2handed sneak attack

[JohnStone]

how bad of an idea is it?

i have full BAB. i have the option for half sneak progression so (5d6 at lvl 20)

[navar100]

What are you to give up for having it?

[JohnStone]

psychic strikes so 5d8 at 20th level that need a move action every round to charge

[SowZ]

Focusing on Str. instead of dex. and using a greatsword is a decent way to maximize damage for flanking as a rogue if that's what you are going with.

[JohnStone]

sort of its pathfinfer i figured str and dex .. oh and ill be using a mindblade:)

[BowStreetRunner]

It's not that it's a bad idea...it's just that you are working with two different mechanics that aren't going to work together with any great synergy. Two-Handed combat gives up the use of your off-hand in order to apply 1.5 times the STR bonus to melee damage rolls and double the power attack damage. Sneak-attack damage is most powerful when multiplied across many attacks. So giving up the off-hand reduces some of your options for an extra attack. You can still do it - armor spikes and things like that can be wielded without needing to take up your off-hand - but the number of options available to get these extra attacks is greatly reduced.

Plus, some of the ways to increase power attack damage tend to require conditions that are very different from those that trigger a sneak-attack (i.e. Combat Brute: Momentum Swing). Which means you may manage to trigger one or the other, but will not manage both quite as often.

[TheStranger]

OTOH, THW is a viable combat style, and it's not like you lose anything by adding the option for SA to your build (unless you're giving up feats or class features that would otherwise make THW fighting better). Maybe it gives you a viable way to do meaningful damage in a few more situations, and it's a helpful bonus when you can use both to your advantage.

I would think of it more in terms of a THW build that has access to sneak attack, though, rather than a sneak attack build that uses THW.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Sneak attack is a good idea for a two handed weapon build. Two handed weapon is a bad idea for a sneak attack build. Generally for sneak attack you want as many attacks as possible to take advantage of sneak attack often. That said go for it. It is not a bad idea, especially if you want to use a two handed weapon and have a lot of strength.

[Sugashane]

If you use a falchion you have a 15% of criting on a sneak attack. If it is keen or you have improved critical it would jump to a 30% chance.

[Philistine]

... which would be cool, if SA damage was multiplied on a crit.

[Fouredged Sword]

Don't you only get sneak attack on the first swing in pathfinder? If so, I would go for vital strike, sneak attack, and power attack as my go to strategy. Flank and try to drop things in a single hit.

Psonic weapon and it's greater version also seem like good options (better than vital strike). Get psionic meditation for move action focus recovery.

[Gavinfoxx]

Sneak attack with mindblade and armor spikes with two weapon fighting, and two hand your mindblade. Thus you get 2wf and 2hf and sneak attack.

[BowStreetRunner]

Don't you only get sneak attack on the first swing in pathfinder?

As far as I am aware, you get it on every attack that qualifies. The only reason most people think it is on just the first attack is some of the conditions that allow you to sneak attack go away after you make a successful attack - like invisibility.

[Mr. Zolrane]

As far as I am aware, you get it on every attack that qualifies. The only reason most people think it is on just the first attack is some of the conditions that allow you to sneak attack go away after you make a successful attack - like invisibility.

Even then, full attacks are instantaneous: the enemy remains flatfoot until the action that caused you to break invis is finished.

Even still, if what you're saying is correct that's not a problem for Ninjas after 10th Level anyway, as they get Quickened Greater Invisibility as a trick.

[Samalpetey]

... which would be cool, if SA damage was multiplied on a crit.

Isn't there a feat that adds SA damage to critical hits?

[RFLS]

Don't you only get sneak attack on the first swing in pathfinder? If so, I would go for vital strike, sneak attack, and power attack as my go to strategy. Flank and try to drop things in a single hit.

Psonic weapon and it's greater version also seem like good options (better than vital strike). Get psionic meditation for move action focus recovery.

Not currently, but I'm sure SKR will be along any day now to nerf it because "rogues OP."

[KillianHawkeye]

Even then, full attacks are instantaneous: the enemy remains flatfoot until the action that caused you to break invis is finished.

That is not true at all.... :smallannoyed:

[RFLS]

Even then, full attacks are instantaneous: the enemy remains flatfoot until the action that caused you to break invis is finished.


That is not true at all.... :smallannoyed:

One of you needs a source, one way or the other.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

how bad of an idea is it?

i have full BAB. i have the option for half sneak progression so (5d6 at lvl 20)

It's a very good idea. If you have full BAB, you can stack your sneak attack with Power Attack while flanking for extremely high amounts of damage. I run a Strength-based rogue in Pathfinder who runs around with a longspear Power Attacking things, and it's a very viable combat build. The only downside is that you're out of luck if you can't get into a flanking position.

[Mr. Zolrane]

That is not true at all.... :smallannoyed:


One of you needs a source, one way or the other.

Quite right. While it's not exactly cut-and-dry based on anything I can find, my reasoning based on this:


If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

...is that full attacks are a single action, not multiple actions. Either breakable invis from Vanish or Invisibility (or abilities that simulate it, like Vanishing Trick) grants sneak attack because you're invisible when your attack action begins or it doesn't grant it at all because the mere thought of lethal action breaks the spell. :/

[BowStreetRunner]

At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm#flatFooted). So all attacks from a rogue with sneak attack before your first action would count as sneak attacks. In fact, if they attack on the surprise round and beat your initiative, they can make sneak attacks with both their surprise round attacks as well as those from the following round (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0018.html).

Fair enough. However, RC42 states that precision damage (which it defines as including sneak attack) "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 no longer meet the ability’s requirements can’t deal precision damage."

So with Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm), which states "If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear." This changes the conditions and the subsequent attacks can no longer meet the requirements of sneak attack based solely on invisibility.

[angry_bear]

Charge a flanked opponent, maximizing power attack, and you said that your maximum sneak attack was going to be 5d8? So, assuming you're also looking to maximize your crit range with a Falchion, then you can be dealing 2d4 + 5d8 + your power attack, with a 30% chance of it being a critical strike. Which doesn't help your sneak attack damage, but I'm pretty sure power attack is multiplied right?

If you can work in True Strike somehow, you'll basically have no worry about missing as well. Does the class you're playing have a similar spell?

[NeoPhoenix0]

a full attack is not instantaneous, otherwise rend couldn't exist and you couldn't wait till after seeing the results of one attack before deciding the target of the next.

A full attack is a single action but it is made up of multiple attacks. after the first attack the invisible creature immediately becomes visible and continues with his remaining attacks.

[JohnStone]

Does the class you're playing have a similar spell?

ill be playing a pathfinder Soulknife, so my 2hander is an automatic (2d6 19/20x2) with limitless potention for enhancements such as keen, shocking, whatever.

Ill be trading the ability to " charge" my blade using a move action
with psychic strikes that i can expend at any time for 1d8 (up to 5d8 at 20) for 1 attack

the plan for psychic strikes is stand there and use a move action to charge blade , standard attack ... repeat

[Fouredged Sword]

Vital strike is then free damage on a standard action strike. Normally it is discarded due to giving up the rest of your attacks, but you are already doing just that, so the feat simply grants more damage.

[JohnStone]

Vital strike is then free damage on a standard action strike. Normally it is discarded due to giving up the rest of your attacks, but you are already doing just that, so the feat simply grants more damage.

if i get stuck with psychic strikes (cause my dm doesnt allow me to switch archtypes ill take that not too shabby) thanks.

but im starting to think that taking the archtype that grants SA is a better idea.

[KillianHawkeye]

Quite right. While it's not exactly cut-and-dry based on anything I can find, my reasoning based on this:



...is that full attacks are a single action, not multiple actions. Either breakable invis from Vanish or Invisibility (or abilities that simulate it, like Vanishing Trick) grants sneak attack because you're invisible when your attack action begins or it doesn't grant it at all because the mere thought of lethal action breaks the spell. :/

You are just misinterpretting, that's all.

Immediately means after the first attack you make. While it's true that a full-attack is one single action, the attacks you make do not all happen simultaneously. You take each attack in sequence. So if anything happens "immediately" during your full attack, it does interrupt your sequence of attacks to happen (much as if somebody took an immediate action during your turn).

[The Grue]

So with Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm), which states "If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear." This changes the conditions and the subsequent attacks can no longer meet the requirements of sneak attack based solely on invisibility.

Doesn't this actually imply that an invisible attacker does not benefit from sneak attack? Since as soon as the invisible attacker attacks, it immediately becomes visible and its opponent is no longer denied its dex bonus?

[BowStreetRunner]

Doesn't this actually imply that an invisible attacker does not benefit from sneak attack? Since as soon as the invisible attacker attacks, it immediately becomes visible and its opponent is no longer denied its dex bonus?

You make your first attack. The attack resolves. This triggers the invisibility dropping. Now you decide whether to continue with a full attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack) or take a move action instead. Depending on how the first attack resolved, and knowing that you now have lost your invisibility, you may decide to move instead of continuing the attack.

Now let's try it the other way instead. The invisibility drops first. At this point, you change your mind and decide not to attack after all. But since you didn't actually attack, the invisibility didn't actually drop. And since it didn't drop, you decide to attack. The invisibility drops when you decide to attack again. At this point...rinse, repeat. Bit of a paradox this way if the invisibility drops before the actual attack takes place.

[The Grue]

Now let's try it the other way instead. The invisibility drops first. At this point, you change your mind and decide not to attack after all. But since you didn't actually attack, the invisibility didn't actually drop. And since it didn't drop, you decide to attack. The invisibility drops when you decide to attack again. At this point...rinse, repeat. Bit of a paradox this way if the invisibility drops before the actual attack takes place.

That's not really a paradox, since there's nothing forcing you to discontinue the attack if your invisibility goes away. Because you're a rational agent capable of making decisions you can look at that and say "Yes, I wanted to attack so I will proceed with the attack even though the invisibility effect will go away."

More to the point, how could invisibility return if you decide not to attack after the invisibility effect dropped? The passage you quoted reads "If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear" (emphasis mine)

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Attack and you lose invisibility. Don't attack and you stay invisible. I'm not clear where this "attack once while still invisible" thing comes up in the RAW.

[JohnStone]

well since you hijacked my thread im gonna chime in, of course invisibilty lasts until right after the FIRST attack ... you get 1 attack from invis PERIOD end of story. the text says if you attack directly, not if you CHOOSE to attack, its not an attack till you actually roll the dice (ie hit or miss).

[The Grue]

well since you hijacked my thread im gonna chime in, of course invisibilty lasts until right after the FIRST attack ... you get 1 attack from invis PERIOD end of story. the text says if you attack directly, not if you CHOOSE to attack, its not an attack till you actually roll the dice (ie hit or miss).

Right. At which point you lose the benefits of invisibility because you've made an attack.

RAW there is no period during a turn which you're attacking, but haven't attacked. You either attack or don't, and as written Invisibility goes down as soon as you attack. Things happen sequentially in D&D, not simultaneously.

Otherwise, I could cast Contingency on myself to cast Invisibility when I became visible after an Invisibility spell wore off, attack while invisible and trigger the Contingency before resolving the attack.

What I'm driving at here is that you can't have it both ways. Either attacking breaks Invisibility immidiately (in which case you don't get the benefits of being invisible on the first attack), or it breaks Invisiblity when the action resolves (in which case a Full Attack benefits from Invisibility, since a Full Attack is one full-round action).

[Katana1515]

In answer to the original question one thing you have to take into account is the likelihood of actually getting off a sneak attack compared to psionic strike. Psionic strike pretty much always works while sneak attack can rely on invisibility being handed out by the party wizard (not exactly reliable) or having a flanking buddy (in my experience not entirely reliable either). also one thing to remember is that the Soulknife can expend its psionic focus to recharge its blade as a swift action so you can pull that off for at least 2 rounds each combat.

So maybe consider the party makeup and if someone (preferably someone's) is prepared to flank with u full time. :)

[Sugashane]

... which would be cool, if SA damage was multiplied on a crit.

Does it matter that it doesn't? Sneak attack is a mediocre method of a character doing damage. A level 20 rogue with a short sword and does a sneak attack gets 1d6+10d6 damage (plus STR mod if any, magical enchantments, etc). That is an average of a whopping 38.5 points of damage. But a whole 42 for an average on a critical hit! :smallsigh:

The fact of using a falchion would allow both a greater chance of critical hits and a constant increase in damage due to strength modifier being x1.5 for it being 2 handed. Either way, its a higher damage output, and would factor into many more possibilities for damage via power attack, charging combos, etc.

I allow rogues to have their sneak attack factor into critical hits, and it never has broken a game, nor even been close. It just allowed the Rogues to consistently be relevant in the battles. If you have a game full of people who are completely new it might seem overly impressive, but any DM over the age of 14 can keep sneak attacks from even being a factor if they so choose, let alone from it being broken on critical hits.

[The Grue]

Does it matter that it doesn't? Sneak attack is a mediocre method of a character doing damage. A level 20 rogue with a short sword and does a sneak attack gets 1d6+10d6 damage (plus STR mod if any, magical enchantments, etc). That is an average of a whopping 38.5 points of damage. But a whole 42 for an average on a critical hit! :smallsigh:

The fact of using a falchion would allow both a greater chance of critical hits and a constant increase in damage due to strength modifier being x1.5 for it being 2 handed. Either way, its a higher damage output, and would factor into many more possibilities for damage via power attack, charging combos, etc.

I like how you did the math for a rogue but glossed over the math for critting on a falchion. Let's go over that now.

We'll assume a Medium-sized character, so their falchion will be rolling 2d4 damage. You didn't factor Str bonus damage into the level 20 rogue, but that's probably fair since Dex is the main stat for rogues. Here we're probably talking about a level 20 martial class with Str as their primary stat, so let's assume a score of 25. That's a starting score of 18, a +2 racial bonus, and a +5 level enhancement bonus. Heck, let's make him a barbarian and throw in the +8 for raging, giving him an effective score of 33 and a bonus of +11.

Base damage of a falchion wielded two-handed is 2d4+16, or 21. Critical multiplier is x2, so average crit does 4d4+32, or 42 damage. Critical threat range is 18-20, meaning the weapon is going to threaten a critical on 3 rolls out of 20, or 15% of the time. Assuming our guy is fighting opponents of CR equal to his HD, he will on average beat their AC half the time, meaning half of all critical threats(7.5%) will confirm.

So we'll take the straight average; 7.5% of the hits are 42 damage, the remaining 92.5% are 21. We'll be generous and call it 8% and 92%, because that makes the math easier. If my math is right, that gives an average damage of 22.68.

What was the average of a level 20 rogue with a shortsword again?


A level 20 rogue with a short sword and does a sneak attack gets 1d6+10d6 damage (plus STR mod if any, magical enchantments, etc). That is an average of a whopping 38.5 points of damage.

Ah okay. A whopping 38.5, as compared to the falchion's 22.68.


Sneak attack is a mediocre method of a character doing damage.

Is it really now? :smallcool:

[Sugashane]

I like how you did the math for a rogue but glossed over the math for critting on a falchion. Let's go over that now.

I thought it was simple enough I wouldn't need to bother with it. Oh well, I've got a few minutes to waste. You go, then I'll reply.

We'll assume a Medium-sized character, so their falchion will be rolling 2d4 damage. You didn't factor Str bonus damage into the level 20 rogue, but that's probably fair since Dex is the main stat for rogues. Here we're probably talking about a level 20 martial class with Str as their primary stat, so let's assume a score of 25. That's a starting score of 18, a +2 racial bonus, and a +5 level enhancement bonus. Heck, let's make him a barbarian and throw in the +8 for raging, giving him an effective score of 33 and a bonus of +11.

Base damage of a falchion wielded two-handed is 2d4+16, or 21. Critical multiplier is x2, so average crit does 4d4+32, or 42 damage. Critical threat range is 18-20, meaning the weapon is going to threaten a critical on 3 rolls out of 20, or 15% of the time. Assuming our guy is fighting opponents of CR equal to his HD, he will on average beat their AC half the time, meaning half of all critical threats(7.5%) will confirm.

Noting ahead of time, I'm going to round down on rolls.

So he gets about 21 points damage. EVERY hit. Regardless of flanking, hiding, uncanny dodge, crit and sneak attack immunity. Say he hits 3 out of his 4 at level 20, then he does 63 damage in a round. That is not including power attack (lets just ignore charges and shock trooper and go with an easy 5), which would increase that from 2d4+16 to 2d4+32, averaging 34 per hit. Hit 3 our of 4 and do 102 damage. Add Leap attack with the Lion Totem Barbarian Variant in Complete Champion and it goes up, especially with Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge and subtract 20 from AC (max BAB) to now do 2d4+16+60 per attack for 78 damage per hit, and will do 234 damage with three hits on his 4 attacks. If there is any damage done by the rest of the party, most level appropriate monsters /characters will die before that. If not, the Barbarian has 20d12+Con mod and temp hit points for his rage. Lets ignore Combat Brute's effect on his next round of attacks.

That was without any critical hits, hoping for a single ambush, hoping for a party member to flank, etc. Oh yeah, and I didn't do a Valorous weapon "doubling" (because doubling a double is a triple, etc) every bit of damage: the rolled weapon damage, STR mod, power attack, etc.

Now the Rogue has 3/4 BAB, so if the Barbarian with a monster STR mod and with the +2 to charge can't hit with their +5 BAB for the last roll, neither will the rogue, even if it is DEX based. So the Rogue gets 2 sneak attacks and averages 38.5 on each. So he gets 77 damage. I think the Falchion did better there, right?


So we'll take the straight average; 7.5% of the hits are 42 damage, the remaining 92.5% are 21. We'll be generous and call it 8% and 92%, because that makes the math easier. If my math is right, that gives an average damage of 22.68.

What was the average of a level 20 rogue with a shortsword again?


Ah okay. A whopping 38.5, as compared to the falchion's 22.68.

I actually laughed out loud when I read "a whopping 38.5" Let's go with that, you win. Wait, wait, it is a construct we're attacking. Or an undead. Or an ooze. Or an incorporeal creature. Or they're too tall for the Rogue to get to vital parts. Or they are immune to surprise, have uncanny dodge, etc. Looks like the Rogue gets his sneak attack negated in any of those instances or more. So 1d6 averages...... 3.5. Lets go ahead and give the rogue a +2 mod to STR. 5.5. Ok, I take back what I said for now, we'll round up for the Rogue. 6! 6 damage! Yay! Wait... Sorry, the Falchion scenario you laid out did 22, and gets one more attack due to a full BAB. All three of the Rogue's attacks hit and he does 18 (still rounding up), but the Barbarian rolls terribly and only gets one hit. Wait, that's still 22, 4 more than the Rogue, while rounding down for the Barbarian.

Is it really now? :smallcool:

Yes, and thank you for chiding me into proving my point even more. It is adorable people still think sneak attack is so strong. :smallamused:


Let's face it. The fact is Sneak attack is a highly situational advantage, and leaves the damage up to rolls, rather than base additions that are ALWAYS present, like STR mod, etc. You can potentially get a total of only 11 on a 1d6+10d6. But with that 2d4+16 the minimum is 18. Throw out sneak attack for the plethora of reasons any DM can negate it in their sleep and the minimum damage is 1 or 3 if we are still using the +2 mod for STR.

So yes, it really is now.

[The Grue]

While you make very good points, you've altered your position significantly. Your original claim was


Sneak attack is a mediocre method of a character doing damage.

A mediocre method of doing damage. Not an inferior method of hitting an opponent, or an inferior method of dealing with combat encounters, or any other of the claims you've now backtracked onto.


The fact of using a falchion would allow both a greater chance of critical hits and a constant increase in damage due to strength modifier being x1.5 for it being 2 handed. Either way, its a higher damage output, and would factor into many more possibilities for damage via power attack, charging combos, etc.

See? Nothing but damage and critical hits. This is the statement to which I was responding.

Now, if you want to look at sneak attack versus other things in the larger context of a roleplaying combat system, rather than damage dice in a vacuum as you did with your original post, I welcome it. But don't pretend that you've refuted my counterargument by moving the goalpoasts.

Having said that: I will concede that sneak attacks have a much larger degree of variation in their damage, whereas a Str-focused two-hander is a lot more consistent. While you are correct that it's possible to do as little as 11 damage on 1d6+10d6, it's also equally possible to do as much as 66 damage. This wide range of deviation is as much a benefit as it is a drawback. Pointing it out is not highlighting a significant disadvantage; it is merely calling attention to the rules of probability.