*Proposition:
Decreasing the number of D6 of sneak attack on subsequent hit in the same round by 1. (minimum 1D6)
The Rogue is well balanced, but there is always room for amelioration. I propose some fine-tuning to prevent some possible abuses, without removing too much from the actual rule for sneak attacks. My proposition is not a big change in the mechanic, and is easy to implement.
With the new PFRPG sneak attacks rule, rogues get the chance to sneak attack more often. (new type of creatures)
When a Rogue is in a position to make more than one sneak attack in a round (Iterative attacks, Haste, Two-weapon fighting, Flurry of blows from multiclassing, Combat reflexes...), I propose to decrease the number of D6 on next hit by one. (minimum 1D6)
*Proposition example:
A hasted and flanking 9th-level Rogue (3 attacks in a round) will deal extra 5D6 on his first hit, 4D6 on the second hit, and 3D6 on the third (total 12D6 versus 15D6 actual rule). If there is not hit, there is no decrease. In this example, if the rogue hits only on his third attack, the extra sneak damage is the full 5D6.
As you can see, my proposition don't penalyze the Rogue very much. But, let's just take a look at this hypothetical situation (which may comes up only once in a lifetime) where it shows how crazy actual sneak attacking can get:
A VERY lucky 15th-level Rogue with greater invisibility and hasted, using Greater Two-Weapon fighting (Rapier and Shortsword), has 7 sneak attacks in a round. Assuming that all attacks hit (lucky rogue!) this is 7x 9D6 of damage.... 63D6! With my proposition, this number goes down to 35D6 "only". hehe...
Some players (not all!) often find ways to combine rules to put themselves in very advantageous situation, to the point of sometimes making the rules *seem* unbalanced. Flanking + Two-Weapon Fighting = lot of D6 of sneak!
Overall, I think that a Rogue (given his lower BAB), will not hit the target that often in a round, but I prefer something solid in the rule to prevent those rare and specific situations where things get out of hands...
|
(I'm hoping that we won't rehash the fighter vs. rogue argument and that we'll focus on the SA mechanics.)
It's an interesting proposition. I understand the objective (avoid gazillion d6s), but I'm struggling with the underlying mechanics, and more specifically with the fact that the target was hit previously in the round has an influence on the damage caused by the attack. Why is that?
Current rules: Sneak attack as attack action
Conditions
1. Target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. Target has weak spot.
3. Target is hit.
Consequence
Full sneak damage is rolled.
Some other proposal: Sneak attack as standard action
Conditions
1. Target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. Target has weak spot.
3. Rogue focuses on the weak spot and gives up all his attacks in the round.
3. Target is hit.
Consequence
Full sneak damage is rolled.
Your proposal: Sneak attack as attack action, decreasing damage on successive hits
Conditions on first hit
1. Target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. Target has weak spot.
3. Target is hit for the first time in the round.
Consequence
Full sneak damage is rolled.
Conditions on second hit
1. Target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. Target has weak spot.
3. Target is hit for the second time in the round.
Consequence
Reduced sneak damage is rolled.
Conditions on nth hit
1. Target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. Target has weak spot.
3. Target is hit for the nth time in the round.
Consequence
Minimal sneak damage is rolled.
Regarding sneak attack as a standard action...
We should keep in mind that this would not allow for Spring Attack or AoO.
I personaly think that standard action removes too much to sneak attacks. Maybe this option should also include another change in the mechanic, like sneak attack is a TOUCH attack (ignoring armor bonus)?
I don't want to keep track of that. Many of my players will have different colored sets of dice, and roll all their attacks and damage simultaneously.
hehe.... I just hope for this player that his caracter is not a Greater TWF 15-th level rogue... He would need 32 D6 of four different color! Imagine! whoa! hehe
I agree with you about keeping track. This could add a certain amount of complexity.
I might have a work around for your specific situation.
For your player. Instead of rolling the same number of D6 of each color, he sould already remove D6 from other colors. Color 1 is for 1st sneak, color 2 is for second sneak (minus 1D6), color 3 is third sneak (minus 2D6)... and so on. If two attacks hit, just take the results of the first two color.
|
|
Regarding sneak attack as a standard action...
We should keep in mind that this would not allow for Spring Attack or AoO.
