quote:

---

Lashanna stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
The diplomatic rogue aspect of the egomaniacal diplomatic rogue archetype is overrated.

---

I'll overrate you!

Also, he wasn't crazy egomanical, just wanting to be really famous. ;p

Lenlalron Flameblaster fucked around with this message on 03-22-2005 at 04:32 PM.

quote:

---

Naimah impressed everyone with:
On the line of shitty GMs I would like to complain about one particular monster. While it dosn't exist any more it is the most depressing thing EVER. Rot Grubs. Damn little buggers. All they need is a touch attack. 1d3 turns later you're dead. DEAD. Now put this into a level one to three campaign. Screw first ed.

---

word.

I'm turning this into a full fledged dungeon for my friends to go through (one/two day campaign).

I've got some humiliating traps set in mind (Soverign Glue rubber ducky, talking cookie monster, talking Gary...stupid spongebob, and a Paladin's boot)

This is going to get intesting.

quote:

---

Redmage Darkrayver's account was hax0red to write:

I've got some humiliating traps set in mind (Soverign Glue rubber ducky, talking cookie monster, talking Gary...stupid spongebob, and a Paladin's boot)

This is going to get intesting stupid.

---

Yes.

But if that's the way you like your fantasy RPGs, more power to you. I guess.

Can I play in your campaign as a level 17 disc jockey?

The "boss" or God of the dungeon is going to be:

10 monk
10 sorcerer
20 rogue
10 dungeon delver

Should prove to be interesting...but since they'll be a group of level 20s...I may need to bump him up a bit.

Do you understand all the things that a group at level 20 with appropriate equipment can do?

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Dr. Gee stammered:
Wait, you're a new DM and they're new players and they're starting as level 20?

Do you understand all the things that a group at level 20 with appropriate equipment can do?

---

I'm sitting in as Co-DM because of my inexperience, and only Co-DM since it's my dungeon. Otherwise I'd be playing this dungeon myself.

Yeah, it'll be interesting in the sense that huffing gasoline while eating a bowl of sugar then driving a moped the wrong way down a busy street is interesting.

We really can't advise you on how to play D&D, because you're obviously bent on running the most juvenile kind of hack-and-slash-with-godlike-characters game imaginable and we generally try like hell to avoid that sort of thing.

Your play style is really more suited to the "Super Saiyan" class. I suggest skipping all the boring powering up and simply starting out at power level two trillion so you can blast sixty level 20 monks away with your spirit bomb that you can cast twelve times per round. That is until you get to the boss, a giant robot from hell that is actually God but is satan also and wields a giant sword and guns like Dante from Devil May Cry!

quote:

---

This one time, at Maradon! camp:
Yeah, it'll be interesting in the sense that huffing gasoline while eating a bowl of sugar then driving a moped the wrong way down a busy street is interesting.

---

quote:

---

Maradon! Model 2000 was programmed to say:
What you're essentially doing in this thread is telling about all these incredibly stupid ways you're going to mutilate the game of D&D until it resembles some kind of cracked out episode of "Ren & Stimpy", then following it up by saying "Should be interesting."

Yeah, it'll be interesting in the sense that huffing gasoline while eating a bowl of sugar then driving a moped the wrong way down a busy street is interesting.

We really can't advise you on how to play D&D, because you're obviously bent on running the most juvenile kind of hack-and-slash-with-godlike-characters game imaginable and we generally try like hell to avoid that sort of thing.

Your play style is really more suited to the "Super Saiyan" class. I suggest skipping all the boring powering up and simply starting out at power level two trillion so you can blast sixty level 20 monks away with your spirit bomb that you can cast twelve times per round. That is until you get to the boss, a giant robot from hell that is actually God but is satan also and wields a giant sword and guns like Dante from Devil May Cry!

---

Tell us how you really feel.

quote:

---

System.out.println("Maradon! said this:");
What you're essentially doing in this thread is telling about all these incredibly stupid ways you're going to mutilate the game of D&D until it resembles some kind of cracked out episode of "Ren & Stimpy", then following it up by saying "Should be interesting."

Yeah, it'll be interesting in the sense that huffing gasoline while eating a bowl of sugar then driving a moped the wrong way down a busy street is interesting.

