Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That'd make sense from a "real world authentic" point of view too, Seb; I just thought I'd torment you with that observation, in light of your defense of the real world ludicrosity of House. ;)
When did I defend House? I hate that show, entirely because of the annoying commercials.
"Don't miss House, where he must KILL A PATIENT TO SAVE HIS LIFE!"
Know Remorse: I believe the designers have stated that some creatures (such as oozes and elementals) will retain their resistance/immunity to sneak attack.
FRAK! I KNOW WHERE EARTH IS! WHY WON'T ANYONE LISTEN TO ME?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was one of them medical shows that I was saying was totally fake, and you came over talking about "it's supposed to be entertaining, bla bla bla..." I don't remember the whole conversation.
Maybe it was E.R. or something.
Ah, I remember it now. It was a conversation about BSG and how they never follow military protocol. It might have been House after all.
|
Mechanically I don't see a reason to shift sneak attack to a standard action. And thematically I'm just fine with how it works now.
Very well thought out and displayed, Volsung. Thanks for taking the time and energy to illustrate that for us.
I was in the "dont change to standard action" camp and still am.
Robert
|
|
Well unless you are standing in the corner of a room, if you are a solo type encounter, there is no way for you to prevent the rogue and his buddy from flanking you unless you are either A) a higher level rogue yourself, or B) constantly readying an action to move in the event you are flanked. Believe me our DM has tried numerous tactics to avoid getting nailed for a full attack SA...all with no success. Any foe who can take a full attack from our rogue for more than 1 round of unluckly to hit rolls is pretty much going to TPK us instantly. Creatures 3-4 CR above our party level go down in 1-2 rds of combat max. The rogue routinely does over 75 points a round even with the odd misses thrown in. No way a fighter of the same level could hope to do that kind of dmg without critting on every blow. The rogue is a whole 1 BAB below a fighter of the same level, but even if he was a straight rogue he would only be down 3 BAB. So using 2 wpn fighting he'd be down 5 BAB, exactly what a...
well I'm willing to bet there's a number of DMs who wouln't have this same level of difficulty. There's a whole slough of tactics that can be done to avoid it being so optimal.
heck just the presence of a little smoke or fog over the terrain renders sneak attack useless.
Maybe the local magic shop had a good sale on Blur potions, and a bunch of the surrounding encounters have taken advantage of the sale. :-) (that last one was just for fun).
Robert
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Mechanically I don't see a reason to shift sneak attack to a standard action. And thematically I'm just fine with how it works now.
Very well thought out and displayed, Volsung. Thanks for taking the time and energy to illustrate that for us.
I was in the "dont change to standard action" camp and still am.
Robert
Agreed. Thanks Volsung, appreciate the correct use of math and the application of the PFRPG rules rather than cherry picking rogue-favorable scenarios and assuming to-hit rolls.
I read a lot of good proposition for a DM to help remove the possibility of using sneak attack (fog on the battlefield)
I think it is unfair to deny the players the use of their ability.
Sometimes, to spice things up, it is a good idea to put the players under bad conditions (anti-magic fields against wizard, DR against melee attack).
This should be the exception, not the rule.
And for the "striking a weak spot" debate, sometimes it is logical to find weak spot on some weird creature. Maybe a ghost don't have a weak spot, since is not even corporeal. But if you think about a skeleton, it is possible to destroy only ONE bone and render it useless. Just crush a vertebra in the middle of the back and watch him fall in half! hehe!
I would also go as far as allowing Rogues to find weak spots in objects. Think modern movies, where a car has its side full of bullets hole and keep rolling... and then only one bullet in the gas tank make it explode...
|
|
Sometimes, to spice things up, it is a good idea to put the players under bad conditions (anti-magic fields against wizard, DR against melee attack).
This should be the exception, not the rule.
And for the "striking a weak spot" debate, sometimes it is logical to find weak spot on some weird creature. Maybe a ghost don't have a weak spot, since is not even corporeal. But if you think about a skeleton, it is possible to destroy only ONE bone and render it useless. Just crush a vertebra in the middle of the back and watch him fall in half! hehe!
I would also go as far as allowing Rogues to find weak spots in objects. Think modern movies, where a car has its side full of bullets hole and keep rolling... and then only one bullet in the gas tank make it explode...
I agree on all points; it is good to put those kinds of sub-optimal situations with encounters - and it should be an exception and not the rule.
And I agree with the ability of finding a weak spot on even weird types of creatures.
