Sneak Attacks on Rays

[Petrosian]

However:
'The whole point of this thread is that the 375 gold wand against heavy armor foes is too good too cheap and way too easy.'

is not supported by your math. By your math, the wand does an average of 3-5 extra points of damage a round, maybe a scootch less.

How is that 'too good'? In the haze of battle, and considering how rarely it will come up, does that really seem unbalancing?

In order to get to 3-5 extra points of damage, we compared it to a rogue using somewhere like 17k of magic weaponry (the two +2 swords) AFTER he spent multiple feats.

We bought a 375 gold wand.

We were up against some 12k+ of magical defense.

To beat it we bought a 375 gold magic wand.

For 750, i could have bought a wand of magic missile at 1st level and did 1d4+1.

That would not have made for a viable option. The rate of damage off the 750 wand is way too low for the 10th level character. That does not seem to be an error.

By buying the 375 gold wand, we do as much or more damage than with the 17k of weapons we spent multiple feats on, we beat the 12k+ of armor and defenses, and we way outstrip the 750 gold wand.

All in all, that wand for 375 is worth a whole lot more than its gold cost.

How frequent is it in your games that the party runs up against foes armored enough to make the fighters not have an automatic hit? I have this happen fairly often. Dragons, other fighters in plate, monsters in armor... heck the frequency of foes with 15+ or more of their Ac coming from armor is not "rare" at all.

this seems a bit much for 375 gold.

it may not be imbalancing to the point of being game breaking.

it is certainly well beyond "getting what you pay for" however.

the guy playing the rogue in my game expressed his own concern quite simply. "When i sat down to design a rogue and thought f sneak attacking, i thought of bow and my swords. i never thought of "ray of frost wands" but i would be an idiot more often than not to try with the bow."

to me this is a problem. neither my players nor i envisioned your thieves guild standard equipment as including ray of frost wands... but it makes too much sense not to.

 

[Will]

Keep in mind that the wand only works once you know it's _very_ heavily armored... I mean, in your example, 27 or more AC that would turn to 14 AC.

If the AC was lower, or more AC was due to nonarmor, and the wand would be worse.

So the rogue has to suss out accurately what the armor level is, and spend a round (or two) putting away weapons and drawing out the wand.

Or, more directly... yes, facing foes that armored is rather rare in the game I'm in, and our DM tosses very hard encounters at us regularly. We're about 10th level, and my 9th level archer has rarely encountered foes with enough armor to want to switch. If ever.

And those with that much armor tend to have SR.

But it's your campaign, I don't know.

Addendum:
I'd like to see some boiling down of what effect this has, precisely. And how often.

Some calculations I have suggest something approaching 'armor bonus of 2 + 1/3 primary attack bonus or higher, use wand'
IF this is true for enough cases, it bolsters Petrosian's point. It seems even more true for characters with low primary attack bonuses.

Personally, the amount of effect still seems pretty low, but I can see the complaint.

 

[jontherev]

yes i am biased. When i run math and SEE a result in cold hard numbers, I tend to believe it.

Wow, I'm not sure what I said that should illicit this type of inflammatory, arrogant reply from you, but whatever. I'm talking about practically your entire reply, not the above. You need to calm down a little there dude and open your mind a bit apparently. My numbers don't lie either.

Ok lets try this slowly.

Hold on a sec, this calls for another .

Against non-armored foes, a rogue will not use his "works good against armored guys" tricks. Against non-armored foes, he will use his "works good against non-armored foes tricks. "

Realllllllly? Wow, thanks for that bit of strategy there man. Now, if I can just go back in time and adjust the strategy I used throughout my pc's history, I'm quite sure I would've had so much more fun. My rogue did quite well meleeing most of the time. Against armored foes, I did my fair share of damage (WHEN I could sneak attack) without your strategy. In fact, imo, I did MORE damage than blasting one ray per round (I am rarely hasted...the wizards/clerics tend to haste themselves, and I save my money for things other than potions of haste).

