Multiple Sneak attacks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 489 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Yep. Sounds like Trailblazer. :)
Kind of, but giving a rogue more +hit and a higher BaB unbalances the system, and they would still get their regular iterative attacks, unlike in Trailblazer.
That's not how Trailblazer does it. The rogue (and monk) get situational bonuses to hit, that make up the difference between medium and full BAB without granting an extra attack.

That's not what I was getting at, the kind of part is the situational bonus, the different part is they still have iterative attacks, the BAB would unbalance it for a myriad number of reasons.

Shadow Lodge

Blue Star wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Yep. Sounds like Trailblazer. :)
Kind of, but giving a rogue more +hit and a higher BaB unbalances the system, and they would still get their regular iterative attacks, unlike in Trailblazer.
That's not how Trailblazer does it. The rogue (and monk) get situational bonuses to hit, that make up the difference between medium and full BAB without granting an extra attack.
That's not what I was getting at, the kind of part is the situational bonus, the different part is they still have iterative attacks, the BAB would unbalance it for a myriad number of reasons.

Not really following you. You referring to the limiting of iteratives in TB?


I have actually ran it both ways as a DM. I also have been playing through all editions of the game. I have found the current Pathfinder and 3.5 Ed incarnations to have the best rules overall. I have few complaints about them. Now back to your question, I have found with the lesser BaB, usually using a secondary ability score (ie Strength), and usually using a d6 weapon or less for base damage, makes it necessary for the Rogue to be opportunistic when he enters melee.

He needs to find the flank or rear against opponents for the additional bonus to attack. Likewise, he NEEDS the extra "conditional" damage from a sneak-attack. I have found this at all levels of play and that it is even more stark in a High-Magic campaign!

When I experimented with Rogues only being allowed a single sneak-attack per round (for a 7 year campaign!), I discovered not only were the Rogue characters less inclined to enter melee PERIOD,but the players running rogues quickly became unhappy with how their characters performed in combat. WHICH IS A BIG PROBLEM!

Everyone should be able to enjoy playing the game regardless of the character (class) they have chosen to play. Now this is mostly if not all the DM's responsibility. So to keep my players happy, I allowed several feats of the time which enable a rogue to increase their sneak attack damage (from d6s to d8s and d10s), or to allow them a free "in your face" sneak-attack ala Flick of the Wrist. Although, these helped a little, they never really did the trick. The Rogues still were not enjoying combat.

So using my nearly 30+ years of playing the game, I drew upon the old idea of the Thief Backstab ability. Simply allowing the Rogue character to sneak-up either through stealth or magic, as long as he began by either not being in LOS (line of site) from his opponent or by allowing him to break LOS and stealthfully approach later. He would then attack gaining a flank bonus with an additional +2 for a total of +4 (simulating the attack from an advantaged position). IF he successfully hit his opponent (and they are not immune to criticals), he would deliver a devastating attack multiplying his TOTAl damage by roughly X2, X3, X4, or X5 depending on his level (about every 5 levels upgraded the damage multiplier).

Although more rare than the sneak-attack, the backstab gave him an additional tool to use. Additionally, the players liked it because it was a nod to the older editions of the game and it allowed such things as taking out a guard stealthily from behind ina single attack (something very difficult to do in the new system, unless you are significantly high level than your opponent).

The addition of the backstab coupled with the ability of the sneak-attack (you could not perform both on the same attack and backstab could only be done with a single attack for the round) put some "danger" back into the Rogue in combat and more importantly made the players happy who liked to play rogues.

Now in my current campaign, I decided to allow Rogues to use sneak-attack on multiple attacks. Additionally, because I liked how the backstab concept worked (making Rogue's more deadly if they had an advantage strike on you), I allowed both types of abilities in. I also wanted to entice players to run more rogues because it went along with the them of the game (think a Thieve's World type of campaign, as in the series of books).

