[3.5] Sneak Attack and Multiple Attacks

[Prince Raven]

Hey, I've just started playing D&D (only on my third session) and I'm playing a Rogue with Two-Weapon Fighting. Now, my DM has basically decided that I can only ever get 1 sneak attack against any 1 target per round (but if I manage to attack two enemies at once I can sneak attack both of them), regardless of whether subsequent attacks get denied DEX to AC or not. He says that it would cause balance issues later in game if I could get multiple sneak attacks from flanking someone.
So basically I'm wondering if that's true and I'll still be able to keep up in combat or if I'm getting screwed over here, as I really don't know enough about the game to be able to tell. So could I get a more informed opinion please?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Only getting one SA per round kind of defeats the purpose of TWF for a rogue.
It's neither RAW nor "balanced". If your Dm does not want to reconsider his ruling you'll need to look into other sources of bonus damage to keep up.

[Cog]

So basically I'm wondering if that's true and I'll still be able to keep up in combat or if I'm getting screwed over here, as I really don't know enough about the game to be able to tell. So could I get a more informed opinion please?
Getting multiple sneak attacks is basically the only way Rogues can keep up. Let's compare to, say Disintegrate, available to a Wizard at level 11: 2d6 damage per level (as opposed to 1d6 damage per two levels for Sneak Attack, hits touch AC instead of full AC (but allows for a Fort save for reduced damage), doesn't require you to be in melee range, and doesn't require flanking, flatfooting, or any other such situational advantages. Basically, it's better than making 4 sneak attacks, and that's just one spell out of many the wizard has available.

[Glimbur]

Yes, you're going to have trouble keeping up with sneak attack limited to 1/round for an opponent. I suspect that someone will come in with Math (TM) to back this up. You have a couple of options:

1) Show the post with the Math to your DM, and try to convince him that he is in error.
2) Make your character less reliant on sneak attack. Start taking fighter levels, drop the TWF, and power attack. Or build towards a PrC that offers casting to help you catch up and pretend to be a caster or a gish. I like Suel Arcanamach, from Complete Arcane.

[Xervous]

simple maths.

parenthetical average damage is with each attack getting sneak attack damage.


level 2, twf with daggers, 20 dex, no str bonus, no magic items. 1 BAB
1x main, 1x offhand, 1d4 each, plus 1d6 sneak attack. average damage of 8.5 (or 12) given all attacks hit.
attacks are made at +4, +4 require the enemy to be denied dex to AC.
required feats: weapon finesse, two weapon fighting aka you have to be breaking the rules because rogues can't take weapon finesse until level 3.

level 2 barbarian, 20+4 str, 2handing a greatsword, raging, not power attacking, no magic items. 2 BAB
1x main, 2d6 + 10 each. average of 17 damage, again given all attacks hit.
attack is made at +9
requires 0 feat investment.


level 6, twf with daggers, 20 dex, no str bonus, no magic items. 4 BAB
1x main, 1x offhand, 1d4 each, plus 3d6 sneak attack. average damage of 15.5 (or 26) given all attacks hit.
attacks are made at +7, +7 require the enemy to be denied dex to AC.
required feats: weapon finesse, two weapon fighting

level 6 barbarian, 20+4 str, 2handing a greatsword, raging, not power attacking, no magic items. 6 BAB
2x main, 2d6 + 10 each. average of 34 damage, again given all attacks hit.
attacks are made at +13,+8
requires 0 feat investment.


level 11, twf with daggers, 22 dex, no str bonus, no magic items. 8 BAB
2x main, 2x offhand, 1d4 each, plus 5d6 sneak attack. average damage of 28 (or 80) given all attacks hit.
attacks are made at +12, +12, +7, +7, require the enemy to be denied dex to AC.
required feats: weapon finesse, two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting.

level 11 barbarian, 22+6 str, 2handing a greatsword, raging, not power attacking, no magic items. 11 BAB
3x main, 2d6 + 13 each. average of 60 damage, again given all attacks hit.
attacks are made at +20, +15, +10
requires 0 feat investment.

here is the first time we see the rogue getting more damage than a vanilla barbarian, but this is disregarding crits which happen to favor the barbarian, and giving him 0 combat feats. A simple power attack at a -5 penalty will add 30 to his average damage GIVEN ALL ATTACKS HIT, which they still have a better chance of doing than the rogue.


