Pathfinder Rogue Nerfed by Dm

[Oliver Veyrac]

Hi All,

Our GM decided to Nerf the rogue insanely. Now we can only sneak attack once per round. Do you think it is beneficial to go straight in rogue now or just use it to multi class. To me the only thing I can think of is for rogues to just take two levels and multiclass. possibly three. What do you all think?

[Sith_Happens]

I think that you'll have better luck asking here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59).

[Oscredwin]

If you can only SA once per round then you're doing the damage of a blaster wizard .... of half your level .... to single targets only. If you're interested in doing damage in combat take something else.

[Greenish]

I gather PF rogue wasn't so hot to begin with, so you can happily wave it goodbye and roll a bard or an inquisitor.

[Ailowynn]

Actually rogues in PF are just about as powerful as inquisitors or bards...

But no it's probably not worth it, and honestly I can't understand what thought process would lead the GM to do that. So probably go Inquisitor or something. Or if you're dead set on Rogue stuff...go Ninja. Basically the same class.

[Certified]

Actually rogues in PF are just about as powerful as inquisitors or bards...

But no it's probably not worth it, and honestly I can't understand what thought process would lead the GM to do that. So probably go Inquisitor or something. Or if you're dead set on Rogue stuff...go Ninja. Basically the same class.

Wouldn't the Ninja's Sneak Attack be hamstrung as well?

[Person_Man]

The Pathfinder Rogue is a Tier 4 Skill Monkey who was also moderately good at dealing damage. Limiting Sneak Attack to once per round basically destroys his ability to deal meaningful damage. If the ruling stands, I would just drop the Rogue (and Ninja) entirely, and use

Does your DM have a RAW justification? (Which would clearly be incorrect). Or does it just "feel" wrong?

Anywho, you may wish to play a Magus (PF Duskblade) instead. It can deal similarly high melee damage. You give up Skills, but gain spell utility.

Another option is any mounted build. (Druid, Paladin, or the inferior Cavalier). A small race on a medium mount with a lance (wielded with two hands), Power Attack, Spirited Charge, and Pounce can deal fairly impressive damage, even in PF. You give up Skills, but you gain more defensive abilities.

[CTrees]

Be a half orc with Chain Fighter. Use the Scout and Skulking Slayer archetypes. Take Bludgeoner, Sap Adept, and Sap Master, and Bleeding Attack. Pick up a heavy flail and charge into the fray, bellowing "SNEAK ATTACK!" at the top of your lungs as your battlecry. Do lethal amounts of non-lethal damage.

Assuming 18 STR and a +1 weapon, at level five your charges should do 1d10+7+6d8 non-lethal damage, +12 bleed (no save).

It's not particularly optimized, but it's one nice "sneak attack" per round, and comes online quickly.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The Pathfinder Rogue is a Tier 4 Skill Monkey who was also moderately good at dealing damage. Limiting Sneak Attack to once per round basically destroys his ability to deal meaningful damage. If the ruling stands, I would just drop the Rogue (and Ninja) entirely, and use

Does your DM have a RAW justification? (Which would clearly be incorrect). Or does it just "feel" wrong?

Anywho, you may wish to play a Magus (PF Duskblade) instead. It can deal similarly high melee damage. You give up Skills, but gain spell utility.

Another option is any mounted build. (Druid, Paladin, or the inferior Cavalier). A small race on a medium mount with a lance (wielded with two hands), Power Attack, Spirited Charge, and Pounce can deal fairly impressive damage, even in PF. You give up Skills, but you gain more defensive abilities.

I'd say with the Int focus of the Magus you should have similar if not even more skill points than a rogue, and AFAIK you can get different skills via traits.

[Bearlock]

I think that is a pretty harsh and unwarranted nerf, but if you are dead set on rogue and can only use sneak attack once per round make sure you take the Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype to make sure you get that sneak attack as often as possible. Couple it with a high str and a TH weapon, preferably one with reach.

I would highly advise just not playing a rogue, but if you really want to that would be my suggestion for the best way to go about it.

I would also like to know what the reasoning is behind your DM's call, just curious.

[Ravens_cry]

Knife Master, which can be combined with Scout, ups your sneak attack with certain weapons up to a d8, which could be helpful. Powerful sneak rogue talent tree could also help by making average damage much more certain.

[OverdrivePrime]

Good lord. What on earth would make your DM do that? It's not like Pathfinder rogues are very powerful to begin with. If he doesn't come to his senses, abandon ship. Has he at least done some nerfs to other classes, like oh, I don't know... wizard?

For a similar feel and slightly more reliable damage, maybe try playing a ranger. If you're in a city setting and you can get favored enemy: humans or something you can at least do a lot of damage in melee while holding on to a decent skill pool.

[Ravens_cry]

Did they do the same for Paladins? They get somewhat less average bonus damage, but it multiplies on crits, gets a hefty bonus to hit and bypasses all DR.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Rogue was already the 2nd weakest class in PF. Your Dm has just made it unplayable.

Fortunately, there are many, many classes in PF that step all over the rogue's toes, so depending on what attracted you most to rogue to begin with, there is at least one other class that can meet your needs, and in fact better so than the (pre-nerfed, even) rogue.

Why did you want to be a rogue?

[Squirrel_Dude]

If you really want to go rogue, try and prestige into shadowdancer. At least that way you're still getting some nice abilities at later levels instead of sneak attack. I would also push for ninja instead because being able to use ki powers gives you more versatility than a rogue.

But yeah, don't go rogue, it just won't be good anymore.

[jmelesky]

I'd say with the Int focus of the Magus you should have similar if not even more skill points than a rogue, and AFAIK you can get different skills via traits.

That's some impressive Int you're assuming. Rogues get 8+Int skill points, Magi only 2+Int. To get the same number of skill points per level, the Magus would need an Int that was 12 higher than the Rogue. Even if the Rogue stays at 10 Int (unlikely), it's not till 22 Int that the Magus catches up, and not till 24 that it gets more skill points.

Add in the fact that Magus isn't actually all that Int-focused. Sure, it's an Int caster, but the casting is less DC focused and more critted-touch-attack focused. Unless you're a Kensai, 16 Int is perfectly serviceable for a Magus.

[PinkysBrain]

If you have an existing character you want to keep playing with decent int just go arcane trickster ... and ask the DM to be allowed to change TWF feats if you have them (and melee feats in general).

[Dusk Eclipse]

That's some impressive Int you're assuming. Rogues get 8+Int skill points, Magi only 2+Int. To get the same number of skill points per level, the Magus would need an Int that was 12 higher than the Rogue. Even if the Rogue stays at 10 Int (unlikely), it's not till 22 Int that the Magus catches up, and not till 24 that it gets more skill points.

Add in the fact that Magus isn't actually all that Int-focused. Sure, it's an Int caster, but the casting is less DC focused and more critted-touch-attack focused. Unless you're a Kensai, 16 Int is perfectly serviceable for a Magus.
My bad, for some reason I thought magi had 4+int skill pointa (which still wouldn't be enough in any case).

[Oliver Veyrac]

Sent the GM an email with the rogue's weaknesses such as fortification etc.

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue which is how it is supposed to be. Most wizards want to rest when they run out of spells in the first place.


Be a half orc with Chain Fighter. Use the Scout and Skulking Slayer archetypes. Take Bludgeoner, Sap Adept, and Sap Master, and Bleeding Attack. Pick up a heavy flail and charge into the fray, bellowing "SNEAK ATTACK!" at the top of your lungs as your battlecry. Do lethal amounts of non-lethal damage.

Assuming 18 STR and a +1 weapon, at level five your charges should do 1d10+7+6d8 non-lethal damage, +12 bleed (no save).

It's not particularly optimized, but it's one nice "sneak attack" per round, and comes online quickly.

That is just too funny.


If you have an existing character you want to keep playing with decent int just go arcane trickster ... and ask the DM to be allowed to change TWF feats if you have them (and melee feats in general).

Probably my best bet. Can't give up trapfinding because we are playing Rappan Athuk.


Did they do the same for Paladins? They get somewhat less average bonus damage, but it multiplies on crits, gets a hefty bonus to hit and bypasses all DR.

One of his favorite classes



Rogue was already the 2nd weakest class in PF. Your Dm has just made it unplayable.

Fortunately, there are many, many classes in PF that step all over the rogue's toes, so depending on what attracted you most to rogue to begin with, there is at least one other class that can meet your needs, and in fact better so than the (pre-nerfed, even) rogue.

Why did you want to be a rogue?

Need trapfinding for rappan athuk, many many traps and far too many can kill a person.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Do you have any reason why? It would probably be better to talk him/her out of this completely unreasonable nerf than to reroll your character.

[Ravens_cry]

One of his favorite classes

I love paladins too, but a two weapon or archer anti-paladin (or paladin if you have evil party members) could absolutely destroy a good aligned party member in a single full attack. If he is afraid of a rogue doing this, then he should look at other classes to be fair.