Keep up.

Looks like this is another job for.....Captain !

buying the wand did not cost the rogue his swords and bows, just 375 gold. Against foes where the wand is not a good choice he will use those.

The whole point of this thread is that the 375 gold wand against heavy armor foes is too good too cheap and way too easy.

Yeah, it's cheap...so what? I still like to go into melee. Not only is it more effective imo, but also more fun. I like the challenge, and it suits my pc more. He enjoys mixing it up with the nasties in melee, even if he can't sneak attack. Of course there are times he'd prefer not to go it alone in melee, like against things with a lot of attacks (hydras, dragons, etc.). In those times, which is a rarity, he might fire off a ray or do something else.

Ok well lets see if i can work thru this mess.

First, I counted finesse.

Second, i worked with a 20 dex for a 10th level rogue. That seemed reasonable. If you take a sec and look at the "representatives of their race and class" iconic PCs from WOTC you will see that their 10th level HALFLING rogue has a 21 dex.

My halfling is level 12 and just acquired a 22 dex. With Cat's Grace, which as a Temple Raider he can cast HIMSELF (thankyouverymuch), he averages a +7 dex bonus much of the time. Note, that he can scribe scrolls.

Now maybe in your games this 20 dex is more appropros for 2nd level and by 10th we should expect dexs of 36 or so, but i am not using your house escalations for general discussion. Clearly a campaign with escalated stats way beyond those given as "representative" will likely produce different results.

Boy did you jump the gun and blast straight into the world of assumptions. Is this arrogance really necessary? I mean, really.

Third, adding haste into the picture? OK fine you got it. Haste adds one more swing to the already 3 swings for the brawler or bowman. it adds another ray to the other side. The ray guy DOUBLES his offense with a haste, the brawler/bowman increases it by less than a third. (it would help if you guys at least did some math, just a little, before making claims based on faith or wishes.)

Actually, no I wasn't adding Haste to the picture. I merely said IF you added haste, the results would only favor my pc. Especially when he adds more melee attacks at higher levels. I won't bother with the math, because I know it's true. And, I'm not sure if you even read my post now because I DID the math. If you are referring to others, do so in a reply to someone else or at least clarify yourself.

Fourth: i was not assuming we were in the realms. If you wish to limit your argument to just that one setting, thats your choice.

Our campaign, and many others, allow feats/spells from many or most of the official books. I base this upon many posts that I read. I'm referring to the splatbooks, MoF, FR, etc. I could very well be wrong on this, but that's what I infer from a lot of threads. *We* allow feats/spells from all of those I listed. If that's overpowered to you or whatever, so be it. I care not. I am not catering my post to your specific campaign.

Fifth, about allowing all sorts of wonderful magic items. i used significantly less money to buy items for the opposition. With defenses cheaper than offenses, deciding to need to have much more magic items to support your false religion is probably gonna get you no where. You will notice i am also only spending the 375 gold for the lowest power wand. Consider what a wand of twinned ray of frost, a wand of repeating ray of frost, and their ilk would do.

I'm not up on those abilities (twinned/repeating), but I still wouldn't go for it. That would make the wand a lot more expensive, and I'd prefer spending it elsewhere on wondrous items, armor, and weapons. Wands eventually die.

but enough of that silliness.

Yeah, what am I thinking, using magic items? I must be insane to buy magic items that increase the power of my pc! I should be saving up for cursed items!!!

Actually i am getting clues, right left and sideways. They practically seep from every sentence.

You really are clueless about this. You are being close-minded and arrogant simultaneously. Don't make presumptions just because you can't imagine creating an interesting character that *just so happens* to have several classes. If I was less secure in my ability to do this, I would post his background and describe why it is that he took his levels. But I'm not, so I leave it as an exercise for the right brain.

I really do not have much to say,

Wait right there, did you really type this? Yeah, I know it's out of context, but just too funny to pass up.

except that, maybe perhaps just a little your specific campaign oddities, your campaign being so different that EVEN YOU SAY we would have no clue about it, might mean your results are a little off the norm.

