Rogue Sneak Attacks

[Chimera]

This player certainly knows what they're doing and I wouldn't allow it.

I'd have no problem with this at all.

Some good combats where this PC can flex their muscles and let the player enjoy it, mixed with a lot of combats where these special abilities aren't particularly dominant.

 

[Andor]

This player certainly knows what they're doing and I wouldn't allow it.

When a GM fears a competant player, you have a problem...

It's a gestalt campaign and sneak attack damage is the greatest of your worries? You have restrained players. Also it's an eberron campaign. Warforged have built in light fort and should make up a fair percentage of hired opponents.

Frankly this does not sound like a twinky character to me under the circumstances. A rogue/fighter would be far more deadly in combat with the added feats and weapon spec.

 

[Hammerhead]

It's a GESTALT character. Of course he's going to be brutal. Personally, though, I would have gone Rogue / Fighter for full base attack and lots of bonus feats. Heaven forbid Gestalt characters are powerful, instead of taking some strangified Bard / Ranger hybrid.

 

[JustKim]

Some DMs would simply throw a lot of critical-immune enemies like undead, plants and oozes at the character, but I'm not one of them. I would rather deal with the problem than the symptoms, and not allow such a specialized character. If you just tailor your monsters to thwart the PC, nobody is having fun- you can't use another creature without fear of it being rent apart in half a round, and the player will always feel frustrated because their abilities are useless.

I may be misguided here but usually when a player synchronizes gestalt combos, skills, race and party composition for damage overkill, reducing them to six siders plus two will breed resentment.

 

[Numion]

I have one Fighter / Rogue Gestalt in my campaign, and it's not something you should worry about. In my experience, that is. There's so much crazy stuff with the full spellcasting progression types available, that making already pretty rare even rarer is not really required.

Usually the the enemies can move around during combat (5ft steps) so that only either one of the two sneakers can get full attacks in with full sneaks. Figure in all the types immune to sneak attack and there you have it.

Besides a rogue / ranger gestalt with nerfed sneak attacks is basically a single-classed ranger with lots of skills in a friggin Gestalt game! - not something I'd suffer

 

[MerricB]

Rogues have a inbuilt handicap to multiple sneak attacks: they expose themselves to the enemy to do it.

It takes their first round to manuever into position (often the DC of Tumble is 25, due to speed), and must suffer an entire round of attacks from every enemy going "you're not flanking my friend".

If you only send one monster against PCs, expect the rogues to shine.

If the enemy is even a tiny bit smart, they'll position themselves so that the rogue needs to tumble *through* them.

By the core rules, it's quite possible for a rogue to need to roll 39+ on a Tumble check to succeed.

Cheers!

 

[Chimera]

Some DMs would simply throw a lot of critical-immune enemies like undead, plants and oozes at the character, but I'm not one of them. I would rather deal with the problem than the symptoms, and not allow such a specialized character. If you just tailor your monsters to thwart the PC, nobody is having fun- you can't use another creature without fear of it being rent apart in half a round, and the player will always feel frustrated because their abilities are useless.

I may be misguided here

Yup.

You don't see that outlawing legitimate class combinations because they're "too powerful" will likewise breed resentment, prevent people from having fun and leave them feeling frustrated because the GM is too busy flexing his "I won't allow that" muscles rather than dealing with it in a constructive manner?

I agree that, should the GM go overboard in designing monsters to defeat this character, then what you say will happen. Go back to my response. The GM needs to let this player have enough opportunities to do exactly what the PC was designed to do. This makes it really fun for the player. But the GM also has to throw in other encounters where the PC is not so dominant. This isn't thwarting the player, this is balancing the game.

 

[JustKim]

Yup.

You don't see that outlawing legitimate class combinations because they're "too powerful" will likewise breed resentment, prevent people from having fun and leave them feeling frustrated because the GM is too busy flexing his "I won't allow that" muscles rather than dealing with it in a constructive manner?

No, I meant that I might be misguided in the case of this particular player, since I don't actually know anything about him or her.

Not allowing game-breaking combinations is common sense. If someone is going to be mopey because I said no to great cleave, whirlwind attack and a bag of rats, fine, be that way. I don't want to game with someone who isn't having fun unless they're ruining everyone else's. It's not "constructive" to circumvent PC abilities by not allowing them to use them. It is constructive to tell the player no, that's too much, I'd rather you didn't play that. Sometimes not allowing something is actually about preserving game balance and not an ugly fascist power play.

Go back to my response.

The reason my reply doesn't contradict what you were saying is that I wasn't challenging you.

When a GM fears a competant player, you have a problem...

I don't fear competent players. I think that when someone takes a dangerous combination and willfully builds on it to make it worse, it's a bad thing. If it were a half-elf Ranger/Rogue with some urban tracking and noncombat feats, I would probably allow it, but it seems they know what they're doing and that is milking a bad thing for all it's worth.

 

[Ferrix]

Wow, they're really going all out. Sneak attack damage is dangerous when you have a two-weapon Rogue, but give them full BAB, favored enemy damage and an extra bite attack on top of everything, and you have a character who will dominate melee. This player certainly knows what they're doing and I wouldn't allow it.

[snark]Yeah don't allow anything that player knows how to do well. Great idea.[/snark]

Being effective isn't a bad thing, just because they don't want to focus their efforts on tracking and non-combat doesn't mean that player doesn't have a consistent and proper character for the game being played.

Sneak attack is all well and good, but compared to a fighter (or gestalt fighter-barbarian or better a fighter-cleric) and their damage output is on par and conditional whereas power attack isn't conditional in the least. That and being lightly-armored and up in front isn't always going to be good for your health.

If smart enemeis play smart and use cover, concealment, etc. and keep from being flanked it'll be a nice treat for the rogue-ranger when they get to sneak attack.

The game is balanced with the fact that you get sneak attacks more than once a round, it'll be fine.

 

[Ferrix]

No, I meant that I might be misguided in the case of this particular player, since I don't actually know anything about him or her.

Not allowing game-breaking combinations is common sense. If someone is going to be mopey because I said no to great cleave, whirlwind attack and a bag of rats, fine, be that way. I don't want to game with someone who isn't having fun unless they're ruining everyone else's. It's not "constructive" to circumvent PC abilities by not allowing them to use them. It is constructive to tell the player no, that's too much, I'd rather you didn't play that. Sometimes not allowing something is actually about preserving game balance and not an ugly fascist power play.

I don't fear competent players. I think that when someone takes a dangerous combination and willfully builds on it to make it worse, it's a bad thing. If it were a half-elf Ranger/Rogue with some urban tracking and noncombat feats, I would probably allow it, but it seems they know what they're doing and that is milking a bad thing for all it's worth.

The great cleave whirlwind bag of rats trick is a far cry from anything like a gestalt ranger-rogue who gets to twf and sneak attack. Equating them, which it seems you are doing, is a stretch.

Saying no to game breaking combinations is fine (dweomerkeeper, hulking hurler, WotC Boards Min/Max builds) but a focused two-weapon ranger-rogue is a completely valid and non-game breaking concept. It's just as legitimate as the greatsword wielding barbarian-fighter who takes feats that focus on his ability effectively bash things with his greatsword.