DMs: Please critique this SA rule.

[Baragos]

No I don't think giving them Fighter BAB is the solution...then they become even more powerful in the damage dealing department...and will have access to a lot of cool feats too early I believe.

Perhaps, instead of limiting when they can sneak attack, limit the damage done by sneak attack...either give them d4s for sneak attack or give them fewer d6s. But then you must give them something else...in Iron Heroes Thieves have a high max rank (5+class level iirc) and 12 skill points per level, but fewer SA dice than normal...that might be a valid option...

 

[Felnar]

how does the UA variant fighter fit into this discussion?
(trades bonus feats for sneak attacks)

 

[Aust Diamondew]

To quote the SRD: "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."
I would just like to point out Hawken that you are wrong about there being no DM descreation involved in SA. DMs descretion is involved, for who else would get to decide if a creatures vitals are beyond reach?
You seem so set on not letting rogues get sneak attack when any feat would penalize their attacks I see little point to arguing with you (however I will do so ).

The premise of your thread was that rogues frequently deal too much damage and need to have their sneak attacking damage ability reduced. I simply listed many situations in which sneak attack indeed cannot be used thus reducing it's utility.

You then state that everything I have listed aren't limits but are circumstances as well as stating that the limits of sneak attack itself are not limits but defining criteria. You might be changing what these limits are called but they indeed are limits. The defining criteria of sneak attack are designed to limit the use of the ability. When the game was created the designers had in mind that there would be creature abilities, equipment and spells to limit the utility of sneak attack.

I would venture to say that the limits you place on sneak attack by not allowing it to be used when taking a penalty to attack roll are not limits (as you seem to think they are) but are instead situational exceptions. Therefore I believe you need to place some actual limits on sneak attack if you think it needs it's power to be reduced .

If you really think sneak attack is too much consider dropping back it's damage die (as others have said) to a d4. Or instead of sneak attack giving rogues bonus feats like fighters (1 at first and at every even level) as is a suggested variant in unearthed arcana.

 

[Ferrix]

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.

Good reasons are often only accepted when you already partially agree with them.

Personally, as a player, I would be less inclined to play a rogue, particularly any rogue-like character who wanted to be a dual-wielding type, or a swift ranged type.

Now on to so specific comments:

Sneak Attack & Power Attack
Example: Rogue wields a longsword, his opponent is unaware of him, but he knows that his opponent is incredibly resilient. So he takes his chances, winding up his swing to slash his longsword down upon the back of the neck to hopefully take him out in one fell swoop. Rogue knows that he's sacrificing the finer points of anatomical precision but he still has the better knowledge of where to strike and how to work the blade once it connects.

Result: Rogue power attacks for X, taking a chance to accidentally miss, where he'd normally be pretty certain to hit, but figures the extra force he'd put behind the blow is worth it in comparison.

Logic: A rogue power attacking is actually trading away more than a normal character power attacking, often because with sneak attack he is going to deal more damage anyways and should focus more on connecting his hit since his sneak attack damage will then kick in. Decreasing his to hit (which is often lower than most power attackers, read fighters or barbarians) is more to his detriment unless he's fighting a considerably weaker opponent.

Sneak Attack & Combat Expertise
Example: Rogue is fighting a powerful warrior, so he's on the defensive, however Fighter moves in to flank the powerful warrior. Keeping his guard up, he lets Fighter take some of the power warriors attention away from him, jabbing in with a powerful stab here and there when he gets the chance.

Result: Rogue knows that if he lets himself get hit, he's dead quick, so he keeps up his defenses even though he's flanking and taking the chances to get in a sneaky blow here and there.

Logic: Again, the rogue taking a penalty to-hit is more of a detriment when he's in a sneak attack situation than the benefits taking the penalty to-hit provides for Combat Expertise provides. He's going to do considerably less damage taking that penalty to hit anyways, so when he gets that occasional hit and does some sneak attack damage, he's only making up for the majority of times he's missed when he might otherwise have hit due to his to-hit penalty.

Two-Weapon Fighting/Rapid Shot & Sneak Attack
I'll not do an example here, but when it comes to these feats, they have taken a feat to get the benefit to attack at an accelerated rate with a penalty. Inflicting additional penalties upon these characters is inflicting a penalty upon any character with these feats who can sneak attack that other characters don't have to deal with.

Overall Logic
My general thought is that you are inflicting penalties on something that already costs a character a significant amount (a feat choice). Which for rogues particularly is relatively limited anyways.

You are making rogues choose between interesting combat-options (two-weapon fighting, rapid shot, etc.) and the only damage dealing capacity they are given by their class. A trade-off which is less than fair to those characters.

And not many people agreed with your ideas, me among those disagreeing.

 

[Baron Opal]

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.

I see no added utiilty for you or the players with this rule.

You can't slit their throat when you're trying to just drive the knife into them like a giant nail!

No, but driving it into their kidney works wonders.

In this situation, the Rogue is paying more attention to incoming attacks and attackers than vital/soft spots on his target.

Or, deftly redirecting the blows to help create an opening.

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!

Indeed it is amusing, but said halfling must have dropped on the giant from above or using a missile weapon to reach the vital spot.

Sneak attacks are very difficult to orchestrate. The rogue usually either has to strike first or double team an opponent. In one-on-one situations sneak attack doesn't come into play. In my experience a rogue gets one big shot off at the beginning of the fight and that's about it. If there are as many or more opponents than active characters, sneak attack isn't an option. If the target is two size catagories bigger than the rogue, sneak attack isn't an option. While rogue / fighter is certainly a potent combination, it doesn't make a character the premiere combatant. I've found that a straight fighter with a high strength and a two handed weapon does more damage per fight than any other character. Particularly after level 8.

