Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12

[triqui]

Fireball stopped at 10d6, same as backstab.

Unless you used Intensify Spell metamagic feat.

Chainlightning, Cone of Cold, and others, all did 15+d6

 

[Starbuck_II]

Unless you used Intensify Spell metamagic feat.

Chainlightning, Cone of Cold, and others, all did 15+d6

Pathfinder only. Not 3.5

 

[Anguirus]

I'm a fan of the idea, and I approve with the proviso that the math has to work. I do like the idea of backstab being a general feature of the game that rogues can just be better at. This also opens up "swashbuckler" rogues, i.e. light fighters who fight "honorably" and are still effective.

It's just an idea now. I'm on board if it doesn't screw up the game (i.e. make maxing Sneak Attack a no-brainer optimization wise, cripple the Rogue's damage, give the Rogue too much damage, etc.)

 

[howandwhy99]

1d6 / level is not iconic. It's 3e.

Pre-d20 it's a multiplier x2, x3, x4, x5.

4e limited the d6s.

If they are going to keep the numbers from getting out of control I suggest they don't make a non-fighting class the biggest damage dealer in the game.

 

[Janaxstrus]

1d6 / level is not iconic. It's 3e.

Pre-d20 it's a multiplier x2, x3, x4, x5.

4e limited the d6s.

If they are going to keep the numbers from getting out of control I suggest they don't make a non-fighting class the biggest damage dealer in the game.

1d6 / 2 levels, not every level. I don't know what games you have played in, but the rogue was only the biggest damage dealer in very select instances.

The pure casters were more potent almost all the time, and vs about 75% of the creatures in the game, the fighter/barbarian/warblade/etc also out damaged rogues.

Sure, you had the occasional combat where the Rogue dropped the hammer, but I wouldn't claim they were the "biggest damage dealer" by any stretch of the imagination. Between: Other rogues, constructs, undead, oozes, blur, displacement, etc etc... SA can be stopped fairly easily.

 

[GreyICE]

When looking at 4e, there were outcries, when someone somehow got +3,5 damage per hit through some nice combinations of feats and powers... even at high levels...

Also I in actual play, i have seen people who decide not to do damage, but instead go for conditions and had great effects with it.
So damage and conditions can be real choices.

But: I rather had not too many choices for the poor rogue at the draw board. I think the choice to get in a very cool sneak attack to kill or just to render someone unconscious should be a choice made by the rogue in actual play.
If there is only one choice, at level 2 maybe it would maybe be ok... but a good multiclassing system (a la 3e+) could actually yield better results!

The +3.5 Damage per hit wouldn't even come close to +3.5 DPR thanks to miss chance. It's maybe +2 - +2.5 DPR on a solid striker chassis.

Trust me, no one gets worked up about +2.5 DPR at high levels. For example, the current DPR king does 124 DPR. One stroke to kill them all, an optimized Half-Orc Avenger does 57 DPR.

The fact of the matter is if you table played most of these DPR monsters, they'd just go away. They enter the battle, kill an elite with a single nova, and then their defenses are so massively questionable that they'd take pain that no defender will protect them from, and pop like soap bubbles.

If you want proof, the Weapon Focus feat. It adds +2/+4/+6 damage to a weapon. How many Striker builds bother to pick it up? How many pick up Improved Defenses? Yeah...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

last time i checked, weapon focus gave +1 damage per tier. I once again don´t know what you are fighting for. I don´t know what ypu want to prove. I just responded to the 1d6 damage is nothing outcry.
4e forum was full of 1 more damage equal to imbalance posts...

I play 4e and no one really bothers about some damage differences. +1 here or there is nice, but not at all necessary.

 

[GnomeWorks]

If they are going to keep the numbers from getting out of control I suggest they don't make a non-fighting class the biggest damage dealer in the game.

If you want to dish out damage in combat, play a fighter.

This whole idea of rogues being able to do ridiculous damage in combat... ugh. It's frustrating and utterly nonsensical, to me. I can understand increasing damage dealt when you have some kind of advantage, but rogues in the last couple editions have been ridiculous.

When I hear "thief" or "rogue," I shouldn't immediately think "oh, this is the guy that will stab everyone's faces off."

They could make the rogue the skillmonkey. There's nothing wrong with that. Building a fresh system from the ground up, you could easily find a way to make that function. Reserve the sneaky stabbiness for the assassin.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you want to dish out damage in combat, play a fighter.

This whole idea of rogues being able to do ridiculous damage in combat... ugh. It's frustrating and utterly nonsensical, to me. I can understand increasing damage dealt when you have some kind of advantage, but rogues in the last couple editions have been ridiculous.

When I hear "thief" or "rogue," I shouldn't immediately think "oh, this is the guy that will stab everyone's faces off."

They could make the rogue the skillmonkey. There's nothing wrong with that. Building a fresh system from the ground up, you could easily find a way to make that function. Reserve the sneaky stabbiness for the assassin.

If you want to dish out damage, play a Cleric, Druid, or some kind of caster.

There are lots of different interpretations for rogues, we shouldn't need a "rogue that does damage" class and a "rogue that has skills" class. That's just redundant.

 

[triqui]

...