Multiple Sneak attacks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:


If you re-read my post you will see that I worded it in such a way as to include many forms of invisibility. That was deliberate, as there ARE many ways to pull this off.

Yup. Maybe an even broader way to put it would be something like: the victim needs to not be able to see the rogue.

Rogue + bard/wizard/summoner/sorcerer/etc. casting Glitterdust is pretty workable, for example. You often can target multiple enemies and the rogue unloads on whoever ends up failing the save.

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:
The equalizer wrote:
How has the ranger got trapfinding covered? Wizard opens the first locked door/chest/etc. This is followed by three more. Hope you prepared more of those Mr Wizard.

In Pathfinder, everybody can find traps, Rogues are just better at that. Rangers, with their plethora skill points and Wis as an important attribute, are close second.

As for the Wizard, wand of knock is something surprisingly useful, if not a bunch of scrolls.

Actually, until about lvl 6 or 8, the Cleric in a party will often be a better trap finder (if he has a trait that gives him Perception as a class skill.)

I run low level rogues, I normally get the cleric (+1 if he's a Dwarf!) do the perception checks and I'll Aid him - he's just better than me (the high wisdom is worth 3 or 4 levels of skill).

I run an archer (fighter class) with MW thieves tools and a trait that gives him Disable Device. So with him around the Fighter opens the locks.


The equalizer wrote:
Yep. Adventure should go simething like this. Party spends two days killing the big bad and doing cool stuff. Then the rogue and other party member pester the wizard and cleric to make them some stuff. The group then downtimes for <insert crafting time here>. They set off and cycle repeats endlessly. Reaches a point where party rocks up to burnt desolate remains of a village. Party member with survival makes a check. Says:"they went that way approximately X...

Fortunately, people who GM their games as though trying to punish their players rarely are GMs for long.

Dark Archive Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Players might refuse, there isn't much profit in it by the sounds of it. They only live for greed, crafting and accounting now. And high bonuses from so many items.

You people make me so sad! *sobs*

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but many people play this game differently from each other. Doesn't mean they're playing it wrong, just that they play it differently.

My games ignore encumbrance and spell components. Gorb's games apparently have a lot of crafting. Your games house rule sneak attacks. So what?

I'm sorry some people make you sad with their play preferences, but as long as they are enjoying the game, they're playing it the "right" way for them.

If you try to force your way of playing on others and tout it as the "only" way of playing, you're going to be in for a lot of disappointment - no matter how loudly you shout your opinions.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

If only someone had mentioned that kind of build before. . . :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The funny thing is, my games don't feature much crafting at all. Apart from our OCD Binder who is constantly tinkering to make himself the Ultimate Superpower Of Moderately Veiled Chaotic Vilness Oh Sorry I Meant Neutrality, that is.

Everybody else is just rolling along with the stuff found during adventures or occasionally bought in a store.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Amusing. The argument used against crafting is the "Lv20 by two weeks or bust" argument.

Why NOT craft? If the players want to use... lets say a Scorpion Whip, or an Elven Courtblade. Rare, exotic weapons I have yet to see "dropped" in any given AP, what then? Do I randomly add strange, exotic weapons so they get to be on par with what WBL progression suggests? Not to mention randomly generated loot rarely gives you anything but a giant pile of garbage that serves more to break immersion for me than having the halfling sing the "Mountain Dew" song in character.

Also, being able to deal hundreds of damage to monsters is no big deal. Set XP to slow, add more monsters, tweak them so they are powerful enough to give them a run for their money, and presto: We have a working game.

A bunch of dudes dealing 300-500 damage total and casting spells with DCs close to 30 against an encounter with a bunch of monsters with 4000 hp between them and +20 in all saves is about the same as a bunch of dudes dealing 30-50 damage total and casting spells with DCs of 13+ against monsters with a total of 400 hp and low saves.

Dunno if people who disagree with this simplistic logic are dumb or lazy... possibly both.

Edit: inb4 "The rest of the world is not like them" or any variation thereof. Your precious special snowflake world =/= mine. I make a game for my players, and logic follows their style. If they optimize, the world optimizes.

