Multiple Sneak attacks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
Malignor: Party was not 5th level and barbarian was flanked.

Wait, wait... so how does that relate to multiple SA? The rogues would have to be 9th level or higher to get iterative attacks. The question of multiple SA can't possibly ever come into play until at LEAST level 7 (either Rogue1/WarriorClass6, or Rogue4/WarriorClass3, or somewhere in between). What's a pre-5th level Barbarian doing getting gang-ganked by a bunch of 7+ level characters? And if he gets stomped by being outnumbered and surrounded by OBVIOUSLY superior CR foes, how is that a problem?

I don't get this guy.

Shadow Lodge

He just plays the game in his own special way.


Malignor wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Malignor: Party was not 5th level and barbarian was flanked.

Wait, wait... so how does that relate to multiple SA? The rogues would have to be 9th level or higher to get iterative attacks. The question of multiple SA can't possibly ever come into play until at LEAST level 7 (either Rogue1/WarriorClass6, or Rogue4/WarriorClass3, or somewhere in between). What's a pre-5th level Barbarian doing getting gang-ganked by a bunch of 7+ level characters? And if he gets stomped by being outnumbered and surrounded by OBVIOUSLY superior CR foes, how is that a problem?

I don't get this guy.

Ahem, Two weapon fighting.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

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.

Can you point to where anyone say math is the end be all?

Even if I use 3.5 the rogue will still come out on the bottom. He can't sneak attack as many opponents, and he has less feats and talents to help him do damage.
If you don't believe me I can post a 3.5 barbarian that can do 26ish points of damage. The 3.5 rogue would be dropping down to about 25 so either way your analysis fails.

PS:At level 6 and using 3.5 power attack only about 2 points of DPR is lost for the level 6 barbarian and the level 10 rogue. In short nothing really changes with respect to the rogue still not doing comparable damage to another level 10 full bab class, and barely competing with a level 6 one the way you are ruling things.

Would you like to define "a lot of damage" so I can use 3.5 to disprove that notion also?

edit:So we stay on topic the issue is that you said the rogue keeps up with the melee types, but the rogue that does the most damage on the DPR threads is only doing about 26ish points of damage using 3.5 power attack.

I made melee character 4 levels below the rogue, and did not account for magical gear, not did I take the highest str score possible. I stayed at a 16. Even with those limitations(remember the level 10 rogue was using magic items to the full extent), the level 6 guy is competing.

How is a using 6th level character who is only using a +1 magic sword keeping up with a level 10 rogue who is supposedly keeping up with 10th level full BAB characters if they even put a half=hearted effort into trying to do damage.

Now you may come back and say the the melee types don't try to do damage, and that is why the rogue is keeping up, but you never presented that information up front so it was natural for us to assume the full BAB classes were trying to do damage, but the rogue was just so good he stole the show.


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


I can tell you why that swashbuckler survived
Because he never hits so hes not a threat

Same thing I said earlier. <hi-5's Rapthorn2ndform>


voska66 wrote:

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 think giving them flat bonuses to damage would make TWF less tempting. You would get one bonus when using TWF and another bonus when using a two handed weapon if the class feature existed in that form.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Malignor wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Malignor: Party was not 5th level and barbarian was flanked.

Wait, wait... so how does that relate to multiple SA? The rogues would have to be 9th level or higher to get iterative attacks. The question of multiple SA can't possibly ever come into play until at LEAST level 7 (either Rogue1/WarriorClass6, or Rogue4/WarriorClass3, or somewhere in between). What's a pre-5th level Barbarian doing getting gang-ganked by a bunch of 7+ level characters? And if he gets stomped by being outnumbered and surrounded by OBVIOUSLY superior CR foes, how is that a problem?

I don't get this guy.

Ahem, Two weapon fighting.

Even if that were the case, how did they all get to flank and deliver full attacks? Was the barbarian too busy picking his nose? What kind of geniuses play at this guy's table?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
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.

Then should you even be answering questions? If your basing all your judgements on the Rogue class in Pathfinder (which is the topic of the original question) on a Home rules game that you yourself say is no where near Pathfinder then how is your input worth anything on this topic?

Your talking about a home brew game system, so your reference points and baselines are totally different from the Standards presented in the actual game as published, which is what evereyone else is using as reference standard.

Don't take this as me saying that you cannot play how you want. I completely support you in playing any game any way you want. Just realise that your statements and judgements will ONLY be applicable to your own game and your own players who share your non standard baseline.

Don't come on the board and tell everyone else they are wrong because it works in your game, which is not even the same game everyone else is playing.

See my point?


The treasure attacking kind?


