During the Alpha discussions, many people expressed views about the effectiveness of the rogue sneak attack and whether it was overpowered or needed in order to make the rogue a viable combatant. Many suggested making a sneak attack should be standard action, and while I think this would be going too far in weakening sneak attack I do feel the ability could use a slight toning down in damage while increase the attack bonus for sneak attacks. Something like this:
1st level: +1d6 sneak attack damage
3rd level: +1 attack on sneak attacks
5th level: +2d6 sneak attack damage
7th level: +2 attack on sneak attacks
9th level: +3d6 sneak attack damage
11th level: +3 attack on sneak attacks
13th level: +4d6 sneak attack damage
15th level: +4 attack on sneak attacks
17th level: +5d6 sneak attack damage
19th level: +5 attack on sneak attacks
This way, rogues can still do nice damage with sneak attacks and actually hit things with decent AC's assuming they qualify for a sneak attack.
Also, I'd triple the sneak attack damage (so 15d6 damage at 17th level) for the first attack whenever the rogues opponent is unaware of the rogue (such as not being seen or heard from invisibility or stealth right up until the first attack....being invisible alone isn't enough, the opponent also must not know the rogue is even in the vicinity).
Am I off base? What does everything think about the power level of the current sneak attack ability, is it ok or too much?
|
During the Alpha discussions, many people expressed views about the effectiveness of the rogue sneak attack and whether it was overpowered or needed in order to make the rogue a viable combatant. Many suggested making a sneak attack should be standard action, and while I think this would be going too far in weakening sneak attack I do feel the ability could use a slight toning down in damage while increase the attack bonus for sneak attacks. Something like this:
1st level: +1d6 sneak attack damage
3rd level: +1 attack on sneak attacks
5th level: +2d6 sneak attack damage
7th level: +2 attack on sneak attacks
9th level: +3d6 sneak attack damage
11th level: +3 attack on sneak attacks
13th level: +4d6 sneak attack damage
15th level: +4 attack on sneak attacks
17th level: +5d6 sneak attack damage
19th level: +5 attack on sneak attacksThis way, rogues can still do nice damage with sneak attacks and actually hit things with decent AC's assuming they qualify for a sneak attack.
Also, I'd triple the sneak attack damage (so 15d6 damage at 17th level) for the first attack whenever the rogues opponent is unaware of the rogue (such as not being seen or heard from invisibility or stealth right up until the first attack....being invisible alone isn't enough, the opponent also must not know the rogue is even in the vicinity).
Am I off base? What does everything think about the power level of the current sneak attack ability, is it ok or too much?
It's okay, but it breaks backwards compatability.
There are ambush feats, and several PrCs balanced and with abilities based on how many sneak attack dice you have. To alter it throws all of them out the window. Or takes a ton of extra language explaining how to make them work under the new system.
|
What does everything think about the power level of the current sneak attack ability, is it ok or too much?
OK
it breaks backwards compatability.
There are ambush feats, and several PrCs balanced and with abilities based on how many sneak attack dice you have. To alter it throws all of them out the window.
+1
Personally, I don't think SA is broken.
Alot of folks do though- and to me, if it were to be adjusted, it should be in the "prerequisites" rather than in the damage.
SA should be something that is relatively common, but somewhat time consuming to setup. The problem is that by 10th level every rogue on the planet has 10 ways to SA every creature, every attack, every round. While the rules are fairly stringent for the rogue operating alone- D&D is a group game and *many* are the rogue who run around under Imp Invis tossed out from the friendly mage. Imp Invis turns "sometimes SA" to "automatic SA for every attack, every round, on every creature".
Should we maybe fix SA so that it really only works while flanking, or during the "surprise" round or the truly unaware opponent? (such as with a feint, or the first attack while invisible).
Afterall- even if the person fighting you is invisible, you aren't just standing there arms in the air hoping they get you a kidney shot.. Heck no, you are moving and trying to evade that "precision" attack even if you can't see it!
-S
SA should be something that is relatively common, but somewhat time consuming to setup. The problem is that by 10th level every rogue on the planet has 10 ways to SA every creature, every attack, every round. While the rules are fairly stringent for the rogue operating alone- D&D is a group game and *many* are the rogue who run around under Imp Invis tossed out from the friendly mage. Imp Invis turns "sometimes SA" to "automatic SA for every attack, every round, on every creature". Should we maybe fix SA so that it really only works while flanking, or during the "surprise" round or the truly unaware opponent? (such as with a feint, or the first attack while invisible).
I'm with Selgard on this one.
Personally, I don't think SA is broken.
QTF
Alot of folks do though- and to me, if it were to be adjusted, it should be in the "prerequisites" rather than in the damage.
