PDA

View Full Version : Craven (3.5)



Heliomance
2009-11-11, 03:23 AM
Why do people spout Craven as the be-all and end-all of Rogue feats? I understand that it's a good feat, but there are several things wrong with it.

1) It's from a fairly obscure, setting specific source. A lot of DMs will ban it right there.

2) It's strictly better than any similar feat - Deadly Precision for example. A lot more DMs will see that and ban it.

3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.

SoD
2009-11-11, 03:31 AM
For help for those who don't know what Craven does, you could give a basic description of what benefits it gives.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 03:32 AM
Why do people spout Craven as the be-all and end-all of Rogue feats? I understand that it's a good feat, but there are several things wrong with it.

2) It's strictly better than any similar feat - Deadly Precision for example. A lot more DMs will see that and ban it.


You answered your own question.

It's strictly better than any similar feat.

The Craven Feat grants +1 damage per level to your sneak attacks.

The fluff isn't such a big deal. Wizards often rename their spells, as do clerics. The grasping hand series is a rather prime target for this.

A sneak attacker who uses primarily nonlethal weapons to subdue foes would still benefit from Craven, and he'd qualify for vow of peace.

Grumman
2009-11-11, 03:35 AM
3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.
You're a rogue. Being a backstabber who specialises in dishonourable shanking and avoids fighting the enemy on their terms isn't an insult, it's a job description. And you don't need to be good aligned to be a PC, neutral and evil characters like XP and loot as much as everyone else.

SoD: It grants you +1 damage per level when you sneak attack, at the expense of -2 to saves versus fear.

Thespianus
2009-11-11, 03:39 AM
3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.

You can still be a Good character, the way I play it is that my arcane Rogue is very careful, scares easily (kinda jumps at shadows when he's not ready for it) but puts on a brave face by acting all boisterous while going through the dungeons. Rarely charging ahead, unless he's real confident that the opponent will go down after his attack, etc.

It's kinda fun fluff, even though I can imagine that it would be hard to come up with good variants on this theme if I were to make another Craven Rogue.

Heliomance
2009-11-11, 03:50 AM
You answered your own question.

It's strictly better than any similar feat.


Which means that pretty much every DM who isn't a heavy optimiser themselves is going to go "Dear gods that's broken. NO!"



You're a rogue. Being a backstabber who specialises in dishonourable shanking and avoids fighting the enemy on their terms isn't an insult, it's a job description.

Robin Hood was a rogue.

sonofzeal
2009-11-11, 03:55 AM
Which means that pretty much every DM who isn't a heavy optimiser themselves is going to go "Dear gods that's broken. NO!"
That'll make at least some heavy optimizers (me, for example) give the same response too. The only ones who won't care are the rules-lite crowd or the fanatical-devotion-to-the-RAW crowd.

And there's a lot of feats that render other feats obsolete. Improved Toughness springs readily to mind as a particularly clear-cut example. It's not inherently a bad thing, it depends on the greater context.

Teron
2009-11-11, 03:57 AM
1) It's from a fairly obscure, setting specific source. A lot of DMs will ban it right there.
That's all the more reason to encourage people to use it, not dismiss it, since its source doesn't affect its inherent quality as a character option.


2) It's strictly better than any similar feat - Deadly Precision for example. A lot more DMs will see that and ban it.
Deadly Precision is a trap. It works out to an average increase of less than half a point of damage per die; at level 20, it adds just over 4 damage per sneak attack. It makes Weapon Specialization look good!

Are there any other similar feats? In any case, it looks fine to me. Rogues are supposed to hit hard under the right circumstances, and Craven gives them a little buff to keep up with ToB classes and the like (which are generally considered a good balance point) and also helps keep sneak attack relevant for multiclass rogues. Spellthieves can also use the boost, for that matter.

Finally, many people who, as you put it, "spout Craven as the be-all and end-all of Rogue feats", would regard being powerful as a point in its favour without feeling the need to question whether it's too powerful. From that perspective, the notion that a DM might ban it is hardly a reason not to take it if you can.


3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.
Enforcing that fluff through the penalty against fear is rather annoying and pointless, and in my opinion is the most valid complaint against the feat, but remember that by mid-levels you'll have a better save against fear than most people, including NPC warriors and such. Sure, you're not as resistant as you could be, but you're still pretty well off overall, and a slight weakness to supernatural fear effects compared to other mind-affecting stuff doesn't have to be played as moral weakness. If it really bugs you, just take Iron Will or something.

Prime32
2009-11-11, 04:23 AM
Well, Craven (+10 damage half the time) is still weaker than Knowledge Devotion (+5 attack and +5 damage all the time), though the latter requires some skill investment.

Grumman
2009-11-11, 04:23 AM
Which means that pretty much every DM who isn't a heavy optimiser themselves is going to go "Dear gods that's broken. NO!"
Try comparing it to Quicken Spell, then try and claim it is broken. A +20 bonus to damage might sound scarier, but some people don't realise that almost nothing matches up to the spellcaster and his ability to break the action economy.


Robin Hood was a rogue.
I disagree. I'd probably call him a multiclassing ranger/swashbuckler, rather than possessing Sneak Attack he never uses and lower B.A.B. (which he does use).

Zore
2009-11-11, 04:24 AM
Which means that pretty much every DM who isn't a heavy optimiser themselves is going to go "Dear gods that's broken. NO!"


