Some people are somehow frightnened by d6's more they are flat bonuses to attack and damage, which is something I will NEVER understand. Yes its alot of dice. No its not as good as static bonuses that other classes get. Yes if a rogue gets lucky and hits with all it's attacks it will do alot of damage, but it wont always hit, and the fighter is still doing significantly more damage on average.
Well that really seems to solve that issue.
I am a little troubled though, it doesn't put a limit on these precision attacks, it doesn't mention attacks in the plural at all, just says anytime.
Something else bothers me as well. As I've been dming along, 3, 3.5, beta, the rogue has never seemed to need it. I'm hearing a lot of the rogue is weak, the d6s are needed, they are sad in combat without them, but that just hasn't been the case in my experience.
So when I hear the, you can do sneak attack multiple times in a round, my eyebrows sort of raise and curl, and it seems unbalanced and unnecessary.
Perhaps there is too much concern with damage? I'll be sticking to the one per round in my games. Foes and players alike.
|
I have never seen this.
Wow, very different experience then. The mostly less than 7th level and PFSOP are probably factors as Pathfinder definitely boosted several of the other classes and I've tended to run/play long term campaigns where everyone gets up to high level (where obviously the continued growth of Sneak Attack damage results in increasing returns).
That said... setting aside situational powers (e.g. Favored Enemy or Smite Evil), what comparable abilities do other melee classes get that Rogues can't? The 'high strength bonus' or 'great axe and power attack' arguments don't hold much weight given that Rogues can DO those things (skip the weapon proficiencies argument, 'Rogues with 1 to 3 levels of Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Whatever')... plus sneak attack bonus on top of it. With just a few levels of 'high BAB' classes a 3/4ths BAB Rogue can also get up to the +16 BAB needed for 4 attacks per round. In my experience, the difference in BAB also becomes less significant at higher levels.
Pre-Pathfinder you couldn't Sneak Attack undead, constructs, and various other creatures (generally those immune to crits) and thus it had a significant situational limitation similar to Favored Enemy and Smite Evil. Thus, I'd say in Pathfinder the 'best case' damage output of other classes has caught up and even passed the Rogue in some instances... but the Rogue doesn't have the 'I am nearly useless against this particular creature' scenario very often. Pre-Pathfinder even 'best case' the other melee classes usually couldn't match the damage output. Barbarian rage is probably the next best 'all situations' bonus, though again Pre-Pathfinder that didn't scale to higher levels anywhere near as well.
At lower levels I'd agree the Rogue is not as impressive in combat. They need alot of levels to get the high sneak attack bonuses, multiple attacks, and all the feats to stack it with.
Something else bothers me as well. As I've been dming along, 3, 3.5, beta, the rogue has never seemed to need it. I'm hearing a lot of the rogue is weak, the d6s are needed, they are sad in combat without them, but that just hasn't been the case in my experience.
You have mentioned several times mixing 3.X and Beta in your games. Perhaps this is the area of disconnect? Pathfinder heavily nerfed the Rogue's ability to get sneak attack (Blink doesn't work, throwing acid doesn't work, ranged sneak attacks are really hard and moving while full-attacking is very rare, etc). It might also relate to how you run fighters. Do they get the full suite of Pathfinder abilities? Do you use 3.5 or PFRPG power attack? Do you have fighters that don't use power attack, or do things like sword-and-board without two-weapon fighting? These all wildly change value calculations.
It might also help to write down how much damage a fighter does in a full combat, as opposed to how much a rogue does. You might be surprised, as the rounds rogues have to spend positioning themselves really chew into their damage-per-encounter. Sometimes a giant pile of dice hitting the table clouds one's mind to how much damage is actually being inflicted.
In my Kingmaker game, the fighter consistently averaged 150-200 (depending on # of crits) damage per round at lv10, with almost auto-hit on all attacks. Yes, buffs are always up, as it is in any thought-out group. The rogue mainly just sucked whenever they could not shape the battle and get into flank easily. And when he got his full-attack SA round, he did like 100ish if he actually hit on any attacks past the first two. Not very impressive.
Then he changed into a ranger and did much better.
Well that really seems to solve that issue.
I am a little troubled though, it doesn't put a limit on these precision attacks, it doesn't mention attacks in the plural at all, just says anytime.
Rogue is flanking, he attacks, gets sneak attakc. Second attack, rogue is still flanking (thus is still part of that any time) gets sneak attack. There ins't a reason for there to be pural there grammatically or rationally.
