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.
It is not cheese. The game works fine with most people as is. The fact that it does not play like 2nd edition does not make it cheese. Taking away magic wont help the rogue either. The monsters will still be just as tough, and will more likely kill the rogue or just ignore him for a threat that matters.
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.
Like I said before, 9d6 LOOKS like alot, but compared to actual damage dealers in 3.5 and in pathfinder it actually isnt. It is 31.5 damage on average. At 9th level that is around 1/3rd of an archer or 2hander fighter's damage in a round. An archer with rapid shot, many shot, and using deadly aim, weapon specialization and weapon training at 9th level is firing 4 arrows (2 from bab, 1 from many shot and 1 from rapid shot) and adding 10 damage to each arrow from deadly aim, weapon spec and weapon training. That is 40 damage + 4d8 from the arrows + at least a few points of damage from the strength rating on his bow as well as magic weapon bonuses. All of this comes with a better to hit bonus then either the magus or the rogue.
Mind you weapon training and deadly aim are pathfinder additions, but the overall concept holds true in 3.5 when compared to the heavy hitters there (mostly druids and barbarians).
I've heard that said before!
Yeah in my 3.5-part beta-part other game, a few months back one guy wanted to bring in and play an alchemist. I took a real hard look at this, and what did I see? Well I saw a spellcaster, that can make alchemist fires on the fly, that cost nothing, and which are better than alchemist fire, and which can't be looted off their bodies--no-one could use them, and a class that can get true ressurection one level before the cleric, is a scholarly class that somehow has decent bab not the worst. A whole range of other things that just seemed so wrong, so much, so questionable. I refused.
And he said I was behind the times, that this is the way gaming is going now. More abilities, more power, less weaknesses, blurring into the area of other classes. The players must be greater, the bar of things you get each level must be full. This is it, as it should be!
"I can assure you, a neat mustache, some can-do spirit, and good teamwork are not enough in some cases."
That's a great point, you are exactly right! The game is pushing power-gaming on further and further as a necessity to even survive. Feel the might of the party of the over-fiends! This is where we have got to, players are even more powerful than they were before (and I am familiar with wrought in 3.5, hence why I am so critical of PF). This certainly creates a disconnect with the wider fantasy world, i.e. a tough fighter can be taken down by the law or authority. An uber power-game PH fighter can oppose a lot more, they are even more mighty. You will need a very powerful party to pose a threat, a group similarly totally enchanted, buffed etc. If the numbers are less gigantic, the difference between the players and the norm is less massive. I am truly listening to you guys.
I yearn for simpler times.
Okay, I'm going to change my pic to a crotchety old man, sometime soon.
I and others that I know of, use it as a noun. We are naming something, something important for every DM to consider.
|
Hm, I got ninja'd by Kolokotroni, but perhaps I can still contribute.
This isn't about needing to power game to survive... this is about each class getting to do cool things. When it comes right down to it, the Pathfinder rules, as written, don't do the rogue any favors as far as combat math is concerned.
That doesn't, however, mean that nobody plays them. Heck, one of my FAVORITE rogue builds is a two-handed weapon scout (adds sneak attack damage on a charge, eventually when moving at least 10 feet). This isn't the optimal way to play, granted, but I love throwing down all those d6s (I use a greatsword, just because WHY NOT?). I still contribute meaningfully, but it's not quite as overblown as I think we're conveying. Even adding extra sneak attack dice doesn't make me outdo the barbarian, much as I may try.
I think the thing to remember is that, while the math has gotten bigger, it hasn't necessarily changed that much. Whether you're doing 10 Damage in an earlier edition or 100 damage in a later one, the fundamentals of how combat works remain the same.
Davor, from the shadows, with powerful charge?
Scottish highlander rogue!
|
|
Davor, from the shadows, with powerful charge?
Scottish highlander rogue!
You think getting backstabed by a dagger hurts? Try taking a Greatsword where the sun don't shine.
The image seems ridiculous at first, but I love the idea of finding a weak point in your opponents defenses and, rather than slipping a dagger swiftly and stealthily into their exposed point, ramming a frickin' greatsword in there. It conveys a need to end a fight quickly more than a dagger does, I think. Though when it comes to sabotage and subterfuge, nothing really beats the dagger for concealment.
One thing I don't agree should be taken back to second ed, sneak attack should be able to be done with many types of weapons.
