| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the combat effectiveness of Rogues and Ninjas is often debated, a lot of it hinging on Sneak Attack. The arguments against it are good; Sneak Attack is horribly conditional, you will very likely have a lowish hit chance, and (assuming 100% hit chance) other classes can get very close to the same bonus damage and DPR.
Personally, I like Sneak Attack. It forces me to play differently in combat. I'm encouraged to flank or employ interesting party tactics that come out of feat chains like Moonlight Stalker. I won't deny it: I'm also a sucker for a bunch of attacks. I've never actually played a Sneak Attack character though. The downsides always keep me away and I find my oddball character concepts can't afford squeezing it in.
However, is there a situation in which Sneak Attack is worthwhile? Let's say you have high uptime on Greater Invisibility, does it finally become something worth looking into? What about Gang Up in a party with plenty of melee summons and companions? What if it's the damage focus on a character who can fallback and support with buff/controls for a fight where precision damage isn't an option? Can even the Sneak Attack haters out there find a use for it?!
Personal context in spoiler, very open to criticism on build idea, but not main focus of thread.
I've always loved the concept of a religious rogue. Perhaps a swashbuckler who uses his faith as a mask for true intentions, the divine 'agent' of a temple who tracks down heretics, or an assassin who finds his divine magic can aid his god while furthering a personal agenda.
Most recently, I've been mentally toying with a faithful of Tanagaar as I've sought a use for the Gray Gardener prestige class. Inquisitor to either 4 or 5, Ninja/Rogue for 1 or 3 levels, 4 or 5 into Gray Gardener, mixing it up from there. Sneak attack dice would be between 3d6 and 5d6, with plenty of other damage bonuses to boot (Judgment, inspire bonuses, Bane, Wrath/Divine Power, Piranha Strike, Agile etc). Gang Up from Gray Gardener allows for easier Sneak Attacks and Moonlight Stalker Feint is very possible with a Mistmail or other concealment methods, but would require 13 Int. TWF would make good use of these bonuses and is definitely the theme I'm going for. Rapier + Kukri or Kukri x 2 would be weapons. Maybe Short Swords/Gladii instead.
Alternatively, I could see a Slayer/Warpriest multiclass being quite strong, despite neither of them being very multiclass friendly outside of small dips. Getting 13 Int would be almost necessary to make use of Moonlight Stalker and, while Gang Up is feasible, I doubt I'd take it as flanking becomes less of focus without Teamwork feats and Solo Tactics, but I would be getting numerous more feats to compensate. Additionally, swift action buffs seems just amazing even if I want to be using swift actions to feint. I lose a TON of skills going Warpriest, which is something I'd like the character to be good at but nothing worth gathering tears over. Feats and FCB can help make up the difference.
Both of these suffer from Swift Action overload, but prebuffing may be helpful enough. With these concepts in mind, with Sneak Attacks coming from either Teamwork Feats + Gang Up or Moonlight Stalker Feint, am I just gimping myself in combat? Am I holistically better off just roleplaying the backstabby aspects and going pure Inquisitor?
I'm not terribly interested in advancing spell casting beyond 4th level spells, as I feel I get everything I really love there. Though maybe I'm just trying to come up with excuses to justify the multiclass.
Sneak Attack is cool if it isn't all you contribute to combat which is something Ninjas and Rogues have difficulty with. Ninjas fortunately can get their sneak attack a bit more than Rogues.
I feel like the Slayer has the way of it with Sneak Attack currently. My general conclusion in the playtest is that it doesn't need to get sneak attack in combat to contribute well, but certainly benefits from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Sneak Attack is more of a bonus than something you can rely on. Think of it as style points. If you can contribute effectively without ever getting a sneak attack in you're golden, if you need it to deal reasonable damage you're in bad shape.
So basically you want to be a Slayer or a Vivisectionist.
I guess this was something I should clarify on. Can Sneak Attack with only a small investment to help get it off frequently ever be an optimal choice?
Scavion, I think you bring up a really good point and it's something I'm weighing options about myself. If, as a character, you can see where Sneak Attacking will fail and become a backup buffer/controller, I feel that's fantastic. I guess the question becomes is it ever possible to be able to sufficient buff/control while still having enough Sneak Attack dice to justify a dip into a Sneak Attack class? Can a Vivisectionist juggle sneak attacking and side-roles with no fancy multiclassing feats? Definitely the big question on my mind.
