how many times can sneak attack be applied per round
Sneak Attack: "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime 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."
For every attack, if the target is either denied dex, or you're flanking it, you get sneak attack.
Note: Flanking only counts for melee attacks. Ranged attacks must be made within 30' to benefit from sneak attack, barring other special abilities.
Examples:
If you and the fighter are flanking the orc, and you make two melee attacks, both get sneak attack.
If you beat a goblin on init, and shoot it with a bow during a surprise round, and you're within 30', you get sneak attack.
If you're under the Invisibility spell, and you full-attack, the invisibility spell is broken after the first attack, so only the first attack gains sneak attack.
To add to Grick's statement, there is no limit on the number of times one can use Sneak Attack in a given round. If you somehow manage to make 100 melee attacks against a flanked opponent, for example, all 100 attacks would be Sneak Attacks.
well I'll be... this also effects op attacks as well i'm assuming?
For every single melee attack, ask yourself:
"Is this target denied dex? Am I flanking the target?"
If the answer to either of those is "yes" then you get sneak attack.
For every single ranged attack, ask yourself:
"Is this target within 30' and denied dex?"
If the answer is yes, then you get sneak attack.
Just curious why does it say attack and not attacks then? Not saying your wrong but we've had the discussion at our table so I thought I'd see why you guys feel it applies to all attacks?
|
Just curious why does it say attack and not attacks then? Not saying your wrong but we've had the discussion at our table so I thought I'd see why you guys feel it applies to all attacks?
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.
Assuming that you are referring to this line in the Sneak Attack description, they appear to be using attack as a generic term which includes both "standard action attack" and "full-round attack" as a simple term.
I'd say that because each attack in a full attack action is its own attack.
With the 3/4ths BAB rogues get, combined with the penalties they'll take to to get extra attacks and the fact that they have no class abilities that can be used to boost to-hit, it's really not so bad. When they get into position, they can tear things up, but staying in that position is a bit difficult :)
Just curious why does it say attack and not attacks then? Not saying your wrong but we've had the discussion at our table so I thought I'd see why you guys feel it applies to all attacks?
I'm not sure how to explain it. Attacks is the plural of attack.
If you use a full round action to full-attack and use Two-Weapon Fighting, you make two attacks. Each of those is an attack. Since your attack deals sneak attack while flanking, then each of those attacks deal sneak attack while flanking.
Basically, there's nothing that says it only applies to one attack per action/turn/round/minute/day/campaign/etc. Adding a restriction like that breaks the rule that says your attack deals extra damage when flanking, as you could be flanking, make an attack, and not deal the extra damage.
Thanks guys that helps with the explanation a lot . Now lets see if I can get it passed my Gm lol.
Just curious why does it say attack and not attacks then? Not saying your wrong but we've had the discussion at our table so I thought I'd see why you guys feel it applies to all attacks?
Beyond what others have said, it says "attack" because that is what it said in D&D 3.5, upon which Pathfinder is based. In this article, it is explicitly stated by a developer that you can take multiple sneak attacks in a round. So really, there is no question.
Just curious why does it say attack and not attacks then? Not saying your wrong but we've had the discussion at our table so I thought I'd see why you guys feel it applies to all attacks?
The tense is irrelevant because the term does not refer to an action or actions. One does not declare they are making a Sneak Attack. It is simply an ability, and any successful attack that qualifies benefits from that ability.
Thanks guys that helps with the explanation a lot . Now lets see if I can get it passed my Gm lol.
I genuinely don't understand why any GM has a problem with this. It's been shown consistently that rogues still under-perform as melee combatants even with sneak attack.
|
|
that seams really op to me but I will not complain at all. Thank you so much for your time :D
Not really OP at all.
Situational. Very situational.
Either you have to find some way to realiably deny your opponents their Dex to AC, or you have to flank them in melee.
So, a bunch of feats and/or equipment, for denying Dex to AC; or the down side of having to be in melee range of a potentially nasty target, with alower AC than your flanking buddy.
In either case, unless you can sustain it for some time, you are not likely to get more than one attack with sneak attack anyway. Move into flank, single attack. Opponent 5' steps out of flank, and then, both your flanking buddy and yourself have to make 5' steps or full moves to recreate the flank.
Opponent gets into a corner, no flank without spending some feats, and having two melee buddies. At which point, given the damage output of most non-Rogue melee buddies, there is a good chance you aren't going to get sneak attack because the target is already down...
Things that are likely to give multiple sneak attacks in a round:
Opponent cannot 5' step out of being flanked (rare)
Opponent is denied his Dex to AC (other than flatfooted, what gives this status?)
Rogue has two melee buddies on the same target (that happen much?) and has Int 13, Combat Expertise and Gang Up, he gets flanking.
Not OP, IMO. Ugly when it happens, but many things easier to do are just as ugly. Fighter with high crit, 2H weapon and high Str is ugly and much more consistent.
