Sneak Attack: A Little Too Powerful?

[Ridley's Cohort]

The simplest and most reasonable fix for this person would be to make sneak attack only useable once a round.

That elegantly stops the abusiveness of the combos while still giving the rogue a powerful pop in combat.

That is a very playable house rule. I have been in campaign that did that. My personal opinion is it takes a little too much away. I am sure others would disagree.

My biggest gripe is it makes the tumbling spring attack the One True Way to use sneak attack in melee. That has a certain John Woo logic to it, but I dislike cutting down the options for flavor reasons as much as mechanics.

Other variants that have similar effect:
(1) Degrading sneak dice: Each subsequent successful sneak attack in a round has 1 less sneak attack die. Multiple sneaks attacks are still powerful, but it takes some of the teeth out the 3+ SA combos.
(2) Half-dice for sneak attacks in the round after the first. Similar idea to above.

 

[Malin Genie]

Still don't see that it is unbalanced...

IMHO the balancing factor in a full-attack Sneak Attack is that (unless hasted - and I do think haste is overpowered, although that is a separate thread) to make it you have to be in a position to eat a full attack in return if your foe is still standing. Also, you either have to have closed the round before or risked a hit from the enemy closing with you...

In addition, to get multiple attacks you have to

(a) Take -5 cumulative attack penalty on succesive shots

and/or

(b) Take -2 penalty (at least) on all attacks for two-weapon fighting

which combined with the limited Feats and lower BAB of the Rogue means that he is unlikely to hit multiple times against high AC opponents (who can also use Fighting Defensively or Expertise when confronted with a Rogue if they are fighter-types with good attack bonuses)

If the character is really Sneak-Attack combat-focussed, with all their Feats geared towards hitting with multiple Sneak Attacks (Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Weapon Focus, ?Combat Reflexes, ?Expert Tactician) they should be rewarded for that choice by being effective in the (limited) situation toward which they've built their character (flanking with a teammate, with a full attack available, against an opponent with a moderate AC, who isn't a Rogue or Barbarian, who is vulnerable to Sneak Attacks.)

After all, they've spent all their Feats, had to sacrifice Int/Wis/Cha to get the Str/Con to survive melee combat, etc. - so to shine in (a subset of) combat situations they have reduced their ability to shine outside.

 

[Crothian]

Re: Still don't see that it is unbalanced...

If the character is really Sneak-Attack combat-focussed, with all their Feats geared towards hitting with multiple Sneak Attacks (Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity, Weapon Focus, ?Combat Reflexes, ?Expert Tactician) they should be rewarded for that choice by being effective in the (limited) situation toward which they've built their character (flanking with a teammate, with a full attack available, against an opponent with a moderate AC, who isn't a Rogue or Barbarian, who is vulnerable to Sneak Attacks.)

After all, they've spent all their Feats, had to sacrifice Int/Wis/Cha to get the Str/Con to survive melee combat, etc. - so to shine in (a subset of) combat situations they have reduced their ability to shine outside.

I've found the best way to limit this is encourage role playing and well rounded characters. When I design adventures I like to have challlenges and oppurtunties for all skills to be used and a variety of the weaker feats (endurance being my favorite). This way characters who specialize find that they can do that one thing very well, but all this other things not well at all. A good example is swimming. the party was tenth level in a low magic campaign and one of them actually drowned trying to cross a river. They knew this was coming up, but he never put ranks into swim and their great idea to cross on an unsteady rope bridge was not their wisest move. He failed all his swim checks but at least 7, and no one was able to rescue him as he was swept away in the current. He was a fighter that concentated on 2WF, and nothing else.

So, allow them to specialize, just make sure they realize that they are limiting themsleves. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Malin Genie]

Crothian - I agree completely.

Perhaps I should have said:

they should be 'rewarded' (heh heh heh) for that choice

As you ably pointed out, a well-run D&D campaign will cover situations other than combat.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian - I agree completely.

Perhaps I should have said:

they should be 'rewarded' (heh heh heh) for that choice

As you ably pointed out, a well-run D&D campaign will cover situations other than combat.

Good, it so much nicer when people realize I'm right and they agree with me.

Seriously, though I quoted you since you described a very well focused character and I needed to use that an example. I just think DM's forget that. Personally, I try to forget about the characters when I make an adventure. I don't want to purposely place obsticles that they don't have the ability to pass easily, and I don't want to cater to them either. It's sort of like DM meta gaming that I'm trying to avoid. I have the list of skills in front of me and try to come up with ways that makes sense in the adventure for different ones to be used. Sure, magic can take the place easily, and that's okay. I just like obsticles that can be gotten around without magic if that's what they want to do.

 

[LostSoul]

Admittedly, I've skipped over the past four pages, but I'm just stating my opinion...

I don't think Sneak Attack is unbalanced.

I would love to be able to make Sneak Attack available as a Feat. It's just another way of fighting, after all.

 

[Thanee]

I also agree with Crothian. As I said earlier...

Just make more diverse challenges and the balance is just fine!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

I think that's a pretty telling statement, honestly.

BS.

Anybody that isn't using SOME house rules for 3E is a slack-jawed idiot.

No offense.

He didn't say otherwise, did he?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I also agree with Crothian. As I said earlier...

Just make more diverse challenges and the balance is just fine!

Bye
Thanee

I generally try to do this myself. And this is why I've noticed the rogue being so over the top good. If I ran a dungeon crawl, with fight after fight, the fighter would look nice and good. He beats people up really good, though he can't scout, and open doors. Once I start throwing diverse encounters at the party, and it no longer is a dungoen crawl the rogue and spellcasters are the ultimate smackdowns. They still compete in the fights, yet in all those diverse encounters they shine like mad, while the fighter is dead weight.

 

[Darklone]

Fighter dead weight? Only if the player sits around and play a Int 6, Wis 6, Cha 3 fighter.

Never had a charismatic leader in the party who was fighter? Who needs skills if that guy is a good roleplayer? Btw... if you throw so many encounters at them, why does the wizard and the rogue shine? Wizard should rather fast use his few spells, then it's fightertime!