Rogues, Sneak Attack & Improved Feint - effective strategy or not?

[Helgraf]

This started out as a reply to another thread about the useful/uselessness of Rogues in combat vis a vis sneak attack. I found the concept expanding in my brain and decided to tackle it directly in its own thread.

There's a fairly simple way for Rogues to get sneak attacks all by themselves. Improved Feint. Humans, naturally, get the sweetness at level 1 if they take Combat Expertise as their first feat and IF as the other. Other races have to wait to level 3 to make it work. However, if you build a Cha-based Rogue, you can fairly easily develop a character than can reliably sneak attack humanoids and has better than 50-50 odds of being able to SA non-animal nonhumanoids right out of the gate with this combo.

To demonstrate, I've taken all the 3.5 MMI creatures and totalled out their BAB and Sense Motive (which in 95%+ of the time is just their Wis mod) to generate an average of what a CR 1 creature's ability to resist being feinted is. For completeness, I've listed all the creatures that cant be sneak attacked or can't be feinted (or both) at the end, but I do not include them in the calculations for determining average ability. After that part, I list the twinked Human Rogue build meant to take advantage of this at 4 point-buy levels : 25, 28, 30 and 32.

Creatures are listed by name, BAB, Sense Motive Total, Feint total. A number in brackets means they inflict a penalty on the feinter - so their effective feint is the number in the brackets. Text after the parenthesis will explain the source of the penalty.

Critter Summary Info

Spoiler

Show

CR 1 critters:
Camel ((+2, +0, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Darkmantle ((+1, +0, +0 [4])) Nonhumanoid, -4 to Feint
Dog, Riding ((+1, +1, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Dwarf, Duergar War1 ((+1, -1, +0))
Elemental, Small (Any) ((+1, 0, +1 [5])) Nonhumanoid, -4 to Feint
Elf, Drow War1 ((+1, -1, +0))
Githyanki War1 ((+1, -2, -1))
Githzerai War1 ((+1, +0, +1))
Gnoll ((+1, +0, +1))
Gnome, Svirfneblin War1 ((+1, +0, +1))
Sprite, Grig ((+0, +1, +1))
Grimlock ((+2, -1, +1))
Homunculus ((+1, +1, +2))
Horse, Heavy ((+2, +1, +3 [11])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Horse, Light ((+2, +1, +3 [11])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Horse, Light War ((+2, +1, +3 [11])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Hyena ((+1, +1, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Krenshar ((+2, +1, +3 [7])) Nonhumanoid, -4 to Feint
Lizardfolk ((+1, +0, +1))
Manta Ray ((+3, +1, +4 [12])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Mule ((+2, +0, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Sprite, Nixie ((+0, +5, +5))
Octopus ((+1, +1, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Pseudodragon ((+2, +1, +3 [7])) Nonhumanoid, -4 to Feint
Shark, Medium ((+2, +1, +3 [11])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Snake, Medium Viper ((+1, +1, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Squid ((+2, +1, +3 [11])) Animal, -8 to Feint
Troglodyte ((+1, +0, +1))
Wolf ((+1, +1, +2 [10])) Animal, -8 to Feint

((Fractions rounding up to establish worst case))
+055 / 30 = ~ 1.83 - Avg +2
+104 / 30 = ~ 3.46 - Avg +4

The average for a CR 1 monster is a +2 to its feint roll; if it is a nonhumanoid shape the feinter takes a -4, if it is an animal, the feinter takes a -8.

For completeness, note that the following CR 1 creatures are either immune to sneak or feint attempts. If they're immune to sneak attack but not feint, then feinting still gives the advantage of going against their flat-footed AC.

