Massive Damage Threshold and Sneak Attack

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Let me preface this with the disclaimer that I'm well aware that in the rules-as-written, Rogues may add Sneak Attack damage with every attack that qualifies for it. I understand that this is not overpowering, when using the rules-as-written, because of the limited opportunities for Sneak Attack and the Rogue's vulnerability to getting his head kicked in.

However... I'm not using the rules-as-written. I'm using some particularly vicious rules for Massive Damage-- MDT = Con (plus some variables), the Fortitude save scales based on the amount of damage done, and if you blow your save, you drop to negative hit points equal to how much you blew it by.

There are some compensating factors-- armor reduces damage and converts some of it to non-lethal, and there's a number of ways to boost either your MDT or your DR-- but this still puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of characters that can sling multiple attacks with bonus damage dice.

I'm wondering if it would cripple Rogues, Scouts, and others too much if they were limited to one such brutal attack per round-- and whether or not I should give them some extra class ability to compensate for this. Also worth noting, Rogues and Scouts both take advantage of the highest category of Class Defense Bonus, and I'm using the Gestalt rules which make it much more difficult for spellcasters to land huge direct-damage attacks-- so there are a number of interacting balance factors.

 

[Mithran]

Well given your rules limiting sneak attack to once per round might be important. I'm not sure what, if anything, you should give to balance that. It might be ok to not give anything in return as there isn't the possibility of multiple sneak attacks each round too often IME.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Let me preface this with the disclaimer that I'm well aware that in the rules-as-written, Rogues may add Sneak Attack damage with every attack that qualifies for it. I understand that this is not overpowering, when using the rules-as-written, because of the limited opportunities for Sneak Attack and the Rogue's vulnerability to getting his head kicked in.

However... I'm not using the rules-as-written. I'm using some particularly vicious rules for Massive Damage-- MDT = Con (plus some variables), the Fortitude save scales based on the amount of damage done, and if you blow your save, you drop to negative hit points equal to how much you blew it by.

There are some compensating factors-- armor reduces damage and converts some of it to non-lethal, and there's a number of ways to boost either your MDT or your DR-- but this still puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of characters that can sling multiple attacks with bonus damage dice.

I'm wondering if it would cripple Rogues, Scouts, and others too much if they were limited to one such brutal attack per round-- and whether or not I should give them some extra class ability to compensate for this. Also worth noting, Rogues and Scouts both take advantage of the highest category of Class Defense Bonus, and I'm using the Gestalt rules which make it much more difficult for spellcasters to land huge direct-damage attacks-- so there are a number of interacting balance factors.

That´s actually a great problem using the D20 Modern threshold rules (which yours basically are) combined with sneak attack damage rules.

I believe the Starwars Rules (Revised) replaced sneak attack with improveid critical or improved hit chances. Maybe that´s a good way to go.
(Maybe convert half sneak attack dice into a bonus to attack rolls, and the other half in improving the critical range - that would give rogues the equivalent of a fighters BAB for sneak attacks only)

But note that this isn´t the only time you run into this problem - Standard D&D offers a lot of oppertunities to deal massive amounts of damage in a short time, especially with spells. A Fireball spell deals more damage than a rogue can deal in a single sneak attack, and it affects several targets. (If everybody gestalts into classes with Improved Evasion, this problem might be reduced a bit)

 

[GlassJaw]

I believe the Starwars Rules (Revised) replaced sneak attack with improveid critical or improved hit chances. Maybe that´s a good way to go.

They did this for the classes but there are some PrC's that have normal sneak attack damage.

It also depends on the style of play you want for your game. Ask I like to refer to it as - the Why. Why are you doing what you are doing? If you want first strikes and ambushes to be nasty, leave sneak attack damage where it is but make it for surprise rounds only, for example.

 

[Gez]

You could try converting sneak attack to something else. They're especially painful, so maybe they give a penalty to the wounded enemy's rolls and checks equal to the number of sneak attack dice? Meaning a third level rogue would give a -2 penalty to all his enemy's attacks and damage rolls, and skill and ability checks, each round he hits him.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It also depends on the style of play you want for your game. Ask I like to refer to it as - the Why. Why are you doing what you are doing? If you want first strikes and ambushes to be nasty, leave sneak attack damage where it is but make it for surprise rounds only, for example.

I want combat to be unpredictable and deadly, giving high-level characters more reason to "fight smart" and make use of tactics and strategy-- beyond buff-scry-teleport and more familiar high-level combat strategy. I want high-level Fighters to be cinematic and deadly, but not allow them to jump off cliffs or ignore a squad of city watchmen with aimed crossbows.

Yeah, first strikes and ambushes need to be nasty, but I think the rules (and my modifications) already allow for that. I want flanking and feinting to stay brutally effective (especially for Rogues), but I don't want TWF flanking Sneak Attack to be unstoppable.

Also, I want to keep the Sneak Attack mechanic as close as possible to the way it works as-written, so that I don't need to reevaluate the entire Rogue class.

But note that this isn´t the only time you run into this problem - Standard D&D offers a lot of oppertunities to deal massive amounts of damage in a short time, especially with spells. A Fireball spell deals more damage than a rogue can deal in a single sneak attack, and it affects several targets. (If everybody gestalts into classes with Improved Evasion, this problem might be reduced a bit)

I sweated that one for a while, too, but there are already limits to how many massive saves a spellcaster can force. Even though a caster can force an entire formation of enemies to make a save, for instance, they can generally only force any individual to save once per round, and they have daily usage limits. Evasion and Improved Evasion are a lot more common in a Gestalt game (the most common enemies in my games are humanoids), and everyone has better saving throws in general.

I'm also strongly considering a rule that making a successful saving throw against a spell also makes the defender exempt from making a Damage save, even if half damage is more than their MDT.

 

[genshou]

I'd recommend you not count the actual sneak attack damage toward an MDT save (even though the damage still occurs normally). Instead, apply a flat +2 bonus per sneak attack die to the effective amount of damage when determining if you overcame the opponent's MDT. Let's say a 19th-level rogue attacking with a dagger deals 7 points of regular damage and an amount of sneak attack damage that doesn't matter to this post. I don't entirely understand how your armor as DR rules work yet, since I just barely gave them a glance-over, but let's say you add +20 effective damage and determine how much would have applied past the armor, and-surprise-you find it's more than your opponents Con of 12. You still get to deal sneak attack damage normally against the target's hp, but this lessens the impact of it on MDT.

I'm perfectly fine with allowing the full damage to apply toward the save, though, since it's the same DC no matter how much damage you actually do above the threshold.