Sneak attack is Extraordinary. No it isn't.

[Aquaseafoam]

According to my PHB, sneak attack is marked as an extraordinary ability. Important as extraordinary abilities are a standard action and a sneak attack can therefore take place only once in a round.

According to D20srd and a friends PHB, Sneak attack is not marked as an extraordinary ability and you could therefore use it multiple times in a round, even on attacks of opportunity.

Naturally, the difference in being able to use 6d6 sneak attack damage once per round and 6d6 sneak damage twice per round is quite large. I checked the Errata and it mentions nothing of any change. I also know for a fact that my PHB is of a more recent printing than my friend's. So, whose PHB is correct?

[NecroRebel]

It is extraordinary, but it isn't an extraordinary ability that takes an action. From the Actions in Combat section of the SRD:
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Sneak Attack happens automatically in a reactive fashion to an attack made against a foe who is denied their Dex bonus to AC or when the foe is flanked. It takes no action to use, and is thus not a standard action.

[adanedhel9]

Extraordinary Abilities: [...]Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions [...]

Just because it's extraordinary doesn't mean its a standard action. Any attack that qualifies for sneak attack is a sneak attack. If you can make 7 attacks in one round that all qualify, then they are all sneak attacks.

[Lady Tialait]

Wow, I've just realized that I've been playing Rouges very wrong..Never takeing a Full-Round of attack with one....I feel bad now..excuse me while I go water my cat till I feel better

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The Cardinal Rule of Rules Interpretation D&D: Specific rules always trump the general description.

The speific description of sneak attack says that it applies whenever a character makes an attack that qualifies. This trumps the general rule that using an Extraordinary ability requires a standarad action.

In any case, it may be difficult to figure out wether or not Sneak Attack actually is an Extraordinary Ability. In typical fashion, the FAQ and Sage advice contradict themselves. In one place, it says that all abilities not otherwise marked are Extraordinary. In another place it says that in addition to Extraordinary, Spell-Like, and Supernatural abilities there is an assumed fourth category of "None of the Above." In the first case, Sneak Attack is Extraordinary. In the second, it's "None of the Above."

Though the rules are written in a way that implies the second condition is true, clearly marking many Extraordinary abilities while not marking others in any way, I think you have to assume the first is true in order to actually apply many rules, such as the use of certain shapechanging abilities.

In the end, it's really a ghastly mess.

[TempusCCK]

This is a fantastic scenario when logic and Rule 0 should apply. D&D was made by people, people aren't flawless and obviously sneak attack is a situational ability that can be applied to any attack made.

Just, use your brain.

[Ralfarius]

I think the main point to take from all of this is that sneak attack is not an action itself. Instead, it is an extraordinary ability that applies to attacks. You're not 'making a sneak attack' when you're flanking an enemy, you're attacking, and applying sneak attack dice because the circumstances qualify for a sneak attack.

[Lord Tataraus]

excuse me while I go water my cat till I feel better

I'm sorry, I could not resist, but that is just very funny. I assume you mean to give your cat some water, but I can't help imagining myself pouring water on my cat...poor kitty :smallfrown:

On topic: Though this is basically resolved, it is, as stated earlier, a reactionary ability so there is no limit. Even if there was I'd ignore it.

[Lady Tialait]

M'Lord once again upset my mind...anywho...I am soo glad there is no limet...now i have to add a cupple levels of Rouge to my Archers...

[Chronos]

In one place, it says that all abilities not otherwise marked are Extraordinary.Hoo, boy, does that open a can of worms. The ability to cast spells (true spells, not spell-like abilities) is never marked as (Ex), (Sp), or (Su), so by this argument, they'd be extraordinary, and anything that lets you gain extraordinary attack forms (like some of the Polymorph spells) would let you gain another creature's spellcasting ability.

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

In one place, it says that all abilities not otherwise marked are Extraordinary.

Wouldn't that mean that there's no such thing as a natural ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities)?


This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Wouldn't that mean that there's no such thing as a natural ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities)?
Why do I never ever remember seeing that section of the SRD?

Perhaps the fact that it's existence isn't reiterated like the other three categories. Nor do the various shapechanging effects ever address that category. And I'm pretty sure the FAQ never actually references the fourth categroy as "Natural Abilities."

In any case, though I know the contradiction does exist in some form, I don't have the FAQ or the relevant Sage Advice articles out, so I may have mis-paraphrased. Still, "Natural Abilities" is effectively the "None of the Above" category I mentioned.

Blech. I'm just going crazy.

[Yogi]

I'm sorry, I could not resist, but that is just very funny. I assume you mean to give your cat some water, but I can't help imagining myself pouring water on my cat...poor kitty :smallfrown:Or he could mean this (http://www.videosift.com/video/Washing-machine-cat-is-not-amused).

[Lord Tataraus]

Or he could mean this (http://www.videosift.com/video/Washing-machine-cat-is-not-amused).

[Scrubbed]
The poor kitty :frown: how could they do that???? I love cats if you can't tell, I can't stand such whimsical torture.

Edit: And yes that is so horrify it merits screen stretch.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Edit: And yes that is so horrify it merits screen stretch.
No. It doesn't.

I prefer my threads to be readable, no matter how horrible.

[#Raptor]

No. It doesn't.

I prefer my threads to be readable, no matter how horrible.

{Scrubbed}