to 3.5L: from back to near your 1st post.
How was a barbarian receiving SA?
They have uncanny dodge at level 2.
Improved at level 5.
Have you read those?
Also, have you compared a level 12 Fighter's DPR versus a level 12 Rogue's with SA?
@3.5 Loyalist: You, Sir, are an immensely patient person. I have a great deal of respect for you, even if I don't agree on your feelings on sneak attack.
@ everyone harping on 3.5L: ** spoiler omitted **
Thanks Davor. That means a lot. I look at it like this, we are conversing, some really have firm opinions, but we run what we run, we interpret how we interpret, we rule how we rule. And there isn't much point getting really angry, because we generally aren't in each others games--so no one here is going to be limited to one sneak a round, save Equalizer, whom I game with.
Kyrt, yeah I just love two-hander rogues (not zweihander greatsword rogues, that I don't quite like so much thematically). Polearms are really overlooked often, I've known Equalizer to take polearm rogues. I also Spalding, made a weapon locking fighter rogue that went temple sword, small scythe (something like that anyway). So lock, sneak, saw their head off over the coming rounds. Damage was great, the first was the sneak, the rest was the sawing. Did well in testing.
uncanny dodge doesn't cut it. Improved uncanny dodge throws off the sneak attacks. Even then, its dependent on their level vs yours.
That sword doesn't do 20d6, or 5d6+5d6+5d6+5d6. It is a nice blade, and I do think it is a little over-powered, though not greatly.
Given the other skills and areas of expertise of the rogue, I stop it at one a round. You keep saying the rogue is a melee class, but to me it seems different to that. It is capable of a nice damaging strike a round, and a follow up or three of normal attacks if it has bab, two weapon etc--but all those attacks on the flat footed or flanked capable of being precision? Naaa, not sold on its balance. Although I do believe it would balance with high damage games--one throws a giant mod, one throws a giant bag of dice.
I've got no problem with it putting the fighter or barb to shame sometimes with good rolls, but I am not convinced they always should equal fighters and barbs in damage, and combat capabilities. Multiple precision strikes still seems off to me. The +1 BAB per level classes are more purely melee (or ranged) focus than the rogue, which has worse bab, but more skills, so I am not sure their damage should be out and out as close to equal with the others, as possible.
People say, they should match, shouldn't fall behind, but I furrow my brow and think, not everyone should be doing the same damage. As always, I also think that really fixating on damage (DPR especially) isn't healthy for the game or the roleplaying tradition. There is more, the rogues can do more (seduction and sleight of hand checks, woot!) so the shouldn't always balance on damage with greatswordsmen fighters or greataxemen barbs.
That sword doesn't do 20d6, or 5d6+5d6+5d6+5d6. It is a nice blade, and I do think it is a little over-powered, though not greatly.
Given the other skills and areas of expertise of the rogue, I stop it at one a round. You keep saying the rogue is a melee class, but to me it seems different to that. It is capable of a nice damaging strike a round, and a follow up or three of normal attacks if it has bab, two weapon etc--but that all attacks on the flat footed or flanked to be precision? Naaa, not sold on its balance. I've got no problem with it putting the fighter or barb to shame sometimes with good rolls, but I am not convinced they always should equal fighters and barbs in damage, and combat capabilities. Multiple precision strikes still seems off to me. The +1 BAB per level classes are more purely melee (or ranged) focus than the rogue, which has worse bab, but more skills, so I am not sure their damage should be out and out as close to equal with the others, as possible.
People say, they should match, shouldn't fall behind, but I furrow my brow and think, not everyone should be doing the same damage. As always, I also think that really fixating on damage (DPR especially) isn't healthy for the game or the roleplaying tradition. There is more, the rogues can do more (seduction and sleight of hand checks, woot!) so the shouldn't always balance on damage with greatswordsmen fighters or greataxemen barbs.
Rogues capable of dealing sneak attack on EVERY attack in a round still don't keep up with fighter and barbarian damage.
In my games they come close, sometimes ahead, sometimes back. Which is why I don't change it.