Gilfalas wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
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.

Then should you even be answering questions? If your basing all your judgements on the Rogue class in Pathfinder (which is the topic of the original question) on a Home rules game that you yourself say is no where near Pathfinder then how is your input worth anything on this topic?

Your talking about a home brew game system, so your reference points and baselines are totally different from the Standards presented in the actual game as published, which is what evereyone else is using as reference standard.

Don't take this as me saying that you cannot play how you want. I completely support you in playing any game any way you want. Just realise that your statements and judgements will ONLY be applicable to your own game and your own players who share your non standard baseline.

Don't come on the board and tell everyone else they are wrong because it works in your game, which is not even the same game everyone else is playing.

See my point?

That is what we tried to tell him. It works for his group since they don't try to take down the bad guys quickly. They like battles to drag out, while most of us dont like to do that because every round the bad guy is up is a round they can do bad things do you.

3.5 loyalist wrote:
. 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.

You can only play such a game if people don't for the quick kill.


Abraham spalding wrote:
voska66 wrote:

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.

I don't see how it's a trap. Every extra attack where you can use sneak attack applies that damage so the more attacks you have in round the more damage you do. Seems like the optimal way to go to me.

I took a look at the DPR threads and the rogues there had Two Weapon fighting as well.

Now I'm not saying I'm right here I'm just curious why you think it's trap?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:


I don't see how it's a trap. Every extra attack where you can use sneak attack applies that damage so the more attacks you have in round the more damage you do. Seems like the optimal way to go to me.

I took a look at the DPR threads and the rogues there had Two Weapon fighting as well.

Now I'm not saying I'm right here I'm just curious why you think it's trap?

In my opinion it's too much spending for too little benefit when you can do just as well (if not better) using a two handed weapon (preferably with reach) and raising your strength instead of your dex.

Most two weapon fighting rogues also choose weapon finesse. This means you are paying for feats to take a -2 on each of your attack rolls not get bonus damage on your damage rolls from strength but get extra attacks on some situations that might have extra damage from sneak attack.

Lets consider instead a rogue that goes with an 18 strength out of the door and uses a reach weapon that is two handed at say 9th level, he's grabbed weapon focus and power attack and put his level adjustments into strength. The weapon is +3 and he has a +2 belt of strength.

2 attacks for this fine fellow and they are:
+6 (bab)+6(strength)+1(weapon focus)+3(enhancement)-2(power attack) for dice+9(strength)+3(enhancement)+6(power attack)+5d6(sneak attack damage)

Or:
+14/+9 for weapon dice +18+5d6 damage (an average of 17.5 more points of damage) or: weapon dice +35.5 damage

The two weapon fighting rogue needs a Dex of 18 for his improved two weapon fighting, he's not got it at level 9, he's spent feats for weapon focus (needs the bonus) weapon finesse, two weapon fighting and improved two weapon fighting -- he's up to 4 feats. He's got two +2 weapons and a belt of dex +2 and put his level adjustments into dex as well -- we'll be nice and say he started with a 12 strength.

He's at:
6(bab)+6(dex)+1(weapon focus)+2(enhancement)-2(two weapon fighting) for dice+1(strength)+2(weapon enhancement)+5d6(sneak attack)

Or:
+13/+13/+8/+8 for weapon dice+3+5d6 (an average of 17.5 damage) or: weapon dice +20.5 damage.

This is a good level for the two weapon fighting rogue -- with four attacks he's going to get weapon dice*4+82 damage -- meaning he's just ahead of the reach weapon user in full round attacks for damage who has weapon dice*2+71 damage.

However if he doesn't get his sneak attack he's in much poorer shape:
weapon dice*4+12 damage compared to weapon dice*2+36

On a single melee attack (such as a standard action) he's doomed when it comes to damage with or without sneak attack:
weapon dice+3~20.5 compared to weapon dice+18~35.5

Also the two weapons are about to become much more expensive to upgrade evenly (two +3 cost 36,000gp compared to a single +4 at 32,000gp) and aren't cutting through DR as well either (due to lower bonuses and higher costs for two special material weapons). Criticals favor the higher bonus damage rogue as opposed to the two weapon fighter rogue, and the single weapon rogue has feats to spend on say nimble moves and or iron will and great fortitude where as the two weapon rogue doesn't.

This isn't to say there are not any good two weapon rogues... but what they pay for what they get doesn't really match up.


voska66 wrote:


I don't see how it's a trap. Every extra attack where you can use sneak attack applies that damage so the more attacks you have in round the more damage you do. Seems like the optimal way to go to me.

I took a look at the DPR threads and the rogues there had Two Weapon fighting as well.

