The Best Sneak Attack

Remove all ads!

That may be true, Silvershield, but given that it's easier to execute a Sneak Attack in 3e, why shouldn't you get less damage? The idea that a thief/rogue could run around a battlefield delivering 7x multipler sneak attacks to every baddy he could flank seems rather excessive.

Arguably, it might have been good if 3e had implemented a combination of sneak attack and back stabbing. That is, get sneak attack damage when you meet its meager "stealthy" prerequisite, and get an even greater level of damage (whether old style multipliers or perhaps a multiplier to the sneak attack damage) when you can meet a very tough stealthy pre-req for backstabbing.


Silverstar, while you cannot repeatedly sneak attack the same target, I have seen that if you go from target to target to target, you can come back to a previously Sneak Attacked target and get another. I don't know how many other targets you have to attack before you can return to a previously SA'd target, but it can be done.

And you're definitely right that reach weapons rule for backstabbing. I wonder if "normal" range 2 weapons like greatswords, spears, or halberds have suffieicent range to avoid having the monster turning on you. I've never tested that question.

 

In 2e you get an additional multiplier for 4 thief levels, in 3e you get 2-12 extra sneak attack damage.
A standard 2e halfling thief with shortsword does 1-6 damage, so the additional damage multiplier will hardly reach the 2-12 additional sneak attack damage.
The main difference between 2e and 3e is that in 2e backstabbing is far more useful for power builds than for normal thieves while in 3e both benefit the same from sneak attacks.

 

No, you get 1d6 per 2 levels. Thats hardly 2-12.

And with 5 thief levels, you get x3 damage. With a 1d6 weapon, that means 3d6 extra, for which you need 6 rogue levels to get. And as you get higher in levels, the difference becomes even greater.

its not uncommon to see a thief with 12-15 levels get 70-80 damage, something that just isnt possible in 3e.

3e made sneak attack easier to do, ie all you have to do is be behind someone. but they made it do so little damage and require so much investment its not worth it. a good fighter/thief in 3e will do much more damage than any rogue in 2e.

Dont get me wrong, I really like 3e - its multiclassing system is nothing short of brilliant. But in 2e, its worth my time using backstab to get rid of mages, in 3e, I dont bother. having one character who can sneak attack fairly well means he is a liability at everything else, whereas in 2e, my fighter/thief does all of the locks and traps and is an extremely capable fighter.

 

You get 1d6 per 2 levels, that's 2-12 per 4 levels which are required to get an additional backstab multiplier in 2e.

For 3d6 extra sneak attack damage you only need 5 rogue levels. And it raises by 1d6 every 2 levels while you need additional 4 levels for an extra backstab multiplier and don't gain more after level 13 in 2e.

It's not impossible to do more than 80 damage with a level15 rogue in IWD2.

You only need 2 rogue levels for 1-6 extra additional sneak attack damage and gain other advantadges compared to fighters.

Pure class rogues in 3E are very capable warriors, in IWD2 a level 15 rogue can get the maximal allowed number of 5 attacks per round using rapid shot, even unhasted in melee he gains 3 attacks per round like a level 15 fighter.
Defensively he can reach the same AC and has only a few less HP.
I guess the advantadge you see in your 2e fighter/thief comes from the fact that he gets the first levels nearly for free when multiclassing, so that you can have a fighter9/thief11, a fighter10 or a thief12 at 500,000 XP while in 3e each fighter level costs as much as a thief level, so fighter9/thief11 requires as many XP as a thief20 or fighter20.

 

Kmonster, I think that you're correct about 2e vs 3e backstabbing/sneak attacking. Those big multipliers may sound great, but when you actually break it down, they're not as powerful as people realize and sneak attack damage stacks up rather well against backstabbing.

Looking at the BG2 manual, a thief gets the 5x multiplier at L13. 5x damage with a short sword gives you 5d6. ONLY 5d6, plus whatever STR damage modifiers you might have.

OTOH, a L13 rogue will have 7d6 of sneak attack damage PLUS the 1d6 from that same short sword, plus whatever STR damage modifiers.

I suppose that the one difference where 2e backstabbing may outshine 3e sneak attacking (I don't know the exact details of the rules, so I could be wrong on this) is that I think that 2e backstabbing may multiply critical hit damage, which would acccount for many of those really, really high damage totals, whereas critical hits have no impact in sneak attack damage (too bad).