Something else bothers me as well. As I've been dming along, 3, 3.5, beta, the rogue has never seemed to need it. I'm hearing a lot of the rogue is weak, the d6s are needed, they are sad in combat without them, but that just hasn't been the case in my experience.
So when I hear the, you can do sneak attack multiple times in a round, my eyebrows sort of raise and curl, and it seems unbalanced and unnecessary.
Perhaps there is too much concern with damage? I'll be sticking to the one per round in my games. Foes and players alike.
If you wish to stick to one per round, that is certainly your perogative, you should just be aware that it is a house rule.
And as for your perceptions of the rogue, many things could be influencing that. Style of play could be a big part of it. If no one in your group optimizes for damage and the game plays accordingly then you aren't likely to see a problem. It is also possible that the only person who optimizes for damage in your group is the one that normally play's rogues, or perhaps you primarily play at lower levels where the lack of multiple sneak attacks is less noticable then say at level 15.
The theory crafting that goes on here on the boards has to do with the potential of the mechanics, as with any home game, your milage may vary.
You have mentioned several times mixing 3.X and Beta in your games. Perhaps this is the area of disconnect? Pathfinder heavily nerfed the Rogue's ability to get sneak attack (Blink doesn't work, throwing acid doesn't work, ranged sneak attacks are really hard and moving while full-attacking is very rare, etc).
And how is that different from 3.5 core rules? (i.e. "nerfed").
Or is it already "nerfing" if Paizo doesn't (and can't) duplicate various options from mostly untested and unbalanced 3.5 splatbooks?
A sober take there dunker.
Yeah been checking some forums, a lot of people out there saying yes to all if situations apply. Some specification, some official faqs, such as if you use the invis potion, get into flank, only the first applies, because you become invisible and they see you as you go sneak frenzy double lamb leg swing! (1d3+grease+taste+1 hot damage). Greater invis, you can use it to get all off, same with haste if you get into position.
Funnily enough, yes, could only do only one in second ed and...
4th ed. Yes 4th ed went back to the 2nd ed ruling on sneak attacks. o-O
Mort I've actually been mixing 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 and 3.7! I am clearly very drunk on this concoction!
Mort, not sure path did nerf the sneak attack. It's still there, it applies to more things now, and if you stealth and shoot, bam, easy. Even less dice to roll now, just beef one skill to sneak in close.
Could be right on the dice wave, or the imagined dice wave *dm fears*. My last sneak attacking character had a falchion, so no prob on damage.
"the fighter consistently averaged 150-200 (depending on # of crits) damage per round at lv10, with almost auto-hit on all attacks. "
That... I have not seen. Certainly not consistently, clearly a high powered game.
Rogues with garrotes are also sweet. But how we did that was each round on, the first was the precise pull into the neck, sneak attack, and any left over were the twisting and the tightening. Ouch.
It's the Rules as Written so it's not really a question of do I allow it or not, it's allowed by the rules. Now I could add a house rule but I think that would be unwise as the rogue is already the weakest class you can play. I'd be more likely to house rule something that benefits the rogue like the Talents Deadly and Powerful sneak so they don't apply the -2 to hit penalty.
They aren't weak across all areas. In the domains of skills or dodging area of effect spells, they are very strong. All classes have weaknesses, but the rogue for me doesn't seem the weakest around.
-2 to hit penalty?
The weakest surely has to be a wizard low on offensive spells. Sneak attack never runs out.
Checking some forums there were some dms that said no. Keeping it one for both sides so that the opponents weren't too strong. Even playing field idea. There was one that skitched a high-number of attack kobold rogue on the party to teach them a lesson about the possible excessiveness of such a ruling. Apparently it did.
A good discussion.
In my Kingmaker game, the fighter consistently averaged 150-200 (depending on # of crits) damage per round at lv10, with almost auto-hit on all attacks. Yes, buffs are always up, as it is in any thought-out group.
Would u mind listing the bonuses just because i'm doing the math and i'm only coming out to an average 110ish average damagewith buffs, (haste, bull str) and a +3 weapon full power attack wep spec greater wep spec, wep training 2 anything i missed?
The rogue is not a straight up combatant. They get the most number of skill points across classes. They are more adaptive survivors in the sense they idle by, stay low key and then move in for the shiv. The class is alot about ducking, weaving dodging etc. (uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, evasion). The rogue can fulfill almost any role given the sheer number of skill points each level and broad class-skill list. Diplomat, translator, disguised assasin, low key performing acrobat on the surface etc. So much can be done with the class. To hit and the damage barely scratches the surface of it. I''ve found them to certainly not be weak or inadequate. Sure, they got weaknesses but as Billy in the first scream movie said:"everybody's got one, sheriff."
