Ok here's the point:
The Sneak Attack somehow reduced the whole Rogue class to it.
That's kind of sad, since I came all the way from AD&D and there, the Thief was more the Jack-of-all-Trades then the Backstabber.
In AD&D Sneak attack had almost no use in combat, since the target had to be unaware of the attack (and you always expect an attack in combat).
The Sneak attack was more about putting down a single person (like a guard) out of combat, with sneaking behind unnoticed or using a hidden blade while chatting.
Since 3.0, the way sneak attack works, is just more a task a decent fighter might achieve then a hidious rogue.
Ok, I'm done and ready for the flame.
|
No flames. Just disagreement.
In 2nd edition, our rogues (played by different people) commonly held back and avoided combat. They would 'keep an eye on our backs', and help us loot when it was all over.
The PHB specificially said something about that being a contribution, because, heck, you never knew, someone might have jumped us if we didn't have a guard.
The rogue in 3rd edition has combat ability. So does the cleric, the wizard, etc. Combat is not the only aspect of the game, but is frequently an important one. Having a class that has no combat ability or 'role' is not good design, in my opinion.
Rogues should not be quite as capable as fighters in my opinion, and +10d6 at 20th level is a lot of extra damage, but I don't think taking anything from the rogue is the best way to 'fix' non-magical classes.
So you agree, that +10d6 is just too much?
As I said, I liked the AD&D rules:
+4 on Attack Roll, and Damage Mulitplier by level, I think it was like that:
LVL MULTIPLIER
1-5 x2
6-10 x3
11-15 x4
16-20 x5
So you could make it not just extra damage, but improved chances for, and more damage on critical hits.
That would even be more in tune to the usual combat rules!
I find your ideas more intriguing after your second post.
My problem with sneak attack is not the amount of damage you can deal at high levels, but how it biases rogues toward the two-weapon fighter track. When you get to add a bunch of damage to each attack, it's all about increasing the number of attacks.
Increasing the bonus to hit mitigates the rogue's poor attack bonus, and increasing the critical potential when sneak attacking would support multiple rogue pathways - including ranged weapons and non-two weapon styles.
How about adding a dex bonus to damage in sneak attacks? That would increase during critical hits, which the current sneak attack doesn't.
There are also feats that allow substituting other types of damage for sneak attacks - slowing, dazing, penalties to strength, etc. That leads to more flavor and less dice-rolling.
If someone wants to put together an alternate rogue ability to replace sneak attack, for someone who wants to create a non-combat rogue (perfectly fine in some campaigns), that would be interesting.
But the question stays:
Why don't fighter learn to "strike the vital parts of an enemy"?
Rogues in combat operate on the level of Clerics and Wizards. They hit things and things die. That's good. Only the Fighter is left sucking in the iconic party.
The solution is really obviously not to nerf sneak attack.
-Frank
With frank here it works fine.
Let's say we nerf sneak attack for Rogues.
What happens to backwards compatibility? You can play a Ninja from Complete Adventurer with +10d6 "sudden strike" or you can get into other classes and prestige classes with the full progression of sneak attack... or you can play a rogue that no longer has sneak attack but a damage multiplier that doesn't really make up for it.
Not only do you discourage people from taking Rogue, but other prestige classes built with the idea of requiring rogue (by requiring sneak attack) no longer work.
This is not a tweak... this is a huge redesign, imo.
Besides, it doesn't take away from the skilled aspect of rogues. They are still skill monkeys... still have lots of skills and can disable traps. Generally one is not disabling a trap in the middle of a fight, however. So, I'm not sure how it's an either or situation.
*Sneak Attacks DracoDruid repeatedly in a single round with a flaming rapier because he can*
Why don't fighter learn to "strike the vital parts of an enemy"?
I could rationalise it. And I will: They learn to hit. Not necessarily vital parts. They learn to hit reliably, not critically, but the terminal part will always come with time. They take every hit they can, and if it's just a scratch, so be it.
But I wouldn't say no to make Sneak Attack being a feat. 1d6 sneak attack, can take the feat multiple times, but no more than 1/2 level (rounded up) dice worth of sneak attacks.
Then, take sneak attack away from rogue and give them bonus feats. It's not a free choice but a list: Sneak Attack is on there, skill stuff is on there, stuff that builds upon sneak attack and/or "roguish combat" is on there.
Ok here's the point:
The Sneak Attack somehow reduced the whole Rogue class to it.
That's kind of sad, since I came all the way from AD&D and there, the Thief was more the Jack-of-all-Trades then the Backstabber.
I think it's the other way around: 3e turned the rogue into a jack-of-all-trades. In 2e, he was the thief. In 3e, he can do so many things.
One includes combat, which he now has nice options for (sneak attack).
That doesn't limit him to combat, though. During combat, it's true that the rogue's best bet is sneak attack, but it's not quite his only combat ability - and out of combat, he has so many things he can perform if he puts some of his many skill points in there. Not just sneaky stuff, either.
I say that's a true jack-of-all-trades: Can fight, can talk, can sneak, can do acrobatics, can steal.
In AD&D Sneak attack had almost no use in combat
Wasn't it "Backstab" rather than Sneak Attack? They changed the name to signify that it isn't the same old, just like they changed the thief's name to signify that he is more versatile now.
you always expect an attack in combat
You expect an attack in general. You don't expect one from behind you, since you think there's no one there.
One less needless restriction going the way of the dinosaur. Before assuming that he expects the attack, look whether he's aware and thus able to react before it's too late.
Since 3.0, the way sneak attack works, is just more a task a decent fighter might achieve then a hidious rogue.
Who're you're calling hideous here? ;-)
As I said above: Sneak attack makes sense for a rogue:
The fighter is trained for "honest" hand-to-hand combat. He concentrates on enemies that know he's there. He looks for every small opening and goes for it. Cuts and slashes add up until the guy's getting tired, and the heavy wounds start coming by themselves. He beats down an enemie's defenses. He won't wait for vital spots.
The rogue, on the other hand, is a sneaky bastard. If he has to go one-on-one against some guy, he's not confortable. That's not this thing. He doesn't have the stamina and discipline to ignore all those small cuts a fighter can shrug away. But he knows how to exploit inattention. If someone's not in his face, trying to shorten his life expectancy, he'll take his time, aim carefully, and go for the sweet spot. He's not a great fighter, and can't do it properly unless the guy pays no attention to him.
It's a training thing.
The fighter is trained for "honest" hand-to-hand combat. He concentrates on enemies that know he's there. He looks for every small opening and goes for it. Cuts and slashes add up until the guy's getting tired, and the heavy wounds start coming by themselves. He beats down an enemie's defenses. He won't wait for vital spots.
The rogue, on the other hand, is a sneaky bastard. If he has to go one-on-one against some guy, he's not confortable. That's not this thing. He doesn't have the stamina and discipline to ignore all those small cuts a fighter can shrug away. But he knows how to exploit inattention. If someone's not in his face, trying to shorten his life expectancy, he'll take his time, aim carefully, and go for the sweet spot. He's not a great fighter, and can't do it properly unless the guy pays no attention to him.
Seems like a Lawful / Chaotic thing more than a Fighter / Rogue thing
The real problem isn't the 10d6 damage, the problem is that if they get the right position they can just keep on doing it.
I would say a good limitation, with maintaining backwards compatibility, is to have Sneak Attack only apply to the first hit in the round. It still makes it useful, backwards compatible, but makes less of a devastater.
Also if you add to the fact the change in the Sneak Attack description, and the additional abilities the rogue can stack onto sneak attack including Master Strike...well it just needs some sort of balancing act.
Exactly. And I'm not suggesting removing the ability to gain sneak attack from flanking, like Sudden Strike does. But just to limit it I bit.
For example, currently 20th level Halfling rogue has 3 attacks in flanking position said rogue will get sneak attack every attack. We'll say he's using just a shortsword, and has a 10 Str, 23 Dex, 14 Int. He's taken the Rogue Talents: Bleeding Attack and Crippling Strike and Weapon Finesse. We'll just forget about MIs for now.
His attacks with that shortsword look like: +23/+18/+13
For sake of arguement, he hits all three times. This means he does 33d6 points of damage plus 6 Str damage plus a 10 bleeder.
Add two weapon fighting to the mix hitting at +21/+16/+11 for 66d6 plus 12 Str dmg and a 10 bleeder.
On top of the first hit gains master strike meaning for a DC 22 fort save the opponent is either going to fall asleep (coup de grace), be paralyzed (more sneak attack, coup de grace), or simply be dead.
I would suggest making Sneak Attack something like this:
When to use?
- Anytime an opponent is flat-footed or otherwise denied his dex/dodge bonus (no flanking anymore). Outside of combat, if you can successfully get next to your target unnoticed (sneaking from behind, invisiblity, etc.)
How to use?
- Make an attack roll at an additional level dependent bonus to the crit-thread-range.
- If you hit you always do full damage.
- With increasing level the crit-damage-multiplier increases (for sneak attacks only)
Restrictions?
- Only the first attack against any single opponent can be made as a sneak attack.
Just my .02$..
Personally Sneak Attack should replace your attack sequence: for example a rogue with +12/+7/+2 ought to either Sneak Attack at +12 or take his three swings but not both...
what do you think?
Just my .02$..
Personally Sneak Attack should replace your attack sequence: for example a rogue with +12/+7/+2 ought to either Sneak Attack at +12 or take his three swings but not both...
what do you think?
4e called, they want their manoeuvre back ;-P
The real problem isn't the 10d6 damage, the problem is that if they get the right position they can just keep on doing it.
Personally, I think that everyone who lets the rogue keep doing that deserves it.
Most enemies will retaliate against the easiest target or the one that hurt them most. A sneaking rogue usually is both. And they can't stand up to the punishment.
And that assumes the rogue keeps hitting with everything. Which he often doesn't.
I say don't fix something if it isn't broken. In my experience, sneak attack isn't broken.
Seems like a Lawful / Chaotic thing more than a Fighter / Rogue thing
I do think that fighters have a bit of a lawful feel to them, while rogues have a chaotic one.
I say don't fix something if it isn't broken. In my experience, sneak attack isn't broken.
But sneak attack is kind of bent in 3.x - the rogue's usefulness in combat drops significantly when the party is fighting things what can't be sneak attacked.
What do you think about opening up most undead and most constructs to sneak attack, in exchange for limiting it to one successful sneak a round? (Not one attack, I'm with you on that.)
Being able to rack up around 50d6 sneak attack a round at 20th level does seem a bit over-the-top powerful (+15/+10/+5, greater two-weapon fighting, not including additional tricks with haste and the like). While there isn't a great chance for all those attacks to hit, the potential even tops out what a wizard could pump out with a 9th level spell plus a hasted spell.
Perhaps sneak attack (and related abilities, skirmish & such*) should be limited to one attack a round, with feats that allow you to apply it to more than one attack (improved sneak attack, etc.). Perhaps sneak attack can be limited to a certain number of times per day like paladin smite or barbarian rage (perhaps combined with an "extra sneak attack" feat).
* It doesn't have to be spelled out, just a mention "The GM is strongly advised to limit similar sneak attack-like abilities in other classes and prestige classes to one use per round."
Technically the new wording could lead to opening it up to sneak attack against those creatures since it is no longer tied to critical hits.
Turning it into a feat doesn't appeal to me at all. Sneak attack is a rogue class feature not a feat.
No flanking and only one attack, that's double crippling sneak attack it just needs to be moderated a bit. And without flanking it might as well be called Sudden Strike.
The fact that a rogue isn't going to hit all the time is moot. No one hits all the time even if you've got an attack bonus that's guaranteed to hit, Nat 1s happen.
And as for the rogue being able to keep doing that, I meant more to the fact that he can keep doing that over and over again. Not neccessarily in the same combat or even the same enemy. And your assuming that said opponent will be surviving the damage. 115 dmg on average, two weapon an average of 230 dmg, plus the str and the bleeder. And remember those are damages and to hits with out any magical enhancements, that's plain old shortsword. We'll give him NPC rogue gear.
Dex jumps to 29, Gloves Dex +6, +5 shortsword (+3 already, and use 32k from remaider gp to up to +5), Add in Headband of Int +6 for 20 Int (36k), this still leaves 44k left to play around with.
So now the to hit has increased 8 points, for +31/+26/+21, and dmg has increased to 33d6+15, and Master Strike DC is now 25.
Now we take Balor, CR 20 (first one in the book), AC 35, rogue hits 85% of the time with the first strike, 60% of the time with the second, 35% on the third. We're looking at 2 out of three hitting out of a full attack. So 22d6+10, average 87 dmg plus 10 bleed plus 4 Str Dmg plus Fort DC 25, Master's strike not going to work with only a 10% chance of the Balor failing. Assuming that the rogue has some way to bypass the DR (possible with the 44k remaining in gold to spend) we're looking at a single round eating up nearly a 1/3 of the balor's hp. We go for 5 rounds, we assume 1/10 attacks crits, the rogue has now dealt out 111d6+55 20 Str, and the balor has taken 50 points from the bleeder. For average dmg of 493, average balor hasn't survived 5 rounds against the rogue alone, and his str has been reduced to a 15.
Well lets be more reasonable even the rogue can't bypass the DR, so he's now only doing 42 dmg every round. For 210 dmg avg, not countin one crit, Balor is still down to 15 str.
This is a straight number crunch this is not meant to take in consideration the Balor's attacks nor the rogue's 3 other party members whom will also be doing things during this time. Because this isn't a comparison to determine the results of a battle with a balor would be like it is to demonstrate the exorbinate damage sneak attack can deal and consistently deal with few limitation.
give the rogue a brilliant energy weapon or splash weapons, and that would up his chances of landing all his attacks, upping the damage you listed significantly. (if the weapon has one or more energy qualities - flaming, frost, etc., it goes up even more possibly).
Anyway, the basic point is that the rogue can hike sneak attack to an absurb level. I think it should be looked at and considered, at least.
Precisely. I mean sure their spells that can deal out massive damage but those spells are still limited by spells per day.
And frankly in a game in which groups are the status quo, flanking is not much of a limitation.
Assuming a halfling with str8 dex29 and a +1Brilliant Energy Dagger who takes the 2weapon feat tree and weapon swap.... he hits on a 2+ with every attack against a Balor for [1d3+1(dagger)-1(str)+10d6(SA)] for an avg of [37-15(DR)]x6 = 132 + -6Str + 10 bleeding... not a bad start on killing the Balor... of course when the Balor goes the rogue probably dies but the rest of the party is very appreciative. Now if we could pay to make it cold iron and holy that rogue does another 90+12d6 pts of dmg (avg132)... hmm 132+132=264out of the Balor's 290.
Imagine if it was an elf rogue with improved critical and +1 Holy rapier of Brilliant Energy... those six attacks will yield a critical or two and the extra little bit of dmg from those criticals, a more reasnable strength (say 14) and better weapon (med rapier vs small dagger incrases dmg by avg of 2 per atk).... now your talking an avg set of damage above the poor balors hp total... BTW that Rapier is only 30k more than the weapon PHBII says a rogue20 should have.
Assuming a halfling with str8 dex29 and a +1Brilliant Energy Dagger who takes the 2weapon feat tree and weapon swap.... he hits on a 2+ with every attack against a Balor for [1d3+1(dagger)-1(str)+10d6(SA)] for an avg of [37-15(DR)]x6 = 132 + -6Str + 10 bleeding... not a bad start on killing the Balor... of course when the Balor goes the rogue probably dies but the rest of the party is very appreciative. Now if we could pay to make it cold iron and holy that rogue does another 90+12d6 pts of dmg (avg132)... hmm 132+132=264out of the Balor's 290.
Imagine if it was an elf rogue with improved critical and +1 Holy rapier of Brilliant Energy... those six attacks will yield a critical or two and the extra little bit of dmg from those criticals, a more reasnable strength (say 14) and better weapon (med rapier vs small dagger incrases dmg by avg of 2 per atk).... now your talking an avg set of damage above the poor balors hp total... BTW that Rapier is only 30k more than the weapon PHBII says a rogue20 should have.
