PDA

View Full Version : Sneak Attack- A question to DM's.



TempusCCK
2008-12-28, 01:11 AM
How do you other DMs out there rule sneak attack?

From the way I view it, there are two ways to interpret the sneak attack ruling.

1) Any attack the Rogue makes in a round where an opponent is flat-footed/flanked is adds sneak attack dice. Meaning that a TWF Rogue hitting with both weapons is getting sneak attack dice on all attacks as long as they have a buddy on the other side. This is the insane way to rule it, but there could be some interpretation of that.

2) You add sneak attack dice once per round, regardless of the number of times you attack. This is what I do.

Is there any other interpretations available, how do you guys do it?

KKL
2008-12-28, 01:13 AM
Number one is the actual application of sneak attack. Number two is a crippling houserule.

Ka'ladun
2008-12-28, 01:28 AM
In 3.5 edition, the former is the correct ruling. In 4th, the latter.

TempusCCK
2008-12-28, 02:45 AM
Guess my way is kind of a holdover from Second Edition, then again, we don't play very high power games, so sneak attacking for huge amounts of damage hasn't really held our Rogues back at all.

Irreverent Fool
2008-12-28, 05:53 AM
Guess my way is kind of a holdover from Second Edition, then again, we don't play very high power games, so sneak attacking for huge amounts of damage hasn't really held our Rogues back at all.

It's not huge amounts of damage. It's any damage at all. Look at the most recent comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0618.html) for example. Compare my very simple example of two 10th level characters:

Fighter 10, STR 20 (with items), Power Attack, +3 greataxe, flanking

Assuming the Fighter takes a -5 on his Power Attack, he'll have a +15/+10 to hit for 1d12+20 damage for an average of 26.5 damage on a successful hit.

Rogue 10, STR 14, DEX 20, Weapon finesse, TWF, Improved TWF, +3 Shortswordx2, Flanking

+12/+12/+7/+7 to deal 6d6+5/6d6+5/6d6+4/6d6+4 for an average of 26/26/25/25

Looks like a lot of damage, I know.

There are fourteen CR 10 monsters in the Monster Manual. Three are immune to sneak attack, four are spellcasters, three are hydras, two of the non-constructs have DR 10 which is going to hurt the TWF rogue more than the fighter. Most of them have an AC of 22/23.

{table]Name|Armor Class|Extra
Animated object|AC 11|construct, DR 5(wood)
Bebilith|AC 22|DR 10/good
Couatl|AC 21|(spells)
Formian, mymarch|AC 28|hive mind
Fire giant|AC 23|
Clay Golem|AC 22|construct
Hyrdra|AC 21, 19, 19|
Guardian Naga|AC 18|(spells)
Rakshasa|AC 21|(spells)
Noble Salamander|AC 18|(spells)
Gray Slaad|AC 24|DR 10/lawful
Garg. Mons. scorpion|AC 24[/table]

Just looking at the AC 22, this means that even power attacking for 5, the fighter has a 70%/45% to hit for that average 26.5 damage.

The rogue has 50%/50%/25%/25% to hit for an average of 26/26/25/25.

Assuming I remember that little bit of statistics I took, this works out to an expected return of 30.475 damage on a full-attack from the fighter and an expected return of 38.5 damage from the rogue. The rogue fares slightly better against a flanked opponent who can be affected by sneak attack with no damage reduction. No, this is not huge amounts of damage.

But what about the lower AC monsters? Well I could fumble through some rough math, but remember that the fighter can up his power attack all the way to +20 damage and still have a +8 to hit even without flanking in order to carve up that AC 11 Animated Banquet Table.

Also bear in mind that while the rogue requires three feats to do the above, the fighter requires only one and has many extra feat slots.

Given that in ideal conditions a rogue compares in damage output to a fighter and that in many MANY situations a rogue will not be able to apply sneak attack whereas the fighter will ALWAYS be able to power attack, I cannot help but feel that #2 indeed is a crippling houserule in a game that is almost completely about combat.

obnoxious
sig

TempusCCK
2008-12-28, 07:09 AM
Yes, but a Rogue isn't supposed to hit near as often as a fighter or nearly as hard. But yes, I see your point, however, this is only applicable in games where the MM enemies are going to come into play. Personally, I prefer humanoid enemies with class levels for multiple reasons, and that's usually what I use as enemies.

