Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beamup 01-31-05, 11:00 AM	Looking at some of the weapons in CV (specifically, the Barbed Dagger and the Deadly Precision enhancement), they seem overly weak to me. In particular, they seem to be balanced as if 1 point of Sneak Attack damage were equivalent to 1 point of normal damage. To me, this seems nonsensical. 1 point of damage on some attacks is clearly inferior to 1 point of damage on all attacks. Which makes these options awfully weak. Compare, for instance, Deadly Precision to Holy - which bonus damage are you more likely to get in general? Holy. Which enhancement has another benefit beyond the damage? Holy. Yet they're both +2s. So I ask: am I crazy, or are these awfully weak? If they're weak, how much better should they be - is 2d6 of regular damage balanced against 3d6 of SA damage, for instance, or something else?
Xeviat-DM 01-31-05, 11:46 AM	Combat rogues are built upon the style of getting sneak attacks as much as possible. Most rogues will not throw a single attack roll unless they are flanking their target, attacking a flat-footed target, or using some sort of skill, feat, or ability to deny their opponent its dexterity bonus. Paladins and other "holy" types who would be using a holy weapon don't get too much say if they're going to fight an evil creature or not. While it is true that most campaigns are targeted against evil creatures, and a Paladin would probably not adventure in a case where it wasn't sure to find evil creatures to battle, there's more to games then that. I haven't seen those items yet, but if you're saying it is +2d6 sneak attack as a +2 bonus, I'm not sure that's balanced. I think that is weak. But not because of how you explained it; it is because +7 damage (the average of 2d6 sneak attack) doesn't typically seem balanced to me against +2 to hit and +2 to damage. Especially since so many creatures are immune to sneak attack.
spasheridan 01-31-05, 02:39 PM	I think maybe it should toss in say an additional +2 to hit on sneak attacks (and only on sneak attacks). It's close to being balanced though.
DM Zoc 01-31-05, 02:54 PM	I think it's about right. You're as likely to find someone who is immune to sneak attack as you are someone who is immune to fire, and +2 would be the theoretical cost of a greater flaming weapon.
Xeviat-DM 01-31-05, 04:05 PM	I think it's about right. You're as likely to find someone who is immune to sneak attack as you are someone who is immune to fire, and +2 would be the theoretical cost of a greater flaming weapon. But you do get the flaming on every attack, which while I did say most rogues don't attack unless they're sneak attacking, 2x flaming would be better than this I think. Besides, 2x flaming isn't in the rules, you would have flaming and shocking or some other combination, making it harder to resist. Compare this +2d6 sneak attack +2 enhancement feat to the Sword of Subtlty in the DMG, which grants +4 to hit and +4 to damage on sneak attacks. I'd much rather have the +4 to hit I think. Now, if this enhancement simply gives you +2d6 sneak attack, meaning non-rogues can benefit from it, then I'd say it is worth the +2. I just wouldn't take it until my weapon was already +5.
Beamup 01-31-05, 04:34 PM	Now, if this enhancement simply gives you +2d6 sneak attack, meaning non-rogues can benefit from it, then I'd say it is worth the +2. I just wouldn't take it until my weapon was already +5. It doesn't. The extra damage is only when you make a successful sneak attack - and it is specifically stated that this requires you to already be able to make sneak attacks.