One beta rogue I made, went bastard instead (it's a bit more of a finesse weapon if you consult German fighting manuscripts, Talhoffer and the like), used acrobatics for sneak, swift to keep up his impressive dodge ac. Worked splendidly.
Though my favourite for sneak attack is the falchion.
3.5L: Do you allow metamagic feats? Like, are you OK with a lv16 draconic sorcerer dealing ((16d6)x1.5)+16) for an average of 100 damage to 16 enemies on the map with empowered chain lightning? This is a completely basic ability, no tricks, no nothing, not debatable in function.
And at the same time saying a rogue dealing an average of 200ish to ONE enemy IF he gets off a full attack in a flank (which is NOT as easy as it seems) is totally broke?
Because 1600 damage is more than 200, ya know...
So, just to be sure, everyone agrees with this?
"It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round."
to do otherwise is a house rule?
Want to be sure of this before I hit a judge only giveing one SA a round to one of my rogues....
It is the RAW and RAI for sneak attacks in a flank...however its important to note that isnt the case for attacks made from other conditions....its much less clear if you get them all say after comming out of hiding, because the act of attacking revokes the condition that allows the sneak attack. My Dm only gives on sneak in this case and I think is interpretation is fair.
However it is very clear...in a flank all attacks are sneak attacks and doing it any other way is a house rule...and for my buck, a terrible one at that.
So, just to be sure, everyone agrees with this?
"It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round."
to do otherwise is a house rule?
Want to be sure of this before I hit a judge only giveing one SA a round to one of my rogues....
It is the RAW and RAI for sneak attacks in a flank...however its important to note that isnt the case for attacks made from other conditions....its much less clear if you get them all say after comming out of hiding, because the act of attacking revokes the condition that allows the sneak attack. My Dm only gives on sneak in this case and I think is interpretation is fair.
However it is very clear...in a flank all attacks are sneak attacks and doing it any other way is a house rule...and for my buck, a terrible one at that.
That's kind of what I was getting at when I posted it.
I've heard that said before!
Yeah in my 3.5-part beta-part other game, a few months back one guy wanted to bring in and play an alchemist. I took a real hard look at this, and what did I see? Well I saw a spellcaster, that can make alchemist fires on the fly, that cost nothing, and which are better than alchemist fire, and which can't be looted off their bodies--no-one could use them, and a class that can get true ressurection one level before the cleric, is a scholarly class that somehow has decent bab not the worst. A whole range of other things that just seemed so wrong, so much, so questionable. I refused.
And he said I was behind the times, that this is the way gaming is going now. More abilities, more power, less weaknesses, blurring into the area of other classes. The players must be greater, the bar of things you get each level must be full. This is it, as it should be!
Wait the alchemist is your example of power gaming? Seriously? So basically you dont like versatility is that correct? Because the alchemist isnt the best at ANYTHING but is good at lots of stuff. That isnt making the player 'greater' its making them interesting. Yes pathfinder has intentionally done away with dead levels so characters generally get something interesting at every level, this usually isnt a problem in terms of power, since usually those abilities are far less significant then the basic units of power in 3.5 (also known as spells).
That's a great point, you are exactly right! The game is pushing power-gaming on further and further as a necessity to even survive. Feel the might of the party of the over-fiends! This is where we have got to, players are even more powerful than they were before (and I am familiar with wrought in 3.5, hence why I am so critical of PF). This certainly creates a disconnect with the wider fantasy world, i.e. a tough fighter can be taken down by the law or authority. An uber power-game PH fighter can oppose a lot more, they are even more mighty. You will need a very powerful party to pose a threat, a group similarly totally enchanted, buffed etc. If the numbers are less gigantic, the difference between the players and the norm is less massive. I am truly listening to you guys.
I yearn for simpler times.
Okay, I'm going to change my pic to a crotchety old man, sometime soon.
Your definition of powergaming and just about everyone else's is very very different. The things you call power gaming are actually not even close to it. There were far more powerful options present in 3.5, and there are more powerful options in pathfinder.
And as for a disconnect with the fantasy world i dont see how. If those town guard are also fighters, and alchemists, and rogues and such, then they have access to the same options? And also, you seem to think that the only way to be a 'threat' is be on equal footing with the party? That has never been the case in 3rd edition. If a party faces a challenge that is precisely evenly matched, they have a 50/50 chance of a party wipe. That isnt what the game means by a challenge. The CR assume the party is going to win the vast majority of conflicts and instead the challenge is based on the draining of PC resources over time (spells, hp, consumable items, x per day abilities).