Now I'm not saying I'm right here I'm just curious why you think it's trap?

The rogues there did have TWF because the purpose of the thread was to compare different builds. Instead of focusing on dex and strength to get more damage you can put strength first, and dex 2nd. The dex mod will still keep you good enough to handle more CR level challenges, and the strength with a two-hander gives more DPR.

edit: plus what Abraham Spalding said.


Abraham spalding wrote:
voska66 wrote:


I don't see how it's a trap. Every extra attack where you can use sneak attack applies that damage so the more attacks you have in round the more damage you do. Seems like the optimal way to go to me.

I took a look at the DPR threads and the rogues there had Two Weapon fighting as well.

Now I'm not saying I'm right here I'm just curious why you think it's trap?

In my opinion it's too much spending for too little benefit when you can do just as well (if not better) using a two handed weapon (preferably with reach) and raising your strength instead of your dex.

OTOH, outside of the pure DPR comparison, the Rogue tends to get more benefits from Dex than Str. AC & Skills.

The investment in Finesse and TWF lets him focus on Dex for those other uses at the cost of a small amount of damage.

It's hard to see that as a trap.


thejeff wrote:


OTOH, outside of the pure DPR comparison, the Rogue tends to get more benefits from Dex than Str. AC & Skills.
The investment in Finesse and TWF lets him focus on Dex for those other uses at the cost of a small amount of damage.

It's hard to see that as a trap.

Actually there in lies the trap part.

Consider this:

The two weapon rogue just spent 4 feats in 9 levels for what he has, he doesn't have any more skill points, and he's got to be really careful on his armor choices if he wants to use all his dex to AC.

The two handed rogue can simply take medium armor proficiency still get all his Dex to AC, and has a bonus on important skills like swim and climb (at lower level). Acrobatics is... not as powerful as has been suggested, and even if he spends another feat to get the medium armor proficiency he's still two ahead of the two weapon rogue, and can carry more stuff.


He can also take skill focus(insert dex based skill) to make up for not having the higher dex.


wraithstrike wrote:
He can also take skill focus(insert dex based skill) to make up for not having the higher dex.

Or one of the feats that hit two skills at +2 and then +4 at 10th level (which is as good as having 4~8 more points of Dexterity).

Again all this said two weapon fighting rogues can be alright... you're just giving a lot up for very little.

It's funny but even on the 'its better role playing' aspect it's not because you have to spend those feats on combat instead of role playing options.

Liberty's Edge

voska66 wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
voska66 wrote:
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.
Now I'm not saying I'm right here I'm just curious why you think it's trap?

Ive just recently went through the process of building a ninja. I agree with Abraham in that TWF is a trap.

TWF needs...(Build was designed around dual wakizashi)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
TWF
Imp TWF

at a minimum to be effective. This also means his str was too low to have any decent damage when not getting SA.

Str build needs...(Build designed around using Katana 2handed)
Weapon Focus
Power Attack

Honestly I could say the str build only needs power attack but I found the dpr to increase significantly with weapon focus added. Also, on rounds the character cant SA his damage is still respectable, certainly not out damaging the barbarian he plays with but respectable.

So the str build costs 2 feats less and does more static damage with higher +hit. Also, his dex is still 14, good enough so that his dex based skills arent useless.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:

ve just recently went through the process of building a ninja. I agree with Abraham in that TWF is a trap.

TWF needs...(Build was designed around dual wakizashi)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
TWF
Imp TWF

at a minimum to be effective. This also means his str was too low to have any decent damage when not getting SA.

My PFS samurai has a strength of 7 and a DEX of 26.

One guess which weapon enhancement he's buying for his wakizashis.

He's gonna be a freakin' Cuisinart.


Abraham spalding wrote:
thejeff wrote:


OTOH, outside of the pure DPR comparison, the Rogue tends to get more benefits from Dex than Str. AC & Skills.
The investment in Finesse and TWF lets him focus on Dex for those other uses at the cost of a small amount of damage.

It's hard to see that as a trap.

Actually there in lies the trap part.

Consider this:

The two weapon rogue just spent 4 feats in 9 levels for what he has, he doesn't have any more skill points, and he's got to be really careful on his armor choices if he wants to use all his dex to AC.

The two handed rogue can simply take medium armor proficiency still get all his Dex to AC, and has a bonus on important skills like swim and climb (at lower level). Acrobatics is... not as powerful as has been suggested, and even if he spends another feat to get the medium armor proficiency he's still two ahead of the two weapon rogue, and can carry more stuff.

