Sneak attacks vs Concealment, balance or common sense ?

[marune]

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

No Sneak attack vs Concealment always bugged me because it means that a human rogue cannot sneak attack his victim in a shadowy lane.

Of course, I don't argue about it when there is total concealment, but in partial (20% miss chance) concealment, why sneak attacks are negated ?

Do you think it's because of flavor/"common sense" or balance ?

 

[pallandrome]

For flavor, I would allow partial cover sneak attacks, personally. According to a strict interpritation of the rules, it wouldn't work, but why in gots name would a fighter be more skilled at fighting in shadows than a frikkin rogue?!?

 

[irdeggman]

I think it is because sneak attack is supposed to be a precise attack type of attack aimed at a creature's vital spot.

If there is a miss chance (like from concealment) then it makes sense not to allow something that requires the precision required to hit the vital spot in the first place.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No Sneak attack vs Concealment always bugged me because it means that a human rogue cannot sneak attack his victim in a shadowy lane.

I don't see a problem with that. Why should a rogue who can't see well fight better than someone else who also cannot see well? Of course, after a while, most rogues will find ways to give themselves better vision such that they are not affect by shadowy lane's concealment.

 

[frankthedm]

"Ya don't like it, houserule it."

Sneak is incredibly powerful, it is one of those life or death things that a high level character needs to minimize their vulnerability to as soon as possible. Only if one falls into the trap of thinking a rogue is entitled to make sneak attacks does this seem ‘unfair’. The sneak attack is a reward for the rogue who outsmarts/outmaneuvers his for or a punishment for a foe for failing to to minimize his risks. As it happens I do throw rogues a bone on this one...

Provided you can target the foe normally, rather than choosing a square [see displacement], Sneak attack damage is reduced 1 die per 10% of miss chance, rather than negated, by concealment. Complete invisibility and other effect that require targeting the square still negates sneak attack.

 

[javcs]

On a tangent here, what happens when the sneak attacker is using blind-sight?

 

[irdeggman]

On a tangent here, what happens when the sneak attacker is using blind-sight?

In circumstances where his opponent does not have concealment then the sneak attack works normally. It is when the opponent has concealment that he can't use sneak attack.

 

[Plane Sailing]

On a tangent here, what happens when the sneak attacker is using blind-sight?

On the offchance that you meant Blindfight (feat) rather than blind-sight, I'll offer an opinion.

By the rules, Blindfight doesn't make a difference. However, since Blindfight effectively turns a 20% miss chance into a 4% miss chance, I'd allow a rogue with blindfight to sneak attack in partial concealment.

 

[irdeggman]

On the offchance that you meant Blindfight (feat) rather than blind-sight, I'll offer an opinion.

By the rules, Blindfight doesn't make a difference. However, since Blindfight effectively turns a 20% miss chance into a 4% miss chance, I'd allow a rogue with blindfight to sneak attack in partial concealment.

Actualy it not a cumulative shot.

It is a 20% miss chance and then another 20% miss chance since it is a separate roll. It is not 20% of 20% regardless of how "it seems to be".

 

[dagger]

Actualy it not a cumulative shot.

It is a 20% miss chance and then another 20% miss chance since it is a separate roll. It is not 20% of 20% regardless of how "it seems to be".

For some reason I am having trouble getting my head around that, because it still increases your "odds" that your will hit.