|
Hey all, Pretty much as the title says, I'm looking for thoughts on the following homebrew for sneak attack-
You no longer need to be flanking an enemy to gain sneak attack, you merely need to have another ally threatening the enemy while you also threaten.
Example-
X is you, Y is ally, O is enemy.
normally, you need to be set up in the following- (or some form thereof)
XOY
or
X
O
Y
The proposed homerule would allow you to gain sneak attack in the following-
O
YX
Or
OY
X
You both threaten the creature, so you get sneak attack (if applicable)
If all it takes is another person threatening, then if X has a long spear XYO also allows sneak attacks on O. Which makes rogues/ninjas into the ideal phalanx fighters which seems a little odd; less so for slayers perhaps.
You could just make the specifics for flanking a little easier, allowing:
.
.
.
.
00X
00
0X0
... to be a flanking position?
You're basically giving away a better version of the Gang Up feat for free if you do your original plan.
Will it break the game?
Probably not. But it will make Sneak Attack a lot more reliable. Expect to see Rogues finding a way to get a minion to sit on their shoulder with a reach weapon and help them get flanking.
Honestly, I've thought about just changing sneak attack completely. Getting rid of all the normal and just saying you get 1 bonus damage instead (no condition) at the points you would get a sneak attack die.I might make it 2 damage since rogues don't have any innate attack bonuses, but then anything else that gets sneak attack is probably getting too good of deal.
Sneak attack is just a s!#~ty mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is just a s%%!ty mechanic.
Strongly disagree, a well built rogue with sneak attack can outpace a fighter for damage at mid-high level. Even at low level it will be on par.
That is basically giving sneak attack most of the time. The only time you would not get sneak attack is when the character is alone. Getting sneak attack on the first strike is actually easier when the character is alone. That seems to be going too far the other way. Now instead of the character never getting sneak attack they almost always do. On the average sneak attack does not do that much extra damage but with a good roll it can be a lot higher. Increasing the frequency of gaining sneak attack increases the chance of that happening.
I can understand wanting to make sneak attack a little easier, but that seems too much. Maybe instead of being threatened the target has to actually be hit might work. The idea of sneak attack is that the character is distracted. Having a guy in full plate standing there is not much of a distraction if he is not attacking you. Being hit is a distraction. Keep the flanking as it currently is but add a condition that the character gets to add the sneak attack damage when the character has been hit in the same round. This may require the character doing the sneak attack to wait to attack, but that is not unreasonable.
I've found the "rogues are garbage" theory not to hold up in play. But if you are going to buff sneak attack, make sure it just applies to rogues (maybe slayers) and not vivisectionist alchemists and such or you'll have a real problem on your hands.
Also, this is how 5e handles sneak attack, but you can only apply it once per turn.
A UC TWF rogue with say 5 attacks has quintuple the sneak attack damage potential.
|
|
hmmm... Rogues are bad argument aside, (and they are, when view in a vacuum or as "solo" characters. They are worse fighters unless they invest in UMD and wands) They can also be very deadly in actual play. That said, rogues are almost useless (comparatively) when combating enemies immune to SA.
So, how about-
you can gain sneak attack vs a target that has been hit by a melee attack by an ally this round, as long as that ally is still adjacent to that enemy. (in other words, reach would not work, if the enemy withdrew/moved away it would not work) You must have a finesse weapon for this to work?
Would you really limit it to rogues only? If so, do you think limiting it via finesse training weapons would be acceptable?
Strongly disagree, a well built rogue with sneak attack can outpace a fighter for damage at mid-high level. Even at low level it will be on par.
Sneak attack is just a s%%!ty mechanic.
My personal experience strongly disagrees with that, because rogues lack a meaningful bonus to hit.
Now if you mean their damage per hit can be on par or exceed a fighter, then that is true. But no, on average a rogue isn't going to deal more damage per round than a fighter, in my experience.
Homebrew fix for Sneak Attack?
Make it a flat +1 every odd level... TO ATTACK, not damage. All other rules still apply to trigger it.
Done.
Sneak Attack would be infinitely more useful and deadly if it was a flat accuracy bonus that scaled with level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strongly disagree, a well built rogue with sneak attack can outpace a fighter for damage at mid-high level. Even at low level it will be on par.
Sneak attack is just a s%%!ty mechanic.
My personal experience strongly disagrees with that, because rogues lack a meaningful bonus to hit.
Now if you mean their damage per hit can be on par or exceed a fighter, then that is true. But no, on average a rogue isn't going to deal more damage per round than a fighter, in my experience.