Liberty's Edge

Originally we were hearing that Sneak Attack cannot do alot of damage compared to other classes. Now that seems to be shifting to 'Rogues do not have enough BAB to hit, AC to avoid attacks, and/or HP to remain standing'. At high levels I'd dispute all of those too, but let's stick to the original issue and run some math;

Barbarian rage: +2 dmg per level at 1st, reducing down to +0.2 dmg per level at 20th.
Fighter weapon training: Complex, but ranging between +0 dmg per level up to 4th and +0.235 dmg per level at 17th, has a 'stable state' of +0.2 dmg per level at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.
Paladin smite evil: +2 dmg per level vs evil outsiders, undead, and dragons / +1 dmg per level vs other evil, but only usable 1 to 7 rounds per day.
Ranger favored enemy: +2 dmg per level at 1st, reducing down to 0.5 dmg per level at 20th. Only applies to chosen enemy type. Up to 4 other types get lesser bonuses.

Weapon specialization feat (fighters only): +2 dmg per level at 1st, reducing down to +0.1 dmg per level at 20th. Greater weapon specialization adds an additional +0.1 dmg per level at 20th.
Power attack feat (all classes, including Rogues): +2 dmg per level at 1st, reducing down to +0.6 dmg per level (max, +0.4 dmg per level for a pure Rogue) at 20th.

Rogue sneak attack: +1.75 dmg per level on all even numbered levels, +3.5 dmg per level at 1st reducing down towards +1.75 per level as the odd numbered levels increase.

So, assuming for the moment that the Rogue can stay alive long enough to make an attack and then actually hit their opponent... can we now dispense with claims that they just cannot do much damage? The only class that can beat their potential damage at high level is the Paladin, and that only 7 rounds per day against certain kinds of evil creatures. None of the other 'fighter' types even come close. For example, a fighter with weapon training, specialization, greater specialization, and the +0.2 greater power attack bonus (due to higher BAB) can get up to +0.6 dmg per level (that the Rogue can't) at 20th vs the Rogue's +1.75. Multiple attacks? Multiply a Fighter's 7 potential TWF attacks at 20th and a pure Rogue's 6 by the bonuses above... Fighter gets +4.2 dmg per level vs +10 dmg per level for the Rogue.

Yes, combat involves alot of other factors than just potential damage output... but it is simply false that Rogue's are lacking in this area. Many other 'melee classes' can beat them at low level, but only the Paladin can (sometimes) do so at high level.


I never argued anything BUT the rogue's lackluster sides. Sneak attack damage in and of itself is pretty solid, assuming they actually get to sneak attack. Which is actually kinda hard to reliably do, for a lot of reasons.

Fighters can easily full attack most any given round, and work at maximum efficiency at all times.

Also, while the potential damage output of a rogue might theoretically equal or even surpass those of his peers, rogues do not hit easily on all their attacks. Fighters and paladins do.

And an attack that misses deals the least damage of all.


This may have been quoted already, but the 3.5 Rule Compendium states that "Precision damage applies on any attack that meets the requirements of the ability that grants the damage. This includes multiple attacks made during a full attack. If conditions change between multiple attacks, attacks that no longer meet the requirements can't deal precision damage."

I have not come across any official rule in the Pathfinder version that makes the above quote incorrect. Seems pretty clear-cut.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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?

Fact:

By RAW rogues get a SA on every melee or ranged attack within 30' taht qualifies for it.

Opinion:
If you're going to limit them with a houserule, make sure the rogue's player is aware before the first combat in game.
To do otherwise is unfair (and not cool).


Sneak attack just seems like one of those abilities GMs fear. I don't know how many GMs I had who ended up nerfing it on me.

Weakness of course is, you have to actually be in a very specific criteria of getting hit. Vs someone like a fighter or barbarian who can do his damage ALL the time. Denied Dex isn't that easy to get on someone, and flanking means the squishy rogue "now less squishy in pathfinder" has to be in melee combat. If you want you encounters to stop getting sneaked attack by a flanking rogue, you could always do a completely legitimate trick they posted on the wizard site a while back and "ignore" the other flanker, meaning that the other flanker counts as a invisible attacker. Meaning the defender loses his dex bonus, and the attack is getting a +4 to his attacks "because he is still flanking, and he is getting a +2 for being invisible". The rogue that is being focused on, of course wont get any sneak attacks and will probably die soon. Unless his ally, who can't possible miss now kills the target first.

What if they are two rogues? "Why did you let yourself get flank by two rogues, just hit them they aren't that tough."

Although. yes. I've seen some nice strength base rogues. Sneak attack is a double edge sword. It make sound nice to get a make of 10d6 of sneak attack, but you could just as well roll 10 extra damage as much as you rolled 60 damage per attack.

Rogue is based on chance and opportunity. I love them for that, but the one thing you can depend on is how undependable they can be.


I just thought of another question that I was never clear with.

