| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can't get any more clear than "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." That's right out of the sneak attack description from the rogue entry.
Don't expect anybody with a Paizo title to clarify more than that sentence already does.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not trying to be snippy with you. Your DM is doing something that many DMs do incorrectly.
It can't get any more clear than "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." That's right out of the sneak attack description from the rogue entry.
Don't expect anybody with a Paizo title to clarify more than that sentence already does.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not trying to be snippy with you. Your DM is doing something that many DMs do incorrectly.
Yeah, you have a very low like 1% chance that Mark will comment in here to give a DEV voice saying you're right.
But if the printed rules don't work then lets hope Mark shows up.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your DM is wrong. We can hold a parade for it. That might change his mind. We never agree on anything here.
|
But if the printed rules don't work then lets hope Mark shows up.
Well, he seems to be fairly active on the forums with the release of Starfinder coming up soon. He might just notice this.
Also, adding my voice to the choir, it absolutely works on every attack that qualifies, hasted, two handed or iterative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also this FAQ.
There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.
One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.
Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.
The FAQ presumes that it is possible to sneak attack multiple times in a round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is literally no textual support for rogues not getting their sneak attack damage on every hit that qualifies.
What's the GM's reasoning? What rules are they referring to when saying TWF offhand attacks don't get Sneak Attack? To my knowledge there are none. I mean, the GM is free to run their game with whatever house rules they want, but pretending they're official without proof is silly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the OP level of rogues is kinda legendary.
In 5th Edition, they specifically state you can only sneak attack once per turn. In PF, there is no such limitation listed in the rules for sneak attack.
In fact, the Sage Advice for 5th Edition sneak attack says you can also get sneak attack on someone else's turn, such as when making an Opportunity Attack.
That doesn't really apply here, but a Rogue with Two Weapon Fighting, and Combat Reflexes, could get lots and lots of sneak attacks on their turn and also not on their turn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show your GM the exact wording. Ask him to cite the ruling for his interpretation.
I suspect he is worried that you will deal too much damage too often. It a reasonable concern... if he never attacks you. Rogues are what we call squishy. They are susceptible to Fort and Will attacks, and do not have the best AC or hit points. If a rogue presents a serious threat and an enemy fails to retaliate, then the enemy is dumb and deserves to be taken advantage of. Rogues are not meant to charge in and engage a mob or oversized brute. The rogue is meant to see opportunities, grab them by the neck, and wring the life out of them. If the rogue makes a mistake then the rogue could very well get beaten to a bloody pulp. Not every enemy is worth exposing your soft onderbelly to.
Rogue is already weak enough without nerfing it.
Your DM is wrong, the wording is explicitly clear, it states nothing about Main Hand versus Off-hand; yes, you get sneak with every attack that qualifies.
Let me be sure I understand this.
Clearly if a rogue is flanking somebody, that rogue gets a sneak attack on each hit so long as the flank endures. But what about the other clause? "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC..."?
Imagine that my rogue is invisible. He sidles up to his victim and makes two stabbing attacks. The invisibility disappears at the moment of the first attack, so the denial of Dex bonus also disappears at that point. This rogue would only receive a sneak attack on the first attack. Correct?
I mean this sounds like the DM is thinking of 5E rogues... Which do have that limit.
Even before 5e, I had a GM who was adamant that 3e rogues could only sneak attack once a round. I suspect he had no rules basis for this, only "Well, once you've stabbed them once, it's no longer sneaky" head canon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have pointed out, there are a few cases where you will only get 1 sneak attack in the round:
- In 5th edition (he may be remembering the wrong rules)
- If you're invisible (and not from Greater Invisibility)
- If you feint (not including Greater Feint or Improved Two Weapon Feint)
In any of these cases you would only get 1 sneak attack normally, but there are cases where you would get more:
- If you're using Greater Invisibility
- If you're flanking an opponent
- If you use Greater Feint or Improved Two Weapon Feint
- If your target hasn't acted yet in combat
- Any other time your target is flat footed due to whatever circumstances
- etc (I'm sure there are more specific circumstances)
It's probably worth talking to the GM about the times they would be correct, as it may help them to remember the rules in full.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Sunder spell component pouch.
2. Sunder secret emergency spell component pouch.
3. Smack Smack Smack!!!
:-D
I apoligize for this thread but im in a game where the DM is not allowing sneak attack on every hit that meets the requirements for sneak attack damage. He believes that only the primary attack not the secondary attack of a twf rogue gets the extra damage. I have pointed out the posts that ive seen on this website and others, but he calls them third party not official. So im hoping to get answer from someone official concerning this matter. I also need to know if any hasted attacks count as well as when i have two attacks around do to high bab.
It depends on what grounds he's denying it.
If it's a flat-out denial, then the GM is a fool, since the rules clearly state that Sneak Attack applies at any time an attack is made on the specified circumstances, i.e. flanking, denied dexterity, and flat-footed condition.
If it's because you aren't fulfilling the conditions properly, then the GM would be correct. As Mr Charisma pointed out, simply using Invisibility or Feinting wouldn't grant Sneak Attack on consecutive attacks, only on the first attack you make, successful or not.
However, since you said he claims equal-level fighters are on the same footing as equal-level wizards, it's most likely the former and not the latter, in which case arguing your case isn't going to go anywhere, and you'll be left with either dealing with it or finding a new table that doesn't try to screw over the weakest class in the game for no reason.
While you should be able to play the character you want to play, if there is a discrepancy between how you interpret your character and how your GM interprets your character, maybe try playing a different character both you and your GM will agree on.
Maybe try a two-weapon fighting fighter so you can be more powerful than the wizards.
While you should be able to play the character you want to play, if there is a discrepancy between how you interpret your character and how your GM interprets your character, maybe try playing a different character both you and your GM will agree on.
Maybe try a two-weapon fighting fighter so you can be more powerful than the wizards.
Sure, he could do that.
If the Wizard dumped his Intelligence like the Fighter did. And was naked (no spell component pouch or anything). And the Fighter got to go first. And was 5 feet away from and 10 levels higher than said Wizard.
Otherwise, I do agree that retiring the "problem" character and making a new one that the GM won't try to screw over would be the most prudent course of action.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe try a two-weapon fighting fighter so you can be more powerful than the wizards.Sure, he could do that.
If the Wizard dumped his Intelligence like the Fighter did. And was naked (no spell component pouch or anything). And the Fighter got to go first. And was 5 feet away from and 10 levels higher than said Wizard.
SmiloDan's joke was referencing how "this DM also believes that a fighter will always win against a wizard of the same level".
|
|
Off-topic but somewhat related joke: I had a GM once who believed, for several reasons that he often voiced, that Fighters were stronger than Wizards, Wizards were stronger than Rogues, and Rogues were stronger than Fighters.
It leant the rest of us to make rock/paper/scissors jokes, with Clerics representing the players.
Got to agree with everyone: every attack that qualifies gets sneak attack damage.
We'd need a pretty good citation to ignore the text from the core rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's so weird that everyone on the interwebs is agreeing with each other! :-D
It's so weird that everyone on the interwebs is agreeing with each other! :-D
No they aren't. : )
It's so weird that everyone on the interwebs is agreeing with each other! :-DNo they aren't. : )
LOL!
It's so weird that everyone on the interwebs is agreeing with each other! :-D
Mark this one down as a first.
Yes, rogues get sneak attack damage on all attacks that qualify.
GM is wrong. Thread is right.