Ascetic Stalker, Swift Ambusher, etc.

[noparlpf]

So you know how there are several feats that let multiclass characters stack levels for various class features? I was looking for one to stack fighter and rogue levels.
Since I didn't find one (and assume there isn't one because I did a very thorough search) I made one. Does this look reasonable? It's based on a combination of Daring Outlaw and Daring Warrior, I guess.

Martial Outlaw (or something similar)
Prerequisites: Weapon Specialization, Sneak Attack +2d6
Benefit: Your fighter and rogue levels stack for the purpose of determining your sneak attack bonus damage. For example, a 7th-level rogue/4th-level fighter would deal an extra 6d6 points of damage with her sneak attack, as if she were an 11th-level rogue. Your fighter and rogue levels also stack for the purpose of qualifying for feats that require a minimum fighter level, such as Greater Weapon Focus.

[Zaq]

Sneak Attack Fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter) does basically this. Granted, you lose your Fighter feats, but . . .

[noparlpf]

Yeah, I know that variant. It's not quite what I'm looking for. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
The way I figure it, if a class like Swashbuckler (which admittedly generally synergizes better with Rogue than Fighter does) can stack with Rogue the way Daring Outlaw works, then a Fighter/Rogue should also have access to a similar feat.

[Drelua]

The only problem I see with this is that you can't meet the requirements until level 7, meaning you can't take it until level 9 if you're using the standard 3.5 feat progression, whereas you can meet the requirements for Daring Outlaw at level 5 and take it at 6. I'm not sure what I'd replace weapon specialization with, but it seems like it's too late before you can take it. Maybe just a plain fighter level requirement.

[NeoSeraphi]

I think this should be in the Homebrew section, personally, but it seems like a completely fair feat.

I agree with Drelua though, it comes a little late. (Also Weapon Specialization isn't as important for rogue/fighters as it is for normal fighters, so...)

I would suggest plain Fighter 3/Sneak Attack +2d6, that way you could take it as your 6th level feat. Also, not specifying this as an option for a fighter bonus feat strikes me as strange.

[Amphetryon]

I think this should be in the Homebrew section, personally, but it seems like a completely fair feat.

I agree with Drelua though, it comes a little late. (Also Weapon Specialization isn't as important for rogue/fighters as it is for normal fighters, so...)

I would suggest plain Fighter 3/Sneak Attack +2d6, that way you could take it as your 6th level feat. Also, not specifying this as an option for a fighter bonus feat strikes me as strange.Some may find my edit more accurate. :smallamused:

[noparlpf]

Thanks for the input.
Yes, it should be a fighter bonus feat; Daring Warrior is.
Daring Warrior has as its prereqs Weapon Spec and Grace +1, which means it's available as the 6th level feat. Daring Outlaw is available by 5th level, so generally 6th when most classes get a new feat.
How does this look now? Just two minor changes.

Martial Outlaw
Prerequisites: Fighter lvl 3, Sneak Attack +2d6
Benefit: Your fighter and rogue levels stack for the purpose of determining your sneak attack bonus damage. For example, a 7th-level rogue/4th-level fighter would deal an extra 6d6 points of damage with her sneak attack, as if she were an 11th-level rogue. Your fighter and rogue levels also stack for the purpose of qualifying for feats that require a minimum fighter level, such as Greater Weapon Focus.
Special: A fighter can select Daring Warrior as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Cieyrin]

I shudder to think of a Thug Fighter/Rogue taking Martial Outlaw. ECL 6 with 5d6 sneak. :smalleek:

At ECL 20, for a Thug Fighter 17/Rogue 3 with Martial Outlaw, that's 19d6 sneak! A Deadly Precision weapon brings that to 20d6. With Craven, your average sneak damage goes to 90. Deadly Precision (the feat) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#deadlyPrecision) increases the average to around 110, not to mention Bracers of Murder, TWF chain, etc. Martial Outlaw, feh, you're a God Killer (as long as you deny them their Dex, anyways...)!

