The title says it all.
I am hoping someone can explain Rogue sneak attack to me in a way that is somewhat logical. It makes no sense as far as I'm concerned. So far when I bring it up people give a very weak defense for it.
A sneak attack occurs when someone is attacked and hit unknowingly, and presumably in a vital location on the body. The game books doesn't even describe it like that. All it says is that you subtly attack someone.
So that's our definition.
I used to have a problem with sneak attack because a rogue was doing more damage then a fighter type, which made no sense.
A warrior who has trained his life on fighting and learned how to kill people, cannot do it as effectively as a rogue.
IMO, the sneak attack heavily damages a target because the rogue is hitting vital points on the body(unknowingly to the victim) but that is no different then a critical strike. A critical strike is when you hit the body in a vital location. On top of that, certain weapons are supposed to be designed to help better hit as many vital as possible. Any large weapon like a great sword or a great axe have been designed so that you don't need to aim to hit a vital organ. You swing and if you hit, then you more then likely hit a vital spot. Yet, rogues still can do more damage with a sneak attack.
On top of that, if the rogue scores a critical hit now, the sneak attack is doubled as well. So your doing extra damage on the vital spot you are already hitting. This makes no sense to me.
The only way I think I can explain this is like this.
If a character was asleep or down, then a hit to them would kill them instantly.
If a character is in combat then the other person is defendig themselves making it a challange to hit them.
Scoring a crit means hitting a vital but when you sneak attack someone it's like hitting them as though they were asleep.
So you don't totally kil them but you hurt them a lot.
I dunno. Any explanations?
It gets easier if HP is not necessarily meat.. Not all meat, at least.
It also gets easier if you accept that rogues are adept warriors.
But you're not all wrong. Why does a fighter benefit less from teamwork or being hidden? The real answer might boil down to "different mechanics are fun", but that is clearly not a universal opinion.
rpascuttini wrote:
Bear in mind that rogues don't get any extra attacks. If they don't hit, all those sneak attack dice are wasted.
Fighters, on the other hand, end up with heaps of extra attacks. They can also use heavier weapons. It's not that hard for a fighter to outperform a rogue in terms of damage output.
pukunui wrote:
Fighters do more damage by swinging faster. You hammer at the enemy with a barrage of blows. The enemy defense just can't keep up.
Barbarian do more damage by attacking harder. You smash though the enemy defenses with brute might. The enemy defenses crumble.
Rogues do more damage by hitting in more precisely. You strike the moment the enemy defenses are looking the other way. You dagger goes into the chinks of the armor strighter and deeper. But without some sort of distraction, he won't get past the defenses (i.e. no sneak attack).
Also, Fighter's and Barbarians do more damage in general, unless you turn your back on the rogue (oppertunity attacks).
"rpascuttini wrote:
What Gnarl said. HPs are largely a representation of how well a character is able to defend themselves. Rogues attacks are supposedly sneaky and so harder to avoid, thus do more damage. This higher damage made a lot more sense in earlier editions where rogues had lower attack bonuses than fighters.
As you say this is also what a critical hit is, and yes, sneak attacks and critical hits should have a more similar mechanic. In BECMI for instance a sneak attack was double damage, which is what 5E's crits are.
Since rogues now have the same attack bonus as fighters, this leaves you wondering why everyone can't sneak attack in situations the target can't defend itself. This is mitigated somewhat by things like Great Weapon Master giving extra damage, if the fighter has it, but the situation isn't being handled as well as previous editions.
Also yes, the "subtle attack" doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you're getting your advantage by multi-classing Barbarian and using rage... but that is the rather poor advantage mechanic's fault.
FFSAA wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Each one is good at different things. If you have the drop on someone, a rogue is going to be deadlier. But put the rogue and a fighter in a stand-up fight, and that’s where the fighter shines. A critical hit could indeed change things, but that’s luck for you.
The last time I played a rogue (in 4e, granted), I spent a lot of combat time trying to set up that perfect sneak attack, whereas the fighter just waded in immediately.
"Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back. When attacking someone by surprise and from behind, a thief can improve his chance to successfully hit (...) and greatly increase the amount of damage his blow causes. To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him."
That suffices for me.
Although I could see why one would argue that a Fighter or some other experienced combatant would probably know just as well where to strike for more damage if striking someone unawares.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Also yes, the "subtle attack" doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you're getting your advantage by multi-classing Barbarian and using rage... but that is the rather poor advantage mechanic's fault.
Reius wrote:
WOTC designers clearly imagined it a different way to the OP.
The OP's problem is that he sees a different way as the wrong way/the way that 'makes no sense'.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Martial classes have been locked down to certain paths or abilities that are harder to accept when doing a cross class comparison. So you can make alot of statements on why can a battle master do this, but a champion can not, or a rogue, etc. But 5E overall made martial classes simple in comparison to casters, and they lack the one thing casters have in spells, i.e. a toolbox to share ability accross classes. If you had something like maneuvers, then you could have a back stab ability, versus critical hit, tripping, etc. and then like casters, martial characters could specialize.
