Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12

[El Mahdi]

Remember, in 3.x, the edition they're taking these backstab rules from...

Uhm, What?

The rogue in the current playtest document has sneak attack, and it’s a combination of the 3rd Edition and 4th Edition rules.

First, 3E did not have Backstab. A Rogue could only get Sneak Attack Damage if their target was denied their Dexterity bonus to AC, or Flanked.

There were no official facing rules in 3E, so there was no "behind the target" situation. In 3E, all combatants were considered to be moving about. There was only facing if the optional rules from Unearthed Arcana were used.

Second, 3E did not have Attack Advantage (which seems to be the same as 4E's Combat Advantage). 3E only had Flanking, which required another attacker besides the Rogue for a +2 to attack...or with Move Silently you could sneak up behind an enemy, and if you had a successful Listen vs. Move Silently skill check, then your target was denied their Dexterity to AC, and Sneak Attack Damage applied (but not a +2 to the attack for Flanking, unlike 4E's Combat Advantage). In 4E, you do get Combat Advantage for being behind a target (unable to see the attacker or unaware of the attacker).

The only real differences between the playtest version and the one presented in that blog is the inclusion of other classes being able to use it, the trading of your Combat Advantage Bonus (+2) for extra damage (Sneak Attack Damage), and the choice of the Rogue Class to use it or choose other Roguish attributes.

I don't understand this purposeful ignoring of the D&D Next designers usage of 4E elements. And especially don't understand how these same people can go on making claims that the designers are purposely not including elements of 4E (as you and others have said in other threads).



I'm truly baffled by this...

 

[Sunseeker]

Uhm, What?

My brain saw "backstab" and thought "sneak attack", that said, it sounded like they were reading from the Pathfinder OGC.

 

[Andor]

I like it.

First options are good.

Secondly it never did make any sense to me that someone can spend their life studying combat and not be as good at stabbing someone in the wobbly green bit as Vince, the thug from the corner who boosts vegetables from the grocer.

Third I'm a bigger fan of broadly applicable classes than I am of hyper specialized ones, so something to broaden the scope of the rogue class to encompass swashbuckler or trickster as well as the death-dealing, acrobatic, anatomy expert who can yank out your gibblets while in midair doing a triple lutz.

 

[BobTheNob]

It's not to make damage flatter. In fact, it's almost the opposite--attack bonuses won't scale, so the primary method of scaling is increasing damage and hit points. So damage will be very very un-flat.

I just hope it won't be a grind (if it's 5 party members vs. 10 orcs, and it takes forever for those 10 orcs to take their turns only to deal enough damage to bloody a single party member, then each party member takes forever to roll a hundred damage dice on each attack...)

I stand corrected. I used the wrong wording. Better to say they werent scaling spell damage with caster level.

 

[BobTheNob]

A rogue in 3x could easily hit 100d6 (or more) in a full round before weapon damage and crits...

IF, the creature wasn't immune to it, IF the creature wasn't immune to flanking or had other abilities that prevented him from losing his dex bonus AND, IF the rogue took 2 weapon fighting, and feats to gain addition offhand attacks.
That, of course, assumes the rogue hits every time on said creature.

In practice, my rogue does 1d6 +4 (+6d6 SA) and 1d4 +3 (+6d6 SA) at 12th level for an avg of about 75 damage per round assuming all hit.

Thanks for pointing out, but If I thought 20d6 is too much, Im hardly going to say awesome to 100d6. Thank god I left that behind when I moved to 4e! Regardless of my reservations with 4e, at least it didnt have silly number like these.

 

[howandwhy99]

For me sneak attack has its purpose in its name. It has to do with why thieves have it and not really other classes.

Thieves don't want to get into combat, but if they do they are going to play dirty. Simple as that. This is not a lawful act, but thieves know they can't stand up to a fighter in a fair fight either, so they are attempting to avoid so at all costs.

Thieves sneak up prior to initiative, position themselves for a surprise attack (aka "sneak attack), and then stab a guy in the back before he knows what's happening. The ability speaks to the class, not to a combat maneuver. (anyways, called shots multiplying damage could already be done. Thieves just did it when not under duress or when flanking flanking when a rear face was exposed).

 

[Henry]

My brain saw "backstab" and thought "sneak attack", that said, it sounded like they were reading from the Pathfinder OGC.

Exactly. I'm amused that what Rob's talking about is basically Pathfinder's rogue, only with moving the sneak attack raises into rogue talents. (Well, to be fair, this started in 3.5 as the rogue "major talents" that started at 10th level.) Now, if the "talents" are as valuable as an extra damage die on backstab, to make the choice hard, I'm all for it. It works well for various classes in Pathfinder, from Rogues, to Alchemists, Ninjas, Summoner Eidolons, etc.

Actually I like one other effect of this: I have always believed that combat advantage should give something better than just a +2 to hit - just because I'm not a rogue, I don't know how to stab a man in the kidneys? Now, if a rogue can make it count more, that's fine. But its somewhat like saying you can't crit in combat if you're not a fighter. A high-level fighter can do improved critical, get feats that boost the confirm roll, etc. but anyone can get that lucky hit that skewers the foe.

 

[Stormonu]

I like PF's rogue talents, but this is just a plain bad idea, like 3E giving iterative attacks to non-fighters.

Next they'll be offering to give all the classes divine spells if they just choose to worship a god and take an action to say a quick prayer. Or cast arcane spells because someone does a ward against the evil eye or somesuch.

 

[am181d]

A rogue in 3x could easily hit 100d6 (or more) in a full round before weapon damage and crits...

Umm... Crits don't mutiply Sneak Attack damage in 3e, so I'm not sure how you're getting to 100d6. (Heck, even if you did multiply SA on crits, I'm not sure how you get to 100d6.)

Am I missing a trick?

 

[Stormonu]

Umm... Crits don't mutiply Sneak Attack damage in 3e, so I'm not sure how you're getting to 100d6. (Heck, even if you did multiply SA on crits, I'm not sure how you get to 100d6.)

Am I missing a trick?

2 weapon fighting + haste + weapon of speed + iterative attacks + spells or feats that grant extra d6 sneak attack dice. I've seen high-level builds with 7 attacks (with 10d6 sneak attack apiece or more), and I'm sure you could easily get higher.