PDA

View Full Version : Possible Change to Blanket Sneak Attack Immunities



Timjc86
02-11-2009, 01:28 PM
So I posted this in the rogue forums a week or so ago and got a little bit of feedback. Those who replied seemed to like the idea. I figured I'd throw it up here in Development and try to get a broader range of responses, maybe even from a dev? :D

I would definitely like to give some serious thought to sneak attack changes, and specifically how fortification and immunities affect sneak attack. I'd be very interested in hearing what other players think about this and would love to see some dev input as well.


*** Back story - feel free to skip ***

I think my first three or so DDO characters were rogues. I loved it. The sneaking, the damage, I was convinced I had found my class. That all changed with Delera's.
Fast-forward a few years later and I'm back from a long hiatus to give DDO another shot. I start up another rogue and run into the same issues. I asked here on the forums for some suggestions and one of the replies was a 1 rogue / rest ranger build. I got my 1750 favor, rolled up the character, and never looked back until Assassin II.

On my rogue, I hated being useless against undead and constructs - not just less useful, but useless. On my ranger, I hated being able to find all the traps but not being able to do anything else about them. A 15/1 split was perfect. He's a beast in combat regardless of what he is fighting and he can take care of most of the traps and locks as well.

I have had a lot of fun with my assassin (rogue 15 / fighter 1 - 19/1 @ 20 cap). But I still cannot stand fighting things like undead, elementals and such. So...



*** Real Discussion - Back story's over ***

I honestly don't think it would be overpowering to grant a line of feats or enhancements - or heck, even innately grant some way for rogues to bypass fortification and sneak attack immunities. It certainly doesn't have to be 100%; I would be very happy even with a reduction in fortification (ie a % chance to get sneak attacks, kind of like Harry/Sally now).

Even going with a strength-based rogue isn't enough to offset the bonuses that other melee classes get. Sneak attack is something that is currently inherently necessary for a rogue to be combat-effective. I don't think that's necessarily bad but when combined with blanket sneak attack immunities it can get disheartening.

Something like this currently exists for constructs with the Wrack Construct enhancement line, but there are some issues I have:


These could get very expensive very quickly if there were separate enhancement lines for constructs, undead, elementals, fortification, etc. It needs to be one line for everything or not enhancement based.


A clicky for every type of mob would require a fair bit of hotbar and button-mashing management. Again, it needs to be one line for everything.


WC isn't terribly effective at end game. My assassin has a decent intelligence for a rogue. Even so, in 4-5 Shroud runs, I have seen WC land against the portals an average of one-two times (0 in two runs, 3 in one run). Now he's not wearing a 6 intelligence item and he's not using a cursespewer, but there are a lot of portals and he is spamming WC as soon as it's off cooldown - such a low frequency is just not acceptable. Who knew stationary portals were so nimbly-bimbly?

Edit: I got a +6 int item and Cursespewer... and haven't noticed even a slight difference. Maybe 1-2 successful wracks in an entire part 1. It's only been a week though.


So what are some solutions?

A single enhancement line for all types of sneak attack immunities and fortification. There could be a few ways to implement this:

Mirror the current implementation of Wrack Construct: have a single clicky with a ~6 second cooldown that deals some extra damage and has a DC that when failed provides a chance to get sneak attacks for the duration of the effect.



Get rid of the bonus damage in favor of a higher DC save.


Get rid of the clicky and have the save inherently apply to all rogue attacks.


Get rid of the save altogether. Just make it an inherent chance for all rogue attacks to be sneak attacks against things that are normally immune and increase the chance of getting sneak attacks against stuff with some degree of fortification.



Tie this to feats instead of enhancements - this could be implemented any of the three ways above.


Grant this inherently with rogue levels, or even make it one of the special rogue feats (akin to improved evasion, slippery mind, etc).


I think linking this to feats is a bad idea, unless it was available through the special rogue feats, and rogues got at least one more extra rogue feat; but then you run into balance issues of characters getting improved evasion at level 7 or whatever.

I think enhancements are a good mechanism for adding this, but I really don't like the idea of even more clickies. It needs to be inherent.

My favorite idea is just automatically giving it to rogues and increasing the chance with more rogue levels - very similarly to monk benefits such as run speed, slow fall, unarmed damage die, etc. Make it a 10% chance to get sneak attacks against SA immune mobs and a 10% reduction in fortification at level 3 and increase it 10% every three levels. That is just an example, I have no idea how realistic those #s are.

What do you all think?

I also really liked Noctus' suggested implementation:

There should be an enhancement-line called "Find the weak spot" and it gives you a 10/20/30/40 % reduction in the opponents fortification.

A rogue would still be much weaker against fortified enemys, but not border on total uselessness any more.

Impaqt
02-11-2009, 01:40 PM
Adapt and overcome.

this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here.... undead and Constructs are simply immune to sneak attack/Critical hits. where you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.

Break out the Curspwer, Shattermantle, Crippler, str sapper, or any other debuffer you can get your hands on....

Against elementals? Weakening works great..... Crippling strike? Yes please.....

Even the toughest end game raid bosses on elite dont have 100% Fortification.

Borror0
02-11-2009, 01:53 PM
Adapt and overcome.

this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here
But, in 3.5 D&D, there are multiple ways to overcome those immunities.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 02:14 PM
Adapt and overcome.

this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here.... undead and Constructs are simply immune to sneak attack/Critical hits. where you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.

Break out the Curspwer, Shattermantle, Crippler, str sapper, or any other debuffer you can get your hands on....

Against elementals? Weakening works great..... Crippling strike? Yes please.....

Even the toughest end game raid bosses on elite dont have 100% Fortification.

I agree with Impaqt in general, disagree in the specifics. Yes, the OP has overstated his point re: "not just less useful, but useless." If you're "useless", you're just plain doing it wrong. Sorry man. :(

Specifically, I disagree that 'support' and 'debuff' are the roles a rogue should resign herself to on mobs that can't be sneak attacked. We end up being more gear dependent than other classes, sure, particularly dex/int rogues (biggest advantage of str rogues isn't the peak damage, it's the freedom to pick higher base damage weapons and reduced need to gear up on non-SA targets).

Yes, it's annoying to need to hunt up <something> of greater undead bane blunts for the majority of the undead out there, but it's doable....and it was doubly annoying the first time in Deleres to try to find a holy or good weapon as a newbie. :( Ditto addy greater construct banes; ditto <something> of greater ele bane; ditto all the speciality smiting/banishing/disrupting/wounding/weakening gear.

A plus for Min IIs is they're almost as good as the perfect greater bane, and you'd only need a set of those instead of the 3 to 6 sets of speciality stuff I carry around with me.

All that said, I could see giving Mechanics an enhancement that gave them 1d6/3d6/4d6 to damage undead and constructs at Mech I/II/III respectively....I could also see pumping the Damage Boost (which I never use right now) to have it override some % of a targets Fortification. I don't know if I'd want to go further than that; wouldn't we start to unbalance our place with respect to Barbarians, who I think of as our mirror class?

And all *that* said, all this hinges on what's coming in Mod 9+. A couple ideas have been floated around to grant more and more mobs fortification; if so, then Noctus' idea of a passive fort reducer makes really good sense. Heck, I would accept an argument that it makes sense just from what's come in the Vale onward.

Draccus
02-11-2009, 02:27 PM
Let me start off by saying that I'm probably one of the biggest rogue fans in DDO. The only reason I ever play another class is because it in some way benefits my rogue (plat, items, ingredients, etc.).

That being said, I'm not a fan of changing the classic sneak attack immunities that have existed in D&D since the d20 system started. I hope no other rogue fans are going to see my type this but I kinda like the logic around undead and construct SA immunity and like the fact that my rogue basically says "This one's all you guys!" when we're faced with a SA immune mob.

What I'd like to see instead is an enhancment line or feat to bypass the SA immunity/reduction afforded by fortification.

I'd also like to see FAR fewer undead in the game. They seem to be the filler mob of choice any time a dungeon has an empty area. I can accept not being a huge contributor in a couple of fights in a couple of dungeons but it's way more often than that.

Borror0
02-11-2009, 02:38 PM
you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.
I also have something to say about this.

It's bad for the game for rogues to loose so much effectiveness against undeads and constructs. In tabletop, it is somewhat more acceptable because the DM balances the encounters for the group. In other words, he will make sure (or try at his best) that the rogue still feels useful. Furthermore, skills matter much more in tabletop which favors rogues as well.

However, in an MMO, the quest designers are faced with the possible options:

Ignore the problem and risk having rogues being bored/frustrated/rejected from PuGs.
Acknowledge the problem and avoid story lines with heavy concentration of those mobs.
Add diversity, for the sake of diversity. (This will give odd results, most likely.)

Obviously, none of these are really enjoyable scenarios.

What is best to do make rogues more useful in those quests. Two solutions can be taken, once that decision has been made: either you defocus rogues' power from Sneak Attack or you allow Sneak Attack to affect those mobs, if only a percentage (there are multiple ways to achieve that through enhancements, feats and items). The final solution can also be a mix of the two, and maybe that is the best.

Perhaps you truly believe there is no problem, but that only means you have made peace with it. It is still there.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 02:40 PM
But, in 3.5 D&D, there are multiple ways to overcome those immunities.

