So you're complaining that the rogue is overpowered on the basis of your houserules? That's not a very good point.
But i am not complaining ! :)
And i wouldn't certainly complain about the rogue class, which happens to be one of my favorites.I don't try to make a point, dear kobold...
My participation to this thread was merely an attempt to offer options to the other participants who seem to have issues with sneak attack.
Personaly, i have no problem whatsoever with it.
Take it easy ;)
|
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
Could be...
SRD haven't any one explication about what "critical hit" means except as mechamism... Natural 20 must be confirmed to be critical. BUT in the description of Fortified armor ability, both (critical hit & sneak) are the same thing.
If a rogue can sneak a creature previously immune to critical, now he can do a critical hit to it. Except that, of course, in the sneak description was a note about it.
Fortification: This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.
Maybe, as I'm not a english-language natural speaker, I didn't understood both rules correctly. On spanish it seems say the same thing too.
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
Could be...
SRD haven't any one explication about what "critical hit" means except as mechamism... Natural 20 must be confirmed to be critical. BUT in the description of Fortified armor ability, both (critical hit & sneak) are the same thing.
If a rogue can sneak a creature previously immune to critical, now he can do a critical hit to it. Except that, of course, in the sneak description was a note about it.
Immunity to critical hits is a special quality of certain creatures: so you have to look it up under the monster entry.
3.5 Sneak attack under the SRD states: Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks.
Paizo Alpha2 modifies that part of sneak attack. It hasn't changed the monster entries yet.
|
|
Immunity to critical hits is a special quality of certain creatures: so you have to look it up under the monster entry.
3.5 Sneak attack under the SRD states: Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks.
Paizo Alpha2 modifies that part of sneak attack. It hasn't changed the monster entries yet.
OK, thanks for your answer.
No problem with criticals.... yet. :o)
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.
... I knew the maths would kill my argument...
But, about those flaws:
1 & 4- Rogues always try to get in a position to sneak attack. If getting close is too dangerous, they fire arrows from 30ft, with imp. invisibility. Or they don't care if it's dangerous because they do so much damage...
2- I agree that rogues have less chance to hit than fighters. So that goes back to making sneak attack a once-per-round ability (standard action) since second, or third attacks in a round have even less chance to hit
3- I use rapier as an example only. and crit is not the point here. Sneak Attack is.
***My whole point was this:***
Under the current sneak attack system, a rogue has the POSSIBILITY to deal more damage than classes the are supposed to be damage-dealers (like the Fighter). And players have this way to bend all rules in their favor. For me, this shows that the sneak attack rule is *broken* and should be fixed. A standard action is the best solution right now.
On a final note, the smite evil ability of the Paladin can be use only a few times a day, and deal less damage than a sneak attack... and only against evil... This won't have overshadowed the Fighter at the end of the day...
One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
I can think of a game balance reason: rogues sneak attack in melee and thus face retaliation from their targets, while archers get less damage because their targets are less likely to be able to strike back at them. Less likely, not impossible, obviously.
|
Plus for flavor reasons, with manyshot, I think that the idea is that you are trading some precision for speed. Whether you want to go with the hollywood version of reading two arrows at once and thus reducing your accuracy, or if you picture your character snatching an arrow and making that second shot a half a heartbeat after the first, with many shot he isn't taking the time to aim(even if that time is just a second or two) for your second shot.
-Tarlane
|
|
One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
Manyshot is a standard action, so they wanted to make sure you only get SA once.
I've played rogues before, and even ignoring undead and constructs, it is indeed hard to get full use of your class ability. I don't think there's anything wrong with SA.
In the two years that I played one of my rogues, I think I only once hit with a full attack sneak attack. Of course, that was something like +50d6, but it was a hell of a lot of fun busting out my cube of fireball dice to roll damage.
One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
This is largely due to Manyshot allowing multiple arrows to be fired with one attack roll. Greater Manyshot and multiple attacks from a high BAB are made with one attack roll for each seperate attack.
There is also a rule regarding sneak attack that seems seldom used.
From the SRD:
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.
Creatures size Huge or larger often cannot be targeted by melee sneak attacks. Arguably a cloud giant could not be targeted by a melee based sneak attack from a medium creature, and most certainly not a from small creature. The same holds true from storm giants and titans.
I can think of a game balance reason: rogues sneak attack in melee and thus face retaliation from their targets, while archers get less damage because their targets are less likely to be able to strike back at them. Less likely, not impossible, obviously.One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
Lets say a rogue with BAB+11 can get a flanking shot and has manyshot... if he hits with the FIRST shot (which has the multiple arrow) he only applies sneak attack once, if he hits with the next two shots he can apply sneak attack to each of those... the differnce with manyshot3.5 vs ManyshotAlpha is the ability to use the rest of your iterative attacks.
OK, I get it. What we need, then, is descriptive text in Manyshot that specifically says something like "This is an exception to the rule that precision-based damage applies to all attacks made in a given round, as long as conditions allow." Then it would be clear that there's a standard rule, and we're not just ad-libbing things on a case-by-case basis.