Hmm, they aren't pure melee in the sense other classes are more pure and into the melee and damage.
What I find weird, is you could make a non-combat rogue, a thief, all feats away from combat as the class description mentions their non-combat specialties, anyway, you could not be a heavy hitter at all, all open minded, or skill focus, but if in a certain situation, suddenly you can do a bunch of d6s, and some more, and some more. Get up to eighth level and your 4d6 + weapon can easily become 8d6 + weapon if flanking. The dodgy courtier, schemer, bluffer can not only get a real nice sneak attack, he can now do two? Which add it all up, and his two stabs with a short sword are like an additional bunch of stabs with a short sword as the sneak "attack" gets multiplied. Those are some quick hands.
That seems very hefty for a character that isn't necessarily a melee class. Unusual and out of place.
Ah. the non-combat focused rogue who at level 8 with a haste potion does 15d6+ damage because of the class mechanic. Thats absolutely balanced though. Okay........................
|
Hmm, they aren't pure melee in the sense other classes are more pure and into the melee and damage.
What I find weird, is you could make a non-combat rogue, a thief, all feats away from combat as the class description mentions their non-combat specialties, anyway, you could not be a heavy hitter at all, all open minded, or skill focus, but if in a certain situation, suddenly you can do a bunch of d6s, and some more, and some more. Get up to eighth level and your 4d6 + weapon can easily become 8d6 + weapon if flanking.
That seems very hefty for a character that isn't necessarily a melee class. Unusual and out of place.
Except that you're playing a game where the combat subsystem is basically a tactical wargame. Wargames are not about cooks and clerks, and who can dance the polka, they're about who can contribute what in combat.
If your party is facing a flying outsider/dragon/whatever with immunities, buffs, DRs and spells up the wazoo, being able to make a spoon joke or duck and weave across the stray bushes is irrelevant, what counts is how much damage per round or magical utility you bring to the table. This is where Rogues fall flat on their faces, because their damage output is situational, their non-damage options are out of the window, and their survivalability is about zero.
If your rob them of sneak attack, you're left with a glorified Expert. That's why the 3.5 CW Ninja was a sad joke, as well.
I've seen that what you (3.5L+Eq) are playing is basically something completely different from what most of the folks around here are playing - which is fine and well, but don't make folks fall under a deeply mistaken belief that a "one sneak/round" Rogue is anyway viable in an "out-of-box" 3.5/PF game, because they're not.
I've never found it said that you can do multiple sneak attacks in a round. It goes right back to 3.0 and 3.5 not specifying you can't--because you couldn't before.
So the dm that said sure, said to me, if it doesn't say you can't then you can! :(
This got my response, that it doesn't say you can, and into the rest of the discussion, covered pretty much above.But please, if we can have it spelled out from the base books, the tomes of the rules, let's do it.
Precise attacks on dozens of attacks sounds kind of funny (wouldn't the monk/rogue be one of the best builds then?). BAB is a problem, but from ambush, beastly.
But let's see those cards, or that reference.
It's say so right in the PRD quoted here for your convenience:
"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."
O-o
Why did you have to make me cry equalizer? The wrong-ness, it hurts.
C'mon gorbacz, not everyone in a dnd game is pure combat focused. It isn't a war game, it is an rpg, there is more to do than fighting, there are diplomacy checks to pass and investigations to solve, people to butter up, and when I am a rogue, people to rip off, cheat and laugh at/run away from. :)
In the grim past of my dnd games, there is not only war. There is gambling, and wenches, and romance, and theft and more! There rogues really excel.
Gorb, my 3.5 ninja did quite well in the kingmaker campaign. And I mostly solo-ed it with a flaky party. Yep. One weak ninja against the world, one sneak attack a round.
|
|
Ah. the non-combat focused rogue who at level 8 with a haste potion does 15d6+ damage because of the class mechanic. Thats absolutely balanced though. Okay........................
That's 50 damage per round IF he's lucky enough to flank. And if his laughable to hit allows him to land all attacks, but since he's non-combat focused, he won't. A Fighter does around 100 per round at that point. No flanking needed.
I know that 15d6 sounds very scary, but it's not. It's a laughable amount, to be honest.
|
*high-fives Gorb*
Ah. the non-combat focused rogue who at level 8 with a haste potion does 15d6+ damage because of the class mechanic. Thats absolutely balanced though. Okay........................
Yes.