You are correct, but I think we're not really debating "how can rogues do damage" here; the real debate is "how gear dependent should DDO be?"


Perhaps you truly believe there is no problem, but that only means you have made peace with it. It is still there.

True enough. No other class goes from 100 to 0 as fast; I take the tact that "rogue is not a class for casual play; if can't put in the effort, don't play them". That's true enough in the current incarnation of DDO.

You can see the devs understand (or are starting to understand) this as well, given the rogue templates they put out with Mod 8. Yes, I know I said I hated them, but I think I understand what they're trying to do now.

As for changes, even converting "crit immune" on undead/constructs to heavy fort, then providing fighters/rogues with fort reducing enhancements might make things a little more user friendly and provide better class balance.

Timjc86
02-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Adapt and overcome.

this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here.... undead and Constructs are simply immune to sneak attack/Critical hits. where you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.

I have little to no PnP experience. I have a vague understanding of it. I realize that the game is based off of the 3.5 rule set but at the same time, this is not PnP. I do not find something to the effect of "because it's that way in PnP" a compelling argument. (And are blanket sneak attack immunities not gone in 4.0?)

As far as rogues being more effective against fleshies, that comes at a fairly steep cost: low hp (combined with fortification, this makes rogues a bit of a liability in fights like Shroud 5 and VoD); average AC (+ low hp = ouch); no aggro for sneak attacks; abysmal will save. Every other melee class can WoP/Vorpal trash just as well, if not better than a rogue. Additionally raids seem to be following the trend of perma-cleaving, fortified bosses.

Break out the Curspwer, Shattermantle, Crippler, str sapper, or any other debuffer you can get your hands on....

Half of those have low saves and are a poor substitute for damage. Casters can debuff better. I don't see rogues getting into groups because they're good debuffers.

Against elementals? Weakening works great..... Crippling strike? Yes please.....

Any other melee class can also use weakening/wounding weapons against elementals. They'll also be doing a respectable amount of damage while swinging; rogues usually aren't. These also don't work on red names (although they're rare). Are you completely sure Crippling Strike works on elementals?

Even the toughest end game raid bosses on elite dont have 100% Fortification.

Regardless, fortification disproportionately hurts rogue DPS over that of other classes.


I agree with Impaqt in general, disagree in the specifics. Yes, the OP has overstated his point re: "not just less useful, but useless." If you're "useless", you're just plain doing it wrong. Sorry man. :(

I may have been exaggerating slightly to prove my point; it's not the first time and it won't be the last. Useless is maybe too far, but less useful to a disheartening degree is not.

Specifically, I disagree that 'support' and 'debuff' are the roles a rogue should resign herself to on mobs that can't be sneak attacked. We end up being more gear dependent than other classes, sure, particularly dex/int rogues (biggest advantage of str rogues isn't the peak damage, it's the freedom to pick higher base damage weapons and reduced need to gear up on non-SA targets).

Yes, it's annoying to need to hunt up <something> of greater undead bane blunts for the majority of the undead out there, but it's doable....and it was doubly annoying the first time in Deleres to try to find a holy or good weapon as a newbie. :( Ditto addy greater construct banes; ditto <something> of greater ele bane; ditto all the speciality smiting/banishing/disrupting/wounding/weakening gear.

A plus for Min IIs is they're almost as good as the perfect greater bane, and you'd only need a set of those instead of the 3 to 6 sets of speciality stuff I carry around with me.

I finish my radiance tonight. A mineral II will be next after a cha skills item. But should a rogue have to have a mineral II or a "perfect" (and extremely lucky or expensive) greater bane to still be significantly less effective than other melee classes?

All that said, I could see giving Mechanics an enhancement that gave them 1d6/3d6/4d6 to damage undead and constructs at Mech I/II/III respectively....I could also see pumping the Damage Boost (which I never use right now) to have it override some % of a targets Fortification. I don't know if I'd want to go further than that; wouldn't we start to unbalance our place with respect to Barbarians, who I think of as our mirror class?

Similarly to ranged combat, Mechanics need help, but not in the form of a benefit that all rogues should receive anyway. Barbarians also have ~30 more strength than the average rogue; they're getting something like 6d6 vicious damage with frenzied berzerker. I am not terribly worried about them.

And all *that* said, all this hinges on what's coming in Mod 9+. A couple ideas have been floated around to grant more and more mobs fortification; if so, then Noctus' idea of a passive fort reducer makes really good sense. Heck, I would accept an argument that it makes sense just from what's come in the Vale onward.


Let me start off by saying that I'm probably one of the biggest rogue fans in DDO. The only reason I ever play another class is because it in some way benefits my rogue (plat, items, ingredients, etc.).

That being said, I'm not a fan of changing the classic sneak attack immunities that have existed in D&D since the d20 system started. I hope no other rogue fans are going to see my type this but I kinda like the logic around undead and construct SA immunity and like the fact that my rogue basically says "This one's all you guys!" when we're faced with a SA immune mob.

Again, I don't find that a compelling reason without some analysis to support it. It's also no longer the case in 4.0. I have no issues with rogues being less effective against things like undead and constructs. I am merely concerned that the degree of lesser effectiveness is approaching ineffectiveness.

What I'd like to see instead is an enhancment line or feat to bypass the SA immunity/reduction afforded by fortification.

What logic are you following that makes that seem acceptable while a %20-%40 chance for a high level rogue to get sneak attacks against undead, constructs, etc isn't? I don't mean for that to sound sarcastic, I'm legitimately curious. Again, I never PnPed, so that may be it.

I'd also like to see FAR fewer undead in the game. They seem to be the filler mob of choice any time a dungeon has an empty area. I can accept not being a huge contributor in a couple of fights in a couple of dungeons but it's way more often than that.

Trying out a new color. I'd love to say more but it's time for class. Back in a few hours.

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 03:04 PM
Adapt and overcome.

this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here.... undead and Constructs are simply immune to sneak attack/Critical hits. where you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.

Break out the Curspwer, Shattermantle, Crippler, str sapper, or any other debuffer you can get your hands on....

Against elementals? Weakening works great..... Crippling strike? Yes please.....

Even the toughest end game raid bosses on elite dont have 100% Fortification.

Really? So the Abbot, Titan, and Sor'jek don't have 100% fort?

The Hound and DQ are barely meleeable except under certain conditions.

So you're left with the Dragon, Stormreaver, and two pit fiends that Rogues excel at, and they're at 50% ability on the last two.

It's bad design for an MMO to have a DPS class that can't DPS the majority of raid bosses. Period.

Uska
02-11-2009, 03:04 PM
read 3.5 please

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 03:49 PM
read 3.5 please

Please read up on subjects like MMOs, Raids, DPS characters... and then come to your own conclusion on why it would be bad for DPS characters to do shoddy DPS on raids.

3.5 rules are gravy and all... except I don't remember getting together for a raid in 3.5 to have a 3% chance to pull that epic raid loot.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 03:57 PM
Trying out a new color. I'd love to say more but it's time for class. Back in a few hours.

Using hyperbole to "prove" a point is kinda dangerous...been bitten by that myself recently, since it, well, doesn't prove anything and someone is always going to end up calling you on it. :D

It sounds like the dialogue you want to have isn't "rogues suck at damage; let's help them" but "the gear rogues need to be effective is too rare and hard to get compared to other classes". Two different discussions completely.

The problem here is, DDO is a gear game; all classes are impacted by their gear very, very heavily. Rogues are *the* most gear impacted of the classes; a lot of folks go str based for that reason, to reduce some of the gear dependency....and you can see that reasoning mirrored in Turbine's Mod 8 path designs for the class.

The challenge isn't an overall upping of the class, but in proposing a modification that brings the gear dependency a little more in line with the rest of the classes without amping the output of rogues who can and have done all that gearing up. I love the class, and would like to see it be a little more user friendly, but I can't honestly say that I don't hold my own or better with the people in other classes that I run with.

Bit of a quandary. :D

Perhaps something along the lines of making Damage Boost damage untyped, so it bypasses everything, extending the DC of Wrack Construct to make it more effective (and add undead to "Magical Constructs"), and maybe tuck a some bonus damage into WotM? That way you kinda spread things around a bit, to reduce the inevitable min/maxing.

sephiroth1084
02-11-2009, 04:04 PM
A few things to note in favor of the OP:

Apparently, somewhere along the line WotC realized that the interaction between sneak attack and crit-immune creatures is a problem (my own assumption that they realized) and presented several solutions to that problem . Among these are:

-alternate class features in Complete Champion or Dungeonscape (cannot recall which) that grant a rogue half his/her SA vs. undead
-a feat that allows multiclassed ranger/rogues to apply their sneak attack against favored enemies even if those creatures would otherwise be immune
-several spells that permit SA and critical hits to be applied against undead (a creature type that seems far more prevalent in WotC material than any other sort of creature with similar immunities)

I'd love to see some of these introduced to the game. If an enhancement, perhaps something either along the line of the WF's Healer's Friend, where each tier grants 20% of the rogues SA damage against immune targets, or perhaps a clickable ability, similar to the monk's Unbalancing Strike, that renders a target susceptible to SA for a short time.