If someone had the invisibility spell "level 2" cast on them. How many sneak attacks do you get before it runs out?

Say, if you have rapid shot and two weapon fighting, and flurry shurikens. "A lovely -6, I hope you roll high all three times." Does only the first attack get sneak attack. I believe the answer is yes to that, but can't you throw two shurikens at once with TWF? Technically hitting the target before both hit you? Another interpretation is that so long your not attacking the same person with two of you same attacks, and if your stealth was high enough for them not to hear you. If you hit three different people with that, all three would get sneak attacks?

I always said yes, but was never sure.


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


Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

9/10 of the time it involves some form of invisibility.

Actually no -- I said a solid sneak attack character that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor.

Invisibility might be a small part of such a character -- but for such a rogue it isn't going to be his main method of getting sneak attack, it's going to be part of a suite of options that he utilizes to do so, including dazzling display, greater feint, flanking options, lunge, and a variety of talents and feats to make sure he constantly has a means to sneak attack (including midnight stalker feats, shadow strike and a simple smoke stick).


ShadowcatX wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

If only someone had mentioned that kind of build before. . . :)

They have -- multiple times. There are even some up in the DPR Olympics. The thing is even then they only get close to matching a fighter for shear damage output (please note the word close and not even). Granted they have other skills, abilities, and techniques (that in all fairness some fighters will have too) that makes them more of a surprise combatant, but at the end of the day they have good AC (not amazing except in specific circumstances) and still only come close to the damage of the fighter (maybe a 10 point difference at most points getting closer to 20~30 at level 20).

The characters are highly technical and involve planning for a lot of contingencies that most people that don't regularly like playing spell casters don't really want to plan for.

Add to this that many times after such builds are presented people want to say really stupid things like, "but that's not what a rogue is supposed to do" or "but that's not how you are supposed to play a rogue."

Grand Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

9/10 of the time it involves some form of invisibility.

Actually no -- I said a solid sneak attack character that reliably does good damage, doesn't die and is over all a solid contributor.

Invisibility might be a small part of such a character -- but for such a rogue it isn't going to be his main method of getting sneak attack, it's going to be part of a suite of options that he utilizes to do so, including dazzling display, greater feint, flanking options, lunge, and a variety of talents and feats to make sure he constantly has a means to sneak attack (including midnight stalker feats, shadow strike and a simple smoke stick).

Or just gang-up and the judicious use of good judgment (knowing where the other melee characters are going) and Vanishing trick, which still leaves the ninja as the vastly superior class.

Liberty's Edge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Players might refuse, there isn't much profit in it by the sounds of it. They only live for greed, crafting and accounting now. And high bonuses from so many items.

You people make me so sad! *sobs*

The magic items my wizard makes will be around far longer then the song bards sing about the rest of the party. When you legend lore these items I want you to learn my name. Did this in 2e when making magic items sucked. Not going to stop now that doesn't. Heres a tissue.


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.

You may choose to do this but be aware that this is very much houserules and very much against RAW and RAI.

At level 15, a "blender rogue" with a +6 Dex item, a starting 19 Dex, and all three TWF feats will hit at +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8 and will do 1d6 shortsword + 8d6 sneak attack + 4 magic per attack. That is an average of 35.5 damage per attack, and s/he will have 7 attacks if hasted for a maximum of 248.5 damage. That's impressive and can go higher with Piranha Strike (-3 to hit for +6 damage). In order for that to happen, the rogue has to be flanking a target or have them denied their Dex to AC (greater invisibility, opponent pinned, etc), which can be hard to come by conditions. In addition, criticals don't do much for a rogue (an extra 1d6+4, yay!). Also, certain monsters are immune to sneak attack.

At level 15, a 2h fighter with a +6 Str item and a starting 19 Str will hit at +29/+24/+19 and will do 2d6 greatsword + 13 Str + 12 Power Attack + 4 magic + 3 weapon training + 4 Spec and Greater Spec, for an average of 43 damage per hit. Hasted, that's 4 attacks for a maximum damage of 172, or less than the rogue. However, the fighter is more survivable, has more bonuses to hit (by a lot!), takes full advantage of critical hits, and nothing is immune to her/his damage.

Rogues have higher spike damage when then stars align, but their average damage is significantly lower than a fighter's. Making the rogue's spike lower than the fighter's average just means rogues are completely unplayable instead of pretty bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

You couldn't sneak attack multiple times a round before sneak attack was created? Remember, don't conflate Sneak Attack with Backstab, which was the THIEF (not Rogue) ability from 2E AD&D.