Heh, give the elf rogue a bandolier of holy water, rapid shot and greater two-weapon fighting (to lob holy water from each hand), and you have a Balor killer for about 450 gp.
Sure and give a Balor one round to cast an Implosion (Fortitude DC 27 before any buff) on the rogue or summon a Marilith to grapple him.
And don't forget the quickened Telekinesis every round to disarm him.
...
This kind of conmparison leads nowhere !!
The truth is that at high levels, every one (PCs, NPCs or monsters) try to avoid letting any foe making a full-round attack against them : a TWF rogue, a Power Attacking two-handed-wielder Barbarian or Miss 10-attacks-a-round Marilith are all deadly threats if you let them pass their full-round attack on you ...
So just keep sneak attack as it is !!
Assuming a halfling with str8 dex29 and a +1Brilliant Energy Dagger who takes the 2weapon feat tree and weapon swap.... he hits on a 2+ with every attack against a Balor...
Guys, I'm not saying that the right weapon won't help, but Brilliant Energy weapons do not bypass natural armor. It's a waste of a +4 enchantment against a Balor, unless that Balor has put on a suit of plate mail.
While there isn't a great chance for all those attacks to hit, the potential even tops out what a wizard could pump out with a 9th level spell plus a hasted spell.
(You mean quickened, right? You think of the old haste.)
Potential. A 20th-level wizard has the potential to do two polar rays (with a metamagic rod), and crit a red dragon with each. Add sudden empower with one and we have an effective 200d6, or 700 points on average. (20d6 per spell, or 70 on average. One is empowered, that's 35 extra. So both would deal 175 together. Double for Crit and it's 350. Double for cold vulnerability, and it's 700).
Potential doesn't mean anything without the chances for it to crop up.
Let's look at the rogue: 1d6+5 per attack (the bonus doesn't matter, let's just assume Str 12 and a +4 rapier.). With sneak attack, that's 11d6+5. That's an average of 43(.5) points.
With the two-weapon-fighting, his effective BAB will be +13/+8/+3 and +13/+8. Add haste for +14/+14/+9/+4 and +14/+9. With Dex+8 and the +4 weapon, you'll have +26/+26/+21/+16 and +26/+21. Even add +2 for flanking (good luck with invisibility, you'll need it)
Compare that to some CR20 Monsters's AC:
Tarrasque: 35
Titan: 38 (cought me, I cheated, he has CR 21. He'll eat the party for breakfast)
Old Red: 33
Pit Fiend: 40
Balor: 35
Let's say the average is 35. And let's ignore DR
That means their attacks hit at 7/7/12/17 and 7/12. The percentage for those is 70%/70%/45%/20% and 70%/45%. All in all that's 320% of 43.5, or 139.
A 20th-level fighter with a +5 greatsword and all the trimmings (full weapon training in it, throw in weapon mastery for autocrit, also the weapon focus, specilisation and both improved versions). The fighter has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5. Add haste for +21/+21/+16/+11/+6. +5 weapon +5 training, +8 strength, +2 feats, comes out at +41/+41/+36/+31/+26. Throw in +2 for flanking - he'll have the rogue until he's creamed, and then the cleric can step in. The fun part is that the rogue's strongest attack is the fighter's weakest.
Damage is 2d6+5, plus 12 strength, +5 training +4 feats, for 2d6+26, average of 33.
Attacks hit at 2/2/2/2/7. That's 95/95/95/95/70, total 450% of 33, or 148.
Gasp! The fighter does more damage than the rogue.
And this doesn't take into consideration that if he's not flanking, all he loses is some percentages (he'd hit at 2/2/2/4/9) while the rogue goes down to 1d6+5.
And I haven't used power attack (+33/33/28/23/18 plus flanking for 2d6+42, for 49 on average. I don't want to do the numbers).
That. that he can keep standing there a lot longer
And we haven't spoken about crits ( rogues don't gain that much - 15-20/x2 for an extra 1d6+5 with a keen weapon, and they have to confirm. A fighter has 17-20/3 and confirms automatically. We could drop the damage to 2d4 instead of 2d6 - no big deal, and have a falchion for 15-20/3, or a scythe for 19-20/5, still with the automatic confirmation)
Of course, the numbers change with different ACs. Low AC works more in favour of the rogue (but then again, power attack gets better with low AC, too), high AC more for the fighter.