UnRogue fixed that pretty handily with Debilitating Strike, besides the bonus of flanking or attacking a flat-footed opponent, another -4 to -6 to the opponent's AC virtually guarantees a hit. Then with multiple attacks, they make sure to nuke their attack penalty, making up for whatever armor might be lacking between them and a fighter. It's certainly not as easy a build as a point-and-click fighter, but it's crazy dangerous
Our current game is a high-powered gestalt mythic campaign, my mythic vital striking martial artist barbarian hits for 280ish a pop, I pale in comparison to the two-weapon wielding knifemaster.
As to being bad in solo play, I think there is nothing further from the truth. Rogues are Batman, they work best alone where they get to control the pace of combat, instead of rushing in with the rest of the group, they can take their time and own most encounters.
Again going back to our current game, the rogue got separated in a dungeon and found a ghost beholder. It never hit him; couldn't see him, even with sniping minuses and he just picked it apart, using stealth and guile. Later on, after the ghost beholder had reformed, we all fought it, it killed two of us and took the rest of the seven person party into the double digits of health before we finally finished it off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only personal experience with the Rogue class, though, was a Strength-based Tengu cRogue Scout using a Greatsword.
I had a Half-Orc battle-buddy, a Fighter with a Bardiche, who made it a point to flank with me... and I obviously made it a point to flank with him.
We would kite enemies into favorable position, or I would rush in with Scout's Charge/Slow Reactions and he would casually waltz into flanking position.
We were wildly effective only due to smart teamwork. That flanking bonus to accuracy kept me viable and allowed him to use Power Attack all willy nilly without suffering too much.
We had big dreams of teamwork feats, working towards Coordinated Charge... but the campaign ended prematurely, as they sometimes do.
To be clear, UC rogue should be vanilla rogue.
And rogues shouldn't be operating alone, regardless.
we've had some pretty crazy boss fights with Outflank and Gangup; turned into the scene from Office Space and the fax machine...using the Critical Hit deck one critical hit sparked a chain of seven attacks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a bit much, yeah. It also seems to be a bigger/more complex change than you need. When you're hacking a game, always make the smallest change you can.
I've made some changes to the rogue. One of them is +1 to attack/2 levels on sneak attacks. This effectively makes them a 5/4 BAB class when their strength comes into play, but still 3/4 when it doesn't.
|
|
It seems a bit much, yeah. It also seems to be a bigger/more complex change than you need. When you're hacking a game, always make the smallest change you can.
I've made some changes to the rogue. One of them is +1 to attack/2 levels on sneak attacks. This effectively makes them a 5/4 BAB class when their strength comes into play, but still 3/4 when it doesn't.
This struck me as strange though, because the entire theme of the class (from my view) is a daring (or not so daring) adventurer who are renowned for making the best of bad situations/turn disadvantage into an advantage.
If anything I think making SA easier to "active" and/or more applicable is better for the theme than making it stronger when they get it.
That said, mechanically, the additional +1 to hit/2 does seem nice.
I'm actually open to the idea of uc rogues with full BAB, d10 HD, and Good Fortitude and Reflex Saves.
Heresy, I know. I'd give an UC monk a d12 HD. Fight me.
|
Homebrew fix for Sneak Attack?
Make it a flat +1 every odd level... TO ATTACK, not damage. All other rules still apply to trigger it.
Done.
Sneak Attack would be infinitely more useful and deadly if it was a flat accuracy bonus that scaled with level.
Just make the rogue a full BAB class would help a lot. A lot of feats would become avaible earlier.
And move the advanced rogue talents to level 5 like the advanced weapon training options of the fighter.
I could see a Rogue Talent that allowed the Rogue to count their class levels as BAB for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.
Then have an Advanced Talent that functions the same as the Magus' Fighter Training. You must have the Rogue Talent to count your class levels as BAB in order to take this Advanced Talent. You can count half your class levels as levels in Fighter for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.
Finally, make a Rogue Talent that allows you to sacrifice Sneak Attack die for an accuracy bonus equal to the number of dice given up. Even if the bonus only applies to the first attack each round, but the Sneak Attack is lessened for every attack.
You could offer a follow up Advanced Talent that allows the accuracy bonus to apply to all attacks you make in a round.
Strongly disagree, a well built rogue with sneak attack can outpace a fighter for damage at mid-high level. Even at low level it will be on par.
Sneak attack is just a s%%!ty mechanic.
My personal experience strongly disagrees with that, because rogues lack a meaningful bonus to hit.
