In the good ole' days before pathfinder, I hated the rogue. He was a good class, but the backstab...sorry, sneak attack seemed unbalanced and made me generally unhappy. Thankfully the martial rogue was found by one and all to be an acceptable substitution, essentially dropping sneak attack for a fighter bonus feat.
Nowadays though that seems a little impractical, as the rogues ability list is pretty full, and subbing a fighter bonus feat for sneak attack essentially means he's getting a lot of extra feats (especially as rogue tricks allow him to get even more fighter bonus feats every second level now).
Has anyone got any thoughtful suggestions for a sneak attack replacement ability?
Batts.
|
In the good ole' days before pathfinder, I hated the rogue. He was a good class, but the backstab...sorry, sneak attack seemed unbalanced and made me generally unhappy. Thankfully the martial rogue was found by one and all to be an acceptable substitution, essentially dropping sneak attack for a fighter bonus feat.
Nowadays though that seems a little impractical, as the rogues ability list is pretty full, and subbing a fighter bonus feat for sneak attack essentially means he's getting a lot of extra feats (especially as rogue tricks allow him to get even more fighter bonus feats every second level now).
Has anyone got any thoughtful suggestions for a sneak attack replacement ability?
Batts.
I've found Sneak Attack is a really awesome ability when you consider how many times it can be used against things that aren't facing the other way. It can be used with a feint, it can be applied against helpless targets, it can be applied when you're invisible, and best of all, it works with some spells.
Feint + melf's acid arrow? bzap, right in the gnarbulat.
And that is how you can make players very very afraid of kobolds.
As for sneak attack replacing abilities, you could try applying debuffs to stats or rolls, or changing damage to damage over time.
For example, instead of dealing 10 damage right away, you could have them deal 1/2 the damage right away and half that every round for 3 rounds (net damage boost, but damage not instant) for a total of 5 + 3 + 3 + 3. (or 2, 2, 2 if you want to round down, etc.)
Or you could have it turn into a buff, giving the rogue a stat boost or attack/ac boost, or...
I get you man, I just felt it was applicable so often that the rogue was too much of a combat monster. I'd be happier if the circumstances triggering it were less frequent.
I like where your head's at with the debuffing route though.
I was also tinkering with an across the board increase to threat ranges weilded by rogues, but I'm dubious if that wuld be seen overall as a boon.
Batts
I get you man, I just felt it was applicable so often that the rogue was too much of a combat monster. I'd be happier if the circumstances triggering it were less frequent.
But they have an average BaB, less health and limited weapon selection for a traditionally melee combatant. I typically think of a Rogue as a DEX Fighter... he's not in it for the long haul, but his damage while he's there is gonna be impressive. Mind you that's not considering multiclassing Fighter, magic equipment or a few well chosen feats.
Let's not forget that this is one of 2 ways a SMALL race character can actually deal "decent" damage post-3.5, other than being a caster. Sneak attack damage isn't affected by size.
Yeah I know. But it's a lot of extra damage, stacking over levels, that's applicable most of the time that's the worry. The fighter can get a feat that adds +2 to damage, around 6th level. the rogue adds 3D6 at that level.
In combat, the rogue can weild whatever he likes. a half orc rogue for instance can be sneak attacking with a greataxe. The Poorer BAB isn't such an issue, their sneak attack triggers at times when the target has a lowered AC anyway. The predisposition for high dex rogues also means a comparative AC for a great load of the time.
Overall, It just sits poorly with me, and I'm hunting for alternatives. My least intrusive negotiation being:
* sneak attack is a standard action
* sneak attack can only be used with ligth weapons.
* a flanked foe is not subject to sneak attack.
which is sure to draw some measure of critiscism, but a lively discussion is not an undesirable outcome here.
Batts
Yeah I know. But it's a lot of extra damage, stacking over levels, that's applicable most of the time that's the worry. The fighter can get a feat that adds +2 to damage, around 6th level. the rogue adds 3D6 at that level.
In combat, the rogue can weild whatever he likes. a half orc rogue for instance can be sneak attacking with a greataxe. The Poorer BAB isn't such an issue, their sneak attack triggers at times when the target has a lowered AC anyway. The predisposition for high dex rogues also means a comparative AC for a great load of the time.
