is the intent. But RAW, yeah, that is a bit lame. I probably will go with what it is intended for honestly.

Also, OP, does StreamoftheSky know you're quoting the post? Might look like you're calling them out on something if SotS doesn't know... *shrug*


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also I need to remember that FLAG and FAQ are two different things :/

That could've been a bad thing, Quandry :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not overpowered, just broken.

This SINGLE feat which seems to have no requirements at all COMPLETELY shuts down multiple classes that are alreddy fairly underpowered with no save.

Contrast with Anti-Magic field, which requires a high level caster to cast it, as an emancipation it has to have the caster in its effect, shuting down everything THEY have, and has a lot of counters (such as abusing the line of effect requirement and wearing something that has been effected by Shrink Item as a hat or even simply walking out as it is only a 10 foot radius).

edit: Golems are similar here in that their magic immunity isn't really magic immunity, just infinite spell resistance, and does jack against anything that doesn't allow spell resistance and targets something other than the Golem.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

It's a very situational feat, but it certainly does make it a lot harder for a rogue to do any reasonable amount of damage against an opponent with DR 5/- or better, especially if they are used to having a flanking buddy.

But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.


deuxhero wrote:
This SINGLE feat which seems to have no requirements at all COMPLETELY shuts down multiple classes that are alreddy fairly underpowered with no save.

Ok, I have to question this. What multiple classes? Are you counting Ninja and Rogue separately? Because other than them, it's just Vivisectionist Alchemist that gets Sneak Attack.

I guess Assassin, but I didn't think anyone use Prestige Classes in Pathfinder, since the base classes got so good.

In the overall scheme of things, a single feat that shuts down this tiny of a fraction of potential characters is just no big deal, and more importantly, not worth taking in general. Only if you specifically knew the majority of your enemies for the entire campaign would have Sneak Attack would I even consider it.

But, crap, there are way easier ways to be immune to sneak attack--anything that gives you Concealment will do--just the spell Blur shuts it down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^I'm counting Rogue, Vivisectionist, Sandman Bard and LOTS of PRCs (Pretty much anything with a rogue entry gets it and then some). It's also more that a lot of prcs suck now than base classes being good (Assassin is a great example, losing its utility casting that made it unique and worthwhile as a class, to gain a few preset things that might as well have been Rogue talents and in-fact are now Ninja Tricks).

Anything that includes a core base class is hardly "a tiny fraction of potential characters"

I don't think "Sneak attack is such an easy ability to shut down so we will make it even worse" is a very good game design principle either

JohnF wrote:


But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.

Simply not playing with a GM is dictating to them?

So if I choose not to play with a group because they are playing FATAL, I'm dictating to them?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

meh... yeah, sucks for rogues... maybe it should have required a Save? or work like Imp Uncanny Dodge with level limits?

really, it's not about power level as much as making class abilities less distinctive... what's new there?

but honestly, I think the line "and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you" is a problem.
it's pretty clear that the RAI is 'they can't flank you' and the no-SA is due to that,
but the RAW would preclude them from doing SA BY ANY MEANS, which I believe is unfair and not intended.
i don't believe the feat should negate SA from invisibility/etc, from scout archetype, or other means.

i hit the fAQ button...

RAW doesn't just prevent your opponent from doing sneak attack damage to you - it also prevents that opponent from gaining any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you. This isn't limited to a flanking bonus when attacking you - if your opponent has two (or more) flanking opportunities, by RAW they can't take advantage of this even if they attack somebody else.

This doesn't look right, either.


mplindustries wrote:
The guy you quoted might just be butthurt from playing a Rogue or Vivisectionist or something and finding out that the BBEG randomly happened to have this very specific feat that stopped what he was doing.
I strongly doubt that. SotS has a good eye for the rules and most times I see him take issues with something in this manner, he generally has a valid concern.
mplindustries wrote:
Now, if, on the other hand, every enemy always had that feat, I'd take that as a declaration of war on Sneak Attacking and teamwork, and I would not be happy with the GM.

