I'm not suggesting it's "fair," only that it might serve the OP's purpose of limiting the rogue's newly acquired expansion of sneak attack, which the OP (and others) are struggling with. My own approach to the issue is entirely different, but this is offered up to help...hopefully.
Right, but my point is that this isn't just an expansion of sneak attack; it is really an expansion of what can be crit'd. But no one is interested in limiting critical hits or even recognizing the inherent tie between the two. Why should Rogues be limited where anyone else can receive their crit bonus for free?
It actually has been addressed a few times above, (though not in the detail you might want), good sir.
I could say a "lucky shot" is slipping my weapon into a chink in the armor and doing extra damage by accident. Which is the whole basis for the argument against sneak attack when they attempt to stir "realism" into the pot.
I personally (not answering for others), do not think anything needs to be addressed about Crits.
And I Sneak Attacks.
They are fine as is. Just about everthing can be "crited", which serves everyone equally, but actually serves Roges a little bit more than most others, as Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
They all have the same chance of crit'ing stat the same way. Rogues just have a class ability that gives them bonus damage against creatures that can be crit given specific conditions.
|
I think you got what I was saying that the rogue has to keep adding ranks to the appropriate knowledges to get his SA to apply to those other critters.....
At this time the main critisisms seems to be
1. Too complicatedUsing knowledge to effectively deal SA damage makes sense
limiting SA damage based upon that knowledge makes sense2. What about crits and fighters
Not relevant to the current thread
Fighters etc would need a called shots system for this to work
currently only the rogue via SA has "called shots" to vitals.3. SR and magic also not relevant.
4. This makes the rogue too good and disturbes game balance.
Not sure on this one, it is possible.Anyone think that allowing the rogue to gain knowledge ranks and apply that to the use of SA is unbalancing??????
Yes, it is unbalancing,. It makes the Rgoue useless because he can't afford to have that many knowledge skills at high enough level. You'd need Arcana, Nature, Local, Planes, Dunegoneering and Religion. So the Rogue has to spend 3/4 of his sklill points to use his primary combat features. So no stealth or perception or disable device if he wants to be good in a fight. Yes, that's not unbalancing at all, is it?
Using knowledge to effectively deal SA damage makes sense
limiting SA damage based upon that knowledge makes sense
As does using Knowledge to do lots of other things
Not relevant to the current thread
Fighters etc would need a called shots system for this to work
currently only the rogue via SA has "called shots" to vitals.
No, when you crit, you get a bonus to damage. When you Sneak Attack, you get a bonus to damage. Limiting one logically should mean limiting the other given the basis of this specific argument.
|
Yes, it is unbalancing,. It makes the Rgoue useless because he can't afford to have that many knowledge skills at high enough level. You'd need Arcana, Nature, Local, Planes, Dunegoneering and Religion. So the Rogue has to spend 3/4 of his sklill points to use his primary combat features. So no stealth or perception or disable device if he wants to be good in a fight. Yes, that's not unbalancing at all, is it?
How so? I never said, nor have I seen it implied that you would need Knowledges outside of Religion (Undead), Nature (Elementals), Dungeoneering (Oozes). They should probably already have Disable Device for Constructs. From the 3E idea of what could be sneak attacked creature type wise, everything else is just like normal.
Or am I missing something?
Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bring them back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
4. This makes the rogue too good and disturbes game balance.
These statements need some back up evidence as they seem to conflict with established knowledge of game mechanics and character build possibilities.
|
|
Using knowledge to effectively deal SA damage makes sense
limiting SA damage based upon that knowledge makes sense
As does using Knowledge to do lots of other things
I think your sidestepping the issue here, oddly agree with us? That is to say, it sounds like you are agreeing that this is a good idea, and furthermore agreeing that it also adds other benefits to the Rogue for doing "lots of other things" with those Knowledges.
Not relevant to the current thread
Fighters etc would need a called shots system for this to work
currently only the rogue via SA has "called shots" to vitals.
No, when you crit, you get a bonus to damage. When you Sneak Attack, you get a bonus to damage. Limiting one logically should mean limiting the other given the basis of this specific argument.
That is correct in the most smiplest of terms, but really has nthing to do with this? It is a different topic. The two things (Crit/Sneak Attack) do not work the same way and do not mean thesae thing. Why do you think Crits (mechanically and raionally) should be linked? I understand that Sneak Attack IS linked to Crits, but Crits are not lined to Snea Attack by nature. That is more a percieved connection, I think on your part.
Everyone seems to think that "called shots" are part of Sneak Attack, (hitting a zombie brain makes sense as a Sneak Attack, for example), but that means ONLY Rogues can headshot zombies (which in this game are actually not vulnerable to head shots :) ).
|
|
Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bring them back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
4. This makes the rogue too good and disturbes game balance.These statements need some back up evidence as they seem to conflict with established knowledge of game mechanics and character build possibilities.
Or perhaps you need to stat giving reasons why you think this is true. Plenty have been given from my side? Why do you (not specifically "you") assume that you are right and therefore need to be on the defensive side of the arguement?
Obviously you can counter someting along the lines that "Paizo themselves saw an issue and changed it rightfully. . ." but than why do threads exactly like this keep showing up? Over and over and over. (since the late Beta, I have been a part of at least 10) That is itself proof that there is an issue, and that the current way it works is at least a litle too overpowered.
Well, I proposed this upstream, and am now reiterating with some adjustments:
To sneak attack a construct (or undead, if you like) , a rogue must make an intelligence check to define a weak spot. The DCs scale with the enemies HD.
There are two ways to do handle, either for each sneak attack (DC5+HD), or once per foe (DC10+HD). These are free actions.
Or, alternatively:
To sneak attack a construct a rogue must succeed on the proper knowledge check, DCs could stay the same, or raise them by five to help account for the class skill bonus.
To me, this is simple and sweet, the second version rewards putting points in knowledge skills (which is always a good thing), the first is just as flavorful.
I prefer the straight knowledge/intelligence check vs. the "ranks limit". Limiting the dice to ranks in a skill, to me, feels less "natural".
Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bring them back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
4. This makes the rogue too good and disturbes game balance.These statements need some back up evidence as they seem to conflict with established knowledge of game mechanics and character build possibilities.Or perhaps you need to stat giving reasons why you think this is true. Plenty have been given from my side? Why do you (not specifically "you") assume that you are right and therefore need to be on the defensive side of the arguement?
Obviously you can counter someting along the lines that "Paizo themselves saw an issue and changed it rightfully. . ." but than why do threads exactly like this keep showing up? Over and over and over. That is itself proof that there is an issue, and that the current way it works is at least a litle too overpowered.
Because YOU make an assertion that runs counter to established knowledge of game mechanics and character builds. You need to back those assertions up with evidence.
If the rogue with sneak attack vs a construct is too powerful in comparison with a fighter, surely you can produce evidence showing that? Right?
If the rogues really do "tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters", you can provide evidence showing that as well?
I wasn't asking for much, just some reasoning showing why you believe the above to be true.
Well, I proposed this upstream, and am now reiterating with some adjustments:
To sneak attack a construct (or undead, if you like) , a rogue must make an intelligence check to define a weak spot. The DCs scale with the enemies HD.
There are two ways to do handle, either for each sneak attack (DC5+HD), or once per foe (DC10+HD). These are free actions.
Or, alternatively:
To sneak attack a construct a rogue must succeed on the proper knowledge check, DCs could stay the same, or raise them by five to help account for the class skill bonus.
To me, this is simple and sweet, the second version rewards putting points in knowledge skills (which is always a good thing), the first is just as flavorful.
Interesting. I really like that first part because stats in this type of combat are often ignored beyond Str Dex and Con.
|
|
So....
It seems that there is general agreement that some mechanic needs to be in place such that the rogue can improve SA against opponents not usually SAable.
We have a working idea of ranks in knowledge to limit SA damage.
1 rank limits to 1d6, regardless of what #d6 the rogue has
2 "
And this damage can never be more than the base SA the rogue has at whatever level.....
That sounds good to me.
Still needed
1. What specific knowledges are against what
2. do we need to make a knowledge check prior to getting the SA
OR
It is automatic up to the ranks in the applicable knowledge and rogues actual bonus.....
I would suggest for
1.) Undead (Religion), Constuct either (Architecture or Disable Device), Elementals (Nature), Oozes (Dungeoneering), and everything else Halflings, Kobalds, Demons, Dragons, etc. . . can be Sneak Attacked without any Skill needed UNLESS THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC IMMUNITY WHICH WOULD BE IN THEIR ENTRY.2.) Yes, free action made before the first attampted Sneak Attack. Once made, it applies to that creature for the rest of the fight. If failed, the Rogue an try again in later rounds as a Move Action. (might be better for simplicity to say it applies to all creatures of that type per encounter)
And the Rogue would need to roll, it is not automatic.
I think your sidestepping the issue here, oddly agree with us? That is to say, it sounds like you are agreeing that this is a good idea, and furthermore agreeing that it also adds other benefits to the Rogue for doing "lots of other things" with those Knowledges.
I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of limiting something by the extent of the character's knowledge could be easily expanded to limit a large portion of the game.
That is correct in the most smiplest of terms, but really has nthing to do with this? It is a different topic. The two things (Crit/Sneak Attack) do not work the same way and do not mean thesae thing.
But they are at the very heart of this topic. Sneak Attacks are now usable on Undead and Golems not because of a specific fiat to allow it but because criticals are now available on Undead and Golems. They are intrinsically linked in this specific topic.
Well, I proposed this upstream, and am now reiterating with some adjustments:
To sneak attack a construct (or undead, if you like) , a rogue must make an intelligence check to define a weak spot. The DCs scale with the enemies HD.
There are two ways to do handle, either for each sneak attack (DC5+HD), or once per foe (DC10+HD). These are free actions.
Or, alternatively:
To sneak attack a construct a rogue must succeed on the proper knowledge check, DCs could stay the same, or raise them by five to help account for the class skill bonus.
To me, this is simple and sweet, the second version rewards putting points in knowledge skills (which is always a good thing), the first is just as flavorful.
Just to add... If you wanted to limit the number of SA dice, you could set it at one, then +1 dice per 5 that you beat the DC, up to the maximum allowed by the class... still simple and sweet.
|
|
Because YOU make an assertion that runs counter to established knowledge of game mechanics and character builds. You need to back those assertions up with evidence.
If the rogue with sneak attack vs a construct is too powerful in comparison with a fighter, surely you can produce evidence showing that? Right?
If the rogues really do "tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters", you can provide evidence showing that as well?
I wasn't asking for much, just some reasoning showing why you believe the above to be true.
How so. For one they are generalizations, not hard facts. Rogues tend to go for Rapiers, Short Swords, Daggers, Kukris and similar weapons (which mean better crit ranges) as their main weapons. Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers, etc tend to have weapons that are 20/x2. Are you disagreeing?
I didn't specifically count Fighter, though I think that it is fair to say that is a good example. However that is very off topic. What are you asking me to expand upon? That Rogues can keep up with Fighters (melee), that Rogues are overpowered, that my opinion is that Sneak Attack is too strong, that it is not logical? Allof it? What assertions are you meaning? I have no problem discussing it, and I do not have a problem changing my mind if I think there is a good reason. I just do not see any convincing reasons as off yet. Most of my problems come from play experience, and by that I mean almost completely by the rules, (not heavily house ruled games). The changes to Sneak Attack have really changed the feel and mood of the game. And while it is true that other aspects have contributed, Sneak Attack is a single primary reason for a lot of them. For example, Undead are very weak for their intended purposses now.
The change in HD have some to do with that, but the fact that most are s+&!ty guards AND now able to be Sneak Attacked really destoys them for anything but simple "minions" that are far more expensive than they are worth, for both Players and NPC's with a realistic GP limit.
It also really disrupts the classic sense that Divine Characters should be more affective against Undead, (traditional "generic" enemies) but now it is more logical to go to the thieve's guild than the temple of "pelor" to clear out a zombie nest.
