How do your rogues get their sneak attacks in?

[Madeiner]

I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:

You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.

Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.

Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)

 

[Friend of the Dork]

I don't know if Pathfinder changed the rules, but i believe that:

You are correct that "Flanking" is not a status effect; but a creature that is Flanked, also loses his dexterity bonus to AC.

Rogues can sneak attack creatures that are denied their dexterity bonuses to AC.

Net effect is that a flanked target can be sneak attacked by any rogue with a bow within 30 feet (i think that's the correct distance for a ranged sneak attack)

Sorry, wrong before and wrong again. Read up on the rules about sneak attack:
Rogue - Pathfinder_OGC

Notice it says "when the Rogue flanks her target."

You can also check the flanking rules and see you can't flank with a missile weapon.

That's why melee rogues are generally better than ranged ones.

 

[Noir le Lotus]

Usually as a rogue, I :

- try to win initiative and with quickdraw throw daggers to a maximum of flat footed targets in the surprise & 1st rounds.
- take any opportunity to have a sneak attack on victims of my spellcaster teammates (Glittering Dust, Hold Person) and encourage them to use this kind of spells.
- work with the main melee fighter to gain flanking.

You should note that I placed cooperation with fighter in 3rd place for a good reason : rogues are squeashy !! So going to melee flanking is really dangerous against very strong foes, you must use this tactic with caution : you are more useful to the team dealing 1D6+1 each round for 10 rounds than dealing 6D6+1 in 1 routine and dying in the following round. Against weaker foes, you can go get flanking without problem.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That's why melee rogues are generally better than ranged ones.

You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence. In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them. By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking. Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.

 

[am181d]

You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence. In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them. By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking. Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.

So to clarify: There's no issue with the rogue. Just with the magic items available?

Honestly, I've never had a problem in my 3.5 game with rogues getting sneak attack WITHOUT any of those magic items. The only problem has been creatures that are immune to sneak attacks. For this reason, in my games, I ignore monsters' immunity to sneak attacks (and crits, for a similar reason).

 

[axp_dave]

Usually as a rogue, I :
- work with the main melee fighter to gain flanking.

You should note that I placed cooperation with fighter in 3rd place for a good reason : rogues are squeashy !! So going to melee flanking is really dangerous against very strong foes, you must use this tactic with caution : you are more useful to the team dealing 1D6+1 each round for 10 rounds than dealing 6D6+1 in 1 routine and dying in the following round. Against weaker foes, you can go get flanking without problem.

In our game the rogues get sneak attacks by working with the party to offer flanking opportunities. It is a team effort. I agree that rogues are "squeashy" so it is is a concious decision on byparty to get the rogue in a good spot. Fighters really need to move where it allows the rogue a chance. Sometimes even taking AOO's and take it for the team to let the rogue his magic square. I think it takes smart play by all to squeeze the most out of the rogue's sneak attacks.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Our Rogue almost always uses the Feint Combat Maneuver. Simple as that.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

You forgot to put "...in Pathfinder." at the end of that sentence. In 3E, low level ranged rogues could get easy full attack SA with the wizard just using a wand of grease for them. By mid levels, they had ring of blinking and were always sneak attacking. Ranged rogues worked fine in 3E, this is only a PF problem.

Hmm I never saw that tactic used in 3.5. Blinking and/or Invisibility is a given though, for mid to high levels.

For the grease, well we never interpreted that enemies within it was always balancing. The spell said you needed to make a balance test to move, not to just stand there and fight (that required reflex saves). And for prone opponents there would be no need to balance at all (prone != flat-footed).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, between prone removing flatfooted since they were no longer balancing, and the general -4 to hit prone targets at range, you wanted them greased, but you actually wanted them to not fall down, amusingly enough.

But if you are standing in grease (in 3E), you are balancing the entire time, not just on your turn. Just as if you were standing on a narrow beam. Or how you're "climbing" out of turn when holding onto a rock face (another situation where you lose dex to AC normally). Only in PF did they create wonkiness by saying you're only balancing on your turn. It makes no sense, and it screws over rogues.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Yes, between prone removing flatfooted since they were no longer balancing, and the general -4 to hit prone targets at range, you wanted them greased, but you actually wanted them to not fall down, amusingly enough.

But if you are standing in grease (in 3E), you are balancing the entire time, not just on your turn. Just as if you were standing on a narrow beam. Or how you're "climbing" out of turn when holding onto a rock face (another situation where you lose dex to AC normally). Only in PF did they create wonkiness by saying you're only balancing on your turn. It makes no sense, and it screws over rogues.

This seems more like a rules clarification to me - in 3.5 it says creatures can walk through the area with a DC 10 Balance check - it doesn't say you need to take a balance check if you are not moving.

About what it should say, well for starters it should be a balance check to avoid falling in the first place, but that removes the age old tradition of a reflex save, and makes the spell much better at higher levels.

In any case, the Pathfinder rules luckily leaves no doubt.