So they also ban Power Attack which has better returns and is easier to set up than sneak attacks? If no one can take a feat better than others does that mean no skill focus as its superior to the various feats that add two to two skills? No Improved toughness because its better than regular toughness? Earlier 3.5 feats tend to be really bad and underpowered, especially melee feats. Even Craven is underwhelming, only worth a feat slot because there's really not much better you can be using it for. Contrast it with say, Metamagic like Quicken and show me its overpowered. I can prove with concrete math its really, really not.

I mean its the Dms prerogative I guess but I'm sure as heck not playing with someone who thinks adding character level to damage, in a way that can be negated by roughly half the monster manual, as 'broken'.

jcsw
2009-11-11, 04:26 AM
You know what's better than craven?

Staggering Strike.

Pika...
2009-11-11, 04:33 AM
3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.

For Kobolds it works wondrously.

If you can look up the 1ed Dragon issue where it talks about Kurtulmak's hero deities, and the Koboold philosophy of "Heroic Cowards".

My last character was based on this philosophy. A rogue 4/swashbuckler 4/cleric of Kurtulmak 4. Cast invisibility on himself, and sneaked in for serious "cowardly" damage for his race's well being.

Fiery Diamond
2009-11-11, 04:43 AM
I'll be honest - this feat looks perfectly fine to me. It doesn't seem to be either over or under powered. There are plenty of feats more and less powerful, even within core. I would never let someone take the feat without trying to come up with a way to incorporate the fluff into their character, though.


Also, what is Improved Toughness? I've seen it mentioned multiple times now. I never use the original version of the Toughness feat in my games; I use the alternate "+1 hp per level" version. The original Toughness is so incredibly useless that no one should ever take it. +3 hp? Give me a break.

Teron
2009-11-11, 04:45 AM
I use the alternate "+1 hp per level" version.
That's Improved Toughness.

Grumman
2009-11-11, 04:53 AM
I would never let someone take the feat without trying to come up with a way to incorporate the fluff into their character, though.
My latest characters (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=165065) use the feat, and I think I've got a pretty good excuse for it. They're a pair of Dvati snipers, which means they've got low HP, long lives and if one dies, their twin dies too. That is a pretty good reason to be overly cautious if something gets close enough to be a threat.


Also, what is Improved Toughness? I've seen it mentioned multiple times now. I never use the original version of the Toughness feat in my games; I use the alternate "+1 hp per level" version.
That is Improved Toughness.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 05:02 AM
Which means that pretty much every DM who isn't a heavy optimiser themselves is going to go "Dear gods that's broken. NO!"
No, it doesn't. 'More powerful than other similar choices' and 'Unbalancing' are two different things. You're citing the former as proof of the latter.


Robin Hood was a rogue.A ranger is more likely.

He did survive in Sherwood forest.
He was a masterful archer.

The only evidence of rogue is that he stole. Oddly enough, the people he stole from knew it. He essentially held them up on the side of the road. Rangers can do that too.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 05:16 AM
Craven is IMHO a good feat. Fluff and Crunch benefits and drawbacks, but worthy to be taken. As a feat should be.

And makes the weapon chosen matter. Not bad, in my gamestyle.

@Robin Hood: Wilderness Rogue / Fighter I guess. WR//F if you allow me..

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 05:30 AM
It's interesting to see how many people call robin hood a rogue, rather than a ranger.

Robin hood was stealthy, true. Both rogues and rangers are equally proficient in stealth.

Robin hood was a great archer. Rangers are designed with archery as a major option. Higher BAB makes them more accurate, as well.

Robin Hood's theft was holding someone at bow point and demanding their money. Any class can do that.

Robin Hood doesn't have demonstrated evidence of using a rogue's two primary class features, sneak attack and trapfinding... ever.

Murdim
2009-11-11, 05:36 AM
Methinks Craven should be banned, or completely reworked... and that his benefits should be given at some point of the Rogue class progression instead, maybe at level 5 or 6. The CL-to-SA-damage effect is fine in itself, it has just nothing to do as a feat.

A feat which is an absolute no-brainer for EVERY user of a class feature, no matter the way they use it (and there's many, very different ways to use SA, from out-of-combat backstabbing to flanking to Invisibility to feinting)... is a very badly conceived feat, no matter how balanced its effect actually is. And the heavy fluff only makes things worse by making many character concepts artificially underpowered.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 05:38 AM
It's interesting to see how many people call robin hood a rogue, rather than a ranger.

Robin hood was stealthy, true. Both rogues and rangers are equally proficient in stealth.

Robin hood was a great archer. Rangers are designed with archery as a major option. Higher BAB makes them more accurate, as well.

Robin Hood's theft was holding someone at bow point and demanding their money. Any class can do that.

Robin Hood doesn't have demonstrated evidence of using a rogue's two primary class features, sneak attack and trapfinding... ever.

This is why i suggested as above. Wilderness rogue for the outdoor skills (Sherwood), Fighter for ranged weapon supremacy. SA can be narrative.

Nevertheless, to describe him, i'd prefer Ranger over single Rogue.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 05:48 AM
Methinks Craven should be banned, or completely reworked... and that his benefits should be given at some point of the Rogue class progression instead, maybe at level 5 or 6. The CL-to-SA-damage effect is fine in itself, it has just nothing to do as a feat.

A feat which is an absolute no-brainer for EVERY user of a class feature, no matter the way they use it (and there's many, very different ways to use SA, from out-of-combat backstabbing to flanking to Invisibility to feinting)... is a very badly conceived feat, no matter how balanced its effect actually is. And the heavy fluff only makes things worse by making many character concepts artificially underpowered.

I disagree. I've seen many rogue builds which don't use craven. Sometimes, the feats are a bit tight, and as nice as it is, it can be trimmed out.

