Sneak Attack

[Hardhead]

This quote was originally from the "worst 3.5 change" thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off on another tangent, so:

First off, if sneak attack damage were reliable, it would be way too powerful.

I'm curious as to why you would say this. Do you really put your group up against *that* many Undead and Contstructs? Or do you mean that flanking is hard to come by?

As for the latter, I have a large seven person group, and in my experience, there's always *someoen* for the rogue to flank with - with a halfway decent fighter-type helping out, getting a full round of Sneak Attacks is really, really normal for us.

As for the former, I've never been that big of an Undead fan, and use them sparringly - more of a style issue than anything. However, I've found SA to be so useful that I've been using them more and more lately, just to help keep the rogue in check.

 

[GravyFingerz]

This quote was originally from the "worst 3.5 change" thread, but I didn't want to take that thread off on another tangent, so:




I'm curious as to why you would say this. Do you really put your group up against *that* many Undead and Contstructs? Or do you mean that flanking is hard to come by?

As for the latter, I have a large seven person group, and in my experience, there's always *someoen* for the rogue to flank with - with a halfway decent fighter-type helping out, getting a full round of Sneak Attacks is really, really normal for us.

As for the former, I've never been that big of an Undead fan, and use them sparringly - more of a style issue than anything. However, I've found SA to be so useful that I've been using them more and more lately, just to help keep the rogue in check.

Anyone who doesn't like sneak attacks is a commie mutant traitor!

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I found sneak attack to be quite prone to abuse as well, dealing more damage than a fighter possibly can. Early in my campaign, a rogue started to use it with great effect. So, being the DM I decided to throw it right back. Soon afterwards we (me being the DM, and the player controlling the rogue) agreed that sneak attack was too poweful as is, and we agreed to make it an action to do a sneak attack (not just tack it on as part of an attack's damage).

At higher levels, and especially in Epic play, the point nearly becomes moot. Everything has crit immunity (thus SA immunity). In addition, heavy fortification armor becomes incredibly popular as well.

 

[Spatula]

Seven PCs isn't the norm, though. In a four PC group, flanking opportunities are a little harder to come by. But the main drawback for a rogue to get sneak attacks through flanking is that if the rogue can full attack, then so can the target. And most rogues can't stand up to an all-out assault from powerful foes.

 

[Mark Chance]

Seven PCs isn't the norm, though. In a four PC group, flanking opportunities are a little harder to come by. But the main drawback for a rogue to get sneak attacks through flanking is that if the rogue can full attack, then so can the target. And most rogues can't stand up to an all-out assault from powerful foes.

Quite right. Sneak attack is not really overpowered. The few instances where my group's resident sneak attacker got into position to do a full attack and actually managed to score hits and then didn't kill his foe have turned into situations that the resident sneak attacker regretted.

 

[Emiricol]

A rog/ftr with SA, high Bluff, a greatsword, tumble and AOO-protection feats, and the Knockdown feat, is a terrible foe to behold with or without flank