I personaly think that standard action removes too much to sneak attacks. Maybe this option should also include another change in the mechanic, like sneak attack is a TOUCH attack (ignoring armor bonus)?
Sorry, I didn't mean to restart a discussion on SA as a standard action. I only used it to illustrate my question about the underlying reason to drop the damage on successive hits. What happens when the rogue hits the target's weak spot for the second and nth time during the round?
Sorry, I didn't mean to restart a discussion on SA as a standard action. I only used it to illustrate my question about the underlying reason to drop the damage on successive hits. What happens when the rogue hits the target's weak spot for the second and nth time during the round?
I may have an explanation... I don't know if it is the *right* explanation.
To hit multiple targets (or the same target more than once), the Rogue needs speed. To gain speed, the rogue reduces accuracy. Since sneak attack is precision-based, less accuracy means less accurate sneaking, less damage.
Also, when hitting the same target, I think it is logical to say that the target would, as a reflexe, shift his position to hide the vulnerable spot that was just hit. Being unable to hit the same exact spot, the rogue hits close to his previous hit or choose another spot. It is like if the rogue always try to hit the best spot first, a than must go with plan B, or C, or D... which are not as good.
This is a way to rephrase what you write in a previous post:
Conditions on nth hit
1. A target is flanked or has its dex modifier denied.
2. A target has weak spot.
3a. Rogue is trading (more) accuracy for (more) speed to hit target for the nth time in the round.
3b. Target try to prevent subsequent hit on same weak spot.
Consequence
Reduced sneak damage is rolled.
|
|
Other than claiming a slight reduction in accuracy for each subsequent attack I'm not sure if I can come up with a better descriptive justification for the effect.
[...]3a. Rogue is trading (more) accuracy for (more) speed to hit target for the nth time in the round.
3b. Target try to prevent subsequent hit on same weak spot.Consequence
Reduced sneak damage is rolled.
If you present it that way, please consider me sold on the idea. I like that much more than SA as standard action.
My tweaks:
1. I'd apply the rule for each successive attack rather than each hit. I see the rogue trading accuracy for speed to attack (rather than hit) for the nth time the target's weak spots.
2. I wouldn't apply it to AoO to simplify the tracking. Only the attack sequence on the rogue's turn would be affected.
3. I'd apply the limitation to one target. If the rogue gets to attack several targets on his turn, the damage die reduction applies to each target individually and the first attack against each target gets full SA damage.
[edit: typos and clarifications]
If you present it that way, please consider me sold on the idea. I like that much more than SA as standard action.My tweaks:
1. I'd apply the rule for each successive attack rather than each hit. I see the rogue trading accuracy for speed to attack (rather than hit) for the nth time the target's weak spots.2. I wouldn't apply it to AoO to simplify the tracking. Only the attack sequence on the rogue's turn would be affected.
3. I'd apply the limitation to one target. If the rogue gets to attack several targets on his turn, the damage die reduction applies to each target individually and the first attack against each target gets full SA damage.
I like your idea of not applying it to AoO to simplify tracking. (did you think about Combat Reflexes?)
I think that it should not only apply to one target. A surrounded invisible Rogue could sneak each of his foe for maximum sneak D6, which is one of the reason I am proposing this tweak on sneak attacks. (preventing ridiculously high amount of D6 of sneak in a round)
YUL method:
D6 decrease on next HIT
+: Always maximum sneak D6 is dealt first.
-: difficult to track. Did I hit with my previous attack?
LOC method:
D6 decrease on next ATTACK
+: Easy to track. Each attack has is number of sneak D6
-: if only last attacks hit, minimum sneak D6 is dealt
I hope to find a new method with only +s!
And by the way, thanks for all your constructive inputs!
|
|
I like your idea of not applying it to AoO to simplify tracking. (did you think about Combat Reflexes?)
It's one of the concerns, yes. :-)
I think that it should not only apply to one target. A surrounded invisible Rogue could sneak each of his foe for maximum sneak D6, which is one of the reason I am proposing this tweak on sneak attacks. (preventing ridiculously high amount of D6 of sneak in a round)
I thought that the main concern was more the concentration of the d6s against a single target, when the lucky rogue could drop it on the first round. The odds of having 2 or more targets qualifying for SA is lower. Also, the fact that target A turns away to protect the weak spot shouldn't have an influence on the accuracy of the attack against the second one. I don't mind either way. I'd go for whatever is simpler to explain to a beginning player. :-)
And by the way, thanks for all your constructive inputs!
