If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC...
The wording in the singular sense makes me wonder if Sneak Attack is supposed to only apply to ONE attack?
Whether or not this is the currently intended meaning of that line, I'd almost rather just have the Sneak Attack damage be applied once for the entire round, not per EVERY attack. 2WF Rogues, for example, at low level, would NOT do TWICE the amount of Sneak Attack damage if both attacks hit. They would still have some advantages because if their main attack misses, they still have another chance to do that Sneak Attack damage, with their off-hand, as well as doing more damage just from normal weapon damage (if both hit).
2WF should not DOUBLE the effectiveness of Sneak Attack, IMHO. If reducing Sneak Attack to apply only once/round were seen as too much of a nerf, I'd rather just increase the damage bonus from Sneak Attack, than make 2WF Rogues mechanically 'required' to be effective Sneak Attackers. The damage bonus could probably be scaled up to 1d8/tier, solely based on the increased hit die of Rogues and Wizards/Sorcerors.
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC...The wording in the singular sense makes me wonder if Sneak Attack is supposed to only apply to ONE attack?
Whether or not this is the currently intended meaning of that line, I'd almost rather just have the Sneak Attack damage be applied once for the entire round, not per ANY attack.
Just as 3.5, it definite means for any attack that qualifies. It can't refer to "round of attacks", etc., because the conditions must remain in place. For instance, a Rogue attacking an aware target while invisible gets sneak attack, but if no longer invisible the subsequent attacks would not.
As for balance issues with TWF? I don't feel like getting into that.
Honestly why?
This has been gone over several times, the fighter is still going to outdamage the rogue (as well as the barbarian, ranger, and paladin).
Rogue just can't connect enough for this to be an issue, other than if people either:
1. Can't build an effective fighter
2. are extremely lucky with their d6's.
Please note an effective 'fighter' (read: full BAB class) doesn't have to be optimized or anything, you can probably waste half a fighter's feats and still do good.
Well, I wasn't sure if this had been brought up before, I hadn't seen it.
This isn't about comparing the Rogue to the Fighter,
it's about whether 1H Rogues should do half the Sneak Attack damage as a 2WF Rogue.
Since Sneak Attack is about doing damage, there's a major prod to go 2WF.
Being as the Rogue Chapter is currently up, and everything's open to review,
I thought if Jason decided he DIDN'T want 2WF to be "de rigeur" for Rogues,
the mechanic might be modified in some way....? /shrug
EDIT: If it's thought that 2WF being "de rigeur" is a good thing, then it should probably be a Rogue Trick.
This has been gone over several times, the fighter is still going to outdamage the rogue (as well as the barbarian, ranger, and paladin).
Only if the opponent stands still and lets him full attack. Against an opponent who moves, the fighter is lucky to get one attack a round in. Withdraw action = fighter can't catch up.
Ok I see where you are bringing new points to the table now.
Well, a two weapon rogue does have the penalties to hit right up front, and his feats and stats are more limited by the requirements of the two weapon style. A none two weapon rogue is going to hit more often, and have more options in general open to them...
Let me crunch out a one weapon rogue and see what we can get out of it.
An archery styled fighter will still do wonders and is an option (rangers aren't the only ones that can use a bow!)
I'll do Lenny's sister 'Cinny' as a fighter archer type and post it over in the fighter section later on.
I'll do Lenny's sister 'Cinny' as a fighter archer type and post it over in the fighter section later on.
Cool -- I look forward to seeing it.
2WF should not DOUBLE the effectiveness of Sneak Attack, IMHO.
I agree that SA should only apply to a single weapon at a time, if only because if it did then JB would have an opportunity to finally make TWF a viable option for everyone else.
TS
Exactly :-)
2WF should be designed to be balanced against NORMAL usage for ALL characters.
If Sneak Attack doesn't NEED to vary so widely depending on one Feat, why should it?
(Cleric or Sorceror Abilities with Touch Effects don't apply DOUBLE if you use 2WF.)
