Sneak Attack--Help me stop my DM from banishing it!

[Destil]

What they said. If he removes sneak attack just convert your guy to a two-weapon ranger and watch him weep.

Level 2 halfling rogue, 18 Dex, 18 Cha. Dagger Expertise and Backstabber. +1 dagger.
Sly Flourish +11 vs. AC (13 with CA). Hits for 1d4+9 (+2d8+1 with CA).
Average damage on a hit: 11.5 (+10 with CA).

Level 2 ranger, 18 Dex. Bow Expertise and Greatbow Proficiency. +1 greatbow.
Twin Strike +8/+8 vs AC. Hits for 1d12+1 and +1d6 if either attack hits.
Average damage on two hits: 18.5.

Both of those ignore crits, of course (twin strike doubles the crit chance, too).

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. You're not doing "too much" damage. You're supposed to do that much damage (and more!). As a striker, dealing the most damage out of everyone is your job. And you should accomplish that job almost every round. Getting SA damage every round is built into the system.
2. Making undead immune to SA damage isn't as "realistic" as your DM might think. The logic here runs that there is always a weak point. Shoot a zombie in the head, it dies. Blast the limbs off a skeleton, it can't threaten you. SA represents finding -- and hitting -- that weak point.
3. If your DM goes through with this idea anyway, I'd just switch to a different striker. Warlock or Ranger or Avenger or somesuch. You'll be doing just as much damage. This will be evidence for when you say: "It's supposed to work like this."
4. If your DM is sad about combat being too easy, he can always add more monsters/better terrain/solos/elites/whatever.

 

[Aulirophile]

Best idea: Compare averages. I'm not doing the DPR math, but here are the numbers you can start that process from. Assuming even level monsters, reasonably optimized for damage, no equally beneficial feat investment (Weapon Focus would increase everyone's damage by 1, doesn't help the comparison, ditto expertise), and a +1 magic weapon at level 2. Also not calculating crits (which barely help the Rogue at all at level 2).

Rogue with RWT+Dagger+20 Dex/16 Cha: +11 (13 with CA) to hit vs 16 AC, 1d4+2d6+9 damage, average hit with CA is 18.5 (identical to a ranged Rangers).

Sorcerer +6 vs 14 Ref, 1d10+9, 14.5 damage or! Area Burst 1/Blast 3 (multiple targets) and you go 1d4 instead of 1d10. Hit two targets and the average is 23 damage.

Ranged Ranger, two attacks, each attack is +9 (+10 with Primeshot) vs 16 AC, 1d12+1, each of which can trigger an additional 1d6. Average if all hits is 18.5

Melee Ranger, two attacks, +9 vs 16 AC (sadly 20 Str hinders you later in life), 1d10+1d10+1d6+2, 16.5 average if both hit.

So yes, the Rogue is a top tier striker, but really it is the Rogue's accuracy that causes that, not so much the damage. Basically all strikers fall within a certain range for damage and until you start optimizing they basically stay in that range.

 

[hayek]

If the DM is going to gimp your class for completely arbitrary reasons you should switch to a different class. Plus, I think you can do this without changing any of the fluff/flavor of your character.

Just reskin another class - i.e. a two-weapon ranger looks very similar to a rogue in combat, skirting in and out of battle with a deadly whirl of steel. I'd rebuild as a ranger but ask the DM to let you keep the skill list of a rogue and still be trained in Stealth, Thievery, Streetwise, etc... Kind of like an 'urban ranger'. The story/background of your character could remain completely the same.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

At this point, with all this ammunition for your counter-argument, I would be more concerned about a DM move to make all his undead immune to SA.

They [the game designers] ditched that from 3e for a very, very good reason. If they hadn't intended undead to have weakspots, zombies wouldn't have the property of being insta-killed by any critical hit. More ammo for your case.

 

[thewok]

[*] Making undead immune to SA damage isn't as "realistic" as your DM might think. The logic here runs that there is always a weak point. Shoot a zombie in the head, it dies. Blast the limbs off a skeleton, it can't threaten you. SA represents finding -- and hitting -- that weak point.

I think this mainly stems from older players equating "Sneak Attack" with "Backstab." Third edition definitely maintained that connection with the immunities of non-CON enemies to sneak attack. I even have to remind the Thief in my Encounters group that he can deal Sneak Attack damage. He sees Backstab and thinks that's it: once per encounter, for an extra d6 of damage.

It's something everyone needs to come to terms with: Sneak Attack is not necessarily a backstab. Hell, it can come from the front, from below, from 20 feet away ... anywhere, really. As mentioned by our suicidal little friend, Sneak Attack is about analyzing an enemy's defense and striking where you will do the most damage.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for reading this. I appreciate your support!

To get to the meat:
I play a rogue--a drow rogue, to be exact. Because of their racial powers, and rogue powers in general, my drow rogue tends to gain CA a lot of the time in combat.
What does that mean? More sneak attacks! Yay for me!...
Except my DM feels it is too overpowered for the group and wants to make it an encounter power to deal Sneak Attack damage, as well as make undead immune to the sneak attack--which his current super-adventure has a big whack of...

What do I do? I feel that if my DM does this, I will lose my job as a rogue. However, I don't want to argue with the DM, and he's right--being able to deal 16+ damage at level 2 with a Sly Flourish Sneak Attack seems rather powerful for the heroic tier.

How do I get him to stop? Can someone explain to me how sneak attack works--do I just have to flank to be able to do that? Is it that easy?

Yes, it is that easy. You're supposed to deal sneak attack damage most of the time--from what I've seen, 75-80% of your attacks should be sneak attacks. (Do note that you can only do it once per round turn, however.)

Sneak Attack is the central feature of rogues. If your DM wants to essentially neuter it, you should be allowed to respec into ranger or assassin. Of course, your DM will soon find himself wanting to neuter those classes too, since they dish out just as much hurt.

Edited to fix sneak attack usage.

 

[Dragonstriker]

Sneak attack is now once per turn not once per round. Which might make team monster cry.

 

[Dausuul]

Sneak attack is now once per turn not once per round. Which might make team monster cry.

Right--my mistake. You now get to deal it on opportunity attacks and warlord granted attacks too, even if you've used it on your regular attack. Which reminds me, I gotta point this out to the rogue in my party...

*cranks up monster difficulty another notch*

 

[DEFCON 1]

One final recommendation if your other avenues to convince the DM were unsuccessful...

...swap out being a drow to being an elf and see if that makes him feel a little better, since your racial powers don't come into combat advantage play anymore.

Yes, your "character concept" takes a hit in this case... but at the very least, if you really wanted to play a rogue, you won't have to give up sneak attack versus undead. If you want to go rogue, you should be allowed to go rogue using all the powers and abilities therewith and not have the class nerfed. And if just changing the race is enough to make the DM feel better about it... that would be a compromise that is less gimping to what you're going to be doing.

And truth be told (although don't tell you DM this)... having Elven Accuracy will be a boon to you the first time you whiff on that Daily attack.