And good example on the bullet causing the car to explode. Which can compare to a "tinkerer" rogue and his knowledge of clockworks and constructs.
Robert
And for the "striking a weak spot" debate, sometimes it is logical to find weak spot on some weird creature. Maybe a ghost don't have a weak spot, since is not even corporeal. But if you think about a skeleton, it is possible to destroy only ONE bone and render it useless. Just crush a vertebra in the middle of the back and watch him fall in half! hehe!
I would also go as far as allowing Rogues to find weak spots in objects. Think modern movies, where a car has its side full of bullets hole and keep rolling... and then only one bullet in the gas tank make it explode...
Except that only happens in movies with pyrotechnic goons that like to blow things up for any reason they can muster. Unless you are firing tracer rounds, the bullet to the gas tank will likely do nothing but make a hole.
|
|
And I agree with the ability of finding a weak spot on even weird types of creatures.
And good example on the bullet causing the car to explode. Which can compare to a "tinkerer" rogue and his knowledge of clockworks and constructs.
Robert
Done here (sneak attacks based on Knowledge ranks).
Also, see the Bodger class in Privateer Press Iron Kingdoms. (additional damage against constructs)
Except that only happens in movies with pyrotechnic goons that like to blow things up for any reason they can muster. Unless you are firing tracer rounds, the bullet to the gas tank will likely do nothing but make a hole.
True, but we're not talking about medieval reenactment games, but insanely powerful fantasy. ^^
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)...
Well, other than how annoying it can be to fight an invisible opponent for anybody, the rogue(and barbarian and warblade) won't really care since uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge stop sneak attacks from invisible opponents of any level and flankers of roughly equal level. In fact the rogue might want to be the target, as they won't take sneak attack damage from this invisible sneaker, while their friends will.
PS: Paladin smite evil ability does less damage, but can be multiplied by things like charges(with lances on horseback) or criticals, while sneak attack can not.
PS: Paladin smite evil ability does less damage, but can be multiplied by things like charges(with lances on horseback) or criticals, while sneak attack can not.
I didn't knew that crits and double damage from a lance would multiply damage from the Smite Evil.
Do the rules really allow to multiply the smite evil extra damage?
A lucky charging Paladin scores a crit with a lance with a smite evil. Damage is x2 from the charge and x3 from the crit, going up to x4 multiplier (PH p.304)
With this 13th-level Paladin will deal 52 extra smite damage. And a VERY lucky Paladin can do this only 3times a day.
If a Paladin can be lucky, I don't see why a Rogue would'nt...
A lucky Rogue (TWF, and in a position to sneak) can deal 4times 7D6 in a round (28D6). 28-168 (average 88).
If the Paladin has power attack and weapon focus, the damage would be higher, but the rogue could still deal more damage.
As I said many times before, the problem with the sneak attack is with POTENTIAL max damage. And I know that a Rogue might hit less often than a fighter and would only be able to hit high AC with a natural 20.
Since many seems to think that the Rogue will rarely be able to hit a target more than once due to lower BAB, Sneaking as standard action does not cause a big loss to the rogue and prevent ridiculous amount of potential max damage.
I didn't knew that crits and double damage from a lance would multiply damage from the Smite Evil.Do the rules really allow to multiply the smite evil extra damage?
Multiplying DamageSometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.
Emphasis mine. So Smite damage(which is not extra dice), gets multiplied. This is especially important due to feats that multiply damage on charges.
As I said many times before, the problem with the sneak attack is with POTENTIAL max damage. And I know that a Rogue might hit less often than a fighter and would only be able to hit high AC with a natural 20.
The max damage is only likely to happen against fodder(things with low AC). And frankly it is a silly arguement. A well built fighter(ie, not a two weapon fighter) can consistently outdo the rogue in damage if the fighter is built to do damage.
Since many seems to think that the Rogue will rarely be able to hit a target more than once due to lower BAB, Sneaking as standard action does not cause a big loss to the rogue and prevent ridiculous amount of potential max damage.
One of my many problems with the rule is that it prevents the use of spring attack for the rogue. Spring attack doesn't give a standard action, just a single attack action. Thus the idea of the rogue popping in, hitting once for sneak attack damage, and fading away doesn't work as the rogue can't do the fade away part.
Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.
OK Thanks! I'll remmeber that! :)
The max damage is only likely to happen against fodder(things with low AC). And frankly it is a silly arguement. A well built fighter(ie, not a two weapon fighter) can consistently outdo the rogue in damage if the fighter is built to do damage.