I 100% don't think 2WF Rogues need to be DISCOURAGED, I just don't see why they should get almost DOUBLE the effectiveness out of this one Class Ability, compared to their 1-Handed brethren. It would seem to go with the "fluff" of Sneak Attack, as well, since your extra "Precision" is being shared by two attacks. And I like I said, even with the -2 to-hit of 2WF, they have an extra chance to hit (and apply SA), so 2WF could still be seen as superior to 1H, just not "why-NOT-choose-2WF?" insanely superior...
This has been gone over several times, the fighter is still going to outdamage the rogue (as well as the barbarian, ranger, and paladin).Only if the opponent stands still and lets him full attack. Against an opponent who moves, the fighter is lucky to get one attack a round in. Withdraw action = fighter can't catch up.
A rogue who has to move to attack an opponent can only make one attack as well. Chances are, if the opponent withdrew, the rogue won't be able to catch up and still sneak attack.
Once a rogue is noticed, they can't sneak attack any more. So if they attack from hiding, they only get one attack with the potential for sneak attack (if that misses, any further attacks that hit don't sneak attack). They can only get reliable sneak attacks on multiple attacks when they're flanking or under the effect of something like Greater Invisibility.
This means that a rogue is going to have to spend time prior to and during combat manuevering and planning. Even with sneak attack affecting a lot more enemies, rogues will have to prepare just as much before a fight. Why limit this further?
Fighters, and other comparable classes, have a higher BAB, more hitpoints, and greater armor options. A TWF rogue is going to be in the thick of combat along with them. They're going to be hitting a lot less (due to TWF penalties, a lower BAB, and fewer feat options), subject to the same manueverability issues, and being hit in return more frequently.
Sneak attack, in certain circumstances can be very potent. That's the reason to play a rogue. But it isn't very reliable. A fighter is a far more reliable build, who can deal damage consistently. Limiting sneak attack further makes a rogue highly undesirable.
|
2WF should not DOUBLE the effectiveness of Sneak Attack, IMHO.
Why not? It doubles the effectiveness of the new Paladin Smite Evil as well...
A pally adds his cha bonus to attacks and his level to damage on the rounds that he uses his smite. Against evil outsiders and undead the damage is equal to that of sneak attack. With TWF that reads to me like no penalty to hit (what paladin does not have a 14 cha at least) and an extreme bonus to damage. All with good BAB and a host of other abilities.
My very first reaction to the new smite was "we'll see a lot more TWF pally's." Is this a bad thing? For the paladin, it certainly signals a change in image, though most will probably not go for a TWF build simply for the cost of a 15 dex. The build is sound, though. Almost munchkin in its design. Better, maybe, than TWF rogues simply for the perfect BAB, and easier to use (albeit much less per day) than sneak attack.
Ryn, who drafted way too many versions of this post
Why not? It doubles the effectiveness of the new Paladin Smite Evil as well...
My very first reaction to the new smite was "we'll see a lot more TWF pally's.
Yes, I had thought of that too after posting.
And if this is the conscious intent, I'm fine with it. It just seems that if it IS the intent to make the effectiveness of Sneak Attack (& Smite) so much enhanced by one fighting style, that it should be a Rogue Talent option, just like Weapon Finesse is...And the wording could more explicitly say that Sneak Attack applies to ALL attacks, so that "newbies" playing for the first time could quickly comprehend it's importance.
(I think Smite more clearly says that, but Smite also lasts for multiple rounds at high levels)
If making 2WF the "de rigeur" Rogue Style ISN'T the conscious intent,
I just wanted to point out an option to make it more combat-style neutral. And it doesn't seem contrary to the "fluff" of "Precision Damage" to say that you can only apply it once/ round. Changing to "only one successful Sneak Attack/ round" WOULD probably necessitate increasing it's effectiveness at higher levels, though.
I don't care about the details of crunching the numbers
(which would be ugly with 2WF and multiple opponent AC's) or the exact numerical benefit over 1-handed/2-handed Sneak Attack.
I just wanted to bring this to Paizo's attention, so WHATEVER their intent, it could be clearly indicated.