[noparlpf]

I shudder to think of a Thug Fighter/Rogue taking Martial Outlaw. ECL 6 with 5d6 sneak. :smalleek:

At ECL 20, for a Thug Fighter 17/Rogue 3 with Martial Outlaw, that's 19d6 sneak! A Deadly Precision weapon brings that to 20d6. Who needs Craven at that point, it hardly changes your damage output, you're already averaging 70 damage from sneak alone. Deadly Precision (the feat) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#deadlyPrecision) just increases that likelihood, not to mention Bracers of Murder, TWF chain, etc. Martial Outlaw, feh, you're a God Killer (as long as you deny them their Dex, anyways...)!

Now see, examples like that demonstrate how variants and ACFs can break things. I think you mean the Sneak Attack Fighter though; the Thug variant just gives more skills in exchange for the first level bonus feat, and I think it also changes weapon proficiencies up.
Obviously a DM with any sense would ban the Rogue/SA Fighter combo with a feat like this.

[Cieyrin]

Now see, examples like that demonstrate how variants and ACFs can break things. I think you mean the Sneak Attack Fighter though; the Thug variant just gives more skills in exchange for the first level bonus feat, and I think it also changes weapon proficiencies up.
Obviously a DM with any sense would ban the Rogue/SA Fighter combo with a feat like this.

I typically combine Thug and Sneak Attack Fighter when I use it, sorry for the confusion on that point. Thug is just shorter to type, as well.

[DogbertLinc]

Now see, examples like that demonstrate how variants and ACFs can break things. I think you mean the Sneak Attack Fighter though; the Thug variant just gives more skills in exchange for the first level bonus feat, and I think it also changes weapon proficiencies up.
Obviously a DM with any sense would ban the Rogue/SA Fighter combo with a feat like this.

I'd rather take it as an example of how poorly thought out homebrew can get silly, since SA Fighter is not that special on its own.

And I'd suggest stacking the levels for fighter bonus feats too, so you get something from the fighter side, so that's it's not the exact same thing as a SA Fighter/Martial Rogue multiclass.

[noparlpf]

I'd rather take it as an example of how poorly thought out homebrew can get silly, since SA Fighter is not that special on its own.

And I'd suggest stacking the levels for fighter bonus feats too, so you get something from the fighter side, so that's it's not the exact same thing as a SA Fighter/Martial Rogue multiclass.

Well, I'm trying to keep it in line with the power level suggested by Daring Outlaw and Daring Warrior. The most likely use for Daring Warrior is a dip into Swashbuckler anyway. Likewise, the most likely use for this is a dip into Rogue.

[Amphetryon]

Now see, examples like that demonstrate how variants and ACFs can break things. I think you mean the Sneak Attack Fighter though; the Thug variant just gives more skills in exchange for the first level bonus feat, and I think it also changes weapon proficiencies up.
Obviously a DM with any sense would ban the Rogue/SA Fighter combo with a feat like this.

Can you explain why you think it's something 'a DM with any sense would ban' when Swift Ambusher allows virtually identical benefits with those feats and items Cieyrin suggested, none of which are homebrew? Are you saying Swift Ambusher should also be banned?

[noparlpf]

Swift Ambusher stacks to gain skirmish bonuses. It doesn't grant extra sneak attack damage.

[Amphetryon]

Swift Ambusher stacks to gain skirmish bonuses. It doesn't grant extra sneak attack damage.

I know that; there are many ways to trigger both at once. Should it be banned on that basis?

[noparlpf]

Oh wait, duh. Scout could be the dip in that case, and then Rogue advancement would advance both, right? I wasn't thinking before.
No, I don't think it should be banned. However, I do think that feats or PrCs that stack class features should be treated carefully when using variants that change or exchange class features. Getting 19d6 sneak attack by 20th level seems like one of those cases where you have to be careful.

[DogbertLinc]

Well, I'm trying to keep it in line with the power level suggested by Daring Outlaw and Daring Warrior. The most likely use for Daring Warrior is a dip into Swashbuckler anyway. Likewise, the most likely use for this is a dip into Rogue.

I was going off more based on Swift Hunter, that ones gives you something from both classes and Feats are the only thing the Fighter has.

