Sneak Attack: Mecanics vs. Logic

[wayfare]

I have a problem. I have sneak attack. I mean, I really hate it. Mostly because i just don't get it. How does a rogue ever strike with the same force as a fireball? A high level rogue can potentially get of 3 sneak attacks each round, doing up to 30d6 precision damage, something I just don't understand.

I get that you can think of sneak attack a a "head shot" or "heart shot" but wouldn't it make more sense for the fighter to have that sort of advantage -- he's the guy who is supposed to be best at killing stuff, he gets all the rarefied weapons training. The rogue is a guy with a butterknife who manages to out-damage a dude laying about with a great sword.

Can anyone help me wrap my head around this class feature?

[Psyren]

The problem isn't sneak attack, it's hit points in general. In a realistic system, being stabbed should always be avoided, getting hit with an arrow can seriously mess up your muscular coordination, and all the experience in the world shouldn't be able to help you leap out of a five-story window and land safely (especially not while wearing plate.)

However, when forced to choose between realism and heroism I'll take the latter any day, so the above isn't actually a complaint; I'm just putting the situation in perspective for you. A rogue does ridiculous damage because he has to, in order to keep up with the ridiculously high HP totals he'll be up against.

[Curmudgeon]

The Fighter is trained for large-scale combats, and just mostly tries to dish out as much damage as possible over and over so they can move on to the next foe. The Fighter hits harder and more often than the Rogue.

On some types of targets, in some situations, the Rogue can do more damage. The targets are restricted to those with discernible anatomies where the Rogue has studied that type of body's weak points. The situations are mostly either

• at the start of combat, when enemies aren't on guard to cover those weak points; or
• when the enemy is distracted by being attacked from opposite directions and again can't cover all their weak points.

So sneak attack isn't designed for large-scale combats when enemies are coming from all directions; it's designed for when the Rogue has either surprise or some maneuvering room to get at those weak points. It's very good damage, but also very situational. The Fighter's damage output is good, and also reliably so.

[ffone]

I have a problem. I have sneak attack. I mean, I really hate it. Mostly because i just don't get it. How does a rogue ever strike with the same force as a fireball? A high level rogue can potentially get of 3 sneak attacks each round, doing up to 30d6 precision damage, something I just don't understand.

I get that you can think of sneak attack a a "head shot" or "heart shot" but wouldn't it make more sense for the fighter to have that sort of advantage -- he's the guy who is supposed to be best at killing stuff, he gets all the rarefied weapons training. The rogue is a guy with a butterknife who manages to out-damage a dude laying about with a great sword.

Can anyone help me wrap my head around this class feature?

First of all, why is Fireball damage the standard of realism? Would you rather get stabbed in the eye or hold your hand near a flame for a few seconds? Of course, you'd reply "a Fireball is more than that!", which it surely is...but my point is, how much more is unknowable since it's a magic spell and HP have no direct real-world counterpart.

People seem to write or regard Fireballs as being those solar-hot pure spheres of explosive destruction. The spell says it creatures very little pressure (it's not a movie grenade that sends guys flying to the ground) and the existence of Evasion suggests it's not a perfect sphere but must have, like, little gap between tongues of flames or something like that.

As for fighter vs rogue, a fighter has better BAB (and maybe some feats to gie further attack roll bonuses)...a DnD attack roll combines several thematic concepts, such as aim / tagging the enemy at all (getting through parries, not missing with an arrow, etc.) as well as getting through armor and natural armor bonuses.

So, maybe, the fighter has better aim, better fencing (getting through parrying and around shields) skills, knows how to get through armor or punch through natural armor....the rogue knows anatomy better.

Also when you say 'Mechanics vs Logic', your logic is basically circular - "the fighter should always do more damage b/c he is defined as the class that does more damage."

(And don't forget the greatsword guy can convert those attack bonuses into damage with Power Attack. Probably not as much as the 10d6 sneak attack without multiplier increases from leap attack, frenzied berserker, etc. but it's less situational).

The fighter knows how to knock your shield wide. The rogue knows where your arteries are (but can't take advantage of it unless you're unaware or distracted).

[NichG]

It depends a lot on your hitpoint model. For instance, could you imagine a precision stab to vital organs doing some amount of Con damage rather than hitpoint damage? If so, then it makes perfect sense - hitpoints represent the product of the person's actual physical hardiness with their skill at minimizing injury to themselves by taking blows in certain ways, shielding themselves from blasts, etc. So what the sneak attack is doing is its bypassing a lot of their defenses, which is being modeled by large amounts of hitpoint damage.

