I agree with Kirth mostly.
AND you spell your name correctly! (With me and Mona, that makes three.)
Welcome to the thread!
|
I also find the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability unbalancing. I would like to see it either require a full round action, or be usable only against flat-footed opponents.
Either that, or the fighter should get an equivalent ability that allows him to add massive amounts of damage to attacks on a regular basis. The weapon mastery ability could do something like this. If a fighter got an extra die of damage with a weapon group every four levels, and could add that damage bonus with every attack, that would balance out the sneak attack ability without unbalancing the game.
I don't have all of your problems guys. My rogues are coawardly types, unable to do much except laughing stocks under 3.5.
i think I will wellcome the new roguesjust so I don't have to hear these "I am too weak, don't hurt me" complaints from my resident rogue
I don't have all of your problems guys.
You're a lucky man. Obviously you don't game with the types of players that Frank had the thankless task of designing for.
I don't have all of your problems guys.You're a lucky man. Obviously you don't game with the types of players that Frank had the thankless task of designing for.
OK, FW, let me rephrase, then: "Obviously, Stereofm, you and I choose not to game with the kinds of people who are interested only in stretching the rules like rubber bands to see how 'super' a character can get."
But, more importantly, it's ridiculous that you'd be wasting time with ad hominem comments when you claim to be soliciting discussion and to have accepted the D&D paradigm.
Woah! Easy there, FW, no one is baiting. I was trying to edit my earlier statement, in response to the information you yourself provided in refutation of what was intended as a rather offhand remark. There was no "ad hominem attack," nor "baiting" of any kind, nor was I intending simply to waste your time; rather, I was letting you know that I had received your obviously superior information. Let me also clarify that the mere fact that I personally choose not to participate in lawyering contests when I play doesn't in any way take away from anyone who does, if that's what set you off.
If "accepting the D&D paradigm" somehow requires me to spend all my time searching for loopholes in the rules in order to make an absurd character, I'd prefer to play something else, is all. I don't think it does, though. As you point out, and as I agreed, we can all play.
Come on, folks. You're wasting Jason's time with this rampant flaming. KNOCK IT OFF.
Sneak attack is not inherently broken, but, UNTIL you you have a higher level rogue character who is two weapon fighting, has improved invisibility, and is hasted or something and is getting 5 sneak attacks a round and hitting every time because he's ignoring dex bonuses and has a brilliant weapon that ignores armor bonuses. This can easily happen at 11th level with the spells Haste, Improved Invisibility, and Brilliant Blade. That's a massive amount of sneak attack damage (30d6) per round.
The problem isn't sneak attack, it's being able to do it an unlimited number of times per round. Again, I suggest a limit of one sneak attack per round per weapon. This isn't that big of a change to the game, but it eliminates that situation where the rogue can just take down any foe in one round.
To answer the OP's question, I seriously doubt that rogues are now a front line fighter. That's hyperbole. Every rogue's nightmare scenario is to be caught in a toe-to-toe battle with a heavily armored fighter. The reason? Low AC, lower hit points (even now), and lower BAB. They can't tank and they can be a hit point soak. If they can't flank and strike and run, they're dead. Your job as a DM is to not let them do that every combat and remind the player of their character's vulnerability. A few times ought to be enough.
To use a football analogy, they're a blitzing linebacker, not a run-stopping defensive tackle. To stop the highly paid blitzer, you run right at them.
Sneak attack is not inherently broken, but, UNTIL you you have a higher level rogue character who is two weapon fighting, has improved invisibility, and is hasted or something and is getting 5 sneak attacks a round and hitting every time because he's ignoring dex bonuses and has a brilliant weapon that ignores armor bonuses. This can easily happen at 11th level with the spells Haste, Improved Invisibility, and Brilliant Blade. That's a massive amount of sneak attack damage (30d6) per round.
The problem isn't sneak attack, it's being able to do it an unlimited number of times per round. Again, I suggest a limit of one sneak attack per round per weapon. This isn't that big of a change to the game, but it eliminates that situation where the rogue can just take down any foe in one round.
