Multiple Sneak attacks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What is your opinion on this. Do you allow one sneak attack even if the Rogue has multiple attacks? Is it fair to allow it/not allow it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you get sneak attack every attack that qualifies gets the extra damage.

Grand Lodge

It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round. Taking that away from a rogue or ninja, makes both classes quite undesirable, although less so for the ninja since it has a bunch of other nice things.

Why would I play that when I could be a bard, a class the GM has not arbitrarily decided to cripple? Especially since the rogue class is already considered quite, for lack of better words, weak.

Though calling it weak doesn't do it justice, it finds itself lacking in many places, and you can't even say it's the only class you can get trapfinding with anymore.

Shadow Lodge

I allow sneak attack on every attack that qualifies. If the character has seven attacks a round, that's seven sneak attacks.

Allowing it or not, it is only fair if the player is aware of the ruling when he chooses a character with Sneak Attack. Informing them when they are about to begin rolling damage is poor form.


Sneak attack damage applies to all attacks that qualify (i.e. all attacks when flanking an enemy susceptible to sneak attacks). This is not overpowered; it just sounds scary if there's a character that deals "4d6" damage. 4d6 is an average of 14 damage, and is something fighters, barbarians, rangers and the like do routinely.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Compare your question
"Do you allow one sneak attack even if the Rogue has multiple attacks? Is it fair to allow it/not allow it?"

With the following
"Do you allow one STR damage bonus even if the Fighter has multiple attacks? Is it fair to allow it/not allow it?" What would you say if the Judge said, "You only get your +6 strength damage on the first attack."

If it qualifies you should allow it.

Shadow Lodge

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

Liberty's Edge

As others have said, sneak attack works on every attack that a rogue gets that qualifies.

And no, its not "fair" to deny it.


Aretas wrote:
What is your opinion on this. Do you allow one sneak attack even if the Rogue has multiple attacks? Is it fair to allow it/not allow it?

If you didn't allow it rogues couldn't keep up damage wise.


I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe 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.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The equalizer wrote:
Nosig, thats not how the game mechanics work. Regardless of how many attacks, the character always gets their sneak attack. Your point is invalid.

:)

Shadow Lodge

I will never understand people who have a problem with rogues getting a variable 1-6 per 2 levels to damage on situational attacks, but have no problem with fighters starting out with a flat 4-5 to damage on every attack, that also increases.

I wonder if making SA add a flat total to damage would solve their problem.


The equalizer wrote:
I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe 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.

Yep, I recall that. Actually the tough fighter was a toughness barbarian, two handed weapon, so no shield, and his hp went from full to near dead in one round. We had to cover his retreat.

Seems a bit ridiculous the multiple sneak attacks per round. Since I mainly run a beta-3.5 mix I actually compare it to the swashbuckler's precision attack (level 4). Now that gets no d6s, sits at a flat bonus, usually +3-+5 from int until mid levels, and applies to all attacks. So it is a nice little beef.

The rogue is a bit different, its d6s, one more every few levels. So it can add up nice and fast. the swashbuckler bonus gives a flat bonus, the rogue varies, but quickly goes far higher on average, and then higher again, 6d6 is far better than +5x3; but the latter is more reliable. Now in our games it goes on one attack per round, you choose where it applies. So you can put it on the last if you are feeling edgy and have multiples (slice then the run through, oh yeah).

Now notice it is called sneak attack. It is not called round of sneak attacks, salvo of sneak attacks, the plural is never mentioned. If you are whirling two blades quickly and repeatedly, I do not buy that you can add the precision of sneak attack to all of them. Just no. Not buying it, Dragon age did something similar and it was ridiculous and far too overpowered. Other games do the same, whereby no one ever survives your massively damaging two blade strike together.

In the days of yore, in second ed, it was called backstab. It was one a round, it was not called tirade of backstabs, the backstab frenzy or anything like that. A sneak attack is one attack. The book needs to specify this to a greater extent.

