D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Rogue's Sneak Attack

[Dimwhit]

So has 3.5 changed this at all? (I'm assuming not, or it would have been all over the place.). He still gets it for every attack each round, provided the conditions are met? Any change on those conditions (flat-footed, flanked, etc.)?

 

[Vanye]

So has 3.5 changed this at all? (I'm assuming not, or it would have been all over the place.). He still gets it for every attack each round, provided the conditions are met? Any change on those conditions (flat-footed, flanked, etc.)?

No change. However, on the table that indicated Armor Class modifiers for different situations, it does specify which ones count for sneak attack; for example, Cowering is listed as causing the defender to lose any Dex bonus to AC as are Grappled opponents, while kneeling or sitting opponents merely get penalties to their AC..

 

[Dimwhit]

I guess some guy on another message board, who supposedly has official Wizards info, says you only get it once per round, not for all your attacks.

I'm hoping he's wrong. Looks like he might be.

 

[geezerjoe]

Tickle me stupid (which really isn't too hard) but I could swear I saw that same thing in a Dragon mag or some such after 3e came out ... I was soooo happy to put that rule into effect cause the rogue in my campaign was reeking HAVOK ... wanted to kill him soooooo bad

Anyway, after reading some posts here several months ago I called my thoughts into question and went BACK through my old mags and couldn't find the ruling ... boy was I suprised.

I don't know why this other guy is thinking that way unless it's the most missunderstood rule in 3.0 (which I doubt)

Anyway ...

l8r

Joe2Old

 

[sithramir]

Sneak attack damage is applied any time you are flanking an opponent or that opponent loses his dexterity bonus (surprise round, you attack invisible, you succeed in a feint).

Should still work for all your attacks.

 

[drnuncheon]

I guess some guy on another message board, who supposedly has official Wizards info, says you only get it once per round, not for all your attacks.

I'm hoping he's wrong. Looks like he might be.

He is - the text is the same as it is in 3e - any time the rogue's opponent is denied his Dex bonus to AC, or when the rogue is flanking.

J

 

[Madfox]

Are there people who actually think the rogue's sneak attack as is, is overpowering? Compared to a fighter their BAB, amount of feats and hit points are lower, which means that they do not hit nearly as often nor can they stay as long in a fight. To sneak attack they also have to be in a pretty situation and it does not work against all types of opponents. Granted, I have never run a high level campaign yet (as in level 12+), but rogues have never been better in a fight then the fighting classes. Monte Cook once said that even if the rogue could sneak attack on ALL attacks the power would still be balanced by pure statistical analysis.

Side note - you might have been mixing the rule that sneak attack does require some precision and as such it does not work more then once on special multiple attacks within one attack such a shurikens, minor orb spells or many-shot.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Are there people who actually think the rogue's sneak attack as is, is overpowering? Compared to a fighter their BAB, amount of feats and hit points are lower, which means that they do not hit nearly as often nor can they stay as long in a fight. To sneak attack they also have to be in a pretty situation and it does not work against all types of opponents. Granted, I have never run a high level campaign yet (as in level 12+), but rogues have never been better in a fight then the fighting classes. Monte Cook once said that even if the rogue could sneak attack on ALL attacks the power would still be balanced by pure statistical analysis.

Side note - you might have been mixing the rule that sneak attack does require some precision and as such it does not work more then once on special multiple attacks within one attack such a shurikens, minor orb spells or many-shot.

On some levels I think it is too good. Though I generally am for buffing the fighter instead of nerfing the rogue. Yeah the fighter does more damage on average, but really considering the lack of anything but fighting talent there should be about 0 situations in the game where the rogue out damages the fighter. Really specific non class oriented scenarios where a rogue happens to do more damage sure, but just doing more damage every time he wins initiative or when he flanks heck no IMO.

So in other words does the rogue do to much damage for someone with 8 skill points some cool class abilites and tons of class skills maybe not, does the fighter do too little daamge for someone with 2 skill points and crap class skills heck yeah.

 

[two]

sneak attacks pretty weak

In the grand scheme of things, sneak attack dice are extremely, and I mean extremely weak.

Once in a while, yeah, your rogue pulls off some stupendous damage dice...but actually, I bet if you count the damage total, it's only a little more than that barbarian does every round. All day.

Why are sneak attack dice so lame?

1) You gotta hit to use them
2) Defender must be in a special condition (flanked, lost dex., etc.)
3) Class abilities can nullify it (barbarian, etc.)
4) Any concealment nullifies it (blur spell=immunity from sneak attacks)
5) Armor of fort nullifies it.
6) Vast numbers of monsters are immune to it (undead, constructs, monsters too tall to sneak attack)
7) the list goes on and on.

Basically, a rogue, played correctly, MIGHT be able to sneak attack 50% of the time. Maybe. That's the upper limit. Most of the time it's probably closer to 40% or 30%.

The long-term statistics are always brutal for rogues in combat. Dont' beleive me? Next time you are in a combat with a rogue, count the number of attacks that get sneak attack damage vs. the total number of attacks the rogue could have had if the rogue didn't have to worry about trying to GET sneak attack damage (meaning, if the rogue took full round attacks, dont' move as much, tumbling not required, etc.). Sneak attack dice in the long term reeketh. It's far better to just hit hard all day all the time.

Particularly at higher levels. Is there anything sadder than a rogue20? What, exactly, at that level is NOT going to be immune to and/all sneak attacks? A cloak of blur is just 25k for goodness sake! Throw in scary monsters, fort armor, and etc. and it's just stupid.

 

[Dimwhit]

Well, I didn't intend this to be a debate on the strength/weakness of Rogues. But since you guys started it...

I have a 16th level Rogue who recently got a Ring of Blinking. So when it's activated, he pretty much gets to sneak every time (unless the creature is immune - which I'll admit it happening more and more). He does great damage, but our Barbarian still outshines him in that category.

That's partly why my Rogue is becoming a wannabee (sp?) Wizard. He has such a high UMD that he can use wands all he wants, he's almost always successful casting off scrolls, and he almost never fails activating a device blindly. He's becoming very, very handy. I love the character. And he's straight Rogue. No PrCs.

Anyway, I really wanted to check to make sure Rogues still could use sneak damage for as many attacks as they had, which is sounds like they still do. That's good. They're not overpowered, IMO, with it like that. Nor do I think, however, that they're underpowered. I'm quite happy with them as they are.

At least WotC left the Rogue alone, for the most part.