| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, that's not quite right. It says anytime, the reference was found; but it doesn't say stack as many sneak attacks as possible, abuse items and buffs and spells to allow even more.
Its not abuse. Period. Its the way the game is meant to be played.
I now also remember the "multiple spells for high BAB" thread started by you. You obviously have only a very tangential grasp of the rules and not much experience with canny players and challenging, tactical combat.
You are one of the types who don't like "too powerful" player characters, optimization, and rules in general.
Please note that the overwhelming majority of players play a quite different PF game than you. Your houserules (multiple spells for high BAB, nerfing the rogue to death, ... I am sure there is mor insane stuff going on), would kill the game as most people here play it.
What ticks me off though, is that you seem to think your queer way of gaming is somehow superior. Its not. Its actually inferior, because we can have fun on both levels: tactical, challenging combat AND great stories and character play. You pretty much destroyed the first part with your tinkering with a ruleset you do not have a clear grasp on.
|
At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks.
Go look at my math in message 108 of this thread to see why this is simply false. Higher chance of hitting, yes. More consistently, yes... though in my experience flanking is not at all hard to achieve. More damage per attack... nope. Not even close. The Rogue's class specific damage bonuses are nearly 3x those of the fighter.
As I see it, There is nothing anyone is going to be able to tell Mr. Loyalist to change his mind as long as his fingers are in his ears (or in this case eyes) about how the mechanics of a game make a game.
Mr. Loyalist, several people on this very board have offered you advice from the get-go as to the BALANCE issue such a revision to a class will cause. Sneak attack will have no effect on non-combat situations, but this game is very much a dual purpose system. When people come out and tell you to "read x forum", they are telling you that the experts are there discussing matters such as these. In this case you have been directed to the DPR Olympics to show you that the advancement and application of sneak attack is inferior to the other vast majority of combat bonuses, not that all your characters need to be power-gamed into the stratosphere.
As a power gamer, a rules lawyer, and a spotlight hog (I understand and embrace my flaws) I will stand here now and say multiple sneak attacks will not inhibit a pathfinder or 3.x game. It will however fluctuate in power in a heavily houseruled scenario.
Thank you, and happy gaming, everyone.
|
At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks.Go look at my math in message 108 of this thread to see why this is simply false. Higher chance of hitting, yes. More consistently, yes... though in my experience flanking is not at all hard to achieve. More damage per attack... nope. Not even close. The Rogue's class specific damage bonuses are nearly 3x those of the fighter.
Yeah, seen that. We also saw that your math ignores to-hit chances, crits and the fact that any Fighter worth his price is using a 2H weapon. Given that all that and a few things more factor into DPR, I've shrugged and moved on. Refer to the DPR Olympics threads for reference on how does the Rogue stack up against other melee classes.
|
At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks.Go look at my math in message 108 of this thread to see why this is simply false. Higher chance of hitting, yes. More consistently, yes... though in my experience flanking is not at all hard to achieve. More damage per attack... nope. Not even close. The Rogue's class specific damage bonuses are nearly 3x those of the fighter.
Your damage from the attack doesn't mean much when you miss. Pretty much every combat class in the game has a way of increasing their chance to hit beyond "flank the target" while getting a full-attack action.
I am finding it incredibly difficult to hold my "tongue" in this, but I will at very least say this much: a person truly loyal to 3.5 wouldn't be arguing against conventions introduced to the game -in- 3.5, they would simply play it despite the flaws, and they would not go out of their way to stir up players of other games. This is like wanting to bug the Hero System players, don't do it, your arguments are not going to mesh up.
I think I said that in a nice enough way.
TOZ: yep, played samurai, put them against players, had great fun. A lot of their abilities got poached and put into general feats in pathfinder, but they can still be quite fun and scary combatants.
Melissa: the rangers favoured enemy bonus is not an additional 5d6 every arrow. They get their favoured, on their arrow, but the rogue adding all their sneak attack to every attack, is a lot higher in damage. The good news for the ranger, is that their bonus is also to hit, so it is more reliable, but lower. Yet if, as some have suggested, the two weapon hasted rogue is also under greater invisibility, the hits to flat-footed are not going to be hard to pull off. Some will miss, at times none will miss, and no one in my games does that type of damage in the low to mid levels. Wow, it is high.