One dm I know wanted to do the thousand sneak attack ruling, that's fine. He almost killed the party barb with a couple of average opponents, and we ran the numbers and with a two weapon fighting rogue, with a haste potion it got up to 20d6 from sneak attack at 9th level, not counting in the weapon he is using, its bonuses etc. Lol WTF. No one is close to that at level 9 without crits and phenomenal rolling. Yet against low ac targets, or doing a full from stealth, the rogue could pull it off easy.


TOZ wrote:

I will never understand people who have a problem with rogues getting a variable 1-6 per 2 levels to damage on situational attacks, but have no problem with fighters starting out with a flat 4-5 to damage on every attack, that also increases.

I wonder if making SA add a flat total to damage would solve their problem.

If there is a magic item shop on every street corner just past the elven strip club, maybe so. In a low magic setting though, rogues can shine through their skills and feats so much more. Alot like the monk in that aspect.

Shadow Lodge

I was talking about Strength bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Shadow Lodge

Random experiment.

10 attacks at first level.

Sneak attack damage:10d6 ⇒ (5, 4, 5, 1, 2, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5) = 38

Fighter Strength damage: 40-50.


It is always past the gnomish bakery! The elven strip club is close to the wizard's tower.

In low magic, they sure can shine. Their skills stick out, their weaknesses are there but they can punch through the armour easier to get some good hits in. With no +4 shields, they can make melee opponents sweat. I prefer the game at low magic, but this is known.

Strength or not, they can get 20d6++ at level 9 if you allow multiple sneak attacks per round. A sneak attack implies a singular attack, but that is semantics.

Not the best in straight up fighting, but I would argue, the rogue is far more impressive and that their strengths really lie in their skills.

Don't be seen, sneak attack. Tumble, keep moving. Mow them down via ranged, pick them off. Bluff if confronted, use disguises. You can be a real shadow warrior around.

Then be the best talker in town, the most cunning thief there ever was. As a rogue, I've really made the most of my experience by using all of my skills as often as I could.

Combat? Straight up fights? I'm not some barbarian. That is for suckers *scales wall and runs away laughing*.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A smite evil implies a singular attack, but that is semantics.

:)


TOZ wrote:
I was talking about Strength bonuses.

Well. A character with 18-20 strength at level one will get the bonus from strength. You could be a level one wizard with 20 strength and you are at +5 to hit and damage. Whats your point? I recommend dusting off the players handbook. Look at the early pages of players handbook, under ability scores, specifically strength. Then look up the combat section on how melee works. Should solve your confusion.


Hey TOZ, don't miss-quote me. Shameful display.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Your wall of texts are dull and meandering without substance or point. Disapprove all you like, I'm not concerned about you missing my point. Like your friend you are not going to be convinced.

The equalizer wrote:
Whats your point?

Why do you allow Str to damage on every attack, but balk at Sneak Attack?

That's my point, but you don't care about it. Nothing will change your mind on this. So have fun with that.


Don't forget that the rogue finds it harder to hit than fighters and sneak attack damage is conditional.

They have a lower BAB and without Weapon Finesse are generally using a lesser stat to hit with and even with Weapon Finesse are sacrificing strength damage

The sneak attack damage is a way to allow them to contribute to the melee. It encourages them to get into flanking positions which will increase the flanking party member's to hit chances and potentially increase the rogue's damage. This, however means that they are up in and close - probably on the wrong side of safety - and very likely to be hit themselves and on a d8 HP, MAD character that isn't always going to end happily.

Don't begrudge them their moment in the sun. They have already lost traps to pretty much anybody else and the old sneak attack was (in)effectively useless - bugger all damage, once or twice per combat only and most creatures were completely immune.


My posts had points, they aren't giant walls of texts, and there is no need for insults.

Disagreeing isn't such a big deal. House rules and different takes on the mechanics and abilities abound. I am simply against multiplying sneak attacks because I've seen it chew a real tank in no time.

Responding to ayronc. Good sir if I am making a melee rogue, I put strength higher than dex and give them a two handed weapon. They could also put strength higher, go comp bow and try and stay out of harms way, but within 30. Stick them on the flank of a melee char.

