Ah not at all.
To the very first post I would say, the ruling on sneak attacks should be determined by what type of damage the group does and what seems fair.
Some in 3.5 have stuck with the old 1 a round backstab, give a forum search a go for more on that. PF is as many as can be, but there were some through the pages (what are we up to now?) that haven't gone that way.
To the very first post I would say, the ruling on sneak attacks should be determined by what type of damage the group does and what seems fair.
Actually in your first post in this thread you called multiple sneak attack damage "ridiculous" and implied that it is not intended by the rules to have several SAs per round.
Now notice it is called sneak attack. It is not called round of sneak attacks, salvo of sneak attacks, the plural is never mentioned
So you were wrong, are needlessly nerfing an already weak class and not man enough to move away one inch from an opinion that was proven to be based on flat out wrong assumptions. Probably in some misguided attempt to save face.
Whatever that means on the internet.
What is your opinion on this. Do you allow one sneak attack even if the Rogue has multiple attacks? Is it fair to allow it/not allow it?
Hey Aretas, just linking you to here. Go with what feels right and seems balanced to you.
To Hyla,
Everyone can change their opinion Hyla, and when they are exposed to new and compelling evidence, they should do so.
It is completely allowed by the rules. Legal and legit.
Whether it is right for the game is best determined by the dm.
Likewise if the dm can see it being abused, or it is abused, they should do as they see fit--it is their game.
So what's the problem Hyla? I've already acknowledged the majority was right here by the rules. Or is it wrong for me to have a diverging opinion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's already been answered.
Okay, the challenge of successfully concluding a forum thread is pretty high. So you each get 3200xp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately like life there is no real end to a forum thread -- this, just like the BBEG will be back in another week or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately like life there is no real end to a forum thread -- this, just like the BBEG will be back in another week or so.
That just means more Exp.
I check for traps.
Cautiously, very cautiously. I keep an eye on the ceiling, and a torch lit to scare away the grue.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
The dampness of the underground passageway dims your torchlight as you carefully proceed further underground. After what seems an eternity of walking, the passageway begins to widen and a dim light emits from the crack of a half open doorway.
Cries of pain and anguish spill out of this opening, warning you that to proceed any further may mean capture or a slow, agonizing death...
I removed some posts. No name-calling.
Simple math. Rogue vs. fighter, level 1. Both have 18s in their attack stat (and we'll be generous here and assume that the rogue has 18 Strength rather than 18 Dex, allowing him to pass on Weapon Finesse and add additional damage to his melee attacks). Fighter has a greatsword and uses Power Attack, rogue has two short swords and uses Two Weapon Fighting.
Fighter attack: +4 (+6 with flanking), 2d6 + 9 damage.
Rogue attack: +2/+2 (+4/+4 with flanking), 2d6 + 4 damage twice.
If the rogue hits twice, he's doing an average of 21 damage. Meanwhile, the lowly fighter is doing an average of 15 damage per hit. Assuming both attacks of the rogue's hit--unlikely--he does a whopping +6 damage over the fighter. And he can only do this when he's flanking whereas the fighter can keep swinging round after round. And the fighter's attacks are more likely to connect because of his superior attack bonus.
If we turn this situation so that it is less favorable to the rogue (give him 18 Dex and 10-12 Strength, which is far more likely), the numbers skew back in favor of the fighter.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter because the average damage is enough to kill your basic orc, which has a whopping 6 HP. The sneak attacker has the potential to kill two orcs in a round rather than one (but so does the fighter if he has cleave!).
SNEAK ATTACK SO OVERPOWERED, NERF IT NOW.
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.
I never knew he supported that. It is probably negated by house rules though. Someone brought this up before, and I showed them how it could break their game. I had to prove that was no facing in pathfinder first though.
In short 3.5loyalist is not playing the game by the rules.PS: @ 3.5 loyalist: Killing monsters in the game does not mean a whole lot as its own statement since any other houserules you have in place are probably a factor, along with group playstyle. That rogue would not be worth much in any other group, and is not much better than an expert(NPC class).
