Combat Maneuvers and Weapon Special Features

Well, that's good to know.

Hooray for clarity! This is the happiest I've felt toward Paizo in a while.

Bravo, SKR and whoever else!

Thanks for the clarification. I have a half-orc ranger that likes to use Dirty Trick in combat and I usually describe him as using his trident in some capacity (swings it flat like a baseball bat to knock a helmet sideways for blindness, groin shot with the butt end for sickened, etc.) I hadn't added in it's bonus, but good to know I was correct.

And now for the extra credit question: What kinds of bonuses will apply to the Combat Manoeuvre Defence?

Stuff like weapon bonus against disarm sounds logical, but what about the (approx.) one killion other combinations of manoeuvres and bonuses?

Or is that for next Tuesday?

Thanks for the clarification. I have a half-orc ranger that likes to use Dirty Trick in combat and I usually describe him as using his trident in some capacity (swings it flat like a baseball bat to knock a helmet sideways for blindness, groin shot with the butt end for sickened, etc.) I hadn't added in it's bonus, but good to know I was correct.

I always figured if I bought any "Dirty Trick Equipment", it'd be a spell component pouch and a pound of cinnamon; I'd run around blinding people like nobody's business.

Great!
To clarify, when using normal weapons with abilities like Knockback(Bullrush), you can´t use the weapon specific attack bonuses?
(would you still apply Enhancement DAMAGE bonus, Weapon Spec, Flaming, etc, in that case?)

And (Maneuver) Strike Feats also don´t use the weapon-specific attack bonuses for the CMB?
That is wierd because the Confirm roll for the normal attack, where the attack bonus DOES apply, is used for the CMB result - though I suppose you can subtract out the non-applicable bonuses and see if that still beats CMD. Complicated enough that it seems worthy of a mention somewhere.

And creatures with Grab special ability, or an ability effecting a Bullrush (or other non-Trip/Disarm/Sunder CMB) don´t get to use any attack bonuses applicable to Bite on the CMB check?

Relatedly, Wolves don´t use Bite-specific bonuses on Trips OR Drag/Reposition because Bite isn´t technically a Trip Weapon even though they have the Trip special ability?

The above questions can mostly be summarized as: Does having the abilty to initiate a maneuver with a weapon attack, or as result of a weapon attack (Knockback, Bullrush Strike, Grab) mean that the maneuver automatically can apply weapon-specific bonuses because IN THAT CASE the maneuver WAS delivered by a weapon attack?

And now for the extra credit question: What kinds of bonuses will apply to the Combat Manoeuvre Defence?

Nothing applies unless it say so. Untyped AC bonuses are currently against RAW, thought that could be Errata´d. Weapon Training says what it applies against for CMD purposes.

And now for the extra credit question: What kinds of bonuses will apply to the Combat Manoeuvre Defence?

Stuff like weapon bonus against disarm sounds logical, but what about the (approx.) one killion other combinations of manoeuvres and bonuses?

Was that ever even in contention? I mean, the above blog post is the result of it being unclear when you would or would not apply weapon-specific bonuses to maneuver attempts. What would even prompt such a discussion about weapon bonuses and CMD?

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Is this a change to the FAQ that says Enhancement bonuses, weapon-specific bonuses DON´T apply to Trips made with non-Trip weapons? (That FAQ on Trip Weapons doesn´t seem to have changed)

If not, It´s not exactly clear from this post how this new Blog post interacts with the Trip-specific rules re: weapon-specific bonuses - the part I quoted would make it seem that they apply to ALL Trips.

I take it that either way, the difference between using a Disarm weapon and a non-Disarm weapon to Disarm is only the +2 bonus for the Disarm Weapon Quality, all other weapon-specific bonuses apply...???

EDIT: I think actually mentioning using the weapon´s reach and critical threat range would be useful.
For maneuvers ´where using the weapon is incidental´, it´s not clear if those are allowable...
I guess that category is totally up to GM fiat, and only Sunder/Disarm/Trip can officially use weapons and their reach/crit range (+Drag/Reposition if a Trip Weapon), but if the aim is to clear things up, it could be a bit clearer :-)

Another minor clarification: You mention trip being used with weapons. Is that "weapons in general" or "trip weapons only?" I assume the latter, but I've heard arguments for the former from some people, who state that the trip weapon bonus is only that you can drop the weapon if you fail the check.

I would assume if they meant trip weapons only they would have stated such, but anything is possible I suppose.

Read a little closer:

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

It doesn't say you can use weapons that don't have the trip feature to trip -- it's saying that natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for the purposes of trip attempts... meaning any bonus on them would be added to the trip attempt.