Overall, It just sits poorly with me, and I'm hunting for alternatives. My least intrusive negotiation being:
* sneak attack is a standard action
* sneak attack can only be used with ligth weapons.
* a flanked foe is not subject to sneak attack.which is sure to draw some measure of critiscism, but a lively discussion is not an undesirable outcome here.
Batts
Sorry I'm kinda against you here as I tend to play a human, fighter/rouge, and I've mapped this out over 20 levels and at 10 fighter/10 rogue, I'll admit, he's a disgusting bag of flanking, sneak attack damage.
I gave up on trying to sneak around and smack people a long time ago. No instead its all about tumble checks, skill tricks, positioning, and well... Cracking someone over the head with a bastard sword, while tacking on about 5D6 extra damage.
Then again I'm technically my groups "swiss army knife". So my roll isn't usually just pick the lock, and disarm the traps. I usually find myself somewhere near the front, assisting in causing flanking conditions, and taking advantage of said flanking conditions. Needles to say the mage learned rather quickly that I made a pretty poor meat shield and found someone else, more heavily armored, to hide behind.
So I'm unfortunately I'm not with you on this, as I like my D8 HD, and my rogue talents, and my sneak attack that hits almost everything now.
But seriously, if you wanted to create the combat oriented rogue, just swap the sneak attack out for bonus feats. I means you'll get 2 feats at every odd level, one from the base feat progression, and one from where you would normally get sneak attack dice. This means you'll wind up with just as many feats as a fighter. A nice trade off if you want to make a very combat oriented rogue.
But for me, I'm keepin everything I got, and lovin it :)
AK
rogue tricks allow him to get even more fighter bonus feats every second level now
I missed this at first too, but no, they don't. You can get Focus, Finesse, and one other combat feat, and that's it: no single trick can be taken more than once.
There are still so many things that shut down sneak attack... honestly, it sounds like a lot of damage, but it doesn't happen as often as you'd expect unless you're letting it happen when it shouldn't. Partial concealment, including dim light, is an oft-overlooked sneak attack invalidator.
Also, don't make the mistake of underestimating the fighter's new Weapon Training feature.
Heh....
Weapon training comes in at, what, 5th level. The rogue enjoys up to 3D6 by then.
Like I said, I'm just not a fan and I'm looking to change it, but I don't want to be robbing the rogue when I do so.
Batts
Unearthed Arcana introduced the Martial Rogue; lose Sneak Attack gain fighter bonus feats in its place.
In my Pathfinder homebrew I've relegated Sneak Attack to a Combat feat and given rogues bonus combat feats in its place; Master Strike becomes Crtitcal Strike and only works when confirming a crit.
SNEAK ATTACK (COMBAT)
You can make damaging strikes on an unprepared opponent.
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13
Benefit: If you can catch an opponent when they are unable to defend themselves effectively from your attack, you can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Your attack deals extra damage anytime your target is caught flat-footed, or when you flank your target. The extra damage is +1d6. Should you score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. With a sap or an unarmed strike, you can deliver a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. You cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage, not even with the usual -4 penalty.
You must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. You cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time your sneak attack deals an additional +1d6 points of damage, but never more than +1d6 per two character levels.
if you wanted to create the combat oriented rogue, just swap the sneak attack out for bonus feats.
Iczer, I would go with the Bonus Feats as well if you really dislike sneak attack that much. The bonus feats would also allow the Rogue to become a 'skill monkey' if he wanted to... Skill Focus X, Nimble Fingers, Alertness, etc. I wouldn't limit the Rogue's bonus feats to just combat feats, like Fighters, after all you could just play a Fighter at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think altering sneak attack in 2 of the 3 ways you mentioned would pretty much destroy the class and find your parties Rogue-less after someone realizes just how gimped they are compared to a Fighter.
1A. Sneak attack as a standard action would make the Rogue weaker than a spell caster as far as speed and efficiency goes... remember a Rogue is generally a melee class. It makes me think of 'Vital Strike' and how it is "meant to work", bleh.
2A. The 'light weapons only' one is IMO very viable, but that isn't really your complaint... its with the sneak attack dice, so its not really a fix for your problem. This was the rule of thumb back in 1E and 2E wasn't it? Sounds familiar.
