Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 292664" data-attributes="member: 1149">[/B]</blockquote>Doesn't uncanny dodge also help vs flanks?As for invisibility, and perhaps my games are different here, it is not all that common for the entire adversary set to be able to see invisible, unless they are prepared for the enemy. unlike, for instance, haste potions which would help in any circumstance combat, invisibility is not an everyday thing. Net result, the rogue needs to pick and choose.Certainly if all available targets are invisibility proof or uncanny dodged, then sneak attacks wont be useful.I never questioned whether more sneak attack opportunities will or will not occur from falnking vs invis vs bluff or whatever. The issue is comparing two/three different methods of sneak attacks, not the overall viability of sneak attacks.If you are back to melee, then you seem to be assuming the rogue started the combat at 5' range? On that first round, IF HE TOOK the attack on the partial round, in order to gain full attack he is limited to 5' step.I do not know about your games, but the likelihood that he can be within 30' is pretty decent while the odds that on first round he is within 5' after attacking on round 0 is slim.Clearly your game is different. Thats fine.The ray of frost trick works any time he could do a bow for the same type of attack. most rogues i have seen try their darndest to use ranged sneaks whenever possible, only throwing themselves to melee range of a fighter type when absolutelynecessary. Matter of fact, in spite of all this "full attack melee flanking" rhetoric, most rogues i have seen use standard strike and tumble out or spring attack more often vs fighters, as they do not want to exchange their iterative low chance to hit swings against the fighter's which hit more. They seem to feel keeping the exchange at one fighter swing vs one rogue sneak swing is a BETTER choice than tradig full attacks with a heavy AC behemoth.Again, in your games, this may be different and maybe the rogue's answer to fighter tanks in your game is to just slug away and see who drops first. thats OK.More potential is meaningless. more expected is meaningful. POTENTIAL = "1 roll all 20's forever"...Expectation = "what will i normally be able to do."you have the *potential* to make more money buying lottery tickets instead of going to work each day. Dont quit your day job.Somewhere earlier i started off with the comment that i was using rogue for comparison. The permutations for which multiclass combo this vs which multiclass combo that get way to far afield... we end up comparing class combos, not sneak attacks.if you want instead of a fighter in armor and gear we can try paladins with divine defense feats... but that wont tell us any more about sneak attacks either.A 10th level fighter is a CR10 opponent.Making "crap" up? look in the iconic representative classes characters. Your paladin (and cleric) (the only guys with armor and shield) have similar levels of armor (the paladin has more) vs non-armor defenses. IIRC the paladin has +2 each and the cleric has +1 each. my example was +2/+1 so i fell right in the middle.The big difference between theirs and mine was the lack of hasting, which is of course effective vs the touch attacks as well.I would tend to say this is campaign specific. As monsters go, AC vs HP vs other threats seem to vary.As character enemies goes, it is a measure of how they are equipped and their classes.As for whether you want to presume even CR fights,  only a portion of an adventure's encounters will be even CR engagements. they are but one part of the picture and are described as not intended to be all that significant (draws out 20% or so of resources, no significant chance of character loss, etc.) Its the higher CR encounters, several in 1-4+ and finales in 5 or better CR above the party that make or break things.At least in my experience.When my gang went up against a dragon at AC 29 the other week, its AC29 (8t iirc) was a significant obstacle. Myabe your games are different. if so, thats OK.giants... members of the easy to hit but lots of HP guys.retriever... members of the easy to hit but lots of spell guys (also a construct, thus relatively silly as a sneak attack comparison creature, since he is immune altogether but then he is YOUR choice for comparison, not mine.)hydra... instead of the giant boatload of hp we have regenerating heads...See, each of the ones you cherry picked has some REASON they have the lower AC but are still CR10... My cherry picking monster... ADULT BLACK DRAGON...  AC 27 with 9 touch AC.Should i hunt more... no i think not.The frequency with which the Gm uses monsters with various weaknesses is a strongly campaign based thing. If his campaign features lots more of the "AC ahillles heel" types, then the results will be different than if he doesn't.Thats why i tend more often than not to use, in public comparisons, characters, and as often as i can to use something akin to already published examples or representatives.They represent a "common ground" for comparisons.I think wotc even said in EnA that these were the ones used to test DND 3e rules. So this "made up crap" in my poor little mind has much better relevence than cherry picked monsters any day.your game may be different, thats ok.Where did i say first round of combat?Pop quiz... who is more likely to have improved init as a feat, the fighter or the rogue? Answer... the guy with the bonus feats for it.My example may not make sense once you add in your own prerequisites, but then, thats not my problem.Again, if a 10th level fighter in +2/+1 armor shield with haste potions seems "contrived" then your game is certainly different than mine.As stated before, in games i have seen, the rogue's first choice is NOT to stand toe to toe andtrade full attacks with a fighter, sneak or not. With the rogues iterative attacks being less likely to beat the armor and the rogues Ac being lower, the generally preferred tactic is to use his MOBILITY and tumble to keep the exchange at one swing vs one sneak per round.Your games may be different. Thats OK.But this is in part why i do not buy as a matter of courtse that ranged sneak attacks are grossly rarer than full attack sneak flanks. My example is against characters and is remarkably close to similar examples from the "representative" characters. if your game is notably different, thats ok.Given that armor is normally quite visible and the rogue player is usually bright enough to see the armor and recognize it, i dont see it as necessarily a problem to use the example where the wand is a reasonable choice. If he sees a farmer moving at high speeds and thinks MONK he is not gonna go for the wand.Against your cherry picked monsters, it might be better to rush in and trade full attacks. For the life of me, i cannot say i have any rogues who would try it, trading full attacks with a fire giant, but obviously your game is different. In my game the rogues would be doing everything possible to use ranged sneaks against any of the beasties you mentioned.Well, except the retriever... since it is immune.I would hardly classify the 10th level armor and shield fighter as less typical than a learnean hydra or a retriever.Your game may be different.In my games i rarely see weapons or wands "put away in combat." They are dropped, for free, and the new ones drawn with quick draw OR as part of a move action (this assume the rogue did not keep his non-wand hand empty cause it looks so cool, so he only needs to draw one weapon at best.) Your game may be different, but in my games it typically not all that uncommon for someone to start with missile weapons, exchange one or more volleys and then switch to melee if needed.No great and wonderful time losses there.  Absoluteyl. my arguments clearly have no merit, for your game.My games do not feature learnean hydras as "more typical" than 10th level fighters as adversaries.can we leave it at that or do you need to toss a few more body part references to reinforce your point?[/QUOTE]

Verification