Sneak Attack: A Little Too Powerful?

[IceBear]

This thread AGAIN!

I have no issues with allowing a rogue multiple sneak attacks per round. At 20th level when that rogue above is dishing out those kinds of damage, he needs to be able to do that to survive.

There may be some validity that the rogue outshines the fighter overall because outside of combat the rogue has more skill points, but the rogue's sneak attack is what balances him with the other classes in combat.

So, the rogue does an ungodly amount of damage with multiple sneak attacks at 20th level, so does a cleric with harm or a wizard with timestop and followup spells, and so can a fighter. Sure, maybe the fighter can't do AS MUCH, but after the sneak attack is over, the fighter will have a better chance of surviving the retaliation that the rogue.

Anyway, I have no problems with sneak attacks as is. Reaper may be justified in stating that fighters need extra skillpoints, but sneak attacks do balance rogues in combat.

IceBear

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Mathematically, the rogue is balanced

Over on Monte Cook's web-site, Monte Cook has written that the rules were designed so that even if the rogue got sneak attack on every round, the fighter would still on average do more damage every round.

I've never seen a problem with the rogue in my 3E games. In fact, the rogue is by far the most vulnerable class when sneak attacking.

And yes, in my games, I'm merciless about smacking down the rogue when she's vulnerable. It's the most logical thing to do, even if you have an int of 7, go after the most vulnerable person first, so you don't have to deal with people flanking you.

 

[Xarlen]

Wizadru, bravo. Exactly.

Furthermore, I'd like to add something.

It was mentioned about just having the monsters smacking the rogue, because he used the sneak attack. Then argued that it's the smart thing to do. Let's turn this another way.

If you are... Let's say, a vampire.

Here's the situation. There's lots of people shooting arrows at you. They're at a good 45' distance.

Doesn't matter how much damage they're doing, your reduction pretty much takes care of it. Or, if they're using all magical weapons, then still, your Healing is taking care of a good bout of it.

Then, you get hit with a spell. A fireball. Or, how about an Acid Orb? A Disentigration ray, a Maxed Magic Missile. Who becomes the biggest threat, now? You want to kill the mage. Or, a cleric, if they're dropping Searing Lights, Flame Strikes, and Turning on you, you want to put them out of commission.

This is not 'Cheating', or 'Unfair', it is putting the hurt on the most capable person to kill you. Or, whoever is doing the most damage to you.

So, if the rogue just sneak attacked me for 20 damage, and he's easier to hit, and more likely to kill then the fighter, WHY is it illogical, even unfair, to knock his head off?

Most intelligent creatures, if they're doing an ambush or in a full on fight, go for spellcasters first. Why? Because they're *weak*, and in many conditions, can do the most damage. So, how is it different, in Melee, with the rogue right there?

 

[reapersaurus]

The designers...

The designers justifying multiple sneak attacks in the same round:
"Ooooh, my wittle rogue NEEDS to be competitive in combat - I don't think they should be outshined in combat by a PC that's completely dedicated to fighting and fighting only!"

Me: "But the fighter can't do anything else, skill-wise.
Why should the rogue come CLOSE to being as good in combat?"

Designers: "Because we should balance the classes with respect to combat, or people will complain or think the class is underpowered."

Me: "But the rogue is the one class that has the most roleplaying support, mechanics-wise, due to their dominant number of class skills and skill points.
Doesn't 'balancing' the rogue in-combat make them unbalanced when you consider all the aspects of 3E OUTSIDE of combat?"

Designers: "What's non-combat?"

"Besides, we don;t want someone playing a class that's underpowered in combat - look at what the 2E cleric was like. People don't like to play classes that have established roles in a party that is not a combat-capable role."

Me: "Blech."

 

[IceBear]

Re: The designers...

The designers justifying multiple sneak attacks in the same round:
"Ooooh, my wittle rogue NEEDS to be competitive in combat - I don't think they should be outshined in combat by a PC that's completely dedicated to fighting and fighting only!"

Me: "But the fighter can't do anything else, skill-wise.
Why should the rogue come CLOSE to being as good in combat?"

Designers: "Because we should balance the classes with respect to combat, or people will complain or think the class is underpowered."

Me: "But the rogue is the one class that has the most roleplaying support, mechanics-wise, due to their dominant number of class skills and skill points.
Doesn't 'balancing' the rogue in-combat make them unbalanced when you consider all the aspects of 3E OUTSIDE of combat?"

Designers: "What's non-combat?"