Alternatively, the devs could create a new weapon enhancement that follows the lesser--> greater breakdown (similar to bane), which grants an increasing degree of SA against otherwise immune creatures (maybe make it monster-specific, though I think a universal property would not be overpowered).

Or, it could be a feat that rogues may take that would allow them to apply half or 3/4 of their SA against undead, plants, constructs and elementals.

sephiroth1084
02-11-2009, 04:07 PM
The problem here is, DDO is a gear game; all classes are impacted by their gear very, very heavily. Rogues are *the* most gear impacted of the classes; a lot of folks go str based for that reason, to reduce some of the gear dependency....and you can see that reasoning mirrored in Turbine's Mod 8 path designs for the class.



How are rogues the most gear dependent (other than needing items to assist in trapsmithing)?

Oh, and on a separate point, I think Turbine's attempt at DMing this issue has been to ensure that any quest with a lot of undead also has a ton of traps, so that, while the rogue may be somewhat ineffective in combat, he will still be prized for his ability to help the party through the quest. Not a very good balance, but an observation.

ViolentEnd
02-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Just to clarify, here is what the DnD Players Handbook states.

"A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible
anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal
creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to
critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be
able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be
able to reach such a spot."
-From Players Handbook

Later additions to the game that allowed alternative class features allowed ways around this. One is called Penetrating Strike. It allows, as an alternative class feature, a rogue to gain one-half of normal sneak damage against flanked opponents that are normally not subject to critical hits and sneak damage. In exchange for this feature, rogues lose Trap Sense, I believe.

transtemporal
02-11-2009, 04:33 PM
What I'd like to see instead is an enhancment line or feat to bypass the SA immunity/reduction afforded by fortification.

I'd probably rather see it the other way round - that some portion (or perhaps all) of SA damage affected undead and constructs.

The ability to bypass fortification completely would affect both your SA and crit dmg. I think this would pretty much catapult rogues into the new boss-killers wouldn't it?

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 04:34 PM
I'd probably rather see it the other way round - that some portion (or perhaps all) of SA damage affected undead and constructs.

The ability to bypass fortification completely affects both your SA and crit dmg which would pretty much catapult rogues into the new boss-killer wouldn't it?

Rogues 'are' the boss-killer. Well, except for the ones with 100% fort. They've always been the boss-killer... though the somewhat recent sneak attack enhancement changes helped.

Borror0
02-11-2009, 05:06 PM
And are blanket sneak attack immunities not gone in 4.0?
They are, but rogue's Sneak Attack was nerfed to less d6's as well.

Mechanics need help, but not in the form of a benefit that all rogues should receive anyway
Agreed. Mechanics can be better against constructs than other rogues, but that's a different topic.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 05:09 PM
How are rogues the most gear dependent (other than needing items to assist in trapsmithing)?

Eh? You already know why:


the interaction between sneak attack and crit-immune creatures is a problem

If a rogue wants to compete in that arena, he'll need to get better (i.e. rarer) equipment than his non-rogue counterparts to keep up....and it's usually critter dependent equipment, so more gear and of a rarer variety.


Oh, and on a separate point, I think Turbine's attempt at DMing this issue has been to ensure that any quest with a lot of undead also has a ton of traps, so that, while the rogue may be somewhat ineffective in combat, he will still be prized for his ability to help the party through the quest. Not a very good balance, but an observation.

Yep. Orchard was the least sucky of these, but it was still pretty yicky.

transtemporal
02-11-2009, 05:10 PM
Rogues 'are' the boss-killer. Well, except for the ones with 100% fort. They've always been the boss-killer... though the somewhat recent sneak attack enhancement changes helped.

At the moment rogues are one of the classes considered 'boss-killers'.

I kinda meant with the ability to bypass fort, they would become 'the' boss-killer bar none.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 05:13 PM
I'd probably rather see it the other way round - that some portion (or perhaps all) of SA damage affected undead and constructs.


That's probably the best approach...since we're talking about expanding the utility of a stat/weapon independent *class* ability rather than a *general* ability (i.e. performing a crit) available to other classes.

Borror0
02-11-2009, 05:15 PM
Using hyperbole to "prove" a point is kinda dangerous [...]

It sounds like the dialogue you want to have isn't "rogues suck at damage; let's help them" but "the gear rogues need to be effective is too rare and hard to get compared to other classes". Two different discussions completely.
Agreed on the hyperbole part, but neither of these are the discussion he is trying to have.

The issue is not that rogue are too gear dependent, but rather that with equal gear, the rogue will be lacking behind in construct or undead-heavy quests and story lines. That is problematic in many ways for quest designers, and it has repercussions on us players. Either such quests are reduced to a minimum (and story lines resting too much on undeads or constructs are avoided) or rogue players pay the high price when these are released.

When I say high price, I talk about loss of effectiveness and/or fun.

You suggest that rogues can overcome that through high gear, but that's not true. The only thing that better gear allows is to cope better with the problems. Oh, sure, a stunningly good Greater Undead Bane will make up for some of the difference compared to the rest of the group, but, let's face it, you're still behind and that weapon would be better on a non-rogue character.

Maybe you are saying rogues comparatively gains more out of a better weapon, but there I don't get what your point is...

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 05:19 PM
At the moment rogues are one of the classes considered 'boss-killers'.

I kinda meant with the ability to bypass fort, they would become 'the' boss-killer bar none.

I don't think so. Rangers maintain the vast majority of their DPS apart from fortification.

There will be plenty of 'boss-killers' with or without this enhancement.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 05:30 PM
Agreed on the hyperbole part, but neither of these are the discussion he is trying to have.

The issue is not that rogue are too gear dependent, but rather that with equal gear, the rogue will be lacking behind in construct or undead-heavy quests and story lines.

Sure. "Gear dependency"...you need more and better gear. If you want to keep up with that barb with the holy great axe on skellies, you *need*, not want, a holy blunt...depending on DR.


You suggest that rogues can overcome that through high gear, but that's not true.

Nonsense. A rogue with 8 str with w/p's will knife-through-butter things that a barb takes an hour to dps. (hah! phear mah hyperbole!) Gear matters a *lot* in this game. Just look at all the threads on Greensteel. :)

I pull agro off PUG barbs all the time in Sor'jek....because they're swinging a slashing non-transmuter and I'm dualling anarchic light maces of greater undead bane. Equivaletly equipped characters, it's another matter.


The only thing that better gear allows is to cope better with the problems.

"Sufficiently advanced coping is indistiguishable from solving." - With apologies to Clarke


Oh, sure, a stunningly good Greater Undead Bane will make up for some of the difference compared to the rest of the group, but, let's face it, you're still behind

Nope, depends on what we're fighting and how they're geared compared to how I'm geared.


and that weapon would be better on a non-rogue character.

True! So? What do you want, parity between the classes on all mobs and mob types? Not likely to happen ever, given the current state of the game.

*******************************

Look, I've heard all these arguments before, from the recieving end; "Who would bring a rogue into Invaders?" threads and such. You *can* overcome them, but it is difficult and takes a lot of dedication to the class.

I'm for a blanket % of sneak damage bypassing undead/construct/fort; it's class specific, less likely to see issues of balance across all the possible character/weapon/class combinations and permutations, etc.

Timjc86
02-11-2009, 05:31 PM
At the moment rogues are one of the classes considered 'boss-killers'.

I kinda meant with the ability to bypass fort, they would become 'the' boss-killer bar none.

The vast majority of raid LFMs that I see disagree with you. Rangers and barbarians are boss killers. Rogues, not so much.

Situationally, rogues can do a lot of sneak attack damage. But they also have the lowest HP of any melee DPS class, and their AC's not stellar either. So for fights like Shroud 5 and VoD, rogues are a liability. A dead character does zero damage. A character with stacked death penalties doesn't do much more.

Add fortification on top of that, and, well, yeah.

ViolentEnd
02-11-2009, 05:37 PM
Also, and I may be burned at the stake for this, but why is it rogues should be equal to or better than rangers, barbarians, and fighters at DPS?

Timjc86
02-11-2009, 05:39 PM
Also, and I may be burned at the stake for this, but why is it rogues should be equal to or better than rangers, barbarians, and fighters at DPS?

They shouldn't necessarily. They also shouldn't be way behind either.

Aspenor
02-11-2009, 05:46 PM
this is PnP 3.5 core stuff here.... undead and Constructs are simply immune to sneak attack/Critical hits. where you are less effective against those mobs, your are significantly more effective than most other classes against fleshy mobs.


A rogue can sneak attack undead in 3.5. It requires a certain spell that only lasts until your next attack.

Its definitely NOT core, though.

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 05:50 PM
Also, and I may be burned at the stake for this, but why is it rogues should be equal to or better than rangers, barbarians, and fighters at DPS?

Why should rangers, barbarians, or fighters be equal to or better than rogues at DPS?

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 05:52 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to derail the conversation. I am trying to define the direction a bit so devs can understand it and make the class easier to play.

Early threads were full of "Rogue's can't do damage!" so...the devs gave us damage enhancements....which didn't actually help. :)

Later threads came along requesting "agro management" tools...which the devs then gave us...and which made a difference.