The fighter basically fights head on and is good at it, but the difference in the damage levels basically says that head on, you just aren't going to do as well as if you find a chink in the other guy's armor and get him when his defenses are down. From the fighter, the other guy can see it coming and if he's skilled (high level), take measures to minimize his own injury.

That said, anything where you look too closely at hitpoints starts to break down. Mr. Lv 20 Barbarian can be run through several dozen times by stout men with swords before he's in any danger, and he recovers from his ordeal with no more than a few nights of bedrest. Or his luck and skill keeps him safe (like in a vitality system), but then for some reason the poisoned blade among the bunch inevitably manages to injure him just enough to expose him to the poison. Or he 'luck and skill's his way out of a 200ft fall, or being at ground zero of an explosion.

That a coup de gras has special mechanics to auto-kill a helpless target that cannot be applied to a non-helpless target suggests the luck/skill interpretation may be what was intended.

[Grumman]

I get that you can think of sneak attack a a "head shot" or "heart shot" but wouldn't it make more sense for the fighter to have that sort of advantage -- he's the guy who is supposed to be best at killing stuff, he gets all the rarefied weapons training. The rogue is a guy with a butterknife who manages to out-damage a dude laying about with a great sword.

Can anyone help me wrap my head around this class feature?

The rules assume that your opponents are competent enough to protect themselves from head or heart shots under normal circumstances, which is why you need to render them helpless before you can do it. The rogue and the fighter can both get a heart shot on someone if their guard is down, but the rogue doesn't require as large a window of opportunity.

[MeeposFire]

In order for anything dealing with hit points to make sense you need to understand that hit points are not all physical injury. In fact most of your HPs are not physical at all.

Let us assume you have 100 hp. Of that hp only about 4-10 or so would actually be physical. All the rest would be a combination of luck, stamina, near hits, fighting spirit, or whatever heroic nonsense we can come up with. So when you get hit for seven points of damage from a sword swing you could have blocked barely with your shield and after you pushed the blow away your arm is numbed from the blow.

Sneak attack is just a way to show that off in a bigger way. When a rogue hits you with a sneak attack it hits you in a weak spot which will quickly bring down the toughest foes even if you are using a small weapon.

This idea has actually been around a long time. Gygax even brought this up in Dragon I believe since many people get confused by the nature of HP.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think of the training fighters, barbarians, and other full BaB classes undergo as focused on fighting someone who is ready to fight them. A master swordsman could obviously take advantage of a distracted foe (everyone gets a flanking bonus), but that's not what he's trained to exploit. The rogue, on the other hand, is trained to exploit various situational advantages, so he actually is better at stabbing people in these situations.

[Saint GoH]

I was /Curmudgeon'd

The fighter is a person wearing heavy plate where him and a hundred of his buddies wade through another hundred similarly armed folk. Given how Base Attack is supposed to be an indicator at how good you are at hitting (assuming a 10 STR) A fighter is a much better stand up fighter.

A rogue, on the other hand, is better at jumping out of a trash can and shanking someone's kidney. You put him on a battlefield and he is screwed. With his 10 STR (or less) and low bab he wouldnt be as good of a soldier as a fighter (assuming both are level 1 without wep focus and 10's in all stats like a commoner).

[wayfare]

Its situational, but flanks are very easy to set up. And while its maybe true that many of the things you'll be fighting at 20 are immune to crits and sneak attack (or just so darned hard to hit to begin with), \there doesn't seem to be a lot of parity on a human level:

A level 20 fighter mixes it up with a 20 rogue, i'm not certain that the fighter won't get sunk in the 1st round of combat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Its situational, but flanks are very easy to set up. And while its maybe true that many of the things you'll be fighting at 20 are immune to crits and sneak attack (or just so darned hard to hit to begin with), \there doesn't seem to be a lot of parity on a human level:

A level 20 fighter mixes it up with a 20 rogue, i'm not certain that the fighter won't get sunk in the 1st round of combat.

Level 20 is not a good comparison, considering the fighter can easily afford full fortification at that point. The rogue would win via UMD tricks, not sneak attack.

[TheCountAlucard]

Arguments about hit points always bug me for these same reasons - after all, the rules actually conflict with themselves about it. Think about it: it's not called "Cure Light Abstract Representative of Luck, Stamina, and Fighting Spirit," is it? But at the exact same time, other rules insist that that's exactly what it should be.