I can readily admit that in a campaign scaled like you describe, the more typical results might not be applicable at all.

I submit that my campaign is like many campaigns. We use the rules as written with very few changes. Most of what we have, we find. We do not get that much gold to buy stuff. Oh, and thanks for paraphrasing me incorrectly. My statement was referring to people like you, who jump the gun and start labeling others as munchkins because they have 3 or more classes, or only have 1 level in a class. I thought it was pretty clear. I didn't say you wouldn't have a clue about my campaign because it was SO different. I even explained the probable difference in our campaign, that it was high magic...that we get more treasure than what is listed in the DMG. I don't know HOW much more...I've never tried to compare. Heck, maybe we DO for that matter, but my instinct tells me no.

Minor quibble number 1: the average damage of the ray is 2, not 1.75.

Minor quibble number 2: the assumption that someone else provides you with boosting spells.

1. Thanks. That's actually sincere. 2. I already covered that somewhat. Until he reached 12th level, I actually didn't get the spell cast on me much unless I bought potions. But, in many other parties, I'm sure the wizards and clerics can be more friendly. My pc does have a 9 charisma, so that's one reason they hold back a little. I tend to annoy them.

Minor quibble number 3: you have defintiely upped the magic level for items while ignored easy and cheap ones. Your defender has over 40k in defensive items but not anything as simple as a haste potion? Clearly another campaign difference. In my game he would be AC 34/18t after adding in the lowly 750 gold for the potion or maybe even the 8k for boots of speed and lower the ring to +2 for a 33/17t.

I took out Haste for ease of calculations. It wouldn't make much of a difference...especially at higher levels.

As an aside, the full attack requires you to alrwady be in position, in my campaigns, full attacks are not guarantees. But we can proceed.

True, in the first round I usually only get 2 attacks (Expert Tactician). But, I'm just a wee halfling, so I don't look that threatening.

Yes of course, When discussing balance issues on a public forum campaign specific balances in a campaign you yorself say we will have no clue about should be the only things used.

With an argument like that, i am flumoxed.

Again with the mis-paraphrase?

Brief note, if we do add just a little haste potion, 750 gold vs the 40k etc you like to presume, your numbers turn into... 30/30/30/5 for something like 15 or so damage. Add a haste potion to both sides and the wand damage doubles (two shots) while yours goes up by about 6 for the extra swing.

Too lazy to run the numbers on that, but if you are right, I am still coming out ahead, so you just proved my point further.

So it seem the no brainer you are so happy with in your "classic" example is tossed asunder by just a 750 gold potion.... even after some 40k of toys.

Tossed asunder? In what way? I'm still enjoying more damage output.

Really? i never would have guessed. However, even as clueless as you think we are, i gotta say that i still expect you to understand that scaling like this might in some small way skew the relative effectiveness of various tactics?

Dude, just what is it that you misinterpreted so badly that gives you the notion that I think everyone is clueless? That is sheer absurdity and a shameful misunderstanding of my post. I was utterly shocked (and I've been on the board for a year now) when I read how nasty your reply was. I rarely reply with such venom, and I am restraining myself. I am just confused why you appear to be so angry by my post. If I indeed said something that truly offended you, I would apologize. However, I can't seem to find anything. Can someone help me here? I thought I was just giving an example of a pc USING THE RULES that shows how much more effective TWF is to rays. Sure, our campaign might be slightly skewed because we get a few more magic items than other campaigns, but this is not the world of munchkinland. If you played with us for a night, you would realize this. I can only type so much. You can make assumptions 'til the cows come home if that's what tickles your fancy, but I'm not going to spend all day explaining our campaign.

Gosh... a vampire at 7th level pcs? Man i am so impressed, you campaign is sooo cool.