As I've said, it's kind of a hold over from Second Edition and since we generally do very low powered games, I've never really given it much thought, hence, the thread asking how other people do it, hence, me now learning more about it.

(Actually, this was in response to me playing my first online game and not quite knowing what the majority ruling was. I understand that the way I play my games isn't exactly the way others play theirs. Good to get a little perspective sometimes.)

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 08:16 AM
The "majority ruling" is to follow the actual D&D rules. I'd never consider crippling the only possible way a Rogue character can contribute in fights. Without sneak attack they're just part of the scenery. Maybe some players are content with only the skill monkey aspect of the class, but D&D spends a great deal of time on combat, as Irreverent Fool pointed out. Forcing Rogue characters to be irrelevant to most combats is an insult. Please give your Rogue players the same respect you give to other classes, and just play according to the RAW.

Neithan
2008-12-28, 08:58 AM
In the campaigns I master, Sneak Attack is a Standard Action and Flanking doesn not allow to make one.
This is different from what the PHB says, but in my games, the rogue is not a combat class but a utility class. (Also the Priest is a support class opposed to the combat class that the Cleric is and there's not much resting for the wizards and druids, so I don't think it unfair.)

Kurald Galain
2008-12-28, 09:06 AM
Please give your Rogue players the same respect you give to other classes, and just play according to the RAW.

Whuh? Because RAW is so well-balanced, you mean?

Seriously, I've never been in a single D&D campaign that didn't use some kind of houseruling.

Dallas-Dakota
2008-12-28, 09:08 AM
The Rogue in 3.5E and 4E(don't really know it from earlier editions, the rules about sneak attack I mean) also gets a sneak attack in the surprise round or if the enemy/target hasn't noticed the rogue. According to my memory...could somebody please confirm/deny?

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 09:10 AM
Yes, when enemies are flatfooted (haven't had their initiative come up for the first time in a combat) they're vulnerable to sneak attack.

PinkysBrain
2008-12-28, 09:11 AM
With the house rules in this thread any rogue which goes into melee without having very low intelligence is metagaming, because that is just not a very smart thing to do. "Utility" classes shouldn't be in melee ...

KeresM
2008-12-28, 09:13 AM
Seriously, I've never been in a single D&D campaign that didn't use some kind of houseruling.

Usually the houseruling is to level the playing field, not to completely nerf one class in favor of another.

Matthew
2008-12-28, 09:31 AM
How do you other DMs out there rule sneak attack?

From the way I view it, there are two ways to interpret the sneak attack ruling.

1) Any attack the Rogue makes in a round where an opponent is flat-footed/flanked is adds sneak attack dice. Meaning that a TWF Rogue hitting with both weapons is getting sneak attack dice on all attacks as long as they have a buddy on the other side. This is the insane way to rule it, but there could be some interpretation of that.

2) You add sneak attack dice once per round, regardless of the number of times you attack. This is what I do.

Is there any other interpretations available, how do you guys do it?

Heh, heh. This was one of the first topics that I was involved in on GitP a couple of years back. I was also surprised to find that people thought a sneak attack should apply to more than one attack per round. The majority internet opinion does indeed appear to be that restricting its applicability in this way significantly handicaps the rogue relative to the fighter, scout, ranger, etcetera. Obviously, comparing them to high level clerics and wizards is a waste of effort.

I ran the numbers at the time, and found that I do not consider it a big deal either way, but the RAW is fairly clear that you can apply sneak attack to any and all attacks you make in a round so long as the conditions are met.

Blood_Lord
2008-12-28, 09:35 AM
1) Utility classes? Please don't hurt my brain. There is no such thing as a utility class.

