Craven (3.5)

[Heliomance]

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

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

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

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

[SoD]

For help for those who don't know what Craven does, you could give a basic description of what benefits it gives.

[PhoenixRivers]

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

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

You answered your own question.

It's strictly better than any similar feat.

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

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

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

[Grumman]

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

You're a rogue. Being a backstabber who specialises in dishonourable shanking and avoids fighting the enemy on their terms isn't an insult, it's a job description. And you don't need to be good aligned to be a PC, neutral and evil characters like XP and loot as much as everyone else.

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

[Thespianus]

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

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

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

[Heliomance]

You answered your own question.

It's strictly better than any similar feat.

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

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

Robin Hood was a rogue.

[sonofzeal]

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

That'll make at least some heavy optimizers (me, for example) give the same response too. The only ones who won't care are the rules-lite crowd or the fanatical-devotion-to-the-RAW crowd.

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

[Teron]

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

That's all the more reason to encourage people to use it, not dismiss it, since its source doesn't affect its inherent quality as a character option.

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

Deadly Precision is a trap. It works out to an average increase of less than half a point of damage per die; at level 20, it adds just over 4 damage per sneak attack. It makes Weapon Specialization look good!

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

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

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

Enforcing that fluff through the penalty against fear is rather annoying and pointless, and in my opinion is the most valid complaint against the feat, but remember that by mid-levels you'll have a better save against fear than most people, including NPC warriors and such. Sure, you're not as resistant as you could be, but you're still pretty well off overall, and a slight weakness to supernatural fear effects compared to other mind-affecting stuff doesn't have to be played as moral weakness. If it really bugs you, just take Iron Will or something.

[Prime32]

Well, Craven (+10 damage half the time) is still weaker than Knowledge Devotion (+5 attack and +5 damage all the time), though the latter requires some skill investment.

[Grumman]

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

Try comparing it to Quicken Spell, then try and claim it is broken. A +20 bonus to damage might sound scarier, but some people don't realise that almost nothing matches up to the spellcaster and his ability to break the action economy.

Robin Hood was a rogue.

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

[Zore]

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

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

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

[jcsw]

You know what's better than craven?

Staggering Strike.

[Pika...]

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

For Kobolds it works wondrously.

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

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

[Fiery Diamond]

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


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

[Teron]

I use the alternate "+1 hp per level" version.

That's Improved Toughness.

[Grumman]

I would never let someone take the feat without trying to come up with a way to incorporate the fluff into their character, though.

My latest characters use the feat, and I think I've got a pretty good excuse for it. They're a pair of Dvati snipers, which means they've got low HP, long lives and if one dies, their twin dies too. That is a pretty good reason to be overly cautious if something gets close enough to be a threat.

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

That is Improved Toughness.

[PhoenixRivers]

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

No, it doesn't. 'More powerful than other similar choices' and 'Unbalancing' are two different things. You're citing the former as proof of the latter.

Robin Hood was a rogue.

A ranger is more likely.

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

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

[Kaiyanwang]

Craven is IMHO a good feat. Fluff and Crunch benefits and drawbacks, but worthy to be taken. As a feat should be.

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

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

[PhoenixRivers]

It's interesting to see how many people call robin hood a rogue, rather than a ranger.

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

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

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

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

[Murdim]

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

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

[Kaiyanwang]

It's interesting to see how many people call robin hood a rogue, rather than a ranger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PhoenixRivers]

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

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

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

[Heliomance]

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

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

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

[lord_khaine]

My main issue with this feat is that a singel level of rogue and the feat makes a melee char able to sneak attack allmost as hard as a singel class rogue without the feat.

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

[Bayar]

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

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

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

[Fenix_of_Doom]

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

[SparkMandriller]

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

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

[Kaiyanwang]

My main issue with this feat is that a singel level of rogue and the feat makes a melee char able to sneak attack allmost as hard as a singel class rogue without the feat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SparkMandriller]

The rogue in that example has the advantage of being able to take craven to boost his damage, though. Not like the fighter can take it twice.

[Heliomance]

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

Like most sly rogues, you are a dangerous coward.

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