Again with the arrogant sarcasm. At this point, I am guessing you simply do not like me personally based upon the many posts I have made. Why, I haven't a clue. I don't believe I have ever flamed you before. I am just guessing, because I can't figure out why someone would go off on me like this totally unprovoked. That is, unless you are a troll who enjoys offending others because you have anonymity to protect you. That's not an accusation, but an attempt to understand the vehemence of your reply.

I fugure with +5 vorpal daggers and +5 bracers of armor and +5 necklace of natural armor and then some real serious gear he could probably come close in your games.

Um, see above. The best weapon we have found is a +2 shocking burst exotic weapon that I can't remember the name of. Most everyone else (besides the monk who took it) has +2 weapons, and a few +3.

Thanks, We all needed to know senak attack has weaknesses so we could compare the two sneak attacks.

Well, being a RULES forum, many do not realize all of the weaknesses of sneak attack, particularly the repercussions of concealment. I have seen it many times before. You know Mr. P, you are not the only reader here, and you do not speak for everyone. Try thinking of others besides yourself.

And we are all grateful.

Thank you for your clear and wonderfully on topic post.

You're welcome. Thank you for your childish antics and totally unprovoked malevolence.

We can now all add, as a given, except in whatshisnames type of campaign, to the remainder of our discussion.

You have done us such a great service, we will eternally be in your debt.

As I will to you. I believe I added much more to this discussion than you have, both in word count and substance. I am hoping your reply will be, "Sorry man, I was not only having a bad day, but completely misinterpreted your post." It's a poor excuse still, but one which I hope to see from you. If not, I certainly will avoid discussions with you in the future. I have no need for this type of senseless negativity in my life. Peace.

To everyone else, sorry for the length and offtopic nature of this reply. I felt it was necessary though. Carry on.

 

[Pielorinho]

First, Petrosian, I didn't mean to be insulting by suggesting you were prolix; my apologies if it came across that way. I was suggesting that concise posts are easier to read and absorb.

Second, I apologize in advance if someone has already covered my point below; given the verbosity of the posts in this thread, I've skimmed many of them.

Third, my point. For 375 gold, a rogue PC could buy 18 flasks of alchemist's fire or 37 flasks of acid; or the rogue could purchase 12 flasks of alchemist's fire and 13 flasks of acid . The advantages these would have over the cold ray include:

-with one feat, can be used with iterative attacks (quickdraw)
-with three feats, can gain an extra attack each round (point blank shot, rapid shot, quickdraw)
-not subject to spell resistance
-no need for a high Use Magic Device skill
-better base damage than the wand
-when faced with a creature with elemental resistances, the rogue has two types of potential damage instead of one
-the alchemist's fire may light the victim on fire
-splash damage

The disadvantages include
-Price
-Rarely, and with a vicious DM, the rogue may find himself the center of a conflagration caused by multiple crushed vials.

Is this a correct analysis? Is there any reason other than cost than an intelligent rogue would purchase the wand over the flasks?

Daniel

 

[Storm Raven]

Missed? no. ignored deliberately? yes.

Well, i know the rogues in my game and in the game i have run with used ranged sneak attacks fairly often. Whether it was from the initial round flatfooted or from hiding or from invisible, it is far from "rarely."

At high levels, invisibility is often not that useful, since many high level foes are either not affected by the fact that you are invisible (as in, they have Uncanny Dodge) or have no trouble seeing invisible opponents.

In case you missed it, you don't get all those nifty extra attacks unless you have a full attack action. in those partial actions, from the surprise round where most of the flatfooted occurs, you only get one shot.

Yep, in the partial round of a surpirse round you only get one shot. But most rogues have high Dexterity modifiers and many have Improved Initiative so that they can get the higher initiative score in the first round of combat. In many of those cases, the rogue not only gets his single attack in the partial action, but also gets a full attack in the first round.

You also missed the fact that a rogue using melee weapons (as opposed to a rogue using a ranged weapon, like a Ray of Frost), can sneak attack while flanking. The Ray of Frost trick only works against opponents denied their Dexterity bonus, and that is a limited circumstance.

