[So we come to 3E and it is possible to flank and get a sneak attack (something that has been done since 1E, but without the pretty name). But again, only one sneak attack. After that, the opponent was aware of you can could defend, thus preventing further sneak attacks (again barring special circumstances).
Now all of a sudden a rogue can flank (because a name was added to the manuvuer) and they can sneak attack each round without limitation? Regardless that the opponent has his DEX bonus and can defend? This makes the rogue the best melee class. How did that happen? Was I asleep? This seems like massive powergaming from a perspective of 32 years playing.
i dont remeber anything in 3E barring multiple SA a round. So its not a Paizo thing WOTC already had you doing it.
The flanking rule has been in effect in "D&D" since about 2000 with 3.0. Pathfinder just carried it forward. And rogues do very little damage compared to a pure fighter that is power attacking with a two handed weapon.
It really is not as bad as it sounds and is pretty balanced in play. They do not hit as often as the high base attack classes and they also have to spend some time getting into position above and beyond what other melee classes need.
It allows "thieves" to be viable in combat without making them better at fighting then a fighter. With 3.0 and PFRPG skills changed a lot and things that were unique to "Thieves" are not longer so special. They needed a combat boost to make up for the lost out of combat specialization.
I am currently playing a rogue right now while there is also a two-handed fighter in the group. It is not overpowered at all considering I have to position myself just right and the circumstances have to be in my favor. The two-handed fighter easily crushes me in damage, I am just there to support him and get attention off the casters. On paper I guess it could seem OP, but in gameplay, it really isn't.
As a matter of fact, that's how Rogues were in 3.x -- they could get multiple SAs per round -- but the ability was so situational, that Paizo actually had to strip away Sneak Attack immunity away from a huge amount of monsters to keep Rogue as a viable class in Pathfinder system.
Monsters used to be pretty much completely Rogue-immune if they were Plant, Undead, Construct, Ooze, (Aberration?) benefited from concealment or one of many abilities that granted immunity to critical hits. That's a whole lot of things that prevents your character from being useful, and it wasn't until later 3.x supplements that they began to address the ability with magic items and feats to allow you to apply your Sneak Attack damage, often with a penalty.
Your issue is flanking full attacks, so let's address that.
For one thing, you have to get into a flanking position, usually meaning spending in time actually getting there. I argue that, for my groups, we rarely manage to get a Rogue adjacent to the enemy as combat opens; one must benefit from some kind of Cover or concealment (often shadows) to use Stealth, so there isn't much outside of magic or hijinks that will allow you to walk up to an enemy in a well-lit room from the only doorway and stab him in the neck. Further, between Alarm spells, high Perception checks, Scent, Tremorsense, Blindsight and other effects, the Rogue is likely to be caught on the approach. Heck, even when a Rogue is approaching an opponent on the shadowy periphery of a torch's light, if that opponent has low-light vision, then the Rogue is perfectly well lit.
Even when your Rogue has flank, it must be maintained to actually set up your 'broken build'. 5-foot steps make this a tricky prospect, as an opponent may 5-foot step away, breaking flank while maintaining its Full Round Action. Your natural response would likely be "But the flankers can just 5 foot step in", yes? Yes, but the sequencing determines whether or not the Rogue can actually perform that Full Attack or not. If the opponent 5FSs out, and the Rogue acts first, then he cannot replenish the flank on his own. His choices are to step back into position and Ready an action to attack when his flanking partner is back in position -- in which case he only gets one attack -- or he can hold his action until his flanking partner acts. Against one opponent, this may mean little. Against several opponents, this is an even greater opportunity to disrupt the maneuver by casting disabling spells or shifting the opponent away.
There remain other concerns. An opponent with a back to a wall or in a corner, for example, can be rather difficult to dislodge and get flanks on. Flying opponents require at least one elevated flanker. Some opponents can prevent flankers from reestablishing flanks using only 5-foot steps by taking advantage of terrain features, such as pillars in the middle of a room.
For the numbers on which builds actually output the most damage, I invite you to research ... what is it ... DPR Olympics? There are many builds which excel at damage output, and I seem to recall that a lot of them are two-weapon fighters using crit builds.