I do think you have a serious disconnect between your expectations and those the game has assumed since the origins of 3rd edition (I cant speak for 2nd as I went from ADnD to 3rd). You are welcome to your preferences within game, but that should not lead you to deride those playing the game as intended as people exploiting the rules and powergaming. They are not, they are just playing the game.
|
If a party faces a challenge that is precisely evenly matched, they have a 50/50 chance of a party wipe. That isnt what the game means by a challenge. The CR assume the party is going to win the vast majority of conflicts and instead the challenge is based on the draining of PC resources over time (spells, hp, consumable items, x per day abilities).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I and others that I know of, use it as a noun. We are naming something, something important for every DM to consider.
Calling attention to improper grammar or word usage?
Seriously, what are you trying to say by using wrought as a noun?
How about actually using that word instead of having a mental speed bump in the middle of making your point.
It's hard to judge what you're trying to say when you refrigerator.
|
I and others that I know of, use it as a noun. We are naming something, something important for every DM to consider.Calling attention to improper grammar or word usage?
Seriously, what are you trying to say by using wrought as a noun?
How about actually using that word instead of having a mental speed bump in the middle of making your point.It's hard to judge what you're trying to say when you refrigerator.
Watermelon?
LOL. In all seriousness though could you replace wrought with another word. I understand the your argument except for where you used wrought.
Noun-piece of iron basically
adj-2. worked. 3. elaborated; embellished. 4. not rough or crude---dictionary.com
Sadly 3.5L isnt the only ones that think SA on all attacks that qualify is OP. My gaming buddies also think this way. Ive told them the numbers, even used hero lab to generate sample lvl 10 fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and rogues to demonstrate the inequality and they still hold to their house rule. This even when they see a barbarian in play with an extreme + to damage while buffed and raging.
Granted their house rule isnt as bad as only 1 SA per round. They allow 1 SA per iterative attack from BAB, but not from twf, haste, etc. Meaning a lvl 8 rogue can SA 2 times per round and a lvl 15 rogue can SA 3 times.
However, I have still told them that I respectfully decline to play a rogue at their table. The funny thing is, the rogue is the least played class at the table in general. Although we do have a rogue in our current campaign. He is not much of a combatant though, go figure.
Which is a less direct way of saying "Only people who have never seen a rogue actually played throughout a game, and experienced the lackluster effect sneak attack has in a game when compared to real combatants, will speak out against it and nerf it."
If your problem is that the rogue is doing too much damage, I dread to think what an actually well made fighter will do to your game.
I came to think that some people just don´t like rogues in general. Rogue players tend to want to use their sleight of hands skill and others, generating a little income and doing other not so nice deeds, that can change gameplay. Some just want to be heroes and vaillaint knights, shining in their armor or godlike magic wielders.
They all forget one thing though.
They rogue is the only class that resembles a more normal being, usefull for everyday life. All others are freaks mostly. Rangers and druids hug trees, fighters have only their strength and skill at arms, magi and clerics are devoted to their very special lifestyle and studies, monks too, etc. The rogue has enough skill points to have a decent profession, earn money with it. Maybe he is good at sneaking and other stuff, but he needs to survive. And sneak attack just resembles that. The rogue lacks in the strength and face to face combat department, but he can do damagee just as everyone can when flanking or surprising someone. And he gets better at it.
|
I came to think that some people just don´t like rogues in general. Rogue players tend to want to use their sleight of hands skill and others, generating a little income and doing other not so nice deeds, that can change gameplay. Some just want to be heroes and vaillaint knights, shining in their armor or godlike magic wielders.
They all forget one thing though.
They rogue is the only class that resembles a more normal being, usefull for everyday life. All others are freaks mostly. Rangers and druids hug trees, fighters have only their strength and skill at arms, magi and clerics are devoted to their very special lifestyle and studies, monks too, etc. The rogue has enough skill points to have a decent profession, earn money with it. Maybe he is good at sneaking and other stuff, but he needs to survive. And sneak attack just resembles that. The rogue lacks in the strength and face to face combat department, but he can do damagee just as everyone can when flanking or surprising someone. And he gets better at it.
Anybody can take Skill Focus(basketweaving) and earn a living out of it. Rogues are none the better than anybody else in this regard.
Okay, I'm going to change my pic to a crotchety old man, sometime soon.