(I would NOT say that the current Rogue write-up clearly indicates the syngergistic advantages of 2WF and Sneak Attack)
|
|
It just seems that if it IS the intent to make the effectiveness of Sneak Attack (& Smite) so much enhanced by one fighting style, that it should be a Rogue Talent option, just like Weapon Finesse is...
Agreed. Perhaps it could take the place of the Combat Trick talent (which may be too broad), or be added to the already stellar list. Doublestrike, maybe? Two-chiv?
Ryn, who thinks that maybe knife-fighters are not fighters at all...
A rogue who has to move to attack an opponent can only make one attack as well. Chances are, if the opponent withdrew, the rogue won't be able to catch up and still sneak attack.
Once a rogue is noticed, they can't sneak attack any more. So if they attack from hiding, they only get one attack with the potential for sneak attack (if that misses, any further attacks that hit don't sneak attack). They can only get reliable sneak attacks on multiple attacks when they're flanking or under the effect of something like Greater Invisibility. This means that a rogue is going to have to spend time prior to and during combat manuevering and planning. Even with sneak attack affecting a lot more enemies, rogues will have to prepare just as much before a fight. Why limit this further? Fighters, and other comparable classes, have a higher BAB, more hitpoints, and greater armor options.
What you say is completely true at lower levels. Above 8th level or so, the rogue's "almost never" sneak attack will be more like "almost always" due to the availability of magical buffs that make his opponents flat-footed; the rogue no longer needs to maneuver or set it up. That's also the level range in which fighters begin to fall behind the other classes in their effectiveness -- "reliable" starts creeping into "useless" territory, due to the reach and/or mobility and/or magical protections and/or insanely high hp of enemies. If you never play above 10th level or so, it's no problem at all. If you play 1st-20th, then for half of the campaign the rogue consistently out-damages the fighter, which is a sad state of affairs.
That said, I'd rather augment the fighter's effectiveness at higher levels than hamstring the rogue's.
In my latest campaign, I joined starting an 8th level character and have played up to 16th or 17th level so far.
Seriously. Full Attack Sneak Attack happens rarely. The number of creatures killed by the wizard far, far overshadows my Fighter build and the Rogue have done.
There's just things that are hard to hit, flying (when your own flight has been dispelled, etc) and very resistant to physical damage.
Or, the target might have a Blur, Displacement or Mirror Image effect on. And were talking Demons and Devils, so not just the once-in-a-while wizard NPC... it seems like every single fight there's at least one or two things tossing this stuff around.
OR even just really big creatures that have hard to reach vital spots, so time is wasted maneuvering into positions to even get the SA.
Also, there have been a TON of creatures that could literally kill the Rogue 3 times over if it did a full attack. Our Rogue spends 90% of combat with -5 to attack from Expertise, and that's "just in case" something catches up. Misses abound.
The only time he does a Full Attack is when it's the last thing alive and it's the Boss guy, and a full round of attacks will likely be enough to kill him, as long as he hits.
.
So no. In actual hectic combat in organic terrain/opposing forces, sneak attack (and especially SA full attack) just doesn't happen "all the time".
What you say is completely true at lower levels. Above 8th level or so, the rogue's "almost never" sneak attack will be more like "almost always" due to the availability of magical buffs that make his opponents flat-footed; the rogue no longer needs to maneuver or set it up. That's also the level range in which fighters begin to fall behind the other classes in their effectiveness -- "reliable" starts creeping into "useless" territory, due to the reach and/or mobility and/or magical protections and/or insanely high hp of enemies. If you never play above 10th level or so, it's no problem at all. If you play 1st-20th, then for half of the campaign the rogue consistently out-damages the fighter, which is a sad state of affairs.
That said, I'd rather augment the fighter's effectiveness at higher levels than hamstring the rogue's.
I agree. The rogue, in its current version, is actually done right. Nerfing it, because it is, after a certain level, becomes stronger than a class, that is weak in general after that level, would be a very bad move.
The number of creatures killed by the wizard far, far overshadows my Fighter build and the Rogue have done.
