Seeking Sneak Attack clarification for 3.0...

[HellHound]

That's not a good house rule. House rules that are designed specifically to screw a class feature when that class feature (as Patryn pointed out) is demonstrably not overpowered, is a really bad idea.

Although I don't agree with the house rule in question, I even more vehemently disagree with that statement.

A house rule is only a bad idea if it doesn't make the game what you want it to be. If you want something from the game, then house rule to make it so. If you want to reduce sneak attack to increase the focus of rogues in other areas, then do so.

I've house ruled away class features when the class feature in question was OBVIOUSLY not overpowered... because I wanted to in order to change the flavour of my game. That's what house rules are for.

 

[Storyteller01]

Then I'll cut your throat first, get your lung in the second stab, the heart in the third. If I'm still not done, there are some very interesting regions further down

So attempt all of these strikes against a moving target in less than 3 seconds (6 second round, minus your opponents reaction time [he also gets his licks in if he isn't dead]).

The PrC is the Darksight Slayer ('Plots and Poison' from Green Ronin).The abilty allows you to make a full round attack from hiding and do sneak attack damage on each attack. I'd say that it was designed for a surprise round, but the ability specifically states that it doesn't provide additional actions beyond the partial during a surprise round.

Again, not out to start a fight here. Just asked a question. DIdn't like the answer, so I made a judgement call.

 

[Talmun]

Back in the early days of 3e (waaaaay back in 1999), when I initially discovered that there were no limits to the number of sneak attacks that could be made a round, I strongly considered house-ruling it. Now, after two campaigns spanning 48 combined levels, I'm glad I didn't.

1) the rogue is built around this ability and it's use, changing it this way cuts the rogue off at the knees (higher if it's a halfling).

2) In 3.X, the monsters and NPCs can do/have anything the PCs can do/have. Meaning that the NPC rogues can sneak attack multiple times a round as well. That is an important balancing factor and makes this ability nowhere near as overpowered as it may seem at first glance.

3) In 3.X Monsters tend to be far more durable when compared to their earlier counterparts (More HPs, higher AC, etc.). Denying the party’s rogue his extra sneak attacks can, theoretically, make encounters more dangerous and protracted than they should be.

My advice: Try the RAW, you may find it works just fine.

 

[Infiniti2000]

A house rule is only a bad idea if it doesn't make the game what you want it to be. If you want something from the game, then house rule to make it so. If you want to reduce sneak attack to increase the focus of rogues in other areas, then do so.

There are good house rules and there are bad house rules. In your opinion, there are no such things as bad house rules. Okay, but you're in the vast minority on that one. Here's a houserule I've just come up with. Try to tell me that it wouldn't be a bad idea:

All spells are reversed in level. That is, all 9th level spells are treated as 1st, 8th as 2nd, 7th as 3rd, and 6th as 4th. 0th and 5th remain the same. So, a 1st level sorcerer starts out the game knowing 2 "9th" level spells and can cast 5 of them per day if he has a Cha of 19 or higher.

Tell me that isn't a stupid houserule. While the one proposed by the other poster isn't stupid, it's Bad, and is a poor choice. Could it be improved with some other compensation? Possibly. But, as presented, it's bad.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If you want to reduce sneak attack to increase the focus of rogues in other areas, then do so.

May be nitpicky, but this would not increas the focus of rogues in other areas. It would decrease it in this area. Increasing would mean that the rogue got more options for these other areas. My suggestion: Rogues can trade in sneak attack dice for bonus feats (stuff relating to skill use, plus maybe dodge and combat expertise feat trees)

So attempt all of these strikes against a moving target in less than 3 seconds

I can't, since I'm no high-level rogue. The rogue, on the other hand, could have 6 attacks per round (3 per hand), which is one per second. At the same time, the guy would either be harassed by an ally (flanking), would not see where the rogue is (improved invisibility) or need time to react (not yet acted during the round, so he's still flat-footed).

The PrC is the Darksight Slayer ('Plots and Poison' from Green Ronin).

Isn't that the book that is known for its questionable rules content (I remember a drow feat that gave +2 to all attacks and damage and I believe something else, too, just for being a spider-worshipping drow, but that could have been in another book. Correct me if I'm wrong)

The abilty allows you to make a full round attack from hiding and do sneak attack damage on each attack.

Ah, here we go. This is in accordance with the rules: When you attack from hiding (or with the invisibility spell), only the first attack benefits from sneak attack. After that, the enemy is aware of you and you cannot get in another sneak attack.

There is the option of sniping:

Sniping: If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

This hiding after the shot is a move action, so you stay hidden, but can only make one attack per round.