In case you missed it, rogue BABs are not the highest in the world, making their -5 cum iterative attacks a lot more likely to be misses than not, especially against very armored folk (which are PRECISELY the ones you want to use th touch attack against.)

You missed that with multiple attacks from a flanking position you are likely to be able to attack many more times with sneak attack potential.

10th level rogue with 20 dex, expertise and the various twf feats... attacks at basically +7 for bab +5 for expertise and say +2 for weapons (assumes two +2 shortswords worth ~16700 gold) for a net +14. Figuring in multiple attacks and twf he gets +12/+12/+7. His damage on a sneak hit is 6d6+2 or 23 points. (numbers run almost identical with rapid shot.)

A 9th level rogue/1st level ranger saves on feats and attacks slightly better, but that is a minor issue.

Perhaps using actual CR 10 opponents for example AC woul make more sense than making crap up. Because very few CR 10 opponents have an AC of 27. Like, say, a Fire Giant (CR 10, AC 21), or a Retriever (CR 10, AC 22), or an 8 headed Lenerean hydra (CR 10, AC 15). If you do the analysis with some actual CR 10 opponents, you will find that your numbers run quite differently.

Against an AC 27 enemy (+2 full plate for +10 +1 large shield for +3, +4 from haste potion worth ~8000 gold, less than half the rogues swords alone) he has 14.95 expected damage per round.

How did the enemy get himself a potion of haste in the first round of combat? How is he flat footed but still under the effect of a potion with an extremely limited duration? You example makes no sense.

Against the same enemy with a wand of ray of frost (costs 375 gold open market.) working against the touch AC of 14 (+4 for haste) he has an expected damage of 18.525. The rogue still has a move available too. Even if i add in the 15% or so UMD failure chance, the numbers are still better... 15.74

So he has less damage potential in this somewhat limited and contrived circumstance in which you have an opponent with an AC much higher than similar opponents at this CR, and who is denied his Dexterity bonus, and who is specifically designed to be vulnerable to touch attacks and not physical attacks. And he has an edge of less than one point of damage. Wow. Talk about overpowered.

Your statement "clearly an option with less damage potential" is laughably meaningless. The "potential" for the multiple shots with low chance of hitting is really only there when he rolls REALLY well. At expected numbers, the ray of frost is superior AGAINST HIGHLY ARMORED foes.

Your example is contrived and worthless. It bears no realtion to most CR 10 opponents, and is specifically desgned to allow the touch attacker to shine. Against more typical foes, the Ray of Frost is clearly suboptimal. Which means that the rest of your argument has no merit.

Now we get to the secret whammy... HE CAN DO BOTH. For a measly 375 gold, mr roguely with his two shortswords and twf or his bow can also have a wand of ray of frost.

And he has to switch weapons in the middle of combat, costing him time, a full round of actions as a matter of fact (to put the wand away, and draw his weapons, unless he has Quick-Draw, in which case I suppose he could just spend time putting the wand away, in either case it costs him a full round of attacks, costing him about 15 points of damage in your example. What a great strategy that is. )

Basically, you are talking out of your behind here.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

At high levels, invisibility is often not that useful, since many high level foes are either not affected by the fact that you are invisible (as in, they have Uncanny Dodge) or have no trouble seeing invisible opponents.
[/B]

Doesn't uncanny dodge also help vs flanks?

As for invisibility, and perhaps my games are different here, it is not all that common for the entire adversary set to be able to see invisible, unless they are prepared for the enemy. unlike, for instance, haste potions which would help in any circumstance combat, invisibility is not an everyday thing.

Net result, the rogue needs to pick and choose.

Certainly if all available targets are invisibility proof or uncanny dodged, then sneak attacks wont be useful.

I never questioned whether more sneak attack opportunities will or will not occur from falnking vs invis vs bluff or whatever. The issue is comparing two/three different methods of sneak attacks, not the overall viability of sneak attacks.