For the Fighter thing, it is my experience that, over all, Rogue have a better chance to hit than even Fighters, (more often than not). Rogues are often Dex based, and close to base "To Hit" as Fighters. Additionally, ROgues have a much easier time making their attacks become against Flat Footed AC, from surprize, bluff, or simple not being seen. Finally, it is very rare for a Rogue not to have a flanking bonus, while at times whoever they are flanking with may not do to contant moving on the battle field. That is to say the Rogue is more likely to slip in flank atack and slip out while the main melee will want to stay in place for full attacks. Just a generalization, but I've seen it a lot, (and ina lot of different, nonrelated groups of players). Rogues can easily tumble, and generic Rogues tend towards Spring Attack as a natural synergy for their playstyle.
Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bring them back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
4. This makes the rogue too good and disturbes game balance.These statements need some back up evidence as they seem to conflict with established knowledge of game mechanics and character build possibilities.Or perhaps you need to stat giving reasons why you think this is true. Plenty have been given from my side? Why do you (not specifically "you") assume that you are right and therefore need to be on the defensive side of the arguement?
Obviously you can counter someting along the lines that "Paizo themselves saw an issue and changed it rightfully. . ." but than why do threads exactly like this keep showing up? Over and over and over. That is itself proof that there is an issue, and that the current way it works is at least a litle too overpowered.
Because YOU make an assertion that runs counter to established knowledge of game mechanics and character builds. You need to back those assertions up with evidence.
If the rogue with sneak attack vs a construct is too powerful in comparison with a fighter, surely you can produce evidence showing that? Right?
If the rogues really do "tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters", you can provide evidence showing that as well?
I wasn't asking for much, just some reasoning showing why you believe the above to be true.
That is way out of context...
I listed that as a "potential critcism" of the idea of the rogue using knowledge to apply SA. I myself am absolutely for the idea. In fact at this moment I beleive the idea was mine..(I will check the thread to see!).
Sorry, but I disagree. It's within context because the suggestion to make a rogue spend skill points in order to buy his Sneak Attack damage without making that damage higher than he would have gotten before the change will in no way make the rogue too good or disturb game balance in the rogues favor.
If it does, I would like to see how.
Well, I proposed this upstream, and am now reiterating with some adjustments:
To sneak attack a construct (or undead, if you like) , a rogue must make an intelligence check to define a weak spot. The DCs scale with the enemies HD.
There are two ways to do handle, either for each sneak attack (DC5+HD), or once per foe (DC10+HD). These are free actions.
Or, alternatively:
To sneak attack a construct a rogue must succeed on the proper knowledge check, DCs could stay the same, or raise them by five to help account for the class skill bonus.
To me, this is simple and sweet, the second version rewards putting points in knowledge skills (which is always a good thing), the first is just as flavorful.
One problem with the Intelligence check. Unlike a normal skill check, ability checks don't scale up quickly. As an example, consider the iron golem. It has 18 HD. This means the rogue would need a DC 23 or 28 Intelligence check to use his abilities under the first method you describe. A few spells can boost ability checks (besides getting out a fox's cunningspell). Rogues who are going into combat--like this rogue--will favor other ability scores to boost, so the rogue's Intelligence isn't likely to rise much over the course of a campaign. If he starts with a really high Intelligence score, you then wonder why the rogue isn't a wizard...and the iron golem is a CR 13 creature, let's not forget that.
The knowledge skill answer has existing DCs for checks, which is a plus, but starts to put a skill tax on the use of the rogue's abilities in a manner reminiscent of the bard.
I would add skill checks as a tool for the DM when they think any class may trivialize certain encounters, or just want to add some spice, but overall class ablities should work as listed.
Therefore, your rogue may be sneak attack golems all day, only discover the wizard of the tower made the last set of defenders immune to it, except for specific vulnerabilites (knowledge engineering).
The same could be used for spells, etc.
Bring knowledge checks into the forefront for any encounter, and make it more interesting for everyone.
I think the issue people have with the skill points thing - and with a lot of suggestions in general - is that rogues don't need to be brought lower. Rogues aren't doing super extreme damage as is, and now you're saying they need yet more restrictions.
The problem with trying to give them other weak features to balance them off is that you end up like the monk - a class with a whole LOT of abilities, but they're all somewhat terrible, and the end result is a class that struggles to do what it's actually supposed to do in combat.
The problem with making them spend skill points into knowledge or making them do less damage is that you're now actively making the rogue weaker, but you aren't giving them anything in return. You're effectively punishing people for playing a rogue. And the skill point thing is even more irritable, because you're either making rogues more MAD - and being MAD is never a good thing - or you're forcing them to give up some of their out of combat abilities, the things so many people in this thread think the rogue is meant to be based on, just so he can continue functioning as normal.
That's why I'm asking for the mechanical reasons behind this. The fluff reasons are irrelevant. For every fluff reason you can make for why rogues can't sneak attack constructs or undead, I can make a fluff reason for why they can. For god's sake, undead have typically had the most weaknesses of all traditional enemies. You're saying you can't sneak attack a zombie because it has no soft spots? How about right in the head? You're mad that rogues can sneak attack golems? Monks can punch through golems. Fighters can hack away at a golem for hours on end and never worry about his weapon being the slightest bit tarnished.
You also state that the rogue needs to have situations where he needs to sit out. But why? What other class needs to sit out against an entire type of enemy? Casters don't need to sit out unless they're in an anti-magic field - even if the enemy is resistant to magic, they can still buff their allies. Druids and clerics are the epitome of "never needs to sit out." Fighters need to sit out when they aren't in combat, but that's long been seen as the biggest flaw to fighters, not as a good thing. Help me understand this - when do other characters have to "sit out," and when is it a good thing? Even paladins can still fight non-evil enemies - he's still got full BAB, he still has good combat options, divine spirit, and lay on hands. Rogues are built entirely around sneak attack as their "schtick" in battle. If you take that away, they're an NPC class.
Until it's explained as to why rogues mechanically shouldn't be able to sneak attack - especially when one joker is claiming critting is still alright - then I don't think a lot of people will be able to help you, other then to tell you "Hah hah have fun when your rogue players get bored and leave because they're useless in combat."
I think the issue people have with the skill points thing - and with a lot of suggestions in general - is that rogues don't need to be brought lower. Rogues aren't doing super extreme damage as is, and now you're saying they need yet more restrictions.
