Sneak Attack: A Little Too Powerful?

[Azlan]

I hope the subject of this post isn't flame bait. But after playing 3E D&D for over a year now, and having DM'ed a half dozen campaigns, it's beginning to dawn on me that a rogue's sneak attack may be a little too powerful.

Yes, I realize that in a one-on-one fight, a rogue will lose badly against a fighter of equal level. A rogue will also lose a one-on-fight with a barbarian, ranger, or paladin of equal level, although perhaps not badly. But how many times during the course of an entire campaign does a rogue who is a member of an adventuring group get into a one-on-one fight?

Consider the following three combatants in a typical adventuring group...

Fighter 5th. Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14. AC 21 (+1 plate armor). HPs: 40. +1 Greatsword (Specialized), Attack Bonus +10, Damage: d12+7.

Ranger 5th. Str 14, Dex 16, Con 14. AC 18 (+1 chainmail). HPs: 40. +1 Longsword, Attack Bonus: +6, Damage: d8+3. +1 Shortsword (used in off-hand, in combination with longsword), Attack Bonus: +6, Damage: d6+2.

Rogue 5th. Str 12, Dex 18, Con 12. AC 19 (+1 chain shirt & MW buckler). HPs: 23. +1 Rapier (w/ Weapon Finesse), Attack Bonus: +8, Damage: d6+2 (+3d6 w/ Sneak Attack).

The fighter has the best attack bonus and AC; the ranger, the worst; and the rogue is squarely in the middle. (Fancy that!) The fighter and the ranger have a lot more HPs than the rogue, but most of the time the fighter and the ranger are going to be taking the brunt of the damage in combat.

The fighter deals out 8-19 points of damage per round. The ranger deals out 7-19 points of damage per round -- but only if both his weapons hit, which isn't all that often, considering his lowly attack bonuses. The rogue, when he gets to use his sneak attack (which is fairly often), deals out 6-26 points of damage per round!

Now, I'm not saying this is grossly unbalanced. I'm just saying that maybe the rogue class needs a little fine tuning by ratcheting its sneak attack damage down a bit.

 

[Henrix]

No, you don't need to lower sneak attack damage.
You need opponents who watch out for possible flank attacks better.

A rogue often has to put himself in a much more exposed situation to be able to sneak attack. Use that against her if you have trouble with sneak attacks.

 

[Crothian]

Sneaks attacks are not that common. And if they are either your opponetns are being stupid for allowing themsleves to be sneak attacked and staying in that position, or something else is making them to easy to perform.

And you can't compare sneak attacks to a normal attack by a fighter. That's apples and oranges. And it's interesting how the rogue has the 18 stat, but no one else seems to.

 

[Jeremy]

An 18 to his attack rolls AND his AC no less.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Nope sneak attack isn't too good, fighters don't have enough skill points

 

[hong]

Nope sneak attack isn't too good, fighters don't have enough skill points

Nope, rangers got teh shaft.


Hong "as well as the shaft" Ooi

 

[Azlan]

And you can't compare sneak attacks to a normal attack by a fighter. That's apples and oranges.

Sure I can. IMHO, I think I presented a pretty good (and typical) comparison.

Please bear in mind that I'm talking about a rogue among -- and in comparison to -- a group of fellow player characters here. My point is, a well-crafted rogue character is almost as good as a fighter when it comes to attack bonus and AC, and that the rogue can deal out better damage than a fighter if he's able to use his sneak attack.

And it's interesting how the rogue has the 18 stat, but no one else seems to.

It is interesting, isn't it? Well, the rogue can afford to put all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, because the Weapon Finesse feat allows him to use his Dex for both his attack bonus and his AC. As for the damage bonus for his "low" strength: he more than makes up for it with his sneak attack.

 

[Azlan]

And you can't compare sneak attacks to a normal attack by a fighter. That's apples and oranges.

Sure I can. IMHO, I think I presented a pretty good (and typical) comparison.

Please bear in mind that I'm talking about a rogue among -- and in comparison to -- a group of fellow player characters here. My point is, a well-crafted rogue character is almost as good as a fighter when it comes to attack bonus and AC, and that the rogue can deal out better damage than a fighter if he's able to use his sneak attack.

And it's interesting how the rogue has the 18 stat, but no one else seems to.

It is interesting, isn't it? Well, the rogue can afford to put all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, because the Weapon Finesse feat allows him to use his Dex for both his attack bonus and his AC. As for the damage bonus for his "low" strength: he more than makes up for it with his sneak attack.

 

[Crothian]

It is interesting, isn't it? Well, the rogue can afford to put all his eggs in one basket, so to speak, because the Weapon Finesse feat allows him to use his Dex for both his attack bonus and his AC. As for the damage bonus he doesn't get for not having a medium to high strength, he more than makes up for it with his sneak attack.

So can the Fighter. You gave him a 14 dex, yet his armor has a max dex of +1. You also have the fighter using a greatsword, when a bastard sword and a shield is more common. This comparison is not reastic and highly biased.

 

[Azlan]

Sneaks attacks are not that common. And if they are, either your opponetns are being stupid for allowing themsleves to be sneak attacked and staying in that position, or something else is making them to easy to perform.

If your a lone monster surrounded by a group of player characters (consisting of, say, a fighter, a ranger, a rogue, and a wizard), what ingenious and masterful tactics are you going to use to keep yourself from being flanked? Since 3E D&D doesn't use facing rules, turning to face the rogue doesn't negate his sneak attack. (BTW: In 2nd Edition D&D, a sneak attack was called a "backstab", and the latter was a lot more difficult to apply during the course of combat than the former, and thus did not come into play as often.)