Your non-combat focused rogue, with his non-combat focused attack bonus, and his non-combat focused AC, can potentially deal 15d6+ damage.
Balance is an illusion, and based on your perspective.
I know that 15d6 sounds very scary, but it's not. It's a laughable amount, to be honest.
IF you're lucky enough to max the rolls, it's only 90 damage.
In my Kingmaker game, the fighter consistently averaged 150-200 (depending on # of crits) damage per round at lv10, with almost auto-hit on all attacks. Yes, buffs are always up, as it is in any thought-out group.Would u mind listing the bonuses just because i'm doing the math and i'm only coming out to an average 110ish average damagewith buffs, (haste, bull str) and a +3 weapon full power attack wep spec greater wep spec, wep training 2 anything i missed?
Sorry, level 11.
His weapons were more or less as powerful as the wizard could make them, so likely +3 at the time. He had the gloves that gives you +2 to your weapon training stuff, and a metric ton of bonuses to hit and damage from the cleric, the wizard and the Order of the Dragon cavalier piling all, and I do mean ALL, the bonuses that are available in the game on him. He was dual-wielding longsword and shield, with Shield Master giving him a good chunk of extra pain. 4 main hand attacks due to haste, and 3 off hand. And some trick that gave him additional attacks whenever he critted with the shield. I need to get his sheet to actually tally up everything, but yeah, it was pretty heinous. Also two-weapon rend and such.
Main hand:
Str+6, Spec+2, Weapon Training +4, Magic+3, Cavalier bonus teamwork thing+1d6, energy+1d6, Power Attack+6, Heroism+2... probably more stuff, but 1d8+23+2d6 per hit so far.
Off hand:
Str+3, WT+3, Magic+4, Cavalier+1d6, PA+3, Heroism+2, energy damage+2d6... again, probably more, but 1d8+15+3d6 so far.
7d8+137+17d6 sounds about right...
Balance is an illusion, hmm, you know I've heard people say that?
And they only say it when they are standing up for something unbalanced. It really is uncanny.
A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.
Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.
It is possible to create a solid sneak attack character, that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor to the party.
9/10 it involves not two weapon fighting.
9/10 of the time it involves some form of invisibility.
|
|
O-o
Why did you have to make me cry equalizer? The wrong-ness, it hurts.
C'mon gorbacz, not everyone in a dnd game is pure combat focused. It isn't a war game, it is an rpg, there is more to do than fighting, there are diplomacy checks to pass and investigations to solve, people to butter up, and when I am a rogue, people to rip off, cheat and laugh at/run away from. :)
In the grim past of my dnd games, there is not only war. There is gambling, and wenches, and romance, and theft and more! There rogues really excel.
Gorb, my 3.5 ninja did quite well in the kingmaker campaign. And I mostly solo-ed it with a flaky party. Yep. One weak ninja against the world, one sneak attack a round.
Of course, I understand that many folks play D&D in a different way. No problem with that.
But I'm also aware that a vast majority of people I game with and I discuss D&D with plays it in a more-or-less combat heavy manner. For me, D&D plays like one of those old cRPGs - it's a real-time walking around doing non-combat stuff and once the bad guys pop up the game zooms into a turn-based wargame.
What we're after is having characters who can do something in the "real time role-playing part" - the Rogue can shine here with all the stuff you mention - and in the "turn based wargame part" - now this part is tricky for Rogues, for all the reasons mentioned above. Robbing them of any elements of tactical relevance they have left isn't something the likes of myself, TOZ, Kamelguru, Zaister, Abraham and many others would do - for it would kill the fun for Rogue players in an important part of our games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is an illusion, hmm, you know I've heard people say that?
And they only say it when they are standing up for something unbalanced. It really is uncanny.
About as uncanny as how you and equalizer never seem to post separately.
But you're obviously friends, and so you share interesting forum discussions with each other, so there's nothing uncanny about it.
Just as there is nothing uncanny about pointing out balance is subjective when you don't agree with someone's opinion of balance.
|
|
A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.
Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.
Take a look at the DPR olympics threads. Characters there are build using WBL, without any +5 weapons. Granted, 100 DPR is stretching level 8 a bit, but at level 10 it's perfectly achievable using multiple builds of classes that share one thing in common: They Are Not Rogues.
And if you nerf Rogues, but leave ranged Fighters, Wild Rager Barbarians, "lucky favoured enemy day" Rangers, post-UC-Monks alone - well, you've just shafted somebody, congrats!
