This is something I've though about for awhile now and have seen pop up sporadically in discussions on these boards.
I am all for sneak attack being expanded to affect more creature types, however I have never been fond of the syndrome wherein a Rogue can accurately sneak attack his enemy an infinite number of times in a single round despite when should be the changing conditions of combat.
As such, I propose changing sneak attack to a standard action: it would not cut back on their helpfulness in combat, nor would it detract from the abilities advantage. The fact that it takes a standard action would reduce the rogue’s capability to out-damage the front line melee fighters and would cleanly represent the time taken for lining up such vital strikes.
Admittedly, the damage output by rogues would be significantly nerfed by this so a related fix to sneak attack damage might be in order; though I don't see it as necessary.
|
Seconded. Simplest fix there is. The rogue gives up all his attacks in the round to perform the sneak attack.
The explanation (for the sticklers like me who need a reason for everything): identifying and hitting a weak spot requires more concentration and focus than a regular attack.
Question: What about attacks of opportunity and surprise rounds?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Not such a good idea IMHO. I know it is a rotten argument from some perspectives, but the two-handed power attacking fighter is already way ahead in damage output to the rogue - and even that is solidly behind any spellcaster worth his salt. So the rogues "combat gimmick" is not only the least easily applicable, but also the least "payoff" including one.
Give rogues some love. They need any they can get.
Has the current 3.5 sneak attack actually been a problem for people... other than conceptually? If it plays OK, why not leave it as-is? We're primarily looking for things that don't work or have serious conceptual problems that can be fixed while maintaining general backward compatibility.
I think weakening the rogue's sneak attack would be going off at too much of a tangent. The problem I've always seen is it being too weak around certain theme monsters (undead and constructs) that tend to have adventures, even campaigns, built around them thus nerfing the rogue.
I really think we have to keep in mind what Paizo is trying to do here.
I disagree if i have multiple attacks i just keep stabbing you in that same weak area over and over thats why I can sneak attack you multiple times in a round, i dont think it needs to be a standard action
I have frequently seen two weapon fighting + any haste effect + improved invisibility or just plain flanking make mincemeat out of almost any critter with vitals. Add splatbook spells or items that open sneak attack to critters without vitals and it becomes a bit over the top.
My personal houserule that I will soon implement is that sneak attack can be performed: as a standard action, granting full bonus damage dice OR as part of a full attack, granting half bonus damage dice on each attack.
Regardless of the rule I also make it obvious through narrative that the bruising, battering, and hacking of the fighter is not nearly as irritating to the monster as the precise nerve cluster poking and artery severing that the rogue is doing. As such, my rogue PCs often find a barrage of power attacking hits coming their way after a good sneak attack, so many prefer to tumble away rather than deliver a full attack.
|
|
I disagree if i have multiple attacks i just keep stabbing you in that same weak area over and over thats why I can sneak attack you multiple times in a round, i dont think it needs to be a standard action
I believe the idea though is that in combat you are constantly moving, dodging and weaving about, swinging your weapon. Thats why a character takes up a full five foot square.
Rounds are done turn by turn because thats the only way you can really arbitrate the actions, but theoretically all of these things are supposed to happen at the same time, and someone is not going to simply hold still for 6 full seconds in combat, especially if they are being struck. That opening isn't going to stay open.
Now, with that said, I'm all for the change made to allow rogues to sneak attack more creatures. As someone who has played a rogue in a heavily undead campaign, I know how boring it is to just not be effective. The problem is often made greater because rogues are normally dex fighters and so if something has damage reduction, you probably aren't getting past it.
I think that this change is a very good thing as it allows the rogue to be useful in a lot more ways and it shows sneak attack as being about finding the chink in the armor rather then necessarily puncturing a lung with each blow.
However, it is also my experience that a rogue who gets well positioned can do a frightening amount of damage in a round. Whether its through invisibility or him and one of the others just managed to be flanking, they tear through foes. This isn't normally much of a problem, because they can drop their enemies quickly in one battle and do almost nothing in the next battle because those foes will be immune to sneak attack.
