1 Sneak Attack per Round?

[Victim]

I included rogue examples with Haste because I gave the rogue Boots of Speed+Elvenkind. Since the character can do the haste himself, I included it in the damage.

However, I did forget that the Barbarian has a potion of Haste. Given that it's a one shot, though, I don't think it should be included in normal damage figures.

Also, the wizard in my group likes to go Haste + Shield/Fly/Improved Invis on the first round, then lots of attack spells afterwards. He doesn't share very well. Therefore, I don't count on him hasting anyone besides himself under normal circumstances.

The point is that I'm trying to provide examples that have "more complete" characters that I might actually play, instead of "Fighter, 18 Str, focus+spec" and "rogue: 18 dex, finess, focus, ambidex&2 weapon"

Also, I find the varying damage versus varying AC to show some problems with the rogue. Against an AC 25, stunned opponent (stun rules for a rogue), the Raging Barbarian is just a few points behind the Hasted Rogue. I'm not seeing some wimpy rogue doing more than twice the damage of a fighter type even against a stunned opponent. I'm seeing a fighter type about even in damage against the rogue DESPITE a stunned opponent.

BTW:

Barbarian: Half Orc with Greatsword.

Rogue: Human with Greatsword - who needs Finess when you can have 18 STR! The fighter levels were well worth the loss of 1d6 sneak attack.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re: RANT warning!

You are correct.
There's no point in talking about it with people who see no problem with a rogue out-damaging a fighter.

Most of the 'points' made here aren't even as good as the last time this was discussed, in the "Are sneak attacks unbalanced" thread.
So what's the point?

I'm really starting to think you don't play that often, but you do spend a lot of time looking at possible scenarioes and in looking at these scenarioes you see things that are counter to your opinions (such as only fighters should shine in combat).

A lot of people have posted on here that they play a rogue or DM a group with rogues and these situations that you claim makes a fighter useless doesn't seem to happen. Sure, on occasion, the rogue does a huge amount of damage. But, on average, the fighter is the master of combat.

I'm sure that you can give me an example of a min-maxed rogue that might eat a typical fighter alive, but you know what?...that's not a typical rogue.

I'm of the opinion that sneak attacks are fine as is. I used to think that it was too powerful, but I've been playing / DMing 3E since it first came out and I haven't seen these horrible abuses that you state in reality.

IceBear

 

[Malin Genie]

I DM a (low-level) party in which there is a ranger/rogue. With two-weapon fighting he is potentially a Sneak Attack nightmare. In practice, though, it takes time to get into a flanking position, opponents don't always allow you full attacks, and he has less durability (worse AC and hp) than a tank fighter.

As many others have noted, occasionally he shines - but mostly he ends up unconscious, bleeding to death ^_^

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Re: Re: RANT warning!

I'm really starting to think you don't play that often, but you do spend a lot of time looking at possible scenarioes and in looking at these scenarioes you see things that are counter to your opinions (such as only fighters should shine in combat).

A lot of people have posted on here that they play a rogue or DM a group with rogues and these situations that you claim makes a fighter useless doesn't seem to happen. Sure, on occasion, the rogue does a huge amount of damage. But, on average, the fighter is the master of combat.

You can think whatever you want.
You can have your opinions.
You can even wrongly interpret my points to say "A fighter is useless now" or "A rogue will out-damage a fighter all times."

I have REPEATEDLY stated this:
In my opinion, a rogue is TOO DAMNED GOOD AT COMBAT.

NOT better than a fighter.
Not more dangerous than a mage.

A fighter still has a place in a campaign, no doubt.

BUT.
Keeping in mind that YES, a rogue IS a skills-character, (Why else would they get over twice as many skills than the average class?) they are WAY too good at dealing damage.

If you guys want to enter the world of true comparisons, why don;t you try to equip a fighter-type with as much gear and feats as you can, and TRY to keep up with the rogue in EVERY realm of gaming OTHER than combat.

 

[reapersaurus]

By the way:
it's very convenient for people to hide behind the defense that "This fighter is better over a whole combat than that rogue."

Look at it differently.