To the other points:
Slayer definitely feels like the "I wanna be the stabby damage guy" class for a lot of people. The spell-less Ranger so many love with Sneak Attack without giving up skills.
Fighter Rogue was something my group loved in 3.5. Well, I think Swashbuckler/Rogue was a bit more so (Dashing Outlaw is ringing in my mind, was that a class feature or a feat that allowed Swashbucklers to add Sneak Attack). I feel like Slayer fits that roll perfectly in PF, or will be once ACG releases.
How does Vivisectionist hold up outside of Sneak Attacks? I've played with Alchemists in my parties before and I always felt like they did near nothing. Perhaps they lacked the system mastery or made very unoptimal characters for thematic reasons, because I always hear Alchemists as a strong (fake) casting class. I often hear Vivisectionist brought up in Arcane Trickster discussions, but is it worth as a singular pursuit, 20 levels and all?
I guess this was something I should clarify on. Can Sneak Attack with only a small investment to help get it off frequently ever be an optimal choice?
Scavion, I think you bring up a really good point and it's something I'm weighing options about myself. If, as a character, you can see where Sneak Attacking will fail and become a backup buffer/controller, I feel that's fantastic. I guess the question becomes is it ever possible to be able to sufficient buff/control while still having enough Sneak Attack dice to justify a dip into a Sneak Attack class? Can a Vivisectionist juggle sneak attacking and side-roles with no fancy multiclassing feats? Definitely the big question on my mind.
How does Vivisectionist hold up outside of Sneak Attacks? I've played with Alchemists in my parties before and I always felt like they did near nothing. Perhaps they lacked the system mastery or made very unoptimal characters for thematic reasons, because I always hear Alchemists as a strong (fake) casting class. I often hear Vivisectionist brought up in Arcane Trickster discussions, but is it worth as a singular pursuit, 20 levels and all?
Vivisectionist is still a solid buffer and damage dealer outside of sneak attack.
Heres my Vivisectionist who dipped for more roguey stuff.
I could see a Slayer with a reach weapon being REALLY cool.
EDIT:The Slayer I made in the playtest. He's a TWF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is how the rogue gets by in a situation he's not really built for--combat. Preferably, the rogue ends the combat this way before the opponent even knows combat has begun. If not, it's in the rogue's best interest to hide and regroup--or else get a bunch of his beefier buddies to finish the job, or hold the target down while he runs it through.
Rogues aren't ninjas, and they aren't slayers. You'll never get a DPS powerhouse out of the rogue compared to a combat-focused class with remotely similar attention to combat optimization. Where folks like me differ from a lot of the board's posters is that I don't consider that a bad thing. The rogue isn't supposed to be the main damage dealer for the party. He fills a role not well represented by Pathfinder mechanics but quite well represented by the rest of the game--at least if the game isn't played as serial occurrences of "let's you and him fight".
Honestly, the slayer kind of pisses me off. At least they should have made it 2 skill ranks instead of, what was it, 6? The thing is full-on martial but still steps on the rogue's turf.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the slayer kind of pisses me off. At least they should have made it 2 skill ranks instead of, what was it, 6? The thing is full-on martial but still steps on the rogue's turf.
Really? It's just a slightly weaker Ranger. A Ranger gets the same skill amount, spells and an animal companion with better situational damage.
I completely agree with the Rogue both not being designed and should avoid being built as a combat-focused class. Slayer and Ninja both definitely add combat-focuses. Ninja with more consistent Sneak Attack and Slayer with consistently good damage and more front-line fighterish.
There's definitely a chance the Slayer will get some of it's power reduced. Once ACG comes out, PFS will adjust, too. I can see the design trying to link Sneak Attack and Favored Target more at the cost of other damage. We'll see.
I think what the Slayer does is remove the animal companion and spells from the Ranger, which is something a lot of players like, and gives a solely combat focused full BAB Sneak Attacker, another requested thing. Whether or not it's completely balanced I won't comment on, but I think it's close to a good place if not at it.
EDIT: Scavion, how did you feel about Two-Weapon Feint. It's something I've always avoided in build recommendations, probably for bad reasons. Without Greater Feint, did it work well? I'm considering Moonlight Stalker Feint, but getting up to Greater Feint seems like a lot of work. I supposed Improved Two-Weapon Feint helps here, with no option like that for Moonlight Stalker. A consideration I should take into account for higher levels if flanking isn't a guarantee.