Using a "make rogues less gear dependent; here's the hard to come by gear we're using now to deal" will give us different results from the devs than "rogues need to be able to crit on crit immune targets". We already see some of this understanding on the part of devs, though I can't say I find the currently proposed capstone to be all that good a response to rogue's low base hp. :)

Borror0
02-11-2009, 06:00 PM
If you want to keep up with that barb with the holy great axe on skellies, you *need*, not want, a holy blunt...depending on DR.
Fine point, but that is not how player psychology works.

You've got enough experience, Brenna, to know that no matter how good your weapons are they will never be good enough to convince a group leader that does not want of a rogue in an undead quest because they will be "freeloading". So, while better gear lesser performance issues, the problem is not limited to that. It does not address the grouping part nor the frustration of the lower effectiveness of the rogue in undead or construct-heavy quests.

Saying that rogues are more gear dependent is true, in a way, but that is not a description of the problem; it's a symptom.

Aspenor
02-11-2009, 06:03 PM
Also, and I may be burned at the stake for this, but why is it rogues should be equal to or better than rangers, barbarians, and fighters at DPS?

Rogues should be better at DPS when faced with monsters they can sneak attack.

High level rogues SHOULD dish out enough damage in one round to dispatch virtually anything, if they are getting their sneak attack that round.

Angelus_dead
02-11-2009, 06:06 PM
your weapons are they will never be good enough to convince a group leader that does not want of a rogue in an undead quest because they will be "freeloading". So, while better gear lesser performance issues, the problem is not limited to that.
Without getting into any details of analyzing the situation, I'll just mention that rogue-vs-unliving-mob is a minimal problem compared to serious flaws like TWF-vs-S&B and monk1-AC, and also ranged-gimped and DPS-lol.

ViolentEnd
02-11-2009, 06:07 PM
Why should rangers, barbarians, or fighters be equal to or better than rogues at DPS?

Mainly because that is what rangers, barbs, and fighters DO. Rogues, on the other hand, also have trapfinding, open locks, UMD, stealth, a tremendous skill-set, etc. I am not saying that rogues should be ineffective in combat (far from it), I am just trying to point out that DPS is the primary focus of those other classes and one of many foci for rogues.

sephiroth1084
02-11-2009, 06:09 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to derail the conversation. I am trying to define the direction a bit so devs can understand it and make the class easier to play.

Early threads were full of "Rogue's can't do damage!" so...the devs gave us damage enhancements....which didn't actually help. :)

Later threads came along requesting "agro management" tools...which the devs then gave us...and which made a difference.

Using a "make rogues less gear dependent; here's the hard to come by gear we're using now to deal" will give us different results from the devs than "rogues need to be able to crit on crit immune targets". We already see some of this understanding on the part of devs, though I can't say I find the currently proposed capstone to be all that good a response to rogue's low base hp. :)

I really don't think this should turn into a "rogues need to become less gear-dependent" thread, and should remain a "rogues need something to do when faced with a quest, or mod, full of undead, constructs and elementals" thread.

Rogues are not really more gear dependent than anyone else. A tank needs far better defensive equipment, which is much harder to obtain (+5 mithral fp, +5 mithral tower shield, Chaosgarde, Chattering Ring, +5 protection item, bark pots), while paladins and monks tend to require +stat items for everything but Int, and likely need some tomes to access some of their abilities. Rogues need some good weapons (something everyone is gunning for most of the time anyway), and could use, but do not need, a Str, Dex, Con and maybe Wis and/or Int and/or Cha item, though they are far from necessary.

Sure, rogues tend to require the best Spot, Search and Disable items available, but these aren't all that difficult to come across on the AH, and a rogue has enough ways to get by without the top of the line item here (Action boost, skill enhancements, etc...).

Borror0
02-11-2009, 06:10 PM
Without getting into any details of analyzing the situation, I'll just mention that rogue-vs-unliving-mob is a minimal problem compared to serious flaws like TWF-vs-S&B and monk1-AC, and also ranged-gimped and DPS-lol.
Ouch. If I was a DDO Developer, I would feel hurt after reading that post...

Angelus_dead
02-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Ouch. If I was a DDO Developer, I would feel hurt after reading that post...
Eh, not really, so long as you can point out some DDO ex-Developers to blame it on.

ViolentEnd
02-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Rogues should be better at DPS when faced with monsters they can sneak attack.

High level rogues SHOULD dish out enough damage in one round to dispatch virtually anything, if they are getting their sneak attack that round.

I agree. But if they were allowed to sneak attack everything, I could see problems. My point was that if they could excel at everything, what would be the drawback/balance?

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 06:18 PM
Saying that rogues are more gear dependent is true, in a way, but that is not a description of the problem; it's a symptom.

Hmmmm....you may be right. It's an effective way of looking at the issue from an in-play perspective, but it may not be appropriate phrasing when examining it from a devepment one.

How would you phrase it?

transtemporal
02-11-2009, 06:24 PM
I don't think so. Rangers maintain the vast majority of their DPS apart from fortification.

Thats true. I've never really looked at a rangers endgame DPS to do the comparison but I imagine a rogue getting 7d6 SA (situationally) each attack and full crits would be closing on it, wouldn't it? And passing it when the mob has 100% fort?

Borror0
02-11-2009, 06:32 PM
How would you phrase it?
"The delta between the DPS of rogues against creatures affected by sneak attacks and those immune to sneak attacks is so great that it either has serious repercussions on the quest design or significantly reduces the enjoyment players get of their rogue characters, in quests with heavy concentration of these mobs, and that, for these reasons, the situation should change." would do it?

Perhaps talking only about DPS is wrong, and referring to overall power would be more accurate, but you get the big picture. I don't claim the wording is perfect, but it represents the problem much better, don't you think?

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 06:32 PM
I really don't think this should turn into a "rogues need to become less gear-dependent" thread, and should remain a "rogues need something to do when faced with a quest, or mod, full of undead, constructs and elementals" thread.

Borror has pretty much convinced me that the "be less gear dependent" part is not actually going to be helpful in this thread.



Rogues are not really more gear dependent than anyone else. A tank needs far better defensive equipment, which is much harder to obtain (+5 mithral fp, +5 mithral tower shield, Chaosgarde, Chattering Ring, +5 protection item, bark pots), while paladins and monks tend to require +stat items for everything but Int, and likely need some tomes to access some of their abilities. Rogues need some good weapons (something everyone is gunning for most of the time anyway), and could use, but do not need, a Str, Dex, Con and maybe Wis and/or Int and/or Cha item, though they are far from necessary.

Sure, rogues tend to require the best Spot, Search and Disable items available, but these aren't all that difficult to come across on the AH, and a rogue has enough ways to get by without the top of the line item here (Action boost, skill enhancements, etc...).

Well...your definition of *need* is much different than mine, I think.

transtemporal
02-11-2009, 06:44 PM
what would be the drawback/balance?

The drawback is that when they exceed the main tanks DPS, they get smashed good. :)

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 06:45 PM
"The delta between the DPS of rogues against creatures affected by sneak attacks and those immune to sneak attacks is so great that it either has serious repercussions on the quest design or significantly reduces the enjoyment players get of their rogue characters, in quests with heavy concentration of these mobs, and that, for these reasons, the situation should change." would do it?

Perhaps talking only about DPS is wrong, and referring to overall power would be more accurate, but you get the big picture. I don't claim the wording is perfect, but it represents the problem much better, don't you think?

Yeah, I think you've got it. Could shorten it to "DPS between SA mobs and non-SA mobs is too large." I think?

Borror0
02-11-2009, 06:49 PM
Could shorten it to "DPS between SA mobs and non-SA mobs is too large." I think?
Aye.

transtemporal
02-11-2009, 06:56 PM
The vast majority of raid LFMs that I see disagree with you. Rangers and barbarians are boss killers. Rogues, not so much.

Situationally, rogues can do a lot of sneak attack damage. But they also have the lowest HP of any melee DPS class, and their AC's not stellar either.

I would agree that a rogue isn't the optimum DPS class (from the perspective of number of hp and AC) but when partnered with a decently built barb/rgr using good tactics, they should be doing great dps, not taking melee damage AND not being hit by things like DBF!

But against cleaving mobs maybe not so much. :)

Turial
02-11-2009, 07:31 PM
How about a weapon ability that would allow a player to bypass some or all of the immunity to sneak attacks?

Something like weapon ability "x": this weapon slightly alters the energies animating or protecting the target from sneak attacks. Attacks made with this weapon treat the protection from sneak attacks as being Y% lower.

Granted this may not be possible as sneak attack immunity for some creatures may not be coded as a percentage.

Timjc86
02-11-2009, 08:31 PM
How about a weapon ability that would allow a player to bypass some or all of the immunity to sneak attacks?

Something like weapon ability "x": this weapon slightly alters the energies animating or protecting the target from sneak attacks. Attacks made with this weapon treat the protection from sneak attacks as being Y% lower.

Granted this may not be possible as sneak attack immunity for some creatures may not be coded as a percentage.

I like the idea in general, but I would personally be extremely hesitant to try and fix balance issues with itemization. It's certainly arguable whether this is a balance issue or not (I think my opinion's pretty clear :D), and I'm not saying itemization wouldn't help (sneak attack weapons are pretty cool) but I wouldn't consider that an ideal solution.

