Ranger/Thief backstab question

[CRGreathouse]

Now, this multiple backstab stuff is still annoying me. According to what is being said here, when the ranger/thief and the cleric/thief both are flanking the critter, it can have a total of six backstab attempts on it?

Yee Gods!

Where, in any rulebook, does it say they get it on every attack? I am all for once per round, but every attack is a bit much for me to swallow. I know they get it on every attack that the target is denied its Dex bonus, but that still does not help it sit well with me.

It's not "backstab", it's "sneak attack." The rules allow multiple sneak attacks, because if you read the section on sneak attacks (under "rogue"), it doesn't put a #/round limit on it.

Trust us, it's right. Other classes have ways of dealing comparable amounts of damage; it's not as bad as it sounds.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where, in any rulebook, does it say they get it on every attack?

Firstly, you should stop calling it "Backstab" - the 3E terminology is "Sneak Attack"

And it's on PHB p47, under the description of Sneak Attack : "Any time the rogue's target would be denied his Dex bonus to AC, or when the rogue flanks the target, the rogue's attack deals extra damage."

While that is the rule (and one I agree with ), if you're interested, there's a discussion here about whether once per round makes more sense.

-Hyp.

 

[Nightfang]

Re: Re: Ranger/Thief backstab question

It's not "backstab", it's "sneak attack."

Hey, give me a break, I have been playing since 1983. 1ed was still the norm back then. In my head, backstab and sneak attack mean the same thing...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Ranger/Thief backstab question

Hey, give me a break, I have been playing since 1983. 1ed was still the norm back then. In my head, backstab and sneak attack mean the same thing...

That's fine, but thinking about it like that can lead to misunderstanding of when the extra damage can apply sometimes.

Better to try and change the habit while you're discussing it, if you can

-Hyp.

 

[Maddenus2]

Hee i like backst um i mean sneak attk

As a rogue I like the sneak attack rules. much better than the backstab. All my attacks are sneak attacks if conditions are fulfilled. trouble is i have a canny DM who may have a rear guard who will pounce on me after i tumble past etc

 

[Cullain]

Re: Re: Re: Ranger/Thief backstab question

I have noticed in my many readings of the PHB it is not written for higher level characters in many cases. Also, the wording is very bad and up for interpretation. For instance, it says if you fight with two weapons you get an extra attack every round with the second weapon.

This, to me, seems very useless to justify picking up all the feats to get rid of your penaties for fighting with two weapons.

Getting an extra attack every round is a huge deal in 3E, so picking up an extra attack does(and should) cost a lot.

And I have to admit, I find your first complaint a little odd. 3E deals with high level characers much better than the 2 previous editions.

Cullain

 

[Storm Raven]

Now, this multiple backstab stuff is still annoying me. According to what is being said here, when the ranger/thief and the cleric/thief both are flanking the critter, it can have a total of six backstab attempts on it?

Yes, it can have a total of six sneak attack attempts made against it. Unless, of course, it is undead, a construct or anything else immune to critical hits. In which case the bonus sneak attack damage has no value.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

While they will indead do a lot of melee damage if they flank all the time, hit all the time, and fight monsters that aren't immune to crits all the time, they are making some serious sacrifices.

The fighter is sacrificing hit point, attack bonus, and feats to become a fighter/rogue. This means that he will hit less often as well as be easier to kill.

The cleric is making even bigger sacrifices in my opinion. He is losing out on attack bonus unless he stays at a multiple of 4 levels in each class before switching, undead turning ability, HP, and the big whammy - spells.

For every level that he takes in rogue he is getting farther and farther from resurrection, miracle, heal, harm, righteous might, flame strike.......

That's a big sacrifice just so he can get some more skill points and do +xd6 damage when he is fighting a non-crit-immune monsters and flanking.

The thing to remember if sneak attack is starting to get out of hand is that undead are immune. They need to get a powerful necromancer mad at them so they can feel like all those rogue levels had a price. Especiall the cleric/rogue. I can't imagine how frustrated I would be if I were up against undead and I couldn't sneak attack and my undead turning was too low level becuase I multiclassed.