OK, I get it. What we need, then, is descriptive text in Manyshot that specifically says something like "This is an exception to the rule that precision-based damage applies to all attacks made in a given round, as long as conditions allow." Then it would be clear that there's a standard rule, and we're not just ad-libbing things on a case-by-case basis.
The problem is that they use "this attack" in the text which some think means Manyshot as a whole rather than the first attack of the round which is what they are talking about,,, so yes..they need to clear up the language.
My vote is they should get only one sneak attack with each weapon. Just my opinion, but allowing multiple sneak attacks in a round just feels too powerful and also goes against the concept of precision damage. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Lets say a rogue with BAB+11 can get a flanking shot and has manyshot... if he hits with the FIRST shot (which has the multiple arrow) he only applies sneak attack once, if he hits with the next two shots he can apply sneak attack to each of those... the differnce with manyshot3.5 vs ManyshotAlpha is the ability to use the rest of your iterative attacks.
You can't flank with a ranged weapon. Sneak attacks off ranged weapons only apply when the target is denied their dex bonus.
I'm against it.
|
|
I'm against it.
Me too.
I've argue the problem with Sneak Attack isn't Sneak Attack, it's the DMs.
It makes sense that in a fight, if something hurts me more then what I'm fighting, I'm going to turn my attention INSTINCTIVELY toward that.
A rogue has less HP and a lower AC then most fighters, if a rogue flanks monster X and starts dealing more damage then the fighter, he should become the focus of monster X's attention. The rogue can either stand there and get mauled or fall back... if the rogue is getting chased around, then he's not sneak attacking.
I've argue the problem with Sneak Attack isn't Sneak Attack, it's the DMs.
So, what your are saying is:
If a 13th-level Rogue Shredder (Improved two-weapon fighting + greater invisibility or flank) deals a total of 32D6 in a round (4x 1D6 rapier+7D6 sneak) for a total of 32-192 (average 112), the GM should just KILL HIM?
Or what else? The GM should only create encounters with creatures immune to sneak?
Sneak attacks can deal way too much damage.
I prefer sneaking as a standard action instead of a rogue-kill or a frustrated rogue.
I know that a rogue has less chance to hit than a fighter, but if the fighter wants to deal as much damage, the fighter needs to reduce is chance to hit by using a power attack... And the result stays the same: ROGUES DEAL TO MUCH DAMAGE IF ALLOW TO SNEAK MORE THAN ONCE IN A ROUND.
Sneaking as a standard action might need some fine tuning though. Maybe the number or type of dices should be changed. Or maybe it is a fixed number like a SMITE EVIL.
GO STANDARD ACTION!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If a 13th-level Rogue Shredder (Improved two-weapon fighting + greater invisibility or flank) deals a total of 32D6 in a round (4x 1D6 rapier+7D6 sneak) for a total of 32-192 (average 112), the GM should just KILL HIM?Or what else? The GM should only create encounters with creatures immune to sneak?
I recommend the DM using an optional rule I like to refer to as the "to-hit" roll. You see, when you actually recognize that the outcome of every attack is not an auto-hit, the statements of "OMGZ! teh rogue can do 236589309d6 damage" break down. It might also be helpful to compare 112 dmg to what a fighter of that level can expect to do (or a wizard, or a barbarian, or a commoner, or some other benchmark to which we can compare it).
Too much of a nerf in my opinion. It'd be better to try something gradual, like cut a rogue down to sneak attacks only on his true iterative attacks. Extra attacks, like offhand attacks, rapid shot attacks, haste spell attacks and so on, cannot get sneak attacks.
Making the sneak attack versus every critter is overpowering imho so gradual would be something worth considering. The monk and the ranger (and now PF druids, sorcerers, wizards, fighters) have precedence for gradual. Rangers have to choose WHICH enemy becomes more favored, monks choose WHICH feat to take at X level. Rogues too, at higher level, have to choose which opportunist ability.
What if the rogue had to decide to get SA versus a traditionally immune critter OR the extra d6? This would reduce the amount of some rogue's sneak attack damage or reduce their targets. It also means that not every rogue will cut down undead, but allows for it in those campaigns that might be undead (or ooze or plant or construct) heavy.
SOME rogues will be undead hunters, SOME rogues will be spleen surgeons. MOST rogues will drop one or two dice to focus on certain critters, but if you do not want to you do not have too.
I recommend the DM using an optional rule I like to refer to as the "to-hit" roll. You see, when you actually recognize that the outcome of every attack is not an auto-hit, the statements of "OMGZ! teh rogue can do 236589309d6 damage" break down. It might also be helpful to compare 112 dmg to what a fighter of that level can expect to do (or a wizard, or a barbarian, or a commoner, or some other benchmark to which we can compare it).
Very funny... I actually use this "optional" to-hit roll... But, as you will see in the following example, the Rogue vs Fighter still put the Fighter in an ankward position for damage, even when we take in account the chances to hit...
First, let's see what a 13th-level human fighter (12feats) can do:
The fighter uses two-weapons, and don't care of the penalty because is off-hand is not light, and uses two bastard swords for increase damage. He also use maximum power attack, and has 20STR.