[Saint GoH]

Its situational, but flanks are very easy to set up. And while its maybe true that many of the things you'll be fighting at 20 are immune to crits and sneak attack (or just so darned hard to hit to begin with), \there doesn't seem to be a lot of parity on a human level:

A level 20 fighter mixes it up with a 20 rogue, i'm not certain that the fighter won't get sunk in the 1st round of combat.

Perhaps not, but again, thats because the rogue leaps across the room and stabs the fighter in the jugular. Or the rogue tosses a bunch of marbles on the floor so the fighter stumbles around like a retard.

You put a level 1 rogue with a 10 str on a battlefield amidst fighters with 12 str, and the rogue will gank a few people but will quickly be over run.

Don't assume stuff at level 20, because that is unrealistic for reality. Remember most soldiers in armies are level 2-3. Then suddenly a fighter becomes a lot scarier in a standup fight then a rogue

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

@Alu: It's supposed to be a combination of luck, skill, and sheer toughness. If Bob the 100 HP fighter takes 20 damage from an ogre's spiked club, I'd say he has bruises and somewhat serious flesh wounds... just nothing that would stop him from fighting. It's vague and abstract, but that means you can mix and match thematically as a GM and/or player.

[wayfare]

First of all, why is Fireball damage the standard of realism? Would you rather get stabbed in the eye or hold your hand near a flame for a few seconds? Of course, you'd reply "a Fireball is more than that!", which it surely is...but my point is, how much more is unknowable since it's a magic spell and HP have no direct real-world counterpart.

People seem to write or regard Fireballs as being those solar-hot pure spheres of explosive destruction. The spell says it creatures very little pressure (it's not a movie grenade that sends guys flying to the ground) and the existence of Evasion suggests it's not a perfect sphere but must have, like, little gap between tongues of flames or something like that.

As for fighter vs rogue, a fighter has better BAB (and maybe some feats to gie further attack roll bonuses)...a DnD attack roll combines several thematic concepts, such as aim / tagging the enemy at all (getting through parries, not missing with an arrow, etc.) as well as getting through armor and natural armor bonuses.

So, maybe, the fighter has better aim, better fencing (getting through parrying and around shields) skills, knows how to get through armor or punch through natural armor....the rogue knows anatomy better.

Also when you say 'Mechanics vs Logic', your logic is basically circular - "the fighter should always do more damage b/c he is defined as the class that does more damage."

(And don't forget the greatsword guy can convert those attack bonuses into damage with Power Attack. Probably not as much as the 10d6 sneak attack without multiplier increases from leap attack, frenzied berserker, etc. but it's less situational).

The fighter knows how to knock your shield wide. The rogue knows where your arteries are (but can't take advantage of it unless you're unaware or distracted).

I wouldn't consider a fireball the standard of realism, but it is a pretty impressive effect that deals significant damage. I don't get how stabbing a guy is the same as sticking a grenade in his back pocket.

As for the things you suggest to boost the fighters damage output, they are excellent options, but few are native to the class. Straight core rogue 20 gets 10d6 sneak attack. A core fighter gets power attack.

[MeeposFire]

Well to be honest we tend to think of them as wounds in general. When we describe a hit as a cut on the arm or the like that is far more common. Hit points has always been an interesting issue as you say. Besides what sounds cooler being covered in numerous wounds or being out of breath? Well wounds sound cooler so generally even though I under stand the abstract nature of HP I still tend to use wounds anyway. Knowing that they are abstract helps me deal with sneak attack and the like.

[wayfare]

Well to be honest we tend to think of them as wounds in general. When we describe a hit as a cut on the arm or the like that is far more common. Hit points has always been an interesting issue as you say. Besides what sounds cooler being covered in numerous wounds or being out of breath? Well wounds sound cooler so generally even though I under stand the abstract nature of HP I still tend to use wounds anyway. Knowing that they are abstract helps me deal with sneak attack and the like.

This is probably the best way to go, to be honest.

I recently tried to replace sneak attack with an auto-crit option -- instead of bonus damage, you just land a crit on a successful sneak attack. I was told that this was a bad idea because of many possible exploits, though they didn't seem as bad as the +10d6 sneak attack.

[ffone]

I wouldn't consider a fireball the standard of realism, but it is a pretty impressive effect that deals significant damage. I don't get how stabbing a guy is the same as sticking a grenade in his back pocket.

