Possible Change to Blanket Sneak Attack Immunities

[Uska]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[sephiroth1084]

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]

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]

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? 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]

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.

[bbqzor]

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]

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.