|
This came up in a recent Organized Play game and made the difference between a character living and dying: When someone/something with the Sneak Attack ability makes a full attack, does it apply to every attack made therein? Is there a difference between when Sneak Attack is made possible by way of Dexterity-bonus loss versus flanking? I've considerd the implications: If Sneak Attack DOES apply to every attack made in a full attack, an 18th-level Rogue with Improved Two-Weapon fighting and no particular cheese beyond that could do upwards of 50d6 damage, from Sneak Attack dice alone, in a single full attack....
Every single attack that meets the requirements for a sneak attack gets the extra damage. If a rogue has 4 attack per round, and all 4 meet the requirements, then all 4 are sneak attacks.
There is nothing in the rules that states (or even implies) you only get one sneak attack per round.
Yes, it applies to every attack in a round that qualifies for a sneak attack. This would be every attack in a flanking situation, but Dexterity bonus loss depends. Some of those, like Feint, specify the next attack. In that case it's only one attack. If it's for the round, though, it will allow for multiple sneak attacks.
This isn't remotely overpowered - rogues are really pretty bad at dealing straight damage. You could say that they would deal 50d6 damage, but that's not going to happen - rogues just don't have good ways to get a high attack bonus, and a good chunk of those attacks are going to miss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in a recent Organized Play game and made the difference between a character living and dying: When someone/something with the Sneak Attack ability makes a full attack, does it apply to every attack made therein?
Yes.
Is there a difference between when Sneak Attack is made possible by way of Dexterity-bonus loss versus flanking?
No.
I've considerd the implications: If Sneak Attack DOES apply to every attack made in a full attack, an 18th-level Rogue with Improved Two-Weapon fighting and no particular cheese beyond that could do upwards of 50d6 damage, from Sneak Attack dice alone, in a single full attack....
At a significantly lower to-hit, and that 50d6 (with something like 1d6+2 from the weapon at most) still really only puts him on par with your average two-hander user by that level.
A Barbarian could have about 36 Str when Raging by then, with 4 attacks at something like 2d6+34 on each just from a Power Attack. That's an average of 164 damage if all connect, just shy of that same Rogue's 175 average (if all hits connect. A bit higher factoring in weapons) from Sneak Attack, and he needs no special circumstances to hit and has a much higher likelihood of hitting each shot.
Basically it's the "HOLY S+$# THAT'S A LOT OF DICE!" factor playing tricks on people again.
yes every attack made would have sneak dice add to them.
yes for the second one as well no dex full sneak.
I was disallowed to play the thief because i almost always role nat 20s to where my DM would make me use his dice and i will still do it 8\10
rolls is a 20 : )
|
|
How about in the case of a Dark Stalker with 3 Rogue levels (possibly including Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, bringing the monster's total Sneak Attack dice per full attack to 20d6) making a full attack against a character who wasn't flanked, but had been denied his Dexterity bonus because he couldn't see the Stalker due to deeper darkness? Like I said, this question determines whether our Druid - our healer and caster of daylight - was supposed to have been killed or not in a certain Scenario. That thing was able to hit well enough.
It's not the "Holy S$@! That's A Lot of Dice" Factor, it's the "Holy S$$& This Monster Actually One-Shotted Our Healer" Factor. I'm hoping for our sakes we got something else wrong. We got past that encounter because we came to the conclusion at the time that there was a limit to Sneak Attacks per round, but the Scenario's still in progress.
yes because it say they can still see even in the deeper darkness so they have cover and you did not yes full sneak dice
from the looks of it ya your caster is dead
How about in the case of a Dark Stalker with 3 Rogue levels (possibly including Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, bringing the monster's total Sneak Attack dice per full attack to 20d6) making a full attack against a character who wasn't flanked, but had been denied his Dexterity bonus because he couldn't see the Stalker due to deeper darkness? Like I said, this question determines whether our Druid - our healer and caster of daylight - was supposed to have been killed or not in a certain Scenario. That thing was able to hit well enough.
In the case of a dark stalker who is attacking a foe denied his dex, he would get his sneak attack. His total, with 3 rogue levels, would be 5 D6 per attack. He would have +6 BAB(2 from rogue, 4 from humanoid) and a +2 to hit bringing him to +8/+8/+3. If he had imp two weapon fighting it would be +8/+8/+3/+3. If he had weapon finesse he would be at +10/+10/+4/+4. His attacks would do 5d6 each, so it would total for 20 D6 yes. If his foe had no armor he would almost always be hitting 95% of the time with his highest iteratives, and about 75% of the time with his off. Would be pretty killer if the opponent didn't have a way to get his dex back.
Yeah, your caster would take anything from 24 damage to 146ish damage.
|
|
Does it matter that we (including the Druid) were by that point aware of the monster's presence and hostility, and at least a couple of characters DID have darkvision (but not including the Druid)? The Druid had cast daylight once before the fatal attack but either it or its Dark Slayer partner somehow dispelled it.
