The Rogue and Sneak Attacking

[seregil]

I have, since 1E, traditionally played rogues/thieves. They are my favorite class, partially because they have the ability to avoid combat and get the job done anyways.

My view on how Backstab/Sneak Attack should work is related to the map grid and the flanking option.

First, I liked the idea, from 2e C&P, that each character has a facing. If you have a facing, you can then have a bonus when you are on the side and a bigger one when you are in the rear. As an example, if we use squares, an opponent get no bonus to hit if he is in NW, N, NE squares. If he is in the W or E square, he gets a +1. If he is in the SW or SE square, he get a +2 and if he is directly behind (S), he gets +3.

I'm making this up, so the actual + can change.

However, as someone else suggested in another thread, ALL characters should get a bonus to damage when flanking.

BUT.

The rogue should get a BIG bonus when flanking from the rear or backstabbing from the shadows.

I don't miss the 1e and 2e backstab, that actually worked once in a blue moon, but I would like a return to a 'real' backstab where you have to work for it, use your stealth and where you can pull it off by yourself if need be.

My 0,02$ CDN.

 

[howandwhy99]

For me thieves are proficient in called attacks to unspecified vital regions that modify the amount of damage they do, but only when they are unseen or undefended against. That means flanking, facing, and concealment. If a creature has no vital regions, cannot be flanked, or be hidden from, then that creature is more difficult for a thief to harm. (It would be more difficult for almost any character, but specifically thieves in this case)

 

[Sunseeker]

For me thieves are proficient in called attacks to unspecified vital regions that modify the amount of damage they do, but only when they are unseen or undefended against. That means flanking, facing, and concealment. If a creature has no vital regions, cannot be flanked, or be hidden from, then that creature is more difficult for a thief to harm. (It would be more difficult for almost any character, but specifically thieves in this case)

Although thieves/rogues/assassins/sneaky do-baders may get this "called shot" feature for free, what's the argument to say that all casses could not pick up such a feature? I'd say a Magic Missile short at your heart would be worse than one short at your general self, a swing with a sword towards your neck worse than just a general attack.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

There is an excellent 4e pdf that rises this issue by introducing a "stealth" encounter mechanic. It added an "unaware" condition that significantly reduced their current hit points. If you snick up on an unaware bad guy, strikers were pretty assured of a one shot kill. Once aware, the bad guys hit point returned to normal and you had to fight them.

I liked this method of returning that 'from the shadows' feel

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

 

[infax]

There is an excellent 4e pdf that rises this issue by introducing a "stealth" encounter mechanic. It added an "unaware" condition that significantly reduced their current hit points. If you snick up on an unaware bad guy, strikers were pretty assured of a one shot kill. Once aware, the bad guys hit point returned to normal and you had to fight them.

I liked this method of returning that 'from the shadows' feel

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Pray tell, what is the name of the pdf?

 

[KesselZero]

Whatever direction they go, I hope it isn't totally dependent on flanking or some other battle-grid condition. If you're playing without a battle mat (as 5e is supposed to support) then powers that require flanking (or opportunity attacks, etc.) become basically useless. I think what defined Backstab vs Sneak Attack is that Backstab more or less relied on the DM allowing it based on how he viewed the circumstances, whereas Sneak Attack relies on a certain concrete set of gameboard circumstances.

 

[El Mahdi]

There is an excellent 4e pdf that rises this issue by introducing a "stealth" encounter mechanic. It added an "unaware" condition that significantly reduced their current hit points. If you snick up on an unaware bad guy, strikers were pretty assured of a one shot kill. Once aware, the bad guys hit point returned to normal and you had to fight them.

Pray tell, what is the name of the pdf?

Yes, I'd be interested also.

Do you have a link or a copy?

 

[variant]

For me thieves are proficient in called attacks to unspecified vital regions that modify the amount of damage they do, but only when they are unseen or undefended against. That means flanking, facing, and concealment. If a creature has no vital regions, cannot be flanked, or be hidden from, then that creature is more difficult for a thief to harm. (It would be more difficult for almost any character, but specifically thieves in this case)

This is generally how I view it and I would be disappointed if 5e didn't have some version of this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My rogue gets improved threat range when truly sneak attacking (i.e. opponent has lost Dex), which adds a couple of damage dice and eventually an improved crit multiplier (backstab!) at high levels. There's also a smallish attack and flat damage bonus that applies in flanking or dex lost situations. I have found that this captures the deadliness of the 2e rogue, while increasing the rogue's combat viability in a broader range of situations.

I am not a fan of the extra damage dice at all. Adding +10d6 to some halfling's short sword is silly, while adding +5d6 to a giant's sneak attack borders on trivial. Sneak attack really shouldn't be (just) bonus damage. It should work through the crit system. And it should be extremely powerful, since it is the main source of combat viability for a rogue that likes to fight.

Of course, if you want a non-sneak-attacking rogue, like a scout or somesuch, that's cool too.

Whatever direction they go, I hope it isn't totally dependent on flanking or some other battle-grid condition. If you're playing without a battle mat (as 5e is supposed to support) then powers that require flanking (or opportunity attacks, etc.) become basically useless. I think what defined Backstab vs Sneak Attack is that Backstab more or less relied on the DM allowing it based on how he viewed the circumstances, whereas Sneak Attack relies on a certain concrete set of gameboard circumstances.

I hate battlemaps and rarely use them, but I never have any trouble adjudicating flanking. I think there should be advantages for ganging up on someone. I do, however, think that a true sneak attack should require something more substantial than a flank.

 

[variant]

Maybe sneak attack should simply grant the rogue maximum damage?