Heliomance
2009-11-11, 05:49 AM
Methinks Craven should be banned, or completely reworked... and that his benefits should be given at some point of the Rogue class progression instead, maybe at level 5 or 6. The CL-to-SA-damage effect is fine in itself, it has just nothing to do as a feat.

A feat which is an absolute no-brainer for EVERY user of a class feature, no matter the way they use it (and there's many, very different ways to use SA, from out-of-combat backstabbing to flanking to Invisibility to feinting)... is a very badly conceived feat, no matter how balanced its effect actually is. And the heavy fluff only makes things worse by making many character concepts artificially underpowered.

This. This is largely what I was trying to say. From a purely mechanical standpoint, it's so good that no rogue build should be without it. Feats that are that good make DMs say NO. From a fluff standpoint it only fits a handful of character concepts. Most people that care about their character concept probably shouldn't be taking it. A feat which enforces the Stormwind Fallacy is a Bad Feat.

lord_khaine
2009-11-11, 05:52 AM
My main issue with this feat is that a singel level of rogue and the feat makes a melee char able to sneak attack allmost as hard as a singel class rogue without the feat.

If i was to allow it i would proberly rewrite it be +1 damage per sneak attack dice.

Bayar
2009-11-11, 05:55 AM
Methinks Craven should be banned, or completely reworked... and that his benefits should be given at some point of the Rogue class progression instead, maybe at level 5 or 6. The CL-to-SA-damage effect is fine in itself, it has just nothing to do as a feat.

A feat which is an absolute no-brainer for EVERY user of a class feature, no matter the way they use it (and there's many, very different ways to use SA, from out-of-combat backstabbing to flanking to Invisibility to feinting)... is a very badly conceived feat, no matter how balanced its effect actually is. And the heavy fluff only makes things worse by making many character concepts artificially underpowered.

Ok, so the druid gets Natural spell as a class feature then ?

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-11-11, 05:57 AM
I'd say that if a feat becomes "tax" then that either the feat is to strong, it should be a class feature, or the rest of the feats available for a class are simply to weak.
To summarize, something should be fixed, but not necessarily the feat itself.

SparkMandriller
2009-11-11, 05:57 AM
3) The fluff. Taking Craven implies that you are a cowardly backstabber who specialises in the dishonourable shanking of unaware mugs in dark back alleys and who runs a mile any time you get into anything remotely resembling fair combat. It's really quite hard to justify being a good character and having Craven, not surprising as it's in a resource for evil characters and NPCs.

You could say the same about any low will save class, really. Compared to those brave brave clerics/druids/monks and so on. Except paladins, I guess.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 06:04 AM
My main issue with this feat is that a singel level of rogue and the feat makes a melee char able to sneak attack allmost as hard as a singel class rogue without the feat.

If i was to allow it i would proberly rewrite it be +1 damage per sneak attack dice.

level 3 rogue w/o craven vs fighter 2 rogue 1 w craven : average 7 vs average 6,5

Level 10 rogue vs Ftr 9/ Rog 1 : 17,5 vs 13,5

Rog 20 vs Ftr19/Rog1 : 35 vs 23,5

You raise a good point. Nevertheless, The Ftr/Rog has not access to ambush feats (d6 SA), or some PrC.

On the other hand, one could consider it a good multiclass feat!

SparkMandriller
2009-11-11, 06:08 AM
The rogue in that example has the advantage of being able to take craven to boost his damage, though. Not like the fighter can take it twice.

Heliomance
2009-11-11, 06:21 AM
You could say the same about any low will save class, really. Compared to those brave brave clerics/druids/monks and so on. Except paladins, I guess.


Like most sly rogues, you are a dangerous coward.

What if you don't want to play a cowardly rogue?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 06:31 AM
What if you don't want to play a cowardly rogue?

Then don't be a coward. Fluff is precisely that. Fluff. No impact on mechanics.

Whether the +1 damage per level comes from being a chicken, or from being dangerous... That's up to you. I tend to lean towards the "dangerous". And, if you don't want to play a dangerous character, don't take the feat. It will make you less dangerous.

Problem solved.

Murdim
2009-11-11, 06:33 AM
You could say the same about any low will save class, really. Compared to those brave brave clerics/druids/monks and so on. Except paladins, I guess.I don't think the Will save works that way. Wizards and Sorcerors are rarely seen as more courageous than Warriors and Barbarians, and if we go out of core, some high-Will classes like the Beguiler and the Spellthief are openly sneaky.


Ok, so the druid gets Natural spell as a class feature then ?Well, not exactly. My solution for Natural spell would be slightly different.

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/7725/original/banhammer15gq9.jpg

Heliomance
2009-11-11, 06:38 AM
Then don't be a coward. Fluff is precisely that. Fluff. No impact on mechanics.


No, but a strong impact on character. I repeat, a feat that enforces Stormwind is a bad feat.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-11, 06:52 AM
Drawback you lose the benefits if you gain immunity to fear (Heroes Feast).

Bayar
2009-11-11, 06:52 AM
Well, not exactly. My solution for Natural spell would be slightly different.

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/7725/original/banhammer15gq9.jpg

Well excuse me ! If your players actually know what they are doing, they wouldnt go around fighting monsters with their BMX tricks.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/bayar_m2003/1255499599290.jpg

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-11, 07:00 AM
No, but a strong impact on character. I repeat, a feat that enforces Stormwind is a bad feat.

So Vow of X, any feat designed around a paladin, or around performing acts of a specific alignment or nature is now bad... Even when those fluff consist entirely of non-mechanical, changeable information.