[Scow2]

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue which is how it is supposed to be. Most wizards want to rest when they run out of spells in the first place.

Tell him that this fear is completely unreasonable - a housecat can kill a wizard that's run out of spells. And having a party member not be able to function at all in combat is far more deadly to the party than having an occasional enemy be able to put serious hurt on the squishiest teammate because the party failed to protect said squishy teammate AND allowed a situation that permitted a full-round sneak attack on it.

If the wizard dies to a full-round sneak attack, it's his fault - he A) Shouldn't have let his enemies flank him or deny his Dex-to-AC, knowing he's squishy, and B) stuck around long enough to let the Rogue get a full attack off.

[Greenish]

I love paladins too, but a two weapon or archer anti-paladin (or paladin if you have evil party members) could absolutely destroy a good aligned party member in a single full attack. If he is afraid of a rogue doing this, then he should look at other classes to be fair.It's okay because paladin is a combat class.



…



http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/107/awesome-face.png

[Ravens_cry]

***
Wᴇ Aʀᴇ Nᴏᴛ Aᴍᴜsᴇᴅ.

[navar100]

Ask your DM if it bothers him for a character to deal 10d6 damage to everyone in a 40 ft radius from 500 ft away with one standard action. Then ask him if it was one and half times 10d6 damage. How about a flat 60 damage? How about 20d6 damage using a swift action and standard action?

Finally, ask your DM how he feels about a PC causing his NPCs to roll a saving throw or just die? How about not even needing a saving throw? They just die.

[Baroncognito]

I think that is a pretty harsh and unwarranted nerf, but if you are dead set on rogue and can only use sneak attack once per round make sure you take the Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype to make sure you get that sneak attack as often as possible. Couple it with a high str and a TH weapon, preferably one with reach.

Lance? I've now got a mental image of a full plate rogue. Preferably with Folding Plate.

[Certified]

Sent the GM an email with the rogue's weaknesses such as fortification etc.

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue which is how it is supposed to be. Most wizards want to rest when they run out of spells in the first place.

It may be important to point out that Rogues have a 3/4ths BAB not full progression. Additionally, Two weapon fighting apples an additional -2 penalty to hit. This is by design to prevent Rogues from unloading on medium and heavily armored foes. Light armor foes often have their own sets of ways to mitigate a Rogue. Lastly, Sneak Attack is a single target attack, this is as opposed to the area of effect destruction an Arcane spell caster can lay down (as has been highlighted in this thread already.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Trapfinding is hardly needed. ANYONE can find ANY trap and can disarm ANY non-magical trap in PF. Also, infini-cast detect magic is a thing, so it's quite easy to find magical traps.

All trapfinding unlocks in PF is disarming magic traps, and dispel magic works just fine, too.

That said, plenty of options to get trapfinding w/o rogue. Archaeologist Bard gets the same ability by a different name (actually better). TrapperRanger gets trapfinding and disable device as a class skill at level 1. You lose spell casting, but that's why you dip trapper, you don't go ranger 20.

I'm sure there are other classes / prestige classes that also give trapfinding, too.

So, the most inconvenient thing is you may have to do is dip ranger 1 (I suggest adding Freebooter archetype if doing so). What else would you like your PC to do?

[avr]

The seeker archetype gives oracles & sorcerers trapfinding, and there's at least 2 ranger archetypes which do too. If trapfinding is your reason for playing a rogue but rogues have been nerfed, you still don't need to play a rogue.

[Bearlock]

Lance? I've now got a mental image of a full plate rogue. Preferably with Folding Plate.

Greater range is always a good thing. I guess you could do something with full plate, I always thought it would be cool to pair with barbarian myself.

[ericgrau]

Rogues don't need nerfing. You can get the skills you need from 1 or 2 rogue levels. Beyond that take anything else in the world. If you're already a rogue then just start taking levels in another class. It may be painful for a while putting up with the rogue levels you already have but eventually you'll be ok. And you'll have a good amount of skills even though it's less than a pure rogue. Though I suspect if he nerfed sneak attack then he'll be stingy on what skills can accomplish too, and/or have heavy penalties for failure. If there's risk involved in a particular skill check you might want to pass on attempting it, if you want to live.

If you have 1-3, maybe 4 levels of rogue I wouldn't worry about it. If you have more than that I'd ask politely to be allowed to redo your character. If you have 6 or more rogue levels and he refuses a redo, only then would I get uppity about it to him. Or I'd intentionally die even if my new character came in a level lower.

[CTrees]

Probably my best bet. Can't give up trapfinding because we are playing Rappan Athuk.

The Urban and Trapper Ranger archetypes both gain trapfinding. Along with some Prestige Classes, but you know.

[Killer Angel]

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue

A nice couple of people that don't know the system they're playing. :smallsigh:

[Edenbeast]

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue

That's at least one weakness for the wizard. Nice so he's not godlike after all.

As for your rogue, the sneak attack counts anytime the prerequisites are met. One example when you only get one sneak attack is when you use the invisibility spell and stand right in front of your target; after the first hit with sneak attack you become visible and lose your next sneak attack(s).

How does you GM explain the anytime, when using improved invisibility? I'm just curious.

If you're playing Rappan Athuk I think the Crypt Breaker Archetype for the Alchemist fits thematically:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo---alchemist-archetypes/crypt-breaker
It gives you trapifinding, including magical traps. Your bomb damaged is changed to being particularly effective against constructs and undead. And you can improve your senses with draughts. I love alchemists.

[Person_Man]

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue which is how it is supposed to be. Most wizards want to rest when they run out of spells in the first place.

This is actually a fairly common and understandable error that new-ish DMs make (or old DMs who haven't played with other groups).

If Player One is capable of easily killing or otherwise "winning" against Player Two, that's ok. Because Player One and Player Two are not playing against each other. They're playing with each other on the same team. As long as each of the players has some niche or role which they're decent at and enjoy, everything will work out fine. Balance is only an issue when one of the players truly sucks at everything, or when one of the players is so god like that they can resolve every challenge on their own.

In this example, it's ok for the Rogue to be dealing damage all of the time, whereas a Wizard can be amazing at doing many different tasks some of the time. The Rogue can be sneaky, scout, and enjoy the thrill of being a glass cannon in combat. The Wizard can resolve entire encounters with a single spell (including the option of dealing massive damage when needed), but only if he memorized the correct spell, and only until he runs out of spells.

[Prime32]

He is afraid that two weapon fighting on a rogue and multiple per round is deadly toward the party. One guy stated that if his wizard ran out of spells he would die to a rogue which is how it is supposed to be. Most wizards want to rest when they run out of spells in the first place.Different classes have different resources. A fighter relies on his hit points to make it through multiple encounters; a wizard generally can't survive direct combat, so he burns spells instead.

I.e. "A wizard who ran out of spells would die to a rogue" is the same thing as "A fighter who ran out of hit points would die to a rogue".

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, D&D ain't meant for no PvP. You can do it, the tools are there, but if player characters are fighting player characters, something has gone wrong. It's a team game after all.

[Starbuck_II]

If he nerfs you with 1 attack/rd like some Backstab nerfs (when not grrater Invisibility back then) ask if you can have Sneak attack multuiple damage instead of +1d6/level.

That seems more useful when limited 1 attack/rd (if he really wants this nerf to sneak attack).

Example: 5th level rogue limited to 1 sneak/rd deals (14 str, +1 Rapier, 3 BAB then)
a. +6 (1d6+3, +3d6 sneak attack) Average damage 17

b. +6 (1d6+3, x3 sneak attack) Average damage 19.5

Had we been 4th level (with same gear):
a. +6 (1d6+3, +2d6 sneak attack) Average damage 13.5

b. +6 (1d6+3, x2 sneak attack) Average damage 13

[Suddo]

The seeker archetype gives oracles & sorcerers trapfinding, and there's at least 2 ranger archetypes which do too. If trapfinding is your reason for playing a rogue but rogues have been nerfed, you still don't need to play a rogue.

This was my suggestion. And then just burn some feats on skill focus (perception and disable device) and then go into arcane trickster. This should easily allow you to have high Perc & DD while being able to mildly contribute to the party.

Oh and why is the rogue the second worse class in the game? I assume monk beats it but I would have thought there would be something else.

[brvheart]

Ask your DM if it bothers him for a character to deal 10d6 damage to everyone in a 40 ft radius from 500 ft away with one standard action. Then ask him if it was one and half times 10d6 damage. How about a flat 60 damage? How about 20d6 damage using a swift action and standard action?

Finally, ask your DM how he feels about a PC causing his NPCs to roll a saving throw or just die? How about not even needing a saving throw? They just die.