As for the things you suggest to boost the fighters damage output, they are excellent options, but few are native to the class. Straight core rogue 20 gets 10d6 sneak attack. A core fighter gets power attack.

Both these points are not so much complaints about the system itself, but rather statements "I have thematics/interpretations in my head which I would prefer for the system."

Fireball isn't a grenade. There's no reason it should be like one...I guess grenades are just common in TV/movies and Fireball is a popular spell, and so we mentally picture the former for the latter.

Rogues can do a ton of damage rather than just being skillmonkeys.

And yes, it might be nice if fighters had more 'hit harder' options. In core they're more "hit more often" (Focus, Combat Reflexes, Cleave, Blind-Fight, etc.) or "do special attacks" (trip/disarm/bullrushetc.) and a little "hit slightly harder" (specialization).

It might help to consider that damage is not necessarily a monotonic function of energy/force/momentum. The rogue's big damage attack may not look very flashy or impressive at all - he whisks by some guy, slips a little stiletto in and out, whisks along, and the guy is badly injured. It's not a lot of damage b/c he pulled out a giant cartoon mallet and WHAM. Think of a rogue as like a surgeon.

Also, it's worth remembering most NPCs have paltry HP and will be easily slain by a high level fireball or sneak attack just fine.

[Kris Strife]

Arguments about hit points always bug me for these same reasons - after all, the rules actually conflict with themselves about it. Think about it: it's not called "Cure Light Abstract Representative of Luck, Stamina, and Fighting Spirit," is it? But at the exact same time, other rules insist that that's exactly what it should be.

Would you consider minor cuts, strained muscles, joints and ligaments, etc as being types of injuries?

[TheCountAlucard]

@Alu: It's supposed to be a combination of luck, skill, and sheer toughness. If Bob the 100 HP fighter takes 20 damage from an ogre's spiked club, I'd say he has bruises and somewhat serious flesh wounds... just nothing that would stop him from fighting. It's vague and abstract, but that means you can mix and match thematically as a GM and/or player.

Then that means that the same spell that saves one man from the brink of death (i.e., bringing up from negative HP) will only patch up some bruises or scrapes on another, and where's the sense in that?

[ffone]

This is probably the best way to go, to be honest.

I recently tried to replace sneak attack with an auto-crit option -- instead of bonus damage, you just land a crit on a successful sneak attack. I was told that this was a bad idea because of many possible exploits, though they didn't seem as bad as the +10d6 sneak attack.

So in other words, every assassin should creep around with a greatsword. If you're just multiplying the damage, then you want a high base damage, right?

AD&D did this, in a way - multipliers (like crits are). So rather than murdering people with daggers, you'd want a katana or whatever the highest-die thief weapon was.

[Kuma Kode]

I wouldn't consider a fireball the standard of realism, but it is a pretty impressive effect that deals significant damage. I don't get how stabbing a guy is the same as sticking a grenade in his back pocket.

As for the things you suggest to boost the fighters damage output, they are excellent options, but few are native to the class. Straight core rogue 20 gets 10d6 sneak attack. A core fighter gets power attack.

Depending on how you look at it, you can be screwed either way. If I drop a grenade at your feet, you're screwed unless you've got heavy tactical armor, a 50 pound pack you can drop onto the grenade to soften the blow, or some other way to defend yourself.

If I catch you unaware and slit your throat ear to ear, you're screwed, even if you don't die INSTANTLY. I could slit your throat on an operating table in the middle of Dr. House's hospital and you'd still be utterly screwed.

The wizard drops grenades on people.

The fighter takes his enemies on head-to-head.

The rogue is the guy who shoves a knife into the back of your skull and severs your spinal cord.

Different tactics are abstracted by the rules.

[ffone]

Then that means that the same spell that saves one man from the brink of death (i.e., bringing up from negative HP) will only patch up some bruises or scrapes on another, and where's the sense in that?

People similarly complain that a higher-Constitution character can take longer to heal fully (since they have more HP per HD.)

My standard answer is: it's not that he gains less from healing or days of rest. It's that the wounds he got would've maybe *killed* the lower-Con guy, but they just bedded the high-Con guy for a while. He's capable of taking more but then bouncing back.

Fluffing wounds based on the ratio of their damage to total HP is a choice you can make, but its being at odds with the system is not a problem with the system per se.

[Kris Strife]

Then that means that the same spell that saves one man from the brink of death (i.e., bringing up from negative HP) will only patch up some bruises or scrapes on another, and where's the sense in that?