It seems like its two far in opposite directions to me. Rogues should be able to contribute something each and every battle(thus the change) so the player isn't left sitting on the sidelines. However, if they are able to contribute the amount of damage they do right now each battle then it steps on the toes of those who are supposed to be more combative.
I agree with the original poster that making sneak attack somehow take a bit longer is a good idea, some sort of thing to show that you are lining up the shot. A standard action might be too much however, as the two weapon fighting rogue is a pretty classic image, and if they only get one normal attack in then you seem to be nerfing their damage too far.
Perhaps a solution would be to call a sneak attack take a free action thats only usable once per round? For example, your rogue is flanking an enemy and is dual wielding. He can declare any given attack is going to be a sneak attack, but can only say it once? Obviously its likely to be one of his primary attacks, but this way if he was lined up to sneak attack more then one enemy and one of them was already wounded, he could strike that one normally and see if it goes down before declaring his sneak attack on the other?
I would have suggested perhaps a swift action instead, but I know there are a number of spells that rogues may get into with different classes or umd that use swifts, and it would make the 'feint as a swift' action of some prestiges' pretty useless.
If this is seen as nerfing too much, then perhaps a feat could be added that allows it to be used twice in a round(sort of like multishot or pounce does for the scout).
-Tarlane
I am all for making SA a standard action and NOT to allow it when just flanking.
Do not change sneak attack.
I do not feel the proposed change is warranted. Having a medium BAB does enough to limit the effectiveness of Sneak Attack.
Granted, some medium level (3rd-6th) arcane spells can improve sneak attack effectiveness, but this is true for all classes.
I'm very much against making sneak attack a standard action. Even a large sneak attack at say 10d6 at higher levels is barely ahead of ONE attack from a fighter.
I'd like to see something like this if any balancing is to be done with sneak attacks:
1) +1 to attack rolls anytime the rogue’s attack qualifies as a sneak attack and which increases by +1 every 5 levels (at 6th, 11th, 16th).
2) +1d6 damage plus an extra d6 every four levels (5th, 9th, 13th, 17th).
3) 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.
This allows a rogue to compete in very well in normal combat situations while flanking (due to the attack bonus and decent sneak attack damage) and yet still land a huge blow on a 'surprise' attack.
If you think the Sneak Attack is too powerful as is, don't restrict it as a standard action.
Instead, restrict the conditions in which the sneak attack applies.
Two options :
- Decide that it is a full attack, limiting the ability, as a move and attacks won't be consecutive in the same round. The rogue will have to sneak around, placing himself behind his target before striking on the following round. In a way that makes sense.
- Or decide that flanking is not enough to give a sneak attack, but that the target has to be surprised or flat-foot. Sounds fair too.
Huh... I don't think having a "medium" BAB is really a problem for the rogues, as their targets rarely have their full AC against their sneak attacks : No Dex, no shield and so on...
Huh... I don't think having a "medium" BAB is really a problem for the rogues, as their targets rarely have their full AC against their sneak attacks : No Dex, no shield and so on...
Since when does being denied one's Dex bonus deny one's shield bonus?
|
As this may or may not help, I've always ruled that the first attack has sneak attack and any subsequent attacks deal normal damage. This makes it so the higher level rogue doesn't feel bad about losing a full attack action, since due to various Damage reduction, the attacks past the first don't deal as much damage.
The rogue is one of the few 3.5 classes that is mechanically well done. Neutering one of its combat options won't help the game at all.
As this may or may not help, I've always ruled that the first attack has sneak attack and any subsequent attacks deal normal damage. This makes it so the higher level rogue doesn't feel bad about losing a full attack action, since due to various Damage reduction, the attacks past the first don't deal as much damage.