SA should be something that is relatively common, but somewhat time consuming to setup. The problem is that by 10th level every rogue on the planet has 10 ways to SA every creature, every attack, every round. While the rules are fairly stringent for the rogue operating alone- D&D is a group game and *many* are the rogue who run around under Imp Invis tossed out from the friendly mage. Imp Invis turns "sometimes SA" to "automatic SA for every attack, every round, on every creature".
A rogues premier ability plus a 4th level spell being a pretty potent combo is Ok with me. The wizard is casting this instead of casting wall of fire/ black tentacles/ shaped fireball... I'm all cool with this. Fighters at this level are doing pretty significant amounts of damage also and with a little help from the wizard are maybe doing even more.
At this level you can also expect anti-invisibility measures to be fairly common for exactly this reason.
Anti-invis isn't on every mob all the time.
SA is fine in the "current" setup, but as mages and such become weaker and weaker (aka, no/Limited SoD and such) the multitude of d6's the rogue can break out may become excessive.
I still say it's not OP- I was just throwing out a possible suggestion for those who think that it is.
-S
Anti-invis isn't on every mob all the time.
SA is fine in the "current" setup, but as mages and such become weaker and weaker (aka, no/Limited SoD and such) the multitude of d6's the rogue can break out may become excessive.
I still say it's not OP- I was just throwing out a possible suggestion for those who think that it is.
No, I figure the majority of encounters will not have anti invis, even after 10th. But 4th level spell + rogues signature power... why shouldn't that be the bomb?
I'm surprised the attitude is that SA is a balanced ability, especially with what I've seen at high levels with two-weapon fighting and full attacks and then to top it off with the Beta version allowing sneak attack to affect so many more things. However, if the general sentiment is that the ability is ok, then I'll live with it (and work around it if it becomes a problem in my game).
I'm surprised the attitude is that SA is a balanced ability, especially with what I've seen at high levels with two-weapon fighting and full attacks and then to top it off with the Beta version allowing sneak attack to affect so many more things. However, if the general sentiment is that the ability is ok, then I'll live with it (and work around it if it becomes a problem in my game).
I'm not so sure about the new abilities the beta enables. I've brought us some of my concerns about stacking abilities in another thread. I pretty much feel attacks is one of those things that wasn't broken and doesn't need fixing. The new abilities seem a bit overboard.
Straight sneak attack though requires at least a small amount of effort to pull off. Improved Invis is a 4th level spell and is meant to be powerful so I can deal with it.
Well, I ran some numbers for the proposed Sneak Attack, and came up with some interesting results.
I used a 16th level Rogue for my comparison.
Feats: Weapon Focus, TWF tree (incl double slice, weapon swap, etc), Imp Crit
Weapon: +1 holy shortsword of flaming burst, icy burst, shocking (~50% of character's cash)
Assumed Buffs: Str 30 (20 start, 4 levels, +6 item), Haste, Greater Magic Weapon (+4)
Yeah, that's right.. I'm assuming the worst, a Strength based Half-Orc TWF Rogue.
Anyways, just for giggles (and to quell the "rogues SA make them better than Fighters" argument), I ran a TWF Fighter. Also, to show how gimped the new PA is, I added a Twohander Fighter build (using Vital Strike and Backswing). They used the same suite of buffs and weapon enhancements.
Here's the damage numbers I got against a series of ACs:
AC .... SA-8d6 ... SA-4d6/+4 ...... TWF Ftr ...... 2H Ftr
35 ........ 185 .......... 224 .............. 287 .......... 256 (no PA)
33 ........ 234 .......... 263 .............. 317 .......... 270 (no PA)
31 ........ 282 .......... 293 .............. 346 .......... 276 (no PA)
29 ........ 330 .......... 315 .............. 366 .......... 283 (no PA)
27 ........ 368 .......... 336 .............. 385 .......... 319 (using PA)
25 ........ 395 .......... 347 .............. 400 .......... 342 (using PA, not using VS)
So the change proposed actually seems to make the Rogue STRONGER in Sneak Attack damage, at least in the higher ACs (the important ones, the bosses with tons of hitpoints).
Also, notice how the Fighter built for TWF using the same weapon blows the Rogue out of the water across the board. And all he's got over the Rogue is Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization and Weapon Training (well, and higher BAB).
And that's assuming the Rogue went all out on Strength too.
Just as a note, if the 2hander Fighter could use Power Attack at +5 instead of his Strength (+10), he'd be able to use it for a larger range of Armor Class (up to AC 33 before it's detrimental). The fact that he has to use it at FULL every time means he's eating a huge hit to his Attack roll, it's not worth using unless you get down to much lower ACs.
And when you reach low AC creatures, they usually have low HP, and there's usually a bunch of them. Which means you want to use Great Cleave instead.
A possible rewrite for Power Attack might be in order.