You still can't trip with a great sword though.

BLog wrote:

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Is this a change to the FAQ that says Enhancement bonuses, weapon-specific bonuses DON´T apply to Trips made with non-Trip weapons? (That FAQ on Trip Weapons doesn´t seem to have changed)

If not, It´s not exactly clear from this post how this new Blog post interacts with the Trip-specific rules re: weapon-specific bonuses - the part I quoted would make it seem that they apply to ALL Trips.

Hm, yeah, perhaps I was too quick to post my "hooray for clarity" bit. :P

I take it that either way, the difference between using a Disarm weapon and a non-Disarm weapon to Disarm is only the +2 bonus for the Disarm Weapon Quality, all other weapon-specific bonuses apply...???

I believe you're correct on this.

EDIT: I think actually mentioning using the weapon´s reach and critical threat range would be useful.

For maneuvers ´where using the weapon is incidental´, it´s not clear if those are allowable...
I guess that category is totally up to GM fiat, and only Sunder/Disarm/Trip can officially use weapons (and their reach/crit range), but if the aim is to clear things up, it could be a bit clearer :-)

How does a weapon's threat range influence combat maneuvers at all?

You still can't trip with a great sword though.

But Longswords are OK, Abe?

How does a weapon's threat range influence combat maneuvers at all?

Well...

But Longswords are OK, Abe?

If they have the trip property, otherwise no.

It's not giving any weapon anything more than it already has (well except trip weapons which are now also dragging and repositioning weapons too) -- it's just saying that those specific weapons (including unarmed strikes and natural weapons) can use whatever bonuses they have when performing those maneuvers, and the GM has the right to allow bonuses in specific situations where the weapon makes sense for the maneuver.

Quandary wrote:

But Longswords are OK, Abe?

If they have the trip property, otherwise no.

The point is, nowhere are non-Trip weapons barred from making Trip attempts.

SKR uses a non-Trip weapon (Longsword) as an example of using a weapon to deliver a Trip attack in the FAQ,
nowhere mentioning that this Longsword for some special reason has the Trip quality.
Here he explains himself further on that issue.

The only thing that has changed: re Trip since that FAQ is that this Blog post arguably now applies weapon-specific bonuses to ALL weapon-delivered Trips (regardless if a Trip Weapon), in conflict with that FAQ. (a conflict I´m hoping is cleared up one way or the other)

wow, that's pretty neat, the Polearm Master gets the ability at 13th level to become useless at Bull Rushing while using a spear!
...
...
wait, no, that doesn't seem right.

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

This makes it sound like any weapon's bonuses apply to these three types of combat maneuvers.

Also, I find it interesting that two of these are maneuvers which can be substituted for a regular weapon attack, and the third is under debate about that. Evidence that sunder is intended to be instead of an attack, rather than as a standard action?

Attack Action. Grapple uses a Standard Action but doesn´t work with Vital Strike,
while Sunder which states Attack Action should definitely work with Vital Strike.
I don´t see the basis for the cognitive dissonance that maneuvers which have different action requirements can nonetheless all ´use the weapon´ and qualify for weapon-specific bonuses.
Of course, there is still no official FAQ on the attack action issue, although there were many Paizo board posts on the subject shortly after the 1st print run.

it matters for effects triggered by a Critical Hit, which may include an extra free maneuver (ala Tripping Strike, et al) on top of the ´basic maneuver attack´.

So you mean like if I have Tripping Strike and I roll a nat 20 on a disarm attempt, I would make a confirmation roll and (if it's high enough) also get to trip them?

I can see where you would get that from the general text on combat maneuvers. However, the ___ing Strike feats all say you get to do X "in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack". That seems to imply that you need a "real" attack to trigger the crit feats. That would also make more sense (what does it even mean to "crit" on a disarm?) and I think is the likely RAI.

As to your earlier question about possibly subtracting weapon bonuses from the confirmation roll when triggering a ____ing Strike feat, I've got your answer: if you look closely at the text of those feats, you'll see that you're technically not making a maneuver - you're simply comparing your confirmation roll to their CMD and (if high enough) producing a related effect. This would also have the side effect of ignoring maneuver-specific CMD bonuses when utilizing a ____ing Strike feat.

The point is, nowhere are non-Trip weapons barred from making Trip attempts.

I'm sorry I forgot you refuse to exclude based on explicit inclusion.

I guess you allow fighters to cast spells just like a wizard since nothing says they can't?

