Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 2608838" data-attributes="member: 23619">My replies to Aust's comments, in order: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. 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.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.</blockquote>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.  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.  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?[/QUOTE]

Verification