Last month I wrote this dwarf rogue for an adventure to harass the party and my players were scandalized that he was dealing full sneak attack damage on each and every one of his 4 attacks. Apparently they didn't know this was possible.
Thereafter, the party rogue who was already the most powerful PC in our group is now picking up two weapon fighting feats to follow this NPC's lead, nearly doubling his damage potential overnight.
Now I don't mind this as it goes, I'm an experienced DM and know how to mess with glass cannons with low will saves pretty readily. However my players (including, get this, the rogue's player himself) are expressing concerns with the power discrepancy that has become apparent. They seem to feel that rules as written in this area are unbalanced, and given that PCs almost never petition to nerf themselves I'm inclined to entertain their request.
So here's my quandry, is there a way of balancing the situation betwixt the PCs without crippling NPC TWF rogues? (including my dwarf when he potentially returns for a second pass at the party in a few levels.)
I'm looking for your creative house rules suggestions. Best I have come up with thus far is to reduce off hand and secondary natural weapon attacks by 1/2 of their sneak attack bonus dice but this does collateral damage to my NPCs.
Tell em to have a cup of concrete. If they're that worried about being underpowered, maybe let them use the PHB II rules on re-training. Rogues aren't overpowered, yeh they can do a full attack with sneak attacks (see Thri-kreen rogue "blender") but then they're stuck next to an opponent with a full attack against them (with grab or swallow whole or any number of bad stuff). That's usually enough to deter a rogue from full attacking unless they're sure to kill them.
Not me, but i'm suicidally reckless when i play. :)
So here's my quandry, is there a way of balancing the situation betwixt the PCs without crippling NPC TWF rogues? (including my dwarf when he potentially returns for a second pass at the party in a few levels.)
Short answer: Nope.
The very question you are asking is impossible to answer any other way, with the exception of "OK, new houserule. PC rogues get nerfed but I refuse to nerf my NPC rogues because, somehow, NPCs play by different rules than PCs".
I'm pretty sure you don't want that, which means we're back to the short answer.
Now, maybe you might want to ask a different question, like this: "Is there a way of balancing rogues against the other classes so there won't be a 'power discrepancy' anymore, and we can all get on with happy TWF rogues laying waste to all and sundry?"
Now the answer is Absolutely!
Although, I would say the core rules, as written, did a heck of a job achieving this very balance. Sure, sure, some classes can lay down more DPS than other classes, but in pretty much all cases, the classes with the lower DPS have other ways to contribute. Stuff they do outside of combat that nobody else is good at, or ways to enhance their companions during battles, or ways to hinder the foes during battles, or ways to heal the group when needed, or other things that they can do that rogues cannot do.
But if you want pure DPS balance among all 11 classes, then you might find it necessary to tweak some of the weak ones up a bit (but really, only a bit since they're close to balanced as it is).
I am currently loving my Rogue, but the class is far from overpowered in combat (even with the Pathfinder enhancements).
Might I suggest that, instead of resorting directly to house rules, you first experiment with a single encounter? A party-sized band of 2H Barbarians and composite bow Rangers ought to shed some light on the food chain of D&D combat.
+1. throw in a cleric and a wizard (core) with battlefield control spells just to accentuate the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell your players to stop being so terrible at the game and suck it up.
Well. You know. Politely, I suppose.
Remind your players that when a rogue makes his full-round TWF/Sneak Attack, he stays in reach of his target and says to all the mobs "I can make a incredible amount of damage, kill me quick or I'll kick your a$$".
I've played a lot of rogues in 3.X edition ; the most part of those who died were TWFers ...
I would have to say that if you are already readily aware of the weaknesses or rogues and your players aren't you haven't actually introduced them. You should send provide your next encounter with a few anti-rogue elements in order for them to understand that there are weakness for rogues. Also, perhaps enemies shouldn't be so easy to flank, maintaining tight formations when necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thereafter, the party rogue who was already the most powerful PC in our group is now picking up two weapon fighting feats to follow this NPC's lead, nearly doubling his damage potential overnight.
What are the rest of the group playing that makes the rogue the strongest character?