Thank you for making a cool tweak and bearing with my questions. :-)
|
|
Sneak attack was the rouge's primary ability in combat besides sitting on the sidelines. Sure you could min/max the heck outta the number of attacks they get to use sneak attack on but that will never compare to the raw ToHit and Str damage bonuses a fighter gets. Even with the new undead and construct weaknesses to sneak attack I've never had my rouges do more damage than a fighter or barbarian. Sneak attack is one powerful hit, but with so few of them available without self risk it needs that many d6s to be a viable combat option
Agreed. Completely.
Robert
|
|
I am with them on the idea of weakening sneak attack slightly in this way. I have never had a major problem with it, though I have seen some situations where it could have been seriously abused.
However, PRPG has expanded upon the strength of sneak attack a lot by allowing it to be used against many new types of targets. I'm all for this, as it means a rogue has more situations where they can feel useful and productive.
This removes the biggest restriction that sneak attack had upon it almost entirely, and it really needs to be replaced with something else to be balanced again. On the other board we were talking about this, I agreed that something needed to be done, but I also thought that making sneak attack a standard action was too harsh. Something like having sneak attack be a swift or free action that you can only declare for one of your attacks a round seemed to be closer, since you could still do damage with your other attacks, but it still seemed to be going too far.
This new proposistion seems to balance all of that out very well. You get a steadily decreasing return on sneak attack the more it is used, which means that those who are most likely abusing the system by managing 7 or 8 sneak attacks in a round(+AoOs) are the ones who are going to feel the loss much more then those who only can do a more reasonable amount. It sounds very good to me. There could use some playtesting, but I voice my support of this option.
-Tarlane
I really think you are all over-estimating the power of sneak attack. Sure, a 20th level rouge can get 8 potential attacks plus attacks of opportunity. You could call the lifting of construct's and undead's protection against it a huge boost for rouges.
But then you'd be pointing out that rouges should be owning all the goblins and ogres your party has ever fought. If the only thing that ever kept rouges from rocking the fight was if the enemy was undead or a construct or what not then I think we'd have heard about this before. So they're about as effective in all the fights now, but if fighters weren't complaining about how rouges kept killing all the goblins before they could cause they're too powerful then I don't think we'll hear the same argument about undead and constructs.
Sneak attack already has a lot of restrictions. You need to flank or the opponent needs to be denied his dex. Granted, flanking CAN be set to occur a lot, but even when they do get flanked there's a lot that can be done to block sneak attack. A rouge's lower BaB and the fact he needs someone to flank, the inevitable five foot shuffle that makes them move 10 ft just to get to flanking again.
Its really hard to get a full attack with flanking without having an opponent sitting still.
It should remain untouched. please. COULD be abused is very different than WILL and has anyone ever seen a situation where it HAS been abused and nothing could be done to prevent it? Please, I'd like to hear some
My proposition is to prevent the "COULD be abused" with something solid in the rules, without penalyzing none-abuser.
I don't want to remove from actual rogues, I want to remove from actual rules-lawyer and abusers. Not all players are like this, but *some* are. I don't want a rule to restrict players, I want to support them...
It is unfair for the rogue player if all major NPCs villains have see invisibilty, uncanny dodge, fortification, and so on... because of a frustrated DM... :)
I think we should playtest both method of D6 decrease. (next HIT or next ATTACK) I will suggest this to the DM and the Rogue in one of my groups.
I would also suggest that Combat Reflexes use the same method. (start with max D6 on first AoO, than decrease for other AoO). Without this feat, the Rogue would deal maximum D6 on his AoO. (no change from actual rule)
Toss in my vote for "leave sneak attack alone".
(also a vote for "put SA back how it was in 3.5, but i think that ship has already sailed).
|
|
As a DM I do things like that sometimes, and its not because I'm frustrated. I DM to present my players with challenges and when they get comfy in a winning strategy I love to mix it up a bit on them to keep them on their toes. If everyone one of their adventures ended with "And then he was stabbed by the rouge" the endings wouldn't be as memorable.