6x 1D10+5(str)+13(Pow.Att)+4(great.weap.spec)
=6D10+6x22
Maximum damage in a round range from 138 to 192 (average of 165)
Now let's compare the ROGUE and the FIGHTER (magical or masterwork properties of weapon not included)
=====
ROGUE (13th level)
20DEX, weap.finesse and imp.two weapon fighting rapier/shortsword, flanking, sneak +7D6, BAB+9
penalty: -2 for two-weapon (off-hand is light)
bonus: +2 flanking, +5(dex, weap.finesse), +9BAB
attacks: +14/+14/+9/+9
Damage each: 8-48 (average 28)
TOTAL 32-192 (average 112)
=====
=====
FIGTHER (13th level)
20STR, power attack, great two-weapon, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, 2 bastard sword, AND FLANKING, BAB+13
penalty: -4 for two-weapon, -13 power attack
bonus: +2 flanking, +2 greater weap.focus, +5 STR, +13BAB
attacks: +5/+5/+0/+0/-5/-5
Damage each: 23-32 (average 28)
TOTAL 138-192 (average 165)
=====
As you can see, average damage per attack is THE SAME for the Fighter and the Rogue (28). Also, maximum total damage in a round is the same (192).
Minimum damage per attack, and average total in a round is in favor of the Fighter. BUT, the fighter must be himself in a position where his attacks may not hit. (+5, +0, -5 !!!)
Here is the maths for a fighter who use less power attack (only -4) to get the same chances to hit than the rogue. (he even get two more attacks!)
=====
FIGTHER (13th level)
20STR, power attack, great two-weapon, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, 2 bastard sword, AND FLANKING, BAB+13
penalty: -4 for two-weapon, -4 power attack
bonus: +2 flanking, +2 greater weap.focus, +5 STR, +13BAB
attacks: +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4
Damage each: 14-23 (average 19)
TOTAL 84-138 (average 111)
=====
Compare to the rogue, this fighter have more minimum damage, the same round total average (111/112), and LESS maximum damage.
CONCLUSION:
The current rule allowing more than one sneak attack per round still seems to give the rogue the possibility to deal damage on par with the fighter, or EVEN MORE!
SNEAK ATTACK as a standard action let the fighter be the damage dealer in a group.
PLEASE CORRECT my maths if I made a mistake somewhere. This is important!
|
|
One way or the other, I'd like to see some consistency in the "precision-based damage" rules. For example, Manyshot states "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once." Why is it different for arrows, vs. rapier and dagger stabs? Then again, Greater Manyshot allows you to get the sneak attack damage on all your arrows. Why not make 1/round the standard, but have a Greater Sneak Attack feat that lets you apply it to all your attacks, instead of just the first one?
I was looking through Arms and Equipment Guide today and noticed the same thing. Why is this? You are already penalized by being forced to fire from less than 30ft away, and for taking a feat to fire twice, and still taking a penalty to attacks!
I have never had a problem with sneak attack in my games. In one instance the rogue was constantly setting up sneak attacks by hiding, firing a crossbow the next round, rinse and repeat. Of course, this works great on mindless enemies. But after one round on the necromancer, that rogue was rolling a will save every round and surrounded by grappling zombies!
Heck, the first game of 3.0 I ever played, my DM still used 2nd Edition Backstab rules. My rogue had to hide AND move silently AND flank just to apply the extra damage, and I missed almost every time. Whenever I hear arguments about nerfing Sneak Attack I think of that experience and how I disappointed I was in my character in combat (out of combat was different).
Here is a question slightly off topic:
When you DMs apply half sneak attack damage (for whatever reason) do you roll half the dice (rounded down) or roll all of the dice (rounded down)?
Count me as a vote against changing it. I don't think it is warranted. Of the things that I have noticed as issues with 3.5, which are few, it has never even registered as a tiny blip on my radar.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The current rule allowing more than one sneak attack per round still seems to give the rogue the possibility to deal damage on par with the fighter, or EVEN MORE!
Woah. The fighter can average 1 pt less than the rogue!!! Stop the presses.
I forget, what conditions are necessary for the fighter to achieve his average damage? Flat-footed opponent? Inivisible fighter? Flanking? How much damage does that poor rogue dish out without sneak attack? Let's run those numbers! Or how about the rogue only getting 1 sneak attack per attack set and see how he does. What if the party finally encounters a high AC opponent? The fighter can turn off power attack - what's the rogue got left?
And, assuming that the opponent survives, what are the chances that the rogue will be smeared into the pavement by the counterattack? Or do we assume that the enemy just stands there, in flanking position (or better yet, asleep so we can guarantee the rogue gets sneak attack) and doesn't fight back?
This discussion is useless. The rogue does not always have the ability to deal sneak attack damage. He's significantly more fragile than the fighter. Sure, he can ramp up his damage if he jumps through some hoops and exposes himself to getting a first class ass-whupping, but that strikes me as a reasonable trade. Making sneak attack a standard action doesn't balance the rogue, it renders him useless. If a fix is needed (and that's a huge if), the way to achieve it is to make sure the rogue remains vulernable to his first class ass-whupping. That way, the player can make a strategic choice to increase damage by also increasing risk.
