I believe the problem lies in Rogue Talents, which are currently received every 2nd level and can be used to obtain any combat feat. This makes them basically like Fighter Feats, minus an extra one at first level.
If the option to take combat feats as rogue talents were removed from the rogue talent feat, this should fix the issue.
What may help to illustrate the point is a comparison of meeting the Duelist requirements as a rogue in 3.5, compared to in Pathfinder
3.5 Rogue building for Duelist,
Level 1. Rogue, BAB 0, Feat: Dodge
Level 2. Rogue, BAB 1
Level 3. Rogue, BAB 2, Feat: Weapon Finesse
Level 4. Rogue, BAB 3
Level 5. Rogue, BAB 3
Level 6. Rogue, BAB 4, Feat: Mobility
Level 7. Rogue, BAB 5
Level 8. Rogue, BAB 6
Pathfinder Rogue building for Duelist
Level 1. Rogue, BAB 0, Feat: (any)
Level 2. Rogue, BAB 1, Rogue Talent: Finesse Rogue
Level 3. Rogue, BAB 2, Feat: (any)
Level 4. Rogue, BAB 3, Rogue Talent: Combat Trick: Dodge
Level 5. Rogue, BAB 3, Feat: (any)
Level 6. Rogue, BAB 4, Rogue Talent: Combat Trick: Mobility
Level 7. Rogue, BAB 5, Feat: (any)
Level 8. Rogue, BAB 6, Rogue Talent: (any)
I believe the problem lies in Rogue Talents, which are currently received every 2nd level and can be used to obtain any combat feat. This makes them basically like Fighter Feats, minus an extra one at first level.
If the option to take combat feats as rogue talents were removed from the rogue talent feat, this should fix the issue.
What may help to illustrate the point is a comparison of meeting the Duelist requirements as a rogue in 3.5, compared to in Pathfinder
** spoiler omitted **
Maybe they could say Rogues can only do sneak attack damage with rogue weapons? I know 4th ed is doing this. So no more sneak attacks with a Great Sword or a bastard sword in each hand. (Though someone said you might be able to take a feat or Talent Tree to use other weapons with sneak attack.)
Requiring all rogues to use only a finite list of weapons doesn't actually serve a constructive purpose, all it does is limit character options. The scimitar, for example, isn't on the rogue weapons list. Neither is the kukri, or hand-axe. And yet all of these are easy to picture as "rogue weapons." This doesn't mean the answer is to give rogues the kukri proficiency from the get-go, I just feel very strongly that limiting player creativity and the ability to design a unique character isn't a good move.
I believe the problem lies in Rogue Talents, which are currently received every 2nd level and can be used to obtain any combat feat. This makes them basically like Fighter Feats, minus an extra one at first level.
If the option to take combat feats as rogue talents were removed from the rogue talent feat, this should fix the issue.
Another option would be to add a tag line to the combat trick talent that it may only be selected every two or possible every three times. It still allows them to take the combat tricks, but eliminates them from being an "alternate fighter". Off the top of my head I would pose an every other time myself. For example, a rogue could take a combat trick at 2 and 6 (but not level 4). The rogue now has 2 combat tricks vs. the fighters 4. Also, a rogue could take a trick at 2, 6, and 10 (but not 4 and 8. So now the rogue has 3 tricks vs. the fighters 6.
IMO always
Unnecessarily involved.
I believe the problem lies in Rogue Talents, which are currently received every 2nd level and can be used to obtain any combat feat. This makes them basically like Fighter Feats, minus an extra one at first level.
Hmm.. I've been wondering about this.
The text says "A rogue cannot select an individual talent more than once."
"Combat Trick" and "Feat" are both talents that allow choosing a feat in place of the talent, however they are still talents.
This would then mean that you can't choose the either of those talents more than once. A Rogue can get 1 Combat Maneuver and 1 Any Feat, that's it.
