|
One of my gaming groups has implemented the following rules, and I want to see what people think of them.
My co-DM Ed came up with this one: Sneak Attack only applies to the first attack each round, not to all iterative attacks. The rationale is that precision-based damage requires study and patience to find just that right kink in the armor or that momentarily exposed vital spot. With your opponent writhing and bobbing and weaving, those openings are going to close up very quickly, especially once you've hit them. I like the idea, and I've toyed with the idea of allowing two attacks with sneak attack damage in a round, if the character is using Two-Weapon Fighting and wielding 2 light one-handed weapons, such as daggers, because they could both strike the same opening simultaneously.
I came up with this one: When a character who has Evasion or Improved Evasion is in difficult terrain (and lacks feats or spell effects allowing them to ignore it) or is in a situation where their movement is otherwise hindered, such as grappled, then they are treated as if their Evasion is one step lower - Improved Evasion becomes regular Evasion, and regular Evasion is disqualified.
Part of the reason for these changes was to add a little more realism and sensibility to the game, and part of it was to nerf the rogue just a bit, because one thing all the DMs in my games seem to share in common is that we all disagree with the trend in 3rd Edition and later incarnations to turn the rogue into a fighter lite.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While Pathfinder did many things to the rogue, nerfing wasn't among them. There are quite a few of us who think the whole idea of turning the rogue into a fighter lite that can stand toe-to-toe with most monsters alongside the fighters was contrary to the spirit of the rogue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly, strongly recommend against the first one. The rogue is already seen as the weakest class in the game by many, and the sole saving grace is that they can sneak attack multiple times per round. Even alchemists can do that one far better. Note that what you're saying is already the case for if the enemy didn't notice the rogue. Once you attack a single time, they're aware of you and thus your next attacks are not sneak attacks. Flanking is the enemy not paying attention to you as much, and taking advantage of that. Rogues generally have low hitpoints and not the best AC, so they're quite squishy. That's why they can do a lot of damage if the stars line up for them.
These two changes nerf the class that needs nerfs the least. The improvements to the rogue aren't really attempts to make them "fighter-lite", but to make them relevant.
If you must increase realism at the cost of fun, I recommend coming up with combat-related buffs that will keep the rogue relevant. Unfortunately, this means any such buffs will be unrelated to skills.
I really must recommend against both from a game-balance perspective. But I hate only disagreeing with such a well-written and thoughtful post, so let's see...
I'd be...more OK with this if the system was instead you get 1.5x or even 2x the normal sneak attack on the first attack of the round, and then .5x sneak attack on the other attacks. You're still not able to be as accurate on the later strikes, which follows your desire, but it's made up for sort-of by increasing the damage of the attack most likely to hit. Maybe if you're TWF, the second attack just does normal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly, strongly recommend against the first one. The rogue is already seen as the weakest class in the game by many, and the sole saving grace is that they can sneak attack multiple times per round. Even alchemists can do that one far better. Note that what you're saying is already the case for if the enemy didn't notice the rogue. Once you attack a single time, they're aware of you and thus your next attacks are not sneak attacks. Flanking is the enemy not paying attention to you as much, and taking advantage of that. Rogues generally have low hitpoints and not the best AC, so they're quite squishy. That's why they can do a lot of damage if the stars line up for them.
These two changes nerf the class that needs nerfs the least. The improvements to the rogue aren't really attempts to make them "fighter-lite", but to make them relevant.
I strongly disagree on some of these points. While there are many who saw the classic rogue as weak and irrelevant, that was not because of any fault in class features. The fault lay primarily in two areas. 1) Players who didn't know how to build an effective rogue, and 2) GMs who didn't know how to construct a game that would allow them to shine. Rogues are designed to shine outside the front line of combat and in social encounters. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the system is built to allow rich role play outside of combat, many players and GMs lack the patience and imagination for it, so they utilize only the tiniest portion of what the game can actually bring, fast-forwarding through everything that doesn't involve swinging a sword. In combat, they're still very effective if you know how to build them, often having some of the highest ACs in the game by the time they reach the middle levels, by virtue of the fact that their preferred armors don't pinch off their Dex bonuses. Their hit points aren't the highest, but neither are they the worst, they're comparable to clerics. And while they may give up surprise after one strike, they don't suffer that limitation when attacking from a flanking position, which is shockingly easy to achieve with a few ranks in stealth and acrobatics. So, in short, anyone who ever thought the rogue was an irrelevant class either didn't know how to play one, or played with a GM who was too lazy to throw them a bone.