Now if you mean their damage per hit can be on par or exceed a fighter, then that is true. But no, on average a rogue isn't going to deal more damage per round than a fighter, in my experience.
since they should be flanking or going against flat footed their BAB is sufficient. They can also easily get Dex to attack and damage.
but yes, a decently built rogue can match a fighter at mid levels in Damage per round, and exceed them at high levels (typically once some form of Invisibility is obtained)
If you're going to just assume flanking or flat-footed then you have to give the fighter the same benefit.
A 10th level rogue will have a BAB of 7, vs a fighter with a BAB of 10. The fighter will have weapon training (and gloves to boost it) for an additional +4 to attack and damage.
A rogue will have 5d6 sneak attack (avg 17.5 damage).
Meanwhile the fighter has many feats that they can add to increase attack bonus (weapon focus/imp), damage (weapon spec/imp, powerattack). Power attack with would add 6 damage for a -3 to hit (9 if two-handing).
Even with the penalty from power attack, the fighter still has a better to hit than the rogue. Until you get bonuses from positioning or flat-footed that you aren't also giving the fighter the fighter definitely has an edge to hit.
If your fighter is trying to mimic a twf rogue (the classic build) he can take an advanced weapon training to let him get double his weapon training bonus to damage and he wont need to worry about trying to find a way to get dex to damage on his weapons (typically agile) and can instead use straight enhancement bonuses on his weapon.
And augment his weapon with Warrior Spirit to add Bane or other abilities.
This struck me as strange though, because the entire theme of the class (from my view) is a daring (or not so daring) adventurer who are renowned for making the best of bad situations/turn disadvantage into an advantage.
If anything I think making SA easier to "active" and/or more applicable is better for the theme than making it stronger when they get it.
I can get behind that. But if you have a "conditional" bonus that's almost always online, you lose the difference between that and a flat, static bonus.
I consider the rogue to be an opportunistic combatant. If you're charging into the fray and swinging for the fence, as a typical rogue, it at least feels like you're doing it wrong. Taking a turn to set up a flank, forgoing a full-attack to maneuver into a better position--that's the kind of stuff I think of.
The best rogue-in-combat scenario I've seen in a while was an encounter against a fortified foe, where the rogue started the combat hidden and stayed hidden for over 10 rounds, got behind enemy lines and caused chaos in the camp; setting fire to tents, opening the main gate, etc. They were easily the MVP of the fight, and they made maybe 1-3 attack rolls versus everyone else's 12+.
|
|
If you're going to just assume flanking or flat-footed then you have to give the fighter the same benefit.
A 10th level rogue will have a BAB of 7, vs a fighter with a BAB of 10. The fighter will have weapon training (and gloves to boost it) for an additional +4 to attack and damage.
A rogue will have 5d6 sneak attack (avg 17.5 damage).
Meanwhile the fighter has many feats that they can add to increase attack bonus (weapon focus/imp), damage (weapon spec/imp, powerattack). Power attack with would add 6 damage for a -3 to hit (9 if two-handing).
Even with the penalty from power attack, the fighter still has a better to hit than the rogue. Until you get bonuses from positioning or flat-footed that you aren't also giving the fighter the fighter definitely has an edge to hit.
If your fighter is trying to mimic a twf rogue (the classic build) he can take an advanced weapon training to let him get double his weapon training bonus to damage and he wont need to worry about trying to find a way to get dex to damage on his weapons (typically agile) and can instead use straight enhancement bonuses on his weapon.
And augment his weapon with Warrior Spirit to add Bane or other abilities.
It would be better to view it at level 11. As the scales tip further for the fighter.
Not to mention the fighter arguably has the more impactful save.
A TWF fighter with a dex/str of 16 each, or a dex of 18, str of 16 can take the trained grace AWT to double weapon training bonuses when using dex to hit and str for damage. (thus, turning that +4/4 into +4/8)
not to mention the fighter always performs. If the rogue goes up against anything immune to SA they fall off greatly. A rogue's best build is to go for elven curved blade and just two hand it for the 1.5 dex damage for 2handing.
A rogue is much better off going eldritch scoundrel. Which is far superior to the normal unrogue IMO.
a fighter today will make a rogue look sad in actual combat. The rogue has to make that up with out of combat stuff, which while possible, is usually less immediately noticeable.
A fighter will, if trying to optimize, take a level of brawler for martial flexibility.