I have discoverd after running the game for nearly 2 years, the rogue sneak-attacks have not unbalanced the combats at all. In fact, it has encouranged both rogues and fighter (as well as combo characters) to team-up on opponents more often to increase the chances of sneak-attacking. Also, I should mention this is important since I use an optional rule of weapon speed. Which basically allows itinerary attacks faster with smaller, lighter weapons. While heavier, slower weapons (usually bigger too) gain itinerary attacks slower. For example, a character armed with a short sword would gain his second attack wit the weapon when he gained a BaB of +4, instead of +6.

So I figure between running both ways and by playing with optional rules designed to increase certain aspects of combat. I have a good understanding and perspective to say the Rogue NEEDS the sneak-attack ability. It does not unbalance the game or make Fighters feel less adequate in melee. Finally, it keeps Rogue playinig players happy with their characters. Which means everyone at MY table continues to have a fun time. Especially during combat.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The equalizer wrote:
Furthermore, sneak attack is described as precision-based, it is laughable that an individual can make multiple precision sneak attacks in six seconds. The balance must be observed, respected and preserved but not in a jar. Nosig, thats not how the game mechanics work. Regardless of what class, the character always gets their strength bonus on attack and damage rolls. Your point is invalid.

Just a question, What happens if the attacked character is lower in the initiative order that two people in the party a rogue and a fighter and then the enemy? - let's just say a wizard.

So,
the rogue goes first and has two attacks, by your rules only the first counts as sneak attack.

and now the fighter now the wizard has not acted and is therefore flat-footed (even though previously struck by a rogue higher in the order). Does the fighter gain the bonus of striking a flat-footed wizard? (as the wizard still has yet to act, I would say yes)

and now it's the wizards turn after being struck twice by those above in the initiative order, he/she is no longer flat-footed.

If the fighter gets the denied dex on his one attack as being second in the order why wouldn't the rogue gain sneak attack on both of his?

Am I missing something? nb: we play sneak attack on the first attack of each character usually, although now I have to question that.


We have already settled that part. The next part was proving the rogue does not do too much damage when I showed a rogue built for damage using the 1 sneak attack house rule was on par for damage with a level 6 barbarian who wasn't even optimized well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Anyone remember Skill Tricks from v3.5's Complete Scoundrel supplement?

Rogues should get something like THAT, for free, in addition to everything they have now. That way, they not only would have more skills than any other class, but they would be able to do unique things with them that no one else can do.

Maybe say something to the effect of "they automatically gain the skill tricks when they put ranks into the appropriate skill."

For example, a rogue putting ranks into acrobatics might get the Extreme Leap trick, Tumbling Crawl, or Twisted Charge once he has 5 ranks, or Acrobatic Backstab or Back On Your Feet trick once he has 10 ranks.

The rogue can only know a number of skill tricks equal to half his rogue level (which limits dipping for the class ability, than just maxing out the ranks and getting more skill tricks with other classes).

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:

Anyone remember Skill Tricks from v3.5's Complete Scoundrel supplement?

Rogues should get something like THAT, for free, in addition to everything they have now. That way, they not only would have more skills than any other class, but they would be able to do unique things with them that no one else can do.

Maybe say something to the effect of "they automatically gain the skill tricks when they put ranks into the appropriate skill."

For example, a rogue putting ranks into acrobatics might get the Extreme Leap trick, Tumbling Crawl, or Twisted Charge once he has 5 ranks, or Acrobatic Backstab or Back On Your Feet trick once he has 10 ranks.

The rogue can only know a number of skill tricks equal to half his rogue level (which limits dipping for the class ability, than just maxing out the ranks and getting more skill tricks with other classes).

That may be the most briliant thing i've ever heard you say RD. (well the meta'd stone to flesh and the wizard shop are close)


Getting rogues to do damage requires some planning. Even down to the party lineup. If you have a debuffing wizard hopping around with you, who is able to stun, blind or otherwise confound the enemies, an archer rogue can do glorious damage by piling up some rapid shots and deadly aim, and still be out of that horrible horrible full-attack reprisal from the slighted enemy.

If no such debuffer exists, being an archer is a "bear-favor" as we call it up in Norway. Then you want to get in and flank, which requires a lot more, you need to be mindful of your AC, your staying power, your HP, and have at least two other buddies in melee with you so your can go from flank to flank without wasting rounds feebly poking against an enemy with your 1d6+1 or whatever.