The solution is in access to the equipment and magicks, not the sneak attack mechanic. Your solution is to limit their maximum damage output to 35 points of damage a round on average. Again, if you dislike the high damage numbers and want to play grim and gritty, there's two mechanics for you: the slow advancement Pazio or the E6 which I referenced earlier on this thread. It works well. Try it. You'll like it.
Plus, your solution causes huge amounts of work for DMs to convert their 3.5 libraries to account for it. I'm not going through my library of Dungeons, Modules, and Adventure Paths to redo every ambush encounter involving rogues to account for this massive, but simple change.
I will, however, add it to my elegant design thread, even though I completely and utterly disagree with you, as it is an example of a single change that creates huge ripples.
1. Yeah, no baiting, of course. But worry not: I can still keep on topic.
2. Whether you chose to take part in lawyering contests doesn't matter for what I meant with "D&D paradigm"; the paradigm I refer to is the one where, by the books themselves, all characters are supposed to be good at combat, and able to slay untold numbers of lower-level opponents; that is what I was calling the paradigm, and it's written in the books.
3. What that means is that people wanting the comparison between fighter and rogue to be tasteful should spend their time in ideas that make both classes be equally good in combat in different ways.
1. Honestly -- I give you my word as a fellow gamer that there was no baiting intended.
For the benefit of everyone else on the thread, I'll keep this stuff out of general sight:2. I've acceded that THAT paradigm is fine. We're OK there.
3. Here's where we disagree -- and certainly without any animosity. I personally don't feel that both classes should be "equally good in combat." Because combat is what the fighter does. It's his whole reason for existence; he does nothing outside of it, really. The rogue does -- he disables traps, and/or bluffs the guards, and/or forges notes, etc. A meaningful balance, to my mind, would make the rogue LESS effective in combat to make up for his greater abilities outside of it.
That brings us back to the original point. We can do that in two ways: by powering up the fighter and accepting the resultant increase in the overall effectiveness of most characters, or we can nerf the rogue's combat ability slightly. Ideally, we could do a little of each.
The solution is in access to the equipment and magicks, not the sneak attack mechanic. Your solution is to limit their maximum damage output to 35 points of damage a round on average. Again, if you dislike the high damage numbers and want to play grim and gritty, there's two mechanics for you: the slow advancement Pazio or the E6 which I referenced earlier on this thread. It works well. Try it. You'll like it.Plus, your solution causes huge amounts of work for DMs to convert their 3.5 libraries to account for it. I'm not going through my library of Dungeons, Modules, and Adventure Paths to redo every ambush encounter involving rogues to account for this massive, but simple change.
I'm currently running a game where I changed sneak attack into a standard action, and it has worked out fine. The rogue does become a different animal with this change.
As a player, I loved having the invisible, walking fireball on my side, but I still thought it was far removed from the 1e/2e roots. The rogue would just wade into battle, destroying anything in her path. In the game I'm running, she is more opportunistic and mobile, looking for the next flanking opprotunity.
What it just comes down to is how each of us see to role of the rogue. I'm not looking for grim and gritty. I don't like the idea of slow advancement, as it can just make a level drag on. I like my rogue to be the mobile opprotunist.
Skaven13
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Here's where we disagree -- and certainly without any animosity. I personally don't feel that both classes should be "equally good in combat." Because combat is what the fighter does. It's his whole reason for existence; he does nothing outside of it, really. The rogue does -- he disables traps, and/or bluffs the guards, and/or forges notes, etc. A meaningful balance, to my mind, would make the rogue LESS effective in combat to make up for his greater abilities outside of it.
If we consider just these two classes, it could theoretically work ot have one better at combat and one better out of combat.
But remember that casters have extremely powerful abilities inside and outside of combat. You *need* the fighting of a rogue andthe skills of a rogue to keep up with them; the fighter is a hobo, and pulling the rogue down to his level will make them both unplayable. Furthermore--although this is merely personal preference--I don't think *any* character should be allowed to be as useless out of combat as the fighter. Everyone needs to have some kind fo shtick that makes the game more interesting than "Fighter bored. Can we kill something now?"