3A. Flanks don't seem entirely difficult to obtain, but... you would be dooming a Rogue to Flatfooted opponents, Surprise rounds and Helpless opponents which is pretty weak IMO as those are rarely going to happen in the correct sequence of events. Basically enforcing a feat-tax of Combat Expertise and Improved Feint, similar to how a Ninja does 'Sudden Strike'.
In combat, the rogue can weild whatever he likes. a half orc rogue for instance can be sneak attacking with a greataxe.He's not proficient.
Good catch... like a Dwarven Cleric isn't proficient with a Dwarven Waraxe cuz it's a martial weapon. Nothing a Feat or an obligatory level of Fighter wouldn't fix though.
EDIT: LOL @ A Man In Black... I would've assumed "Jack B. Nimble" was still trying to wrangle that chicken from the farmer and his hound dog in broad daylight.
In combat, the rogue can weild whatever he likes. a half orc rogue for instance can be sneak attacking with a greataxe.He's not proficient.Good catch... like a Dwarven Cleric isn't proficient with a Dwarven Waraxe cuz it's a martial weapon. Nothing a Feat or an obligatory level of Fighter wouldn't fix though.
EDIT: LOL @ A Man In Black... I would've assumed "Jack B. Nimble" was still trying to wrangle that chicken from the farmer and his hound dog in broad daylight.
Bad catch...in Pathfinder, half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions.
Bad catch...in Pathfinder, half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions.
So I see, the martial thing is only for weapons with the word ORC in them, like an 'orc double axe'. Still getting use to my shiny new Pathfinder book.
If you want to replace sneak attack damage with something, I would go the monk route and substitute in debilitating conditions, like staggering, sickening, blinding, paralysis, etc. I think they should get to keep the first +1d6 damage, but at 3rd level and above map out some neat debilitating conditions that would make the rogue more of a facilitator in combat. Like, how cool would it be if your sneak attack forced free trip attempt on your opponent, or blinded them temporarily. The tough part will be balancing these for each odd level bracket. Anyway, my 2 cents.
Let's try level 6 on for size. Bill the fighter and Jack B. Nimble the rogue are setting out to see whether it's the size of your sword or how you swing it that counts.
Bill the fighter specializes in greatswordery. His stats (28 point buy) are 19/14/16/8/10/8 after racial and statup. His feats are Power Attack, Weapon Focus (greatsword), Weapon Spec (greatsword), Dodge, Improved Initiative, and some other junk. He has a +2 greatsword, +1 full plate, and +2 str gloves and some minor stuff. (Wiser than the +2 str gloves would be paying for a permanent Enlarge Person but let's say he's not that clever.)
Attacks: +15/+10 greatsword (2d6+12)Jack B. Nimble specializes in the rapier. His stats (28 point buy again) are 14/19/14/14/8/8 after racial and statup. His feats are Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (rapier), and some other junk. He has a +2 rapier, +1 chain shirt, +2 dex gloves, and some other stuff.
Attacks: +12 rapier (d6+4, +3d6 sneak attack)Wait, that's not even close to fair. Bill hits more often for more damage without needing to set up sneak attacks, before even using Power Attack or using his second iterative attack.
So Jack's ditching the rapier for two shortswords. His stats (28 point buy still) are 14/19/14/14/8/8. His feats are Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (shortsword), Two-Weapon Fighting, and...well, that's all his feats. He has two +1 shortswords, a +1 chain shirt, a +2 dex gloves, and some other junk.
Attacks: +9/+9 shortswords (d6+3/d6+2, +3d6 sneak attack)So Jack hits less often for less damage, once again.
Where's the imbalance again?
I think the (supposed) imbalance comes in if you have Jill B. Quick, a fighter 1/rogue 5 who specializes in the greatsword; she's the same as Bill, but without Weapon Specialization (say).
So her sneak attack is:
Attacks: +13 greatsword (2d6+10+3d6 + 3 bleed)
Versus Bill's power attack:
Attacks: +13/+8 greatsword (2d6+18)
So Bill perhaps has a slight edge at level 6 due to his extra attack; if he doesn't get to make a full attack, he's lagging behind. But on the other hand Jill has a zillion extra skill points and gets to be a cool rogue instead of a boring old fighter.