I also don't think that it's really fair to compare multiclassed 2e characters to multiclassed 3e characters. We all know that the multiclassing system in the two systems creates considerably different power balances. It's comparing apples and oranges. 2e multiclassed characters advance at a different rate overall than their 3e counterparts do, due to the rules and XP table differences.

I also think that trying to compare a 2e ftr/thief with a 3e ftr/rogue (~50/50 mix for yucks) isn't really fair. The 2e backstabbing rules really match up well with the benefits of the fighter have of the MC, since any excess damage the fighter part of the character adds to the mix gets multiplied by the backstab multiplier. OTOH, 3e MC'd ftr/rogues only get as many sneak attack dice as the number of rogue levels warrants and nothing that the fighter half of the MC really adds all that much to the sneak attack damage. About the most you can expect is a very slightly higher BAB and extra weapons profs so that you can use different weapons for sneak attacking. (Although there's nothing stopping a pure rogue from taking those profs the hard way...)

Oh, I suppose that the 3e Ftr/Rogue can take weapon specialization with 4 levels of ftr, but is +2 to damage on every hit really worth the cost of 4 ftr levels and 2d6 of sneak attack damage lost? If you really like sneak attacking, I'd say that those 4 levels of ftr were a bad deal. 2d6 of SA damage is like one more hit with a greatsword.

Another thing that I think is understood, but undervalued, is the ability to deliver multiple Sneak Attacks during a battle. Due to the difficulty of delivering a backstab, you can only count on getting in one backstab attack in any single battle (unless perhaps you use some spells or potions of invisibility). OTOH, a good rogue in IWD2 can sneak attack just about everyone on a battlefield, as long as you're willing to micromanage the little sneak thief from target to target to target. On the whole, that's potentially a LOT more damage per battle than backstabbing will produce, even if it may not be all against a single target.

 

I just notice that, even though my characters multiplier is x4 at the moment, he routinely does 60 damage, and ends the life of a poor wizard in one hit. Its unusual for him to do less than 40 in a backstab, for whatever reason. He is wielding a longsword +3.

Where he a rogue, lets say a level 15 rogue (hes actually a fighter 9/ mage 10/ thief 11) does a sneak attack, he'll get 8d6 sneak attack damage. I'm going to ignore any fighter levels he may have here, if any. 8d6 isnt bad, but its maximum is only slightly higher than my characters average, and I'll bet half the time, the sneak attack damage will be 20-30. Also, if he wields a more powerful weapon, say with 1d8 or even 1d10 damage, his sneak attack wont get better. not so with a thief.

 

That's interesting, Proteus. I wonder exactly how you're getting 60 hp of damage out of a +3 longsword. Believe me, I'm not doubting you. I'm just wondering if there's something we're overlooking. Does the likelihood of a critical hit go up during a backstabbing attack, which is done from stealth? Or, what sort of STR enhancing items might the character be wearing that are increasing its base damage?

 

Methinks Proteus is in the wrong forum. That sounds like a 2e character.

 

Not the wrong forum, this is a comparison of 2e backstabbing and 3e sneak attacking.

but it is a 2e character, if you read the previous posts.

No strength enhancing items, just 18 strength. dont think backstabbing increases the chances of a crit, but I could be wrong. Maybe in 2e, other things are multiplied too. A +3 longsword does 4-11 damage anyway, and maybe the multiplier takes strength or proficiency damage into account too. I know it doesnt multiply everything - I've seen 38 from a x5 multiplier, so clearly something is being added. maybe its strength bonus damage + (weapon damage + proficiency damage)x multiplier?

No matter the numbers, we can clearly see that if you are using equipment attainable by the time you are level 12-15, you can increase your backstab damage by a lot, because instead of gaining 1d6 per level, you gain your own weapon damage x multiplier, which works out as a lot more. Highest backstab I've seen was over 100 I think, and that wasnt an assassin.

 

Who remembers the HLA 'assassination' from BGII? I do believe THAT alone changed the definition of my F/T from deadly to insanely (and I do mean insanely) dangerous.

When every attack becomes a 'backstab', well let's just say the enemy isn't going to last long now is he? But that was BGII, 2e. We're playing IWDII, 3e. When the rogue attains enough levels, what does he get? I believe the ONLY thing that was of interest to me (and was actually useful) was Improved Evasion. The rest of the Rogue's "HLAs" were pathetic. Honestly though, do people really believe the high level abilities for rogues in 3e is worth the payoff for very poor sneak attack?