Also, immediate grinning with joy seeing you're Slayer uses Sawtooth Sabre. I've been a Red Mantis junkie and immediately thought Slayer is the perfect option for representing the character and, optionally, moving into the PrC. You can really get away with a lower Dex than you'd otherwise need which is really attractive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
I think nearly 100% of it comes from how your DM plays. A DM who wants to shutdown a Rogue's damage can do so pretty easily, even without throwing things strictly immune to Sneak Attack. That being said, I'm not sure why exactly a DM would want to do this always, but may do it at times to allow other characters to shine. As a DM, I often have Ninjas/Rogues in my party and try to do my best to let them scout, disable traps, and sneak attacks, but might challenge them to encourage them to come up with new ways of getting that SA damage in and let other damage dealers toss their big numbers around.
I think a big problem with optimizers is that if a situation can be largely exploited to shutdown a character, they need to find a way around that. I often hear of archers getting shut down by Wind Wall and that if you cannot deal with that spell you're character isn't as strong as it could be.
Of course, that's a lot less situational than Sneak Attack. A DM who has enemies split, spell cast from far away and move constantly, deny flanks, etc. can make a rogue's life more annoying. Rogues and Two-Weapon Fighters rely on full-attacks more than Two-Handed Fighters, as a big example.
Are you relying on flanking or supplementing it with greater invisibilities, feint, etc?
Some ways to shut down sneak attack--all of which are surmountable, but enough of them can mean a significant feat/talent/other investment:
Bright light. Can't hide in it without building for it.
Anything but bright light. Can't sneak attack a concealed for without Shadow Strike, and even dim light grants concealment.
Fog, magical darkness, and a jillion spells are similar to the above.
Darkvision nukes lighting-based concealment. Blindsight and various supernatural senses are even harsher.
Narrow confines or corners where flanking is normally impossible.
Nonhumanoids whom are difficult or impossible to feint.
Creatures immune to sneak attack. Fortunately, these are far fewer than in previous editions.
Creatures that are hardy enough to survive a round after being sneak-attacked. Rogues aren't tanks.
Distance. Ranged sneak attack is limited.
Sneak attack is awesome, but it takes care to pull off (which makes it all the more rewarding when it works). But sometimes, it won't work at all, and even a build meant to mitigate all of the above issues will suffer from some of them for many levels while the build coalesces. Meanwhile, that same rogue will fall behind in non-Sneak-Attack-related abilities. It's a tradeoff, like any other thing.
A GM should rarely feel the need to "shut down" the rogue. The rogue has enough of a deck stacked against her from a combat standpoint. If the rogue one-shots a boss, good! The rogue did her job successfully.
Side note: You know what I'd like to see? A modular rogue archetype, in the same manner as the brawler is a modular warrior variant. Let the rogue swap out or temporarily gain feats and/or rogue talents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a second I was like, I'm not gonna talk about this but to hell with it...
Sneak Attack isn't good enough for the danger, niche building, optimization and just flat out inferiority to other options in the game to play a Rogue right now.
Basically it forces the Rogue to play a high risk meh reward playstyle if he wants to make use of it. There are better methods of dealing damage and generally there are better methods to handle out of combat than skills. It doesn't have the bulk or defenses to withstand the frontline where it needs to be to deal Sneak Attack normally. It's not anymore agile or maneuverable than any other class in the game due to CMD scaling.
Furthermore, the Rogue gets absolutely shafted in some of the most BASIC demands for it's concept. Fighting in a dark alley results in it's death without a feat tax. Assassination doesn't work against ANYTHING CR appropriate. Face-wise, it's mediocre. It has no ability that stands out as a face. Trappy sneaky-wise, a Ranger does the same and can get situational boosts that put him over.
Basically the only good place for the Rogue(Even debatedly) is if you're playing the classic(Read cliche) party of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue since no one in your party really has good skill choice. If you're playing versatile characters at all, the Rogue's skills are going to overlap and rendered moot if he competes with pretty much anyone since most other classes tend to get skill bonuses to aid them in their focus.
What in the world are you guys talking about?Our personal experiences, what else?
My halfling rogue is lucky to get one sneak attack in an entire adventure. Normally he is stuck with his 1d3+5 base damage.
