D&D 4E 4E Sneak Attack, how many times in a round?

[mach1.9pants]

On the love or hate poll, Ovinnik pointed this out:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your ATTACKS against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

Note my bold. So if for some reason you're getting multiple attacks per round (if that's at all possible anymore, through powers or TWF or a good 'ol shortsword of speed), as long as you're attacking the same target you'll do sneak attack damage each time.

It is something that I completely missed. We know that iterative attacks are out but knowing DnD there will be masses of options to increase your attacks per round, even if it is things like 'rapid shot' feat.
So do you reckon that Ovinnik has got it right, if you attack the same foe more than once in a round you get sneak attack damage with every hit? Or do you reckon that this is just poor wording and the Sage will reply 'no way just one sneak attack bonus per round in total'?
I'm leaning towards poor wording...
Any thoughts?

 

[Stalker0]

Considering it specifically says once per round, I think its much more likely the (s) on the end of attack is a typo.

 

[Tusz]

Considering it specifically says once per round, I think its much more likely the (s) on the end of attack is a typo.

I interpreted this to be like the dodge feat: you only get to designate the stab-recipient once per round, but if you make more than one attack against said opponent in a round, you get the bonus on every attack.

 

[Stormtalon]

I'd interpret it a bit differently, myself: that the word "Attacks" is intended to reflect that sneak attack adds on to any of your offensive powers, be it Deft Strike, Piercing Strike, et al -- that instead of referring to multiple attacks in a round, it refers to the plurality of possible attack moves the rogue can make.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Whatever it is, the wording is poor. People can see 2 meanings of it, you'd think that after all the practise WotC get at writing stuff like this they could get rid of any ambiguity!

 

[Stogoe]

I could also see it as finally acknowledging that 'one attack roll' does not mean 'one sword swipe', instead meaning 'one mechanically-determined attack effort'.

 

[TerraDave]

Its confusing. My guess is that it was ruling out sneak attacking both on a standard action and an "opportunity attack" in the same round. Or something like that.

 

[Stormtalon]

Thing is, even in 3.x with iterative attacks, Sneak Attack damage only ever applied on the first attack made in a round -- I can't see that changing in 4th.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

Thing is, even in 3.x with iterative attacks, Sneak Attack damage only ever applied on the first attack made in a round -- I can't see that changing in 4th.

No, Sneak Attack applied to any attack that was eligible for Sneak Attack damage, regardless of the number of times it happens in a round. That's why TWF was a problem (or popular choice, depending on your point of view) with the rogue, it greatly multiplied the Rogue's sneak attack damage.

You might be thinking of the fact that a Bluff check to Feint only works on your next attack against that target, though...

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Thing is, even in 3.x with iterative attacks, Sneak Attack damage only ever applied on the first attack made in a round -- I can't see that changing in 4th.

Um, no it doesn't. I made the same mistake, but it doesn't. Sneak Attack damage will apply only once to a single part of one attack roll (like for Multishot), but for iterative attacks it applies to all of them if the correct conditions are still met after the first attack.