Rogues have only one advantage outside of combat, and in social scenarios, and that's in the number of skill ranks they receive. Thus, they can do a little bit of everything, but notice that they are no better at any of those things than other classes.
For example, a rogue might have ranks in Diplomacy, but they're probably not going to have the highest Charisma at the table. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers are still going to have an advantage.
If a rogue happens to have a high Charisma he's still only as good as the aforementioned classes.
Basically, anything a rogue can do, so too can others (and often times to better effect).
If they're already struggling to contribute outside of combat, why take away their only opportunity to do so in combat?
I don't know about you or yours, but I like to contribute to the group. If my character isn't contributing, and must struggle to remain relevant, then I've effectively handicapped my group. That's not fun for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Class: I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to rogues achieving some of the highest AC available in the game. They simply don't, unless your group's fighters are also wearing light armor. In many cases they rely upon rogue talents to increase their AC in combat. Offensive Defense for example, but this tactic relies upon achieving Sneak Attack (not always viable).
Combat Effectiveness: Due to their BAB, rogues cannot hit enemies as reliably as more martially inclined classes do. Similarly, they are limited in their choice of weapons due to their proficiencies. Also, they are unable to buff themselves at all. They are unique in this respect, as virtually all 3/4-BAB classes have some sort of mechanic to boost their attack/damage (monks have Flurry of Blows, inquisitors have Judgments, etc).
Hit Points, Defense, & MAD: Rogues are melee combatants, by virtue of Sneak Attack (which means they need a decent Strength score). They cannot do so reliably at range, and thus must close distance. Within melee they are vulnerable due to their inability to wear heavy armor or use shields (which means they need to have a high Dexterity score), and their d8 HD. Clerics, whom you compare them to, have access to a wide array of magics capable of boosting their defenses. Rogues do not (which means they need to have a decent Constitution score, at the very least, else they will inevitably die a horrible, horrible death).
Positioning For Sneak Attack: Stealth only helps a rogue achieve a surprise attack. It does not guarantee this, only helps. Considering most monsters have pretty good (if not insane) Perception checks, as well as other senses (Blindsense, Darkvision, Scent, etc), they are already at a disadvantage in this respect. All things considered, let us assume they manage a surprise attack. What do they do afterwards? Stealth isn't going to help them. They have to rely upon flanking, but that's not always viable. Acrobatics helps, but considering that as the game progresses it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with monsters' CMD scores, it's a losing battle. Acrobatics rarely works, especially against larger creatures. So, what's a rogue to do? Well, often times they are forced to hang back and wait for an opportunity to position themselves (after their allies eat the creature's attack of opportunity, and lure it safely where the rogue can sneak past and position himself). Sometimes this doesn't work. Again, flanking isn't always viable--which means no Sneak Attack.
Skill and Forethought: When you say, "...anyone who ever thought the rogue was an irrelevant class... didn't know how to play one," you're being elitist. Sorry, but you are. Please consider this: You came to us for criticism and evaluation of your house rule. When we do so, please don't throw it back in our faces with claims like this. You go on to say that DMs should take it easy on rogues, throwing them a "bone." Here we have it, by your own admission! Rogues need a little help, because they are underpowered and because playing one is difficult (due to the issues addressed above).
That said, what works for some won't necessarily work for others. If your group enjoys the house rule, continue using it! I'm curious though, has your group compensated rogues in any way for nerfing their combat effectiveness?
Yesss, please go on about how I don't know how to create a powerful rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the above posters - this is flat-out unnecessary, and a nerf to what is already one of the weakest classes in the game.