My Whisperknife from 3.5 feels your pain.
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
Other people's games are presumably different to yours. At your level you should be fighting tough enemies like Ancient White Dragons. Can you hit AC 37 reliably? If so, how? Are you playing more than the standard 15 point buy? Can you guarantee flanking and a full attack, given that this requires an enemy and an ally to be in the right place at the start of your round? Are your enemies using any of the various tactics that defeat sneak damage (concealment, standing in a corner to avoid flanking)?
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
assuming by regular, you just mean the classic halfling rogue, I have no idea how you could possibly be hitting 3-4 time on average. with 7d6 sneak attack you have to be 13th level.
so at best your to hit should look like:
9 (bab)+ 7 (str/dex whatever you use) + 4 (weapon enchant) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (ion stone) + 2 (headband of ninjitsu) + 2 flanking -2 (twf)= 24/24/19/19, which means your main attack has a 80% chance of hitting and your iterative has a 55% of hitting. On average you should be hitting 2-3 times tops.
This also assumes a super twinked out character with everything in his favor.
This 2-3 times is also against your average mook, against challenging and epic encounters this number shrinks dramatically.
Something tells me your GM is going soft on you if you're realiably hitting 3-4 times per round, especially if it's not a munchkineske character and is instead your "classic" halfling rogue.
(albeit this is what it should be like for rogues...)
This also assumes a super twinked out character with everything in his favor.
But not buffs. A friendly bard (haste + good hope + bardic performance) would increase that significantly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
assuming by regular, you just mean the classic halfling rogue, I have no idea how you could possibly be hitting 3-4 time on average. with 7d6 sneak attack you have to be 13th level.
so at best your to hit should look like:
9 (bab)+ 7 (str/dex whatever you use) + 4 (weapon enchant) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (ion stone) + 2 (headband of ninjitsu) + 2 flanking -2 (twf)= 24/24/19/19, which means your main attack has a 80% chance of hitting and your iterative has a 55% of hitting. On average you should be hitting 2-3 times tops.
This also assumes a super twinked out character with everything in his favor.
This 2-3 times is also against your average mook, against challenging and epic encounters this number shrinks dramatically.
Something tells me your GM is going soft on you if you're realiably hitting 3-4 times per round, especially if it's not a munchkineske character and is instead your "classic" halfling rogue.
(albeit this is what it should be like for rogues...)
These stats are fairly close, never heard of that headband though!
But that's not even including any number of buffs the party can provide you that bump my numbers even higher.
And no, my GM isn't going soft on me. He killed my character last session with a Wendigo, a fun encounter!
My character is higher level now, I started putting levels in Shadowdancer, I felt that I did more than enough Sneak attack damage that there wasn't any point in adding more dice.
Me thinks you guys are short-selling the rogue. Is he effective 1 on 1? No. But when are you ever 1 on 1? Do your groups never have melee party members to provide flank?
In my experience, sneak attack via rogue is not very good. As has already been mentioned, rogues can't stand toe-to-toe with most enemies, and so getting into melee is very risky.
Second, most people that play a rogue want to maximize their sneak attack opportunities, so they tend to go TWF. As a 3/4 BAB class, the TWF penalties are pretty steep.
The character that I am building for a future campaign will be a barbarian 1/vivisectionist ?, and from what I can see, this character is going to have way more survivability (heavy armor + rage + mutagen + enlarge person when needed, etc.) In that case, I think sneak attack is incredibly worth it, especially compared to what you're giving away (bombs.)
Our group also adopted a house rule that flank is a condition. So if an opponent if flanked, he's flanked for everyone. This makes sneak attack much better (especially for ranged sneak attackers.)
If we're talking core only, and we want to make a rogue that can reliably get sneak attacks, then multiclassing fighter or barbarian levels with rogue levels, using a reach weapon, and focusing on 1 attack rather than TWF I think would be the better way to go.
These stats are fairly close, never heard of that headband though!But that's not even including any number of buffs the party can provide you that bump my numbers even higher.
And no, my GM isn't going soft on me. He killed my character last session with a Wendigo, a fun encounter!
My character is higher level now, I started putting levels in Shadowdancer, I felt that I did more than enough Sneak attack damage that there wasn't any point in adding more dice.
Me thinks you guys are short-selling the rogue. Is he effective 1 on 1? No. But when are you ever 1 on 1? Do your groups never have melee party members to provide flank?