A character whose only purpose is combat is a member of the Warrior NPC Class. Also I don't know about you, but a lot of my favorite fighter type characters from various sources have plenty of skills besides just killing stuff. Also spellcasters are often equally good in and out of combat as well.
1. the fighter is a hobo, and pulling the rogue down to his level will make them both unplayable.
2. Furthermore--although this is merely personal preference--I don't think *any* character should be allowed to be as useless out of combat as the fighter. Everyone needs to have some kind fo shtick that makes the game more interesting than "Fighter bored. Can we kill something now?"
Both excellent points. As to concern (1), I played happily for years throughout 1e and 2e, and part of 3e until someone explained that I could sneak attack constantly, with a slightly less powerful rogue. Pathfinder rogues already get more hp, more effient use of skills, and more class features than their 3.5 counterparts, so I hardly feel like they'd be "unplayable." What would be unplayable is if we power up the fighter to match the rogue, then power up the sorcerer to match the fighter, and then play these characters in something like "Rise of the Runelords." They'll eat the entire risen empire of Thassilon for breakfast. You may not mind the lack of transferrability, but for others who've been shelling out for Pathfinder and GameMastery subscriptions, they'd want at least a level conversion guideline -- as I mentioned above -- which would potentially involve a LOT more work on Paizo's part -- as I also mentioned above.
For concern (2), I don't have much input there. I liked the fact that the fighter could horse race the bugbear chieftain around the city in "Prince of Redhand," instead of just killing him. I'd like to see better mass combat rules, so the fighter could take Leadership and command an army on some big bloody battlefield. In fact, I'd like to expand on the whole fighter-as-tactical-leader thing, and maybe expand that to a general fighter-as-leader thing (in literature, it seems like it's always the fighter who ends up king). Maybe these things should get more focus; I'm certainly open to suggestions.
What I'd hate to see is for the assumption to be "the fighter can only fight, and it's no fair to make him bored during everything else, so from now on there's nothing but fighting allowed." That kind of assumption would please some people, but at the same time probably lose half the fan base -- and we want EVERYONE to be happy, if we can possibly manage it.
I'm currently running a game where I changed sneak attack into a standard action, and it has worked out fine. The rogue does become a different animal with this change.
As a player, I loved having the invisible, walking fireball on my side, but I still thought it was far removed from the 1e/2e roots. The rogue would just wade into battle, destroying anything in her path. In the game I'm running, she is more opportunistic and mobile, looking for the next flanking opprotunity.
What it just comes down to is how each of us see to role of the rogue. I'm not looking for grim and gritty. I don't like the idea of slow advancement, as it can just make a level drag on. I like my rogue to be the mobile opprotunist.
Skaven13
Out of curiosity, what level is your campaign at? I'm in a low level and a high level one right now, and I can tell you that 35 points of damage per round in my DM's high level campaign is useless... and we're in a cash-poor, no buying magic items version.
I would propose a quick and dirty way to lets say calm down the sneak attack (and most of you won't like - because they are used to get there high damage bonus(?))
Make one sneak attack a full-round action. It's just perfect.
1) Only one sneak attack per round
2) Flavor! The rogue has to get in position FIRST(!). No running and stabbing in just one breath.
Of course there is president for only allowing sneak attack on one attack a round. I believe it's the multi-shot feat states that precision damage only applies to the first missile shot, not the the entire batch. I'm fine with allowing one sneak a round as it does set it up for the rogue to be more scout like and less kill everything that moves like.
I forgot to mention that I would like to see the flanking thing gone too.
This just happens WAY to often!
I am perfectly ok to let sneak attack work everywhere there can be a critical hit (I hope constructs can suffer from both!?),
but the flanking thing is just not necessary.
Flat-footed or otherwise denied his DEX-bonus is just the right way to go.
|
Make one sneak attack a full-round action. It's just perfect.
1) Only one sneak attack per round
2) Flavor! The rogue has to get in position FIRST(!). No running and stabbing in just one breath.