I agree that the max damage is only likely to happen against fodder. This being said, in rare situation that a rogue and a fighter both get in a situation where they can deal the max damage they can, the rogue will deal more damage than the fighter. This is ridiculous.
In a previous post I made, I compared a 13th-level Rogue and a 13th-level fighter. I'll copy paste the damage output here and add the 13th-level fighter using a two-handed weapon (Greatsword2D6 + 7(STR) + 4 (Great.Weap.Spec.) + 26 (Pow.Att.)).
**Remember: the following huge amounts of damage only come up in rare situation. This only shows maximum damage in ONE specific round, and does not reflect damage dealt over time according to hit probability.
13th-level Rogue (two-weapon fighting)
4 attacks,
TOTAL 32-192 (average 112)
13th-level Fighter (two-weapon fighting)
6 attacks,
TOTAL 138-192 (average 165)
13th-level Fighter (two-handed greatsword)
3 attacks,
TOTAL 117-137 (average 127)
If you have a way do deal more damage with the fighter (SRD), you can post it!
Since many seems to think that the Rogue will rarely be able to hit a target more than once due to lower BAB, Sneaking as standard action does not cause a big loss to the rogue and prevent ridiculous amount of potential max damage.One of my many problems with the rule is that it prevents the use of spring attack for the rogue. Spring attack doesn't give a standard action, just a single attack action. Thus the idea of the rogue popping in, hitting once for sneak attack damage, and fading away doesn't work as the rogue can't do the fade away part.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH!
Damn, this one slips through my fingers. I read the Spring Attack description, but misunderstood the "when making an attack action with a melee weapon". Since the Rogue was always making just one attack with spring attack, I was unconsciously thinking one action = standard action. *Gulp!*
And the FAQs is clear that Spring Attack does not permit a Standard Action.
Thanks Kalis for pointing this out! It's important to let the Rogue spring attack with a sneak attack. This is one of the role of the Rogue...
I will now say something that will make everybody laugh at me:
Sneak attack as a standard action is *NOT* the solution. gulp!
So, this only leaves ONE option:
Sneak attack is once a round.
This is almost the same, but before putting too much argument in favor of it, I will go read the PHB one more time...
I think making more creatures susceptible to critical hits and sneak attacks is useful for both martial characters and rogues (and some ray specialist wizards). Sneak attack as a standard action is a sound change if it doesn't weaken the rogue to such an extent that it becomes incomparable to other classes.
Perhaps to solve the problem Paizo could make up an advanced talent that allows rogues to sneak attack multiple times? Therefore, a rogue who wants to sneak attack more than once per round must take an advanced talent to do so.
This means that a rogue who wants to sneak attack multiple times can't do so until he reaches 10th-level. this also stops fighter/rogues or ranger/rogues from excelling at sneak attacks because of multiple attacks or two-weapon fighting (making single class rogues even more attractive).
I haven't read all possible posts so someone else might have suggested this already.
By the way, perhaps the Spring Attack feat should read "a rogue can use sneak attack in conjunction with Spring Attack, but only gains the sneak attack damage once regardless of the number of attacks he gets while using Spring Attack". Perhaps this should be a section at the beginning of the feat list that addresses this issue (if more than one feat is affected).
The rogue is the 3.5 paradigm of a perfectly balanced class. Why ruin what's already working? Rogue's combat role is DPS machine, and that's fine. Rather than nerfing rogues, who do measure up, why not give martial classes good abilities that bring them up to that level. Unless you seriously plan to rewrite the entire 3e spell system... and the monster manual...
If Rogue was that perfectly balanced class, we wouldn't be here, and PFRPG would use the existing SRD 3.5 Rogue without modification...
I don't know what is the specific combat role of the Rogue, but I know for sure that the Rogue is not suppose to be the main damage dealer.
A Fighter should never have to say: "Take my place in melee, you deal more damage than me". (To me that sounds like a Cleric stepping aside to let the Wizard heal someone... weird)
In an optimal situation, The Fighter MUST be the class with the higher potential damage output. Period.
A player who wants to play a caracter who deals lot of melee damage should always put the Fighter on top of his list.
If you want to deal a lot of damage, AND also want to be sneaky, than multiclass. The mechanic is there for that.
If the sneak attack can just be a little bit tune down, the rogue would be a lot closer to this perfect balance...