A rogue is 1000% times better at EVERYthing in D&D than a fighter outside of combat.
I'm sure that's undisputed, no?

IN combat, he is easily 75% as good as a fighter over the long haul. He is better than a fighter in some circumstances, and worse in most.

No one sees a problem with that disparity?

 

[Hypersmurf]

A rogue is 1000% times better at EVERYthing in D&D than a fighter outside of combat.
I'm sure that's undisputed, no?

Of course, there are some games out there where the players will look at you blankly and say "Outside of combat? Huh?"



-Hyp.

 

[bret]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RANT warning!

Keeping in mind that YES, a rogue IS a skills-character, (Why else would they get over twice as many skills than the average class?) they are WAY too good at dealing damage.

In my experience, the wizards come close to as many skill points as a rogue. If they pick up Loremaster or one of the other 4 + Int PrC, the wizards are neck and neck. It is very dependent on method used to determine abilities, but the wizards always have very high scores in Int while a rogue may not have any Int bonus.

Guess the rogue should get some spells, since the wizards are cutting into their territory.



I would be a lot more convinced if you could show me that a rogue without sneak attack would present a credible threat as an opponent. Failing that, why don't you give us examples of exactly what you see as the rogue's role and how they can contribute to the game in a way that makes them fun to play.

 

[Albereth]

Well, it is quite obvious what he thinks rogues should be doing. 1d6 damage in combat and then sitting back waiting to find the traps and pick the locks. He might allow a rogue to get a sneak attack but only if the enemy is flat-footed but that could be reaching. Reaper has shown repeatedly in the past that you should take the 25% of the FRCW party and neuter him to where all they do is skill checks thereby weaking the whole party.

/me shrugs

Albereth

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I just completed a big fight tonight involving dozens of particiapants.

Man, did the rogue suck! No construct, no undead, no armor of fortification anywhere on the field and still he didn't make a single successful sneak attack!

Frankly, the player wasn't the best tactician I've seen. A smarter player would have obtained more occasion. As things stand he had only two chance and missed both.

The party was 7th-8th. Halfway in the fight, the rogue player complained that the other PCs weren't helping him to set up flanking situations. The basic consensus amongst the other players involved in melee was:Are you out of your mind?! YOU come help US flank our opponents!

The rogue had a Kir-lanan on his back and later a few low levels githyanki warriors. He couldn't set up a flanking because he was separated from the others. The cleric was involved in a 3-way melee with the godless kir-lanan, the Psychic warrior was trying to corner the enemy telepath before he could brainlock everyone and the barbarian was locked in a deadly showdown with the Githyanki captain while being unable to breath because of a telepathic attack! No one was going to give ground and it was up to the rogue to leave his position, risk being flanked and get a chance at getting a few sneak of his own.

But let's talk about sneak attack and the showdown between the fighter and the barbarian:

On their first round of melee, the Githyanki captain slashed the barbarian for 41 points of damage while the raging half-orc answered with 39. They were level 8 and 7 respectively. You can see why the barbarian had better things to do than help the rogue set a flanking!

The rogues (7th) could do 5D6+1 on a succesful sneak attack. IF he was able to hit. And should he fail to kill his target he could have been on the receiving end of 41 points of damage from a riled up githyanki. Or whatever.

BTW:

p.48 PHB: The rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Vitals beyond reach. Do you have any idea how many monsters just got much tougher to sneak attack. At least an invisible rogue can still throw daggers at a giant's throat. But against a colossal dragon and his blindsight...

 

[reapersaurus]

Well, it is quite obvious what he thinks rogues should be doing.

AGAIN, you can think what you want.

it doesn't change things even if you invent an extreme exagerration and attribute it to me.

It seems rather apparent that you rogue apologists can not stomach even the thought of a rogue's combat abusiveness being nipped.

Never realizing that if you 'restricted' a rogue to 'only' one sneak attack a round, i really don't see how that's making him a eunuch.
Does a 'non-combat class' REALLY need more than 5d6 extra damage per round at 9th level?

And bret - i can't believe your 'argument'.
Wizards typically have as many skills as rogues?
Right.