2) Tempus, when you say a carry over from 2e, do you mean 2e backstab rules, or the retarded concept that some characters shouldn't be allowed to fight well, because if they were actually useful they'd be real characters instead of a burden?

ericgrau
2008-12-28, 09:41 AM
Even with sneak attacks as written, the rogue falls behind true martial classes. You don't need to hurt him further. And anyway TWF is a trap for a class that is already highly fragile and low AB, especially if you don't have massive splatbook cheese to go with it to insure invulnerability and hits. In fact I'd recommend that a rogue often go range (if you can still pull of the SA's via surprise/initiative/invisiblity) or use a mithril buckler in melee (no armor check penalty = no non-proficiency penalty) or only TWF targets that suck at AC & fighting back. That second one with the buckler is straight from one of WotC's early guides, still on their website archives. Aww, I miss the days when they actually understood their own product better than the masses. As a wild guess I'm blaming the massive layoffs, or maybe it depends which employee is talking at the time, who knows.

House rules are great but when people cut or add massive chunks of the system without even testing - at best using mocking & ridicule - it shows a certain level of arrogance. Even on the off chance the system really were so horrendously screwed up, you really expect massive changes simply off the top of your head to be better? I'm speaking in general here; the OP merely made a common mistake. But others take their common mistakes, elevate them to absolute truth and use them to engage in bashing.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 09:42 AM
Seriously, I've never been in a single D&D campaign that didn't use some kind of houseruling. Here are my top 3 house rules:
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (By RAW, no full attack ever provokes.)
Feather Fall (redefined as an immediate action spell) can be cast when flatfooted.
Beyond fixing those obvious screwups that should have been handled by errata, I try to live with the RAW.

UserClone
2008-12-28, 10:28 AM
Feather Fall was already fixed, I'd change the monk one to: Improved Unarmed Strike grants proficiency, and the full attack one, I'd never noticed, because it seems like common sense. Who tried to abuse that?:smallconfused:

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 10:39 AM
Feather Fall was already fixed It was? Where? Complete Arcane includes this:
Casting feather fall is an immediate action (instead of a free action, as stated in the spell description in the Player’s Handbook), since the spell can be cast at any time.
...
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed. Spell Compendium Errata added this for Nerveskitter:
“Unlike other immediate actions, you can cast this spell while flat-footed.” I haven't seen anything like that for Feather Fall.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-28, 10:47 AM
house rules:[LIST]
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks.
.

ok explain. is there some form of different attack bonus involved? maybe focus?

UserClone
2008-12-28, 10:49 AM
Ah, I hadn't seen the Errata on Nerveskitter. An easy and completely reasonable house rule, then, my bad.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 10:57 AM
ok explain. is there some form of different attack bonus involved? maybe focus? Huh? No. It's just that if you look at the Monk class description under "Weapon and Armor Proficiency", there's no mention of either "unarmed strike" or "all simple weapons". So RAW says that Monks would incur the -4 penalty for nonproficiency on all their unarmed attacks.
Simple Weapon Proficiency [General]

Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Special: All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
Hence my house rule.

ericgrau
2008-12-28, 11:00 AM
Here are my top 3 house rules:
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (By RAW, no full attack ever provokes.)
Feather Fall (redefined as an immediate action spell) can be cast when flatfooted.
Beyond fixing those obvious screwups that should have been handled by errata, I try to live with the RAW.

On the unarmed attacks, I couldn't find a rule one way or another on this. But it seems strongly implied that there's no such thing as unarmed strike proficiency. Or basically everyone has it, right down to commoners, if you prefer to think of it that way. That and the ranged attack one seems like "Okay, if you want to get that technical then fine just house rule it back to what it was supposed to be anyway."

Feather fall OTOH, really surprised me. Can't use a spell made for surprise falls when you're surprised? Huh?? That one seems like an oversight.

Anyway kudos for basically running a campaign by the rules. And house rules that clarify the rules even better are A-OK in my book.

valadil
2008-12-28, 11:03 AM
Letting sneak attack hit several times per turn works out okay. Smart enemies will avoid the flank. Most of the time the rogue has to tumble into a flank and then he'll only get one attack anyway. If he hits a full sneak attack once or twice per combat, it's not that big a deal.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-12-28, 11:09 AM
If all the conditions are met for Sneak Attack, then it can be done as many times in a round as the Rogue can attack. Simple and effective.