To put it succinctly, we've run the numbers and it's reflected in play with most DMs. A Rogue tends to not have the durability or saves to withstand the pressure of being in melee.
"Classic" Scenario.
Rogue tumbles into a flank with the Fighter. Fails acrobatics because CMD is so outrageous. Eats an attack of opportunity. Oh no! rider effect. The Rogue ate a negative level, poison, is paralyzed or any number of extremely nasty debilitating conditions because Reflex is the least valuable save in the game. So now he still isn't in position, lost his move action and took a nasty hit. Now Monsters are a nasty lot. When they get a hint of blood in the water what do you think they should do? Attack the yet unharmed most likely more heavily armored warrior or finish off the lightly armored skirmisher who tried to get behind it?
Of course before all of this happens the Rogue gets hit with a Fort or Will save aura that might just take them out of the fight completely like Fear auras.
No. It's fairly clear to me that the Rogue is a poor class for the "Rogue" concept and it's done almost universally better by taking another class and tweaking it to be more rogue-like, like the Trapper Ranger or Vivisectionist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe rogues would work a lot better if the entire party's fighting style was more built towards long combats with lots of fake withdrawals, and kiting the monsters. If you need time to set up your sneak attack, but the barbarian is trying to get the most out of limited rage rounds per day, you have a conflict of preferred party tactics.
Maybe rogues would work a lot better if the entire party's fighting style was more built towards long combats with lots of fake withdrawals, and kiting the monsters. If you need time to set up your sneak attack, but the barbarian is trying to get the most out of limited rage rounds per day, you have a conflict of preferred party tactics.
And why should the entire party play in a different way (that takes more time and involves more risks), just so one character, might, get to contribute a little more?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of my rogues have been primary combatants with skills that were giving useful bonuses. Furthermore, I have never once been in a group where every single skill was not only taken by everyone in the group, but where each person with a skill was better at that skill if the rogue also had said skill. Never. The pretending that you see on the boards suggesting that your skills are all taken by everyone else and that everyone else is using those skills better than you is a falsehood. I am sure that some parties actually do cover all skills without a rogue and that maybe a party is even optimized to do them all super well. But that is rare....more so as we talk about optimization over casual play, where people who don't need it, dump stats like int or keep it at a bare minimum. Even a wizard with 30 int does not have every skill, and even if they did, they simply cannot do them all as well as a rogue without expending temporary and valuable resources to do so.
As to sneak attack, if you build and play with it in mind it can carry you through many a fight. It's a nice ability but is situational, not automatic. As the game is teamwork based, you usually need assistance to get it off but it can be done on your own, reliably with substantial investment.
Rogues can fill the primary combat role but aepre better suited as a secondary combatant or ancillary. They aren't generally the character best built to hold off the oncoming attackers, but they can if they have to it is just that other classes are better designed to fill that role. What a rogue brings to a fight is conditional burst damage (that can compete with DPR masters if done properly) and combat uncertainty. Sure, anyone can take the dirty trick feat, or use blinding powered or otherwise make use of invisibility, stealth or wealth. But the benefits gained by many other classes from such expenses, at a certain point are less dramatic as when applied to a rogue. A fighter is likely to hit regardless of a feint, being invisible, or some alchemical object. Their wealth goes into boosting damage and increasing co!bat versatility. But a rogue investing in accuracy or certain rebuffs sees far greater results because they aren't as good in combat as a pure martial. Not that they cannot fill the role of primary melee combatant or damage dealer, but barring sneak attack consider that they are going to take longer to win and that sneak attack is conditional and so may not work when you want or need it. But absolutely, sneak attack is worth it if you can get it.
The rogue class just needs a rebuild and to ditch sneak attack for something with less oopmh and more consistency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of my rogues have been primary combatants with skills that were giving useful bonuses. Furthermore, I have never once been in a group where every single skill was not only taken by everyone in the group, but where each person with a skill was better at that skill if the rogue also had said skill. Never. The pretending that you see on the boards suggesting that your skills are all taken by everyone else and that everyone else is using those skills better than you is a falsehood. I am sure that some parties actually do cover all skills without a rogue and that maybe a party is even optimized to do them all super well. But that is rare....more so as we talk about optimization over casual play, where people who don't need it, dump stats like int or keep it at a bare minimum. Even a wizard with 30 int does not have every skill, and even if they did, they simply cannot do them all as well as a rogue without expending temporary and valuable resources to do so.