This is great.
It smells like your guys are going through the books and checking some items.
I smell errata.

Quandary wrote:

The point is, nowhere are non-Trip weapons barred from making Trip attempts.

I'm sorry I forgot you refuse to exclude based on explicit inclusion.

You don't have much room to talk, given that you apparently refuse to look at updated text when referenced.

When making a trip combat maneuver, you don't have to use a weapon with the trip special feature. For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature.

That FAQ is over 6 months old BTW.
FYI, I definitely considered Abe´s take as a POSSIBLE reading...
Up until the point a FAQ came out, using an example specifically contrary to that reading.
Not to mention SKR´s specific response to the ´redundant´ text issue in the Trip Weapon Quality.
(which I think is set to be Errata´d and removed, though I´m not sure on that)

KaeYoss wrote:

And now for the extra credit question: What kinds of bonuses will apply to the Combat Manoeuvre Defence?

Stuff like weapon bonus against disarm sounds logical, but what about the (approx.) one killion other combinations of manoeuvres and bonuses?

Was that ever even in contention? I mean, the above blog post is the result of it being unclear when you would or would not apply weapon-specific bonuses to maneuver attempts. What would even prompt such a discussion about weapon bonuses and CMD?

Note that CMD contains the BAB. Even though it's not an attack but a defence, that can be confusing, just like there is a kinda rule of thumb that CMD = CMB + Touch AC.

That FAQ is over 6 months old BTW.

Yes, but the wording was tweaked fairly recently. Did you not hear about that? Read it closely; there are some small but clarifying wording changes compared to how it read when it first went up.

I can see where you would get that from the general text on combat maneuvers. However, the ___ing Strike feats all say you get to do X "in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack". That seems to imply that you need a "real" attack to trigger the crit feats. That would also make more sense (what does it even mean to "crit" on a disarm?) and I think is the likely RAI.

Again, with Knockback/down, along with Sunder, you DO inflict damage, and for maneuvers which don´t do any damage: they are still qualifying ´attacks´ whose normal damage is zero. There´s many things where, even if the attack itself doesn´t have any additional affect on a Crit, other things may ´care´ whether you Critted or not... I believe there´s a Feat that lets allies take an AoO when you Crit, or somesuch. I don´t see why Paizo would particularly want to exlude CMBs from Critting, especially given that doing so just requires dealing with more exceptions.

if you look closely at the text of those feats, you'll see that you're technically not making a maneuver - you're simply comparing your confirmation roll to their CMD and (if high enough) producing a related effect. This would also have the side effect of ignoring maneuver-specific CMD bonuses when utilizing a ____ing Strike feat.

Such a reading would seem to cause WAY more issues than it solves.

The abilities DO say ´you can trip your opponent´, and even says you may drop the weapon if tripped during your own trip attempt, which shows that you are making your own trip attempt, and that all normal rules apply for it (since counters to the standard AoO and possibly being tripped yourself are mentioned).

Yes, but the wording was tweaked fairly recently. Did you not hear about that? Read it closely; there are some small but clarifying wording changes compared to how it read when it first went up.

Yeah, I noticd a thread about that recently...

Note that CMD contains the BAB.

So does my fighter's DC for enemies' feints against him, but nobody's wondering whether his flail's enhancement bonus makes it harder for people to feint against him.

Even though it's not an attack but a defence, that can be confusing, just like there is a kinda rule of thumb that CMD = CMB + Touch AC.

I see this all the time when I'm answering Magic: the Gathering rules questions - people look at an actual rule, invent some shorthand for their own convenience, and then cause themselves extra confusion by looking at peripherally related issues in light of their "shorthand" instead of the actual rule. That sort of "rule of thumb" always seems like a good idea at the time, but...

IT'S A TRAP!

;)

Jiggy wrote:

Yes, but the wording was tweaked fairly recently. Did you not hear about that? Read it closely; there are some small but clarifying wording changes compared to how it read when it first went up.

Yeah, I noticd a thread about that recently...

I´m not sure exactly how it was changed, but I´m pretty certain that it used a Longsword in the 1st iteration as well.
I didn´t see anything in the new version that seemed like a functional difference to the 1st version,
but I´m also in the set that saw (pre-FAQ) that a 100% valid and possible reading of the RAW was that you didn´t need Trip Weapons to deliver a Trip. /shrug

It was changed, primarily, to mention the longsword example more than once and with clearer grammar. It clarified the rule to show it to be in line with your original position.

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Okay so maybe I am just being dense... but now you can use all of your weapons' modifiers for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip from any weapon.