It restores the most serious problems first, so you might still be badly hurt, but your arteries are made whole, your digestive juices are no longer leaking onto unprotected organs, etc. Only did as much healing as covering up scrapes and cuts, but its healing far more important injuries.

[wayfare]

So in other words, every assassin should creep around with a greatsword. If you're just multiplying the damage, then you want a high base damage, right?

AD&D did this, in a way - multipliers (like crits are). So rather than murdering people with daggers, you'd want a katana or whatever the highest-die thief weapon was.

Well, typically, things like proficiencies get in the way of walking around and ganking everybody with a greatsword at level 1.

But if you wanted to build an assassin who killed folks with a greatsword, why not. To be honest, an assassin using a scythe to kill folks would be even better -- x4 damage baby!

But honesty, a clause mentioning weapon finesseable weapons wouldn't be that hard to work in.

Also, can't a rogue get proficient with a greatsword and still use sneak attack?

[ffone]

Well, typically, things like proficiencies get in the way of walking around and ganking everybody with a greatsword at level 1.

But if you wanted to build an assassin who killed folks with a greatsword, why not. To be honest, an assassin using a scythe to kill folks would be even better -- x4 damage baby!

But honesty, a clause mentioning weapon finesseable weapons wouldn't be that hard to work in.

Also, can't a rogue get proficient with a greatsword and still use sneak attack?

They certainly can. (Actually Conan seemed like a greatsword sneak attacker on some occasions.) I don't think they need proficiency, even but most people would stick to it. They'd take a level of fighter/pouncebarian/ranger, or use a spear. Which I guess would be better anyway b/c it's 3x. Or yeah, scythe for 4x. So use this rule if you want the assassins to look like the grim reaper, which I guess is kinda poetic at least.

My point is, when changing the rules for "realism", I try to consider what effect they will have on behavior. If they lead to behavior you don't consider more realistic (skulking assassins now overwhelmngly prefer wielding big spears and scythes in big muscly arms - with one level of fighter for proficiency), then it's worth reconsidering.

Rogue is neat precisely b/c the damage has its own progression, so he can use a fork, or little throwing knives, or whatever. Shuriken in the throat, scissors in your spine, that sort of thing.

One can ask the question this way: if the current implementation is unrealistic, it's probably leading to unrealistic incentives or actions on the part of characters (PCs and NPCs). What are those?

[Killer Angel]

I wouldn't consider a fireball the standard of realism, but it is a pretty impressive effect that deals significant damage. I don't get how stabbing a guy is the same as sticking a grenade in his back pocket.

A fireball can be pretty, but it doesn't deal a "significant" amount of damage. All it can do (without metamagic) is a standard 35 hp (mid result, obviously). If you fail your ST.
If you don't count the fact that the fireball does area damage (it's only real advantage), but you focus on a single target, even a core fighter easily outmatch those 35 hp.
And the rogue, which is trained in hitting your weak points, isn't merely stabbing you. He's slitting your throat; or piercing your eye; or cutting your knee's tendons.
He hurts, and hurts so badly that a single strike can put a weak opponent out of combat.

[Kurald Galain]

Fighters fight fair, having been trained in the knightly arts of lunge, parry, and riposte.

Rogues fight dirty, doing whatever it takes to win.

[Curmudgeon]

Level 20 is not a good comparison, considering the fighter can easily afford full fortification at that point. The rogue would win via UMD tricks, not sneak attack.

Sneak attack is still viable. The Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF trades trap sense for the ability to still do sneak attack, but with ½ the normal dice, to those normally immune when you flank them. You still add full Craven bonus to your sneak attack, so 100% fortification only reduces the total sneak attack damage by about 30%. The Rogue Crippling Strike special ability, when augmented by the Savvy Rogue feat, still does 2 points of STR damage on every sneak attack even if the target is normally immune.

There are counters for the counters. The UMD tricks might just be to summon some monsters as flanking partners.

[Benly]

I'm not sure why it's considered unrealistic for a knife through your vital organs to be a source of massive damage. What's implausible is a successful sneak attack being survivable, if you're going to worry about D&D damage plausibility. (I don't recommend it; it rarely ends well.)

I mean, to clarify, we're not talking about just "being stabbed" here, which is already a life-threatening situation. That's just some jerk coming at you with a dagger and it deals 1d4 plus whatever. A sneak attack is a trained shanksman lining up his shot and shoving his metal right into the most unpleasant organ he can reach. It basically amounts to surgical murder.