Sneak Attack: A Little Too Powerful?

[Shard O'Glase]

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!

Ah yes the roleplay so you don't need skills theory. If I roleplay stealth really well, "sneak, sneak, sneak" do I suddenly get to sneak past the opposition without a check, if I roleplay fighting really well, do I suddenly not have to roll for my attacks. I may give a small circumstance bonus for good roleplaying, or in stealth and fights a good plan, but sorry I'm not going to devalue the purchase of certain skills by letting a decent chr fighter just get by on roleplaying skill.

And the wizard still shines because he frequently has scrolls, and out of combat spells usually last a really long time, or shortcut a multi check encounter to one spell. Sorcerers have mad numbers of spells from the beginning. And on top of that the wizard limit of spells per day quickly becomes virtually irrelevent, large numbers of low level spells for utility, and a smaller number of high level spells for fights. Unless I'm throwing fight after fight they won't run out of attack spells. And if I was throwing fight after fight I'd be running a dungeon crawl, and unless I make every adventure time sensitive by a fairly low level wizards can avoid all # of spell problems with their extra dimension safe sleeping spels.

 

[Mordax_sighs]

Well, I for one have never seen a Rogue dominate gameplay. Not in all the time that 3E has been out.

When I DM games, I use pretty tough monsters, and I've found that Rogues just don't hit often enough to dominate climactic combats, and their hp are usually pretty lousy. Clerics usually do better since they have the same BAB, heavy armor and full spellcasting vs. Sneak Attack.

When I play...oy. I used to use Rogues and Rogue hybrids all the time. Couldn't resist the skill points. But the low hp and light armor got to be too much - kept getting into close shave after close shave after nasty death.

I've since switched to Aristocrat / Fighter hybrids. Social skill set is just as good, and the combat is flatly better. I'd like to see some punk in Studded Leather compete with my Tower Shield, Longsword & Cleave Feat.

*shrugs*

All I can say to people who *have* seen Rogues go hog wild:
- Nobody gets enough skill points in 3E. IMC, we boosted every class by +2, base. Rogues still complain about not having enough, while Fighters can actually afford to diversify and buy cross class skills. Trust me, this house rule can fix a lot of inequities.

- Fighters and Sorcerers should have a few more class skills. Fighters need Intimidate, Sorcerers also need Bluff and Diplomacy. These changes will prevent Rogues from being the only social monsters you see.

(They still have a good opportunity to dominate since they get more skills and more points, but other classes can at least compete - much like how Rogues can compete in combat without being top dogs.)

- Do check your combats. Not for monsters, so much as environments - in many dungeon situations, PC mobility should be restricted.

- Check and see *who* is playing a Rogue in your game. If your powergamer types are playing Rogues, and the rules-clueless are playing other classes, the Rogues will seem over the top, whether they are or not.

(I'm not sure if this has been brought up in this thread, but I really feel it is important - don't judge a class just because Bob the Mighty Minmaxer has a real good smackdown. That can happen with just about anything.)


Anyways, that's my $.02. I would fool with Sneak Attack itself only as a last resort, personally. Didn't seem nearly that scary when I had it myself.

 

[WizarDru]

BS.

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

No offense.

Odd statement, that. When did thinking 3E is a good system mean that I don't use house rules? You kind of made a leap my disagreement from Azlan's '3E isn't a good system and is broken' to 'I play exactly as the book states.' Mind you, I don't think insults were called for.

 

[Azlan]

my disagreement from Azlan's '3E isn't a good system and is broken'

BTW: Although you might not know it from my posts here, I think 3E D&D is a great system. I just don't think it's a perfect system.