Feat is either balanced or it's not. SInce this is a "I'm good at fighting multiple foes" feat, it should be somewhat common on things that often fight multiple foes, like leader types who have to keep fighting underlings to stay leaders.

JohnF wrote:
But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.

I'd say it definitely is his call to walk away from a table if he feels that strongly about it.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
deuxhero wrote:

^I'm counting Rogue, Vivisectionist, Sandman Bard and Prcs. It's also more that a lot of prcs suck now than base classes being good.

Anything that includes a core base class is hardly "a tiny fraction of potential characters"

I don't think "Sneak attack is such an easy ability to shut down so we will make it even worse" is a very good game design principle either

JohnF wrote:


But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.

Simply not playing with a GM is dictating to them?

So if I choose not to play with a group because they are playing FATAL, I'm dictating to them?

I believe he is talking about the part where the DM is referred to as a person lacking in empathy and decency which is really uncalled for. You may disagree with a DM but you don't insult them for having different ideas about the game.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Frankthedm wrote:
JohnF wrote:
But IMO the quoted player is out of line. A player doesn't get to dictate to the GM what (if any) house rules should be in play, or denigrate a GM who chooses to follow what's in the rulebooks.
I'd say it definitely is his call to walk away from a table if he feels that strongly about it.

I agree. And even to let it be known that the reason for walking away is because of a disagreement about particular rules. It's the labeling of the GM as lacking in empathy and decency (particularly the latter) purely because they had a different opinion, or simply chose to go with what was written in the rulebooks, that (IMO) crosses the "don't be a jerk" line.

there are valid reasons to complain about the feat as written. But if a GM chooses to house-rule in some of the suggestions made in this thread to address some of those issues, rather than banning the feat outright, is the GM still lacking in empathy and decency? And, at the end of the day, is this really a big enough issue to warrant this level of reaction? I've played at tables run by many GMs who don't see eye-to-eye with me on every last detail of the rules; I've only ever refused to sit down again with one of them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, when I said broken/overpowered, I meant it unbalances the game. I get that rogues aren't exactly a dangerous or common foe and thus taking the feat isn't a smart optimization move. I hope people can understand the difference.

It completely shuts down one of the already weakest classes in the game, the rogue.

PF massively nerfed ranged sneak attack opportunities because rogues were supposed to tumble into flanking for a dagger sneak attack. Or something. That's what I recall. Then Paizo goes and prints this feat, available at level 1, with no pre-reqs, that completely shuts the rogue down in melee. With no save or skill check or CMD or defense of any kind to resist. By giving an effect on par with Improved Uncanny Dodge, a mid level unique class feature to only a few classes.

That's kind of ****ed up, don't you think?

And that viewpoint is interpretting the feat as it was intended (not let you count as flanking for 1 round), not the strict RAW, which is even CRAZIER!

Read closely. Try to see what I'm talking about. Perhaps some bolding would help...

"...that opponent does not gain any flanking bonus on attack rolls while it is flanking you and cannot deal sneak attack damage to you."

Without adding, "by flanking" to the end of that sentence, strict RAW sounds to me like you just plain can't SA the guy by any means at that point.

In any case, there is no example of a primary class feature shut down that is both this intense, unavoidable/unresistable, AND available at such a low level and so easily. None. There's a fighter feat that requires 6 levels to add a measly +4 to concentration checks. There's anti-magic field, which isn't available till level 11 at the very earliest, has a good shot of messing up the person using it just as bad as his foe, and is restricted to a meager 10 ft radius around yourself, easy enough to run out of (and you can RAW toss Conjuration Creation effects into it from outside, iirc).
Even the Shapeshifter Foil feat has moderate pre-reqs and gives a freaking save....

And again. Kick in the nuts to one of the already weakest classes in the game. How does this feat not enrage people?


