How do your rogues get their sneak attacks in?

[N'raac]

Honestly, I've never had a problem in my 3.5 game with rogues getting sneak attack WITHOUT any of those magic items. The only problem has been creatures that are immune to sneak attacks. For this reason, in my games, I ignore monsters' immunity to sneak attacks (and crits, for a similar reason).

I have no issue with monsters immune to Sneak Attack. Some are immune to certain energy types, and the wizard, or the guy with the magic weapon, becomes less effective. Clerics prefer undead opponents since they can't Turn Orcs, and no one wants to make everything Turn-able.

A good team covers for each member's weaknesses and works to exploit each member's strengths.

 

[Dykstrav]

Maybe my recent involvement with Pathfinder Society games has skewed my experience a bit, but I've seen many people play rogues specifically to get sneak attack. I also think that some people want to get sneak attacks with ranged weapons to meliorate the "squishiness" of the rogue. It's a case of someone wanting to take the benefits (awesome damage output) and ignore the drawbacks of a particular class ability (situational setup that often requires you to get into melee), I've just seen a lot of this particular example lately.

Upon further reflection, I think it also sticks in my craw a bit because the sort of players that go for that sort of thing just don't want to be team players. It's been observed by several people here that teamwork makes each individual character more effective, but there are unfortunately some players that don't see things that way. They don't want to ask a caster for help and they don't want to wade into melee beside the fighter, because they somehow feel that it detracts from their character's inherent coolness to get help.

That's an entirely different issue than in my original post, but it's what I'm gradually realizing as I reflect on it more and more.

I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:

You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.

Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.

Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)

Nope, "flanking" is a bonus type to attack rolls that you may or may not qualify for, depending on where you and an ally is positioned. It imposes no sort of penalty on the creature that you gain a flanking bonus against. In that respect, it's similar to the +1 bonus you get for being on higher ground or the +2 bonus you get for charging--it's something you get, not something that the target suffers.

Let's say that your party's cleric and fighter flank an orc together. When the fighter raises his longsword high overhand to slash at the orc, his cleric pal can catch on to what his fighter buddy is doing and take advantage of that--maybe he swings his morningstar at the orc's knee or abdomen when he sees the fighter going high. You're going to have an easier time hitting that orc because you can attack a weak spot while your flanking pal has the target tied up. A +2 bonus to hit is what this sort of teamwork represents.

That doesn't make him any easier to hit with an arrow, however--he's not going to ignore the rogue at precisely thirty feet away just because a fighter and cleric are in his face. (Incidentally, I've also noticed that rogues that want ranged sneak attacks rarely build with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, but that's another can of worms entirely.)

You can also try to distract the orc yourself and gain that underhanded blow, which is what a Bluff check to feint in combat is about. Even that, however, is still applicable to melee.

It's a common misconception that a flanked creature can be sneak attacked by a rogue at range, but it's not the case in the rules as written.

From d20pfsrd.com, although it also appears in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook...

Flanking



When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Maybe my recent involvement with Pathfinder Society games has skewed my experience a bit, but I've seen many people play rogues specifically to get sneak attack. I also think that some people want to get sneak attacks with ranged weapons to meliorate the "squishiness" of the rogue.

Well, when your hp is basically equal to the wizard (he could afford a higher con score than you)... and your armor and fort saves are laughable...hell yes? What, you think the big scary monster that even the Fighter has trouble tanking is going to just sit there, watch a blatantly soft target move around into flank, do decent damage...and attack the fighter instead of him? I know this is a "fantasy" game, but come on now!

It's a case of someone wanting to take the benefits (awesome damage output) and ignore the drawbacks of a particular class ability (situational setup that often requires you to get into melee), I've just seen a lot of this particular example lately.

Sneak Attack isn't awesome damage output. When you factor in the Fighter's higher attack bonus leading to more attacks actually landing and factor in his weapon training, weapon-related feats, gloves of duelling, str x1.5, etc... You'll see even when sneak attacking, rogue's not doing "awesome" damage output, unless you define "awesome" as "what any generic meat shield can do all the time with ease." And again, the idea that a rogue HAS to melee to get his precious sneak attack is a Pathfinder convention. Ranged sneak attacking used to be a perfectly reasonable request.