I've even had a monk player get jealous of a single ninja sudden strike a round and the damage it could pull off (it isn't sneak, but as a precision I also put it to one a round). He had to hit more to equal, more effort in a sense, the ninja just went one, and the notorious, half-hearted slice (what we call the second rogue attack in a round, somewhat ironically because we've seen quite a few crits off it).
"or developing a stable city-state."
*Raises hand*
Actually the kingmaker pathfinder campaign is about that.
"This is a largely combat-focused RPG."
No, it really depends how the party plays it, and what type of game your DM is running. I've been in politics heavy games, investigation heavy games, gambling heavy sessions (stakes are high but no one takes damage) and sessions of pure role-playing and info gathering with little to no combat.
And don't forget the mass combat sessions, where how much damage the pcs do isn't really important, but what they do on the battlefield and how the larger battle turns out/success of plans is central.
"There are numerous problems with saying that rogues should accept being useless in combat"
That is an exaggeration. The rogues in my games, and the rogues I've played do quite fine with just one a round. You can make a combat rogue or rogue multiclass that does their sneak and uses the remainder of their attacks to finish off the foe. Sneak, then crit with a good weapon is an oldie but a goodie.
"but by pointless, arbitrary and unmotivated nerfs to sneak attack "
I've already explained my motivations. You seem to be trying some rhetorical tricks here, exaggeration and dismissal.
"You need a high str to do damage, high dex to survive in your light armor, high con because you have a lower HD, high int for skill use and points, high wis for skill use and high cha for skills too. "
Whoa whoa whoa. You do realise the rogue doesn't need all high stats? In most tiers of point buy, the rogue can't even have all high stats, and that low stat characters with one or two strengths can get by just fine in non-powergaming games--in games without monsters that have a massive ac, you don't need all that strength just to hit.. At level 1, a rogue with an average stat of 13 (so a few 16s, most 10) can kill an orc or goblin just fine. What types of games are being run determine what is required. In a low stat low magic game, yeah, the rogue is just fine with a few good stats, a smart use of skills and attacks. If you get caught up in the necessity of rogues having high ability scores, you can get caught up in the necessity of having multiple sneak attacks "to stay competitive".
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?
I think the issue here is that our definition of good damage and yours is not the same. The rogue pulls in at about 40ish point of DPR at level 10 if we use our rules, and that is if we don't use TWF which actually gets us more damage than if we do use it which means we put dex as a secondary attribute for a combat focused rogue. Your rules would being him down to 28 DPR which does not cut it at level 10. A level 4 or 5 full BAB character can do that at level 6.
16 strength
falchion 2d4+4(str X 1.5)+6(power attack)+1 magic weapon=17 on average if the attack hits most of the time. The second attack will probably come in about out 8 points of damage since I am accounting for misses. So we get 25 point of damage, and I have not even included buffs from casters, a belt of strength, weapon specialization, rage, smiting, favored enemy, or anything else a full BAB character would use.
In short a full BAB character that is not trying is doing about the same amount of damage as a rogue that is 4 level higher under your rules so I have to ask how is the rogue keeping up?
|
In short a full BAB character that is not trying is doing about the same amount of damage as a rogue that is 4 level higher under your rules so I have to ask how is the rogue keeping up?
Because his fighters don't do that, silly. They use longswords in one hand with 14 STR, and take Combat Expertise instead of Power Attack.
@3.5 Loyalist: You, Sir, are an immensely patient person. I have a great deal of respect for you, even if I don't agree on your feelings on sneak attack.
@ everyone harping on 3.5L: ** spoiler omitted **
Most of us are not being rude to him. We are just disagreeing. If you feel certain posters are overstepping boundaries then flag the post or call them out on it.
Because his fighters don't do that, silly. They use longswords in one hand with 14 STR, and take Combat Expertise instead of Power Attack.In short a full BAB character that is not trying is doing about the same amount of damage as a rogue that is 4 level higher under your rules so I have to ask how is the rogue keeping up?
:)
So the rogue is nerfed not because it is too good in combat, but because people choose to play in such as way as to do much less damage.Even if I drop power attack, and then add in rage, or smite, or etc the damage can still get back to 28ish numbers unless the classes don't use those abilities.