Animated Object, Small ((+0, -5, -5)) *
Devil, Lemure ((+2, +0, +2)) **
Fungus, Shrieker ((e0, -4, -4)) **
Ghoul ((+1, +2, +3)) *
Giant Ant, Worker ((+1, +0, +1)) **
Giant Bee ((+2, +1, +3)) **
Monsterous Centipede, Large ((+2, +0, +2)) **
Monsterous Scorpion, Medium ((+1, +0, +1)) **
Monsterous Spider, Medium ((+1, +0, +1)) **
Skeleton, Wolf ((+1, +0, +1)) * **
Swarm, Spider ((+1, +0, +1)) **
Zombie, Troglodyte ((+2, +0, +2)) * **

* Immune to sneak attack
** Mindless - cannot be feinted

Based on the above data, a typical CR 1 monster falls into one of three categories:
Humanoid : d20 + 2 to resist Feint attempt.
Nonhumanoid : d20 + 6 to resist Feint attempt. (d20 + 2, and -4 penalty applied to feinter)
Animal : d20 + 10 to resist Feint attempt. (d20 + 2, and -8 penalty applied to feinter)

The Rogue build used for this experiment

Spoiler

Show

Race: Human Class/Level: Rogue 1
A) 25 point buy : Str 10 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 16 (2 + 4 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 10 = 25)
B) 28 point buy : Str 10 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 17 (2 + 4 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 13 = 28)
C) 30 point buy : Str 10 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 17 (2 + 6 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 13 = 30)
D) 32 point buy : Str 10 Dex 13 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 10 Cha 18 (2 + 5 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 16 = 30)

4 each ranks in : Bluff, Tumble, Jump, Hide, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Listen, Open Lock, Disable Device.

Feats : Combat Expertise, Improved Feint

Equipment is not currently a crucial concern of the build; exploring the possibilities of following, say, Improved Trip is certainly valid, and in that case initial equippage is more important, but that discussion is not within the focus of this _particular_ approach.

As a result of the above, our rogue's Bluff looks like this:
A, B, C) d20 + 7 (4r, +3 Cha) on Bluff checks to Feint
D) d20 + 8 (4r, +4 Cha) on Bluff checks to Feint

Against humanoid shaped monsters, our rogue has a +5 or +6 advantage overall on his Bluff attempts; even against nonhumanoids he still retains a slim +1 or +2 advantage in the opposed check. Against animals, he suffers a -3 or -2 deficency; but he should be smart enough to know not to try and feint animals; still, in desperation it may be worth the effort to try and get the extra 1d6 damage; especially since (aside from a two-weapon build) the rogue only gets one attack a round anyway.

Part II will go to level 3 of the build and will analyze CR 3 creatures to see if skill advancement and selection of either Persuasive or Skill Focus (Bluff) is sufficent to maintain the current edge, if it expands it in favor of the rogue, or if the rogue starts to lose the advantage.

[Kantolin]

I'm fairly sure that most people think rogues are useful with sneak attack, and feint is a good way to get it. It's just that fighters tend to hit harder. Of course, rogues have a ton of other things they can do in there, but hey...

Soo, excuse me if my below analysis is wrong, as this most mostly assumes you mean 'useful compared to a typical fighter insofar as dealing melee damage is concerned'.

Now, the major problem at level 1 is that sneak attack damage hasn't ramped up in particular. The rogue is most likely using a rapier or a shortsword, which both deal 1d6 damage. So that's 1d6(Rapier/Shortsword) + 1d6 sneak attack.

The fighter with a greatsword deals 2d6 damage with a (marginally, admittedly, at level 1) better to-hit due to his heightened BAB.

Therefore, the two do similar damage, although the fighter gets strength * 1.5 due to using a two handed weapon and likely has a higher strength. Said fighter can then do this after running halfway across the room, while a rogue (even with improved feint) needs to use his move feinting.

Now, a mild perk to the rogue occurs if the enemy has a lot of dexterity; making them flatfooted makes the rogue more likely to deal more damage. But that requires the monster to have a dexterity of at least 14.

Explanation:
If it's 11 or below, feinting doesn't effect their AC.
If it's 12-13, removing their dexterity modifier to AC is equal to the +1 BAB fighters get
If it's 14 or higher, feinting is better than the +1

However... getting feint at level 1 (Or 3 for nonhumans) means you don't have weapon finesse until level 3 (or 6 for nonhumans). Therefore, you are very likely to have more trouble connecting than a fighter in general, as the above statement assumes that both the rogue and the fighter have the same strength score. And a lower to-hit lowers potential damage (Unless the enemy has a miserable AC or a ludicrous AC)

So at level 1... the fighter reliably does more damage. This trend continues as levels scale, but that's if the fighter takes power attack with a two-handed weapon, which is optimal.

