+1d6 sneak attack worth a feat (& vice versa)?

[MoogleEmpMog]

True. Compared to Weapon Specialization (+2 damage with a specific weapon type, Ftr 4 prereq, Weapon Focus prereq), a conditional 1d6 damage of sneak attack damage with little/no prerequisite is rather better.

Well, Weapon Specialization is pretty awful, at least for anyone but an archer or two-weapon fighter... I can't imagine any character other than a fighter ever picking it up save for flavor reasons, and a fighter only because he has so many feats to play with.

Give him those sneak attacks to take at higher levels and it gives him more reason to stay in the class.

The seem fairly comparable to me. +2 versus everything or +3.5 versus most things under certain circumstances. It seems strange to me that high level fighters, whose entire life revolves around learning how to kill things, doesn't know how to strike at vital areas as well as a first level rogue. If a fighter want to fight dirty, he should be able to learn how, at least IMNSHO.

The +3.5 (potentially more) under certain circumstances seems to work out to be better, at least IMX. Especially since it works with all weapons, so, unless the fighter is Specialized in unarmed strike, it's not significantly less circumstantial. But that's more a reflection on Weapon Spec as a fighter's "big thing" than on sneak attack as a feat. And I agree with the flavor you point out - why wouldn't a fighter know his enemies' weak bits?

 

[Dr_Rictus]

If a fighter want to fight dirty, he should be able to learn how, at least IMNSHO.

And he can. By multiclassing.

Which is not to say that I don't approve of First Strike and similar such feats. The notion of a feat not being worth quite a Sneak Attack die appeals to me, however. Multiclass fighter/rogues are already powerful enough that I don't feel that the concept needs extra help by giving fighters freer access to sneak attack.

 

[Aaron2]

Which is not to say that I don't approve of First Strike and similar such feats. The notion of a feat not being worth quite a Sneak Attack die appeals to me, however. Multiclass fighter/rogues are already powerful enough that I don't feel that the concept needs extra help by giving fighters freer access to sneak attack.

Rogues have lots of extra baggage: skills, Evasion, trapfinding, Uncanny Dodge etc that the fighter may not be interested in. Doing extra damage to vulnerable opponents doesn't seem to me to be such a huge part of the thief archetype that it should to be limited to just the rogue class.


Aaron

 

[Pbartender]

For those who think it's okay...

Consider a human character takes two levels of the variant rogue (swap Sneak Attack progression for fighter Bonus Feats), and then two levels of a standard fighter...

At 4th level, he would have 7 Feats.

I could see that becoming a standard powergamer character start.

 

[Darklone]

Well, Ftr/Rogs are by far the most common multiclass combination I've ever seen in 3rd edition. For all races, btw.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Rogues have lots of extra baggage: skills, Evasion, trapfinding, Uncanny Dodge etc that the fighter may not be interested in.

It's only "baggage" if it's weighing you down. Ftr/rogs are definitely not weighed down.

 

[Aaron2]

It's only "baggage" if it's weighing you down. Ftr/rogs are definitely not weighed down.

Sure, the fighter/rogue is great character, but so is the gladiator who knows a hundred ways to kill a man but can't sneak his way out of a paper bag.


Aaron

 

[Darklone]

Sure a gladiator can sneak. If 100 fans are applauding, he can do anything