Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6441069" data-attributes="member: 5834">I'm not going to run it that way until some official errata comes out. They should have written it differently if the intent was to have it occur on the Rogue's turn. It would have been easy to write "Once during your turn..." They knew about Commander's Strike, Sentinel, and Opportunity attacks that allow you to attack on another's turn. There is zero reason to believe that Sneak Attack wouldn't allow you to get another deadly shot in if someone left you an opening like an AoO. It even explains why they limited sneak attack to once per turn rather than per attack. A Sneak attack does less damage than other classes multiple attacks as you level. I would bet the original intent was to ensure that if a rogue did get a second sneak attack in round it was at most one time using a valuable resource like a reaction. If he makes the attack, he loses access to his Uncanny Dodge and the ability to use any other reaction spells like shield. I will not be surprised if once Jeremy Crawford looks it over, he decides it is ok. It's not as though it is easy to do and has no cost for doing so like an extra attack. I think Mearls was mostly tossing out his immediate thought on the matter, which included the original idea of why Sneak Attacks don't work with multiple attacks. If Sneak Attack worked with multiple attacks including your bonus action and your reaction, it would get way out of hand. Limiting it to one attack on the rogue's turn and one possible reaction attack on another character's turn seems a sufficient limitation for a very limited attack.That's my opinion on it.</blockquote>

Verification