Yep, in the partial round of a surpirse round you only get one shot. But most rogues have high Dexterity modifiers and many have Improved Initiative so that they can get the higher initiative score in the first round of combat. In many of those cases, the rogue not only gets his single attack in the partial action, but also gets a full attack in the first round.
[/B]

If you are back to melee, then you seem to be assuming the rogue started the combat at 5' range? On that first round, IF HE TOOK the attack on the partial round, in order to gain full attack he is limited to 5' step.

I do not know about your games, but the likelihood that he can be within 30' is pretty decent while the odds that on first round he is within 5' after attacking on round 0 is slim.

Clearly your game is different. Thats fine.

You also missed the fact that a rogue using melee weapons (as opposed to a rogue using a ranged weapon, like a Ray of Frost), can sneak attack while flanking. The Ray of Frost trick only works against opponents denied their Dexterity bonus, and that is a limited circumstance.
[/B]

The ray of frost trick works any time he could do a bow for the same type of attack. most rogues i have seen try their darndest to use ranged sneaks whenever possible, only throwing themselves to melee range of a fighter type when absolutely
necessary. Matter of fact, in spite of all this "full attack melee flanking" rhetoric, most rogues i have seen use standard strike and tumble out or spring attack more often vs fighters, as they do not want to exchange their iterative low chance to hit swings against the fighter's which hit more. They seem to feel keeping the exchange at one fighter swing vs one rogue sneak swing is a BETTER choice than tradig full attacks with a heavy AC behemoth.

Again, in your games, this may be different and maybe the rogue's answer to fighter tanks in your game is to just slug away and see who drops first. thats OK.

You missed that with multiple attacks from a flanking position you are likely to be able to attack many more times with sneak attack potential.
[/B]

More potential is meaningless. more expected is meaningful. POTENTIAL = "1 roll all 20's forever"...

Expectation = "what will i normally be able to do."

you have the *potential* to make more money buying lottery tickets instead of going to work each day.

Dont quit your day job.

A 9th level rogue/1st level ranger saves on feats and attacks slightly better, but that is a minor issue.
[/B]

Somewhere earlier i started off with the comment that i was using rogue for comparison. The permutations for which multiclass combo this vs which multiclass combo that get way to far afield... we end up comparing class combos, not sneak attacks.

if you want instead of a fighter in armor and gear we can try paladins with divine defense feats... but that wont tell us any more about sneak attacks either.

Perhaps using actual CR 10 opponents for example AC woul make more sense than making crap up.
[/B]

A 10th level fighter is a CR10 opponent.

Making "crap" up? look in the iconic representative classes characters. Your paladin (and cleric) (the only guys with armor and shield) have similar levels of armor (the paladin has more) vs non-armor defenses. IIRC the paladin has +2 each and the cleric has +1 each. my example was +2/+1 so i fell right in the middle.

The big difference between theirs and mine was the lack of hasting, which is of course effective vs the touch attacks as well.

Because very few CR 10 opponents have an AC of 27.
[/B]

I would tend to say this is campaign specific. As monsters go, AC vs HP vs other threats seem to vary.

As character enemies goes, it is a measure of how they are equipped and their classes.

As for whether you want to presume even CR fights, only a portion of an adventure's encounters will be even CR engagements. they are but one part of the picture and are described as not intended to be all that significant (draws out 20% or so of resources, no significant chance of character loss, etc.) Its the higher CR encounters, several in 1-4+ and finales in 5 or better CR above the party that make or break things.

At least in my experience.

When my gang went up against a dragon at AC 29 the other week, its AC29 (8t iirc) was a significant obstacle. Myabe your games are different. if so, thats OK.

