4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm cool with sneak attack damage applying all the time but TWF does change the equation slightly. Rogues can start putting up massive damage at higher-levels with TWF (although you could argue that more things are immune to SA damage at higher levels...)

Anyway, if you allow sneak attack all the time, I think it works nicely along with removing iterative attacks and granting a damage bonus equal to one-half the character's BAB.

Sneak attack and removing iterative attacks are two separate issues but I think they compliment each other in the same combat system if for no other reason than removing the scenario of the TWF rogue spending 10 minutes to roll 8 attacks and 60+ d6's during his turn.

Though be warned: Two Weapon Fighting attacks are not iterative attacks. So I wouldn't be too sure it's out yet. Starwars Saga Edition creates some hefty penalties for two-weapon fighting - but eventually, these can be overcome. Another disadvantage in Saga is that it still require a fullround action, which also costs you your swift action - which is used for a lot of things.

I agree. I think it should be renamed "Kick In the Groin" damage.

EDIT: Or for ranged attacks, "Hedgeapple in the Groin".

But what if there aren't hedgeapples in my campaign? You're forcing flavor in my game, aside from the fact that "hedgeapple" sounds (and looks) stupid!!!



"Oppertunistic Strike" might be a better name... Though comparing "Sneak" to "Oppertunistic", neither directly implies striking vitals. In 5E, they could probably go back to calling it "sneak attack", once perceptions have changed...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Though be warned: Two Weapon Fighting attacks are not iterative attacks.

But the problem isn't Sneak Attack + TWF, it's Sneak Attack + TWF + Iterative Attacks.

Sneak Attack with an extra attack per round isn't as scary as an extra attack per iterative attack.

 

[GlassJaw]

But the problem isn't Sneak Attack + TWF, it's Sneak Attack + TWF + Iterative Attacks.

Sneak Attack with an extra attack per round isn't as scary as an extra attack per iterative attack.

What Wulf said.

 

[kennew142]

I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution. If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&D).

Talk about a strawman argument! No one is arguing for making the rogue a better fighter than the fighter. We are talking about the disparity in the amount of time individual characters get the spotlight in 3e.

I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently "combat like" to qualify as such. So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing. And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up. Rather than "fix" 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...) As it is, the "fix" is as likely to unsatisfying as the "problem" was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals.

I suppose it is possible that all of the playtest reports telling us how much quicker combat is in 4e could be outright lies. It would seem a strange marketing scheme however: to insist that one easily quantifiable thing is true, when in fact, it is not! BWA-HA-HA-HA, we'll teach those fools to believe anything we say!

As for social interactions and the new take on traps, they are designed specifically to include all the characters in the party.

I wouldn't be opposed to a general reduction in hit points and damage across the board, although I would point out that spell damage has remained more or less the same. Maybe the increase in hit points and melee damage was intended to balance spell damage. Reducing spell damage would have worked as well. I would hazard a guess that most players would be opposed to reducing hit points and damage. For many gamers it is just cooler ( ) to do 50 points of damage than 5.

 

[Voadam]

I'd add this:
The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.

Those aren't great builds for fighting zombies IMO.

TWF rogues big thing is doing sneak attack on all their attacks, which does not work on zombies. Rogues can tumble and are not generally hampered by heavy armor leading to a benefit of greater mobility and speed. Being a mobile light armor person tumbling and maneuvering however means no full attacks when doing so, negating the TWF bonuses. Rogues are also hurt in TWF compared to Fighters/Rangers because of the lower BAB and requirements for a high proportion of their limited feat investments.

A knife throwing rogue can either move and throw one or stand and throw more but lags from iteratives against full warriors.

The rogue 6 ftr 2 power attacker does not do great either IMO. They again either go light armor for highly mobile tumbling 1 attack routine, but the fighter can do so as well with spring attack and have more BAB to pour into power attack.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Those aren't great builds for fighting zombies IMO.

Of course they aren't; they're not zombie-fighting builds, they're versatile builds that are still primarily rogues. They're far more effective in this situation than a one-trick-pony would be. A pure fighter still does better, but these guys are WAY more effective than a rogue who expects to use his rapier and Sneak Attack and never anything else.

I happen to like versatile characters who have other options to fall back on. Specialization is somewhat overrated in 3E, IMO.

 

[The Little Raven]

Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).

Remember, kids, flails are martial weapons with which rogues are not proficient.

 

[Henry]

Remember, kids, flails are martial weapons with which rogues are not proficient.

Remember, kids, that it's a melee touch attack, which is baby-candy against most undead, even for a rogue, and the rogue gets a +2 on the trip with the flail.

However, admittedly, it's not my favorite tactic, either -- but it is a viable one.

 

[The Little Raven]

However, admittedly, it's not my favorite tactic, either -- but it is a viable one.

So, you make a melee touch attack at a -4 penalty (-4 for non-proficiency) in order to be able to do a raw Strength check (not always the rogue's best ability score) against a monster's Strength or Dexterity (whichever is higher, normally giving monsters an advantage, since they're usually built with higher ability scores) modified by their size (lots of monsters bigger than players) just in order to put them on the ground (where they can still attack you if you don't move), maybe causing them to provoke a single attack of opportunity when they try to stand up.

Sure, it's viable to perform a maneuver whose odds are stacked against you from the outset, and whose success isn't a huge amount of help. But fun? Nah.

EDIT: Flails do not grant a +2 bonus to trip attempts. They grant a +2 bonus to disarm attempts, and merely allow a trip attempt.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're playing a Rogue and are so concerned that there might be the odd combat where you've little or nothing to do, give it Leadership and hire a tank as your cohort. (or, just play a tank as your second PC) That way, you'll be involved in every battle at least in some form.

Lanefan