I think the people who feel this way are those who, like myself, have seen too many situations where rogues(or perhaps certain types of people playing rogues) have been doing disproportionate(I wouldn't say super extreme) damage in comparison to others at the table. This usually stems from maybe not abuses of the current sneak attack system, but a reliance upon it and perhaps when mixed with a certain type of weapon or certain types of tactics(i.e. flanking) when engaging the enemy. The rogue isn't going around one-shotting enemies as sneak attack isn't THAT powerful, but they certainly are finishing off a lot more moderately-damaged enemies than may be feasible. Again, I think this solely hangs on the type of people who have been playing rogues in games that those arguing against your point have been a part of.
|
|
I think the issue people have with the skill points thing - and with a lot of suggestions in general - is that rogues don't need to be brought lower. Rogues aren't doing super extreme damage as is, and now you're saying they need yet more restrictions.I think the people who feel this way are those who, like myself, have seen too many situations where rogues(or perhaps certain types of people playing rogues) have been doing disproportionate(I wouldn't say super extreme) damage in comparison to others at the table. This usually stems from maybe not abuses of the current sneak attack system, but a reliance upon it and perhaps when mixed with a certain type of weapon or certain types of tactics(i.e. flanking) when engaging the enemy. The rogue isn't going around one-shotting enemies as sneak attack isn't THAT powerful, but they certainly are finishing off a lot more moderately-damaged enemies than may be feasible. Again, I think this solely hangs on the type of people who have been playing rogues in games that those arguing against your point have been a part of.
I will agree I have seen a lot of this, and the culprit is almost always a Rogue, BUT that is not the reason I think that Rogues, particularly Sneak Attack in general (for all 3E material) needs to take step back. I have actually stated a lot of other reasons, but mechanical and thematic, and it seems alot of these are getting ignored, (which is fine).
However, like I mentioned, if so many people have trouble with this, specifically "with how Sneak Attack affects almost everything in PF", why are people insisting that there is no problem (outside of your personal game)? I mean that in the sense that if other people do have such an issue with it, and I mean this in all senses (balance, mechanics, fluff, whatever) that maybe something needs to be addressed for those people?
I think the issue people have with the skill points thing - and with a lot of suggestions in general - is that rogues don't need to be brought lower. Rogues aren't doing super extreme damage as is, and now you're saying they need yet more restrictions.I think the people who feel this way are those who, like myself, have seen too many situations where rogues(or perhaps certain types of people playing rogues) have been doing disproportionate(I wouldn't say super extreme) damage in comparison to others at the table. This usually stems from maybe not abuses of the current sneak attack system, but a reliance upon it and perhaps when mixed with a certain type of weapon or certain types of tactics(i.e. flanking) when engaging the enemy. The rogue isn't going around one-shotting enemies as sneak attack isn't THAT powerful, but they certainly are finishing off a lot more moderately-damaged enemies than may be feasible. Again, I think this solely hangs on the type of people who have been playing rogues in games that those arguing against your point have been a part of.
I have no clue at all how people have seen that.
Seriously.
Rogues will match paladins and rangers if neither is getting use out of smite or favoured enemy, if the rogue is flanking and making full use of sneak attack.
Fighters, smiting paladins, favored rangers? Rogues don't stand a chance.
I think the issue is that people tend to rate dice thrown as damage done, but it's not proportional. Fighters do far more damage with far less dice rolled.
|
|
For god's sake, undead have typically had the most weaknesses of all traditional enemies. You're saying you can't sneak attack a zombie because it has no soft spots? How about right in the head?
Except that when anyone else "right in the heads a zombie", it does not affect the zombie in any special way. That is why it is a bad example, and anything similar to it is a bad, flawed example. With the singular exception of Vampires, Undead do not need any part of their bodies to function. You can literally Vorpal a Liches haed off, and it has 0% adverse affect on the. A Mindflayer could eat a vampires brain, and it does not hurt the.
You also state that the rogue needs to have situations where he needs to sit out. But why? What other class needs to sit out against an entire type of enemy? Casters don't need to sit out unless they're in an anti-magic field...
Casters "sit out" vs Beholders, and that includes anything Magical, even party buffs. Much more often than not, casters "sit out" vs Golems, because not only do they have to have the right spells for the job, they also are much more likey to be wasting their main, depletable resource for the day for little benefit. Fighters sit out (often but not always) when an encounter requires puzzles, traps, combat with which they can not really contribute well to, (like large tentacle thing with reach and grapple, or things that are a little to good with disarm), or when the party requires stealth (obviously not including ALL Fighters here, but the generic Fighter), and by "sit out", I mean more along the lines of do not contribute in a maximum class feature = the only way to have fun way, not that the player literally reads a book until it is over.
There is actually very little that a Rogue needs to "sit out" for (including with a lot of specialized Rogue builds), because they can easily contribute in a funnish way to nearly every single type of encounter, (even in 3E), where as this is decidedly not true, (and as mentioned is not a good thing) for many other classes. I woulds say this is even more true than with Bards or Monks. More than generic spellcasters and combat machines definetly. It is a baic part of the Rogue class.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
For the record, I'm good with Rogues Sneak Attacks as is.
However, if it is decided that a Knowledge check (or some other mechanic) is required to balance the ability a bit, I would suggest that this mechanic does not hinder the Rogue's inherent advantage in skill points. After all, the Rogue is designed to be the Skill Monkey as its primary asset.
So, maybe something like:
- At each level, the Rogue receives 2 additional skill ranks to be applied to the Knowledge skill of his choice. These ranks must be used for a Knowledge skill related to his Sneak Attack ability. Additional ranks can be added to these Knowledge skills if the appropriate skill points are spent.
OR
- Create a new Knowledge skill specifically for Sneak Attacks. Maybe something like Knowledge (Vulnerabilities). This is a class skill for Rogues and Assassins ONLY, and applies only to Sneak Attacks.
OR:
- Create a skill to be used in conjunction with Sneak Attack (Analysis? Vulerability Assessment?). Add this to the Sneak Attack mechanic so that a successful check must be made prior to applying Sneak Attack damage.
