According to the book, the rogue get's to sneak attack on every attack made in a full-round attack action, so a "Haste"-y, dual-wielding Rogue7/fighter3 would get 5 attacks, each of which, when it hits, would do +4d6 sneak attack when flanking. Doesn't this seem a bit excessive? Especially now that a lot of monsters are not, by the letter of the rules, immune to sneak attack damage like they used to be. A Rog7/Ftr3 character wielding two +1 short swords with Weapon Finesse, the 2-weapon feats, etc and a maxxed out Dex could basically drop anything he could flank in a single round. With invis cast on him he's just ridiculous. And while we're on that subject, the ring of invisibility in the book has no limit on uses per day and no duration per use, is that an error? Or can you basically walk around invisibly all day every day with that ring except for the one round when you hit somebody and have to de-cloak for that one round before re-applying the invis again?
Yes, Rogues get Sneak Attack on every attack that qualifies. They still do less damage than Fighters do on average, so why the fuss?
As for rings of invisibility, the invisibility drops the instant they take a hostile action (such as making their first attack), and it's a standard action to re-apply the invisibility. That means a ring of invisibility only gets them one auto-sneak attack every two rounds at most. They're better off asking their friendly party wizard to cast greater invisibility on them.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, Rogues get Sneak Attack on every attack that qualifies. They still do less damage than Fighters do, so why the fuss?
Oh man. Why did you have to say that? Now someone will feel the need to whip up a ridiculous counter-example in which a fully optimized, insanely lucky rogue manages to hit 7 times in a round and miraculously rolls all 6's on their 36d6 sneak attack damage. This completely artificial and unrealistic result will then be compared to that of a fighter, likely built using a longsword and with absolutely no thought as to making the character combat effective. The poster will compare these two results, note that the 3,432 damage inflicted by the rogue is greater than 14 inflicted by the fighter and claim that rogue's do more damage.
Oh man. Why did you have to say that? Now someone will feel the need to whip up a ridiculous counter-example in which a fully optimized, insanely lucky rogue manages to hit 7 times in a round and miraculously rolls all 6's on their 36d6 sneak attack damage. This completely artificial and unrealistic result will then be compared to that of a fighter, likely built using a longsword and with absolutely no thought as to making the character combat effective. The poster will compare these two results, note that the 3,432 damage inflicted by the rogue is greater than 14 inflicted by the fighter and claim that rogue's do more damage.Yes, Rogues get Sneak Attack on every attack that qualifies. They still do less damage than Fighters do, so why the fuss?
Fixed, thanks ;)
Yes, you've figured out the trick to rogues in melee combat: sneak attack and sneak attack often. Mind you, you need to flank someone to do that more than just during the surprise round. And in the surprise round you won't be unleashing all those attacks but instead just one and even then only if you're in melee or using a ranged weapon at 30' to start. Now, who's your flanking partner, you might want to thank him/her/it for letting you attempt to hit 5 times for buckets of damage. After all, you don't get to flank people alone!
As for the ring of invisibility, broadly speaking it operates as the invisibility spell. That spell lasts 1 minute per caster level. What's the caster level of the ring? Looks like 3rd. So you get 3 minutes/use. Yes, you can be invisible all day. In 3 minute intervals.
Well, yes if you get all the sneak attacks to hit. The rogue is very nice.
But you don't need to flank all the time. As long as they loose their dex bonus you can do sneak attack damage -> aka Flat Footed.
I thought of Weapon Focus(from a talent) Dazzling Display -> Shatter Defenses. A mere 3 feats, and a small investment in Charisma to boost the ability.
If you intimidate them they get -2 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Which is nice, but when you use the Shatter Defenses feat, any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round.
So with 4 attacks .. you can do 4 sneak attacks without ever needing to flank.
Granted you need a round to work your magic, aka intimidate them, but it has a 30ft radius.
I don't know if anyone ever tried this, but it sounds very nice :)
-TDL
The other fun thing is if you are a tiny or diminutive character with a 1d2 weapon you can still get awesome damage since the bonus is not size/strength dependent.
No, you can't. Not reliably, anyway. Tiny and smaller creatures cannot flank because they do not threaten any squares except their own.
Dual-wielding rogues have good burst damage potential, but when not sneak attacking their damage is meh. It can be feast or famine for them. There are other melee types that can reliably dish out consistent damage if that is your thing.
Play a rogue for its other abilities, and enjoy the moments when you get to full attack a flanked opponent. Just don't expect them to be the standard. /salute!
Ok, thanks for the replies, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
|
No, you can't. Not reliably, anyway. Tiny and smaller creatures cannot flank because they do not threaten any squares except their own.The other fun thing is if you are a tiny or diminutive character with a 1d2 weapon you can still get awesome damage since the bonus is not size/strength dependent.
Well, you could use a tiny longspear. I had imps use tiny glaives in my CotCT campaign very effectively.
Well, you could use a tiny longspear. I had imps use tiny glaives in my CotCT campaign very effectively.No, you can't. Not reliably, anyway. Tiny and smaller creatures cannot flank because they do not threaten any squares except their own.The other fun thing is if you are a tiny or diminutive character with a 1d2 weapon you can still get awesome damage since the bonus is not size/strength dependent.