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
And again. Kick in the nuts to one of the already weakest classes in the game. How does this feat not enrage people?

My theory would be that players who often played rogues have been conditioned by basic 3.x to expect that they will get completely shut down in a lot of fights (remembering that in 3.5 core rogues couldn't sneak attack tons and tons of monsters at all, forget needing a feat to take it away). So unlike, say, monk players seem to be, when rogues are shut out of a combat it's just more of the same old to the player, not something unexpected to rush off and complain about.

Just a theory though ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

Only if you specifically knew the majority of your enemies for the entire campaign would have Sneak Attack would I even consider it.

But, crap, there are way easier ways to be immune to sneak attack--anything that gives you Concealment will do--just the spell Blur shuts it down.

Or if you're a Half-Elf with the Paragon Surge spell/wand/scroll/etc who knows they are facing Sneak Attack enemies. Concealment normally prevents SA, but the Feat that allows SA with Concealment is kind-of a major feats for Rogues and other SA builds. This Feat as-is just shuts down SA 100%, and nothing can beat it, not even some Deity of Sneak Attack. Improved Uncanny Dodge at least allows for SOME possibility (and Rogues should be able to have Feats that boost their level for IUD purposes).

Taldor

Remember, you have to first hit the sneak-attacker in melee.

With blur, you don't.

It's also worth nothing that this is an example of how reading Paizo's writing for strict RAW is the pathway to madness.

-Matt

Cheliax

I play mostly dual classed rogues (and have since 2nd ed) this feat doesnt bother me because having been a rogue player for so long I know not to put all my eggs into the sneak attack basket, if sneak attack is your only source of damage as a rogue you will have issues against many viable opponents (elementals, oozes, other rogues etc).

Pathfinder is probably the most rogue friendly addition of DnD ever, and with the skills learned from earlier editions I have never felt useless as a rogue in pathfinder.


Mattastrophic wrote:
It's also worth nothing that this is an example of how reading Paizo's writing for strict RAW is the pathway to madness.

I'm hitting FAQ because I think it should be Errata'd.

That's what Paizo has requested people to do, to help their Errata process identify stuff that needs changes.
Ignoring it, and saying one should play contrary to RAW runs into issues with PFS for one.
Saying 'I don't think the Feat should negate non-Flank-source SA' isn't fundamentally different than if I just said I didn't like what the Feat did at all, and negating SA shouldn't be possible PERIOD. I don't necessarily agree with the later sentiment, but having the former be given proper Errata/FAQ is the only way to NOT have the 'negate ALL SA' aspect not be law in PFS (and for those who tend to follow RAW).


mplindustries wrote:
Only if you specifically knew the majority of your enemies for the entire campaign would have Sneak Attack would I even consider it.

It's worth noting that as a combat feat, there are various ways to spontaneously gain it when needed. Someone mentioned Paragon Surge. There is also the War Domain of clerics (and Inquisitor, and whoever else can take domains and choose war, like Shark Shaman druid). And who knows what else. So the narrow focus doesn't even matter then. It's an easy no-pre-req, "oh, a rogue? I'll turn THIS on" deal.

Caderyn wrote:
Pathfinder is probably the most rogue friendly addition of DnD ever, and with the skills learned from earlier editions I have never felt useless as a rogue in pathfinder.

I don't really like it and have limited experience, but I think 4E is actually the most rogue-friendly edition of D&D ever.

Followed by 3E.

Not sure which edition is next, PF or 2E, but it's definitely a big step down from 3E either way. Main edge in 2E would be the large amount of class levels and/or potential to multiclass as a fighter/rogue or wizard/rogue or whatever.


I see why some players don't like the feat. But because it only works if you hit an adjacent enemy with a melee attack it is limited enough to not need banning.

Because of this requirement rogues can actually try and take advantage of the fact, that the enemy has this feat and wants to use it.
He can be mobile, forcing the enemy to move with him or forgoe his use of the feat.