For example, if this feat were "Anatomical Precision", and stated that you specialize in knowing just where to strike, it'd be fine?

Or would that be stormwind against the people that wanted to play stupid imprecise rogues?

Stating that a feat is bad because it helps define personality and behaviour is just silly. Skill Focus: Diplomacy does that. Nobody's screaming at how bad that is.

The issue isn't the power of the feat. It's not overpowered compared to other feats, just more powerful compared to other sneak attack feats. Most metamagic feats are better. Power Attack is better.

The issue can't be stormwind, because this feat is singled out specifically, rather than addressing the issue as a whole.

It's not a feat tax issue, because we're not campaigning to scrub Power Attack and Natural Spell.

So... What's the valid argument you're bringing?

SparkMandriller
2009-11-11, 07:00 AM
What if you don't want to play a cowardly rogue?

Then I won't. I don't care what the book wants me to be, I care what I want to be. It's not like it's gonna get offended if I ignore it.

If I really want to use an axe but I'd prefer to crit more often, I might just use a greatsword's stats for it. Even though the PHB says axes should only crit on 20s. Because I'm a rebel like that. I encourage you to be a rebel too.


I don't think the Will save works that way. Wizards and Sorcerors are rarely seen as more courageous than Warriors and Barbarians, and if we go out of core, some high-Will classes like the Beguiler and the Spellthief are openly sneaky.

They may be seen a certain way, but warriors and barbarians are still worse than wizards and sorcerors when it comes to saving against fear. If they're allowed to be brave even with their worse saves, why can't my craven rogue be? Is this discrimination? Are you discriminating against me?

The Gilded Duke
2009-11-11, 07:28 AM
Wouldn't these arguments against Craven also work as arguments against Power Attack? Power Attack being the feat that pretty much any Full BAB class has, that is significantly better then weapon specialization etc.

Also, Paladin/Rogue with Craven?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-11, 07:36 AM
Also, Paladin/Rogue with Craven?

Worthless choice. As soomn as you are immune the feat provides no benefit.

Bayar
2009-11-11, 07:38 AM
Worthless choice. As soomn as you are immune the feat provides no benefit.

Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter.

Problem solved.

BobVosh
2009-11-11, 07:45 AM
I know I probably should know this...but what is stormwind in reference to this discussion?

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 07:48 AM
The issue isn't the power of the feat. It's not overpowered compared to other feats, just more powerful compared to other sneak attack feats.

Not even more powerful of every SA feat. I'd prefer at level 20 deal 20 damage less to the balor (:smalleek: assuming I catch him before he catches me) and stagger him, as an example.

JellyPooga
2009-11-11, 08:11 AM
I don't know why people seem to think this is such a clear-cut must-have for Rogues.

Sure, +CL damage per sneak attack is quite good, but it's not exactly game breaking. In an economy where the average Rogue has 7 Feats and at least one of those is going to be limited by PrC choice, Craven is not an immediately obvious choice for all Rogues. Not to my mind anyway. A Rogue that has a focus on social skills or traps isn't going to take this feat. A Rogue that prefers to focus on "special moves" (trip, disarm, Ambush feats, etc.) isn't going to take this feat. In fact, the only type of Rogue that will take this feat is one that specifiaclly wants to do a lot of HP damage...and as everyone keeps raving about, in an optimised game, focusing on HP damage is largely a sub-optimal choice.

As written I think Craven is a well-balanced feat. It gives a boon to damage-dealing assassin type Rogues at the cost of a little cowardice. For those Rogues that want to go down that route, it's hard enough setting up Sneak Attacks anyway, so getting the most out of it is essential. I don't think it's a neccesary feat for all Rogues and it's certainly not a candidate for "feat-tax" status like Natural Spell.

Necron
2009-11-11, 08:11 AM
I'm the DM for my group and I encouraged my new Rogue player to take Craven. But I am a bit of an optimizer too. She tends to be subpar with optimizing her stats and combat choices, but helping her make a better character elipses the possibility of abuse with this particular feat.

hamishspence
2009-11-11, 08:18 AM
Stormwind fallacy is "optimizing tends to come at the cost of roleplaying"

In the context of Craven- taking the feat and then not bothering to roleplay the cowardly streak (or refluffing it) is seen as "upholding Stormwind"- with the power being seen as more important than the roleplaying, which can gotten around.

Heliomance
2009-11-11, 08:27 AM
So Vow of X, any feat designed around a paladin, or around performing acts of a specific alignment or nature is now bad... Even when those fluff consist entirely of non-mechanical, changeable information.


No, Vow of X and the other options you mentioned are choices that help steer the mechanics of the character in the direction of the character concept. Craven is something I see mentioned in every "help my rogue" thread. I'm fine with a character taking Craven if it fits with the concept, but the trouble is that it's so powerful that the advice is to take it with every rogue, concept can go hang.

Killer Angel
2009-11-11, 08:48 AM
Craven is something I see mentioned in every "help my rogue" thread. I'm fine with a character taking Craven if it fits with the concept, but the trouble is that it's so powerful that the advice is to take it with every rogue, concept can go hang.

The same can be said for every build for barbarian - fighter - lots of ToB classes. Power attack is a must have.


Stormwind fallacy is "optimizing tends to come at the cost of roleplaying"

In the context of Craven- taking the feat and then not bothering to roleplay the cowardly streak (or refluffing it) is seen as "upholding Stormwind"- with the power being seen as more important than the roleplaying, which can gotten around.