Noneoyabizzness
2008-12-28, 11:42 AM
Huh? No. It's just that if you look at the Monk class description under "Weapon and Armor Proficiency", there's no mention of either "unarmed strike" or "all simple weapons". So RAW says that Monks would incur the -4 penalty for nonproficiency on all their unarmed attacks.
Hence my house rule.

wow never noticed that before.
how very odd.

Tehnar
2008-12-28, 12:05 PM
Just thought to mention:

If you use the ye olde invisibility, and then make a full attack, only the for the first attack the opponent is considered flatfooted, and to the others no.

The improved invisibility allows flatfootedness on all attacks.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 12:11 PM
The improved invisibility allows flatfootedness on all attacks. Correction: being visually undetectable does not make a target flat-footed; it merely denies them their DEX bonus to AC. There's a big difference. Flat-footed characters can't take immediate actions, can't take AoOs, and are vulnerable to special attacks that won't work on characters just denied their DEX bonus.

Tehnar
2008-12-28, 12:30 PM
True, my mistake.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-28, 05:28 PM
On the unarmed attacks, I couldn't find a rule one way or another on this. But it seems strongly implied that there's no such thing as unarmed strike proficiency. Or basically everyone has it, right down to commoners, if you prefer to think of it that way.
Nope! Unarmed strike is listed as a simple weapon. Druids, wizards, and monks are not given proficiency with unarmed strikes by the rules.

The rules may not specifically say that a character is only proficient weapons she is explicitly given proficiency with, but duh! There are lots of things the rules don't tell you you can't do, like giving your character a +10 bonus to all rolls just because you feel like it. Things not explicitly permitted are implicitly disallowed.

(On the other hand, when the rules do give you permission to do something, they by default give you permission to do it however you please, barring explicit restriction. You are allowed to attack orcs named Steve, even though this specific case is not covered directly. Really, both of these concepts are pure common sense, yet I've seen discussions where people ask, apparently sincerely, whether the rules are meant to be permissive or restrictive.)

So it's an oversight that monks do not receive unarmed strike proficiency by RAW, and also that the Improved Unarmed Strike feat neither requires nor grants proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Skjaldbakka
2008-12-28, 05:47 PM
I ran the numbers at the time, and found that I do not consider it a big deal either way, but the RAW is fairly clear that you can apply sneak attack to any and all attacks you make in a round so long as the conditions are met.

I find this quite odd. There is a significant difference, numerically, even if you aren't 2WFing, in getting sneak attack with more than one attack each round.

Especially if you are relying on sneak attack for your damage output, like a lot of rogues do.

kamikasei
2008-12-28, 06:08 PM
So it's an oversight that monks do not receive unarmed strike proficiency by RAW, and also that the Improved Unarmed Strike feat neither requires nor grants proficiency with unarmed strikes.

It's less clear than that. Unarmed strikes are listed on the weapons table in the equipment section, but in other places they are listed as distinct from weapons - for example, the weapon focus and weapon finesse feats. A case could be made (and I will make it) that unarmed strikes are not really weapons, one cannot be proficient or nonproficient in them, and their inclusion on the weapons table is just done for convenience and happens to be confusing as a side-effect.

Curmudgeon
2008-12-28, 06:17 PM
It's less clear than that. Unarmed strikes are listed on the weapons table in the equipment section, but in other places they are listed as distinct from weapons - for example, the weapon focus and weapon finesse feats. A case could be made (and I will make it) that unarmed strikes are not really weapons Unarmed strikes are not excluded from being considered weapons at all. In fact, the rules specifically mention this "empty hand" strike as a weapon so that players won't overlook unarmed strike in weapon-specific feats.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

kamikasei
2008-12-28, 06:30 PM
Unarmed strikes are not excluded from being considered weapons at all. In fact, the rules specifically mention this "empty hand" strike as a weapon so that players won't overlook unarmed strike in weapon-specific feats.