@Quixote
That is a rogue specifically staying OUT of combat. Using skill checks/etc to have an effect with possible GM fiat (for or against the rogue) effecting how effective their actions were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean. The rogue avoided getting involved in the melee until the end. But it was a combat situation. And the rogue was certainly involved.
My point is this: the rogue is an opportunist in combat. They select their engagements carefully and are more effective because of it.
From what I've seen, the rogue as it currently stands fails because it's either *almost* as good as a fighter or far, far worse. If you're going to specialize, you should be better than those who don't specialize in your area of focus and worse than them elsewhere. Not mediocre and bad.
The idea that the rogue can "turn disadvantage into advantage" is cool, but I don't really know how well it translates into the proposed mechanics. I don't think you can bake that into a class so much as encourage a class to be played carefully. That's why I tried to amp up the idea that the rogue is more specialized.
(For those who claim the rogue is in no need of help and on par or superior with other martial classes, I would request a posted build or something. Because I'm just not seeing it.)
If you're going to just assume flanking or flat-footed then you have to give the fighter the same benefit.
A 10th level rogue will have a BAB of 7, vs a fighter with a BAB of 10. The fighter will have weapon training (and gloves to boost it) for an additional +4 to attack and damage.
A rogue will have 5d6 sneak attack (avg 17.5 damage).
Meanwhile the fighter has many feats that they can add to increase attack bonus (weapon focus/imp), damage (weapon spec/imp, powerattack). Power attack with would add 6 damage for a -3 to hit (9 if two-handing).
Even with the penalty from power attack, the fighter still has a better to hit than the rogue. Until you get bonuses from positioning or flat-footed that you aren't also giving the fighter the fighter definitely has an edge to hit.
If your fighter is trying to mimic a twf rogue (the classic build) he can take an advanced weapon training to let him get double his weapon training bonus to damage and he wont need to worry about trying to find a way to get dex to damage on his weapons (typically agile) and can instead use straight enhancement bonuses on his weapon.
And augment his weapon with Warrior Spirit to add Bane or other abilities.
Since the rogue should have invisibility of some kind as part of his build and the fighter would not, I do not have to give the fighter the flat footed advantage, but sure for flanking, the two cancel out. also as part of the same build the rogue should have a haste item and a dex item. where as the fighter typically opts for a con or str item and an AC item. the rogue should have prihana strike, and finesse/agile weapons as well.
most fighters go for sword and board, or two handed weapons, about the same number of attacks as rogue. with knifemaster, a 7th level rouge should be potentially dishing out 12d8 per round plus other bonuses. it gets worse as the level goes up, especially agsint any kind of bad guy with a high dex bonus.
I mean. The rogue avoided getting involved in the melee until the end. But it was a combat situation. And the rogue was certainly involved.
My point is this: the rogue is an opportunist in combat. They select their engagements carefully and are more effective because of it.
From what I've seen, the rogue as it currently stands fails because it's either *almost* as good as a fighter or far, far worse. If you're going to specialize, you should be better than those who don't specialize in your area of focus and worse than them elsewhere. Not mediocre and bad.
The idea that the rogue can "turn disadvantage into advantage" is cool, but I don't really know how well it translates into the proposed mechanics. I don't think you can bake that into a class so much as encourage a class to be played carefully. That's why I tried to amp up the idea that the rogue is more specialized.
(For those who claim the rogue is in no need of help and on par or superior with other martial classes, I would request a posted build or something. Because I'm just not seeing it.)
I'll find an old build and get you a copy, POM me for it.
If you're going to just assume flanking or flat-footed then you have to give the fighter the same benefit.
A 10th level rogue will have a BAB of 7, vs a fighter with a BAB of 10. The fighter will have weapon training (and gloves to boost it) for an additional +4 to attack and damage.
A rogue will have 5d6 sneak attack (avg 17.5 damage).
Meanwhile the fighter has many feats that they can add to increase attack bonus (weapon focus/imp), damage (weapon spec/imp, powerattack). Power attack with would add 6 damage for a -3 to hit (9 if two-handing).
Even with the penalty from power attack, the fighter still has a better to hit than the rogue. Until you get bonuses from positioning or flat-footed that you aren't also giving the fighter the fighter definitely has an edge to hit.
If your fighter is trying to mimic a twf rogue (the classic build) he can take an advanced weapon training to let him get double his weapon training bonus to damage and he wont need to worry about trying to find a way to get dex to damage on his weapons (typically agile) and can instead use straight enhancement bonuses on his weapon.
And augment his weapon with Warrior Spirit to add Bane or other abilities.