It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted. The issue was put to a vote of the 10 people at the table and 8 supported RAW until they realized that the enemy has a lot more of them than the party has rogues. Then the vote switched to 9-1 to limit it to 1/round. Heck, I kept 8 of the party (6th level) at bay with 1 6th level goblin leader and 5 4th level scouts for 6 rounds and killed one because they were all rogues hiding behind crates with 1 alchemist fire and 1 acid each. In the other game 2 9th level assasin's sicked most of the party feeding them bad hare for dinner. The 2 characters that were attacked first were really glad they could only get 10d6 instead of 20d6 damage that round!
I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!
Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.

[Darius Kane]

Here's an idea - don't use Rogues against your players.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted.The issue was put to a vote of the 10 people at the table and 8 supported RAW until they realized that the enemy has a lot more of them than the party has rogues. Then the vote switched to 9-1 to limit it to 1/round. Heck, I kept 8 of the party (6th level) at bay with 1 6th level goblin leader and 5 4th level scouts for 6 rounds and killed one because they were all rogues hiding behind crates with 1 alchemist fire and 1 acid each. In the other game 2 9th level assasin's sicked most of the party feeding them bad hare for dinner. The 2 characters that were attacked first were really glad they could only get 10d6 instead of 20d6 damage that round!

I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!

Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.I disagree with the premise of much of what you said, and don't cowtow to your ideas because you've run games for 30 years. I want that to be clear. All of that is irrelevant.



If the players voted this in so nearly unanimously then I see no grounds to change the ruling. As you said, this was not purely DM fiat.

[Jon_Dahl]

I had my players vote about this and the result was that rogues can only do one sneak attack per round. Still many players play rogues.

Originally I really wanted to have just one sneak attack per round, but now I feel softer about it. The reason is that I had a spring attacking scout in my game and yes, it was pretty powerful, but manageable.

At first, a dual-wielding 5th-level rogue doing 2*3d6 sneak attack damage sounds excessive and most people agreed with me, but now I have grown to like the idea. But I will not change this in mid-campaign, since my players are content with the "one sneak attack per round" rule.

[RFLS]

It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted. The issue was put to a vote of the 10 people at the table and 8 supported RAW until they realized that the enemy has a lot more of them than the party has rogues.
Sounds like your players are a pack of opportunists. They literally were in favor of RAW until it was their own necks on the line.


Then the vote switched to 9-1 to limit it to 1/round. Heck, I kept 8 of the party (6th level) at bay with 1 6th level goblin leader and 5 4th level scouts for 6 rounds and killed one because they were all rogues hiding behind crates with 1 alchemist fire and 1 acid each. In the other game 2 9th level assasin's sicked most of the party feeding them bad hare for dinner. The 2 characters that were attacked first were really glad they could only get 10d6 instead of 20d6 damage that round!

Congrats. You can win encounters. As the DM. Cookie?


I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!
Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.

Well, I guess that wraps it up. Playing for a long time means you're not wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

But here, let me cite some numbers that you can choose to ignore. Let's say you've got a 3rd level fighter and a 3rd level rogue, both Human. The fighter's schlepping around a greatsword and the rogue's got a pair of kukris. They're trying to hit an AC 20 monster. Here's the breakdown-

Fighter, level 3:

18 in Strength. He can afford it. That's a +4 to hit.

(1) Power Attack
(H) Weapon Focus (Greatsword
(F1) Cleave
(F2) It literally doesn't matter
(3) what I put here.

He's got BAB 3

That gives him a +8 to hit. He deals 2d6+6 damage on hit, and crits on a 19-20. Let's say he Power Attacks; that's +7 to hit and 2d6+9 damage. He's hitting for 16 damage any time he hits, and has a 40% chance of hitting. 10% of the time he has a 40% chance to crit, meaning that 4% of the time he doubles his damage. That puts him at 60% chance of missing, 36% chance of average damage, and 4% of double damage. He deals 7.68 damage per round.

Rogue, Level 3

18 in Dex. He needs it. That's +4 to hit after spending a feat.

(1) Weapon Finesse
(H) Two Weapon Fighting
(3) Weapon Focus (Kukri)

He's got BAB 2.

That gives him a +5/+5 to-hit. He deals 1d4+2d6 damage, assuming a sneak attack. I'll be nice and assume he has a +2 Strength mod, so that's more like 1d4+2 (+1 for off hand) + 2d6, assuming a sneak attack. He hits on a 15 and up, assuming the same monster as before. That means he has a 30% chance of hitting. He also has a 15% chance of a critical threat, and THAT has a 30% chance of confirming. This means he has a 70% chance of missing, a 25.5% chance of normal damage, and a 4.5% chance of double damage (but not counting Sneak Attack on the double). He also gets 2 attacks a round. That comes out to 3.9675 from main hand and 3.6225 damage from the off hand per round, which is 7.59 damage per round.

....

Now, you're sitting there going "Hey, that's almost the same DPR." Well, duh. Yes. That's the POINT. That math assumes that the rogue had higher stats than the fighter, that the rogue sunk more of his feats into doing what he does, and, most importantly, that the rogue has set up his very particular circumstances for his Sneak Attack. The fighter can do what he does all day, and he can do it on a charge. So, I guess the moral of the story is that if you want to challenge your players, throw fighters at them -.-

[Greenish]

Kukri is a martial weapon that the rogue is not proficient with.

[RFLS]

Kukri is a martial weapon that the rogue is not proficient with.

>.< Herp a derp. Well, I guess he can go either shortsword/dagger or dagger/dagger. I was trying to pick an ideal weapon for him.

[Krazzman]

Kukri is a martial weapon that the rogue is not proficient with.

There's an archetype for that. Although yes it is.

[mcv]

Need trapfinding for rappan athuk, many many traps and far too many can kill a person.

Trapfinding is not enough reason to play a nerfed rogue. Rogues are already one of the two weakest classes in Pathfinder. Sneak attack is really truly the only thing they have over Urban Rangers and Bard Archaeologists. If Sneak Attack gets nerfed, just play an Urban Ranger of Archaeologist instead.

Or one of the many other classes and archetypes that also get trapfinding. It's not a rare ability. Rogue is practically obsolete as a class. And as an Archaeologist, you get to be Indiana Jones. Wouldn't that be cool for a deadly megadungeon?

[icefractal]

Most of the players voted for it, but you "need" a Rogue because there's a lot of traps? The answer is simple - don't play a Rogue. Invite one of the players who voted to nerf the Rogue to play one, since they obviously find the nerf acceptable. I mean yes, you could just use one of the options to get Trapfinding on a non-Rogue, but I think this way has more poetic justice.

Also:
It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted.Four 6th level characters, all in a position to full attack and hasted? That's going to be pretty brutal whether they're Rogues or not. For instance:

4x Barbarian 6
Str 18 (22 raging), Feats: Power Attack, Equipment: +1 Greatsword
Each one does three hits for 2d6+16, so average 276 damage.
72d6 averages 252 damage. Barbarians win. Without flanking, for that matter.

Sneak Attack is not the issue here. Anybody who gets surrounded by damage-oriented foes in an ideal position is going to hurting bad.

[Greenish]

It's just that the d6's are the scariest form of damage.

[gr8artist]

Be a half orc with Chain Fighter. Use the Scout and Skulking Slayer archetypes. Take Bludgeoner, Sap Adept, and Sap Master, and Bleeding Attack. Pick up a heavy flail and charge into the fray, bellowing "SNEAK ATTACK!" at the top of your lungs as your battlecry. Do lethal amounts of non-lethal damage.

Assuming 18 STR and a +1 weapon, at level five your charges should do 1d10+7+6d8 non-lethal damage, +12 bleed (no save).

It's not particularly optimized, but it's one nice "sneak attack" per round, and comes online quickly.
Almost completely off topic, but I think you made a miscalculation. It would only be +6 bleed damage, assuming the DM let you multiply the bleed because you multiplied the dice.

[lord_khaine]

It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted

Then the party really should learn to avoid eating full attacks from flanking rogues, its not like sneak attack is that hard to avoid.


I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!
Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.

Having played the game for around 30 years really doesnt matter much, because the game has changet a lot from each edition, and i suspect everyone here has been playing from the start of pathfinder.


Most of the players voted for it, but you "need" a Rogue because there's a lot of traps? The answer is simple - don't play a Rogue. Invite one of the players who voted to nerf the Rogue to play one, since they obviously find the nerf acceptable. I mean yes, you could just use one of the options to get Trapfinding on a non-Rogue, but I think this way has more poetic justice.


I second this notion, let one of the guys who voted to nerf rogues pick up trapfinding.