The Twohander's Full Attack damage doesn't concern me, since he's got much higher Standard Attack damage, and with the new feats, more standard attack options. He's the charge'n'splat.
|
|
I'm fine with sneak attack. Even if it did outpower the fighter at some levels and under some circumstances, that to me would just be another illustration that the fighter's broken (if those circumstances were intrinsically common or easily achievable).
Also, is anyone really going to play with the new Power Attack?
|
|
Here's numbers for my rogue.
17th level Rogue
Feats: Assassin's Strike (AEG Feats) with all its prereq feats and Precise Strike (Dragon #310)
Weapon: longbow
Buffs: Greater invisibility (racial trait)
Under the normal SA rules, he gets 9d6 for SA. Converting that to an attack bonus (via Precise Strike), he gets a +18 to hit. Damage = opponent instantly dies (via Assassin's Strike).
With Eric's proposal, he gets 15d6 for SA (the triple bonus would almost always apply). Converting that, he gets a +30 bonus to hit. Additionally, he would get another +4, making the total bonus to hit +34. Damage = instant death.
Thus, Eric's proposal would make my rogue better. He'd deal the same damage (instant death), but have better odds of hitting (+34 vs. +18).
Can I change my vote?
There are ambush feats, and several PrCs balanced and with abilities based on how many sneak attack dice you have. To alter it throws all of them out the window. Or takes a ton of extra language explaining how to make them work under the new system.
It wouldn't break backwards compatibility any more than the change to skills has required a short description of how to recalculate skill requirements for prestige classes.
I like and use ambush feats, but changing the numbers to match the proposed progression would be a short bit of work. Besides; one set of feats from one book and a few prestige class requirements shouldn't stop us from playing with new ideas.
I like the proposed progression; I want to try it out in some of my games and see how it actually plays out. I'll let you know.
So the change proposed actually seems to make the Rogue STRONGER in Sneak Attack damage, at least in the higher ACs (the important ones, the bosses with tons of hitpoints).
Nice analysis Kaisoku. Part of the purpose of what I was proposing was to make rogues better against high AC foes, so at least in that department I succeeded.
With Eric's proposal, he gets 15d6 for SA (the triple bonus would almost always apply)...
Actually, under my proposal the triple damage only applies when your opponent isn't aware the rogue even exists. On your first shot of a battle, assuming your opponent doesn't hear or see you then you'd get the triple sneak damage but after that even if you're invisible only the standard sneak damage (of 5d6) applies.
|
|
With Eric's proposal, he gets 15d6 for SA (the triple bonus would almost always apply)...Actually, under my proposal the triple damage only applies when your opponent isn't aware the rogue even exists. On your first shot of a battle, assuming your opponent doesn't hear or see you then you'd get the triple sneak damage but after that even if you're invisible only the standard sneak damage (of 5d6) applies.
Oh that's right. So your system would be better (in terms of my rogue being more powerful) if there was just one BBEG, but if there were many enemies, the old system would probably be better. Okay, I'm changing my vote back to no. ;)
|
|
Has anyone got examples that suggest that the sneak attack, as it currently is, is broken? How many of those aren't addressable by 'the fighter/meleer is too weak' (I say that because comparisons of fighter vs SA-ing rogue damage at high levels mostly to me suggest fighter underperformance)?
On the plus side, as per something James Jacobs said in another thread, it seems that we have a decent chance of the blanket crit immunities of certain types such as undead will go as well, so at least meleers get that back.
Has anyone got examples that suggest that the sneak attack, as it currently is, is broken? How many of those aren't addressable by 'the fighter/meleer is too weak' (I say that because comparisons of fighter vs SA-ing rogue damage at high levels mostly to me suggest fighter underperformance)?
...
Actually, I think a rogue SA-ing should outperform a fighter..but that may just a personal preference of mine. Especially since without the SA, a fighter blows away rogue damage.
I suppose now that I can see the resulting damage analysis Kaisoku did, that my proposal doesn't really 'nerf' sneak attack anyway, it just changes it by evening out damage somewhat (a bit less against lower AC foes and a bit more against high AC foes). It would also make rogues better against foes immune to sneak attack damage (since the bonus to attack would still apply).
|
|
Actually, I think a rogue SA-ing should outperform a fighter..but that may just a personal preference of mine. Especially since without the SA, a fighter blows away rogue damage.
Oh sure, a sneak attack is supposed to be a nasty blow. I was wondering about a more widespread comparison (and also the issue of how easy, or not, it is to get SA damage).
I suppose now that I can see the resulting damage analysis Kaisoku did, that my proposal doesn't really 'nerf' sneak attack anyway, it just changes it by evening out damage somewhat (a bit less against lower AC foes and a bit more against high AC foes). It would also make rogues better against foes immune to sneak attack damage (since the bonus to attack would still apply).