Also, realize that it isn't easy to deny an enemy dex to AC all the time, and a good amount of monsters are just immune to sneak attack. So while the rogue is crying in the corner, the barbarian just doesn't plain care.

[Rhynn]

NB: "average damage" should always be multiplied by your chance to hit.

Still, that quite gets the point across, because the barbarian has a better BAB and isn't taking TWF penalties, so even the rogue getting two attacks at the same bonus doesn't really help.

[Gazebo's Bane]

You're getting screwed over there.

You're already pretty much reliant on your target being susceptible to sneak attack, and near you, and flat-footed or flanked, and not having decent damage reduction. If there are any balance issues in effect here then they're against you, not in your favour.

[Flickerdart]

Sneak Attacks are intended to apply to every attack you make. The description for Babau even says "When ambushing their opponents, they make excellent use of the combination of multiple attacks and sneak attacks."

Multiple Sneak Attacks per round are RAI, RAW, balanced, and perfectly fine.

[Sylthia]

Being able to have multiple sneak attacks per round is the only thing that keeps rogues semi-viable past early-level.

[Prince Raven]

Thanks everyone, hopefully I'll be able to convince him to take pity on a poor newbie and not nerf my character.

[Chronos]

Nitpick: Multiple sneak attacks per round are the only thing that keeps rogues viable in combat. They still have plenty of out-of-combat contributions, either way.

But yeah, it's no big deal. In addition to what others have pointed out, flanking (the most reliable way to get sneak attack after the first round) requires that you be in melee range of the monsters, and you're a lot squishier than the martial classes (less HP and worse armor).

[RFLS]

Thanks everyone, hopefully I'll be able to convince him to take pity on a poor newbie and not nerf my character.

Have him make an account here and PM one of the more active, stable members, such as Ur-Priest or AttilaTheHun for an explanation on why Sneak Attack should be proc-ing every hit. Don't have him make a thread, as public shaming is uh...not constructive, and sadly, what he'd likely get.

[Sylthia]

Nitpick: Multiple sneak attacks per round are the only thing that keeps rogues viable in combat. They still have plenty of out-of-combat contributions, either way.

But yeah, it's no big deal. In addition to what others have pointed out, flanking (the most reliable way to get sneak attack after the first round) requires that you be in melee range of the monsters, and you're a lot squishier than the martial classes (less HP and worse armor).

True, but unless it's an RP-only or skill based game, it's good to be able to contribute in combat.

[Prince Raven]

True, but unless it's an RP-only or skill based game, it's good to be able to contribute in combat.

Well I've been doing so terribly skill wise (+9 to hide, move silently & open lock, +6 to sleight of hand, yet I can still fail them at the worst possible times) I was hoping I could redeem myself to the party in combat. Plus we need all the combat contribution we can get with a party made up of a paladin, a barbarian, 2 rogues, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a sorcerer.

[eggynack]

Well I've been doing so terribly skill wise (+9 to hide, move silently & open lock, +6 to sleight of hand, yet I can still fail them at the worst possible times) I was hoping I could redeem myself to the party in combat. Plus we need all the combat contribution we can get with a party made up of a paladin, a barbarian, 2 rogues, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a sorcerer.
It might be worth pointing out to your DM that you have, at best, the 5th most powerful class in your party. That's calculating it with you having sneak attack on every attack you make, and it usually assumes that you're using use magic device too. Without those things, you're likely the least powerful character in the party. Ultimately, if your DM thinks that having sneak attack on all of your attacks will make you too powerful, he's incorrect by a vast amount.

[Malroth]

Plus we need all the combat contribution we can get with a party made up of a paladin, a barbarian, 2 rogues, a druid, a wizard, a cleric and a sorcerer.