Edit: I can spell, I promise.

bobbryan2
02-11-2009, 08:47 PM
Mainly because that is what rangers, barbs, and fighters DO. Rogues, on the other hand, also have trapfinding, open locks, UMD, stealth, a tremendous skill-set, etc. I am not saying that rogues should be ineffective in combat (far from it), I am just trying to point out that DPS is the primary focus of those other classes and one of many foci for rogues.

You're lumping melee combat into one category, when it's not that simple.

Rangers and Rogues are similar to compare... but Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all have different roles in combat to fill than the rogue. While the rogue is focused on pure killing power and DPS... Fighters, Paladins and especially Barbarians get extra class abilities for Tanking as well. Increased HP, AC, DR, etc.

When looking at MMOs... it's usually very easy to differentiate the differences between Tanks and Melee DPS classes. DDO doesn't have clearcut class definitions, and while you can make effective DPS builds from Fighters, Pallies and Barbs.. they also make very effective tanks.. which rogues do not.

4E has pretty much completely conformed to the standard MMO class definitions, by making Rogues and Rangers Strikers, and Pallies and Fighters into Defenders. And it's also worth noting that Rogues and Rangers get their bonus damage on a great many more creatures (though it's somewhat muted from 3.5).

I'm not saying Rogues should keep 100% effectiveness against Golems and Undead... but enhancements, magic items, feats, something should give them a portion of that effectiveness back.

Timjc86
02-11-2009, 09:12 PM
I'm not saying Rogues should keep 100% effectiveness against Golems and Undead... but enhancements, magic items, feats, something should give them a portion of that effectiveness back.

Exactly.

SableShadow
02-11-2009, 09:24 PM
It's certainly arguable whether this is a balance issue or not (I think my opinion's pretty clear :D), and I'm not saying itemization wouldn't help (sneak attack weapons are pretty cool) but I wouldn't consider that an ideal solution.


No, I think you're correct. Every other class in the game can be played casually with a fair amount of effectiveness; the same cannot be said of the rogue class.

For rogues *in* game, the advice to get good is to "gear up!" and "play hardcore"....certainly not helpful for folks who are interested in the class but not fanatics, or who just don't have the time to dedicate to it.

Ultimately, "gear up!" and "play hardcore" won't make LFMs any more friendly to the purple icon.

Uska
02-11-2009, 11:50 PM
Please read up on subjects like MMOs, Raids, DPS characters... and then come to your own conclusion on why it would be bad for DPS characters to do shoddy DPS on raids.

3.5 rules are gravy and all... except I don't remember getting together for a raid in 3.5 to have a 3% chance to pull that epic raid loot.

If a mmo is based on a pnp game it should follow it where can period and I dont play my rogues as the main dps class and I dont think its bad for them to have limits on their special abilities.

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 12:11 AM
If a mmo is based on a pnp game it should follow it where can period and I dont play my rogues as the main dps class and I dont think its bad for them to have limits on their special abilities.

Ok... and I disagree.

And apparantly WotC does to a degree as well, as 4e represents many of the things I'm talking about.

Junts
02-12-2009, 12:25 AM
Ok... and I disagree.

And apparantly WotC does to a degree as well, as 4e represents many of the things I'm talking about.


You're being too narrow; there are some amazing rogue tank builds (dex-based 15/1 with monk acrobats are some of the best raid tanks in the game) and it is very, very clear from things like the paladin capstone, defender of siberys, and frenzied berserker that the intention of the ddo development team is to make it, more or less, possible to create either tank or striker variations of every melee class, though obviously their top-end quality may vary slightly between classes (rangers will probably always be the best straight strikers, and it looks like paladins are getting set up to be the best defenders, though stalwart defender may move fighter back to the top).

IMO, this is much better design and creates much more flexible character building, though the variations are so much greater that it is also much harder, which is why we have 14/1/1 ranger/monky rogue rangers.

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:29 AM
Why should rangers, barbarians, or fighters be equal to or better than rogues at DPS?

Because this is dnd not wow

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 12:30 AM
Because this is dnd not wow

This is DDO not dnd.

Oh... that solved so much, didn't it.

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:32 AM
You're lumping melee combat into one category, when it's not that simple.

Rangers and Rogues are similar to compare... but Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all have different roles in combat to fill than the rogue. While the rogue is focused on pure killing power and DPS... Fighters, Paladins and especially Barbarians get extra class abilities for Tanking as well. Increased HP, AC, DR, etc.

When looking at MMOs... it's usually very easy to differentiate the differences between Tanks and Melee DPS classes. DDO doesn't have clearcut class definitions, and while you can make effective DPS builds from Fighters, Pallies and Barbs.. they also make very effective tanks.. which rogues do not.

4E has pretty much completely conformed to the standard MMO class definitions, by making Rogues and Rangers Strikers, and Pallies and Fighters into Defenders. And it's also worth noting that Rogues and Rangers get their bonus damage on a great many more creatures (though it's somewhat muted from 3.5).I'm not saying Rogues should keep 100% effectiveness against Golems and Undead... but enhancements, magic items, feats, something should give them a portion of that effectiveness back.

yeah and 4E has many many haters who have decided to stick with either ad&d or 3-

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:33 AM
Ok... and I disagree.

And apparantly WotC does to a degree as well, as 4e represents many of the things I'm talking about.

yeah and 4E is complete and utter trash

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 12:34 AM
You're being too narrow; there are some amazing rogue tank builds (dex-based 15/1 with monk acrobats are some of the best raid tanks in the game) and it is very, very clear from things like the paladin capstone, defender of siberys, and frenzied berserker that the intention of the ddo development team is to make it, more or less, possible to create either tank or striker variations of every melee class, though obviously their top-end quality may vary slightly between classes (rangers will probably always be the best straight strikers, and it looks like paladins are getting set up to be the best defenders, though stalwart defender may move fighter back to the top).

IMO, this is much better design and creates much more flexible character building, though the variations are so much greater that it is also much harder, which is why we have 14/1/1 ranger/monky rogue rangers.

What does that have to do with rogues and sneak attacks? I already said that classes and party roles were murky in DDO.

But rogues being a DPS class is a no brainer.

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 12:35 AM
yeah and 4E has many many haters who have decided to stick with either ad&d or 3-

Yes... and 3e had many haters who chose to stick with Ad&d. What's your point?

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:46 AM
Yes... and 3e had many haters who chose to stick with Ad&d. What's your point?

that I dont agree with you or the op

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 12:47 AM
wrong still closer to dnd then wow you seem to want wow with ddo combat system

You're the only person mentioning wow.

IF ANYTHING... I'm proposing being closer to 4e in some very specific instances. Like most, I think 4e went a little too far in trying to streamline all the classes together... but there were some very good changes as well.

I think lowering Ranger and Rogue DPS... but making it more widely useful was a good thing.

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:51 AM
This is DDO not dnd.

Oh... that solved so much, didn't it.

wrong still closer to dnd then wow you seem to want wow with ddo combat system

Uska
02-12-2009, 12:56 AM
You're the only person mentioning wow.

IF ANYTHING... I'm proposing being closer to 4e in some very specific instances. Like most, I think 4e went a little too far in trying to streamline all the classes together... but there were some very good changes as well.

I think lowering Ranger and Rogue DPS... but making it more widely useful was a good thing.

supporting more 4e like is supporting more wow like exactly why I dumped my 4e books after reading them the only good things about 4e are the easy of setting something up even though combat can take hours at higher levels and the examples for new dms to help the learn to run the rest is utter trash.

Borror0
02-12-2009, 01:24 AM
supporting more 4e like is supporting more wow like exactly why I dumped my 4e books after reading them the only good things about 4e are the easy of setting something up even though combat can take hours at higher levels and the examples for new dms to help the learn to run the rest is utter trash.
Quit the 4e talk. It's going nowhere.

Uska, would you ever support enhancements giving rogues better DPS against unliving creatures like constructs and undeads?

Uska
02-12-2009, 01:35 AM
Quit the 4e talk. It's going nowhere.

Uska, would you ever support enhancements giving rogues better DPS against unliving creatures like constructs and undeads?

For way of the mechanic yes. talking with him always goes nowhere.

Uska
02-12-2009, 01:35 AM
Quit the 4e talk. It's going nowhere.

Uska, would you ever support enhancements giving rogues better DPS against unliving creatures like constructs and undeads?

For way of the mechanic on constructs yes but not undead. talking with him always goes nowhere.

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 01:43 AM
For way of the mechanic on constructs yes but not undead. talking with him always goes nowhere.

Didn't realize that mechanics were any good at building golems, inanimate objects brought to life through magic.

You know... if we're talking about 3.5 rules. Golems are wizard territory.

Uska
02-12-2009, 01:58 AM
Didn't realize that mechanics were any good at building golems, inanimate objects brought to life through magic.

You know... if we're talking about 3.5 rules. Golems are wizard territory.

but they know how mechanical devies are built and would spot weakness in the wizards work. I think you just like arguring with me dont ya:)

bobbryan2
02-12-2009, 02:03 AM
but they know how mechanical devies are built and would spot weakness in the wizards work. I think you just like arguring with me dont ya:)


Nah.. not just you. :)

But I thought the whole point was magically animated inanimate particulate didn't have weaknesses. Golems aren't mechanical devices, they're magical.

If it had weaknesses, it could be crit in the first place...

