Adding multiple d6s to all of a character's attacks seems pretty powerful. Even the most powerful of magic items rarely gives damage bonuses higher that +5 or maybe +4 and +1d6. Sneak attack is more limited than a magic enhancement bonus, but those limitations have shrunk to almost nothing in Pathfinder, and really, how hard is it to stay flanking an enemy. Maybe sneak attack should be changed so it's only added to the first attack made during the character's turn? Or maybe it should be changed to a flat, cumulative +1 or +2 bonus (each d6 of the sneak attack becomes +1 or +2)? It just gets a little annoying seeing characters built for combat rolling a single die and getting piddly flat damage bonuses when the rogue is carving up opponents with his 3-4 dice of damage (which becomes even more ridiculous when the rogue starts getting iterative attacks and follows the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree). A rogue getting 4-5 attacks per turn with each attack rolling several dice of damage just seems absurd and way overpowered.
Adding multiple d6s to all of a character's attacks seems pretty powerful. Even the most powerful of magic items rarely gives damage bonuses higher that +5 or maybe +4 and +1d6. Sneak attack is more limited than a magic enhancement bonus, but those limitations have shrunk to almost nothing in Pathfinder, and really, how hard is it to stay flanking an enemy. Maybe sneak attack should be changed so it's only added to the first attack made during the character's turn? Or maybe it should be changed to a flat, cumulative +1 or +2 bonus (each d6 of the sneak attack becomes +1 or +2)? It just gets a little annoying seeing characters built for combat rolling a single die and getting piddly flat damage bonuses when the rogue is carving up opponents with his 3-4 dice of damage (which becomes even more ridiculous when the rogue starts getting iterative attacks and follows the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree). A rogue getting 4-5 attacks per turn with each attack rolling several dice of damage just seems absurd and way overpowered.
Well I for one share your concerns. I can't say I'm ready to shrink sneak attack in my game, but I do think about it.
DPR is not accurate. I have been in many fights with mixed teams of very good fighters and very good rogues. The fighters almost never get to 'stand and deliver' blow after blow. They have to move, this usually causes them to "put everything on it" for the one attack. They often hit, BAM. But they often miss too.....wiff! The rogue also must move, even more so to maximize their sneak attacks. But when they do get those attacks (at least at high level)....Cuisinart!
BUT, I have also seen many low to mid-level fights where the fighters get that one blow and BOOM. But the rogue gets his big chance....poke...
It is not easily calculated or decided.....but I share your concerns.
Sneak attack is not an issue. There are enough threads here, and maybe a few left on the WoTC boards to explain the point better than I would care to attempt to.
Sneak attack adds alot of damage, certainly, but for the most part, that is where all of the rogues damage is coming from. They wont have weapon spec, their 3/4 bab makes power attack more costly.
In addition it almost always take an extra turn to get into flanking, and often requires acrobatics checks to avoid Attacks of Opportunity. In addition, a sneak attack can be negated by a simple 5ft step. If the enemy backs against a wall or other barrier the rogue may not be able to get flanking. Not to mention it requires the presense of an ally to work at all. Yes there is normally another melee fighter around, but you cant always be fighting the same guy as them. From my experience sneak attack is limited enough in pathfinder where it damn well better be alot of damage when you actually get to use it.
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".
|
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".
I'm not much for clear optimization, but just having fun characters. I think that the rogue should be a skillful character who sneaks around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. I don't think they're front line fighters either.
However, the sneak attack works great for rogues in general, IMO. They're the guy who sucker punches, who aims for vitals, who generally goes for the soft spot... but its pretty conditional to get that sneak attack. You have to feint, knock your opponent prone, or work in conjunction with someone else to pull it off. In many ways it helps the rogue to become more skillful by wanting to use such techniques at feint, trip, stealth and acrobatics.
Edit: If you're in my boat, don't let optimization make you want to get rid of something. Use it as you think its intended.
|
This seems to be a case of the OP just seeing the large number of dice on a SA (10d6 or something) and just screaming "OMG OVERPOWERED", without having seen it in actual use. Its theory versus actuality, and it seems to happen very very often on the boards. Im not saying theorycrafting doesnt have its place, but some people just use it exclusively, failing to account for actual playtesting.
Its really not as bad as it appears, I assure you :) As has been stated, there are a lot of conditions to be met to sneak attack, and its not something that can be done reliably all the time. Plus, fighters will be able to CONSISTENTLY and more easily be able to put out more damage than a rogue, even with sneak attacks.
On a personal note, I just cannot disagree more with the idea of a rogue being able to sneak attack as "silly". It fits in with the concept of a rogue; sneaky, working to get into favorable position and unleashing a surprise attack when their target is distracted. What about that isn't a rogue?
All said, its your game when you play. If you dont like sneak attacks, dont allow them. They are balanced in terms of the rest of pathfinder melee classes IMO. Just dont wonder when you dont have any players being a rogue :)
|
|
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".
