Rogue with BAB 6/1 get 2 Sneak Attacks with Full Attack Action?

[kreynolds]

Well, THAT was unnecessary.

It's cool. It was a joke, hence the winking smiley.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Urghs

THe point is, that by the time a character can expect to be able to aquire or make a ring of invisibility, blnking or improved invis, most of the opponents will have effective means of neutralizing the invisibility.

Almost all high end outsiders have true seeing or see invis up all the time, some with multiple counters. Many creatures, such as dragons, have blindsight. Creatures with Darkness, or BLur spell powers will have concealment in most cases if they get a chance - it may not help the first target, but it might save his friends. Characters might aquire see invis items or cast the Blindsight spell. Fortification effects work too, but are very expensive. Also, the movement and mobility options of high level creatures can make flanking more difficult.

Sneak attack is great ability, but defenses against it grow more prevalent as its damaging power grows, so it remains balanced.

Exactly. That's why I balk whenver someone suggests that the ability is too powerful. At low level, maybe, but not enough for me to be concerned about it. At high level? Nah.

 

[firstborne]

No, that feat only renders your foe flat-footed vs. your NEXT attack only, not for an entire round. Plus, once you consider how low the rogue's bab is to a fighter's, and the high AC of creature at this level, the rogue probably has a low/no chance of hitting on his later attacks. Let's see, 20th level rogue, bab +15, dex +8 (weapon finesse), +5 weapon, +2 flank = +30 to hit. Vs. AC 40, you have a 50% chance of hitting on your highest base attacks. So, average damage from a rogue of this level decreases a lot because of all the misses. Honestly, a fighter can probably do much better average damage, and do this ALL the time, not just when he gets lucky enough to fight a creature vulnerable to crits/sneak attack, AND sets the conditions for it. That's why the rogue is balanced.

Thanks for setting me straight there. My apologies for my errors; it was late, and I got caught up in the math.

 

[kreynolds]

Thanks for setting me straight there. My apologies for my errors; it was late, and I got caught up in the math.

It's all good. Happens to all of us in one form or another.

 

[reapersaurus]

i find it interesting that people are apparently using as their basis for the statement of "Sneak Attack is balanced" the assumption that the rogue is using melee weapons AND going up against monsters (undead, constructs, etc)

If you change the arena to the rogue dishing out excessive damage against core race characters, and don't restrict the class of opponents to barbarians or rogues, that SHOULD change the analysis greatly, if you're honest.

 

[kreynolds]

i find it interesting that people are apparently using as their basis for the statement of "Sneak Attack is balanced" the assumption that the rogue is using melee weapons AND going up against monsters (undead, constructs, etc)

If you change the arena to the rogue dishing out excessive damage against core race characters, and don't restrict the class of opponents to barbarians or rogues, that SHOULD change the analysis greatly, if you're honest.

Not necessarily. A party of smart players, if being stalked by a rogue, assassin, blackguard, or any other class that's just as deadly, will try to use the element of surprise, meaning they will try to not be surprised by the enemy. A smart party will use cover, concealment, greater numbers, traps, teamwork, spells, distractions, diversions, etc, etc. Granted, it's not easy and requires a lot of work, but it can be done. I've seen entire battles completely shift in strategy because of the entrance of a single rogue into the fray.

Two things I hear commonly:

Player: "It's a rogue! Back to back, people!"
Player: "It's a spellcaster! Dogpile him, people!"

 

[Lord Pendragon]

i find it interesting that people are apparently using as their basis for the statement of "Sneak Attack is balanced" the assumption that the rogue is using melee weapons AND going up against monsters (undead, constructs, etc)

If you change the arena to the rogue dishing out excessive damage against core race characters, and don't restrict the class of opponents to barbarians or rogues, that SHOULD change the analysis greatly, if you're honest.

Yes and no, IMO. If you based your analysis on a rogue fighting only constructs, oozes, and undead in a melee battle, then sneak attack becomes useless. If you base it only on wizards and sorcerers being flanked or in the surprise round, then sneak attack is unbalanced.

Take both of these scenarios into account, though, (which accounts for all the campaigns I've run or played in, YMMV,) and sneak attack is juuuuuust right.

 

[maddman75]

Remember - its not against the rules (or the spirit of the rules) for a character to be good at something.

 

[zorlag]

zorlag

Sneak attack ain't bad thing at all. It lets rogue feel useful within combat (very useful if he's a team player), unlike in 2e where he was practically only scouting (with ring of invisibility) and disarming traps/opening locks. Backstab was extremely hard to use and not really worth the effort.

Besides, it ain't so easy to pull sneak attacks even in 3e. First you have to fullfill the requirements:

1. One of the following:
- Opponent is surprised (flat-footed)
- Opponent is stunned
- Opponent is helpless
- Opponent is engaged in physical or mental action that leaves them open to sneak attack (like climbing)
- You flank the opponent (most common situation)

2. You have to be within 30 ft of your target

3. You actually have to hit the opponent (might be hard)

4. And opponent is still not vulnerable to sneak attack if it possesses one or more of the following:

- Opponent is wearing fortified armour (Common high-level enhancement for fighter-types).
- Opponent is immune to critical hits (Undeads for example)
- Opponent has concealment (yes, even 10% negates SA. This is very often forgotten within play, for example light forest foliage provides 10% cover, and so does an area with less than perfect lighting).
- Opponent is immune to type of damage your sneak attack inflicts. For example you use finger of frost to sneak attack. Addional damage from sneak attack is considered same type as the normal damage you inflict. So creatures immune to cold will shrug off such attacks, and resistant ones won't be seriously hurt.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Well I have no problem with sneak attack. My problem is when you balance classes for combat, and then don't bother to balance them for out of combat, which means the fighter(and others like him) sucks.

Sneak attack at low levels adds a good punch you have to set it up which can be trying, but immunity is rare except for some sucker undead you bump into. High levels you can deal it out all the time, but immunity is more common. (ring of blinking, many more immune creature, armor fort etc.)

The accuracy argument for the rogue really blows though. Sure if you take a 20th level fighter, and a 20th level rogue the fighter has an AB a whole 5 better, yeah for him. But at the lower levels we are talking a 1-2 difference, then it grows to3-4 and ends up at 5. So yes the fighter at high levels on average gets one more successful hit than the rogue does, I'm very proud of him since he is doing about 10 points or more less damage per hit at those levels.

I'd say about 50% of the time you can get a sneak attack with a rogue, which means 50% of the time you are doing better damage than the fighter. The other 50% of the time you either unable or unwilling to set up a situaiton where you can get sneak attacks, and therefore do less damage. Yes a dm can vary this making it even harder to get sneak attacks. But if he does, then does he also run you against golems all the time so the wizards spells aren't effective, does he also run you against tons of creatures with DR above the weapons the fighter uses so he isn't effective all the times etc. Basically if the DM is setting up that more than 50% of the time you can't achieve a sneak attack, then chances are he actually does see sneak attacks as too powerful, and is in game nerfing them.