DMs: Please critique this SA rule.

[Hawken]

I would like to know what other DMs think about this caveat I came up with for Sneak Attack. The basics stay the same but I've added this on to it:

Anytime the Rogue voluntarily takes a penalty to his attack roll (Power Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, etc.) he loses his ability to make Sneak Attacks for that round.

The reason behind this is that SA is precision based damage. The attack cannot be precise enough to inflict the extra damage when the Rogue is specifically not being so.

In the case of Power Attack, the Rogue would be concentrating on raw power, sacrificing accuracy for brute force damage. You can't slit their throat when you're trying to just drive the knife into them like a giant nail!

Combat Expertise causes the Rogue to reduce his accuracy while focusing on keeping others from landing blows on him. In this situation, the Rogue is paying more attention to incoming attacks and attackers than vital/soft spots on his target.

Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot are instances where precision is lost over speed. The Rogue is swinging/shooting too fast to aim well enough to inflict SA damage. A Rogue with a BAB of +6/+1 would get either two SA at +6/+1 or regular attacks at +4/+4/+2. While a Rogue with a BAB of +11/+6/+1 and Imp 2 Weap Fighting would get either SA at +11/+6/+1 or 5 attacks at +9/+9/+4/+4/-1. Either or makes the Rogue think and rely on some strategy rather than just flank and become a living Blade Barrier. This also solves the problem of the Rogue taking out BBGs in a round or few and cutting through lesser encounters even faster.

The effects this has is keeping SA a dangerous option while not letting it overshadow the damage a straight fighter or other more martial classes can dish out. I do not think it weakens SA, but instead balances it. I have seen too much SA abuse and the damage a Rogue/Fighter with the two weapon fighting feats can dish out is just plain silly. The well trained Fighter or raging Barbarian should always be more of an immediate physical threat than the Rogue with a dagger or shortsword. It's laughable that a Frost Giant would turn from a raging half-orc Barbarian to deal with a halfling Rogue that just SA'ed him for 80% of his HP in 1 round of attacks!

I'm not looking to argue semantics, leave those and any insults at the door. Just opinions and thoughts on this rule from DMs and maybe the reasons for those opinions.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Sneak Attack is already limited enough by:
1) The circumstances it can be used in, flanking, suprise rounds and feinting. You also cannot sneak attack targets with concealment and I'm pretty sure cover negates sneak attacks as well.
2) Undead, Constructs, Plants, Elementals, Vermin, Swarms etc.
3) Spells that provide concealment: Displacement, Blur.
4) Fortification armor at higher levels and cloaks of displacement similarly nix sneak attacking.
5) Rogues have medium BAB meaning they are less likely to hit. Mixing rogue with a combat class reduces sneak attack progression.
6) I believe in the sneak attack description there is a clause stating that if a rogue cannot reach a vital area on the target that he may not sneak attack (DMs descretion obviously).

Now you're making sneak attack incompatible with a large number of feats.
Don't limit sneak attack anymore than it already it is!

That rogue in your example is going to be one dead pick pocket due to his d6 hit dice.

 

[Lord Wyrm]

Now you're making sneak attack incompatible with a large number of feats.
Don't limit sneak attack anymore than it already it is!

That rogue in your example is going to be one dead pick pocket due to his d6 hit dice.

Agreed.

Sneak attack isn't that bad even when the Rogue makes ten attacks per round. If you want to nerf a rogue sic undead on him. Personally the Rogue players in my game and myself abuse skills far more than sneak attack. This is to the point that a Rogue has convinced the party he is a cleric/mage and single handedly killed seven lizard men without sneak attacking once. (He's a Use Magic Device fiend by the way) Because he is so scary with the scrolls the actual mage makes him should I nerf Use Magic Device? Or one player who regularly made DC 35+ checks with Diplomacy and Bluff, should I take that away? Should the Monk lose his speed or the Druid his Wildshape? I say no, the sneak attacks a going to be abused and if you nerf them the rogue players could start into far worse things. I have personally never seen sneak attack out damage a well used skill. Alchemy is scary, sneak attack can be dealt with.