Otherwise, the restriction seems odd. As in, it means you can choose as many feats as you want, but you can't choose the same one over again. You can't get Weapon Focus (daggers) and Weapon Focus (rapiers) because you can't choose the same "talent" (in this case, a talent switched to a feat) more than once?
The wording on this might need to be clarified, and could be the opportunity to let Rogues be non-fighter replacements.
|
If you ask me, your DMs suck. If I'm a monster and I just got hit for a lot of damage by someone I'm not facing, I'm going to turn around and make the guy pay. Intelligent or not, it seems like a natural thing to do.
Rogues have less hitpoints and a lower AC, or they should, then the fighter and paladin and aren't going to stand up to the attention of a monster.
The problem isn't sneak attack or flanking, the problem is monsters not reacting logically.
Any change to sneak attack effects every prestige class that uses or enhances sneak attack.. I can think of 3 right now, only one of which is OGL, the other two are Forgotten Realms specific. Not only does it have to remain in the game, but it has to be something with progressive damage.
If you ask me, your DMs suck. If I'm a monster and I just got hit for a lot of damage by someone I'm not facing, I'm going to turn around and make the guy pay. Intelligent or not, it seems like a natural thing to do.
Rogues have less hitpoints and a lower AC, or they should, then the fighter and paladin and aren't going to stand up to the attention of a monster.
The problem isn't sneak attack or flanking, the problem is monsters not reacting logically.
Any change to sneak attack effects every prestige class that uses or enhances sneak attack.. I can think of 3 right now, only one of which is OGL, the other two are Forgotten Realms specific. Not only does it have to remain in the game, but it has to be something with progressive damage.
If your argument is that sneak attack affects too many PrC to be changed than why aren't you arguing for 3.5 Sneak Attack as oppossed to Alpha2 Sneak Attack?
|
|
What may help to illustrate the point is a comparison of meeting the Duelist requirements as a rogue in 3.5, compared to in Pathfinder ** spoiler omitted **
Except that Rogues can't take Combat Trick more then once. Very last line of Rogue talents says, "A rogue can not select an individual talent more than once."
As it stand a rogue gets 4 free feats; Finese, Focus, 1 combat feat (combat trick), and 1 any feat (advance talent - feat.)
---
The wording on this might need to be clarified, and could be the opportunity to let Rogues be non-fighter replacements.
I disagree.. look at Skill Mastery, it's a multi-option talent. IT SAYS you can take it more then once. If it doesn't say it can be taken more then once, that means you can't take it again.
---
If your argument is that sneak attack affects too many PrC to be changed than why aren't you arguing for 3.5 Sneak Attack as oppossed to Alpha2 Sneak Attack?
What's the difference?
Both end in +10d6... the rogue gains talents to enhance sneak attack where in 3.5 you had to take feats that are not OGL from the Complete books to get the same enhancements.
Did I miss something in my quick glance over of Alpha 2's sneak attack description that made it work differently then being bonus damage?
Except that Rogues can't take Combat Trick more then once. Very last line of Rogue talents says, "A rogue can not select an individual talent more than once."As it stand a rogue gets 4 free feats; Finese, Focus, 1 combat feat (combat trick), and 1 any feat (advance talent - feat.)
D: Oh, excellent! Thank you. I think I remember reading that in the pdf, and then forgetting about it entirely when I started making test characters.
Requiring all rogues to use only a finite list of weapons doesn't actually serve a constructive purpose, all it does is limit character options. The scimitar, for example, isn't on the rogue weapons list. Neither is the kukri, or hand-axe. And yet all of these are easy to picture as "rogue weapons." This doesn't mean the answer is to give rogues the kukri proficiency from the get-go, I just feel very strongly that limiting player creativity and the ability to design a unique character isn't a good move.