Aware of his presence doesn't change matters if you can't see him.
What was the initial light level of the room you were in? This is important information needed to answer your question.
Does it matter that we (including the Druid) were by that point aware of the monster's presence and hostility, and at least a couple of characters DID have darkvision (but not including the Druid)? The Druid had cast daylight once before the fatal attack but either it or its Dark Slayer partner somehow dispelled it.
I'm well aware there is a man in front of me and behind me. Doesn't keep them from flanking me. I'm aware someone is in the room, doesn't help me see where the dagger is coming from.
|
|
It was a cave lit by luminescent fungi, so I think it was the sort of environment that favored Low-Light Vision. The magical darkness and light canceled each other out where they overlapped, leaving the light in the area at its local normal level.
Like I said, the Druid had cast Daylight once (on his pendant), and one of the monsters used (I think) their deeper darkness ability to dispel the daylight directly because, the DM reasoned, it was able to see what he'd placed the spell on.
I remember that scenario well. That's right up there with bungie-jumping rogue pirates from another campaign.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: never allow a rogue to get all of his sneak attacks.
My favorite anti-rogue tactic--obscuring mist. A rogue can't sneak attack an opponent with concealment.
|
|
If there was no Daylight active at the time, and Deeper Darkness was active, then chances are, yes, full sneak attacks. Even if you know what square he's in, in that situation it's essentially like he's got Improved Invisibility. My ninja survived a very similar situation against a Dark Stalker only because of Uncanny Dodge.
"local normal level" isn't a light level :)
I'm guessing it was "dim light" since you mentioned LLV.
Daylight was casts first according to you. If it were dispelled using Deeper Darkness then the lighting should have still been "dim light". You should have had at least one good round where you could have seen him. The Stalker would have had to us Deeper Darkness a second time at that point.
If it all worked out in his favor it sounds like he just got some good rolls and your team had some poor information and due to that, poor planning. This is not meant in any way as an insult.
Characters die, it is something that can and will happen.
|
|
Daylight was casts first according to you.
Sadly, no - then we'd have gotten to take advantage of their Light Blindness and we'd probably have been okay.
Your final line is absolutely right. Fortunately, the Druid has the Prestige to get raised anyways.
Like I said though, we made it past the fight with the Druid alive because we accepted an idea that wasn't true (limits on Sneak Attacks per round), and the Scenario's still continuing since that was the last thing we were able to fit in that night, so I'm not sure what ought to happen, now....
|
|
My favorite anti-rogue tactic--obscuring mist. A rogue can't sneak attack an opponent with concealment.
That's what Shadow Strike is for.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment).
In fairness, I have seen Dark Stalkers run wrong before (allowing them to activate Deeper Darkness and attack in the same round because it's "at will." It should still require a standard action to cast). Also, in the described situation, whichever of the creatures cast Deeper Darkness to dispel the Daylight on the pendant should have had to make an attack to touch the pendant, and that attack should have provoked an attack of opportunity.
But bottom line, Deeper Darkness can create very bad situations for PCs (sneak attacks or not), which is why everyone over about 5th level should keep an oil of Daylight on them.
Only the Stalker could have dispelled the Daylight, the slayer can only cast Darkness, which cannot counter or dispel Daylight :)
Shadow strike does not help in case of Supernatural darkness :)
Yes I have seen them run incorrectly the same way. It is still a standard action to use the ability.
And again you are correct, they have to touch the pendant to dispel it.
|
|
Hallelujah - loophole at last! Stalker did NOT touch attack the pendant.
Incidentally, I had always thought that what you're all saying about Sneak Attack's limitations (or specific lack thereof) to be the case, but somebody brought up the "once per round" claim, and since the DM was buying it and much of my most solid knowledge (particularly about classes I don't normally play, like Rogues) comes from the 3.5 computer games, I wasn't going to press the issue.
|
|
Shadow strike does not help in case of Supernatural darkness :)
You are correct. I brought it up specifically in response to the Obscuring Mist tactic that was mentioned. But Shadow Strike gives no benefit in supernatural darkness. Dim light, on the other hand...
Obscuring Mist, as Tim mentioned, is a decent tactic, though, if you can't cast Daylight to offset the Deeper Darkness. Throw up an Obscuring Mist, and at least the Dark Stalker has a miss chance, and likely loses its sneak attacks (unless it has Shadow Strike). If you can't make it to where you can see, at least you can make it harder for him to see. And if you're already essentially blind, it doesn't hurt you any.
There are two recent FAQ request threads that may all be relevant here.
This is a very nasty killer scenario.
As I said. Nasty nasty scenario. And that is just the beginning.
It sounds like the GM was running the scenario correctly. though I feel its only fair than anyone playing this scenario should know that it is a killer scenario. We permanently lost a 10th lvl PFS character to it. Do not underestimate the death.