But I agree with you; there isn't really much of an imbalance. Sneak attack is conditional enough that it doesn't make every other melee fighter obsolete.
Partial concealment, including dim light, is an oft-overlooked sneak attack invalidator.
... which I always found rather funny.
Afraid to be back-stabbed by cut-throats in a human town on your way back from the tavern? Stick to the darkest alleys; you'll be safer. Suspect a thief to hide in your closet? Make sure not to turn the lights on, it may be a human rogue...
But I partially share the OP's opinion. I too am looking for an option to restrict the use of full Sneak-Attack damage and yet not loose on the 'power-share' of the rogue.
'findel
If you want to replace sneak attack damage with something, I would go the monk route and substitute in debilitating conditions, like staggering, sickening, blinding, paralysis, etc... snip ... The tough part will be balancing these for each odd level bracket.
That's a cool idea, but if you have a monk in the party I would be worried your rogue would steal his thunder aka do his job sooner or even better than the monk. Like you said, balance.
"Dey TOOK his JOB!" - Southpark
You might get some ideas for non-sneak-attack class features from the Akashic class from Arcana Evolved:
http://www.akashicrecord.org/Akashic
It's a skill-monkey class that doesn't (necessarily) have sneak attack.
Hrm... let me double-check some of those numbers.
Bill's attack modifiers:
+6 BAB, +6 Strength, +2 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon Training = +16
Bill's damage modifiers:
+9 Strength (+6 x 1.5), +2 Enhancement, +2 Weapon Specialization, +1 Weapon Training = +14
Jack's attack modifiers:
+4 BAB, +6 Dexterity, +2 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus = +13
Jack's damage modifiers:
+2 Strength, +2 Enhancement = +4
Jill's attack modifiers:
+4 BAB, +6 Strength, +2 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus = +13
Jill's damage modifiers:
+9 Strength (+6 x 1.5), +2 Enhancement = +11
Looks like both Bill and Jill were slightly shortchanged. :) Now, for fun... AC 19 is standard for CR6. So:
not power attacking, hits on 3 (90%) and deals an average of 21. After accounting for misses and 19-20 criticals, his final average is... hey, actually 21.
Bill, power attacking, hits on 5 (80%) and deals average 27. Actual average is 24.3.
For fair comparison later: Bill, power attacking and flanking, hits on 3 (90%) and deals an average of 27. Actual average is again 27.
not flanking, hits on 6 (75%) and deals average 7.5. Actual average accounting for misses and 18-20 criticals is 6.75.
Jack, flanking, hits on 4 (85%) and deals average 7.5 +10.5(sneak) +3(bleed). Actual average is roughly 19.4.
Note that Jack's best case is worse than Bill's worst case.
Now, Neither power attacking nor flanking, she hits on 6 (75%) and deals average 18. Actual average is 15.3.
Power attacking but not flanking, she hits on 8 (65%) and deals average 24. Actual average is 18.
Flanking but not power attacking, she hits on 4 (85%) and deals average 18 + 10.5(sneak) +3(bleed). Actual average is 30.6. Ow!
Flanking and power attacking, she hits on 6 (75%) and deals average 24 + 10.5(sneak) +3(bleed). Actual average is 33.9. More ow!
So, what do we have here? Well, for starters, Jack is a total loser on the damage charts. Sneak attack is nice, but a low-Strength melee build leaves much to be desired. In favorable conditions, Jill has a good 25% lead over Bill... but the rest of the time, Bill's ahead of everyone.
Furthermore, Jill will soon fall farther behind during non-flank situations if she continues to take rogue levels. And since she's not built for evasion, and has 10 fewer hit points than Bill, she needs to be wearing that plate armor... which means she can't tumble, and isn't nearly as good at setting up those flanking positions (which help everyone) as Jack. Jack still beats everyone as a skill monkey; Jill has some terrible modifiers.
Really, it all looks good to me. :)
what if jack was using a greatsword?
I mean, there is nothing stopping him from buying one, and proficiency is just a level dip or a feat away.
Or what if Bill's character is a scimitar weilder?
Under specific, optimised circumstances, yes I can see the math.
The fighter still Has to keep optimising every level. the rogue just has to level. And gods forbid, if bill loses that greatsword, his damage capacity drops through the floor. Jack's OK.