And I disagree. If that's your supposed logic then I guess ALL characters should be able to use all weapons? A mage with a greatsword? A cleric using bladed weapons? Druids with metal weapons? Your argument does not work. Also what weapons you can or can't use is NOT creativity or "ability to design a unique character" that comes from a thing called ROLEPLAYING. You sir are focusing too much on the ROLL-playing aspect or "crunch". 4th ED D&D is limiting rogues to only being able to sneak attack with "rogue" weapons but I don't see what soever how this limits creativity. Your confusing creativity with the ability for "pwnage" by being able to do +10d6 sneak attack damage with a greatsword. I don't care either way if it is changed or not but I was offering a suggestion for how to supposedly keep rogue sneak attack damage a little more under control by limiting the weapons it can be done with. You haven't offered any suggestions as far as I've seen.
The wording on this might need to be clarified, and could be the opportunity to let Rogues be non-fighter replacements.I disagree.. look at Skill Mastery, it's a multi-option talent. IT SAYS you can take it more then once. If it doesn't say it can be taken more then once, that means you can't take it again.
Sorry, unfortunate typo. We are of the same opinion you and I.
What I meant to say is that this is an opportunity to make the Rogue no longer a Fighter replacement by locking down the wording.
It doesn't matter that you and I get it, what matters is that the general population playing this game gets it. Clearly it was missed previously and people were writing up Rogues with laundry lists of Combat feats.
A slightly more detailed wording could end this whole thread's problem.
|
|
I don't think that's the case. I think people think rogues should be "not fighters" by nerfing sneak attack. Arguing that sneak attack makes the rogue better then a fighter, enhance there's something wrong with rogues.
Someone here whether it was you or whatever made it sound like the problem is feats.. page 1 of this thread isn't talking about feats, they're talking about sneak attack. Typo or whatever it was implied that rogues get lots of feats and I pointed out that's not the case. If it's a combination of sloppy reading and poor post editing, fine. ;)
In any case my argument remains the same. Rogues aren't better then fighters, they're weaker then fighters in every way in combat except for damage output. If the DM lets a rogue stand to the side of a fight and continuously do more damage then the fighter and NOT be the center of the monster's attention, then the problem isn't the rogue or the player, it's the DM.
Making a class weaker because there are poor DMs out there isn't good for the game.
I agree that the raw damage dealing output of the rogue isn't a good thing. And I think there's very simple tweaks - like only 1 SA/round - that don't totally nerf the class while still making it less about "out-DPSing a fighter" in WoW terms.
|
|
I agree that the raw damage dealing output of the rogue isn't a good thing. And I think there's very simple tweaks - like only 1 SA/round - that don't totally nerf the class while still making it less about "out-DPSing a fighter" in WoW terms.
Not the solution. The solution would be to have whatever's being sneak attacked turn it's attention to the rogue once it's been hit and make the rogue run away.
A rogue isn't supposed to trade blows with foes, he'll get in trouble if he does. He doesn't have the AC or HP of a fighter. If the DM allows the rogue to sit there and sneak attack the enemy every round and not get attacked then that's why sneak attack is a problem in YOUR campaign.
I don't think that's the case. I think people think rogues should be "not fighters" by nerfing sneak attack. Arguing that sneak attack makes the rogue better then a fighter, enhance there's something wrong with rogues.
Someone here whether it was you or whatever made it sound like the problem is feats.. page 1 of this thread isn't talking about feats, they're talking about sneak attack. Typo or whatever it was implied that rogues get lots of feats and I pointed out that's not the case. If it's a combination of sloppy reading and poor post editing, fine. ;)
In any case my argument remains the same. Rogues aren't better then fighters, they're weaker then fighters in every way in combat except for damage output. If the DM lets a rogue stand to the side of a fight and continuously do more damage then the fighter and NOT be the center of the monster's attention, then the problem isn't the rogue or the player, it's the DM.
Making a class weaker because there are poor DMs out there isn't good for the game.
Hmm, I point to the original post:
With rogues having d8 HD, super-duper-unlimited sneak attacks, and now combat feats as talents as well, they're front-line combatants. Their skills have become secondary, especially inasfar as the number of proposals outstanding to bump clerics, etc. to 4/level, and drop rogues to 6/level.