<Muse> I wonder how that quite pans out with a fighter using a one-handed weapon? I think that snerks things in favor of the rogue, provided the stars are aligned.

Oh... this also doesn't take into account any of the various things that may cause concealment, straight down to taking mild cover behind a bush, tree, or low wall. Remember, concealment snuffs sneak attack.

Edit: As a note, though, I believe just keeping bluff maxed becomes plenty when you reach mid-to-high levels, as relatively few things have sense motive. So going with Skill Focus(Bluff) probably isn't worth your time, especially compared to weapon finesse, and especially as a rogue can eventually just take 10 on it.

[Bears With Lasers]

I always skip on feint. Flanking is generally pretty dang easy to get, and doesn't force you to sacrifice a full attack.

[daggaz]

I'd agree with bears on that one. Its usually easy to flank (remember you will be putting mad ranks into tumble the first few levels anyhow), and there are other things you could drop your precious feats into, like improving your ranged attack, taking weapon finesse (for dex based rapier wielding rogues), or taking combat reflexes so you can hit EVERYONE who ever gives you an AoO (what rogue doesnt have a good dex mod?).

[Ikkitosen]

Consider how many rounds you need feinting (i.e. when you don't have a flank). In each of those rounds you gain 1 lot of sneak attack damage.

Now if you take TWF you get many more attacks, so even if it takes you a round to tumble into a flanking position you'll make that back within 1 round of getting your increased number of sneak attacks.

For a solo rogue feint may be good - and for sudden strikers too - but otherwise I wouldn't bother.

[Shrew]

Sort of related to this. We had a small disagreement on the sneak attack at high levels. A rogue with multiple attacks is flanking someone. One player says "sneak attack should only count on your first attack". This lead to a debate, that ended quickly with the DM saying "it matters little, illusions are immune to sneak attacks, now make a reflex save everyone."

My understanding of the rules say sneak attack counts for every attack. Is this wrong?

[Were-Sandwich]

no, you're right.

[Ikkitosen]

Yep, every single attack that qualifies. Did your target stop being flanked after your first attack? No.

[NullAshton]

Does your target see you after the first attack? Yes, with invisibility and hide checks.

[Were-Sandwich]

unless you use sniping.

[ken-do-nim]

On the other hand, feint is great for ninja characters.

[NullAshton]

unless you use sniping.

Or various methods involving hide in plain sight and insane hide checks ,yes.

[Rigeld2]

Does your target see you after the first attack? Yes, with invisibility and hide checks.

Doesnt matter. Hes flanked.

[Ikkitosen]

Does your target see you after the first attack? Yes, with invisibility and hide checks.

The target you are flanking likely saw you before your first attack too - makes diddly squat difference!

[silvermesh]

Does your target see you after the first attack? Yes, with invisibility and hide checks.

the problem with this line of thinking is two-fold.

1) the rules as written explicitly state that if you are eligable to sneak attack, you do so with ALL of your attacks during this time.

2) you are assuming that the target can react when it isn't his turn. this is false. everything that happens in a round is expected to be happening within a very small amount of time. if you beat your opponent on the initiative check, and are "surprise attacking" him with your sneak attack, your first attack doesn't make him become aware, as all your attacks happen too quickly for him to react. his reaction happens on HIS turn, not yours.

The part about flanking has already been covered, but to reiterate. the enemy can see you, use his AC bonus from dodge on you, and you can still sneak attack him if you're flanking him. awareness has nothing to do with it, when you're flanked it means you can't effectively guard yourself from all sides at once, and both are distracting you enough that it makes it difficult from both sides.

[barawn]

I always skip on feint. Flanking is generally pretty dang easy to get, and doesn't force you to sacrifice a full attack.