Sneak Attack is not the issue here. Anybody who gets surrounded by damage-oriented foes in an ideal position is going to hurting bad

And i think this part should be repeated as well, along with the math that showed the rogues would be the lesser of 2 evils compared to the barbarians, since they would go down faster and need flanking :smalltongue:

[brvheart]

The mechanics of sneak attack haven't really changed that much all the way from 1E and 30+ years of situtational tactics generally gives my monsters the equivalent of a +2 CR on the encounter. My "experienced" pathfinder players are generally the ones that line the graves while my players that may be new to pathfinder but have been playing since 1E/2E are the ones that find a way to survive to live to fight another day. As for the encounter with the assasins, the party ended up winning that encounter w/o loss of a character and the halflings fled, there lair in flames.
As for one of the others taking over the trap monkey role if need be my wife has volunteered to take over the role once again. She has a tendency to get stuck in the role. She is the dm in the other game and does not want unlimited sneak attacks in her game either but can possibly see them on the first series of attacks per round. And yeah, I generally play the rogue in that game. I don't have issues getting my sneak attacks in. It is not that hard to get a flank. I don't waste my feats on TWF. Sorry but I don't want to decrease my to hit roll by 10%. When the party needs a damage dealer I play my paladin. They are much better suited to that role. Since moving down here 14 years ago I have been a player in abouut 30% of the games with all sorts of dms. Have yet to have a character die. Been the only survivor on a few occasions.
I am not here to make life easier for the players. If they want balanced easy encounters they can go play an AP somewhere. This is old 1E style gaming with pathfinder rules. Be smart and adapt or fill the Dungeon of Graves. The player in question basically committed suicide with his character and caused an impresional 15 year old to do the same.

[Answerer]

The mechanics of sneak attack haven't really changed that much all the way from 1E
Yes, they have.


My "experienced" pathfinder players are generally the ones that line the graves while my players that may be new to pathfinder but have been playing since 1E/2E are the ones that find a way to survive to live to fight another day.
Funny what happens when you change the rules out from under them. :smallamused:

[Person_Man]

It's just that the d6's are the scariest form of damage.

No, that would be d4. The pointiest of dice!


Jokes aside, all things considered, there are plenty of ways to deal massive damage. If players and the DM don't like a specific source of massive damage from Rogues or certain spells or whatever, it's ok to go with whatever is fun for your group, cause it's your group. But nerfing the Rogue won't nerf massive damage, which is easy to generate from a lot of different sources.

You could just place a maximum damage per round cap on everyone. That would have the effect of limiting resource investment into damage dealing, and would be "fair" to all classes.

Though it would probably have the unwanted metagame side effects. If you limit it to total damage, then area of effect attacks become a lot weaker. Or if you limit it per creature, then there's a big incentive to hit lots of different creatures every round. Your cap on damage effects how everyone manages their defenses. Nerfing Rogues just makes for more sneaky Magi and Sorcerers, and so on. Any house rule can be used if you want it to be used, and the gods know that I've used many in my long DMing career as well, but doing so has effects on the rest of the game.

[eggynack]

The mechanics of sneak attack haven't really changed that much all the way from 1E and 30+ years of situtational tactics generally gives my monsters the equivalent of a +2 CR on the encounter. My "experienced" pathfinder players are generally the ones that line the graves while my players that may be new to pathfinder but have been playing since 1E/2E are the ones that find a way to survive to live to fight another day. As for the encounter with the assasins, the party ended up winning that encounter w/o loss of a character and the halflings fled, there lair in flames.
As for one of the others taking over the trap monkey role if need be my wife has volunteered to take over the role once again. She has a tendency to get stuck in the role. She is the dm in the other game and does not want unlimited sneak attacks in her game either but can possibly see them on the first series of attacks per round. And yeah, I generally play the rogue in that game. I don't have issues getting my sneak attacks in. It is not that hard to get a flank. I don't waste my feats on TWF. Sorry but I don't want to decrease my to hit roll by 10%. When the party needs a damage dealer I play my paladin. They are much better suited to that role. Since moving down here 14 years ago I have been a player in abouut 30% of the games with all sorts of dms. Have yet to have a character die. Been the only survivor on a few occasions.
I am not here to make life easier for the players. If they want balanced easy encounters they can go play an AP somewhere. This is old 1E style gaming with pathfinder rules. Be smart and adapt or fill the Dungeon of Graves. The player in question basically committed suicide with his character and caused an impresional 15 year old to do the same.

It really doesn't matter how good of a DM you say you are. You lack any real understanding of D&D class balance. The point isn't that the 4 rogues flanking one character is absurd, which it is, but that 4 members of any other class teaming up against one character would probably get better results. The rogue class is basically only good at skills and striker damage, and now they're only good at having skills. If you're sacrificing the limited power of rogues in order to supplement the insane power of wizards, then you're balancing the game in the wrong direction. You should probably stay as far away from homebrewed balance changes as humanly possible.
edit: Also, your changes are so bad that they caused people to commit suicide to escape from them. That should probably tell you something.

[Andreaz]

Eggy has a point, but I would deliver it with less acid.

The gist of it is: You are taking an edge case where the results couldn't be anything but obscene, and extrapolated erroneously from there.

A rogue dishing Full TWFed Sneak Attacks is not really doing "a crapton of damage". It's only so if he's doing it on a relatively unprotected character, in which case guess what, he's unprotected! Of course he'd whiff dead. Heavily armored people don't suffer half as many sneak attacks. And they die to gangbangs just as well, rogue or not.
------------

Also, I'd refrain from going "whatever, this is my game". It's not. Other people play with you. They might get unsatisfied (and lo, they did!), and other people will have opinions to give. Opinions which may well differ.
Generally when you're mostly alone in defending your point, it's probably not a strong point in the first place.

[Gnaeus]

>.< Herp a derp. Well, I guess he can go either shortsword/dagger or dagger/dagger. I was trying to pick an ideal weapon for him.

Well, the PF rogue does get a rogue talent at 2. So he can use that to get weapon finesse and then use the level 1 feat for a weapon proficiency if he wants.

[eggynack]

Eggy has a point, but I would deliver it with less acid.


Probably so. I just get somewhat annoyed when people feel the need to enforce their skewed view game balance through rules changes. It's likely the thing that annoys me the most in terms of things people do related to D&D. I should likely try to tone it down a bit though.

[Andreaz]

Probably so. I just get somewhat annoyed when people feel the need to enforce their skewed view game balance through rules changes. It's likely the thing that annoys me the most in terms of things people do related to D&D. I should likely try to tone it down a bit though.It IS annoying, but we could always be wrong as well.
This is shaping up as one of those situations where the old group simply doesn't match anyone else anymore, and refuses to budge. It culminates on "go on and have fun by yourselves, don't send invites", which makes me sad because it's a waste of players.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The mechanics of sneak attack haven't really changed that much all the way from 1E and 30+ years of situtational tactics generally gives my monsters the equivalent of a +2 CR on the encounter. My "experienced" pathfinder players are generally the ones that line the graves while my players that may be new to pathfinder but have been playing since 1E/2E are the ones that find a way to survive to live to fight another day. As for the encounter with the assasins, the party ended up winning that encounter w/o loss of a character and the halflings fled, there lair in flames. Good for them. It sounds like you have a good group of players.


As for one of the others taking over the trap monkey role if need be my wife has volunteered to take over the role once again. She has a tendency to get stuck in the role. She is the dm in the other game and does not want unlimited sneak attacks in her game either but can possibly see them on the first series of attacks per round. And yeah, I generally play the rogue in that game. I don't have issues getting my sneak attacks in. It is not that hard to get a flank. I don't waste my feats on TWF. Sorry but I don't want to decrease my to hit roll by 10%. When the party needs a damage dealer I play my paladin. They are much better suited to that role. Since moving down here 14 years ago I have been a player in abouut 30% of the games with all sorts of dms. Have yet to have a character die. Been the only survivor on a few occasions.I'm only going to ask 1 thing:

What, to you, is the role of the rogue class and other classes like it?


I am not here to make life easier for the players.Except you are? The GM is there to tell a story, move the characters through the world, explain (sometimes negotiate rules) and organize the game. You are running the game, and helping new players learn the rules and enjoy the game is part of that job.

I don't know if that necessarily entails making life easier for the characters, but I think that it does include making life easier for the players.


If they want balanced easy encounters they can go play an AP somewhere. This is old 1E style gaming with pathfinder rules. Be smart and adapt or fill the Dungeon of Graves. The player in question basically committed suicide with his character and caused an impressionable 15 year old to do the same.Purely out of curiosity, besides the suicides, how many players have experienced character deaths in this campaign, and how many characters have died total?

[Spuddles]

Kukri is a martial weapon that the rogue is not proficient with.

Unless it's a tiefling/aasimar.

[lord_khaine]

I am not here to make life easier for the players

This is the part that leaves me confused, because on the other hand you are ready to make life a lot harder for random players, based mostly on flawed logic and how the game was around 15 years ago?

[Spuddles]

Can we tone the aggression down a little? OP's DM put it to a vote and 9 out of 10 players hate rogues.

The real problem is likely OP's play group is full of nubs who can't handle asymmetric combat.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Can we tone the aggression down a little? alright...