Let's see, if he's got a 14 dex, he can get 8 AC out of a breastplate (6+2dex), or the TWF can wear Studded with a 20 Dex (easy by 9th level) and get the same AC and (given armor check penalties) a +6 advantage on his DEX skills. Magic armor can change that calculation, of course. If you shell out for mithral most of that goes away, I think. But then the TWF doesn't need the mithral expense.

Again, if you're just focused on combat you're probably right. A thug type rogue probably works best as a str/2H build. A more classic sneak rogue has to invest a little more, but does almost as well in combat and better with other things, like sneaking!
Rogues are flexible, it all depends on where you want to take the character.


thejeff wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
thejeff wrote:


OTOH, outside of the pure DPR comparison, the Rogue tends to get more benefits from Dex than Str. AC & Skills.
The investment in Finesse and TWF lets him focus on Dex for those other uses at the cost of a small amount of damage.

It's hard to see that as a trap.

Actually there in lies the trap part.

Consider this:

The two weapon rogue just spent 4 feats in 9 levels for what he has, he doesn't have any more skill points, and he's got to be really careful on his armor choices if he wants to use all his dex to AC.

The two handed rogue can simply take medium armor proficiency still get all his Dex to AC, and has a bonus on important skills like swim and climb (at lower level). Acrobatics is... not as powerful as has been suggested, and even if he spends another feat to get the medium armor proficiency he's still two ahead of the two weapon rogue, and can carry more stuff.

Let's see, if he's got a 14 dex, he can get 8 AC out of a breastplate (6+2dex), or the TWF can wear Studded with a 20 Dex (easy by 9th level) and get the same AC and (given armor check penalties) a +6 advantage on his DEX skills. Magic armor can change that calculation, of course.

So it boils down to -5 or 6 on disable device which can be handled with skill focus giving the dex rogue a still slight advantage, but while being equal or better everywhere else as far as skills go, and being better in combat than a dex rogue.

I will take the hit in disable device to be equal or better everywhere else. There is acrobatics, but at higher levels monsters CMD is so high that making an acrobatics check becomes really hard to do, so hard that if you don't win initiative, you will either take the hit or be ready to take the 5 foot steps needed to get to him anyway.

If acrobatics is not being used to avoid the AoO then the check generally not that hard to make anyway.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Quote:

ve just recently went through the process of building a ninja. I agree with Abraham in that TWF is a trap.

TWF needs...(Build was designed around dual wakizashi)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
TWF
Imp TWF

at a minimum to be effective. This also means his str was too low to have any decent damage when not getting SA.

My PFS samurai has a strength of 7 and a DEX of 26.

One guess which weapon enhancement he's buying for his wakizashis.

He's gonna be a freakin' Cuisinart.

Don't forget to grab Pirhana Strike.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Quote:

ve just recently went through the process of building a ninja. I agree with Abraham in that TWF is a trap.

TWF needs...(Build was designed around dual wakizashi)
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
TWF
Imp TWF

at a minimum to be effective. This also means his str was too low to have any decent damage when not getting SA.

My PFS samurai has a strength of 7 and a DEX of 26.

One guess which weapon enhancement he's buying for his wakizashis.

He's gonna be a freakin' Cuisinart.

I think it will be much more effective with full BAB and the bonuses the Samurai can bring to bear than it would be for a rogue -- I'm not saying two weapon fighting is always a trap... but for the rogue it really can be.

On disable device -- I might be more prone to giving this part of the argument more leeway if it wasn't for trapfinding giving the rogue 1/2 his level as a bonus on disable device checks. With that, ranks, some masterwork tools with or without skill focus he's going to be fine with what he comes across. With offensive defense (after the errata) his AC's going to be fine too, especially with medium armor mixed in.

All in all the hyper-specialization in dexterity just doesn't fit the rogue as well as people might want.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
He's gonna be a freakin' Cuisinart.
I think it will be much more effective with full BAB and the bonuses the Samurai can bring to bear than it would be for a rogue -- I'm not saying two weapon fighting is always a trap... but for the rogue it really can be.

The samurai has very limited Challenge uses. While a rogue does not always or necessarily even usually get sneak-attack, when he qualifies for it, he always gets it.


Malignor wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Malignor: Party was not 5th level and barbarian was flanked.

Wait, wait... so how does that relate to multiple SA? The rogues would have to be 9th level or higher to get iterative attacks. The question of multiple SA can't possibly ever come into play until at LEAST level 7 (either Rogue1/WarriorClass6, or Rogue4/WarriorClass3, or somewhere in between). What's a pre-5th level Barbarian doing getting gang-ganked by a bunch of 7+ level characters? And if he gets stomped by being outnumbered and surrounded by OBVIOUSLY superior CR foes, how is that a problem?