You can look at Craven in 2 ways:

1 - the feat is mechanically good. It's the "fluff requirement" that it's a surplus that nerfs the feat: the other feats usually dont come with a role-play prerequisite.

or

2 - the feat is too good. The role-play prerequisite serves the purpose of limiting his goodness.

It depends on the style of the campaing, players' skills, level of optimiziation, etc.

Telonius
2009-11-11, 09:09 AM
It's a very good feat - probably one of the two or three best for a Rogue to take. That doesn't mean he has to take it. Not every fighter will take Shock Trooper. There are even Rogues who don't take Weapon Finesse.

I honestly don't see the fluff as a problem. Is Power Attack a problem because it reinforces the stereotype that Fighters like to hit things hard at the expense of accuracy? Are the Dwarvish racial stat adjustments a problem because they reinforce the stereotype that Dwarves aren't charismatic? Any "tradeoff" ability has that issue. If you don't like it, you don't need to take the ability.

Akal Saris
2009-11-11, 11:50 AM
I agree with Heliomance that the feat is really above and beyond the power of what a single feat should generally do.

For example, a multiclass rogue might have +2d6 SA at level 20, but with this feat it's 2d6+20 per SA, which stacks up very fast. If SA averages out to 3/dice, then at 20th craven is adding about 7d6 SA to each SA dice - that's the base SA damage than a 13th level rogue! And at 13th level, Craven would be adding 13 to 7d6, which is more than half the base damage.

I know I've almost never made a rogue in 3.5 for actual play or general theory-crafting without this feat if Champions of Ruin is available. I think it really should be nerfed by being capped (+9 damage maybe?) or have heavier requirements/drawbacks, or be made part of the goddamn class if you think rogues need it badly enough.

The same goes for Natural Spell, another feat that's simply too good to pass up, and Extra Music for PF bards.

On a complete tangent, I vaguely remember that the 2E PHB listed Robin Hood under the 'Thief' sidebar instead of the Ranger one, which always annoyed me. His sidekick Will Scarlet was listed as a Ranger I think, with Friar Tuck mentioned under cleric, and Alan o'Dale under Bard, for a nice little D&D party in Sherwood Forest.

Bayar
2009-11-11, 12:12 PM
Hmm, so you say that +20 to damage at level 20 is significantly overpowered, even though by that time you already deal 10d6 SA ?

:confused:

I guess that the Wizard casting stone to lava to deal 2d6 initial damage, 20d6 damage the following round is uberbroken [/sarcasm]

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 12:15 PM
Hmm, so you say that +20 to damage at level 20 is significantly overpowered, even though by that time you already deal 10d6 SA ?

:confused:

I guess that the Wizard casting stone to lava to deal 2d6 initial damage, 20d6 damage the following round is uberbroken [/sarcasm]

He compared the effect of the feat between full rogue and multiclass.

I see the problem but is not so big, IMHO.

Further, Akal Saris: you cannot compare Craven with a "the editor was drunk" feat like Natural Spell

UglyPanda
2009-11-11, 12:17 PM
This is one of those situations where you shouldn't deal in absolute numbers.

Craven gives a boost to sneak attack damage of 28.5%.

Leap Attack is 100% (Or 50%, I could never understand that feat) to PA, Empower Spell is 50% to spells, Spirited Charge is 50% to lances, etc.

Edit:
Oops, see below.

Amphetryon
2009-11-11, 12:19 PM
Hmm, so you say that +20 to damage at level 20 is significantly overpowered, even though by that time you already deal 10d6 SA ?

:confused:

I guess that the Wizard casting stone to lava to deal 2d6 initial damage, 20d6 damage the following round is uberbroken [/sarcasm]

If the level 20 Wizard is wasting time casting spells that do damage, the DM should be thanking her, not complaining.

Craven isn't broken; complaints about it generally read as corollaries to 'Fighters Can't Have Nice Things'. As has been pointed out, many solid Rogue builds simply don't have the room to fit in Craven.

crazedloon
2009-11-11, 12:22 PM
This is one of those situations where you shouldn't deal in absolute numbers.

Craven gives a boost to sneak attack damage of 28.5%.

Leap Attack is 100% (Or 50%, I could never understand that feat) to PA, Empower Spell is 50% to spells, Spirited Charge is 50% to lances, etc.

QF(sorta)T

I think this is perhaps the best way to look at it also each of the examples have numerical draw backs like craven (craven is negatives for fear effects, leap attack needs a jump and you have reduced ac at the end, empower uses a higher spell slot, PA hits less often, spirited charge leaves lower ac and needs a ride)

Edt: well his math apparently is wrong but I think the point still stands :smallwink:

Boci
2009-11-11, 12:24 PM
I see the problem but is not so big, IMHO.

Base it off rogue levels and PrC classes if they grant SA progression?

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 12:24 PM
If the level 20 Wizard is wasting time casting spells that do damage, the DM should be thanking her, not complaining.


Except if is time to actually deal damage and other damage sources of the party are not viable, I guess.


Base it off rogue levels and PrC classes if they grant SA progression?

Smart, quick fix IMO. But not necessary most of time, IMO.

UglyPanda
2009-11-11, 12:28 PM
Drat, my math is wrong and I forgot what the feat did.

It's really 57%.

On a multiclass character, the feat is just weird. I'm more concerned who would actually take it and a rogue dip.

imperialspectre
2009-11-11, 12:36 PM
There are even Rogues who don't take Weapon Finesse.

That would be "all the good ones," past about 8th level or so. Rogues just don't have the the ability to stand up in melee without massive UMD spam, which would be better spent getting free sneak attacks from range.