Tyrgrim, those are some impressive bonuses. But isn't that a little excessive? I mean that is some hard-core, dirty-nun power-gaming you have going there. So many items, so many buffs, and such damage. Dragons would die easily. Dragons... Old ones.
Ravingdork, yeah though checking some faqs, if you break normal invis, sneak is only on the first attack, they see you as you carve them up for the rest, unless it's flank. Then they see, and are sad. All that precision damage.
Heavy combat Gorb? Hmmm, I like a fair bit of combat, but too many items and such high damage has surely got to make it boring right? Unless the dm is also playing it so hard, and whew, what a high stakes game.
Player: "200 damage!"
DM: "NO U take 200 damage."
Rogue: "and I helped with my 20d6s."
Other player: "silence! Rogues are weak."
-Pause-
All: "200 damage!"
Glad your games aren't just all combat.
Anyone who feels that the rogues sneak attack is too powerful simply has not done the math right.
I repeat: If you want to go with 1 sneak attack per round, make it 1d6 per level.
Better: Make it 1d8 per level.
EDIT:
Ah, the old "combat-heavy play is inferior roleplaying" argument. ::)
O-o
Why did you have to make me cry equalizer? The wrong-ness, it hurts.
C'mon gorbacz, not everyone in a dnd game is pure combat focused. It isn't a war game, it is an rpg, there is more to do than fighting, there are diplomacy checks to pass and investigations to solve, people to butter up, and when I am a rogue, people to rip off, cheat and laugh at/run away from. :)
In the grim past of my dnd games, there is not only war. There is gambling, and wenches, and romance, and theft and more! There rogues really excel.
Gorb, my 3.5 ninja did quite well in the kingmaker campaign. And I mostly solo-ed it with a flaky party. Yep. One weak ninja against the world, one sneak attack a round.
Certainly not all of pathfinder or all games is about combat. And I think you're game may be far less combat focused then most (hence your rogue perception). But if you take for instance a pathfinder Adventure path as written, you will likely find a whole lot more stabbing and spell slinging then you will use of skills.
Obviously no one is doubting the rogues ability with skills it is a discussion of their combat abilities. No one thinks the rogue is 'weak' in a roleplay/skill use heavy game. It is when combat takes a significant portion of the game that the rogue falls flat.
As for the non-combat rogue getting a ton of sneak attack dice for no investment, if the rogue has not put any effort into combat, those 4 or 5d6 per attack will be meaningless, they wont HIT on level challenges. I think that is where some of the disconnect is. %chance to hit is a factor to those talking about the rogue being weak, not just maximum potential damage if they do hit. To myself and many others 80% chance to do 25 damage, is considerably better then 40% chance to do 11d6 damage (average of 3.5 per die * .4 comes out to 15.4 damage on average). But doesnt 11d6 SOUND like way more then 25 damage? It does but in reality because of %to hit it is on average considerably less.
|
|
Tyrgrim, those are some impressive bonuses. But isn't that a little excessive? I mean that is some hard-core, dirty-nun power-gaming you have going there. So many items, so many buffs, and such damage. Dragons would die easily. Dragons... Old ones.
Ravingdork, yeah though checking some faqs, if you break normal invis, sneak is only on the first attack, they see you as you carve them up for the rest, unless it's flank. Then they see, and are sad. All that precision damage.
Heavy combat Gorb? Hmmm, I like a fair bit of combat, but too many items and such high damage has surely got to make it boring right? Unless the dm is also playing it so hard, and whew, what a high stakes game.
Player: "200 damage!"
DM: "NO U take 200 damage."
Rogue: "and I helped with my 20d6s."
Other player: "silence! Rogues are weak."
-Pause-
All: "200 damage!"Glad your games aren't just all combat.
I've hoped that I'll never have to do this, because for flumph's sake I do despise the whole Fallacy Mania that runs rampart in some corners of them interwebz, but I fear I cannot respond in any other way than:
Oberoni Fallacy.
Combat heavy gaming and roleplaying heavy gaming are not mutually exclusive, one is not better than another and one can have both at the same table while enjoying brilliant dashes of acting AND battling a dozen Glabrezus at once with three-digit numbers flashing above his head, WoW/FF style. I know that because that's how I roll and that's how my players and many good people I discuss the game here do.
|
|
Tyrgrim, take out everything in your calculation which a Rogue can ALSO have and you are left with Weapon Specialization & Weapon Training.
That's it.
A whopping +6... vs 5d6 (average +17.5) Sneak Attack damage.
Yes, there are lots and lots of buffs and magic bonuses and such available which can increase damage output... for ALL classes.