Until, I gently remind you that while Rogues can theoretically put out a lot of d6 damage, there are other core classes which can make you save or die, blind you, paralyze you, shunt you into random planes, attack your friends or close you in a box of force and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it but roll high.
a) first or 3rd level is hardly the entire game
b) which weapon does 3d6 damage?
c) Rogues have lower BAB, if they add power attack to that, they get into the area of 1/2 BAB classes. Not hitting means no sneak attack
d) If they have high dex so that Weapon Finesse is worthwile, they have little strength to add to the damage.
e) Also that doesn't in any way negate the lower BAB. Because you know, fighters do add their Str to attack as well. Without the extra feat.
f) TWF needs ALOT of feats. And sucks at damage. Until you add Sneak Attack, which is what makes it a viable alternative to two-handed combat.
g) using another fighter as distraction is avoiding head-to-head combat. It's now a 2-on-1 fight.
now move up to level 5 fighter 2d6+15 power attacking with weapon spec wepon traning and 18 str. or 22 average damage.
Rogue 5d6+9 or 26.5 damage on average.
Seems like a no brainer for the rogue.
Wait though
1) the rogue is hitting on 2 less than the fighter which can be big at low levels.
2) the Rogue would doubtfully ever have an 18 str and power attack.
3) the rogue needs surprise or flanking to do this the fighter doesn't the rogue stops flanking and he drops to 16 average damage.
Sneak Attack is not Backstab.
The sooner you stop thinking it is, the better off you'll be.
I'm sorry. I must be getting hung on on the word "sneak." Let's rename it to do massive damage attack while flanked with no logical explanation in accordance with it's own guideline.
If you need that spelled out, that would be "if they can catch their opponent when he is unable to defend effectively, which is defined as flat-footed and losing the DEX bonus.
Does the flanked person become flat-footed and lose the DEX bonus? If not, then explain how the defender isn't able to defend effectively?
The argument of split focus can be made, but it doesn't hold water. The word is effectively defend, not efficiently defend; the flanked person already gets a +2 to be hit. BUT he is still defending with a DEX bonus.
So why does one part require the loss of DEX bonus and the second part does not?
Because it's two different situations.
If they lose Dex they don't know you're there, or otherwise can't react to you. So you can easily pick out their weakspots and stab a knife into it.And yes, the split focus argument holds water. Flanking does not mean "2 people attacking" it's "from opposite sides" as well. Try defending yourself against attacks from left and right, with you pinned in the middle. You will leave yourself wide open, that makes you easier to hit (+2) and also allows the enemy to stick that knife into your weakspots.
Imagine how you must position yourself to defend against this situation. Most likely you'll turn one side to each oponent. But that also means they can attack your back, where your defense usually is alot worse. If you fight one enemy, you going to face him directly. Not only are you not distracted, you don't offer him your unprotected side.
No stealth has nothing to do with flanking.
As long as your players can manage to flank someone, they get sneak attacks.
It requires teamwork, you shouldn't punish them for working together.
|
I'm not really sure where you're getting that 1d6 is actually a lot of damage. 1d6 is 3.5 damage, on average, and it can't crit.
So we have a 3/4 BAB class that can sometimes (with effort/teamwork) get an extra 3.5 damage per hit, increasing by 3.5 every 2 levels. If you really think it's overpowered, I invite you to throw down a rogue, level of your choice, and we'll see how he comes close to damage with another melee class.
I apologize for any confusion. No, flanks do not require stealth. That analysis is basically an argument that a Rogue rarely gets a Sneak Attack Full Attack on the first round of combat, which delays his ability to pour out the desired damage.
Of course, to immediately check myself, our comparison fighter rarely gets a Full Attack on the first round of combat either (barring teleports, which a Rogue could also get, or certain effects such as the Pounce ability high level Barbarians may access). So the dissection really isn't as useful as it was intended.
Back to response:
Indeed, without me double-checking the math, your example builds do favor the Rogue -- but this is in a vacuum. He averages higher damage -on the rounds that he can pull off Sneak Attacks.- Even then, this is in the early game, with a Rogue build specialized for the early game (and suboptimal for later game); other models must be viewed to see the progression at large.
A lot of long-term Rogue builds sacrifice Strength in favor of other ability scores. They also want Dex, Con, and Intelligence after all. One rogue trick or feat, and all of a sudden they can increase their melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, armor class, and ability to Stealth (and thus get more Sneak Attacks) all with one ability score. Single-Attribute Dependency is a path to power, and a Rogue that doesn't max his AC and keep Con high to compensate for low hit points is a path to death.