Simply put, playing an effective rogue requires some finesse and a bit of game knowledge. And even when you do it right, you are only able to deal "good" damage. Never "ZOMG-AMAZING!" damage, like fighters and smiting paladins.

Which is their thing. While you creep around on the dungeon floor, looking for suspicious bits of debris and frustrate blaster mages.

Shadow Lodge

Name Violation wrote:


That may be the most briliant thing i've ever heard you say RD. (well the meta'd stone to flesh and the wizard shop are close)

You and RD may want to look at Kirth's Rogue rewrite. It sounds similar to what RD suggested.

Skill Excellence:
Starting at 10th level, the rogue is so sure in the use of certain skills that he or she can perform seemingly magical feats with them. Choose one class skill. You can use that skill to simulate certain spell-like effects as full-round actions (unless otherwise noted, as for swift spells and feather fall). This requires a minimum number of ranks in that skill equal to 10 + the level of the spell to be duplicated. To pull off the stunt you are attempting, you must succeed at a skill check at DC 20 + twice the level of the spell to be duplicated.
Each time you gain this ability, select a different skill; you gain access to its associated list of spell-like abilities. Examples of Skill Excellences, and the relevant number of ranks and check DCs, are provided below( ). These are not meant to represent all possible uses; rather, player ingenuity and DM judgment are called for on a case-by-case basis.
<list excluded>
Your effective caster level is equal to your number of ranks in the applicable skill. Saving throw DCs, if applicable, are determined using your Charisma modifier. Bonuses from Skill Focus and Skill Synergy feats count as “virtual ranks” for determining whether your number of ranks in a given skill for purposes of Skill Excellence.

Dark Archive

TOZ wrote:
Wow, that would make iterative attacks like Vital Strike, only you have to make an attack roll for each extra weapon die. Yow.

It would add consistency to the system... All non-weapon die bonuses only apply once per round. Likewise for weapon enhancements.

Then give everyone the vital strike feats for free as soon as they qualify.

You have contributed to the mobility of the game. Combat will now likely be more interesting.


I'm going to leave this here.

Sneaking Precision

You can find it in Ultimate Combat on page 120.

The wording of this feat implies that a rogue can normally make more than one sneak attack during his turn.

I believe this may set a precedent.

I am not here to argue, simply attempting to contribute.

Liberty's Edge

Luther wrote:

I'm going to leave this here.

Sneaking Precision

You can find it in Ultimate Combat on page 120.

The wording of this feat implies that a rogue can normally make more than one sneak attack during his turn.

I believe this may set a precedent.

I am not here to argue, simply attempting to contribute.

Honestly, the nail was put in the coffin a long time ago. Rogues NEED multiple SA to even keep up. But the wording of this feat certainly drives the nail in a bit deeper concerning the developer intent.


@Fing Mandragora:It's called "twisting the knife", I believe it should be done repeatedly in situations like this.


Hyla wrote:

The rogue already is arguably the weakest core/base class in the game. Why cripple him further?

If you want to have him only ONE sneak attack echt round for "flavour" reasons, you could give him 1d6 sneak attack damage per rogue level.

Exactly. Rogues sneak attack. It's what they do. Anyone who just arbitrarily nerfs this ability... my only thought is that they either don't understand the rules set and just guess at to hit and damage rolls during play, or don't like setting up level appropriate encounters.

Me, I like the tactical aspect of the game. Grid maps, all rolls out in the open, the whole bit. If you haven't tried it... try it. It makes the game so much better.


To each his own we tried the full out battle map and while its good my group leans more narritive combat.


This thread was done last year... no need to revive it. By RAW, Rogues get sneak attacks for all attacks that qualify per round, period.


Just giving some input as an experienced player. I had a lvl 15 arcane trickster who could consistently deal 65D6 per round. And not just occasionally, almost every round after this first. And he had pretty good survivability, and he had the best skills in the party, and he had a much higher damage output than the party sorcerer. Is it legal; Yes. Is it obviously OP, Yes. For the sake of both my GM's and fellow party member's sanity, I retired him early.
BTW, this was a low magic game and I think I had about 2/3 of the recommended gold value for my level.