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.
so a rogue that has multi classed into two other classes is dealing super absured SA damage?
how many attacks does he possibly have as he is multiclassing two med BAB classes and probably a few levels of fighter?
assuming about level 7ish and lets say rogue3/fighter2/marshal2(just because you have a few levels a rogue doesnt mean you are a rogue)
that's only a BAB of 5 and only 2d6 extra damage. so max 2-3 attacks with TWF and haste.
and in reading a thread where you talked about your stat generating preferences(3d6 no rerolling 1s) which usually yeild fairly low stats as you have stated. i can't really see the "rogue" accomplishing much damage wise as you really have to spread yourself thin if you want to have a decent str/con/dex/int and cha.
sounds like the rogue in your game managed to deal the mop up damage after others did the bulk.
Rogues are supposed to deal an average of Level X 10 DPR. Plain and simple, at least by the low to middle standards of Optimizers. If your not doing at least that, well then your better off finding another profession.
Can you provide a link to some post or web article or whatnot proposing that speicfic expectation Diffan? I used to be a CO regular and I don't recall seeing it anywhere.
Hmmm, it's been almost two years since I played my rogue last and it was my first one, so I wasn't sure if my DPR was too high or what. The build was Swashbuckler 3/ Rogue 6/ swordsage 1 at the time and with Superior Finesse (from the AEG book called Feats) allowed my Rogue to use Dex in place of Str for melee attacks. This, compiled with the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike ability (Int to damage) and Daring Outlaw (Complete Scoundrel) had my Sneak Attack damage up to about +5d6 per attack. My BAB was +7 and I used Improved Two-Weapon Fighting with an Assassin's shortsword from THIS web-enhancment. So all 4 attacks on a full-round attack was 6d6+9 with +1 shortsword of least life drinking and 7d6+9 with +1 assassinating shortsword of least life drinking.
With all that, I was doing about 95 to 120 DPR and I thought it was a bit much (over-powered). But when I went to the Char-Ops boards back then, and asked Is my rogue too overpowered? the majority of posters said no, that I had a good crew of people at the table and they made me better at killing things. But that my build would start to see significant decline over the next levels of progression because I was going Shadowdancer for 10 levels.
Here was my character's sheet---> Zakarus
AKARUS
XP 9,600
Male human rogue 6/ swashbuckler 3/ swordsage 1
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Senses Perception +14 (+17 vs. traps)
===========================================================================
DEFENSE
===========================================================================
AC 27, touch 19, flat-footed 19 (+5 armor, +6 Dex, +2 shield, +2 Cha, +1 deflection, +1 natural); Dodge, +2 to AC vs. traps
hp 96 (6d8+6 plus 3d10+3 plus 1d8+1)
Fort +7, Ref +17 (+19 vs. traps), Will +8 (+10 vs. fear)
Resist evasion
===========================================================================
OFFENSE
===========================================================================
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 assassinating shortsword of least life drinking +15/+10 (1d6+9/19-20) or
Melee +1 assassinating shortsword of least life drinking +13/+8 (1d6+9/19-20) and +1 shortsword of least life drinking +13/+8 (1d6+8/19-20) with Improved Two-Weapon Fighting or
Melee mwk dagger +15/+10 (1d4+8/19-20)
Ranged +1 shocking elvencraft composite longbow (Str +1) +14/+9 (1d8+2/x3, plus 1d6 electricity)
Atk Options bleeding attack, disruptive attack, sneak attack +5d6
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 6th)
3/day—no light
Skill Tricks nimble stand, shrouded dance
Maneuvers and Stances Known (IL 5th)
Stance—step of the wind (1st)
Strike—fan the flames (3rd), soaring raptor strike‡ (3rd), wolf fang strike‡ (1st)
Boost—burning blade (1st)
Counter—mind over body‡ (2nd)
Other—shadow jaunt‡ (2nd)
Disciplines—Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Shadow Hand, Tiger Claw
‡ Readied maneuver
===========================================================================
