D&D 5E Sneak Attack question

[TwoSix]

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.

Probably depends on how much of a hard-ass the DM is on Stealth checks, and also the type of environments the typical session goes through.

 

[Undrave]

I don't either, and yet it seems people are more worried about the rogue gaining sneak attack while mounted, even though sneak attack isn't nearly as problematic.

There's a segment of the playing population that overestimates the offensive capability of sneak attack, is the point I'm making. Rogues can get it 100% of the time and it isn't a problem, the only reason sneak attack is restricted is to encourage the rogue playstyle. (Using small weapons, and trying to be sneaky.)

I wonder if its a holdover from 3.X where sneak attack had more limitations?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

About the only time a rogue isn't getting sneak attack is if they are shooting at a foe that hasn't yet closed to melee with the party. But once the foes has closed to melee with someone in the party, the rogues I've seen tend to run up into the melee. After all, 2d6+Dex is better than 1d6 or 1d8 + Dex, and it gives double the chance to get a sneak attack.

But then again, players in my groups generally favor melee over ranged. It's more fun most of the time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

About the only time a rogue isn't getting sneak attack is if they are shooting at a foe that hasn't yet closed to melee with the party. But once the foes has closed to melee with someone in the party, the rogues I've seen tend to run up into the melee. After all, 2d6+Dex is better than 1d6 or 1d8 + Dex, and it gives double the chance to get a sneak attack.

But then again, players in my groups generally favor melee over ranged. It's more fun most of the time.

Well, it's perhaps 1d6+DEX + 1d6+DEX, as you have to make both attack rolls to get it. Whereas yes, at range you are only a single 1d6+DEX, but as you are probably always attacking with advantage on that attack due to hiding with your BA (unless as has been mentioned your DM is exceedingly stingy with how you can hide during combat), you probably only need the one attempt to get that Sneak Attack. Couple that with not getting hit nearly as often... the rogues at my tables have usually always gone ranged rather than melee.

I agree with you, I think melee is more fun as well... but the possibility of advantaged attacks plus Sneak Attack with no return attacks has made for a very popular combination.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Yeah, the only time I have seen this power used is in out of combat situations.

 

[Mistwell]

If a rogue is on a mount does that mean as long as they don’t have disadvantage, that there sneak attack is always available because there mount is count as an enemy of who the rogue is attacking?

Yes.

A rogue with a familiar that is next to the target effectively does the same thing.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Find a stealthy mount. JK But yes, if your mount has a melee attacka dn can make it, or if you have the mounted combatant feat, you have advantage and can sneak attack with a finesse weapon. That's why so many knights used rapiers from horseback. That said, I've never seen a rogue in play expend the resources to regularly use a mount.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm now thinking: if Zorro is on a horse (because we're not talking about a fighter here), could he sneakily fit a stab in while the horse tries to walk all over the bad guy? Ir even just while the bad guy is taking a moment to not get stepped on by the horse? (Because even if it isn't trying, it might.)

Yeah, that works for me.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Mounted combat in 5E is pretty useless other than adding a bit of mobility.

A free Dash or Disengage action is more than "just a bit" of mobility, it is a substantial bit.
A party on mounts can be formidable.
I also allow use of the Overrun action in my game, and add the option to Controlled Mounts as well. It has been used once....people love that free Disengage.

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

I think that depends on how flexible your vision is regarding what Sneak Attack can be.
Rogues are skilled heroes. A cavalry saber in 5e is a rapier. Why can't a Rogue PC be a skilled horseman and raider?

A great thing about a Mounted Lightfoot Halfling Rogue is you can use your mount to Hide.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think that depends on how flexible your vision is regarding what Sneak Attack can be.
Rogues are skilled heroes. A cavalry saber in 5e is a rapier. Why can't a Rogue PC be a skilled horseman and raider?

I stand on the ground and stick your spleen with my pointy dagger: no sneak attack.
I mount my ancient, half-dead, three-legged horse: very sneaky sneak attack!