I'm not sure that "the fighter should always do more damage (max and average) than the rogue in all circumstances" is a useful design maxim.
I tend to agree with the cynical Sebastian (although i am not sure that's a good thing).
Sneak Attack can be devastating, for sure, but it is conditional.
A rogue can get a chance to use it in a fight, but how many times ? Unless he is able to jump in shadows or turn invisible, that might be once in an encounter. And not always actually.
As powerful a character can be, from race, class, powers or equipment, he cannot be sure to control every situation, to always be in his familiar environment. Sometimes he is not prepared. Sometimes he can only react to events.
In a frontal encounter, a rogue is a poor fighter. He can be fast and tricky, but he's a leather guy with light weapons. In MMORPG talk, he is not a tank.
That's up to him to try to manage favorable conditions. If he can, well, sneakattack sneakattack. If not... Well...
|
|
I skipped past a lot, sorry if this was already said.
At level 19 (or heck, we'll say 20) the rogue has sneak attack +10d6. This is an average of 35 damage (going 3,4,3,4,3,etc.).
The rogue has 3 attacks based off his BAB. This makes a total of 105 average damage in a round.
Adding the full set of TWF, he now has an average 210 bonus damage possible.
Adding in the one bonus attack from Haste, now an average 245.
Assuming ALL THOSE conditions are there, he can do about 245 bonus damage in a round.
Likely his to hit is going to be not great. Average BAB, likely not high strength (maybe Weapon Finesse which would increase it), and the -2 from TWF. Still, we'll assume he hits with all, and he gets that 245 bonus damage.
At 20th level, that still doesn't seem like much. Especially when there's SO many ways to prevent it (Fortification armor, concealment / miss chances, avoid being flanked, etc.). There's a lot of things that prevent this bonus damage as he ascends, wheras the Fighter or Barbarian is doing their damage (likely just as high or higher) consistently, with likely a better chance to hit.
I've never seen the Rogue sneak attack be great. Even when I did the Tempest build with one, it wasn't that good. I had to give up some Rogue levels, and lost dice because of it. If a rogue wants to do the full TWF suite for the bonus damage, let them! That's 3 feats, and they don't get bonus ones like mister fighter. That's a lot of dedication when their entire ability can go nill by an undead, or aberration, etc.
Now, I know Paizo's new rules on Sneak Attack will be brought up. I'm still holding out hope they'll be changed a bit. We already had in our minds what SA was good against and what it wasn't, it was written out in black and white. Now it's pretty fudgey, and I *know* I'm going to get arguments as a DM about why the player should be able to sneak attack this monster, or that monster, etc. when they weren't able to before.
Assuming Paizo's rules stick, my entire argument is kinda wishy washy, though I still don't think the bonus damage is that much. I'm holding out hope they go back to the original rules about what you could sneak attack, but that's just me.
I don't understand why people have a problem with the rogue being a competent warrior as well I mean sneak attack is his combat role, why do you want to weaken it? Should you be worried about the guy floating just above the cloads chanting...
"...Oh blackness beyond twilight bleeding..."
I know the rogue is not the blender he's being made out to be because if given the choice everyone would target the mages (spellcasters) first in combat. And if not... then they die.
|
|
Too much of a nerf in my opinion. It'd be better to try something gradual, like cut a rogue down to sneak attacks only on his true iterative attacks. Extra attacks, like offhand attacks, rapid shot attacks, haste spell attacks and so on, cannot get sneak attacks.Making the sneak attack versus every critter is overpowering imho so gradual would be something worth considering. The monk and the ranger (and now PF druids, sorcerers, wizards, fighters) have precedence for gradual. Rangers have to choose WHICH enemy becomes more favored, monks choose WHICH feat to take at X level. Rogues too, at higher level, have to choose which opportunist ability.
What if the rogue had to decide to get SA versus a traditionally immune critter OR the extra d6? This would reduce the amount of some rogue's sneak attack damage or reduce their targets. It also means that not every rogue will cut down undead, but allows for it in those campaigns that might be undead (or ooze or plant or construct) heavy.
SOME rogues will be undead hunters, SOME rogues will be spleen surgeons. MOST rogues will drop one or two dice to focus on certain critters, but if you do not want to you do not have too.
WOOAHHH!! DING DING DING!! I think we have a winner here! in all the constructive conversations of fighter damage output vs rogue damage output, I think this gem of an idea got overlooked.
I think is brilliant.
Just to make certain I understand....... A rogue who attains 5th level can either choose to move to 3d6 sneak attack damage vs 'squishies' OR stay at 2d6 and add a type of creature typically immune to sneak attack to now be able to be susceptible to his 2d6 sneak attack damage ??
I think that is a fantastic idea!
it has flavor too - it shows a level of "expertise" and knowledge that the rogue has studied to affect.
Think of Van Richten and his extensive knowledge of undead, or a tinkerer who learns a trick or two about disabling clockworks and constructs....
I say we bump this idea and get some support for it.