We really can't advise you on how to play D&D, because you're obviously bent on running the most juvenile kind of hack-and-slash-with-godlike-characters game imaginable and we generally try like hell to avoid that sort of thing.

Your play style is really more suited to the "Super Saiyan" class. I suggest skipping all the boring powering up and simply starting out at power level two trillion so you can blast sixty level 20 monks away with your spirit bomb that you can cast twelve times per round. That is until you get to the boss, a giant robot from hell that is actually God but is satan also and wields a giant sword and guns like Dante from Devil May Cry!

---

This is hilarious, yet true.

When you're just starting out, it's a good thing to have a lot of ambition. Every GM gets so excited by the possibilities that they let the possibility overshadow what they can really handle or what they really should be looking for.

See the goal here isn't to outsmart your players. It's not to stroke anyone's ego, yours or their's. The goal is to cooperatively tell a story. You may not always know where the story ends, and starts to stories may come up unexpectedly. But you're looking to create a story.

Why? Because ultimately, gaming should be a mutually addictive experience. You want to keep telling the stories you think are badass, and players should want to keep playing. I sometimes gripe, I sometimes regret not having my Sunday nights free, but I really enjoy running my games. And my players really enjoy playing.

Now you can do a lot of things. You can run a lot of one-shot stories or dungeons. The upside to that is that for beginners, buying modules to run with characters is a good way to get people started out. Homegrown dungeons or adventures are a bit more advanced (for one thing you have to cook up everything). But the downside to one-shot adventures or modules or just dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl is the same downside parents run into when their kid wants them to read the same book to them over and over again. There's no dynamism to the deal. The window dressing may be different ("okay in this one, it's caves with lava, not corridors with water") but ultimately it gets old for you the storyteller. Plus your players start getting the drift of your traps, or you end up making them so obtusely arcane that they give up, at which point you risk alienating them.

So that's why you want to be careful with the adventure itself. A little humor is feasible, but loading it down with juvenile jokes...tends to get old. Unless it's dramatically ironic, but you have to have drama for that, and frankly a first-time-out bunch isn't going to have that.

Now, about pigeonholing players...

Don't. In theory starting new players out with cookie-cutter characters can sometimes be good if you don't understand character creation. The drawback over the long term, however, is substantial. They lack the stamps of personalization. The problem is that you're encouraging players to think outside the box. You want them to surprise you sometimes. Believe me, I think I can speak for all the major GM's here at EC when I say that a GM wants his players to think creatively on their feet. It's one of my greatest thrills when I pose a problem and the players cook up some odd combination of things to resolve the issue. If I cut them off by forcing them into a certain role, I'd be hindering that, and hurting my own enjoyment in the process.

The best way, I've found, is to have a broad idea of where you want to go with a story, then go to your players. Find out what sort of characters they want to play. Not their class. Class does not equal character. Find out what sort of character, what sort of person, they want to play. Then use the classes and statistics to flesh that out until you have a fair and balanced playable character. Once you have a party of them, you can start figuring out how their group dynamic will work. Once you have a broad idea of that, you can start tailoring a campaign to their specific aptitudes, and give them challenging villains. A pack of goblins isn't going to really challenge the party full of tanks, etc. Tailoring a campaign to your players is rewarding for you and for them, because you get to enjoy the parry and thrust of interacting with live opponents, and beyond that they're being stimulated more and will respond more fervently.

More later. I have homework right now.

quote:

---

Dr. Gee had this to say about Robocop:
Heh, my DM made a post on the D&D Online about rogues and how they're broken. Basically he built a stock 20th level rogue using nothing but the 3.5 PHB and DMG that would do 100d6 or so damage each round since he had a Ring of Improved Blink as well as duel wielding energy damage weapons for the extra d6's. This rogue also had an AC something in the high-30's without even trying.

Sac some d6's of damage for Brilliant Energy weapons and you now have a rogue who ignores dex bonus to AC and armor bonus on every attack against living targets for about 13d6 per swing.

It was fucking scary. I'll see if i can get the URL from him.

