Staggering Strike

hong · May 6, 2007

moritheil said:
According to whose experience?

According to the experience of me, Nail, IanB, and everyone else playing D&D in a manner to which you seem rather unaccustomed.

Each of us, if honest, reports the norm that he or she is familiar with.

Your norm is very ab.

hong · May 6, 2007

moritheil said:
Not necessarily. I've also been in low-level games where players were allowed the option of being undead, but most cool undead forms have so much LA that it isn't feasible to play one until higher levels.

... IOW, no undead.

Of course, you could always argue that the people I tend to associate with have broader minds in terms of allowing these things.

Or maybe they'd just rather be playing Counterstrike.

moritheil · May 6, 2007

hong said:
According to the experience of me, Nail, IanB, and everyone else playing D&D in a manner to which you seem rather unaccustomed.

But not according to me, James, Patlin, and everyone playing DnD in a manner to which I seem accustomed.

Elder-Basilisk · May 6, 2007

I think your math is a bit off. As hong points out, damage is more likely to be something like:
3.5*7 (sneak attack) + 3.5 (weapon) + 3.5 x2 (holy) +3 enhancement +2 strength. for an average of 40 damage on primary attacks, 38 on off-hand weapon. (Or maybe 34.5 if the character only has a single energy enhancement on his off-hand weapon instead of holy). Of course, +3 from bardsong or righteous wrath of the faithful isn't uncommon in a lot of games so we can make that 43-44 and 37-42. If you assume a three hits (a bit low in most circumstances if my experience is any indication since the character is getting 7 attacks including haste), the two weapon fighting rogue is going to trigger three fort saves.

Using your assumption of a +16 fort save, the character needs to roll a 14 to save on the primary attack and a 12 on the off-hand weapon. (with the initial 2 holy weapons, no morale, etc bonuses to damage). Since we're being generous to the fighter by assuming that he only gets hit three times, let's assume two primary hand hits (1st attack and haste) and one off-hand hit. His odds are 35%, 35%, and 45%. That adds up to a 5.5125% chance of making all three saves. Even if we are exceptionally generous and assume the lower damage numbers you posit which gives the fighter a 50% chance of a successful save his odds of making all three saves are only 12.5%.

That's why it's almost always a bad idea to scale a save DC on damage and allow it multiple times per round. The odds of making multiple successful saves go down exponentially.

As for the 100+ point attacker, that was a nod to what Hong refers to in the multiclass rogue section--as well as a demonstration of how just a few damage boosting abilities can stack to produce massive damage on a single hit. The character in question is a Shadowbane Inquisitor (Rog 2/Pal 5/Shadowbane Inquisitor 7) but could almost as easily have been the Rogue 4/Barbarian 10 from Hong's example. A lot of the massive damage comes from Rhino's Rush (a rather broken paladin spell that grants double damage on a charge attack), but even a mid sixty damage swing produces a situation where almost every creature is going to need a 20 to save.

That's why it's an especially bad idea to scale DCs with damage. Melee damage scales much faster than saving throws and there are lots of tricks that can be used to increase it.

Moon-Lancer said:
a normal 14 level rogue only does about 29 damage an attack. (7*3.5)+(2.5+3) They could do more they could do less. If your rogue character is doing 100 points of damage an attack, you have more problems then just this feat.

A fighter or any con based class is going to have a around a 16+d20 to thier fort save. they have about a 50% chance to make the save. I don't think the rogue is going to hit with every attack. I say the fighter has a 66%-77& chance he fails.

Elder-Basilisk · May 6, 2007

The better question is probably how many of them could afford to use an action in combat to drink a potion of blur. Being immune to the rogue doesn't help much if the fighter/wizard kills you before you can do anything to them.

Patlin said:
How many of those PCs and NPCs can afford, for example, a potion of blur? Sneak attack can be negated in so many ways, it's a bit sad.

Still a highly questionable feat, though.

Raspen · May 6, 2007

this would be a good thing to have with my ninja.. would he be able to get it?

Ridley's Cohort · May 6, 2007

I do not like it.

A Feat like this should be comparable to Stunning Fist at best, and probably notably weaker than that as Stunning Fist is a major class ability for the Monk.

On the minus side, Staggering Strike only Staggers and you must get the Sneak in the first place.

On the plus side, there are no uses per day limit, no uses per round limit, and it is trivial to boost the DC to the stratosphere.

As for the vulnerability of the target to SA, Stunning Fist suffers very similar limiations.

I would change the DC to 10 + <# of Sneak Dice> + <Int or Dex bonus>.

Erdric Dragin · Apr 10, 2017

Sorry to do a super Threadomancy on this, but I have been having problems with this feat in my games as well. The Fortitude DC of 40+ by a Rogue player of mine is way too out of hand. It's easy for him to get a SA, and every hit on a foe renders them Staggered for a round which severely hampers enemies.

I am starting to wonder if the "wording" of the feat meant the DC equals the "Sneak Attack Damage Dealt?" Has anyone ever considered that?

This would mean if it only counts SA damage, then a 10th-level Rogue would average a Fortitude DC of 17, and a 20th-level one would average a DC of 35. And those numbers look much more fair than ALL damage dealt, which the feat doesn't really make clear to begin with.

Thoughts?