New Rogue feat idea

[Faldred]

Bandit Archer Requires: Weapon Focus in a ranged weapon, Crippling Strike Type: Bonus Rogue Feat Use: Automatic  Effect: Sneak attack range with a ranged weapon doubles from 30' to 60' and target is subject to Crippling Strike penalties as if struck by a melee sneak attack  -----  Rationale:  1. Rogue bonus feats get pretty useless at higher levels for pure rogues 2. Crippling Strike currently does not work with ranged weapons 3. No Rogue archer wants to be less than 30' away from the guys with the swords and axes

[pejsaboy]

I do like the feat idea, but I'll have to argue with rationale #3 Gilli often comes nearly into melee range with his shortbow. He is a bit of an overzealous halfling with superb tumbling skills though, so he kinda has a false sense of superiority

[stragen]

Cool feat.  Change the feat name to: Sniper.

[Gulnyr]

I whipped out the Player's Handbook and looked through the feats.  Generally speaking, they are set up so that each feat takes one thing the character can already do and improves it by one step, so really nice abilities or combinations require the purchase of an array of feats as prerequisites.  There's no one-stop feat shop.  Take a look at the normal situation:

Sneak Attack only works within 30' to represent the loss of accuracy over range.  If the Rogue is too far from the target, he just can't aim well enough to be sure of hitting just right.  Mechanically, it's probably a risk/reward situation for balance; if you want to do extra damage, you have to take a greater risk to yourself by moving closer.

Crippling Strike represents a Rogue so skilled at finding soft spots that he can cause serious damage to muscles and tendons.  It's sort of an extra fine Sneak Attack, and that sort of accuracy can only be achieved by getting up-close and personal while someone else distracts the target.

That's two steps for Crippling Strike in one feat: 1) usable at range, 2) double effective range.  Even if Crippling Strike only worked out to 30', it would still be an improvement of Crippling Strike and Sneak Attack.  So this actually looks like two feats to me.  The first increases the effective range of Sneak Attacks, and the second lets the Rogue use Crippling Strike at range (which is pretty much the Called Shot feat).  

I think a feat that doubles the effective range of Sneak Attacks would represent rigorous training and exceptional poise.  It would definitely have a high Dexterity prerequisite, and maybe a fairly high Wisdom prerequisite to represent the inner calm necessary to stay so very steady during combat.  It would likely require a high base attack bonus, too - the new kid can't pull this off.  And Point Blank Shot, the mother of all bow feats.  I'm not sure exactly what it would take to balance it, but I like the concept of Improved Ranged Sneak Attack.  Nice thinking.

Crippling Strike at range, like I said, just seems like Called Shot without the anti-Dexterity option, but also without the to-hit penalty.  The to-hit penalty could be an important part of balancing, though, so maybe it would just be a less flexible Called Shot.

Lumping them together as one feat would be too good, no matter the prerequisites.

[Faldred]

Gulnyr - 10/21/2006  4:09 AM  Lumping them together as one feat would be too good, no matter the prerequisites.

 Good points, and nice analysis.  My original thinking was to fix what I saw as a deficiency in crippling strike, and then I let myself run away a little too much.  So... two feats...  Ranged Crippling Strike Requires: Weapon Focus in a ranged weapon, Point Blank Shot, Crippling Strike Type: Bonus Rogue Feat Use: Automatic  Effect: On ranged sneak attack, target subject to Crippling Strike penalties as if struck by a melee sneak attack   Improved Ranged Sneak Attack Requires: Weapon Focus in a ranged weapon, Point Blank Shot, DEX 21+ Type: Bonus Rogue Feat Use: Automatic  Effect: Ranged attacks within 60' can be considered sneak attacks if other conditions are met, instead of the normal 30'

[Eight-Bit]

They are still very much too powerful to be in the game. It would change the entire role of the Rouge to a powerful archer, dropping Rangers and Arcane Archers from their usefulness. Being that a Hasted pure-class Rogue can get 5 attacks a round with a bow, imagine the possible damage they could cause at level 20. That would be 1d6 + 10d6 + damage bonuses. Regardless of damage bonuses, every attack would have the base damage of 11 arrows shot from a shortbow. Five attacks a round makes that 55 arrows worth of damage, if my math is right. That's just way too much for us Rogues. Adding Crip Strike to it, even if most monsters can't get encumbered, two rogues turn even the strongest monsters into weak little puppies. Add someone with Called Shot and the fight is over. It's an interesting idea, but it would just be oo unbalancing in my opinion.