And as always if someone else is more dangerous it may prove to be a bad idea to attack the rogue just to benefit from this feat.


again, what SoS just described isn't earthshaking on it's own, some classes already have defenses vs. Flanking SA (imp uncanny dodge), so this is just slightly expanding that really. but those work on a level parity basis, that CAN be overcome. not to mention they don't stop ALL sneak attack, just from flanking. also, immunity to SA damage is different from preventing SA in the first place, which means 'SA dice trade' abilities, or abilities that trigger on a SA don't work while they could work vs. SA immune creatures.


Umbranus wrote:
And as always if someone else is more dangerous it may prove to be a bad idea to attack the rogue just to benefit from this feat.

uh... that comes off as: 'well rogues suck anyways, so allowing somebody to shut their entire class-based offence down completely doesn't matter, because nobody would/should want to waste their turn by doing something as simple as making a melee attack vs. the rogue'. OK.

EDIT: look, i don't really care about arguing it. it seems clear the wording that negates ALL Sneak Attack, independent of Flanking, is really meant to only apply to Flanking SA. that's obvious Errata. please hit FAQ to help bring that to attention.


I'd like the see the feat massively reigned in or removed beyond the obvious issue of negating flanking sneak attacks only, but I suppose that's a start...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Its funny. The feat has a cost, a rogue can do things to help mitigate it or avoid it entirely but its still broken?
Sooo...basically...if anything shuts down a class feature its broken? Flying creatures shut down a fighters melee attacks, must be broken. Golems shut down offensive casters, must be broken.

Its one feat, it requires them to hit you, and if your playing a rogue you should be smart enough to think of ways to mitigate the annoyance of this feat. It really isn't anywhere as near as bad as some folks make it out.

Barring a DM giving it to every creature or specifically targeting the rogue when there are better/more logical choices to target. But even then, that's an issue with a DM gunning for a player, its not really the feat at that point.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

If that feat was to DESTROY ROGUE CLASS, a DM would have to go and slap it on every opponent the party faces. Doing something like that is not a feat problem, it's a human problem. It's right up there with having every opponent fly when the party is made up of melee specialists or fielding no Evil creatures, ever, because there's a Paladin in the party.

This thread is a bizzare combo of armchair theorycrafting and running around like a headless chicken set on fire, and is truly amusing to watch.

And if one of my players told me "Do you use Flanking Foil, because if you ever do, I quit the game!" I would have a week worth of laughing. The rest of the people at my table, too.


It's not really over powering in any sense, the feat just seems stupid though. I can't actually see anyone spending their feat on it, but in a certain situation it could be really useful with one of the handful of abilities or spells that grant you any feat you want for a limited time.

I mean, we might as well have a feat that prevents flurry of blows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's that bad...after all, you have to hit the Rogue first and a semi-decent Rogue shouldn't be all that easy to hit, you have to be adjacent to them so no spears or anything, you have to hit them each turn to keep the effect going and it doesn't stop them flanking others or counting as flanking...the main issue I can see is using this with an attack of opportunity to nerf a rogue as he moves in. Or maybe a fighter with Whirlwind, making a whole band of Rogue cry. It would be better if this had to be a standard action or something so it couldn't be combined with other abilities and attacks.

Saying that, if you made up the same feat but it made you immune to someone's magic for a turn I'm pretty sure Paizo's HQ would be suddenly swamped under flaming copies of there own rulebooks. So maybe it's not as fair as all that. It's like Casters couldn't afford to be taken down a notch or two.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

right. how about: you hit a caster, their spells don't affect you for 1 round.
if they use a wand that would work because it's not their own spell/class ability.
no pre-req of course.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
I'd like the see the feat massively reigned in or removed beyond the obvious issue of negating flanking sneak attacks only, but I suppose that's a start...