OP's play group is full of nubs who can't handle asymmetric combat.-_-

[RFLS]

The mechanics of sneak attack haven't really changed that much all the way from 1E and 30+ years of situtational tactics generally gives my monsters the equivalent of a +2 CR on the encounter. My "experienced" pathfinder players are generally the ones that line the graves while my players that may be new to pathfinder but have been playing since 1E/2E are the ones that find a way to survive to live to fight another day. As for the encounter with the assasins, the party ended up winning that encounter w/o loss of a character and the halflings fled, there lair in flames.
As for one of the others taking over the trap monkey role if need be my wife has volunteered to take over the role once again. She has a tendency to get stuck in the role. She is the dm in the other game and does not want unlimited sneak attacks in her game either but can possibly see them on the first series of attacks per round. And yeah, I generally play the rogue in that game. I don't have issues getting my sneak attacks in. It is not that hard to get a flank. I don't waste my feats on TWF. Sorry but I don't want to decrease my to hit roll by 10%. When the party needs a damage dealer I play my paladin. They are much better suited to that role. Since moving down here 14 years ago I have been a player in abouut 30% of the games with all sorts of dms. Have yet to have a character die. Been the only survivor on a few occasions.
I am not here to make life easier for the players. If they want balanced easy encounters they can go play an AP somewhere. This is old 1E style gaming with pathfinder rules. Be smart and adapt or fill the Dungeon of Graves. The player in question basically committed suicide with his character and caused an impresional 15 year old to do the same.

First of all, the way you're choosing to ignore all of the points made is really just endearing. Secondly, I really, really have to ask....what was the point in mentioning that you've never had a character die? I guarantee that any DM here could put your character in a grave so fast his head would spin, probably right off his body. That's not the point, though. Of course the DM can "win." Why does it matter in the slightest that none of yours have really gone out of their way to do it? And third...it's not a 10% decrease in hit chance.

[AttilaTheGeek]

They're not that powerful. You just need to look at the numbers.

Say we have a 5th-level rogue with 16 STR and two +1 shortswords. If the rogue hits, he deals (1d6+4+3d6 sneak) damage, averaging 18 damage per hit. The rogue has a +4 to hit (+2 BAB, +3 STR, +1 weapons, -2 TWF), and according to the bestiary statistics page (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Agyi5tgUTatCdHFjS05Kb18xVGd2bTZhak5YaGQtM FE#gid=3), the average CR 5 monster has AC 18. The rogue needs to roll a 14 to hit, so has a 7/20 chance of hitting. 7/20 * 18 * 2 averages 12.6 damage per round.

Alternatively, we could have a 5th-level wizard with an 18 in INT (the wizard can afford it) casting Fireball. It deals 5d6 damage, averaging 17.5. The average CR 5 creature has a +6 reflex save against a DC of 17 (10 + level 3 + INT 4), needing an 11 to save and having a 1/2 chance to not save. 17.5 damage half the time on a failed save and 8.75 on a successful save the other half of the time makes (17.5)*1/2 + (8.75)*1/2 = 13.125 damage per Fireball.

Even if the Wizard in our example only hits one enemy, a Fireball still outdamages two sneak attacks. But the difference gets even bigger when fighting multiple mooks. Say instead the encounter is against 3 CR 2 creatures instead of a single CR 5.

The average CR 2 creature has AC 15, so the rogue has an 10/20 chance to hit. 1/2 chance to hit * 2 attacks * 18 damage averages 18 damage per round. Just for comparison, the average CR 2 creature has 19 hit points, so the rogue is killing one almost every full attack.

The wizard, on the other hand, torches them all. The average CR 2 creature has a +4 reflex save, which means they need to roll a 13 to beat DC 17, so each creature has a 12/20 chance to fail. ((12/20 chance to deal 17.5 damage) + (8/20 chance to deal 8.75 damage)) times 3 enemies multiplies to 42 damage per Fireball.

The rogue is really not the powerful one.

[Gnaeus]

The rogue is really not the powerful one.

Attila is correct. But just to expand this. If you nerf rogues because a bunch of rogues focus firing one guy leads to dead PCs, imagine the same number of wizards each casting fireball in the center of the party. Thats probably a TPK.

[Andreaz]

The rogue is really not the powerful one.The wizard also gets to do this from greater ranges, and fireball is one of the least efficient ways for them to do damage.

"But the wizard runs out of spells" only really applies if (and only if) the group is not allowed to rest at their convenience and the wizard is not allowed to buy consumables.

[Spuddles]

The wizard also gets to do this from greater ranges, and fireball is one of the least efficient ways for them to do damage.

"But the wizard runs out of spells" only really applies if (and only if) the group is not allowed to rest at their convenience and the wizard is not allowed to buy consumables.

Fireball is actually incredibly damage efficient, given grouped up enemies with low reflex saves, no to low sr, and no fire resistance/immunity. Like say a fireball vs a group of ten adventurers.

If we replace the 4 rogues with 4 wizards, that's 4 x 6d6 x party members in the surprise round. If the fireballs only hits half the party, that is still 120d6 damage. 60d6 if everyone makes their saves.

And that is just vanilla wizards. Of we are using wayang spell hunting magic lineage crossblooded sorcerers with empower spell, we're looking at empowered 6d6+12 fireballs. If those hit half the party, and every party member makes their save, we're still looking at an average of 100 total damage per fireball, or 400 damage per round. From up to 640 feet away. If the wizards are sniping with 10 dex and 0 stealth, it still requires a DC34 perception check to spot them.

Or wayang spell hunting magical lineage dazing spell acid arrows for DoT with a forced daze each damage cycle.

If getting gangbanged in a surprise round is going to have 4 npcs, I feel like rogue is the least of your worries. Even barbarians are more deadly because they won't need flanking, have more armor, more hp, and better saves.

Again, this sounds like a group issue, not really a DM one. Maybe the dm has a boner for using rogues with skirmisher tactics. But with the ease to get skills in class and turning hide & ms into stealth, any non-armored class can easily ambush.

[Darius Kane]

OP's DM put it to a vote and 9 out of 10 players hate rogues.
The OP said no such thing.

[lord_khaine]

The OP said no such thing.

Nope, but his GM did.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Nope, but his GM did.Only kind of. The poster you're referring to claimed that 9 out of 10 players didn't like the idea of rogues getting so many d6 a round. That doesn't mean that they "hate rogues."

[Darius Kane]

Where is it stated that he's the OP's GM?

[Spuddles]

I had my players vote about this and the result was that rogues can only do one sneak attack per round. Still many players play rogues.

Originally I really wanted to have just one sneak attack per round, but now I feel softer about it. The reason is that I had a spring attacking scout in my game and yes, it was pretty powerful, but manageable.

At first, a dual-wielding 5th-level rogue doing 2*3d6 sneak attack damage sounds excessive and most people agreed with me, but now I have grown to like the idea. But I will not change this in mid-campaign, since my players are content with the "one sneak attack per round" rule.


It bothers the DM to see his players face taking 72d6 damage from 4 6th level rogues with TWF getting 3 attacks/round and 3 sneaks each because they have the character double flanked with TFW and hasted. The issue was put to a vote of the 10 people at the table and 8 supported RAW until they realized that the enemy has a lot more of them than the party has rogues. Then the vote switched to 9-1 to limit it to 1/round. Heck, I kept 8 of the party (6th level) at bay with 1 6th level goblin leader and 5 4th level scouts for 6 rounds and killed one because they were all rogues hiding behind crates with 1 alchemist fire and 1 acid each. In the other game 2 9th level assasin's sicked most of the party feeding them bad hare for dinner. The 2 characters that were attacked first were really glad they could only get 10d6 instead of 20d6 damage that round!
I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!
Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.

Maybe I incorrectly interpreted these two posts.

Regardless, 9 out of 9 of OP's fellow players cannot handle NPC rogues. Still sounds like a group problem, not a DM problem. Except perhaps the DM may be abusing NPC advantage on a group of new players or something.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Only kind of. The poster you're referring to claimed that 9 out of 10 players didn't like the idea of rogues getting so many d6 a round. That doesn't mean that they "hate rogues."

If you think sneak attack should be nerfed and there shouldn't be *significant* buffs to make up for it, you do in fact hate the rogue.


"I don't hate barbarians, I just think they should have a 10% chance of blacking out every round they spend in rage."

[Fates]

Is he going to give wizards paladin spell progression while he's at it? What the hell?

I suggest you tell him a thing or two about balance.

Maybe suggest a middle ground. Like, you can only make up to one sneak attack per round per four or five levels. It still sucks, but at least you'll do respectable damage at higher levels.

[Starbuck_II]

Is he going to give wizards paladin spell progression while he's at it? What the hell?

I suggest you tell him a thing or two about balance.

Maybe suggest a middle ground. Like, you can only make up to one sneak attack per round per four or five levels. It still sucks, but at least you'll do respectable damage at higher levels.