Macv12 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
First of all, ignore what everyone else says about what hit points represent. That is explicitly left for you (or your DM) to decide. All meat, no meat, 75.2% meat, variable meat, etc. Any expression of what they don't mean is someone else's opinion, too often stated as canon.
Now, that being said, here is how I like to interpret sneak attack (which is shared by some other people). Basically it means you're able to deal an especially devastating blow due to your precision aim when your foe isn't able to fully defend himself (because you have a circumstance that grants advantage or because another combatant is distracting him). I would interpret it as primarily about finding a more vital spot to strike--or a better way to strike a less vital spot--but that doesn't mean an opponent needs to have "vitals" so to speak. You can stab a skeleton or construct in a major joint, you can cut through a connecting area in the amorphous or incorporeal form of an elemental or ghost, etc. You aren't better than a fighter with your basic strikes (most fighting styles provide attack or damage bonuses), but you know how to fight dirty.
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Every use of sneak attack is "Rogue does something sneaky/underhanded/unexpected that a normal warrior would never do, catching the enemy off guard long enough to make it's attack extra effective vs the targets whateveryouthinkhitpointsrepresent".
Conceptually, I think it's unlikely it's ever the exact same thing twice. So "explaining" sneak attack is really "explaining" 100+ different ways it could do extra damage, once each way.
I think of it as:
The Fighter's training assumes that they will have the attention of their foe. They don't take advantage of their foe's distraction because their training assumes that their foes will never actually be distracted,
The Rogue's training assumes that someone or something else will have the attention of their foe, so the Rogue can take advantage of the distraction to plan and make a devastating attack.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
What you are missing is that a critical hit's narrative results depends greatly on the hp of the victim. A critical hit that only removes 1/4 or less of the targets hp and doesn't result in him going down is *not* a vital hit. Essentially, until you get to 50% hp or less, you aren't even injured, so a critical hit before that point might actually just be a near miss or minor scratch. After 50%, you show signs of injury, but again there is absolutly no detrimental effects until you reach 0 hp, so even then a critical hit isn't actually a hit in a vital location, as such as hit would simply down a character. Only if the critical hit is enough to reduce the target to 0 hp or less could it actually represent a real solid vital location being hit for real damage.
Macv12 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Why can't that boxer do a better side kick?
Why can't the TKD fighter do a better arm lock?
Why can't the Tai Chi fighter use swords better?
You can't learn everything, so you learn what you think will be most useful for you.
If you think you will be on your own, then you learn to "Fighter" fight since it gives you the most autonomy.
If you are okay relying on others being there, or sneaking up one someone, you learn to "Rogue" fight, letting you try and 'set up' that one good blow.
Why would a fighter take the time to learn 'sneak attack' when it isn't how he fights... he isn't one to sneak up on people, etc.
rpascuttini wrote:
Can I back this up a bit? What is it you're actually asking here?
Are you saying that Sneak Attack's damage bonus should be changed to a standard critical hit?
Are you saying a fighter should be able to trigger a Sneak Attack?
Is it all just academic?
There are lots of reasons for Sneak Attack to exist. I can talk all day about in-universe justifications. I have a bad habit of losing my patience with arguments that try to toss game balance out the window in favor of class favoritism, so I try to remove myself from those discussions before I bring other people down.
Doesnt always work of course 
I don't get where the "putting a fighter on pedestal" part comes in.
I used to have this same problem. I couldn't understand why a "thief" would be better at inflicting any sort of injury than a professional "warrior." A Spartan, for example, should know every concievable method of killing someone. Of course, this initial perception comes from way back, when rogues were still called "thieves" and the assassin class was the real silent killer. Since then, thieves and assassins have both been rolled into the rogue class. So, nowadays, the rogue is really more of an all-purpose scoundrel: part thief, part assassin, part trickster. In the real world, a typical soldier and a hit man do not necessarily kill the same way ... but then again, D&D has never been an accurate representation of the real world, anyway. Some "soldiers" would be better represented as multi-classed fighter-rogues, rather than as pure fighters: snipers, special forces, scouts, and the like.
Furthermore, in fantasy film and fiction, the line between fighter and rogue is often blurred. Many of the best "warriors" and "scoundrels" in these mediums would be multi-classed: Han Solo, Robinhood, Dartanian, Conan, the Dread Pirate Roberts, any of the Three Musketeers, and so on. If you can name a competent warrior who is not a bit of a scoundrel, then chances are he/she isn't one for sneak-attacking anyway (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena, Gimli, Legolas, King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, any number of gladiators, and so on). This is an important thing to consider when thinking about a game that is meant to emulate fantasy: how many fantasy "fighters" can you name that can sneak-attack, but are not in anyway a bit of scoundrel? The list is a lot shorter, I assure you.
If you want to make an "all-purpose" killer, then you have to mutli-class.