Here Here. This is how i have house-ruled it ever since 3rd edition came out. I have no issues with rouges "finding the chink in the armor" of almost anything, but doing it 3-5-7 times a round? i think not. If you expand it in one area, you have to shrink it in another. Just how balance goes.
I'm with Eric Tilleman or Modera. Both suggestions are excellent.
Wow. So you guys want to restrict a 20th level rogue to doing 35 points of damage a round? How does your solution make playing a rogue more fun?
I have to say that my response to this solution as a player who wanted to play a rogue would be, "Huh. I guess I'll just play a beguiler or a scout then, if you don't want me to play a rogue."
The only way that this makes sense is if it is part of a broader re-writing of the classes, and especially the spell-casters, that uses the Fighter class as its base line of viability.
Wow. How does your solution make playing a rogue more fun?
It makes the rogue a skill-monkey, instead of a combat whirlwind of destruction. Granted, if your campaign features all combat and no skill use, I could definitely see this being a problem. If a reasonable balance between the two is maintained, the rogue already outshines everyone else until swords are actually drawn.
I love playing the rogue. I love it even more when sneak attack requires some set-up on my part. That said, an all-combat, no-skills game puts me right to sleep. There needs to be some combat, but that shouldn't be the only thing the game is about.
IMO, rogues are one of the best-balanced classes and don't need sneak attack nerfed. I'd say allow 1/2 sneak attack damage on creatures that are "normally" immune, but that still have "vital" points (such as most undead).
Seconded. Simplest fix there is. The rogue gives up all his attacks in the round to perform the sneak attack.
The explanation (for the sticklers like me who need a reason for everything): identifying and hitting a weak spot requires more concentration and focus than a regular attack.
Not really. It's quite surprising how fast someone can be shivved to death.
I propose this: leave sneak attack "as is," but provide a note:
"The sneak attack rules as written assume that combat is the primary focus of your game. For games with proportionately greater skill use, it is recommended that sneak attack damage apply to only the first attack in a round [or insert other proposed nerfing option]."
That way, everyone gets what they need.
It makes the rogue a skill-monkey, instead of a combat whirlwind of destruction. Granted, if your campaign features all combat and no skill use, I could definitely see this being a problem. If a reasonable balance between the two is maintained, the rogue already outshines everyone else until swords are actually drawn.
I love playing the rogue. I love it even more when sneak attack requires some set-up on my part. That said, an all-combat, no-skills game puts me right to sleep. There needs to be some combat, but that shouldn't be the only thing the game is about.
First of all, I don't play all-combat games. Please don't use ad hominem attacks.
Second, you've just admitted that the goal of this solution is to make the character more one-dimensional: "a skill-monkey" is all it can be for you. I'd rather add a skill that gives the fighter have something to do during role playing sessions, thanks.
Third, the rogue's ability encourages party teamwork, especially from the front line fighters. Your solution defines teamwork as one set of players gets to have fun during combat while another set of players gets to have fun outside of combat.
Several hours of watching other people have fun is not something I want to encourage in this game, whether those hours are during the combat scenarios or the role play sessions.
Second, you've just admitted that the goal of this solution is to make the character more one-dimensional: "a skill-monkey" is all it can be for you. I'd rather add a skill that gives the fighter have something to do during role playing sessions, thanks.
No offense was intended; see my suggestion above (also note the term "if" in the post you quoted -- although, granted, I should have said "one's camapaign" rather than "your campaign" -- sorry for the confusion).
But, with all respect, if the fighter and rogue should be equal in combat and in skills use, why have them as separate classes? Just curious. The way I see it, everyone gets a chance to roleplay outside of combat; I'm sure we can agree that "role-playing" doesn't necessarily mean "rolling skill checks." The fighter doesn't need to be out-skilling the rogue in order to have fun.
Since when does being denied one's Dex bonus deny one's shield bonus?
It doesn't per se...
But that's one of the drawbacks of being flat-foot i am used to rule :No Dex, no bonus from dodge, insight or shield.