The only change I would make to the feat, beyond the obvious issue of negating flanking sneak attacks only, would be to add Combat Expertise as a pre-requisite and/or to force the character who wants to benefit from this feat to succeed a melee attack against the "flanker" while fighting defensively or while using Combat Expertise.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

It's not really over powering in any sense, the feat just seems stupid though. I can't actually see anyone spending their feat on it, but in a certain situation it could be really useful with one of the handful of abilities or spells that grant you any feat you want for a limited time.

I mean, we might as well have a feat that prevents flurry of blows.

This feat would be useful enough in the Council of Thieves AP.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

right. how about: you hit a caster, their spells don't affect you for 1 round.

if they use a wand that would work because it's not their own spell/class ability.
no pre-req of course.

Yeah...you mean like an attack of opportunity, or maybe a save...oh wait a minute...those are built in to the system. Seriously though? You act like sa is all rogue is good for. And the feat has limitations and requirements you seem to cheerfully assume will be met. At which point your (I'm going to with poorly played) rogue has more things to worry about than being able to sneak attack or flank...like, being dead.

Simple fact is the feat, much like class abilities/immunities/etc can be negated and has conditions it has to meet. Which way to many people seem to be ignoring.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

right. how about: you hit a caster, their spells don't affect you for 1 round.

if they use a wand that would work because it's not their own spell/class ability.
no pre-req of course.

How about you step out of your armchair world where every NPC has this feat and take a walk through playing the game in practice? You know, something people here rarely do because they spend most of their life on every min/max/optimization forum out there trying to convince everyone around that THEY. ARE. RIGHT.

In practice, a monster with Flanking Foil will happen once in a blue moon (unless the DM has something against sneak attacks, but that's not a feat problem, it's a human problem).

You know what happens once in a blue moon, too? Neutral opponents that you can't smite. Golems. Antimagic fields. Monsters immune to sneak/crits.

And no, I'm not theorycrafting here. I'm running this game since 2008 and I've had several sneak attack PCs appearing in my games. If one of those once in a blue moon things would be an opponent with this feat, nobody would mind, because there are already entire monster types that are totally, out of the box, immune to sneak/crits. I don't need Flanking Foil, if I were a d-head DM and wanted to screw my Rogue players over I would just throw mostly elementals and classed incorporeal undead at them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

no you're right, it doesn't apply to every opponent, it doesn't work if you're using reach weapons, etc.
i fully support all those requirements also applying to said anti-spell feat.
of course, spells are not all spellcasting classes are good for,
they can use their BAB and Feats and Skills and other Class abilities just fine.
what's wrong with such an anti-spell feat? nothing? OK.

seriously, Krigare, the Rogue must be 'poorly played' if they ever take 1 melee hit from an adjacent enemy?


It's the same ability as Uncanny dodge, normally gotten at 4th level at the lowest I can think of, without the restrictions on that same ability. At the very least, it should not restrict SA from other means than flanking and have BAB+1 req'd, at the best it should be overcome by 4 levels higher and have Expertise or at least dodge mobility as pre-reqs.

I'll FAQ it just for the clarification on non-flanking SA being negated as written.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No, they are poorly played if taking that 1 hit totally ruins their playability, which is what your implying.

/If/ the enemy has this feat, /if/ they are adjacent, /if/ they hit, then you lose your sa. For one round. Unless you stared combat next to them, they either, a charged you, at which point, why avoid the guy in full plate looking menacing? Otherwise you should have gotten off at least 1 sa augmented attack previously. And yes, you can mitigate the feat more. Spring attack, fighting defensive for the AC boost, a couple of the style feats offer some good defensive opportunities, I mean, yeah. If this feat, on the once in a blue moon npc ruins it for your rogue, that rogue is pretty poorly played IMO, because they ignore the rest of the rogues toolbox. If all they care about for judging how good a character is will be combat, they need play a class whose main focus is damage, not versatility/utility.