Sneak attack just says-If X conditions (flat footed, flanked, etc) are met, add +xD6 to damage. That's why the Strength example was used by TOZ. It doesn't say you can add Strength multiple times a round, it just says when you roll melee damage. If it says when you do X, do Y, why would you interpret that to be only do that once per round?

So, since 3.0, you have been able to sneak attack multiple times per round, as per RAW. To rule otherwise is a houserule, and an unnecessarily punitive one for the poor rogues.


The equalizer wrote:
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.

At any level a fighter can drastically out damage a rogue doing sneak attack on all attacks. Not only can he do more damage, but he can do it more consistently and have a higher chance of hitting.


Most of you should be aware that this is not going to get anywhere. 3.5 Loyalist is stuck in his ways and will not listen.

He plays a game so heavily houseruled as to be unrecognisable. It's not 3.0. It's not 3.5. It's not Pathfinder. It's something else, as distant from them as 4e is. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means there's no equal frame of reference for the discussion.

Until he starts talking on PF terms, he isn't going to budge. And he's not going to talk on PF terms.


The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

We're talking about standard gold.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:

Most of you should be aware that this is not going to get anywhere. 3.5 Loyalist is stuck in his ways and will not listen.

He plays a game so heavily houseruled as to be unrecognisable. It's not 3.0. It's not 3.5. It's not Pathfinder. It's something else, as distant from them as 4e is. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means there's no equal frame of reference for the discussion.

Until he starts talking on PF terms, he isn't going to budge. And he's not going to talk on PF terms.

Well, yeah, but somewhere between the whole 3.5 loyalism of the ideas presented(remember, we've had BAB-based casting some time ago) and all those "how to fix rogues" threads sitting around, this is an Iron-y Mine! Yeah, it's my cheap pun day, TOZ can attest.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Funnily enough, yes, could only do only one in second ed and...
4th ed. Yes 4th ed went back to the 2nd ed ruling on sneak attacks. o-O

There IS NO SNEAK ATTACK IN 2ND EDITION. It's a different game and a different ability with a different system in place. Furthermore, they don't NEED to rule it in 4E because there's only one attack a round. TWF doesn't even give you an extra attacks. However, even in 4E, if there is a situation that allows you an additional attack, if that target grants combat advantage, you can indeed add sneak attack to it.


The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

Lv 8 fighter with a +2 Greatsword and a wizard with haste

VERY EASY
6d6+27 (str)+27 (power attack)+6 (enhancement)+12 (wep. spec/ greater wep spec)+3 (weapon training)
Average: 95


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

Lv 8 fighter with a +2 Greatsword and a wizard with haste

VERY EASY
6d6+27 (str)+27 (power attack)+6 (enhancement)+12 (wep. spec/ greater wep spec)+3 (weapon training)
Average: 95

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. Greatswords deal 2d6 damage, not 6d6. To get +27 damage from strength you would need 46 Strength. To get +27 damage from Power Attack you would have to have a BAB of +32. Enhancement bonuses max out at +5. The two specialization feats give you +4 damage, not +12. How you are obtaining all of that by level 8 I have no idea.

So either you are a "little off," or there are other elements in play that you neglected to mention (such as the two-handed weapon fighter archetype and vital strike maybe?).

EDIT: Even with flaming and frost and vital strike and a whole host of buffs and archetypes I still cannot figure out how you came to those numbers.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

Lv 8 fighter with a +2 Greatsword and a wizard with haste

VERY EASY
6d6+27 (str)+27 (power attack)+6 (enhancement)+12 (wep. spec/ greater wep spec)+3 (weapon training)
Average: 95

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. Greatswords deal 2d6 damage, not 6d6. To get +27 damage from strength you would need 46 Strength. To get +27 damage from Power Attack you would have to have a BAB of +32. Enhancement bonuses max out at +5. The two specialization feats give you +4 damage, not +12. How you are obtaining all of that by level 8 I have no idea.

So either you are a "little off," or there are other elements in play that you neglected to mention (such as the two-handed weapon fighter archetype and vital strike maybe?).

Those look like mounted lance damage numbers, except for the whole 6d6 thing, you'd only get 3d8, unless you were large, then it would make sense. You'd need a +2 weapon and a 22 strength.