BTW, are you sure you're doing multiclassing right?

And I wouldn't worry about the still learning part, I've been playing for over a year and I'm still learning. I think we all are.

--Newbie-Friendly Spikey

 

[ruleslawyer]

The folks on this board are giving you some good advice, Nightfang. Some more things to remember:

Sneak attack (SA), or what you think of as "backstab," pretty much applies whenever the rogue's ("thief"'s) enemy is sufficiently distracted or unaware of the rogue's presence for the rogue to be able to strike sensitive parts of the foe's anatomy.

Because facing does not exist in 3e, it is assumed that when a foe is flanked, he will at some point turn his back on the rogue. Thus, the foe is sufficiently distracted that the rogue can concentrate on getting a good shot. The rules also assume that a flanked foe is distracted often enough in the round that the rogue will be able to make SA with ALL his attacks that strike a flanked opponent.

SA also can be used against stunned, nauseated, held, or paralyzed foes; against flat-footed foes (those who have not yet taken their first action in the combat); and against foes who cannot see the rogue (if the rogue is invisible or blinking, for example). Yes, a rogue who is improved invisible will get SA on ALL of his attacks against a foe who has no means of detecting the rogue.

However, SA is balanced by numerous factors:

-SA damage is not multiplied by critical hits
-Numerous types of creatures, including constructs, oozes, plants, and undead, are immune to SA damage
-barbarians, rogues, and some other classes have the ability to retain their Dexterity bonus to AC when flat-footed, and members of these classes cannot be flanked except by much higher-level rogues

More importantly, the rogue's low hit points, base attack bonus, and lack of serious armor also counterbalance SA, since the rogue is less likely to hit than a fighter of equal level (and thus less likely to deliver SA damage), and a fighter-type foe who decides to concentrate on killing the rogue will paste him.

Your players clearly know what they're doing; a ranger/rogue wielding two weapons is "min-maxed" for SA, and flanking is the "best case condition" for SA, barring invisibility. However, such a character is by no means invulnerable. Throw some undead, a golem or two, or even a gelatinous cube at him and see how he fares; or put him up against one or more rogues of slightly lower or equal level and watch him try to flank.

 

[Christian]

One more thing I haven't seen addressed, regarding the two rogue characters flanking: the only way they can both get full attack sneak attacks every round is if the opponent is standing still & whacking away, i.e. is a complete idiot. Appropriately placed 5' steps will enable him to ensure that he only gets flanked by one opponent on a given round; and in fact, good tactical maneuvering can force the PC rogue who has the next action to choose between setting up the flanking for his partner with a 10' or greater move (limiting himself to a single attack and possibly provoking an attack of opportunity) or taking a 5' move that fails to set up a flanking situation (full attack for him, but no sneak attack bonus). Eg:

XXR
XMX
RXX

Monster (M) takes a 5' step on his turn, towards one of the rogues:

XMR
XXX
RXX

Suppose the rogue on the bottom left gets to move next-he can move one square up (straight or diagonally up and right) and take a full attack, but no bonus damage. Or he can move two squares straight up, provoking an AoO from the monster before his one attack roll with SA bonus damage. Either way, his partner can, with at most a 5' step, flank & full-attack the beastie on his turn. (If the rogue the monster moved towards has the next action instead, the monster's a bit worse off-both rogues, with appropriate tactical movement, can get full attacks, with the second one getting sneak attack bonus damage on all attacks, the first one on none.)

If the monster was surprised and lost initiative in the first round, then both rogues will have opportunities for full multiple attacks with sneak attack bonuses. Once the monster starts getting turns, he can limit their ability to gang up on him ... and even a stupid monster should have the cunning to not let itself get stuck between two opponents. Nobody likes to be flanked, even by non-rogues, eh?

And of course, if he can find a corner to protect his flanks, nobody can flank him. Tactics, tactics, tactics!