Rogue - Sneak Attack too strong?

[scottchiefbaker]

My buddy is playing a level one Rogue and we're questioning whether or not we understand Sneak Attack correctly. It seems almost too powerful.

If we flank an enemy and gain combat advantage, and then the Rogue attacks and hits with his Sly Flourish (using a dagger) does he then get the sneak attack damage as well?

With Sly Flourish having a high success rate, and the relative ease of getting combat advantage it seems like a Rogue can deal major damage.

Are we understanding how it works?

 

[Kodus]

You can only get Sneak Attack once per combat round under most circumstances, so I don't think it's too powerful, basically they get Encounter Power damage every round.

Sly Flourish shouldn't matter, nor is flanking a prerequisite, Sneak Attack can be done as long as your attacking with Combat Advantage and the right kind of weapon.

And yes, it's powerful. Which is why NPCs are gonna focus on controling/killing the sneaky dudes as fast as possible, at least if they are not Brute types.

 

[keterys]

Strikers are intended to damage. Sneak Attack is definitely working as intended.

 

[brassbaboon]

Most strikers have one, or a couple, damage inducing abilities that produce significant sustainable damage. Rogues have sneak attack, rangers have twin strike and hunter's quarry, barbarians have rage...

It sounds like it's working as intended.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Also remember that rogues are limited as far as which weapons they can use. The most [w] they can do with sneak attack is 1d8 and they are highly encouraged to deal 1d4. Rangers on the other hand probably have 1d10 [w] while barbarians have 1d12 or 2d6.

 

[Storminator]

People have done a lot of damage per round calculations here. Rogues are near the top. However, at 1st level rogues tend to look more powerful. At later levels that gap doesn't seem as drastic.

PS

 

[Diirk]

Also remember that rogues are limited as far as which weapons they can use. The most [w] they can do with sneak attack is 1d8 and they are highly encouraged to deal 1d4.

Accuracy hasn't been a big enough deal to worry about daggers in my experience, also with a bit of cheese (stupid double swords), rogues can get as high as 1d10 for their [w].

 

[keterys]

Double swords are d8s?

 

[Destil]

The superior crossbow is 1d10, though I've found it can be a bigger pain to get CA with unless you're in a large party and take Distant Advantage, at which case it's pretty damn awesome. Of course it's also a second feat to be able to reload it as a free action... rogues don't really need their minor that often, but it's still an interesting option.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Overall if you compare the 2 PHB martial strikers, rogue and ranger you'll find they are very comparable in total damage output. An archer ranger can put out 2 attacks per round every single round at 1d10 per attack and 1d6 for HQ. Notice that the HQ may only be one die, but with 2 attack rolls its much more likely to apply and has no requirement for CA etc. The character can also virtually always have a starting 20 DEX as they have few real significant requirements for other stats.

The rogue on the other hand needs CA, so once in a while his bonus damage will be unavailable. Even using a 1d10 xbow (which requires a feat) he's doing 1d10 +DEX+CHA +2d6 and probably has about the same to-hit as the archer ranger. Given that he's getting only one attack per round and needs CA his +2d6 are only slightly better than the ranger's 1d6.

Overall the two are pretty close in DPR at level 1, but the archer ranger will slowly pull ahead at higher levels. The same is pretty much true for a TBF melee ranger. Where the rogue gains is in the fact they have better conditions they can apply with their powers and more powers that hit non-AC defenses. Plus they have things like the daggermaster PP that can seriously up their damage potential so that overall they're VERY closely matched with either type of ranger.