Things that are likely to give multiple sneak attacks in a round:
Opponent cannot 5' step out of being flanked (rare)
Opponent is denied his Dex to AC (other than flatfooted, what gives this status?)
Trip for the first, dirty trick for the second. :-)
|
Say a 5th level Rogue two weapon fighter with Rapier and shortsword. lets leave out magical and strength bonuses. Pure damageRapier 1d6+ 3d6 = 4-24 damage per round alone
Shortsword also 4-24 damage per roundTotal is 8-48 damage per round. Rogue had max 24 Hit points base at this point.
Now lets look at an opponent... say a fighter
5th level Longsword. Same bonuses. 1d8 damage per round. 2d8 with 2 weapon fighting. Fighter has max 40 hp base.
So fighter gets flanked and they attack each other both get max madage. The rogue has 24 - 16= 8 Hp left after round 1
The fighter has 40- 48 = -8 and bleeding to death.
Yup rogues are sooo underwhelming when u add the figures.
Person who is bad at math is bad at math.
1. You're assuing SA every round.
2. You're ignoring accuracy - which is the the main problem rogues have. By level 5 they'd be at least 3 accuracy points behind an equal statted Fighter. (2 BAB & Weapon Training) Their AC will also be lower.
3. You're ignoring every class feature the figher has such as Weapon Specialization & Weapon Training - for an extra 3 damage/swing by 5.
4. Ignoring stat/weapon bonuses will only help the rogue in your comparison as rogues are a bit more MAD and have lower HP.
5. So many other lesser problems with your figures that I'm not even going to go into them.
6. Why did you necro a 3 year old thread to rant about how good rogues are with bad math?
|
I hear (READ) ppl all the time saying how rogues are underpowered. You must be running them wrong
I will echo the sentiment about necroing a 3 year old thread just to rant (that's what the General Discussion forum is for), but since it's here now may as well respond.
I love Pathfinder's Rogue (and its Unchained version). My first PFS character (this profile) is now a 15th level Rogue. But as much as a I love them, you're missing out on quite a few variables.
It's extremely difficult to get a full attack off during high level play, and adding the requirements for Sneak Attack on top of that makes it even more difficult. Intelligent foes are rarely stationary, or alone. AoOs help add damage, but ultimately in order to get a full attack you must be adjacent to your enemy, and some of those high level baddies hit .
For perspective, I present to you a hasted Tengu using Bite/Bite/Claw/Claw. I went with natural attacks rather than TWF because the penalties to-hit with weapons were just too much for my poor 3/4 BAB character to take (on top of the penalties for Power Attack). He Sneak Attacks for 8d6 and his base damage is 1d3+10 (so an average of 40 damage per hit).
That's only 160 damage on a full attack, assuming all 4 attacks hit. His Attack Bonus is respectable for his level, but it's not +30 (which is the average AC of a CR 15 creature). And even if they did, I better roll above average on damage, because the average CR 15 has 220 hit points.
And how many times are you fighting a single creature whose CR matches your APL?
Rogues can deal decent damage, and Unchained helped add more to their repertoire, but they still can't quite hold up to the Full BAB frontline classes (who don't need to set up flanks to deal damage). Damage is more of a secondary ability after their skills have been put to use.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue at any level can kill any opponent his size in one round with sneak attacks and flanking is a simple team maneover, or at least a fighter regardless.
1) Why did you necro a thread just to start up the 'rogues are OP' argument?
2) Your statement is false, or at least assumes a great deal that will not always be true.
A rogue at any level can kill any opponent his size in one round with sneak attacks and flanking is a simple team maneover, or at least a fighter regardless.1) Why did you necro a thread just to start up the 'rogues are OP' argument?
2) Your statement is false, or at least assumes a great deal that will not always be true.
Hah hah, I used to think Rogues were OP too, then one of the casters in my game killed the BBEG with a single spell.
|
Most of the supposed 'limitations' of the Rogue have been virtually eliminated by the Unchained version (e.g. Finesse Training, Debilitating Injury [Bewildered], and the Stealth skill unlock)... but the simplest solution remains 'flanking buddy'. If all else fails, buy a pack of guard dogs (25gp each) and always have one attack your target. 'Problem' solved.
My favorite 'objection' has always been, 'what if they hide in the corner'? The obvious answer being... 'take their treasure and leave'.
Directing animals in combat (that aren't animal companions) is a move action and requires Handle Animal. A pack of dogs for flanking will kill your action economy, and will die very easily. They are not viable.
And while the Unchained Rogue has helped a lot to making the rogue better, it still does not make sneak attack something you can rely on for adding damage on the majority of attacks. With the proper spending of feats you can make it happen more often, but it is never "easy".
The big deal here is where a melee and a rogue consistently team up in order to maximise the number of sneak attacks applicapble. In my sessions the rogue kills 3/4 of all opponents by himself as the fighter and the rogue both reposition and refuse to allow the opponent out of the trap. If it moves morre than 5 feet it provokes an attack of opportinity for both rogue and fighter and next turn both are in position again.