Is Paizo eliminating those characteristics from weapons and just making all weapons do that now?

How exactly does, say a dagger, help you trip? Does a dagger really have a chance of sundering plate armor?

What is the point of the special features if you can use the modifiers from any weapon?

Jiggy wrote:

I can see where you would get that from the general text on combat maneuvers. However, the ___ing Strike feats all say you get to do X "in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack". That seems to imply that you need a "real" attack to trigger the crit feats. That would also make more sense (what does it even mean to "crit" on a disarm?) and I think is the likely RAI.

Again, with Knockback/down, along with Sunder, you DO inflict damage, and for maneuvers which don´t do any damage: they are still qualifying ´attacks´ whose normal damage is zero.

Naturally it should work with Sunder, etc. I was only contesting things like disarm and trip that aren't trying to hurt anything. I see where you're coming from but it still smells fishy to me. However, I have no grounds to go beyond "smells fishy", so that's it from me on that topic. :P

Jiggy wrote:

if you look closely at the text of those feats, you'll see that you're technically not making a maneuver - you're simply comparing your confirmation roll to their CMD and (if high enough) producing a related effect. This would also have the side effect of ignoring maneuver-specific CMD bonuses when utilizing a ____ing Strike feat.

Such a reading would seem to cause WAY more issues than it solves.

The abilities DO say ´you can trip your opponent´, and even says you may drop the weapon if tripped during your own trip attempt, which shows that you are making your own trip attempt, and that all normal rules apply for it (since counters to the standard AoO and possibly being tripped yourself are mentioned).

The "normal" line on feat entries shows what's normally the case, contrasting it with the effects of the feat. Since the ____ing Strike feats each have a "normal" line stating "You must perform an X combat maneuver to do X", that means that the feat lets you do X without actually performing a combat maneuver.

Furthermore, other abilities that grant free combat maneuvers will say things like "you may perform an X maneuver as a free action", while these feats say "if your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent's CMD, do X". This seems to be in line with what's already clear from the "normal" line on the feat entries.

Quandary wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Yes, but the wording was tweaked fairly recently. Did you not hear about that? Read it closely; there are some small but clarifying wording changes compared to how it read when it first went up.

Yeah, I noticd a thread about that recently...

I´m not sure exactly how it was changed, but I´m pretty certain that it used a Longsword in the 1st iteration as well.
I didn´t see anything in the new version that seemed like a functional difference to the 1st version,
but I´m also in the set that saw (pre-FAQ) that a 100% valid and possible reading of the RAW was that you didn´t need Trip Weapons to deliver a Trip. /shrug

It was changed, primarily, to mention the longsword example more than once and with clearer grammar. It clarified the rule to show it to be in line with your original position.

While the FAQ seems to make it clear that you can wield a long sword and still make a Trip Maneuver but not gain its weapon related bonuses, this new "clarification" states that you do in fact get to use the weapon related bonuses. So now a +5 Longsword adds its +5 enhancement bonus to Trip, Sunders and Disarms.

The FAQ seemed pretty clear before, but this just changed everything!

SKR above wrote:

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Okay so maybe I am just being dense... but now you can use all of your weapons' modifiers for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip from any weapon.

Is Paizo eliminating those characteristics from weapons and just making all weapons do that now?

How exactly does, say a dagger, help you trip? Does a dagger really have a chance of sundering plate armor?

What is the point of the special features if you can use the modifiers from any weapon?

A +2 bonus/the ability to not be tripped/disarmed as a response.

Also, yes, you can use a dagger to sunder because the ability to sunder is part of the game. Only TWO weapons have the sunder property, and neither are from the Core book. Are you saying no one could ever Sunder before the APG was released? Or are you suggesting people sundered sans weapons, like with bullrush or overrun?

FYI, I think the rule-of-thumb of: CMD = BAB + STR + Touch AC
/is/ 100% accurate IF you house-rule that Untyped AC Bonuses apply to CMD.

CMB factors in some bonuses that don´t apply to CMD (like Flanking as well as Enhancement bonuses)

SKR above wrote:

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

Okay so maybe I am just being dense... but now you can use all of your weapons' modifiers for Disarm, Sunder, and Trip from any weapon.

Is Paizo eliminating those characteristics from weapons and just making all weapons do that now?

How exactly does, say a dagger, help you trip? Does a dagger really have a chance of sundering plate armor?

What is the point of the special features if you can use the modifiers from any weapon?

It seems so, but I'm personally curious as to whether that paragraph was perhaps poorly worded, as it seems to contradict a recent clarification to a semi-recent FAQ.

