1 Sneak Attack per Round?

[reapersaurus]

Should a Rogue be limited to a single Sneak Attack per Round?

Quite possibly, YES.

There are MANY abusive examples of sneak-attack maximized characters that have been shown on these boards.
These characters can deal ungodly amounts of damage, and it's actually quite easy with a rogue.

All they need is a Ring of Blinking or Improved Invisible, and it's HELLO to 40d6 damage from a 10th level PC every single round.

I don't see how anybody could claim that that's a situation that shouldn't be fixed somehow.

The REAL crime, though, is that the rogue is so potentially powerful in combat now, while they still dominate in non-combat situations (i.e. skills).

And God forbid they use Traps and Treachery feats...

 

[Hejdun]

WOW!

All they need is a Ring of Blinking or Improved Invisible, and it's HELLO to 40d6 damage from a 10th level PC every single round.

Not quite. First you need to remember that they need to HIT their target first. Seeing as how they get the medocre BAB progression, they will likely only hit once or twice a round (if that). Also, they have to get CLOSE to the enemy to do that every round (through flanking). With their pitiful d6 hit die, they can't take many hits.

Sure, 40d6 is a lot, but it's hard to do.

Consider a hasted 10th level wizard with a wand of Meteor Storm, does that mean that a wizard shouldn't be able to craft wands? Or haste should be done away with? You pay a lot, you get a lot.

In the rogue's example, it's only going to work on a limited amount of enemies (those not immune to criticals), only some of the time (you gotta hit, remember?) and he's putting himself at a huge risk (being in the middle of melee, with bad HP.... bad). I'd say that if the guy actually gets into a situation where he can sneak attack more than one time a round, he should be allowed to.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Just a minor correction... Wands are only allowed to cast up to fourth level spells.

 

[Numion]

Make it a staff then.

Another point: As I've run high-level games, I don't feel need to restrict the non-spellcasters with any houserules. In the end, they need to be very powerful to be any match to the spellcasters.

The melee types can powergame their characters anyway they want, and they'll still not match up against a prepared wizard or cleric.

More specifically the key to why the rogue won't rule combat, is that most of his attacks won't hit. It's also dangerous to get into those useful flanking positions. (Which are usually behind the enemies from the groups POV).

From my experience I can also tell that while improved invisibility seems very powerful, it isn't foolproof either. reapersaurus, you're thinkin a bit narrowly, if you think that an invisible rogue is a gamebreaker. It isn't.

Play a full D&D campaign with little or no house rules before jumping into conclusions. Many tactics that appear fine on paper, are less than optimal in normal playing situations.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that one of the biggest issues is the use of Rogues as foes... if a party (who are probably all subject to sneak attacks) get attacked by a gang of rogues, it can easily become a total-party kill. Even a pair of high level rogues are truly fearsome if they manage to flank an opponent (even without the invisibility/blink options around).

Rogues as foes are much more of an issue than rogues as PC's IMO.

Cheers

 

[BlindKobold]

Disagree

I couldn't disagree more. And here's why. The biggest weakness of 3rd edition is it's nearly complete dependancy on COMBAT to gain experience. There is VERY, VERY few recommendations in the DMG or other books on experience for other activities.

This is completely and utterly ABSURD! How the heck do you get to be a level 2+ expert or commoner if you've never seen combat?

Take away the rogue's only real ability to damage, and you take away his ability to earn experience and advance in level.

I might agree if you start giving the rogue (and ONLY the rogue) experience for every lock he picks, every trap he overcomes, every bluff he succeeds in, every pocket he picks, etc.

IMHO, 3E should have xps for doing more mundance activities. Granted, smaller amounts than combat, but a bard doing a week long gig in a reputable tavern should earn some experience, just as a fighter who trains at a local fighter's guild should earn some experience.

One sneak attack per target per round wouldn't be out of line. It reduces the rogue's butt-kickingness in combat, but it could be arguing that butt-kicking in combat is really the fighter's or barbarian's schtick, and the rogue already has plenty of chances to shine when it comes to traps, locks, and other non-combat obstacles. In-game, you could justify this by saying that a sneak attack requires time to line up the shot so that it hits the target right where it counts. (Kicking them in the junk, as Lidda would say.)

 

[Numion]

I think that one of the biggest issues is the use of Rogues as foes... if a party (who are probably all subject to sneak attacks) get attacked by a gang of rogues, it can easily become a total-party kill. Even a pair of high level rogues are truly fearsome if they manage to flank an opponent (even without the invisibility/blink options around).

Rogues as foes are much more of an issue than rogues as PC's IMO.

Cheers

Yes, if the rogues are of equal level with the PCs. But a balanced encounter would require that the rogues be of much lower level.

Eight rogues are required to flank four characters. That would make the rogues level six levels lower than the partys average level. For example, eight rogues of level four make a EL 10 encounter. 4th level rogues have a hard time TPK:ing a 10th level party. If you up the level of the rogues, the encounter will be higher EL, and it's quite 'duh' that a high-EL encounter results in TPK.

...it didn't come out very clear.

 

[BlindKobold]

Don't forget that PCs have defenses against sneak attacks:

Barbarians: Cleave, Great cleave (Dead rogues don't sneak attack), Uncanny Dodge
Fighters: Disarm, Improved Trip, Cleave, Sunder, Whirlwind attack, etc.
Rogues: Uncanny Dodge, Sneak Attack
Wizards: Stoneskin, protection from normal missiles, shield, etc.
Clerics: Various protection magics, healing, BLINDNESS, HOLD PERSON, etc.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Here is some more fuel:

Fighter, Str:18, Weapon Spec, Weapon Focus
Greatsword +5, Flanking: 79.2 dmg/rnd vs AC 25

Rogue, Dex:18, Weapon Focus, Ambi, 2WF, Imp2WF, Weap Finesse, 2xShortsword +5, Flanking: 154.2dmg/rnd vs AC 25

Rogue, Dex:18, Weapon Focus, Ambi, 2WF, Imp2WF, Weap Finesse, 2xShortsword of Speed +5, Flanking: 227.3dmg/rnd vs AC 25

--Devil's Spikey

 

[Plane Sailing]

Eight rogues are required to flank four characters. That

Not really true. Any particular rogue can participate in more than one flank, even if x & y here are not both recieving two attacks, they are both flanked and all attacks made by the three R's get sneak attack damage. (makes it sound like a math attack )

e.g. R x R y R

Shows three rogues flanking two characters. Anyway, what I'd expect to see is 2-4 rogues all flanking one single person and then running away (not dividing their attention amongst the whole party - thats a mugs game for them).

I admit that I overstated TPK, but it is a tactic highly likely to kill at least one member of the party. A 10th level party could be attacked by a pair of 8th level rogues or four 6th level rogues and have a good chance of taking down one character...