This really really depends on the party composition. Pretending doesn't come into it.
A Ranger gets 6 skill points per level. He'll grab Disable Device, Perception, Stealth, Survival, and two others. He can scout and trapfind just as well as the Rogue can. However, the Ranger could have situational boosts from being in his Favored Terrain. His Perception is also higher if it's used in regards to his Favored Enemy.
A Bard has all the knowledge and Face skills going for him. He has spellcasting to augment his face skills like Charms and Compulsions.
An Alchemist usually has MORE skills than the Rogue even does and a 1 level dip for the Alchemist in Pathfinder Delver usually puts it far ahead. Lets salt that wound and mention the Alchemist also gets psuedo-spellcasting to supplant his playstyle and full sneak attack.
Other classes can do skills better.
Dynamically well-built parties like Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, and Bard tend to do hell of a lot better than Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue since the pressure the Rogue has to handle ALL of the skills is removed. You function more as a team than an individual.
Rogue combined with Horizon Walker is incredibly powerful. None of that power is coming from sneak attack.
It's a bit of a niche build however and really only takes off at about level 9. Till then you're kind of a gimped Fighter with a few more skills.
What in the world are you guys talking about?
My regular good old halfling rogue is easily hitting 3-4 times a round with sneak attacks, @7d6 per sneak.
Why in the world do you think its hard to proc them?
If I don't do 100 damage a round, I'm shocked.
assuming by regular, you just mean the classic halfling rogue, I have no idea how you could possibly be hitting 3-4 time on average. with 7d6 sneak attack you have to be 13th level.
so at best your to hit should look like:
9 (bab)+ 7 (str/dex whatever you use) + 4 (weapon enchant) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (ion stone) + 2 (headband of ninjitsu) + 2 flanking -2 (twf)= 24/24/19/19, which means your main attack has a 80% chance of hitting and your iterative has a 55% of hitting. On average you should be hitting 2-3 times tops.
This also assumes a super twinked out character with everything in his favor.
This 2-3 times is also against your average mook, against challenging and epic encounters this number shrinks dramatically.
Something tells me your GM is going soft on you if you're realiably hitting 3-4 times per round, especially if it's not a munchkineske character and is instead your "classic" halfling rogue.
(albeit this is what it should be like for rogues...)
These stats are fairly close, never heard of that headband though!
But that's not even including any number of buffs the party can provide you that bump my numbers even higher.
And no, my GM isn't going soft on me. He killed my character last session with a Wendigo, a fun encounter!
My character is higher level now, I started putting levels in Shadowdancer, I felt that I did more than enough Sneak attack damage that there wasn't any point in adding more dice.
Me thinks you guys are short-selling the rogue. Is he effective 1 on 1? No. But when are you ever 1 on 1? Do your groups never have melee party members to provide flank?
so in other words, your character is incredibly min/maxed, and works with the team.
I don't include the party buff's, since especially by this level the enemy should be throwing out pretty decent debuff which tend equal out. (more or less depending on the encounter).
And again, this damage is only when you can full attack, which by the time you get flank, should be round 2 possibly 3.
My gaming group has a lot of players, so rogue is more viable. In the RotRL campaign I'm playing in, the party rogue gets sneak attacks consistently in every battle because there are three other melee characters to provide many opportunities for flank. It also means he's not targeted by enemies as often, which helps mitigate his fragility.
Note. since I've only seen it in one game and I wasn't the rogue (though they aren't outshadowing anyone but me. but I'm a weird character)
They read the sneak attack and flanking bonus a bit different than others (the gm and player)
They read Flanking as a condition on the foe; resultant from them being in threatened range of any in melee. Now Melee combatants get the +damage or hit (i forget what it gives), but the foe is flanked (because his attention is almost completely on the guy with the sword who wants to stab his face) so the ranged ninja rogue guy gets his sneak attack on him if he's in 30ft.
I haven't seen anything broken in this, and its not a ton of damage compbared to the others (no one is that optimised; at least not compared to my usual play group). and i guess it kinda fits my mental view of what sneak attack is..
Kinda like various media with sword fighters being covered by a sniper who times the shots for when the melee guy moves etc.Not really sure if this adds to the discussion since this is someones interpretation of the rules
I like this.