Full-round is far too harsh.
Making it a standard action would still limit it to one/round, whilst still allowing the rogue to move up to his target (or stab an adjacent, unaware target, then move away).EDIT: This doesn't mean I necessarily agree; just that if the aim is to limit it to one/round, this can be done just as easily by making it a standard action, rather than a full-round.
THEN, I would make it (SA as a standard action) a feat or better an automatic improvement at - let's say - 10th level.
OH! Just another one: Why not shift-change sneak attack and rogue talents?
This would have two or three effects:
1) No 1 level dipping into rogue for +1d6 SA
2) Rogues get a talent first thus making them feel more focused on (skill) talents
3) Gives +10d6 SA at 20th level (just a nice gimmick)
|
|
I'd like to see better mass combat rules, so the fighter could take Leadership and command an army on some big bloody battlefield. In fact, I'd like to expand on the whole fighter-as-tactical-leader thing, and maybe expand that to a general fighter-as-leader thing (in literature, it seems like it's always the fighter who ends up king). Maybe these things should get more focus; I'm certainly open to suggestions.
I'm on record as hating the Leadership rules; I think that these benefits should be automatic, just as they were in 1st/2nd Edition.
Anyone who remembers those rules, may remember that not only did the Fighter gain henchmen earlier than, say, the Wizard (9th level vs 12th, if I recall?), but got them in much larger numbers. All assuming he had made the effort in-game to establish a home-base, and a reputation with the big cheeses in his world, of course.
Why was this? Well, partly it was a meta-game reward for play balance, since the spellcasters were really coming into their own, but also, I saw it as the natural response from the common folk; the Fighter was someone they could relate to. He was much more likely to be a 'man of the people', with abilities they could understand. While they may be grateful to heroes of other classes, they were still considered 'odd' people to be wary of. The Thief, he may say he's a good guy now, but what crimes has he hidden in his past? Maybe he's only with the noble Fighter because he struck a deal to escape the noose? We all know that Wizards spend far too long in crypts, doing Gods knows what, the Sorcerors, they're just demon-spawn, and the priests, well, they spend so long talking about the next world, they don't care what happens to us poor folk in this world...
With that in mind, I usually have the martial characters gain people's trust more easily and more often (allowing for alignment and role-playing, of course). If the town council want to hire a bunch of adventurers, it's the Fighter they approach, to ask if he'll bring 'his men' (ie the other PCs). Small children will follow him about, waving wooden swords. Think how many children hero-worship sports stars, and action-hero actors. How many children idolise scientists and mathematicians? (Or if they do, they keep quiet about it, so as not to get a 'swirly' in the school toilets)...
IF I remember correctly, no full caster got any henchmen or companions!
Fighters, Rangers and Rogues were the only one!
OH! Just another one: Why not shift-change sneak attack and rogue talents?
I am with you for this one ! Two levels of rogue before any sneak attack YES !
Also, for me the problem of broken SA has its roots in the iterative attack system. Getting rid of iterative attacks is one of my concern.
This following one is different from 3.5 to help playability. We have always been uncomfortable with iterative attacks because they slow-down and “rollify” a lot the game. A good alternative for us is to replace it by a feat which allow a double (or triple and so on ) attack with a –5 cumulative malus.
Each time you want to increase your multiplier you have to buy the feat. Each time you want to use the feat you deal with the malus. When you deliver more than one attack on the same target you roll once with the appropriate malus and you multiply your damages in case you hit. For more than one opponent you combine at your will. This rule would have also the very good side effect to help the Fighter to emphasize his class difference.
If you solve the number of attacks in the game with a feat based iterative attack then the rogue (but not only him) is far less available to bog in battle with countless awfull blows.
Be creative
|
|
Clerics definitely had followers, and wizards, if they built a temple or a tower respectively. I can't remember how the numbers of henchmen related to the numbers on the Fighter tables, but I believe they were less numerous.
Thieves had to establish a strong lair, probably by ousting the previous guild, and faced regular knives in the back from their 'followers'. Puts the term 'hostile takeover' into perspective.