[Lalaith Va'lash]

It's an interesting consideration. I think they would be a nice addition.
  I actually don't believe either of the two (with the right tweaking) would be too powerful if they were taken as two seperate feats.
  As it stands now,the rogueonly get the rogue bonus feat1 every 3 levels after level 10 (or somthing to that effect) So you would need to be choosing thesefeats instead of other feats like improved evasion, defensive roll and slippery mind-additionally for these featsyou would have to have choose crippling strike from that list first (for the first feat).Or (for the second)the rogue would have to use two other normal feats (Weapon focus of the long ranged weapon and Point Blank shot) first.
  Honestly, imagine instead ifa rogue focuses on two weapon fighting and ambidexterity (as opposed to ranged weapon focus and point blank shot) Taking crippling strike (or even not) they end up getting lots of sneaksor crippling strikes per round- much more than if your using a bow.Haste them, and they do better yet.So I don't agree so much with the argument that they get off too many sneaks/strikes per round.
  The only balancing issue might be the rogue is further away But its just a different type of rouge compared to the hand to hand combat type... and it needs to be planned that way (not enough feats to be both!)
  But then, if you put a high enough dex modifier in so that the feats cannot be taken till epic levels -- then it doesn't matter HOW far away from the battle you are -- its dangerous *grins*
  Reguardless- I don't think it would even touch the AA class. Talan and Lalaith Travel together all the time and despite her bow even being slighlty better than his *grins to Talan* He can hit things that she can't touch, even with her 35 (modified) dex- haste him, and he is still deadly. I can't make an argument for rangers, never really understood the class.
  Anyway, my 2 coppers.
  LV

[Eight-Bit]

Now that's a new way to look at it, Lalaith! When you say it that way it doesn't seem entirely too unbalancing. It would lead to a new 'type' of Rogue, one that would be very much more powerful than most other bow using classes, but if the feats were made only to be the Rogue Bonus Feats, (the ones from level 10 and up), it would be atleast level 16 before you could have both. And, by then the fights go by so fast (win OR loose ) that it wouldn't make that much of a difference. It would just open up new ways to play a character.

You know, this idea looks even better now that I had a chance to re-read it, look at comments, and work out the math. Plus coffee was involved.

[Faldred]

Yes, this was intended to be restricted to being Rogue bonus feats only (like Crippling Strike already is).  Anyone who really wanted ranged crippling strike would be able to get it as early as level 13, but that would mean delaying Improved Evasion, which may be the best Rogue bonus feat.

As far as the dual-wielder vs. archer goes, the only real difference is the proximity to retaliation.    The dual-wielder is going to suffer the same to-hit penalties for the same number of attacks, but is also more likely to have additional damage from weapon type (including critical ranges), damage bonuses, and possibly even strength modifiers.  The archer gets a lower base damage, but remains a little safer out of the fray.

[Lalaith Va'lash]

Faldred - 10/23/2006 3:06 PM As far as the dual-wielder vs. archer goes, the only real difference is the proximity to retaliation. .

The dual wielder gets more attacks per round because of the added off-hand attack too.
 

The dual-wielder is going to suffer the same to-hit penalties for the same number of attacks, but is also more likely to have additional damage from weapon type (including critical ranges), damage bonuses, and possibly even strength modifiers. The archer gets a lower base damage, but remains a little safer out of the fray.

  It also seems much easier to have nicer melee weapons:) Since you can add elemental enhancements that are permanent, as well as silver and titianium coatings -where as you aremore limited when it comes to arrows (Its much more of an expense)
  I think in my head these ideas are pretty balanced when you compare them to a dual wielding rogue (with all the two handed feats).

[Faldred]

Lalaith Va'lash - 10/23/2006  3:26 PM

The dual wielder gets more attacks per round because of the added off-hand attack too.

Oh, right... I forgot that improved 2-weapon fighting gives a second off-hand attack.  I was just thinking Rapid Shot vs. Two-Weapon Fighting/Ambidexterity.