Thought Experiment: Allowing rogues to sneak attack automatically vs 11 dex or lower

[Crake]

What if the rogue's sneak attack was no based on denying an opponent his dex bonus, but rather being usable against any enemy not gaining a positive dex bonus to their AC. This, by extension allows a rogue to sneak attack all the things it could before, but now, when an enemy has a dex bonus of 0 or less, they will also be able to sneak attack without any other necessities. This would combo well with things like dex damage poisons and spells for those with access to them, and would slightly better enable ranged rogues if they have a reliable means to reduce an opponent's Dex score (maximised empowered wand of clumsiness anyone?). It would also reduce the effectiveness of uncanny dodge for people with 11 or less dex, as their means for avoiding most means of sneak attacks is now gone.

[ekarney]

I guess it all depends on how heavily the rogue has optimized sneak attack and it'd probably help lower level rogues a lot since they lack the means to force a sneak attack.

I can't see it being game breaking, and all it does is help rogues deal some extra damage.

I'd even go further, and instead of having 11 or lower, have it 10 + (Rogue's Base Reflex Save) or lower, or half the RBRS depending on the maths and the impact that would have.

[Zaq]

Depends on how open you are about letting players see enemy stats. Basically, how will the Rogue in question know that a target has low enough DEX to automatically SA it? Yeah, if they shank someone who isn't being flanked and who isn't being visibly denied DEX and it ends up being super effective, then they'll know from then on, but actions in combat are generally too precious for a Rogue to generally want to waste time trying to hit someone if they don't affirmatively believe that they'll get Sneak Attack on them. (I mean, there are rounds when the Rogue just plain can't get into a position to SA normally, and then they might be happy to happen to discover that their target just happens to have low enough DEX, but that's the exception and not the rule if you're not intentionally trying to shaft the Rogue, who has a hard enough time already.)

Basically, unless you're already very up-front with the numerical parts of enemy stats (which is a perfectly viable way to play, but it's uncommon enough that I'm not going to make any assumptions that you actually do it), you're basically either encouraging Rogues to metagame and try to figure out who's got low DEX or else you're introducing a tactic ("try to SA enemies that aren't visibly in accordance with SA conditions") that few sane players will try except as a last resort.

I mean, I guess that you can make an educated guess that someone who's been hit with a few doses of DEX damage and/or DEX penalties is likely to be vulnerable to SA, but that's still relying on an external trigger condition (much like how you can assume that someone standing in the puddle of Grease you just cast is likely flat-footed, depending on their ranks in Balance) and therefore isn't that much more of a primary strategy.

Like, I don't see it hurting the game. I don't think it'd be overpowered or anything. I just don't see it having a very elegant execution at the table unless you give Rogues (and other SA users) some kind of way of sensing if a target is going to be vulnerable to SA before wasting precious actions on something that has a good chance of being unsatisfying.

[Crake]

Depends on how open you are about letting players see enemy stats. Basically, how will the Rogue in question know that a target has low enough DEX to automatically SA it? Yeah, if they shank someone who isn't being flanked and who isn't being visibly denied DEX and it ends up being super effective, then they'll know from then on, but actions in combat are generally too precious for a Rogue to generally want to waste time trying to hit someone if they don't affirmatively believe that they'll get Sneak Attack on them. (I mean, there are rounds when the Rogue just plain can't get into a position to SA normally, and then they might be happy to happen to discover that their target just happens to have low enough DEX, but that's the exception and not the rule if you're not intentionally trying to shaft the Rogue, who has a hard enough time already.)

Basically, unless you're already very up-front with the numerical parts of enemy stats (which is a perfectly viable way to play, but it's uncommon enough that I'm not going to make any assumptions that you actually do it), you're basically either encouraging Rogues to metagame and try to figure out who's got low DEX or else you're introducing a tactic ("try to SA enemies that aren't visibly in accordance with SA conditions") that few sane players will try except as a last resort.

I mean, I guess that you can make an educated guess that someone who's been hit with a few doses of DEX damage and/or DEX penalties is likely to be vulnerable to SA, but that's still relying on an external trigger condition (much like how you can assume that someone standing in the puddle of Grease you just cast is likely flat-footed, depending on their ranks in Balance) and therefore isn't that much more of a primary strategy.

Like, I don't see it hurting the game. I don't think it'd be overpowered or anything. I just don't see it having a very elegant execution at the table unless you give Rogues (and other SA users) some kind of way of sensing if a target is going to be vulnerable to SA before wasting precious actions on something that has a good chance of being unsatisfying.

I would probably let the rogue know if he thinks the opponent is immobile enough that he is able to aim his strikes with enough precision, essentially letting the rogue know whether or not he qualifies for a sneak attack at any given time, sort of how a rogue flanking someone with improved uncanny dodge would know beforehand that he wouldn't be able to sneak attack his opponent (unless his rogue level is 4 higher than his opponent's IUC class level).


I guess it all depends on how heavily the rogue has optimized sneak attack and it'd probably help lower level rogues a lot since they lack the means to force a sneak attack.