I'd really like to see sneak attack nerfed to 1/round, and be useable only if the opponent is caught flat-footed or the rogue is flanking him. Then the rogue could get bonus NON-combat feats at levels 1-10, and 6 skill points/level, and be a perfectly useable archetype again. If I to play a super-fighter, I should immediately want a fighter, not a rogue.
I contend that it was brought up in the original post, and no one challenged it throughout more than 3 pages of discourse.
On top of that, it appears this was the straw that broke the camels back, and initiated the whole conversation of "Rogues are broken now that they basically have everything the fighter has, lets break Sneak Attack".
...
I concede that most of the talk was about mangling the Sneak Attack function into something else, however people's opinions of what the Rogue should be able to do might be different if they realized they can't just pick up 20 extra combat feats. Sneak attack seems a bit more appropriate when the class basically gets only 2 actual variable feat choices that can be used for combat feats. It's less stepping on Fighter toes.
|
I actually have to agree with Freewood, Fighters are the ones that are underpowered. The Rogue's sneak attack ability is strong, but not strong enough to warrant a nerf. I think the Fighter does need the boost more. I don't think the Bo9S is the best route at all but maybe a Bonus to CMB checks is. I actually think that's the best idea myself and maybe some additional damage too but that's iffy.
And I disagree. If that's your supposed logic then I guess ALL characters should be able to use all weapons? A mage with a greatsword?
If they take the weapon proficiency, then sure, let them if they want. Also 3rd ed Druids can use metal weapons. The sickle and scimitar, for example, are on the Druid weapon proficiency.
I don't have any problem with the rogue now that it's been pointed out they can't just load up on combat feats (thanks! :>). No matter how good Sneak Attack is, they still have (generalizing) a lower BAB, FORT save, HP, and STR than the generalized fighter.
If they take the weapon proficiency, then sure, let them if they want. Also 3rd ed Druids can use metal weapons. The sickle and scimitar, for example, are on the Druid weapon proficiency.
Yeah, and that's like what? TWO whole metal weapons they can use? Two weapons does not equal druids can use metal weapons, sorry.
Feats are the best thing about 3rd ed.If they take the weapon proficiency, then sure, let them if they want. Also 3rd ed Druids can use metal weapons. The sickle and scimitar, for example, are on the Druid weapon proficiency.Yeah, and that's like what? TWO whole metal weapons they can use? Two weapons does not equal druids can use metal weapons, sorry.
It's still not a class ability. I still disagree that not being able to use non rogue weapons with a sneak attack is going to somehow limit creativity. Usually when I hear people whine about limiting creativity what they are really whining about is the limit on the power of their PC.
If they take the weapon proficiency, then sure, let them if they want. Also 3rd ed Druids can use metal weapons. The sickle and scimitar, for example, are on the Druid weapon proficiency.Yeah, and that's like what? TWO whole metal weapons they can use? Two weapons does not equal druids can use metal weapons, sorry.
Yes it does. If their list includes weapons made of metal, then they are not restricted specifically from using weapons made of metal anymore.
No one is saying that they can use ALL weapons made of metal because their list includes those two weapons. That's a bit ridiculous.
But clearly their dogmatic restrictions no longer include "not using metal weapons" since their list includes weapon that are made of metal. So picking up a feat to get another weapon made of metal isn't absurd. With 10 character feats now, it's even more feasible.
Short note about Druids (this is off-topi - just to remember):
To allow them scimitars was one of the most stupid ideas made in 3E (or was it 2nd?).
Druids should only be allowed armor AND weapon whos metal can easily be substituted for bone, obsidian or maybe (magical) wood.
So everything with small metal tips or similar (like spears and daggers) should be allowed, BUT NOTHING ELSE.
