Question about sneak attack

[Lord Shaene]

A have a question about sneak attacks, say for an example you are a thief and are able to surprise an opponent from behind leaving him flat-footed and unaware and you have the ability to attack twice per round, are both you attacks considered sneak attacks or just the first one?

[Riegan Swordwraith]

Is this 2nd Ed or 3rd??In 2nd you only got one.....PERIOD.In 3rd they never said you only got one.But if you are the DM I HIGHLY recommend you find ways of limiting the hell out of it.If you have a power-gamer in your group,or a Rules Lawyer for that fact,they will rape that mother for everything they can.

I would personally limit to only the first attack.You also have to be careful about flanking.I rule I have come up with is even if technically you and a fellow player flank someone,but the enemy is NOT engaged in combat with the other player,you CANNOT get your bonus dice to damage.To me a sneak attack,and the reason you get extra damage,is because you are catching an opponent off-guard and you are being careful to hit him where it would hurt the most.You cannot do that with two-swords zipping around,or if a guy is doing nothing but paying attention to you,and is waiting for you to come up to him.

[Lord Eldred]

Since I am the DM in Lord Shaene's world, I will rule with Riegan on the grounds he puts forth. Once the first weapon hits the opponent is no longer off guard!

[Lawgiver]

It depends on the definition of: 'you have the ability to attack twice per round'. If its a single weapon and you get two attacks, I would apply it only to the first attack. If its two weapons I would give to both since you could weild them simultaneously. I know that give massive advantage, but combat is deadly, especially unseen blows from behind.

DISCLAIMER: However, I would stress to the player the limitations of using this ability. I often abuse abusive players with their own devices. A player who backstabs regularly is warned once, if they continue they are soon backstabbed (even if it kills them) themself. Perhaps adding an experience penalty bonus would also be an added deterent. I prefer to keep my players from playing evil PCs. They are heros, and backstabbing isn't very heroic. If the PC feels its absolutely necessary they will be willing to sacrafice EXP for the greater good (which may actaully yeild bonus EXP...).

[Lord Shaene]

Riegan, you make some good points, but here are so counter points, 1. if you sneak attack and do some massive damage that in turn would probably stun the guy since he wasn't expecting it, this giving you another oppurtunity to sneak attack the guy again. 2nd obviously if a guy is facing u and defending against u it would be hard to get in a sneak attack, but if you sneak attacked a guy and he decided to keep defending against the other guy who is flanking you, why shouldn't u get another sneak attack if that guy is stupid enough not to turn around. also i believe the named the ability wrong, the reason you get the extra damage is not completely because you surprised the guy but because you are especially trained to hit vital parts and if that guy is not in postition to defend against it ie flat footed, flanked or surprised then he is open to such an attack. as for you Lord Eldred, shame on you, a debate expert yourself and you make a decision before you hear all the arguments, I should have you barred as a judge since you make decisions before the debate is over. and whats with you people trying to limit abilities, a wizard can take out a whole group of creatures with a fireball, but you give a thief the ability to do some decent damage against one opponent under special circumstances and you want to limit it. exp penalty for back stabbing? are you kidding me? why because it isnt heroic? oh yeah, wiping out a party of orcs with one fireball is real heroic because we all know they had a fair chance to kill the wizard whos standing a 100 feet away with their short swords before he got that fireball off, but killing one in the back is evil.
cmon people come up with better excuses then that.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I agree that Backstabs (or sneak/flanking attacks) shouldn't be penalized. Its hard enough to get a backstab when its needed, limiting this ability is ridiculous. Not all heros are honorable people. Its not overpowered (anymore) and shouldn't be any more limited than any other classes abilities.

I do believe that only the first strike should count (or two if two weapons are involved, if the player can explain how they are used). If the victim intentionally ignores the source, further attacks could be possible. However, I think that even if the victim doesn't about face to his sneak-assailant, it doesn't neccesarily mean that he/she isn't trying to defend themselves against them. The victim could try to open their stance up a bit without changing face, to thwart further sneak attacks. I don't know if this works perfectly, but a continuous stream of super-attacks is terribly unbalanced.