65d6 in one round is not much more (if at all) than a well-built fighter or barbarian of equivalent level can dish out.

The 15th level sorcerer shouldn't focus on dealing damage (because a sorcerer or wizard will never be the best damage-dealer in a party), but rather on other methods of ending encounters quickly (such as forcecage, power word blind, reverse gravity, and waves of exhaustion).

Shadow Lodge

Oh look, thread necro with anecdotal evidence.


wraithstrike wrote:

When I see a rogue build that can out damage a dedicated melee type I will worry about it until then sneak attack is fine as is.

edit:Corner cases not included

I'm playing a Dhampir Ninja3/Magus1 (about to level to CL5). As of next level, I'll be able to reliably dish out 6-7d6+ in SA, with bursts up to 22d6+, with a +31 to hit (with True Strike). Even without True Strike, my to hit with my weapons is +13, and if I'm not in SA I can still dish out 5-6d6+ per attack.

That's just on my first attack that round, and I still get 4 more. At 5th level.


How are you getting 5 attacks a round at level 4?

Since you're a magus you probably aren't TWF, and at level 4 you can't have a BAB of 6 or higher so no iterative attacks. You could have natural attacks, but dhampirs only get a bite on a grapple and requires exchanging racial traits.

Also, a ninja of level 3 only deals 2d6 sneak attack. And unless you have the right traits a level 1 magus has a caster level of only 1, meaning your attack spells are likely only to do 1d6. So, you're doing 3d6 + weapon dice damage. I don't know how you're reaching 6 or 7d6, I don't see it.

Me thinks you've made a lot of errors.

As TOZ said

TOZ wrote:
Oh look, thread necro with anecdotal evidence.


TomatoFettuccini wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

When I see a rogue build that can out damage a dedicated melee type I will worry about it until then sneak attack is fine as is.

edit:Corner cases not included

I'm playing a Dhampir Ninja3/Magus1 (about to level to CL5). As of next level, I'll be able to reliably dish out 6-7d6+ in SA, with bursts up to 22d6+, with a +31 to hit (with True Strike). Even without True Strike, my to hit with my weapons is +13, and if I'm not in SA I can still dish out 5-6d6+ per attack.

That's just on my first attack that round, and I still get 4 more. At 5th level.

2.5 years old thread, really?

Anyway, let's see your build, can you post it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No he can't post it. Otherwise you'll show him where he's wrong and then he can't say he didn't know better.

-Edit: Okay I'm being snarky here. But really. So many times someone comes in with a statement like that and then when asked never reports the build. Often when they do it's something being misread. Like using character for level in class abilities, getting sneak attack for attacks that don't qualify, or something else. Sometimes it's willful on their end and they don't want evidence their GM might see proving that it shouldn't work.

Scarab Sages

To be fair, most of the newer rogue threads are locked.


Chess Pwn wrote:
No he can't post it. Otherwise you'll show him where he's wrong and then he can't say he didn't know better.

Don't be like that, maybe he has discovered something new, something we don't know.

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:
To be fair, most of the newer rogue threads are locked.

The cynic in me says Paizo is going to not only not buff the rogue in Unleashed, but they're going to nerf it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh look another straight-forward-just-read-the-ability-its-not-hard rules debate because the class in question is the rogue.

There was never a coffin to nail. This wasn't ever an issue. People, please learn to just read the rules.

A four year old thread about whether or not attacks that qualify as sneak attacks do sneak attack damage.
And this was debated because some people vaguely feel that a sneak attack should only happen once per round? per combat?

Just what kind of message does threads like these sends to the devs? The rogue has actual problems. People need to stop trying to make-up problems.


I know this thread is old... I didn't find any official statement about this from the dev though.

Until then, I have two suggestions. One for use with "once per round" ruling, and one for use with "unlimited per round".

ONCE
Instead of one SA per round, I suggest as many as the number of iterative attacks (so 2 at 8th and 3 at 15th).