Ignore that stuff and focus on the things unique to Rogues vs the other classes and it becomes awfully difficult to find anything which matches up to Sneak Attack... especially at high levels, pre-Pathfinder, and not including 'situational powers' that aren't always available.
They aren't weak across all areas. In the domains of skills or dodging area of effect spells, they are very strong. All classes have weaknesses, but the rogue for me doesn't seem the weakest around.
-2 to hit penalty?
The weakest surely has to be a wizard low on offensive spells. Sneak attack never runs out.
Checking some forums there were some dms that said no. Keeping it one for both sides so that the opponents weren't too strong. Even playing field idea. There was one that skitched a high-number of attack kobold rogue on the party to teach them a lesson about the possible excessiveness of such a ruling. Apparently it did.
A good discussion.
The rogue is the weakest class but by saying that I don't mean they are useless class or class not worth playing. They are an effective class just a bit more wouldn't hurt them, like what they did with the Ninja Alternate Class. Taking stuff away would detrimental in my opinion.
The -2 to hit is from rogues talent called powerful sneak which allows you treat all 1s rolled on the sneak attack dice as 2s. Deadly sneak does the the same but 1 and 2s are considered 3s. Looks good on the surface but running the numbers you actually lose out.
Rogue in my RotRL game
"I'll be the party face!" nah...bard has that covered...
"I'll scout ahead!" nah...the wizard has that covered...
"I'll go trap finding!" nah...the ranger has that covered...
"I'll unlock that!" nah...wizard has a knock...
So what has he got left that no other class can do? (except for the ninja now)... Sneak Attack and without that he does d6+3 damage a hit.
The rogue doesn't need his core ability hammered. It would be as fair as saying fighters only get their strength damage on the first hit.
|
If you really hate rogues, want all of your players who are playing rogues to suicide their characters, and don't ever want to see a rogue in your games ever again: then by all means, take away multiple sneak attacks. The highest level rogue you will ever see will be cross-classed with something you haven't decided to screw over, they might take a 2-level dip into rogue, for skills, saves, and evasion, then go paladin or whatever.
Personally I think Powerful Sneak shouldn't inflict a -2 hit, I think it should just do a flat 1 point more/die.
How has the ranger got trapfinding covered? Wizard opens the first locked door/chest/etc. This is followed by three more. Hope you prepared more of those Mr Wizard.
:/
With the one a round, the players in my games concentrate on setting that one up, and do just fine. Or controlling encounters and initiative, so they get the old surprise, then first sneak, then second half hearted slice. Their behaviour is not so drastic as to suicide (although one guy I know has suicided some characters, they have never been rogues. His rogues he seems to like with all the crossbow shots to the back, theft and bluff stabbing).
See I like bandits, thieves, rebels and rascals. But more than one precision attack just doesn't work for me. They might be good with their bows, relatively, but not that good at close range if they get the drop on the players. Or shiv from behind.
I used to fear backstab in Baldur's gate, this is far stronger. Weirdly I love rogues and don't want them to go this way, into wrought.
|
|
How has the ranger got trapfinding covered? Wizard opens the first locked door/chest/etc. This is followed by three more. Hope you prepared more of those Mr Wizard.
In Pathfinder, everybody can find traps, Rogues are just better at that. Rangers, with their plethora skill points and Wis as an important attribute, are close second.
As for the Wizard, wand of knock is something surprisingly useful, if not a bunch of scrolls.
Ahhh, they removed the 20. If it's over you couldn't find it unless you were a trapfinder. That is a bit of a sad change, hits rogues hard. Nerfs them. Anyone can do their job with enough perception.
Rogue: I look for traps.
Wizard: found it!
Rogue: :{O
Tyrgrim, take out everything in your calculation which a Rogue can ALSO have and you are left with Weapon Specialization & Weapon Training.
That's it.
A whopping +6... vs 5d6 (average +17.5) Sneak Attack damage.
Yes, there are lots and lots of buffs and magic bonuses and such available which can increase damage output... for ALL classes.
Ignore that stuff and focus on the things unique to Rogues vs the other classes and it becomes awfully difficult to find anything which matches up to Sneak Attack... especially at high levels, pre-Pathfinder, and not including 'situational powers' that aren't always available.
Rogues have lower BAB, meaning power attack is not as powerful, and they are slower to qualify for key feats. They also are restricted to light armor, so they die easier, and they are not proficient with shields. And a rogue is usually far from "auto-hit territory", lacking 6-10 to hit on a proper fighter (weapon training, BAB etc), meaning several of the later attacks will likely miss.