Ok, now, mid-post, I get what you're saying, you're only intending for Rogue 3/Fighter 17.

In that case, it might really make more sense for them to stack for fighter feats, as it creates the possibility of someone in your group to be able to do the same with a rogue centric build, and you get 2 more feats, which is really not that special anyways.

[noparlpf]

I was going off more based on Swift Hunter, that ones gives you something from both classes and Feats are the only thing the Fighter has.

Ok, now, mid-post, I get what you're saying, you're only intending for Rogue 3/Fighter 17.

In that case, it might really make more sense for them to stack for fighter feats, as it creates the possibility of someone in your group to be able to do the same with a rogue centric build, and you get 2 more feats, which is really not that special anyways.

Hmm, Swift Hunter really does seem to be one of the better of these feats.

Honestly, the only reason to take a feat like this is to go Rogue 3/Fighter X. I personally see Daring Warrior about the same; I would only use it for Swashbuckler 2/Fighter X if I were going to do that type of build. For a Swashbuckler-focused build, Daring Warrior is pretty useless unless you already dipped Fighter for extra feats and want to make up the lost Dodge and Grace bonuses.

However, I do see your point and it would be a much better feat if it advanced both. Of course, WotC would probably think it's far too OP to get both feats AND sneak attack. After all, the Fighter with its eleven bonus feats is a very strong class.

[Zombimode]

I shudder to think of a Thug Fighter/Rogue taking Martial Outlaw. ECL 6 with 5d6 sneak. :smalleek:


Oh noes, that would be like 17,5 damage... wait, that is not all that much :smallmad:. And hey, look over here at your charge build Fighter buddy: he just got both Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, now dealing +24 damage on every attack (and he has 3 of them, while the Thug Fighter/Rouge has still only one) - and is still Tier 6.
And the Druid just took Natural Spell...

[Cieyrin]

Oh noes, that would be like 17,5 damage... wait, that is not all that much :smallmad:. And hey, look over here at your charge build Fighter buddy: he just got both Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, now dealing +24 damage on every attack (and he has 3 of them, while the Thug Fighter/Rouge has still only one) - and is still Tier 6.
And the Druid just took Natural Spell...

How, praytell, is the Charge Fighter getting 3 attacks at ECL 6 on his charge? He doesn't have Pounce, just one massive hit. Also, you're failing to consider that Martial Outlaw is only one feat, which leaves the rest open for other thing. Likely would be pursuing TWF, so that 5d6 would be thrown around much more than you're implying. And yes, if you want to compare everything to Natural Spell Druid, everything else will look paltry in comparison. That's what happens when you compare Tier 5s to Tier 1s.

[Amphetryon]

How, praytell, is the Charge Fighter getting 3 attacks at ECL 6 on his charge? He doesn't have Pounce, just one massive hit. Also, you're failing to consider that Martial Outlaw is only one feat, which leaves the rest open for other thing. Likely would be pursuing TWF, so that 5d6 would be thrown around much more than you're implying. And yes, if you want to compare everything to Natural Spell Druid, everything else will look paltry in comparison. That's what happens when you compare Tier 5s to Tier 1s.
It's not my example, but I'll wager there's a Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian dip in the maths. Barb 2/Ranger 2 (for TWF)/Fighter 2, maybe, and still calling it a "Charge Fighter." Of course, at that point it's no longer Tier 5. Samurai and NPC classes are Tier 6 on the most oft-cited list; Fighter isn't).

[mootoall]

At 20th level, Wizards and Sorceres are throwing around 20d6 damage on a whim, and 40d6 if they want to risk a save to reduce it. That's without quickening, maximizing, empowering, etc. And as a weak option. And 20d6 damage is, on average, just 70 damage. Plus 20 for Craven is 90, and TWF boosts that to 180 on average. Even an undead CR 18 wouldn't be one-shotted by that, and undead are notorious for their low HP for CR.

[noparlpf]

That's assuming you have the feat to sneak attack undead, or at least the ACF Penetrating Strike to deal half your sneak attack without having taken the feat.
When I play precision-based characters they max out attacks per round as much as possible. So assuming only one attack in the round is generally a poor assumption.
Oh, and my Sorcerers throw around 20d6 on those spells by 15th level. If your CL isn't at least 20 by then for at least one set of spells then I am disappointed in you.