Assassins were similar, but it was much more explicitly stated that they had to kill their predecessor, or else they couldn't even level up!
Rangers, Paladins and Druids got very few followers, due to the rigours of their calling, but they had a chance of some wierd and powerful cohorts ("There's a gold dragon in the nave, sir. He says Bahamut sent him.").
SOOOOO pro!!!!!
Clerics definitely had followers, and wizards, if they built a temple or a tower respectively. I can't remember how the numbers of henchmen related to the numbers on the Fighter tables, but I believe they were less numerous.
Clerics got the best deal, because the Church would help finance their stronghold -- this was in the days when it was expected to spend gold on castles instead of more magic trinkets.
Fighters with an automatic leadership/troop aquisition function would be cool. I'd also give them some sort of tactical ability, that might work like a Marshall's aura (but be based on shouting orders, instead of just mere presence).
I wouldn't make sneak attack a full-round action -- that's maybe going a bit far for most people -- but I would heartily subscribe that it explicityly conform to the otherwise general rule that precision-based damage applies to only one attack in a round.
Full-round is far too harsh.
Making it a standard action would still limit it to one/round, whilst still allowing the rogue to move up to his target (or stab an adjacent, unaware target, then move away).
I agree about full round action being too harsh. Furthermore, I think it's part of a rogue's flavour to be mobile and deadly, not one or the other. Making it full-round would open up the thief to too much exposure.
I'm on record as hating the Leadership rules; I think that these benefits should be automatic, just as they were in 1st/2nd Edition.
You are on record, and you are wrong. 1st/2nd ed didn't get them automatically, you had to build towers/strongholds/temples/guilds (and even rangers had to have forest hideouts iirc) and there were additional rules about them too.
Anyone who remembers those rules, may remember that not only did the Fighter gain henchmen earlier than, say, the Wizard (9th level vs 12th, if I recall?), but got them in much larger numbers. All assuming he had made the effort in-game to establish a home-base, and a reputation with the big cheeses in his world, of course.
Snip a load of really quite good background stuff about followers and why they choose to follow certain archetypes more than others...
This just argues that Leadership ought to be dependent on what class levels the feat-holder has: more fighter levels equals more grunts (more wizard levels equals less grunts, but more esoteric types perhaps).
You can give the feat as a bonus feat to players' characters who make the effort if you like... but I don't think it should be automatic. also, you can deny the feat to some characters if you don't think the role-playing warrants it (I still can't understand why Demargo is able to wander around with a cleric of Pelor at his beck & call - he just doesn't inspire that hero-worship imnsho).
|
|
1st/2nd ed didn't get them automatically, you had to build towers/strongholds/temples/guilds (and even rangers had to have forest hideouts iirc) and there were additional rules about them too.
Yes; 'automatic' was a bad choice of word.
My intent was that it happened for purely in-game, role-playing, verisimilitudinous reasons. Not requiring any specific class ability choices, or rules-speak.
If you saw a lord with followers, and he was obviously a 'son of the soil, low-born, straight-talking peasant hero' (and not 'born with a silver spoon, priviledged fop'), you knew he'd earned those boons through hard adventuring, careful saving, resource management and diplomacy, and not 'Ooh, I'm level 6, what shall I spend one of my two new feats on?'.
Snip a load of really quite good background stuff about followers and why they choose to follow certain archetypes more than others...This just argues that Leadership ought to be dependent on what class levels the feat-holder has: more fighter levels equals more grunts (more wizard levels equals less grunts, but more esoteric types perhaps).
Thanks for the thumbs up on my background.
I try to post reasons for my ideas, since it's good mental practice. I can say I've thought about the in-game reasons, rather than just the meta-game 'fighters need a boost' (which they do).I'm not dissing anyone who buys Leadership, which I think has been your worry whenever we discuss the topic (on or off the boards). I admit, I have made cracks at you (such as saying that '100 of your henchmen have only come to stare at your Cloak of Charisma'), but this is all in good-natured jest. I do, in fact, agree that for you, and the type of characters you tend to play (because, let's face it, you do have a bit of a theme going...and have had, for the last 15-16 years, as have I) it actually makes great sense. You have a concept, and you see a rule that lets you achieve it (and a rule from a core book too...), as do many other players who pick the feat.