Shadow Lodge

I removed the insults that were there. (I've edited your name out of the quote as well, although the time limit is up on the first post.) That was merely blunt honest opinion. I did not misquote you, I took your argument and applied it to similar items. It was meant to be humorous, but I missed the mark, with both the humor and my point. Having said my piece on the subject, I'll take my leave.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Responding to ayronc. Good sir if I am making a melee rogue, I put strength higher than dex and give them a two handed weapon. They could also put strength higher, go comp bow and try and stay out of harms way, but within 30. Stick them on the flank of a melee char.

Then you're not really making a rogue, your making a fighter/ranger with extra skill points. By increasing strength at the expense of dexterity, you are lowering the rogue's effectiveness at a large number of their primary skills - stealth, disable device, sleight of hand etc. You are also making them easier to hit as they don't have the armour protection of a fighter class.

And to try and gain the benefit of sneak attack while using a bow is even more awkward. You need something to flat-foot the opponent, or two other characters to flank them plus you are spending feats to gain precise shot, point blank shot etc.

The point i am making now, is that there are plenty of appropriate costs being paid by the rogue to get their CHANCE at sneak attack damage and it is, in my opinion, fair and not overpowered. If it were, everybody would be a rogue instead of the various fighter and wizrd builds most tend to favour


The light weapon wielding stealth rogue has been done, so I tried something else and got better damage. Bastard sword 1d10+1.5str+sneak is better than 1d6+str+sneak.

You can still stealth with a dex of 14 or 16 instead of 18. Put aside a feat for skill focus and you'll be just fine.

With the bow, it is important not to confuse yourself with a ranger. You want to get in closish, sit on about 20 away in cover, ready to shoot again or retreat, and shoot that bow into them hard. Point blank shot is good, I wouldn't go precise or the rest of the ranged spam tree. Stay frosty.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In my experience the slightly higher BAB, one extra attack at some levels, and other perks of the various 'fighter' classes do not keep pace with the rogue sneak attack bonuses. Yes, high strength bonuses can... but there is absolutely no reason a rogue can't have a high strength bonus too. Throw in two-weapon combat feats and you can effectively multiply those bonuses.

The combat powerhouses in every 'AD&D 3ish' rules system game I've run or played in have ALL been built on some form of multiple attacks with high strength and 'sneak attack' type bonuses. That could be primarily built around the Rogue class or some alternate or prestige class with similar +1d6 per two levels damage bonuses, but it is always the same basic formula. There is always at least one player who figures it out and I've never seen anyone come up with a better build unless house rules change the math in some significant way (e.g. only one sneak attack per round).


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

The light weapon wielding stealth rogue has been done, so I tried something else and got better damage. Bastard sword 1d10+1.5str+sneak is better than 1d6+str+sneak.

You can still stealth with a dex of 14 or 16 instead of 18. Put aside a feat for skill focus and you'll be just fine.

With the bow, it is important not to confuse yourself with a ranger. You want to get in closish, sit on about 20 away in cover, ready to shoot again or retreat, and shoot that bow into them hard. Point blank shot is good, I wouldn't go precise or the rest of the ranged spam tree. Stay frosty.

Without Precise you're giving up 4 to hit and you already gave up 2 by sacrificing dex for str, so -6 on a 3/4 BAB. Don't like your chances of hitting much. And this is where we get back to the OP which is whether or not a rogue can multiple sneak attack per round. Yes, they can RAW/RAI and so they should because the 15d6 at level 9 quoted earlier requires a specific build with feats to achieve and then is unlikely to hit with at least one of those attacks and still requires a conditional trigger before it even becomes possible. (and 90hp damage against a CR12+ enemy is still going to require the fighter/barbarian/wizard to save the day, but at least the rogue tried...


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Strength or not, they can get 20d6++ at level 9 if you allow multiple sneak attacks per round.

20d6 ~ 70 dmg.

No big deal. Compare that to the ranger's favored enemy boni (damage AND to hit!), or smite evil.

Or to the amount of damage that a greataxe wielding barbarian with power attack can do.