Oh and for the record - I'll agree that the sneak attack damage has always sounded like it can get ridiculous; BUT since 3rd edition was released in 1999, I have only seen ONE rogue ever truly find a way to really 'stick it to it' and do a bunch of extra sneak attack damage - back when Haste granted you an extra attack no matter what - and there was a feat in the Sword and Fist that granted an extra attack called Expert Tactician or something like that. Other than that one character I have never seen sneak attack truly get stupid ridiculous with any character. Maybe he'll get a bunch of sneak attack one round, but the next the target doesn't allow a full attack from the rogue, or something always seems to inhibit the rogue character from frequently maximizing its potential. All in all - its a hit and miss comes in spurts kind of a potential; but I don't see it as unbalancing or diminishing or overshadowing of the fighters role.
Bottom line: sure changing sneak attack to a standard action would erase the often elusive chance of a rogue doing bookoo damage; but it will also ensure that the rogue's ability to ever do appropriate damage to the level and power of the game is never present and will never be able to hang with the bad-asses. Currently the rogue has a chance for a limited time to be just as effective - changing it would erase even that chance. This type of rule change will hurt more than it will fix.
Robert
I still like the idea of adding a progressively higher attack bonus and slowing down sneak attack damage at the same time as opposed to most of the other suggestions on this thread (making it so a rogue gets +5 attack and +6d6 sneak damage by 20th level or something similar).
However, the idea of choosing +1d6 damage or adding an 'immune' creature type to the sneak attack list is a great idea! I can definitely see going back to the 3.5 version of sneak attack rules and then adding this option in for rogues to choose as they level.
I forget, what conditions are necessary for the fighter to achieve his average damage? Flat-footed opponent? Inivisible fighter? Flanking? How much damage does that poor rogue dish out without sneak attack? Let's run those numbers! Or how about the rogue only getting 1 sneak attack per attack set and see how he does. What if the party finally encounters a high AC opponent? The fighter can turn off power attack - what's the rogue got left?
You're so funny... "How much damage does that poor rogue dish out without sneak attack?"... Not much. This thread is ABOUT sneak attack...
One sneak attack per round, inflict less damage, but still deals a lot.
The Rogue moves to his target and sneak:
=====
ROGUE (13th level)
20DEX, weap.finesse, rapier, flanking, sneak +7D6, BAB+9
penalty: none
bonus: +2 flanking, +5(dex, weap.finesse), +9BAB
attack: +16
Damage: 8-48 (average 28)
=====
Now, the Fighter moves to his target and attack (and for the same to-hit than the Rogue)
=====
FIGTHER (13th level)
20STR, power attack, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, Greatsword, AND FLANKING, BAB+13
penalty: -6 power attack
bonus: +2 flanking, +2 greater weap.focus, +5 STR, +13BAB
attacks: +16
Damage: 25-35 (average 30)
=====
Again: similar average, Rogue Max potential damage, Fighter Higher minimum.
Situations when a Rogue deals less damage than the fighter:
- The Rogue cannot sneak
- The Rogue cannot hit (AC too high)
Yes, the Fighter can surely hit more often than the Rogue. My whole point is to prevent abuses. Players tend to bend the rules in their favor. As a GM, I would prefer not letting them abuse by following strict and balanced rules, instead of going around the rules.
I'm not sure that "the fighter should always do more damage (max and average) than the rogue in all circumstances" is a useful design maxim.
It should be. How happy will your Rogue be if, in some situation, the Fighter can have a bonus of +20 to his hide/move silently check and this Fighter go sneak up to the guard and break is neck? Isn't not the job of the Rogue? (and the intention of sneak attacks?)
To some extent: Why the Rogue pick the lock if the Fighter can just smashed the door? What's the point of disabling traps if the Fighter can just walk through it and survive? OOOhhh I see now. There is no point of being the skill monkey, since it is useless. Better being a Rogue and go in melee to kill monster then... :P
Now, just to make all of you think... What your PLAYERS will say if a two-weapon fighting invisible 13th-level Rogue decide to attack one of THEM? Next time you play, with a 13th-level party, just surprise one of them with this invisible sneaker (preferably the rogue)...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm done. You're comparing apples and pears and the lack of analytical ability is giving me a headache. If you're going to compare the before and after, you should at least be comparing the rogue's full attack (which, with sneak attack as a standard action, would be a single attack) against the fighter's full attack (which would include the full iterative attack sequence) to get a comparison.
Also, being eligible for sneak attack, is, well, part of the limitation on sneak attack. Sorta like the to-hit roll you like to ignore. Or the other things that the rogue gives up for sneak attack (exposing himself to counterattacks).
But, I'm sure the next example will be a 1st level fighter against a 1st level rogue where the fighter doesn't have an iterative attack.
The rogue isn't broken. No change necessary. End of story.
Can we be more constructive here? Sebastian, if you think my arguments are wrong, it is okay, they can be. But show me your numbers. This thread needs facts and mathematical proof.