No offense was intended; see my suggestion above (also note the term "if" -- granted, I should have said "one's camapaign" rather than "your campaign" -- sorry for the confusion).
But, with all respect, if the fighter and rogue should be equal in combat and in skills use, why have them as separate classes? Just curious. The way I see it, everyone gets a chance to roleplay outside of combat; I'm sure we can agree that "role-playing" doesn't necessarily mean "rolling skill checks." The fighter doesn't need to be out-skilling the rogue in order to have fun.
Gotcha. We're all more touchy about that sort of thing given the events of the last month.
The fighter and rogue shouldn't be equal in fighting and skills use, but they should each have something to do in both halves of the game. Designed progressive incompetence is not fun, which is what this change, by your own words, seems designed to do. You start out with a certain parity in combat with the fighter and then you fall slowly behind as your sneak attack gets less and less valuable.
And comparing anything to vanilla fighters is a bad idea, because fighters are widely considered to be at or near the very bottom of the power pyramid. (CoDzilla resides at the top, with the high level wizard nipping at its heels.) They face more attacks than most and the most powerful effects are always the save or stink effects, of which they get 0. And they have many dead levels.
Do you really want to design a class based off one that the vast majority of players leave after 4 levels? Isn't that emulating bad design rather than promoting good design?
The underlying mechanics matter in both RP and combat too. You can role-playing to your heart's content, but the math of the skills has to matter. It's a measure of how good your character should be at certain tasks. If the skill modifier doesn't matter, if it's all role-play and collaborative story-telling, then you might as well never play a bard or "face-style" rogue, because those skill points and enchantment powers are wasted. It's a subtle nerf but a real one if you don't communicate that diplomacy, bluff, gather information, and sense motive are not going to materially impact the world in the same way that hide and use magic device are.
Finally, sneak attack is hugely risky for rogues, because the rules virtually require melee. Their low hit points and comparatively low AC, balance them out by forcing the player to pick his spots in ways that fighters, encased in steel and HP, simply don't have to. The only thing that nerfing sneak attack is going to do is push rogues into prestige classes or into the !#@$!%# scout class.
1. Gotcha. We're all more touchy about that sort of thing given the events of the last month.
2. comparing anything to vanilla fighters is a bad idea, because fighters are widely considered to be at or near the very bottom of the power pyramid. (CoDzilla resides at the top, with the high level wizard nipping at its heels.)
3. The underlying mechanics matter in both RP and combat too.
4. Finally, sneak attack is hugely risky for rogues, because the rules virtually require melee. Their low hit points and comparatively low AC, balance them out by forcing the player to pick his spots in ways that fighters, encased in steel and HP, simply don't have to.
1. Pure truth there; seems like we're all walking on eggshells lately.
2. Yes; a 14th level fighter is still most assuredly not up to the standard of, say, a 14th level wizard (although the Pathfinder nerfed cleric helps the class disparity -- or at least in the opinion of my playest cleric's player, who declares that the loss of domain spells and the 1st level domain ability "totally sucks.") Then again, redesigning the entire game around a whole new fighter sort of makes Pathfinder more like 4.5 than 3.75, if you see what I mean. It's a potentially huge undertaking (although no less worthy for all that).
3. I'm decidedly NOT one of those "just roleplay all the skills, man!" people. I like the fact that they have mechanics. But a lot of the game can be played between rolls, so to speak -- the fighter and the cleric and the paladin have always had the opportunity to do things outside of combat that don't really involve skills use -- the DM just needs to put some real effort into giving them that chance.
4. I disagree that the risk is really all that much higher for rogues; the rogue has a potentially comparable AC (mithral for +4 instead of full plate for +8, but a much higher Dex modifier, so it almost evens out), and d8 HD as opposed to d10 isn't that much of a loss. Having had the opportunity to play a "first attack only gets the sneak attack damage" rogue in Chains of Blackmaw, I can say that my enjoyment was in no way diminished; to some degree, it seemed like the tension was heightened when I knew my first attack was going to be the most important one.