Now I feel dirty. I always get that after math-turbation. I hope you're happy. Look what you made me do ;-P.
I second letting sneak attack become a feat. Allows those who want to fight dirty to do so without taking a level in rogue. It isn't any worse than some other feats. +1d6 is mundane for a feat really.
Besides, wasn't there a fighter variant class that allowed you to give up your bonus feats and gain sneak attack progression like a rogue? I remember seeing it somewhere but I can't seem to find it....
It's in Unearthed Arcana, and also in the SRD
The only problem with the wizard example is that he can continuously through out Polar Rays, he runs out of Polar Rays eventually. Whereas the rogue just needs to gain flanking in a game in which he is expected to work with a group and then he can keep getting it with every attack as long as he's in flanking position. As for the criticals with the rays, that's a 1 in 20 chance, since you need a nat 20 to even critical threat with a ray. Making it a rare occurence. Especially given the fact that at most a wizard could have 6 Polar Rays prepared at once. (Assuming 20th level, 29 Int (16 base, 2 racial, 5 stat points, +6 Headband)(And he has a bonded item)
Your also not taking into account the Str damage nor the bleed from the sneak attack.
I am in agreement with Dracodruid, but only because the Alpha Rague is TOO good. The rogue tricks every two levels gives it the effective bonus feats of a Fighter (better since they can choose combat feats at 2nd level and any feat beginning at 10th level). Additionally they get uncanny dodge, evasion, sneak attack, trapfinding, and now a d8 HD. Something needs some scaling back.
As for the criticals with the rays, that's a 1 in 20 chance, since you need a nat 20 to even critical threat with a ray.
That's why I was talking about potential and chances.
Alpha already increased the HD. Even the wizards hd increased to a d6.
I am in agreement with Dracodruid, but only because the Alpha Rague is TOO good. The rogue tricks every two levels gives it the effective bonus feats of a Fighter (better since they can choose combat feats at 2nd level and any feat beginning at 10th level). Additionally they get uncanny dodge, evasion, sneak attack, trapfinding, and now a d8 HD. Something needs some scaling back.
I disagree, because in the Alpha skill rules, a rogue 1/fighter 19 has all the skills of a rogue 20. Lots of skill points were the 3.5e rogue's biggest attraction, and now they're being given away for a 1-level dip, in Alpha. That means a LOT of extra perks are now needed to keep people in the class after 1st level.
I wouldn't mind a change to lower the damage a bit and give a + to attack. Maybe a progression of
1st: +1d6 sneak dmg
3rd: +2d6 sneak dmg
5th: +2 attack while sneak attacking
7th: +3d6 sneak dmg
9th: +4d6 sneak dmg
11th: +4 attack while sneak attacking
13th: +5d6 sneak dmg
15th: +6d6 sneak dmg
17th: +6 attack while sneak attacking
19th: +7d6 sneak dmg
I'm not for limiting sneak damage to 1 per round. Maybe even going further and changing the progression so that it winds up at +10 attack while sneak attacking and +5d6 damage per sneak attack at 20th level - but limiting it to once per round is putting the rogue at too much of a disadvantage in damage at high levels in my opinion.
I'd like to see a differential sneak attack for "all-purpose" (flanking, invisible, etc.) vs. surprise sneak attacks. The "all-purpose" bonus might be something along the lines of what Scouts get for skirmish; the surprise damage bonus could stay 1d6/2 levels, or even increase. This would address Eric's concerns (and lower cap), while also allowing for a devastating old-school "backstab."
I'd like to see a differential sneak attack for "all-purpose" (flanking, invisible, etc.) vs. surprise sneak attacks. The "all-purpose" bonus might be something along the lines of what Scouts get for skirmish; the surprise damage bonus could stay 1d6/2 levels, or even increase. This would address Eric's concerns (and lower cap), while also allowing for a devastating old-school "backstab."
I'm good with a solution along those lines.
How about this for sneak attack?