PS:I am assuming the above post was you just kidding, because to say class X is too good only because class Y is not using all of its potential.......
PS2:I am not calling TOZ unreasonable, at least not this time. :)
Because his fighters don't do that, silly. They use longswords in one hand with 14 STR, and take Combat Expertise instead of Power Attack.In short a full BAB character that is not trying is doing about the same amount of damage as a rogue that is 4 level higher under your rules so I have to ask how is the rogue keeping up?
Alas! The high damage greatsword barb gnoll just died recently. Got into a bad fight with npcs, who had polearms. Didn't go well.
The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
"Please understand that you are not even making a case at this point.
The Earth is 6000 years old because I said so."
Ha, I'm not talking about creationism here. I'm saying that it isn't required in our games, so it hasn't been changed from what we thought to what the rules say. If it isn't required based on years of gaming experience from both sides of the dms screen, I'm not sure what is. Also recall that one dm did use it as you chaps understand it, and almost killed the player, he had to fudge the rolls so that he survived the four sneak attacks (he's not so good at bluffing, but he'll get better). So it was also bad when applied evenly, when it has been tried.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alas! The high damage greatsword barb gnoll just died recently. Got into a bad fight with npcs, who had polearms. Didn't go well.The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
Now see, there's a conclusion to be drawn from this, but I just can't put my finger on it. :P
Now see, there's a conclusion to be drawn from this, but I just can't put my finger on it. :P
Alas! The high damage greatsword barb gnoll just died recently. Got into a bad fight with npcs, who had polearms. Didn't go well.The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
Now see, there's a conclusion to be drawn from this, but I just can't put my finger on it. :P
Alas! The high damage greatsword barb gnoll just died recently. Got into a bad fight with npcs, who had polearms. Didn't go well.The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
So I'm lying that the defensive oriented characters have survived? And the offensive character died because of low ac and too many opponents. Hp only helps so much. Whereas the fighter is so defensive, she even has die-hard so she can take more of a beating, and keep attacks off others.
Because his fighters don't do that, silly. They use longswords in one hand with 14 STR, and take Combat Expertise instead of Power Attack.In short a full BAB character that is not trying is doing about the same amount of damage as a rogue that is 4 level higher under your rules so I have to ask how is the rogue keeping up?
Alas! The high damage greatsword barb gnoll just died recently. Got into a bad fight with npcs, who had polearms. Didn't go well.
The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
"Please understand that you are not even making a case at this point.
The Earth is 6000 years old because I said so."
Ha, I'm not talking about creationism here. I'm saying that it isn't required in our games, so it hasn't been changed from what we thought to what the rules say. If it isn't required based on years of gaming experience from both sides of the dms screen, I'm not sure what is. Also recall that one dm did use it as you chaps understand it, and almost killed the player, he had to fudge the rolls so that he survived the four sneak attacks (he's not so good at bluffing, but he'll get better). So it was also bad when applied evenly, when it has been tried.
Are they alive because they are doing well, or because, like a certain player in my game, they don't do enough to be worthy of the bad guy's attention in combat which is the opposite of the barbarian in my game who does a lot of damage and almost died for it.
I do see a similarity in that regard.
Also:
The fact that the GM almost killed someone with sneak as written means nothing on its own. Maybe the player ignored AC. Maybe the GM had a couple of lucky(really high) rolls. It could be an issue of tactics, and so on. I understand you run less combat heavy games, and dice are fudged which you just admitted to allow for less optomized characters to be played. I find nothing wrong with that, but you can't bring X-1 to the table, and the say try to say it is doing "good damage".
At best you can say it is good damage for your group which is all that counts. I also have the belief that if my unoptimized 6th level melee guy who does 28ish points of damage is competing with your 10th level rogue who is out damaging the 10th level melee types I will probably be thrown out of the door on my face for a build that requires no effort. At the same time if your 28 points of damage a round melee types at level 10 stepped into my gameworld which has a fair mix if RP and fighting then once a fight began you would be highly unhappy once you realized I never killed your fighter not because he was good, but because my players had someone doing enough damage to be a threat.