But hardly any creatures will be immune to SA damage now, it seems...
But hardly any creatures will be immune to SA damage now, it seems...
Yes, and that's part of the reason I felt sneak attack needed a slight toning down. I still like the version I proposed here, but I failed at the 'toning down' since apparently my version isn't really a decrease in power just a different way to approach sneak attacks.
|
|
Yes, and that's part of the reason I felt sneak attack needed a slight toning down.
Criticals have to come back for those creatures too, I would say (although that won't fix the problem, obviously). I am sort of hoping that the Rogue keeps the SA and the fighter gets turned into something more widely considered to be worth playing in the meantime...
Also, is anyone really going to play with the new Power Attack?
I'm testing it out - hasn't been bad so far. Not really a big change at low levels though - still working our way up.
As my numbers showed, as long as the Fighter is allowed a decent weapon (the same weapon the Rogue is using) with dice damage, he'll do more damage overall than the Rogue due to his higher attack bonus.
Weapon Training actually does help here. It doesn't seem like much... +1-4 on attack and damage. But when combined with all his other pluses and already high BAB, it makes it's impact.
.
The problem with Power Attack is that the higher you get your Strength/BAB, the worse your attack penalty is, and you have no choice but to use it to full.
This means that unless you completely overpower the AC you're up against, Power Attack costs just too much.
If Power Attack did just simply -5 Attack for +5 Damage (+10 twohanded), it'd be useful for a larger range of AC targets.
|
|
The problem with Power Attack is that the higher you get your Strength/BAB, the worse your attack penalty is, and you have no choice but to use it to full.This means that unless you completely overpower the AC you're up against, Power Attack costs just too much.
If Power Attack did just simply -5 Attack for +5 Damage (+10 twohanded), it'd be useful for a larger range of AC targets.
I'm just going to use the old Power Attack. I was sort of assuming that everyone else was, too.
Well, I ran some numbers for the proposed Sneak Attack, and came up with some interesting results.
(...)
Also, notice how the Fighter built for TWF using the same weapon blows the Rogue out of the water across the board. And all he's got over the Rogue is Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization and Weapon Training (well, and higher BAB).
And that's assuming the Rogue went all out on Strength too. (...)
Did you take into account the rogue talents that synergize with sneak attacks, like bleed and save or die? I didn't think so.
Now try it with an optimized hybrid that has both sneak attacks and some fighter levels. Rogue sneak attacks are broken, the new fighter with the TWF feats is just slightly more broken, and the two together is a monster, not a character.
(...) I do feel the ability could use a slight toning down in damage while increase the attack bonus for sneak attacks. Something like this:
(...)
The fix is to allow the current sneak attacks only once/round.
|
|
Did you take into account the rogue talents that synergize with sneak attacks, like bleed and save or die? I didn't think so.
Now try it with an optimized hybrid that has both sneak attacks and some fighter levels. Rogue sneak attacks are broken, the new fighter with the TWF feats is just slightly more broken, and the two together is a monster, not a character.
It would cool if you could run some numbers to show that (and show us an 'optimised hybrid' build). I'm not much of an optimiser myself, but I'd actually be pretty happy to see a legal build that was somehow too good for the game's power level (as set, at mid-to-high levels, by the casters); that would show that things have been going in the right direction (even if they went a little too far, as per your claim).
I am not convinced that the TWF fighter is broken at all nor the Rogue (it may well be that Bleed is too strong for a minor talent but I don't think it's game-breaking either). They're not going to overpower the casters, so is your point that they're too strong for level-appropriate monsters or what? Might it not be that some of the other classes' meleeing ability is too weak rather than the new Rogue being too strong?
I sort of feel like things are coming together in the game so long as the focus on feats solves some of the meleer's problems (particularly those of the fighter, who needs feats to make him worth playing). Of course, I shall be playtesting through a whole campaign soon so maybe I'll change my mind, but the new rogue to me looks like a Good Thing that illustrates why this game is going to be better than 3.5.
Well, I ran some numbers for the proposed Sneak Attack, and came up with some interesting results.
(...)
Also, notice how the Fighter built for TWF using the same weapon blows the Rogue out of the water across the board. And all he's got over the Rogue is Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization and Weapon Training (well, and higher BAB).
And that's assuming the Rogue went all out on Strength too. (...)Did you take into account the rogue talents that synergize with sneak attacks, like bleed and save or die? I didn't think so.
Now try it with an optimized hybrid that has both sneak attacks and some fighter levels. Rogue sneak attacks are broken, the new fighter with the TWF feats is just slightly more broken, and the two together is a monster, not a character.
