The Rogue and Sneak Attacking

[Ellington]

In a recent blog post, it was hinted that the rogue's sneak attack or backstab would be mechanically similar to the one in the previous two editions. This means flanking will obviously be important to the rogue once more, which I guess is fine since it rewards teamwork and proper positioning. But should the rogue's bonus damage when flanking and the rogue's bonus damage when attacking the enemy from an advantage be the same?

I began playing thieves in Baldur's Gate before I even knew D&D existed. Back then, it was all about the one crucial backstab. It dealt a LOT of damage, but chances were you would probably only use it once per battle, maybe more often if you had means of getting back into stealth such as the party wizard casting invisibility on you or whatever. Whenever the backstab was out of the way, you were pretty much left with a gimped fighter.

When 3E came along and backstab turned into sneak attack, the rogue wasn't as limited when using its sneak attack. Now you could gain the bonus damage when flanking and whenever attacking a flat-footed opponent. This opened up a lot of possibilities and gave the rogue something to after exiting stealth. However, it came at a cost; that single crucial backstab vanished and became just as powerful as any of those countless attacks you'd get when flanking an enemy and dual wielding. That high damage, class defining feature the thief had was replaced by a more often used sneak attack that was incredibly dependent on other characters. I don't think that is the perfect progression of the class and I think it could have been handled better.

See, to me the rogue is all about gaining an advantage over your opponent and then utilizing that advantage 100%. The rogue isn't as good in combat as the fighter, but what it lacks in power in makes up for in utilizing the weaknesses of others and gaining an advantage over them. Whether the advantage is gained by sneaking up on the enemy, making a clever feint in combat, tumbling past the opponent to catch it off guard or bluffing it into a false sense of security, it should be about that one crucial strike. That "Just as planned." moment. A high burst damage strike that turn the tide of battle after cleverly gaining an advantage over him and not a somewhat steady boost in attack you get from dual wielding and flanking an opponent over and over and over. That's what the rogue should be all about, to me anyways.

That's not to say the bonus damage the rogue should get for flanking should disappear entirely. As I said earlier, it still rewards teamwork and clever positioning and I'm all for that. I just don't think it should be as powerful as that all-important strike, and instead a means for the rogue to be effective when that strike failed or isn't available.

So yeah, that's my opinion on it in a nutshell. The rogue should have two "sneak attack" mechanics; one of which should deal a lot of damage and be available when you catch the opponent flat footed, and one should deal some bonus damage and be available when flanking your opponent or having him at a minor advantage (high ground, maybe?). Maybe it could even just be handled as the same mechanic by varying damage on "major advantage" (attacking from stealth or after feinting) and "minor advantage" (attacking when flanking or from high ground).

I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but I just wanted to get this out there. This is also my first post here, so don't be too hard on me. Thanks for reading my ramblings!

 

[Leatherhead]

That sounds a lot like a 4e daily.

Personally, I would rather have the non-magical classes "build their own attack" as they use them in combat. Get so much "advantage" or even so much overage on the attack roll, and you can add nifty tricks to your damage, or maybe even more damage, or perhaps sacrifice damage for such a trick if you absolutely have to set it up.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've always liked pre-3.x backstabbing. But I like to use skirmish tactics...hit the enemy hard, then run and hide. Lather, rinse, repeat. The main villain of my last BECM campaign was a high-level Thief, and he really challenged the party with this tactic.

The 3.x rogue's sneak attack ability felt like something that would be more appropriate to the fighter class. I've always thought of rogues as stealthy, hit-you-from-the-shadows types...not toe-to-toe melee combatants.

 

[infax]

I miss the backstab rules as well.

When I first read 3.x rules I thought the sneak attack rules seemed a little wonky, but okay. In play, however, I found out that an advantage that I was used to seeing once per combat on average (sometimes the thief didn't hide in time before the combat started and everyone was aware of him, at others clever tactics allowed for a second or even a third backstab during a fight) became something that happened every other round. That wasn't as bad as, a few years later, with many, many new feats and other powers added to the game when the rogue became able to sneak attack every round. Then it became a matter of fights where sneak attack didn't attack (fighting undead or oozes) and fights the rogue attacked every round. Not as much fun. Not what I had thought was the spirit of the sneak attack rules.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, it felt like the rogue was much more of a fighter with a particular skill rather than an opportunist striking when the opportunity rose.

I'd rather see the rogue have different options in combat, in particular for tricking and hampering an enemy rather be the massive damage dealer. On a best scenario, in addition to a highly circumstantial special attack (backstab) the rogue would be able to, over time, build-up to a situation when he can deliver another devastating attack.

On this note, this is the opposite of the Daily rules as I see it. Closer to an Encounter power, to use the jargon, but, preferably, with a good description to match and a way to get the benefits of the ability again with clever ideas and using the particular circumstances of each different combat.

 

[BobTheNob]

This has come up a couple of times now and I will respond the same way I do every time. Im just not that fond of the sneak attack direction 3e and 4e took on. This doesnt come from some grognard belief...it comes from having played 3e for and 4e each for many years. I got both editions, I thought sneak attack was a great change, then I played them. After having walked out of the other end I cant help but think that sneak attack was part of the design philosophy that evolved the rogue into a high damage output, low damage tolerance fighter.

In the long run, I just wasnt happy with that loss of identity.

I dont mind the OP's suggestion, but have to say that coming out of 4e...flanking just was not that hard. There was not alot of rounds our rogue wasnt getting it. So tying high damage output to it just becomes a pure damage bonus. Even if you reduce the damage, it still becomes a consistant (albeit less) damage bonus.

I far prefer what [MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION] has suggested. That the rogue really has to strike from shadows for it, and has to work for it. In a fight, that gives them something to do other than "I swing" without them being the damage machine of the party. I far prefer that the use of backstab is more tactical utility i.e. you cant hit with it round after round after round. But by sneaking and backstabbing you may manage to flat kill the goblin hexer at the back of the fight, removing his threat immediately.

Takes a little more effort, but has the potential for a profound effect as the damage comes in intermittent "spikes" (even saying damage is misleading...I would like to explore backstab as an SOD mechanic!) , and you avoid the "fighter in leather" syndrome.

This is my preference. I dont quote it as gospel, but its more along the lines of what I would prefer.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I miss the backstab rules as well.

When I first read 3.x rules I thought the sneak attack rules seemed a little wonky, but okay. In play, however, I found out that an advantage that I was used to seeing once per combat on average (sometimes the thief didn't hide in time before the combat started and everyone was aware of him, at others clever tactics allowed for a second or even a third backstab during a fight) became something that happened every other round. That wasn't as bad as, a few years later, with many, many new feats and other powers added to the game when the rogue became able to sneak attack every round. Then it became a matter of fights where sneak attack didn't attack (fighting undead or oozes) and fights the rogue attacked every round. Not as much fun. Not what I had thought was the spirit of the sneak attack rules.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, it felt like the rogue was much more of a fighter with a particular skill rather than an opportunist striking when the opportunity rose.

I'd rather see the rogue have different options in combat, in particular for tricking and hampering an enemy rather be the massive damage dealer. On a best scenario, in addition to a highly circumstantial special attack (backstab) the rogue would be able to, over time, build-up to a situation when he can deliver another devastating attack.

On this note, this is the opposite of the Daily rules as I see it. Closer to an Encounter power, to use the jargon, but, preferably, with a good description to match and a way to get the benefits of the ability again with clever ideas and using the particular circumstances of each different combat.