My Gm thought i bought Med. fortified armor because My Paladin was afraid of his rouges. So he made a point to send his rouges after me
the gm was there hacking a way at me for 35is damage around with lucky rolls on his %s
Then his 10th level ogre fighter wielding a Scythe charged in and nat 20s confirms and fails the percent roll
he then realized that his ogre would have dealt 8d6+150ish damage bringing my pali from full to DEAD in one hit
with a smug look on my face i say "Yes, its the rouges i' scared of"


Ravingdork wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The equalizer wrote:

A fighter who averages 100 damage per round at level 8? Seen some hard hitting characters but none which average that sort of damage at level 8. I supppose it would be laughable if the campaign setting is littered with magical walmart shops and are selling +5 items at afew hundred gp a piece. Always past the gnome bakery those shops are.

Balance isn't an illusion. Its what keeps classes from stretching ahead of others overall. It is subject to the DM's perspective. That part I can agree on.

Lv 8 fighter with a +2 Greatsword and a wizard with haste

VERY EASY
6d6+27 (str)+27 (power attack)+6 (enhancement)+12 (wep. spec/ greater wep spec)+3 (weapon training)
Average: 95

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to begin. Greatswords deal 2d6 damage, not 6d6. To get +27 damage from strength you would need 46 Strength. To get +27 damage from Power Attack you would have to have a BAB of +32. Enhancement bonuses max out at +5. The two specialization feats give you +4 damage, not +12. How you are obtaining all of that by level 8 I have no idea.

So either you are a "little off," or there are other elements in play that you neglected to mention (such as the two-handed weapon fighter archetype and vital strike maybe?).

EDIT: Even with flaming and frost and vital strike and a whole host of buffs and archetypes I still cannot figure out how you came to those numbers.

3 attacks

sorry forgot to write that part
each hitting thats the final damge bonus
Thats a 22 str, 6 str mod, (+9 damage with a 2-handed wepon)
Uless i read wrong you can take -3 and add 9 to damage (2handed) at 8th


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well PA would be +9 at 8 BAB with a 2 hander.
22 STR +6, +9 with a 2 hander.
+2 Sword
+1 for Weapon training (Gets +1 at 5th, next one not till 9th level)
+2 for Weapon Specialization (doesnt qualify for greate till 12th level)

I think he's talking about over 3 iteritive attacks (Assuming all hit)
Although what I got was:
2d6+9+9+2+1+2 or 2d6+23 per
And you only are getting +8/+3 at 8th...you dont get 3 attacks unless hasted...ahh yes he mentioned haste.
2d6+23 x3, then. 25-35 damage per hit...29 being avg. 87 for the round.

EDIT: Dunno how an 8th level fighter got a +5 sword...and ninja'd.
Ahh 22 STR, and yes I forgot 1/2 again for the STR...edited.
Ok. +2 weapon.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Well PA would be +9 at 8 BAB with a 2 hander.

Assume 20 STR? 18 at level 1 and 2 more for 8th level. +5
+5 Sword
+1 for Weapon training (Gets +1 at 5th, next one not till 9th level)
+2 for Weapon Specialization (doesnt qualify for greate till 12th level)

I think he's talking about over 3 iteritive attacks (Assuming all hit)
Although what I got was:
2d6+9+5+5+1+2 or 2d6+22 per
And you only are getting +8/+3 at 8th...you dont get 3 aatcks unless hasted...ahh yes he mentioned haste.
2d6+22 x3, then. 24-34 damage per hit...28 being avg. 84 for the round.

EDIT: Dunno how an 8th level fighter got a +5 sword...

sorry to make you doo all the work

thaks for translating
but str and a half on 2 handed weapons
but not +5 its a +2 weapon hiting 3 times


:( this thread died befor i could stop looking like an idiot


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
:( this thread died befor i could stop looking like an idiot

Spelling and grammar can help that a lot.


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


sorry to make you doo all the work
thaks for translating
but str and a half on 2 handed weapons
but not +5 its a +2 weapon hiting 3 times

If it helps it was all perfectly clear to me. Though you can't have greater weapon spec until level 12, it's gtr wpn focus you can take at 8.

But whatever, he could easily have boots of speed, a +1 weapon, and maybe even gloves of weapon mastery or whatever that awesome thing I'm too lazy to look up is.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
:( this thread died befor i could stop looking like an idiot
Spelling and grammar can help that a lot.

i type and post faster than i think


meatrace wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


sorry to make you doo all the work
thaks for translating
but str and a half on 2 handed weapons
but not +5 its a +2 weapon hiting 3 times

If it helps it was all perfectly clear to me. Though you can't have greater weapon spec until level 12, it's gtr wpn focus you can take at 8.