Since the rogue should have invisibility of some kind as part of his build and the fighter would not, I do not have to give the fighter the flat footed advantage, but sure for flanking, the two cancel out. also as part of the same build the rogue should have a haste item and a dex item. where as the fighter typically opts for a con or str item and an AC item. the rogue should have prihana strike, and finesse/agile weapons as well.
most fighters go for sword and board, or two handed weapons, about the same number of attacks as rogue. with knifemaster, a 7th level rouge should be potentially dishing out 12d8 per round plus other bonuses. it gets worse as the level goes up, especially agsint any kind of bad guy with a high dex bonus.
Monsters with some sort of ability to negate invisibility are relatively common. Relying on Invisibility doesn't actually work so well, in my experience. Between blindsight, tremorsense, and a myriad of abilities that negate it it's not hard. Not to mention that unless you get greater invisibility, you'll only land one hit before it goes away.
And the easiest way I can see for a rogue to get access to greater invisibility is as an eldritch scoundrel. You'll get your first 4th level spell at 10th level. And getting eldritch scoundrel will loose you half your sneak attack progression (although there are ways to mitigate it). Still Eldritch Scoundrel is easily the best rogue in my opinion, because it does get access to mitigate the problems it has.
Where is the rogue getting a haste item that the fighter can't? They're on equal footing their. And building a fighter with two weapon fighting and going dex based (in my earlier example) was merely trying to show how the fighter can still beat the rogue at their own game ultimately.
I get it, sneak attack looks really good on paper. When everything aligns and you get to pull off a full attack sneak attack and all your attacks land it is immensely satisfying and can be a boatload of damage. It is more potential damage than the fighter can muster in theory, but I've rarely seen it happen in actual combat.
Not to mention that there are things to make the rogue player cry when you fight an opponent with superior reach who move away after a single attack forcing the rogue to move in to hit them only once. In general that kind of enemy will can deal equal or more damage in a single hit than the rogue (especially if not sneak attacking), and the rogue can end up trading blows at a disadvantage.
Also, a lot of not humanoid enemies tend to get a lot of natural armor and minimal dex to AC, so flat-footed can often mean an AC reduction of only 1 or 2 points. Obviously this can be very dependent on the type of campaign you're playing. If it's humanoid heavy, enemies losing dex can be a big swing. If you're fighting dragons, it might not matter at all.
ninja gets greater invisibility at 10th level, and still has full sneak attack.
sure, a TWF fighter would have haste etc, but that's not a typical build in my experience. most fighters I see go sword and board.
As for monster that negate invisibility or creatures which reach that move away, we're on the 8th Adventure path and I've seen that happen less than a handful of times.
ninja gets greater invisibility at 10th level, and still has full sneak attack.
sure, a TWF fighter would have haste etc, but that's not a typical build in my experience. most fighters I see go sword and board.
As for monster that negate invisibility or creatures which reach that move away, we're on the 8th Adventure path and I've seen that happen less than a handful of times.
I think you see some unusual things then, because I've basically never seen a character wield a shield outside of some very specific builds. Like using a polearm with shield brace or two weapon fighting with two shields.
Most people I've played with have looked at a shield and said "Oh, so I get a little bit extra AC but it prevents me from two-handed or two-weapon fighting....no thanks". Because the realization that saves and touch AC exist means stacking all your eggs into the regular AC basket isn't as useful as it might appear, and since tanking doesn't exist a high AC often means your character is ignored while more dangerous ones are attacked. Sure your character might live the longest, but your party might appreciate it more if you had more offense.
Yeah, sorry. I'm just not seeing it. I would need to see some numbers before I got off the "rogues are pretty bad" wagon.
Hence all these threads about changing them up.
I think it's important to look at what you want mechanically and then find a way to accomplish that within the narrative.
Like, whether a rogue participates in combat with two blades, a shortbow or a truncheon, I feel like what separates them from other classes is the emphasis on setting up shots and then hitting harder, versus marching out onto the front line and trading blows or hanging back and blasting/shooting away.
So I've left them with a d8 hit die to keep them wanting mobility (and to make TWF dangerous for them), but given them a few small boosts to make them actually excel in their area of expertise, rather than be on par.
While the change to flanking and sneak attack in the OP makes it easier for a rogue to get in their area of expertise, I feel like it's heading towards the point where the rogue isn't a specialist anymore, and just has essentially static bonuses to combat like a fighter's weapon training or a barbarians rage. Plus, it only helps the rogue in one situation. I think a general accuracy boost that is harder to get but can be gotten in more situations and is more substantial when you do get it fits with the mechanical concept of the rogue more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TxSam88, you honestly encounter that many sword and board types?