Best ally i can think of for this party would be a Dragonfire inspiration optimized bard. more than doubling the paladin's,rogues, druids, and barbarians damage output would contribute far more to the partys effectiveness than an extra sneak attacker.

[Devronq]

Hey, I've just started playing D&D (only on my third session) and I'm playing a Rogue with Two-Weapon Fighting. Now, my DM has basically decided that I can only ever get 1 sneak attack against any 1 target per round (but if I manage to attack two enemies at once I can sneak attack both of them), regardless of whether subsequent attacks get denied DEX to AC or not. He says that it would cause balance issues later in game if I could get multiple sneak attacks from flanking someone.
So basically I'm wondering if that's true and I'll still be able to keep up in combat or if I'm getting screwed over here, as I really don't know enough about the game to be able to tell. So could I get a more informed opinion please?

Actually i ruled the same when i firs started DM and i understand why he feels that way. IF you play with zero zero zero optimization and you characters are absolutely no stronger than the average nps listed in the dmg then ya i can see why it appears unbalanced. But ya as everyone said its not what the rules state...

[RFLS]

Actually i ruled the same when i firs started DM and i understand why he feels that way. IF you play with zero zero zero optimization and you characters are absolutely no stronger than the average nps listed in the dmg then ya i can see why it appears unbalanced. But ya as everyone said its not what the rules state...

Playing with zero optimization is difficult. You'd have to pick feats and skills that had no reflection on what your character was intended to do....

Anyway. It's a generally poor ruling. Power Attack has a much higher return of damage/level than Sneak Attack does.

[eggynack]

Playing with zero optimization is difficult. You'd have to pick feats and skills that had no reflection on what your character was intended to do....


Indeed so. I don't see why we're considering an optimization level at which the rogue takes the TWF line, which is pretty optimal for any character with precision damage, and the barbarian doesn't take power attack and wield a great sword, which is pretty optimal for any core melee guy with a weapon. If one character is more optimized than another, then you're likely to get results wherein the more optimized character is better off than the less optimized character.

You don't though, not really. The barbarian doesn't particularly need to power attack to outdamage the rogue at most levels, he just wants to. At level one, with 18 strength, the barbarian is doing 2d6+6 damage, which averages out at 13. The rogue, who takes weapon finesse and two weapon fighting and duel wields daggers deals about 2d4+2d6, which comes out to 12 damage. That's not an accurate number though. The barbarian gets to rage, which pumps the damage up to 16 sometimes, which far outstrips the rogue. Further, this is before taking into account the to hit. The barbarian's single hit is done at a +5, or a +7 while raging. The rogue's two hits are done at +2/+2. The game is pretty severely tilted in the barbarian's favor, in other words. These numbers are also not taking into account the fact that the barbarian's higher damage can be used anytime, while the rogue needs to set things up to get a hit in. It's not the hardest thing in the world to accomplish, but it's a problem. The rogue also has far fewer HP. In conclusion, rogue damage dealing is nowhere near crazy, even if the rogue is optimized and the barbarian isn't.

Rogues have their advantages. They get a ton of skill points off of a good list, and their trap checking abilities are decent. It's just ridiculous to put an arbitrary boundary on the rogue's damage abilities, particularly in a party with a bunch of spell casters. Seriously, there's like four of them, and one of them is a druid for maximum fighter obsoletion, and the DM is nerfing rogues. It's pretty crazy.

Edit: I forgot to mention it, but the barbarian's anytime damage is happening on a standard attack, while the rogue's conditional damage is happening on a full attack. Just as a bonus nail in the rogue's crazy damage coffin.

Double edit: I also didn't notice that they can't get weapon finesse until later. That's just dumb, seriously. Weapon finesse should just be gained as a freebie when you get a weapon that you can use it on. It wouldn't imbalance the game at all.