I think every part of the system COULD be abused. A disarming Monk could turn any non-monk into a joke. A wizard with a ridiculously high save DC could insta-kill everything that pisses him off. A Barbarian could kill any wizard he really wanted too with a single attack if he rolled a high initiative.
Players are encouraged to build THE BEST build they can make because everything is based on their performance in combat. They get more powerful, and in return all they get is more powerful baddies. Why put ranks in profession for roleplaying purposes when ranks in perception improve the likelihood of a surprise round attack?
Thats why this system COULD be abused. My group eventually grew past the min/max phase and I feel that this modification penalizes people who didn't min/max. It increases bookkeeping and degrades a class that is only as combat focused as the player made it. With decreased combat effectiveness, there's only more demand to be more combat focused with the other choices the player gets like feats and talents.
Very well said! I whole-heartedly agree.
Leave sneak attack alone. In 9 years of 3rd edition playing, I have never had a player be out of control with sneak attacks. As a fairly strategic-minded DM myself, my intelligent critters are pretty good about making sure the rogue (or anyone for that matter) does simply have their way with them all the time. It has never been a problem.
The "ability" of abuse exists in every area, and I recognize the "potential" of so much damage being issues in the most perfect chances when all stars of the world align; the reality is, it just doesn't seem to happen that way.
Ultimately abusing players simply get abused back.
EDIT: I recently had a player who loved to polymorph - using the stereotypical RPGA build of the wizard who turns the fighter into a troglodyte at low levels for the nat armor bonus, and then a green hag at later levels for the extreme str and nat armor bonus - basically rummaging through the MM and choosing the most optimal choice - taking no consideration that a paladin didnt mind appearing and becomind a hag, or and nevermind the fact that the party didn't even know much about them - (how would someone know exactly which creature has the best min/maxed str and nat armor etc) Even though truthfully no player was actually "breaking the rules."
It didnt' take long before ever smart bad guy was being polymorphed into hags, too! If it's common knowledge...then its common knowledge....Several encountes of 40+ AC fighters thanks to the Hags +11 Nat Armor bonus fighting them at like 9th level was enough of a deterrent for group of players to say - "Okay - something's broken with this spell - can we change it for everyone's sake."
Robert
|
|
I think we should playtest both method of D6 decrease. (next HIT or next ATTACK) I will suggest this to the DM and the Rogue in one of my groups.
I would also suggest that Combat Reflexes use the same method. (start with max D6 on first AoO, than decrease for other AoO). Without this feat, the Rogue would deal maximum D6 on his AoO. (no change from actual rule)
Good stuff. Keep us posted on how it went.
|
|
My proposition is to prevent the "COULD be abused" with something solid in the rules, without penalyzing none-abuser.
I don't want to remove from actual rogues, I want to remove from actual rules-lawyer and abusers. Not all players are like this, but *some* are. I don't want a rule to restrict players, I want to support them...
It is unfair for the rogue player if all major NPCs villains have see invisibilty, uncanny dodge, fortification, and so on... because of a frustrated DM... :)
Preventing cheese can be done through the core rules, by the application of Rule 0 or by customizing encounters to specifically stump the cheesemakers.
Rule 0, especially when applied after the campaign has started, leads often to:
Player: "Why?"
GM: "Because I say so"
Player: "But the rules say..."
GM: "I don't care!"
Customizing encounters in the way described goes against the cooperative nature of the game. Effectively, the GM is playing against the players, not with them. In Robert's troglodyte/hag polymorph example, the GM used the same cheese against the players instead of working with them on tweaking the rules before they had to roll over and give up. The GM showed who was the boss. That's not how I think the game is meant to be played.
Now, if the core rules can simply reduce the effectiveness of a rare but powerful tactic (multiple attacks in a single round for sneak attack damage), why would that be an undesirable thing to do?
The potential for polymorph cheese is being reduced in Alpha 3. Why suggesting this for SA should be a bad thing?
|
|
Preventing cheese can be done through the core rules, by the application of Rule 0 or by customizing encounters to specifically stump the cheesemakers.Rule 0, especially when applied after the campaign has started, leads often to:
Player: "Why?"
GM: "Because I say so"
Player: "But the rules say..."
GM: "I don't care!"Customizing encounters in the way described goes against the cooperative nature of the game. Effectively, the GM is playing against the players, not with them. In Robert's troglodyte/hag polymorph example, the GM used the same cheese against the players instead of working with them on tweaking the rules before they had to roll over and give up. The GM showed who was the boss. That's not how I think the game is meant to be played.