Compare this to 2-hand rogue builds that favor Strength. Well ... it will work, I suppose. Yet your BAB is only 3/4 advancement; you won't get as many attacks as a fighter, and they won't be at as high to-hits, reducing your damage output further. You will get to the point where you can't rely on Power Attack, which is one of the keystones of the Strength combatant.
A Rogue's juice doesn't come from Strength damage. It comes from Sneak Attack, which is why so many prefer to opt for two-weapon fighting (more opportunities for +10d6). I have no doubt that Rogue players would love nothing more than a weapon that deals 1 damage with no Strength bonus, if only it would let them get one more Sneak Attack.
Alot of people here now told you that Rogues are not overpowered and in fact less powerful than other melee classes, and given you good reasons.
Apperently you think you're smarter though and refuse to listen.
Sure, you can fabricate situations in which a rogue will dish out more damage than a fighter. But those are rare.
I can only make loose, subjective arguments as to whether it makes sense for Flank to grant Sneak Attacks.
For one, what you say is directly addressed in the rules: Barbarians and Rogues both gain Improved Uncanny Dodge, which allows them to handily defend against flanking opponents (IE, they cannot be flanked except by exceptional opponents).
I want to say that Monks also got this in 3.5, yet it is oddly absent in Pathfinder.
(may cont)
So why does one part require the loss of DEX bonus and the second part does not?
To keep rogues relevant in combat.
I did this quick so I really only included a couple feats from the Core book. Here's a rough damage comparison at level 20, you should see why the 10d6 SA damage really is only enough to keep the rogue afloat.
Human fighter 20 with falchion
21 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 15-20 X3 auto confirm
Attack bonus +34/+29/+24/+19
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +28/+23/+18/+13 (-6, +18)
Damage w/o PA = 4x(2d4+20) = 100
Damage w/ PA = 4x(2d4+38) = 172
Human rogue 20 with falchion
11 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x2
Attack bonus +24/+19/+14
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +20/+15/+10 (-4, +12)
Damage w/o PA = 3x(2d4+12)+3x(10d6) = 51+105 = 156
Damage w/ PA = 3x(2d4+24)+3x(1d6) = 87+105 = 192
The rogue looks like he'll out damage the fighter until you count the doubled crit range, higher crit multiple, auto confirm, and higher attack bonus of the fighter.
The fighter only has to roll a 15 (hitting AC 43/38/33/28 with PA) to deal 6d4+114 (129) damage per hit, 4x129 = 516 in one round.
If the rogue somehow manages to get 3 crits rolling at least 18 and a confirmation (hitting AC 38/33/28 with PA) he deals (6d4+72)+(10d6) (122) per hit, 3x122 = 366 in one round.
This rogue build has him strictly trying to compete with the fighter for damage which means that most other things rogues do suffer. Please feel free to correct the numbers if you catch something wrong.
|
|
I did this quick so I really only included a couple feats from the Core book. Here's a rough damage comparison at level 20, you should see why the 10d6 SA damage really is only enough to keep the rogue afloat.
Human fighter 20 with falchion
21 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 15-20 X3 auto confirm
Attack bonus +34/+29/+24/+19
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +28/+23/+18/+13 (-6, +18)
Damage w/o PA = 4x(2d4+20) = 100
Damage w/ PA = 4x(2d4+38) = 172Human rogue 20 with falchion
11 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x2
Attack bonus +24/+19/+14
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +20/+15/+10 (-4, +12)
Damage w/o PA = 3x(2d4+12)+3x(10d6) = 51+105 = 156
Damage w/ PA = 3x(2d4+24)+3x(1d6) = 87+105 = 192The rogue looks like he'll out damage the fighter until you count the doubled crit range, higher crit multiple, auto confirm, and higher attack bonus of the fighter.
The fighter only has to roll a 15 (hitting AC 43/38/33/28 with PA) to deal 6d4+114 (129) damage per hit, 4x129 = 516 in one round.
If the rogue somehow manages to get 3 crits rolling at least 18 and a confirmation (hitting AC 38/33/28 with PA) he deals (6d4+72)+(10d6) (122) per hit, 3x122 = 366 in one round.
This rogue build has him strictly trying to compete with the fighter for damage which means that most other things rogues do suffer. Please feel free to correct the numbers if you catch something wrong.
While I do know that the rogue is at an extreme disadvantage, you've put him at a greater disadvantage DPR-wise by not letting him use Two-Weapon Fighting.
By all means, throw up a TWF build to show that. Like I said, I just did this quick for an example.
