The Human Target
Adventurer
Just send him a link to this thread, cause both the things he's considering doing are terrible ideas.
If he goes through with them, change characters.
If he goes through with them, change characters.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Sneak Attack--Help me stop my DM from banishing it!
- Thread starter Fusiox
- Start date
invokethehojo
First Post
Not sure how much this is worth to you but in my experience playing 4e rogues are the worst of strikers as far as damage output. Only a drow rogue build comes close to the damage that say a sorcerer can put out. If your DM hampers you with sneak attack then your build becomes crippled.
Stumblewyk
Adventurer
Yeah, I have to echo everyone else in this thread. I've heard of DM's banning/restricting powers or feats they consider overpowered, but to outright consider restricting a class feature seems a bit tyrannical to me. Simply put, Rogues *do* Sneak Attack. It's their shtick. Their thing. If they can't Sneak Attack dang near all the time, they're worthless as a Striker.
In fact, the rest of your party, if they know where their bread is buttered, should be doing everything in their power to grant you Combat Advantage as much as possible (in addition to handing you additional attacks with that CA when they can). Sneak Attack is your bread-and-butter. If your DM neuters it, then switch classes. But be warned, your DM will probably then try to ban that class's key bonus damage mechanic as well.
In fact, the rest of your party, if they know where their bread is buttered, should be doing everything in their power to grant you Combat Advantage as much as possible (in addition to handing you additional attacks with that CA when they can). Sneak Attack is your bread-and-butter. If your DM neuters it, then switch classes. But be warned, your DM will probably then try to ban that class's key bonus damage mechanic as well.
Destil
Explorer
Nah, rogues have secretly been the best damage dealers since PHB 1. They just require more/better teamwork than rangers to get there (and... er, that Blade Cascade Nerf
).dirklancer
Explorer
I'm not sure if I missed this somewhere, but are you playing an Essentials rogue? That's what I played in our last campaign, and the damage output was pretty high. But as mentioned before, that is the whole point of the rogue. And their at-wills are designed to put you in position to have Combat Advantage nearly every round. But again, that's the point. If it is an Essentials rogue, I would think he would be more annoyed with the difficulty in hitting you. Nearly all their utilities are designed at keeping you from getting hit in combat, which annoyed my DM during several encounters where I avoided damage entirely. Including the epic final fight.
Ryujin
Legend
As many others have already pointed out, there are other strikers out there who already do comparable damage. If this is what he thinks of Rogues, then I'd hate to see what he'd say after seeing an elven 2-blade Ranger using double scimitars play for a while. "Another crit? For HOW MUCH?!!"
If he wants to nerf a class defining ability on you, then he might as well ban all Striker classes outright.
If he wants to nerf a class defining ability on you, then he might as well ban all Striker classes outright.
RangerWickett
Legend
However, I may let the undead thing slide, strange as it is already. I guess you could counter the undead's immunity to sneak attack by making them really stupid fighters (not like most of them aren't already), so while I'm not spectacularly useful against undead, they aren't actively trying to gang-kill me like most intelligent enemies would--unless, of course, I'm really stupid and throw myself in the middle of a swarm of zombies... in which case, the DM has every right to swarm my rogue.
Thanks for helping me out! I just joined, but I'm already loving the community's activeness here
I never liked the 3e logic that sneak attacks and critical hits don't work against things unless they have organs and blood. My logic with rogue sneak attacks is, "Hey, the zombie's distracted. Let me stab it in its brain to kill it in one hit." Or, if these are skeletons and aren't killed when they lose their head, it's "Let me duck down and hack its leg apart at the weak knee joint."
If it's a gelatinous cube and has no anatomy, well, who the heck cares. This is a fantasy game, and if you're going to let people hurt oozes at all, you may as well say that some hits manage to hit whatever the hell it is that oozes don't like getting hit in. Or you just dig your blade in extra deep and carve a larger chunk out of the thing.
I could understand niche exceptions: "This monster is an avenging angel that hunts thieves, so it cannot be harmed by sneak attack." But that should be a one-off thing.
sigfile
Explorer
As others have said, Sneak Attack is how Rogues deal striker damage. Removing that capability against entire classes of enemies really means the DM is actively screwing your character when those critters get used. I don't think your DM is out to get you - I suspect he's balking at the damage spikes your rogue is capable of producing.
Numbers may help clarify the picture, here. Compare second level non-crit damage potential (not expected DPR - we're looking at spike damage, and it's cold outside and I don't feel like performing that degree of number crunching) with other striker classes. Assume best possible race/stat spread, a relevant focus feat, and +1 weapons or inherent bonuses used with an at-will attack. Other feats and conditions are called out in the analysis.
Ranger: Twin Strike w/ Greatbow, target is quarried: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 + 1d6 = 34.
Rogue: Sly Flourish w/ Dagger, Backstabber feat. Target is granting combat advantage: 1d4+10 + 2d8 = 30.
Slayer: Duelist's Assault stance w/ Fullblade, target is isolated: 1d12+14 = 26.
Warlock: Eldritch Blast w/ Killing Curse, target is cursed: 1d10+6 +1d8 = 24.
Now assume, for whatever reason, the conditional circumstances aren't met.
Ranger: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 = 28
Slayer: 1d12+10 = 22
Warlock: 1d10+6 = 16
Rogue: 1d4+10 = 14
With conditionals in place, the Rogue still has a lower at-will damage potential than the Ranger. If the Rogue can't get combat advantage, it looks very sad indeed.
I hope this helps you keep Sneak Attack freely available!
Numbers may help clarify the picture, here. Compare second level non-crit damage potential (not expected DPR - we're looking at spike damage, and it's cold outside and I don't feel like performing that degree of number crunching) with other striker classes. Assume best possible race/stat spread, a relevant focus feat, and +1 weapons or inherent bonuses used with an at-will attack. Other feats and conditions are called out in the analysis.
Ranger: Twin Strike w/ Greatbow, target is quarried: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 + 1d6 = 34.
Rogue: Sly Flourish w/ Dagger, Backstabber feat. Target is granting combat advantage: 1d4+10 + 2d8 = 30.
Slayer: Duelist's Assault stance w/ Fullblade, target is isolated: 1d12+14 = 26.
Warlock: Eldritch Blast w/ Killing Curse, target is cursed: 1d10+6 +1d8 = 24.
Now assume, for whatever reason, the conditional circumstances aren't met.
Ranger: 1d12+2 + 1d12+2 = 28
Slayer: 1d12+10 = 22
Warlock: 1d10+6 = 16
Rogue: 1d4+10 = 14
With conditionals in place, the Rogue still has a lower at-will damage potential than the Ranger. If the Rogue can't get combat advantage, it looks very sad indeed.
I hope this helps you keep Sneak Attack freely available!