I'm done. You're comparing apples and pears and the lack of analytical ability is giving me a headache. If you're going to compare the before and after, you should at least be comparing the rogue's full attack (which, with sneak attack as a standard action, would be a single attack) against the fighter's full attack (which would include the full iterative attack sequence) to get a comparison.
Comparaison of single attacks sneak to full attack fighter
Rogue Damage: 8-48 (average 28)
Fighter Damage: 84-138 (average 111)
To compare a standard action to a full round here is the same Rogue:
Rogue full attack/no sneak: 4-24 (average 14)
As we can see here, sneaking as a standard action will still be a better choice than making many attacks. I should do the calculation at other levels, but it looks like a Rogue in a position to sneak would deal TWICE is normal amount of damage.
Also, being eligible for sneak attack, is, well, part of the limitation on sneak attack. Sorta like the to-hit roll you like to ignore. Or the other things that the rogue gives up for sneak attack (exposing himself to counterattacks).
I am not ignoring to-hit. I made this to-hit roll the same for both, so we can compare apples with apples.
And, by the way, sneaking as a standard action still allow the Rogue to hide within 30' and snipe is target, eliminating chances of a counter attack. Rogues should stay away of most melee situation, like spellcasters.
But, I'm sure the next example will be a 1st level fighter against a 1st level rogue where the fighter doesn't have an iterative attack.
Good idea! But not much feats here! And it is not possible to make the to-hit the same...
=====
ROGUE (1st level)
10STR, NO weap.finesse and two weapon fighting rapier/shortsword, flanking, sneak +1D6, BAB+0
penalty: -2 for two-weapon (off-hand is light)
bonus: +2 flanking, +0BAB
attacks: +0/+0
Damage each: 2-12 (average 7)
TOTAL 4-24 (average 14)
=====
=====
FIGTHER (1st level)
18STR, power attack, two-weapon fighting, weapon focus, 2 longsword, AND FLANKING, BAB+1
penalty: -4 for two-weapon, -1 power attack
bonus: +2 flanking, +1 weap.focus, +4 STR, +1BAB
attacks: +3/+3
Damage each: 6-13 (average 9.5)
TOTAL 12-26 (average 19)
=====
At 1st-level, Sneak attack is not overpowered compare to the Fighter. This is good. I wonder at what level things get out of hands..
The rogue isn't broken. No change necessary. End of story.
The Rogue is NOT broken. SNEAK ATTACK IS.
I would suggest letting the rogue sneak more type of target (finding weak spot) and giving the Rogue the sneak attack as a standard action.
In my opinion, this will works like giving the Rogue a spell to cast to deal a larger amount of damage (twice as much in my example). See this as giving the rogue a supernatural ability to add a number of D6 equal to half is level to one attack. Think "touch attacks" of spellcaster, they make a melee attack (although touch) to deal special damage.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I may well bleed out my ear doing this...
1. Math is not the answer, though logical assumptions and proper application of math couldn't hurt. This whole conversation is like talking about cars with someone and the only metric they care about is the mph.
"A porche is faster than a ford explorer"
"Okay, but what if I go off road"
"Doesn't matter, the porche is faster if we assume we're on paved roads"
"Okay, I get that, but what about on backroads?"
"The porche is faster on paved roads."
"Yes, I get that. But you don't always drive on paved roads do you?"
"I do."
"Okay, what if I want to haul more than one passenger?"
"The porche is faster."
2. But let's pretend we can work with math and set aside the comparisons of things other than dps. And, while we're at it, let's employ some game theory where we multiply the probability of an outcome by the expected pay off. In that regard, we can use the example where the fighter uses power attack to offset the rogue's lower BAB because the probabilities are the same. Great, but we're missing a variable. What's the probability of being able to use sneak attack? It's sure not 1, if if it were there would be no conditions to setting it up. In base D&D, where so many creatures are immune, I'd put it at .5. But in Pathfinder, that obviously goes up. It's still not going to reach 1 because sometimes your flanker isn't available, sometimes you don't have access to invisibility, sometimes you just can't set it up. So what's the probability? Whatever it is, multiply your expected damage results by that number. You're going to end up at something lower than before.
3. Let's try looking at levels where the fighter has an advantage instead of putting a laser like eye on those points where the rogue has an advantage. How about 1st level, when the fighter has a higher BAB, sneak is harder to set up, and the fighter has a better weapon? How about all those levels where the fighter gets an additional attack due to his high BAB and the rogue still lingers behind? How about a high AC opponent where the rogue's last iterative attack is a guaranteed miss?
4. Let's get some other benchmarks. All we hear about is the fighter's damage. How much is the barbarian putting out? The ranger? The bard? The monk? Let's leave the casters out of the equaition, but the conclusion might be that the fighter needs to be buffed rather than the rogue needs to be weakened. Did you even confirm the damage the fighter is doing is the maximum (which you did for the rogue) or did you just throw some numbers together. All your examples have used a dual weapon fighter - did you even bother running the numbers for a two-handed weapon build?
5. Assuming there is a problem, consider some elegant design changes instead. Making a sneak attack a standard action will make the rogue suck. No one will want to play it. If a change is to be made, consider something like limiting the circumstances in which it can apply ala the ninja's sudden strike. That being said, I'm guessing the response will still be "OMG! The ninja has the same number of sneak attack dice as the rogue - nothing has changed" at which point I will bang my head against a wall.