The rules are pretty clear on sneak-attack damage applying to all attacks (provided the attacks qualify for sneak attack). Against real combat orientated brutes the rogue will only reach equivalent damage output - but with nowhere near the staying power or vulnerability.
I think the party might only be looking at the big hits when they land - which can make the rogue look amazing. But the reality is that "real" fighter types might hit a bit less on each hit, but most hits land and they have the AC and staying power to last in combat.
|
It's true. We TWF Rogues can dish out a heap o'hurt on our enemies. Why, just this last weekend I got sent in to take out some big baddies and was all dogin and dartin around, opening up the whoop arse on this dude. Then his frothing at the mouth buddy stepped up and slammed his BIG axe into my chest.
Now, I'm harder to hit than most of my peers. Went to that fancy fightin school last month and picked up some new tricks. How to wear this shiny new Breastplate like a real frontline guy, for instance. But the fact is I'm still easier to hit than a dude wearing plate type armors and carrying a shield, and I don't soak up the damage as well.
IOW: YES, TWF rogues can do a lot of DPS, but when they become a target things can go bad for them quickly.
Thereafter, the party rogue who was already the most powerful PC in our group is now picking up two weapon fighting feats to follow this NPC's lead, nearly doubling his damage potential overnight.What are the rest of the group playing that makes the rogue the strongest character?
Yea how exactly did this happen? I think this is more an issue of the players then the class. Does the rogue just put more effort into the build side of his character? Or are all the other characters some odd class combination or something?
The easiest way to deal with twf rogues is to stop them from getting sneak attack damage when full attacking.
Why is your NPC standing there taking the beating, why is he letting himself get flanked(this is a bad idea even when your not fighing rogues).
If your NPCs are just standing around in a fight you are allowing the rogue to dominate the game.
If your players are using tactics that control the position of the NPC to allow the rogue to be within 5ft of your npc at the start of his turn they should be having to do a lot of movement and work for it as a party. The rogue isn't unbalanced then he's just a tool the party is utilizing.
Rogues are glass cannons as people pointed out if hes not using spring attack the NPC hes hurting and all the other NPCs around should be punihsing him for not taking them seriosuly.
So I want to know what level these guys are and what they are playing to think that the rogue is that overpowered?
Look around the forums. Pull out a two-hand or dual wield fighter that beats the average damage the rogue puts out without having to flank.
Personally, I would throw some high AC enemies at the party. At a certain point, you say screw that -2 and just attack with 1 weapon. I know I did a lot. I'm not sure if that was good based off of DPR calculaitons, but it certainly felt like the right hiting to do when I was only hittin on 17s. Consistent damage is often better than more average damage.
I'm confused. A raging barbarian with Power Attack and TWF isn't similar? A paladin who's fired up his smite ability to use with TWF isn't similar? A fighter with Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical(rapier) and TWF isn't similar? A ranger up against his favored enemy, with TWF.
Really, we can expand our horizons. A wizard with Quicken Spell.
Point is that the TWF tree is balanced over most of the classes (a monk doesn't benefit from it much for instance). Where it isn't, there tends to be class-specific optimization that is roughly equivalent.
Your players were running sub-optimal builds and just got a tactic shown to them. Great. Good. Learn. You don't have to max/min, but just because the game can be played "better" than they're doing doesn't mean it's broken.
I see alot of good comments already.
Basically, it boils down to that allowing an enemy to Full Attack you in melee in the first place is 90% of time a choice of the target to not move out of range. And similarly, whether or not enemies can flank you is somewhat up to your control a good amount of the time.
But even ignoring that, 2WF Rogues Full Attack damage output isn't all THAT shocking when compared to Fighters - check the "DPR Olympics" Thread (hint: Rogues didn't win). And they have to dedicate almost a huge amount of Feats in order to pull it off, while optimizing for DEX that doesn't in itself help their damage - though it does help their AC which is good for full-Class Rogues and their Init which helps get first round+surprise round sneak damage.