Huamn fighter level 1 with falchion
3 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +2
Attack bonus w/ PA +1 (-1, +2)
Damage w/o PA = 2d4+6 = 11
Damage w/ PA = 2d4+8 = 13
Human rogue level 1 with falchion
2 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +0
Damage (2d4+6)+(1d6) = 11+3.5 = 14.5
So at level 1 the rogue has a lower attack bonus and can't take power attack because of it. The fighter has a better chance to hit, even when using power attack. I guess if you think that makes the rogue OP because he has a minimal chance to do 1.5 more damage than the fighter then that's your call.
Huamn fighter level 1 with falchion
3 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +2
Attack bonus w/ PA +1 (-1, +2)
Damage w/o PA = 2d4+6 = 11
Damage w/ PA = 2d4+8 = 13Human rogue level 1 with falchion
2 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +0
Damage (2d4+6)+(1d6) = 11+3.5 = 14.5So at level 1 the rogue has a lower attack bonus and can't take power attack because of it. The fighter has a better chance to hit, even when using power attack. I guess if you think that makes the rogue OP because he has a minimal chance to do 1.5 more damage than the fighter then that's your call.
Actually, you need to do this over two rounds, since the rogue needs a round to get into flanking position.
So the fighter is actually doing 26 damage, and the rogue is doing 14.5.
|
|
Level 1 Rogue vs. Level 1 Fighter, optimized as best I can: (20-pb)
Our target AC is 12, that of a human zombie CR 1/2, and both characters are flanking, for fairness' sake.
Human Rogue 1
Str 13
Dex 20
Con 14
Int 7
Wis 13
Cha 7
Feats:
Weapon Finesse
Two-Weapon Fighting
Skills:
7 of them, pick your faves
Offense (while flanking of course)
Melee rapier and shortsword +5/+5 1d6+1+1d6/1d6+1+1d6(18-20/19-20)
Average damage for rapier: 8 (4.5 multiplied on crit)
Average damage for shortsword: 8 (4.5 multiplied on crit)
+5 is a 70% chance of hitting so:
rapier: 0.7 x (4.5 + 3.5) + 0.7 x (4.5 x 0.15) = 6.0725
shortsword: 0.7 x (4.5 + 3.5) + 0.7 x (4.5 x 0.1) = 5.915
= 11.9875 DPR
Human Fighter 1
Str 20
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 7
Wis 13
Cha 7
Feats:
Weapon Focus: Falchion, Power Attack, Furious Focus
Skills:
ha
Offense: (while flanking, to be fair)
Melee falchion +9 2d4+10(18-20)
Average damage: 15
+9 is a 90% chance to hit:
falchion = .9 x 15 + .9 x 15 x .15
= 15.525 DPR
Not to mention that it's actually easier for the fighter to flank, because he can do this with a standard action. It's not even fair when the rogue doesn't get both attacks, or when he's not flanking.
I can also do a level 1 two-handed rogue build for you, but it'll just be a poor fighter who doesn't get access to power attack or weapon focus.
EDIT: Math was wrong on the fighter (I'm tired), his DPR is actually a bit higher
|
|
Mergy, without quick draw, a level 1 rogue cannot pull a weapon as part of a move action (+0 BAB), you have to drop either TWF or weapon finesse to put quick draw into the build, or the rogue, when surprised, will get either spend an entire round pulling weapons, or will not be able to attack for 2 rounds pretty much.
This is a perfectly perfect world for the rogue, and no one at all minds that he walks around carrying his weapons and ready for combat at all times. Please throw the poor rogue a bone here; he already can't compete.
|
|
I'm bored and almost ready for bed, but here's a rogue with a falchion just to compare: (Half-Orc for falchion proficiency, because might as well snag darkvision)
Half-Orc Rogue 1
Str 20
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 7
Wis 13
Cha 7
Feats:
Improved Initiative (Because he can't qualify for anything that boosts DPR yet)
Skills:
still lots
Offense: (still flanking of course)
attack +7 falchion 2d4+7+1d6 (average damage 15.5, it looks like I was wrong about TWF outdamaging this)
80% chance to hit:
= 13.84 DPR
Certainly respectable, to be perfectly honest. The rogue falls further behind in later levels, when things like weapon training and weapon specialization come to the fighter.
Regarding a group of rogues threatening your players:
Two 1st level rogues are, what, CR 1/2 each? So a CR 2 encounter. It's supposed to be challenging.