Math is not the problem, intellectually honest analysis is. It's really point 1 that's causing the problem, because it's causing me severe brain damage to keep discussing dps when more is at play.
|
|
I may well bleed out my ear doing this...
1. Math is not the answer, though logical assumptions and proper application of math couldn't hurt. This whole conversation is like talking about cars with someone and the only metric they care about is the mph.
"A porche is faster than a ford explorer"
"Okay, but what if I go off road"
"Doesn't matter, the porche is faster if we assume we're on paved roads"
"Okay, I get that, but what about on backroads?"
"The porche is faster on paved roads."
"Yes, I get that. But you don't always drive on paved roads do you?"
"I do."
"Okay, what if I want to haul more than one passenger?"
"The porche is faster."
I dont know if it really added anything productive to the conversation - but it did cause me to laugh out loud hysterically for a moment.
That being said - you're right about the viability of using sneak attack is not 100%.
That further explains what I said earlier - that in my experiences, rogues rarely get to use their maximum potential for one reason or another.
Robert
Robert
|
|
However, the idea of choosing +1d6 damage or adding an 'immune' creature type to the sneak attack list is a great idea! I can definitely see going back to the 3.5 version of sneak attack rules and then adding this option in for rogues to choose as they level.
Once again, Eric, we are seeing eye-to-eye on an interesting new concept (see: the full movement and full attack conversation).
I think this is something the designers should ponder.
Robert
Man, you give me headaches...
1. Math is not the answer, though logical assumptions and proper application of math couldn't hurt.
I almost agree with everything you are saying, and again I agree. Math is not answer, because math is not the problem either. PLAYERS are the problem.
PLAYERS will abuse. If there is a hole in a rule, players will find it. Even if this weird rule interpretation comes up once in fifty games, this one time the GM will be in a very bad position, and it can make a whole plot scenario crumble at an important moment, and make a climax un-satisfaying.
Let's make a new rule: An halfling wearing a yellow dress, on a full moon night, can kill a one-eyed red dragon at 60ft just by shouting "rabbit", as a full round action.
Is this rule broken? Does the fact that it may never be used a good reason to keep it? One could say that all one-eyed red-dragon will destroy all yellow dresses and never go out on full moon... But there will be an exception. And this one time, the halfling player will find a way to make this kill, at 1st-level, removing the major Vilain in a campaign... Just because of a once-in-a-lifetime rule.
Imagine if this situation can happen more than once...
2. So what's the probability? Whatever it is, multiply your expected damage results by that number. You're going to end up at something lower than before.
Again, I fully agree! I am talking (and always was) about POTENTIAL damage in a ONE specific round. If we compile every damage fighters will ever did on a round and compare it to rogue damage, and missed attacks count as 0 damage, well, than, maybe the fighter will have dealt more damage.
But, expect rogue PLAYERS, to always put themselves in a position to maximize damage. If there is a possibility of making multiple sneaks, which player wouldn't want do just that?
3. Let's try looking at levels where the fighter has an advantage instead of putting a laser like eye on those points where the rogue has an advantage.
I'm confused. So now you agree that rogues have an advantage at certain levels. If the rogue has an advantage only at 13th-level, should we just put unsneakable creature for this level?
4. Let's get some other benchmarks. All we hear about is the fighter's damage. How much is the barbarian putting out? The ranger? The bard? The monk? Let's leave the casters out of the equaition, but the conclusion might be that the fighter needs to be buffed rather than the rogue needs to be weakened. Did you even confirm the damage the fighter is doing is the maximum (which you did for the rogue) or did you just throw some numbers together. All your examples have used a dual weapon fighter - did you even bother running the numbers for a two-handed weapon build?
a) Numbers are correct for the fighter, my math should be right.
b) The two-handed weapon is there, but for single attack only. Same fighter:3attacks with greatsword: 39-49 (average 44) total 117-147 (average 132)
c) Let's only focus on rogue sneak versus fighter. But the maths for other classes are welcome if someone wants to put it here. It could be interesting. Is the fighter really that broken that OTHER classes deals more damage?!? And don't get me started with monks...
5. Assuming there is a problem, consider some elegant design changes instead. Making a sneak attack a standard action will make the rogue suck. No one will want to play it. If a change is to be made, consider something like limiting the circumstances in which it can apply ala the ninja's sudden strike. That being said, I'm guessing the response will still be "OMG! The ninja has the same number of sneak attack dice as the rogue - nothing has changed" at which point I will bang my head against a wall.
Ninja strike has the same problem as the rogue. Even the skirmish of the scout can be a problem, but since the scout has to move, it is only once a round.
If a player wants to play a Rogue ONLY for sneak attack, than not only sneak attack is broken the rogue is too! Are you saying that a class that cannot deal a lot of damage sucks?
What's the role of the rogue? what's the role of the fighter? what's the role of the wizard.
A player who wants to deal lot of damage should play a fighter. Sneaking up to a target to slit is throat, rogue.