STATISTICS
===========================================================================
Str 10, Dex 22, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 14
Base Atk +7; CMB +7; CMD 23
Feats Combat Reflexes, Daring Outlaw, Dodge, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Mobility, Superior Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +16, Bluff +12, Climb +8, Craft (poison) +10, Diplomacy +7, Disable Device +18 (+21 against traps), Disguise +8, Escape Artist +11, Intimidate +6, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (local) +8, Perform (dance) +11, Profession (apothecary) +6, Sense Motive +10, Slight of Hand +10, Stealth +22, Swim +4, Use Magic Device +13
Languages Common, Elven
SQ bravado, bravery +2, insightful strike (+2), trapfinding, trap sense +3, rogue talent (bleeding attack, combat trick, minor magic)
Combat Gear potion of rage, (2) oil of magic weapon +1, 1 potion of tree shape, wand of produce flame (CL 4th; 25 charges), 1 oil of shillelagh, oil of bless weapon, wand of knock (29 charges), eternal wand (ebon eyes) 2/day, 4 acid flasks
Possessions +1 mithral chain shirt, shield ring, sihedron medallion, stalker's mask, +1 shortsword [least crystal of life drinking] with oil chamber, +1 assassinating shortsword [least crystal of life drinking], ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1, gauntlets of ogre power, +1 shocking elvencraft composite longbow with 25 arrows, masterwork thieves tools, masterwork surgeon's tools, masterwork dagger, standard adventuring kit, grappling hook, 7,066 gp, 682 sp, 230 cp.
Sources Used: Pathfinder_OGC, Complete Scoundrel, Book of Vile Darkness, Complete Warrior, Web Enhancement: Cityscape, urban tools part 3, Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords
As for the direct quote of where I got that, it was on the Char_Ops board from this:
Apr 16, 2010 -- 8:37AM, Senevri wrote:
Pathfinder undead take sneak attack damage, as a rule.
But, yea. A moderately optimal melee character deals about level x 10 damage per round. This is what should be EXPECTED by the DM. Any less than level x 5, and you'd better bring something besides damage to the table.
I had figured this was the normal concensus of the boards. I figured it fit anyways.
We played a high level 3.5 game with a TWF rogue that got 7 attacks per round on a fairly frequent basis. What with the bonuses to hit the group was able to provide him, he would usually connect with 5 of the 7 attacks. His damage was appreciable.
The same campaign saw a barbarian (with a homemade prestige class tacked on to it) that consistently dealt significant damage to nearly all enemies. The rogue could outdamage him against some foes, but overall the barbarian dealt more damage in total.
The same campaign saw my druid deal out ridiculous amounts of melee damage when self-buffed, although it admittedly took many rounds to get that buffed up. The druid also had a ridiculous AC and the most hit points in the party when buffed and wildshaped.
The rogue rolled boatloads of dice to get his damage, which seems "OMG!" when you see it. The barbarian and druid roll a few dice but their damage comes from bonuses not dice.
We likened it to the old 1e days with a player who had "the combo": Hammer of Thunderbolts, Belt of Giant Strength, and a Girdle of Ogre Strength. You roll a wimpy 1d4 for damage but we always said "wait for it..." and the damage piles on due to the bonuses.
TL/DR all of this is to say that multiple sneak attacks aren't out of line in today's game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed more posts. Play nice, and do not use the word "retarded" in that way.
In my experience, the rogue gets off full-round sneak attacks MAYBE once per battle, unless the party is REEEEAAAAALLY investing themselves in setting it up, with the wizard and cleric stunning and blinding people left and right, in which case the enemy is "defeated" anyway.
In that one round, they MIGHT outdamage the fighter, if he rolls well on attack rolls.
In all the other rounds, the fighter is wondering why they keep the skulking douche around when he barely contributes in battle, as the fighter does amazing damage on every round, always hitting everything he swings against.