Yep, rogues should be doing nothing but plumbing their navels for belly lint in 90% of published adventures.
Gotcha.
Assassins have to start some where, and that where the rogue comes in. Its the assassins trying to prove himself.
|
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".Yep, rogues should be doing nothing but plumbing their navels for belly lint in 90% of published adventures.
Gotcha.
so sad that damage is the only thing that entertains you guys and girls. I often have way more fun busting locks so that reinforcements cant come in, sleight of handing wands off wizards that are still in combat, freeing captives and leading them out while my friends hold off the attackers, and yeah< backstabbing a BBEG who is on his last leg but is about to do something dangerous. and thats less than half the night< the rest is roleplaying and abusing my surplus of highly usefull out of combat skills.
there are two types of games i play in, in one everyone powergames their characters to roll through combats that are MUCH higher CR then them too level up at obscene paces, and games that are at CR, with more plot twist and side objectives than "just kill everything in building X"
I much prefer the later. Sure i love to level, but its the game session im enjoying not the level up after game. ive played long enough to prefer the scenic route.
Rogues do significantly less damage than Fighters against the same opponents, and insanely less damage than Paladins against evil opponents, which is the majority of things PCs will be fighting.
Sneak Attack is not a problem.
Doesn't seem like you're interested in debate, though; looks more like you're just venting your spleen all over D&D.
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".Yep, rogues should be doing nothing but plumbing their navels for belly lint in 90% of published adventures.
Gotcha.
so sad that damage is the only thing that entertains you guys and girls. I often have way more fun busting locks so that reinforcements cant come in, sleight of handing wands off wizards that are still in combat, freeing captives and leading them out while my friends hold off the attackers, and yeah< backstabbing a BBEG who is on his last leg but is about to do something dangerous. and thats less than half the night< the rest is roleplaying and abusing my surplus of highly usefull out of combat skills.
there are two types of games i play in, in one everyone powergames their characters to roll through combats that are MUCH higher CR then them too level up at obscene paces, and games that are at CR, with more plot twist and side objectives than "just kill everything in building X"
I much prefer the later. Sure i love to level, but its the game session im enjoying not the level up after game. ive played long enough to prefer the scenic route.
No, the point is that they should be able to deal out relevant damage, since that is the primary way they kill enemies. Even the most twinked out rogue isn't outshining an equally twinked out fighter. That is the point of people's replies. If anything, the rogue is underpowered in strict damage. I don't think so though, since they get so many cool options in and out of combat that make up for it. I really hate when people assume that the only thing people are looking at is how much damage people can dish out. The rogue is a weaker melee class in combat, but is still good, and is the best skill monkey in the game. These ballance to me, and if you nerfed the rogue's sneak attack it hoses the class when combat actually happens. The class shines out of combat, which I love, but it needs to be able to hold its own in combat as well.
The idea that rogues should be high dps combat monsters makes me laugh. If you want to play someone who's good at killing stuff play a fighter or a spellcaster. Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly. It's an ability more suited to assassins than rogues. In fact, the way rogues are going you might as well just call them assassins. But, I guess this is D&D, where anything not tweaked for combat is immediately deemed "useless".
Rogues are a dps class believe it or not, skills are a secondary feature, if all a rogue can do is find traps he's pretty second rate. I see this ALOT in D&D online rogues gear JUST to find traps then everyone has weird perception that they suck. because know what? if a class can not pull its weight in combat, then its just worthless. Rogues are a light armor, light weapon melee dps class first, and a trap finder second. Take away there dps and they are not worth taking along. Anyone with a high perception can spot a trap just not always disarm it, my monk is pretty effective at handling traps by just setting them off and ethier dodging damage or soaking it, we dont really need a rogue for this reason, not to just find traps.
So question is compared to other dps classes how much damage can a rogue put out? well actually quite a bit if they can get a full round action to do there attack.
Two weapon fighter, imp two weapon fighting, pure rogue= around 6 attacks i believe. so thats something like.... 66d6 damage at level 20 for a pure rogue but only if hit every attack, but still a huge chunk however... do to rogues requiring positioning, team work, and keeping enemy still never found this OP. oh and thats with OUT magic gear/spells boosting the damage.
Rogues are fine, if you want to complain about balance issues WoW is that way! >>============>>
Adding multiple d6s to all of a character's attacks seems pretty powerful. Even the most powerful of magic items rarely gives damage bonuses higher that +5 or maybe +4 and +1d6. Sneak attack is more limited than a magic enhancement bonus, but those limitations have shrunk to almost nothing in Pathfinder, and really, how hard is it to stay flanking an enemy. Maybe sneak attack should be changed so it's only added to the first attack made during the character's turn? Or maybe it should be changed to a flat, cumulative +1 or +2 bonus (each d6 of the sneak attack becomes +1 or +2)? It just gets a little annoying seeing characters built for combat rolling a single die and getting piddly flat damage bonuses when the rogue is carving up opponents with his 3-4 dice of damage (which becomes even more ridiculous when the rogue starts getting iterative attacks and follows the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree). A rogue getting 4-5 attacks per turn with each attack rolling several dice of damage just seems absurd and way overpowered.