I do have a question. Why does the fact that you run a political type game mean someone won't make a better combatant? I am not the dungeon crawl type either, but when its time to fight, its time to fight, and once my social or sneaking skills fail me I want to know that getting away by force is still an option.
Before you counter that you do it in your games I will pre-counter that I don't want to depend on the GM saving my arse by fudging dice.
Yeah the other melee are doing quite well. The low damage longer combats are also quite fun to see. Far less, smash, full done! There is a better sense of flow, more excitement. Swashbucklers may not take the damage cake, but if their hp and ac are good, their pick pick picking away at hp can give a sense of a solid victory. Yeah, you didn't just get in there and pour out the damage, you took them on, took all they could throw at you and steadily killed them. Sadism for the win.
"The fact that the GM almost killed someone with sneak as written means nothing on its own. Maybe the player ignored AC. Maybe the GM had a couple of lucky(really high) rolls. It could be an issue of tactics, and so on."
It could also be that stacking sneak attacks from two sources shattered our hp barbarian. The dm never did that again in that game.
"I also have the belief that if my unoptimized 6th level melee guy who does 28ish points of damage is competing with your 10th level rogue who is out damaging the 10th level melee types I will probably be thrown out of the door on my face for a build that requires no effort. At the same time if your 28 points of damage a round melee types at level 10 stepped into my gameworld which has a fair mix if RP and fighting then once a fight began you would be highly unhappy once you realized I never killed your fighter not because he was good, but because my players had someone doing enough damage to be a threat."
I'm sure your character are very mighty. The fixation on damage continues to rear its head. My characters are not 28 points of damage types. No one is called "28 points of damage", there is no 28 points of damage class, sub-class or type. They are characters, with names, with stories and achievements that win or fail/die. Damage is such a small part of who they are, and really, there are a lot of other things you can do, other than maximising damage. Let's broaden horizons people!
Like a brilliant grappler character in one game, Lesaad the Hermean. I was dm, and you would probably consider him quite sad. At about level 12 his damage per round was roughly 30-40. However, almost no one ever escaped that grapple. The guy grappled otyughs. He slowly tore high damage melee apart. It is not always about the DPR, it is how you use and play the character (and how much fun you have doing it).
In my games, the totals of hp are also closer to early 3.5 levels than pathfinder (which saw a jump), so a lot of damage is less necessary. In a lower attribute game, the really high cons usually get more balanced with the players. Not every monster needs the con of an olympic long distance runner, nor should they have that level of constitution.
"I do have a question. Why does the fact that you run a political type game mean someone won't make a better combatant?"
You missed what the other guy said, he said dnd is mostly a combat game, I was pointing out it is whatever game the players and dm make it.
"I am not the dungeon crawl type either"
I do love me some dungeon crawls, but they should be more than just combat too. They are a great opportunity to get out some description to set the mood, as well as plenty of traps, choices and pc-npc moments.
"Before you counter that you do it in your games I will pre-counter that I don't want to depend on the GM saving my arse by fudging dice."
It is not what really happens. The opponents are challenging based on the capacities of the players. The players live or die by their own choices, skills and rolls. With no multiple sneaks it is a challenge, but one they can win (even the rogues). This is dnd, this isn't save the pcs the game. I fudge very rarely. The dm that used multiple sneak attacks and two opponents, did have to fudge right then and there. I'll avoid such a problem for now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please just die already, thread. Please.
3.5 Loyalist has proven again and again that he is impervious to math & rational arguments. Let him continue in his little world and PLEASE let the thread die, you all.
It could also be that stacking sneak attacks from two sources shattered our hp barbarian. The dm never did that again in that game.
I am assuming you mean two rogues who do less damage than any two "insert full BAB class" of the same level so the issue does not seem to be SA since any two full BAB classes would have done more damage. You keep harping on SA even though the rogue is the low man on the totem pole, except for classes expected to be in combat.
I'm sure your character are very mighty. The fixation on damage continues to rear its head. My characters are not 28 points of damage types. No one is called "28 points of damage", there is no 28 points of damage class, sub-class or type. They are characters, with names, with stories and achievements that win or fail/die. Damage is such a small part of who they are, and really, there are a lot of other things you can do, other than maximising damage. Let's broaden horizons people!