With a Wand of True Strike, Improved Feint for a mid-level rogue is pretty useful. Every other round you get a guaranteed hit, plus sneak attack bonus, and since you've got Combat Expertise, you might as well throw in a boost to your AC every other round as well.

Keep in mind Improved Feint doesn't require you to attack that round. Since it's a move action, you can do something else that round, and then make a full attack next round.

It's also useful without WoTS cheese, though. If you need to heal yourself with a wand, feint in the same round as well.

(Of course, it's also useful against high-level rogues when you can't flank them).

[Person_Man]

Feinting only applies to your next melee attack and takes a move action to use. Because of this, its generally a very poor way to add damage.

The Invisible Blade was able to Feint for every attack, but WotC nerfed it with an errata so that they could only do it once a round.

The simplest way to qualify for Sneak Attack damage every round is to flank. Have the party Druid summon a bunch of animals. Or have a fellow party member cast Improved Invisibility on you. Or buy a Ring of Blinking. There's also a first level spell in Complete Scoundrel called Armor Lock or something similar that denies the target their Dex bonus, so even if your party members are jerks and won't help you and you're too poor to afford a good Ring, you can invest in Use Magic Device and buy a wand of Armor Lock.

A Wand of True Strike is a bad idea, because you're spending two rounds to get 1 attack. Mathmatically, you're much better off spending two rounds making 2 or more attacks. While there's a chance you may miss, there is usually a much higher probability of dealing far more damage.

[NullAshton]

the problem with this line of thinking is two-fold.

1) the rules as written explicitly state that if you are eligable to sneak attack, you do so with ALL of your attacks during this time.

2) you are assuming that the target can react when it isn't his turn. this is false. everything that happens in a round is expected to be happening within a very small amount of time. if you beat your opponent on the initiative check, and are "surprise attacking" him with your sneak attack, your first attack doesn't make him become aware, as all your attacks happen too quickly for him to react. his reaction happens on HIS turn, not yours.

The part about flanking has already been covered, but to reiterate. the enemy can see you, use his AC bonus from dodge on you, and you can still sneak attack him if you're flanking him. awareness has nothing to do with it, when you're flanked it means you can't effectively guard yourself from all sides at once, and both are distracting you enough that it makes it difficult from both sides.

The attacks happen within a 3 second timeframe. For a level 20 rogue with three attacks, thats an attack every 2 seconds. I'd sure NOTICE in that two seconds that someone just stabbed me with a dagger, and I'd be able to react.

[Bears With Lasers]

Barawn: one sneak attack landed every two rounds is a terrible ratio. Two full attacks will do much more.

[Telonius]

The attacks happen within a 3 second timeframe. For a level 20 rogue with three attacks, thats an attack every 2 seconds. I'd sure NOTICE in that two seconds that someone just stabbed me with a dagger, and I'd be able to react.

While the Rogue's hits take place within a two second span, so do the flanker's. If the flanked target shifts his defense over to the rogue, he opens up his defenses to the fighter (or whoever) on his opposite side. Flanking, at all, generally gives you +2 to attack, whether you're a rogue or not, because it's easier to hit somebody you're surrounding. They have to guard against attacks coming from opposite directions.

It also makes sense that if it's easier for you to hit somebody, it's easier for you to hit a vulnerable area with precision. So yes, even if the target isn't surprised by a flanking attack, there's nothing he can do about it. (At least until his turn, when he can move to give himself a better position). Unless the target can move as a swift or immediate action, it makes sense for all flanking attacks to get sneak attacks, if any do.

[barawn]

Barawn: one sneak attack landed every two rounds is a terrible ratio. Two full attacks will do much more.

Mid-level rogue. A rogue doesn't get 2 attacks until 8th level. Doesn't get 3 attacks until 15th level. Around 7th to 10th level, it's not that bad.

I'm not going to argue that flanking isn't better, of course!

A Wand of True Strike is a bad idea, because you're spending two rounds to get 1 attack. Mathmatically, you're much better off spending two rounds making 2 or more attacks.