Like people say, Rogue's damage is HEAVILY tempered by their lower BAB - if your players are so scared of 2WF Rogues that they are letting full attack them, why don't they suit up in some bigger AC gear (or w/ Fortification) and watch all those secondary attacks bounce off?
Seriously, if you check out the DPR Olympics thread, you'll find an interesting build there: the STR-based Rogue using a 2-Hander weapon (like Falchion or Greatsword). You may be surprised that it's damage output seriously can keep up with 2WF during Full Attacks, and it's single attacks are much higher AND all the Feats spent on 2WF, Weapon Finesse can be used for other stuff - like Cleave/Great Cleave, which can be used after moving more than 5' and is compatible with Sneak Attack (you just need flanking or Flat-Footed enemies, so take Improved Init). Throwing in 1-3 Fighter levels for Feats, Armor Proficiency and Armor Training (to Tumble in Medium/Mitrhil Heavy Armor) can also work for this kind of build, even if you give up +2d6 Sneak Attack. Such builds are going to be way less inconvenienced when they can't Full Attack, and with Spring Attack or Mounted Combat/Ride-By Attack they force the PCs to their back-foot as well. That said, Yes: 2WF is viable approach for DEX-focused Rogues. Fighters or Barbarians or Rangers are not unable to compete in the damage department though.
When enemies DO gain Initiative in the first round of combat, but are more than 5' from melee range, think of letting them loose a Ranged Full Attack at the party, and then the party members must give up a Full Attack if they want to melee them (if there looks to be multiple ranged combatants in the target group, that doesn't really work well unless the attackers can 5' step to cover or have greater invisibility/ darkvision in concert with darkness, etc). Giving them Quickdraw can help with "Switch Hitter" tactics like that.
I'm not saying that amping up the threat-level against the PCs (beyond the tactical mastery of your players) is really the end-all be-all (and that's what this 2WF sounds like it really amounts to, not an issue with the rules themselves, it would be no different than if your players never realized they could use 2-Handed weapons or make Charge attacks or Cleaves), I'm just saying that they may be surprised when they see some Rogue-y NPCs with 2-Handers getting in some pretty big SINGLE attacks or Cleaves, and may think twice about 2WF'ing when they realize their secondary attacks tend to bounce off things that care about their AC. AKA, see the forest and not just the trees. And I encourage you to at least cull some of the numbers from the DPR Olympics thread to share with your players: 2WF Rogues don't really out-damage Fighters when Full Attacking in most circumstances (low AC opponents and Haste help 2WF Rogues), and Full Attacks are definitely not the majority of combat rounds, especially for melee-ists. Believe me, as a player I would be much more scared by large Fighter/Barbarian types with a big Crit weapon, Vital Strike and/or Cleave/Great Cleave and Knockback.
Slightly OT, but...
Throwing in 1-3 Fighter levels for Feats, Armor Proficiency and Armor Training (to Tumble in Medium/Mitrhil Heavy Armor) can also work for this kind of build, even if you give up +2d6 Sneak Attack.
If you're going to take Fighter levels, take 4. Extra attack at 20th level (BAB = 16), and that gives you 4 attacks in Epic levels (assuming PF will be similar to the 3.5 epic rules). Also allows you access to Weapon Specialization. If you're giving up 2d6 sneak attack, having an extra +2 damage that doubles on a crit and a better chance to hit compensates.
Actually go for 5. Give up 3d6, get weapon training with a whole class of weapons, weapon specialization the ability to move freely in medium armor and 3 bonus feats.
As for the players in this campaign?
Tell them to put their big adventurer drawers on and get over it. They'll be casting Miracle and Wish later while this guy is simply waiting for a fly spell so he MIGHT be able to hit something and possibly damage it IF he can get his flank on. While the fighter simply smashes anything in his way.
In truth it's a non-issue that will go away with some good encounters.
Personally, I prefer multiclassing barbarian into a melee rogue much more than fighter. You get all sorts of fun there. Rage is more front loaded than anything the fighter gets too, though your really need to pick up extra rage.