I am on the side of the people saying SA doesn't need to be nerfed. I recently played a rogue from level four to epic, and there are many, many ways enemies can prevent the full round SA. Most casters can cast See Invis or some other form of negation for Invisibility spells. Beyond that...if an enemy has a reasonable amount of intelligence, it's not going to LET the rogue full round SA on his backside. Between having to move around to keep position, trying to overcome casters hampering skills, and various other gimmicks, I managed to land full round SAs less than five times during the whole campaign (and one of those was the frenzied berserker the DM WANTED me to hit...that fight was un-fun; "You deal a ridiculously high amount of damage; your foe laughs at you."). I guess my opinion is between lower BAB, the many ways that full round attacks can be prevented, and other limitations for SA, it's an extremely rare situation where the rogue can just sit back and unload round after round.
I am on the side of the people saying SA doesn't need to be nerfed. I recently played a rogue from level four to epic, and there are many, many ways enemies can prevent the full round SA. Most casters can cast See Invis or some other form of negation for Invisibility spells. Beyond that...if an enemy has a reasonable amount of intelligence, it's not going to LET the rogue full round SA on his backside. Between having to move around to keep position, trying to overcome casters hampering skills, and various other gimmicks, I managed to land full round SAs less than five times during the whole campaign (and one of those was the frenzied berserker the DM WANTED me to hit...that fight was un-fun; "You deal a ridiculously high amount of damage; your foe laughs at you."). I guess my opinion is between lower BAB, the many ways that full round attacks can be prevented, and other limitations for SA, it's an extremely rare situation where the rogue can just sit back and unload round after round.
evidently you play with different paramaters than what i have seen in most games
Don't change sneak attack.
they already have
YES! SNEAK ATTACK AS A STANDARD ACTION!
I had a group with a monk (furry of blows), a sorcerer, a ranger (two-weapon), a rogue and a fighter.
In combat, the fighter was always the one dealing the ls damage, even less than the ROGUE.
And in a large number of situation, the rogue was dealing even MORE damage than the sorcerer, due to sneak attacks...
So:
Allowing a rogue to sneak attack more than once per round is like allowing a sorcerer to cast more than one fireball in a round...
Like a damage spell, a sneak attack is a special damage-dealing ability that should be restricted in some way.
*** The sneak attack ability is a bonus to the damage delt by a rogue and should not be the primary way to deal damage. Big damage dealer should be Fighters and Spellcasters***
With a sneak attack as a standard action, I would suggest creating a feat, or adding to rogue choices of special abilities a way to sneak more than once in a round. Like the Wizard casting a quickened second fireball in the same round (outch!). But no more than twice in a round (no flanking two-weapon hasted rogue SHREDDER... hehe....)
Some numbers:
A 11th-level fighter (20Str) using a shield and a bastard sword (not all fighter fight with two weapon) and some weapon specialization can deal:
*as a standard action
1 attack at 1D10+7, total between 8-17 (avg 12)
*in a full-round
3 attacks (BAB) at 1D10+7, total between 24-51 (avg 37)
A 11th-level wizard:
*as a standard action
Fireball 10D6, 10 to 60 (avg 35)
*as a full-round
Maximize Fireball 60
A 11th-level rogue (10str with a rapier), flanking:
*standard action:
1 attack 1D6+0, +6D6 sneak, total 7-42 (avg 24)
*full round action
2 attacks (BAB), total 14-84 (avg 48)
Since when does being denied one's Dex bonus deny one's shield bonus?It doesn't per se...
But that's one of the drawbacks of being flat-foot i am used to rule :
No Dex, no bonus from dodge, insight or shield.
So you're complaining that the rogue is overpowered on the basis of your houserules? That's not a very good point.