The rogue is the 3.5 paradigm of a perfectly balanced class. Why ruin what's already working? Rogue's combat role is DPS machine, and that's fine. Rather than nerfing rogues, who do measure up, why not give martial classes good abilities that bring them up to that level. Unless you seriously plan to rewrite the entire 3e spell system... and the monster manual...I don't know what is the specific combat role of the Rogue, but I know for sure that the Rogue is not suppose to be the main damage dealer.
A Fighter should never have to say: "Take my place in melee, you deal more damage than me". (To me that sounds like a Cleric stepping aside to let the Wizard heal someone... weird)
In an optimal situation, The Fighter MUST be the class with the higher potential damage output. Period.
A player who wants to play a caracter who deals lot of melee damage should always put the Fighter on top of his list.
No. In an optimal situation, the fighter should have a higher average damage, which they do against non fodder. The fighter was near the top of the list for players who want to deal melee damage in 3.5(behind such monsters as the Frenzied Berserker, a PrC which I would never let join my group as an adventurer). The only change now is that Paizo nerfed Power Attack, and combat feats are 1/round. So no Pouncing, Leap Attacking Shock Troopers with full PA adding 60 damage to a each primary attack at level 15 and losing no attack bonus in PF.
The rogue doesn't deal more average damage than a properly built fighter.
The rogue doesn't deal more average damage than a properly built fighter.
True.
But the Rogue deal the same (or more) maximum damage. This is where I have a problem.
There is a lot of PrC and feats from other sources. I prefer sticking to the corerules to find a balance.
And I don't think that changing combat feats to 1/round is a good idea, but this debate is in another thread. Right now I concentrate on the published 3.5 corerules. If PFRPG stick with this, there is no way that Sneak Attacks should be allow to go more than 1/round.
The point of proposing sneak attack as a standard action was to find a way to make the Rogue deals less damage maximum damage.
But this ridiculous amount of damage comes up only with one specific type of rogue: a two-weapon fighting rogue.
When the rogue is not using two-weapon, the amount of damage is more reasonable compare to the fighter.
Or if the off-hand weapon does not sneak...
My new suggestion is simple:
A rogue cannot sneak attack with his off-hand weapon.
The Rogue would still be able to sneak with Spring Attack and in AoO and with Haste. A Rogue who wants to deal lot of damage still has the possibility to use two-weapon.
Damage output comparison with the same 13th-level rogue and 13th-level fighter:
ROGUE (actual rule): 32-192 (average 112)
ROGUE (standard action) 8-48 (average 28)
ROGUE (no off-hand): 18-108 (63)
FIGHTER: 138-192 (average 165)
FIGHTER (same to-hit): 84-138 (average 111)
"No off-hand" is better than "standard action" (lot more damage!) but let the fighter deals the maximum damage (138 vs 108) and higher average (111 vs 63).
To sneak attack, the rogue must use his weapon in an optimal manner. The off-hand is not as precise, so not optimal.
And this change only affect two-weapon fighting Rogues.
The rogue doesn't deal more average damage than a properly built fighter.True.
But the Rogue deal the same (or more) maximum damage. This is where I have a problem.
There is a lot of PrC and feats from other sources. I prefer sticking to the corerules to find a balance.
And I don't think that changing combat feats to 1/round is a good idea, but this debate is in another thread. Right now I concentrate on the published 3.5 corerules. If PFRPG stick with this, there is no way that Sneak Attacks should be allow to go more than 1/round.
There is no balance to find in the core rules.
Your problem is, for lack of a better word, silly. Against the same fodder that the rogue can hit every attack against, a cleric can kill every single enemy in a 40ft radius from himself with no save or paralyze for 1-10 minutes(a death sentence). Sure it burns a spell, but the spell doesn't affect those higher level than the cleric(non-fodder) anyway.
Additionally, since you are assuming every attack hits, we might as well assume that a cleric has unlimited spells.
If you wanted to limit the rogue to one sneak attack a round, and wanted it to remain possible with Spring Attack, the logical choices would be to make it a swift or immediate action.
There is no balance to find in the core rules.Your problem is, for lack of a better word, silly. Against the same fodder that the rogue can hit every attack against, a cleric can kill every single enemy in a 40ft radius from himself with no save or paralyze for 1-10 minutes(a death sentence). Sure it burns a spell, but the spell doesn't affect those higher level than the cleric(non-fodder) anyway.
Additionally, since you are assuming every attack hits, we might as well assume that a cleric has unlimited spells.
I know that english is not my first langage. But am I that bad at writing? Or are you just making fun of me? Please try to stay constructive.