But whatever, he could easily have boots of speed, a +1 weapon, and maybe even gloves of weapon mastery or whatever that awesome thing I'm too lazy to look up is.

danm your right about the wep spec oops

oops but i'm glad to see it was clear to somebody other than myself


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
i type and post faster than i think

Stop doing that and you'll earn a lot more respect from other members of the board. Here you are judged by your words, for words are all you have. Make them worth reading and you'll find people will be more willing to communicate fairly with you.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
i type and post faster than i think
Stop doing that and you'll earn a lot more respect from other members of the board. Here you are judged by your words, for words are all you have. Make them worth reading and you'll find people will be more willing to communicate fairly with you.

thank you for the advice, I've been working on it but it's difficult to change. Unfortunately if i told anybody this stuff in person, it would make even LESS sense. My ideas don't come out very fluid


People overweigh dice and underweigh static bonuses.

If they don't mentally average it, they'll take +1d6 over +5 every time.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

People overweigh dice and underweigh static bonuses.

If they don't mentally average it, they'll take +1d6 over +5 every time.

Which is why they constantly short change a Bard.

I'll give people a tip -- if you think your party was awesome before add a bard -- you'll (party members+1)*your capacity for bad@$$ monster stomping.

Scarab Sages

meatrace wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Funnily enough, yes, could only do only one in second ed and...
4th ed. Yes 4th ed went back to the 2nd ed ruling on sneak attacks. o-O
There IS NO SNEAK ATTACK IN 2ND EDITION. It's a different game and a different ability with a different system in place. Furthermore, they don't NEED to rule it in 4E because there's only one attack a round. TWF doesn't even give you an extra attacks. However, even in 4E, if there is a situation that allows you an additional attack, if that target grants combat advantage, you can indeed add sneak attack to it.

Um, as critical as you've been, please take care when incorrectly referring to 4th edition rules.

In 4.0, additional damage dice granted by a Striker class (Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attack, Warlock's Curse, etc.) are applied only once per round. The ONLY way to get around this is to take a feat which allows you to deal this extra damage again once upon spending an action point to make an extra attack, but other circumstances (such as a Warlord or other leader class granting additional attacks) do not cause an additional iteration of this additional damage.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

People overweigh dice and underweigh static bonuses.

If they don't mentally average it, they'll take +1d6 over +5 every time.

What makes that even worse is that the DPR Olympics demonstrated that a boring old +1 enhancement bonus typically beats out the sexy +1d6 damage enchantments, largely because the former helps hit and the latter doesn't. (And is multiplied on crits, for that matter.)

Once you understand that, how much you value sneak attack goes way, way down. It's a fun ability. Rolling that fistfull of d6's is a good time. But overpowering it's not.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
The equalizer wrote:
Yep. Adventure should go simething like this. Party spends two days killing the big bad and doing cool stuff. Then the rogue and other party member pester the wizard and cleric to make them some stuff. The group then downtimes for <insert crafting time here>. They set off and cycle repeats endlessly. Reaches a point where party rocks up to burnt desolate remains of a village. Party member with survival makes a check. Says:"they went that way approximately X...
Fortunately, people who GM their games as though trying to punish their players rarely are GMs for long.

Mongoose, I've been a GM for about seven years. :|

Steady there, you're a bit off.

It is not a punishment, it is a rules interpretation. I hear the go to the power-gaming forum command more than a few times, but I am not power gaming. I stop it where I see it for the good of the greater game, and to cut down on magic crafting/shopping and general accounting. I want the game to be about the players, their challenges, and not about their items, or what combination they put together today to do 150 damage. Our games really rarely have rounds where someone does 100 damage, whether that be a fighter, a barb or a rogue. So when someone says, yeah at this level, your mincer rogue should do an average of 35 x possible 6, I just shake my head.

This is really illustrative of what an anti-dnd friend was saying, dnd can get so easily into power-gaming and numbers, becomes about optimised builds, not role-playing. In my games, what you say can be far more important than havingmultiple sneak attacks, and players don't have to worry about cheese much. I wouldn't spam multiple sneak attacks from a flanking source, that seems really cheap. They will cop multiple attacks, but multiple attacks from a hasted two weapon fighting rogue under greater invis? No, I just won't do it. The sneak attack, this precise attack with a long history of being one precise attack, is being abused that way.

We should really consider what games we are playing, and is there too much power-gaming at the table.

Keep the balance, keep the peace, eat all the cheese.