 

[Nyaricus]

i say both yes, and no to your proposal.

technically, what Hawken is saying is already right there in the rules; and i quote "must make optimal use of her weapon to execute a sneak attack"

thus, when using power attack (with the rogue class, one who already has a crappy BAB) you are not hitting as well as you possibly could be. Same with combat expertise.

the part i in particular dont like it the rapid shot/two weapon fighting. yes, it does make sense, but you are destroying a viable combat option for one extra attack, and all at a reduced amount (not to mention that the rogue already has a crappy BAB; oh wait, i already did say that). this destroys any dual-weilding duelists, or quick-shooting archers. i dont really care for that.

this is why i am seperating the rogue class into two distinct classes, an Assassin type and a Mastermind/swindler type (and i am also adding in a duelist class, which covers the finesse-fighter). one uses brute force and stealth to kill, and the other could convince you that you mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries.

 

[Hawken]

My replies to Aust's comments, in order:

1) The circumstances it can be used in, flanking, suprise rounds and feinting. You also cannot sneak attack targets with concealment and I'm pretty sure cover negates sneak attacks as well.

These are not impossible problems here, but situations that anyone in combat faces. Concealment and cover can be penetrated or moved around or through. And there is nothing in the 3.5 phb about cover negating SA. And SA can be done anytime the Rogue's target is denied a Dex bonus or is flanked by the Rogue. You're purposely making it seem like there are too few circumstances for SA to take place.

2) Undead, Constructs, Plants, Elementals, Vermin, Swarms etc.

These creatures are immune to a lot more things than just SA. This too isn't a very strong reason against my rule when so many other things are negated by these creatures as well. The creatures immune to SA are many times fewer in number and frequency than these creatures that are not.

3) Spells that provide concealment: Displacement, Blur.

These are temporary solutions to SA and are rarely/if ever used specifically as a foil against SA. Wizards don't cast these spells thinking, "Hmm! I think that one's a Rogue, I better cast Blur before he can get behind me!" A good old Dispel Magic from the Rogue's wizard/cleric ally or even the Rogue himself with UMD and a scroll negate these defenses.
[quote4) Fortification armor at higher levels and cloaks of displacement similarly nix sneak attacking.[/quote]
Cloak of Displacement can be overcome in the above examples. As for Fortification armor, yes, it might be an annoyance for the Rogue to SA someone with Light Fort, but how many enemies have your Rogues encountered that actually did have Moderate or Heavy Fort armor? It is a decent defense against SA, but the bad guys don't wear that armor all the time. And the Rogue isn't going to know it anyway until he makes the first SA that is stopped by that armor--something that, again, could be overcome with a good Dispel Magic.

5) Rogues have medium BAB meaning they are less likely to hit. Mixing rogue with a combat class reduces sneak attack progression.

Less likely than what? This sounds like you are complaining that Rogue's do not have the Fighter's BAB so they should get to SA more often! Mixing Rogue with a combat class does reduce SA progression, but at the fair balance of improving the existing SA's chances of successfully hitting! And there are feats that increase SA damage, which could be taken to make up for a few levels in Fighter. This is not a valid reason against my limit on SA either.

6) I believe in the sneak attack description there is a clause stating that if a rogue cannot reach a vital area on the target that he may not sneak attack (DMs descretion obviously).

Actually, its not DM discretion, it states it specifically. Yet, this again has nothing to do with why my rule on SA should be discarded. It is as much common sense as my rule.

You say there are already enough limits, yet none of these are limits as such. They are all circumstancial situations. #1 is not a limit on SA, but is part of the defining criteria of SA. #2, #3, #4 and #6 are not limits on SA in itself, but merely circumstances where it cannot always be immediately applied. As for not reaching, not with a dagger, so what? Shortbow, crossbow, throwing axe, whatever! SA can go out to 30' without assistance from feats or PrCs that extend it. That's still enough of a distance to SA a giant (whose vitals are definitely w/i 30') or other big creature! #5 is not a limit at all when a Finessing Rogue may often have a better BAB than a straight warrior class, thus making him more likely to hit, and often against a foe denied their Dex bonuses to AC!