There is a certain amount of confusion in the way the rules use the term "weapon". There are natural and manufactured weapons, simple, martial and exotic, light, one-handed and two-handed... In some places a rule is defined as interacting with "weapons", so in other places unarmed strike is said to be "considered a <whatever> weapon" to clarify how it interacts with that rule.

I was mistaken to reference the weapon finesse feat; it seems to lump unarmed strikes in under light weapons. Weapon focus, on the other hand, says:

"Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike..."

Here it seems unarmed strike is not considered any type of weapon. There is similar wording under weapon specialization.

It seems that unarmed strikes are:
- neither natural nor manufactured (since natural weapons are a category with a host of restrictions and special rules, none of which seem to apply to unarmed strikes);
- neither simple, martial, nor exotic, and in fact don't interact with proficiency at all;
- light weapons, when that matters.
How effects that work on natural weapons affect unarmed strikes is, as I recall, not very clear either.

All in all, though, the references that exclude unarmed strikes from the heading of "weapon" at all outweigh the (one) reference to it being a simple weapon (which is on a table anyway!). The problem is that the term "weapon" is never really properly defined and variously used to mean a manufactured weapon, a manufactured or natural weapon, or anything you can use to deal damage.

edit: I would also point out that your quote says "an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon". Is it not suggestive that it doesn't say "an unarmed strike is a light weapon"? That certainly has the sound of "it isn't really, but for these purposes we treat it as" to me.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-28, 07:47 PM
It also says that it's always considered a light weapon. If that doesn't mean that it's treated as a light weapon for all purposes -- including proficiency and non-proficiency -- what does it mean?

"Considered to be" is functionally equivalent to "is" so far as the rules are concerned. If you follow an instruction to treat X as Y, then you run the game the same way as you would if it said that X is Y! If you don't, you're treating it as not Y! That's what "treat as" means!

kamikasei
2008-12-28, 08:06 PM
It also says that it's always considered a light weapon. If that doesn't mean that it's treated as a light weapon for all purposes -- including proficiency and non-proficiency -- what does it mean?

The light/one-handed/two-handed categories have nothing to do with proficiency.

And I read it as "when the question of how 'heavy' an unarmed strike is comes up, treat it as a light weapon". That's what I mean by drawing a distinction between "considered to be" and "is". Rules in one place say how they treat light, one-handed, or two-handed weapons. Rules in another place say that unarmed strike isn't really a weapon (and is neither natural nor manufactured, simple, martial or exotic), but it does make sense to apply those first rules to it, and for those purposes you treat it a particular way.

Devils_Advocate
2008-12-28, 10:56 PM
The light/one-handed/two-handed categories have nothing to do with proficiency.
... Oh. Right. I kind of got "light" mixed up with "simple" somehow. Oops.


Rules in another place say that unarmed strike isn't really a weapon
Do they actually? Which ones, where?

jamroar
2008-12-28, 11:11 PM
Huh? No. It's just that if you look at the Monk class description under "Weapon and Armor Proficiency", there's no mention of either "unarmed strike" or "all simple weapons". So RAW says that Monks would incur the -4 penalty for nonproficiency on all their unarmed attacks.
Hence my house rule.

Shouldn't unarmed strike count as a humanoid natural weapon, everyone is proficient in it by default? No one should ever take the -4 penalty for unarmed attacks.

Glimbur
2008-12-28, 11:31 PM
But you can use natural attacks as a secondary attack after your standard iterative attacks from BAB. And humans don't get a headbutt or other unarmed strike after their four swings with a greatsword, or whatever their attack sequence is.

Zeful
2008-12-28, 11:35 PM
Shouldn't unarmed strike count as a humanoid natural weapon, everyone is proficient in it by default? No one should ever take the -4 penalty for unarmed attacks.

Humans with class levels don't have any natural weapons.

RebelRogue
2008-12-28, 11:43 PM
Appearantly, this has become an undead horse by now! :smallsigh:

Skjaldbakka
2008-12-29, 12:13 AM
Why are we arguing whether or not it is a houserule that monks are proficient with unarmed strikes when no sane DM would rule otherwise? Seriously, if a DM says 'btw, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes', than party clerics start carrying around buckets of water for medicinal purposes.

kamikasei
2008-12-29, 06:40 AM
Do they actually? Which ones, where?