A +2 bonus/the ability to not be tripped/disarmed as a response.

The trip weapon quality does not grant a +2 bonus to trip attempts.

The disarm weapon quality does not prevent you from being disarmed if you fail by 10 or more.

Hopefully this stuff is clarified.

Honestly, I think just giving the Trip Weapon Quality a +2 bonus like Disarm and ditching the wierdo no-Enhancement bonus thing (that ONLY applies to Trip) would just be WAAAAY easier for everybody who plays the game.

FYI, I think the rule-of-thumb of: CMD = BAB + STR + Touch AC

/is/ 100% accurate IF you house-rule that Untyped AC Bonuses apply to CMD.

CMB factors in some bonuses that don´t apply to CMD (like Flanking as well as Enhancement bonuses)

So it's 100% accurate as long as you change some things first? ;)

Hey, I didn´t write the definition of CMD in the Core Rules, ´K?
Some things just work better when you use common sense - ahem - houserule them! :-)

Hopefully this stuff is clarified.

/thread

Ironic, isn't it?

Cartigan wrote:

A +2 bonus/the ability to not be tripped/disarmed as a response.

The trip weapon quality does not grant a +2 bonus to trip attempts.

The disarm weapon quality does not prevent you from being disarmed if you fail by 10 or more.

It's irrelevant which does what. The point is they grant something unique.

Jiggy wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

A +2 bonus/the ability to not be tripped/disarmed as a response.

The trip weapon quality does not grant a +2 bonus to trip attempts.

The disarm weapon quality does not prevent you from being disarmed if you fail by 10 or more.

It's irrelevant which does what. The point is they grant something unique.

Ah. Well, I guess that's what happens when you mash sentences together into one. ;) Given that I've encountered plenty of people who *do* think the trip and disarm qualities are twins (i.e., they both grant +2, etc), it sure sounded like you thought that too. Nevermind, then.

oh, btw, I screwed up too:
both my formula above and abe´s forget the crucial part:
touch AC´s size modifier is reversed (which equals adding 2x the negative). :-)

i feel comfortable using untyped AC bonuses for CMD because i don´t see any way to visualize otherwise,
but mainly because i was involved in the original playtest, where we came up with EXACTLY the same result as CMD, just presented slightly differently, with the exception of luck and some other bonus types, and untyped. luck and some others were fixed in errata. i think untyped was just overlooked, another result of the approach of re-inventing the wheel, explicitly defining what applies, rather than saying what is DIFFERENT compared to touch ac.

dammit, i hate it when mdt is right.

I really don't see the point of all this rigamarole. Why not just say unarmed is a trip weapon, You can't make trip attacks with non trip weapons, and let people with trip use it to threaten the area around them? Its not like you can't just get the improved unarmed strike ability for the low low cost of armored spikes or a spiked gauntlet.

Wait, you don't get your weapon enhancement rolls to sunder unless its a sunder weapon... (which i didn't know existed) .... what the...

Thank you for clarification blogs!

Yeah, I have to agree with the above posts. Either this, or the FAQ needs clarification.

The FAQ entry (also by SKR) indicates that only a weapon with the Trip ability gets to add its bonuses to CMB with Trip (thereby implying similar things with other weapons).

SKR's blog entry indicates that any weapon bonus applies to Disarm, Sunder, and Trip...but that Drag and Reposition get bonuses from weapons with the Trip quality.

One or the other needs an update.

Quandary wrote:

FYI, I think the rule-of-thumb of: CMD = BAB + STR + Touch AC

/is/ 100% accurate IF you house-rule that Untyped AC Bonuses apply to CMD.

CMB factors in some bonuses that don´t apply to CMD (like Flanking as well as Enhancement bonuses)

So it's 100% accurate as long as you change some things first? ;)

CM's are attack rolls (and thus do miss on a 1 and auto hit on a 20) and thus should crit if you are using a weapon to do them.

Per the PRD on CM's

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

One of the bonuses given by a feat is the ability to trip on a crit.

Also for CMD, you do add a bunch of stuff to your CMD base:

A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

Since CM's are also an attack roll, if one missed I would allow the defender (if he had the sidestep feat) the ability to move 5' like the feat states.

Er, Happler, most of what you wrote has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. Reply to the wrong post, perhaps?

(Also, it's all been established already.)

I am currently running a Pathfinder campaign and I came across a question that me and my group was wondering about. How many times in a combat round can someone use sneak attack, can they use it equal to normal attacks per round or do they only get to use once a round?