Now, if the core rules can simply reduce the effectiveness of a rare but powerful tactic (multiple attacks in a single round for sneak attack damage), why would that be an undesirable thing to do?
No its not the way it was meant to be played. However what you were not privvy to was the fact that I have previously mentioned that I felt that the spell was being abused, and that it was against the spirit of it, for the sake of major min/maxing munchkining - which one person agreed, but the other five just argued "Its in the rules."
That being said, your description of the Rule-0 argument never works with mature and educated people. Thats a school-ground disagreement, and the DM winds up looking like a draconian tyrant "I dont like it - so I'm removing that spell from your repertoire."
Instead I opted for a more tact approach. What I did was allow them to see it from my perspective. They realized the flaw in it, and why it was broke. I took the "Cant beat em, join em." and instead chose to illustrate why I felt and saw what I did.
Some people you just can't convince until they SEE what it is you're saying.
I showed them, they realized it, and came full circle. Thereby we were able to negotiate an agreeable fix and I did not have to portray the draconian tyrant of "Because I said so" which I don't even lower myself to using that mentality with my 7 and 3 year olds - let alone mature 30 something adults friends, peers, and coworkers - some of them actually fairly educated even!
For the record, I do understand the cooperative nature of the game and do not adhere to a DM vs Player mentality; but sometimes tactics need to be changed temporarily to get a point across, without forcing people to accept your opinion.
Robert
|
|
No its not the way it was meant to be played. However what you were not privvy to was the fact that I have previously mentioned that I felt that the spell was being abused, and that it was against the spirit of it, for the sake of major min/maxing munchkining - which one person agreed, but the other five just argued "Its in the rules."
Apologies if I came through as a bit brusque. You gave the players a chance to get onboard and they didn't take you up on it. Fair play to you for illustrating your point the way you did rather than simply applying Rule 0.
Ultimately abusing players simply get abused back.
I understand your point of showing to the players what abused rules can do. I also think you are a very lucky gamer if you have time to play *and* to show them this. hehe!
I once have a player who was a little bit of a rule-lawyer/min-maxer. His way of playing the game changed when he start DMing a new campaign. His experience on the other side of the screen made him realize many things, and he became a better player. But this is a long process...
Sometimes, it only takes a small change to help DMs keep game balance. I would prefer concentrating on good adventures instead of workarounds because of loopholes...
The problem with attempting to correct some rules (any rule) is that we are all used to how things are since the release of 3.0. Any change, good or bad, is still a change and old habits are hard to change.
If the situation was reversed, actual rule was with the decreased of D6 and someone proposed to make same amount of D6 on all attacks, what would have happened? How many would have said "SA are perfect, don't overpower them!"?
The tweak proposed is minor. In that sense, Rogue players who already play "fair" with the rules might not see a big difference. I don't hear any Paladin crying because they can't smite on every rounds...
As for counting sneak attacks between turns, the only ones that could happen are Attacks of Opportunity. While it is unlikely that any creature would provoke one while flanked, it is possible. I would personally say that AoO applies full sneak attack since it is only a single attack and the reduction is only applied to iterative attacks (including off hand attacks/flurry) on the players action. This means nothing to keep track of between turns.
I think we previously agreed that to remove complexity of this system, AoO should be at Full Sneak D6 . (but may be decreased if Combat Reflexes?)
Nothing to keep track after end of turn.
I think they'll see a big difference when it comes to them doing all the work required to count sneak attacks used between turns. As a DM, anytime I ask a player on what they just rolled for initiative I can't tell you how many times they've had to look at the die again (if they haven't moved it) and re-add their modifier.
That frightens me. How this kind of player will calculate the total of all those sneak D6s at higher level? Gulp! hehe! Seriously, I have to agree with you on this: when will some players going to learn the mechanic of *any* of their core abilities?
Players should be use to deal with complexity. D&D is *already* complex.
I think "minus 1D6" sounds even simpler than "minus 5 on BAB for iterative attack"...
In my opinion, removing a D6 from a pool of dice (after an ATTACK or a HIT) does not add too much complexity.
|
|
Not all my players are rules lawyers, and it takes a long time to play out every class and learn all their qwerks. Its easier to say "then you get your sneak attack" than to say "then you get your sneak attack minus 1d6 for every sneak attack you had before that. AoO are full sneak attack no matter how many."