OR
- Create a combat action designed to be used with precision-based damage. Maybe call it "Called Shot" or something to that effect. The Rogue must study his target as a standard action prior to using his Sneak Attack. The Rogue uses this time to carefully study his target and pick his moment and location to strike, ensuring he does the most damage possible. This action must be taken prior to each Sneak Attack attempt. All other Sneak Attack requirements must be met in order for this action to occur successfully.
Of course, my own feelings say to ignore these suggestions and stick to the RAW, but if it doesn't suit your game, I hope these suggestions provide some kind of spark to a final solution.
Owner - Game Knight
|
I've got a couple things to add to this.
First I'd like to post this:
Rogue Variant: Rogue
As the class listed in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook except as follows:
Class Skills
As Rogue, but maybe cut the points gained per level in half, then add your intelligence modifier (if any).
Class Features
Rogue-ic Knowledge (Ex)
A rogue adds half his class level (minimum 1) to all Knowledge skill checks and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained. This lets the rogue sneak attack undead and constructs--provided they don't have concealment, uncanny dodge, all-around vision, fortification, incorporeality, an indiscernible anatomy, vulnerable points that the rogue cannot reach, are the DM's NPC, et cetera.
Sneak Attack
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, but probably should be careful how often they use their defining class feature, or people might get upset that they're doing damage in bursts.
Clarification: Incorporeal creatures, oozes, swarms, ooze swarms, other rogues, barbarians, elementals (air/earth/fire/water), and swarms of incorporeal barbarian oozes cannot be sneak attacked.
Now that THAT is out of my system, I'd like to say this:
In the 'classic' party of the Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue. The rogue being able to sneak attack constructs is huge. The Wizard and the cleric are going to be out of luck for the most part. Furthermore, unless the fighter is a two-handed specialist, that DR is going to seriously eat into his damage output. This is just my experience playing since 2nd edition. Let the rogue have her moment in the sun :(.
|
|
I have no clue at all how people have seen that.
Seriously.
Rogues will match paladins and rangers if neither is getting use out of smite or favoured enemy, if the rogue is flanking and making full use of sneak attack.
Fighters, smiting paladins, favored rangers? Rogues don't stand a chance.
I think the issue is that people tend to rate dice thrown as damage done, but it's not proportional. Fighters do far more damage with far less dice rolled.
It is not that at all. Well, not in most cases I have seen. It is that the Rogue (even in 3E) had so much more opertunity to use Sneak Attack than Paladins did with Smite Evil, (which has a muc larger group of targets immune to it by the way than the mentioned 1/4), and also gets to do it much more often. A Rogue can Full attack with Sneak Attack each and every encounter, while a Paladin gets it 1 encounter per day until higher levels,(and in 3E was only for 1 single attack regardless of how many uses they got). The Ranger bonus is harder to compare fairly though, because some enemies are more common than others. Favored Enemy also does have direct non-combat use, is infinite, but still a lot less used tha Sneak Attack (even in 3E). Sneak Attack, I would say is much more powerful then Favored Enemy as it is easier to use it more often, and has a much more direct damage dealing affect over all.
Except that when anyone else "right in the heads a zombie", it does not affect the zombie in any special way. That is why it is a bad example, and anything similar to it is a bad, flawed example. With the singular exception of Vampires, Undead do not need any part of their bodies to function. You can literally Vorpal a Liches haed off, and it has 0% adverse affect on the. A Mindflayer could eat a vampires brain, and it does not hurt the.
Irrelevant. Like I said, for every fluff reason one can make for, one can make against, and vice versa. You missed my point entirely.
You also state that the rogue needs to have situations where he needs to sit out. But why? What other class needs to sit out against an entire type of enemy? Casters don't need to sit out unless they're in an anti-magic field...Casters "sit out" vs Beholders, and that includes anything Magical, even party buffs. Much more often than not, casters "sit out" vs Golems, because not only do they have to have the right spells for the job, they also are much more likey to be wasting their main, depletable resource for the day for little benefit. Fighters sit out (often but not always) when an encounter requires puzzles, traps, combat with which they can not really contribute well to, (like large tentacle thing with reach and grapple, or things that are a little to good with disarm), or when the party requires stealth (obviously not including ALL Fighters here, but the generic Fighter), and by "sit out", I mean more along the lines of do not contribute in a maximum class feature = the only way to have fun way, not that the player literally reads a book until it is over.
Wrong. Casters sit out against beholders - that's one specific monster. Not one type of monster, just one monster entirely.
Casters don't sit out against golems because they still have buffs. Don't give this BS about them not having the right spells, they're wizards. What, did they make every spell they learned fireball?
Yes, fighters can't do much other then fight. Funny, that's exactly what I said was the big problem. At this point you're agreeing with me.
There is actually very little that a Rogue needs to "sit out" for (including with a lot of specialized Rogue builds), because they can easily contribute in a funnish way to nearly every single type of encounter, (even in 3E), where as this is decidedly not true, (and as mentioned is not a good thing) for many other classes. I woulds say this is even more true than with Bards or Monks. More than generic spellcasters and combat machines definetly. It is a baic part of the Rogue class.
Disagree with bards. Bards have more skills then rogues do with versatile performer.
Sure, monks and fighters can't do much, but that's precisely why people dislike those classes. That's why monks are rather weak, and why there's been thread after thread of "How can I make fighters better?" You're again arguing for me.
As for casters? Bull. You're just open faced lying now. Name one situation that doesn't involve an anti-magic field - and those are rare - where a wizard can't contribute. Name one.
It is not that at all. Well, not in most cases I have seen. It is that the Rogue (even in 3E) had so much more opertunity to use Sneak Attack than Paladins did with Smite Evil, (which has a muc larger group of targets immune to it by the way than the mentioned 1/4), and also gets to do it much more often. A Rogue can Full attack with Sneak Attack each and every encounter, while a Paladin gets it 1 encounter per day until higher levels,(and in 3E was only for 1 single attack regardless of how many uses they got). The Ranger bonus is harder to compare fairly though, because some enemies are more common than others. Favored Enemy also does have direct non-combat use, is infinite, but still a lot less used tha Sneak Attack (even in 3E). Sneak Attack, I would say is much more powerful then Favored Enemy as it is easier to use it more often, and has a much more direct damage dealing affect over all.I have no clue at all how people have seen that.