[gorfnab]

This may be of use to you:
Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a)
Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a)
Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Three) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a)
Rules of the Game: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a)

Rules Compendium - Page 42


A number of abilities in the game allow a creature to deal extra damage by striking a vital area. This category of abilities includes sneak attack and other abilities that work like it, such as a ninja’s sudden strike (Complete Adventurer 8) and scout’s skirmish (Complete Adventurer12). For the sake of simplicity, the extra damage such abilities deal is referred to as precision damage. Several factors are important to keep in mind regarding this sort of damage.

Precision damage applies on any attack that meets the requirements of the ability that grants the damage. This includes multiple attacks made during a full attack. If conditions somehow change between multiple attacks, attacks that not longer meet the ability’s requirements can’t deal precision damage.


v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)


If a rogue gets multiple attacks in a round (such as from
a high base attack bonus or the Rapid Shot feat), can she
make sneak attacks for all of them?

Yes, but only if each attack meets a requirement to be a
sneak attack. For instance, a rogue who flanks an enemy can
deliver a sneak attack with every melee attack she makes. A
rogue under the effect of a greater invisibility spell treats every
attack as a sneak attack, since she remains invisible despite
attacking. If later attacks in a round no longer meet any
requirement to be a sneak attack, they aren’t sneak attacks. For
example, a rogue under the effect of an invisibility spell would
deal sneak attack damage only with her first attack in a round,
because she turns visible as soon as she makes the attack.

[Prince Raven]

Cheers gorfnab, I think he'll find it hard to argue with quotes directly from the FAQ.

Yeah, eggynack, I'll definitely be getting Weapon Finesse next level, going from +0 to +5 to hit sounds nice.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that in the grand scheme of 3.5 rules, Sneak Attack is generally one of the weaker and less reliable methods of adding bonus damage. 1d6 every other level is equivalent to +3.5 average damage every other level, or +1.75 per level.

Spend 20 minutes Googling the forums and take a look at the bonuses that you can get from most spells, powers, maneuvers, soulmelds, increased size (especially on Claws of the Beast or Unarmed Strike), or Power Attack.

[Xervous]

@eggynack and whoever else was thinking along those lines...

Do note that pure rogue is incapable of taking weapon finesse until level 3 due to WF's requirement of 1 BAB, rendering rogues into what is probably the crappiest fighting class until level 3.

[eggynack]

@eggynack and whoever else was thinking along those lines...

Do note that pure rogue is incapable of taking weapon finesse until level 3 due to WF's requirement of 1 BAB, rendering rogues into what is probably the crappiest fighting class until level 3.
True enough. I forgot about that initially, but I mentioned it in an edit when I realized. As I noted, I'd probably just house rule free weapon finesse for everyone. It's probably not a move that this DM would take, because he thinks that rogues are overpowered, but it's not really a thing that imbalances the game at all, unless it's a three commoners and one rogue party.

[Curmudgeon]

Indeed so. I don't see why we're considering an optimization level at which the rogue takes the TWF line, which is pretty optimal for any character with precision damage, and the barbarian doesn't take power attack and wield a great sword, which is pretty optimal for any core melee guy with a weapon. If one character is more optimized than another, then you're likely to get results wherein the more optimized character is better off than the less optimized character.
I disagree, quite strongly, with this assessment. 3/4 BAB and a penalty to attack makes the character miss quite a lot. A requirement to only use full attacks to get any benefit reduces the utility of that feat substantially (useless in surprise rounds, or any round when you have to move). Precision damage only makes the feat choice worthwhile if the total average damage ends up higher and the additional risk is low enough so the character can still survive. Rogue + TWF fails that test.

Feats which I consider much better choices for most any Rogue include:

Craven, to increase sneak attack damage
Darkstalker, to Hide from (and thus potentially sneak attack) more enemies
Snap Kick, to get an extra attack not only with a full attack but also standard action melee attacks and even AoOs
Staggering Strike, to make any sneak attack target staggered

For smart Rogues (starting INT at least 14) who want to be good in combat, consider these feats:

Education, to make all Knowledge skills class skills
Knowledge Devotion, to give bonuses to hit and damage vs. creatures based on their associated Knowledge checks
Savvy Rogue, to let you "take 12" on mastered skills once you've gotten Skill Mastery at Rogue 10
With the above combination I can usually guarantee the Knowledge Devotion maximum of +5 to hit and damage all creatures in D&D (without rolling) by about level 14 with a Rogue, and consequently hit more often than full BAB classes.