Which is odd, I would have thought the fighter would adjust better to a change in the battlefield.
Batts
what if jack was using a greatsword?
Then he's Jill. :P
And gods forbid, if bill loses that greatsword, his damage capacity drops through the floor.
If this is worrisome, Catch Off-Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery are a relatively easier expenditure for a fighter. :)
It's unfortunate PF Fighter's can't take weapon training and the specialization tree in "All Improvised Weapons" as a single weapon xD
... but as much as I appreciate the "death by teacup" concept, I'd still prefer actual weapons to be more efficient than their improvised counterparts.
Yeah, regretably 3.5 and PF really don't promote the versatile Fighter concept very well mechanically.
Yeah, that IS unfortunate.
But back to the OP, I was toying with the concept that a rogue could deliver full sneak attack against unexpecting targets (à la AD&D backstab) but grant the rogue only 1/2 his/her sneak attack dice (to a minimum of 1) against any targets as long as the rogue fulfills the necessary conditions.
I was wondering if I should round this division up or down (I'm already kind of rounding it up with the "minimum of 1" thing).
I was also wondering if I should make the "necessary conditions" more generous than they are by RAW to compensate, or compensate with something different altogether. Although as the OP was hinting, I'm not convinced that it would really need compensation.
'findel
If you want to replace sneak attack damage with something, I would go the monk route and substitute in debilitating conditions, like staggering, sickening, blinding, paralysis, etc... snip ... The tough part will be balancing these for each odd level bracket.That's a cool idea, but if you have a monk in the party I would be worried your rogue would steal his thunder aka do his job sooner or even better than the monk. Like you said, balance.
"Dey TOOK his JOB!" - Southpark
eh, as long as the rogue gets different effects at different levels then it should work out ok. The monk starts with stunning, the rogue could start with something else. They already both have the party roll of being high mobile combatants.
Hmmm they already can get bleed attacks. Maybe you could start with that as the basis for sneak attack substitution. I imagine a rogue could then move on to hamstringing, blinding, etc. but yeah, there might be some overlap.
However, I have never been in a party that looked its nose up at more crowd control :D
I personally don't think the rogue's sneak attack has to be changed. But if you do, here are some suggestions:
1. Change the 1d6 to a flat +1 or +2 bonus to damage. It lessens the damage output of the rogue, but still lets the rogue shine on a crit (since flat bonuses to damage are multiplied).
2. Change it to match a Scout's skirmish damage (1d6 every 4 levels), with either a bonus to AC on the skipped levels, a bonus feat, or some other goody, like a negative condition added to the sneak attack.
3. Give out bonus Luck Feats instead of Combat Feats. Rogues are lucky.
4. Replace Sneak Attack with an increase of threat range +1 every 4 levels (1, 5, 9, 13, 17), and an increase in damage multiplier at 3, 11, and 19). Find something nifty for the missing 7th and 15th levels (maybe a +2 bonus to confirm at each?).
Thanks for all the great suggestions guys. With any luck it is something that will come up in the advanced players guide next august.
For those who offered no help...um I guess thanks as well for clearing the math up.
Batts
can we stop calling things overpowered by comparing them to the fighter? We all get it, pathfinder made them somewhat better, but they are still sub-par. Stop using them as the standard for what melee power should be. He is more versatile, he can do descent damage, get some combat manuevers, and boost his ac, but he isnt likely to be the best at any of those things, fighters will always be luke warm. Lets learn to accept that and either redesign the fighter, or let it lie as it is. When the APG comes out and there are more fighter feats, its possible the fighter could get better at specializing (after all a level 6 human fighter has what 6 feats? How many of those can be directed towards doing damage in the Pathfinder, core like 3? So they wont do peak damage, untill there are more fighter feats. Compare the rogue the the barb, or better yet the paladin, suddenly, doent seem sneak attack is as powerful does it?
If you want your rogue to do something different in combat instead of damage, what exactly do you want? You shouldnt replace sneak attack wit ha non-combat ability, so what are we talking? Debuffs and status effects? Other classes already do that better (presumably) then the rogue should be able to do. The rogue, does alot of damage in the right situation, but is the proverbial glass cannon (will never match the AC of some classes, and has relatively low HP).
Err... Kolo? Have you read the thread? Fighters are top of the heap these days. :)