To other people:
"You couldn't sneak attack multiple times a round before sneak attack was created? Remember, don't conflate Sneak Attack with Backstab, which was the THIEF (not Rogue) ability from 2E AD&D."

They are a little different yeah (x not added d6), but I was there in the transition, and yes, the 3rd ed rogue is the converted 2nd ed thief. It was said, they dragged it over, made some changes. Check the books, check the transition editions of dragon. Why backstab was only once can really be appreciated with all the power-gaming above, look at the numbers, look at all that damage. These builds, these sheer waves of damage, this brings up something else. When you power-game, is there a challenge? Serious question (I'm being sober here, not making attacks, this is the state of the game we are discussing).

If there is a challenge, the dm is also power-gaming, making extremely complex and ultra-buffed opponents, everyone is throwing cheese at each other so it is an even, level playing field, of sorts. Not sure how many could take the waves of sneak attacks from the greater invis rogue? Would they consider it cheap if their characters exploded in one round? I bet they would. So it is best to avoid this entirely, and give the rogues a single precision attack per round (otherwise even I the DM with the rogue opponents, might get tired of rolling d6s).

Now if there is not much of a challenge, then the cheese is one-sided. The players are hoarding it, throwing it at whatever comes their way, and the standard monsters are not going to be a challenge. If one can do 150 damage a round at level 11, you can hunt great wyrm dragons at really quite a low level. Because buffed but otherwise unassisted, you can kill them by yourself at a mid-level. It throws CR and balance way out the window. If it is consistently meant to be a challenge for something your level, but it isn't, you are being cheesey and power-gaming.

Abraham, bards are awesome. For those that miss by just a small amount, when they are around they hit!


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


It is not a punishment, it is a rules interpretation.

Not interpretation of rules, but change of the rules aka houserule.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


In my games, what you say can be far more important than havingmultiple sneak attacks, and players don't have to worry about cheese much.

I repeat: So why then nerf the rogue, already the weakest class in the game.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


I wouldn't spam multiple sneak attacks from a flanking source, that seems really cheap.

Its not cheap, its the rules as intended and rules as written.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


They will cop multiple attacks, but multiple attacks from a hasted two weapon fighting rogue under greater invis? No, I just won't do it. The sneak attack, this precise attack with a long history of being one precise attack, is being abused that way.

It is NOT an abuse. Is simply an effective i. e. clever way of using a class ability. And it is NOT broken or too powerful. I repeat: GO VISIT THE DPR OLYMPICS THREADS. I understand that you are not interested in such things, but it might help you understand some things about game mechanics, that will help you with your gaming.


Didnt you also give multiple spells per round to your spellcasters for high BAB or something in another threat?

It'd be really nice if you could go post on the boards of whatever game you're actually playing, since it sure isnt pathfinder.


To the weakest, they are not the weakest in our gaming groups' experience. They do quite well, and don't get mashed in combat. Not all of us, but some of us, still give them the d6 hit die. :O

"Its not cheap, its the rules as intended and rules as written."

See, that's not quite right. It says anytime, the reference was found; but it doesn't say stack as many sneak attacks as possible, abuse items and buffs and spells to allow even more. Orchestrate it, so that the rogue is rolling so many dice, it is going to take a long time to count them up, and this is way above the number of dice an invoker or sorcerer of the same level, could bring to the table. Unbalance it, that is the intent; it does not say that. We shouldn't confuse an exploit with what was actually intended. Nowhere does it say, the sneak attack is intended to be used to go from using 4d6 at 7th, to throwing out 12d6 with some choices made and no limit on the number of precision attacks, or to turn 5d6 into 20d6 or 25d6. It just doesn't say that. This doesn't balance with offensive damaging magic, because there is still the weapon bonuses to consider. At 9 all round, a 9th level wizard can throw a 9d6 around over multiple, each get saves for half (some can even get no damage at all), but the rogue can do 5d6 + weapon damage x 4-5 on one target, with no save. Has to get over AC, but not such a problem if they have greater invisibility on, which they do, because this is high magic power gaming we are talking about.

It is way too powerful for the games I am running.

"GO VISIT THE DPR OLYMPICS THREADS"

No, I do not want to check out the power-gaming threads in wroughtlanden and cheeseria.

I ask us all, without malice, to consider not rocking the power-gaming cheese-eating contest. Do unto others the number of sneak attacks you would have them do unto you.

;)


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

To the weakest, they are not the weakest in our gaming groups' experience. They do quite well, and don't get mashed in combat. Not all of us, but some of us, still give them the d6 hit die. :O

"Its not cheap, its the rules as intended and rules as written."