I'm playing a rogue right now in a 3.5 campaign. My max damage, with SA, is 35 with my primary weapon, 30 with my offhand weapon. I get 3 attacks (assuming a normal full attack w/ flank)

We have not found it (in our entire time of playing 3.5) to be that overpowered. It is AWESOME in some situations and useless in others. Just like a regular backstab back in the day. Rolling 6 dice to deal damage (4d6 SA, 1d4 kukri, 1d6 shocking) means even with a sneak attack, the damage can be as low as 7 (+1 for str).

Against an undead with DR 10/silver? I do 1d6 damage (shocking, assuming it's not immune) with my primary, and can't hurt it with my secondary.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 5e go towards a slower SA progression, but include a bonus to actually catching someone flat footed. So instead of 1d6 / 2 levels like in 3e, you got 1d6/4 levels, but did an automatic crit when catching someone flat footed. Obviously not balanced, but just somehting I would be ok with to differentiate between flanked and flat footed.

 

[Incenjucar]

There's always the possibility of rogues getting a more granular sneak attack ability based on circumstances and not just level.

Start off with sneak attack being a more... global bonus. Everyone gets +1 damage in a number of circumstances. +1 damage for flanking, +1 damage for prone, +1 damage for being hidden, etc. Sneak attack grants the ability to turn that +1 into a +1d6. A level 1 rogue could only do that with one damage bonus, but a max level rogue could be getting a +6d6 bonus from surprising a flanked, dazed, prone target while invisible and bluffing, while a fighter would only get a +6 bonus.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm playing a rogue right now in a 3.5 campaign. My max damage, with SA, is 35 with my primary weapon, 30 with my offhand weapon. I get 3 attacks (assuming a normal full attack w/ flank)

We have not found it (in our entire time of playing 3.5) to be that overpowered. It is AWESOME in some situations and useless in others. Just like a regular backstab back in the day. Rolling 6 dice to deal damage (4d6 SA, 1d4 kukri, 1d6 shocking) means even with a sneak attack, the damage can be as low as 7 (+1 for str).

Against an undead with DR 10/silver? I do 1d6 damage (shocking, assuming it's not immune) with my primary, and can't hurt it with my secondary.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's not really a question of whether it's "overpowered." Rogues are pretty well balanced in both 3E and 4E. My concern is that sneak attack has lost its identity as a sneak attack. I can't remember the last time I saw a rogue actually use stealth to get a sneak attack--they always get it from flanking. This makes the rogue an extremely party-dependent type whose job in combat is to partner up with the fighter for a flank every round. It goes directly opposite the idea of the rogue as a stealthy combatant looking for the chance to deliver a lethal surprise attack.

I'd rather have a higher-damage sneak attack which requires genuine sneaking.

 

[BobTheNob]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's not really a question of whether it's "overpowered." Rogues are pretty well balanced in both 3E and 4E. My concern is that sneak attack has lost its identity as a sneak attack. I can't remember the last time I saw a rogue actually use stealth to get a sneak attack--they always get it from flanking. This makes the rogue an extremely party-dependent type whose job in combat is to partner up with the fighter for a flank every round. It goes directly opposite the idea of the rogue as a stealthy combatant looking for the chance to deliver a lethal surprise attack.

I'd rather have a higher-damage sneak attack which requires genuine sneaking.

I will second this. Having DM'd a 4e rogue for years I can honestly say it was a very well put together class, excellent balance for what it was designed to do.

Its what it was designed to do that I didnt like. Highly reliable damage in a fight, as far as I am concerned, is what the fighter is there for. It just isnt what I envisaged the rogue doing.

 

[Minigiant]

One of the proposed ideas was to give everyone a generic sneak attack and have rogues (and assassins) modify it.

I could see there being a generic bonus +1d6 to sneak attack while flanking for dirty fighting scoundrels and a +2d6 sneak attack on surprised enemies for hidden killers.

Joe the rogue
Sneak attack
-Flank attack +2d6
-Death attack +2d6

John the rogue
Sneak attack
-Flank attack +1d6
-Death attack +3d6