No, just give them backstab multiplier to sneak attack, sneak attack but all damage multiped by x2 at 1st level instead (x3 at 5th, etc). It is limited to 1 attack/rd but the extra multiplying helps offset this weakness.

Drawback, you can't do well with a Str penalty since sneak attack dice were adding Xd6 adding the negative at end, but Backstab style would be weaker ifthey hada negative:
like Rapier spear does 1d6 -1 str penalty.

Sneak attack: 1d6 -1 str penalty +xd6= 2+1d6 on average =5.5
Backstab: (1d6 -1 str penalty)x2 = 4 damage on average

However, Str bonus boosts backstab version (just like 2E)

[Squirrel_Dude]

If you think sneak attack should be nerfed and there shouldn't be *significant* buffs to make up for it, you do in fact hate the rogue.


"I don't hate barbarians, I just think they should have a 10% chance of blacking out every round they spend in rage."Nonono. Hate would imply that he is making an emotional decision because he has some seething feelings of resentment for the class and doesn't think that people should play it for some reason, and so he nerfs it to dissuade people from playing it.

He plays rogues, so that can't be the case. I don't think he made these changes because he hates rogues, I think he made these changes just because he has a flawed perspective on the relative danger of rogues by RAW in combat as compared to what he think it should be.

[Jon_Dahl]

I was just thinking about what happened if my group didn't have the one sneak per round restriction...

It would practically force players - who are interested in optimization - to try to attack as many times per round as possible. Some posters here mentioned wizard, but not even the wizard is that powerful at lower levels. I could create a darfellan 1st-level rogue with weapon finesse and two weapon fighting who could attack with two weapons and a bite, possibly inflicting 3d6 sneak attack damage. At higher levels you could create a half-fiend minotaur rogue: Two melee weapons, gore and bite all combined with sneak attacks would be sad. Not just because of the damage, but because it's an awkward character in any campaign.

With of wizard and his magic, there is little chance for ridiculous characters. In case of rogue and unlimited sneak attacks per round, we could end with crazy-looking characters whose only job is to attack as many times per round as possible. Two-weapon fighting would become too essential choice.

Since my group and I have unanimously decided that you can only have one sneak attack per round, it gives my players the liberty to create all kinds of rogues without worrying too much about optimization. It's okay to have a rogue with a greatsword and it will not be any weaker than a rogue with two shortswords. And you don't have to enter the world of bites and other cheap tricks.

[Spuddles]

I know what jon dahl just posted physically hurts some of us, but please, pick his argument apart politely :smallbiggrin:

I will agree to an extent that limitations can really help me in building a character that I don't feel compelled to squeeze every last optimization drop out of.

[eggynack]

Well, the argument's been had before, and I suppose there's reason to have it again. What tier is just umd with just about nothing else? Every time the rogue's position in the tier list comes up, there's almost always a guy saying that they should be bumped up to tier 3 on the sheer power of that skill. Apparently the expert is at tier 5, so just add on some points for the various rogue abilities and take away some for the loss of obscure feats like autohypnosis and Iajatsu focus. What you're probably left with is something in tier 5, though whether they're on the top of the tier with the fighter, or on the bottom with the soulknife is up to opinion. I don't really know what this rogue is supposed to do with highly limited combat abilities, and utility largely overshadowed by any wizard worth his spell slots, but there must be something out there for him.

As a side note, from now on, I should start making arguments with the premise, "If there were a wizard who used all of his spells per day, this mechanic would totally kill them. Thus it is overpowered and must be removed." With a flash of light, the entire campaign would be torn asunder under the weight of most of the beings in the world spontaneously combusting.

[eggynack]

I know what jon dahl just posted physically hurts some of us, but please, pick his argument apart politely :smallbiggrin:


I don't know if it's even possible. There's just so much there. There's like, twenty fallacies all wrapped up in a few paragraphs. I mean, I just pulled that number out of hammerspace, but if I needed to I could probably find that many. It might be prudent to just sit back for a few hours to process that amount of insanity.

edit: I may have overestimated a bit. I did a quick look through the post and only found about ten crazy leaps of logic. Adding in syntactical errors and stuff I may have missed gets closer to the magic twenty.

[Jon_Dahl]

Well, this is at least how my group sees this situation with rogues and multiple sneak attacks per round...

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, this is at least how my group sees this situation with rogues and multiple sneak attacks per round...Like I said to the other DM who felt this way. I disagree with you, and think you're wrong, BUT

if you're players are okay with it, and you're having fun, it doesn't matter. It's a game, enjoy it.

[GreenZ]

I could create a darfellan 1st-level rogue with weapon finesse and two weapon fighting who could attack with two weapons and a bite, possibly inflicting 3d6 sneak attack damage. At higher levels you could create a half-fiend minotaur rogue: Two melee weapons, gore and bite all combined with sneak attacks would be sad.

So a rogue, with a very specific build, with a full round attack, against a flat-footed or flanked opponent, against an enemy not immune to sneak attack (immune to precision based damage or uncanny dodge), might be able to do enough damage to kill a single enemy in a single round.

OK. :smallsmile:

[Jon_Dahl]

Like I said to the other DM who felt this way. I disagree with you, and think you're wrong, BUT

if you're players are okay with it, and you're having fun, it doesn't matter. It's a game, enjoy it.

Thank you Squirrel_Dude.

[eggynack]

I was just thinking about what happened if my group didn't have the one sneak per round restriction...

It would practically force players - who are interested in optimization - to try to attack as many times per round as possible. Some posters here mentioned wizard, but not even the wizard is that powerful at lower levels. I could create a darfellan 1st-level rogue with weapon finesse and two weapon fighting who could attack with two weapons and a bite, possibly inflicting 3d6 sneak attack damage. At higher levels you could create a half-fiend minotaur rogue: Two melee weapons, gore and bite all combined with sneak attacks would be sad. Not just because of the damage, but because it's an awkward character in any campaign.

With of wizard and his magic, there is little chance for ridiculous characters. In case of rogue and unlimited sneak attacks per round, we could end with crazy-looking characters whose only job is to attack as many times per round as possible. Two-weapon fighting would become too essential choice.

Since my group and I have unanimously decided that you can only have one sneak attack per round, it gives my players the liberty to create all kinds of rogues without worrying too much about optimization. It's okay to have a rogue with a greatsword and it will not be any weaker than a rogue with two shortswords. And you don't have to enter the world of bites and other cheap tricks.
OK, I'm giving this a shot, owing primarily to the fact that I have too much time on my hands right now.
1: having a single somewhat optimized path to power doesn't force the hand of players to take that path, especially when that path is the rogue
2:A wizard is absolutely that powerful at lower levels. They have a bit of a low point at level one with their low hp, and their low spell slots, but by level two or three they've probably already surpassed the rogue, particularly if they're built to be good at low levels.
3: 3d6 sneak attack damage is 10.5 on average, and significantly lower when taking into account the chance at missing. A first level barbarian could do better, and there're numbers in previous posts to support that.
4: I don't know the particular advantages of those races, but they're not intrinsic to the rogue. Minotaurs have a +2 level adjustment and 6rhd, and half fiend is +4. I don't know the specifics of pathfinder rules for this stuff, but in 3.5, you're already out 12 levels so even at 20 you're mostly not a rogue.
5:Separate from the low level thing, wizards are absolutely ridiculous. Just, overpowered over almost anything in the entire game. There's about 5 base classes that have about the same power level.
6: You're not getting anywhere near unlimited attacks per round. You're getting whatever you can through what twf and apparently natural weapons can give you. At the rogue's bab, they're unlikely to hit any amount near what most melee builds can, too.
7: Two weapon fighting might be optimal for rogues, but it's not like they're the only class. Nerfing their primary combat shtick makes about as much sense as giving the wizard one spell per encounter, because otherwise all builds will look the same, casting spells all the time (note: this would be quite a bit more reasonable than nerfing rogues)
8: This nerf hasn't unlocked infinite rogue construction possibilities. All its done is made unviable the rogue's primary method of attack. Essentially, you've reduced the number of useful rogue builds from one or so to zero.
9: Why would a rogue be wielding a great sword? They're not even proficient in those.
10: Y'know, I don't think that in my entire time hanging out on optimization forums, I've ever seen anyone suggest using bites as a rogue attack. I might be missing some instances, but it's definitely not a black hole that's absorbed all of the rogue's options.
So there they are. A couple are a bit redundant, and it took me way to much time, but there's ten of them. Hooray.

[icefractal]

It would practically force players - who are interested in optimization - to try to attack as many times per round as possible.There's a point here. I think that "assassin-type who strikes once a round at most" is a concept a lot of people want, and there should be a class that does that. You just need to have Sneak Attack damage that's a lot higher than the current Rogue.