Actually, that doesn't work either. Reach weapons double a creature's base reach. 0*2 = 0. It's a bit of a glitch in the system.
|
|
Actually, that doesn't work either. Reach weapons double a creature's base reach. 0*2 = 0. It's a bit of a glitch in the system.Well, you could use a tiny longspear. I had imps use tiny glaives in my CotCT campaign very effectively.No, you can't. Not reliably, anyway. Tiny and smaller creatures cannot flank because they do not threaten any squares except their own.The other fun thing is if you are a tiny or diminutive character with a 1d2 weapon you can still get awesome damage since the bonus is not size/strength dependent.
Technically speaking, a tiny creatures reach is 2 and 1/2 feet. That doubles to 5.
Edit: Gotta retract that. They do have creatures of that size with 0ft reach. I wonder if this is the intent or not though, or an oversight.
Edit 2: It seems that reach makes it so that you get 10ft reach regardless of your size, according to its description in the equipment section of the PRD. Now I'm sure this is just an oversight.
Actually, that doesn't work either. Reach weapons double a creature's base reach. 0*2 = 0. It's a bit of a glitch in the system.Well, you could use a tiny longspear. I had imps use tiny glaives in my CotCT campaign very effectively.No, you can't. Not reliably, anyway. Tiny and smaller creatures cannot flank because they do not threaten any squares except their own.The other fun thing is if you are a tiny or diminutive character with a 1d2 weapon you can still get awesome damage since the bonus is not size/strength dependent.
Technically speaking, a tiny creatures reach is 2 and 1/2 feet. That doubles to 5.
Edit: Gotta retract that. They do have creatures of that size with 0ft reach. I wonder if this is the intent or not though, or an oversight.
Edit 2: It seems that reach makes it so that you get 10ft reach regardless of your size, according to its description in the equipment section of the PRD. Now I'm sure this is just an oversight.
reach is described in multiple places. From the equipment section:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
It's been like this since 3.0 came out, it hasn't been game-breaking since. For a rogue to even set up a SA position is difficult enough, then you figure he has lower BAB than a fighter to boot so chances of hitting is smaller, and even worse with the 2nd and 3rd attacks. TWF and you're at -2 on each (assuming a light weapon in the off-hand).
So yeah, a rogue can get a bunch of SA off if built that way...but compared to the high level creatures with the insane AC they have, that high-level rogue is going to, at best, pull off 2 SA per turn.
Oh man. *stuff snipped out*
You also forgot to say how they'll spell it "rouge," and they won't get any of the jokes about being "overpowdered."
A rogue's sneak attack damage IS impressive and sounds like a lot, but even 6d6 damage only averages out to 18 points extra damage per attack. Not a whole lot. Compare that to a fighter who is probably dealing twice that per attack (and his attacks are at a higher bonus to hit) and you realize its not broken.
Best combo I've seen so far is a monk and rogue team as flanking buddies. monk would stun/trip the opponents and the rogue would wail on them :)
So far the most OHMYGODLOOKATTHEDAMAGE i've seen is the paladin i'm playing in the second darkness campaign. we're 12th level and i'm doing on average 150 points damage per round, more if i'm smiting.
Hitting with 4 sneak attacks, and rolling 24d6 damage LOOKS really impressive and frightening, but ultimately its often misleading.
"Is that thunder....or are you rolling for damage?"
A rogue's sneak attack damage IS impressive and sounds like a lot, but even 6d6 damage only averages out to 18 points extra damage per attack. Not a whole lot. Compare that to a fighter who is probably dealing twice that per attack (and his attacks are at a higher bonus to hit) and you realize its not broken.
Best combo I've seen so far is a monk and rogue team as flanking buddies. monk would stun/trip the opponents and the rogue would wail on them :)
So far the most OHMYGODLOOKATTHEDAMAGE i've seen is the paladin i'm playing in the second darkness campaign. we're 12th level and i'm doing on average 150 points damage per round, more if i'm smiting.
Hitting with 4 sneak attacks, and rolling 24d6 damage LOOKS really impressive and frightening, but ultimately its often misleading.
"Is that thunder....or are you rolling for damage?"
In the game I'm running the rogue totally outshines the fighter. They are using an +1 elven curve blade so rolling a d10 and able to use 5d6 sneak atk on every hit. they are able to do from 42 to 18 dmg per hit. The fighter using a +1 longsword does 19 to 12 dmg each hit. So when a rogue one or two shots enemies. while the fighter goes for 2 to 3 rounds to do the same job. It becomes a little noticeable
In the game I'm running the rogue totally outshines the fighter. They are using an +1 elven curve blade so rolling a d10 and able to use 5d6 sneak atk on every hit. they are able to do from 42 to 18 dmg per hit. The fighter using a +1 longsword does 19 to 12 dmg each hit. So when a rogue one or two shots enemies. while the fighter goes for 2 to 3 rounds to do the same job. It becomes a little noticeable
How is your rogue getting a sneak attack every time?