Like, say, a Fire Giant (CR 10, AC 21), or a Retriever (CR 10, AC 22), or an 8 headed Lenerean hydra (CR 10, AC 15). If you do the analysis with some actual CR 10 opponents, you will find that your numbers run quite differently.
[/B]

giants... members of the easy to hit but lots of HP guys.
retriever... members of the easy to hit but lots of spell guys (also a construct, thus relatively silly as a sneak attack comparison creature, since he is immune altogether but then he is YOUR choice for comparison, not mine.)
hydra... instead of the giant boatload of hp we have regenerating heads...

See, each of the ones you cherry picked has some REASON they have the lower AC but are still CR10...


My cherry picking monster...
ADULT BLACK DRAGON... AC 27 with 9 touch AC.

Should i hunt more... no i think not.

The frequency with which the Gm uses monsters with various weaknesses is a strongly campaign based thing. If his campaign features lots more of the "AC ahillles heel" types, then the results will be different than if he doesn't.

Thats why i tend more often than not to use, in public comparisons, characters, and as often as i can to use something akin to already published examples or representatives.

They represent a "common ground" for comparisons.

I think wotc even said in EnA that these were the ones used to test DND 3e rules.

So this "made up crap" in my poor little mind has much better relevence than cherry picked monsters any day.

your game may be different, thats ok.

How did the enemy get himself a potion of haste in the first round of combat? How is he flat footed but still under the effect of a potion with an extremely limited duration? You example makes no sense.
[/B]

Where did i say first round of combat?

Pop quiz... who is more likely to have improved init as a feat, the fighter or the rogue? Answer... the guy with the bonus feats for it.

My example may not make sense once you add in your own prerequisites, but then, thats not my problem.

So he has less damage potential in this somewhat limited and contrived circumstance in which you have an opponent with an AC much higher than similar opponents at this CR, and who is denied his Dexterity bonus, and who is specifically designed to be vulnerable to touch attacks and not physical attacks. And he has an edge of less than one point of damage. Wow. Talk about overpowered.
[/B]

Again, if a 10th level fighter in +2/+1 armor shield with haste potions seems "contrived" then your game is certainly different than mine.

As stated before, in games i have seen, the rogue's first choice is NOT to stand toe to toe andtrade full attacks with a fighter, sneak or not. With the rogues iterative attacks being less likely to beat the armor and the rogues Ac being lower, the generally preferred tactic is to use his MOBILITY and tumble to keep the exchange at one swing vs one sneak per round.

Your games may be different. Thats OK.

But this is in part why i do not buy as a matter of courtse that ranged sneak attacks are grossly rarer than full attack sneak flanks.

Your example is contrived and worthless.
[/B]

My example is against characters and is remarkably close to similar examples from the "representative" characters.

if your game is notably different, thats ok.

It bears no realtion to most CR 10 opponents, and is specifically desgned to allow the touch attacker to shine.
[/B]

Given that armor is normally quite visible and the rogue player is usually bright enough to see the armor and recognize it, i dont see it as necessarily a problem to use the example where the wand is a reasonable choice. If he sees a farmer moving at high speeds and thinks MONK he is not gonna go for the wand.

Against your cherry picked monsters, it might be better to rush in and trade full attacks. For the life of me, i cannot say i have any rogues who would try it, trading full attacks with a fire giant, but obviously your game is different. In my game the rogues would be doing everything possible to use ranged sneaks against any of the beasties you mentioned.

Well, except the retriever... since it is immune.

Against more typical foes, the Ray of Frost is clearly suboptimal. Which means that the rest of your argument has no merit.
[/B]

I would hardly classify the 10th level armor and shield fighter as less typical than a learnean hydra or a retriever.

Your game may be different.

And he has to switch weapons in the middle of combat, costing him time, a full round of actions as a matter of fact (to put the wand away, and draw his weapons, unless he has Quick-Draw, in which case I suppose he could just spend time putting the wand away, in either case it costs him a full round of attacks, costing him about 15 points of damage in your example. What a great strategy that is. )
[/B]

In my games i rarely see weapons or wands "put away in combat." They are dropped, for free, and the new ones drawn with quick draw OR as part of a move action (this assume the rogue did not keep his non-wand hand empty cause it looks so cool, so he only needs to draw one weapon at best.)