Just don't pick the one with the blindfold.
I get into enough trouble already without people mistaking me for other rabblerousers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many people hate rogues it's a wonder they're still around at all. I've never seen a rogue overpower a party. If the best powergamer at the table has a rogue, the rogue will be the most effective character in combat. Then again if that guy chose to play a sorcerer instead he's still the most effective.
Anyone who feels sneak attack is overpowered and in need of a 1/round limit would probably die of a heart attack if they saw the fighter or barbarian damage from a good player start rolling in. This is akin to all the "everyone has an 18 stat!" threads, if something so trivial is breaking your game then you've got bigger problems.
I came to think that some people just don´t like rogues in general. Rogue players tend to want to use their sleight of hands skill and others, generating a little income and doing other not so nice deeds, that can change gameplay. Some just want to be heroes and vaillaint knights, shining in their armor or godlike magic wielders.
They all forget one thing though.
They rogue is the only class that resembles a more normal being, usefull for everyday life. All others are freaks mostly. Rangers and druids hug trees, fighters have only their strength and skill at arms, magi and clerics are devoted to their very special lifestyle and studies, monks too, etc. The rogue has enough skill points to have a decent profession, earn money with it. Maybe he is good at sneaking and other stuff, but he needs to survive. And sneak attack just resembles that. The rogue lacks in the strength and face to face combat department, but he can do damagee just as everyone can when flanking or surprising someone. And he gets better at it.
Yeah! That's how I play rogues. Useful normal people, mercenary, dodgy chaps, perhaps professionals, perhaps people without principles; but always good at their skills.
I'm always looking for more coin, more opportunities, more schemes. Occasionally a throat gets slit. If a party member is really opposed to my antics, well, pick a fight when they are out of their armour.
Separately on wrought, my use is somewhat archaic, and I don't quite like the other way it has been spelled, "rorty", so I don't go for that usage, no what I more go for is thus:
There is Dostoevsky,
"True, again, we have all heard of miracles being wrought ever
since the 'age of miracles' passed away to return no more. We
had, and still have, our saints credited with performing the most
miraculous cures"
There is Shakespeare,
"Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
Until Nature, made a mistake in making you"
"MACBETH
149 Give me your favor: my dull brain was wrought
150 With things forgotten. Kind gentlemen, your pains
151 Are register'd where every day I turn
152 The leaf to read them. Let us toward the king."
"That thou hast under-wrought his lawful king"
"That living wrought me such exceeding trouble — Tell me, my friend, .... Hast thou not swom allegiance unto met Serf."
So I use it in the sense of: what hast thou wrought? Thy knave dare bring wrought to this table, conceived from dull and greedy brain? Captivated by the need, to power-game.
"Just don't pick the one with the blindfold.
I get into enough trouble already without people mistaking me for other rabblerousers."
Sure. :)
"Because the alchemist isnt the best at ANYTHING but is good at lots of stuff."
The alchemist is the best at true resurrection, in that they get it the quickest before the cleric, into it at 16 if they wish, cleric has to wait till 17. Even better than normal true res, they can drink a potion of it, and be insured against dying for a number of days, insta-raise at level 16, no casting time. That I found very off.
Yeah! That's how I play rogues. Useful normal people, mercenary, dodgy chaps, perhaps professionals, perhaps people without principles; but always good at their skills.
I'm always looking for more coin, more opportunities, more schemes. Occasionally a throat gets slit. If a party member is really opposed to my antics, well, pick a fight when they are out of their armour.
None of this has anything to to with a need to nerf sneak attack.
"Because the alchemist isnt the best at ANYTHING but is good at lots of stuff."
The alchemist is the best at true resurrection, in that they get it the quickest before the cleric, into it at 16 if they wish, cleric has to wait till 17. Even better than normal true res, they can drink a potion of it, and be insured against dying for a number of days, insta-raise at level 16, no casting time. That I found very off.
With all the crazy things full casters can do at 16th level this is what you latch on to? It is really a problem that an alchemist can ressurect someone at level 16 instead of 17? That isnt even power, that is just recovery. This isnt going to ruin storylines or bork encounters, if anything it would speed up the process of getting a character back alive and getting the story moving again. But again, balance is COMPLETELY out of whack by 16th level. Wizards can swipe people's souls, clone themselves, and literally turn into huge dragons. Clerics can create earth quakes, fire storms, call uppon planar allies, make them selves immune to spells, and drive people insane (or just off them). But bringing someone back from the dead is ban worthy?