I don't get this guy.

Lot of posts, good to see plenty of movement.

If you check the barb, they cannot be sneak attacked at 5th level, improved uncanny dodge, which says they can't be sneaked, except by high level opponents. At 4th the barb has uncanny dodge, but can be sneaked, needing one more level to become immune (unless incapacitated or against high level rogues comparatively).

The rogues that did all the damage were low level demons with sneak attack, spiked chains and combat reflexes. So entering an area and moving through got multiple flanking sneaks. They went through his ac.


You've got to know that slapping class levels on monsters muddies the water right? You can do it of course, but it's not a very good point of comparison.


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:

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 threat
He 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

-

Quote stuffed up, lol.
-

Naa, he certainly gets attacked, he is a beefy hobgoblin. I've thrown a lot at this one, and he has survived quite a few different types of opponents.
The monsters don't know the capacities of their opponents going in, that wouldn't be cricket.

Not on +0 to hit. Fair bit higher.
Has high strength and int. Doesn't use his finesse (so is a funny sort of swashbuckler, defensive, but with str and int mod to damage (not a great to hit though).
Or alternates to his masterwork greataxe (Isgerian Berdiche) for zombies, a lot of those in the area of late, and has power attack.

Tower shields grant an AC bonus of +4 (or cover), but impose a -2 to hit. Players p. 123.

Good gaming to you man!


voska66 wrote:

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 quite agree Voska on pigeons and holes. It pushes it that direction doesn't it? Although, one did say they didn't go two weapon fighting in one of their rogues, but I didn't get other answers to, do all go for TWF rogues? A lot of people really care for damage, and if you go with the multiples as possible, a lot will favour the two weapon tree and that type of rogue (why do 5d6 when I can do potentially 20d6! 40d6 at very high levels). Then go for the haste and greater invis, prob through crafting.

All for the numbers. It makes sense if the damage is what you care about, and getting more of those sneaks. Some say sneak doesn't rise very quickly, so they favour doing it again and again.

They could also try to go the very close ranged rogue, and try to get as many arrows out as possible. But I'm not sold on multiple sneak attacks through close range archery either. I like my woods bandits to be good, but that seems too good. If two mid level rogues popped out of the woods, that amount of sneaks may just kill the party dead--if they got surprise and initiative. The ranged ranger gets their favoured bonuses when they apply, but a ranged rogue with PF sneak attack could do better damage (at a worse to hit) to almost anything. Got to get close though, but, ranged rogues always try to stretch their sneak out to 60, forget the feat name, but I've seen it three times now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Haste actually benefits a Two-hand-fighting rogue a lot more Loyalist.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
You've got to know that slapping class levels on monsters muddies the water right? You can do it of course, but it's not a very good point of comparison.

Isn't it really common though? I've seen it in a lot of adventure paths. Think that demon had sneak as a natural ability, but don't quote me on that, it would be buried in the paizo drow adventure.

People have said orcs have 6 hp, well once they can take them, I like to give orcs barb levels. That makes them a challenge. Goblins are great rogues, giants are improved nicely by a fair bit of warrior and hulking hurler (late game stuff). Elves are better with ranger. In fact, the pathfinder has a fair bit of mixing "monsters" with character levels (pages 11, 20, 29 and 36 especially on orcs). It seems something paizo is doing a fair bit of. I know wight warlocks are sweet. Fey sorcerers is an obvious thing to do.

So you see it a fair bit. I criticise paizo a great deal. But damn they come up with some very nice ideas, and npcs, every now and again. ;)

Shadow Lodge

I think babaus have natural SA without class levels. The spiked chains were non-standard however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally speaking I don't think of Orcs or Drow as 'monsters.' They're races of people who just so happen to not be standard PC races. They are of the Humanoid type, and don't have any racial hit dice.

I do recall a demon or possibly devil that had natural sneak attack in 3.5, but it was crazy rare and completely non-core.

Edit: damn Babaus do xD. I'm not sure how I missed that one. (If it helps, I never ran them.)

Shadow Lodge

FOR SHAME KYRT.

You're out of the club!

;)


Yeah well why don't you just eat a bullet! ;)

(Though for reals, try not to get hit please.)


Mike Schneider wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
He's gonna be a freakin' Cuisinart.
I think it will be much more effective with full BAB and the bonuses the Samurai can bring to bear than it would be for a rogue -- I'm not saying two weapon fighting is always a trap... but for the rogue it really can be.
The samurai has very limited Challenge uses. While a rogue does not always or necessarily even usually get sneak-attack, when he qualifies for it, he always gets it.