Sure we're talking about IWDII, where the sneak attack for 3e is implemented incorrectly, but still, in such a game as NWN2, would people prefer to have the backstab or sneak attack? I think it's great that you can CONTINUE to cause sneak attacks on the enemy when he's vulnerable, that part I like, but the damage.. ohhh how I hate it.

Slightly OT, but honestly, the sneak attack in THIS PARTICULAR GAME, is pathetic and most people would agree. I have yet to play NWN2 and thus try out the full potency of the ability but from what I've read, I'm not missing much.

Seriously, in 2e the rogue was an important character, a useful character, a deadly character but most of all, a FUN character. In 3e, well let's just say my love for this class is lost..

 

I suppose I'm not a sneaky person by nature, so I find it hard to identify with Rogues. But in 2e, I rather like having a fighter thief from a tactical point of view, because you can eliminate or seriously injure a dangerous target. Pity dragons and beholders are immune.

In IWDII, I tend to like having Rogue 1/Wizard x style characters.

 

For some reason magic became a MUCH larger part in 3e. Most classes were changed around a lot and by the looks of things, rogues suffered the most.

 

I dont know much about 3e in general, but it seems to me, at least between BG2 and IWD2, that the role of mages changed completely. In BG2, it was so much a mage vs mage battle that I wish someone would draw a cartoon of all the fighters having tea while their respective mages duked it out. Who could display the protections and then get out a timestop etc? in IWD2, it seems they are much more of a support role - buffing, debuffing, disabling enemies and dealing damage, but not directly attacking other spellcasters.

 

I hated the fact that you had to have a rogue in BGII. It should be optional like in IWD2.
I agree that rogues should have been made better in this game.
Rogues should have gained the sneak attack bonus for every attack they make to an enemy that don't have the rogue as their primary target or something like that (maybe for every flanking attack they make). That way they would become much more powerful in parties.

 

High level mages rule supreme in D&D. That is a basic fact. A fighter is nothing more than a flamethrower's bodyguard at higher levels. Well until the mage runs out of spells and if the fighter doesn't have uber MR.

2E comparison doesn't make much sense IMHO. Because HLAs are not part of the 2E canon (neither are Sorcerers for that matter). You get them in ToB for uber power and the added munchkin effect (in 2E without HLAs characters don't get that much extra power after level 20). If you rule out Assassination it means (and this has been pointed out before) you can have only ONE backstab in any fight. If you don't rely on Invisibility...

The problem is that MCing works very differently in2E. You can't make a F/T/M that is as good a mage as a DC one or a single class one in ToB. But in TotSC or SoA DCed characters are much more powerful than MCed ones. MC are better at very high levels in ToB because you still get HLAs no matter what when you reach 3 million XP. If you had to be level 20 in a class to get HLAs then DC would be much more powerful. But that's not the point.

3E makes much more sense IMHO because you get the bonus on any foe that you backstab (or is held or otherwise incapacitated). Nevertheless I don't think that ranged attacks should benefit from the sneak attack bonus (no fighter could compete). The MC system works in such a way that you benefit a lot from only one level in another class but you'll never be as powerful as a single class character in that particular field (everyone will agree spellcasters are better pure class).

Rogues are needed in any party but they are not vital in IWD2 because traps are not really dangerous. If you want really powerful rogues play NWN (they had to put so many creatures resistant to critical hits and sneak attacks because rogues would have been overpowered).

In IWD2 two Rogue levels give Evasion and a cartload of skill points (more than any other class). If you don't play a pure rogue and take only 2 or 3 levels you have the best things from this class in IWD2 and it complements any other class nicely. If you go all the way to level 10 you get some nice perks but 7 or 8 levels as a spellcaster are more effective.

I once considered a solo build that would have consisted in a Rogue/Cleric of Mask relying on invisibility, sanctuary, sleep, stun and hold to dish out sneak attacks. The problem with the AI is that monsters follow you around when you are invisible... That's a real pain.

Think about a Rogue (or any character) with Improved Invisibility... That's so cheesy that it's not even funny.

 

In a way, I wish fighters were better in comparison to mages, but I suppose its a very difficult balance to achieve, especially when AD&D has always been about parties, not solo warriors. Thats one of the reasons I dont like NWN (apart from it simply not being a good game - the NWN OC really sucked) - you cant create a party that benefits from its other members.

I'm glad rogues arent necessary anymore, but I agree, they shouldnt be so crap either. If they are optional, something should be done to make you actually want to take one instead of a fighter/barbarian or sorceror (ie a class capable of dishing out damage and being useful).