If the players are capable of calculating the reduced bonuses to multiple attack rolls, substracting 1d6, 2d6 or 3d6 from each successive attack/hit is no big shakes.
If you don't think SA needs tweaking, I'm not sure why you include this argument ("Reduces Rogue's effectiveness in combat" and "Penalizes already penalized attacks") in the cons. The tweak is meant to reduce the effectiveness of multiple SAs and reduce the cheese of bajillion d6s of damage against a low AC target. It's not a bug, it's a feature. :-)
Nope, works fine as it is now, too much unnecessary bookkeeping (all bookkeeping is too much if it is unnecessary)
Tweak simple
make attack, deal damage + sneak
make other attack, deal damage + sneak (D6 decreased)
make other attack, deal damage + sneak (D6 decreased)
End of turn. Reset sneak
(player can add dice for critical, than player can remove dice for sneak)
Simple.
No keeping track. No uber-nerfing. No math. No bookkeeping.
...No abuse.
I don't think SA needs tweaking, and I'm saying if you do tweak it, it hinders rogues and the attacks that would have their d6s reduced would already be suffering a -5 penalty each.
It does not hinder Rogue that much.
If your point is that iterative attacks would miss, than the tweak change nothing for you.
If your are only saying that *less* attacks would hit, than it means only a tiny small amount of D6 removed from the pool of sneak attack damage. This tweak is than only micro minor.
But if your are saying that a TWF 15th-level hasted Rogue is loosing a total of 21D6 when his 7 attacks hit target (35D6 total instead of 56D6), than I totally agree with you that it hinders the rogue... But that's the whole point of this *minor* tweak.
We are open to suggestion if you have a proposition to prevent abuse without penalyzing the rogue.
I made a table to show how much is lost for the Rogue with the proposed tweak.
The following tables compare the maximum number of sneak D6 if *all* attacks hit target, for tweak vs actual rule (with percentage).
First table is for fighting one-handed, second is for two-handed (with all feats). Haste was not taken in account, only iterative attacks.
Remember, the following numbers are only when ALL attacks hit. Iterative attacks penalty, higher AC of target,... may cause an attack to miss (resulting in less D6 decrease, and higher total D6 efficiency). Percentage are thus worse case.
1 - 1/1 (100%)
2 - 1/1 (100%)
3 - 2/2 (100%)
4 - 2/2 (100%)
5 - 3/3 (100%)
6 - 3/3 (100%)
7 - 4/4 (100%)
8 - 7/8 (88%)
9 - 9/10 (90%)
10 - 9/10 (90%)
11 - 11/12 (92%)
12 - 11/12 (92%)
13 - 13/14 (93%)
14 - 13/14 (93%)
15 - 21/24 (88%)
16 - 21/24 (88%)
17 - 24/27 (89%)
18 - 24/27 (89%)
19 - 27/30 (90%)
20 - 27/30 (90%)
1 - 2/2 (100%)
2 - 1/2 (50%)
3 - 3/4 (75%)
4 - 3/4 (75%)
5 - 5/6 (83%)
6 - 5/6 (83%)
7 - 7/8 (88%)
8 - 10/16 (63%)
9 - 14/20 (70%)
10 - 14/20 (70%)
11 - 18/24 (75%)
12 - 18/24 (75%)
13 - 22/28 (79%)
14 - 22/28 (79%)
15 - 33/48 (69%)
16 - 33/48 (69%)
17 - 39/54 (72%)
18 - 39/54 (72%)
19 - 45/60 (75%)
20 - 45/60 (75%)
The proposed tweak (decrease D6 for next HIT) for one-handed:
average 90% efficiency compare to actual (average 10% loss for worse case)
The proposed tweak (decrease D6 for next HIT) for two-handed:
average 75% efficiency compare to actual (average 25% loss for worse case)
The tweak is a bigger lost for TWF, but this is the intend of the tweak. One-handed fighting start to see a decrease in efficiency only at level 8. If Rogue sneak only once in the round (very common scenario), there is not D6 decrease.
Yes, the difference in SA power is small. Why does it need to be changed at all though?
Adding WIS to AC is a small change but there still isn't a place for it on my character sheet. But Wis to AC is important for Monks to work.
Why is this important for the game to work? Because it can be abused? I agree with you that it CAN be abused but I definitely think its harder to abuse than you do.
Please tell me whatever happened to make you think its so easy to do. I'm not convinced by the Greater Invisibility = auto victory for a TWF Rogue.
I have to agree with you that abuses are sometimes difficult to do!
What my players came up with was not too difficult and consist mainly of a Sorcerer casting spells and then send a Greater Invisible, Hasted and flying silently Rogue to a target.
The result was a DM who could not *always* deny the Rogue (and the Sorcerer) the use of his core ability. And a game that sometimes looks like "The DM vs The Rogue". Not fun for the Rogue, not fun for the DM and not fun for the other players.
|
|
So I still agree with you that it is easy to abuse this system, but it seems like a large paragraph to insert in the Sneak Attack entry to discourage a risky tactic.
Removing the benefit of applying the cheesy tactics in the rules takes the burden of the GMs' shoulders.
The tweak can be phrased on one sentence:
Tweak (if we count attacks) - 32 words
This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. For every attack beyond the first made against the same target in a single round of combat on the rogue's turn, the damage is reduced by 1d6 to a minimum of 1d6.
Tweak (if we count hits) - 34 words
This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. For every successful sneak attack beyond the first made against the same target in a single round of combat on the rogue's turn, the damage is reduced by 1d6 to a minimum of 1d6.
I've come across this post a few times and while I think you have it well thought out, to be honest I just don't like it. I've had trouble coming up with a way to put it into writing however, that wouldn't just make me come across as a troll. Hopefully, the following will succeed- if not: I apologize.
The main problem with rogue damage is that the "high numbers" everyone sees are largely theoretical. Everyone hand-waives the rather harsh gaming requirements of the SA and just assumes the dual wielding rogue with 7 attacks a round gets a full round of attacks off and that each attack hits.
The problem with this is that it rarely happens. True, when it does happen, the effect is dramatic: but if you take this ability away then the rogue doesn't just lose some effectiveness- he loses the very reasons why he took the feats.
If you assume the rogue took (1)weapoon finesse (2) 2w fighting, (3)g2w fighting (4)i2w fighting- that is alot of investment for something the rogue actually only gets to use very rarely in actual combat.
Furthermore, if you follow through with the "nerf" you are suggesting then it actually causes rogues to go in another direction entirely with their feats. i.e. it may not even solve the problem. (enter the 2h rogue perhaps?)
All this work, for an attack routine that is expensive to acquire and very difficult to pull off. For the investment, I should hope it is at least relatively effective if not Very effective. And it is just that- very effective.
The fact is though that the rogue very rarely gets to pull it off. The requirement that the target get flanked is actually a fairly stiff requirement in the bounds of actual combat. It requires the opponent to be already fighting someone else, and it requires the Rogue to move across the battle field into position. A full round must then pass before the Rogue gets to do the dreaded full attack. This, assuming the other person is still flanking, that the critter is alive, hasn't moved, and that it (or another critter) doesn't use its turn to kill the rogue.
Now you will no doubt point out that flanking is the least way to acquire the requisite to sneak attack. In this I would actually agree- and to it I would simply make it the Only way to acquire sneak attack excepting in the first round of combat.
(i.e. without flank, sneak becomes "back stab"). This would enable the solo rogue a round of attacks, once in battle, while preventing the abuse of the greater invis'd rogue or the other multitude of variations on that theme.
It also serves the purpose of being easier towards backwards compatibility, and is also easier to learn and figure out than even the current system.
Attacking from stealth without a flank buddy? back stab. Attacking while flanked? full SA.
I, generally, do not see the need to nerf SA especially while very other class is getting buffed: but ifa nerf must be made then it needs to be simple, easy to implement going forward, and easy to implement going backwards- all with an eye towards easier upkeep and better combat resolution. I believe that this option, though imo unncessary, would work better to solve the problem you see, than the solution you've outlined.
-S
Thanks for your input, Selgard.
I am trying to focus on the large amount of D6, not amout of damage. And more precisely on *possible* large amount of D6.
I also think that TWF is the best melee option for players who wants to deal damage (sneak attack or not). The other good option is two-handed weapon with high STR and Power Attack. I think a "melee" type of Rogue would choose TWF, even if he has not intend of abusing SA.