This is true -- but the inherent +5 more to hit over 20 levels does make a huge difference too.

Starting with:
+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3

is a lot better than:
+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3

as well as the extra attack from being a full BAB class. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the different between medium and huge BAB becomes a huge deal at later levels -- enough so to be the difference between missing a lot and not missing a lot.

Damage per hit is still going to suffer however.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

They could also try to go the very close ranged rogue, and try to get as many arrows out as possible. But I'm not sold on multiple sneak attacks through close range archery either. I like my woods bandits to be good, but that seems too good. If two mid level rogues popped out of the woods, that amount of sneaks may just kill the party dead--if they got surprise and initiative. The ranged ranger gets their favoured bonuses when they apply, but a ranged rogue with PF sneak attack could do better damage (at a worse to hit) to almost anything. Got to get close though, but, ranged rogues always try to stretch their sneak out to 60, forget the feat name, but I've seen it three times now.

A thousand times no on the ranger compared to the rogue with archery.

First off on a surprise round both are only getting one shot, let's put it at level... 10 and look at the round after the surprise round:

We'll assume the following: Both started with 14 strength 16 dexterity are both using a +2 bow (that allows for strength) and a belt of strength and dexterity +2 while putting their level adjustments into Dexterity both have spent their leveling up feats on the following:

Point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, weapon focus, manyshot

The ranger however also has:

deadly aim, improved precise shot and cluster shot

Rogue has a total bonus of:
+7(bab)+2(enhancement)+5(dexterity)+1(weapon focus)+1(point blank)-2(rapid shot)
1d6(short bow)+1(point blank)+3(strength)+2(enhancement)
OR:
+14(2 hits)/+14/+9 (1d6+6)

That's it -- he can't flank he's got nothing to deny dexterity with and basically he sucks for damage because he has no means of getting sneak attack damage.

Ranger:
+10(bab)+2(enhancement)+5(dexterity)+1(weapon Focus)+1(point blank shot)-2(rapid shot)-3(deadly aim)+6(favored enemy)
1d8(longbow)+3(strength)+2(enhancement)+1(point blank)+6(favored enemy)+6(deadly aim)
or:
+20/+20/+15 (1d8+18)

This is a great example of why I hate rangers for hitting PCs... they have good reason to focus on only one of the PCs and will really hurt that PC each round (average wizard with toughness favored class bonus and a Con of 14 is going to have 80 hp at level 10 and will drop to two rounds of concentrated fire from such a ranger if he's caught off guard).


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Generally speaking I don't think of Orcs or Drow as 'monsters.' They're races of people who just so happen to not be standard PC races. They are of the Humanoid type, and don't have any racial hit dice.

I do recall a demon or possibly devil that had natural sneak attack in 3.5, but it was crazy rare and completely non-core.

Edit: damn Babaus do xD. I'm not sure how I missed that one. (If it helps, I never ran them.)

Dark stalkers, Dark Creapers, Dark... whatever that last one is.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Malignor wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Malignor: Party was not 5th level and barbarian was flanked.

Wait, wait... so how does that relate to multiple SA? The rogues would have to be 9th level or higher to get iterative attacks. The question of multiple SA can't possibly ever come into play until at LEAST level 7 (either Rogue1/WarriorClass6, or Rogue4/WarriorClass3, or somewhere in between). What's a pre-5th level Barbarian doing getting gang-ganked by a bunch of 7+ level characters? And if he gets stomped by being outnumbered and surrounded by OBVIOUSLY superior CR foes, how is that a problem?

I don't get this guy.

Lot of posts, good to see plenty of movement.

If you check the barb, they cannot be sneak attacked at 5th level, improved uncanny dodge, which says they can't be sneaked, except by high level opponents. At 4th the barb has uncanny dodge, but can be sneaked, needing one more level to become immune (unless incapacitated or against high level rogues comparatively).

The rogues that did all the damage were low level demons with sneak attack, spiked chains and combat reflexes. So entering an area and moving through got multiple flanking sneaks. They went through his ac.

So he got sneak attacked because he continuously intentionally kept moving through a corridor with attackers?

x x
x x
x x
x x

The x's are the demons.

PS:asking for clarification.


Mmm, he did certainly make a bad tactical decision. He kind of got criss-crossed in the back moving forward. Copping more than a few spiked chain hits is bad, copping them with sneak on was deadly.

"That's it -- he can't flank he's got nothing to deny dexterity with and basically he sucks for damage because he has no means of getting sneak attack damage."

To the rogue archer, what gives me pause is if this type of archer wins initiative after surprise and is level 8+.