Ah I see what you mean. I meant go the hefty damage, scout ahead, take the shot, finish them off ideally if you can win the initiative after the surprise, or withdraw/tumble back, let the melee cover you, move around. Precise would be damn useful, but if you stay away from the party at first, get some attacks off then pay the penalty later, you don't need the feat. Hunt those foes.

Or try and take one just yourself with no one in the way, lure them off, go to melee. Spend a feat to get a really nice weapon, or if you can pick up a martial somewhere (depends on game and other factors, I still use human from the beta in my games).

Liberty's Edge

Anyone who thinks that rogues are OMG damage dealers just because of back stab / sneak attack / whatever you want to call it, really REALLY needs to visit the DPR Olympic threads.

I can't help but wonder, how do the OMG rogue damage rules all people generate your characters?


My DM has expressed similar concerns about sneak attack progression. His concerns seem two-fold: the PC ninja will become an engine of destruction and, similarly, two NPC ninjas will obliterate the party. I don't think it will be quite as bad as he envisions but I really don't look forward to being on the receiving end of all those d6s.


The equalizer wrote:
I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD. There isn't the clause of "this ability is usable only once per round". A level 9 two-weapon fighting rogue can potentially do 15d6+ damage. The attack bonus while probably lower than a fighter or barbarian is still doesn't balance out how far ahead they jump in terms of damage dealing ability. Regardless of whether you had a pure fighter who went the focus and spec. tree with high strength, hard hitting barbarian with high strength or fighter/barb with high strength and raging, they still can't dish out anywhere near that damage. I had a discussion with another DM about this. This other player I knew incorporated multiple sneak attacks per round into his game. Two low level devil rogues almost killed the tough fighter before he had time to do anything. Furthermore, sneak attack is desbribe 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.

-Fighter- say greatsword- +18(+15)/+13(10) 2d6+20 WITHOUT MAGIC and power attack (to balance the 2 weapon fighting penalties) Average 27 per hit

-Rouge- say 2 shortswords +12/+7 (+10/+10/+5/+5) 6d6+2 Average: 22

AND THE FIRST ATTACKS of the rouge are less likely to hit that the fighters last
All done without magic and 22 (20 1st lv and +1 at 4th and 8th) i don't know what kind of magic that they would have in your game

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The pace and situation of combat is important. In playing rogues and just seeing them in hundreds of games the consistent pattern is that in a typical five round fight it's going to take two rounds for a rogue to get into a flank position that can still offer some avenue of escape.

It might be something like this:

Turn 1: Move or Standard (if the rogue can perform a ranged sneak due to being higher in initiative order)
Turn 2: Move/Standard Attack w/sneak attack
Turn 3: Full Attack w/Sneak Attack
Turn 4: Assess situation on staying because the rogue might have just been hammered with a full attack from enemy. So either full attack again or full withdraw.
Turn 5: Cleanup or run away.

With a full melee character it's more like:

Turn 1: Partial Charge
Turn 2: Full Attack
Turn 3: Full Attack
Turn 4: Move/Standard Attack
Turn 5: Full Attack or run away

The difference is that the full melee character is going to be able to output a lot of damage on almost every round. The Rogue has to get into just the right position and then has a chance, if the character has two-weapon fighting, to be able to deliver a potential large spike in damage for that particular round, but that spike isn't likely sustainable. It either helps drop the target, in which case the rogue now needs to spend another move action to reposition into a flank, or they are taking a beating from the target who is full attacking them. With the lower AC and hit points it isn't sustainable to just stand there.

There is also the to-hit issue. With lower BAB and lower strength the rogue is already losing out on the to hit bonus. It's somewhat compensated by the flank bonus, but that flank bonus is likely just making the full melee character even better at doing what the Rogue is trying to do. Further, if you're trying to do full-attack sneak attack then it usually means using two-weapon fighting, which adds another -2 to each roll. Finally, the TWF approach means a light weapon and a one-handed weapon, which further reduced flat damage bonuses.

Overall, the Rogue is looking at a huge pile of penalties compared to the Fighter to just deliver a high damage spike with a full-attack.

To-hit bonuses are generally better than damage bonuses because the to-hit roll is the conditional for the damage roll. Because the rogue sneak attack has two conditionals (to hit roll plus qualifying for sneak attack) then this really curbs the Rogue's ability to output huge amounts of damage on a consistent basis.