Now Melee combatants get the +damage or hit (i forget what it gives), but the foe is flanked (because his attention is almost completely on the guy with the sword who wants to stab his face) so the ranged ninja rogue guy gets his sneak attack on him if he's in 30ft
Yeah, I mentioned that a few posts up:
Our group also adopted a house rule that flank is a condition. So if an opponent if flanked, he's flanked for everyone. This makes sneak attack much better (especially for ranged sneak attackers.)
I believe it was an incorrectly read rule in 3.0 that once we found out the actual rule, we decided we liked our "wrong" rule better. Thus we house ruled it. It is definitely more logical.
|
As to sneak attack, if you build and play with it in mind it can carry you through many a fight. It's a nice ability but is situational, not automatic. As the game is teamwork based, you usually need assistance to get it off but it can be done on your own, reliably with substantial investment.
If the rogue is on his own to create sneak opportunites, it is going to be rough. However in one of my recent campagins, the other line fighters were very helpful in setting up flanking opportunites. The Falchion wielding fighter and the rouge were putting out the same amount of damage per round when coordinating efforts.
If the party works together, the rogue can put out a good deal of damage.
A lot of it depends on GM, rest of the party, and your play style. They can match up to make the rogue a seriously useful character to have around.
Is just the fact that you have sneak attack ever going to make you the mondo supreme DPR king? No.
Sneak attack is a nice bonus if you already wanted to play the character.
If you have a group that works together tactically, you should find that you can often get in position (or surprise) to achieve sneak attacks.
Is your GM the kind that will put in opposition tactics to kill whatever seems to be working too well? You might find it doesn't work as long or as often as you had hoped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack was nice in 3.5, when you could give a halfling rogue a ring of blinking and a sackful of acid flasks. In PF, it's not so good.
|
|
A lot of it depends on GM, rest of the party, and your play style. They can match up to make the rogue a seriously useful character to have around.
Seconding this. If your GM understands that you want to use this class feature then you should be getting regular opportunities to use it. Are you sure the GM understands your character concept?
Thanks for all the responses guys. I think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head regarding a lot of different topics, especially with regarding how often your GM let's you get off Sneak Attacks and how Sneak Attack is a bonus, not a focus.
I want to take things in a more general direction, if possible. For one, I'm the sort of guy who just likes coming up with generalized concepts and builds to go with it and then tailoring them to a specific campaign once the opportunity arises. Secondly, I want the conversation to benefit as many people as possible and taking a really general approach is better for that. Because GMs differ so much, a good building point would be to assume players are running pre-generated modules or APs. Not many (if any) enemies immune to sneak attacks or immune to flanks. Still leaves GM play-style up in the air, but it's about the best we can get.
I think what I really want to get at here is about how much do you guys value Sneak Attack. Detach Sneak Attack from the Rogue. If you were optimizing a character, how much would you be willing to give up to get around 5d6 sneak attack dice on a Fighter, for example. What about caster-class with 3/4 BAB? An alternative way of thinking about it would be to take a class that has Sneak Attack and come up with what, at minimum, you would give-up Sneak Attack for?
So perhaps I feel that each Sneak Attack die is worth about +1 to hit and +1 to damage. I'd be willing to drop class features that give +1 hit/damage for +1d6 Sneak Attack or drop Sneak Attack for +1 hit/+1 damage. Alternatively, maybe I feel that +3d6 Sneak Attack is worth about 2 bonus feats on a martial character and I would be willing to drop two feats as a Fighter for it or drop 3d6 Sneak Attack from a Rogue to gain two more feats. Also, I'd be willing to lose two spell-levels for 4d6 sneak attack on a blaster-focused 6 or 9 level caster.
Stuff like that to really put a value on Sneak Attack. I'm very curious how people feel.
Lastly, what do you guys think about what Sneak Attack is worth thematically? If I want to play a stealthy dual-wield character, how much out of the way would you go to get Sneak Attack? Sure, you may be able to deal more or less damage going a different damage route, but how much do you feel Sneak Attack can add to the roleplaying of your chatacter? Not at all? Quite a bit? Personally, I feel it does add something, but not too much.
