Sneak Attack Rogue Optimization help.

[evermind]

...
Why Swordsage though? Sure it gives a +1 to initiative (which isn't crucial when the Island of Blades stance is chose), but at the reduction of BAB. The Crusader looks like the better way to go for me, in that I want to keep the BAB up. Is there something about the Swordsage that better leads towards my build that I am not seeing?

As it is far too common, noone actually bothers to read the "Book of Nine Swords" in its entirety.

"Island of Blades" is a stance of the "Shadow Hand" Style, which is only available to Swordsages. Crusaders = no go for this, sorry. Same goes for Warblades.

Also, there _must_ be a second (allied) attacker in contact with the opponent to be flanked - and given the fact that almost any melee-rogue worth his salt has tumble maxed out, acquiring a flanking position is not all that difficult IF one has an ally already in contact with the same target....

Hence no great benefit, unless you refuse to tumble.

BUT if you take a level of Swordsage (say at any time past level 8 in any other combinations of classes) you could opt to take the "Assassin Stance", which adds another +2D6 to any Sneak damage you are doing, because your effective level of Swordsage for picking maneuvres and stances would be 5+, hence a 3rd level Shadowsage Stance would be permissible.....

 

[Kor]

As it is far too common, noone actually bothers to read the "Book of Nine Swords" in its entirety.

"Island of Blades" is a stance of the "Shadow Hand" Style, which is only available to Swordsages. Crusaders = no go for this, sorry. Same goes for Warblades.

Thanks Evermind that makes sense now And I am guilty of not reading that whole darn book -- I had to stop reading it when I first got it because I was very unhappy at what I believed were significant game mechanic errors/balances.

As a DM, I think the book presents classes and abilities that are poorly balanced with the core game -- as a player I think the book opens up some great options... especially the 2 stances you noted. Since I have yet to find a DM that will allow any material from ToB to be used, it is currently a good space filler on my bookshelf -- I do look forward to the day I find a DM wacky enterpising enough to let players use some of the content

 

[Kor]

Revised Build

Alas, I have revised the build based on everyone's help. I have actually not taken any prestige classes, as the feat(s) required for them were not at all in line with my build and would only set me back. (The Shadow Thief of Amn was a good suggestion since you essentially gain 1 bonus feat from all 5 levels -- in which I beleive the 1st bonus feat gained cancels out with the Persuasion feat which I would be taking solely for qualifying for the PrC). I was hoping to sneak in a level of Nightsong Enforcer, however then I would have to give up a key ability, and loose a feat in the build order -- it just couldn't be done. The final build grabs all the key abilities from rogue and swashbuckler.

Trying to be a two weapon sneak attacker is indeed a feat hungry build. *grumbles*

1 - Rogue1 BAB +0
(Feat: Two-Weapon Fighting)
(Feat: Combat Reflexes)
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +1d6)

2 - Rogue2 BAB +1
(Class Ability: Evasion)

3 - Rogue3 BAB +2
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +2d6)
(Class Replacement Ability: Penetrating Strike)
(Feat: Vexing Flanker)

4 - Rogue4 BAB +3
(Class Ability: Uncanny Dodge)

5 - Rogue5 BAB +3
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +3d6)

6 - Rogue6 BAB +4
(Feat: Adaptable Flanker)

7 – Swashbuckler1 BAB +5
(Class Ability: Weapon Finesse)

8 – Swashbuckler2 BAB +6
(Class Ability: Grace +1)

9 – Swashbuckler3 BAB +7
(Class Ability: Insightful Strike)
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +5d6)
(Feat: Daring Outlaw)

10 – Rogue7 BAB +8

11 – Swashbuckler4 BAB +9
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +6d6)

12 – Swashbuckler5 BAB +10
(Class Replacement Ability: Shield of Blades)
(Feat: Craven)

13 – Rogue8 BAB +11
(Class Ability: Improved Uncanny Dodge)
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +7d6)