You're making my case for me there -- I said the rogue out-damages the fighter (without reference to clerics or wizards), which he still does if the conditions you listed apply. As far as the rogue's lower AC and needing Expertise, the fighter's is usually significantly better only if he's also got a shield, which limits his damage and maneuvers capabilities quite a bit.
At higher levels, as you've noticed, any melee combatant is becoming obsolete, or is already there. Keeping the rogue at full strength is fine, but the fighter desperately needs a boost -- it's absurd that he consistently under-performs a non-full-BAB character (as FatR and I evidently agree).
Why do people keep getting all defensive, as if anyone suggested "Nerfing" the Rogue?
I only asked whether or not the Sneak Attack ability should be 'normalized'
so that 2WF is not necessarily superior to 1H/2H Sneak Attacks.
(and Paladin's Smite would be in the same boat. Poor Paladins. Nobody to defend them over imagined slights...)
I also mentioned that the ability might need to be upgraded (to d8? or other increases?)
if that was done, if the current 2WF usage is considered 'balanced'.
I also suggested, if it was agreed that 2WF is a "core" aspect of the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability,
to make 2WF a Rogue Talent so players are unequivocably encouraged to use it.
Or simply clarify the wording of Sneak Attack, so the benefits of 2WF with S.A.k might be more obvious to "newbies".
WHERE IS THE NERF?
What you say is completely true at lower levels. Above 8th level or so, the rogue's "almost never" sneak attack will be more like "almost always" due to the availability of magical buffs that make his opponents flat-footed;
I honestly can't think of anything in the core rules that is fool-proof, or so easily to obtain that the rogue can use this all the time.
The only thing I can think of is improved invisibility. That depends on the enemy being unable to see invisible enemies. Especially at high levels, that isn't that extravagant an ability.
Plus, we're talking about a 4th-level spell the rogue needs cast upon him by the wizard, every single fight. Many wizards will be less-than enthusiastic about buffing the rogue at the beginning of every fight, instead of, say, making themselves invisible, or enervating the heck out of some enemy (and remember that it might only be a 4th-level spell, but it costs the same action as a 9th-level spell)
He could, of course cast it himself, from a wand, for 420gp per use and a DC20 Use Magic Device check.
There might be more ways to do it, from other sources, but the question is what the problem here is.
If you play 1st-20th, then for half of the campaign the rogue consistently out-damages the fighter, which is a sad state of affairs.
I can't agree: The rogue isn't that much more mobile than the fighter - both are landbound by themselves, with the fighter's only disadvantage being a possible slow speed from medium or heavy armour.
But their five-foot-steps are the same lengths. So it's either full attack for both or for neither of them.
And while your experience might be that the rogue out-damages the fighter, mine is the opposite: both in the campaign I recently ran and my statistical comparisons, the fighter is generally the more damaging combatant: His damage bonuses from strength (especially assuming the rougue goes for dexterity and weapon finesse, especially since he does need high dex and light weapons, anyway), big weapons, weapon training and feats will give him bonuses that are actually not that far from what the rogue is getting from sneak attack.
And there are two more factors:
The fighter's damage is more reliable, and his attacks are more likely to hit:
Let's assume that the rogue is using two short swords or something like that (if you want to blow another feat on it, use double sword), while the fighter uses a falchion (provided he can't get his hands on a great falchion, an exotic weapon with 2d6 damage, 18-20/2 crit range). The fighter's base attack bonus will means he'll have an advantage in attack bonuses, which is further increased by weapon focus and greater weapon focus, as well as weapon training, and the fact that he doesn't have to take a -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons.
Those better attack roles will increase the effective damage by quite a bit, since a Doomsday Strike of Ultimate Death is harmless if it impales the barn door beside you instead of you. Of course, we could talk about an enemy with a bad AC - but that's when the fighter's best friend, Power Attack, will make its appearance, adding his strength bonus twice more to the damage.
The damage itself is also increased by his 1/2-times strength, and weapon specialisation (normal and greater), and weapon training. And the best of it? That extra damage will always work. No need for flanking, or taking the enemy unawares. You just hit and hurt.