Your game may be different, but in my games it typically not all that uncommon for someone to start with missile weapons, exchange one or more volleys and then switch to melee if needed.

No great and wonderful time losses there.

Basically, you are talking out of your behind here
[/B]

Absoluteyl.

my arguments clearly have no merit, for your game.
My games do not feature learnean hydras as "more typical" than 10th level fighters as adversaries.

can we leave it at that or do you need to toss a few more body part references to reinforce your point?

 

[AGGEMAM]

Caliban and kreynolds,

I found this interesting peace of info in the FAQ

Say a rogue attempts to perform a sneak attack on a
target and the target is flanked and engaged with another
character, but aware of the rogue. Does the rogue get the
extra damage dice for the sneak attack? My DM believes
that a foe who is aware of the rogue can protect herself and
is not subject to sneak attacks. I disagree.
Whenever a rogue attacks an opponent that the rogue flanks,
or who is denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (such as when caught
flat-footed), the rogue’s attack is a sneak attack. It makes no
difference how many attacks the rogue makes or whether the
opponent is aware of the rogue or not. (Note that opponents
who are not subject to critical hits, such as constructs,
elementals, oozes, plants, and undead, are not subject to sneak
attacks.) Note that in earlier versions of the game only the first
attack a rogue made in a round could be a sneak attack. That is
no longer the case.

EDIT: Note that while the question is specific to flanking, the answer is generic.

 

[Petrosian]

Caliban and kreynolds,
EDIT: Note that while the question is specific to flanking, the answer is generic.

Unfortunately, it does everything EXCEPT answer the invisibility question. This answers that all the attacks CAN be sneak attacks, that there is no rule prohibiting such. I do not see a problem with that. A flanking rogue can get all his swings as sneaks. A rogue under improved invis can as well.

This however leaves the issue of a rogue who is invisible for one swing but visible for others still wide open (well probably most people have their mind made up.)

I just sent this email to questions at wotc. It is intended to answer specifically the invisibility question.

I will post their response when it arrives.

*************************
In DND 3e, do the effects for invisibility dissappear immediately, as soon as the invisibile character attacks, or do they linger until the end of his turn?

Example specifically on point:

A rogue who is invisible makes one swing at a fighter. Since the fighter cannot see him, he gets no dex bonus, the rogue gets a +2 and the attack is a sneak attack. lets say that first swing hits. Is the rogue visible now for all purposes, some purposes, or is he still invisible for some purposes or all purposes?

Some example of why this matters.

The rogue at this instant can choose to use a full attack to get a second or third swings. Are these also sneaks or is the "now visible" rogue no longer denying the dex bonus?

The rogue at this chance can move away instead, drawing an AoO and that 50% miss chance were he still to be considered invisible would be a potential life saver.

The fighter might have a readied action to swing when the rogue becomes visible. If the rogue is still considered invisible, the fighter might not get this swing off until after the rogue moves away.

We have played that the first attack immediately negates the invisibility. From that point on, including any other attacks during that turn, the rogue is visible and thus loses all benefits of invisibility including the deny dex bonus and concealment.

of course, improved invis would be a different matter.

**************************

My expectation is the ruling will be all benefits of invisibility are lost with the first attack.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Unfortunately, it does everything EXCEPT answer the invisibility question. This answers that all the attacks CAN be sneak attacks, that there is no rule prohibiting such. I do not see a problem with that. A flanking rogue can get all his swings as sneaks. A rogue under improved invis can as well.

Yes, it actually does. The part I italized implicitly says that in earlier versions the denied dex bonus condition vanished after the first sneak attack, it does not anymore.

 

[kreynolds]

Yes, it actually does. The part I italized implicitly says that in earlier versions the denied dex bonus condition vanished after the first sneak attack, it does not anymore.

Yuppers. However, because it didn't specifically mention invisibility, I never even bothered posting it.

But, it makes sense to me!