Back to topic (and PLEASE discuss the druid stuff in the appropriate thread):
I think the best (= middle way) solution is the following:
1) Allow only 1 SA per round, regardless of the actual number of attacks made
1a) Make a rogue talent (no feat!) that allows one additional SA per round (takable multiple times)
1b) No SA when only flanking (this is one of the abuse-options I say)
2) Remove combat trick, Finesse Rogue, Resiliency and Weapon Training from the rogue talents
(even Barbarians or Paladins don't get those, remember? Besides, Resiliency SCREAMS "fighter"!)
2b) consider merging the Advanced Talents into the normal Rogue Talents as a counter-balance
2c) Add several skill related feats to the Rogue Talents (I wonder VERY MUCH why this wasn't done upfront!)
Discussable:
Consider changing the levels in which Sneak Attack and Rogue Talents are achieved (1st RT at 1st level, 1st d6 SA at 2nd level, etc.)
This way, the tone of the rogue is again back to their skills and talents and not their Sneak Attack.
1) Allow only 1 SA per round, regardless of the actual number of attacks made (like precision damage)
That isn't the way precision damage(ie: sneak attack, sudden strike, skirmish etc.) works. It only works that way in a volley attack. That is why you can't use manyshot to get multiple sneak attacks on the enemy.
1b) No SA when only flanking (this is one of the abuse-options I say)
Sneak attack is not backstab, so stop trying to make it backstab.
Consider not how to bring the rogue down to the fighter/commoner/warrior, but how to bring the fighter up to the rogue.
That isn't the way precision damage(ie: sneak attack, sudden strike, skirmish etc.) works. It only works that way in a volley attack. That is why you can't use manyshot to get multiple sneak attacks on the enemy.
I know. Was a bad wording. Ignore this part.
Sneak attack is not backstab, so stop trying to make it backstab.
First: It was backstap all editions before.
Second: If it's NOT, than the rogue has ABSOLUTLY NO reason to have this ability. It's SNEAK attack, not Precise attack. If it would be precise attack than it SCREAMS Fighter all around too!Consider not how to bring the rogue down to the fighter/commoner/warrior, but how to bring the fighter up to the rogue.
The point is, that the rogue is WAY to much in the fighters field of activity.
As I said over and over and over and... again:While the old thief (which is still the very basic of the rogue) was about skills and had the backstap ability as a very nice add-on, the 3rd Edition turned this upside down. Now the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the rogue is Sneak Attack.
First: It was backstap all editions before.
Second: If it's NOT, than the rogue has ABSOLUTLY NO reason to have this ability. It's SNEAK attack, not Precise attack. If it would be precise attack than it SCREAMS Fighter all around too!
The rogue and warrior classes both have precision in different rays. The rogue does more damage when the enemy is distracted or unaware for their precision. The fighter has a higher BAB, representing his precision.
As I said over and over and over and... again:
While the old thief (which is still the very basic of the rogue) was about skills and had the backstap ability as a very nice add-on, the 3rd Edition turned this upside down. Now the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the rogue is Sneak Attack.
No, the rogue isn't just the old edition's thief. He is supposed to represent more than that. The rogue represents the skilled combatant, the old thief just happens to fall into a more skill focused subset of that. The rogue can be the dungeon adventurer or a skilled warrior on the King's black-ops team.
Yeah, the rogue is becoming greater and greater.
higher hit points, free combat feats, more useful sneak attack, extra special maneuvers, magical abilities...
I might have missed it, but was the aim of Pathfinder to make the rogue the super class?
Kirth you know that Dnd is based off of Tactical War Gaming so it is very much combat minded. Do get me wrong back in the day of 1st edition when they added skills in a supplement it changed the game forever and in my opinion for the better. The game does evolve around defeating your foe and usually that is done by cutting him/her down with a might swing or a well placed body shot.
In my gaming group we have such a mix of players; we have those that swing first and talk very little and we have some that charm the daughters and spin the enemies with their honeyed word. I like that mix, when the player decided to occasionally use word instead of sword it make that "game night" that much more memorable.