Anyways, the entire point of mentioning this is to reiterate what people have been saying about rogues not having to be built just for being sneaky. You can build them for obscene damage, ultra defense, diplomacy, stealth, scouting, ect ect ect. It's the same with all the other classes. Once you realise that, for the most part, you don't have to stick with the traditional role of any class to be effective the game mechanics side of D&D gets to be just as much fun as the RP side without delving into munchkinism.

---

I cry bullshit, I do nothing but plot out munchkin specs based around rogues (more because I just like rogues) and I see absolutely no feasable way to get 100 d6s, not even close, citing what your DM states, with added d6s (that any dual wielding class can take advantage of) you can do 10d6(sneak attack) + 3 more attacks, adding a d6 to all, being 14d6, thats it folks, 14d6, which is still signifigant, although not really an attack of god at level 20 encounters

Also to have energy weapons (adding a d6) and have the effect of brilliant energy, would give the weapon a bonus of +5, which is signifigant in its own right.

except that any DM that I have ever played with has said outright that regardless of rule interpretation, I cannot use a ring of blinking to have perm sneak attack.

However if you know of a way, please let me know.

I even specifically said "100d6 or so damage each round" Sorry.

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Redmage Darkrayver:
Basically, the humiliating traps are inside jokes from the original D&D group, and will just serve as comical relief.

The "boss" or God of the dungeon is going to be:

10 monk
10 sorcerer
20 rogue
10 dungeon delver

Should prove to be interesting...but since they'll be a group of level 20s...I may need to bump him up a bit.

---

epic mob, CR 50+ God.. against a group of level 20's.... I do hope they dont actually intend to.. fight.. this thing.

improved invis + monk flurry of blows + lv 20 rogue sneak attack + tumbling.. ..

14d6 damage per swing (10 Sneak attack, 1 Weapon, 3 Energy) * 6 attacks (3 BAB 3 from Two Weapon Fighting feats) = 84d6 damage on a round all attacks land.

Pertinent Blink spell text: You strike as an invisible creature (+2 bonus to attack), denying your target any dexterity bonus to AC.

Pertinent Sneak Attack text: Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dex bonus to AC or when flanking.

This is directly out of the PHB. If a Ring of Blink acts as the blink spell, then this synergy occurs unless your DM houserules otherwise.

So yes, 100d6 was a bit overblown and i apologize for that, but otherwise i think you need to read more in depth about how sneak attacks function.

And then haste the rogue and bump it up to 7 attacks and it gets even more stupid.

Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 03-23-2005 at 11:55 PM.

quote:

---

Dr. Gee had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Supposedly too old to edit so i'll add what i was going to. Here's the abbreviated version.

14d6 damage per swing (10 Sneak attack, 1 Weapon, 3 Energy) * 6 attacks (3 BAB 3 from Two Weapon Fighting feats) = 84d6 damage on a round all attacks land.

Pertinent Blink spell text: You strike as an invisible creature (+2 bonus to attack), denying your target any dexterity bonus to AC.

Pertinent Sneak Attack text: Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dex bonus to AC or when flanking.

This is directly out of the PHB. If a Ring of Blink acts as the blink spell, then this synergy occurs unless your DM houserules otherwise.

So yes, 100d6 was a bit overblown and i apologize for that, but otherwise i think you need to read more in depth about how sneak attacks function.

And then haste the rogue and bump it up to 7 attacks and it gets even more stupid.

---

Greetings,

Just a FYI... percision based damage (sneak attack, skirmish etc) can only be applied once per round. This is what keeps things like a Ring of Blink in check, and keeps the rogue from putting the Fighter/Barbarian out of business.

In other business, some neat rogue tricks you can do.

Barbarian/Rogue Charger - This character does a whole lot of damage before the bad guys get to go. So many good feats, tons of damage, but ends up giving up on the charisma skills as well as primarly roguish skills like open lock and disable device.

Soulknife/Rogue Jedi - These two classes mesh well, and create a very combat oriented rogue. Even though combat will be the focus, sneaky skills also cross over. Taking "Up the Walls" makes you totally broken.

Rogue/Exmplar - The professor, take every knowledge skill you can and keep them close to max. If have Int to burn also keep use magical device, decipher script, and diplomacy maxed. While not as useful in combat, the wellspring of knowledge will allow the party to avoid combat.