Bleed? Bleed is not that impressive by itself. There are 2 limiters on bleed, #1 it doesn't stack with itself and #2 the enemy you hit is probably not going to take more than 2-3 rounds worth of damage because most likely he will be dead. So maybe it adds a little extra damage but in most cases only 5-10% more and over time.
I would like to see your optimized hybrid... it's hard for me to imagine a super broken rogue/ fighter but maybe such a thing existing.
It would cool if you could run some numbers to show that (and show us an 'optimised hybrid' build). I'm not much of an optimiser myself, but I'd actually be pretty happy to see a legal build that was somehow too good for the game's power level (as set, at mid-to-high levels, by the casters); that would show that things have been going in the right direction (even if they went a little too far, as per your claim).I am not convinced that the TWF fighter is broken at all nor the Rogue (it may well be that Bleed is too strong for a minor talent but I don't think it's game-breaking either). They're not going to overpower the casters, so is your point that they're too strong for level-appropriate monsters or what? Might it not be that some of the other classes' meleeing ability is too weak rather than the new Rogue being too strong?
I sort of feel like things are coming together in the game so long as the focus on feats solves some of the meleer's problems (particularly those of the fighter, who needs feats to make him worth playing). Of course, I shall be playtesting through a whole campaign soon so maybe I'll change my mind, but the new rogue to me looks like a Good Thing that illustrates why this game is going to be better than 3.5.
I hope you get people similar to the minmaxing game breakers I know. A friend of mine has a TWF rogue hybrid that just scares me; I was basing my comments on that. I'm not sure how he's built exactly, but I'll try to find out.
Regarding others being too weak, it's true that my experience is mainly with a monk (flurry of whiffs). However, I'd rather compare to the number of hit points another melee character may have. If melee character "A" can deal more damage in one round on average than melee character "B" has hit points, I think that's excessive. Because a spellcaster can take out one monster with one spell once or twice/day in ideal conditions doesn't mean that melee characters should be able to do it in one round on average all day. Comparing average melee power to peak spellcasting power is not appropriate. If you're unhappy with that, I'd rather nerf the high-level spellcaster than have monster melee types. Hopefully, without nerfing the low-level spellcasting to an even more pitiful state.
Bleed? Bleed is not that impressive by itself. There are 2 limiters on bleed, #1 it doesn't stack with itself and #2 the enemy you hit is probably not going to take more than 2-3 rounds worth of damage because most likely he will be dead. So maybe it adds a little extra damage but in most cases only 5-10% more and over time.I would like to see your optimized hybrid... it's hard for me to imagine a super broken rogue/ fighter but maybe such a thing existing.
That's right, I forgot that with this extreme level of damage the fight wouldn't last long. You kind of make my point.
But bleed could be useful against caster specifically becuase it deals damage round after round it has the potential to ruin a spell or two... I realise it isn't a huge concern but it is a possibility to consider.
Did you take into account the rogue talents that synergize with sneak attacks, like bleed and save or die?
Nope, good call.
For the lvl 16 example, Bleed would likely add 8 (or 4 with the proposed idea) points of extra damage in a full attack round. (It's unlikely the Rogue wouldn't hit at least once, so looking at a probility nearing 100%.)
However, that doesn't cover the difference in damage the Fighter has for most of the ACs given above.
Insta-death does not really apply to this situation for multiple reasons.
First, we were talking about a lvl 16 Rogue, not a lvl 20 Rogue.
Second, if we can see Sneak Attack being balanced before the lvl 20 endcap ability, and that ability "breaks" sneak attack, then it's the ability causing the problem, not Sneak Attack in general.
Finally, the Fighter has an endcap ability as well that grants auto-success on Crits and an increased damage multiplier. Having 17-20/x3 on a weapon using Flaming Burst, etc, does increase the average damage nicely.
I also didn't take into account Opportunist Attack, since it's impossible to tell how often it will come into play.
In my own experience at playing 16th+ characters, large combats involve many enemies that die after a few rounds of damage (at best). In about a dozen fights, with possibly over a hundred rounds of combat, the Rogue had the chance to use his Opportunist Attack ability twice.
Yeah, it's anecdotal, but it showcases the reason why I can't slap that into a damage modal program and figure out how much it adds.
Another thing to take into consideration. The Fighter does still have access to even more feats. Even assuming the Rogue took his two feat swaps in Rogue Talents for Weapon Focus and Improved Critical, he's still looking at eating up at least 6 of his character feats on this shtick alone.
The Fighter still has a bunch of feat slots for other options, including his own version of bleed (Deadly Stroke, causing much feared Con damage).
I didn't think so.
I'll chalk that up as you being humorous, and not take that personally.
Now try it with an optimized hybrid that has both sneak attacks and some fighter levels. Rogue sneak attacks are broken, the new fighter with the TWF feats is just slightly more broken, and the two together is a monster, not a character.
