D&D 5E Sneak Attack question

[Paul Farquhar]

Knowing that the horse may kick you in the balls if you devote too much of your attention to the rider is distracting, though.

A trained warhouse would not "kick you in the balls" unless it was commanded to by it's rider.

A frightened horse without combat training might, but then it would be uncontrolled, and try and throw it's rider and run away. A rogue on an uncontrolled frightened horse would attack at disadvantage, and therefore would not be able to sneak attack.

 

[Shiroiken]

I don't know about RAI, and RAW is unclear. As a DM I wouldn't allow it, but I normally don't allow familiars to count either.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't know about RAI, and RAW is unclear. As a DM I wouldn't allow it, but I normally don't allow familiars to count either.

Familiars are a little different. The can explicitly use the help action, which obviously enables sneak attack, but they cannot attack, but they can be a real threat as a channel for touch spells.

Personally, I would rule it as the enemy perceives it - if they think the familiar is dangerous it can enable sneak attacks - but will probably die. If they perceive it as a harmless animal they will ignore it and it does not enable sneak attacks.

 

[jasper]

Mounted sneak attack is not problematic mechanically. It's problematic because it's absurd.

I stand on the ground and stick you with a dagger: no sneak attack.
I mount my ancient, half-dead plow horse: sneak attack!

ha ha ha ha thanks for the laugh and you owe me a keyboard. I now have to clean coffee out of it. I learn long ago, plenty of Absurd things happen in D&D. Being an old fart and thee oldee gameeeereee to just go by the rules especially when they absurd. Mainly so I don't have to make house rules up.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The fact that a ranged rogue can attack with advantage virtually every round by just hiding with their bonus action tells me that a melee rogue getting the same is not going to be an issue.

This is why everyone always tries to discourage people from playing melee rogues... not only do they get attacked and hit a lot more often, but they also don't get to attack with advantage as much.

It'll be fine.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The fact that a ranged rogue can attack with advantage virtually every round by just hiding with their bonus action tells me that a melee rogue getting the same is not going to be an issue.

This is why everyone always tries to discourage people from playing melee rogues... not only do they get attacked and hit a lot more often, but they also don't get to attack with advantage as much.

The funny thing is that’s actually backwards from my games. When the rogue is in melee they almost always get sneak attack (not from advantage) but in ranged situations it’s much more iffy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The funny thing is that’s actually backwards from my games. When the rogue is in melee they almost always get sneak attack (not from advantage) but in ranged situations it’s much more iffy.

Really? Doesn't the rule that says the Rogue gets their SA so long as they attack an enemy that is adjacent to to an ally mean that your ranged rogues should almost always get it just by firing at the enemies their melee party members are attacking? I mean, that's what has always happened at my tables.

 

[Oofta]

The fact that a ranged rogue can attack with advantage virtually every round by just hiding with their bonus action tells me that a melee rogue getting the same is not going to be an issue.

This is why everyone always tries to discourage people from playing melee rogues... not only do they get attacked and hit a lot more often, but they also don't get to attack with advantage as much.

It'll be fine.

That may be true in your game, it is not in mine and not with other DM's that I've played with. A ranged rogue may get advantage or may not - certainly getting it every single round is never a given and is probably the rare exception.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Really? Doesn't the rule that says the Rogue gets their SA so long as they attack an enemy that is adjacent to to an ally mean that your ranged rogues should almost always get it just by firing at the enemies their melee party members are attacking? I mean, that's what has always happened at my tables.

Pretty much the same here. As long as the target has an enemy within 5 feet of them, SA is on the table, even for ranged attacks.

Of course, we play that making a ranged attack into a melee provides the target with some cover (minimum +2 to AC). This also serves to represent the additional care you take if the target's adjacent enemy is actually you ally.

Overall, 90% of the time rogues get SA each round, either by shooting at a target engaged with an enemy (usually an ally to the rogue) or by engaging along side with an ally against the same target. Spells such as Greater Invisibility, magic items, actually being hidden, also contribute to SA occurring more often than not--by a wide margin. We even have a Fighter (Samurai)/ Rogue (Assassin) who can use his fighting spirit feature to give himself advantage if necessary, allowing him to still SA even if other factors haven't brought it online yet.

 

[Seramus]

but they can be a real threat as a channel for touch spells.

The touch spell thing always feels awkward to me. It works fine if the familiar is hanging out on someone, but if the familiar needs to move, you have to ready a spell and possibly lose concentration between now and then.