Thespianus
2009-11-11, 12:49 PM
That would be "all the good ones," past about 8th level or so. Rogues just don't have the the ability to stand up in melee without massive UMD spam, which would be better spent getting free sneak attacks from range.

That does depend on the build, though. A straight up Rogue might have hit point trouble, sure, but a Swashie16/Rogue4 with the Daring Outlaw feat can do ok.

Then again, the Swashie gets Weapon Finesse for free, so.. I guess I should shut up now.

In short: If someone wanna play a melee rogue, they will enjoy both Weapon Finesse and Craven, at least until they're smashed to a pulp at level 12. :)

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-11, 12:52 PM
well, i guess that Kusarigama, Adaptive Flanker, Vexing Flanker, and a good Knight or Allied Defense + CR well built fighter of Crusader or something similar as a buddy could make WF a good choice.

Matter of party composition I guess.

Bayar
2009-11-11, 01:05 PM
well, i guess that Kusarigama, Adaptive Flanker, Vexing Flanker, and a good Knight or Allied Defense + CR well built fighter of Crusader or something similar as a buddy could make WF a good choice.

Matter of party composition I guess.

Or that build that used to flank by himself with adaptive flanker and bigass reach.

Thespianus
2009-11-11, 01:05 PM
well, i guess that Kusarigama, Adaptive Flanker, Vexing Flanker, and a good Knight or Allied Defense + CR well built fighter of Crusader or something similar as a buddy could make WF a good choice.


Or a friendly Martial Adept with the Island of Blades stance. :)

It's just a crazy good stance to help a fellow sneak attacker out. :smallsmile:

Teron
2009-11-11, 01:15 PM
Base it off rogue levels and PrC classes if they grant SA progression?
As I said before, I think Craven keeping sneak attack relevant at high levels (but still significantly weaker than a full rogue with the feat) for multiclass characters is a good thing. This change would also hurt spellthieves, though that's an easy fix.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-11, 01:24 PM
Methinks Craven should be banned, or completely reworked... and that his benefits should be given at some point of the Rogue class progression instead, maybe at level 5 or 6. The CL-to-SA-damage effect is fine in itself, it has just nothing to do as a feat.
The problem is then working it into every class with SA, which is annoying.

Aldizog
2009-11-11, 01:24 PM
I think it's overpowered in a low-optimization game, such as one in which MM1 monsters and CRs remain relevant. Adding level in damage to each hit is really significant at that level of power.

Shademan
2009-11-11, 01:28 PM
response to OP: still not worse than wizards

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-11-11, 02:03 PM
I think it's overpowered in a low-optimization game, such as one in which MM1 monsters and CRs remain relevant. Adding level in damage to each hit is really significant at that level of power.

The thing is, outside of the occasional monster like Big T dieing to Warlocks with fell flight and the one the essence that makes Eldritch Blast SR: Nope, most of the bigger CR creature do remain relevant due to either massive amounts of spell-likes they have (See Dragons casting as sorcerers) or massive amounts of immunities (Most Outsiders, undead creatures).

Coidzor
2009-11-11, 02:47 PM
I think it's overpowered in a low-optimization game, such as one in which MM1 monsters and CRs remain relevant. Adding level in damage to each hit is really significant at that level of power.

How's this compare with what the fighter is dealing with power attack and such at those levels?

Aldizog
2009-11-11, 03:19 PM
How's this compare with what the fighter is dealing with power attack and such at those levels?
The core TWF rogue beats the THW fighter against a low-to-moderate AC margin (AC = CR +15 or so). With Inspire Courage, the TWF rogue pulls considerably further ahead. The THW fighter catches up at higher AC margins due to his better attack bonus, but few MM1 foes have AC margins of 20 or more.

Power Attack doesn't add a lot of damage in core unless you are fighting against a low AC margin, only getting your primary attack (e.g. moving or charging), or facing DR you can't bypass. At mid-to-high levels, the S&B fighter and the single-weapon rogue usually do about 75% of the damage of their more offensive-minded counterparts.

Starting primary stat 15, weapons +1/4 levels, stat-boosters at 9/13/17, core weapon feats, Haste/Inspire Courage, and AC margin of 15: S&B fighter does about 86 per round at level 15 (PA for 2, damage 28 per hit), THW fighter does 110 (PA for 2 is also optimal for him, 36 per hit), single-weapon rogue does 99 (40 per hit), and TWF rogue does 134 (39 per hit, as he's using short swords instead of a rapier). That's 10-Str rogues to make the TWF math simpler.

Without Inspire Courage, it's 63, 79, 67, and 84.

sonofzeal
2009-11-11, 03:26 PM
How's this compare with what the fighter is dealing with power attack and such at those levels?
Pretty well, actually. A top level Rogue should be getting at least 5 attacks, more if he's optimized. Let's say he's picked up Assassin's Stance via a couple feats, but hasn't boosted his SA any other way.

5 * 12 = 60

So, 60d6 = 210 damage (plus whatever he gets from his normal attacks). Adding Craven gives +60 damage, for 270. That's for an only mildly optimized Rogue; one with 8 attacks and 15d6 sneak doubles that.

....so, not as much as the really excessive PAers. On the other hand, PA comes at the expense of either Accuracy (a serious issue on later iteratives, even with Wraithstrike), or AC (a serious issue if the enemy survives and has PA himself).

Either way, Craven by itself is adding 60-120 potential damage, for no real downside. That's pretty impressive for a single feat, you have to admit. PA takes a few to really get off the ground, and a fair amount of support to really make useful.

Tavar
2009-11-11, 03:30 PM
On the other hand, PA isn't negated by practically all high level enemies, and doesn't require very specific circumstances to work.