I think one of the things that is different about a full attacking rogue than other classes is his average damage. His damage per hit is often much higher, and that is compensated by his lower to hit that brings his expected damage back down. Against low ACs, he pulls ahead of the other damage dealing classes that are much more likely to hit. Look at the various builds in the DPR olympics and check out how much the rogue gets for +1 to hit vs the other classes that more reliably deal damage.
The other thing that I think influences oppinions is his peak damage. Most other classes get static bonuses. Rogues get to roll d6. Over time, the bad should counter the good and bring it back down to average. But we don't remember that. We remember the time the rogue rolls 10d6 and has nothing lower than 5 against a BBEG. The rogue has more variance in his extra damage than any other class, so if he hits, and he rolls well, he can see some higher peaks. Average he is ballanced, but 10d6 /= 35 all the time.
On one hand, I can see where the players are coming from- it's an issue that actually became a problem in my weekly game; we ended up with at least one glass cannon in the party almost every time we gamed at one point and the DM kind of had to make someone to combat him each and every time, which got old after the TPK. On the other hand, I can see where the DM is coming from- this is just ONE GUY doing a lot of damage in a situation where he is(hopefully) seriously outnumbered, three people or more ganging up on him should be enough to fix his little red wagon. I would say it's a situation in the game that comes up every now and again very much like min-maxing and should be handled the same way. Given enough varied situations it will lose its lustre and make other options far more viable. Still, it does kind of pull back the 4th wall in a game where it should be inviolate.
Bit of Background:
The party is presently level 9, problem arose shortly after level 7.
The rogue player is pretty optimized, very stealthy, sneak attacks aren't possible all the time but they are much of the time due to a large number of potential flankers in the party (even the dang sorcerer fancys himself a front line combatant)
From the general sentiment I'm hearing here on the boards I should probably just stick with RAW and perhaps help some of the stragglers to refine their characters a bit more to keep up with the rogue.
Bit of Background:
The party is presently level 9, problem arose shortly after level 7.
The rogue player is pretty optimized, very stealthy, sneak attacks aren't possible all the time but they are much of the time due to a large number of potential flankers in the party (even the dang sorcerer fancys himself a front line combatant)From the general sentiment I'm hearing here on the boards I should probably just stick with RAW and perhaps help some of the stragglers to refine their characters a bit more to keep up with the rogue.
Look at an optimized level 9 two-handed fighter with 24 strength, power attack, weapon training(+2), weapon specialzation, improved critical, Weapon focus, greater weapon focus with a +3 falchion. To hit: +9(BAB) +7(strength) +2(weapon training) -3(power attack) +2(WF and GWF) +3(weapon) = +20/+15 to hit for 2d4(base damage) + 10(strength) +2(weapon spec) +2(weapon training) +9(power attack) +3(weapon) = 31 damage with a 30% chance to threat. Criticals add 31 more damage.
A level 9 TWF rogue has a 24 dex, 14 strength, weapon finesse, and weapon focus and two +2 daggers. Their to hit is +6(BAB) +1(weapon focus) +2(weapon) +7(dex) -2(TWF) = +14/+14/+9/+9 for 1d4 +2 (strength) +2(weapon) +5d6 = 24 damage with a 10% chance to threat. The offhand does 1 less damage. Criticals add 5.5-6.5 more damage. You can trade strength for dex, but all you are doing is trading damage for hit.
So the rogue gets twice as many attacks, but those attacks do 7-8 less damage and are 30% more likely to miss. further, if the rogue is unable to make full attacks, or they are unable to sneak attack, their damage drops to crap. The fighter still does good damage when they cannot full attack.
A fighter archer is even worse....
If they think a TWF Rogue is bad, put an Enlarged Fighter or Barbarian against them with the Monkey Grip 3.5 feat or a comparable item that grants the same effect (such as Strongarm Bracers from the Magic Item Compendium that allows you to use weapons one size category bigger than you without penalty, all for a measly 6'000GP).
Make said adversary a Barbarian, optimised STR, possible Bull Strength and a Large Greataxe (3d6), Enlarged (increases STR by 2, weapon damage increased to 4d6) and make him swing that bad boy two-handed. See how much damage that deals out.