Uh, unless you have a 50% chance or less of hitting, and you don't have any other way of getting sneak attack damage. If you can flank, freaking duh do it. But otherwise, that sneak attack damage can easily be higher than what you'd do in two rounds! Plus a 95% guaranteed hit is better than 2 50% chances to hit almost any day of the week: sure, you'll hit twice 25% of the time. You'll also miss completely 25% of the time.

7th level rogue, +4d6 sneak attack damage. +6 BAB, fighting something at his party's CL. Say, the Ogre Barbarian in the SRD. Has an AC of 19. Assuming a modest +3 on BAB for the rogue (via enhancement/ability), he's got a 50% chance to hit the guy. Assuming a longsword, that's 1d8+3 damage per round.

You're telling me that 2 50% chances of doing 1d8+3 damage (average of 7, max 22, min 4, zero 25% of the time) is better than a 95% chance of doing 1d8+4d6+3 damage (average 19 points, max 35, min 8, zero 5% of the time)?

[Sam K]

The attacks happen within a 3 second timeframe. For a level 20 rogue with three attacks, thats an attack every 2 seconds. I'd sure NOTICE in that two seconds that someone just stabbed me with a dagger, and I'd be able to react.

Yes, but your reaction would be something along the lines of laying on the ground, bleeding all over the place, wondering which of your vital organs was just perforated.

If we're gonna be realistic and all...

[NullAshton]

Yes, but your reaction would be something along the lines of laying on the ground, bleeding all over the place, wondering which of your vital organs was just perforated.

If we're gonna be realistic and all...

And if we're going to be realistic and all, might as well start shooting catgirls. D&D has no rules about reaction times other than being flat-footed, which is already in there. But once flatfooted, you're usually not flatfooted any more in the present combat, so a rogue turning invisible during combat and then full attacking someone would still only get one sneak attack.

[Ikkitosen]

Mid-level rogue. A rogue doesn't get 2 attacks until 8th level. Doesn't get 3 attacks until 15th level. Around 7th to 10th level, it's not that bad.

I'm not going to argue that flanking isn't better, of course!



Uh, unless you have a 50% chance or less of hitting, and you don't have any other way of getting sneak attack damage. If you can flank, freaking duh do it. But otherwise, that sneak attack damage can easily be higher than what you'd do in two rounds! Plus a 95% guaranteed hit is better than 2 50% chances to hit almost any day of the week: sure, you'll hit twice 25% of the time. You'll also miss completely 25% of the time.

7th level rogue, +4d6 sneak attack damage. +6 BAB, fighting something at his party's CL. Say, the Ogre Barbarian in the SRD. Has an AC of 19. Assuming a modest +3 on BAB for the rogue (via enhancement/ability), he's got a 50% chance to hit the guy. Assuming a longsword, that's 1d8+3 damage per round.

You're telling me that 2 50% chances of doing 1d8+3 damage (average of 7, max 22, min 4, zero 25% of the time) is better than a 95% chance of doing 1d8+4d6+3 damage (average 19 points, max 35, min 8, zero 5% of the time)?

You're drastically underestimating the rogue, whose main stat is Dex and who will almst certainly have Weapon Finesse. At 8th we're talking +6 BAB +5 Dex (at least! with Cat's Grace or Gloves of Dex or Race or whatever likely more!) +1 MW weapon = +12. TWF (ITWF next level) makes 3 attacks at +10/+10/+5. That is how a rogue gets a lot of damage, not 1 hit every other round.

[barawn]

You're drastically underestimating the rogue, whose main stat is Dex and who will almst certainly have Weapon Finesse. At 8th we're talking +6 BAB +5 Dex (at least! with Cat's Grace or Gloves of Dex or Race or whatever likely more!) +1 MW weapon = +12. TWF (ITWF next level) makes 3 attacks at +10/+10/+5. That is how a rogue gets a lot of damage, not 1 hit every other round.

You're also twinking the Rogue. I wasn't suggesting that it's the best way to go. I'm suggesting that it's effective. Which was the original point of the post.