Like a brilliant grappler character in one game, Lesaad the Hermean. I was dm, and you would...
I have no fixation on damage at all. I was just showing you that the math disagrees with you, and the numbers are what really determine if someone is doing "good damage". When I play I don't make the best character availible.
My point with the 28 points of damage is that on average that is how much a 10th level rogue will do in one round if he is focused on combat by your rules, but it is also the damage a 6th level melee type can do without trying. -->I thought that was clear.Don't try to bait me by calling me a min maxer. I am smarter than that. I am also not a min maxer. I am just good enough at math to know that it is hard to make a 10th level full BAB character that only does 28 points of damage. That number(28) was not chosen by me. It was calculated based on information provided by you, and a build that is typical, not min maxed for combat.
Like a brilliant grappler character in one game, Lesaad the Hermean. I was dm, and you would probably consider him quite sad. At about level 12 his damage per round was roughly 30-40. However, almost no one ever escaped that grapple. The guy grappled otyughs. He slowly tore high damage melee apart. It is not always about the DPR, it is how you use and play the character (and how much fun you have doing it).
Grapplers are cool, and at level 12 he should be handling Otyughs in pathfinder anyway. In 3.5 it was probably more difficult, but don't quote me on that.
I never said it was about DPR.--> I know I said that already, but you may have missed it.The dm that used multiple sneak attacks and two opponents, did have to fudge right then and there. I'll avoid such a problem for now.
He would have had to fudge anyway though unless you are saying that dying is not the issue, but dying to rogues is. -->This statement assumes the full BAB characters would have been built well, and had similar rolls.
Where's the fun in that?
+1.
My str16 switch-hitter Paladin8/Monk1 two-handing a +1 bastard sword at lv9 (how is THAT for optimizing) did way more damage than the rogue in the same party across the duration of any combat. Even when not smiting. Even when using a bow, and the only archery feat he had was Deadly Aim. Heck, even when punching and kicking for the lulz to do bludgeoning damage.
Because he reliably hit just about every time he swung his sword. She did not.
Because he did not need the enemy to be messed up/flanked to stack up damage. She did.
Because power attack >>>> Sneak attack as a damage source.
Because my AC and saves, and this staying power, was amazing, hers was meh at best.
Because paladins are better than rogues.
And when I smote... the GM started posting online on how paladins were OP.
Well it seems the issue is settled. The rogue has been nerfed not due to SA, but only due to preference. Until I am shown a 10th level full BAB character that is built to do damage that is struggling to keep up with a rogue that is only allow 1d6 per round I will assume that
A:such things do not exist.
B: Well I have no idea how a level 10 full BAB character can only do 28 points of damage unless he is trying not to hurt anyone.
PS:I am back in lurker mode until I am shown a post that would carry weight in anyone's game, not just because X number of dice looks wrong. In short bring me some math.
Math is not the be all and end all of all arguments. In this reliance on math there is something that is being missed, I am not playing pathfinder.
Yep, I am mostly playing from a 3.5 ruleset, and players here talk about their lovely damage, but this is from two handed weapons, and power attack in pathfinder. Power attack in pathfinder is quite a bit different to 3.5, it gives more and takes away less from your to hit, which explains why Tyrgrim can still hit on a lot of power attack. The cost is moderate, the pay-off is high.
So with a 3.5 power attack, the one sneak attack balances more favourably with heavy hitters.
Two-handed
3.5 = 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6. 4 to 8.
Path = 1 to 3, 2 to 6, 3 to 9, 4 to 12.
Path has a quicker cap, every four, but to get to pathfinders +12, -4, 3.5 must go -6, +12, which is a very ugly swing.
Pathfinder doesn't do it by 1 to 1 bab, so as it gives more to your hits, there is less of a reduction. To get to +6 you need +4 bab and make a swing at only -2. Well a 3.5 character can try to do a -4 at +4 bab for +8, but good luck hitting as if you now lack proficiency.
Never been very impressed with core power attack, but anyway, our math and systems we are using are different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you should stop telling people they are doing it wrong when they tell you how it works in Pathfinder.