I have seen one person at my tables use a shield. A Dwarf Inquisitor. And that was largely circumstancial, he preferred 2H reach weapons.
Literally nobody else in any of my games has touched a shield other than collecting loot off the battlefield to sell later.
I think if you want to fix the Rogue, you play a Slayer. Done and done.
|
|
I think people on these boards prioritize offense waaaaay to much anyway.
From a non-optimization and, in some optimization cases shields are rather good, especially when you fight things that target your hp via attacks. Especially things with a lot of natural attacks, or one BIG attack.
theoretically, the fighter should be able to absorb a lot of attacks from enemies. A 7 AC swing at higher levels can make or break that. Of course, the "better" option is to have UMD and use wand of shield when you think you will be fighting.
Reasonable or not, I've seen few PCs using shields. It's not just a 'on the boards' thing. Also the AC difference is much less at low levels, which is when you establish the style of your character.
What kills rogues (UC obviously), in my experience is not lack of firepower but lack of hp and bad saves. There's only so much you can do to mitigate at high levels...
What kills rogues (UC obviously), in my experience is not lack of firepower but lack of hp and bad saves. There's only so much you can do to mitigate at high levels...
True, rogues tend to only be good at Reflex saves, which is the least important of the save types. Will saves tend to prevent you from attacking your party or being completely disabled, fort saves tend to prevent you from outright dying or being disabled, reflex saves tend to protect you from...damage.
While not bad, you can fight the same at 1 hp as you can at 100 hp.
Eating actions of other characters to break the dominate that was cast is usually far worse (IMO) than having a character be knocked unconscious or die.
The second one is bad for that one character. The first can be bad for the entire party.
Dominate or a mass charm monster/person can really hurt if suddenly the barbarian is now trying to kill the wizard or if everyone but the cleric is suddenly running away from the enemy because their new friend suggested it.
Like don't get me wrong, having a good reflex save isn't a bad thing. But it's typically not as important as having a good fort or will save, IMO.
And of course if your GM is down right mean, they can always just have several casters with readied action casts of enervation in the room with the BBEG. They might be several levels lower than the party, they might die from a single hit, but their entire purpose would be to debuff you. And while you can absolutely be running death ward, unless the party makes a habit of handing it out to everyone someone can be nuked.
There is always a counter to any build, it just depends on whether or not the GM wants to use it or if it's plausible.
TxSam88, you honestly encounter that many sword and board types?
I have seen one person at my tables use a shield. A Dwarf Inquisitor. And that was largely circumstantial, he preferred 2H reach weapons.
Literally nobody else in any of my games has touched a shield other than collecting loot off the battlefield to sell later.
I think if you want to fix the Rogue, you play a Slayer. Done and done.
Yep, pretty much 40% of the fighters I have played with have been full plate, large shield, longsword builds with AC's in the 40's. their whole goal is to be the tank who can't be hit, and they could care less about damage output. There's almost always at least one player at the table with a shield, or at least a buckler.
about 40% play archers (don't get me started on how broken archers are when it comes to damage)
out of the remaining group most play 2 handed fighters, and then the rest play 2 weapon fighters (in fact, I'm usually the one who plays the 2-weapon fighter - it's the least common)
I can be a bit of a power gamer sometimes, so I know how much damage output my character builds can do, and Archers are by far the number one damage dealer, after than Rogues, 2 handed builds and TWF are all on par with each other, and sword and board are in the rear.
I'll agree that TWF fighters are on par (and can be better) with the damage output of a TWF rogue, but I rarely see them played in my area.
Most of the people in my area who play fighters go STR build, which is either Two handed weapons (most actually tend towards barbarian) or go Sword and board. If they decide to DEX build a fighter, they go archer (and usually shift towards ranger at that point). So yeah, MOST of the people who play "Fighter" wind up sword and board.
As for "fixing a rogue" I agree, play a slayer...
|
|
@clax
yes and no. It depends on the situation.
If half the party gets feared/charmed/etc but the cleric (or bard!) is the next in line to take their turn, and immediately break enchantment they just spent their turn, to render the enemies turn null. (a GREAT trade off usually, as big bads are often higher "Level" and action economy normally favors the party as is.) Saying its a waste of a turn is a bit wrong. Its one reason when I play a divine caster I always hold my turn until after the big bad. So I can run damage control if need be. (IMO, any cleric/divine support class worth their salt, or that isn't new will do this. Turn order is an easy thing to manipulate in PF and should be done for dangerous fights.)