So you're complaining that the rogue is overpowered on the basis of your houserules? That's not a very good point.Since when does being denied one's Dex bonus deny one's shield bonus?It doesn't per se...
But that's one of the drawbacks of being flat-foot i am used to rule :
No Dex, no bonus from dodge, insight or shield.
How about this point: rogues are the best skill users and the best melee combatants so that's what makes them overpowered when compared to the other non-full spellcasters...
How about this point: rogues are the best skill users and the best melee combatants so that's what makes them overpowered when compared to the other non-full spellcasters...
Proof of their status as the best melee combatants under 3.5 rules, please?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Proof of their status as the best melee combatants under 3.5 rules, please?
That's easy, just assume the following for the rogue:
1. They are always capable of sneak attack with little or no effort - they have the magic items and feats designed to help them achieve sneak attacks _and_ the magic items and feats to give them extra attacks and improved chances for a critical hit.
2. They always get full attack actions, even on the surprise round, and even when they would theoretically need to move into flanking position.
3. They never get attacked or badly hurt, even though they have lower AC and fewer hp than other front line combatants.
4. They hit with all attacks they make, regardless of how high they need to roll.
5. They roll max damage and crit on every attack.
Then, compare them to a fighter assuming the following:
1. The fighter is using a non-magic long sword, and has taken no feats to improve his combat ability.
2. The fighter attacks once per round.
3. The fighter rolls average damage for a non-magic long sword.
Once you assume optimal conditions for the rogue, and sub-optimal conditions for the fighter, it's obvious that the rogue is the better melee combatant. Oh sure, you could do something like note that the rogue does an irrelevant amount of damage when he's not getting a sneak attack, but that's not the point!
Some numbers:A 11th-level fighter (20Str) using a shield and a bastard sword (not all fighter fight with two weapon) and some weapon specialization can deal:
*as a standard action
1 attack at 1D10+7, total between 8-17 (avg 12)*in a full-round
3 attacks (BAB) at 1D10+7, total between 24-51 (avg 37)A 11th-level wizard:
*as a standard action
Fireball 10D6, 10 to 60 (avg 35)*as a full-round
Maximize Fireball 60A 11th-level rogue (10str with a rapier), flanking:
*standard action:
1 attack 1D6+0, +6D6 sneak, total 7-42 (avg 24)*full round action
2 attacks (BAB), total 14-84 (avg 48)
There's some flaws to this argumentation.
First, you're comparing cherry-picking by only choosing those situations where the rogue has a sneak-attackable target readily available to him. Unlike the fighter and wizard, he needs to have someone help him or to have an extra set of actions to quaff a potion of invisibility, then halve his movement rate to move silently up to his target.
Second, you're not taking into account the likelihood of hitting. The Fighter's advantage over the Rogue in BAB is relevant, but not considered in your analysis. It closes the damage gap a bit, don't you think?
Third, nor are you factoring in crits. Once 3.5 took away the stacking effect of Keen and Improved Critical, the rapier became a mathematically inferior weapon to the higher damage weapons.
Fourth, your full round sneak attack means that the rogue stays right where he is, in melee range of his combatant. With lower AC and hit points, that's a very bad place for a rogue to be. We're not even factoring in the low strength when it comes to grapples and trips. The fighter survives longer, thus does more damage over the long run to his target.
So, for your analysis to hold, the rogue is a superior melee combatant when we ignore BAB, the number of actions, the likelihood of sneak attacks, crits, and ability to take damage in return.
Incidentally, targets do get saves against those fireballs, which lowers the average damage of those spells by 1/5th or more, depending on the target. The better spell to cast is generally things like Evard's Game Stopper or Solid Fog, which is where the wizard starts to break the game. When faced with a choice of an evoker or a wizard with a save or stink spell for each saving throw, I'll take my chances against the evoker.
Proof of their status as the best melee combatants under 3.5 rules, please?