Seriously.
Rogues will match paladins and rangers if neither is getting use out of smite or favoured enemy, if the rogue is flanking and making full use of sneak attack.
Fighters, smiting paladins, favored rangers? Rogues don't stand a chance.
I think the issue is that people tend to rate dice thrown as damage done, but it's not proportional. Fighters do far more damage with far less dice rolled.
You're ignoring what was said earlier.
Yes, rogues can theoretically sneak attack more things then paladins can smite. But a sneak attacking rogue is equal to a non-smiting paladin. Sneak attack is the equalizer, not the power house. And beyond that, paladins still have spells, divine spirit, lay on hands, mercies, etc, etc.
Rangers? Same thing. Sneak attacking rogue is equal to a ranger who's not using his favored enemy increases. And then the ranger has a lot more options for combat capabilities, an animal companion, and again etc etc etc.
That said, I totally agree that rogues are overpowered...when you ignore every class ability that other classes get.
On using knowledge skills.
1. I see this in the context of an improvement on "not subject to a backstab". If you say you can backstab a creature that seems to have no weak spot, this would be a justification to be able to find one. Crits are supposed to be the lucky blows but a backstab is supposed to be a particularly vicious blow with the knowledge of anatomy etc... A knowledge check verifies that relationship.
It would only be once per creature and would, in game world terms, represent a character's training to anticipate the opponent's weakness(es) and\or biology.
2. Its an existing mechanic: most of my characters try to make knowledge checks to understand weaknesses of their opponents. This is usually related to things like resistances and immunities but this is the same principle.
From the PSRD:
* Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
* Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
* Planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, planar magic)
* Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
3. Skill points - I hear two arguments: "A rogue should hit as hard as a fighter" and "A rogue is the skill monkey don't spread his skill points out". Both of these arguments have merit but I don't think they exclude this approach. If your rogue has never studied the structure of fey why should he be able to attack them more effectively?
Rogues get a lot of skill points. They seem fairly well prepared for a more robust use of skills in combat.
The appropriate use of knowledge skills seems like a real bonus to this approach. 5 skills to cover all opponents. Yes its another choice to make but it is no different than a wizard choosing to be a utility mage or an evoker. You can support your backstab or stealth skills. If your only foes are other humanoids you get that for free so in the majority of cases you're covered. Preparing to fight the exotics - study up.
This approach also makes the rogue more informed and helps him live up to the 'specialist' title.
Sigurd
That said, I totally agree that rogues are overpowered...when you ignore every class ability that other classes get.
At low to mid levels, I tend to agree. But as levels get higher, things start to shift in favor of sneak attack, at least when the ranger and paladin aren't fighting things they like to fight. I'd say it's here that it gets to be problematic.
That said, I totally agree that rogues are overpowered...when you ignore every class ability that other classes get.At low to mid levels, I tend to agree. But as levels get higher, things start to shift in favor of sneak attack, at least when the ranger and paladin aren't fighting things they like to fight. I'd say it's here that it gets to be problematic.
Again, I don't see it. Rogues don't have full BAB. If anything, as levels go up, sneak attack falls drastically behind, as rogues make less attacks then rangers and paladins, and those attacks miss more often.
But this isn't just my opinion. Numbers have been crunched. Tests have been run. Rogue falls behind. it's not that rogues somethings fall behind, it's that rogues fall behind period.
Yes, the rogue gets to throw a whole lot of dice on the table. But that doesn't equate to doing more damage.
But as levels get higher, things start to shift in favor of sneak attack, at least when the ranger and paladin aren't fighting things they like to fight. I'd say it's here that it gets to be problematic.
That's like saying "Rogues do more damage than Fighters when the Fighter is fighting unarmed with both hands tied behind his back". You're giving Rogues their optimal situation but denying the same consideration to the character you're comparing against. You're also comparing a pure-melee class to a melee-caster hybrid; Rangers and Paladins aren't designed to pump out as much damage as Fighters or Barbarians do because they have other tricks up their sleeves.
Furthermore, you're ignoring that Rogues are much more vulnerable than either Rangers or Paladins; Rogues have a lower hit die, much worse saves, and worse AC than either Rangers or Paladins, plus they can't self-heal (which both Rangers and Paladins can do), which means they can't stand the heat as well when they have to move into melee.
People get so focused on damage that they ignore the forest to focus on how much they dislike that pine tree.
The appropriate use of knowledge skills seems like a real bonus to this approach. 5 skills to cover all opponents. Yes its another choice to make but it is no different than a wizard choosing to be a utility mage or an evoker. You can support your...
Uh, no. Wizards don't have to choose. They can be both. Easily. They can learn both utility and evocation spells. Smart wizards can leave a spell slot open and throw in the utility spell on the fly. Rogues can't change their skill points on the fly.
In fact, even ignoring that, every 8 hours the wizard can completely alter his playing style. Rogues can't change their skill points ever.
But as levels get higher, things start to shift in favor of sneak attack, at least when the ranger and paladin aren't fighting things they like to fight. I'd say it's here that it gets to be problematic.That's like saying "Rogues do more damage than Fighters when the Fighter is fighting unarmed with both hands tied behind his back". You're giving Rogues their optimal situation but denying the same consideration to the character you're comparing against. You're also comparing a pure-melee class to a melee-caster hybrid; Rangers and Paladins aren't designed to pump out as much damage as Fighters or Barbarians do because they have other tricks up their sleeves.
Furthermore, you're ignoring that Rogues are much more vulnerable than either Rangers or Paladins; Rogues have a lower hit die, much worse saves, and worse AC than either Rangers or Paladins, plus they can't self-heal (which both Rangers and Paladins can do), which means they can't stand the heat as well when they have to move into melee.
People get so focused on damage that they ignore the forest to focus on how much they dislike that pine tree.
