Sneak Attack - Pathfinder

[BlueInc]

So somewhere along the way I got the rules for sneak attack completely wrong.

Spoiler

Show

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Let me get this straight:

1. Sneak attack can be used with ANY melee or ranged attack, as long as the opponent is flat footed. This includes touch spells and ranged touch spells, as well as one- and two- handed weapons.

2. Sneak attack damage is applied for EVERY hit, as along as the other prerequisites are accounted for. So a level 20 pathfinder rogue with +15/+10/+5 BAB and 10d6 sneak attack damage would do +30d6 damage if all three hit?
-Related: Does this mean TWF is possibly useful for rogues, as they would get multiple chances to get that sneak attack damage?

Because if so, I owe a few rogues apologies.

[MeeposFire]

Yea the stuff you have been describing have been true since the start of 3e so yea you have been doing it wrong before I assume.

[Kilbourne]

So somewhere along the way I got the rules for sneak attack completely wrong.

Let me get this straight:

1. Sneak attack can be used with ANY melee or ranged attack, as long as the opponent is flat footed. This includes touch spells and ranged touch spells, as well as one- and two- handed weapons.

2. Sneak attack damage is applied for EVERY hit, as along as the other prerequisites are accounted for. So a level 20 pathfinder rogue with +15/+10/+5 BAB and 10d6 sneak attack damage would do +30d6 damage if all three hit?
-Related: Does this mean TWF is possibly useful for rogues, as they would get multiple chances to get that sneak attack damage?

Because if so, I owe a few rogues apologies.

1. Sneak attack applies to any and all attacks made by the rogue if the opponent is denied their dexterity bonus to AC (whether or not the creature has a dexterity) or is flanking the creature. This also applies to ranged attacks made within 30ft. The only things immune to sneak attack in PF are elementals, incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost-touch), oozes and proteans.

2. Because it applies to every successful attack which meets the Sneak Attack prerequisites, TWF is very good for rogues, as is Many/Rapid-shot based ranged build (there are lovely talents based around this).

[Avalon2099]

Hi there I recently asked a similar question...

In answer to your first question: Sneak attacks can be performer when target is flat footed, flanked, or surprised. You can even distract an opponent via use of the bluffs feint skill.

In answer to your second question: Yes, I for a long time assumed/thought it was only the first attack in the round, but it's not. Any attack that qualifies as a sneak attack during the attackers round is a sneak attack if it connects. Even a hashed rogue gets the Sneak on that extra attack assuming he meets a condition to allow the SA

[MeeposFire]

1. Sneak attack applies to any and all attacks made by the rogue if the opponent is denied their dexterity bonus to AC (whether or not the creature has a dexterity) or is flanking the creature. This also applies to ranged attacks made within 30ft. The only things immune to sneak attack in PF are elementals, incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost-touch), oozes and proteans.

2. Because it applies to every successful attack which meets the Sneak Attack prerequisites, TWF is very good for rogues, as is Many/Rapid-shot based ranged build (there are lovely talents based around this).

Why couldn't you SA an incorporeal creature without ghost touch? If it is a concern of concealment incorporeal is not concealment unless PF changed that.

[BlueInc]

Thanks a lot for the clarifications, guys. I've mostly played under new DMs, so I'm trying to go back and relearn the rules.

I'm going to have a rogue in my next game who plays an assassination rogue in WoW and wants to dual-wield. Guess I'll tell her go for it :P

[navar100]

In Pathfinder, you can sneak attack and crit undead.

[DarthCyberWolf]

Why couldn't you SA an incorporeal creature without ghost touch? If it is a concern of concealment incorporeal is not concealment unless PF changed that.

It's not a matter of concealment. It's a matter of "Incorporeal are immune to critical hits and precision damage". At least in PF.

[MeeposFire]

It's not a matter of concealment. It's a matter of "Incorporeal are immune to critical hits and precision damage". At least in PF.

Well that would be a specific exemption from the 3.5 rules so yea that is a specific change and one that makes little sense really.

[ImperatorK]

How could you Sneak Attack an incorporeal creature without ghost-touch when it is... you know, incorporeal?

[ericgrau]

Ya and TWF rogue builds are popular. Thing is rogues already have medium BAB and you have to pay for 2 magic weapons instead of 1 so you don't get as much damage as you'd think. Plus rogues are extremely fragile. So a melee damage cannon often isn't the answer.

30d6 isn't that big at level 20 either. Anyone class is easily doing 200-300 damage per round at that level without any cheesy tricks. You have a magic weapon, strength, haste, etc., etc. And other full BAB classes are landing a lot more actual hits due to the higher attack bonus. Bascially rogues need multiple sneak attacks at high levels just to keep up, and they still don't quite manage that. But skills even it out.