I can't believe more people are not seeing this. Are you not playing the game?
In my experience, the rogue gets off full-round sneak attacks MAYBE once per battle, unless the party is REEEEAAAAALLY investing themselves in setting it up, with the wizard and cleric stunning and blinding people left and right, in which case the enemy is "defeated" anyway.
In that one round, they MIGHT outdamage the fighter, if he rolls well on attack rolls.
In all the other rounds, the fighter is wondering why they keep the skulking douche around when he barely contributes in battle, as the fighter does amazing damage on every round, always hitting everything he swings against.
I can't believe more people are not seeing this. Are you not playing the game?
I played my rogue with combat first and foremost on my mind. I paid a wizard gold so he could craft me an Eternal Wand with the spell Ebon Eyes so I could see in my own No Light spell. Against normal vision creatures, every attack I make adds Sneak Attack. I got a maneuver from the Tigre Claw discipline which allows me two-attacks on a standard action (normally used 1st round). I try to remain as self-sufficent as I can without the need for the Sorcerer's Haste spell, the cleric's bless/divine favor/righteous wrath of the faithfull spells, or flanking from my melee-allies. So when I hit 3 out of 4 attacks, I'm dealing 26 + 20d6 + 6 bleed per turn which I think is about average to decent DPR.
I removed more posts. Play nice, and do not use the word "retarded" in that way.
What if it's under the effect of a Slow spell?
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.so a rogue that has multi classed into two other classes is dealing super absured SA damage?
how many attacks does he possibly have as he is multiclassing two med BAB classes and probably a few levels of fighter?
assuming about level 7ish and lets say rogue3/fighter2/marshal2(just because you have a few levels a rogue doesnt mean you are a rogue)
that's only a BAB of 5 and only 2d6 extra damage. so max 2-3 attacks with TWF and haste.and in reading a thread where you talked about your stat generating preferences(3d6 no rerolling 1s) which usually yeild fairly low stats as you have stated. i can't really see the "rogue" accomplishing much damage wise as you really have to spread yourself thin if you want to have a decent str/con/dex/int and cha.
sounds like the rogue in your game managed to deal the mop up damage after others did the bulk.
No he wasn't doing absurd sneak attack damage, or absurd damage overall. He certainly isn't the mop up, he has the second best damage of three of the melee characters. He, as cavalry, leads the charge. Having only one sneak doesn't ruin him, but he also doesn't get above the high strength gnoll barbarian very much, except on the crit sneak.
Checked the Skip article. On this:
"A 20th-level rogue fighting with two weapons could deal 40d6 points of damage or more in a single round of sneak attacks, which is enough to make most DMs cry "foul" the first time a PC tries it."
Why that's right Skip. Yeah it is foul for me. I'm not running such a game. Double sneak attacks from one person, triple sneak attacks, quadruple and up? It is exactly what I am not doing, and never nor will run. Checked the rest of it, mmmm, yep aware when it qualifies, how hard it can be to pull off. Though I've never had much trouble (invest in stealth, not str).
On this:
"But, yea. A moderately optimal melee character deals about level x 10 damage per round."
My games don't have that. Oh sure at some levels we might make it (level 1 isn't so hard to do 10, lol), and some levels it is easier than others, but yeah, not a real high damage group. No one is guaranteed to be doing 50 damage at level five all the time. We have misses after all (why don't people mention those? You guys do miss right? Wouldn't that throw out all expected damages?). I'm sure you can mix your magic items and your boosts, I see mention of crafting, but yes, low magic games are what I run guys. So these equations just seem really focused on damage, which isn't what my games are centrally about.
"Rogues are supposed to deal an average of Level X 10 DPR. Plain and simple, at least by the low to middle standards of Optimizers. If your not doing at least that, well then your better off finding another profession."
Rogues aren't just about DPR. They are about so much more. The two-weapon fighting shishkabob rogues in Dragon age are about damage, the dnd rogue gets so many more skills and defensive abilities. There is more than just damage on the table. In fact, this would get kind of odd if it got brought up in game through characters. For example:
Fighter: roguish type, your damage is not impressive, you do not tear people open quick enough!