Gorb: you can discount what CBdunk has said, but the bonuses from invisibility and flanking make all those hits, and then all those dice, easier to achieve.
"a person truly loyal to 3.5 wouldn't be arguing against conventions introduced to the game -in- 3.5, they would simply play it despite the flaws, and they would not go out of their way to stir up players of other games. This is like wanting to bug the Hero System players, don't do it, your arguments are not going to mesh up."
Kais: much has been made of my forum name before, a short-cut to criticise house rules or my discussion of rules and their interpretation. It is more tied to my preference for 3.5 over the changes pathfinder made, you can see more of my thoughts on this in my reviews. I was playing round with the settings, wanting to change my name to something like "wrought-finder" or "eating all the magic items" and was having difficulty changing it. The name is not actually correct per se, because I modify 3.5 heavily, and have done so over time playing it. I am quite receptive to new ideas from other systems, sanity scores, etc, a lot of what has been covered in unearthed arcana, other supplementary books, and even some systems.
Now on the sneak, I've been in no games that have done the multiple sneak attacks until a recent PF dm. See I come from AD&D first, and those like myself, seeing how backstab became sneak attack, didn't even try to exploit multiple sneak attack idea. Backstab was one, sneak attack was one, it worked, we could make it work, we worked it. When the multiple sneak attack(s) reared its head for the first time, the hit barbarian leaked as if from a thousand wounds, and crawled away. It stuck out as really questionable. That guy's character could normally take rounds of damage from solid by the book sources! Yet against rogues he can't?
I'm not really wanting to attack people, truly, but if we roll back the power-gaming, and a little bit of the magic, the rogues don't need the multiple sneak attack, two-weapon ginzu haste greater invis build. You can entirely step away from the cheese.
Thank you all for reading.
When the multiple sneak attack(s) reared its head for the first time, the hit barbarian leaked as if from a thousand wounds, and crawled away. It stuck out as really questionable.
Yeah, questionable, because a barbarian can't be flanked, does not lose Dex if flat-footed or the attacker is invisible and thus only rarely will suffer sneak attacks at all.
Again, you have proven your "solid" grasp of the rules.
I'm not really wanting to attack people, truly, but if we roll back the power-gaming, and a little bit of the magic, the rogues don't need the multiple sneak attack, two-weapon ginzu haste greater invis build. You can entirely step away from the cheese.
What you call Powergaming and Cheese is what we call Pathfinder Ruleset...
Perhaps if you actually took the time to read and understand the rules you might understand that Sneak Attack is necessary for a Rogue to be viable in a standard PF game...Your Barbarian example shows you don't understand the rules...Uncanny Dodge scuppers Sneak Attack (as does a lot of things).
|
I'm going to assume the barbarian was jumped by rogues 4 levels higher than he was, and therefore able to SA him.
Of course, I believe the higher CR had more to do with them trouncing the barbarian than SA. You're certainly going to go down if you're getting SA'ed by rogues with four extra levels on you.
|
|
Just think of the beatdown that would have happened if it were a Fighter 4+ levels higher.I'm going to assume the barbarian was jumped by rogues 4 levels higher than he was, and therefore able to SA him.
Of course, I believe the higher CR had more to do with them trouncing the barbarian than SA. You're certainly going to go down if you're getting SA'ed by rogues with four extra levels on you.
It's like the saying "I ran into my ex earlier today, then I put it in reverse, and ran into him a few more times." All I can hear is the sound of a car going over a speed bump.
When the multiple sneak attack(s) reared its head for the first time, the hit barbarian leaked as if from a thousand wounds, and crawled away. It stuck out as really questionable.Yeah, questionable, because a barbarian can't be flanked, does not lose Dex if flat-footed or the attacker is invisible and thus only rarely will suffer sneak attacks at all.
Again, you have proven your "solid" grasp of the rules.
Again with the insults...
It is certainly true, at 5th the barb can shut down a rogue's sneak attack ability. Alas no dice for him, he was actually level four not five, early days in the Second Darkness campaign. Not every game is a level 15 game.
But that is one of the problems right there, yes the barb gets a lot of protection from sneak attacks (at 5), others can get nigh disintegrated by the multiple sneak attacks, or if you happen to be playing it at low levels, and the rogues can get the sneak attacks, that barb can get really overwhelmed. His ability to take 4 hits or so normally evaporates under those d6s, those extra sneak attacks on those extra attacks.