And saying that I am making it incompatible with a large number of feats is misleading. What large number? I only mentioned four feats. Sure there may be others like Improved Combat Expertise, or Improved Two Weapon Fighting, but those fall under their predecessors. There are plenty more feats that SA can be used with than not used with.

Lord Wyrm:
It's not about how 'scary' a character is. It's about how their abilities work. Diplomacy is probably one of the most broken--in dire need of retooling--things about D&D. An 11th level character focusing in Diplo, couldn't fail to at least make even his most hated enemy indifferent to him, if not an actual friend, wouldn't even need a roll! And I've got my own ideas on that already too. As for the Monk or Druid, what about it? Their abilities are not so scary and are not situation dependent as SA is by its very definition. My point is not about nerfing, but about guidelines based on SA, as it is written, precisely to keep it from being abused.

Nyaricus:
My rule on SA does not destroy a viable combat option . If the Rogue wants to use RS or TWF, he can and get the extra attack, but just not with SA damage added. And "all at a reduced amount", reduced amount of what? And yes, you've made clear your opinion on Rogue BAB, but that has nothing to do with SA. Their progression may not be as good as a Fighter's, but by finessing and building that way, a Rogue will almost always be able to equal or often exceed a Fighter's BAB anyway, even at his "crappy" progression.

And it doesn't destroy dual-wielding duellists or RS archers. It just keeps them from taking advantage of SA when they shouldn't be able to. You've already stated the premise on this issue made sense to you, and I can appreciate that you don't like it. If it made sense, like it or not, how can you fault it, especially when it only clarifies a point about SA that has been abused since it came about? If you want a dual-wielding duellist to be able to get in off-hand attacks and do SA, why not include that in your PrC you are making as an incentive to take that class? Same with your idea of RS'ing archers!

Thank you all for your input and opinions. Anyone else?

 

[SidusLupus]

Why shouldn't rogues be allowed to deal hordes of damage? That's what they do. They hit less often than fighters, and therefore do more damage when they hit and all the SNA conditions are met. At high levels rogues are pretty screwed anyways most of the time, and letting them open a can of twf whoopass isn't a big deal. While using two weapons the rogue further reduces his or her bab by two just to tak the attacks. With only a medium bab progression the likely hood the rogue is going to hit gets slimmer and slimmer. Allowing them the chance to make up for missed hits by sneak attack damage is how the system works. I will agree that rogues with sneak attack is a bit hokey.. but what rogue in their right mind gets power attack anyways? As for combat expertise, it's an int based skill and considering precision based damage of sneak attack is based on knowing where to place your hits, I don't see why it shouldn't work. Rogues don't get a lot of feats. If they specifically take some of their precious feats to be specialized in combat then let them.

In short, while your change seemingly makes sense you're forgetting that by taking all these feats the rogue is severely limiting their hit percentage and will probably not be hitting on mobs anyways. Combined with mobs having all sorts of resistances to sneak attack, I find the change unwarranted.

 

[the Jester]

Sneak attack is already limited enough imho, but it sounds like you've got your heart set on making the change already. In that case, I'd expect the rogue's feat choices to shift in emphasis away from combat; you might well see less combat-oriented rogues in general, actually.

 

[Hawken]

Why shouldn't rogues be allowed to deal hordes of damage? That's what they do. They hit less often than fighters, and therefore do more damage when they hit and all the SNA conditions are met. At high levels rogues are pretty screwed anyways most of the time, and letting them open a can of twf whoopass isn't a big deal.

I don't have anything against rogue's dealing damage, but that's not 'what they do'. They steal, they sneak, they disarm, etc., but in no way should they be able to out-fight a fighter. Dealing 'hordes of damage' is something that should come to mind when thinking of fighters, barbarians, etc. They don't always hit less often than fighters either, despite their slower progression. I've already explained that.