What I don't know if I make clear, is that I would quite happily grant you and your kind of PCs a horde of followers for free, no feats required. I might regret saying that, but I doubt it.
The fact is, you seem to have earned it. I don't know exactly how much you've spent on temple-building, or whether you got a first-edition style '50% deposit' from the Grand Bigwig of Heironeous, but I gather it's a lot. You've also, on several occasions, claimed your share of treasure from the drekky items no-one else wants, to outfit your flock. That has to go a long way to inspiring confidence, both in the existing henchmen, and in prospective recruits. You've possibly gone above and beyond what the DMG considers 'fair and equitable shares of spoils' (assuming it even gives a definition, which I doubt).
My question to you is, "Why should players like you have to nobble their PCs, by spending a precious game-mechanical resource (ie a feat) on a roleplaying effect? Especially players who are already laying the groundwork, and paying the downside (being the 'nice-guy'), long before they ever get the chance (in game-mechanics) to buy such a feat?".
More thoughts to come...
CAN ANYBODY TELL ME, WHY THE HELL THERE ARE SO MANY FALSE POSTS IN HERE?
THIS DARN FORUM JUST SCREWED IT AGAIN!
Rogues should have more limited access to WHEN they can sneak attack, I personally hate the flanking rules. it is what allows roguish powergaming. and now that the rogue has more hitpoints it will be come more of a problem.
And I hate people labeling them "strikers", please leave that to other games that i am ignoring. I understand that they can dish out more damage than they can take, but to make them "strikers" you open the door for the idea of "tanks". and a tank is a annoying role to be a pc of. A fighter/paladin should not be a "tank" instead of medium offense high defense they should be high offense and high defense. it balanced because the rogue maybe high offense and medium defense but it also has a ton of noncombat options that less skilled classes have access to.
a major flaw with this whole system is the lack of facing, if we had facing then rogues could attack someone surprised or someone who has their back turned to them (I HATE flanking sneak attack) and isnt that how it is in all the books telling these sorts of tales?
Right and as I said too: No sneak attack when flanking.
I actually don't mind the flanking sneak attack so much; it's the 5/round sneak attacks that get my goat. And I've already nixed the blinking sneak attacks by houserule, just so that the ring of blinking is no longer mandatory for all rogues.
BTW, I just saw this over on the high-level fighter thread, and thought I'd give a nod to it here as a source of ideas for fighters that enables them to do more fighter-y things, and allows them to pull their weight more effectively, but without making them 10x more powerful or anything:
You know, I was about to spell it out, but it's less work this way. A high level fighter should be able to do most of the things that this fighter rewrite can do. That is to say, his job.
|
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#sneakAttack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
I think sneak attack is already built well with limits. The problem we face is the splatbooks and loopholes that players find. I don't think sneak attack needs to be nerfed nor do I find that it needs to effect more creatures. If anything truly needs to be done, it is that a fighter needs to fit his role a little better. he is supposed to be trained for combat but fails because he doesn't have any control over it. Maybe instead of upping his damage, maybe he could gain bonuses to his CMB.
Being masters of CMB could be a great way to bump the Fighter. I approve this message ^^
That's more or less what the link I posted suggests as well. I think we can all agree on Fighter + better CMB use = good!
A question for the people who approve of multiple sneak attacks in a round: are you also in favor of easing restrictions on other multiple precision-based-damage attacks (how about a rogue/scout moving and using Manyshot, as opposed to Greater Manyshot)?
Using that model, I'd possibly consider a feat (Combat Reflexes as a prereq) to allow more than one sneak attack in a round... but the 5/round blinking auto-sneak attacks have STILL got to go!
Out of curiosity, what level is your campaign at? I'm in a low level and a high level one right now, and I can tell you that 35 points of damage per round in my DM's high level campaign is useless... and we're in a cash-poor, no buying magic items version.
