Not really.
.
Yes really. Sneak attack works fine and on more things then it did in 3.5. The rogues does not have blink as a class ability, nor have I seen a single rogue in game use it in 10 years. It is not a standard must have trick.
The class was not nerfed. A trick some folks used may have been but the class was not. This only effected one small group who used that trick, not all groups and not all rogues.
He is simply incorrect.
|
Once I found out Blink doesn't work anymore, I raged and raged. And then stopped playing a rogue for damage output. Paizo gave some fun stuff for them, but it doesn't take away the fact that not having Blink triggering Sneak Attacks SUCKS MAJOR BALLS.Blink always seemed so sub-optimal to me because it gave you a miss chance. Good for some things you can't really sneak another way but not your first choice.
But I'm also used to playing with the kind of people who take a team-based approach and it's just sort of expected that, as a group, there will be a plan (and probably several) for how to get the rogue SA'ing, whereas I feel like some people (not BYC specifically, I don't know enough to say) approach a character like it's a solo adventure character that they just happen to be playing with three or four other people.
I rarely optimize. I just didn't like the fact the only roguish character in the party can't get SAs if I had to do it by myself. My party rarely gets to SA anyways since my DM insist on our party always being outnumbered, so I can't flank anybody without being flanked by 3 other things. And he doesn't really give out magic items.
He makes up for it by telling a good story usually, but mechanically it's frustrating. If we're losing too hard, he deus ex the challenge away.
A rouge with imp/greater feint can vital strike SA for quite a high output of damage reliably with no other player involved.
Hell just invest in improved feint. and you can still get a decent strike in situations where you need to SA without a partner, granted your damage output isn't as high as it would have been in 3.5 with blink, but you aren't hosed.
|
|
Not really.
.
Yes really. Sneak attack works fine and on more things then it did in 3.5. The rogues does not have blink as a class ability, nor have I seen a single rogue in game use it in 10 years. It is not a standard must have trick.
The class was not nerfed. A trick some folks used may have been but the class was not. This only effected one small group who used that trick, not all groups and not all rogues.
He is simply incorrect.
+1, put more succinctly than I did earlier.
Blink doesn't give a miss chance with flasks.
Based on what? If you blink out, you blink out.
Beyond that, I've said before that none of the 100+ 3E/3.5E DMs I had would allow sneak with flasks, so I entirely disregard it as a weird thing that works specifically in your games.
Your mileage obviously varies.
While he's out to lunch on blink, and almost all the rules he's ever supplied, in 3.5 sneak attacking with a flask was possible.
Yeah, I'm aware that the 3.5 FAQ clarified that it should work -- I've just never actually met a person who had played in a game where it was allowed, despite that -- even in organized play. If that wasn't the most common 3.5 "houserule" I'm not sure what could beat it.
I removed some insulting posts. Remember, it's possible for people to disagree with you without being stupid, ignorant, or even necessarily wrong.
I also removed replies to those posts.
Once the flask leaves your body, it is no longer under the effect of the spell. No miss chance. It's also a ranged touch attack, so you can SA with it just fine. It also does 1 damage to anything close by and does not deliver SA damage on the splash, only on the direct hit.
**looks at the 3.5 PHB**
Actually, if it leaves your hand in the Etherial Plane, it stays IN THE ETHERIAL PLANE. According to the description of Blink, this happens with all Ranged Touch Attacks.
Also, there's implication in the description of Blink (not said specifically, but implied) that the user's 20% miss chance is Concealment. And, for reference, even in 3.5 you could not sneak attack a creature with concealment. Meaning that, by a valid interpretaion of the Blink description, you could NOT use Blink to get a Sneak Attack in 3.5, because while your target was flat footed, it was also concealed, negating sneak attack.
It would depend on the DM of the game in question. No DM or Player I've ever gamed with has tried to use Blink, and if I'd been DMing I wouldn't have allowed it for the above reason.
Edit: Whoops, typo. Fixed now.
I removed some insulting posts. Remember, it's possible for people to disagree with you without being stupid, ignorant, or even necessarily wrong.
I also removed replies to those posts.
The Forumites seem to be keeping you busy lately :)
Once the flask leaves your body, it is no longer under the effect of the spell. No miss chance. It's also a ranged touch attack, so you can SA with it just fine. It also does 1 damage to anything close by and does not deliver SA damage on the splash, only on the direct hit.**looks at the 3.5 PHB**
Actually, if it leaves your hand in the Etherial Plane, it stays IN THE MATERIAL PLANE. According to the description of Blink, this happens with all Ranged Touch Attacks.
Also, there's implication in the description of Blink (not said specifically, but implied) that the user's 20% miss chance is Concealment. And, for reference, even in 3.5 you could not sneak attack a creature with concealment. Meaning that, by a valid interpretaion of the Blink description, you could NOT use Blink to get a Sneak Attack in 3.5, because while your target was flat footed, it was also concealed, negating sneak attack.
It would depend on the DM of the game in question. No DM or Player I've ever gamed with has tried to use Blink, and if I'd been DMing I wouldn't have allowed it for the above reason.
Oh snap.
There's also ways of bypassing concealment, for the situations in which enemies actually do have concealment. Not in PF though.
... other than Improved Precise Shot, which negates all but total cover and concealment. Which is a feat in Pathfinder Core. But which was NOT a feat in the 3.5 PHB.
Doesn't help melee characters, but since you're focused on the ranged rogue it seems approprate.
Ranged attack would not bypass the 20% miss chance. You still have it. It does not matter how you strike, the 20% miss is there, it makes zero difference in how you do the striking up close or at rang.
Curious, where are you from? And if it was organized play, why would house rules trump the FAQ?
Across the 3.X years I lived in several different states, but mostly in the Midwest.
For a good stretch of Living Greyhawk specifically the FAQ wasn't considered canon. I always got the impression that the people running the campaign at the time (and there was a fair bit of turnover on the Circle over the years) thought whoever wrote the FAQ entries was an idiot. Instead they maintained their own internal rules FAQ. I can't remember now if that ever changed or not, but the net result was that the older / higher level characters tended not to be built that would rely on any of the even somewhat controversial FAQ rulings.
By the house rules of my game, once the flask leaves your body, it is no longer under the effect of the spell. No miss chance.
FTFY.
I am not sure that this is a dpr. the truth is one handed weapons are not very effective unless they have support. Fighers do fine with one handed weapons because they have alot of feats to enchance thier effectives. Rogue have sneak attack. Other classes can pair them with shields.
Secondly the whole concept makes no sense to me, why would anyone living in a fantasy world choose to go this path. Use of a weapon that they are never going to be able to master because in game terms they dont have the feats to do it, and then try to tack on one handed spell casting. it would seem to me, that such a class would evolve in such a manner that one could not seperate the fencing from the spell casting. that you could tell where the fighter begins and the mage ends.
It seems to me the logical course is more along the lines of the spellsword, where spellcasting and fencing are unified into one, maybe jason will pull it off, but to me to whole class and concept just seems to me at least, a little hokey.