14 – Rogue9 BAB +11

15 – Rogue10 BAB +12
(Class Ability: Opportunist)
(Feat: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting)
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +8d6)

16 – Rogue11 BAB +13

17 – Rogue12 BAB +14
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +9d6)

18 – Swashbuckler6 BAB +15
(Feat: Greater Two-Weapon Fighting

19 – Swashbuckler7 BAB +16
(Class Ability: Acrobatic Charge)
(Class Ability: Sneak Attack +10d6)

20 – Rogue13 BAB +16
(Class Ability: Improved Evasion OR Savvy Rogue - Opportunist)


EDIT: Disemboweling Strike removed from build. Shuffled feats down.

 

[Mistwell]

Disemboweling Strike seems like a very underpowered feat. Why take it? The Con damage you do is small, and can only be done one time per target, and is less than the sneak attack you are giving up for it as far as hit points.

 

[Kor]

Disemboweling Strike seems like a very underpowered feat. Why take it? The Con damage you do is small, and can only be done one time per target, and is less than the sneak attack you are giving up for it as far as hit points.

What the heck did I read? Arrrgg. Yes, with the limit of using it against one target, once per day its very underpowered. I could understand a limit of once per round... but once per day per target. Sheesh. Back to the drawing table...

 

[Unkabear]

A couple of things to add. Though a lot of good ideas have been presented.

For the ranged rogue

Crossbow Sniper
Dead Eye Shot

SA damage with crossbow at 60' and when few SA opportunities present themselves you can get at least one in each round when someone strikes an opponent in Melee

And Savvy Rogue get bonuses to your special rogue abilities like make crippling strike work against things even immune to SA, and it works with ALL your special rogue abilities.

Just my 2c

Edit: Another bonus of CS & DES are that you do not have to get close to combat and risk your low HP rogue in close melee

 

[evermind]

Thanks Evermind that makes sense now And I am guilty of not reading that whole darn book -- I had to stop reading it when I first got it because I was very unhappy at what I believed were significant game mechanic errors/balances.

As a DM, I think the book presents classes and abilities that are poorly balanced with the core game -- as a player I think the book opens up some great options... especially the 2 stances you noted. Since I have yet to find a DM that will allow any material from ToB to be used, it is currently a good space filler on my bookshelf -- I do look forward to the day I find a DM wacky enterpising enough to let players use some of the content

We are playing with the BoNS, so far no unbalancing effects (three camapigns using the rules). My experiences are positive.

For one, to get the really good stuff, you have to play the classes way up, which precludes multi-classing to some degree

Second - you need to have the right manoeuvres readied.... and that is usually not the case, hehe. While there are some "no-brainer" reliables, you need to have picked carefully for maximum effect.

Straight fighters actually outdamage Warblades pretty easily, as long as they get to make full attacks and can employ Power Attack (which is simply counterproductive to the warblades style, which requires a solid hit, cause they usually get to do either a special strike or a full-attack ). Crusaders do even less damage, since they are using different styles. Their better armour helps,but fighters get that too, and their bonus feats on top.

Shadowsages are a great class-combination with Rogues though, and (our only house rule) if "Adaptive Style" feat is not banned for them, they get very much unbalanced too easily. They are not all that deadly without some way to get sneak damage, and they suffer burnout easily in protracted fights.

Crusaders are.... far too random =)

All classes enhance roleplay though, especially for the players of the tanks, who now actually have something to do besides calling out attack, PA-modifiers and damage... Far more fun to describe your Soaring Raptor attack, leap over the cave-troll's head and ram your sword into its unprotected neck....

YMMV

 

[glass]

Also, there _must_ be a second (allied) attacker in contact with the opponent to be flanked - and given the fact that almost any melee-rogue worth his salt has tumble maxed out, acquiring a flanking position is not all that difficult IF one has an ally already in contact with the same target....

You can get into a flanking position easily enough with tumble, but you'll be potentially cut of from the rest of the party. The party cleric probably can't tumble through to heal you.


glass.