As for the Rogue I agree with either turning down their sneak attack damage or making it a standard action. A point was made earlier about giving them more HP, I don't see anything wrong with that and I was happy that they did it. Yes the fighter is on the boring side, from all of your previous blog s it seem that you are not a fan of combat so a non-skill fighter would be a poor choice. Rogues are my favorite class, but I like to mix it up a little by multi-classing. If I want a skilled fighter I go Rogue\fighter mix and it I want a Magical Trickster I go Rogue\Wiz mix. That way it enables me to argument my classes and make my game experience more enjoyable.
Someone said that it rogue is "skilled combatant" and the fighter is also a "skilled combant" is skills is the ability to learn many more feats and ways to increase his damage. In addition fighter usually has a terrific AC, while a Rogue has to really work it to get a decent AC. I think they both complement each other and are necessary. One is an opener and the other is a closer. With all that said I understand how you feel, I personally think Cleric are severely over powered. They have ways of making themselves so overpower that they can make it miserable for the other gamers. I actually had one that became so over powered I had to ask him to retire his character. To make it challenging for him I had to up the encounters, which make it almost instant death for the other players.
As I said earlier I don't see a problem with turning all special attacks into standard action (Sneak attack and Smiting just to name a few) I just believe that we should look at the big picture that all classes need tweaking.
That isn't the way precision damage(ie: sneak attack, sudden strike, skirmish etc.) works. It only works that way in a volley attack. That is why you can't use manyshot to get multiple sneak attacks on the enemy.I know. Was a bad wording. Ignore this part.
Sneak attack is not backstab, so stop trying to make it backstab.First: It was backstap all editions before.
Second: If it's NOT, than the rogue has ABSOLUTLY NO reason to have this ability. It's SNEAK attack, not Precise attack. If it would be precise attack than it SCREAMS Fighter all around too!
Yeah and if you knew jack about being sneaky at all you would know that it does NOT require you to stab someone from behind. I could walk up to you and stab you in the face and it would be sneaky if you didn't see it coming. Backstab was sad. Rogues were a joke in 2cd ed. I hardly ever got to backstab someone. Not only did I have to stab them in the back they had to NOT know I was there. Which means all thieves had to invest in some way to become invisible. I don't feel the rogue is that bad at all. Fighters still kick lots of butt and hit more often and harder unless the rogue is getting off sneak attacks. Why should the rogues sneak attack be limited to once a round when someone like a Mage can launch off spell after spell after spell? Some of which can just do very horrible things to someone besides raw damage? A fighter also gets more attacks than a rogue and has access to more feats. Unless you have actually play tested the new rogue and fighter please remain quiet.
Well in our games, they weren't a joke at all.
Their thief skills made them EXTREMLY worthy.
And furthermore, the thief was the fastest leveling class from all.
As to the "stab in the face". I don't need SPECIAL TRAINING or ABILITIES to stab you in the face.
So why should the rogue be the only one actually capable in doing so (or similar stuff)?
Well, I never liked the combat focus from D&D3 and I actually NEVER felt that AD&D2nd was this heavy on it.
Sure the skill system was really weak, but still very useful.
personally i think the biggest issue i see with the whole rogue is the fighter thing, #1 sneak attack shouldn't work against everything.
#2 the rogue doesn't need to have d8 hit points, don't encourage him to be a front line fighter.
#3 if the monk, and the rogue both have instant kill attacks, why doesn't the fighter.
something i incorporate in my games is called shot feats, only fighters can get really good at called shots with all the bonus feats. the called shots allow you to slow the enemy down, reduce their effectiveness at attacking, and even with, difficulty, decapitate the enemy.
I agree that Rogue sneak attacks are way out of line. In one of my campaigns I dropped half the Rogues Sneak Attack bonus D6's and changed them to feats, made the Rogue much more interesting character class.
It wouldn't work with Pathfinder as the Rogue get's combat Feats as an option so I'd suggest that the Rogue can only sneak attack when the opponent loses its Dex. This basically means that the Rogue must take the enemy by Suprise or Bluff them successfully in combat( thus meaning at best he can only do this once per round.
