Seeking Sneak Attack clarification for 3.0...

[Storyteller01]

where in the 3.0 PHB does it state that only one sneak attack per round can be made?

I'm not arguing this: I prefer it this way. Makes more sense, and one of my favorite OGL rogue PrC's (3.0, of course) gives the ability to sneak attack multiple times in a round as a higher level ability.

Thing is, I don't see it a specific listing. It was just assumed to be fact, apparently.

 

[Chorn]

That would be nowhere since there's no limit to the number of sneak attacks that can be peformed per round. The only limit would be the number of attacks you can make while still fulfilling the conditions for a sneak attack.

 

[HellHound]

Yup - what Chorn said.

Shuddering at the memory of a druid/rogue wild shaped into a giant octopus laying out the mad sneak attack beats with all 8 tentacles

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It doesn't state that because it isn't the case, and has never been the case.

And there's a PrC that grants the ability to make multiple SAs per round? Hah.

 

[apesamongus]

where in the 3.0 PHB does it state that only one sneak attack per round can be made?

You're not likely to find that since the book isn't in the habit of saying things that are not true.

 

[Storyteller01]

You're not likely to find that since the book isn't in the habit of saying things that are not true.

Guess I'll house rule it then...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Guess I'll house rule it then...

Not another one!

Why are you going to house rule it?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Guess I'll house rule it then...

Please don't. It isn't overpowered. It really isn't. You'll be hurting the rogue class a very very great deal.

 

[Storyteller01]

Not another one!

Why are you going to house rule it?

1) Makes more sense, IMO. Multiple stab wounds in the same area tend exaserbate the inital damage rather expponentially increase it (gut shots induce sepsis, shots to the throat cut off air supply, etc. Dead is dead one the first shot), and the odds on getting multiple kill shots in that short a time is difficult, even for trained Spec Ops.

2) If I survived a first sneak attack, you can guarentee that said attacker has my full and total attention. He won't get a second opportunity without another distraction (another attacker or whatever may happen between rounds).

That, and a non-combat class shouldn't outclass fighters in damage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That, and a non-combat class shouldn't outclass fighters in damage.

An appeal to realism (blech), another, particularly misplaced, appeal to realism (double blech), and a rules-based objection.

Guess which one I'll argue with?

It is a demonstrable fact that rogues, when allowed their multiple sneak attacks per round, do not outclass fighters in damage. It doesn't happen. Seriously. Trust me on this.

Fighters have the AC, the hit points, and the BAB to go toe-to-toe with a badguy, trading full attacks. A rogue does not. Accordingly, the rogue may do a whole bunch of damage in the one round he can make his sneak attack, but he's dead the next round, while the Fighter makes his more-effective-over-the-long-term full attacks. The Fighter does more damage than the Rogue.