[eggynack]

I disagree, quite strongly, with this assessment. 3/4 BAB and a penalty to attack makes the character miss quite a lot. A requirement to only use full attacks to get any benefit reduces the utility of that feat substantially (useless in surprise rounds, or any round when you have to move). Precision damage only makes the feat choice worthwhile if the total average damage ends up higher and the additional risk is low enough so the character can still survive. Rogue + TWF fails that test.

Feats which I consider much better choices for most any Rogue include:

Craven, to increase sneak attack damage
Darkstalker, to Hide from (and thus potentially sneak attack) more enemies
Snap Kick, to get an extra attack not only with a full attack but also standard action melee attacks and even AoOs
Staggering Strike, to make any sneak attack target staggered

I'm not saying that it's high optimization. I'm just saying that it's optimization. You're sticking together elements of the character such that they will be synergistic. I agree with you that those feats are probably better choices for a rogue, but in a game with only a low to moderate amount of optimization, two weapon fighting is entirely reasonable. My main point is that it's at around the same level of optimization as a barbarian with a great sword and power attack.

Two weapon fighting isn't really the best feat line ever, but it's alright on a rogue. I'm pretty sure that the total average damage does tend to be higher with two weapon fighting rather than without it, and many of the feats you listed are actually rather synergistic with two weapon fighting. Craven is because it makes the damage per hit higher, darkstalker is because it lets you get in position for a full attack sneak attack on the first round, and staggering strike is because it gives you more opportunities to get staggering in, and it makes your opponent more likely to either be full attacked again, or be useless for that round of combat. Moreover, in the rather common core only game, two weapon fighting is likely the best choice. Rogues just don't get access to much that helps their stabbing technique with those restrictions.

[Icewraith]

There's an alternate class feature in... Dungeonscape? That lets you trade one of your less useful rogue abilities to get some of your sneak attack damage against an immune target when you're flanking. With the party you're in, you shouldn't have issues between the Paladin and Barbarian (and the Druid, Druid's animal companion, and Cleric depending on what they're doing) getting a flank, so this will help your damage be much more reliable.

If you can only get one concession from your DM regarding non-core character options, make it this one. Some sneak attack damage is far preferable to no sneak attack damage against a large chunk of the more powerful and interesting monsters your DM is likely to throw at you.

The other thing you might look at is Swashbuckler levels and the feat Daring Outlaw. Swashbuckler gives full BAB and weapon finesse quite early, as well as a useful alternative class feature that increases your armor class when two-weapon fighting. (The normal class ability gives a slightly stronger dodge bonus against a single target) Daring outlaw lets your swashbuckler levels count as rogue levels for sneak attack and rogue levels as swashbuckler levels for the AC bonus. (IIRC) It doesn't advance most of your other rogue abilities and has fewer skill points, but you might consider a 3 or 4 level dip if you don't mind delaying your rogue-only stuff.

Also, consider a 1-level dip in Shadowdancer (the Darkstalker feat was mentioned earlier and is also worth taking if you go this route) for extraordinary hide in plain sight, if you like sneaking.

The only real problem with all of this is how feat starved you are. "Fixing" the rogue so it's actually stealthy, less squishy in combat, and effective with two weapons takes up most of your feats and means you won't get some of the better abilities at higher level when you really need them now.

Other things that might help you out in combat:

You have a bunch of casters, so ask for some buffs! See if you can get magic weapon or greater magic weapon so you hit more often and displacement, blur, or mirror image (I think those can be cast on other targets?) so opponents have a high chance to miss you to make up for your low AC. Blink or a ring of Blinking will only work if you have the ACF I mentioned since you can't normally sneak attack targets with miss chances.

Always remember that +2 circumstance bonus from flanking.

At higher levels you can get a wand chamber in one of your weapons along with a wand of wraithstrike (swift action activation, lets you make touch attacks instead of normal attacks for one round), which shouldn't be too hard to use if you have a good UMD skill barring some rules from UMD I'm forgetting.

Now at some point, depending on what everyone else is doing with their characters, if you do even a quarter of this your DM might start thinking you're overpowered. If you've got a good wizard you might still feel useless. If you've got a REALLY good wizard he'll be casting spells to make other party members more useful instead of solving everything himself. It all comes down to the table dynamics.

At the end of the day, a really effectively played rogue can look like a combination of batman and a ten-speed food processor - considering all the things the other classes are capable of this is where you want to be. Just don't be the guy in a batman costume that fell INTO a ten-speed food processor, which can happen if you're not careful in melee.

[TuggyNE]

There's an alternate class feature in... Dungeonscape? That lets you trade one of your less useful rogue abilities to get some of your sneak attack damage against an immune target when you're flanking. With the party you're in, you shouldn't have issues between the Paladin and Barbarian (and the Druid, Druid's animal companion, and Cleric depending on what they're doing) getting a flank, so this will help your damage be much more reliable.

I think I've heard Curmudgeon recommend the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft version (Lightbringer Penetrating Strike). I forget exactly why, but it's apparently a little better?

[Slipperychicken]

Your DM is, like many are, scared of all those big mean SA dice trashing his encounters. He probably doesn't realize just how situational that damage is, or you're playing a much lower-op environment than you thought.

[tyckspoon]

I think I've heard Curmudgeon recommend the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft version (Lightbringer Penetrating Strike). I forget exactly why, but it's apparently a little better?

The Dungeonscape one is not unambiguously Sneak Attack damage (it's based on your Sneak Attack, but it's not clear that it's still a Sneak Attack rather than a Penetrating Strike attack or what-have-you.) The Ravenloft one is, which means any Sneak Attack boosts you may have (eg the Craven feat) definitely work with it while they may not work with the Dungeonscape version.

[Chronos]

Keep in mind: The OP didn't explicitly say so, but there's a pretty good chance that the campaign he's in is core-only. So he may not be able to use Darkstalker or Craven or Dungeonscape alternate class features.

[Prince Raven]

Yeah, he's keeping it core only for simplicity's sake considering there are a few new or otherwise not very experienced players in the group, so no cheesy expansion stuff for me.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, he's keeping it core only for simplicity's sake considering there are a few new or otherwise not very experienced players in the group, so no cheesy expansion stuff for me.
Soon you'll learn that all the best stuff (Time Stop, Contingency, Shapechange, etc) is in core anyway.

[Chronos]

People say that, but it's not always true. There is certainly some overpowered stuff in Core, for some characters. But consider the recent thread asking about good druid spells: Entangle was the only core spell mentioned. And, as most in this thread have already noticed, core has very little for a rogue, as far as feats go.

[eggynack]

People say that, but it's not always true. There is certainly some overpowered stuff in Core, for some characters. But consider the recent thread asking about good druid spells: Entangle was the only core spell mentioned. And, as most in this thread have already noticed, core has very little for a rogue, as far as feats go.
There's lots of really good stuff in splat books, and there's no disputing that. It would be insane to assert that extra books don't make core characters more powerful. However, tier one classes are split 50/50 between core and non-core books, and there are so many more non-core books that it's crazy. There's certainly overpowered stuff out of core, and there's underpowered stuff out of core, but on the whole non-core books are far more balanced. Look at it this way. Out of core, you have some neat non-entangle first level spells for druids. In core, you have druids. It's no contest.

[Icewraith]

Like I said, if you can get only one non-core rogue option, get half sneak attack to immune targets while flanking. It's DM dependant, but there's usually no harm in asking one more time and specifically detailing why you want the fix and what it does if the DM preemptively bans Core.