Since the beginning, I always try to be clear that my observations/calculations are for ONE SPECIFIC ROUND.
Only one round. 1.
No need to do statiscal analysis over the course of many fights. We all know Fighters hit more often than Rogues. No need to make fun of me with cleric using unlimited spells, because it is only for ONE ROUND!
I don't want to compare melee attacks with spells. They are not the same. Apples and pears. But here are some spells math.
A 13th-level Wizard cast one chain lightning and one quicken fireball:
13D6+10D6 to primary target (23D6) 23-138 (average 80) and secondary target for 17-99 (average 58).
A 13th-level casting blasphemy kills all 3HD creature in a 40ft radius. How much HP does a 3HD creature has? Lot of hp: a Barbarian with 16CON.
HP=34
How many in the 40ft Radius? 5? That is 170 damage. The same Rogue has a maximum ouput of 192!
That is enough for spell now. Sneak attack is a melee option.
Maybe this can only happen once in a million year. But a Rogue under the greater invisibility of his 13th-level friend can do this 13 rounds in row. I said enough with spells? Ok this Rogue is only flanking... which means unlimited sneak. Even if he has too move between attacks, that is max output of 192, every 2 rounds. (But my point is for ONE round only)
The probability are VERY LOW. But they are there.
People pay lot of money for very low probability in lottery. But some of them win.
I will try to say it in the most simple words I can think of.
In melee, a Rogue, in one specific optimal round, could deal more damage than a fighter in the same optimal situation, with the same chances of hitting the target.
We have too find a way to lessen the maximum potential damage of the sneak. Maybe not by much. But enough to leave the fighter at the top of the list of damage dealer.
Other suggestion
Instead of "no off-hand sneak", maybe each extra attack reduce the amount of sneak attack dice by 1? (if the previous attack hit)
Attack 1: 7D6 sneak
Attack 2: 6D6 sneak
Attack 3: 5D6 sneak
Attack 4: 4D6 sneak
Damage output for the same 13th-level Rogue, reducing number of dices:
ROGUE (less dices): 26-156 (average 91)
This is even BETTER than "no off-hand".
- Rogue gets lot of damage.
- Rogue gets less maximum potential than Fighter.
- Rogue can sneak as much as he wants in a round, including AoO, Haste, Combat Reflexes.
- Rogue can Spring Attack
- No feat or talent needed for extra sneak attacks.
- Monk/Rogue can Flurry of Sneak, since off-hands can sneak
Precision based-damage decrease by one die for each previous succesful precision based attack that hits in the same round. (minimum 1)
I can live with this rule. Lot of damage, but nothing ridiculous.
But since the maximum damage of a combat routine, however unlikely, seems to be the concern I’ll give you the 13th level SRD half-orc barbarian:Weapon: Scythe
Strength: 23 (29 while raging)
Relevant feat: Power AttackMinimum damage if all three attacks hit: 123
Maximum damage if all three attacks hit: 564By the logic above the barbarian should only be able to attack with a scythe as a standard action.
Stop making fun of me and start reading.
Critical hits were not include in my posts.
13th barbarian raging with greatword (STR bonus to damage +13), power attack (+26)
damage each: 41-53 (average 47)
TOTAL 123-159 (average 141)
I also did the maths for a two-weapon fighting Barbarian, assuming 19DEX for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. With exotic weap. Bastard Sword. (interesting, I get the same numbers for a raging barbarian and a fighter with Great.Weap. Spec.)
BARBARIAN (greatsword): 123-159 (average 141)
BARBARIAN (two weapons): 138-192 (average 165)
FIGHTER (greatsword): 117-137 (average 127)
FIGHTER (two weapons): 138-192 (average 165)
ROGUE (less dices): 26-156 (average 91)
ROGUE (actual rule): 32-192 (average 112)
The Barbarian with the Greatsword is better than the fighter. But built for max damage, the Barbarian and the Fighter are equals.
If we only look at average damage than:
BAR/FIG = 165
ROGUE = 112
This looks ok (not talking about max damage).
With my last suggestion (less dices):
BAR/FIG = 165
ROGUE = 91
Still looks ok. Not a big difference.
Number of D6 of sneak
Rogue (actual rule): 28
Rogue (less dices): 22
Is this really a big loss?