How about this point: rogues are the best skill users and the best melee combatants so that's what makes them overpowered when compared to the other non-full spellcasters...
Party of 4 adventuers (A rogue, a fighter, a barbarian and a ranger: all 15th level)wake up from the big party to find that all of their equipment has been stolen. Aw, shucks...well lets go kill something and make muney....
Later that day... 4 adventurers with just clubs(hey..it's free)..
they attack something...who cares what it is....the rogue still has his tumble and gets into flanking position....so the 3 melee guys if they hit do 1d4+str...lets assume they got str22..so 10ptmax barring critical...if they hit three times 30pts max...the rogue if he hits once does 1d4+8d6 (9minimum 49maximum assuming a 10 str...
Start to add magic items and buffs the rogue is more likely to hit and so get sneak attack more often...
Yes, my example is silly... go look up Frank Trollmans old posts on why Fighters do less damage than rogues if you want more math...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Later that day... 4 adventurers with just clubs(hey..it's free)..
they attack something...who cares what it is....the rogue still has his tumble and gets into flanking position....so the 3 melee guys if they hit do 1d4+str...lets assume they got str22..so 10ptmax barring critical...if they hit three times 30pts max...the rogue if he hits once does 1d4+8d6 (9minimum 49maximum assuming a 10 str...
Wait...so you're telling me that if you take away what few advantages the fighter class offers (ability to use martial weapons and wear armor, bonus feats) and give them a weapon that does not take advantage of their high strength, the rogue does more damage? This scenario doesn't give the fighter a fighting chance.
If we must operate within this poorly contrived example, can we at least give the poor fighter a quarterstaff and power attack. Then, he can take a -10 to hit (which, assuming they're both 15th level, still gives him the same chance to hit as the rogue), get a +20 to damage from power attack and a +9 to damage from using a two handed weapon. Then let's compare the fighters damage range of 30-37 (average 34.5) the rogues 9-56 dmg (he picked up a quarterstaff too - average 32.5). If you want to disregard the to-hit roll altogether (which is typically done when the argument is made regarding how much damage the rogue is capable of), the fighter can do a full 15 point power attack, and inflict 40-47 damage (average 44.5).
All this said, I'm not disputing the suckage of the fighter - it is one of the weaker classes, but come on, if you're going to compare the two at least make a stab at apples to apples and give the fighter some feats (or at the very least, the intelligence to use a weapon that maximizes his damage).
Edit: for some excessive snark (what is the world coming to?)
Edit2: our friend math.
Wait...so you're telling me that if you take away what few advantages the fighter class offers (ability to use martial weapons and wear armor, bonus feats) and give them a weapon that does not take advantage of their high strength, the rogue does more damage? This scenario doesn't give the fighter a fighting chance.
If we must operate within this poorly contrived example, can we at least give the poor fighter a quarterstaff and power attack. Then, he can take a -10 to hit (which, assuming they're both 15th level, still gives him the same chance to hit as the rogue), get a +20 to damage from power attack and a +9 to damage from using a two handed weapon? Then let's compare the fighters damage range of 30-37 (average 34.5) the rogues 9-56 dmg (he picked up a quarterstaff too - average 32.5). If you want to disregard the to-hit roll altogether (which is typically done when the argument is made regarding how much damage the rogue is capable of), the fighter can do a full 15 point power attack, and inflict 40-47 damage (average 44.5).
All this said, I'm not disputing the suckage of the fighter - it is one of the weaker classes, but come on, if you're going to compare the two at least make a stab at apples to apples and give the fighter some feats (or at the very least, the intelligence to use a weapon that maximizes his damage).
Edit: for some excessive snark (what is the world coming to?)
Edit2: our friend math.
Okay...fighter has power attack and two-handed weapon...means he's down to hitting at base BAB (+15)... rogue takes weapon finesse (assuming we give him 22Dex like I assumed the fighter had 22Str) the Rogue now has a better to-hit than the fighter... usually, optimized rogues go 2-weapon route in which case he has now the same to hit as the power attacking fighter plus two additional attacks.