Played a 23rd level adventure last week, and the rogue was doing in the range of 250 - 300 points of damage (had darkstalker, all the buffs etc.), and it seemed a bit much, but when you really think about it, at epic levels it's a chess match, whoever gets the initiative can end up destroying the other so I am fine with it being excessive. It's what they do.
I would like to point out that positioning is everything if a rogue wants to sneak attack more than once a round. I admit I'm a long time rogue player,(Starting in 2nd edition using back stab) however I've DM'ed for a lot of rogues too so I've seen it form both sides of the fence. While it may seem really powerful to add that many dice, it's not hard to negate the threat. Any kind of concealment, Improved uncanny dodge, moving to avoid being flanked, creatures that are flat out immune, armor with Fortification, and high ac's that just make it difficult to hit with more than your main attack can negate any threat of more than 1 or 2 in one round, if any.
Furthermore, if you don't want your rogues dealing tons of sneak attack's in one round, you can always ask your players nicely to not focus on building there character to abuse it. Any character can get pretty insane when they are built to optimize one trick.
Rogues should be skill-based characters. They should be the ones sneaking around, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. They should not be front-line fighters. The whole idea behind rogues being able to sneak attack is silly.
It makes prefect sense, to me at least. "O look, you left yourself exposed to a dagger in your spleen... Let me help you with that. -stabs-". Tell me that isn't being sneaky.
I think a lot of a Rogues perceived over power comes from the fact that playing a Rogue forces a player to be tricky. You can't take the hits a fighter can, can't deal the damage a wizard can, and can't heal yourself like a cleric can. You have to sack the encounter to your advantage. When it pays off, your standing there holding a Wizards kidney because he didn't see you coming despite all his magical power. If the wizard catches you out in the open and hits you with a Will or Fort save. The whole idea of "a Rogue in a straight fight can do X dmg a round" is laughable. A Rogue in a straight fight is done.
If you want to nerf Sneak Attack, fine. At least give your Rogue players the 1 Xp per GP they steal again (and not the rest of the party). If you want to take away their main combat feature they should get a bonus for avoiding fights and relying completely on the skill system.
Sneak attack seems quite powerful until you consider a few points:
1) A monster can deal just as much damage to a foe when it's at 1 hp as it could at full hp. Unless the rogue drops the monster before it can get off an attack, the monster can retaliate. Doing damage can be very therapeutic as a player and it's very satisfying sometimes to roll handfuls of dice for damage, but the only hp that matters is the very last '1'.
2) Even with their hit die upgraded to d8, rogues are squishy. If the rogue didn't kill his foe, his foe might very well obliterate him in turn.
3) You can usually manage a sneak attack on a surprise round, but after that you need to feint (which requires a specific feat or two) or to flank (requires Acrobatics and a flanking partner) to deal out those sneak attacks, generally speaking. Sneak attack in the first case is the reward to rogues for good Stealth skills, scouting, and high initiative modifers. In the other cases, it's a reward for character construction (feint) or teamwork.
4) No one likes to have their hard-earned abilities nerfed. Once in a while it's good to not be able to use your abilities, but taking a key class feature and hitting it with a nerf gun the size of Long Tom never feels good. Yes, rogues have talents and skills they can use. But sneak attack is the bread and butter of combat abilities for rogues, it's how they contribute.
5) Sneak attack requires a class with 3/4 BAB to hit. Monsters at higher levels can have ACs high enough that hitting gets difficult and hp to make those sneak attacks so-so. Throw in flight, invisibility, and anything that grants a decent miss chance and the rogue's sneak attack becomes necessary for the rogue to contribute at all in combat.
I would like to point out that positioning is everything if a rogue wants to sneak attack more than once a round. I admit I'm a long time rogue player,(Starting in 2nd edition using back stab) however I've DM'ed for a lot of rogues too so I've seen it form both sides of the fence. While it may seem really powerful to add that many dice, it's not hard to negate the threat. Any kind of concealment, Improved uncanny dodge, moving to avoid being flanked, creatures that are flat out immune, armor with Fortification, and high ac's that just make it difficult to hit with more than your main attack can negate any threat of more than 1 or 2 in one round, if any.
Or they could use a wand of Greater Invisibility....
Yes there are ways of defeating that too, but you can't use those tactics every time the rogue turns invisible. It would be lame.
Look, I'm not yelling "the sky is falling", I said earlier that I was on the fence about it. But I have seen the horror, and it is worth considering. All in all, though, I don't favor reducing it wholesale. The "diminishing returns" idea was interesting. It would generally only have major impact on high level two-weapon finessing Cuisinarts, which is where the problem is.
I've run over a dozen Rogues over the past 11 years and cannot think of more than 3 occasions that I got multiple attacks in a round. That includes times before I had the multiple attacks. Rogues can do a boatload of hurt, but that's not their real function.
