*Dances through boards spraying Silly Argument String everywhere*
So, here's a question. If Sneak Attack was changed so it didn't depend on melee flanking—just having an ally on the other side of the enemy—would that make a difference in the class's overall attractiveness?
Basically, this means you would be able to sneak attack (though not flank) with ranged weapons (CLARIFY EDIT: Without needing any Sniping shenanigans). It also makes a bit more sense, since the whole idea is that you're stabbing/shooting the guy in the back. :P
I'd say yes.
Main reason being that a ranged rogue could then have a reliable way of at least putting up a stream of arrows at the enemy.
Rogues low to hit, makes sneak attack hard enough already. forcing the poor fellers to get a flank, and be standing still so that they can launch a full attacks means their DPR is just... terrible.
If they could instead stealth behind the enemy and then full attack for a few rounds they'd at least get a chance to put up multiple arrows at once into the back of enemies.
It wouldn't solve everything, but it'd be a really good start (especially since small boosts like point blank shot and extra magic to hit gear, bracers specifically, allow for helping up the to-hit roll.
Sneak is based on being able to land when the enemy is not fully focused on you. The rogue's problem however is not really damage. It is the other things that it is supposed to be good at that other classes do just as well.
PS: If your focus is only on SA then I think that would help, especially with ranged, but I would still have a limit on it since I don't see how the rogue benefits from someone on the other side, but far away, and nobody else does.
In my group, we house ruled it so that "flanked" is a condition. If an enemy is flanked, anyone attacking that enemy gets the benefits of flanking. This has resulted in a boost to the ranged rogue in the group.
Your suggested change would make sneak attacking even easier, so I would say it would definitely make a sneak attacker more attractive (though your change heavily favors ranged sneak attackers.)
Also keep in mind that Pathfinder doesn't use facing, and your rule is adding in a quasi version. This may result in a lot of other tweaks that are needed.
In my group, we house ruled it so that "flanked" is a condition. If an enemy is flanked, anyone attacking that enemy gets the benefits of flanking. This has resulted in a boost to the ranged rogue in the group.
Your suggested change would make sneak attacking even easier, so I would say it would definitely make a sneak attacker more attractive (though your change heavily favors ranged sneak attackers.)
Also keep in mind that Pathfinder doesn't use facing, and your rule is adding in a quasi version. This may result in a lot of other tweaks that are needed.
Yeah I agree about the facing issue. Only getting sneak attack when you're behind a dude was dumb anyway. Most of the vital organs on a human are in the front anyway. Besides the archer rogue could shoot an arrow at the side of a dude's neck and it would still kill him the same as shoot him in the front or back of the neck.
The justification for why you have to be part of the flanking to sneak attack an enemy was always pretty weak to me. The basic idea to me was always that you get to sneak attack when someone has their guard down to you. Under the current system this means that a commoner would be at a tactical disadvantage to the guy right in front of him but be able to *perfectly* guard *all* his vital organs to a guy coming from the side. My idea is that if a person is flanked then anyone should be able to sneak attack them even if it's two other dudes doing the flanking. Maybe it's because I'm not a trained fighter but I don't think I could protect everywhere while there are three guys ganging up on me. I would definitely say that if I could cancel the tactical advantage of one dude (assuming I don't know them beforehand) it's probably be the guy in front of me so I could kill/incapacitate him quicker and then focus on the other dude. In fact, the guy at the side would probably be the least of the three threats.
Therefore my system would allow your ranged rogue to shoot a guy that the fighter and monk are flanking (provided they can be flanked). If you're worried about balance, maybe don't allow him the +2 to hit. Though if you're worried about martial classes being too powerful, then you don't have your priorities straight.
I think the one problem with this idea would be making melee rogues feel much weaker, in comparison. You can get almost as many attacks off as a TWF rogue with a build like this and it is much safer and with less feat investment. That being said, making something else worse in comparison shouldn't matter with classes like the Ninja/Rogue already being considered very weak.
I'd say it's more like "ranged rogues are already much weaker". I'm just balancing them. Paladins aren't told, "Hey, you can smite with that bow, but only at high noon or on Sundays."
Also, less feat investment? Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot. And those are just the bare necessities. Versus Two-Weapon Fighting, Double Slice, and look: Same number of attacks, and it costs less gold!