Power Attack in 3.5 was superior due to the versatility. If you would hit anyway (which is rather often for a well-made fighter, doubly so for a gish with wraithstrike and whatnot), you can sink all your BAB into damage.
I said earlier that two of my players thought their characters were nigh useless when they converted them, now that "power attack is nerfed into uselessness".
What makes my paladonk do more damage is the reliability. If he needs to move, he gets one hit with vital strike and power attack. That was 2d10+15 or so. Which is a higher average than 6d6+3 which was the rogue's sneak attack. IF she got sneak attack.
Then you should stop telling people they are doing it wrong when they tell you how it works in Pathfinder.
See that's a mistake. I'm not saying what you guys are doing is wrong, we've checked the rules. I'm merely defending how I do it. Which has come under quite a lot of attack. I have a problem with it (I have a problem with a lot of trends in dnd, as you all can tell) but that is not the same thing as saying you all are wrong. The original poster has to determine what is best for their game, which may not always be the strictest interpretation of the rules. Other dms I know do the single, and it works out just fine. Now if there is a lot of PF power attack and vital strike, good magic, the rogue could really fall behind. But power attack on -1/+3 with a two hander and vital strike would also make the rogue competitive. They don't jump quickly like pure melee, but they are adding that potential to put those d6s if they get into position. Then it doesn't seem so much needed either. If both did vital, one did weak power attack, one stronger, one with the d6s and the melee with any other bonuses they have.
Now there are others who have messed with sneak attack to balance it, as they see fit, but they are only wrong by the rules. Their adjustments may be quite fine for their games. It may be a snug fit, which doesn't make it wrong (except by the rules).
Defending is not saying you guys are wrong.
Tyrgrim, yeah it sure had a nice versatility, Pf gives you more, its reliable, but you have to wait to get past -2, then -3. Not sure a well-made fighter can just hit all the time on full power attack, the ac they are swinging for is really relevant here. If they only end up being on a +6-+9 to hit after sinking in a lot of power attack, they are going to really have to roll well against AC 25 foes. Roll a 15+9 is 24. Roll a 10 and you haven't topped 20. So I think power attack (and good old cleave) is great against low ac foes, but you can of course get a lot of misses against moderate ac opponents. Tower shields can just ruin the day, thick carapace monsters get batted around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're defending old and basically dead ways, you might as well be protecting tea time in the United States, no one cares about your ancient ways, if you want to preserve them, then by all means, but you don't have to go preaching about it to everyone you meet. Your ways were abandoned for a reason and I can assure you it isn't because your ways are better.
But they are not dead. Dms still run it this way. There was quite the argument over it in 3.5.
The purpose of a discussion is to discuss, there is so much intolerance of differing opinion on these boards. Some drive off the others, insult them, when all they are doing is expressing their opinion on the topic.
-
To Trikk, there is a lot more than maths to consider.
Math's can't answer what is a good game of dnd. The rules, running numbers and tables, these are only part of it. You can try to create a formula of what a good game is, but it is trying to apply science to an emotional and entertaining activity. Maths is not storytelling, that will lead to a very cold story and it will be sorely lacking. It will become boring.
So when we consider how a class feature should be implemented in a game, in a social setting, it isn't just about maths. Now I've made other points about sneak attack, why I do things my way, what concerns I have. Most of these don't involve maths, and you can look through them if you wish.
To re-phrase a point I've made before, if players become really attached to the idea of the rogues keeping up with melee, getting multiple sneak attacks, using magic items and spells to get more of them, crafting, that is a lot of time and energy spent in game through that character to get more damage. There is so much more that can be done with rogues! Why if you were in a game with a dm who loves his traps (this dm), you could make a rogue with great reflex (burn those feats), superb trapfinding and hp (toughness, die-hard rogue, non-magical traps have real trouble killing this one), and really save the party's bacon. That is contributing in an entirely different area to doing damage--you take the risk and damage on your character first "I'll go ahead lads, cover me". You could even ask the dm for more challenging traps, so that you too can shine. Steer the game a little away from combat and damage focus. Taking risks and helping others is heroic. Pouring out the damage... Well, there are plenty of classes and builds for that, and commonly taken feat trees (focus, spec/power attack, cleave, great cleave/vital strike, improved critical). To really contribute, multiple sneak attacks in a round aren't absolutely needed. Social rogues can also be brilliant and allow a player to shine. Have a good night people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Math is not the be all and end all of all arguments.Actually, it is. If we have an argument and I can prove my argument with math while you can't, I win.