Yeah! That's how I play rogues. Useful normal people, mercenary, dodgy chaps, perhaps professionals, perhaps people without principles; but always good at their skills.
I'm always looking for more coin, more opportunities, more schemes. Occasionally a throat gets slit. If a party member is really opposed to my antics, well, pick a fight when they are out of their armour.
Thing is I can do all that with other classes. I recently played an Inquisitor of Mask in Forgotten Realms game. I was better rogue than the rogue in that game. In a game I am the GM of at the moment the Ranger is doing the rogue stuff. Then there was a Detective Bard I've seen in one group replacing the rogue and doing a much better job at finding and disabling traps.
Not that this is a problem just pointing it's not rogue only thing. So basically the rogue can contribute here but not in combat? But an Inquisitor can contribute equally as well if not better yet can still rock out in Combat with a buff, bane and Judgment making the Rogues sneak attack look like a joke.
One thing I’ve gotten out of this thread is much more appreciation for my Gm.
Even though he has some pretty bunk houserules against rogues himself(mostly tumbling to avoid AoO) but nothing on par of that of 3.5 loyalist.
As an avid rogue player(this includes all 3.5 rogue types i.e. ninja, scout, beguiler etc.) your grasp of the rogue class erks me as it seems you dont even bother reading the classes before you ban them or play them
example:
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.
This just goes to show you don't really seem to read rules very well
I've played a 3.5 ninja and loved it but the simple fact is they get Sudden strike and not sneak attack.
Sudden Strike (Ex): If a ninja can catch an opponent
when he is unable to defend himself effectively from
her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
Whenever a ninja’s target is denied a Dexterity bonus to
Armor Class (whether the target actually has a Dexterity
bonus or not), the ninja deals an extra 1d6 points of
damage with her attack. This extra damage increases by
1d6 points for every two ninja levels thereafter. A ninja
can’t use sudden strike when flanking an opponent unless
that opponent is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC.
This damage also applies to ranged attacks against
targets up to 30 feet away. Creatures with concealment,
creatures without discernible anatomies, and creatures
immune to extra damage from critical hits are all immune
to sudden strikes. A ninja can’t make a sudden strike
while striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are
out of reach.
A ninja can’t use sudden strike to deliver nonlethal
damage. Weapons capable of dealing only nonlethal
damage don’t deal extra damage when used as part of a
sudden strike.
The extra damage from the sudden strike ability stacks
with the extra damage from sneak attack whenever both
would apply to the same target.
Sudden strike does not work when flanking only when the target is flat footed.
You can go invisible to get the Sudden Strike off but only a limited times per day.
Ghost Step (Su): Starting at 2nd level, a ninja can
spend one daily use of her ki power to become invisible
for 1 round. Using this ability is a swift action (see Swift
Actions and Immediate Actions, page 137) that does not
provoke attacks of opportunity.
At 10th level, a ninja can become ethereal when using
ghost step instead of becoming invisible.
But then again ghost step doesn't break invisiblity with the 3.5 ninja when attacking because its not based off of the spell.
Meaning ghost step is > greater Invisibly at level 2 and cant be dispelled.
So if im not mistaking that would be game breaking and banned from your games correct?
So how are you using this class because that would be ignoring a big portion of the 3.5 ninjas class ablilites that fall under your definition of "Cheese".
Unless you only want to houserule when used against you in your games.
*side note*
I and others that I know of, use it as a noun. We are naming something, something important for every DM to consider
In all of your examples of wrought not one of them has wrought as a noun(a person, place or thing), seems to be its mostly used as an adjective.
VerbIn all of your examples of wrought not one of them has wrought as a noun(a person, place or thing), seems to be its mostly used as an adjective.
It is a verb, he is using it as an adjective, and then claiming to be using it as a noun. *boggle*
Verbing noun, 3.5L, you are adjective.
Be at peace brothers, it is just a word.
Rort, wrought, cheese it is just a word for what seems off in games. I am not surprised the Pf players don't have a problem with the alchemist doing better than a cleric in what has long been a clerical area--bringing players back without xp loss. That is the way of things, and the classes now with all the recent changes. I can accept that, but the class is just not for my games.