And if you buy Exotic Weapon Proficiency (two-bladed sword), it even deals more damage.
The main drawback to two-weapon fighting is that you have to close to accomplish anything, though ranged combat has similar handicaps about cover that take a while to overcome.
I completely feel you that ranged rogue is just way too weak at the moment. And when you put it like that, it may seem that there's less feat investment, but allow me to break things down a bit.
Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are feats that you need for Rapid Shot, but feats you benefit from all the same. Point Blank gives you +1 to hit/damage and a TWF rogue who wants that same benefit would need a feat (Weapon Focus) and a half (1/2 of Weapon Specialization, which isn't available to Rogues but I hope you get the point). So that puts them at Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and then a little.
Precise Shot does feel really taxy, and I agree with you there. It's a penalty that needs to be eliminated in order to make use of the ranged flank. I hadn't considered that.
EDIT: The big thing is that you get a lot more full-attacks and are generally safer as range. If you have a player who really wants to play an archer rogue, I think your rule is fine. I just don't think it should be adopted generally without seeing buffs to melee-rogues as a whole.
It seems to me that instead of modifying the rules for flanking you should introduce rogue talents that alleviate the problem.
It seems to me that instead of modifying the rules for flanking you should introduce rogue talents that alleviate the problem.
I like this idea. Kobold Bushwackers could be modified to be able to pick it up if that's a perceived issue, but I'm not sure anyone plays that archetype.
It seems to me that instead of modifying the rules for flanking you should introduce rogue talents that alleviate the problem.
I've always felt the standard flanking rules were lackluster. An opponent is either flanked or he is not, it does not matter if the attack in question comes from in front of him, behind him, the sides, above, below, etc.
When I can kill two birds with one stone (make a rule more logical and boost a class that is traditionally viewed as weak), I consider it a plus.
I completely feel you that ranged rogue is just way too weak at the moment. And when you put it like that, it may seem that there's less feat investment, but allow me to break things down a bit.
Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are feats that you need for Rapid Shot, but feats you benefit from all the same. Point Blank gives you +1 to hit/damage and a TWF rogue who wants that same benefit would need a feat (Weapon Focus) and a half (1/2 of Weapon Specialization, which isn't available to Rogues but I hope you get the point). So that puts them at Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and then a little.
Point Blank Shot is not worth both Weapon Focus and "half of" Weapon Specialization. It's specialized—though in a way that does suit rogues, I'll admit. Also, what kind of doofus relies on Weapon Finesse? A melee rogue should have at least a 14 Strength—preferably higher. In fact, a melee rogue will likely find his Strength to be much more important than his Dexterity.
Anyways, just because ranged rogues are forced to get PBS doesn't mean the melee rogue is forced to seek out the equivalent. The melee rogue can afford to instead buy feats like Toughness, Dodge and Improved Initiative, since the list of feats he has to take is much lower. Any one of those three feats is just as good as Point Blank Shot, and it's optional.
EDIT: The big thing is that you get a lot more full-attacks and are generally safer as range. If you have a player who really wants to play an archer rogue, I think you're rule is fine. I just don't think it should be adopted generally without seeing buffs to melee-rogues as a whole.
So you'd rather ranged rogues be grossly underpowered than melee rogues be? I mean, you seem to agree that the gap isn't so grotesque. And how could it be worse than barring a ranged rogue from using his signature ability?
It seems to me that instead of modifying the rules for flanking you should introduce rogue talents that alleviate the problem.
Good thing I didn't modify the rules for flanking. I modified the rules for sneak attacks.
I don't think that Ranged Rogues should be horrifically nerfed. What I don't want is for Rogues to be forced into a ranged role. I already feel Zen Archer is just so much stronger than other monks that it diminishes optimal Monk builds (another weak class). I think making this change would do something similar to Rogues.
Leaving my opinion there, I don't think I have too much else to say.
I don't think that Ranged Rogues should be horrifically nerfed. What I don't want is for Rogues to be forced into a ranged role. I already feel Zen Archer is just so much stronger than other monks that it diminishes optimal Monk builds (another weak class). I think making this change would do something similar to Rogues.
But it's already being done to rogues, just in reverse and way more severely.