1 Sneak Attack per Round?

[reapersaurus]

Either give us your arguments or go back to living under the bridge with all the other flame trolls.

Kamosa, stop reading so much into things.
You'll live longer.
And while you're at it, stop with the personal attacks.
You can read my post the same as everyone else did - your words ring hollow, since I haven't even hinted at what you exagerrate.

My stating that some people's arguments on this thread leave much to be desired isn't turning around and stating that i am god of RPG'ing.
Stop being so extreme.

And there's 3 reasons why i don't feel like going into great argumentative detail :
1) It takes too much of my time, and I've already spent too much on this thread weathering personal attacks.
2) noone has addressed the examples i've already brought up to my satisfaction. You've simply made up your own examples. I'm talking about min-maxed rogues who use their skills advantage to attack people WITH surprise and stealth - just like any sane, smart rogue would take advantage of situations. I'm not talking about a typical dungeon-crawl here, and certainly not against undead or against fortified armor, for god's sake.
3) This problem has already been discussed (better) in a thread about a month or so ago, and had much better points brought up, and i still believe it to be a mistake in the game balance. (Just as i still see that mages being able to co-opt just about every class's strengths is a mistake in game balance.)

How many times must i say that you are perfectly free to have your own opinions about the game?
Too many people have already proved they aren't listening, so good night.

 

[IceBear]

I think there have been at least 10 people who have posted on this thread that have stated that in actaul play in their campaigns they aren't experiencing this problem. Besides yourself, I don't think there has been anyone posting in agreement with you. Given the number of DMs and players on these boards, if this was *REALLY* a problem don't you think there would be more people arguing with you?

When you posted about removing Improved Invisibility and a few other spells, there were several posts in those threads supporting you in your claim that wizards might dominate at high levels. Thus, you might have had a valid point in that thread (I personally didn't have an issue, but that's me)

I don't really see any of that happening here. So, you can argue that in your opinion the rogue is too powerful, but I *really* think that if this were true, there would have been a lot more support for you in these posts.

There are a lot of things in 3E that seem very powerful on paper, but in actual game situations are not (Whirlwind + Great Cleave is one, as I've yet to see a high level fighter surrounded by hordes of weak monsters and one extremely powerful one that could be cut down by the multiple Great Cleaves from the Whirlwind attack), and this is one of them.

IceBear

 

[Numion]

I'm not going to waste my time continuing a discussion with people who would argue that:
1) if your game uses skills to enhance role-play that the rogue doesn't have a ridiculous advantage.
2) the fighter would have as high of initiative as a rogue.
3) a wizard will have as much skills as a rogue. (ever heard of cross-class?)

oh - the best one is the statement that people play RPG's to have fun.
Brilliant.
Also that roleplaying is more important than stats.

Look, I can only tell how it's been in my game. These claims which you dub as ridiculous, really did happen in my game. And judging from other posts, they've happened in other peoples games too.

Fighters always have improved initiative. Dex maybe about four points lower than a rogues. This rsults in a favor of +2 for the rogue. Hardly a guarantee he'll win init.

We do use skills to enhance roleplaying. But in a game that has N utulity spells which can do what a rogue can, but much better, the rogue really doesn't 'dominate' RP situations. I do know about cross-class skills, but the other characters are also good at something. And if every other member of the party is good at something, it leaves little room for the rogue to 'dominate'.

Wizards are pretty good in knowledge skills, allowing them to shine in non-combat situations.

Consider all of the above points, and ask yourself is it really worth it to suck in combat for all that? In a D&D game no it isn't.

Also at higher levels the sneak attack damage is also hard to come by.

A normal game is pretty long way from your mathematical theories and flanking diagrams.

 

[kamosa]

Kamosa, stop reading so much into things.
You'll live longer.
And while you're at it, stop with the personal attacks.
You can read my post the same as everyone else did - your words ring hollow, since I haven't even hinted at what you exagerrate.

My stating that some people's arguments on this thread leave much to be desired isn't turning around and stating that i am god of RPG'ing.
Stop being so extreme.

And there's 3 reasons why i don't feel like going into great argumentative detail :
1) It takes too much of my time, and I've already spent too much on this thread weathering personal attacks.
2) noone has addressed the examples i've already brought up to my satisfaction. You've simply made up your own examples. I'm talking about min-maxed rogues who use their skills advantage to attack people WITH surprise and stealth - just like any sane, smart rogue would take advantage of situations. I'm not talking about a typical dungeon-crawl here, and certainly not against undead or against fortified armor, for god's sake.
3) This problem has already been discussed (better) in a thread about a month or so ago, and had much better points brought up, and i still believe it to be a mistake in the game balance. (Just as i still see that mages being able to co-opt just about every class's strengths is a mistake in game balance.)

How many times must i say that you are perfectly free to have your own opinions about the game?
Too many people have already proved they aren't listening, so good night.

Oh look it regenerated, damn flame troll.

If you really have no time to post arguements, how come you post so much. I guess constructing arguments instead of pompus BS is much to tough for you. If this is really dragging on your time stop posting trash to it.

If you have nothing to add, shut up. All your doing now is strutting around like you have something usefull to say without saying anything at all.

 

[kwalishsaurus]

Says you!

Look, I can only tell how it's been in my game. These claims which you dub as ridiculous, really did happen in my game. And judging from other posts, they've happened in other peoples games too.

Well, I suspect that you are playing with such incredible house rules and such a poor grasp of the rules as written that you are playing some kind of free form fantasy more akin to let's pretend than Dungeons and Dragons. Why don't you go buy some goth make-up and join a LARP group.