Upon further reflection, I think it also sticks in my craw a bit because the sort of players that go for that sort of thing just don't want to be team players. It's been observed by several people here that teamwork makes each individual character more effective, but there are unfortunately some players that don't see things that way. They don't want to ask a caster for help and they don't want to wade into melee beside the fighter, because they somehow feel that it detracts from their character's inherent coolness to get help.

Nice generalizations and back handed insults about the people you've gamed with! Hurray for being a team player!
Let me ask you a question. Why should the rogue, more than ANY other class, be so utterly reliant on others just to fight? No other class is like that. A Fighter just swings his sword. Buffs are nice, but ultimately, he can swing his sword. Casters...having a meat shield is awesome, but "dude 15 ft in front of you in full plate" isn't exactly a required focus for spellcasting... Why is a loner, self-sufficient rogue an incompatible genre to RP in the game?

As for your observations... You said before, this is from PFS play...organized play! Maybe you don't understand why I felt the need to bold that, I'll explain...
I like team work. I LOVE team work. Playing with my long time friends is awesome, any time we play in a game together we try to find fun ways to synergize, buffs useful for each other, 1-2 combo actions to do (which we call "dual techs," after the Chrono Trigger term), and more. It's great!
But...sadly, a lot of times I don't get to play with my longtime friends. Often times, I end up joining games with a bunch of random strangers I've never seen or spoken to before. You know...like organized play. I don't know who the hell these hopefully nice people are, what they like to do, their gaming preferences, how generous they are with buff spells and teamwork tactics. It'd be great if things all went peachy and we became a tightnit unit. But, what if that does't happen? Do I really want my character's ability to be competent to rely on the kindness of strangers? Heck no, that's crazy!

So perhaps...that had more to do with your observations than those Rogue players being terrible human beings? Maybe?

That's an entirely different issue than in my original post, but it's what I'm gradually realizing as I reflect on it more and more.

Please do more reflecting...

 

[EUBanana]

Rogues really aren't combatty characters. Sneak attack stops them from being utterly useless, that is all. Playing a rogue /for/ the sneak attack is pretty laughable.

If you want to play a combatty character you shouldn't really be a rogue, at least not a straight rogue. They are better left to sneaking/poisoning/social skills/dealing with traps.

I think it's down to expectations. Are you expecting WoW/4th edition rogues, or OD&D thieves. 3rd edition was merely a slight blip. Pathfinder has them more like the old school Thief class. There's nothing wrong with that, but combat is not their thing.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Well, when your hp is basically equal to the wizard (he could afford a higher con score than you)... and your armor and fort saves are laughable...hell yes? What, you think the big scary monster that even the Fighter has trouble tanking is going to just sit there, watch a blatantly soft target move around into flank, do decent damage...and attack the fighter instead of him? I know this is a "fantasy" game, but come on now!



Sneak Attack isn't awesome damage output. When you factor in the Fighter's higher attack bonus leading to more attacks actually landing and factor in his weapon training, weapon-related feats, gloves of duelling, str x1.5, etc... You'll see even when sneak attacking, rogue's not doing "awesome" damage output, unless you define "awesome" as "what any generic meat shield can do all the time with ease." And again, the idea that a rogue HAS to melee to get his precious sneak attack is a Pathfinder convention. Ranged sneak attacking used to be a perfectly reasonable request.



Nice generalizations and back handed insults about the people you've gamed with! Hurray for being a team player!
Let me ask you a question. Why should the rogue, more than ANY other class, be so utterly reliant on others just to fight? No other class is like that. A Fighter just swings his sword. Buffs are nice, but ultimately, he can swing his sword. Casters...having a meat shield is awesome, but "dude 15 ft in front of you in full plate" isn't exactly a required focus for spellcasting... Why is a loner, self-sufficient rogue an incompatible genre to RP in the game?

As for your observations... You said before, this is from PFS play...organized play! Maybe you don't understand why I felt the need to bold that, I'll explain...
I like team work. I LOVE team work. Playing with my long time friends is awesome, any time we play in a game together we try to find fun ways to synergize, buffs useful for each other, 1-2 combo actions to do (which we call "dual techs," after the Chrono Trigger term), and more. It's great!
But...sadly, a lot of times I don't get to play with my longtime friends. Often times, I end up joining games with a bunch of random strangers I've never seen or spoken to before. You know...like organized play. I don't know who the hell these hopefully nice people are, what they like to do, their gaming preferences, how generous they are with buff spells and teamwork tactics. It'd be great if things all went peachy and we became a tightnit unit. But, what if that does't happen? Do I really want my character's ability to be competent to rely on the kindness of strangers? Heck no, that's crazy!

So perhaps...that had more to do with your observations than those Rogue players being terrible human beings? Maybe?



Please do more reflecting...

Maybe you require too much of the Rogue? If you need the Rogue to be expert on traps, a good scout, a social chameleon AND a light-fighter, then yes he obviously fails at being good at all that. But nothing says he has to, in fact I have seen plenty of Rogues dumping charisma and wisdom in favor of Con and Dex, and even getting some Str. Such a character is obviously better at melee, and will have only marginally fewer hit points than a fighter. His AC will not be as good, but with the high dex and best light armors he will be comparable to any other class than the fighter.

He will still be dependent on getting flanking buddies of course, but then again most groups have at least one melee fighter that loves to have a flanking buddy.

Monsters tend to go for those enemies that they think is the most dangerous, and that may wel be the big fighter with the greatsword and power attack, rather than the rogue with shortswords and feeble sneak attack. And smart NPCs might attack the further back wizard instead, realizing that he is the more dangerous of the 3 and much squishier.

 

[frankthedm]

Maybe you require too much of the Rogue? If you need the Rogue to be expert on traps, a good scout, a social chameleon AND a light-fighter, then yes he obviously fails at being good at all that. But nothing says he has to, in fact I have seen plenty of Rogues dumping charisma and wisdom in favor of Con and Dex, and even getting some Str. Such a character is obviously better at melee, and will have only marginally fewer hit points than a fighter. His AC will not be as good, but with the high dex and best light armors he will be comparable to any other class than the fighter.

Exactly, Rogues have many options open to them, but if they try to do everything the class offers, they will spread themselves too thin. For a feat based class it is fairy clear cut, but since the rogue class is closer to a point buy class than most others, it is tempting to take all the options, because it looks like you could.

 

[prototype00]

I'm partial to using the scout archetype to gain SA everytime I charge (and eventually, every time I move 10 ft in a round). That it automatically activates Sap Adept and Sap Master is delicous icing on the cake.

Combined with the thug archetype and the bludgeoner feat, you can automatically make foes frightened for one round, which is almost as good as auto stun, without a save.

Granted, I'm not saying that rogues are top tier, but they can be not bad.

prototype00

 

[EUBanana]

I'm partial to using the scout archetype to gain SA everytime I charge (and eventually, every time I move 10 ft in a round). That it automatically activates Sap Adept and Sap Master is delicous icing on the cake.

Combined with the thug archetype and the bludgeoner feat, you can automatically make foes frightened for one round, which is almost as good as auto stun, without a save.

Granted, I'm not saying that rogues are top tier, but they can be not bad.

prototype00

Thats pretty cool.

Tier is kinda lame IMHO, and usually fairly artificial in actual play I think. You don't generally fight in an arena against other PC-like characters. certainly it shouldn't be much of a factor when choosing a character.

Are you able to contribute somehow and are you having fun, thats the main thing.

 

[Kaisoku]

Tier is kinda lame IMHO, and usually fairly artificial in actual play I think. You don't generally fight in an arena against other PC-like characters. certainly it shouldn't be much of a factor when choosing a character.

Are you able to contribute somehow and are you having fun, thats the main thing.

What sticks in my craw (grinds my gears? curdles my milk?), is when people completely misunderstand what classifying classes into Tiers actually means.

If you read this post, you'll see that the idea of arena combat or PC vs PC is entirely the opposite of what grading the classes in Tiers does, and in fact it's absolutely about how well the class is contributing.

However, ultimately, it's a DM tool on managing his group, not a PC tool for choosing a character. Create your character that you'll have fun with. The DM can use the class Tiers to know how to balance his encounters to make sure you get your fun.

I personally like to run and play Tier 3 games, usually with characters that have a wider range of options with maybe one thing they are pretty good at.

 

[EUBanana]

It is presumptuous to assume someone who disagrees does not understand. I understand If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. perfectly, and think it's rubbish.

Our group is a wizard-eldritch knight, sorcerer, oracle specced in healing, cavalier, paladin and rogue. So all over the shop on that tiering system. Who do you think is the always the one who comes away having contributed the most and is generally the one the DM complains about most, with mutterings about house rules and various contrivances to try and keep them in check?

It's not the wizard. It's not even the sorcerer.