Seeking Sneak Attack clarification for 3.0...

[Storyteller01]

Personal opinion then... I don't play combat intensive campaigns. Rogues (IMC anyway)usually have a high survival rate when they think ahead (much like the wizard).

Guess it cmes down to YMMV.

 

[Storyteller01]

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

You did ask why...

 

[the Jester]

Okay, first of all, the right thing to do is what causes fun to happen.

That said, even the sneak attack focused rogue with sneak attack focused feats, special abilities and prestige classes doesn't outclass the party's tank in my epic game. He can't last very long against the monsters in toe-to-toe.

imho, reducing sneak attacks to 1/round cuts the rogue's combat utility a lot, and the desirability of the class as a whole by about half. :\

As you said, however, YMMV.

 

[RigaMortus]

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.

Who says the sneak attack has to be in the same area? There are multiple vital spots on a person one can aim for.

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).

According to the rules, the defender would not have the full attention on the Rogue unless you add even more house rules such as flanking no longer working, flat-footedness "wearing off" before the enemies turn to go, Dexterity suddenly coming back on an opponent who lose it (through stun for example). Seems like you'll be creating a whole lot of needless house rules that will make combat even more bogged down.

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

As someone else said, they won't. Sneak Attack is VERY situational. It won't work against undead, plants, constructs, creatures w/o discernable anatomies, creatures immune to critical hits, against concealment or cover... All these situations a Fighter won't have to deal with.

 

[RigaMortus]

Okay, first of all, the right thing to do is what causes fun to happen.

That said, even the sneak attack focused rogue with sneak attack focused feats, special abilities and prestige classes doesn't outclass the party's tank in my epic game. He can't last very long against the monsters in toe-to-toe.

imho, reducing sneak attacks to 1/round cuts the rogue's combat utility a lot, and the desirability of the class as a whole by about half. :\

As you said, however, YMMV.

If my DM did that, I think I'd rather play a Bard, LOL.

 

[Storyteller01]

Who says the sneak attack has to be in the same area? There are multiple vital spots on a person one can aim for.

Last line about Spec Ops was taking multiple spots into acount.

Not looking to start a flame war here. Just my opinion. I had seen material indicating that sneak attacks were one/round. didn't see anothing ih the PHB, so I asked about it.

 

[mzsylver]

If my DM did that, I think I'd rather play a Bard, LOL.

"The horror, the horror..."

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What PrC was that? Maybe it was just designed by someone who did not know jack about the rules?

1) Makes more sense, IMO.

It does not, IMO. Let's RPS this out.

Multiple stab wounds in the same area tend exaserbate the inital damage rather expponentially increase it

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

Dead is dead one the first shot

I agree. So only one SA per enemy per round, and he's dead on the spot

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

Doesn't matter, my greater invisibility spell still holds. And this is in addition to the fact that this pebble will cause an avalance of house rules, as you have to change flanking and flat-footed at the beginning of combat. And just consider two rogues flanking the enemy: One goes for the heart, enemy survives as the blade has only scratched the heart, inducing pain but not dropping him, the enemy turns on the rogue and is awarded by a blade in the back, right in the spine. Now you can either turn around again and let the first rogue get another shot, or concentrate on the other and let the other carve your spine out. Remember that the whole rounds thing is an abstraction, and that the attacks from these rogues are supposed to be more or less simultaneously.

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

You know, D&D doesn't really have non-combat classes, except as NPC classes or in 3rd-party material (Courtier from Rokugan).

And, as so often, I point out that the rogue has to meet certain criteria to get to sneak attack the enemy. He also can't really stand up to the retributive strikes. So as soon as a COUPE type monster shows up, the rogue can as well sit down and draw a sketch of the fighter hacking away at it, as he suddenly is quite useless. And even then, once the enemy has realized how dangerous yet how fragile that little rogue is, he'll start hacking away at him. His light armour and d6 HP's will mean that he'll be down pretty fast.


If you want to do anything, consider the following house rule:

Ignore an enemy: You can ignore an enemy in combat. This will mean that you're considered flat-footed against that enemy, and he gets a +2 attack bonus to boot, but he cannot help anyone flanking you.

So now you can turn on the rogue, and he cannot sneak attack you anymore. Of course, the problem of two rogues is not solved (and neither should it be), and of course, that fighter you ignore can now use his new bonus (+2 at least, and if you're agile enough, far more) to increase power attack.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

 

[Christian]

Personal opinion then... I don't play combat intensive campaigns. Rogues (IMC anyway)usually have a high survival rate when they think ahead (much like the wizard).

Yes, they do ...

[Rogue, thinking ahead]: "Hmmm. What's likely to happen if I stay in melee range of that opponent so I can get a full attack from the flanking position & do multiple sneak attacks?" ... (Imagines effects of riposte full attack given her AC and HP.) ... "Um ... I use Spring Attack."