I can't see it being game breaking, and all it does is help rogues deal some extra damage.

I'd even go further, and instead of having 11 or lower, have it 10 + (Rogue's Base Reflex Save) or lower, or half the RBRS depending on the maths and the impact that would have.

I feel like half his base reflex would be good, his full base reflex could become unmanagable through multiclassing, unless you meant only the reflex he got from rogue class levels? In that case you may as well just say 11+quarter rogue level (or 12+half rogue level if you want full base reflex bonus)

[Edgar Snow]

...
Like, I don't see it hurting the game. I don't think it'd be overpowered or anything. I just don't see it having a very elegant execution at the table unless you give Rogues (and other SA users) some kind of way of sensing if a target is going to be vulnerable to SA before wasting precious actions on something that has a good chance of being unsatisfying.

Basically my thoughts. It's almost like adding the mechanics of whips or caltrops to see if you get the extra sneak attack dice. Plus you have to consider max Dex modifier for armor I would think. Suddenly its easier to walk up and sneak attack someone in full plate and a tower shield than it is for an elven farmer (excluding the chance of an actual hit, of course).

[ekarney]

Basically my thoughts. It's almost like adding the mechanics of whips or caltrops to see if you get the extra sneak attack dice. Plus you have to consider max Dex modifier for armor I would think. Suddenly its easier to walk up and sneak attack someone in full plate and a tower shield than it is for an elven farmer (excluding the chance of an actual hit, of course).

Yeah these are the sorts of things that can be explained in game.

"The Orc Chieftain looks like he has 9 dex"

As opposed to

"The Orc Chieftain is fighting with raw power, his body twisting, throwing him off balance with every blow."

Plus it adds that little extra bit of immersion to the game. The OP also says automatically, so the DM could always just roll additional dice and tell the rogue player that their shot was particularly effective.


@Crake, yeah probably half of the classes save + any racial or feat bonuses is what I'd rule, it's worth a shot, and you can always explain to your players that you're just trialing it so it's subject to change at any time.

[Rijan_Sai]

Basically my thoughts. It's almost like adding the mechanics of whips or caltrops to see if you get the extra sneak attack dice. Plus you have to consider max Dex modifier for armor I would think. Suddenly its easier to walk up and sneak attack someone in full plate and a tower shield than it is for an elven farmer (excluding the chance of an actual hit, of course).

I think that's kind of the point, though... someone in battle wearing BigHeavyArmor, while carrying a BigHeavyShield, is going to be moving and reacting slower than someone that is not. And the rogue, as indicated here:

I would probably let the rogue know if he thinks the opponent is immobile enough that he is able to aim his strikes with enough precision, essentially letting the rogue know whether or not he qualifies for a sneak attack at any given time, sort of how a rogue flanking someone with improved uncanny dodge would know beforehand that he wouldn't be able to sneak attack his opponent (unless his rogue level is 4 higher than his opponent's IUC class level).has enough practice and training (through class levels, feats, etc.) to recognize this and quickly find weak points in the armor, leading to the vitals.
Also, as you yourself said, they still have to be able to hit them in the first place.

[Necroticplague]

This seems like it makes getting to dex 12 unnaturally important compared to other stat upgrades (which are often relatively incremental in nature).

[Malimar]

I feel like half his base reflex would be good, his full base reflex could become unmanagable through multiclassing, unless you meant only the reflex he got from rogue class levels? In that case you may as well just say 11+quarter rogue level (or 12+half rogue level if you want full base reflex bonus)

I'd suggest 10 + 1 per sneak attack die the rogue has. Makes it simple (especially when multiclassing comes into play) and ties the new mechanic to the related original mechanic with a neat little bow.

[Alex12]

My concern is that this buffs rogues (who, admittedly, could use it) at the expense of armored melee types (who really really don't need a debuff).
Caster-types already invest in Dex, at least enough to not get hit and to hopefully win initiative, while the fullplate-wearing BSF gets shafted. And then shanked.
Maybe if medium/heavy armor automatically granted fortification, or something, then it might be a decent idea.

[Jack_Simth]

The rogue is balanced based partly on the assumption that they'll get sneak attack vs. basically everything anyway (and then, of course, the game designers threw in a bunch of stuff that was immune... and then others threw in mildly-annoying-to-get workarounds to the immunities...). It may cause some relative issues for the non-skillfull melee types, though, so you might want to think about how to help them at the same time.

[martixy]

Hm... why that and not based on difference in dex (something like 6-10)?

Or on attack roll? If you beat AC by more than 5 you get auto-sneak.

No debuff to other things, optimizeable(like power attack, which also turns hitting ability into damage potential) and I think fitting flavour-wise.

Edit: Actually I think this would make a great advanced talent for the PF rogue.

[Bohandas]

I think it would be better based on the difference in the characters' dexterity

[Crake]

I think it would be better based on the difference in the characters' dexterity

That would be an interesting notion, yeah, it would give some reason to significantly boost dexterity for rogues.