Rogue: err, you do realise I am not specialised in killing? I'm a burglar mostly, not a hit-man, not an assassin. My skills and focuses are in breaking and entering, disarming traps, con-games, swindles and swiping purses. I'm just a thief guys, a nice-guy, not a killer. *smiles innocently*
What I'm getting at is not all rogues are great at damage, and placing some seeming requirement that they should be, really pushes the class in one direction. If their profession is robbery via stealth and trickery it really makes sense for them to not be so sweet at damage (this is generally how I make rogues, but I have had some get up close and cut them rogues). They are then good at their profession, but not good at DPR. Being better at skills than damage certainly doesn't make them bad rogues. Those skills can be really useful.
My pet peeve are GMs who house rule without any consideration of the math.
Example:
"Why that's right Skip. Yeah it is foul for me. I'm not running such a game. Double sneak attacks from one person, triple sneak attacks, quadruple and up? It is exactly what I am not doing, and never nor will run."It's okay if you bring it up at the start of the game. Tell your players that rogue will be a non-combat class in your games. It's not okay to nerf something on the fly because you're not "feeling" it, while completely and utterly breaking the game through ignorance of math and the mechanics of a class.
There's of course no logical response to why a certain number of dice is wrong or bad if you do not consider the underlying math. An arbitrary "40d6!!! OUTRAGEOUS!!!" comment means nothing if you haven't actually compared it to something. You can remove fireballs from wizards, sneak attack from rogues and rage from barbarian, but just make sure you break those classes with the players knowing it.
Preferably though, you should consider the actual numbers and not use "gut math".
From what I read his games dont have the normal melee brutes doing what we call normal damage either. As an example I can push 100 points of damage per round with a smiting pally at level 10. In his game I would get angry stares.
Evidence:
On this:
"But, yea. A moderately optimal melee character deals about level x 10 damage per round."My games don't have that.
From what I read his games dont have the normal melee brutes doing what we call normal damage either. As an example I can push 100 points of damage per round with a smiting pally at level 10. In his game I would get angry stares.I'm sorry, but I just don't believe him. He is only saying that to make his point. If his melee characters don't do that kind of damage, then he is running a game without magic. It's not that I haven't played with GMs like him, because I definitely have, it's that I know the common arguments and they never hold up. It's the gut math that some GMs use that I just can't stand as it frankly breaks the game more often than help it.
He did say he ran low level games, and I think he stays below level 9 IIRC.
I also dont think he knows how his changes affect the game, which is why he did not understand that the why rogues are not running the show in our games.
My wife's fighter with str 14, dex 14, con 14, int 14, wis 14, cha 8 was still putting out enough damage to drop cr equivalent foes in about a round -- she was using a falcata but still, other than that she was just a mobile fighter that specialized.
My pet peeve are GMs who house rule without any consideration of the math.
Example:
"Why that's right Skip. Yeah it is foul for me. I'm not running such a game. Double sneak attacks from one person, triple sneak attacks, quadruple and up? It is exactly what I am not doing, and never nor will run."It's okay if you bring it up at the start of the game. Tell your players that rogue will be a non-combat class in your games. It's not okay to nerf something on the fly because you're not "feeling" it, while completely and utterly breaking the game through ignorance of math and the mechanics of a class.
There's of course no logical response to why a certain number of dice is wrong or bad if you do not consider the underlying math. An arbitrary "40d6!!! OUTRAGEOUS!!!" comment means nothing if you haven't actually compared it to something. You can remove fireballs from wizards, sneak attack from rogues and rage from barbarian, but just make sure you break those classes with the players knowing it.
Preferably though, you should consider the actual numbers and not use "gut math".