The percentage chance of a 13th rogue rolling maximum sneak attack damage on four consecutive hits:
0.00000000000000456%The percentage chance of the 13th half-orc barbarian rolling 6 consecutive 20's, in order to automatically hit and critical 3 times in one round, doing a minimum of 492 points of damage with a scythe:
0.00000000390625000%
Still flawed. You forgot to include the chances of the Rogue also scoring critical hits on all 4 attacks.
Fun debate, isn't it? Ears bleeding yet? Keep in mind, up above that it was also noted there is no difference between the rogue's sneak attack and the ninja's sudden strike for purposes of the "analysis" presented.
Yes I know. This is why I phrased my suggestion this way in my post:
Precision based-damage decrease by one die for each previous succesful precision based attack that hits in the same round. (minimum 1)
Don't check back on me on the next hours. I will wait until the long weekend is over before posting anything else. Maybe you will be more open minded then.
Anyway, I have better things to do with my holiday than reading post about how stupid I might be, thinking that the Rogue class is not perfect.
I'll be back.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Don't check back on me on the next hours. I will wait until the long weekend is over before posting anything else. Maybe you will be more open minded then.
I'm not sure why one should be open minded to bad analysis and poor game design, so don't hold your breath.
Anyway, I have better things to do with my holiday than reading post about how stupid I might be, thinking that the Rogue class is not perfect.
Not me. That's what I live for. I'm planning to spend the entire three days running mathmatical simulations only to have the response come back "but a porche is faster!"
I'll be back.
Joy. Please bring someone capable of analysis and an understanding of game balance with you.
People here are all about crunching the math and not about trying to find an actual solution to the problem. Use all that brain power you are expending to be constructive in solving the problem if one actually exists.
Strangely, I doubt the Paizo staff are going to spend the time reading through all your hypothetical situations and biased mathematical claculations (the maths itself is not biased but your application of it is).
Ask this question:
Were the campaign's you have played in ruined by the rogue or were there other factors at work? An overly permissive GM, a number-crunching power-gamer, a glut of magic items specifically tailored for the rogue, a lack of creatures with immunity to sneak attack, a rule or rulebook that stuffed up game balance so badly that it made the rogue a powerhouse?
Obviously the Paizo staff thought the rogue needed a power boost, not a further retraction of its abilities.
Also, how many people here have been colored by an obvious bias against the rogue? Are you a GM whose campaign was ruined by a player with a rogue character? Guess whose fault that was? YOUR'S! Are you a player with an unreasoning dislike of the rogue? GET OVER IT! Are you one of those people who just like to whine and whinge to prove you are right? I wonder.
Present an actual reason for reducing sneak attacks to a standard action other than a mathematical one. And you can't use the argument that a person can't strike different weak spots multiple times, because of course they can if they have been trained to do so. Come up with another viable non-mathematical reasoning. If you can?
|
|
Well, given that the fighter in your example must take an attack bonus penalty in order to do extra damage (power attack) while the rogue does not...and that the difference in attack bonus at 15th level is only 4... I think you already proved that point. It's easy enough to show that if the fighter takes off the same amount to hit as the difference in bab in order to add dmg, then they will both hit the same number of times on average. So a rogue using only one wpn would get an extra 8d6 per attack (avg dmg +28) which is more than the +8 the fighter gains using power attack. Admittedly the rogue cannot always sneak attack, but in reality it is not at all difficult unless a mojority of battles are fought against people with blur potions, rogues, oozes, in the middle of forest fires, on foggy hills, etc.... In order to make the rogue not out damage the fighter you have to take special measures which quickly become irritating as they begin to make less and less sense when you have you 23rd battle on a foggy morning...If, when you come back, you (or anyone else) could show a way within the Pathfinder rules that a rogue could consistently equal or exceed the attack bonus of a same level fighter and still perform a full attack action then it would lend a great deal of credibility to your argument that sneak attack needs to be fixed.Don't check back on me on the next hours. I will wait until the long weekend is over before posting anything else. Maybe you will be more open minded then.
Anyway, I have better things to do with my holiday than reading post about how stupid I might be, thinking that the Rogue class is not perfect.
I'll be back.
Dont forget to factor in that even by lowering the BAB of the fighter - he still gets additional attacks from his BAB faster than a rogue - so chances are he'll be getting an extra attack long before the rogue does.
So at 11th level the fighter can make three such attacks - the rogue can make 2. (if we're still assuming Maximum potential - the fighter hits on all three)
Sneak Attack is powerful when done correctly - no one is arguing that. But it doesn't warrant revision. I've never seen it as a problem as DM.
Robert