Not to mention, other classes covering the weaknesses of the others is a built in assumption into the system. After all, the wizard doesn't fight, the fighter does (or his summoned minions, but I digress) In many cases, using a spell to remove CC is better than using 1 to heal an ally from unconscious. Not counting the resources spent later healing them back up.
Note, I'm not saying that you shouldn't build in a way to shore up your defenses. I as a player actually PREFER building defensive and versatile rather than focusing on offense/on aspect.
I despise the slayer class personally. To me, It has the least flavor without heavy work from the player, boring class abilities, and a terrible name.
I guess I just prefer to be proactive rather than reactive.
That cleric could have instead cast something to disable the BBEG, like Waves of Ecstasy.
Also, at least when I GM I try to avoid one single higher level enemy because (as you note) action economy is not in your favor.
My party was always full of optimizers, so to have a single enemy be a credible threat it needed to be like CR+6. While for an "average" encounter to be even worth running (so it wasn't just a waste of time to go through the motions of rolling and moving around the map) was like a CR+3.
Typically I'd run a number of CR+4 enemies equal to party size and like one CR +5 enemy as a "boss". Under no circumstances did I ever allow what was supposed to be a pivotal tough fight ever have the enemy with less actors than the number of PCs.
Losing on action economy in that way means fights aren't even worth running in the first place (IMO).
I guess it's also worth mentioning that defensive characters get ignored after one or two misses (by intelligent enemies), and anyone that can be identified as a full progression caster is a priority one target (again for intelligent enemies).
without laying out a full build, let's assume they have a 20 in their primary attack stat thinks to race+enhancement, 6th level, very basic
the fighter is going to have around a 20 to 22 AC (full plate, RoP, AoNA)
they'll be swinging at +14/+7 or about (+1 weapon, weapon focus, weapon training 1) doing 2d6+18 or so with a greatsword per swing (+1 weapon, weapon specialization, weapon training, power attack, furious focus), no real tricks to speak of, maybe has sunder or other PA related maneuver feat, maybe curnogen smash, but probably only a +10 or so Intimidate check, 50ish hps
the rogues is going to have between a 17 to 20 AC (studded leather, RoP maybe), and accuracy of +11 (+1 weapon, weapon focus) or +9/+9 when two-weapon fighting, doing 1d4+6/+3 (+1 weapon, dex to damage) +3d6 sneak attack, rogue will have 3 rogue talents, probably bleeding attack, a combat feat and fast stealth just to be super basic, can have two-weapon feint with a +13 if we take skill focus (bluff) and the big one debilitating strike, 30ish hps
now there are a multitude of scenarios we can run them through with the above; single combat, pvp combat, mass combat, dungeon encounter, etc. Each will have their own strengths and weaknesses, what they will not have however is the same approach to those encounters, and they shouldn't. If you want to rock'em sock'em robots, you play the fighter, stand toe to toe and just go at it. If you want more options and the necessity to use those option to be effective, you use the rogue. The rogue is a better team player, also by necessity mainly, as they need a good flanking partner, but unlike the fighter, they can easily debuff an enemy, making the entire team better against them, essentially giving everyone a free Aid Another every turn thanks to debilitating injury.
As we scale up, I think the rogue begins to catch up and bypass the fighter, as though their numbers increase slower, their options only grow, while the fighter remains at toe-to-toe combat essentially.
In a one on one, I give it to the Rogue once they have debilitating injury and bleeding attacks. They're going to get the first strike most likely thanks to a higher initiative, general skullduggery abilities, etc..and now the fighter is bleeding from several holes and has his already limited movement cut in half while he desperately tries to stop from bleeding out, which just gives the rogue more time to pick them apart.
If the fighter stands toe to toe he's stupid.
You kite him so he can't full attack you, it also tends to make a lot of options to get flat-footed to not work with the action economy.
Honestly, if you know someone's build and how they function, it's pretty easy to figure out a counter. And you can back and forth and back again.
Debilitating injury is good, but I (at least) was looking at core rogue and not Unchained Rogue.
Also bleeding (in a one on one fight) should be ignored. Spend the actions to heal after the enemy is dead.
Depending on how far apart the combatants start (if they start far apart) a reach weapon & combat reflexes, and a readied action (previous turn assuming one movement was not enough for either party to reach the other) could kill the rogue before he gets in there. Or a lucky critical could do the same.