[dmferry]

In the Phb (3rd) page 47 states "if an rogue can catch a opponent when he unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can attack a vital spot for extra damage" it goes on that the victim must be denied his dex bonus and while the rogue has the advantage and the victim is flat-footed for the whole time the rogue attacks even when the rogue gets 2 or 3 attacks. They are all sneak attacks and do extra damage.

When the victims can act he is no longer flat-footed. Thats why all rogues should have Improved Init and a decent Dex. Murder machines :0

dmferry
sorry if I broke © rights :(

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver
Perhaps adding an experience penalty bonus would also be an added deterent...

Before you jump down my throat, please note I said 'PERHAPS'...
I've lucked out and had responsible players who don't abuse the rules, so this isn't an issue. I was throwing oout ideas to limit the power gamers and abusive players.

based on the rule quoted by DMFerry its my judgement that the second attack would still get the bonus since the opponent is technically caught off guard for the entire round. At best an intiative roll would need to be made to attempt a meager parry.

[Lord Shaene]

Lawgiver, I dont see your point, using your sneak attack ability should not be considered abusive, even if your able to use it more then once in a fight. and remember certain conditions need to exist even to use the ability.

[Lawgiver]

Fair, heroic, and honorable are are three very different things

To me abusive is when the first thing out of a theif player's mouth is "I want to sneak attack the guy", before you even finish describing the situation, or when they try for sneak attacks in the most absurd situations when such an action would be all but impossible. There comes a point when rules regardless of the accuracy defeats the purpose and fun in roleplaying.

[blitzmacher]

Wanting to sneak attack should be a rogues main goal in combat. Think about it, a rogue lives a life trying to get the most from any situation from the least amount of work and the least amount of danger to themselves. That is the life of a rogue, but if they are trying to bend the rules to suit their needs then they are bad players and no longer roleplaying. The rules regarding the sneak attack are there for a reason and cover the action fairly well. If they don't then the DM takes rules, and if the player wines about it give them some cheese and drive on.

[Lord Shaene]

Well Said Blitzmacher

[blitzmacher]

Thank you Lord Shaene

[Lord Shaene]

You are most welcome!

[Riegan Swordwraith]

I am not disputing the actual backstab.When the target is unaware or unable to defend himself,ie "flat-footed".THAT is not the problem.The problem comes with the flanking.Rogues get that extra damage when they flank someone.Lord Shaene I specifically said that if the flankee is NOT engaged with the person who you are using to Flank,then that means his attention is not being diverted,therefore you cant hit those sweet spots.

You have to "limit" flank attacks and backstabs because they did leave those rules kind of loose.When I said limiting them,I was meaning making a judgement call on those rules.The reason you have to is because of those pesky power gamers.For example.A rogue in our FR game,who is 8th level(multi-classed from hell and back....But mostly rogue),ALWAYS out-damages our Fighter,monk,paladin,and quire often our sorceror combined!!!!How you may ask??Cause he only atacks when he flanks,whether or not the opponent is engaged,has multiple attacks,and uses two weapons.So he makes four attacks with his bonus damage attacks on each attack.And that is going by the rules!!!The rules are not perfect.They would be if no one abused them like this,and technically a case can be made that it is the DM's fault,but before this,it was not necessarry!!!

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

That sucks. That definately should be limited. I think that the victim should be able to become aware after the first barrage of attacks. Its naturally difficult to fight two people at once, but if both are in sight or accounted for, then it should become quite a bit easier. (Plus how many vital spots can their be?) If its a problem, consider a sneak attack a called shot, apply an initiative penalty for the concentration, and allow only the called shot for that round. I can't think of a better fix.

[Strahd]

In the case of the rogue you are talking about.... don't let him flank. The bad guy can easily understand who damaged him because he hit him hard and who damaged him just because he knew where to strike. So he should turn to the rogue.
Also present some challenges to the PCs; MAKE the rogue act on 1-vs.-1 as the rest PCs, or on a 1-6 basis, surrounded possibly by 6 nasty mid-level fighters (with Power Attack and some similar feats to deal more damage). Don't let him get away constantly ;)

[Lord Shaene]