The "right" way to play a dual-wielding rogue IMHO is to max UMD and pay the wizard for a wand of Greater Invisibility. Then you consistently get sneak attack, and you even out the to-hit discrepancy by gaining +2 from being invisible, and taking away dex and dodge bonuses from the target.
To whomever said stuff about magic-mart; Magic marts are pedestrian, the wizard and cleric make the stuff. Who in their right mind goes shopping when you can make it for half the price at home?
|
|
:/
With the one a round, the players in my games concentrate on setting that one up, and do just fine. Or controlling encounters and initiative, so they get the old surprise, then first sneak, then second half hearted slice. Their behaviour is not so drastic as to suicide (although one guy I know has suicided some characters, they have never been rogues. His rogues he seems to like with all the crossbow shots to the back, theft and bluff stabbing).
See I like bandits, thieves, rebels and rascals. But more than one precision attack just doesn't work for me. They might be good with their bows, relatively, but not that good at close range if they get the drop on the players. Or shiv from behind.
I used to fear backstab in Baldur's gate, this is far stronger. Weirdly I love rogues and don't want them to go this way, into wrought.
Be careful when comparing 2E and 3E mechanics. Back in 2E a Great Wyrm Dragon had something like 100 HP, in 3E it has 300+. One backstab per round was vaild with such numbers, it's not valid in 3E with it's HP bloat across the table.
Tyrgrim, take out everything in your calculation which a Rogue can ALSO have and you are left with Weapon Specialization & Weapon Training.
That's it.
A whopping +6... vs 5d6 (average +17.5) Sneak Attack damage.
Yes, there are lots and lots of buffs and magic bonuses and such available which can increase damage output... for ALL classes.
Ignore that stuff and focus on the things unique to Rogues vs the other classes and it becomes awfully difficult to find anything which matches up to Sneak Attack... especially at high levels, pre-Pathfinder, and not including 'situational powers' that aren't always available.
Rogues have lower BAB, meaning power attack is not as powerful, and they are slower to qualify for key feats. They also are restricted to light armor, so they die easier, and they are not proficient with shields. And a rogue is usually far from "auto-hit territory", lacking 6-10 to hit on a proper fighter (weapon training, BAB etc), meaning several of the later attacks will likely miss.
The "right" way to play a dual-wielding rogue IMHO is to max UMD and pay the wizard for a wand of Greater Invisibility. Then you consistently get sneak attack, and you even out the to-hit discrepancy by gaining +2 from being invisible, and taking away dex and dodge bonuses from the target.
To whomever said stuff about magic-mart; Magic marts are pedestrian, the wizard and cleric make the stuff. Who in their right mind goes shopping when you can make it for half the price at home?
Yep. Adventure should go simething like this. Party spends two days killing the big bad and doing cool stuff. Then the rogue and other party member pester the wizard and cleric to make them some stuff. The group then downtimes for <insert crafting time here>. They set off and cycle repeats endlessly. Reaches a point where party rocks up to burnt desolate remains of a village. Party member with survival makes a check. Says:"they went that way approximately X number of days ago." Rogue raises a hand. "Wasnt that the length of downtime we had?"
Enter the crafting chronicles.
This is exactly the point I've made before. If there is a lot of crafting, the full-metal magic item power-gaming comes out. Everything you want, made to order. How heroic and reflecting of the player's accomplishments.
Adoring fan: where did you get that helmet? Did you take it off an evil knight?
Glowing fighter: had it made.
Adoring fan: and that sword?
Glowing fighter: had it made, the one's in the dungeon were weak and old.
Adoring fan: and that armour?
Glowing fighter: it couldn't be this shiny and good, unless I had it made. So I had it made.
Adoring fan: and those steel boots?
Glowing fighter: made.
Adoring fan: what did you do with all your treasure and items won in battle?
Glowing fighter: melted them down, so I could make better items, and pay for them.
Adoring fan: :(
And then a wave of rust monsters appear. Drawn by the beautiful scent of enchanted freshly-minted metals.
Yep. Adventure should go simething like this. Party spends two days killing the big bad and doing cool stuff. Then the rogue and other party member pester the wizard and cleric to make them some stuff. The group then downtimes for <insert crafting time here>. They set off and cycle repeats endlessly. Reaches a point where party rocks up to burnt desolate remains of a village. Party member with survival makes a check. Says:"they went that way approximately X...Tyrgrim, take out everything in your calculation which a Rogue can ALSO have and you are left with Weapon Specialization & Weapon Training.