I also reckon for Demons and Devils he needs to make skill checks to determine the vital area's to get his extra damage. For Demons I am generally of the mind that he can't even sneak attack them or they get the equivallent of Fortification against Sneak attack as they're physiology is supposed to be as chaotic as they are( Heart's in an odd place, kidneys are in top of the chest etc)
Its probably what I will do in my next campaign regardless of what the rules say, otherwise the fighter may as well stay at home as all he provides is a distration for the Rogue to do a sneak attack.
jeez louise.
Just make it so that the rogue can't sneak attack whenever he flanks and most of the problem is solved. If only the first attack counted as a sneak attack that would also make sense. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...
To me the sneak attack was for the rogue who was scouting ahead to take out one guard if he had to if he could get close enough to do it. It wasn't so that rogues could go toe-to-toe with a companion and carve open any creature they met either immediately or by watching them gush blood for three rounds from bleeding.
I reread the rogue. It does say that you can only take one combat trick. I think that is cool. It stops them from becoming thunderously good. Just don't allow sneak attack on flanking and the whole problem is largely fixed. it doesn't completely nerf rogues. They still get more skills, neat abilities and can also get magic use (admittedly limited) and they can still get sneak attacks. They just need to set-up the opportunities to make it happen a little more cleverly. "You hold him down. I'll finish him off." "Surprise, dagger in the eye" "Look behind you ...SPLUUURRRKK" As has been said they are NOT fighters. They shouldn't be rushing into combat.
1) Justifying the rogue's ability to dish out massive damage by pointing out that wizards can also do this is incongruous - the wizard uses up his resources (i.e. limited spells per day) to do this - sneak attack is free forever.
What about the fact that a well built rogue does less average damage to enemies that are actual threats than a well built fighter? Or how about the fact that a rogue that is going down the twf path is devoting a good portion of his feats to doing damage that still averages below the damage output of a similar fighter? Or the fact weapon finesse and twf only really help because the rogue can add sneak attack to each attack? Or the fact that a wizard and two handed fighter have an easier time bypassing damage reduction?
Hiya.
jeez louise.
Just make it so that the rogue can't sneak attack whenever he flanks and most of the problem is solved. If only the first attack counted as a sneak attack that would also make sense. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...
To me the sneak attack was for the rogue who was scouting ahead to take out one guard if he had to if he could get close enough to do it. It wasn't so that rogues could go toe-to-toe with a companion and carve open any creature they met either immediately or by watching them gush blood for three rounds from bleeding.
Yeah, what he said. :) I was all geared up to post my opinion when I got to Poodles' post here. Poodle summed it up perfectly. IMHO, it's called sneak attack for a reason. If the rogue just stabbed a foe in the back, the rogue is no longer 'sneaking'.
I fully back Poodle's view here: the rogue should ONLY get his Sneak Attack damage when he has successfully snuck up on a foe. Once his presence is known, he can't be 'sneaky'.
|
My DM made Sneak Attack a General Feat, and replaced the sneak attack rogues get with Feats from the Scout feat list in the complete Adventurer, if you want Sneak Attack you have to take it when you get normal feats, and the max dice for Sneak Attack/Death Attack etc is 6d6, and you can only use it once per encounter the idea being that once you've tried, you've alerted all foes that you're there, and if you miss tough luck.
That solved the problems with everyone taking a level of rogue at 1st level for the sneak attack bonus, and he changed all classes to 4 skill points per level. He also made some changes to skills in general, like hide and move silently are 1 skill now, spot and listen got merged, and ditto disable device and open lock.
Rogues in our games are much more balanced, and as a result aren't chosen a one of the munchkin/optimized first level classes, and fighters now tend to be far scarier in our games than before and forces rogues to be less front line. Of course that doesn't mean you can't make a kick ass rogue, you just have to more thought into what kind of rogue you want to be.