I think a lot of people forget that the "rogue toolbox" is pretty separated. Not all rogues can do everything that a rogue is capable of. If you build a rogue that's sneaky and uses shadows and stealth (lots of dex, maybe take weapon finesse), it looks pretty different than a rogue that uses feinting (better charisma, usually also the face, can feint as a move action), which is again different from the rogue that mainly uses flanking (can drop dex, doesn't need to bother with charisma, focused more on strength and team working feats), and that differs from a rogue that is actually good at spotting and disabling traps (actually needs good wisdom). But I guess if you're playing at 25 pt buy and feats at every level then I guess you're set.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the most hilarious knee-jerk reaction I've seen in a long while. The feat is not unbalanced. If it were broken, it would be "broken weak," not "broken strong" on account of it being so situational.

And it doesn't completely shut down rogues. You still have to hit them to get it to work. Or they can continue sneak attack you from flanking with reach weapons.

On one hand, there are so many ways to beat this feat that I can scarcely believe someone would call it overpowered. On the other hand, there are already so many ways to defeat sneak attack, I fail to understand how this is suddenly unbalanced. Anyone capable of casting darkness, obscuring mist, or dropping a smokestick can shut down a rogue.

A smokestick can negate the sneak attack of 20 rogues SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITHOUT A SAVE! BANBANBANBAN!!!!

There are also plenty of other ways for a rogue to get sneak attack. Take a look at the scout archetype. All they need do is move.


yes, if the enemy has the feat. pretty good starting basis to evaluate a feat, i would think.
yes, /if/ they are hit by a melee attack from an adjacent square... truly a blue moon event there,
that no opponent would every really try to do unless there really was nothing else to do.
sure, the feat does nothing about the rest of the rogues' toolbox. they still have their 3/4 BAB, feats, etc.
so yeah, it sounds like it would also be reasonable to have an equivalent feat that negated spellcasting in the same way.
and of course it truly is a shame that anybody would expect there to be pre-reqs for a feat that paralleled a class ability.

regardless, perfect balance is not a big focus of paizo, but i feel that the lowest minimum Errata to make it restrained to Flanking SA *IS* within the realm of possibilty for FAQ/Errata. if people don't like the rest of the feat, they can house-rule it, ban it, or evil eye people who use it in PFS games with them. the idea of making it require combat expertise, and require that the triggering attack be made USING combat expertise is a good start on balance as well as flavor justification IMHO. of course, some builds will be using CE /all the time/ anyways, but doing so would make it cohere better IMHO.


Ravingdork wrote:

\Anyone capable of casting darkness, obscuring mist, or dropping a smokestick can shut down a rogue.

A smokestick can negate the sneak attack of 20 rogues SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITHOUT A SAVE! BANBANBANBAN!!!!

There are also plenty of other ways for a rogue to get sneak attack. Take a look at the scout archetype. All they need do is move.

I believe you must have been affected by Concealment when perusing the above posts. Taking the Feat to make Concealment NOT negate SA is pretty much de rigeur for any Rogue/etc build, since mere Poor Lighting is enough to trigger that condition.

As already mentioned, the current RAW /does/ negate /ALL/ forms of Sneak Attack, not just Flanking. No Scout SA.
Since the SA is made impossible, any 'special effects', including ones traded for SA dice, such as the Thug ability, also don't work, even though they potentially COULD work against creatures immune to SA damage.

Cheliax

lets see my latest 2 rogues at level 11

Rogue 1, does 2d6+18 damage per attack without SA with a +5d6 sneak attack

Rogue 2, does 3d6+25 damage per attack without SA with a +2d6 sneak attack

Neither of them inherently requires sneak attack to do well on their attacks, I mean yes its nice to have it but I would never rely on just 1 option to deal damage, because there are times you cant get sneak attacks and if you deal no damage without sneak (like alot of rogues I see with 1d6+5 damage without sneak attack) you will have issues, but the same is true for a caster who only has fire spells vs fire immune creatures, or a witch with purely mind effecting abilities vs golems.