The party is 10th-11th right now. I have a tendancy of throwing a lot of lower level creatures that lead up to a boss, so 35 points of damage per round usually will drop an opponent. That is about the amount of damage the other characters are putting out (two paladins and a soul bow, along with a cleric with searing light and a love for spike stone, and a wizard).
Now, if this starts to fall apart at higher levels, then I might have to rethink it. ;)
I would propose a quick and dirty way to lets say calm down the sneak attack (and most of you won't like - because they are used to get there high damage bonus(?))
Make one sneak attack a full-round action. It's just perfect.
1) Only one sneak attack per round
2) Flavor! The rogue has to get in position FIRST(!). No running and stabbing in just one breath.
I thought about making it a full-round action, but I thought that it makes sneak attack not viable as an attack option. The rogue has to run up his target, possibly make one attack, and then opens himself up to whatever he just hit to get a damage boost next round. I like the idea of a rogue spotting his chance, running up to the target, and making the one precise strike.
A lot of time the rogue is going to take a full round just moving to position early in the fight anyway.
I've posted some of this elsewhere but my suggestions would be this:
1: Leave sneak attack alone. Let it work just as it did before.
2: Give the fighter a talent every other level (maybe 1, 3, 5, etc.) that allowed them to do things that reflect their prowess in combat like the ability to slow, blind, or stun an enemy for a few rounds due to a well placed strike. At higher levels you could introduce bleed damage and the ability to bypass DR.
3: Give the fighter the ability to size up/analyze an opponent which would allow them to either fight more effectively ("He always leaves his left side open..."), better defend against the enemies attacks ("She moves her left foot just before swinging..."), or help his allies fighter better/do more damage ("The creature has less armor on its stomach...").
4: Another idea that I like which they have already added is the idea that fighters should be a little better with armor and weapons than other classes.
5: Give fighters something to reflect the skills necessary for their profession (armor repair, weapon repair/maintenance, appraise weapons/armor/horses/terrain/battlefields, first aid, knowledge of famous or popular military commanders, etc.). They should know how to maintain their weapons/armor, appraise a decent weapon/armor, bind wounds, and if trained in a military they should know some basic formations and squad tactics.
6: Give them some form of bonus to intimidation/diplomacy/leadership/influencing people/gathering info due to the shear power of their presence. How many times have we read about the warrior who was obviously so skilled with the sword he carried or was so physically powerful that people shied away.
7: Heck, if you want give them connections amongst those who fight for a living.
The point is that the Rogue is just fine as is and the warrior could use a few things to boost him. I don't think that you have to go overly crazy with new mechanics, rules, or abilities to fix the problem either.
Just some of my thoughts on it.
I don't think the rogue talents have to slow down.
All the combat feats just have to go and a lot more interesting skill related feats should be added.
Like I posted somewhere else, I would like to see all be "low-level" skill related rogue talents become feats (free for all - like each and every fighter feat), but the rogue just get's more of them (I mean the skill feats).
Whether a full or a standard action, the main thing I wanna see is that making a sneak attack is not just an additional thing for your attacks, BUT an attack-substitution-action (so attack normally with multiple attacks if any, OR make ONE sneak attack)
|
In regards to sneak attack ive had an idea that I would like to share with everyone. As i mentioned earlier limit it to only one of his attacks per round but also limit it to only be able to do it to the same opponent once per set up (By set up i mean meeting a condition that would allow sneak attack) but you could do it every time you did the set up (ie moved out and back in to reflank someone would allow you to sneak attack again since it would be a new flanking situation whilst just standing there and attacking wouldent since it would be the set up).
This would eliminate the entire we got a suprise round and the rogue rolled high so he will get two sneak attacks before the enemy does anything as well as help deal with the flanking problem. Also since the rogue could only do it with one attack and could only do it everytime he set up a flank it would encourage the use of spring attack and mobility feats to allow him to jump in, set up the flank for a round, sneak attack and jump out again, then rinse and repeat
As a big fan of the rogue, I'd say the rogue needs very little boosting to be an enjoyable class.