Anyone else not really like the fact that in IWD2 (not so much in NWN) fighters dont get much of a reward for specializing in a particular weapon type? The most you get is +1 to hit and +2 to damage - paltry compared to what you got in 2e for grand mastery.

 

As you asked "Anyone else not really like the fact that in IWD2 (not so much in NWN) fighters dont get much of a reward for specializing in a particular weapon type?" ... I definitely agree. In 2e, the best thing that fighters had going for them over other warrior classes is that they can attain grandmastery. IWD2 prevents them from gaining that grandmastery.

The problem for fighters is that IWD2 left out the 4th and 5th points in weapons, that could give you an additional +1 AB (4th pip) and +2 damage (5th pip), for a total of +2 AB and +4 damage. Still not exactly uber great, but it would really let a fighter seperate himself from your run of the mill character in combat.

It might not be a bad idea if Mindchild could write some additional code for his DLL mod that perhaps made the Weapon Focus get +1 AB, +2 damage and Weapon Specialization getting an additional +1 AB, +2 damage, thus compressing the 5 feat weapon progression into only 3 feats. Alternatively, Weapon Focus could remain as is, and Weapon Spec could add +1 more AB and +4 damage, thus giving the fighter the benefits of feat points 3, 4, and 5 in a given weapon.


Vis-a-vis rogues, I tend to dislike the fact that rogues are less needed in IWD2 vs BG2, IWD1, etc. Rogues/Thieves have always seemed like an integral part of any D&D adventuring party to me. In fact, I don't tend to look at them as "thieves" as much as "combat engineers", whose job is to deal with traps, etc. And to me, traps seem like an integral part of any dungeon.

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

Caradhras, I agree that the differences between 2e and 3e are considerable. I wish that classes weren't so front-loaded at level 1, because I find the practice of sniping a level of this class and a level of that class, just to get the level 1 stuff, to be a rather annoying problem with 3e multiclassing.
I suppose it's probably not that big a deal with a P&P game since a DM could prevent such sniping. But for better or worse, CRPG's tend to be very literal by the letter of the rules without any underlying computer DM to make the value judgements that an intergral part of P&P play. I guess that I wish that some D&D CRPG designer would have the stones to include some virtual DM'ing into their engine to prevent players from evading the spirit of the game in ways that no real DM would ever allow.

Heh, heh, heh.... Imagine how IWD2 would play if someone were to write some mod code that made traps a lot more dangerous.

 

I can see that in 3e, warriors get BAB quicker than other classes, and because number of attacks is dependant on BAB, they get more attacks too. But thats for all weapons not certain weapons, and I really like the idea of a guy who couldnt kill a goblin with the Dark Demon Axe of Slaughter +87, but could make mincemeat of a dracolich with the Cardboard Short Sword of the Pacifist -1.

NWN makes it a little better for fighters to specialize, but not as much as 2e.

Judicious and crazy multiclassing so much fun though. I like being able to think of a new combination and try it out, without being limited to existing multiclass combinations and race allowances. Like you could have a halfling paladin/sorcerer/cleric, something that would be unthinkable in 2e.

 

Rogues are pretty much useless at high-level in 3ed though. Against lower level opponents he is pretty decent of course, but against characters at his same level he comes up short. Due to the lack of damage he does compared to the insane amount of hitpoints that are strewn about in the 3ed system. 10d6 vs a fighter who has around 200 hitpoints......Good luck. Even wizards have above 100 hp in 3ed. Mr rogue makes a sneak attack vs mr wizard, hits, big deal. Next round the rogue is dead. And sure you can argue that finding traps and disabling them is very important. At 20 level walking into a trap doesn`t hurt much. 95 percent of them won`t kill you. And if they do Mr cleric can just cast true ressurection and you are up and running again. The 3ed rogue is at its bet at around level 10 really, at highlevel mostly all of the other classes are way better than him.

 

In theory Rogues should still be mage killers, a level 15 mage without con bonus or penalty gets 18-60 HP, a level 15 rogue gets 8-48 sneak attack bonus + weapon damage + strength bonus + magical buffs, easily reaching more average damage than the mage has average HP if you don't ignore strength at creation and have a proper weapon.

The problem is that con is now a main attribute of mages and every 100 year old mage who did only train his brain on the academy for years ignoring the physical training has 16-18 con which more than doubles his HP instead of a con penalty.