[Psyren]

Well that would be a specific exemption from the 3.5 rules so yea that is a specific change and one that makes little sense really.

If you're incorporeal, you have no anatomy and thus no vital spots. It makes perfect sense to me.

[BlueInc]

Spoiler

Show

Ya and TWF rogue builds are popular. Thing is rogues already have medium BAB and you have to pay for 2 magic weapons instead of 1 so you don't get as much damage as you'd think. Plus rogues are extremely fragile. So a melee damage cannon often isn't the answer.

30d6 isn't that big at level 20 either. Anyone class is easily doing 200-300 damage per round at that level without any cheesy tricks. You have a magic weapon, strength, haste, etc., etc. And other full BAB classes are landing a lot more actual hits due to the higher attack bonus.

Hmm... good to know. I haven't done much high level play, so it looked like a lot of damage to me... though looking at something like Meteor Swarm [(2d6)x4+(6d6)x4] it seems a lot more reasonable.

[Doorhandle]

In Pathfinder, you can sneak attack and crit undead.

Makes sense. Organs or no organs, there are still joints and vertabra to watch out for, and they would loose some vitality without a head.

[ericgrau]

Hmm... good to know. I haven't done much high level play, so it looked like a lot of damage to me... though looking at something like Meteor Swarm [(2d6)x4+(6d6)x4] it seems a lot more reasonable.

Ya and empowered maximized fireballs do more than meteor swarm, though in a smaller area. And fighters or barbarians or etc. with a nice sword more than that, but only to a single target.

[Big Fau]

Hmm... good to know. I haven't done much high level play, so it looked like a lot of damage to me... though looking at something like Meteor Swarm [(2d6)x4+(6d6)x4] it seems a lot more reasonable.

FYI: Meteor Swarm is a terrible spell, and should not be used as a measuring stick for ANYTHING other than what to avoid when designing a blasting spell.

[ImperatorK]

Ya and empowered maximized fireballs do more than meteor swarm, though in a smaller area. And fighters or barbarians or etc. with a nice sword more than that, but only to a single target.

And then you run out of all your uberpowerful metamagic'ed spells. Rogues can sneak attack all day long.

and you have to pay for 2 magic weapons instead of 1

You have? I don't see anywhere in the rules that when you wield two weapons they both HAVE to be equally magic'ed.

[ericgrau]

Eating the -2 to hit and having your 2nd weapon non-magical will reduce your overall damage I think.

I like meteor swarm in that simply making a higher damage fireball would have been pretty lame when you already have metamagic. Instead as you get to higher and higher level damage spells the damage efficiency goes down but they add on more things that the spell can do. Meteor swarm can wipe an army while focusing a little on the captain. If you want to blast a typical party of high level monsters you want to metamagic a fireball or lightning bolt or etc. instead, and if you want the most single target damage you should be playing a barbarian instead or else you should be buffing the barbarian with your spells or etc.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And then you run out of all your uberpowerful metamagic'ed spells. Rogues can sneak attack all day long.

Are you arguing that wizards are worse than rogues?

Because those are 8th level spells. There's still the 9th level spells, the 7th level, the 6th level, etc.

And besides, do you expect to face more than ten encounters a day? Or even ten encounters? IIRC, the DMG lists 3-4 encounters each day on average.

[MeeposFire]

If you're incorporeal, you have no anatomy and thus no vital spots. It makes perfect sense to me.

you have an anatomy it just isn't physical. In fact you can crit an incorporeal creature in PF you just have to use a ghost touch weapon which allows you to deal full damage. That would defeat the idea that incorporeal creatures have no anatomy (in fact using spells you could be incorporeal and you certainly don't lose your anatomy just your physical presence). It would be far more consistent if they just had crits handled normally but they are still affected by the 50% damage rule. I understand why they think it should be less effective but that rule already handled that it is a further limit on the cirt and SA that I don't understand. remember unlike the 3e rules incorporeal does not negate damage (so it is not flavored that you miss or inefective) it is said that you hit and deal damage but the attack deals half damage since the target is only essentially half there.

By the way do you crit with a force spell or effect? Force effects deal full damage like a ghost touch weapon would (and those can crit) but I did not see a caveat for force effects even though that would make sense.

[Psyren]

Just like in 3.5, critting with any spell (force effect or not) requires that spell to have an attack roll.

I didn't know you could still crit incorporeals, so that is an inconsistency. Anything that can be crit should also be sneakable imo.

