Looks familiar!
|
2 points of damage per 1d6 is almost better then just 1d6, honestly. Its close to average damage, which to some people is better than risking rolling low. I would just straight say 1 point of damage per 1d6, but the problem here is that for a combat focused Rogue (and aren't they all in PF), it's another step closer to being better at fighting than the Fighter.
Also, I'm really not sure why people have this idea that Sneak Attack is so difficult to achieve regularly. It really isn't. There is also this wierd belief that if the Rogue can't do Sneak Attack with practically every single attack, they are useless (or somehow cheated).
Rogues naturaly are a low Ability dependant class, and also (usually) naturally have a very high Pereption and Init. So most of the time 1st Round Sneak Attack is automatic, no special actions required. Flanking is easy, and benefits multiple people, and Rogues have the easiest time manuvering the battlefield without drawing AoOs to achieve it. Not to mention various low level spells and magic that can also grant them easy Sneak Attack conditions.
+2 is just over 50% of 1d6s average damage. You will roll average damage more often than low damage, so I really don't see that as a valid complaint. Is +2 better than "risking" high damage too? I also don't think +1 is a defining class feature, although in this implementation it might work better since you still can get the d6 SA.
Ranged sneak attack is hard to get regularly in most games, and this helps with this, giving a minor boost.
It also removes the need for the buddy system.
Actually, +1 may be best for the implementations where you get full SA too. That way you are always guaranteed with sneak attack to do at least the same damage as the condition damage.
|
|
What I'm saying is that (if) the idea is (assuming Sneak Attack is hard to get) there should be a lesser, more easily gained benefit for "Lesser" Sneak Attack.
However, the "lesser" Sneak Attack (+2 rather than 1d6) is extremely close to just as good.
Ranged Sneak Attack Rogues, (heck Ranged anything anything) really doesn't need a boost or have an issue either. There is a reason it is such a common build.
Also not that a Blind, Cowering, Pinned, and/or Stunned target is denied the Dex, so can be Sneak Attacked without any needed circumstances. A Rogue that is hidden also denies Dex to targets.
There's also a reason why there are so many people disatisfied with ranged rogues. It's an exceedingly popular archetype (not in the game sense) andit just flat does not work as well as it should for something so popular. There are times when you have to go the entire combat without using your main class feature and playing by the current implementation of Stealth makes this even harder. This at least gives them something, assuming someone has set them up.
I do not believe that 57% the damage is anywhere near "just as good". That's far closer to "half as good". +3 damage, or 85%, is "nearly just as good". +1, 28%, is "why do you hate me?" unless they also get full SA or something else.
i believe that much like a monks flurry of blows uses fighter bab, that all rogues should have fighter bab when it comes to the steal maneuver
EDIT: also what are the newest rules for stealth? couldn't a blur spell make you able to get sneak attack every round? (shoot then move with stealth)
asthyril, it goes without saying that the combat maneuver mechanic is built for simplicity, and not to be laden with exceptions. I believe we'll see CMs come full circle someday when see a new edition of the game.
|
|
On the contrary Cheapy, its a very popular and effective build, with the general disappointent being that they need to be within 30ft of the target. It's a popular build because it works so well. Please show me some examples of how this does not work as well as it should, 'cause that's a new one on me, and honestly seems like it's a bit of what people call "Class Tribalism" wankery rather than experience actually playing it, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
57% of the damage, if that's how you want to look at it, is too good because it's asured. A "Lesser" Sneak Attack that will virtually be allowed at all times shouldn't deal around the average damage as a normal Sneak Attack, and it shouldn't be reasonibly common to do more damage with a Lesser Sneak Attack than a normal one.
It also opens the door to a lot of abuse and going outside of what the intent is. A lot of those conditions cause the target to have a penulty to Dex/AC, which is presumibly wh the Rogue would get the Lesser Sneak Attack. So what about a character that was poisoned 2 days ago, and still has a -1 penulty to Dex, but not actually a negative to their Dex modifier? Would that allow the Rogue to "Lesser" Sneak Attack?
|
|
3.5, rounded down to 3 is average damage on a d6. 2 is almost as good as 3, and for all that you gain, it is way too good. If there where a choice between automatic 3 Sneak Attack Damage instead of each d6, it would be smarter to take the consistant 3. In fact, that's what Star Wars and D20 Modern did, because over all it's a better deal.
I get what you are saying.
|
how about you get half your Sneak Attack dice against a foe suffering from a condition (entangled, sickened, shaken, frightened, panicked, cowering, blind, deafened, dazzled, stunned, staggered, nauseated, fatigued, exhausted, and prone)
this works out to:
1d6 at 3rd
2d6 at 7th
3d6 at 11th
4d6 at 15th
5d6 at 19th
this could either be a tack-on to sneak attack language for the rogue tribalists or a talent for the class egalitarians
Yeah, but remember, 2 is actually better than 1d6 because it has a higher minimum! When your sneak attack damage is 1d6, you'll roll worse than a 2 on one in six occasions, which is pretty often, and then you'll feel silly for not taking the flat 2, won't you? (Let's forget about how you feel when you roll a 6, which happens just as often.)
Once you get a second sneak attack die, that 2d6 of yours has a one in twelve chance of rolling under a flat 4. One in twelve is almost one in six, so that's not really a step down. Who would really want to take that sort of risk?
And then you get the third sneak attack die, and your 3d6 has a 5/108 (4.6%) chance of doing worse than the flat 6 damage. That's almost one in twelve (8.3%) so once again it's not much of a step down. And once again the flat damage proves itself a vastly superior option.
And so on. 4d6 falls below a flat 8 on 2.7% of attacks. 5d6 falls below a flat 10 on 1.6% of attacks. Once you get up to your full 10d6, you're falling short of that flat 20 damage on a whopping 0.15% of occasions. Which, when you remember that you're getting iterative attacks by then, will probably happen constantly; you'll be lucky to get through a single session without rolling under 20 and wishing a static "all faces show 2" option existed instead.
2 > 1d6. Scientific fact.
On the bright side, Rogues do have a marvelous talent called "Powerful Sneak" that can help mitigate the problem with rolling dice. I take it with all of my Rogue characters because it's so great.