But that's all irrelavant... that's the reasoning why rogues can't sneak attack in 3.5. If you're going to ignore that reasoning... there's no reason to only ignore it for constructs.

Borror0
02-12-2009, 02:05 AM
For way of the mechanic on constructs yes but not undead.
Why not undeads? Why not going for something like "the rogue learned to hit to damage undeads better"? You know, like breaking the right bone, etc.

bbqzor
02-12-2009, 03:00 AM
This has been widely addressed in 3.5 PnP multiple times. And game mechanically, nothing to do with the DM.

The most obvious and easiest solution would simply be to implement the class feature found in the Dungeonscape supplement, called Penetrating Strike. There are several others in a variety of source books, all official WoTC material nothing 3rd party, but this is the one they all compare to. Paraphrased, you deal half sneak damage to sneak immune targets but only when flanking.

They already have a check in for flanking, the halfling sneak damage enhancement ability uses it. And the trade off for the above ability is a loss of the 'trapfinding' ability, which is absent from DDO anyhow meaning Rogues lose it by default. Basically this could be cut and paste right in with little to no effort.

And, in fact, would be 10 times the capstone ability the current Rogue one is, which is basically a complete joke. In PnP the point of a high level Rogue is to deal with high level traps, and do lots of damage. In DDO, many many characters can deal with high level traps due to how the game treats them. And, while anyone can contribute good damage, Rogues are more 'all or nothing' than most builds.

The PnP game saw that problem too, and delt with it. Now DDO sees the same problem. Why not copy the same solution as a benefit to make those that stay pure rogue advantageous relative to the myriad of multiclass options which offer the same benefits or better. Generally 1 level of Rogue is sufficient for traps, the only reason to take the class is sneak. Getting half sneak (5d6 at 20, avg 17.5 dmg) most/all the time is comparable to the 4d6-6d6 paladins can get now, or the tempest-hasted ~14 (at 20) rangers will get to favored enemies, and those classes offer a lot more than just the damage bonuses, which are largely all the rogues are contributing.

Deal with both problems at once. Scrap the currently useless Rogue capstone. Copy a PnP ability that requires no modification and was designed to address a core function of the game. Make it the capstone. Rogue sneak problems are dealt with, rogue capstone is dealt with, and the only real class advantage is retained. It even eases future development when Fortification will likely need to be added in an increasing amount to mitigate killing things too fast, by effectively giving the designers a way to negate huge criticals in some cases without incidentally nerfing rogues too.

Why it hasnt been added already is beyond me, but now is very likely the most opportune time there will be to add it thatll come up for quite some time. Just my 2 cents.

spyderwolf
02-12-2009, 03:40 AM
so to sum it up rogues havent been able to SA undead or Constructs from inception up until the introduction of 4th edition rules ( which i have yet to hear anyone who plays PNP regularly say they like). but we have a group of people who want them to have SA vs those mobs. you have umd,evasion,great dps vs anyhting critable.you do traps. you can use smiting and disruption the same as anyone else. you cant be great at alot of stuff and have a weakness and then expect for your weakness to be magically fixed. rogue cant sneak attack non critables. get over it. your class has myriad other benefits and bonuses to make up for that weakness. do you actually think the devs will divert from somehting that has been core for so long? or do you think they will hear your pleas and decide to say hey. you just poked that skellie on the funny bone, you sneak attacked him? as for dps. if you really wanna see dps in part 4 or 5 shroud. take a wf barb to hold aggro and have 8 rogues. 1 cleric 1 sorc and 1 bard. he will go down faster than youve ever see.


rogue can be one of the stronger classes when played and equiped.

Uska
02-12-2009, 03:44 AM
Why not undeads? Why not going for something like "the rogue learned to hit to damage undeads better"? You know, like breaking the right bone, etc.

Get them to come up with a rogue that specializes against undead and I would be down with it, rogues dont need to be able to have their special abilites affect all paladins smites dont clerics turn undead is highly limited so why should rogues be special hmm:rolleyes:

sephiroth1084
02-12-2009, 04:12 AM
Well...your definition of *need* is much different than mine, I think.
I guess so. Even on my S&B paladin/fighter I don't feel that I need a vorpal, paralyzer, smiter or wounder (and I find disruptors to be trash). That would be no different on a rogue.

Didn't I say this earlier?

How about a weapon ability that would allow a player to bypass some or all of the immunity to sneak attacks?

Something like weapon ability "x": this weapon slightly alters the energies animating or protecting the target from sneak attacks. Attacks made with this weapon treat the protection from sneak attacks as being Y% lower.


And this?

This has been widely addressed in 3.5 PnP multiple times. And game mechanically, nothing to do with the DM.

The most obvious and easiest solution would simply be to implement the class feature found in the Dungeonscape supplement, called Penetrating Strike.




...wall of text amounting to: rogues get some awesome class abilities and are very good some of the time, so what does it matter if they blow at other times--paladins have the same issue and there is no problem there...

First, until a couple mods ago, it was frustrating as hell to play my paladin against non-evil creatures since my most significant source of damage was rendered obsolete (one of the frustrations of PvPing with a paladin as well), but the developers finally saw fit to add in some of the paladin abilities and feats and spells that allow paladins to perform against non-evil creatures (Divine Might, Divine Sacrifice, Zeal), which helps a LOT. Yet, smite evil has never been the bread and butter of the paladin--they are just too few and far between.

Yet the rogue's entire offensive suite is based upon their ability to get SA. They have no other offensive abilities to speak of, and are not suited to any other role in combat (while a paladin, without smites, can soak damage and aggro). Yeah, SA can sometimes be hard to get, and keep, and takes some planning, which I am all for (the rogue is a thinking man's class), and that's a fair downside. However, in DDO, we are often faced with entire quests, quest chains, explorer areas, and regions that offer nary a target for a backstabbing rogue. In these situations, such characters are regulated to a role (almost) as a non-combatant. This does not make for good/fun gameplay and needs to be rectified.


On the undead and construct issues specifically, I've always been on the fence about how critical hits and SA should interact with these foes. On the one hand, they lack much of the anatomy that would lend itself to be ravaged by these attacks, which is the reason for the structure of the rules surrounding them. On the other hand, though, a zombie may still be susceptible to having a limb hacked off, hamstring cut or head lopped off, and a skeleton may have a vertebra knocked out or joint broken. Sure, the effect of these injuries upon an unfeeling undead creature would be less than those upon a living, but they will still be impeded and closer to being destroyed, so it makes sense for some degree of critical hits (for everyone) and SA to be applied.

"I aim my shot the golem's exposed wiring in the back of its knee, causing it to stumble and lose some degree of its motor control. And now...I go for the ocular sensor..."

Borror0
02-12-2009, 05:24 AM
Get them to come up with a rogue that specializes against undead and I would be down with it
Fine. Done. I present you Rogue Undead Smiting.
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy I

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Undead Smiting II
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.

No, it's not a PrE. No, it's not exclusive. But who told you it had to be? Why should it? Why should a rogue have to focus its training (and forgo all other PrE's) just to be able to do potent damage against undeads? That's silly. So silly, in fact, that it should never happen. Otherwise, the next time Turbine does a undead-heavy module, every rogue will be "forced" to spec for that undead PrE. I think you'll agree that this would be stupid.

So, here I present you this Rogue Undead Smiting. If you don't like the name, feel free to suggest anything better.

View it as some feat in D&D, who allow your sneak attacks to behave differently, like Telling Blow. It's not all that much different. Heck, it could be translated into a feat or even an item without problem if we wanted. (An item would make most sense, D&D flavor-wise, as undeads are magical creatures.) It's just that, this time, the training was done via enhancements.

Oh, if anyone has better prereq idea, that would be cool. Currently underwhelmed by my current ideas.

Oh, and while we're at it, here is my version of Rogue Wrack Construct, while we're at it:
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7
Rogue Mechanics I OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Rogue Mechanics II OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy III

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Wrack Construct II
Rogue Mechanics III OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy IV

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.

I'd also give Mechanics I-III a little something against constructs.

SableShadow
02-12-2009, 11:36 AM
Well...your definition of *need* is much different than mine, I think.
I guess so. Even on my S&B paladin/fighter I don't feel that I need a vorpal, paralyzer, smiter or wounder (and I find disruptors to be trash). That would be no different on a rogue.

*Should* be no different on a rogue. In the game as it stands, if you want to avoid being....


....regulated to a role (almost) as a non-combatant....

...in a significant proportion of quests, then those items that are "nice to have" on other classes become "need to have" for a rogue.

Borror and the OP have convinced me that this fact, what I call "gear dependence", is just not fair. The class is better served by lowering the entry requirements to be effective than to expound on the gear and skillset required...after all, I've been taking that approach for what? A year and change now (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=124401)? There's been a little movement, but not a lot.

I'm just on the wrong tact overall if the purple icon is going to be as generally accepted as the other ones.

SableShadow
02-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Fine. Done. I present you Rogue Undead Smiting.
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy I

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Undead Smiting II
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.

No, it's not a PrE. No, it's not exclusive. But who told you it had to be? Why should it? Why should a rogue have to focus its training (and forgo all other PrE's) just to be able to do potent damage against undeads? That's silly. So silly, in fact, that it should never happen. Otherwise, the next time Turbine does a undead-heavy module, every rogue will be "forced" to spec for that undead PrE. I think you'll agree that this would be stupid.