When you line it up and compare the amount of damage output that a dedicated melee fighter type does compared to a rogue over the course of complete encounters they easily outperform the rogue, even if they get full-attack sneak attacks.

I can see how, without doing enough analysis, multiple sneak attacks in one round might seem like it is over powered. However when you look at the broader flow of the game and how the system as a whole is designed it ends up being an option that has many drawbacks, and where the underlying math adds up to a much weaker melee combatant.

In terms of older version of D&D, there was a great deal more niche protection. Fighters got more attacks per round as they went up in levels, but you needed a rogue to do a lot of non-combat related abilities. Unless you were a rogue, some things simply couldn't be done, at least in a way that minimized danger or resulted in damaged goods. So the rogue got this flavorful backstabbing ability to help out in combat, but it really was up the fighter to hold the line and grind through the combat.

With later editions everyone kept getting more and more of the abilities of the rogue, to the point with Pathfinder that you might be mildly better at a lot of these broad abilities if you were a rogue, but not enough to really stand out. Further, magic has become so pervasive and powerful that most of what a rogue is good at is far better as a spellcaster.

The rogue definitely needs a revision, I suspect the inclusion of the Ninja abilities in the Rogue class was meant as a kind of patch, though even that is inadequate.

To actually reduce sneak attack to once a round is unfortunately really harming the performance of an already weak class.

The Exchange

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

My posts had points, they aren't giant walls of texts, and there is no need for insults.

Disagreeing isn't such a big deal. House rules and different takes on the mechanics and abilities abound. I am simply against multiplying sneak attacks because I've seen it chew a real tank in no time.

Responding to ayronc. Good sir if I am making a melee rogue, I put strength higher than dex and give them a two handed weapon. They could also put strength higher, go comp bow and try and stay out of harms way, but within 30. Stick them on the flank of a melee char.

Rogues don't get Comp. Bow (unless they are elven or burn a feat - but they only get one feat until 3rd level unless human...), and I'm not sure what 2 handed weapons they get... maybe Great Club or Spear? yeah, spear. best two handed weapon in the game (sorry, missed my save vs. Sarcasm). Am I missing a 2-handed weapon a rogue gets?

So your advice to the rogue is to "stay out of harms way, but within 30'"? Why within 30'? for his extra d6?

Observation to everyone on this line of reasoning. I see lots of Melee Machines. None are pure rogue. If SA was so overpowering, if it was even slightly better than all the other options there would be more pure Melee Rogues wouldn't there?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Face it, Rogue-nerfing guys, everyone wants to contribute to combat.

Full-BAB classes do, casters do. But if you reduce the Rogue's SA to once a round, why would anyone want to play one ?

All he will be doing in combat is regretting that he did not choose to be a Bard, a Ranger or an Inquisitor.

The Exchange

CBDunkerson wrote:

In my experience the slightly higher BAB, one extra attack at some levels, and other perks of the various 'fighter' classes do not keep pace with the rogue sneak attack bonuses. Yes, high strength bonuses can... but there is absolutely no reason a rogue can't have a high strength bonus too. Throw in two-weapon combat feats and you can effectively multiply those bonuses.

The combat powerhouses in every 'AD&D 3ish' rules system game I've run or played in have ALL been built on some form of multiple attacks with high strength and 'sneak attack' type bonuses. That could be primarily built around the Rogue class or some alternate or prestige class with similar +1d6 per two levels damage bonuses, but it is always the same basic formula. There is always at least one player who figures it out and I've never seen anyone come up with a better build unless house rules change the math in some significant way (e.g. only one sneak attack per round).

I have never seen this. I play every week, sometimes 2 or 3 times a week, almost all of them in PFSOP with different players/characters. At a guess I would say... 300 different people a year. I admit most of my games are with characters below level 7, so I am not sure of characters above that. I have NEVER seen a character "built on some form of multiple attacks with high strength and 'sneak attack' type bonuses" other than the one I am trying to build. Mine is also the only character I have had killed in the last 5 years of play.