Still, with typical NPC stats (15 primary, perhaps +2 race) they might be able to kill somebody -- but even then, I'm not positive about that. Remember that 0 isn't dead. Players die at (- Con) hit points, which most people keep above a penalty, while others boost to 20; further, you should have max hit points at first level.
For argument, assume that a player has been already been reduced to 1 hit point. A Rogue would have to reach a position where he would qualify for Sneak Attack (most commonly Flank), succeed on that attack roll, and actually deal enough damage to reduce a character from 1 hit point (or perhaps 0, if they believe a Staggered character truly represents that much of a threat) straight to their negative Con modifier to achieve a PC death.
I can't speak for others, but in my playgroup, even our Wizards keep that at a 12. So in my personal example, that's 13/12 damage that a rogue wants to pull off with 2d6+Str damage (average 7+Str). Yet that doesn't take into account that the PCs also try pretty hard to keep the squishy characters out of that situation, and the character that finds himself is just as likely to be a Fighter or somesuch.
It just seems too remote of a setup to require changing the whole class or mechanic. Especially since level one is a very lethal time in a PC's life no matter who he faces -- they can also be done in with an untimely critical from an orc, who last I checked have 2d4 x3 weapons.
As a last (I believe) note; PCs are surprisingly resilient. My experience is that they have an uncanny ability to turn what you think is a horrific encounter into a solveable one.
This came up over 10 years ago when the Rogue was first introduced in 3.0e. Messageboards like this were a little more rare back then, but they were there and I can recall heated discussions just like this.
Mostly it was a factor of "big looking numbers with hidden costs". Between having a lower chance to hit, situational access to the damage, less access to damage dealing benefits, and a tendency to splitting focus, the Rogue really didn't benefit nearly as much as the first glance would indicate.
I remember hearing things like "OMG 60 damage per attack at 20th? With TWF you can do like 7 attacks.. that's 420 damage in a round!".
All this on the crossover from 2e, where dragons and Balors can be found with less than 100 hitpoints... the shock to the system was a lot for some people.
But when you look at the numbers... the chance to land those hits are on a diminishing return (TWF has penalties, lower BAB, iteratives have even less chance to hit, the class has no built-in option for landing hits better, etc), those numbers dwindle horribly.
To the point that in 3.5e supplements and Pathfinder, the Rogue had to be boosted.
.
But beyond all that, the best proof is in experience. I see builds and numbers on these boards that give out hypotheticals, but it rarely turns out the same way in play.
I mean... I've never seen a Rogue character built with a 7 Int and 7 Cha.
As I said in the past (back in the year 2000), try it out first before making changes or claiming that the sky is falling. After a decade of experience through thousands and thousands of players playing D&D world-wide, we've come to a conclusion that's far less gloomy than you might expect.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See the problem?
Not really.
Rogues are deadly in your campaign. A character that gets hit with Sneak Attack is in serious danger. You can use that.
The Theives Guild is a powerful and dangerous group, one your PCs will want to step carefully around. Arrogant characters are going to quickly wind up dead. Party tactics will naturally adjust to protect against being caught unawares.
I see this more as a benefit than a loss.
Cheapy,
My guys roll for stats. Assuming a 10 STR won't work. The average will be a +2. on the STR.
I was going without consideration of feats. However, if I were to make a first level rogue. I would choose weapon finesse and two handed fighting. We'll say 18 DEX (16 roll +2 from race) and 15 STR. So the attacks are at +2, +2. Weapon Finesse only requires the off hand weapon be light. So longsword/short sword combo.
Damage is (D8+2+SA:D6)+(D6+2+SA:D6).
Longsword Avg is 5.5 on a D8 plus 2 and 4.5(?) on a D6 =12 pts.
Shortsword Avg is 4.5 plus 2 and 4.5 =11
Total damage per round is 23 (21 if a D6 avg is 3.5)
Double those numbers if a second rogue is flanking on the other side. AND attacks raise to +4 with each weapon.Max PC hp with this group is 13. High AC is 17; low AC is 10.
See the problem?
Weapon Finesse grants Dex to Attack rolls. It applies to light weapons and the occasional other weapon, like a rapier. The longsword would only have a +2 to hit from Strength score. The shortsword would have +4 from Dex.
Also, your averages are off by one. It's half + 0.5 for an average roll, so a d8 is 4.5 and d6 is 3.5.
Average damage using a longsword + shortsword combo is 10 + 9.