Stealth to within 30.
Twang with sneak
Gets initiative
Twang with sneak, twang with sneak etc etc. Haste may give another, speed bow may give another, feats may give another. I could see a fighter rogue being quite super, with the feats to keep the initiative consistently very high.

The sneak, get initiative, sneak the next round is always deadly (except on barbs of a good level). With one a round, they sure can get the two starting a combat (surprise, then the first shot in the next round) with great initiative rolls, or what not, but then how I run it, is any attacks after the one, are just normal. They can keep putting the arrows in, but there is only so much precision they can do as they pour out their arrow-storm. The ranger archer against favoured of course gets a nice damage bonus and is less likely to miss much.


I thought poor tactics was the issue, but I wanted to be sure.

I meant to ask this yesterday:
Could you use the quote code so your posts are easier to read, just as a courtesy to the other posters?

example:
["quote"=Someone said]Quoted material here....[/"quote"]

Don't use the " though.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


The sneak, get initiative, sneak the next round is always deadly (except on barbs of a good level). With one a round, they sure can get the two starting a combat (surprise, then the first shot in the next round) with great initiative rolls, or what not, but then how I run it, is any attacks after the one, are just normal. They can keep putting the arrows in, but there is only so much precision they can do as they pour out their arrow-storm. The ranger archer against favoured of course gets a nice damage bonus and is less likely to miss much.

Well speed doesn't stack with haste and I already accounted for the feats remember?

So he's got 1 shot + 1 round at max before he's done -- and honestly most monsters have good initiative (and improved initiative, so the likelihood that a PC will get that much sneak attack with a bow is extremely low (and he'd better hope no one has uncanny dodge or is a diviner wizard.

Remember my wife's falcata fighter from earlier? It's a fun build -- does good damage... an archer fighter is going to do even more and consistently, and have less problems with DR and getting full attacks.

The rogue without greater invisibility is stuck for sneak attack damage at range -- he's got two hopes only: Greater Feint which requires set up, and going first.

That's relying on a lot of luck, and not in a good "I stacked the deck in my favor" way.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Mmm, he did certainly make a bad tactical decision. He kind of got criss-crossed in the back moving forward. Copping more than a few spiked chain hits is bad, copping them with sneak on was deadly.

"That's it -- he can't flank he's got nothing to deny dexterity with and basically he sucks for damage because he has no means of getting sneak attack damage."

To the rogue archer, what gives me pause is if this type of archer wins initiative after surprise and is level 8+.

Stealth to within 30.
Twang with sneak
Gets initiative
Twang with sneak, twang with sneak etc etc. Haste may give another, speed bow may give another, feats may give another. I could see a fighter rogue being quite super, with the feats to keep the initiative consistently very high.

The sneak, get initiative, sneak the next round is always deadly (except on barbs of a good level). With one a round, they sure can get the two starting a combat (surprise, then the first shot in the next round) with great initiative rolls, or what not, but then how I run it, is any attacks after the one, are just normal. They can keep putting the arrows in, but there is only so much precision they can do as they pour out their arrow-storm. The ranger archer against favoured of course gets a nice damage bonus and is less likely to miss much.

But since other classes do more damage than rogues how do you handle those situations when they get the drop on PC's?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
voska66 wrote:

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 quite agree Voska on pigeons and holes. It pushes it that direction doesn't it? Although, one did say they didn't go two weapon fighting in one of their rogues, but I didn't get other answers to, do all go for TWF rogues? A lot of people really care for damage, and if you go with the multiples as possible, a lot will favour the two weapon tree and that type of rogue (why do 5d6 when I can do potentially 20d6! 40d6 at very high levels). Then go for the haste and greater invis, prob through crafting.

All for the numbers. It makes sense if the damage is what you care about, and getting more of those sneaks. Some say sneak doesn't rise very quickly, so they favour doing it again and again.

They could also try to go the very close ranged rogue, and try to get as many arrows out as possible. But I'm not sold on multiple sneak attacks through close range archery either. I like my woods bandits to be good, but that seems too good. If two mid level rogues popped out of the woods, that amount of sneaks may just kill the party dead--if they got surprise and initiative. The ranged ranger gets their favoured bonuses when they apply, but a ranged rogue with PF sneak attack could do better damage (at a worse to hit) to almost anything. Got to get close though, but, ranged rogues always try to stretch their sneak out to 60, forget the feat name, but I've seen it three times now.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if your players are OK with 1/round Sneak Attacks (heh, just like 4E) then more power to you. I, however, don't think that pigeon holes people who play rogues to automatically go the Two-Weapon Fighting route. When I started my rogue character I tried the feinting duelist style with a rapier and cloak to appear very dashing and rakish. It worked for about 2 levels but got rather bored with the style. I felt underpowered and limited with my combat capacity within that framework. I decided to go with Two-Weapon Fighting because the party's composition didn't lend to too much power. Our paladin was.....well rather poor mechanically. The Cleric was pretty good but not combat-oriented. The wizard in the party was more interested in problem-solving spells and conjurations rather than straight damage out put. So in those incidents where we needed a "heavy hitter" we didn't have one.