Mathematicaly, sneak attacks as more damage potential.
Statisticaly, sneak attacks hit less often.
Sadly, players abuse rules.
More things:
With probability and BAB, Iterative attacks of a Rogue have less chance to hit. If only the first one has a chance to hit, attacking once in a round looks a lot like a standard action.
A Rogue must make an optimal use of his weapon to sneak. Is a off-hand strike optimal? Is taking a penalty for Two-Weapon Fighting means that both weapons are use in a less than optimal manner?
You don't know what you're talking about. ..... Don't quit your day job to become a game designer.
hahaha very funny! The joy of being anonymous!
Rogues have always been a favorite of mine, but I think the weakest addition for the PF rogue is the new sneak attack.
Why should my sneak attack work on a blob? A ghost?
I know 4E made it so that you can sneak attack anything, why should PF take from this? It completely destroys any believability for me.
Player: "Can I use sneak attack and break down the door?"
DM: "No, of course not, the door is not alive."
Player: "Why not? I was able to sneak attack that stone golem back there, why not the wooden door?"
For the record, I like the idea of increasing the number of conditions for sneak attack to be met... but I thoroughly dislike increasing the number of opponent types that can be sneak attacked, as it completely disrupts any believability.
|
|
Player: "Can I use sneak attack and break down the door?"
DM: "No, of course not, the door is not alive."
Player: "Why not? I was able to sneak attack that stone golem back there, why not the wooden door?"For the record, I like the idea of increasing the number of conditions for sneak attack to be met... but I thoroughly dislike increasing the number of opponent types that can be sneak attacked, as it completely disrupts any believability.
I can see your point - it is a bit 'hokey'.
However, how do you feel about the concept that was suggested that a Rogue can learn to sneak attack a new type of creature at the expense of raising his usual sneal attack damage - expressly theorizing the the rogue in question studied and learned "tricks" to find weaknesses most others aren't aware of.
Personally I see this as a fair and balanced - and I dare say flavorful and interesting trade-off.
Robert
|
Now, just to make all of you think... What your PLAYERS will say if a two-weapon fighting invisible 13th-level Rogue decide to attack one of THEM? Next time you play, with a 13th-level party, just surprise one of them with this invisible sneaker (preferably the rogue)...
I'd say, bring it on!
And don't forget your DC20 poison, and death attack.
Tycho the Studmuffin Mage
159hp and rising...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can see your point - it is a bit 'hokey'.However, how do you feel about the concept that was suggested that a Rogue can learn to sneak attack a new type of creature at the expense of raising his usual sneal attack damage - expressly theorizing the the rogue in question studied and learned "tricks" to find weaknesses most others aren't aware of.
Personally I see this as a fair and balanced - and I dare say flavorful and interesting trade-off.
Robert
I'd prefer to see some creatures who are immune to sneak attacks under the core rule either halve the number of sneak attack dice or reduce the number by a fixed amount. Gaining the ability to sneak attack one creature type by forgoing a sneak attack die permanently strikes me as a bad deal.
Another option would be to phase in the types of creatures that can receive a sneak attack. So, at 1st level pick one type, and then pick an additional type every X levels.
I can see your point - it is a bit 'hokey'.However, how do you feel about the concept that was suggested that a Rogue can learn to sneak attack a new type of creature at the expense of raising his usual sneal attack damage - expressly theorizing the the rogue in question studied and learned "tricks" to find weaknesses most others aren't aware of.
Personally I see this as a fair and balanced - and I dare say flavorful and interesting trade-off.
Robert
I'd prefer to see some creatures who are immune to sneak attacks under the core rule either halve the number of sneak attack dice or reduce the number by a fixed amount. Gaining the ability to sneak attack one creature type by forgoing a sneak attack die permanently strikes me as a bad deal.
Another option would be to phase in the types of creatures that can receive a sneak attack. So, at 1st level pick one type, and then pick an additional type every X levels.
Or, what's wrong about having a few creatures that cannot be sneak attacked? No matter how hard you train, I just have a hard time biting into the fact that a rogue finds a weak spot on a pile of goo like a black pudding, or found the achilles heal of the non-corporeal ghost.
I never had a problem with running into a few creatures that couldn't be SA'd when I played a rogue. A bigger problem for me was getting into a position where I could use the skill. The fact that I can sneak attack a grappled character, a tripped character, etc over before is definitely a boon.
I hate the Everquest rogue that transformed the class into a two dagger wielding damage machine that backstabs anything. What I would rather see is a Garret style rogue (the Games Thief I, II and III) who relies on stealth and subterfuge, striking from the shadows to take down his enemies.
As a DM, it was clear to me that certain adventures (undead mainly) were more difficult for the rogue, but there were also adventures that were troubling for the wizards as well. Thats par for the course, and I generally avoided large scale adventures that would isolate a player for extended periods.
I really dislike sneak attack as it is in pathfinder, its no longer finding the vital organ, the kidney-spleen removal skill, its now little more than the 4E version that can hit anything. The ability leaves a really bad taste in my mouth due to bad flavor and no believability.