Letd, for the sake of the argument, compare a lvl 4 barbarian to a lvl 4 rogue, both with 18 base STR and mw weapons.
Barbarian (raging, of course, using power attack):
+9 greataxe 1d12+15 ~ 21.5 dmg
Rogue (two handed, power attack):
+7 greataxe 1d12+2d6+7 ~ 20.5 dmg
Rogue (TWF):
+6/+6 two shortswords 6d6+6 ~ 27 dmg
So, now you look at this and probably think: Rogue is overpowered. BUT: you have to compare these values for adequate foes. A CR 4 enemy should have an AC of about 17.
Vs. those AC the damage values change:
Barbarian: 13.975 dmg
Rogue (two handed): 11.275 dmg
Rogue (TWF): 13.5 dmg
The rogue does not look so much better now, does he? Under your rules his mean damage woud be:
20 dmg if all attacks hit, and 10 dmg vs. AC 17.
If AC goes higher, it gets worse for the rogue. Also, he needs a full round action and special circumstances (flanking), while the Bbn only needs a standard action, a huge advantage. Thus the Bbn deals ot the high damage almost every round, while the rogue probably only every other round at best. In terms of damage per combat, the rogue will be at a huge disadvantage.
EDIT:
Also while its OK to assume 18 STR for a Bbn, its a bit over the top for a Rogue, who typically has lower STR, because he really needs DEX too, for his skills and AC.
If you assume a more realistic STR of maybe 14 for the Rogue, the picture changes again.
Actually it is often better for the rogue to go finesse: i.e. pump all points into DEX, let STR at 10 and rely on sneak attack to do the damage.
Let me see if I got this straight, 3.5 Loyalist have made wizards (the MOST powerful class in the game, by a long shot) MORE powerful, by having them cast more spells from having high BAB, and he has NERFED the rogue (arguably as weak or even weaker than the monk)
If this is correct, my mind is well and proper blown.
|
|
Yeah, seen that. We also saw that your math ignores to-hit chances, crits and the fact that any Fighter worth his price is using a 2H weapon.
Yet somehow you apparently missed the fact that the specific claim I was disputing was that Fighters did more damage than Rogues even ignoring all those other factors. Curious.
|
|
Yeah, seen that. We also saw that your math ignores to-hit chances, crits and the fact that any Fighter worth his price is using a 2H weapon.Yet somehow you apparently missed the fact that the specific claim I was disputing was that Fighters did more damage than Rogues even ignoring all those other factors. Curious.
Your "damage = theoretically highest possible output" isn't my "damage = average output against level appropriate opponents".
|
|
Your "damage = theoretically highest possible output" isn't my "damage = average output against level appropriate opponents".
I'll refer you back to the original comment, "At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks."
If the rogue is getting sneak attack damage on all attacks then no, a fighter cannot drastically out damage them at every level. The math just doesn't work. You bring up criticals and two-handed weapons, continuing the amazing chain of people somehow overlooking the ability of Rogues to use those things too.
Let's do some more math shall we?
As level goes to infinity;
AC bonus per level approaches ZERO (with a few exceptions, Monks can manage a whopping 0.2 per level)
Rogue attack bonus per level remains 0.75 (or approaches 1 if using the 3.5 Epic Handbook rules)
Barbarian hit points per level remain 6.5 plus 1 favored class bonus if chosen. I exclude Con bonus in this case because it is offset by Str bonus of the attacker.
Given that AC bonus per level always grows more slowly than attack bonus, eventually a hit on every attack (by every class) becomes guaranteed for everything short of automatic fumble rules. Meanwhile, the class with the highest hit points per level can only get up to 7.5... which is less than the 10 damage per level a Rogue can do with multiple attacks (assuming they remain limited to 6). So at high levels a Rogue can automatically hit and kill any other class in a single round barring fumble rules. Meanwhile, the Rogue's 4.5 hit points per level is higher than the 4.2 unique damage per level a Fighter can deliver in a round.