Yep, aware sudden strike is different to sneak attack. I did play that ninja for a long time. Also played rogues, none of which, neither the ninja or the rogue got multiple precision sneak attack strikes in a round. Ghost step is good fun, yep it counts as greater invis, but with a very short duration. See I don't actually go for the greater invis I can now do multiple sneak attacks exploit. Any secondary or others are just standard attacks. With that in place in my games and others, and in the old games, whether it be sneak attack, or sudden, my characters have had no problems killing:
Wizards, giants, aberrations, elves, fighters, beasts, monks, etc.
It worked just fine, it never occurred to change it, not until the PF DM was a DM and then a player, you see. Because in PF, the word anytime was inserted into sneak attack. In 3.5 there was more debate on it, and more on either side, but to answer the forum question, it certainly seems PF has gone, yep.
just to get this straight Loyalist your not in favor of multisneak attack but your fine with casters getting more spells a round as their BAB goes up?
Also when did the alchemist start getting True Rez? I gotta start reading spell list better i guess.
Edit nevermind the true rez comment i forgot discoveries By Odin's Hammer i need to stop being a moron.
It sounds to me like 3.5 Loyalist should just get back on his lawn. If he wants to play a game with sensibilities and baselines more like 2E, maybe he should play 2E and stop getting off his old man lawn and poking the kids with his stick. If you can't accept that 3E and it's kin are different games from 2E, then don't play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It worked just fine, it never occurred to change it, not until the PF DM was a DM and then a player, you see. Because in PF, the word anytime was inserted into sneak attack. In 3.5 there was more debate on it, and more on either side, but to answer the forum question, it certainly seems PF has gone, yep.
So for funsies I cracked my 3.0 PHB, bought at GenCon in 2000, and looked up sneak attack. here's what it says.
"Basically, any time the rogue's target would be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC (whether he actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage."
So, no, any time has always been the case. I understand coming from 2e how you could confuse backstab with sneak attack, but they are fundamentally different abilities. Backstab virtually never happened in 2e and was notoriously impossible to pull off and the weapons you could do it with were extremely limited. It was a one-time attack for a damage multiplier.
Sneak attack is not, and only making a single attack with sneak attack is such an awful nerf to the rogue class as to functionally cripple it in combat. Sneak attack is not overpowered on multiple attacks. How much damage someone does is irrelevant if he can't hit, thus when we on these boards calculate how much damage something does we do the calculations for hit probability as well. The fact that you refuse to even look at these numbers shows me that you know how absurd your assumptions are about rogue damage.
I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe as precision-based, it is laughable that an individual can make multiple precision sneak attacks in six seconds. The balance must be observed, respected and preserved but not in a jar. Nosig, thats not how the game mechanics work. Regardless of what class, the character always gets their strength bonus on attack and damage rolls. Your point is invalid.
People keep talking about how things were back in the days of yor, about how they don't allow stuff because of how something was in second edition, but NEVER have I seen someone who understood why things were the way they were.
In second edition backstab didn't add some tiny amount of variable damage it multiplied the attack's total damage, usually far outstripping a single sneak attack from a modern rogue. Second everyone stopped gaining hitdice after 9th level or so (it was variable) so hp totals were much lower and as a result that one backstab meant a lot more in terms of relative damage. Next most rogues didn't get more than 1 attack per round unless they were dual wielding or throwing darts or somesuch like that, as multiple attacks were the domain of fighter types.
Similarly back in second edition fighter's iterative attacks were not at reduced chance to hit and had not clause stating they couldn't be used if the fighter moved. In fact the only time a fighter missed out on multiple attacks was if he charge, sort of the polar opposite of our pounce happy current era.
In short please stop talking about everything being good in the old times without considering why. If sneak attack is as limited as backstab it should give the same level of relative results as backstab.
Because in PF, the word anytime was inserted into sneak attack. In 3.5 there was more debate on it, and more on either side, but to answer the forum question, it certainly seems PF has gone, yep.
There was no debate on it, surely not by the time 3.5 came along. In the beginning of the 3E era, yes, there were actually a lot of people who misunderstood the sneak attack, BUT the wording IS clear (see above), AND it was clarified by the designers several times how sneak attacks exactly work (hint: not the way you are using them).
It worked just fine, it never occurred to change it, not until the PF DM was a DM and then a player, you see. Because in PF, the word anytime was inserted into sneak attack. In 3.5 there was more debate on it, and more on either side, but to answer the forum question, it certainly seems PF has gone, yep.So for funsies I cracked my 3.0 PHB, bought at GenCon in 2000, and looked up sneak attack. here's what it says.