Fighters always have improved initiative. Dex maybe about four points lower than a rogues. This rsults in a favor of +2 for the rogue. Hardly a guarantee he'll win init.

Whatever! What kind of wackos do you have playing fighters?

We do use skills to enhance roleplaying. But in a game that has N utulity spells which can do what a rogue can, but much better, the rogue really doesn't 'dominate' RP situations. I do know about cross-class skills, but the other characters are also good at something. And if every other member of the party is good at something, it leaves little room for the rogue to 'dominate'.

Wizards are pretty good in knowledge skills, allowing them to shine in non-combat situations.

But everyone thinks that wizards are bookish nerds! No NPC is going to respect anything a wizard says. And their knowledge isn't practical, it's all book-learning crap. A rogue can actually tell you about stuff, a wizard just sits there telling you about the history of some long forgotten empire. And like any wizard every prepares any utility spells. It's magic missile, web and fireball all the way baby! (Or else the fighters in the group kill the wizard and let someone else play him next time.)

Consider all of the above points, and ask yourself is it really worth it to suck in combat for all that? In a D&D game no it isn't.

Also at higher levels the sneak attack damage is also hard to come by.

A normal game is pretty long way from your mathematical theories and flanking diagrams.

Well, I think that you have clearly lost this debate. You just dn't grasps the truth of the matter as revealed through mathematics. I bet you never finished secondary school math, did you. Figures.

You suck.

I'm sure your pathetic attempt at argument has revealed to the rest of you the truth of my position.

 

[jontherev]

Why not? I have a minmaxed rogue type that reapersaurus thinks steals the glory from the fighter. He's a wee halfling who dual wields daggers. He has a ring of blinking and expert tactician. He has the most hit points and the best saves in the party (through multiclassing, prcs, and Iron Will and Strong Soul + belt of dwarvenkind). Note:we have no pure fighter types in the group. He has been killed once. So far, I still haven't outshined any other person in combat (consistently). Except maybe the monk, that is. There's an elven wiz/ftr/arcane archer in the group that deals consistently more damage than I do, all the while staying out of melee/danger (not always, but quite often). I still miss saves almost as often as others in the party, sometimes due to poor rolling. And that 75% movement and 20% miss chance are a real pain from blinking. So yes, IF my pc can set up ALL of these circumstances, he can kick some booty:

1. Foe must have no concealment and have vital areas within reach.
2. Foe must not be able to see invisible, else he would require flanking or denying his dex in some other way.
3. Foe must be ABLE to be criticaled/sneak attacked.
4. Foe must be within 5' to take advantage of Full Attack Action.
5. Must be a foe with damage reduction low enough to effect it (only have +1 daggers).
6. Must roll the 20% miss chance on each attack, so bad rolling could potentially waste an entire action.
7. Must have ring activated (standard action).
   [/list=1]
   
   But, sadly, these circumstances haven't been often since I've acquired the ring. I've only been able to sneak attack maybe 2 monsters in about 3 levels worth of adventuring. One was a behir and the archer was matching my damage from a safe distance. Not to mention how much more damage the wizards and clerics have done than I. Anyway, no one's complained about my character being overly powerful yet, and I don't foresee that happening. My personal experience with sneak attack shows me it's balanced.

 

[kamosa]

Re: Says you!

Gee I wonder which flame troll this could be?

Well, I think that you have clearly lost this debate. You just dn't grasps the truth of the matter as revealed through mathematics. I bet you never finished secondary school math, did you. Figures.

You suck.

I'm sure your pathetic attempt at argument has revealed to the rest of you the truth of my position.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well I'm going to sort of agree with Reaper on this one. I don't think rogues are too good, I think fighters suck too much. All fighters have is fighting skill, that's it. They don't have skill points, they don't have good class skills, and int is far from their list of good stats. So yes a fighter should absolutely dominate combat, because that is all they do. But I think the problem is not that others hone in on the fighters teritory, but that all a fighter does is fight. They should of given the fighter some decent skill points and class skills so he could function outside of fighting, that way it isn't so bad that other classes when min/maxed can match a fighter in a fight.

And by the way Kamosa you and the rest went way overboard on your personal attacks, the biggest troll in this thread has been you Kamosa, please people remind me never to respond to that twit.

 

[angramainyu]

tempers seem to be running a little hot over a simple rules discussion... in general, please do try and keep it civil.

thanks,
-a

 

[Allister]

Well I'm going to sort of agree with Reaper on this one. I don't think rogues are too good, I think fighters suck too much. All fighters have is fighting skill, that's it. They don't have skill points, they don't have good class skills, and int is far from their list of good stats. So yes a fighter should absolutely dominate combat, because that is all they do. But I think the problem is not that others hone in on the fighters teritory, but that all a fighter does is fight. They should of given the fighter some decent skill points and class skills so he could function outside of fighting, that way it isn't so bad that other classes when min/maxed can match a fighter in a fight.

Point 1:
Depends on the campaign setting. In FR, I've noticed that many fighters run a close 3rd to bards in breadth of skills since, with the large amount of feats they get, it isn't exactly much of a sacrifice or hard for a fighter to pick up not just one but a few of the regional feats.

Point 2:
IMHO, the fact that, depending on the fighter type, a fighter has only 2 core stats (STR and CON) means that their 3rd score can usually be in INT meaning that many fighters in terms of skills per level can easily match many of the 4 skill per level classes. since many of these classes need at least 3 core stats.