Like "more than d6/level" amounts of damage, especially at higher levels. To match what other classes are doing, the increase should be geometric rather than linear. Here's the bonus damage for a Barbarian, from Strength and Power Attack, in the case of a single attack / full attack:
L1 = +12
L6 = +16 / +32
L11 = +24 / +96
L16 = +33 / +165

Now since sometimes a full attack won't be possible, the Sneak Attack damage should be lower than that. But since it sometimes will be, the Sneak Attack damage should be higher than a single attack. I'm going to go with the mid-point:
L1 = +2d6 (should really be +3d6, but I'll bow to tradition here)
L6 = +7d6
L11 = +17d6
L16 = +28d6

That's what you need to do, for a once/round Sneak Attack to be on the same playing field. Of course, it should definitely be enforced that this really is once per round, and not being multiplied.

[Jon_Dahl]

Ohhhh good... I was already worried that I made some serious error of judgement. Whew!

[eggynack]

There's a point here. I think that "assassin-type who strikes once a round at most" is a concept a lot of people want, and there should be a class that does that.
This is probably worth being a thing of some kind, probably with its own class so it can have its own synergies. I don't know why the rogue should necessarily be conscripted into that service though. The general accepted rule is that if you want to use two weapon fighting, you need precision damage. Rogues are just about the best precision damage users in the game, so with this change, from an optimization perspective, two weapon fighting would be removed from the game almost entirely. It just seems like a kinda sad thing, that the two weapon archetype would no longer exist for the most part.

[icefractal]

Well, I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the normal Rogue; you could probably do this as a Rogue Archetype.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I was just thinking about what happened if my group didn't have the one sneak per round restriction...

It would practically force players - who are interested in optimization - to try to attack as many times per round as possible.

(snip)

it gives my players the liberty to create all kinds of rogues without worrying too much about optimization. It's okay to have a rogue with a greatsword and it will not be any weaker than a rogue with two shortswords. And you don't have to enter the world of bites and other cheap tricks.

I like two-weapon fighting. I really do. I like it tactically, flavorfully, and I think it looks cool. And it's a real shame you're nerfing Sneak Attack, because it was the only ability that made TWF not awful. Without multiple sneak attacks, a rogue with a two-hander (like a greatsword) will absolutely blow a TWF rogue out of the water. If you like, I can run the numbers and show you, but it's fairly common knowledge here that fighting with a 2H weapon is generally vastly superior to TWF.

Also, you've acknowledged that cheese with "bites and other cheap tricks" are the only way to get decent damage at high levels with sneak attack, which is correct- so why are you nerfing it again?

Really, you've limited the rogue's options more than you've expanded them.

[Jon_Dahl]

I like two-weapon fighting. I really do. I like it tactically, flavorfully, and I think it looks cool. And it's a real shame you're nerfing Sneak Attack, because it was the only ability that made TWF not awful. Without multiple sneak attacks, a rogue with a two-hander (like a greatsword) will absolutely blow a TWF rogue out of the water. If you like, I can run the numbers and show you, but it's fairly common knowledge here that fighting with a 2H weapon is generally vastly superior to TWF.

Also, you've acknowledged that cheese with "bites and other cheap tricks" are the only way to get decent damage at high levels with sneak attack, which is correct- so why are you nerfing it again?

Really, you've limited the rogue's options more than you've expanded them.

Because it would cause madness in my players. It seems that you have a sober attitude about this whole issue, no problem, but, my players would be creating the ultimate multiattacking monstrosities because if you think about quickly, without any deeper analysis, any extra attack is more win. So you have to get multiarmed biting goring freak in order to be an effective rogue.

So: No.

[Sith_Happens]

Because it would cause madness in my players. It seems that you have a sober attitude about this whole issue, no problem, but, my players would be creating the ultimate multiattacking monstrosities because if you think about quickly, without any deeper analysis, any extra attack is more win. So you have to get multiarmed biting goring freak in order to be an effective rogue.

So: No.

Considering that your half-fiend minotaur would probably be better off as a barbarian getting +Yes Strength and Power Attack to all those attacks anyways...

[AttilaTheGeek]

Because it would cause madness in my players. It seems that you have a sober attitude about this whole issue, no problem, but, my players would be creating the ultimate multiattacking monstrosities because if you think about quickly, without any deeper analysis, any extra attack is more win. So you have to get multiarmed biting goring freak in order to be an effective rogue.

So: No.

(Emphasis mine)

This is exactly what I'm saying. It means sneak attack should be made more powerful, not less. A rogue should be able to be effective without resorting to cheese, but they're not, so they need to be made stronger, not weaker.

[Jon_Dahl]

(Emphasis mine)

This is exactly what I'm saying. It means sneak attack should be made more powerful, not less. A rogue should be able to be effective without resorting to cheese, but they're not, so they need to be made stronger, not weaker.

I agree. It should be made in a way that does not encourage freakism.

@Sith_Happens
I really don't know what to answer. Thank you for the comment.

[CTrees]

Because it would cause madness in my players. It seems that you have a sober attitude about this whole issue, no problem, but, my players would be creating the ultimate multiattacking monstrosities because if you think about quickly, without any deeper analysis, any extra attack is more win. So you have to get multiarmed biting goring freak in order to be an effective rogue.

So: No.

Geeze, never let them see the synthesist summoner. :smallbiggrin:

In a more general note to someone earlier in the thread, giving rogues a damage multiplier instead of extra dice is an interesting idea. Would require some careful analysis and balancing, but it greatly changes the subset of viable rogue builds in a way that seems interesting and logical (for instance, strength being important to stabbing better, rather than insignificant). Also interesting would be adding to the critical threat range of a weapon, instead. Both options seem to make sense in fluff, which is a huge bonus, imo. Though yeah, balancing would be interesting.

[Alienist]

OK, I'm giving this a shot, owing primarily to the fact that I have too much time on my hands right now.
1: having a single somewhat optimized path to power doesn't force the hand of players to take that path, especially when that path is the rogue
2:A wizard is absolutely that powerful at lower levels. They have a bit of a low point at level one with their low hp, and their low spell slots, but by level two or three they've probably already surpassed the rogue, particularly if they're built to be good at low levels.
3: 3d6 sneak attack damage is 10.5 on average, and significantly lower when taking into account the chance at missing. A first level barbarian could do better, and there're numbers in previous posts to support that.
4: I don't know the particular advantages of those races, but they're not intrinsic to the rogue. Minotaurs have a +2 level adjustment and 6rhd, and half fiend is +4. I don't know the specifics of pathfinder rules for this stuff, but in 3.5, you're already out 12 levels so even at 20 you're mostly not a rogue.
5:Separate from the low level thing, wizards are absolutely ridiculous. Just, overpowered over almost anything in the entire game. There's about 5 base classes that have about the same power level.
6: You're not getting anywhere near unlimited attacks per round. You're getting whatever you can through what twf and apparently natural weapons can give you. At the rogue's bab, they're unlikely to hit any amount near what most melee builds can, too.
7: Two weapon fighting might be optimal for rogues, but it's not like they're the only class. Nerfing their primary combat shtick makes about as much sense as giving the wizard one spell per encounter, because otherwise all builds will look the same, casting spells all the time (note: this would be quite a bit more reasonable than nerfing rogues)
8: This nerf hasn't unlocked infinite rogue construction possibilities. All its done is made unviable the rogue's primary method of attack. Essentially, you've reduced the number of useful rogue builds from one or so to zero.
9: Why would a rogue be wielding a great sword? They're not even proficient in those.
10: Y'know, I don't think that in my entire time hanging out on optimization forums, I've ever seen anyone suggest using bites as a rogue attack. I might be missing some instances, but it's definitely not a black hole that's absorbed all of the rogue's options.
So there they are. A couple are a bit redundant, and it took me way to much time, but there's ten of them. Hooray.

(emphasis added)

It's a shame you went to that much trouble without going the extra mile and doing some basic research.

Maybe you should question why you're so emotionally invested in this, when it isn't even a system that you play?

[Andreaz]

(emphasis added)

It's a shame you went to that much trouble without going the extra mile and doing some basic research.

Maybe you should question why you're so emotionally invested in this, when it isn't even a system that you play?And you are taking the flaw too far. Not checking level adjustments/CRs and playing the game extensively is fairly feasible considering most playable races don't have any.

[Alienist]

I have played thieves/rogues for 30+ years and never had to multiclass to get full value out of my rogues and FYI my wizards never feared jumping into melee with their quaterstaff in round 1!
Yeah I am an old dm and have been running games for over 30 years. Some of my players have been with me for over 10 years now. So WE nerfed one rogue. He needs to learn to roll with it. We also saved many characters lives by it and decided the issue by a fair process not by DM fiat alone.

Hi. Welcome to the Playground!