Enjoy

quote:

---

This one time, at Dr. Gee camp:
This is directly out of the PHB. If a Ring of Blink acts as the blink spell, then this synergy occurs unless your DM houserules otherwise.

So yes, 100d6 was a bit overblown and i apologize for that, but otherwise i think you need to read more in depth about how sneak attacks function.

And then haste the rogue and bump it up to 7 attacks and it gets even more stupid.

---

I'm going to have to call you on the houserule line, but I agree on the stupid part. If you're using rules that reference Invisibility, you should really read the rules on Invisibility.

quote:

---

PHB: Page 245
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature ... If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visable along with all its gear

---

The first attack tells the target that there's someone there. The other attacks, unless the ring was nice enough to blink them to where they have flanking (don't count on it) don't have the element of suprise. No sneak attack bonus.

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Tyewa Dawnsister said:
Just a FYI... percision based damage (sneak attack, skirmish etc) can only be applied once per round. This is what keeps things like a Ring of Blink in check, and keeps the rogue from putting the Fighter/Barbarian out of business.

---

I believe Tyewa is right. I didn't mention that, however, because I don't remember where the rule on that is. But I know I've heard that before too.

edit: this topic comes up all the time on the DnDadventure.com forums.. and the answer is the same every time.

KaLourin fucked around with this message on 03-24-2005 at 12:26 AM.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Palador ChibiDragon wrote:
I believe Tyewa is right. I didn't mention that, however, because I don't remember where the rule on that is. But I know I've heard that before too.

---

As quoted from http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html because my books are in my car and I'm about to go to bed:

quote:

---

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

---

I see nowhere that it says this can only be done once per round. In fact, due to the words, "any time" present within that text, I would be lead to believe that if a rogue is flanking for one attack in a round, and she is flanking for a second attack in a round, then she would be sneak attacking for both attacks.

Please find where any of the core rulebooks lump abilities such as sneak attack into a "precision-based damage" category, and then find where it says that abilities belonging to this category can only be used for one attack per round. I need to know because otherwise I've been playing the game wrong all this time.

Apparently I am wrong, interesting. Sneak attack and it's cousins are often refered to as precision based damage, especially in the Complete series of books.

I also managed to poorly convey myself. What I was trying to say, instead of once per round, was that only the first attack in a full attack could apply precision based damage. Oh course this too is apparently wrong.

What I find interesting is that my gaming group, six people all with fifteen plus years of gaming experience, managed to all make the same mistake. Everyone has played a 3.x rogue at some point in time, and sneak attack was always only rolled on the first attack. I am going to bring this up on Friday night and see what the boys say, there will probably be a collective forehead smack. This will be doubly ironic since of the five players in the group, four of us have levels in rogue.

Tyewa Dawnsister fucked around with this message on 03-24-2005 at 02:08 AM.

quote:

---

KaLourin had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
epic mob, CR 50+ God.. against a group of level 20's.... I do hope they dont actually intend to.. fight.. this thing.

improved invis + monk flurry of blows + lv 20 rogue sneak attack + tumbling.. ..

---

I intend for them to actually Not fight him, but what I might do, is just...at the other DM's disgression, lower his attacks just a tad.

I'm hoping either A) They don't set off any Alarm traps...Or failing that B) Be able to talk to god into letting them have the relic (or some such ploy)

Dumorro
20th level Marxist

quote:

---

So quoth Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael:
I think the person continues to lose the dex bonus not so that every attack in a round is a sneak attack (25d6 for five attacks at 5d6 a piece, and I'm fairly certain I'm off there on damage) as if you're sneak attacking with every move in a round, the rogue's damage output is more than even a high end fireball (which caps out at 15d6, or 30d6 in theory if you have energy admixture and sacrificed a bunch of feats to get to that point). The fact is that a target denied their dex bonus is also vulnerable to other things seemed significant enough. I don't deny the dex bonus is lost the entire round, but there is no way in hell they mean for every attack in a round to be sneak attack.