Yes, in practical terms there is going to be a bound of levels which a campaign will cover and within those bounds these long term trends can be over-ridden by short term bonuses... especially in a high magic campaign. With lower magic or higher levels the underlying math outweighs the short term modifiers and the Rogue becomes a better combatant than the Fighter. In v3 and v3.5 this happened very fast. In Pathfinder it takes longer, but mathematically is still a given eventually.
No, I do not want to check out the power-gaming threads in wroughtlanden and cheeseria.
I ask us all, without malice, to consider not rocking the power-gaming cheese-eating contest. Do unto others the number of sneak attacks you would have them do unto you.
After reading about "cheese" and "powergaming" and "cheapness" so many times, I'm just going to leave this here.
If the rogue is getting sneak attack damage on all attacks then no, a fighter cannot drastically out damage them at every level. The math just doesn't work. You bring up criticals and two-handed weapons, continuing the amazing chain of people somehow overlooking the ability of Rogues to use those things too.
He's not overlooking it, but they're dramatically less meaningful for a rogue, whose damage largely comes from sneak attack instead of massive static bonuses.
Seriously, people have done the actual math on this elsewhere on the forums.
|
|
Your "damage = theoretically highest possible output" isn't my "damage = average output against level appropriate opponents".I'll refer you back to the original comment, "At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks."
If the rogue is getting sneak attack damage on all attacks then no, a fighter cannot drastically out damage them at every level. The math just doesn't work. You bring up criticals and two-handed weapons, continuing the amazing chain of people somehow overlooking the ability of Rogues to use those things too.
Let's do some more math shall we?
As level goes to infinity;
AC bonus per level approaches ZERO (with a few exceptions, Monks can manage a whopping 0.2 per level)
Rogue attack bonus per level remains 0.75 (or approaches 1 if using the 3.5 Epic Handbook rules)
Barbarian hit points per level remain 6.5 plus 1 favored class bonus if chosen. I exclude Con bonus in this case because it is offset by Str bonus of the attacker.Given that AC bonus per level always grows more slowly than attack bonus, eventually a hit on every attack (by every class) becomes guaranteed for everything short of automatic fumble rules. Meanwhile, the class with the highest hit points per level can only get up to 7.5... which is less than the 10 damage per level a Rogue can do with multiple attacks (assuming they remain limited to 6). So at high levels a Rogue can automatically hit and kill any other class in a single round barring fumble rules. Meanwhile, the Rogue's 4.5 hit points per level is higher than the 4.2 unique damage per level a Fighter can deliver in a round.
Yes, in practical terms there is going to be a bound of levels which a campaign will cover and within those bounds these long term trends can be over-ridden by short term bonuses... especially in a high magic campaign. With lower magic or higher levels the underlying math outweighs the short term modifiers and the Rogue becomes a better combatant than the...
That's not math. Again, DPR Olympics. Level 10, WBL, no outside buffs.
Best Rogue with sneak attack: 45 DPR
Best melee Fighter: 71 DPR
End of story. And for the record, don't even ask what some other classes can do when their circumstances kick in (Barbarian's pouncing rage, Ranger's fav enemy, Paladin's Team Evil Smite).
eventually a hit on every attack (by every class) becomes guaranteed for everything short of automatic fumble rules.
Thats ridiculous. Have you even played the game once?
eventually a hit on every attack (by every class) becomes guaranteed for everything short of automatic fumble rules.Thats ridiculous. Have you even played the game once?
For a fighter/smiting paladin/raging barbarian/ranger vs favored enemy, with all the buffs of a well-oiled party backing him, this is true. For all others, nope. Well, maybe a well made combat cleric as well.
|
Here's a fun thought experiment regarding additional damage dice.
A Rogue, at level 9, will be getting 5d6 sneak attack damage. If he takes Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (we'll say he has a beefy dex score), we're looking at 24d6 from Sneak attack, not including his (arguably low) melee damage (if he's using weapon finesse, this is probably 1d6+strength+enhancement).