Yes, a team of Fighter (or Barbarian/Ranger/any other melee) and Rogue can be devastating. That is the whole point of being in an Adventuring Party. The group can be far more powerful than each individual would be alone. That said, what you have to realize is, it's very dangerous for the Rogue to get into melee with a lot of opponents. They can full attack him too and that gets ugly.
I have always loved Rogues, and the new Unchained Rogue is an excellent upgrade. As for the OP (which was settled in 2012), it has been established that the Rogue gets Sneak Attack on every single attack which qualifies for Sneak Attack, regardless of how many Sneak Attacks have already happened in that round.
There have been several Designer Statements, this is one I could find:
Designer saying SA works on every attack that qualifies for it.
I find the Rogue has very little to do with the devastation, as he gets one attack after moving in before the other character kills the enemy.
There are several reasons that can be the case. There are also several methods to prevent it and get full attacks. When building the character you just ask yourself, "How can I set myself up for full attack Sneak Attacks?" It's very possible. It usually just requires some forethought, tactical pre-planning, and patience.
It's very possible. It usually just requires some forethought, tactical pre-planning, and patience.Usually because I as the GM allow it.
That's funny, I don't remember you at all... LOL, okay... Anyway, as long as what you mean is, "I, as a GM, do not constantly meta-game for all of my NPCs and I basically run my games in accordance with RAW/RAI," I am sure that I, and at least one other Rogue player I know, would be fine. I wrote out some scenarios, but really it just boils down to not meta-gaming and playing essentially in accordance with RAW/RAI. If you're cool with that, you've done your job as the GM and that's all that would be required for what I was referring to. Some GMs tend to think that's being overly generous to their players. I don't feel like it's too much to ask for, YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I just find that unless the GM goes out of his way to make opportunities, the rogue finds that all the planning and patience means nothing as he never gets into a position to use his abilities like you suggest.
Funny, in my experience, unless the GM goes out of his way to prevent it, the rogue almost never has any trouble getting into a position to use his abilities.
Our experiences clearly differ.
If you'd like to analyze it further, feel free to write out a scenario or two where your Rogue players failed hard. Short of that this is just us saying, "Yeeeeees," and you saying, "Nooooooo," and there are plenty of those threads already.
I will say this: If you, as the GM, baby your inept Rogue players, they will never grow. If you just run your game fairly (let them fail and succeed on their own) you may find your players will learn, adapt, and rise to the occasion. If they don't, then perhaps they will instead learn they are better suited for playing Rangers or Slayers, and leave Rogues alone for a while.
fireball isn't a ranged attack. unless you need to roll to hit it's not a ranged attack.
Ask your DM if you get sneak attack on a fireball (a ranged attack) in her/his game and chances are (s)he'll say no.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of GMs would say no. Pretty much all of them, aside for a few outliers (probably new to the rules, or they have house rules to try to make dual classed rogue/casters more useful).
The reason I said it seams op is because for years (dnd 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and now pathfinder) I have only ever been able to sneak attack with one successful attack.. so my perspective is HOLY CRAP!....
Just for the record, this has not changed from 3rd to 3.5 to Pathfinder. You have always been able to apply sneak attack damage to any attack that meets the requirements. So you could just as easily get multiple sneak attacks in 3e when flanking than you can in Pathfinder when flanking.
Just for the record, this has not changed from 3rd to 3.5 to Pathfinder. You have always been able to apply sneak attack damage to any attack that meets the requirements. So you could just as easily get multiple sneak attacks in 3e when flanking than you can in Pathfinder when flanking.The reason I said it seams op is because for years (dnd 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and now pathfinder) I have only ever been able to sneak attack with one successful attack.. so my perspective is HOLY CRAP!....
This is true.
Mynts, you should call up your former gaming buddies and ret-con those combats where you were cheated out of sneak attacks that you really should have gotten...
fireball isn't a ranged attack. unless you need to roll to hit it's not a ranged attack.Actually, that is not true.Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
Boo-Yah! 5d6 Fireball to the left kidney for +3d6 Sneak Attack damage! That's 8d6, I winzorz!
Oh, yeah, did I mention that my Fireball has a range of 600 feet? I can now make an ATTACK against anyone within 600 feet, which means I THREATEN everyone within 600 feet! Man, my Combat Reflexes are gonna LOVE this rule...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
fireball isn't a ranged attack. unless you need to roll to hit it's not a ranged attack.Actually, that is not true.Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
So you take a rule designed to reject players using invisibility from saying "I didn't roll an attack roll so I didn't attack with my fireball" and try to apply it to "I made a ranged attack with my fireball, even tho I didn't roll an attack roll"?
Stop calling the "no sneak attack on ranged fireballs" position a house rule. You are clearly in the vast minority rules interpretation position. Call it table variance with a small table size in your camp.
It's an ATTACK, I never said it wasn't. it just doesn't fall under what a "RANGED ATTACK" is, which is what I said it wasn't.
Ranged Attacks
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.