The weapon focus feat, which lists "any weapon" and then "...or unarmed strike, too, I guess".

Anyway, this is pretty thoroughly off-topic by now. If you want I can PM you a link to the earlier discussion on this topic from a couple of months ago. For now my main point has been made, which is just to inform the OP that the "RAW says monks aren't proficient with their fists" thing is not universally agreed upon.

Zen Master
2008-12-29, 07:00 AM
Yes, but a Rogue isn't supposed to hit near as often as a fighter or nearly as hard.

... or nearly as hard. Yes - he is. NPC's are supposed to rightly fear a rogue getting in a position to sneak attack. They are supposed to protect against such an eventuality to the best of their ability. If you think rogues do lots of damage, it's because they really should. It's what they do well.

If you fear a rogue one-shotting your BBE, you should consider having him come prepared for that. As was stated, a bit of DR and high AC drastically lowers the rogues expected damage output. Say, full plate and stoneskin. Having a bit of a miss chance would also be nice.

RebelRogue
2008-12-29, 07:14 AM
Also, in actual play getting a full attack with flanking happens pretty rarely: Barring multiclassing options like travel devotion or pounce, intelligently played enemies can usually 5' step out of your flank so that you'll have to move more than 5' yourself (usually tumbling to get there) to get back into flanking position.

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-29, 08:02 AM
To the OP:

I think Irreverent Fool has described it completely. Sneak attack on all occasions that trigger a sneak is balanced for the rogue. The higher the level of play, though, the more likely there are opponents that are immune to sneaks.


Here are my top 3 house rules:
Monks are proficient with unarmed attacks.
Each ranged shot of a full attack provokes an attack of opportunity. (By RAW, no full attack ever provokes.)
Feather Fall (redefined as an immediate action spell) can be cast when flatfooted.
Beyond fixing those obvious screwups that should have been handled by errata, I try to live with the RAW.

I think those things do not need houserules, since they are covered by the original rules.
- a monk does not need to be proficient in unARMED strikes since unARMED strikes are not a weapon, and thus you cannot get a weapon proficiency with it (sic!). In no official FAQ 3.5 example ever you'll find monk attack calculations with -4 to it. Plus, the "light weapon" entry is only put in there to categorise unarmed strikes for two-wepaon fighting or weapon finesse. Unarmed strikes are an odd animal, since they are again taken as exception to the rule for power attack (Which is not possible with light weapons, but possible with unarmed strikes).
- you always provoke AoO when using a ranged weapon. The full attack entry does not change this.
- Feather fall in the original rules had a casting time of a "free action", which can be used even when it is not your turn (see PHB). I do not know why and where that was changed to immediate action in the rules.

- Giacomo

Curmudgeon
2008-12-29, 11:09 AM
I think those things do not need houserules, since they are covered by the original rules.
- a monk does not need to be proficient in unARMED strikes since unARMED strikes are not a weapon, and thus you cannot get a weapon proficiency with it (sic!). That's an interesting way of looking at it, but it's not D&D. In the actual rules, unarmed strike is categorized as a simple weapon. Monks are proficient with several simple weapons (club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, javelin, quarterstaff, and sling) but not unarmed strike.

- you always provoke AoO when using a ranged weapon. Sorry; that's only listed in the Combat chapter under "Standard Actions".

The full attack entry does not change this. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat disagrees with you. (In case you want to raise the specter of "text trumps table", there is no disagreement in the text under "Full-Round Actions".)

- Feather fall in the original rules had a casting time of a "free action", which can be used even when it is not your turn (see PHB). I do not know why and where that was changed to immediate action in the rules. Well, I do know; it's in Complete Arcane on page 86:
Casting feather fall is an immediate action (instead of a free action, as stated in the spell description in the Player’s Handbook), since the spell can be cast at any time.
...
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed.

Sir Giacomo
2008-12-29, 02:58 PM
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but it's not D&D. In the actual rules, unarmed strike is categorized as a simple weapon. Monks are proficient with several simple weapons (club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, javelin, quarterstaff, and sling) but not unarmed strike.