UNLIMITED
To soften the damage output of multiple SA, I suggest removing one die for each subsequent hit on the same round. A 11th-level Rogue do 6D6 pn first hit, 5D6 on second, 4D6 on third... (this on HITS not attack. If the Rogue only hit on his last attack, he has full SA dice)

What do you think?


Why do you hate rogues?

Just give them their damn sneak attack TWF full attacks. They deal barely adequate damage when the stars align and they can get their sneak attacks in unless you optimize the crap out of them. Why screw them over further?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YULDM wrote:

I know this thread is old... I didn't find any official statement about this from the dev though.

Until then, I have two suggestions. One for use with "once per round" ruling, and one for use with "unlimited per round".

ONCE
Instead of one SA per round, I suggest as many as the number of iterative attacks (so 2 at 8th and 3 at 15th).

UNLIMITED
To soften the damage output of multiple SA, I suggest removing one die for each subsequent hit on the same round. A 11th-level Rogue do 6D6 pn first hit, 5D6 on second, 4D6 on third... (this on HITS not attack. If the Rogue only hit on his last attack, he has full SA dice)

What do you think?

Completely unneeded. Let sneak attack work as intended.


Lol... the ROGUE was complained about??? Really? THE FREAKING ROGUE????

Lawlz, that is just.... wow... next we are gonna have people complain the fighter has WAY too much narrative power...

This is just poor DMs that get intimidated by lots of dice...

Hey! Rogue haters, do you think Vital Strike is OP?


YULDM wrote:

I know this thread is old... I didn't find any official statement about this from the dev though.

...

JJ, from 2011 wrote:

Sneak attacks work each and every time you hit a foe who's denied his Dex bonus. If that means you stab them six times when you're flanking them, then you get six sneak attack damage.

It gets added to each and every appropriate attack, in other words.

YULDM wrote:
What do you think?

I think we should just play Sneak Attack as intended.

Sneak Attack:
Sneak Attack: 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.

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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

The Sneak Attack entry even says anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or when the rogue flanks her target , which should have been a strong indication that it works anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or when the rogue flanks her target. I am not really sure where the disconnect on this ability happens, it has been like this since the D&D 3.5 days. If there was a time when SA was a once a turn ability it was probably in 2nd Edition or maybe the weird rules in D&D 4th Edition. It's never been part of Pathfinder or it's predecessor though.


If the Sneak Attack rule was not broken, Devs would have come out ages ago to settle the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are people really still debating this?

You could make Sneak Attack an Automatic Bonus Damage to Any Attack Ever Made By the Rogue, without stealth/surprise/flanking requirements, and the Rogue would STILL be one of the three weakest classes in the game [perhaps trading places with Fighter or Monk.]


YULDM wrote:
If the Sneak Attack rule was not broken, Devs would have come out ages ago to settle the matter.

JJ in 2011 isn't developer, ages ego enough for you?


YULDM wrote:
If the Sneak Attack rule was not broken, Devs would have come out ages ago to settle the matter.

Also, this is demonstrably wrong. The developers tend to ignore things they think are clear enough already. Case in point, JB himself writing that Stealth was always supposed to grant Sneak Attack, a debate that had been going on for quite some time.

JB, in 2013 wrote:
2. Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow. I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium. That said, I think these changes clear up the situation immensely (compared to where they were.. which was nebulous at best).


Shadowlord wrote:
JJ in 2011 isn't developer, ages ego enough for you?

(did not refresh the thread before posting, didn't see it)

So, why is this thread goes on since 2011, for 450+ comments? This should be used to close the thread on the first page... (and not waste everybody's time)

Thanks


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It goes on because some people lack the system understanding to realize that damage is just damage.

Combine Fighter with Rogue AND make Sneak Attack a flat automatic bonus damage and it would still be inferior to the Barbarian. Because Barbarian gets class powers that actually do useful things, despite the damage disparity between the super RogueFighter and the Barbarian.

In Pathfinder damage is the LEAST effective way to resolve conflict.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dominate is.always the answer xD

451 to 489 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Multiple Sneak attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.