So, here I present you this Rogue Undead Smiting. If you don't like the name, feel free to suggest anything better.

View it as some feat in D&D, who allow your sneak attacks to behave differently, like Telling Blow. It's not all that much different. Heck, it could be translated into a feat or even an item without problem if we wanted. (An item would make most sense, D&D flavor-wise, as undeads are magical creatures.) It's just that, this time, the training was done via enhancements.

Oh, if anyone has better prereq idea, that would be cool. Currently underwhelmed by my current ideas.

Oh, and while we're at it, here is my version of Rogue Wrack Construct, while we're at it:
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7
Rogue Mechanics I OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Rogue Mechanics II OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy III

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Wrack Construct II
Rogue Mechanics III OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy IV

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.

I'd also give Mechanics I-III a little something against constructs.

/signed. Bang, done, and nice job. :D

bbqzor
02-12-2009, 04:53 PM
I think a lot of folks completely glossed over what I posted.

This has been addressed *multiple times* in PnP. The problem of sneak being target limited is unique to DDO at this point. PnP 3.5 has covered it. 4th Edition has covered. DDO has not covered it.

You want to make it a line like Borro suggests, fine. Its still the same 5d6 at 20 that the PnP version is. Only now you spent AP on it where in PnP its free... Id rather just spend 2 ap for a capstone version myself.

I can list a half dozen or so PnP 3.5 sources where this has been looked at and alternatives created, at least. The Dungeonscape one is simply the most generic and convenient one, which almost every PnP rogue takes if theyre looking to build a strong DPS character. As such it winds up as the one the others get compared to. In 4th Edition, this style of solution was simply hard-written into the basic rules, and for good reason.

Theres no need to reinvent the wheel here. DDO is simply behind the times, the book version of the game has had solutions for this since at least 2003, which is the earliest official 3.5 edition solution published I can find quickly. There may be an earlier one but frankly even that date shows how slow the MMO has been to adapt to the nuanced problems the PnP version overcame with time.

Gorstag
02-12-2009, 06:36 PM
My main is a rogue, and I personaly do not think that creatures that are naturally immune to sneak attack damage or crits should not be affected by rogues. Constructs, undead, elementals, etc. Though I would like an enhancement line avalabe to melees including rogues taht would lesson fortification.

(Whatever you can think of) I
AP cost 2 pts
requirements: Level 6
You reduce targeted creatures fortification by 10%

(Whatever you can think of) II
AP cost 4 pts
requirements: Level 12
You reduce targeted creatures fortification by 20%

(Whatever you can think of) III
AP cost 6 pts
requirements: Level 18
You reduce targeted creatures fortification by 30%

Granted ,imho, this would help rogues out more than other melees, but it is an enhancement line I would personally love to see. Maybe change the requirement with levels, but it would still be nice.

Uska
02-12-2009, 11:29 PM
Fine. Done. I present you Rogue Undead Smiting.
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Undead Smiting I
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy I

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.


Rogue Undead Smiting III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Undead Smiting II
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to undeads.

No, it's not a PrE. No, it's not exclusive. But who told you it had to be? Why should it? Why should a rogue have to focus its training (and forgo all other PrE's) just to be able to do potent damage against undeads? That's silly. So silly, in fact, that it should never happen. Otherwise, the next time Turbine does a undead-heavy module, every rogue will be "forced" to spec for that undead PrE. I think you'll agree that this would be stupid.

So, here I present you this Rogue Undead Smiting. If you don't like the name, feel free to suggest anything better.

View it as some feat in D&D, who allow your sneak attacks to behave differently, like Telling Blow. It's not all that much different. Heck, it could be translated into a feat or even an item without problem if we wanted. (An item would make most sense, D&D flavor-wise, as undeads are magical creatures.) It's just that, this time, the training was done via enhancements.

Oh, if anyone has better prereq idea, that would be cool. Currently underwhelmed by my current ideas.

Oh, and while we're at it, here is my version of Rogue Wrack Construct, while we're at it:
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Cost: 1 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 7
Rogue Mechanics I OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy II

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 2d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct II
Cost: 3 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 13
Rogue Wrack Construct I
Rogue Mechanics II OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy III

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 3d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.


Rogue Wrack Construct III
Cost: 5 Action Points
Prereqs:

Rogue Level 19
Rogue Wrack Construct II
Rogue Mechanics III OR Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy IV

Benefit: Your rogue can now deal 5d6 sneak attack damage to constructs.

I'd also give Mechanics I-III a little something against constructs.



FAIL. the hunter of the dead for the paladin concentrates on undead any special thing for rogues should have similar limitations you guys just want your cake and to eat to I no longer care to listen.

Borror0
02-12-2009, 11:59 PM
the hunter of the dead for the paladin concentrates on undead any special thing for rogues should have similar limitations
Eh, no.

bobbryan2
02-13-2009, 12:30 AM
FAIL. the hunter of the dead for the paladin concentrates on undead any special thing for rogues should have similar limitations you guys just want your cake and to eat to I no longer care to listen.

:)

I think you no longer cared to listen a few pages back.

Timjc86
02-13-2009, 09:40 AM
FAIL. the hunter of the dead for the paladin concentrates on undead any special thing for rogues should have similar limitations you guys just want your cake and to eat to I no longer care to listen.

The only justification I have seen from you in this thread as to why it would be bad for rogues to get partial sneak attack damage against non "fleshie" mobs is "because PnP says so."

The following reasons make that a very un-compelling argument:

That is only the case in some versions of PnP. Other versions (ie newer ones have) added ways for rogues to be more effective against non-fleshie monsters.


This is not PnP. There is no such thing as a round in DDO. This leaves a LOT of grey space when implementing things from PnP and requires some serious and legitimate thought to maintain some degree of balance and keep the game fun for everyone.


"Because x says so" arguments are appeals to authority. It is a logical fallacy.


Why would it be so bad for rogues to get partial sneak attack damage against stuff like undead and constructs? Would it really be unbalancingly powerful? The general drawbacks to sneak attacks would still apply (if not some additional ones): no aggro, flanking, reduced damage (even as much as 1/4 to 1/3 of normal). Does an extra, situational 3d6 worry you that much?

How is asking for 1/3 of usual effectiveness wanting to "have our cake and eat it too"?

As for Hunter of the Dead, it's supposed to specialize against undead. I don't see anyone asking for rogues to become specialized undead killing machines. HoD also has some nice benefits that are not undead specific: increased benefit from healing spells, resistance/immunity to negative energy spells and drains, extra Remove Diseases which can be used as less/regular/greater Restoration spells. Additionally, you're comparing a prestige enhancement line to something I think should be innately granted (or available via enhancements/feats) and comparably much less powerful.

If you disagree, that's fine. But at least give us something to help us see why you hold your opinions. All we know so far is that you like 3.5, you don't like 4.0, you don't like WoW, and you don't want DDO to be like WoW. So what's the link between granting partial sneak attack damage to rogues and turning DDO into WoW? As of now, I'm just not seeing it.

Aspenor
02-13-2009, 09:53 AM
FAIL. the hunter of the dead for the paladin concentrates on undead any special thing for rogues should have similar limitations you guys just want your cake and to eat to I no longer care to listen.

If your only reasoning is that because it doesn't work that way in PnP, which that seems to be the case, please get your head out of the sand and realize that 3.5e is horrendously flawed in many, many ways.

You may hate 4.0, but rogues can sneak attack both undead and constructs in 4.0. Arguing that "PnP says X" doesn't hold water, because it depends on your edition.

Hating 4.0 is not grounds for ignoring its existence.

Uska
02-13-2009, 10:01 AM
If your only reasoning is that because it doesn't work that way in PnP, which that seems to be the case, please get your head out of the sand and realize that 3.5e is horrendously flawed in many, many ways.

You may hate 4.0, but rogues can sneak attack both undead and constructs in 4.0. Arguing that "PnP says X" doesn't hold water, because it depends on your edition.

Hating 4.0 is not grounds for ignoring its existence.

this isnt 4E and saying 4E has it is pretty good reason nto to add it. and I never really like 3- that much just works better here for me then 4E I prefer and run mainly 1st ad&d egg got it right the first time didnt need any other edtions. Rogues shouldnt sneak attack against everything and they dont. you guys are arguing for it just because you cant the queens of dps against everything well boo hoo

Uska
02-13-2009, 10:03 AM
Eh, no.

give one good reason why rogues sneak attack shouldnt have limits its already better then paladin smites and they have a limit of only evil and you have to wait for them to recharge.

Aspenor
02-13-2009, 10:12 AM
this isnt 4E and saying 4E has it is pretty good reason nto to add it. and I never really like 3- that much just works better here for me then 4E I prefer and run mainly 1st ad&d egg got it right the first time didnt need any other edtions. Rogues shouldnt sneak attack against everything and they dont. you guys are arguing for it just because you cant the queens of dps against everything well boo hoo

i actually have no personal interest in whether rogues can sneak attack undead, i could care less. your argument, again, holds no water.

you are arguing just to be difficult, and you haven't made a single poignant argument yet.

you are arguing just for the sake of arguing and being difficult, so why don't you try being open minded instead of harping your 1st ed (gag me, 1st ed sucked) nonsense.