[Attilargh]

But once flatfooted, you're usually not flatfooted any more in the present combat, so a rogue turning invisible during combat and then full attacking someone would still only get one sneak attack.

Assuming, of course, that the invisibility ends after the rogue makes his first attack, which is not always true. Ninja levels and Greater Invisibility, for instance, let people remain invisible even while attacking.

[Ikkitosen]

You're also twinking the Rogue. I wasn't suggesting that it's the best way to go. I'm suggesting that it's effective. Which was the original point of the post.

Twinking? I guess we think differently. I'd call it "being effective". In a world of wizards and clerics it's tough for the poor rogue.

[Rigeld2]

And if we're going to be realistic and all, might as well start shooting catgirls. D&D has no rules about reaction times other than being flat-footed, which is already in there. But once flatfooted, you're usually not flatfooted any more in the present combat, so a rogue turning invisible during combat and then full attacking someone would still only get one sneak attack.

Noone cares about invisibility. If you flank a target, you get Sneak Attack. On every attack. Theres no if ands or buts.

[Helgraf]

Firstly, thank you everyone for your contributions so far; I'll make just a few points here.

A) Yes, flank is a wonderful way of getting sneak attack; it's great when your team actively works to help you get flanking. This isn't always the case, or possible, however. But yes, when you can get it, flanking is obviously the superior way to get your sneak attack in (barring an opponent with a freaky high AC based on Dex and dodge bonuses (or other AC bonuses lost when flat-footed)).

B) Yes, TWF gives you penalized chances at two sneaks a round if you start the round within 5 feet. This is an alternate sneak-attack build that I've seen used before and it can be effective - especially when your team is helping set up the flank either directly or through summoned/conjured critters and such.

C) The general - but not absolute - consensus seems to be that going the Improved Feint route is not worth the bother compared to other methods of getting more sneak attacks; that one is better off selecting other feats.

Now, all of this said, my goal here is to try to get a feel for the effectiveness of IF (SA) vs. monsters of equivalent CR; this is admittedly a somewhat skewed viewpoint since a matching CR critter is meant to be a match for a party of four of the matching level; not a match for a rogue of one; partly this is a matter of crunch; doing the mathematics to see what said typical CR monster's ability to resist the feint compared to the rogue's ability to dish it out is. As I don't have a master Excel database of all the MM I monsters by challenge rating with BAB and Sense Motive/Wis, I'm doing this by hand currently. I expect that after x levels I'll need to subdivide the monsters by broad categories to give an idea which sorts of critters the rogue using this build should try and feint against and which he's just wasting his time on; I've already done this to an extent by segregating out the creatures immune to sneak attack and the creatures that are mindless and therefore can't be feinted, and by marking clearly which creatures inflict the -4 penalty for being not-humanoid shaped, and which ones inflict the -8 penalty due to Animal level intelligence (Int 1 or 2).

Now, if any of you happen to know someone who has already performed this crunch work, I'd be happy to save myself considerable time in reconstructing it myself.

[barawn]

Twinking? I guess we think differently. I'd call it "being effective". In a world of wizards and clerics it's tough for the poor rogue.

Twinking is what I call using almost all of a character's resources to optimize their effectiveness. Yay, they're effective, but they've got very little freedom.

Going ITWF, Weapon Finess, plus a high-cost magic item/spell to boost Dex, plus assuming a maxxed Dex, is a lot of resources and forced fighting style - it's three feats, the cost of maxxing Dex, and a 4000/4500 gp item (for a Wand of Cat's Grace), the downside of having no hands free in combat, needing to flank to gain sneak attack damage, and no extra standard action every two rounds.

Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, and a Wand of True Strike: two feats and a 750 gp item, and a near-guaranteed hit/sneak attack every other round. If the opponent's Dex is high enough (fighting an Air Elemental?) and you don't need the True Strike, that's a free standard action every other round, too. For whatever.

Who knows? That rogue might have a slew of magic items, a Caster's Shield, and be on track to be an magic wielding Assassin, or a similar (non-evil) PrC. Or any number of other tracks.