Ranged Sneak Attack

[Herzog]

For some reason, our DM has interpreted the flanking requirement for rogues in such a way that rogues get sneak attacks as long as the opponent is 'flanked' from the other side, or the opponent is flanked by two other party members.

The rogue is not getting the +2 flanking bonus (because he is not flanking him/her self), but IS allowed the extra sneak attack damage.

I first want to point out that, although I think the interpretation of the rules is dead wrong, I don't mind the houserule since I plan on taking several levels of rogue myself.

What I'm wondering hover is: does this make rogues severily more powerfull, or do you think this is a welcome addition to the (severily limited) list of situations where ranged sneak attack is possible?

 

[Kylas]

For some reason, our DM has interpreted the flanking requirement for rogues in such a way that rogues get sneak attacks as long as the opponent is 'flanked' from the other side, or the opponent is flanked by two other party members.

The rogue is not getting the +2 flanking bonus (because he is not flanking him/her self), but IS allowed the extra sneak attack damage.

I first want to point out that, although I think the interpretation of the rules is dead wrong, I don't mind the houserule since I plan on taking several levels of rogue myself.

What I'm wondering hover is: does this make rogues severily more powerfull, or do you think this is a welcome addition to the (severily limited) list of situations where ranged sneak attack is possible?

In my opinion giving the SA when flanking at a ranged is pretty powerful. I don't think it's unblalnced.. until it starts happening with evil npcs. The other part, SA when opponent is flanked by 2 other allies is ok. In my group anyone flanked by to enemies gives +2 to all attackers. Never understood why it only applied to the enemies exactly opposite each other but the guy perpendicular to you is not really distracting you enough to give him a +2.

 

[Mortekei]

Rogues flanking vs. sneak attack

A while back WoTC posted a series of articles about what conditions would trigger a sneak attack opportunity as such. There were about 4 different articles, with each one being several pages long. Part of what they discuss is the issue of ranged sneak attack, which basically states that all a rogue needs is another allie on the opposite side of a foe from himself in order to trigger the SA. If using a ranged weapon the rogue can be up to 30 ft away from his target (not 30 from his allie, but 30 from the target).

So here is your worse case scenerio: Foe is surrounded by melee combatants. To his right is a rogue 30 ft away who has taken Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot (to be able to shoot into melee without hitting his allies). To the Foe's left is a second rogue with the same build and distance. Thus there is a total of 60 Ft between the two rogues, but both of them satisfy the 30 FT requirement. = Your Foe is about to have one heck of a rough day!!

Another way to use this tactic is to have your part "meat head / tank" take Mobility as a feat and then charge into the second rank of your enemies. From which point the first row / rank of them are likely to turn and face him thus satisfying the requirement for being on opposite sides of a foe. This works best with a Barbarian thanks to their Uncanny Dodge denying the foes which now surround him the really nasty ability to get flanking bonuses (and possible sneak attacks of thier own) on him. Once in position, it is a fairly simple task to pick your "gimp" and simply unload on them as EVERY SINGLE ONE of your attacks now qualify for SA bonuses.

Please note: This last statement is not an error on my part, nor any over sight by WoTC. This is how the Sneak Attack ability is designed to function, if you doubt this statement please refer to the "All about Sneak Attacks" article on the WoTC website (it was still up the last time I checked).

As for your house rule about allowing the SA bonus anytime the Foe is being flanked by anyone in the party, honestly that is really not that much more powerful (as long as you are still within 30 ft) as that is simply a matter of someone taking a 5 ft step on way or the other and the same SA opportunity would apply anyway.


Just my thoughts on the matter.

Mortekei

 

[Herzog]

Follow up:

our DM has withdrawn his previous ruling, after re-examining the rules.

I'm jumping back in here because of the recent reply by Mortekei, who seems to state that the ruling by the DM is not a houserule, but a legitimate applying of the RAW.
(yes, I know this is the houserules forum. the discussion started out as a houserule question, but now I like to continue it as a rule discussion.)

I disagree. Looking at the rules for sneak attack:

Basically,
the rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target
would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target
actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her
target.

and

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is
within 30 feet.

In addition to the rules for flanking:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your
opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on
the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

`
and finally, threatening:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you
can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

So,
1. the rogue needs to be flanking an opponent. (instead of, as stated before, the target needs to be flanked)
2. ranged attacks count as sneak attacks while within 30 feet, in addition to all the other requirements for sneak attack.
3. to flank an opponent, you need to threaten him
4. You cannot threaten (ranged) with a ranged weapon.

So, because you are trying to perform a ranged sneak attack, you need to be within 30 feet AND flank, which you cannot do, since you can't threaten with a ranged weapon and therefore can't flank with a ranged weapon.

Of course, other circumstances can also lead to sneak-attack situations (like the rogue being invisible) and then the whole flanking issue can be skipped.

 

[Fenris]

A while back WoTC posted a series of articles about what conditions would trigger a sneak attack opportunity as such. There were about 4 different articles, with each one being several pages long.
Mortekei

Any links by chance?

 

[miscreationist]

The mentioned portion about ranged sneak attacks is in the first article, but all four articles have good information about sneak attacks.

Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part One)

Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Two)

Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three)

Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)

 

[starwed]

Those articles have this to say about ranged flanking:

You can flank with any melee weapon, including a reach weapon, but you cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Now because of how everything is phrased, I suppose you could weild a dagger and 1-H crossbow, be flanking due to the dagger, and thus get sneak-attack with the crossbow. That seems against the intent of the rules, but probably not overly powerful.

Really, allowing a rogue to flank with a ranged weapon when adjacent to the enemy is pretty reasonable... I think that's how they do it in 4e.