Also remember that sneak attack only adds to one attack per sequence. So, only the main hand of the two-weapon combo is doing sneak attack damage.

 

[the Jester]

Also remember that sneak attack only adds to one attack per sequence. So, only the main hand of the two-weapon combo is doing sneak attack damage.

That is incorrect. Sneak attack applies to any attack that meets the conditions. If I'm a two-weapon fighting madman with 7 attacks per round and I'm flanking and I have sneak attack +3d6, and I hit with every attack, I deal SA damage on every attack.

 

[Nyaricus]

That is incorrect. Sneak attack applies to any attack that meets the conditions. If I'm a two-weapon fighting madman with 7 attacks per round and I'm flanking and I have sneak attack +3d6, and I hit with every attack, I deal SA damage on every attack.

yeah, thats true. i (a DM, no less) was basically nerfing my players characters for a while, but i got it straight after a while. It doesnt even strictly say one way or the other in the text (damn you WotC!! lol, jj) but if you read the book enough, you get the impresion that SA damage is meant to occur in every hit. Manyshot feat, for example, says you may apply "prescision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once." Thus, normall, for every attack, you may add P-BD for every attack. Its just one of those dumb things that isnt properly written in the PHB. Oh well. i think the FAQ from WotC website talks about that, but i'm not 100%

 

[Thia Halmades]

Short version: nerfing Rogues doesn't directly aid them in any way; it only prohibits them from doing what they're best at. There are new rules in a couple of the splat books, Complete Adventurer being one of them, which gives a Nerfed version of SA that is more limited than the original. I believe the Ninja and Skirmisher both have it, but I can't remember the name of it. I cannot condone limiting a Rogue's SA ability, but if you want too, that may be a reduction everyone can live with, and still make rogues playable.

Because if you nerf SA, you're hamstringing the class, and removing their major ability to 'look cool.' I never think that's a good idea. Long version follows.

Ferrix's point is spot on. Hawken, you seem concerned primarily with a Rogues ability to deal damage on an SA. This argument has gone in circles a bit, so I'm going to bring it back to its core premise and talk about that. The Rogue's primary abilities are Skills (8/lvl) and SA (d6/2 lvls). That's what makes them special. They are not combat monsters (d6 HP, light armor) nor are they casters.

Every character in D&D can fight, by which I mean, contribute significantly to a combat. The rules of the game are combat oriented. It was based on a skirmish game back in the day; now we've taken those skirmish characters and given them personalities. But the current version of d20 is, in part, a combat game. That means every character has to be able to significantly aid in that combat. For whatever reason, you've decided that you don't want your Rogues to be able to do that. You are clearly under the impression that they are combat monsters. They aren't.

I have a Ninja in one of my campaigns (the L5R version, I think, with a half-ton of super powers and fighter BAB progression) who is under the mistaken impression he can win a straight fight. He dives, head long, into the jaws of a Pyrohydrae. He is beaten down like a naughty mule and then can't understand why he's at 0 HP, while the Cleric burns three Cure spells on him. What he did was bring a knife to a gun fight, waving it in the air and screaming "Hit me!" at the top of his lungs. The rogue cannot, and will never be able to, go toe-to-toe in melee. If you want to talk about dealing damage and balance, you need to first accept that the game is not balanced for PVP. Comparing a 15th level fighter to a 15th level rogue is pointless. What gear do they have? What feats do they take? You're comparing apples to oranges. Their jobs, and the ability progression and equipment, are so completely different that its futile. Sure, the Rogue lacks all of the fighters combat ability. The fighter will now Use Magic Device. Oh, right. They can't.

One of the roles a tank fills is to absorb damage on the line and provide a distraction for the casters to hide behind and the rogue to move around and create flanking opportunities with. A rogue on the line won't be dealing SA without either having initiative (which is likely, if the rogue is worth their crossbow) or using feats to create SA opportunities. If a character deals 80% of a major MOBs damage in a hit, wouldn't you redirect your forces to the biggest threat? The fighter can deal plenty of damage, sure, but not that much. Rogues are easier to kill and have less AC and HP on the whole compared to a fully armored, enchanted fighter. My NPCs react to threats in order; a caster starts firing, they manuever to deal with it. A rogue gets an SA, other NPCs become aware and counter. Simple.

Among the things you cited as wanting to Nerf, you included the idea that Power Attack would negate SA. Why? The Rogue has medium BAB to begin with; they are unlikely to a have a STR bonus to attack beyond a +1 or +2, so unless they have a fly magic weapon, they're only hurting themselves. That's a player's choice to take that risk. If there were a mechanic that multiplied SA damage, or made the SA more potent, then sure. I'd almost understand it. But there isn't. SA damage stacks only with damage of its type.

Giving Rogues a Good BAB is an equally bad idea. Now they really CAN use Power Attack and deal a healthy chunk of extra damage. They'll also get more attacks earlier. Which is another point I wanted to bring up; you're making it sound as though a Rogue utilizing a Full Attack would only get their SA once, as you wouldn't let it apply to any feat based additional attacks (two weapon, etc.). So when they reach 9th level, what then? Because I would submit they do, in fact, get their SA on their iterative attack if the opponent was flat-footed or flanked, and is still flat-footed or flanked at the time of the iterative attack.

LCpt. Thia Halmades