I believe that I am doing too much damage in relation to the rest of the party. I have already decided not to take ITWF, at least for the time being, because I am not happy with the party dynamic.
...
I understand the game quite nicely, but honestly feel that TWF sneak attack is a quick unbalancer.
REALLY?
Party dynamic aside, are you aware that the damage potential of a rogue with flanking is still less than a fighter without needing to set that up?
If the fighter in the party was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel as bad.
In fact if anyone was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel so bad.
Do you think you could get a hold of the fighter's build? Not that I disbelieve you it's simply that in all the games I've been a part of I've not seen this happen, and would like to see how it all plays together.
Also would you mind presenting your build as well?
If the fighter in the party was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel as bad.
In fact if anyone was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel so bad.
I tell ya, in my Council of Thieves campaign, the party walks into a battle and I our rogue at level 6 is doing something like 1d8+3 or 1d8 + 3 + 3d6 damage (longsword + 3d6 sneak when possible), averaging around 18 HP, and sometimes doing that twice in a round for an average of about 36 HP - if he can sneak attack, which he cannot always do. And it's worth noting that he rarely hits with both attacks unless he rolls quite well or the monster has weak AC.
12 of his rounds might look like this:
8 damage
16
0
18
16
9
0
19
0
33
4
6
(total 129)
But our fighter at level 5 with TWF is constantly hitting, rarely missing with either attack. He dishes out d8+9 (keen longsword) and d6+3 (shortsword with 1/2 STR mod) damage and 12 of his rounds look something like this.
21 damage
23
20
13
35
21
33
29
0
25
15
25
(total 261)
Note that the rogue is one level higher than the fighter and those numbers, are not made up - I just pulled up my notepad with all the battles on it and recreated that from historical data (I did make up the misses from my memory of how it seems to be - the rogue misses much more often than the fighter).
So no, I am not the least bit worried about the rogue outshining the fighter. Not at all.
If the fighter in the party was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel as bad.
In fact if anyone was doing as much damage I wouldn't feel so bad.
Tell your players to stop being so terrible at the game and suck it up.
Well. You know. Politely, I suppose.
If your rogue is consistantly outdamaging your fighter, he's doing something very wrong.
Well, I think you opened Pandora's Box.
In my game, the Rogues Sneak Attack is a full round action and only one swing counts towards his damage. Yeah yeah, I'm a bad GM.
With all the other things a rogue can do in a fight, not hitting for his Flanking/Sneak Attack with both hands is not a big deal in my mind.
I just can't see a TWF rogue hitting multiple times for an extra x D6 on each shot.
Just my take on it.
Have fun out there!
~ W ~
...With all the other things a rogue can do in a fight, not hitting for his Flanking/Sneak Attack with both hands is not a big deal in my mind. ...
And which "other things" would that be?
A Fighter/Monk can do any amount of combat maneuvers. A Paladin can strike, heal and has minor spell use, don't get me started about casters. The only other one trick pony is the barbarian because his rage abilities are unexciting.
For me, the Rogue is the one who can do the least in a fight besides deal good (but not great) damage with twf and sneak (and umd may be a nice alternative at lower levels, which says a lot about the usefulness of a Rogue in pure battle).
...With all the other things a rogue can do in a fight, not hitting for his Flanking/Sneak Attack with both hands is not a big deal in my mind. ...And which "other things" would that be?
A Fighter/Monk can do any amount of combat maneuvers. A Paladin can strike, heal and has minor spell use, don't get me started about casters. The only other one trick pony is the barbarian because his rage abilities are unexciting.
For me, the Rogue is the one who can do the least in a fight besides deal good (but not great) damage with twf and sneak (and umd may be a nice alternative at lower levels, which says a lot about the usefulness of a Rogue in pure battle).
He can flip off his DM who's purposefully altering rules to make a class that's already not that powerful into something even weaker ;)
I think a good subject for discussion would be what to do in a group when you have one optimized player and others who are less optimized especially when some of the encounters are downright scary.
The most recent game I played in had this situation. One of the PC's was incredibly scary in combat (optimized 3.5 TWF build). The others weren't.