[mootoall]

I used weapon crystals and a move/attack routine for my calculations, but my point still stands-20d6 damage per attack isn't a big deal.

[noparlpf]

It is if you get upwards of eleven attacks in a round before even reaching epic levels. And with a crit threat range of 30% or more Telling Blow becomes really handy.

[knightmares]

After all, the Fighter with its eleven bonus feats is a very strong class.

hahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, I just had to register to laugh at that comment. Seriously, 3.5 Fighter a 'very strong class'? Get real. Now with very careful optimization (on the level most casual gamers frown at) you can get a character that can dish out an acceptable amount of hurt, but a pure-classed Fighter is never going to be a 'very strong class.'

[noparlpf]

hahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, I just had to register to laugh at that comment. Seriously, 3.5 Fighter a 'very strong class'? Get real. Now with very careful optimization (on the level most casual gamers frown at) you can get a character that can dish out an acceptable amount of hurt, but a pure-classed Fighter is never going to be a 'very strong class.'

Sorry, let me fix that:

After all, the Fighter with its eleven bonus feats is a very strong class.

On the other hand, last time I played a plain human Fighter (in an 18th level one-shot) the only character doing more damage was the Battle Sorcerer gish who was fighting a great wyrm black dragon with the other party members. Sadly, I actually had dragon-bane weapons and a couple of handy feats for fighting things like dragons, but my character was separated from the group and going solo against a Brachyurus (and was almost holding his own).

[knightmares]

Ah, that explains it. Yeah if there was context for that sarcasm I totally missed it.

As for the fighter? Yeah, fighters make GREAT specialists at mid-high levels. They've got enough feats they can afford to take all those small "specialize against this kind of creature" feats and enough basic combat feats to use in conjunction with those specialist feats...

The problem is those specialist feats aren't Adventurer feats. Adventurers run up against a LOT of different kinds of creatures in different kinds of scenarios in 99% of games. As someone above mentioned earlier, a Fighter (read: specialist) is somebody a group of adventurers might hire to help in a specific task.

[Greenish]

Ah, that explains it. Yeah if there was context for that sarcasm I totally missed it.Maybe if you had read the previous sentence. :smallamused:

[noparlpf]

Ah, that explains it. Yeah if there was context for that sarcasm I totally missed it.

As for the fighter? Yeah, fighters make GREAT specialists at mid-high levels. They've got enough feats they can afford to take all those small "specialize against this kind of creature" feats and enough basic combat feats to use in conjunction with those specialist feats...

The problem is those specialist feats aren't Adventurer feats. Adventurers run up against a LOT of different kinds of creatures in different kinds of scenarios in 99% of games. As someone above mentioned earlier, a Fighter (read: specialist) is somebody a group of adventurers might hire to help in a specific task.

I assume anytime anybody calls the Fighter class "good" it's sarcasm, even if I personally don't think it's quite as bad as most people think.

Well, the only thing this Fighter had that was "specialization" was the human/dragon-bane weapons. He wasn't even particularly good by my current standards several months later. The feat that would have been handy against the dragon was Close-Quarters Fighting, largely because the DM likes to have dragons grapple things (typically the character with the higher reflex save) with its mouth and then fire a breath weapon at the party. The Fighter was really just a basic "I hit things with my swords and they die" type; he just did that surprisingly well.

[Cieyrin]

It's not my example, but I'll wager there's a Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian dip in the maths. Barb 2/Ranger 2 (for TWF)/Fighter 2, maybe, and still calling it a "Charge Fighter." Of course, at that point it's no longer Tier 5. Samurai and NPC classes are Tier 6 on the most oft-cited list; Fighter isn't).

Indeed. Still, making a full build to go against a single feat and calling it weak isn't exactly a fair example.

As for Fighter, while it is Tier 5, that doesn't mean that you can't have fun with them if you're playing with higher tier characters. They may need more work and options to make them even attempt to keep up but that doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. I like a challenge, as do other players, and Fighter can provide that.