That's it.
A whopping +6... vs 5d6 (average +17.5) Sneak Attack damage.
Yes, there are lots and lots of buffs and magic bonuses and such available which can increase damage output... for ALL classes.
Ignore that stuff and focus on the things unique to Rogues vs the other classes and it becomes awfully difficult to find anything which matches up to Sneak Attack... especially at high levels, pre-Pathfinder, and not including 'situational powers' that aren't always available.
Rogues have lower BAB, meaning power attack is not as powerful, and they are slower to qualify for key feats. They also are restricted to light armor, so they die easier, and they are not proficient with shields. And a rogue is usually far from "auto-hit territory", lacking 6-10 to hit on a proper fighter (weapon training, BAB etc), meaning several of the later attacks will likely miss.
The "right" way to play a dual-wielding rogue IMHO is to max UMD and pay the wizard for a wand of Greater Invisibility. Then you consistently get sneak attack, and you even out the to-hit discrepancy by gaining +2 from being invisible, and taking away dex and dodge bonuses from the target.
To whomever said stuff about magic-mart; Magic marts are pedestrian, the wizard and cleric make the stuff. Who in their right mind goes shopping when you can make it for half the price at home?
Players might refuse, there isn't much profit in it by the sounds of it. They only live for greed, crafting and accounting now. And high bonuses from so many items.
You people make me so sad! *sobs*
How has the ranger got trapfinding covered? Wizard opens the first locked door/chest/etc. This is followed by three more. Hope you prepared more of those Mr Wizard.
Trapper Archtype....
And any class can have DD....Wizard, Bard, Ranger, Monk... not exclusive to rogues...Even Barbarian with a greataxe...So I ask...if you take away Sneak Attack from the rogue what do you have?
Yep. Adventure should go simething like this. Party spends two days killing the big bad and doing cool stuff. Then the rogue and other party member pester the wizard and cleric to make them some stuff. The group then downtimes for <insert crafting time here>. They set off and cycle repeats endlessly. Reaches a point where party rocks up to burnt desolate remains of a village. Party member with survival makes a check. Says:"they went that way approximately X number of days ago." Rogue raises a hand. "Wasnt that the length of downtime we had?".
Actually you're sarcasm is accurate. The game from the beggining has ALWAYS assumed there would be significant downtime between adventures. Wizards were supposed to study and craft in between relatively short adventures.
If you dont have downtime in your campaigns, even in the old days level advancement would be insane when compared to in game time. Now especially if you adventure every single day you are looking at going level 1 to 20 in a few months. I am confident most people expect their full character arc to last years if not a lifetime (or at least a human life time), not 4 months. (3-4 encounters per day times 120 days is 420 encounters, with an average of 20 encounters per level that is more then enough to get you to level 20).
So the game assumes characters will after a few days of adventuring stop for weeks if not months to persue personal interests. Often this means for the wizard locking themselves in a lab to research and craft.
You people make me so sad! *sobs*
What do you expect? You are implying the people who play the frikking game by the rules (i. e. using sneak attack by the book and actually use crafting feats) somehow do it wrong. Also, you fail at math, in tenaciously clinging to the notion that a rogues sneak attack makes him a top notch damage dealer. Go to one of the numerous DPR threads on this board that prove you dead wrong.
Also: If you claim that combat is not very important in your game, why do you insist on nerfing a combat ability of an already combat weak class? Should be all the same to you.
Ravingdork, yeah though checking some faqs, if you break normal invis, sneak is only on the first attack, they see you as you carve them up for the rest, unless it's flank. Then they see, and are sad. All that precision damage.
Please don't insult me by implying I'm not familiar with the FAQs and other pertinent rules. I'm known as the "Rules Lawyer From Hell" in some places for a reason.
If you re-read my post you will see that I worded it in such a way as to include many forms of invisibility. That was deliberate, as there ARE many ways to pull this off.
Ideally, the rogue would be using something along the lines of a wand of greater invisibility (or a friendly allied caster who sees the value in sharing spell effects).
With the one a round, the players in my games concentrate on setting that one up, and do just fine. Or controlling encounters and initiative, so they get the old surprise, then first sneak, then second half hearted slice.
If rogues in your games contribute as much as the other non-rogue players with max of one sneak attack per round, it means the rest of your players are (mechanically, maybe they're awesome RPers and great human beings) terrible.
And that's fine for your group if you're having fun, but don't try to balance major league baseball based on what does and doesn't work at the little league level.