I see no reason to make sneak attack work on everything.
I always liked sneak attack hitting vital areas of my opponents, but some creatures, golems, blobs, undead, etc, I just think remove flavor and believability when sneak attack becomes mere EXTRA DAMAGE rather than a good thrust between my opponents ribs.
Fighters on the other hand, need cool abilities that allow them to step up to the role they are meant to be, a character that can truly intervene to defend the rest of the group.
I hate the PHB2 balance, but I love the ability of the Knight that makes all terrain he threatens difficult terrain. I would like to see fighter abilities that allow him to use things like grapple, to walk up to a foe and pull him back, taking the creature away from the wizard or cleric and switching places with him. (Allowing the fighter to put himself between the creature and his friend). Other abilities, like feints and sweeps of the legs, would help with flavor in combat.
I typically play the wizard and the rogue, and before in 3.5, I only took 2 levels of fighter for the first 2 feats. Personally I'd like to see more things like the armor training and weapon training, but rather than making them mundane +1 increases, make it more flavorful, like the ability to move better with the armor, either by reducing the dex penalty or allowing more movement in the armor.
Classes like the rogue and the wizard do not need major increases in abilities, but classes like the fighter, and paladin do, particularly in the role of being able to defend their party, (more than just a HP soaking Damage cushion).
I like the rogue as is in 3.5. Not sure making sneak attack work on more things will be better or worse as far as overpowering. Going to have to see how the monsters work. Also someone pointed out that a rogue has less BAB than a fighter, less HP and less armor. A rogue should NOT be a front line combatant. He's going to get smoked trying that. Sorry to use a MMO term but it's obvious to me that a fighter is NOT a DPS character. They are the Tank. Deal with it. They are meant to take damage and be hard to hit. They can deal out decent damage but a rogue dishes out more IF they sneak attack. Considering that you must flank, win initiative or win a surprise round a rogue is getting to dish out sneak attack far less than a fighter is. Yes you can turn invisible and all but until higher levels a rogue is not going to be able to have improved invisibility and you also need to take into account the rogue ain't casting that on himself. The wizard is. Thus you need to nerf the wiz! Cause he's enabling the rogue to be even more broken. What about other PCs who help the rogue flank? Gotta keep them down too! A solo rogue isn't sneak attacking anybody unless he's invisible or won surprise.
I dont think sneak attack needs to be made less a round if changed at all. Maybe less damage dice like the scoundrel class in Star Wars? But then in Star Wars (D20 at least) a crit does damage to your Wound Pts? (Or was it HP) and can drop you in one blow. I've played lots of rogues and the fighters just about always out damaged me via the fact that they have a better BaB. Though I find a Rogue/Swashbuckler armed with a Elven Courtblade, Weapon Finese and with the Daring Outlaw feat to be insanely nasty if he has a High INT and a decent Str Score.
|
|
I'm not really convinced the sneak attack needs nerfing. In a campaign I DMed from 4th to about 15th level, the party rogue didn't hand out the most damage (the fighter did, ironically). This was partly due to multi-classing, and so having a lower sneak attack bonus, but a lot of it was due to lower BAB - the first attack might well hit (and get any sneak attack bonus going) but the next iterative attack would not, necessarily. Given that extra iterative attacks arrive at a slower pace than for a fighter, I don't see this as a big deal, even assuming Two Weapon Fighting and Weapon Finesse (the rogue in the above example was actually a multiclass paladin using a 2H weapon, and therefore had a a better BAB than a straight rogue and still missed a lot of the time on the iterative attacks).
I would say that a rogue will do lots of damage against low AC monsters, like giants, and as ACs go up relative to BAB (say, dragons) this problem will decline. I can understand why it might seem silly to have sneak attacks on iterative attacks - precision damage and all, and if you get two attacks from Rapid Shot and only one counts as precision, why do two attacks (one probably at a lower to-hit) from iterative attacks both get sneak attack bonus damage? - but I guess it is one of those things. Preventing it too much might be more about choosing the sort of creatures the PCs fight.