We started using tactics to place that PC in the best possible position and keep her alive while she destroyed the things around her. The rest of us focused on neutralizing specific threats that the creatures presented to the party, knowing that our fighter would take care of killing the thing as long as we supported her in doing that.I had a blast.
When did it become about maximizing damage and everyone dealing damage?
... apparently it didn't, if you actually read my post.
But if you're playing a game where things need to be fought and killed (and we were), somebody needs to be dealing damage.
I think a good subject for discussion would be what to do in a group when you have one optimized player and others who are less optimized especially when some of the encounters are downright scary.The most recent game I played in had this situation. One of the PC's was incredibly scary in combat (optimized 3.5 TWF build). The others weren't.
We started using tactics to place that PC in the best possible position and keep her alive while she destroyed the things around her. The rest of us focused on neutralizing specific threats that the creatures presented to the party, knowing that our fighter would take care of killing the thing as long as we supported her in doing that.
I had a blast.
I find this situation can work very well. Not everyone has to be a primary damage dealer, and in my experience, when everyone is the game becomes far too trivial.
I think if your rogue is dominating, you don't have bring everyone else's damage up so much as make sure everyone can do something. If your fighter is focused on tripping, he doesn't need to be doing tons of damage to be effective. If you mage is focused on blasting and is finding himself outshown, he should switch it up to be more of a controller. Grease becomes better than magic missile because it allows you to sneak without a flanker. The cleric should make sure he is supporting everyone well, be that healing, shield other, party buffs, and being a flanking buddy doing moderate damage.
My current party has 6 people. 2 of us are primary damage dealers, the Paladin and Alchemist, and the alchemist is a recent replacement character to a debuffing witch. The evoker and ranger deal moderate damage and do cool things in the battle. The bard performs and intimidates, while the druid heals and takes care of random things. Everyone has their role, but there is a deffinite difference in how much damage everyone is capable of putting out.
The most recent game I played in had this situation. One of the PC's was incredibly scary in combat (optimized 3.5 TWF build). The others weren't.
We started using tactics to place that PC in the best possible position and keep her alive while she destroyed the things around her. The rest of us focused on neutralizing specific threats that the creatures presented to the party, knowing that our fighter would take care of killing the thing as long as we supported her in doing that.
I had a blast.
My dear you have discovered tactics...Gain 500 xp and high five the player to your left.
He can flip off his DM who's purposefully altering rules to make a class that's already not that powerful into something even weaker ;)Seriously dude? My DM has taken the time to ask a community who are collectively very astute about this subject. This is not the DM being unfair. The players were shocked that this much damage could be dished out. Why would I flip him off? I even raised the subject with him myself.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should stick to RAW. But I am going to take on a more target removal role in combat, at least until we have got some of the other players up to speed.
I think a good subject for discussion would be what to do in a group when you have one optimized player and others who are less optimized especially when some of the encounters are downright scary.
Er, that comment wasn't directed to you, but to the guy who made sneak attack into a full round action so "rogues could use their other hand to do other stuff"
To be more, er, tactful about it, talk to the other players. Hell, throw out their builds here. Find out why the fighter is doing so little damage.
Rather then knock yourself down, bring them up. One player having to limit themselves artificially isn't nearly as fun as the other players making better characters that are more awesome at being awesome. One issue with sneak attack and people tending to overinflate its value is what I call "Dice Blindness." People see a lot of dice and don't think about the actual averages behind them. Think of it as being similar to the Money Illusion - an extraordinary amount of value is placed on being able to roll multiple sets of die rather then what those die actually mean
As for the comment that not everything is about damage, well, that's more or less correct. Quite a few classes are better off very pointedly not being about damage. The problem is, rogues - in combat, that is - don't have much outside of damage that they can do. They get sneak attack and UMD, but that's about it, and I've personally found that UMD is far more for out of combat utility then shooting wands of Scorching Ray. Yes, if you're a wizard, then by all means damage is not the end all be all - it's probably one of the lesser alls. But for a rogue, if you aren't sneak attacking...well, what are you doing that you couldn't have just gotten an NPC to do?