Let's look at the Magus at level 9, another dice stacker who stacks similarly, but more magically, to a rogue. At level 9, the Magus can reliably get an Intensified Shocking Grasp (extra 9d6), which is multiplied on a crit from his high crit weapon (a keen scimitar is easy to come by). In addition, because he needs to have a hand free anyways, he'll gladly be just as dexterity based as the Rogue and even add that dexterity to his damage rolls. So, 30% of the time, on his turn, even when not full attacking, he'll deal 20d6+other bonuses (crit on Shocking Grasp & Weapon dice). In fact, his static damage bonus will probably (not necessarily, but probably) be higher than the rogue's, unless the rogue has a pair of agile weapons (which would be PRETTY pricey). When he full attacks, this can get even higher if he hits multiple times. Remember, the Magus has various tools that DRASTICALLY increase his chance to hit (I'm looking at you, Arcane Accuracy), including spells and the like, so he doesn't even need to worry about getting into proper positioning.
A rogue needs to wait until his second round to pull off that kind of damage, due to needing a full attack (about 30d6 if he gets REALLY lucky). In the round closing in on the target, and the round afterwards, the Magus has gotten close to that without even really trying. If he crits once in those 2 rounds (which is pretty darn likely at a 30% chance to crit), especially if he crits on his spellstrike, he surpasses the Rogue by a respectable margin.
Would you argue that the Magus is cheesy and unfair? Because I don't think anyone is clamoring to get the Magus nerfed. (Also, keep in mind that a single level of Sorcerer can add the equivalent of ~5d6 to that damage [+18]. I don't think the Rogue has a dip level that can grant him that much :P)
Edit*: Okay, yeah, you have to confirm crits. But that's relatively easy if you hit consistently :P
Edit**: Upon thinking about it, ya wanna know what the REALLY danger of the rogue is? The fact that his damage isn't reliant on critical hits. All of a sudden Butterfly's Sting seems much, MUCH more promising, not to mention the fact that it indirectly DRASTICALLY increases the Rogue's damage output. Just use those fancy skills of yours to Diplomize your fighter into believing that the Scythe is a far superior weapon. Now when you crit, you do normal damage plus 3X THE FIGHTER'S DAMAGE.
Wait, people PLAYED CW Samurais?
I used levels once does that count? I wanted to play it, not because it's good, but precisely because it wasn't. For the challenge, never got the chance though.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Kais: much has been made of my forum name before, a short-cut to criticise house rules or my discussion of rules and their interpretation. It is more tied to my preference for 3.5 over the changes pathfinder made, you can see more of my thoughts on this in my reviews. I was playing round with the settings, wanting to change my name to something like "wrought-finder" or "eating all the magic items" and was having difficulty changing it. The name is not actually correct per se, because I modify 3.5 heavily, and have done so over time playing it. I am quite receptive to new ideas from other systems, sanity scores, etc, a lot of what has been covered in unearthed arcana, other supplementary books, and even some systems.
But...You're posts indicate a preference for AD&D 2E, not 3.5. It seems you have houseruled many 3.5 RAW to better fit what AD&D 2E used to be. Maybe you should change your forum name to 2E Loyalist instead?
3.0/3.5 is not the same game as AD&D 2E. The hit points scale differently, AC works differently, characters are built differently. Trying to compare 3.0/3.5/PFRPG to what you were used to in AD&D 2E is like comparing apples to oranges - it's a flawed comparison.
In any case, since you play a hybrid, heavily house-ruled game, your views on the Pathfinder core ruleset and your repeated (intentional?) misinterpretation of them really hurts your credibility. No offense intended, just an observation.
You can actually have a monk1/ninja10 character that does 12d6+40 nonlethal damage on one hit +2d6 additional with two hits and 1d6 bleed.
Only problem there is low to hit with +12/8 on lvl 11.
And that is why rogue/ninja is actually tending to be more weak.
Because of the low BAB and the low AC and the low HD.
Even ranged the sneak attack is limited to 30f.
So what happens when the ranged rogue made his first hit on the big bad evil guy dealing sneak attack?
Right, he comes straight at him, getting him down in one or two rounds probably if the rest of the group can´t make the job fast, because you have low saves too.
I love the rogue concept, but those problems actually make me think of playing a ranger or monk.
Even the ninja didnt change this really, because there are still so many things helping the game keeping "balance".
Like wakizashis being exotic weapons, two handed fighting still lowering attack, oponents that can stun and whatever, true seeing, etc..
Personnally, i would have rogue/ninja have a full BAB and 10HD, because then you could play than as a full party member.
They are fighters, with less or different weapon proficiencies, less armor proficiencies and more skill, more relying on lighter and faster weapons and a different fighting style.