I would like to see how everyone else sees Sneak Attack in this light.
|
|
Sneak attack is best when you are A) accurate enough to hit, and B) have multiple attacks to hit with. It's a situational damage boost that a lot of things are immune to and can be difficult to apply reliably on a full attack. As a single attack per round it's on par with vital strike, which is generally agreed to be a weak feat for PCs. As a full attack it can be nice but it's much harder to manufacture full attacks that qualify for SA.
If it were available as a feat for one feat per d6 I would probably take it.
If I had to trade out class features for it I never would.
... So perhaps I feel that each Sneak Attack die is worth about +1 to hit and +1 to damage ...
No, I don't think it is worth that much in most campaigns. Maybe 2d6 is worth a +1 to hit and damage.
... Lastly, what do you guys think about what Sneak Attack is worth thematically? If I want to play a stealthy dual-wield character, how much out of the way would you go to get Sneak Attack? Sure, you may be able to deal more or less damage going a different damage route, but how much do you feel Sneak Attack can add to the roleplaying of your chatacter? Not at all? Quite a bit? Personally, I feel it does add something, but not too much. ...
I don't think it adds too much since it just doesn't work out the way you 'think' it should. You can't sneak in and take out the guards to clear the way for others, because unless the guards are way lower level you still probably won't do enough to silence them. If they are that much lower level, you probably didn't need to worry about them in the first place.
To me 2WF doesn't really have anything to do with sneak attack damage dice. Mentally, to me, that is the guy that is going for the death by a thousand cuts while he blocks or dodges everything the opponent throws at him. But again the system doesn't really support that. A couple points on AC (from the high dex) doesn't really seem to make any significant difference on how many times you get hit. So to make it a viable tactic, they keep increasing the number of attacks you can make, adding dex onto damage, etc... Things that make it so you do more damage in a round. But virtually nothing to make you last any longer.
I should clarify that my 'posted' opinions aren't actually how I exactly I feel regarding Sneak Attack, I was just trying to come up with simplish examples.
If I had to quantify it in +hit/+damage terms, I'd probably say +1 hit +2 damage is about equal to 2d6 Sneak Attack. That's nearly identical to 1 feat per die, as Imbicatus said. If you were to actually do this, I'm curious how close you would get a Rogue to a Lore Warden Fighter. Something I'll look into.
Thematically, I agree with you Kydeem. Sneak Attack doesn't suddenly give your character death attacks. You can't Assassin's Creed around unless, as you said, the guards are low level. At that point, you can just as easily use magic to bypass the guards without detection.
If it were available as a feat for one feat per d6 I would probably take it.
Agreed. I think there was a fighter variant in 3.5 or earlier that did just that. A fighter without bonus feats but + sneak attack would be interesting to play. Full BAB, good survivability, no need to worry about ACP, etc.
Slayer is essentially the Fighter without Bonus Feats. Obviously, not as dramatic. Some bonus feats missing for a good amount of Sneak Attack, but same concept. I think it's why it's so attractive to so many people.
For me, sneak attack is worth it if and only if it is better than what you give up to get it, much like all class features. The problem is that the different classes give up different things to get it. The Vivisectionist gives up one damage ability for another, a fair trade. The Rogue gets it as a base feature, and there is no way to trade it for anything, so you can't compare a rogue to another rogue without it. In fact I find this to be very telling. Why are there no archetypes that trade sneak attack for bombs? Why are there no archetypes that trade sneak attack for anything?
|
To put it succinctly, we've run the numbers and it's reflected in play with most DMs. A Rogue tends to not have the durability or saves to withstand the pressure of being in melee."Classic" Scenario.
Rogue tumbles into a flank with the Fighter. Fails acrobatics because CMD is so outrageous. Eats an attack of opportunity. Oh no! rider effect. The Rogue ate a negative level, poison, is paralyzed or any number of extremely nasty debilitating conditions because Reflex is the least valuable save in the game. So now he still isn't in position, lost his move action and took a nasty hit. Now Monsters are a nasty lot. When they get a hint of blood in the water what do you think they should do? Attack the yet unharmed most likely more heavily armored warrior or finish off the lightly armored skirmisher who tried to get behind it?
until you realize that any rogue with half a brain will take the feat gangup and not worry about flanking. shoot with gang up technically you can shoot at a creature in melee with 2 of your teammates and get your sneak attack damage.
also you count as an ally for meeting the 2 ally requirement. now you dont need to position into a flank, you only need to get to the target which shouldnt be too difficult for a rogue to do.