Is there anyone here with a Melee character "built on some form of multiple attacks with high strength and 'sneak attack' type bonuses"? What level is it? Please discribe it, and what type of campaign it is playing in.


I would think that had they intended SA to be only once per round, it would be a full round action, just like vital strike and the like.


nosig wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

My posts had points, they aren't giant walls of texts, and there is no need for insults.

Disagreeing isn't such a big deal. House rules and different takes on the mechanics and abilities abound. I am simply against multiplying sneak attacks because I've seen it chew a real tank in no time.

Responding to ayronc. Good sir if I am making a melee rogue, I put strength higher than dex and give them a two handed weapon. They could also put strength higher, go comp bow and try and stay out of harms way, but within 30. Stick them on the flank of a melee char.

Rogues don't get Comp. Bow (unless they are elven or burn a feat - but they only get one feat until 3rd level unless human...), and I'm not sure what 2 handed weapons they get... maybe Great Club or Spear? yeah, spear. best two handed weapon in the game (sorry, missed my save vs. Sarcasm). Am I missing a 2-handed weapon a rogue gets?

So your advice to the rogue is to "stay out of harms way, but within 30'"? Why within 30'? for his extra d6?

Observation to everyone on this line of reasoning. I see lots of Melee Machines. None are pure rogue. If SA was so overpowering, if it was even slightly better than all the other options there would be more pure Melee Rogues wouldn't there?

There are rogue variants to pick up more martials, talking 3.5 here mixing it with beta or core. The 3.5 outlaw variant to the rogue gives two martial proficiencies, you can stay pure rogue that way. could talk to a dm about putting traits to better weapon proficiencies. In beta humans get a martial, but I believe core took that away. You can multiclass just one of fighter to use things like greatswords, halberds, polearms, comp longbows, or yep, you can take a feat. I think it is really worth it.

Yep stealthed within 30, so you can pull of a sneak attack. I am seeing them in a scouting/supporting fire role.

My latest core rogue is bastard sword and longbow sporting. He's the outlaw variant which gives a penalty to dealing with the high-born, and bounty hunters chase you about. It's in the quintessential rogue.

I've heard it argued the lower attack bonus makes multiple sneak attacks legit. Still doesn't sell me by the name of the ability, how it has been specified in older dnd, how one could do more than one really precise attack in a round. If the opponents have really high ac, yeah it doesn't cause a problem. If they have average or low ac you can get something that can easily do the best damage with a cutting spam, from a class that isn't as melee focused as other classes, and which has the most skill points. Balance pushes me against it. Don't want to tip over into rogue d6 spam. Marius has a similar concern.

"Full-BAB classes do, casters do. But if you reduce the Rogue's SA to once a round, why would anyone want to play one ? "

I have always played it like this. They work out just fine. I really like rogues, not quite so much for the damage, but for the skills and their non-combat competence as well.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, just to be sure, everyone agrees with this?

"It's RAW and RAI, that classes with sneak attack get it on every attack that qualifies, even if they make a dozen of them in one round."

to do otherwise is a house rule?

Want to be sure of this before I hit a judge only giveing one SA a round to one of my rogues....


I've never found it said that you can do multiple sneak attacks in a round. It goes right back to 3.0 and 3.5 not specifying you can't--because you couldn't before.

So the dm that said sure, said to me, if it doesn't say you can't then you can! :(
This got my response, that it doesn't say you can, and into the rest of the discussion, covered pretty much above.

But please, if we can have it spelled out from the base books, the tomes of the rules, let's do it.

Precise attacks on dozens of attacks sounds kind of funny (wouldn't the monk/rogue be one of the best builds then?). BAB is a problem, but from ambush, beastly.

But let's see those cards, or that reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The equalizer wrote:
I don't allow more than one sneak attack per round. That was how it always was in earler editions of DnD.

What are these "earlier editions of D&D" you speak of, that had sneak attack and a rule to limit them to one per round?


I agree that comparing strength damage to sneak attack doesn't fit.

However, if you are looking at earlier editions to justify the one sneak attack per round, there are a couple of other things you should do, in fairness.