So, seeing a poor display in DPR I turned my rogue around and went with a more optimized build of TWF. And this scenario might make people say "Well that makes our point of Pigeonhole" but that's not really true. Any style of rogue works well, regardless of the number of Sneak Attacks available. The problem is when people think that's ALL they can do. What I have a problem with is why people might think you can't be both. The combat side of the rogue often is separate from the skilled side of them. Sure, specific physical skills (Arcobatics, Hide, Climb are all important in adventuring) but that's not all their limited to and combat rarely touches this aspect. So I guess that's why I fail to see 3.5 Loyalist's view because I'm of the opinion that a rogue can be both great diplomat and party face, good trapsmith, AND decent at putting out good DPR.

I guess this comes down to one's own view of the classes and their roles in D&D. Coming from somoene who also plays and enjoys 4E I have absolutely no problem with Rogues being labeled as the main damage dealer of the group. I also find classes such as the fighter more important for keeping big bad monsters busy than dealing loads of damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:

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 threat
He 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

-

Quote stuffed up, lol.
-

Naa, he certainly gets attacked, he is a beefy hobgoblin. I've thrown a lot at this one, and he has survived quite a few different types of opponents.
The monsters don't know the capacities of their opponents going in, that wouldn't be cricket.

Not on +0 to hit. Fair bit higher.
Has high strength and int. Doesn't use his finesse (so is a funny sort of swashbuckler, defensive, but with str and int mod to damage (not a great to hit though).
Or alternates to his masterwork greataxe (Isgerian Berdiche) for zombies, a lot of those in the area of late, and has power attack.

Tower shields grant an AC bonus of +4 (or cover), but impose a -2 to hit. Players p. 123.

Good gaming to you man!

my apologizes

for SOME STRANGE reason i thought he had 10 str
again open mouth insert foot

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
This is true -- but the inherent +5 more to hit over 20 levels does make a huge difference too. ... ....as well as the extra attack from being a full BAB class. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the different between medium and huge BAB becomes a huge deal at later levels -- enough so to be the difference between missing a lot and not missing a lot.

*Sigh*

First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?

Second, a 20th level rogue has a nearly god-like amount of money to throw at Use Magical Device; and will almost always have his opponent at a severe AC penalty (usually by his target being blind relative to the rogue). Once target's DEX-denied is taken into account, the differences in BAB between fighter and rogue are a wash.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
This is true -- but the inherent +5 more to hit over 20 levels does make a huge difference too. ... ....as well as the extra attack from being a full BAB class. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the different between medium and huge BAB becomes a huge deal at later levels -- enough so to be the difference between missing a lot and not missing a lot.

*Sigh*

First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?

Second, a 20th level rogue has a nearly god-like amount of money to throw at Use Magical Device; and will almost always have his opponent at a severe AC penalty (usually by his target being blind relative to the rogue). Once target's DEX-denied is taken into account, the differences in BAB between fighter and rogue are a wash.

Many high level monsters have true seeing, blindsight, or access to such abilities.

Some of them are also mostly natural armor(dragons), so losing dex to AC does not matter even if true sight is not a spell the GM gives them.

I do agree that 20th level is rare enough that it alone is not a good foundation to rest an argument on.

Shadow Lodge

Mike Schneider wrote:
First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?

*raises hand*


TOZ wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?
*raises hand*

I would like to one day, but it never last that long. I have GM'd to 20 3 times, but that is about it.


TOZ wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
First, who the hell plays a 20th level campaign?
*raises hand*

Also Raises hand. Also put me in the Epic level turbo dragon line.


TOZ wrote:
I think babaus have natural SA without class levels. The spiked chains were non-standard however.

Correct.

They have 2d6 sneak attack, spears, and are CR 6 each.
In the situation described, a series of Babaus on either side flanking a corridor and a barbarian (4th level) running down the gauntlet, I doubt it was the sneak attack that killed him!

Also he deserved to die for being so absolutely stupid. The player probably deserves a kick in the balls, too.

Regardless, this is about as weak evidence as could possibly be presented for the elimination of multiple sneak attacks by a rogue PC.

351 to 400 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Multiple Sneak attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.