Please tell me then what the PHB improved unarmed strike feat is for (apart from the lethal damage option). If unarmed strike were really weapons (and not just listed under the table simple weapons entry), then there would be no need of an unarmed strike AoO ruling.
More importantly, the PHB monk flurry of blows description (check out the 8th level monk example) and the 3.5 FAQ clearly are based on the assumption that there is no penalty for the monk to use unarmed strikes, nor is there ever a penalty for natural attacks (remember that monk's unarmed strikes count as natural attacks for the purpose of all spells and effects that enhance or improve them).
So at best we have a rules conflict between table and text, and text trumps table.
No houserule needed.


Sorry; that's only listed in the Combat chapter under "Standard Actions".

It's not listed in the combat chapter, but may interpreted this way from the PHB table 8-2 entry.
But - sorry as well. Check out the AoO section in p. 137, where attacking with a ranged weapon is listed explicitly in the text as triggering an attack of opportunity (no distinction made between standard and full attack option). Text again trumps table.
It would also not make much sense, since, for instance, a full attack with unarmed strikes without the improved unarmed strike feat would also result in AoO.


Table 8-2: Actions in Combat disagrees with you. (In case you want to raise the specter of "text trumps table", there is no disagreement in the text under "Full-Round Actions".)
Well, I do know; it's in Complete Arcane on page 86:

Well, wouldnt' you know!:smallsmile: Anyhow, it's an optional rule (like all non-core rules)- in other words also a houserule, if you so wish - and thus is can be easily remedied with another houserule.
Or, of course, just play core RAW and no problem there. The feather fall spell description alongside the general rules of free action in the PHB is enough.

Basically...we should not really discuss these three issues, since the way we would handle it in our campaigns would be the same, houserule or not.
I'd suggest you concentrate on stuff more worthwhile for houseruling, though.:smallwink:

- Giacomo

Irreverent Fool
2008-12-30, 08:15 PM
Yes, but a Rogue isn't supposed to hit near as often as a fighter or nearly as hard. But yes, I see your point, however, this is only applicable in games where the MM enemies are going to come into play. Personally, I prefer humanoid enemies with class levels for multiple reasons, and that's usually what I use as enemies.

I understand that, and I agree. My point is not that the rogue should be exactly as good as the fighter. My point is that the rogue, under ideal conditions, using most of his feats, barely surpasses the (non-optimized) fighter in raw damage.

The rogue is not going to have flanking 100% of the time. Moreover the TWF rogue suffers even more than the fighter does by being unable to make a full attack. He also suffers more when it comes to creatures with damage reduction and creatures with a high AC. This is still true if you are fighting mostly class-levelled humanoids. A DM I play with favors such campaigns and the fighter still generally outperforms the rogue even playing by the RAW.

Yes, rogues will occasionally do massive damage bursts. That is what they do. They sneak up on people and stab them.

So to answer your original post's question, OP, my group doesn't use any houserules about sneak attack in our games, though it is generally considered good form for the DM to either let the rogue know ahead of time that it's going to be a construct- or undead-heavy campaign or to allow him to find/have crafted some item that will at least occasionally allow him to be useful in combat against those things immune to sneak attack.

obnoxious
sig

Siosilvar
2008-12-30, 09:32 PM
nor is there ever a penalty for natural attacks (remember that monk's unarmed strikes count as natural attacks for the purpose of all spells and effects that enhance or improve them).
But that doesn't mean that it's considered a natural attack for anything else besides spells and effects improving it.

Frosty
2008-12-30, 09:43 PM
The weapon focus feat, which lists "any weapon" and then "...or unarmed strike, too, I guess".

Anyway, this is pretty thoroughly off-topic by now. If you want I can PM you a link to the earlier discussion on this topic from a couple of months ago. For now my main point has been made, which is just to inform the OP that the "RAW says monks aren't proficient with their fists" thing is not universally agreed upon.

Has it been a few months already?

Starbuck_II
2008-12-31, 09:52 AM
Has it been a few months already?

Yep, it is Christmas gift to us all.