Fighters, for instance, got 2 attacks per round - at 13th level! Before that it was 1, then 1 in the first, two in the 2nd. Unless you are also putting in those restrictions, your game is unbalanced. (although a hasted 7th level fighter did get three attacks a round, but haste also aged him a year every time it was cast).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you should stop gaining HD around 9-10th, and only get your Con bonus to HP once or something. I dunno, I started with 3.5.

The Exchange

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I've never found it said that you can do multiple sneak attacks in a round. It goes right back to 3.0 and 3.5 not specifying you can't--because you couldn't before.

So the dm that said sure, said to me, if it doesn't say you can't then you can! :(
This got my response, that it doesn't say you can, and into the rest of the discussion, covered pretty much above.

But please, if we can have it spelled out from the base books, the tomes of the rules, let's do it.

Precise attacks on dozens of attacks sounds kind of funny (wouldn't the monk/rogue be one of the best builds then?). BAB is a problem, but from ambush, beastly.

But let's see those cards, or that reference.

Are you a Judge in PFSOP? do you run it this way at your table?

If the answer to the above is yes, and I sit at your table (even if I am not running a Rogue, and the encounters will include rogues with multiple attacks) please ask me to leave your table. I'll be the guy in the Take 10 T-shirt.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


But please, if we can have it spelled out from the base books, the tomes of the rules, let's do it.

[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/rogue.html#_rogue wrote:
PRD on Sneak Attack[/url]]The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target (1)would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or (2) when the rogue flanks her target.

Bolded relevant parts for emphasis. You get apply sneak attack damage whenever your attack meets either of the criterion.

Only getting the single stealthy attack goes back to 1st and 2nd edition. In those you only got them basically once a combat since you be behind the target, unknown to the target, and hidden.

One question, do you also only grant the +2 bonus to attack for flanking to PC's on their first attack in a round?


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I've never found it said that you can do multiple sneak attacks in a round. It goes right back to 3.0 and 3.5 not specifying you can't--because you couldn't before.

So the dm that said sure, said to me, if it doesn't say you can't then you can! :(
This got my response, that it doesn't say you can, and into the rest of the discussion, covered pretty much above.

But please, if we can have it spelled out from the base books, the tomes of the rules, let's do it.

Precise attacks on dozens of attacks sounds kind of funny (wouldn't the monk/rogue be one of the best builds then?). BAB is a problem, but from ambush, beastly.

But let's see those cards, or that reference.

Quote:
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.

It specifically and explicitly states, 'anytime' because it means that at anytime you flank or your target is denied a dexterity bonus to AC you get sneak attack -- not the first time of the round, not the last time, not all times except for attacks of opportunity, not when the GM feels like it but anytime.

Really isn't hard to understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People STILL complains about Sneak Attack being too powerful?

The short answer: No. It is not.

The long answer is:
- How often are you able to set up a flank and not DIE while waiting for your turn to come again in order to get a full-attack, because you are on the wrong side of the wall of fighter? Or have the enemy 5-foot out of flank?

- How often do you get to START next to an enemy flat-footed with weapons drawn so you get a full-attack?

- How often does the lv5 (taken arbitrarily from my bum, but it scales) fighter do less than +10 damage, which is the average SA roll for 3d6. (Clue: A Str18, Power Attacking, longsword weapon spec dude does 1d8+11 singlehandedly, if he uses a two-handed weapon he does 2d6+15)

- How often does a rogue HIT? +3 BAB on lv5, and he wants to dual-wield. Means he is at Dex modifier +1. +2 if he has nifty weapons. Meanwhile, the power-attacking fighter is at +9 or better.

- When the rogue GETS to sneak attack outside the flank and flat-foot, the fight is usually won anyways (thanks to the wizard blinding, sleeping, stunning, holding or otherwise having the enemy fail a "Save or lose" saving throw).

I am sure I could think of more, but I can't be bothered. Lets just say that every time someone have played a rogue in a game I have been in, they have invariably changed it later.


It is possible to create a solid sneak attack character, that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor to the party.

9/10 it involves not two weapon fighting.

1 to 50 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.