+2 to hit on the longsword vs "the guy trying to block hits" AC 17 means only a 30% chance to hit (needs to roll better than a 14 to hit). The 10 damage is only 3 now.
The +4 on the shortsword is 40% (min 13 to hit), so 3.6 damage.
So when fighting the guy who's supposed to be taking the hits, we are looking at an average 6.6 damage on a full attack with flanking.
Against AC 10, it's much better, of course. Longsword is doing 6.5 damage, and the shortsword is doing 6.75 damage, total of 13.25 damage. Against the squishy guy, you can probably drop him in a round of full attacks. But that's kind of the point really (and he's not dead, just unconscious).
If the Rogue has to move up to his target, and isn't flanking, then he's doing longsword damage of 1.95 vs AC 17, or 4.23 vs AC 10 or his shortsword for 2.2 vs AC 17, and 4.13 vs AC 10, for that round.
If you drop a bunch of Rogues on a sleeping party unaware, then yeah.. you've likely killed the party.
If your party is looking at facing these rogues normally. Well, the Wizard likely just nailed them with a color spray or sleep. Or the Fighter takes one down before they can even get into a flanking position.
Seriously is someone who thinks that rogues getting multiple sneak attacks is overpowered? I mean seriously?
Even with god stats (which greatly benefit the twf rogue), a rogue can't overshadow the full BAB classes (except cavaliers, i don't know about them), and in fact i have seen it in a game with god stats, we were playing Kingmaker and i was playing a switch hitter ranger, near at the end of the game you know who was on par with my damage and maybe a little more? the magus when he was going nova, the rogue had problems getting sneak attacks and most importantly hitting the enemies, you know because he has 3/4 BAB and no to up his attack roll like the full BAB classes have.
Do you also believe that rogues shouldn't get sneak attack with big weapons like the falchion or the greataxe?
|
|
Cheapy,
My guys roll for stats. Assuming a 10 STR won't work. The average will be a +2. on the STR.
I was going without consideration of feats. However, if I were to make a first level rogue. I would choose weapon finesse and two handed fighting. We'll say 18 DEX (16 roll +2 from race) and 15 STR. So the attacks are at +2, +2. Weapon Finesse only requires the off hand weapon be light. So longsword/short sword combo.
Damage is (D8+2+SA:D6)+(D6+2+SA:D6).
Longsword Avg is 5.5 on a D8 plus 2 and 4.5(?) on a D6 =12 pts.
Shortsword Avg is 4.5 plus 2 and 4.5 =11
Total damage per round is 23 (21 if a D6 avg is 3.5)
Double those numbers if a second rogue is flanking on the other side. AND attacks raise to +4 with each weapon.Max PC hp with this group is 13. High AC is 17; low AC is 10.
See the problem?
I do see the problem. Your math is wrong, and you're overreacting. Also, you haven't read the Weapon Finesse feat. I made a TWF finesse rogue up above. Actually, if you want something that's dangerous, make a high strength rogue. Turns out they're better at level 1, and do their damage more reliably. Give them a Longspear and they can flank easier as well.
Give them a Longspear and they can flank easier as well.
I have seen this method mentioned a few times, but i hadn't the chance to see it in action yet but i have one question:
Do people remember that if you use your reach weapon behind someone (your meatshield for example) the opponent you are trying to hit has +4 AC due to soft cover?|
|
Give them a Longspear and they can flank easier as well.I have seen this method mentioned a few times, but i hadn't the chance to see it in action yet but i have one question:
Do people remember that if you use your reach weapon behind someone (your meatshield for example) the opponent you are trying to hit has +4 AC due to soft cover?
Yes, your opponent does get soft cover, and that part is unfortunate. On the other hand, it's not very likely you're going to be hit if you're behind the fighter, so that's a pretty good trade.
The problem might be that you think that first level characters shouldn't be able to be killed in one hit. Almost anyone with a two handed weapon, a weapon with a high crit, or two weapon fighting can kill almost any 1st level character with one attack action. Not saying it's good that they can BUT it is how the game is set up.
|
|
This discussion is pretty much tailored for the rogue.
Try comparing the rogue to a fighter at 120 feet. Something like a 16 strength 20 dex, archer with a strength long bow.
In my examples I was definitely tailoring things to the rogue, and the fighter still came out ahead on damage.
I don't think anyone here believes that the rogue can fight better than a fighter. A fighter can outdamage a rogue even when the rogue is in its most optimal situation.