
![]() |

I seriously hope this does not encroach too far onto the "Never a stupid question" territory, because I kind of feel dumb asking it. But after reading some of the rules very closely, I think my PFS tables and I may have been doing this wrong.
Do you get Sneak Attacks against characters who are prone, grappled, etc. etc. Sneak attack says you gain the bonus damage whenever the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not). Does the penalty to AC caused by some conditions such as grappled and being prone (and possibly the others) count?
My PFS character is a Rogue and several times during his career, an enemy has gained such a condition and I have been allowed to sneak attack it, but now I think my group may have been doing it wrong. I will be incredibly sad to find out that in my attempts to find more ways to get my sneak attack damage, I will have actually caused my character to do less!

Drakkiel |

Neither of those conditions deny the victim their dexterity to AC
Prone gives a flat -4 AC to melee
Grappled gives a -4 penalty to DEX...while this may push some victims into the negative they are still not explicitly denied their bonus
If a condition or anything else does not say "is denied their dexterity bonus to AC" or "are flat-footed" (it can be worded differently) then the target/victim is not denied their Dex

![]() |

No, those do not count Koujow. :T
Sneak Attack is pretty hard to work in, but there are various ways to do it.
You can get Sneak Attack damage on someone if they are:
Flat-Footed(like the start of combat before the opponent has acted)
Stunned
If you are Invisible
Paralyzed
Unconscious
Tricked by the Feint combat maneuver
If you have Concealment(via stealthing usually
Flanked
Blinded
Cowering
Pinned
and various other ways I cannot think of off the top of my head.

Eridan |

I am sorry to say that but both conditions dont allow a sneak attack. The grapple condition only applies a -4 to DEX. The prone condition dont modify DEX at all.
You need conditions like helpless, paralyzed(=helpless), flat-footed, cowering or other methods like flanking, invisibility, spells like grease ..

Lifat |
Majuba is dead on here. In 3.5 you would get sneak attack against a grappling foe (although not if you were part of the grapple yourself). You have never gotten sneak attack against prone characters however (unless some other condition granted it).
The most used way to get sneak attacks is to flank the opponent, at least in my experience. I have seen a very effective bow user in 3.5 that was built to sneak attack from so far away that the victims didn't stand a chance... But that required a lot of splat book materials to pull off.
In pathfinder I do think the easiest way is to flank, just like in 3.5...

Mojorat |

As a general rule for sneak attack... go first. There atr rogue tricks that suport this. Snap shot for example. There's a rt that lets you sneak targets first round even if they have moved bandit archetype allows full attack during surprise.
So with bandit + the right tricks youl always get 1 to 2 rounds of sneak.
I've been thinking with catch off guard shuriken and the rogue trick that lets you do max sneak during surprise with a hidden weappn you may be able to blitz a lot of damage.
But I haven't sat down to work it all out yet.

![]() |

Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...

Zhayne |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...
You have just taken your first steps into a larger world ... the world of people who realize that the rogue sucks.

Scott Wilhelm |
If you want a maneuver that stacks with Sneak Attack, try Dirty Tricks. You need Expertise, a good idea anyway if you are wearing rogue armor. Then when you have Quick and Greater dirty tricks, you can make your opponents blind (or deaf, or anosmic) for several rounds at a time. Your enemies will be deep in the Hurt Locker. And everyone in the party will love how you are making the enemies blind.

Lifat |
Koujow wrote:You have just taken your first steps into a larger world ... the world of people who realize that the rogue sucks.Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...
Unless you allow the two sap feats, which actually makes them WAY to good.
But yeah... It is an uphill battle being a rogue.
Corvino |

The danger with dealing nonlethal damage is that you'll run into an opponent who is immune to it. Give your DM two weeks and Google and this may occur.
The only solution may be to utilise the much-maligned class skills persuasion or bluff IRL to allow it. Or any of the other various ways to allow a rogue to reliably sneak attack - Moonlight Stalker Feint, obtaining an Animal Companion/Familiar, getting hold of Advanced Ninja tricks, whatever (NB - all have feat tax through the roof). You're still likely doing fewer DPR than the Barbarian.

![]() |

Zhayne wrote:Koujow wrote:You have just taken your first steps into a larger world ... the world of people who realize that the rogue sucks.Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...
Unless you allow the two sap feats, which actually makes them WAY to good.
But yeah... It is an uphill battle being a rogue.
No. The Sap feats make the Rogue slightly closer to being viable, but no where near anything that could be considered "WAY too good".
That is like saying a Wizard who didn't dump Intelligence, and decided to put a 12 in it, is "WAY too powerful".

blahpers |

I always thought it was stupid, but yeah. The grappled condition reduces your dex bonus, but it doesn't deny you your dex bonus, even when your dex bonus is reduced to 0.
Getting your dex bonus reduced to 0 is different from being denied your dex bonus.
...Yeah, I'm gonna invoke "strictly worse than" logic on that one, purism be damned. A -99 penalty isn't denying your Dex bonus, but having it changed to -5 denies it and then some.