If you deliberately leave a gap in your character where you wont be able to contribute then occasionally it will crop up, but just because a feat/class feature/spell/trait etc has the option of negating your only option doesnt mean that the feat/class feature/spell/trait is a problem, the problem lies in your one dimensional character build with the lack of alternative solutions to problems.

Build multi dimensional characters with many different possible solutions to any given problem, the measure of an experienced player is when you come up against something new that should shut you down you find a way around it, either bypassing it, dealing with the rest of the encounter, avoiding getting hit for 1 round and then unloading your sneak of doom on him (invisibility potions work well for this as he doesnt know where you are for 1 round which is all you need to get a sneak attack off and be allowed to flank again).

In summary the feat works fine as is and does not require errata (even with completely negating sneak attacks from all sources by the pc hit vs the user) the limit of it requiring the opponent to hit you every round is what limits the power of the feat, as its fairly easy to back off and get it to wear off and then move in for the kill again (usually invisible so you can 5ft in and full attack)


There are plenty of ways to shut down the rogue, and this feat is just way too weak and situational compared to non-magical items, spells, class-features, and so on to actually be worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

This is the most hilarious knee-jerk reaction I've seen in a long while. The feat is not unbalanced. If it were broken, it would be "broken weak," not "broken strong" on account of it being so situational.

And it doesn't completely shut down rogues. You still have to hit them to get it to work. Or they can continue sneak attack you from flanking with reach weapons.

On one hand, there are so many ways to beat this feat that I can scarcely believe someone would call it overpowered. On the other hand, there are already so many ways to defeat sneak attack, I fail to understand how this is suddenly unbalanced. Anyone capable of casting darkness, obscuring mist, or dropping a smokestick can shut down a rogue.

A smokestick can negate the sneak attack of 20 rogues SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITHOUT A SAVE! BANBANBANBAN!!!!

There are also plenty of other ways for a rogue to get sneak attack. Take a look at the scout archetype. All they need do is move.

The issue that many of us feel as though the feat as intended was to prevent sneak attacking from flanking, not everything. As written, it stops all sneak attacks, no matter the source. Scout's movement, Feint, Dazzling Display etc... none of them work. We just want to get it cleared up honestly.

And as for kneejerker, well... the irony of you saying this puts me in stitches. Glad to see we are both black, Pot. ;)

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

This is the most hilarious knee-jerk reaction I've seen in a long while. The feat is not unbalanced. If it were broken, it would be "broken weak," not "broken strong" on account of it being so situational.

And it doesn't completely shut down rogues. You still have to hit them to get it to work. Or they can continue sneak attack you from flanking with reach weapons.

On one hand, there are so many ways to beat this feat that I can scarcely believe someone would call it overpowered. On the other hand, there are already so many ways to defeat sneak attack, I fail to understand how this is suddenly unbalanced. Anyone capable of casting darkness, obscuring mist, or dropping a smokestick can shut down a rogue.

A smokestick can negate the sneak attack of 20 rogues SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITHOUT A SAVE! BANBANBANBAN!!!!

There are also plenty of other ways for a rogue to get sneak attack. Take a look at the scout archetype. All they need do is move.

Ravingdork uses Common Sense. Hell freezes over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why is this now a Rogue love/hate thread?

I thought we determined the feat situational, and only overpowered to those with some strange blinders on.

Heed these words of wisdom: Let it be.


I'd say that this is actually a feat for BBEGs rather than for PCs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Why is this now a Rogue love/hate thread?

I thought we determined the feat situational, and only overpowered to those with some strange blinders on.

Heed these words of wisdom: Let it be.

Honestly, I just want to make sure that the intention and what's written do match. No matter the answer, I'm going to use common sense and go with what I believe was intended. I personally think that preventing a sneak attack from flanking is fine. But the other stuff... not so much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

The problem of this feat is that it is clearly an NPC/monster feat and a cheesy one and not that it is OPed in any way for a PC.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / So is flanking foil considered to be overpowered by a lot of folks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.