Talk:Backstabbing Expert (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Would this be better as an optimization? As a class it seems rather lacking. -- Jota 17:40, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

The optimization version of the Backstabbing Expert is 9 to 11 classes long, from a ridiculous number of books. This annoys me. Do you say it's lacking because the class features list looks so repetitive or because it lacks any real class features that don't deal with stealth attacks?--Foxwarrior 21:46, 18 July 2009 (MDT)
Well, I mean Attack Upgrade is nice, but it's just boring as hell. -- Jota 23:29, 18 July 2009 (MDT)
I think it's fairly balanced right now, so I can't add any new important features without taking some away. Would the option to replace some of your stealth attacks (possibly the ones at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th levels) with more interesting features that weren't directly related to stealth attacks appease you, or would you rather have Attack Upgrade offer such options?--Foxwarrior 12:07, 19 July 2009 (MDT)
I agree with you on the balance and overall it's a kind of nice idea, but most of the time there's just not much to look forward to. Some of the attack upgrade abilities are pretty useful, so I don't know if getting more of them more often (like you suggested) would be balanced, but I suppose it would have to be play-tested. The ability to sneak attack constructs and undead thrown in somewhere sort of early (before 10) would add a little something nice. I mean, I like the what you've done with the attack options, but it's just kind of boring in between those levels. -- Jota 13:54, 19 July 2009 (MDT)

Stealth Attacks[edit]

So at 2nd level (and again every 4 levels later) you get the option to take the +1d6 Stealth attack, or get a Stealth Trick. The way I'm reading the chart by level 3 you have a +3d6 Stealth Attack, whether or not you took the trick. Is that the case? Or do you actually mean +1d6 instead?--Badger 21:13, 6 August 2009 (MDT)

If you take the trick, you should have only +2d6 Stealth Attack at level 3. There's probably a better way to make that obvious. Perhaps by writing Stealth Attack +1d6 at each of the levels where it can improve, and making two columns to describe the minimum and maximum Stealth Attack you could have at that level? --Foxwarrior 23:34, 17 September 2009 (MDT)

Um, ok?[edit]

Sneak attack that requires that you move isn't sneak attack its skirmish. Assuming you just wanted to give up the +AC from normal and make it straight damage like a rogue it'd get benefits every other level.

Maybe to make it worse give it Craven from Champions of Ruin, and Deadly Precision from XPH.

For so much combat focus it gets way too many skills.

starting gold 2d6 x 70 (490 avg) is lol, rogues get 5d4 x 10 (125 avg), fighters, paladins, and rangers get 6d4 x 10 (150 avg) because they need more stuff.

the attack upgrades are in some cases copies of ambush feats and others are just silly, how do you make a fiery aoe by stabbing someone?

The stealth tricks fall along the same line, scuttling for example, add your dex and charisma mods to a strength based check, 3 mods for a skill check, preposterous my good sir.

In an effort to set you back on path I'd suggest you scale back the modifications. Go back to basic rogue and strip out a few, but not all, of the class features. Perhaps giving it a bonus ambush feat once every four levels instead of its normal ability, like Uncanny Dodge or Improved UD, would be better.

--Ruike 04:29, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

I just want to say regarding the 'silliness' of some attack upgrades is irrelevant. This is fantasy, people. -- Jota 10:33, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Stationary Attack + Flanker[edit]

Basically makes you a better Sneak Attacker than a rogue? :-S --Ghostwheel 11:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

Yup--Foxwarrior 23:32, 17 September 2009 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it has alot of power asociated with that sneak attack. --Jiub1991 17:10, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was good overall however i had some small problemes understanding what you were getting at. --Jiub1991 17:10, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 4.75/5 I give this class a 4.75 out of 5 because seemed fine to me. --Jiub1991 17:10, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 because it lacked something to look forward to. --Jiub1991 17:10, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors