Sir Holton

YULDM's page

Goblin Squad Member. 122 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.




*Proposition:
Decreasing the number of D6 of sneak attack on subsequent hit in the same round by 1. (minimum 1D6)

The Rogue is well balanced, but there is always room for amelioration. I propose some fine-tuning to prevent some possible abuses, without removing too much from the actual rule for sneak attacks. My proposition is not a big change in the mechanic, and is easy to implement.

With the new PFRPG sneak attacks rule, rogues get the chance to sneak attack more often. (new type of creatures)
When a Rogue is in a position to make more than one sneak attack in a round (Iterative attacks, Haste, Two-weapon fighting, Flurry of blows from multiclassing, Combat reflexes...), I propose to decrease the number of D6 on next hit by one. (minimum 1D6)

*Proposition example:
A hasted and flanking 9th-level Rogue (3 attacks in a round) will deal extra 5D6 on his first hit, 4D6 on the second hit, and 3D6 on the third (total 12D6 versus 15D6 actual rule). If there is not hit, there is no decrease. In this example, if the rogue hits only on his third attack, the extra sneak damage is the full 5D6.

As you can see, my proposition don't penalyze the Rogue very much. But, let's just take a look at this hypothetical situation (which may comes up only once in a lifetime) where it shows how crazy actual sneak attacking can get:

A VERY lucky 15th-level Rogue with greater invisibility and hasted, using Greater Two-Weapon fighting (Rapier and Shortsword), has 7 sneak attacks in a round. Assuming that all attacks hit (lucky rogue!) this is 7x 9D6 of damage.... 63D6! With my proposition, this number goes down to 35D6 "only". hehe...

Some players (not all!) often find ways to combine rules to put themselves in very advantageous situation, to the point of sometimes making the rules *seem* unbalanced. Flanking + Two-Weapon Fighting = lot of D6 of sneak!

Overall, I think that a Rogue (given his lower BAB), will not hit the target that often in a round, but I prefer something solid in the rule to prevent those rare and specific situations where things get out of hands...


The new rules for cover seems more fluid and simple. Good job to PFRPG designers (see "Complicated Cover" threads). But I have some more thoughts.

My suggestion for cover comes from my years of GMing without using the "grid & squares" system (only the basics). Like many has stated before: when not using a grid, how can you determined corners of squares?

(... and I can open a full discussion about getting rid of this tactical grid... Who moves around following a grid? ok.. maybe a robot... but that's another subject)

Since many minis we used are on a round base, I suggest using "tangency & center". I'll try to be clear:

If I can connect both sides of a mini to the correspondig sides of the other mini, there is no cover. If a side line is blocked, but center to center is not, it's light cover (+2). And if center to center is blocked, it's heavy cover (+5). It works well with small, huge, tiny. It goes well with reach too. And with ranged attacks.

For some cases where a Large is attacking a Huge, with a obstacle in between (a 5' pillar), I use the "center-to-center line blocked" and go with heavy cover.

To allow sniping, I would suggest ignoring adjacent cover for the attacker (the rogue behind the tree).

In short:
-Sides connect: no cover
-Centers connect, but a side does not: light cover +2
-Centers don't connect: heavy cover +5
-Centers connect, but both sides don't: heavy cover +5
-Ranged attacks ignore adjacent obstacle to allow sniping

A final note:
This "tangency" system can also be use to determine flanking. If both tangency lines of attackers pass through the defender, the attackers are flanking.