Rogues have sneak attack so that they can participate meaningfully in combat, which is an important part of most PF games. Everyone should be able to participate in combat, because combat is mostly fun and exciting, and nobody wants to wait it out or feel frustrated every turn when they can't do anything useful. Rogues should be the masters of smart fighting, in my opinion - combat maneuvers, use of terrain, finding enemy weaknesses and exploiting them, that kind of thing. Everyone in PF that isn't a spellcaster is going to feel like a variation on the fighter, because fighting is going to happen a lot, and if you're not casting spells you're almost certainly hitting the bad guys with something. Would you prefer that rogues twiddle their thumbs in combat while everyone else takes care of it so they can get on to the next exciting "I look for traps. I found one? Hooray, my class's existence is justified! I disarm it. My work here is done." roll?
Rogues have already had all their best stuff stolen from them - I really dislike the vivisectionist for this reason, as sneak attack was really the only reason people played rogues in my experience. Bards, rangers, and inquisitors can do skill monkey better than the rogue can, since they all have spells that work better than skills, and rogue talents mostly suck. Ninjas are, in my opinion, Paizo admitting that - they're better rogues than rogues in every way, though I dislike the reliance on magic. You say that the rogue shines in social situations - I don't see how that's really the case unless no one in your group has ever played a bard, inquisitor, social ninja, sorcerer with a social bent, or even a paladin with social skills. At most, they can get a more broad selection of skills, but they don't get the bonuses in them that other classes get or the spells that make the use of skills unnecessary and irrelevant.
Finding magical traps is about the only thing they have that isn't readily stolen, and several classes can pick that up, though it's usually not a good deal for them, and honestly, traps are mostly BORING, both for the players and GM.
|
to the OP.
while i agree with other posters here, maybe if you do end up restricting sneak attack to once per round only, thus taking away, you can give back. spice up that one shot the rogue has in one of these ways:
1) sneak attack dice can multiply on a critical hit
2) sneak attack may benefit from multiple rogue talents that add effects to it (instead of just one)
3) sneak attack dice may be used on a foe with a detrimental condition: bleeding, dazed, dazzled, deafened, disabled, entangled, exhausted, fatigued, frightened, grappled, nauseated, panicked, shaken, sickened, or staggered
4) sneak attack dice 'explode' - meaning that every time you roll a 6, you add another d6 to the total damage (until you cease rolling 6's)
5) sneak attack has a chance of knockout, Fortitude DC 10 + #dice + ability score (best of ST/DX/INT?).
or some other creative power-up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who says an experienced rogue doesn't have the ability to look for multiple openings while they're attacking? I don't understand this from a mechanical or realistic stand point. Do you want the rogue to be an NPC class, or are you convinced that they actually have something to offer that spellcasters can't already do?
One of my gaming groups has implemented the following rules, and I want to see what people think of them.
My co-DM Ed came up with this one: Sneak Attack only applies to the first attack each round, not to all iterative attacks. The rationale is that precision-based damage requires study and patience to find just that right kink in the armor or that momentarily exposed vital spot. With your opponent writhing and bobbing and weaving, those openings are going to close up very quickly, especially once you've hit them. I like the idea, and I've toyed with the idea of allowing two attacks with sneak attack damage in a round, if the character is using Two-Weapon Fighting and wielding 2 light one-handed weapons, such as daggers, because they could both strike the same opening simultaneously.
I came up with this one: When a character who has Evasion or Improved Evasion is in difficult terrain (and lacks feats or spell effects allowing them to ignore it) or is in a situation where their movement is otherwise hindered, such as grappled, then they are treated as if their Evasion is one step lower - Improved Evasion becomes regular Evasion, and regular Evasion is disqualified.
Part of the reason for these changes was to add a little more realism and sensibility to the game, and part of it was to nerf the rogue just a bit, because one thing all the DMs in my games seem to share in common is that we all disagree with the trend in 3rd Edition and later incarnations to turn the rogue into a fighter lite.
All fine and well, aside from what you think of the rogue's power. I don't see how SA 1/round makes it any more realistic. The only thing you do is put a cool down on the power for 6 seconds, then 6 seconds later the situation is exactly the same but for some reason the rogue can use SA now...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it certainly makes a change to see a post claiming that the rogue is OP b0rken. Either it's a troll, or a rogue murdered Nightwish's parents.