Ok first things first, it seems you are all talking about how to limit power gamers and abusive players, Ok my original question was about if a thief can attack twice per round with one weapon, when the thief has a legal opportunity to use his sneak attack, should he be allowed to use the sneak attack on both attacks according to the rules. you are all giving examples on how not to let a thief flank or how to penalize him or give him a challenge. my thief fights one on one all the time, but when given the oppurtunity to do a sneak attack i will and i would like to get the most benefit out of it according to the rules. you never see a wizard turn down an opportunity to use a fireball by going into melee range and fight with a dagger, or a priest takes his war hammer and fight undead without trying to turn the undead first etc. etc..
reigan you mentioned someone being flanked and not engaged. if a fighter is fighting someone and you flank the enemy with him , he must be engaged with someone or he is not defending himself. if he chooses to fight and defend the thief then there is no chance for a sneak attack although he is then giving the fighter a better chance to hit him. but if he chooses to defend the fighter then a sneak attack exists. in real life if you were attacked by two people, wouldnt you make sure there was a wall behind you so you couldnt be flanked? but say you couldnt then the guy in back of you has a huge advantage doesnt he, especially if he is a master at attacking people from that position such as a thief who hones his skills to do massive damage in that situation. I can go on and on about how other classes have just as big of an advantage when the situation is right. so don't try and downgrade a thiefs ability, if he is smart and crafty enough to make the situation in his favor and deal out big damage that is his reward. if the thief is getting a sneak attack on every attack it seems its the Dm who is screwing up not the thief he's just doing what comes natural.

[blitzmacher]

Well said Lord Shaene

[Lawgiver]

I have already stated that both attacks should be given the benefit of sneak attack if they occur in the same round. I fully agree with you that a theif's ability should not normally be limited. I'm all for a theif taking full advantage of his abilities, just not abusing them. Just as any DM and player group would be extremely frustrated if all a wizard did was cast fireball or some other specific spell in everysingle combat situation. It gets frustrating when every combat sequence degrades to mindless dice rolls and a fixed series of actions. "Orcs! Oh look a fireball... FAAAWOOOP!!! Oh well! Maybe we'll get to fight something next time."

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

as for you Lord Eldred, shame on you, a debate expert yourself and you make a decision before you hear all the arguments, I should have you barred as a judge since you make decisions before the debate is over. .

Lord Shaene I have retired from the debate coaching and judging profession to take on the new role as omnipotent administrator. What I say is right, no questions asked! :P :) ;)

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by dmferry

In the Phb (3rd) page 47 states "if an rogue can catch a opponent when he unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can attack a vital spot for extra damage" it goes on that the victim must be denied his dex bonus and while the rogue has the advantage and the victim is flat-footed for the whole time the rogue attacks even when the rogue gets 2 or 3 attacks. They are all sneak attacks and do extra damage.

When the victims can act he is no longer flat-footed. Thats why all rogues should have Improved Init and a decent Dex. Murder machines :0

dmferry
sorry if I broke © rights :(

Now here is someone who knows how to debate. Quoting the rules from the book, now that is good. However, I do need to remind you that somewhere it says that rules are made to serve as a guideline and that DM for the purpose of improving their campaign can adapt, change, eliminate any rules they see fit.

As far as copyright laws are concerned, I think we have permission to quotes stuff as long as we are not trying to make a profit off the quote. So I won't pay you the five dollars you requested ;)

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver

I have already stated that both attacks should be given the benefit of sneak attack if they occur in the same round. I fully agree with you that a theif's ability should not normally be limited. I'm all for a theif taking full advantage of his abilities, just not abusing them. Just as any DM and player group would be extremely frustrated if all a wizard did was cast fireball or some other specific spell in everysingle combat situation. It gets frustrating when every combat sequence degrades to mindless dice rolls and a fixed series of actions. "Orcs! Oh look a fireball... FAAAWOOOP!!! Oh well! Maybe we'll get to fight something next time."


Lord Shaene, I know that you agree with Lawgiver's last argument because it frustrated you that a certain wizard/fighter would only use spells and always wanted to use his fireball instead of using the appropriate response for the situation.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

Lord Shaene,you are missing the point behind the example I was setting forth with the flanking example.When I said the opponent is not engaged in combat with your party member,and he can focus on you,why should you get a flanking bonus at all??The whole thing is they leave the rules loose for ease of play,but they did not take into account all the factors.