+2 to attack rolls anytime the rogue’s attack qualifies as a sneak attack.
+1d6 damage plus an extra d6 every four levels (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th).
For the first attack when the opponent is surprised or unaware of the rogue (such as when the opponent is in combat with someone else and doesn’t know the rogue is invisible nearby), then the sneak attack damage is +1d6 per rogue level.
How about this for sneak attack?
Yeah, that's just the sort of thing I had envisioned.
|
|
How about this for sneak attack?
+2 to attack rolls anytime the rogue’s attack qualifies as a sneak attack.
+1d6 damage plus an extra d6 every four levels (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th).
For the first attack when the opponent is surprised or unaware of the rogue (such as when the opponent is in combat with someone else and doesn’t know the rogue is invisible nearby), then the sneak attack damage is +1d6 per rogue level.
It's kind of an interesting idea, but I'd like to hear an explanation for WHY it works that way. If sneak attack is the rogue's ability to clearly choose a vulnerable spot and stab the s%!! out of it, it shouldn't matter if the opponent is aware of the rogue or not, right? At least, as long as he isn't able to fully defend himself?
I think that Sneak Attack is too powerful. I'd like to see it require a standard action usually, and then the damage is just fine, and the situations being broad is good. Maybe give them an ability to inflict a few extra d6s a few times per day when an opponent is surprised... Maybe even an extra d6 per rogue level 1/day. They could have a feat that lets them get more uses per day (like extra rage and extra turning).
Thus, normally a rogue can make 1 attack dealing an extra lvl/2 d6 damage, but once a day if the opponent is unaware of the rogue (not just flanked) it could be rogue level d6 extra damage. I'd support something like that.
I disagree, because in the Alpha skill rules, a rogue 1/fighter 19 has all the skills of a rogue 20. Lots of skill points were the 3.5e rogue's biggest attraction, and now they're being given away for a 1-level dip, in Alpha. That means a LOT of extra perks are now needed to keep people in the class after 1st level.
While that is a short coming of the current skill sysytem, I do not think that rogues should replace fighters as the masters of feats they were originally intended to be.
I like the idea of rogue talents and if the current skill system is going to be used, then shifting a focus to the talents is ok. However, I think that reducing the sneak attack dice to 7d6 and removing the ability to get combat feats as rogue talents would be better balanced and would leave the fighter as the master of feats.
My problems with sneak attack:
1. All that dice rolling at high levels. Rolling 5-6 attacks with +9d6 damage each is painful to watch.
2. Each +1d6 of sneak attack is less important. When you get +3d6 it is a great boost over +2d6, but when you get +10d6 who cares so much.
3. Sneak attack is only truly powerful with two weapon fighting, and then it is so powerful that it can skew the game.
My fixes:
1. Make sneak attack +2 damage per rogue level. This has the side effect of working with critical hits, and it never made any sense to me that it didn't.
2. Give out some additional bonuses to sneak attack as you go up in levels: I like the to hit bonuses discussed in this thread.
3. Limit the rogue to one sneak attack per round, and then have a feat that allows additional sneaks per round.
I think that ... removing the ability to get combat feats as rogue talents would be better balanced and would leave the fighter as the master of feats.
I agree; sounds good.
I must agree to the last two posters here.
As a side note, I think Sneak Attack, Smite and Favored Enemy should all be streamlined the best way in can be.
That scaling back doesn't seem too bad actually. In the end, the rogue will be getting 15d6 SA in flanking as apart of a full attack. And the boost to hit will mean that this will hit more often.
Even a 2WPN rogue is looking at 30d6 by 20th. And that's much more reasonable then 60d6.
... If it was 1/rogue level, and thus 20d6, that's an average of 60 damage. That's good, but it's still not really worth a whole standard action, and you still have to count up 20d6 of dice.
...
I was more suggesting that the first attack where the opponent is unaware is 1d6/rogue level. So if a 20th level rogue gets a full round attack off and the first attack happens when the opponent is unaware then the first attack would be 20d6 extra, and the rest 5d6.
As far as counting dice goes, I thought players loved taking a big handful of dice and tossing em on the table for their damage - fun stuff!