Iterative sneak attacks?

[jgsugden]

This is not 100% clear in the rules. From what I can tell based upon comments on the boards, most players (and all officially sanctioned video games based on D&D 3.0 or 3.5 rules (except perhaps Pool of Radiance --- I never saw that one)) use the following rules:

1.) Invisible or hiding creatures may make only one attack as a sneak attack before losing the benefit of being invisible or hiding. This is supported by the sniping rules under 3.5 hide, btw ... it specifies that you may make one attack and then you must hide via the sniping hide rules. It is not 100% clear, but the easiest interpretation follows this train of thought. Note that even though the invisibility or hide effect has ended, the target may still be flat-footed and thus subject to sneak attacks. On the other hand, if the target is already battle ready (not flat-footed), only one attack may be made.

2.) If the target is subject to sneak attacks for a continuing reason (grappled, flat-footed, flanked, helpless, etc ...), all attacks (unless otherwise specified, as in Manyshot) are sneak attacks.

The important thing to remember in this discussion is that the round system is an approximation. In game terms, a fighter adjusts up to a dragon, attacks and then waits for the dragon to return the attack. In 'reality', a fighter doesn't walk 5' up to a dragon, slap it four times with a sword and then wait for the dragon to bite, claw, claw, wing, wing, tail slap, quicken cast and quicken spell-like ability on him. They trade blows back and forth during that six second span. We just separate them to simplify things. So, the invisible rogue that makes an attack and suddenly appears is actually waiting a bit before he makes his next attack. If there is no reason for the simplificatton to change this, it should not be changed.

Is this clear in the rules? No. As I said, the rules are unclear. But when the rules are unclear, we must turn to logic to resolve the situation.

 

[jgsugden]

Two things -

First, you assume you can gain dex bonus vs an opponent instantly - like a free action - even though it's not your turn.

Secondly, you assume there can only be one surprised round - when a new combatant enters on a surprised basis (sneaking thief with invisibility), no one should be able to 'react' to this until their turn.

I disagree on both. I believe the rules support the second point, that no one should be able to react until their turn, but they are spectacularly uncommunicative on the first, hence my house rules to formalize it into making sense. I personally think it should be devestating to have a rogue materialize behind you and strike you 3 or 4 times before you can turn around. Or once, and activate a magic item for invisibility again... Talk about 'blinking' rogues

You're putting the onus on the wrong party. The rogue is doing something to prevent detection when he is hiding or invisible. The victim is not doing something to avoid detecting the rogue. The normal state of affairs would be that the rogue would be seen. The rogue is doing something special to prevent being detected.

Once that 'something special' (invisibility or hiding) ends, the normal state of affairs is resumed.

As for a rogue striking 3 or 4 times beore you turn around, see my prior post on the approximation aspect of the combat round. A rogue does not whack someone 3 or 4 times in an instant. They do so over 6 seconds. In your example, if the person were flat-footed, they wouldn't be able to respond. If they were already ready for combat, they'd have time to account for the rogue after the first blow and before the second one.

 

[Deset Gled]

First, you assume you can gain dex bonus vs an opponent instantly - like a free action - even though it's not your turn.

Sure, the same way you can fall down from being tripped - even though it's not your turn. Gaining and losing your dex bonus is not a free action. It is not an action at all. It is not even something that you have control over, it is a factor of circumstance (though you may voluntarily give it up).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

This is a debated question. It usually comes down to one side saying that the entire "full attack" is a single attack, so the opponent is denied his dex for that "full attack".

a full attack sequence is more than one attack. Next time they claim that the party is one creature and try to use finger of death to kill the whole party.

 

[The Souljourner]

Thanks for the backup, guys. Tilla - it's like they said.

There's no surprise round in the middle of a combat, surprise can only happen when two parties meet outside of combat. It's just the way the rules work. New combatants go at the beginning of the round they come in, but besides that, they don't get any special rules.

-The Souljourner

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

Thanks for the backup, guys. Tilla - it's like they said.

There's no surprise round in the middle of a combat, surprise can only happen when two parties meet outside of combat. It's just the way the rules work. New combatants go at the beginning of the round they come in, but besides that, they don't get any special rules.

-The Souljourner

Then, in this case as many others, I respectfully disagree with the rules.

If a fighter is startled/completely surprised by a rogue behind him, that rogue is going to hit him at least once, and possibly more, before the fighter can react. At lease, in my opinion.

There's no facing in DnD either - which I'm glad none of you pointed out.

So in my games, my house rule will stand, but I will agree with you guys and your arguements - the basic rules indicate only the one sneak attack. If any of y'all want to discuss my house ruling, I'll be glad to continue the discussion in 'house rules'.

 

[DM2]

a full attack sequence is more than one attack. Next time they claim that the party is one creature and try to use finger of death to kill the whole party.

Agreed.

 

[The Souljourner]

Then, in this case as many others, I respectfully disagree with the rules.

If a fighter is startled/completely surprised by a rogue behind him, that rogue is going to hit him at least once, and possibly more, before the fighter can react. At lease, in my opinion.

There's no facing in DnD either - which I'm glad none of you pointed out.

So in my games, my house rule will stand, but I will agree with you guys and your arguements - the basic rules indicate only the one sneak attack. If any of y'all want to discuss my house ruling, I'll be glad to continue the discussion in 'house rules'.

Well said, Tilla. I can see your point, but I would have to respectfully disagree with the liklihood of said rogue getting more than one sneak attack. Iterative attacks are about continual offensive pressure on the opponent, and while they are broken up into 1 or more individual attacks, they actually represent 6 seconds worth of attacks, counter attacks, and parries, which is way longer than the fighter is going to stay surprised.

In my opinion, of course.

-The Souljourner

 

[Pagan priest]

I say the rogue gets all of their iterative attacks as sneak attacks. In most gmes, the likelihood of circumstances allowing this to occur very often is low, and deffinately within the DM's control.

From a logical standpoint, one could say that the rogue has prepared himself and has a devastating combo lined up... the iterative attacks are not spread out over the whole six seconds, but are the result of (for example) a rapid, piston like motion of the sword arm once the point is lined up over the kidneys, repeatedly thrusting at the same point very rapidly. Such a maneuver would of course be useless in normal combat, even a wizard could defend against it. When the opponent does not know you are there...

Remember, nerfing sneak attack is like always putting the final encounters with the BBEGs in a null magic zone so the wizard can't just kill him with one carefully chosen spell. Sometimes ya gotta, just to keep the players on their toes. Doing it all the time is like always putting curry powder in your cooking... fine on the roast chicken, not so good on the oatmeal.

 

[FoxWander]

Actually if the Rogue is attempting to Hide again, debating about multiple attacks is a moot point because Hiding is part of a Move action (not just a 5 ft step) and thus you can't do a Full Attack in the first place. Here's that bit from the SRD (emphasis added)...

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

So that solves that part of the question. If the Rogue isn't trying to Hide again then the Rogue effectively gets a surprise round against his chosen opponent since that opponent is technically an "Unaware Combatant", at least as far as the Rogue is concerned. Here's the SRD on Surprise and Unaware Combatants...

Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware.

Determining awareness may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks.

The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. Any combatants aware of the opponents can act in the surprise round, so they roll for initiative. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don’t get to act in the surprise round. Unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not acted yet, so they lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

So yes, as long as the Rogue doesn't try to hide again, he does get a full sequence of Sneak Attacks because that foe was unaware of him (surprised) and thus flat-footed as far as the Rogue is concerned. If he wants to hide again he can get 1 Sneak Attack and then Hide again as a Move Action at -20 to the check.