Sneak Attack: A Little Too Powerful?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A rogue that is good im combat situations is often not good in scoial encounters.

This would force him to train 3 different ability/feat/skill sets:
"Combat" (Dex, Str, Con; many Feats, some skills)
"Traps" (Int, Wis, Dex, many skills)
"Diplomacy" (Cha, Int, Wis, many skills)

A rogue with a high Dexterity, Strength and Constitution to be good in melee combat does not have the best Int, Wisdom or Charisma. So, not enough Skill Points, not enough Ability Bonus to the skills.
The Bard will always be better in this case, even a Paladin can be better in some social sitatuions (at least he has Charisma and Diplomacy).

And often you miss the weakness of many Rogues in Combat: Low Hit Points and often also low Strength. Since most Rogues relay on finessable weapons, they try to give up some strength. But in melee, everyone has good chances to bullrush, grapple or trip the rogue. And than he has a problem...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Thanee]

One more thing to consider...

The infamous combat rogue is most often a multiclassed character with fighter and/or ranger levels.

If this character is to be compared to a pure fighter, the fighter could use the exact same way to get better with skills - by multiclassing with ranger and/or rogue!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

Hey, paladins need love too.

They are tough and hard on the outside but when people say that, they cry on the inside.

Awww...

 

[Weeble]

I kill more rogues this way...

Unless I hit you with my bow.

 

[Xeriar]

The thing that worries me about the rogue is the Core Rules Smackdown that a single-classed one pulls off -

Str 14 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 - Starting (28 point buy, subtract from Con for lower points). At 20th level, with a good dex granting book, he can have 34 dex (with a +6 dex granting item, and a +6 str granting item would be nice but is not necessary)

Feats: Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse (Shortsword), Weapon Focus (Shortsword), Improved Initiative, Quick Draw

So, give him two short swords, +5, ghost touch, of speed (mithral for kicks).

If he gets a surprise round and goes first (with +16 to init, he's got a fair chance) he's got 14 attacks before the poor sap can react, two sets of +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20. For even more fun, use boots of speed (or something like it) instead and swap the Speed with Brilliant Energy. +140d6 of damage without assistance - with unarmored flat-footed AC rarely being over 15, most poor saps are going to -eat- that.

 

[Azlan]

If someone hits me with a sneak attack, he becomes my new target.

Yup, especially since he's probably the easiest to take out anyway. Easier to hit, fewer hit points - not to mention softer and easier on your teeth!

I kill more rogues this way...

Ah, I see! So, I shouldn't worry about the rogue with his sneak attacks taking away some of the shine from the fighter and the ranger in combat. I should simply smack the rogue down, every time he uses sneak attack (which, up until now, has been pretty often). A game session or two of this will put him in his place, right?

 

[Jeremy]

You might try a little less edge to your posts.

Perhaps understanding that some people disagree with your point of view (just as some people agree), they are merely pointing out weaknesses and holes in the rogue class that balance its ability.

Oh, and BTW, way back on the mounted combat post, if there is no mounted combat in D&D, then why include the feats? A fighter will not be mounted all the time, but neither will a rogue be sneak attacking all the time. Use more undead if you really feel it is bothering you.

And besides, the fighter example works just as well with a halfling or gnome on a warpony as it does a human on a war horse. And they DO fit in dungeons.

My vote is still that sneak attack and rogues as a whole are well balanced. See my previous posts on the thread for reasons.

 

[hong]

You might try a little less edge to your posts.

Yeah. At the rate he's going, he'll probably burn out in a fortnight....

 

[Azlan]

You might try a little less edge to your posts.

Surely, it's best that I keep my edge. Just a cursory read of the messages on this board will show that this is not the place for sensitive, unconfident, or weak-minded individuals. (Not that I've seen anyone like that around here.) At least I keep my criticism and sarcasm on-topic, and do not go about trolling or making personal attacks on people just for the fun of it. (Not that I'm saying that you do, Jeremy.)

Perhaps understanding that some people disagree with your point of view (just as some people agree), they are merely pointing out weaknesses and holes in the rogue class that balance its ability.

Read those quotes I gave -- they're doing more than merely pointing out the weaknesses in the rogue class that balance its abilities. They're saying, in effect: smack the rogue when he sneak attacks; because, yes, indeed, his sneak attacks do pack a punch, but you can retalliate by squashing the guy, since he really isn't that hard to kill.

if there is no mounted combat in D&D, then why include the feats? A fighter will not be mounted all the time, but neither will a rogue be sneak attacking all the time.

Who said there's no mounted combat in D&D? All I was trying to say is, opportunities for sneak attacks are a LOT more common than opportunities for using a warhorse in a mounted charge.

 

[Weeble]

We could've done without the info on his physicial description, his languages, his travelling gear, his animal companion, etc.

(Ah, me! Am I getting cranky, or what?)