Alternate Sneak Attack

[AeroDm]

I did outdamage him indeed, but only because of three critical hits! If they would've been normal hits (which by all rights they should've been) then I wouldn't have had a chance... plus, the barbarians have a LOT more HP than your average rogue.

Agreed, my response was intended to be tongue in cheek but I try to avoid emoticons... sorry if confusion followed.

I think the main arguement of those agains the current SA is that it allows you to deal too much damage and be too powerful in combat. However, as Inari has shown, a barbarian is still going to wallup the crap out of a rogue, even one who crits an obscenely high percentage and is given their SA when they should not.

 

[Grayhawk]

Grayhawk- what did you do to make dual wielding more attractive. I'd be interested to see what you came up with.

It's not that I came up with something so much as I've been inspired by (A.K.A. 'stealing from') the discussion on this board, particularly in this thread.

So here's what I have:

The Two-Weapon Figting feat works as normal, but improves automatically to Improved Two-Weapon Figting and Greater Two-Weapon Figting as the prereq's are met. (At least until someone shows me this to be horribly unbalanced.)

A new feat, Expert Two-Weapon Figting, is introduced. It reduces the penalties of Two-Weapon Figting by +2/+2. I gave it prereq's of the Two-Weapon Figting feat and BAB+9.

Then, I actually made two-weapon figting a bit weaker, as I feel that it should be easier to wield a longsword and a dagger or dual shortswords than a longsword and a shortsword.

Thus my penalties for fighting with two-weapons are as follows:

'2 medium weapons: -4/-8

1 medium + 1 small: -4/-6

2 small or 1 medium + 1 tiny: -4/-4

Two-Weapon Fighting feat: +2/+2

Expert Two-Weapon Fighting feat: +2/+2

(Special: Knifes (1d3, 19-20x2) are considered Tiny for small creatures)'

As you can see, I'm still using 3.0 weapon sizes.

In addition, I'll propably add a feat along the following lines:

Dual Strike
Prereq: Two-Weapon Figting
When wielding two weapons you may make an attack with each weapon as a standard action at a penalty of -2 with each weapon. This penalty stacks with the normal penalties for two weapon fighting.

(Keep in mind that I only allow sneak attacks once per round.)

 

[AeroDm]

Grayhawk- so I assume rangers get the feat you created at 6th in place of ITWF, but what did you give them in place of GTWF? Or did you do something else entirely.

I like the changes and had been following that thread myself.

 

[Grayhawk]

[To lord_banus: Sorry for posting off-topic. If it bothers you, let me know and I'll keep my posts to the original topic.]

It'll propably come as no surprise that I've house ruled the Ranger as well.

While I'm not quite sure how to do his combat styles, he almost certainly won't get freebies at both 2nd, 6th and 11th level, nor will he get to choose freely from a list of bonus feats (as I feel that both of these fixes are too generous and upstage the Fighter).

At the moment I'm considering the following: Two-Weapon Fighting or Rapid Shot at 2nd, Spring Attack or Shot on the Run at 9th (based on the choise at 2nd). I feel that these are appropriate abilities for a wilderness warrior, and I like that none of the two paths automatically make the ranger the best at two-weapon fighting or at archery without having him spend some of his normal feats to be so.

 

[danzig138]

Also, I feel that if a DM has to consciously thwart a special ability to keep it in line, it's propably unbalanced to begin with.

IME, if a DM has to consciously thwart a special ability to keep it in line, it's not the ability, it's the DM that's the problem. To the initial poster: be glad that you're players have actually come up with good working tactics. It shows that they're thinking. You shouldn't punish them for playing smart, not hard. My players tend more towards the play hard not smart side. If you absolutely think something needs to be done, because they are dealing so much damage that the encounters aren't challenging, reduce the earned XP. Just my coinage.

 

[lord_banus]

I guess my point of view should be clarified. I am taking the view that rogues are a support class like clerics with their large selection of skills. I feel there are enough combat classes as it is and that sneak attack puts them in the same league as the fighter types. This is my viewpoint that other are completely free to disagree with.

I have made extensive use of creatures that are crit immune to spice up encounters and it is in fact these occasions that have shown how rogues fit in the support role which started me thinking.

Remember that I am not dropping sneak attack. The extra damage from more critical hits is still a large factor. I am also against using large weapons for sneak attack. I run most of my games where common sense overrules the books. Large weapons just dont have the precision for sneak attacks or hitting in vital spots.

Perhaps an alternative to this house rule is to rewrite rogue to fit a more supporting role and leave the current rogue as a combat alternative.