Yeah he'd do that much damage- but it's highly situational. He can totally own someone assuming he gets a full round attack against someone he's flanking-
but that's pretty hard to accomplish, especially if you guys are 10th level characters- you're probably not fighting dumb goblins anymore.
To use a FRA to get all attacks would mean you'd have to basically start next to your target, and be in a flanking position.
Otherwise you'll have to move into position and only get a single sneak attack.
And tell me what monster (especially a CR 10) that doesn't whip around and chomp the rogue that just nailed him in the kidneys? Any spell caster might immediately mind control the dumb fighter and have him grapple you. Or heck, he might choose you and get you to slaughter your healer.
And you don't even want to know what happens when a barbarian with uncanny dodge rages and comes for you...
In the game I'm running the rogue totally outshines the fighter. They are using an +1 elven curve blade so rolling a d10 and able to use 5d6 sneak atk on every hit. they are able to do from 42 to 18 dmg per hit. The fighter using a +1 longsword does 19 to 12 dmg each hit. So when a rogue one or two shots enemies. while the fighter goes for 2 to 3 rounds to do the same job. It becomes a little noticeable
That fighter with a measly 16 Str at creation should be pumping out 1d8+11 1 H / 1d8+14 2H and have a +20/+15 to hit. Add in Power Attack and that's another +6/+9 (1H/2H) damage. This assumes specialization, but that's still only 2 dmg. How is the rogue doing better than he?
I am surprised no one has mentioned Improved Feint. I am in a campaign and my Rogue 3/ Fighter 2 can now use her move action to feint, which makes the opponent flat-footed.
She is partnered with a Barbarian. You could call him Mr. Steady. He hits with a +11, and does pretty good damage. My rogue is Ms. Bursty. She only hits at +6.
We just cleared out some wererats. It was the case that Mr. Steady hit every time, and was solid if plodding. Ms. Bursty hit maybe 1/2 the time, and then only made the feint around 1/2 of her hits, so maybe 1/4 of the time.
But when she did hit... *wham*. She got a crit with her 2d6, power attack, and got 35 points of damage. Everyone was stunned. I could see my DM get that uneasy look.
But the reality is, it is really bursty, so it is okay in balance.
Mind you, in this engagement my rogue had a +1 mithral longsword... the barbarian had a mwk battleaxe, no silver. So he was hitting, but DR was sucking up a lot of his effectiveness. When the rogue hit, it was usually one hit, one down. When she hit, it felt really good. :)
Well, since the well-reasoned responses are already in...
and the snarky meta-responses are already in...
Maybe we'd all like to take a trip down memory lane, to two months ago, when there was a 1300 post thread that was the exact opposite of this one.
Well, since the well-reasoned responses are already in...
and the snarky meta-responses are already in...
Maybe we'd all like to take a trip down memory lane, to two months ago, when there was a 1300 post thread that was the exact opposite of this one.
Hey, i got one of my favorite druid concepts out of that thread.
|
I am surprised no one has mentioned Improved Feint. I am in a campaign and my Rogue 3/ Fighter 2 can now use her move action to feint, which makes the opponent flat-footed.
She is partnered with a Barbarian. You could call him Mr. Steady. He hits with a +11, and does pretty good damage. My rogue is Ms. Bursty. She only hits at +6.
We just cleared out some wererats. It was the case that Mr. Steady hit every time, and was solid if plodding. Ms. Bursty hit maybe 1/2 the time, and then only made the feint around 1/2 of her hits, so maybe 1/4 of the time.
But when she did hit... *wham*. She got a crit with her 2d6, power attack, and got 35 points of damage. Everyone was stunned. I could see my DM get that uneasy look.
But the reality is, it is really bursty, so it is okay in balance.
Mind you, in this engagement my rogue had a +1 mithral longsword... the barbarian had a mwk battleaxe, no silver. So he was hitting, but DR was sucking up a lot of his effectiveness. When the rogue hit, it was usually one hit, one down. When she hit, it felt really good. :)
I, too, am considering a fighter/rogue for the Improved Feint. If I understand the rules correctly, using a move action would mean getting only 1 attack in the round, although that wouldn't be an issue until s/he gets multiple attacks.
One thing we have found quite effective is having two rogues flanking the same opponent.
I, too, am considering a fighter/rogue for the Improved Feint. If I understand the rules correctly, using a move action would mean getting only 1 attack in the round, although that wouldn't be an issue until s/he gets multiple attacks.One thing we have found quite effective is having two rogues flanking the same opponent.
In one of the other campaigns I ran one of the people created a fighter/rogue with Improved Feint and all that and it was pretty wicked to see. As the DM I had a hard time not laughing cause I was imagining the enemy screaming "How does he keep stabbing my Liver!!!"
Funny, there's this other thread bemoaning how you can't apply dex to damage (without highly qualified feats or homebrew). I think this thread answers that one.
Funny, there's this other thread bemoaning how you can't apply dex to damage (without highly qualified feats or homebrew). I think this thread answers that one.
That's why I liked the Swashbuckler class in 3.5 because of that insightful strike special ability. Though now that I think of that I think it was the intelligence bonus that added to damage. But I totally get what you mean.