I have always agreed that one should take full advantage of your abilities.But there comes a time when it gets ridiculous.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

You know I just thought of something........Why do they have flanking rules at all???There is no facing in 3rd Edition D&D.I can remember only ONE instance where there is truly anything that resembles facing,and that is using a tower shield.So if the point of the bonuses to flanking someone has to come from them having their attention diverted correct??If the flankee is not engaed in combat with one flanker,means his attention is not averted,therefore no bonus.



Now what I just did was what every power-gamer does...finds something in the rules and exploits it.I looked at the rules and as a DM made a call for in my game.

Lord Shaene if you run your games where the rules are used as is,all power to you.That means you don't have someone in your gaming group who just constatnty rapes the rules.I unfortunately cannot.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

Let me appologise to you Lord Shaene if I seem to be too defensive.I hate to type and sometimes it seems hard to get your point across when you try to do it in as few words as possible,cause I hate to type!!!:)I am not trying to be bumholish,just trying to make my point at the same time trying to see yours.

Thank you very much!!!

[Sellenus]

You appologise Lord Swordwraith? Such etiquette, a pleasure to see.:)

[Sellenus]

Lord Shaene, as for the original question...

We follow the book rule on this and allow each attack to be a sneak attack. At first it seemed kinda grey area, thinking that the defender became aware after the first attack. But consider how much time passes before the rogues additional attack(s) happen in the same round. Certainly not enought time to react. The following round however, any creature with basic survival instincts will act on the biggest threat, and being sneak attacked more than qualifies. This is how our game works anyway. Obviously this is not rule quoting.

But like I said, in our games, if a rogue sneak attacks he will generally become a target the next round. Our DM has a nasty crit die, and this has ended a few rogues.

[dmferry]

Thank you Lord Eldred forget about the 5 dollars (ehh euro)

Riegan Swordwraith I agree that a sneaky thief who sneak attacks every monster it sees is very annoying. Every body had or has players like this and every DM has his own solutions.

The usual quotes :

Face

How wide a face a combatant presents in combat. Face is essentially the border between the square or rectangular space that a combatant occupies and the space next to it. These faces are abstract, not "front, back, left, and right," because combatants are constantly moving and turning in battle. Unless a combatant is immobile, it practically doesn't have a front or a left side—at least not one that can be identified on the tabletop.

Flanking

If a combatant is making a melee attack against an opponent, and an ally directly opposite the combatant is threatening the opponent, the combatant and the combatant's ally flank the opponent. A combatant gains a +2 flanking bonus on the attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target. The ally must be on the other side of the opponent, so that the opponent is directly between the combatant and the ally.

My solution : Use the same tactic / rules against him. If a rogue has 2 weapons (and all feats) and attacks with 2 weapons he gets lots of penalties and even more when he attacks with 4 attacks (2 weapons, 2 hands, lots of levels).
That means he is a high level and the opponents are even bigger and nastier than him.

1) To attack he must stand close enough and 2 or more attacks are a full action he can't get away. Hit him with every attack the nasty NPC/monster has. This will reduce his hitpoints. Keep up this attack and ignore the simple fighter attacks. He however flanks the NPC so you must kill him quick

2) If he waits in the shadow make a rogue who has atleast 3 or 4 levels of rogue more than him (look up sneak attack under rogue section). And sneak attack him then have a henchman flank him and bye bye thief. Maybe he is hiding in the shadow and the NPC thief hides beside him to attack the party.

3) Don't allow ranged attacks because the flanking rule doesn't applie to ranged weapons

4) Check his attacks. 2 weapons with 2 hands is no automatic 4 attacks. He has to have quite a few levels to make all 4 attacks count.

What I mean to say that you can beat this killer thief with the same rules that made the killer thief.

~dmferry
Rules from http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html
and I don't want money.

[dmferry]

okay I want money but not for the quotes :0

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I still feel that in order to hit precisely the vulnerable areas, a thief should have to concentrate. Hence, if you believe that repeated sneak attacks are unbalanced (you try to punch someone 5 times with any amount of fists before they react, difficult eh...) then I suggest limiting the sneak attack to a lesser number of strikes. If you are fine with the rules, let your thieves run your campaign (if they insist).

[Strahd]

...you were a pro boxer, and a light-weight one? you could use 5 times, before the other would have time to react. You 'd still have to be a 20th level boxer though to do that :)