Coredump00 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
VeroMaestro wrote:
Karnos wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Sneak Attack should be renamed Dirty Fighting.
Problem solved.
arnwolf666 wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Can people stop saying 'HP isn't meat!'
HP isn't that, either!
Other people can fill in their own explanation - that's what it can be used for. And telling other people 'It's not meat!' when the other person is happy with that explanation is just being disruptive.
Noon wrote:
It's all Gristle.
I don't understand why skeletons have any HP.
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Just last week, we encountered a room full of spectres. It was an epic fight. My rogue was sneak attacking the heck out of those ghostly, insubstantial spirit dudes!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Then why have such a shocked reaction to sneak attacking spectres?
Just being silly. Playing off the OP's problem with SA and crits and whatnot. It's those kinds of headaches that make me just say "whatever" when I encounter these things. If the dissonance is being caused by the fluff in the book, I'll reinerpret the fluff; if the problem is how I picture it in my head, I'll change the picture. Fighting it seems like wasted energy to me, but I understand that it can be a big deal for some people.
Ah. Well nothing to see here, then. Moving on.
FFSAA wrote:
The way I look at it is similar to modern day Soldiers and the modern military Sniper. Both are highly trained warriors.
The soldier will engage an enemy with several shots in a sort controlled burst at center mass.
The Sniper will take longer to line up a shot and fire a single bullet at a strategic location to inflict maximum damage on that individual shot.
Rogues are just as skilled at combat as a fighter, they just have a different philosophy on the best way to apply damage.
sneak atack should happen while not under combat mode, that is along with surprise; I can report two times when I suffered from a sneak attack; each time I was caught flat-footed ( hopefully I wasn't hurt, these were just demonstrations that people did to ensure them of the viability of ther skill, me highly confident in my strong AC etc... )
from ancient topic:
here's the topic: your character is composed of body points, which are taken off when you suffer critical hits, and you have not much of body points; you can improve your total by proving yourself a true sports champion.
you can use a substitute of body points called hit points whenever you enter combat mode. you can enter combat mode volontarily. combat mode is a strenuous activity, so you cannot normally always stay in combat mode. your AC raises in combat mode, and you gain feats derived from the fighter class as well.
BUT a character taken by surprise under non-combat mode has no defense like those given by combat mode and can be easily defeated. so how can we define combat mode?
it is viewed as a concentrative ability, based on sharpened senses, with a limited duration in rounds like a haste spell (or perhaps constitution rounds), and usable your level times per day, so you won't necessarily enter combat mode in each and every fight; sometimes you let the friends take up the fight.
my main reflexion with the idea of combat mode as a simple spell which empowers you (temporarily) to the class of Fighter is to permit spells of combat for the magician; if we could "recreate" the fighter class under a spell class, that would let us simplify the system enormously!
rpascuttini wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Describing it as a magic attack is great.
FFSAA wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Imagine players don't have access to their character sheets. They don't know their HP, AC, or stats. They rely only on information given "in-universe" to make decisions. They are aware of their capabilities, in relative terms. "I am tough." "I can cast spells." "I can sneak attack."
If you were to play this way, would you change the way you narrate Attacks, damage, combat-readiness, critical hits, & sneak attacks?
How would you convey that a character had 5/100 HP left, if you weren't allowed to say "HP, hit points, life, etc"?
How would you describe an attack that did 35 damage? What if it was a Crit? What if it was a sneak attack? What if that damage was dealt to a creature without a discernible anatomy?
For me, I think the numbers are merely for tracking and do not describe or mandate the "in-universe" effects. But by that token, the situation must be given truthfully. Whether the enemy combatant is "too weary to defend himself effectively for much longer" or "gravely wounded," the players & character should have some sense that the enemy has few HP left.
Likewise, they should know the effectiveness of their attacks, relatively speaking, from the in-universe narrative. 35 damage to a single soldier is devastating. To a dragon, not so much. So I struggle to view these numbers as absolute reality. But they make for a useful benchmark on how stuff gets narrated. Meaning (again for me) Narration > Numbers. I don't try to understand a game mechanic by analyzing its numeric effect. I first try to understand its place in the narrative, in the universe, and then check to see of the numbers help reinforce that place, relatively speaking.
So we get sneak attack. Which I understand as "this combatant has trained to exploit weaknesses in his opponent's defense to deliver devastating attacks." Those weaknesses could be based on a lack of proper guard for a brief window of opportunity, a weak point in anatomy, or a strike timed while the opponent is focused elsewhere. But it's situational - not the same thing every time. And the in-universe narrative should describe how the mechanic is brought to bear.
I've always run it, and most thieving abilities, as supernatural. Think of sneak attack as the character temporarily being as strong and fast as a vampire, like from the movie, Dracula Untold. I let thieves become invisible when they hide in shadows, and walk silently even if they are crushing broken eggshells underneath their feet. Some things can give a penalty, but the thief has always been able to use special powers to me.