---

Yeah, I only grant my Rogues Sneak damage on the very first attack of their turn if they can. I mean...it just doesn't make sense from a RP perspective, a sneak attack, to me, is some sort of attack the enemy is not expecting or can't react to very well.

After the first attack in a turn...unless magically bound or something the opponent would not be able to be sneaked. And are you all SURE it says it can be used more than once? Because I would have SWORN that somewhere it says it only works once per round. Every DM I've ever sat with (That's 4, including me) have all said it only happens once.

Nagafen
Level 40 Pureblood Dragon

Abilities
Kill little kids
Eat other players
Destroy DM
Be uber

plz2bejoining.

quote:

---

Densetsu impressed everyone with:
I see nowhere that it says this can only be done once per round. In fact, due to the words, "any time" present within that text, I would be lead to believe that if a rogue is flanking for one attack in a round, and she is flanking for a second attack in a round, then she would be sneak attacking for both attacks.

Please find where any of the core rulebooks lump abilities such as sneak attack into a "precision-based damage" category, and then find where it says that abilities belonging to this category can only be used for one attack per round. I need to know because otherwise I've been playing the game wrong all this time.

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And Tywena, the people in my D&D group have the same thing going for them Other than Ian and I every single person in the group has been playing for at least 14 years. Some of them have dice older than I am.

And OP, in 3.x an opponent doesn't have to be "snuck" to have sneak attack applied. They simply need to be A) denied Dex bonus to AC (Flat-Footed, Bound, Attacker invisible, attacker under the effects of the Blink spell because there is actually a difference between Blink and Invis, ect) or B) Flanked.

No where in there does it say that the enemy must not be aware of the rogue's presence.

Example.

Lakis, Geeorn, Ruger, Viktir, and Duncan are walking down a forest path. There are a group of bandits waiting in ambush. DM does covert spotchecks. Lakis and Duncan are aware of the attacks at the moment the rogues let loose.

Initiative is rolled.

Lakis, Ruger, Enemy, Duncan, Geeorn, Viktir.

Suprise round. Lakis, Duncan, and the rogues all get to take either a move or a standard action.

Lakis runs toward one of the rogues and draws his weapons as a free-action during a move. Ruger is suprised. The enemy all take one shot as a standard attack.

Rogue 1 fires at the angry ranger charging him and hits. 1d8 because Lakis was not suprised and has already taken an action so he is not flat-footed.
Rogue 2 fires at Viktir and hits. 1d8 + 2d6 damage because Viktir is flatfooted from being suprised.
Rogue 3 fires at Duncan and hits (a brutal round for our heroes ) for 1d8 +2d6 because while Duncan is not suprised, he is still flat-footed because he has not taken an action yet.

Ect.

If i'm wrong about the flat-footed thing i apologize. I'm at work and i didn't think to bring my book with me.

Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 03-24-2005 at 11:34 AM.

The upside to this is that a rogue can just tumble back into flanking position (easy enough roll; not like it's being contested). More to the point, it encourages heroes to think about herding their foes. And it makes the benefits of certain feats (lock shields, the feat where you and a buddy cover one another in combat, the assorted Dwarven Defender abilities, the Juggernaut Epic PClass, etc) really stand out.

It doesn't negate the benefit barbarians have (can't be sneak-attacked) because the person in the above example still took the initial hit. I don't have a problem with one sneak attack a round; in fact the rogues in my game usually make it their business to get in position for it, but I don't think that just because there's a loophole in the rules, someone at 20th should potentially be throwing around five high-damage sneak attacks a round.

Again, I can understand why you would want to adjust this in your own game. I see your reasoning. I don't even disagree with it. I just disagree with how you're interpreting the base rules (if that's what you're saying. If you're just saying that this is how you do it then we're ).

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Tyewa Dawnsister wrote:

What I find interesting is that my gaming group, six people all with fifteen plus years of gaming experience, managed to all make the same mistake.

---

Two things can contribute to this.

1. The mistake was made a long time ago and was never corrected. It can happen.
   
2. 15 years of a houserule get ingrained into your head and you tend to forget that it was a houserule to begin with.
   