Also, assuming the rouge hits with all attacks it kinda funny. I mean, really? Especially if TWF I wouldn't expect him to really hit on the lower attacks.

sofawall
2009-11-11, 03:36 PM
...and as everyone keeps raving about, in an optimised game, focusing on HP damage is largely a sub-optimal choice.

These people raving are wrong, or at least partly wrong. If you are a caster, it is a sub-optimal choice, usually You do not do damage because everyone can do damage. Why bother wasting actions on what anyone can do, when you could instead make it easier and safer to deal that damage?

If you are a melee character, and you can take down an enemy in one round, reliably, damage is an excellent thing to focus on. Because no matter how many Solid Fogs and Glitterdusts you drop on someone, somebody has to kill the bugger.

Aldizog
2009-11-11, 03:37 PM
On the other hand, PA isn't negated by practically all high level enemies, and doesn't require very specific circumstances to work.

Also, assuming the rouge hits with all attacks it kinda funny. I mean, really? Especially if TWF I wouldn't expect him to really hit on the lower attacks.
On my numbers, the rogue is getting 7 attacks per round at level 15 and hitting with an average of about half of them (the two primaries and the Haste attack are 70% likely to hit). Opportunist is likely, also at top BAB, and I didn't account for that (would put the rogues further ahead).

As to it being negated sometimes, well, sure, but I don't see the rogue's role as that of a striker that usually has the highest damage output. I see the rogue as primarily a skillmonkey who is capable of out-damaging the fighter in specific circumstances, as he was in earlier editions. For those who feel differently, there are a few ways for the Rogue to expand his sneak attack opportunities.

Ormur
2009-11-11, 03:37 PM
I took it for my rogue/swashbuckler/beguiler and it's completely in character, I even took the coward flaw too (although that actually makes the -2 to fear moot just as immunity from fear would). I'm not sure I'd take it if I didn't intend to play a "craven" character but considering the strength of the rogue class and the general power level of my group I don't think it's overpowered.

It depends on the group you are in and if you are a powergamer or not. Your power level compared to other hypothetical sneak attackers isn't what matters, it's your power level compared to the rest of the group. If you think not taking something will seriously bork your character in comparison to the rest of the group you might have rethink your build or ask others to tone theirs down.

sonofzeal
2009-11-11, 03:41 PM
On the other hand, PA isn't negated by practically all high level enemies, and doesn't require very specific circumstances to work.

Also, assuming the rouge hits with all attacks it kinda funny. I mean, really? Especially if TWF I wouldn't expect him to really hit on the lower attacks.
It's significantly more likely than the PAer hitting with all attacks (unless they're going Shock Trooper, which many do, but then there's other problem). Also, with MIC it's not hard to get SA on a lot of things that are normally immune to it. Additionally, a half-decent rogue shouldn't be expected to keep up to a Fighter in straight combat efficiency, since there's so much else he does better outside of combat. It should be harder for the Rogue to get his SA off. The fact that it often isn't, well, that's just the game not being 100% balanced.


In other news, to quote wikipedia - Rouge, also called blush, is a cosmetic typically used by women to redden the cheeks so as to provide a more youthful appearance, and to emphasise the cheekbones. Rogue, also called skillmonkey, is a D&D class that specializes in trapfinding and stabbing people in the spleen so as to kill them lots. Please don't get them confused. It causes me physical pain.

Ravens_cry
2009-11-11, 03:46 PM
For extra confusion, the Rouge Rogue, a red caped rascal, upon retirement sold his rights to a rejuvenating regent, Rogue Rouge.:smallamused:

Frosty
2009-11-11, 03:56 PM
You know, I've always been of the opinion that Power Attack should come standard with ANY full BAB class. Seriously, it ought to be a class feature.

industrious
2009-11-11, 04:01 PM
You know, I've always been of the opinion that Power Attack should come standard with ANY full BAB class. Seriously, it ought to be a class feature.

Advanced Combat (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Advanced_Combat)

And now you know.

JellyPooga
2009-11-11, 04:04 PM
On the other hand, PA isn't negated by practically all high level enemies, and doesn't require very specific circumstances to work.

This. Sneak Attack is hard to get. Three entire creature Types (Plant, Undead and Construct) are completely immune to it (outside of using very specific feats or circumstantial spells). If you can't get a flanking position, you're relying on invisibility, which itself can be obviated by various divinations or blindsight, or hiding (which is quite circumstantial and only really works once per encounter at most).

Frankly I'm amazed that any high level rogue ever gets a decent sneak attack in more than once per adventure.

Frosty
2009-11-11, 04:10 PM
Advanced Combat (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Advanced_Combat)

And now you know.

Dude. I am soooo going to introduce this into my next campaign.

industrious
2009-11-11, 04:27 PM
Personally, I use it in all of mine. With the exception of the one that has only new players.

sofawall
2009-11-11, 04:37 PM
This. Sneak Attack is hard to get. Three entire creature Types (Plant, Undead and Construct) are completely immune to it (outside of using very specific feats or circumstantial spells). If you can't get a flanking position, you're relying on invisibility, which itself can be obviated by various divinations or blindsight, or hiding (which is quite circumstantial and only really works once per encounter at most).

Frankly I'm amazed that any high level rogue ever gets a decent sneak attack in more than once per adventure.

Undead and constructs are really really easy to get sneak attack on, though plants and elementals are a bit more tricky.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-11, 04:46 PM
Craven is a good feat for most Rogues, both from fluff and mechanical perspectives. But its benefit is proportional to class level, which is pretty much how the proportion of enemies immune to sneak attack increases.