Just so you know, the calendar is currently setup like so:

{table]Monday | I like Monks | BURN THE HERETIC!
Tuesday | Truenamers seem okay / I like Fighters | BURN THE HERETIC!
Wednesday | Look how powerful I can be when I ignore grammar and context! |
Thursday | My DM banned Tomb of Battle | BURN THE WITCH!
Friday | My DM made a house rule | BURN THE WITCH!
Saturday | (I did something incredibly stupid and ... ) Boo hoo my DM killed me | BURN THE WITCH
Sunday | Wizards aren't all that powerful at low levels | BURN THE HERETIC!
[/table]

Don't bother defending your decisions as a DM. On the playground rule -1 is always in effect: "The DM is always wrong".

Also, I guarantee that in any thread where a DM action is mentioned someone is always going to recommend that unless the player gets their own way, they should rage-quit the group.

[CTrees]

For the record, d20pfsrd has statistics for a half-fiend minotaur here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/half-fiend-minotaur

FYI, when that hits 11 HD, the half-fiend template goes from +2 CR to +3 CR. With the way PF handles montrous PCs, it wouldn't actually be terrible at 20th level. I think by level twenty you could be a half-fiend minotaur rogue 16? You get some extra levels at odd points, but the PF "LA" rules are... brief and not wonderfully thought out.

[Darius Kane]

It's a shame you went to that much trouble without going the extra mile and doing some basic research.
PF and 3.5 is almost the same game. The differences are negligible.


Maybe you should question why you're so emotionally invested in this, when it isn't even a system that you play?
Emotionally invested? :smallconfused: I don't see what you mean.
And also you don't know if he plays PF or not. As Andreaz said, he might just not know that particular part of the rules, because he never used them (I know them just because I like playing monsters). And as I said above, PF and 3.5 are similar enough that he can talk about it and still be overall right.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Hi. Welcome to the Playground!

Just so you know, the calendar is currently setup like so:

{table]Monday | I like Monks | BURN THE HERETIC!
Tuesday | Truenamers seem okay / I like Fighters | BURN THE HERETIC!
Wednesday | Look how powerful I can be when I ignore grammar and context! |
Thursday | My DM banned Tomb of Battle | BURN THE WITCH!
Friday | My DM made a house rule | BURN THE WITCH!
Saturday | (I did something incredibly stupid and ... ) Boo hoo my DM killed me | BURN THE WITCH
Sunday | Wizards aren't all that powerful at low levels | BURN THE HERETIC!
[/table]

Can I sig this, please?

One question, though...what do we say on wednesday, just for completeness? Should I add in "BURN PRAISE THE LAWYER" or something?

[Alienist]

PF and 3.5 is almost the same game. The differences are negligible.


The differences are pertinent to the point he was trying to make.



Emotionally invested? :smallconfused: I don't see what you mean.


Is it really so confusing? Imagine I posted a big rant about why Ars Magica sucks, and then at the end revealed that I didn't even know anything about it. Wouldn't you be confused as to why I had bothered?

Well then, try to imagine that instead I said "you invested all that time typing up such a big response, but didn't invest any in research, that seems a shame"



And also you don't know if he plays PF or not. As Andreaz said, he might just not know that particular part of the rules, because he never used them (I know them just because I like playing monsters). And as I said above, PF and 3.5 are similar enough that he can talk about it and still be overall right.


By definition, in order to post he had to be on the internet. If he's on the internet already, the amount of effort required to look up the LA of those monsters in Pathfinder would be negligible.

When the cost to fact check is trivial, it totally undermines the point he's trying to make, not to do so.

Note that I'm not disputing his mastery of 3.5. For the record I assume that he was able to rattle those numbers for 3.5 off the top of his head. Which if you think about it is an impressive feat of memorisation.

[Alienist]

Can I sig this, please?

One question, though...what do we say on wednesday, just for completeness? Should I add in "BURN PRAISE THE LAWYER" or something?

How about "BY RAW!"

[Darius Kane]

The differences are pertinent to the point he was trying to make.
Not really, considering that they're really small and he's still right.


Is it really so confusing? Imagine I posted a big rant about why Ars Magica sucks, and then at the end revealed that I didn't even know anything about it. Wouldn't you be confused as to why I had bothered?

Well then, try to imagine that instead I said "you invested all that time typing up such a big response, but didn't invest any in research, that seems a shame"
The lack of "research" is irrelevant, because he's still right, even if to a lesser degree. And it's just one point out of 10.


By definition, in order to post he had to be on the internet. If he's on the internet already, the amount of effort required to look up the LA of those monsters in Pathfinder would be negligible.
His point stands, tough, regardless if he did the research or not. Not doing research doesn't make you automatically wrong. :smallconfused:


Note that I'm not disputing his mastery of 3.5.
Didn't say you are.

It's funny that you mention "emotional investment" (which I really don't see, but whatever), because all that unnecessary snarkyness on your part is, well, unnecessary.

[CTrees]

Um, the differences in how 3.5 and PF handle "monsters as PCs" are actually rather huge. He example of the half-fiend minotaur, for instance - it's what, ECL 14 in 3.5, before any rogue levels? It's just a straight CR 6 in PF before rogue levels, officially considered appropriate to join in a party of sixth level PCs."over twice the ECL" seems significant. Further, the differences in "level" (used generically, not as a game term) for monsters/templates/"LA -"/etc. between NPCs and PCs in 3.5 that simply aren't present in PF? And PF granting extra levels at half-way points for monstrous PCs?

I could go on. The point is that, really? They are entirely different subsystems. It's like comparing multiclassing in AD&D and in 3.0.

[Alienist]

Not really, considering that they're really small and he's still right.

The lack of "research" is irrelevant, because he's still right, even if to a lesser degree. And it's just one point out of 10.

His point stands, tough, regardless if he did the research or not. Not doing research doesn't make you automatically wrong. :smallconfused:

It's funny that you mention "emotional investment" (which I really don't see, but whatever), because all that unnecessary snarkyness on your part is, well, unnecessary.

(emphasis added)

He can't be right because the 3.5 feature he's referencing doesn't even exist in PF.

That's the joke.

Edit: seems I was (irony alert!) ninja'ed by CTrees. Please see his or her post for an explanation.

By the way, I think you've grossly misinterpreted my remark based on the post I did about the typical attitude towards DMs here.
With that though, I was trying to make a point (and not sparing the heavy handedness). Some new guy shows up out of the blue and is met by repeated casting of Wall of Flame? How is that a good thing? People were flaming him and making all sorts of personal attacks, without being... you know... in possession of the facts. That post had snark flying out the wazzoo.

The posts about not doing research were heavily vetted for snark of all kinds. There's a lot nastier ways of saying to someone that they "didn't do their research" than "it's a shame".

[Andreaz]

(emphasis added)

He can't be right because the 3.5 feature he's referencing doesn't even exist in PF.

That's the joke.Half of it still exists, the CR/Level Adjustments. The logic behind these is the same and the impact is the same.

So I suggest you stop trying to make a joke of it and try to acknowledge the argument, because it is correct.

[Alienist]

Half of it still exists, the CR/Level Adjustments. The logic behind these is the same and the impact is the same.

So I suggest you stop trying to make a joke of it and try to acknowledge the argument, because it is correct.

Regardless of nomenclature, will you at least acknowledge two things:
(1) The whatever it is works differently in 3.5 and PF
(2) Verifying #1 is trivially easy if you have an internet connection

[Andreaz]

Regardless of nomenclature, will you at least acknowledge two things:
(1) The whatever it is works differently in 3.5 and PF
(2) Verifying #1 is trivially easy if you have an internet connectionYes, and it's still useless here after the first correction, because not only it generates this particular off-topic discussion, it also doesn't change the previous discussion that it applies enough for the argument to stand strong.

[Darius Kane]

(emphasis added)

He can't be right because the 3.5 feature he's referencing doesn't even exist in PF.

That's the joke.
Actually, it does. It's just not LA but CR and they're generally smaller than in 3.5. But his point stands regardless.


He example of the half-fiend minotaur, for instance - it's what, ECL 14 in 3.5, before any rogue levels? It's just a straight CR 6 in PF before rogue levels, officially considered appropriate to join in a party of sixth level PCs."over twice the ECL" seems significant. Further, the differences in "level" (used generically, not as a game term) for monsters/templates/"LA -"/etc. between NPCs and PCs in 3.5 that simply aren't present in PF? And PF granting extra levels at half-way points for monstrous PCs?
Taking into account that not all games go that high in levels, a 6 CR race isn't a small part of a build. And the "rules" for playing monsters aren't actually rules, but just guidelines thrown together for us monster lovers, so their "officialness" doesn't really count for much.
Or what Andreaz said (I got ninja'd).



Regardless of nomenclature, will you at least acknowledge two things:
(1) The whatever it is works differently in 3.5 and PF
(2) Verifying #1 is trivially easy if you have an internet connection
Seeing as no one said it doesn't, I don't really see your point, other than arguing for the sake of arguing or trying some sort of strawman? :smallconfused:

[Alienist]

{scrubbed}

[Andreaz]

{scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.