To be fair, I was focusing on the paladin and the ranger, not the fighter and barbarian. I'm more talking about sneak attack being an ability that rather triggers when in a particular situation than something that someone has to use up a "per day" slot for. In that sense, maybe I should compare the rogue to the fighter...hmm. I'll get back to that one later maybe. And I figured we were talking about damage, so that's what I was focusing on. Either way, my post was more thinking out loud than an attack or talking point or anything like that.
|
|
Except that when anyone else "right in the heads a zombie", it does not affect the zombie in any special way. That is why it is a bad example, and anything similar to it is a bad, flawed example. With the singular exception of Vampires, Undead do not need any part of their bodies to function. You can literally Vorpal a Liches haed off, and it has 0% adverse affect on the. A Mindflayer could eat a vampires brain, and it does not hurt the.
Irrelevant. Like I said, for every fluff reason one can make for, one can make against, and vice versa. You missed my point entirely.
Not at all irrelevant. Your attepting to cange the point, and that is all. I just gave you mechanics, and you keep argueing you don't care about fluff, except it is your fluff and mechanics that are wanting here. You are saying Sneak Attack works because of "A", and I am showing "A" is wrong. "A" does directly, mechanically have to do with Sneak Attack, though, it just disproves it as anything but a bad, arbitrary rule. Balance for the sake of balance is always bad.
You also state that the rogue needs to have situations where he needs to sit out. But why? What other class needs to sit out against an entire type of enemy? Casters don't need to sit out unless they're in an anti-magic field...Casters "sit out" vs Beholders, and that includes anything Magical, even party buffs. Much more often than not, casters "sit out" vs Golems, because not only do they have to have the right spells for the job, they also are much more likey to be wasting their main, depletable resource for the day for little benefit. Fighters sit out (often but not always) when an encounter requires puzzles, traps, combat with which they can not really contribute well to, (like large tentacle thing with reach and grapple, or things that are a little to good with disarm), or when the party requires stealth (obviously not including ALL Fighters here, but the generic Fighter), and by "sit out", I mean more along the lines of do not contribute in a maximum class feature = the only way to have fun way, not that the player literally reads a book until it is over.
Wrong. Casters sit out against beholders - that's one specific monster. Not one type of monster, just one monster entirely.
I did not claim nor imply that Beholders are a creature tpye. However, there are a lot of types of Beholder, and they are a lot more common throughout the levels of play than things like Golems, and unlike the Rogue, do in fact almost completely negate all class abilities for an entire combat, (which also usually happens to be boss encounters). I also notice you did not try to counter all the othr examples given.
Casters don't sit out against golems because they still have buffs. Don't give this BS about them not having the right spells, they're wizards. What, did they make every spell they...
Not all casters are "buffers". Additionally, all the buffs might be used or, or as I mentioned, not beneficial enough to waste a resource on. Having the right spells is a huge point that needs to be incuded when looking at Golems, because not only is it much more likely than not that they do not have affect, (or a worthy effect), but might actually help the Golem. You need to reread Golems before you start throwing out that I, or others only prep Fireballs, because there are a lot of other possibilities you do not seem to understand.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it really sounds like either 1.) you do not know how spellcasters really play out and put way to much stock in Char Op Theary boards or 2.) have a somewhat unique playstyle and assum that everyone (or alot of others) are similar to your group's.
Uh, no. Wizards don't have to choose. They can be both. Easily. They can learn both utility and evocation spells. Smart wizards can leave a spell slot open and throw in the utility spell on the fly.
You are speaking before there is even a mention of how difficult this would be to use.
I think its very similar to a specializing wizard - they do one thing at the expense of another. Most character choices are one way.
A rogue gets 4 times the class skill points of a wizard. Knowledge skills are not easy to acquire for wizards either.
You have to agree in principle that a knowledgeable strike is a good model for a more damaging strike. Knowing a weakness is a good precursor to exploiting it.
A little reading for the unenlightened
That is a thread where everyone attempted to create the most optimal pure class builds they could.
Some points of interest.
Jack B. Nimble dual wielding 2 short sword with 4 attacks per round.
If the rogue walks up and just starts swing, they are doing 15.9 DPR with no flank bonus or sneak attack. Not a smart move for Mr. Rogue.
Now if he gets into flank position the rogue is getting 4 attacks per round at a whopping 6d6+6 damage per attack. ZOMG that is 24d6 + 24 damage every round!!!! Oh, then you factor in the rogues lower miss chance and lack of a strength bonus, and you will see that even with the +2 to hit from flanking, the rogue is missing over half of his attacks against an AC of 24. Still, he is doing a whopping 56.39 DPR. Sounds impressive right?
Enter Falchion Fred, a straight fighter with a falchion. With his much higher to hit numbers, Fred can afford to power attack against almost everything. He gets 2 attack that hit for 2d4 + 25 = average of 30 damage a hit. But wait there is more, even with power attack Fred is hitting 85% of the time with his first attack, and 60% of the time with his second attack. Further, Fred has a 30% chance to threaten a crit. That brings his average damage up to 59.25.
So a rogue who is optimized for doing the maximum amount of sneak attack damage does almost as much damage as a fighter who is optimized for doing damage when the rogue gets to sneak attack. The fighter doesn't need a flanking and his damage isn't negated by uncanny dodge. The fighter gets heavier armor and more hit points to boot.
That said, I really don't see any compelling reason rogue need their damage output arbitrarily lowered from a balance standpoint.
To be fair, I was focusing on the paladin and the ranger, not the fighter and barbarian.
To be fair, he was pointing out that that was a BS comparison.
And never mind the fact that the Rogue is one of the THREE non-caster classes. The Ranger gets purely gimped in casting, but he can still do it.
Not at all irrelevant. Your attepting to cange the point, and that is all. I just gave you mechanics, and you keep argueing you don't care about fluff, except it is your fluff and mechanics that are wanting here. You are saying Sneak Attack works because of "A", and I am showing "A" is wrong. "A" does directly, mechanically have to do with Sneak Attack, though, it just disproves it as anything but a bad, arbitrary rule. Balance for the sake of balance is always bad.
Wrong.
I'm saying "Sneak attack works for whatever reason you can come up with. Sneak attack does not work for whatever reason you can come up with. As neither of these reasons are coded into the mechanics, neither should be held as a reason for justifying one's deviation from the core rules."
Read what I'm saying, if that's not TOO difficult.