How exactly are they 'screwed' at high levels most of the time? It sounds like you think rogues should be combat machines more than fighters. That's not the way it should be and I doubt the game designers intended it that way either.

While using two weapons the rogue further reduces his or her bab by two just to tak the attacks. With only a medium bab progression the likely hood the rogue is going to hit gets slimmer and slimmer. Allowing them the chance to make up for missed hits by sneak attack damage is how the system works. I will agree that rogues with sneak attack is a bit hokey.. but what rogue in their right mind gets power attack anyways?

What is it with several of you making it sound like the rogue has a worse BAB than a wizard?! They have a decent BAB and with a typically high Dex and Weapon Finesse, their BAB is on par with any fighter. "Slimmer and slimmer" is a slight exaggeration as well. Decreasing BAB by -2 is hardly "slimmer and slimmer". And if you "allow" them to make up for missed hits, how do you "allow" fighters, clerics and anyone else to "make up" for missed hits? Rogues don't get SA to "make up" for a BAB lower than a fighters. Their BAB is lower than a Fighters because they were not intended to be as "good" as a fighter in combat. And plenty of Rogues could take PA, especially ones with a high strength (or high dex) so their BAB isn't too adversely affected. Or maybe they take it to get other feats like Imp. Sunder, Cleave, Great Cleave.

As for combat expertise, it's an int based skill and considering precision based damage of sneak attack is based on knowing where to place your hits, I don't see why it shouldn't work. Rogues don't get a lot of feats. If they specifically take some of their precious feats to be specialized in combat then let them.

Combat Expertise is a feat, and just because its requirement depends on Int has nothing to do with SA. Knowing where to place your hits is only part of the equation, which rogues are automatically assumed to know since there is not some skill like Knowledge (Anatomy) that they have to take ranks in to prove this. Because SA damage is bonus damage for being able to inflict a precise enough wound in a vital spot, I am simply positing that any voluntary penalty to BAB reflects them not being precise enough in their strike that they do not get SA damage when they do so. They are still more than capable of taking fighter feats and modeling themselves after a fighter, but in doing so, they definitely should NOT get SA while they are 'playing' at being a fighter, but instead get it when they are being the backstabbing rogue that they are supposed to be.

In short, while your change seemingly makes sense you're forgetting that by taking all these feats the rogue is severely limiting their hit percentage and will probably not be hitting on mobs anyways. Combined with mobs having all sorts of resistances to sneak attack, I find the change unwarranted.

How does taking what feats limit their hit percentage? And if so, it wouldn't limit it more than anyone else taking the same feats. Why wouldn't rogues hit mobs? Even at mid-high level mobs are typically several creatures with low AC or within a range that the rogue has a better than average chance of hitting, especially when flanking or the target doesn't get a Dex bonus. Also, how many mobs are there that have "all sorts of resistances" to SA damage? I'm not aware of too many--especially in relation to the mobs that don't have those resistances.

it sounds like you've got your heart set on making the change already.

Not exactly. I think its a good rule. But no one so far has presented any compelling reasons against it. Much of these reasons against it seem to be premised on the idea that rogues should be able to do SA while being as good or better at combat than fighter classes and that there should be fewer guidelines on SA than there currently are.

 

[ARandomGod]

But no one so far has presented any compelling reasons against it. Much of these reasons against it seem to be premised on the idea that rogues should be able to do SA while being as good or better at combat than fighter classes and that there should be fewer guidelines on SA than there currently are.

Well. I think it's a good rule, but an incomplete one. My reasoning: The game is theoretically balanced the way it is, including allowing sneak attack in all the situations you're taking away from them. Therefore you have to give something back to them too, in exchange for this taking things away.

Now, what you're doing here is arbitrarily placing limitations on when and why a sneak attack can be placed, so the logical thing to do to counterbalance this is to simultaniously increase the when and why a sneak attack can be done.