Hence the sneak attack would balance other feats fighters and rangers get, like favored enemies, weapon specialization and so on.
You still need to get into the position to get the sneak attack.
I'm still trying to figure out why they ever quit playing 2nd ED...
I've discovered how to read this thread. Just skip the posts from Loyalist. As far as I can tell he is trying to get hyper-reactions from the other posters. Kind of like the guy with the stick outside the monkey cage.
Relax people, and let's move on.
Agreed, anyone who is going to nitpick the word anytime to not mean
1. at any time; regardless of hour, date, etc.; whenever.2. invariably; without doubt or exception; always:
should be left in crazy town. Using multiple sneak attacks a round isn't an exploit its rules as written, if he cant or wont see that I it is best left at that.
Man, combine this thread with the "Powerful Sneak is a trap" thread and we'll have all kinds of fun :)
Monumentaly bad...
How could he have lack of players with awesome houerules like that?
Oh, wait...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't cross the threads.
I thought you said don't cross the threads. But then I realized that was before I dreamed up the primal marshmallow elemental.
Hey, that's not a bad idea! Who needs primal ooze elementals when you have primal marshmallow elementals!
Kais: much has been made of my forum name before, a short-cut to criticise house rules or my discussion of rules and their interpretation. It is more tied to my preference for 3.5 over the changes pathfinder made, you can see more of my thoughts on this in my reviews. I was playing round with the settings, wanting to change my name to something like "wrought-finder" or "eating all the magic items" and was having difficulty changing it. The name is not actually correct per se, because I modify 3.5 heavily, and have done so over time playing it. I am quite receptive to new ideas from other systems, sanity scores, etc, a lot of what has been covered in unearthed arcana, other supplementary books, and even some systems.
But...You're posts indicate a preference for AD&D 2E, not 3.5. It seems you have houseruled many 3.5 RAW to better fit what AD&D 2E used to be. Maybe you should change your forum name to 2E Loyalist instead?
3.0/3.5 is not the same game as AD&D 2E. The hit points scale differently, AC works differently, characters are built differently. Trying to compare 3.0/3.5/PFRPG to what you were used to in AD&D 2E is like comparing apples to oranges - it's a flawed comparison.
In any case, since you play a hybrid, heavily house-ruled game, your views on the Pathfinder core ruleset and your repeated (intentional?) misinterpretation of them really hurts your credibility. No offense intended, just an observation.
No offence taken. Not sure what else I dragged over from second ed though? Hit dies as 3.5, hmmm, well I'm increasingly playing the world with less and less magic shops, so the lower magic is more like second ed, prevents a lot of the stack-stack-stackery. But the rules are mostly 3.5. A lot of my time has been spent with 3-3.5, and as this forum is really teaching me, yep I'm learning something, there is an increasingly larger break between 3.5 and pathfinder. The magus above for instance is pure pathfinder right? And the special thing mentioned that allows them an extra 9d6? Well I confess unfamiliarity with such things. Adding an extra 9d6 is a big deal in 3 or 3.5.
Ha ha! No wonder the monsters and encounters in pathfinder games often seem so challenging.
The times, they are a-changin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vou4qUu5YY
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are just massively behind the times, they've already done a ton of changes thus far. Your players should just be happy they don't have to fight some of the monsters (like the banshee) out of the Pathfinder Bestiary, that stuff expects you to have certain things at a certain point. I can assure you, a neat mustache, some can-do spirit, and good teamwork are not enough in some cases.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
No, you are just massively behind the times, they've already done a ton of changes thus far. Your players should just be happy they don't have to fight some of the monsters (like the banshee) out of the Pathfinder Bestiary, that stuff expects you to have certain things at a certain point. I can assure you, a neat mustache, some can-do spirit, and good teamwork are not enough in some cases.
Kais86 puts it in excellent terms.
Some of those abilities that feel "overpowered" at first glance (such as multiple sneak attacks, the Magus, etc.) are actually necessary to defeat encounters. If you weaken those abilities, you should be prepared to weaken the encounters as they come up. If you don't, and you're using Pathfinder critters, you could easily end up with an unintentional TPK.
Remember, the Pathfinder rulesets assume you are playing the rules as written. If you make any changes to that, you'll have scaling issues that must be taken into account when you design your encounters.