What other feats do you want to give the fighter?
Better yet.. 28ptbuy 15thLvl fighter... max him out for damage... you choose.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay...fighter has power attack and two-handed weapon...means he's down to hitting at base BAB (+15)... rogue takes weapon finesse (assuming we give him 22Dex like I assumed the fighter had 22Str) the Rogue now has a better to-hit than the fighter... usually, optimized rogues go 2-weapon route in which case he has now the same to hit as the power attacking fighter plus two additional attacks.What other feats do you want to give the fighter?
Better yet.. 28ptbuy 15thLvl fighter... max him out for damage... you choose.
No.
Thought experiments that only consider a single variable (damage) are narrowminded and useless. I've played the game enough where I have not noticed a significant difference in the effectiveness of the rogue and the fighter (much less the barbarian, which is a much better data point given that it also is a high offense/low defense melee combatant). Every one of these scenarios begins with the assumption that the rogue can easily flank or otherwise set up a sneak attack (which is not true), only consider one type of combat (a single opponent with low enough AC that the rogue can hit it with all its attacks) and fail to take into account what that opponent would do if it were to finally get sick of being hit and fight back (hint: the rogue would not be on the winning end of that one). Once you move from these extremely artificial extremely contrived examples into actual play, things even out.
No.
Thought experiments that only consider a single variable (damage) are narrowminded and useless. I've played the game enough where I have not noticed a significant difference in the effectiveness of the rogue and the fighter (much less the barbarian, which is a much better data point given that it also is a high offense/low defense melee combatant). Every one of these scenarios begins with the assumption that the rogue can easily flank or otherwise set up a sneak attack (which is not true) and only consider one type of combat (a single opponent with low enough AC that the rogue can hit it with all its attacks). Once you move from these extremely artificial extremely contrived examples into actual play, things even out.
DND is a cooperative game... means multiple people in the party to get opposite of... at level 15 the rogue has a +18 to tumble before we even get to his dex so he can get into flanking position often (but not always). With going full tilt on dex and using weapon finesse, the rogue is going to have a decent to hit... so he is going to do sneak attack damage often.
If the monsters AC is so high that rogue can't hit while flanking, niether is the fighter if he is using power attack.
Having said this, i don't believe that sneak attack should be nerfed but i also don't think that sneak attack should be powered up (letting it effect almost everything as Alpha2 does). If you want it to effect most creatures it shouldn't be allowed multiple times in a round in my opinion.
Besides...how often do you see anyone go fighter to 15th level... i haven't yet seen one in any campaign i've played but have seen single class rogues at that level.
|
|
¡Hi everyone!
Isn't only about sneak attacks... it's about critical hits too...
New Alpha rules (maybe yes or maybe not, it is not clarified yet) let doing sneak and criticals to creatures, until now, immune to them: incorporeal & constructs are only two examples.
Sneak as a standard attack will reduce the potency of sneak, but no has any effect on critical hits... The Fortified option (here and here) handle both perfectly, it is full backwards compatible and has as bonus that it lets manage each monster individually.
One rule to govern all...
¡Hi everyone!
Isn't only about sneak attacks... it's about critical hits too...
New Alpha rules (maybe yes or maybe not, it is not clarified yet) let doing sneak and criticals to creatures, until now, immune to them: incorporeal & constructs are only two examples.
Sneak as a standard attack will reduce the potency of sneak, but no has any effect on critical hits... The Fortified option (here and here) handle both perfectly, it is full backwards compatible and has as bonus that it lets manage each monster individually.
One rule to govern all...
That sneak attacks are now allowed against creatures immune to criticals in no way implies that rogues can do criticals to creatures immune to them. The only line in sneak attack that addresses criticals states that sneak attack damage is not multiplied during a critical: it doesn't address the actual getting of a critical and so it remains as is in 3.5