It is not completely a non-combat class though. If you can pick up the proficiencies, you can do good damage with a bastard sword or falchion and one sneak a round. I've seen a mounted rogue/melee class with good damage recently, favours the scimitar. My best combat rogue was the boring old acrobatics sneak attack type, with a brilliant ac through feats. He could go toe to toe with a lot. If a game isn't really high damage, one a round is good. Doesn't make them a non-combatant because they only roll two attacks and some d6s.
Question rogue players, do you find yourselves often taking the two weapon rogues?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No -- I often do not take the two weapon rogue. When I do I'm often supplementing with other classes either for more mobility with my attacks or for a better chance to hit.
From what I read his games dont have the normal melee brutes doing what we call normal damage either. As an example I can push 100 points of damage per round with a smiting pally at level 10. In his game I would get angry stares.I'm sorry, but I just don't believe him. He is only saying that to make his point. If his melee characters don't do that kind of damage, then he is running a game without magic. It's not that I haven't played with GMs like him, because I definitely have, it's that I know the common arguments and they never hold up. It's the gut math that some GMs use that I just can't stand as it frankly breaks the game more often than help it.He did say he ran low level games, and I think he stays below level 9 IIRC.
I also dont think he knows how his changes affect the game, which is why he did not understand that the why rogues are not running the show in our games.
Played in a pathfinder game recently as a pc. And my rogue was the star of the show. See we had a defensive paladin (so not high damage), a few other characters, but the decent damage rogue was the star of the show, because he used his skills very competently, certainly got into the decision-making and could fight pretty well and run really fast if it went badly. And yeah, I just went one sneak a round (one handed scim, other hand free).
In games I run, players usually get to level 12 eventually, if the campaign lasts for a bit. My Isger game is currently at average level 6, started as level 1 commoners, then could improve out of their humble beginnings with xp.
I like the falcata, and the weapon locking temple sword.
Just to be clear about damage on a fighter:
My wife's fighter at level 16 looked like this:
Str 22(14+2 level +6 item) Dex 20 (14+6 item) Con 16(+2 level) Int 14 Wis 14 Cha 8
Feats: weapon focus(falcata), power attack, exotic weapon proficiency(falcata), weapon specialization(falcata), greater weapon focus(falcata), greater weapon specialization(falcata), shield focus, greater shield focus, Iron Will, nimble moves, dodge, Taldan Duelist, toughness, improved critical(falcata), blind fighting, acrobatic steps... and some other feat I'm forgetting (maybe improved initiative... she was human too). The falcata was +3 and this was before the errata clarifying that leaping attack took out all of the weapon training (instead of just weapon training 1) so that also had her another +4 (+2 from the class feature and then duelist gloves)
She had the charming trait... and reactive I think.
Her full attacks were:
+29/+24/+19/+14 (1d8+30 -- 17~20/x3)
Before the bard stepped in.
After the bard she had another +6 to hit, an extra attack, and +5 to damage (haste, good hope and inspire courage) putting her at:
+35/+35/+30/+25/+20 (1d8+35 -- 17~20/x3)
She was regularly getting 42 points of damage a hit, with 4~5 hits landing each round, one of which was a critical. Her damage in a round was easily 394 points... if the enemy lasted that long.
We all agreed at the end of it that this was much more than was needed (please note this was one handed with a buckler in the off hand providing a +4+magical bonus shield bonus) and have since not gone for out for weapon damage with fighters.
My wife's first fighter folks -- all she wanted was "to be good with a falcata... give me the feat that helps me hit more with it and do more damage."
I like the falcata, and the weapon locking temple sword.
One person in a group I played with did use the temple sword two weapon fighting with a kukri in his off hand as a rogue (x)/ranger (2). Since he could lock his opponent in place and had the feat that made them lose their dex bonus while locked down he did nice sneak damage and simply used the off hand attack to lock them down so he could beat them up with the kukri... it was nasty how well it worked for him.
I wouldn't consider him a two weapon fighter since the only time he used the temple sword was to lock them in place with blade bind and then he simply used his kukri to cut them open. The two ranger levels were purely for the prerequisite-less two weapon fighting.