As a start I recommend allowing sneak attacks on all things, discernable anatomy, weak spots, or not. Actually that's probably the best "counter" to this limit, it covers the rogues main weaknesses (allowing sneak attacks on anything) as a bonus in exchange for taking away from their prime strength (allowing sneak attacks in many normal combat situations).



Now that I've presented my actual ideas, on to further commentary:

How exactly are they 'screwed' at high levels most of the time? It sounds like you think rogues should be combat machines more than fighters. That's not the way it should be and I doubt the game designers intended it that way either.

I liked this, because to me it sounds like you think that they ARE*, currently, more combat machines than fighters. Have you every actually SEEN a full rogue, at high levels? Compared them to fighters? Sure, I'll admit that a full fighter class isn't really the best choice at levels 15+ with all the other options out there, but in combat a straight rogue levels 15+ is pathetisad compared to a straight fighter. Except in certain limited circumstances, and ones that become more and more limited as levels increase.

(Needless to say, I think that they are most certainly NOT*)

Anyhow. Reasons against the rule? Because the game as written is balanced out, including the rogues ability to sneak attack in all the situations you'd like to deny him sneak attacks... and you've done nothing there to suggest a balance for the things you're taking away. By your own text you're saying that these things are very powerful, so taking that into account you *have* to give something of equal power back, or you're just spamming rogue-hate.

^_^

I do not think it weakens SA, but instead balances it.

You're contradicting yourself there. It's a self-contradicting statement. You clearly DO think that it weakens sneak attack, or else you couldn't think that it "balances" it... since you clearly state that you think sneak attack is overpowered (in some circumstances).

 

[the Jester]

Not exactly. I think its a good rule. But no one so far has presented any compelling reasons against it. Much of these reasons against it seem to be premised on the idea that rogues should be able to do SA while being as good or better at combat than fighter classes and that there should be fewer guidelines on SA than there currently are.

I don't know how much you've dmed straight up rogues in 3e, but I've run a game roughly 1.3 times per week since the game came out. In my experience, a rogue never outshines a fighter in combat except in certain very narrow, rare cases (e.g. rogue has the weapon to penetrate DR and fighter doesn't, or only the rogue has a flaming weapon and the monster has regeneration that fire overcomes, etc). The rogue has two main problems in combat that contribute to the combat superiority of the fighter and its brother classes.

1. Less chance to hit. The combination of lower BAB, less feats (which can add to your chance to hit) and a broader need for different types of gear means that fighters are much more likely to put the smack down (again, in my experience- YMMV depending on the campaign). It also means that Power Attack and Combat Expertise are less attractive, because they make it much less likely that you will actually hit anything.

2. Less hit points. This is the biggie: while a fighter can handle a few rounds of heavy damage, a rogue usually can't. The rogue's stats will almost certainly emphasize dex and int over con, while the fighter's con will usually be 1st or 2nd on his list of priorities. Combined with an average of 2 hp more per level from dice, the fighter is the one who can stand up to the punishment bad guys deal.

This combo means that rogues usually are good for a couple of hits in a battle with a big bad guy. Even then, tons of monsters are immune to sneak attack- and while, yes, that's a feature of the monsters, it's also a built-in balance point for the rogue's sneak attack ability. So that counts heavily against them. (Not to mention that lots of undead, at least, have Fort-save targeting abilities...)

So sneak attack doesn't make rogues as good as a fighter in melee; it makes it worth it for him to go a few rounds with an enemy. Meanwhile, the fighter can be in there slugging away. Sneak attack might allow the rogue to distract the bad guy for a round or two, but if the rogue goes toe to toe with an enemy that would challenge the fighter one on one, he's prolly toast.

Personally, I think nerfing SA like you're proposing makes combat rogues very unattractive (instead of only somewhat unattractive ). However, I could see in a game where the enemies typically have low ACs that the SA/PA or SA/CE combos could get somewhat crazy. I dunno, when I started running 3e I was dubious about the sneak attack rules but decided to try them out for a while by the book before I changed 'em. Never felt the need to change 'em after that. YMMV though.