Improved Sneak Attack: good, bad or broken?

[Petrosian]

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.

uhh... no.

The rogue gains a new d6 every other level. The improvement of 1 die type is roughly equivalent to a +1.

This equates to +1 for every 2 levels.

At fourth level, this MATCHES the fighter. The rogue gains +2 and so does the fighter.

Every odd level after that, the rogue improves yet the fighter spec feat stays static.

This is just simply better.

Now, if you are in a game where, lets use 11th level for example, the rogue gets a lot fewer sneak attacks, then it might average out.At 11th level, the rogue is getting 6 dice of sneak. If ONE attack in THREE is a sneak, then he is gaining about the same per shot average.

That is a big if. in my experience, watching the rogue in my current game which is in mid-12th right now, his sneak attacks make up 3/4 or more of his attacks. HE rarely takes non-sneak attacks. he will find some of his other options more palatable than the non-sneak damage (like healing or using spells from devices.)

So all in all, this feat would make a greater benefit than the fighter's class specific specialization would.

it seems imbalanced when compared tp PHB feats. it might be right spot on when compared to other third party feats, they seem to be in general a little overboard. (I am sure it helps sales to be just a little bit more.)

 

[Lord Rasputin]

This shouldn't be a feat. If it were one of those high-level special rogue abilities, like Opportunist or Improved Evasion, it would be closer to in-line, and you're giving up far more to take it.

Still, it's more kick-butt then Weapon Specialization, so no, not even then.

 

[LokiDR]

I let a player have this feat. He took down most of the combats for a while, untill I just talked him into not overshadowing the rest of the party. This feat is just too powerful, and should have some really high pre-reqs.

 

[Destil]

Humm... an improved two weapon fighting 19th level rogue / 1st level fighter with oppertunitist in a flanking position and haste (all of this is via core rules, by the way) could get off 7 sneak attacks in a good round: 3 from BAB, 2 from two weapon fighting, 1 AoO from opperitunist when his flanking partner hits and 1 from haste.

That's 70d6 sneak attack damage.
Minimum damage : 70
Max damage: 420
Mean: 245

With this feat it becomes 70d8 sneak attack damage.
Minimum damage : 70
Max damage: 560
Mean: 315

Increases.
Minimum: 0
Max: 140
Mean: 70

So this feat increased a high level rogue's damage by 0-140 (mean 70) points / round under optimal conditions.

Now, a good Power Attack round could possibly give a similar increase in damage, but that's not as generaly effective. Since PA would only works like this on low AC opponents. One could argue that this only works against certian opponents, as well, but one consideration is that power attack has more limits than a normal attack, this simply enhances the sneak attacks you're allready getting, with no extra considerations.

Spirited charge could produce a similar damage increase. As could a the effects from a good round with improved critical. However all of these depend more on the circumstances of combat, aside from improved crit.

All in all I'd say it's too good, simply because it's too much of a general bonus to damage. I think it would work better if it was dependent on some extra circumstances, like only working on flat footed opponents or when the're accualy denied their dex bonus, and not just flanked.

 

[haiiro]

I'm starting to like the option presented by Caliban and hammymchamham: ISA would be balanced if it granted a straight +1d6 bonus, had a decent prereq (Caliban suggests +3d6 SA for this), and could only be taken once.

At the same time, I'm wary of creating a feat that is so similar to the ELH version (which has +8d6 SA as its prereq, and can be taken multiple times) -- but I like the basic concept.

Here's another thought: what if ISA instead offered a straight bonus to SA damage, say +1 or +2? Or +1 to hit, +1 to damage? (Like other SA damage, I'd say this shouldn't be multiplied on a crit.)

Edit: clarification, and an afterthought: what about having it grant +1d4 of extra SA damage? This would set ISA apart from the ELH version, and make it similar to the many other feats that grant +1d4 damage in specific situations.

 

[magnas_veritas]

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.

I gave the T&T version some thought for my character, when I noticed the other rogue-like thing in the party rolling d8s on sneak attack. I looked at it, thought it was cool, and then forgot about it completely because, frankly, it wasn't that useful. I suppose it might be cool rolling 6d8 on my sneak attacks, but then again, it's been a game year since my character got sneak attack dice on anyone.

(mutters) Bloody assassin, bloody banshee and death knight, a bloody blue million flesh golems, frickin' uncanny dodging vaporighu, GAH! I might feel put upon. (/mutters)

Brad

 

[SleepingPhoenix3]

I think people overestimate the value of such feats as dmg bc one they dont' work in certain situations i.e against plants undead and many abominations. Many demihumans with classes have uncanny dodge ability and lessens the chance. Not to mention the ability to get into position to use it.

 

[kitcik]

Like the Phoenix, this thread has risen from the ashes...

 

[Empirate]

Is it just me, or is there an increase in the rate of thread necromancy?

 

[Piratecat]

Thread necromancy is fine as long as people are substantively adding to a thread. They're inevitable in a world with Google. If no one gives a damn, they sink back down soon enough.