Course if the rogue starts next to the fighter and goes first he could full attack and if he gets lucky and hits all attacks he'll probably inflict just enough damage to not quite knock out the fighter. And then the fighter strikes back and very likely knocks the rogue unconscious with a full attack. But it would be close, if the rogue rolls above average on their sneak attack damage he could manage it.
Course, the fighter would likely die from bleed damage in the second scenario, even if the rogue doesn't knock him out directly.
|
|
the more likely scenario is the rogue snipes the fighter with a bow and the rogue unlock for stealth. The fighter, with his no perception class skill, is helpless as the rogue apply hindered movement via sneak attack and shoots him down with a bow with the fighter flat footed.
pvp is a terrible way to judge classes. Always do so vs monsters.
Adding in the skill unchained options is something that would obviously favor the rogue.
That said, nothing stops the fighter from using a bow or finding hard cover. And while hampered movement is certainly hampering, the fighter doesn't rely on dex for AC and the rogue will still have to manage to hit the target with one attack per round (to stay out of notice) and down the fighter before they can get to some sort of hard cover.
If the fighter can get into a room or an enclosed space they can wait out the rogue.
And that aside, sniping builds work terribly against monsters as:
1) It's very common for monster to have blindsense/blindsight, tremorsense, or some other sense that lets them know when an enemy is within a certain range and stealth simply doesn't work against it.
2) Due to map sizes you rarely get to start very far away from the enemy, whether it's because you're in a dungeon or simply because the map can only accommodate a 20 square by 20 square area.
3) Sniping can only fire one arrow a round. Even with sneak attack it's still not doing that much damage per round. The party is simply going to engage and wipe them out and your small amount of damage will be a minor contribution.
|
|
Like I said, pvp is a bad way to determine class ability. And I disagree. Fighters make use of Dex for AC plenty. (armor training)
1. Dampen prescense removes the ability for blindsense/sight to detect them. They have to beat the characters stealth with a perception. Flight, or you know, not moving removes tremor.
2. True. Its also why archers are not completely OP
3. Master sniper! manyshot may function with this, depending.
I think we've lost the main thread, here.
I think that rogues do need a little somethin'; I don't think they're absolute garbage or anything like that, but a little boost would be good.
And for the "then play a slayer" comments, I don't find them helpful. Unless you're suggesting that the only way to help the rogue is to make the changes needed to turn them into a slayer, and no other options will do.
I'm still not sold on the OP's particular solution, for reasons already stated.
I think that making the rogue more accurate and slightly less fragile in combat as well as offering more significant results through skills is the key. I like the idea of the skill unlocks, but not what they ended up with. The Epic Level Handbook had some ideas for what you could accomplish with mundane skills when you hit insane DC's. If magic is the strongest option in the game, then at a certain point, everyone starts to become at least a little magical.
Also bleeding (in a one on one fight) should be ignored. Spend the actions to heal after the enemy is dead.
I think in a one on one fight, it's the ultimate weapon. Unless the opponent has a swift action ability to stop it or better, you can just bleed them and lead them until they have to stop to deal with it out die, then you hit them again and start the whole thing over.
Depending on how far apart the combatants start (if they start far apart) a reach weapon & combat reflexes, and a readied action (previous turn assuming one movement was not enough for either party to reach the other) could kill the rogue before he gets in there. Or a lucky critical could do the same.
for most any encounter, I think it reasonable to assume the rogue goes first. Few things have the ability to see a rogue outright, meaning the rogue is going to get the drop and those that do, the rogue just runs from :P
Course if the rogue starts next to the fighter and goes first he could full attack and if he gets lucky and hits all attacks he'll probably inflict just enough damage to not quite knock out the fighter. And then the fighter strikes back and very likely knocks the rogue unconscious with a full attack. But it would be close, if the rogue rolls above average on their sneak attack damage he could manage it.
Course, the fighter would likely die from bleed damage in the second scenario, even if the rogue doesn't knock him out directly.
I wouldn't full-attack on the first round in a one on one with a rogue vs anybody but maybe a full caster. By themselves, you play a rogue like you'd play batman, hit and run, stick and move, try your level best to make sure the opponent never even gets to roll against your AC and if they do, make sure they have all the disadvantages possible. Like I said up above, our Knifemaster took out a Beholder by himself with no problem, when we fought one as a group, is was a near TPK.
I think the UnRogue is fine as is, increasing HD and BAB I think would overshadow the Ranger and Fighter pretty badly. If anything, I'd give them a X/day ability to treat any opponent as flat-footed and call it a day.