I also don't think that "every other classes are being buffed". Too many threads are about people complaining about the "nerfing" of their favorite class...
Back to the tweak:
As many have already said before, the situation where the abuse is possible occurs rarely. I would even go as far as saying that a Rogue would rarely be able to sneak attack more than once in a round. Getting into position is not easy, we all agree on that.
In the majority of situation, a Rogue will only make one sneak attack in a round. In the majority of situation this tweak has NO impact at all.
Flanking and invisibility are not the only situation where a Rogue can sneak attack. Sneak attacks also work with ranged weapons.
Other example situations of easy abuse with no counter:
Monk grapple target. Target is denied DEX Bonus. Rogue makes full-round of sneak attack. Nothing to prevent sneak attacks (only getting out of grapple).
Rogue with boots of speed, with rapid shot, starting encounter at 30ft of target. If the Rogue wins initiative, he activates his boots (free action) and make a full-round of ranged sneak attacks. (target is flat-footed). Nothing to prevent sneak attack on this round.
|
With the new PFRPG sneak attacks rule, rogues get the chance to sneak attack more often. (new type of creatures)
When a Rogue is in a position to make more than one sneak attack in a round (Iterative attacks, Haste, Two-weapon fighting, Flurry of blows from multiclassing, Combat reflexes...), I propose to decrease the number of D6 on next hit by one. (minimum 1D6)
Yes to the new PFRPG sneak attack rule and no thanks re: your proposal. (I'm biased though because I only play rogues.) Did the other classes in PFRPG get similar help (some sort of combat plus) and if so did they receive any negative tweaks such as your proposal? In other words, is the rogue the only class that is getting something for nothing?
Which is again, in most games, a relatively rare event- and one that even so requires a fairly hefty GP requirement as well as a feat investment in order to accomplish.
What you are doing (and what you are admittedly trying to do) is directly dial back the damage that Rogues can do. I just don't think it needs to be done. Rogues don't typically use power attack and high strengh bonuses and such to get their damage done: their one method is to sneak attack. It is their Only damage capacity.
Rogues are sneak attack and skill monkey. You are seriously, seriously nerfing their combat ability. I just don't see that it's necessary, when the reasons given are a few select scenarios that play to the particular strength of the SA.
Might as well say that Fireball is OP if the badguys have the Cold subtype and bunch up in a 20 foot spread. Certain relatively rare-to-uncommon occurrences do not necessary equate to the need to massively nerf a class's main combat ability across the board.
If you find selective instances where it is broken, you are better off fixing those instances than to tell the rogue "in this instrance or that you are broken, therefore we are going to reduce your overall combat effectiveness".
What you are proposing is a very, very big nerf to the sole ability the rogue has to do damage in combat. I realize that the nerf is your point- I just don't see it as necessary.
-S
...
What you are doing (and what you are admittedly trying to do) is directly dial back the damage that Rogues can do. I just don't think it needs to be done. Rogues don't typically use power attack and high strengh bonuses and such to get their damage done: their one method is to sneak attack. It is their Only damage capacity.
Rogues are sneak attack and skill monkey. You are seriously, seriously nerfing their combat ability. I just don't see that it's necessary, when the reasons given are a few select scenarios that play to the particular strength of the SA.
[...]
What you are proposing is a very, very big nerf to the sole ability the rogue has to do damage in combat. I realize that the nerf is your point- I just don't see it as necessary.
What I am proposing is to reduce a little bit of maximum D6 output in certain situation, where the number of D6 get ridiculously high.
I don't agree that this a very very big nerf.
- No change when only sneak attacking once in a round (most situation)
- Worse case is only 10% decrease in total number of D6 for a one handed fighting Rogue. This worst case and will be less in average situation.
- For TWF (where is the most possible abuse) the situation is at a 25% decrease for the worse case. A TWF in most situation will have a significantly less decrease.
Sneak attack is a important part of the Rogue and should not be removed. One of the role of the Rogue is to "sneak". This is why I am only proposing a minor tweak (instead of a big change like making it a standard action).
... and before you start thinking that I hate Rogues, I will say that it is my favorite class, the first one I have played, and one I play most often. This is why I am giving so much attention to all its class abilities!