[mootoall]

Fighter's also not *bad* at dealing damage. It's just crippled by not being able to do anything else, and others just do it *better*.

[noparlpf]

[non-sequitur]By the way, what tier is Barbarian? I can't remember and don't want to bother looking for the list.[/non-sequitur]

I like the Kensai variant of Fighter better, personally.

[Flickerdart]

[non-sequitur]By the way, what tier is Barbarian? I can't remember and don't want to bother looking for the list.[/non-sequitur]

I like the Kensai variant of Fighter better, personally.
Barbarian is a very high T4 that can sometimes edge in on T3 territory due to the amazing range of ACFs available for it. Most of the time though, Barbarian means breaking things, which plops you solidly in T4 territory.

[noparlpf]

Neat. One of my favorite race/class combos is Goliath Barbarian with the racial substitution levels and then using fun things like bull rush, charge, and power attack things. And last time I played one I took out three of the four other party members when they started turning on me. The fourth (Bard/Druid Fochlucan Lyrist thingy) just bailed.

[Quietus]

I think this feat would be overpowered in a general sense - the casual players, those who don't peruse these forums and have a great deal of system mastery, would have this feat completely run over mostly anything. That being said, you're mixing a tier4 and a tier5. I'd probably allow it in my game, with the caveat that it can't be mixed with sneak attack fighter. Sneak attack = level or higher is a bit much for my tastes.

I think a more general version would be allowing it to stack levels for the following purpose : Qualifying for Fighter-only feats, Uncanny dodge, 1/2 fighter level for sneak attack. That'd be more appropriate for a game where you've got healbot clerics and blaster wizards sans metamagic.

[noparlpf]

Yeah, the games I play in are fairly casual, although the characters occasionally do get a bit complex.

Am I reading this properly? You're suggesting that you add half the Fighter levels (rounded down) to the Rogue levels to determine sneak attack? Like a Rogue 3/Fighter 4 getting sneak attack as a Rogue 5?

[Cieyrin]

I think this feat would be overpowered in a general sense - the casual players, those who don't peruse these forums and have a great deal of system mastery, would have this feat completely run over mostly anything. That being said, you're mixing a tier4 and a tier5. I'd probably allow it in my game, with the caveat that it can't be mixed with sneak attack fighter. Sneak attack = level or higher is a bit much for my tastes.

I think a more general version would be allowing it to stack levels for the following purpose : Qualifying for Fighter-only feats, Uncanny dodge, 1/2 fighter level for sneak attack. That'd be more appropriate for a game where you've got healbot clerics and blaster wizards sans metamagic.

That does sound like a more reasonable compromise, actually.

[Quietus]

Yeah, the games I play in are fairly casual, although the characters occasionally do get a bit complex.

Am I reading this properly? You're suggesting that you add half the Fighter levels (rounded down) to the Rogue levels to determine sneak attack? Like a Rogue 3/Fighter 4 getting sneak attack as a Rogue 5?

It's strictly off the top of my head, but yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Because otherwise, this would effectively be a feat to gestalt Fighter + Rogue, without the skill bonuses, and that can be too much for a casual game. But at level 15, as a Rogue3/Fighter12, for instance, having 5d6 sneak attack alongside 3 primary attacks (plus TWF?) - while undoubtedly useful - isn't going to make the wizard casting 15d6 cone of colds feel nearly as out-damaged.

[noparlpf]

So 5d6 rather than 8d6. I think that sounds fair. Why Uncanny Dodge, though?

[Quietus]

So 5d6 rather than 8d6. I think that sounds fair. Why Uncanny Dodge, though?

To keep it relevant, and retain the rogue-ish feeling of being able to dodge incoming unseen attacks. I intended for it to allow the improvement to Improved Uncanny Dodge, thus making it so a rogue would have to be higher than (rogue+fighter) levels to sneak attack via flanks. I simply worded it poorly.

[noparlpf]

I think that's probably the best compromise I've seen yet, especially if somebody else agreed. Anybody else have anything to say about it?