And one thing that is not to be forgotten: Criticals: For a rogue, it's not a big thing, usually something like 1d6+3 more damage. Add that to his 6d6+3 or something, and it is no big deal - especially since you have to confirm that roll. A fighter, on the other hand, will double his damage with a crit! And, of course, he's more likely to have a crit and confirm it, too - the fighter will usually threaten on 17-20 with a keen falchion or a falchion with improved critical, and have a decent attack roll. (that only goes for below level 20, of course, when this turns into a real nightmare for enemies: guaranteed confirmation roll and even more damage)
Only if the opponent stands still and lets him full attack. Against an opponent who moves, the fighter is lucky to get one attack a round in. Withdraw action = fighter can't catch up.
Same goes for the rogue. And I'd argue that withdrawing will only delay the inevitable: While you withdraw, you cannot do anything but move, but the fighter can move along with you - or, if you can't find something to put between you and the fighter, he'll charge your ass.
And if that fighter thought, at one point: "Hey, I have to choose 4 different weapon groups to enhance with weapon training, and I get more feats than I can count without pulling off my socks, so I might as well get one of those corn-fed bows they sell, and invest some training in that archery stuff." You might be up against someone who is content with you running away because his arrows are always able to outrun you.
Between weapon training, a strong composite longbow, some feats, and some magic enhancements, your falchion fighter can be a half-decent archer. Not as effective as hacking away with that sword, but unless you're an archer or spell-slinger yourself, it's more than you can do while you run away like a girl.
Oh, I just realised there is an original topic:
No, if you attack with two weapons, you inflict sneak attack with each one. And I don't think that should be changed. It's not as if the rogue will actually hit with all these attacks. We're talking about lousy attack bonuses here, combined with the need to have an enemy stay put - instead of hitting you once and then going/tumbling away, forcing you to follow and only get one attack.
KaeYoss,
You're entirely correct that I failed to consider that a fighter who spends all his feats on a particular weapon/style will indeed far out-damage the rogue. But that means the example fighter has spent most of his class features in order to do something slightly better than the rogue can do without spending any of his billion skill points (such as maxing out Acrobatics to make himself virtually immune to AoO while moving).
But no matter; at the levels we're talking about, they're both rendered obsolete by the cleric (who can fight better because his buff spells far outclass feats, and he has more of them) the wizard (who not only out-damages the rogue, but can cope with high-level traps better than the rogue as well by using detect magic/greater dispelling as opposed to Perception/Disable Device).
Let me re-iterate yet again that I don't want to nerf the rogue. At all. But I do want to make fighting-types viable after 11th level or so.
You're entirely correct that I failed to consider that a fighter who spends all his feats
Actually, I'm saying that a fighter who spends some of his feats on a weapon will out-damage the rogue.
We're talking about Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation, Improved Critical. That's 5 feats of the 21 a fighter gets over 20 levels. He can easily do that for two weapons, and have some weapon style feats (another 5, say), and still get 6 general feats (like Dodge and Toughness).
Add to that weapon training (which is just a class feature).
on a particular weapon/style will indeed far out-damage the rogue. But that means the example fighter has spent most of his class features in order to do something slightly better
I'd say that if someone far out-damages someone else, that's not just slightly better.
And don't forget: The fighter will perform. THe rogue might, if the stars are right, but the fighter doesn't have that problem.
Let me re-iterate yet again that I don't want to nerf the rogue. At all. But I do want to make fighting-types viable after 11th level or so.
I think the fighter can be quite potent already.
You know I got looking at it, and dazzling display + stunned defense + spiked chain + whirlwind attack, can be some absolute win on a rogue, just like it is on a fighter.
The dazzling display makes the enemy shaken...
The stunned defense makes the shaken enemy flat-footed...
Spiked chain + whirlwind attack means every enemy that's shaken within 10 ft of you is hit on you best attack roll and takes SA.
If you really want to this can be done around level 11
Human Rogue:
Combat expertise (human)
Dodge (1st level)
Combat talent (2nd level) exotic weapon proficiency
Mobility (3rd level)
weapon training (4th level talent)
Dazzling display (5th level)
finesse rogue (6th level talent)
spring attack (7th level)
Stunned defense (9th level)
whirlwind attack (11th level)
Or trying to monk it out could work too, stunning fist, scorpin strike, gorgon fist, and medusa strike, can make that punny d4 damage fresh hotness with SA added on, and dazzling display and stunned defense can step in here too for fun, heck this could be a really out path for a half-orc rogue that likes to play with his enemies, the only real problem is that stunning fist is going to have to wait until level 11 and you won't get much use out of it, and medusa's wraith has to wait until level 15... not exactly great news. Still it is do-able.
Once a rogue is noticed, they can't sneak attack any more.
Is this really true? A rogue gets to sneak attack any time he/she flanks an opponent as well.
'The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.'
I'm DMing for a TWF Rogue and he loves it when the fighter engages a foe. He moves in for the flank and rocks out damage.
No it's not true, as long as you can flank or find some way of denying your opponent his dex bonus to AC he can be hit with a sneak attack.
Also, having looked over what Lenny (F,R,B), Benny, and Cenny can do I'm not convinced that fighters can't deal as much damage as a wizard can.
Heck I'm throwing a paladin together, going unoptimized with PA and overhead Chop on a great axe/sword/ earth breaker, I'm looking at (with an 18 str) +4 to hit, min 12 damage average of 17 at first level. Each level up to 4 is going to give me 2 more damage, and that's not counting if I can get a charge in or smite evil, or find some other way to add damage to my roll (hey wizzard, come cast magic weapon on me sword)! Speaking of which, said wizard isn't going to compare in damage until 5th level when he gets fireball or lightning bolt, and I'm still going to hit more often, and I don't have to worry about save throws (plus I'll have my divine bond).
The number of creatures killed by the wizard far, far overshadows my Fighter build and the Rogue have done.You're making my case for me there -- I said the rogue out-damages the fighter (without reference to clerics or wizards), which he still does if the conditions you listed apply. As far as the rogue's lower AC and needing Expertise, the fighter's is usually significantly better only if he's also got a shield, which limits his damage and maneuvers capabilities quite a bit.
At higher levels, as you've noticed, any melee combatant is becoming obsolete, or is already there. Keeping the rogue at full strength is fine, but the fighter desperately needs a boost -- it's absurd that he consistently under-performs a non-full-BAB character (as FatR and I evidently agree).
I was going to answer this, but KayYoss said everything I was going to say.
Any build a Rogue can do to max out his damage, the Fighter can do better, for better damage. Or different for similar damage and much more damage in other situations.My numbers make the Twohander Fighter somewhat less in a Full Attack compared to a Rogue or Fighter doing TWF, however he blows them away in a Standard Attack situation, which happens far more frequently.
Thus, who does the most damage over a campaign still will look like a guy swinging a big weapon.
.
As for comparing to Wizards and the like...
The Cleric buffing himself makes him almost as good as the Fighter for a few rounds in a day. In 3.5e I'd agree, he could kick more ass. But once again Weapon Training rears it's head and makes the Fighter catch up.
And while the Cleric gets dispelled or his time runs out on his big "per round" spells, the Fighter does his job from fight to fight to fight. Nothing worse for the Cleric who spends the first 4 rounds of combat buffing up the temporary buffs, kills a few monsters, and then you have to spend travel time to the next fight and now he's mediocre again.
Then again, that's why he gets spells.
As for the Wizard types. They get a chance to do overwhelm a bunch of targets per day, and then... what. In 3.5 they called for a rope trick or secret mansion to hide up until they can nova again. In Pathfinder they can do a few more things, but nothing compared to their "call down the thunder" stuff.
Typically, what happens is the Wizard tosses a few area spells at range to take out the peskier weak group things, getting a bunch of kills, and then waits on his doomsday weapons until the big bosses show up.
If there weren't any melee around to clean up the minibosses and things that survived the Wizard's aerial strike, things would get bad.
And while the Melee types might not get to full attack that often, getting fewer kills (albeit still important ones), the Archer builds can sit back like the Wizard and plink away, and don't have to worry about holding back their nova.
An Archer build built right can consistantly blow a SA/TWF Rogue (or even Fighter/Rogue) build, simply because he's nearly ALWAYS getting a full attack action, while the melee has to run from target to target.
.
Honestly, in my experience, and in my opinion, because of the drawbacks and tactical requirements that each build and class requires, no one person gets to outshine any other in too many more situations.
What I think people are really seeing is "OMG 400 damage in a single round!" or "OMG Insta-kill!" and doesn't see anything else past that. People remember the flashy stuff.
They don't remember the guy who did 100+ damage per round over 5-10 rounds while that guy spent time going around trying to set up the perfect strike.
What I think people are really seeing is "OMG 400 damage in a single round!" or "OMG Insta-kill!" and doesn't see anything else past that. People remember the flashy stuff. They don't remember the guy who did 100+ damage per round over 5-10 rounds while that guy spent time going around trying to set up the perfect strike.
Some people might be seeing that. I'm commenting based on my experience (which obviously is quite different from yours), especially in running Savage Tide from 1st to 17th level (which gave a nice perspective across levels). At higher levels, I found that I had to lobotomize many of the monsters in order to let the fighters (and rogues, for that matter) stand there and do that damage. Fighting demons with swift action teleports, the melee guys run up and maybe get one attack in, and then are stuck looking around for the enemy. Many opponents with spring attack and much faster movement make the fighter look like a chump. Things like miss chances and flying opponents can really ruin his day. Big monsters like dinosaurs have so many more hp than he does that, basically, he keeps them occupied until the wizard does them in -- the amount of damage he deals is irrelevant. Archers were a lost cause; they couldn't deal enough damage with each attack to overcome DR 20/good and cold iron and teflon-coated, or whatever (partly the player's fault for not having a Quiver of Ehlonna with hundreds of arrows of all different materials and enhancements in it).
Let me stress that at low to medium levels, the opposite is true -- the fighter was a far more efficient killer than anyone else.
Through all this, the rogue didn't really even need to fight -- he had the skill points to max out Diplomacy and Bluff and Sense Motive, so his role was to cement all their alliances and deal with the NPCs -- he got to shine just as much as everyone else.
This is getting fairly far afield from the OP. Basically, my observation has been that, at low levels, everyone does their job well. At mid levels, the rogue starts to get upstaged by the wizard, because the nature of the traps shift from mechanical to magical -- but the rogue starts getting a lot more reliable with that sneak attacks damage, so at least he's got something. At high levels, the wizard upstages everyone -- and by that time he's got enough spells (and a staff) that "going nova" isn't much of a worry for him.
What to do? I don't want to hamstring the wizard. I'd probably make the rogue better able to deal with magical tricks and traps (make dispel magic and true seeing high-level rogue talents, maybe), but I wouldn't nerf his sneak attack. The fighter (and monk, and paladin, et al.) need some serious work in terms of mobility, battlefield control, and ability to get in full attacks consistently.
|
Once a rogue is noticed, they can't sneak attack any more.Is this really true? A rogue gets to sneak attack any time he/she flanks an opponent as well.
I did a search of the Beta pdf a few weeks ago and compiled a list of all the situations I could find where a rogue got to use sneak attack. Here is the link.
Also, I agree with Kirth that more movement would be great for fighters, something so they don't have to just stand and hack. Didn't someone suggest trading iterative attacks for movement? I don't love 4E but it is fairly dynamic. I kinda' like the way you can trade actions down, like take a move rather than an attack.
Once a rogue is noticed, they can't sneak attack any more.Is this really true? A rogue gets to sneak attack any time he/she flanks an opponent as well.I did a search of the Beta pdf a few weeks ago and compiled a list of all the situations I could find where a rogue got to use sneak attack. Here is the link.
Also, I agree with Kirth that more movement would be great for fighters, something so they don't have to just stand and hack. Didn't someone suggest trading iterative attacks for movement? I don't love 4E but it is fairly dynamic. I kinda' like the way you can trade actions down, like take a move rather than an attack.
Thx for the info!