"Basically, any time the rogue's target would be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC (whether he actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage."
So, no, any time has always been the case. I understand coming from 2e how you could confuse backstab with sneak attack, but they are fundamentally different abilities. Backstab virtually never happened in 2e and was notoriously impossible to pull off and the weapons you could do it with were extremely limited. It was a one-time attack for a damage multiplier.
Sneak attack is not, and only making a single attack with sneak attack is such an awful nerf to the rogue class as to functionally cripple it in combat. Sneak attack is not overpowered on multiple attacks. How much damage someone does is irrelevant if he can't hit, thus when we on these boards calculate how much damage something does we do the calculations for hit probability as well. The fact that you refuse to even look at these numbers shows me that you know how absurd your assumptions are about rogue damage.
Got me there, yeah I did find that in old 3.5. Yep. PF does the wording a bit different and I missed it, the "any time".
In second ed, backstab wasn't so hard to pull off. Lot of different ways to go about it.
As to one nerfing the rogue, from 3.0-beta that is about 13+ years the various groups I've been in whom have done it that way, and our rogues were always skilled jobbers. More d6s are not required, unless stats, hp and damage start to considerably jump. Tumble/acrobatics into flank and sneak is getting by with one a round.
"There was no debate on it"
There has indeed been much debate on it, there is always argument. I've looked at the forums discussing it, and the dms disliking it on balance or the question of so many precision attacks in one round.
You are right by the rules guys. Insults have been flagged.
Question for you loyalist in the majority of your campaigns what sort of enemies did you fight and were you dealing comparable damage to the other party members?
Yeah quite comparable damage. Lower than the barb, but not lower than many.
Lot of humanoids and varied humanoid opponents, not all tanks, not all skirmishers, not all human (lizardmen, orcs, mongrelmen, sahuaghin) some undead rock up (not so good for the rogues, but there is always something smart they can do, and don't favour many high CR undead), lot of beasts and animals, now that I think of it, way toooo many giants/ogres/trolls lol. Try to make sure aberrations don't get left out, but they were more common from another DM where I did play a 1 sudden attack a round character till the end of the campaign. So yeah, giants, beastly creatures, insects, humanoids, some flying like dragons and sphinxs. Can't be boring!
In the latest game, in Isger, lot of bandits, gremlins, trogs, orcs, goblins and zombies. Crucially here the rogue/marshal/fighter couldn't sneak the zombies and wights, so went medium armour, shield and scim and wore them down, got many kills.
Lot of humanoids and varied humanoid opponents, not all tanks, not all skirmishers, not all human (lizardmen, orcs, mongrelmen, sahuaghin) some undead rock up (not so good for the rogues, but there is always something smart they can do, and don't favour many high CR undead), lot of beasts
You know sneak attack works against corporeal undead in Pathfinder, yes?
Oh I'm not playing pathfinder sir. See my name.
Sometimes though, I am playing in a pathfinder adventure with a 3.5 character, craaaaazy.
Oh I'm not playing pathfinder sir. See my name.
Sometimes though, I am playing in a pathfinder adventure with a 3.5 character, craaaaazy.
Then why are you posting in the pathfinder section of the forums and not the 3.5 section?
Oh I'm not playing pathfinder sir. See my name.
Sometimes though, I am playing in a pathfinder adventure with a 3.5 character, craaaaazy.
It seems odd that you would then be posting in this discussion. People were talking about Pathfinder rules. Coming in here and saying "Yeah, it's completely broken", and then when pressed on the point, you add "I'm not playing Pathfinder", it feels duplicitous and inflammatory.
I'm not even going to go into whether you are playing 3.5e either, but if you plan on posting in Pathfinder threads that assume Pathfinder rules, you might want to preface your post with "Well, it all really matters on gamestyle and houserules. You see, in my game...".
Or even just ending your post with "But that's just my experience. YMMV".
I figure this thread would have been a lot shorter and with less vitriol if this was understood from the beginning.
It can be hard, playing the game a certain way for decades, only to find many people playing it completely different. You want to feel that your way is right, and the other way is wrong, to justify that you aren't doing it wrong.
It's better to just accept that people take different things from the game, and aren't necessarily the lesser for it. It's not even a matter of maturity... it can simply be a matter of taste, desires, and for reasons you might not have even thought of.