"Besides, we don;t want someone playing a class that's underpowered in combat - look at what the 2E cleric was like. People don't like to play classes that have established roles in a party that is not a combat-capable role."

Me: "Blech."

But that *IS* true for a lot of starting groups. The designers want to get new blood into this game. Many of the younger players like the combat aspect of the game so they didn't want to have any classes that couldn't dish out the damage in the game because then they'd get bored players and lose out on future gamers and sales.

Seriously, I know that combat isn't the be-all and end-all of D&D, but it is for a lot of people, and I'm sure that something similar to the above conversation really happened during the design.

IceBear

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Unless I hit you with my bow.

Well, considering I am the DM, your point is meaningless.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

reapersaurus,

While you raise an important issue, all I can say is I haven't seen a problem.

While it is true the Rogue potentially comparable to the Fighter in combat, my experience is the Fighter completely dominates the majority of the time.

While it is true the Rogue potentially dominates roleplaying situations because of superior skills, my experience is skills are completely irrelevant the majority of the time.

The reason social skills are not always necessary is that character concept is usually more important than skills. There are unusual occurences of undead and rumors of the revival of a death god cult in the vicinity? We get our first good info through the the Cleric or Paladin. Mysterious sightings and disappearances in near astral space? The Wizard finds out first, etc.

Now it is not that those social skills are useless, far from it. It is just there usually are ways of muddling through with less complete info. If the Rogue is there to Gather Information, that will save some real pain and confusion. But I would not exactly call that hogging the glory.

The funny thing is that the Thieves' Guild rarely hires heroes for jobs so the Rogue often gets cut out of initial contact for the next adventure (at least if you are playing classic D&D archetypes).

Another thing is that only a foolish DM hangs the plotline on a Sense Motive or Gather Info roll. There will be ways of figuring out what you need to know.

Now I must concede that Rogues may well be overpowered in certain styles of campaigns. If you rarely/never do dungeon crawls and you are always up against humanoids, Rogue look pretty darn good. I would consider that a good reason to bump up the skill points for combat characters.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

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?

Well let me think. I'm a DM. The Rogue just flanked a monster and is now located on the opposite side of the party. The other monsters have a choice of who to attack:

1) Wizard located in the back.
2) Fighter located towards the front.
3) Cleric located towards the back.
4) Rogue located right in front of me.

You make the call...
.
.
.
And yes, Sneak Attack is a limited way to do damage on a select group of enemies. If a DM allows Sneak Attack to be utterly powerful by not limiting it's usefulness, then it will be. Same goes for every other ability. That's the DM's fault, not the game's.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, orcs beings too low of a challenge for a 5th level party...

Um...you have played this game before, right? Or do all of your orcs have 4 hps because that's what it says in the MM? Because orcs never have class levels or elite NPC stats or anything...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

As for hammering the Rogue for using sneak attack...I would call it roleplaying the NPCs properly.

All experienced D&D players know it is optimal to pick one guy from the other side and pulverize him ASAP. That is an unfortunate artifact of D&D hit point mechanics.

Of course that would be no fun if the DM did so to the PCs habitually. The net effect would be the DM would be choosing a particular player and murdering his PC. At least it would feel that way from the victim's point of view.

Nonetheless a good DM will have the NPCs react appropriately to proven threats.

When a Hasted Wizard tosses dual Fireballs, the NPCs are going to do something. Maybe it will be cast defensive spells. But squashing the Wizard is an attractive idea if that option is available.

If the Rogue proves he is more dangerous than he looks the NPCs have to react logically. There are two potential targets standing next to you, both dealing out similar damage, one in full plate, the other in leather. What are you going to do?

(Of course we know that the Rogue's AC is not necessarily much lower than the armored fighter. But the NPCs don't know that until they try.)

 

[James McMurray]

Lingering Damage [Epic]

Your sneak attacks continue to do damage even after you strike.

Prerequisites: Sneak Attack +8d6, crippling Strike class feature

Benefit: Any time you deal damage witha sneak attack, that target takes damage equal to your sneak attack bonus damage on your nextt urn as well.

Yeah, its a powerful feat. I'm not sure if the [Epic] means you have to be 21+ level to take it or not, but if not, then you could theoretically get it 15th level.

However, given the sheer amount of hitpoints threats of that level have, and the fact that many of them will be immune to sneak attacks, and the fact that a 15th level rogue has squat for hit points, I'd say its ok. The rogue in my Return to the Tomb of Horrors campaign is going to be getting it as soon as he can. He'll have to be 18th though, since he doesn't have crippling strike yet.