If you're going to ban or alter Craven, you really need to do the same thing for Power Attack. That's the equivalent feat for straight martial types. (The fact that the game designers didn't think to include Craven in the core set is just an indication of how little they valued the Rogue class.) And Natural Spell for Druids. And pretty much all metamagic, without exception, for full spellcasters.

So why can't Rogues have nice things?

Tavar
2009-11-11, 05:14 PM
Don't for get fortification armors and such. There's no way around them as far as I know, and they're pretty easy to get at high levels.

Aldizog
2009-11-11, 05:21 PM
Craven is a good feat for most Rogues, both from fluff and mechanical perspectives. But its benefit is proportional to class level, which is pretty much how the proportion of enemies immune to sneak attack increases.

I've tended to see SA-immune enemies as remaining fairly rare in campaigns even as levels increase.

Neither I nor most DMs I know like making much use of constructs or oozes because they're just so stupid (as are most plants). Okay once in a while so your players can have the thrill of out-thinking a big rock. Elementals only show up when there's a summoner around, and even then they're so easily thwarted that you don't use them much. The only SA-immune monster that I see or use a lot of is undead, and they're pretty much evenly distributed across all levels.

I'd be curious to know what the monster distribution (immune vs. not) looks like in the published adventure paths. In games I've been in, it's maybe 10% immune overall, and not really varying with level. Conditional immunity is more common (especially due to miss chances), but I didn't think that's what you were getting at.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-12, 07:48 AM
Or that build that used to flank by himself with adaptive flanker and bigass reach.

According to the sage (*flees from an enraged Stoopidtallkid*) you cannot flank an enemy by yourself. Anyway, yes, my group has now a gestalt campaign with a rogue //psywarrior/avenger built around flanking and AOOs, so I see what you are doing here :smallwink:

SA difficult to deliver: remember few things:

Penetrating strike ACF: I guess you can flank and deal SA damage. RAW, should be half the dice + your level anyway, if I'm right. This could make Craven even more useful.

Weapon crystals to crit Undead and Contructs.

Rogue has UMD: sneak around the big badass fighter and start to dispel the effect of his armor. Use hit and run tactics, alchemy, and other UMD tricks.

JellyPooga
2009-11-12, 07:58 AM
SA difficult to deliver: remember few things: stuff

Whilst it is possible to circumnavigate SA immunity, it does mean going out of your way to do so; spending money on weapon crystals and wands of Grave Strike/Vine Strike/etc, using actions to dispel Fortification and use said wands or (worst of all) burning feats/class abilities on doing it.

The amount of effort you put into sneak attack can be truly prodigious and at the end of the day, I'm not so sure it's worth it. You're probably better off spending that money/time/etc. on something you'll always have a use for and deal with the SA-Immune things in a different way.

JeenLeen
2009-11-12, 10:53 AM
On topic: I agree with others that it's not overpowering. It is better than other rogue feats, but rogues in general do not have much going for them. A +20 damage at level 20 is nothing compared to the boosts Shock Trooper chargers and spellcasters get.

A tangental mechanics question on the feat: if you temporarily get immunity to fear, such as by Hero's Feast, do you lose the feat while immune to fear?

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-12, 10:55 AM
A tangental mechanics question on the feat: if you temporarily get immunity to fear, such as by Hero's Feast, do you lose the feat while immune to fear?

As far as I know, seeing as prereqs work, you lose the feat benefit.

lsfreak
2009-11-12, 12:07 PM
Whilst it is possible to circumnavigate SA immunity, it does mean going out of your way to do so; spending money on weapon crystals and wands of Grave Strike/Vine Strike/etc, using actions to dispel Fortification and use said wands or (worst of all) burning feats/class abilities on doing it.

The amount of effort you put into sneak attack can be truly prodigious and at the end of the day, I'm not so sure it's worth it. You're probably better off spending that money/time/etc. on something you'll always have a use for and deal with the SA-Immune things in a different way.

Penetrating Strike costs you the extra +1AC/saves versus traps (ohnoez!) and all three wands cost you a grand total of 2250gp and will last you a looong time (and really, you don't even need the plant one most likely). It's not really that big an investment, grab the one at 3rd level and then grab the wands at mid-levels when the gold is just change.

Bayar
2009-11-12, 12:51 PM
So why can't Rogues have nice things?

Because they are not primary spellcasters. Apparently taking Craven is overpowered, but shapechanging into efreets and solars for infinite wish loops and 20th level cleric castings is not.

Person_Man
2009-11-12, 01:14 PM
Why aren't Rogues (generally considered a low tier class) allowed to have nice things? Craven is a good feat, but there are many others combo (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7044115) which are better, and several comparably good Sneak Attack feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66915) (Staggering Strike, Dragonfire Strike, Maiming Strike, Silencing Strike, etc).

Starbuck_II
2009-11-12, 01:36 PM
As far as I know, seeing as prereqs work, you lose the feat benefit.

Which is the major disadvantage.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-12, 01:53 PM
Penetrating Strike costs you the extra +1AC/saves versus traps (ohnoez!) and all three wands cost you a grand total of 2250gp and will last you a looong time (and really, you don't even need the plant one most likely). It's not really that big an investment, grab the one at 3rd level and then grab the wands at mid-levels when the gold is just change.
It's all situational. I had a Rogue in a campaign where we'd done pretty well and forced the enemy spellcasters to Teleport away. From that point on at least half the monsters were summoned elementals and swarms. It was pretty tough. Ever tried to fight a swarm in fog? Ugh. :smallmad: