From Behind Sneak Attack

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys, first homebrew post. So I recently watched a video on combat advantage, and it got me thinking, if I'm behind the guy I'm fighting, shouldn't I get a sneak attack (if I'm a rogue) so I figured that I might implement it into my games. What do you guys think of it? OP? or just right.
And as always, go nuts.

[Erberor]

Presuming 3.5, that function is basically already there in the form of flanking (Allies on opposite sides of opponent). If you aren't flanking and are getting an attack off on someone from behind, they don't know you're there and are flat-footed, granting you sneak attack anyway.

[XionUnborn01]

The biggest problem is that facing doesn't exist in 3.5, you're always facing every direction in combat.

Would it be impossible or difficult to implement? Probably not, but it's something that would need to be done.

Otherwise, giving rogues a backstab that gave them a bonus to sneak attack when behind someone wouldn't be terribly overpowered I don't think. As long as they meet the requirements for SA, you get an extra xd6 SA dice, or you auto re-roll 1's or something.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A facing system does exist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm), although I don't know how good it is.

[MoleMage]

A facing system does exist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm), although I don't know how good it is.

I just read through it. Not having tested it, I expect no effect on single combat (other than possibly tumbling around someone to flank), small effect on equally numbered groups, and significant effects on imbalanced number. In short, the facing rules offered would be a buff for high-population low-hit-dice creatures, and somewhere between a null effect and a nerf for pretty much anything else that isn't immune to facing.

[Maginomicon]

There's a "Backstab" feat.


Backstab [General, Fighter]
You can strike quickly when your opponent’s back is turned.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: Once per round, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against an opponent you flank who attacks a target other than you.

The Backstab feat is explicitly written to trigger in a situation where they're turning their back on you. It automatically qualifies for sneak attack damage (thus making the sneak attack ability actually act like you're stabbing someone in the back) because you have to be flanking your opponent. It's important to note that the "target other than you" does not have to be your flanking ally.

However, what might be more useful to you is the "Sneak Attack of Opportunity" feat.



Sneak Attack of Opportunity [General]
When your opponent leaves you an opening, you can strike with deadly accuracy.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, sneak attack +3d6.
Benefit: When you make a successful attack of opportunity against an opponent, you also deal sneak attack damage to that opponent. This extra damage only applies to the first attack of opportunity you make in a round.

The Sneak Attack of Opportunity feat does not care whether you're flanking. It basically just adds onto to the list of triggers that qualify for sneak attack damage.

[Hanuman]

The things that SA requires are also contextualized on ways to get behind them without them being able to fend you off in some way.

[XionUnborn01]

A facing system does exist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm), although I don't know how good it is.

Well, I stand corrected then. Hmm...I see that's on the SRD, do you hppen to know what book it's in?

[DaTedinator]

Well, I stand corrected then. Hmm...I see that's on the SRD, do you hppen to know what book it's in?

Unearthed Arcana. A weird book, but a fun one.

[The Dragon]

Without having read the facing rules, the problem you'll run into using this rule is that d&d is turnbased.

Which means that your rogue's option on his turn will probably be something akin to "I run around him and stab."

Which is, of course, stupid.

You could try to implement that you declare facing a creature you attack, or somesuch. But it's still open to exploits en masse, because there's no good reason that you can't "face" creatures as a free action, and then suddenly everyone is always facing the rogue.

Also, d&d combat is clunky enough as it is. Remembering what every unit is facing just makes it worse.

Without facing rules in place, the GM is basically just making **** up about when the rogue can backstab. And that's bad too, because that leads to confusing results for the rogue.

"But didn't the archer just shoot mr wizkid? How come he's facing me now?"-style arguments are bad for the flow of the game.

[Cloud]

As everyone has already said...in what way does the standard sneak attack (at least in 3.5) not cover sneak attacking someone from behind? You either get sneak attack when someone is flanked (you attacking them from behind while someone distracts them from the front), or you gain sneak attack when someone is flat footed, which if say is from you coming out of stealth or something, I don't see why that wouldn't be fluffed as you suddenly appearing behind someone and murdering them with a well placed back stab.

Noticing you said Combat Advantage, you might mean 4e. In that case...again, how does Sneak Attack not include a back stab? Flanking is one of the best ways to get combat advantage, which again is stabbing someone in the back while they're distracted. Similarly attacking from out of stealth, or just against a creature granting combat advantage for some reason, like say your First Strike feature, could quite easily be imagined to be back stabbing.

On the suggestion of facing, when a round is 6 seconds long and squares are 5ft wide, which is meant to represent a combat in constant motion and the actions you get more openings in that combat...I don't see how facing would be viable.

[Amnoriath]

Hey guys, first homebrew post. So I recently watched a video on combat advantage, and it got me thinking, if I'm behind the guy I'm fighting, shouldn't I get a sneak attack (if I'm a rogue) so I figured that I might implement it into my games. What do you guys think of it? OP? or just right.
And as always, go nuts.

The problem though is that you assume they have their back turned just based upon how you are looking at the board or because of their original direction. In actuality the game most of the time assumes they can move their head and body freely so you can't actually say that unless they have said condition on them.