So when you're attacking from hiding, you do get only one sneak attack per round, but there are other ways of setting the enemy up for sneak attacks, many of whom can be done with more than one attack per round. The list of things I can think of right now:

Attacking from hiding: Only one
First round, you attack an enemy that has not acted yet this fight: Several
Using Invisibility: Only one
Using Greater Invisibility: Several
Feinting: Only one
Flanking: Several.

These are the things you can do with the core rules. There are PrC's that allow you to feint as a free action (so you can get several SA's per round), or spells that render the enemy flat-footed for one round and all manner of things.

I'd say that it was designed for a surprise round, but the ability specifically states that it doesn't provide additional actions beyond the partial during a surprise round.

Yes, you only have a partial action during surprise round, so that is of no use for it. Ther are feats and abilities that allow you to pounce on a charge, and this could allow you to make several attacks in the surprise round: Use partial charge (which is only a partial action, but with less movement) and then pounce to make all the attacks you could. Since you surprise the enemy, you can attack as often as you like.

As I've said above: The rules do allow all the sneak attacks per round you can manage, but after one attack from hiding, you lose your hiding status, and all attacks after that aren't sneak attacks any more - unless you have that PrC, which can make a full attack from hiding and have it all being sneak attacks.


See, it doesn't come up that often: You either have to have improved (in 3.5 renamed greater) invisibility cast on you or flank the opponent in order to get more than one SA per round. Especially the later doesn't work with ranged weapons, so you have to stand right beside that enemy - which will probably want to retaliate, never a good thing for a rogue.

 

[HellHound]

All spells are reversed in level. That is, all 9th level spells are treated as 1st, 8th as 2nd, 7th as 3rd, and 6th as 4th. 0th and 5th remain the same. So, a 1st level sorcerer starts out the game knowing 2 "9th" level spells and can cast 5 of them per day if he has a Cha of 19 or higher.

Tell me that isn't a stupid houserule.

Fine.

That
Isn't
A
Stupid
House
Rule.

What that does, is change the entire concept of magic in a campaign and makes spellcasters the uber class. If that is what you want (ie: first level casters casting wish 2x per day), then you have succeeded. However, I think there are better methods to achieve that end than the one you have suggested. I won't even go so far as to say that it is a really bad idea, because maybe that is exactly how you want it to be run. You see, I'm not omniscient, and I don't know how you want your games to run, or how they do run. In fact, I could definitely see running a game where level 9 spells were available at level 1. It would probably be an interesting session or two before I learned from the house rule in question and modified other rules to make it work better. Or, PERHAPS, drop it.

However, I am CERTAINLY not going to turn around and call your actions or rules "Stupid".

 

[Infiniti2000]

It would probably be an interesting session or two before I learned from the house rule in question and modified other rules to make it work better. Or, PERHAPS, drop it.

However, I am CERTAINLY not going to turn around and call your actions or rules "Stupid".

See, but I'm saying you should. Maybe if someone really puts a lot of thought into a houserule, you shouldn't just insult them by calling it stupid, but you should definitely point out if you feel it's a bad houserule and the reasons why. In this case, it's obviously stupid. Okay, you're right it might be fun for a little bit, but it no way makes for a long term, fun game. If I were the DM and you a potential player, bringing a fighter to the table, wouldn't you say, "Are you insane? What kind of stupid, bad houserule is that?"

Houserules, just like rules as written, have to be called into question constantly. If you create any houserules at all, almost by definition that means you think that the rules as written are bad. That's exactly what Storyteller01 thinks about multiple sneak attacks per round -- okay, he didn't actually say 'bad', but I'm sure he thinks it.

 

[HellHound]

May be nitpicky, but this would not increas the focus of rogues in other areas. It would decrease it in this area. Increasing would mean that the rogue got more options for these other areas. My suggestion: Rogues can trade in sneak attack dice for bonus feats (stuff relating to skill use, plus maybe dodge and combat expertise feat trees)

I'm going to keep being disagreeable in this thread, I fear. If the rogue loses some of the utility (not most, just some) of sneak attack, wouldn't you find that the main focus of the rogue would become his skill points?

Thus, IMO, that would increase the focus of the rogue on skills instead of sneak attack.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm going to keep being disagreeable in this thread, I fear. If the rogue loses some of the utility (not most, just some) of sneak attack, wouldn't you find that the main focus of the rogue would become his skill points?

Thus, IMO, that would increase the focus of the rogue on skills instead of sneak attack.

Yes, the one means the other. What I meant is that if you take something away from the rogue, you should give him something as well. Just taking away the rogue will diminish him overall, making the skill thing seem more while it's actually the same as before. If you really want to improve the skill-using rogue, you should not make the other possibilities less attractive, but this one more so.

 

[HellHound]

And that's where we disagree - I would rather power-down classes to change their focus instead of increasing their power.