It is and it isn't. In situations like this, where we are arbitrating the validity of numerically-calculated mechanics, in a game, then yes it is. In significantly more unsure grounds, like the arena of opinions, then math holds less sway.For example: numerically speaking the rogue is a sub-par class and stripping sneak attack away from it would be the last nail in it's coffin, numerically speaking.
Now for the opinion example: I think Grant Morrison has lost his edge and all of his work in the last decade has been underwhelming, meanwhile the rest of the comic-book reading world seems to hold the position that he is the greatest writer to ever grace the pages of comics, I can show everything he has ever stolen or copied, and I cannot convince anyone, except those who agree with me (who are few and far between), that I am right, despite mathematically showing that he has lost his edge, and is now plagiarizing to get by.
Why do you think I said "basically" instead of just "dead". Let me put it to you this way: they aren't going to change any more, they aren't going to grow any more. In games, that is called "being dead". And frankly, I'd just like the rogue to keep up somewhere, when other classes can simply do what a rogue does using his skills, using their skills or magic spells, the rogue is sub-par in combat, and literally has nothing else going for him, then clearly crippling the class further is not the solution.
Edit: @TOZ: that doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, we might as well go back to calling things watermelon at this point.
While we're here, may I suggest you use 'strife' instead of 'wrought' when you talk about powergaming? It's not perfect, but it's less confusing.
Well "cheese" is even less confusing, and more used correct? Powergaming can cause strife, often with the dm, but it is also often about making the game safer for that player, and ensuring they face less strife and challenge/things are easier. Which is why it can bring down dm strife. :)
So it works and it doesn't. Gaming groups develop their own slang over time I find.Star, for Morrison, aren't you making a comparative analysis and highlighting examples of plagiarism? This is definitely closer to literary criticism and analysis in the humanities, than mathematics. Discussing good examples of why your argument is correct is not mathematics, it is bolstering your points in an essay, an attempt (essai) to be understood.
I've hung out with a gaming group for literally half of my life now, 13 years, and we have 0 slang that is specific to our group. Even if we did, we wouldn't be foolish enough to use it in open conversation where people will give us funny looks for using a word that has no place in the sentence it was used in.
Yes, it can be viewed as such, but it can also be viewed from the other perspective: mathematically speaking he has done nothing new. It's a very simple formula, count up all the things he has done, then count up each original thing he has done, if the cumulative number is higher than 0, then my argument becomes shaky, if the number gets really high, then I am wrong in my argument. Making Dick Grayson Batman doesn't count, because everyone has been Batman at one point or another, and because he's actually been Batman before.
The tower shield (feat) and light pick swashbuckler and the shield and sword fighter with 10 strength are still alive (her dex and con are nice though).
I can tell you why that swashbuckler survived
Because he never hits so hes not a threatHe either has +0 to hit and damage from Str or took weapon finesse and is taking -10 to hit
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
also i wonder how his AC could be THAT high considering that the tower shield has a max dex bonus of +2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't much care for multiple sneak attacks around. My issue isn't the damage it does but the fact that it pretty much requires all rogues to be two weapon fighters.
Now I go by the rules and sneak attack applies to every attack and I've yet to see a rogue not go two weapon style. Personally I think that pigeon holes the rogue too much.
I don't much care for multiple sneak attacks around. My issue isn't the damage it does but the fact that it pretty much requires all rogues to be two weapon fighters.
Now I go by the rules and sneak attack applies to every attack and I've yet to see a rogue not go two weapon style. Personally I think that pigeon holes the rogue too much.
You should look at some of the rogues around the site then -- specifically the DPR threads -- two weapon fighting for a rogue is a trap.