If you want to rule that when caught flat-footed, only the first attack is a sneak attack, i guess I can see that. However, ruling that even while flanking, only the first attack is a sneak attack, makes no sense. If that were the case, then only the first attack in a round should recieve the flanking bonus as well, since you're ruling that someone is only being flanked for one attack each round. That makes absolutely no sense.

A combat round doesn't actually consist of just the number of attacks you get to roll for. Flanking is the representation of a character having to deal with multiple adversaries from many angles, which is much more difficult than defending yourself from one opponent or from one angle. This is why it is easier for characters flanking an opponent to hit them: because they are taking advantage of an opponent's divided attention. In a combat round, even if you are level 1 and only have one attack each round, you are considered to have swung your weapon more than one time in a round. The attack roll just determines whether any of your attacks managed to connect or not. Otherwise all other attacks are assumed to be dodged or parried or to strike harmlessly onto armor or a protective spell. As you get more powerful, your combat experience allows you to have better chances at connecting in these series of attacks. This is represented by additional attack rolls due to high base attack bonuses.

But I digress. With a Rogue, while flanking, they take extra advantage of their target's divided attention by not only striking while they are preoccupied, but striking at a vital spot to cause extra damage. Please explain to me how this shouldn't be able to happen more than once in a round.

[Edit: forgot a contraction]

Densetsu fucked around with this message on 03-25-2005 at 12:56 PM.

quote:

---

Densetsu had this to say about Robocop:
Two things can contribute to this.

1. The mistake was made a long time ago and was never corrected. It can happen.
   
2. 15 years of a houserule get ingrained into your head and you tend to forget that it was a houserule to begin with.
   

If you want to rule that when caught flat-footed, only the first attack is a sneak attack, i guess I can see that. However, ruling that even while flanking, only the first attack is a sneak attack, makes no sense. If that were the case, then only the first attack in a round should recieve the flanking bonus as well, since you're ruling that someone is only being flanked for one attack each round. That makes absolutely no sense.

A combat round doesn't actually consist of just the number of attacks you get to roll for. Flanking is the representation of a character having to deal with multiple adversaries from many angles, which is much more difficult than defending yourself from one opponent or from one angle. This is why it is easier for characters flanking an opponent to hit them: because they are taking advantage of an opponent's divided attention. In a combat round, even if you are level 1 and only have one attack each round, you are considered to have swung your weapon more than one time in a round. The attack roll just determines whether any of your attacks managed to connect or not. Otherwise all other attacks are assumed to be dodged or parried or to strike harmlessly onto armor or a protective spell. As you get more powerful, your combat experience allows you to have better chances at connecting in these series of attacks. This is represented by additional attack rolls due to high base attack bonuses.

But I digress. With a Rogue, while flanking, they take extra advantage of their target's divided attention by not only striking while they are preoccupied, but striking at a vital spot to cause extra damage. Please explain to me how this shouldn't be able to happen more than once in a round.

[Edit: forgot a contraction]

---

Greetings,

After discussing it on our board we traced it back to a demo of 3rd Edition D&D we did at a con. It was an RPGA event, but the 3.0 PHB had only been out a week or two and the GM probably did not know the rules any better than we did. Since it made sense we never questioned it and just kept it in place.

As for being denied sneak attack damage on the second, third, forth, or fifth attacks of a full attack. I see it as more of a game balance issue rather than a logic issue. Also I/we have no issues with a rogue who makes a sneak attack against an opponent then makes a second one later in the round when an AoO is provoked.

We will discuss it again tonight, but I see us keeping the current "house rule" in place. Which I think is showing amazing restraint considering the number of rogues we have in the party.

quote:

---

There was much rejoicing when Tyewa Dawnsister said this:
I see it as more of a game balance issue rather than a logic issue.

---

One would think that the game was already balanced to include it the way it is, since it wasn't revised when 3.5 was released.

I mean really, how unbalancing is it to let a rogue have some extra damage dice when spellcasters do practically the same thing? The rogue still needs to hit with an attack roll. A wizard can lob 3d4 dice at an opponent without fail, or send a 6d6 fireball at them only allowing them a save for half damage.

I don't really see it as unbalancing unless your campaign is filled completely with creatures of your own design and they are a bit underpowered.