The common argument that has been flying around is that the Rogue is overpowered because Sneak Attack makes them fight better than the Fighter.
The numbers I listed were in response to that, clearly, as I don't compare their damage to any other classes capabilities.
So if you start making a character that has both Rogue AND Fighter levels, then it's clear that the Fighter isn't inferior to the Rogue since he's needed as part of the build.
If I were to build a Rogue/Fighter TWF build, it'd probably be max 11th level Rogue, and 9th level Fighter (or other full BAB classes once you have your feats done). Final tally of a BAB +17, +2 Weapon Training, at least one Advanced Talent for Improved Evasion or Opportunist Attack (depending on your build intent), 6d6 Sneak Attack, etc.
No end cap ability, but the higher attack bonus with 6d6 SA damage would cover that loss nicely.
.
As for if this is overpowered compared to other builds... I have no clue. I haven't run the numbers for other classes, mostly because they provide something other than the stand still full attack damage output. Some are more about the charge + really really big single hit and maybe Cleave. Others are about magic damage capability (which is a rigamarole in optimization and dependant upon a bunch of "ifs").
Others provide something other than outright damage, such as tactical advantages, or out-of-combat effects.
My gut tells me that TWF/SA Combo is very effective in it's niche (being able to get a full attack round in, getting SA to qualify, not facing something that has one of many melee/physical blocking abilities). However it does not prevent other classes or combat options from shining at some point, so I don't beleive it's necessarily "broken".
Did you know that you can get a two feat tree that will basically stop any Sneak Attack occuring as long as you move? Dodge + Wind Stance. You get "concealment". You cannot sneak attack anyone with any level of concealment. Huh.
|
|
I hope you get people similar to the minmaxing game breakers I know. A friend of mine has a TWF rogue hybrid that just scares me; I was basing my comments on that. I'm not sure how he's built exactly, but I'll try to find out.
It would be cool if you could post that build, then, so we could see what you mean. I ask this because I don't personally know how to build a game-breaking TWF fighter-rogue (and it would be good to see one before, say, one of my players makes it...).
Regarding others being too weak, it's true that my experience is mainly with a monk (flurry of whiffs). However, I'd rather compare to the number of hit points another melee character may have. If melee character "A" can deal more damage in one round on average than melee character "B" has hit points, I think that's excessive. Because a spellcaster can take out one monster with one spell once or twice/day in ideal conditions doesn't mean that melee characters should be able to do it in one round on average all day. Comparing average melee power to peak spellcasting power is not appropriate. If you're unhappy with that, I'd rather nerf the high-level spellcaster than have monster melee types. Hopefully, without nerfing the low-level spellcasting to an even more pitiful state.
What numbers are you talking about for more damage than the a meleer has hitpoints? Are you just talking about the possibility -- getting in a full attack (which exposes them to a full attack, in melee) all attacks hit, all SA dice come up 6 -- or the expected value?
As for a genuine nerf of high-level casters, other than some of the spells being weakened (as has happened) I just don't see that flying. This is, after all, D&D. Other than some of the things that have been discussed elsewhere -- making meleers harder to ignore on the battlefield through the use of more feats that will might be increasing damage, increasing AoO damage more, increasing threatened squares and allowing multiple attacks as well as a move, making it easier to interrupt casters with damage mid-spell -- the rest of the solution does, I think, require powering up the meleers (and the monk probably needs the biggest fix).
However, I'd rather compare to the number of hit points another melee character may have. If melee character "A" can deal more damage in one round on average than melee character "B" has hit points, I think that's excessive.
Considering most gameplay isn't spent with PC classes fighting each other, what does it matter how much higher damage a particular build can do compared to another class' hitpoints? Especially since many classes are designed to have low hitpoints as a balancing factor in favor of other things (such as access to magic, the most flexible class ability that can tailored to many different situations, and often done at fairly extreme range).
Wouldn't it be more productive to compare the damage dealt to the creatures that would be fought by both characters? It'd be a more realistic sample set of what happens in game.
But bleed could be useful against caster specifically becuase it deals damage round after round it has the potential to ruin a spell or two... I realise it isn't a huge concern but it is a possibility to consider.
This seems to be a great argument for why bleeding attack should stick around. Spellcasters have tons of abilities with persistent effects, why shouldn't the rogue have 1?
Did you know that you can get a two feat tree that will basically stop any Sneak Attack occuring as long as you move? Dodge + Wind Stance. You get "concealment". You cannot sneak attack anyone with any level of concealment. Huh.
There is also a 1 feat combination that makes you immune to SA from a rogue being invisible, Blind-Fighting. So the whole greater invis== rogue constant SA awesomeness is broken by 1 feat. Not so awesome.
Wouldn't it be more productive to compare the damage dealt to the creatures that would be fought by both characters? It'd be a more realistic sample set of what happens in game.
The argument, as some see it, is that everyone needs to "shine" and not necessarily be *better* than someone else all the time. Hence the need to "balance" the characters against each other.
i.e. the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric should all more or less have strengths and weaknesses that when balanced out ensure that each class isn't any better or worse than the others- they just have different roles.
(where fighter = mele dps, rogue = skill monkey, wizard = arcane, and cleric = divine).
Anyone filling in those roles should be equally capable without ruining the other classes.
If, for example, the fighter is "too good" he'll outshine the others more than his allotted time and that is considered a problem.
Using your own example: are the low HP of the wizard an adequate balance to the power the wizard wields? At low levels maybe- but each new level of spell yields more and better ways to counteract that low HP. (just as an example)
and so on. It's why folks sometimes compare classes directly, rather than to compare them against for example- an equal CR creature. (or several CR creatures).
-S
I don't mind the rogue bleed, even from the wizard's point of view (I'd be more worried about the damage itself than the roll to keep my spell!), I'm just pointing it out.
Personally I have no problems at all with the rogue having all he has right now.
1 second level spell will always kill sneak attack damage: Blur. It grants concealment, concealment prevents sneak attack, rogue is stuck.
Then you got displacement, mirror image, greater invisibility, invisibility, etc. al.
Heck even plain old Improved Uncanny Dodge does the trick.
Considering the number of ways to avoid sneak attack damage I think it ends fine where it is. Generally when people complain of "overpower munckiny cheese builds" they just aren't clever enough to see how and where the builds are weak. This is just another case in point to me.
Considering the number of ways to avoid sneak attack damage I think it ends fine where it is. Generally when people complain of "overpower munckiny cheese builds" they just aren't clever enough to see how and where the builds are weak. This is just another case in point to me.
For this reason I think the 3.5 version of SA was good as written. Under Paizo my only gripe is the fact that you can do multiple additional things with Sneak Attack. If you were limited to one rogue talent per round I would be happy.
It would cool if you could run some numbers to show that (and show us an 'optimised hybrid' build). (...)
I've had quite different results from the above... Bear in mind I've never done this before, hence the delay and the detailed calculations below.
First I calculated the chance to hit for various ACs, depending on the attack bonus with the formula
=MIN(MAX((B2-A3+21)/20;0.05); 1)
where column B is the attack bonus and column A is the Armor Class, which gives something like this:
AC | 27 | 22 | 17
35 | 0.65 0.4 0.15
33 | 0.75 0.5 0.25
31 | 0.85 0.6 0.35
29 | 0.95 0.7 0.45
27 | 1 0.8 0.55
25 | 1 0.9 0.65
(sorry, I can't seem to get the <pre> tag working to display the data nicely)
I compared a rogue 11/fighter 5 to the new rogue proposed by Eric, and to a fighter 16 with and without power attack (both TWF, assuming power attack works also for TWF). All are humans with strength 28.
Equipment: Two-bladed sword (exotic weapon, feat expended below)
weapon enhancement level 4, +1 to hit/dmg and +3d6 elemental dmg
Greater magic weapon (+4 attack/dmg)
The rogue has
Minor magic
Major magic (used for enlarge)
Opportunist => +1 attack (assuming someone, anyone, hit the target)
Feats
Two-Weapon Fighting
Double Slice (Strength bonus on off-hand)
Two-Weapon Rend (1d10 + 1.5 strength) if both attacks hit => 1d10+15 => 20.5
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (attack at -5)
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (attack at -10 if BAB +11)
Weapon Focus +1 to hit
Weapon Specialization +2 dmg
Sword, two-bladed (1d8/1d8 => 2d6/2d6 with enlarge) exotic
Improved critical (crits on 17-20, x2)
9 feats
strength 28 = +9/+9 (+10 dmg after enlarge)
5 feats for levels
3 fighter feats
1 human feat
I calculated the damage with this formula, where column B is the chance to hit with the first attack (3 attacks due to opportunist), C with the second, and D with the third:
=(3*B8+2*C8+2*D8)*Normal dmg + Rend *MIN(1;B8*MIN(1;(B8+C8+D8)) + C8*MIN(1;(B8+C8+D8)) + D8*MIN(1;(B8+C8+D8)))
where the rend probability calculation is slightly simplified but close enough.
AC | R11/F5 | New | F16 | F16+PA
35 | 237 | 262 | 187 | 76
33 | 288 | 303 | 215 | 106
31 | 338 | 343 | 239 | 142
29 | 388 | 367 | 258 | 179
27 | 427 | 391 | 277 | 215
25 | 456 | 409 | 286 | 251
So, the new rogue would be marginally better at high ACs, but not by a lot. Both are better than the fighter by about 50%, and 100% better (twice the dmg) than the fighter with power attack. Nevermind that the thought of a rogue dealing upwards of 400 points of sustained dmg/round is just scary.
Oh, and in that calculation the fighter 16 also has Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. These figures are AVERAGE damage, not maximum, and without a haste spell even...
I don't mind the rogue bleed, even from the wizard's point of view (I'd be more worried about the damage itself than the roll to keep my spell!), I'm just pointing it out.
Personally I have no problems at all with the rogue having all he has right now.
1 second level spell will always kill sneak attack damage: Blur. It grants concealment, concealment prevents sneak attack, rogue is stuck.
Then you got displacement, mirror image, greater invisibility, invisibility, etc. al.
Heck even plain old Improved Uncanny Dodge does the trick.
Considering the number of ways to avoid sneak attack damage I think it ends fine where it is. Generally when people complain of "overpower munckiny cheese builds" they just aren't clever enough to see how and where the builds are weak. This is just another case in point to me.
And in which dream party does the wizard/sorcerer bother to expend 4 or 5 Blur spells on party members, and have time to do it so it's always up before every fight? I want in! :D
Oh, and who has access to Improved Uncanny Dodge? Hmmm. Not many.
Your "clever" is just unrealistic hand-waving to me.
Did you know that you can get a two feat tree that will basically stop any Sneak Attack occuring as long as you move? Dodge + Wind Stance. You get "concealment". You cannot sneak attack anyone with any level of concealment. Huh. (...)
And then your damage output is reduced to a fraction because you moved. So essentially with Wind Stance you turtle up and become irrelevant. Not an effective counter because if you're a good fighter you lose almost as much as you defend against for only a small net gain. And then the rogue moves to another target, having effectively neutralized you, and still dealing all that awesome damage. Let's not even discuss AoOs against you due to your movement action, and how you manage to come back to engage the rogue without wasting an entire round on a futile attempt to evade sneak attack damage.
What numbers are you talking about for more damage than the a meleer has hitpoints? (...)
I think I clarified this above -- average damage output. The Rogue 11/F5 can kill two lvl 16 TWF fighters (no shield) with 200 hit points in each round, on average. So, no I didn't bother calculating bleeding damage :D
Chances are, the rogue sneaked in and caught you flat-footed as you were preparing tea... Gurk -- you're dead in less than half a round (nevermind how an enlarged rogue sneaked in ;). I think Pathfinder rogues (as in R11/F5) don't even need sneak attacks to match the damage output of fighters... And they also cast Shield.
Barbarians, Rogues, Monks, shadow dancers, dwarven defenders, and assassins, all have uncanny dodge.
Cloak of displacement, minor 24,000 gp
Dodge + wind stance, 2 feats
Blur or displacement 1 2nd or 3rd level spell slot
Ring of Blinking 27,000 gp
Armor of Moderate Fortification 16,150 + (cost of armor) gp
Ring of invisibility 20,000 gp
Wand of Blur 4,500 gp
and again this is just the easy stuff.
Honestly if your roguexx/fighterxx can take a straight fighter head on so easily, you aren't making the fighter right, and beyond that you aren't talking a straight rogue anymore either.
NOTE: Wind stance will only affect, ranged attacks, so if a rogue moves in and attacks in melee, then it will be of no use.
Barbarians, Rogues, Monks, shadow dancers, dwarven defenders, and assassins, all have uncanny dodge.
Cloak of displacement, minor 24,000 gp
Dodge + wind stance, 2 feats
Blur or displacement 1 2nd or 3rd level spell slot
Ring of Blinking 27,000 gp
Armor of Moderate Fortification 16,150 + (cost of armor) gp
Ring of invisibility 20,000 gp
Wand of Blur 4,500 gpand again this is just the easy stuff.
Honestly if your roguexx/fighterxx can take a straight fighter head on so easily, you aren't making the fighter right, and beyond that you aren't talking a straight rogue anymore either.
Monks don't have uncanny dodge, and don't have access to fortification armor either. Dwarven Defenders don't exist anymore in Pathfinder.
Shadowdancers and assassins are just rogue varieties. That leaves Barbarians and rogues.Heh I get challenged to make the hybrid I was talking about and then I get dismissed for it not being a straight rogue? Sheesh. If I'm not making the fighter right then tell me how the fighter should be done. I forgot to give him Power critical but it shouldn't change much; he had also weapon mastery 3. Just dismissing the results because you don't like them is silly; see Galileo vs Catholic Church.
I have never seen in any campaign any of the items you mention. The chance of the DMs I know allowing them or my character being able to use them, or have the spell cast on him, is essentially zero. The best fortification I've ever seen was light, because "anymore than that would cripple rogues so I won't allow it". I'm quite fed up with people being overprotective of rogues. They don't need it.