1 Sneak Attack per Round?

[bret]

Well, they are both 20th level.

Now, post some calculations to test mine. I want to see this.

--Fun Spikey

PS I'm not saying I'm perfect, I just want to see if you can remember all the stuff I did since your post comes off as a little condescending.

I was just getting around to looking at the calculations (now that I'm at home with the books) and noticed you've done it for me. Thanks.

Sorry if I sounded condescending, I had not meant it that way. It was just that the comparison didn't seem fair. You were comparing a rogue that used almost all of his feats for combat against a fighter that had used less than half their available feats.


I think the real question is "Should opponents fear a rogue?"

If you allow multiple sneak attacks in a single round, they will. If you don't, even the mage is unlikely to fear their sneak attacks. Doing d6 + 10d6 twice a battle just isn't scary to a 20th level wizard or sorcerer. Although the skills are great, they just don't make up for being so ineffective in battle when every other character class can be effective.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The main balancing factor about rogue in combat is that they are easy to take down.

Low HP and average AC make them vulnerable to old fashioned melee attacks. Weak will and fortitude save make them vulnerable to the most dangerous spells.

They have to be very careful as a result.

 

[Legildur]

Yeah, like Mal said - a poor Will save is a killer.

My halfling Rogue has a level of Ranger (and will be taking more at some stage) and hence his Fortitude save is okay when combined with a good Con. However, with a 9 Wis (-1 penalty) and the poor base Will save, he is a real bunny against Clerics and the like.

Thinking about taking a couple of levels of Wizard to gain the better Will save base, access to spells to support core Rogue activities, and ability to use the many wands our Sorceror currently carries (got a 9 Cha as well, so Use Magic Device isn't really viable).

 

[reapersaurus]

nice 'arguments', guys.
That's like saying a mage isn't dangerous because they have low hit points and weak saves.

You DO realize that a rogue can use THROWING daggers, right?

Most of you seem to be of the impression that they have to sit there and duke it out, toe-to-toe with a fighter-type.

Wouldn't that be a rather silly thing to do as a rogue?

Wouldn't you (as a smart, non-suicidal rogue) use your "metric boatload of skills" to ambush and waylay your target, and then IF the battle doesn't proceed to your liking, just simply take off and hide?

Don't argue that they couldn't do it, with their ridiculous dominance in the skills department, either...

 

[kamosa]

So what if you can use throwing daggers. You can't flank someone with ranged weapons, thus negating this as a viable tactic for most rogues.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You DO realize that a rogue can use THROWING daggers, right?

Are you kidding? You think that solves the melee vulnerability of the rogue? You have to be no farther away than 30 feet from your target. That's not exactly what I call being out of harm's way. A dwarf in a platemail could charge you at that distance!

You have to flee, to escape, to outrun your opponents before you'll get the chance to hide again.

Rogues aren't faster than anybody else and magic items that can change that facts are open to any who wants them. At their base speed, rogues will be run down by the barbarian, the monk and any mounted warrior.

Beside, have you ever seriously seen a PC rogue "take off and hide" in the middle of a fight? If so, I'm sure that the other party members were thrilled about his choice of tactics.

 

[bret]

nice 'arguments', guys.
That's like saying a mage isn't dangerous because they have low hit points and weak saves.

You DO realize that a rogue can use THROWING daggers, right?

The 13th level wizard could do a Quickened Haste, Disintegrate, Disintegrate in a surprise round. I think the spell ability nicely proves that they are a serious threat.

Dagger throwing is nice, especially with a Ring of Blinking so you can get Sneak Attack damage. It doesn't make sense, but for some reason the Blinking ability would allow you to do this.

The topic I was responding to was "Should a rogue be limited to 1 sneak attack per round." In my opinion, if you do this it makes it so that the rogue is the only class that will not pose a signficant threat at high levels.

It is bad enough that there is a large group of creatures which are partially or fully immune to criticals, and therefore immune to sneak attacks. Anyone really worried about the rogues can protect themselves. Wizards, Sorcerers and Bards can use Blur (100% protection since they have concealment). Monks can out run them. The rest of the classes can invest in Fortified Armour.

It is much easier to protect against the senak attack ability of a rogue than it is against any other classes ability.

 

[IceBear]

Reaper, you have proven time and time again that, in your opinion, the only class that should shine in combat is the fighter. Because of this opinion, you have a hard time accepting any other character doing well in combat. I personally believe that they designed all classes to be able to hold their own in combat - Monte Cook even had a blurb on his site about how the thief was a 2nd Edition joke http://www.montecook.com/arch_lineos32.html )

Anyway, yes, a rogue can be devestating in combat with multiple sneak attacks and possibly do more damage than a fighter. However, not all his attacks will be sneak attacks so if you average the damage caused by a rogue and fighter over the course of the entire adventure I'm sure the fighter would win.

The reason why, on occasion, the rogue can outperform the fighter in combat is to help balance the class in combat with the others.

If you read the posts above, you'll see a lot of people mention that they've played games (not dreamt up sometimes impossible scenarios) and in the game sessions this ability of the rogue to outshine the fighter all the time in combat just doesn't seem to happen.

IceBear

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Reaper:

If a rogue is throwing daggers, he isn't flanking and so must find some other way to get sneak attack damage.

If a rogue is tumbling to get into possition, once he is in possition he is dead meat against most powerful melee opponents.

If a rogue is making all his attacks, his last attack, and maybe last 2 or 3 attacks, have VERY little chance of hitting something of the appropriate CR.

So what if a rogue can use daggers to hit something for 6d6+1d4 points of damage once per combat? An equivalent wizard can do 10d6 points of damage to a room full of baddies.

--Sick Spikey

 

[SpikeyFreak]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
You have to give a fighter that much STR, 2 +8 weapons (i think), +4 from Tomes (how much is THAT?), and have them 5' away to do that much, just to equal a little pissant rogue's damage-output from multiple sneak attacks in a round??!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! that's quite funny.

You didn't really pay attention to my post.

The guy with the greatsword did more damage than the guy with the 2 weapons.

A +4 tome is 110,000 gp. So change the character to a barbarian who is raging (which is +6 str at high level). Add a couple more to str for level-ups, and you have the barbarian far outshining the rogue, in ALL combat situations, not just the ones where the rogue has no hope of even being effective in melee, much less a terror.

--Grimsaurus Spikey