Casters "sit out" vs Beholders, and that includes anything Magical, even party buffs. Much more often than not, casters "sit out" vs Golems, because not only do they have to have the right spells for the job, they also are much more likey to be wasting their main, depletable resource for the day for little benefit. Fighters sit out (often but not always) when an encounter requires puzzles, traps, combat with which they can not really contribute well to, (like large tentacle thing with reach and grapple, or things that are a little to good with disarm), or when the party requires stealth (obviously not including ALL Fighters here, but the generic Fighter), and by "sit out", I mean more along the lines of do not contribute in a maximum class feature = the only way to have fun way, not that the player literally reads a book until it is over.
I like how you copy and paste what you've already said, DESPITE ME RESPONDING TO IT AND PROVING YOU WRONG. Christ, you're not even trying at this point.
I did not claim nor imply that Beholders are a creature tpye. However, there are a lot of types of Beholder, and they are a lot more common throughout the levels of play than things like Golems, and unlike the Rogue, do in fact almost completely negate all class abilities for an entire combat, (which also usually happens to be boss encounters). I also notice you did not try to counter all the othr examples given.
Pop quiz: what are there more of, beholders with anti-magic capabilities, or undead plus constructs plus elementals plus oozes plus non-corporeal enemies? Also, what other examples? You listed golems and beholders for casters, and that's it. Seriously, don't take me to task on crap you never wrote in the first place.
Not all casters are "buffers". Additionally, all the buffs might be used or, or as I mentioned, not beneficial enough to waste a resource on. Having the right spells is a huge point that needs to be incuded when looking at Golems, because not only is it much more likely than not that they do not have affect, (or a worthy effect), but might actually help the Golem. You need to reread Golems before you start throwing out that I, or others only prep Fireballs, because there are a lot of other possibilities you do not seem to understand.
Golems are heavily resistant against spells being cast on them. Ergo, so long as you are not casting spells at them - and there is quite a wide variaty of those! - you're fine.
You claim "not all casters are 'buffers.'" I counter with: if a wizard fills his known spells with nothing but spells that effect the enemy, he outright deserves to be made useless. Wizards have that built in variety for a REASON. They aren't sorcerers - and even then, no sorcerer who's player has more then 6 int would just learn all attack spells.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it really sounds like either 1.) you do not know how spellcasters really play out and put way to much stock in Char Op Theary boards or 2.) have a somewhat unique playstyle and assum that everyone (or alot of others) are similar to your group's.
You advocate for filling all your spell slots with attack spells, then claim I don't know how spellcasters play out? That's rich. That's REALLY rich.
Face it, you have no logic here, no point, and no argument. Go derp about "char op theary" somewhere else, and get back to me when you have something worth reading.
Why are we arguing about whether or not rogues should get SA?
The OP specifically said he didn't want that argued here- but rather that this was a place to fix the problem for those who thought there was a problem.
For what its worth: If you see there is a problem with the existing mechanic then I would prefer the easiest change that will do the most good for both sides. To me, out of what has been proposed, I rather like the d4/d6 idea (that is 1d4 damage but d6 if the attack roll is a crit). That lets the rogue do less damage than they do now without relegating them to the "oh its a golem I'll go yawn in the corner while you kill it" role. Which isn't fun.
The same for undead- only more so given that Undead are far more prevalent.
Just my two coppers though.
-S
These are just a few examples I had though of. Any others suggestions would be welcome.
It looks like your goal is to give rogues the ability to contribute in a concrete fashion without SA. I would suggest something like the ability to make a quick disable device check in order to hamper constructs (reduce movement, attack penalties, etc.) or a series of checks in order to just shut the golem down. This could even give the party the chance to examine an intact golem.
In myth, the golem was animated by a shem and a carved word. A shem was basically a balled up piece of paper with magic written on it that was shoved in the golem's mouth. The word was "anmauth" meaning "truth" and was carved in its forehead.
In the legend the rabbi who made the thing knew it wasn't supposed to be alive on the sabbath, and he'd take the shem out of its mouth to shut it down. One day he didn't and it went berzerk until he managed to get the shem out. Later the golem was deactivated permanently when the "an" in "anmauth" was scratched out leaving only "mauth" meaning "death".
Which is pretty much where D&D got most of the construct stuff from.
So a bunch of reflex saves/dex checks/disable device/etc. would be a fun way to simulate a nimble rogue trying to stop the golem without actually attacking it. Chances are no other party members could make all those checks, and the rogue wouldn't have to worry about SA working or not working.
|
|
For what its worth: If you see there is a problem with the existing mechanic then I would prefer the easiest change that will do the most good for both sides. To me, out of what has been proposed, I rather like the d4/d6 idea (that is 1d4 damage but d6 if the attack roll is a crit).
Those ideas or alternate skill type checks, etc are all good variants, but I how does that play in with fighter's who would end up getting full crit value on a golem vs. rogue having more restrictions to do his sneak attack schtick?
I don't think the fix should be on the class side, it should be a facet or feature of the creature type. I do think that some creatures should be crit resistant or reduced (not immune), problem is that in PFRPG (and D&D) it is handled in a very binary all or nothing fashion. You could have had a different rule and fix for undead and crits/sneak attacks - make check special weapon type:S, P, or B, and something for constructs - requiring to get past DR, etc.
I guess my point is that it seemed like too easy of a blanket fix, and no if the rogue has to make a check to gain a benfit it does not make the rogue "unfun" or any other hyperbole, rogues are all about making checks. You could even give the class extra bonuses/tricks against different kinds of targets if he goes over on his check or makes multiple checks against a certain type of foe.
But to the make sneak attacks work against everything evenly as a blanket change is a bit of a lazy fix, imo of course.
Edit: as I type Kuma put good example ideas up, not always damage - getting advantages over foes in different ways still can help win a fight and save lives, doesn't always have to = +d6's
|
|
Wrong.
Dude, you counter with that way to often and ignor way to much other stuff trying to nitpick one thing that is not the topic.
We have already gone way to off the entire point of this thread, and you have really only proven to me that you only see what you want to see and are assuming way to much about people, (not even only me who you seem to have some particualr vindetta against) to as near name calling as you can without actually tossing out names.
So I am bowing out of further discusion beside what is back on point here.