[MeeposFire]

Just like in 3.5, critting with any spell (force effect or not) requires that spell to have an attack roll.

I didn't know you could still crit incorporeals, so that is an inconsistency. Anything that can be crit should also be sneakable imo.

Oh I know I meant using something like ray of frost or something similar. So lets say I used "ray of force" I think the rules should be rewritten to allow that to crit an incorporeal target since it is an attack that deals full damage just like an attack with a ghost touch weapon.

[Psyren]

Ok, I looked it up and you can both SA and crit incorporeals provided your weapon has Ghost Touch.

Oh I know I meant using something like ray of frost or something similar. So lets say I used "ray of force" I think the rules should be rewritten to allow that to crit an incorporeal target since it is an attack that deals full damage just like an attack with a ghost touch weapon.

I don't think you need to. The rules say that force effects "affect an incorporeal creature normally." This means that an Orb of Force would have its normal effect on an incorporeal creature - including critting on a 20. So the rules already allow this.

[MeeposFire]

"An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality."

That is what it says word for word from their SRD about the subtype . Notice that they don't even talk about force effects here. So while I would allow force spells to crit and I think you could convince a lot of DMs to do it officially I think if you went strict RAW you couldn't.

[Psyren]

"An incorporeal creature has no physical body. An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality. In addition, creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain the incorporeal special quality."

That is what it says word for word from their SRD about the subtype . Notice that they don't even talk about force effects here. So while I would allow force spells to crit and I think you could convince a lot of DMs to do it officially I think if you went strict RAW you couldn't.

You forgot to follow that last link. From the incorporeal special quality:

Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

Orb of Force is a force spell. It also has an attack roll; this allows you to sneak attack and crit with it normally. Therefore, by the RAW in the quote, it will behave this way when used on an incorporeal creature as well.

[MeeposFire]

You forgot to follow that last link. From the incorporeal special quality:



Orb of Force is a force spell. It also has an attack roll; this allows you to sneak attack and crit with it normally. Therefore, by the RAW in the quote, it will behave this way when used on an incorporeal creature as well.

I used that link but I would be wary of trying to use logic gymnastics to try to convince somebody about RAW especially since that quote is being used after talking about the 50% damage reduction and the crit issue is never mentioned in the incorporeal special quality. So it would be reasonable to read that phrase as only applying to the things that the paragraph is talking about directly (50% damage reduction) rather than something in a completely different section in a strict RAW discussion.

I am not sure if it is actually possible but if you somehow had the incorporeal special quality but not the subtype then you would get the 50% damage reduction but not the crit immunity (since that is tied to the subtype and not the special quality). By the way why did they separate things like this again? They should have put the crit immunity in the special quality rules not the subtype rules that way it would 100% clear that force effects deal critical hits rather than having to make a logical inference.

[Psyren]

I used that link but I would be wary of trying to use logic gymnastics to try to convince somebody about RAW especially since that quote is being used after talking about the 50% damage reduction and the crit issue is never mentioned in the incorporeal special quality. So it would be reasonable to read that phrase as only applying to the things that the paragraph is talking about directly (50% damage reduction) rather than something in a completely different section in a strict RAW discussion.

The position of the quote is irrelevant in this context, thanks to the qualifier "normally." It is effectively saying "if you're using a force spell or effect, disregard every other caveat relating to damaging incorporeal creatures and treat them like normal creatures." Normal means normal; no gymnastics are required to prove this.

[ImperatorK]

Are you arguing that wizards are worse than rogues?

No my good sir. I'm not stupid.

Because those are 8th level spells. There's still the 9th level spells, the 7th level, the 6th level, etc.

I sais "spells", not 8th level spells. You can run out of 9th, 7th, 6th, etc. spells just as easely as from 8th level ones.

And besides, do you expect to face more than ten encounters a day? Or even ten encounters? IIRC, the DMG lists 3-4 encounters each day on average.

And do you expect every DM in the world to follow this rule?

[Big Fau]

And do you expect every DM in the world to follow this rule?

I expect most to. In reality, I recognize that some DMs are prone to only holding one or two encounters/day, and that some others may try to pile on 5, 6, 7 or more in a single day.

From experience, the former tends to get frustrated as to how fast encounters end, and the latter might notice that some of his players keep needing their characters Resurrected.


The rules of DnD may be a guideline at best, but the 4 encounters/day thing has always been one of the better rules the developers made.

[ImperatorK]

IMO, having exactly 3-4 encounters each game is too predictable and boring.
I've read on this boards that some people are playing "Status Quo" kind of games. Don't know how many, but someone was arguing in other thread (Martial vs Magic) that it's very popular.