Improved Sneak Attack: good, bad or broken?

[haiiro]

1st) why would a rogue or ninja from Rokugan especially be deadly?

2nd) What happens if someone takes Traps & Treachery's feat to get d8, also takes Improveds Sneak Attack, and also takes Superior Sneak Attack?
wouldn't that be d8-->2d6-->2d8 sneak attack?

1) I mentioned the ninja because that class gets fighter BAB along with a host of combat-related abilities -- it's a much more overtly martial class than the rogue, and would benefit accordingly from ISA. I can see building a rogue character that is not focused on combat, but I can't see doing the same thing with a ninja.

2) I think taking two feats that have identical names do the same thing would be a perfect candidate for Rule Zero. They're essentially the same feat, and shouldn't be treated otherwise simply because they come from different books, IMO.

 

[Trine]

I know 1d8 becomes 2d6 when increasing weapon sizes, but if you're increasing damage from other things is this the method you're supposed to use?

It'd also depend on the exact wordings of the feats, and examples they give. The original poster gave the example Superior Sneak Attack giving an increase from d8's to d10's. Not d8's to 2d6's. If it were d8 -> 2d6 then the two feats would double sneak attack damage, which, despite the idea being bad already, I don't think was the intent.

 

[haiiro]

Both ISA and SSA are worded such that the die type boost is one step: d4-->d6, d6-->d8, d8-->d10, d10-->d12. SSA caps at d12, and this is mentioned in the feat description.

 

[Quinn]

Heck, no. Rogues seem to manage getting multiple sneak attacks a round (due to AoOs, feints, various feats, flat-footedness), and when you add in other modifiers like magic items, spell effects, strength, and the like, rogues are doing exceptional damage as is. I would never allow it.

 

[reapersaurus]

Both ISA and SSA are worded such that the die type boost is one step: d4-->d6, d6-->d8, d8-->d10, d10-->d12. SSA caps at d12, and this is mentioned in the feat description.

If that's the case, then it seems rather obvious that these feats are able to be taken multiple times. (no class i know of starts with d8 sneak attack)

For a comparison, could someone post the Traps & Treachery Improved Sneak Attack thingy?

 

[Epametheus]

Hmm..

Broken. Sneak attack is lethal as is, especially with Haste & Imp Invis and using UMD to cast Divine Power & Divine Favor.

Even at low levels the jump is enormous -- going from +1d6 at 1st level to +2d8 at 3rd level.

It was banned on sight IMC; it's pretty much a must-have feat for rogues and assassins.

 

[haiiro]

If that's the case, then it seems rather obvious that these feats are able to be taken multiple times. (no class i know of starts with d8 sneak attack)

As noted above (several posts up), Mercenaries introduces classes with "sneak attack" abilities that use d4s, d8s, etc. Some of them have different names (ambush attack, for example), but all can be altered with the feat.

 

[nameless]

I think the feat is just fine as is, it is nowhere near good enough for every rogue to take it. In fact, I would say that most rogues (who make intelligent design decisions) wouldn't want it. Between PrC requirements, Spring Attack, Expert Tactician, and whatever other supplements you want to use, Rogues don't get enough feats to do it all. Adding (mean) 1 damage per sneak attack die is nice, but not that great. Even with big sneak attacks all the time, a strong fighter or barbarian with a greatsword will oustrip the rogue in damage easily.

 

[Leopold]

Sigh...


went over this last night with my players. This feat does NOT SAY IT CAN BE TAKEN MULTIPLE TIMES. This is a one shot only deal. Superior Sneak attack is the next step up from that.


Yes it's nasty with the rogues. I allowed it in my game, have it on my own PC in another. It works out to be fine. Rogue still has to move into combat to get this stuff or use a bow, but the chance of them exploiting this at higher level when stuff is immune to sneak is rather moot.

in the end it ups the damage a rogue does if/when he hits on par with a fighters weapon spec. and mages spell focus.

 

[Celebrim]

Broken.

Lets simplify the feat.

I: "Does +1 damage for each die of sneak attack damage."

That isn't entirely true, but in practice that is what it does.

It is incredibly easy to get sneak attacks. In fact, I would say that a high level rogue pretty much sneak attacks with every attack (ring of blinking, displacement, flanking, etc. etc.). So, rewriting the first lema gets us.

II: "Does +1 damage, +1/per two levels of rogue, on all attacks vs. creatures not immune to critical hits."

The number of critters not immune to criticals greatly exceeds the number of critters that are immune in the average campaign (ei not O1-3 'Against the Oozes' or something) As a basic rule of thumb, if a feat is generating more damage than Weapon Specialization, then the feat is broken.

PS: No feat can be taken more than once unless the feat specifically says otherwise in its description.

PPS: You know, I ought to write those modules for hack master. If I had the time...