![]() |

Koujow wrote:You have just taken your first steps into a larger world ... the world of people who realize that the rogue sucks.Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...
I still don't think they suck. I just think they are misunderstood. I still enjoyed my character.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Zhayne wrote:I still don't think they suck. I just think they are misunderstood. I still enjoyed my character.Koujow wrote:You have just taken your first steps into a larger world ... the world of people who realize that the rogue sucks.Well, that brings me down. For a brief, crazed moment, I was envisioning some kind of crazy Kusarigama wielding ninja constantly grapping and tripping opponents, then gets heaps of sneak attacks on them from a square away.
And my Rogue's SA damage just dropped down even more. Thats... thats depressing...
Some people enjoy playing the Commoner. This doesn't make it good.

![]() |

Came up with this a few years ago (pulling out dusty Word file...)
SNEAK ATTACK WORKS IF:
1. Target loses its Dex bonus. Instances when one can lose his dex bonus:
blinded (includes creatures in areas of darkness without darkvision)
cowering
feint (see Bluff skill)
flat-footed
lifting double your max load off the ground
off balance in the water
pinned
stunned
vs. impromptu sneak attack
vs. invisible opponents
vs. non grappling opponents while you are grappling
2. Target is flanked.
3. Target is helpless (paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy).

![]() |

Came up with this a few years ago (pulling out dusty Word file...)
SNEAK ATTACK WORKS IF:
1. Target loses its Dex bonus. Instances when one can lose his dex bonus:
blinded (includes creatures in areas of darkness without darkvision)
cowering
feint (see Bluff skill)
flat-footed
lifting double your max load off the ground
off balance in the water
pinned
stunned
vs. impromptu sneak attack
vs. invisible opponents
vs. non grappling opponents while you are grappling2. Target is flanked.
3. Target is helpless (paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy).
As mentioned above, PF changed grappling: it no longer denies the Dex bonus to AC, just gives a Dex penalty. Pinned denies it though.

Lifat |
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:As mentioned above, PF changed grappling: it no longer denies the Dex bonus to AC, just gives a Dex penalty. Pinned denies it though.Came up with this a few years ago (pulling out dusty Word file...)
SNEAK ATTACK WORKS IF:
1. Target loses its Dex bonus. Instances when one can lose his dex bonus:
blinded (includes creatures in areas of darkness without darkvision)
cowering
feint (see Bluff skill)
flat-footed
lifting double your max load off the ground
off balance in the water
pinned
stunned
vs. impromptu sneak attack
vs. invisible opponents
vs. non grappling opponents while you are grappling2. Target is flanked.
3. Target is helpless (paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy).
But outside grappling the list is actually correct, as far as I can tell.

Ughbash |
I always thought it was stupid, but yeah. The grappled condition reduces your dex bonus, but it doesn't deny you your dex bonus, even when your dex bonus is reduced to 0.
Getting your dex bonus reduced to 0 is different from being denied your dex bonus.
When your dex is reduced to 0 you are paralyzed, so you can be sneak attacked or even Coup Degraced.

Majuba |

Scott said "Dex Bonus" reduced to 0 - that happens at Dex 10.
Slowing reactions (which might already be less than 0 modifier mind you) isn't the same as completely catching them off guard. A 6 Dex person isn't any harder to hit when flat-footed (because they wouldn't react in time to your attack anyways), but they're off-kilter or still enough that they haven't had a chance to start protecting their vitals yet.

Kelarith |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Still, and I may be wrong about this, but if a character is being grappled, the should be easily flanked, yes? If flanked, the rogue gets the sneak attack bonus.
I can see where Paizo was going with grappling not allowing an automatic sneak attack. Using a couple of wrestlers as an example, they may be grappled, and making maneuvers, but are not still, so it would still take *some* work on another person's part to sneak attack. I mean really, how many times have we seen the wrestler's toady line up for the chair shot, only to have the two wrestler's move and the toady nails his master? ;) Put that into game terms, and the toady flanks the target, and made his attack, and rolled REALLY poorly so nailed the other guy. Otherwise you see the chair shot nail the target and drops them. A hit, with the extra damage.

Majuba |

Still, and I may be wrong about this, but if a character is being grappled, the should be easily flanked, yes? If flanked, the rogue gets the sneak attack bonus.
Yes, quite a bit easier to get into a flank when the target can't take AoOs. (And contrary to semi-popular belief, grapplers *do* threaten -- they can make attacks, just not attacks of opportunity.
I like your example.