See, that's not quite right. It says anytime, the reference was found; but it doesn't say stack as many sneak attacks as possible, abuse items and buffs and spells to allow even more. Orchestrate it, so that the rogue is rolling so many dice, it is going to take a long time to count them up, and this is way above the number of dice an invoker or sorcerer of the same level, could bring to the table. Unbalance it, that is the intent; it does not say that. We shouldn't confuse an exploit with what was actually intended. Nowhere does it say, the sneak attack is intended to be used to go from using 4d6 at 7th, to throwing out 12d6 with some choices made and no limit on the number of precision attacks, or to turn 5d6 into 20d6 or 25d6. It just doesn't say that. This doesn't balance with offensive damaging magic, because there is still the weapon bonuses to consider. At 9 all round, a 9th level wizard can throw a 9d6 around over multiple, each get saves for half (some can even get no damage at all), but the rogue can do 5d6 + weapon damage x 4-5 on one target, with no save. Has to get over AC, but not such a problem if they have greater invisibility on, which they do, because this is high magic power gaming we are talking about.

It is way too powerful for the games I am running.

"GO VISIT THE DPR OLYMPICS THREADS"

No, I do not want to check out the power-gaming threads in wroughtlanden and cheeseria.

I ask us all, without malice, to consider not rocking the power-gaming cheese-eating contest. Do unto others the number of sneak attacks you would have them do unto you.

;)

You are obviously playing a version of Pathfinder with a slew of houserules. This game is different to what most people are playing here and I wish you well with it. However your argument about rogues sneak attack doesn't hold water using THE PATHFINDER RULE SET.

Grand Lodge

I'd let the enemy rogue hit me with all the sneak attacks he can, because it doesn't matter what I'm playing, if I survive, that's a dead rogue when my turn comes around again.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

To the weakest, they are not the weakest in our gaming groups' experience. They do quite well, and don't get mashed in combat. Not all of us, but some of us, still give them the d6 hit die. :O

"Its not cheap, its the rules as intended and rules as written."

See, that's not quite right. It says anytime, the reference was found; but it doesn't say stack as many sneak attacks as possible, abuse items and buffs and spells to allow even more. Orchestrate it, so that the rogue is rolling so many dice, it is going to take a long time to count them up, and this is way above the number of dice an invoker or sorcerer of the same level, could bring to the table. Unbalance it, that is the intent; it does not say that. We shouldn't confuse an exploit with what was actually intended. Nowhere does it say, the sneak attack is intended to be used to go from using 4d6 at 7th, to throwing out 12d6 with some choices made and no limit on the number of precision attacks, or to turn 5d6 into 20d6 or 25d6. It just doesn't say that. This doesn't balance with offensive damaging magic, because there is still the weapon bonuses to consider. At 9 all round, a 9th level wizard can throw a 9d6 around over multiple, each get saves for half (some can even get no damage at all), but the rogue can do 5d6 + weapon damage x 4-5 on one target, with no save. Has to get over AC, but not such a problem if they have greater invisibility on, which they do, because this is high magic power gaming we are talking about.

It is way too powerful for the games I am running.

"GO VISIT THE DPR OLYMPICS THREADS"

No, I do not want to check out the power-gaming threads in wroughtlanden and cheeseria.

I ask us all, without malice, to consider not rocking the power-gaming cheese-eating contest. Do unto others the number of sneak attacks you would have them do unto you.

;)

I would have them properly play the game! If an assassin/rogue sneaks up on me and sneaks me to death from greater invisibility, well then my party did something wrong and I probably deserved it.

Also, number crunching and roleplay are not incompatible. The numbers make you effective in combat, but having a personality is separate from that. I can roleplay Liliana, slightly suicidal rogue extraordinaire, whether she does 150 damage per round or 15 damage per round. I, as a player, have a lot more fun if I can be effective in combat. I love rogues, but honestly I'd never ever play one with a GM who took their only combat tool away from them.

A rogue can, in rare situations, insta-gib something. A ranger-archer, fighter-archer, 2h fighter, 2h barbarian, wizard, or sorcerer can do the same thing far more often. Will you deny the ranger favored enemy bonus on each arrow? Will you say the fighter only gets Strength damage and Power Attack on the first hit? If an enemy fails a save-or-die spell, will the wizard not be allowed to cast at all the rest of the combat/day? Why then must the rogue be denied her sneak attacks?

101 to 150 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.