Eelpout
02-13-2009, 10:23 AM
i actually have no personal interest in whether rogues can sneak attack undead, i could care less. your argument, again, holds no water.

you are arguing just to be difficult, and you haven't made a single poignant argument yet.

you are arguing just for the sake of arguing and being difficult, so why don't you try being open minded instead of harping your 1st ed (gag me, 1st ed sucked) nonsense.

Couldn't a valid arguement be; Learning to find weaknesses in Undead or Constructs would take a significant amount of studying or focus. It almost seems like it would be more of a specialty. I definately don't feel it should take the place of any of the PrE's though. However, Mechanic II already has bonuses to fighting constructs in the new MOD. If they were to add a open line for all rogues it would take something away from the Mechanic line.

Aspenor
02-13-2009, 10:25 AM
Couldn't a valid arguement be; Learning to find weaknesses in Undead or Constructs would take a significant amount of studying or focus. It almost seems like it would be more of a specialty. I definately don't feel it should take the place of any of the PrE's though. However, Mechanic II already has bonuses to fighting constructs in the new MOD. If they were to add a open line for all rogues it would take something away from the Mechanic line.

IMHO it should be part of a specialty line, yes, and it should only be partial, not full sneak attack damage.

Borror0
02-13-2009, 10:45 AM
give one good reason why rogues sneak attack shouldnt have limits its already better then paladin smites
Can I ask you a silly question?

Pardon me if I am missing the obvious part here but... how is any of that relevant?

Paladins don't only have Smite Evil. Likewise, rogues don't only have sneak attack. Wanting to balance one with the other is silly.

Paladins have Zeal; rogues don't. Paladins have Divine Favor; rogues don't. Paladins get Divine Might; rogues don't. Paladins get d10 HD; rogues get d6 HD. Paladins get Lay on Hands; rogues don't. Paladins get Divine Health; rogues don't. Paladins get Divine Grace; rogues don't. Paladins get Aura of Good; rogues don't.

Now that we have established that rogues and paladins are two different classes with totally different variables, we may discuss the problem at hand: rogues' DPS potential between SA mobs and non-SA mobs is too large. It leads to many problems, the most obvious being grouping problems which we hear often about and see often on LFMs. It also creates problems for Turbine, because they have to design new content fun for all classes and not fun for all classes but rogues.

Better question to ask yourself in front of a proposal would be:

Is that too powerful for the cost it has?
Does it overpower the class or a particular build?
Does it fix the problem properly?
Does it have any undesirable side-effects?
Does it goes against flavor in a particular way?

In this case, the answers, generally should be: yes, no, yes, yes, partially.

The ability is too powerful for the cost it has. At least, the first two tiers are and the third tier probably also is. Rogues need access two this ability so bad that it would hardly be a choice on whether to pick Rogue Undead Smiting or not. (My proposal for Rogue Wrack Construct is more balanced, though.) However, this is the best compromise I could come up with.

The fix that would respect that criteria best is to redefine Sneak Attack itself so that it deals only half damage to nonliving creatures like oozes, plants, undeads and constructs. But, this is a far greater deviation from 3.5 D&D than what I am suggesting.

Plus, presenting the fix as an enhancement presents other advantages.

Of course, undeads are supposed to be magical creatures and this rogues are not supposed to be able to damage them in this manner (at least, not without the proper knowledge skill, at a bare minimum). But, many will view it as a worthwhile sacrifice to work around the problem. It does not hurt the flavor of the class, as rogues still are weaker against undeads. But, they are less weak and that is the sought goal.

Eelpout
02-13-2009, 10:46 AM
IMHO it should be part of a specialty line, yes, and it should only be partial, not full sneak attack damage.

I agree with that. Another option, although completely changing the rules of DnD, would be to add them as Feats.

Sneak Attack: Construct; You are able to sneak attack constructs with half damage rounded down.

Maybe also have one for undead. If they really felt like stretching it out, have the feats start at 1/4 and implement an enhancement line that could get it up to 1/2 or more.

I am not sure if I actually have a productive thought for the first time in my life or if I am just talking out my @ss again.

Borror0
02-13-2009, 10:51 AM
I definately don't feel it should take the place of any of the PrE's though.
Does this (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2052078#post2052078) fulfill your criterias? If not, what would you change?

If they were to add a open line for all rogues it would take something away from the Mechanic line.
If you look at my suggestion, the prereqs for the construct line is either Sneak Attack Accuracy or Mechanics.

Plus, I would add something else to Mechanics to make the a little better. All rogues would improve against constructs (at least if they want) and Mechanics would simply be better than other rogues versus constructs.

Do you still think it is "taking away" from them?

bobbryan2
02-13-2009, 10:53 AM
give one good reason why rogues sneak attack shouldnt have limits its already better then paladin smites and they have a limit of only evil and you have to wait for them to recharge.

Because Paladins have a metric ton of other bonuses that work regardless of enemy... whereas rogues have almost nothing.

Zeal + DF + DM + angel skin etc...

What do rogues have when SA doesn't work?

Seriously...

Think about it.

bobbryan2
02-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Does this (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2052078#post2052078) fulfill your criterias? If not, what would you change

The only reason I don't really care for your suggestion is because it negates any other learned bonuses the rogue has.

Lowering it to 5d6 is roughly half the damage, but I would much rather actually lower it to 50% than anything else. Rogues have another +12 coming in from enhancements, +8 to halflings, etc... that's getting left out in the cold. I'd rather have the enemies actually have 50% fort for purposes of sneak attack, and getting full damage 50% of the time.

But that's a quibbling point.. and I like the way it feels more.

Eelpout
02-13-2009, 10:59 AM
Does this (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2052078#post2052078) fulfill your criterias? If not, what would you change?

If you look at my suggestion, the prereqs for the construct line is either Sneak Attack Accuracy or Mechanics.

Plus, I would add something else to Mechanics to make the a little better. All rogues would improve against constructs (at least if they want) and Mechanics would simply be better than other rogues versus constructs.

Do you still think it is "taking away" from them?

Not as much, no. I do think there should be a significant investment, be it Feats, Levels and/or AP, in anything that allows for rogues to get the extra bonuses vs constructs and undead.

I definately like the level breaks and limit to damage that you put in there. It makes you commit as a rogue to get the bonuses.

Borror0
02-13-2009, 11:15 AM
I do think there should be a significant investment, be it Feats, Levels and/or AP, in anything that allows for rogues to get the extra bonuses vs constructs and undead.
We both know that a minimum is necessary to help rogues.

Unless we overcost it, nearly all of them will take it. Not because it is overpowered (at least, not in the usual meaning), but because it is necessary to them to achieve potent DPS in undead-heavy quests. I can't even imagine how much M5.0 must have sucked for rogues. Even more for those without guilds or in small guilds and a small social network, for whom it must have been a nightmare.

I do not mind adding more costs, but it got to stay flavorful and not create a too linear structure either (cookie-cutter).

I rather have it "too cheap" than "too expensive", it's not like it overpowers rogues anyway.

Ghost_Aeon
02-17-2009, 05:09 PM
To throw in my two copper, and something that was made note of in 4th edition, is that while undead and constructs lack vital organs and veins to bleed from, they are not without weak points in their own right. In my view, "sneak attack" is a bad name, as is "backstabbing." I prefer to call it "precision striking" which, because of it's maticulousness, requires the target either be too busy (i.e. granting combat advantage) or otherwise unaware of the rogue for the rogue to make such a precision strike, but when the rogue dues, watch out. Gears jam and bones start dropping to the floor as constructs and undead start falling apart at the seams.

bbqzor
02-18-2009, 04:01 PM
For the last time, the idea that this problem exists in PnP is *wrong*.

If you examine only the core rules, yes it does, but then so do 100 other problems addressed by adding expanded content to the MMO. Spell lists, start there and go...

Heres just a few WoTC offical 3.5 PnP books that address the binary issue of sneak attack:
Miniatures Handbook, Complete Champion, Dungeonscape, Players Handbook 2, and more!
Dungeonscape is the one Turbine should be looking at here, all the others wind up comparing to it for one reason or another.

In all cases, it either allows sneaks to sneak-immune targets, or provides an alternative ability anytime sneak doesnt function. I.E., you either deal Xd6 damage, or deal another status effect such as an ac penalty to the target.

In 4E, the exact same solution was implemented at the ground level. Kind of a no brainer...

So, the complete 3.5 ruleset does not suffer this problem. The complete 4.0 ruleset does not suffer this problem.

In both cases a 'damage cap' of around 5d6 (at 20, half the 10d6 base) is consistently applied. The exceptions tend to be things like a Prestige Class granting stacking damage, but those things take 10 levels of investment and are way beyond the scope of this fix. Thus the cap of 5d6 is completely reasonable and well supported.

*Also it depends on taking rogue levels, and supports a pure class having a better class based ability at high levels*

The DDO MMO is the only DnD 'rule set' to not incorporate a treatment of this issue. It *is* fixed in PnP, either edition. Anyone saying otherwise is incorrect, and has not gone and read some/all of the sources cited. Its something that needs to be done, especially to address group/raid construction concerns as the game advances into higher levels. Fights like Sorjek Elite are only going to become more common...

Fin.