|
Okay so I looked up my first questions and go the answer.
Question: If I get two or more attacks with a rogue on a full attack do all of his weapons get sneak attack damage?
Answer: Yes.
Question: If a rogue runs about to a flanked opponent does his one attack get sneak attack?
Answer: Yes.
So here is where I need help.
Question: If a rogue somehow get the jump on a opponent from stealth and has two attacks, he only applies Sneak attack to his first attack?
Answer: ? ? ? ?
Question: If the same rogue from the previous question were to be hidden by stealth and get a full attack does he get sneak on all of his attacks if he has more then one attack?
Answer: Help!!
I believe that this is same argument as "how long is my opponent flat-footed if I am invisible when I attack?"
After the first attack, you are no longer hidden/invisible (barring greater invisibility). Only the first attack will be a sneak attack unless the enemy is somehow still flat-footed (or being flanked, etc.) after you strike. Both of your question are about the same situation.
So, in summary, only the first attack is a sneak attack.
Until the opponent acts, he is flat-footed and therefore vulnerable to sneak attack, until he actually takes an action. As a matter of the fact, you may get even more sneak attacks if you out-initiative your opponent after striking from invisibility.
That is correct.
So here is where I need help.
Question: If a rogue somehow get the jump on a opponent from stealth and has two attacks, he only applies Sneak attack to his first attack?
Answer: ? ? ? ?
If I translate "get the jump" to "has a surprise round", then the rogue's attacking a flat-footed opponent. Normally you only get a standard action in surprise rounds, but if you still by some devious means have 2 attacks, they'd both be sneak attacks. This is contingent on the foe being surprised, which really means flat-footed. And until your poor minion gets his first action in combat, he's still flat-footed.
Question: If the same rogue from the previous question were to be hidden by stealth and get a full attack does he get sneak on all of his attacks if he has more then one attack?
Answer: Help!!
Generally speaking, the rogue can make a sneak-attack whenever A) his foe is flat-footed or B) his opponent is flanked (barring uncanny dodge issues). It doesn't matter how many attacks the rogue gets-if either condition is met, the rogue gets to make sneak attacks. Invisibility is the exception you mentioned earlier. So if the rogue somehow gets a full attack during the surprise round he created via his sneakiness (how, you'll have to figure out), that unlucky sod he's attacking will be subjected to a string of sneak attacks.
Sneak attack applies as many times as you can meet the qualifications for it. This isn't 1E/2E where you got one shot and that was that, this is Pathfinder, based on 3.5/3.0, and if your rogue wants to stab a guy in both kidneys, the pancreas, and the spleen all in one round and then watch him bleed out, then go for it!
Edit: Lost initiative to the ninjas a lot. Each one gets to sneak attack my post;)
Quick note: The only form of invisibility that you lose when you attack is the invisibility spell (and invisibility spell like abilities that specifically reference that spell). Any other means of invisibility isn't necessarily lost when you attack.
The losing invisibility is something that is specifically built into the 2nd level invisibility spell and not an actual part of the invisibility condition in and of itself.
If you are stealthed, only your first attack recieves the benefit of being stealthed with regards to the enemy being flat footed. If the enemy was not expecting an attack, like this was a suprize round, then subsequent attacks would recieve the sneak attack because your enemy was suprized, but not because you are still stealthed. So, if the enemy is already in combat, no, you do not get sneak attack after the first attack, regardless of how many attacks you get in a round.
According to a strict interpretation of the rules, a TWF rogue gets to deal sneak attack damage with the first attack of each hand when taking a full attack action from stealth.
As far as the rules are concerned, you become visible after your first attack.
However there is nothing in the rules to state that you can't attack with both hands at exactly the same time. So you would be invisible for the initial roll of each hand, because neither attack happens after the other, thus the invisibility remains intact until both attacks have resolved.
However there is nothing in the rules to state that you can't attack with both hands at exactly the same time. So you would be invisible for the initial roll of each hand, because neither attack happens after the other, thus the invisibility remains intact until both attacks have resolved.
As per Core p.187: "If you are using two
weapons, you can strike with either weapon first".Seems to me that means they happen in sequence.
As per Core p.187: "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first".
I see where you are coming from, but the rules don't state that you have to strike with one weapon first. They simply state that you can. That excerpt does not change my point of view.
I don't want to get entirely off topic here, but I believe that the mechanics support the hypothesis that a TWF character can use both weapons in one thrust. He incurs a -2 penalty to attack rolls for fighting with a weapon in each hand. Wielding a heavy shield does not incur any such penalties, yet a heavy shield weighs far more than a dagger. The initial -2 doesn't seem to be a matter of weight or balance. It seems to be a matter of divided attention. And as the mechanics here suggest that the character is thinking about both weapons at once, I don't see why he can't attack with both weapons at once.
This could be logistically impossible against a single target when using certain double weapons, but I am referring to the use of two individual weapons. Realistically, in light of RAW anomalies like rope climbing horses, I think this is a very minor point of contention lol.
It's actually really important - it doubles the usefulness of the invisibility spell. I don't want to derail the thread tho, so let's just say RAW vs RAI.
I must be an Evil GM....
In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?
... Discuss
Have fun out there
~ W ~
I must be an Evil GM....
In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?
... Discuss
Have fun out there
~ W ~
At level 15 you've got 8d6 sneak attack. Average of 28 extra damage. You're probably looking at what, weapon damage + 4 at this point? That's pretty weaksauce for a full round at high level.
Good job making your rogue feel useless in combat.
Edit: for comparison, a Strength fighter with a falchion power attacking at 15 can be doing 2d4 + 32 every swing with a 30% chance for double damage. He can do this much more reliably than a rogue can sneak attack.
I must be an Evil GM....
Not only are you evil, you're house ruling in a way that severely limits rogues. Next you'll say that you keep with the 3.5 rules about sneak attack not working vs. undead and constructs.
Some day a paladin will find you... and when he does, the rogues of the world will rejoice.
I must be an Evil GM....
In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?
No, it's not.
You're seriously nerfing a class near the bottom of the power curve.Now, if you also make the Wizard spend 15 rounds to cast a Fireball, then maybe we're approaching "balance".
I must be an Evil GM....
In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?
... Discuss
Have fun out there
~ W ~
You aren't an evil GM, just a bad one.
Balance comes in the fact that mages suck at low levels and have much less armor and weapon use than a rogue. This is the trade for the higher damage at higher levels.
To be clear mages never have high damage -- especially compared to the rogue, fighter or any other martial type character, unless you want to look at a 'spread' of damage such as a AOE spell... and even then the results tend towards disappointment.
Your statement cannot be further from the truth. Take your basic fireball. 10d6 damage at 10th level. Metamagic: Maximize damage. Sixty points to everything in a twenty-foot radius. Save for half. How about finger of death..fail the save and your dead. Yep...no major damage there. How about meteor swarm? How about Prismatic Sphere? I'm still a bit new to Pathfinder. Do we still have delayed blast fireball?
A fighter is going to average 50 points a round against one target at higher levels. A mage will beat him every time...until the spells run out...then it's squishy time.
I suspect you don't play mages, or someone hasn't shown you how to play them well. They are damage dealing machines at higher levels.
Thank you I hadn't had my morning jollies yet. It's quite pleasant.
Just so you know fighter level 16 kills balors in under 2 rounds.