If a rogue uses his sneak attack during his turn, can he then use it again during an Attack of Opportunity later in the same combat round?
This was Q96 in the "Ask a simple Question" thread. As there were at least three different views posted in answer, it seemed sensible to move the discussion to a separate thread.
(edit - 2014-07-19 and 2014-07-20)
- The official answer from WotC is "yes" and again "yes".
- The rules-as-written are correct but, as with all rules, they do need to be read carefully.
- The words "turn" and "round" do not have the same meaning in 5e as they did in some previous editions.
My own view is "yes he can". I base this on the RAW for sneak attack, page 27 of the Basic PDF.
Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can
deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The
attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t
incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the
attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you
gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack
column of the Rogue table.
BoldItalic wrote:
Each creature has it's own turn within a round. The rogue can use sneak attack once every turn. This is how it worked in 4e as well.
Seems the spirit of the rule was meaning for using it just once per round like in older editions.
lol no.
Overpromises wrote:
I think sneak attack works once per each of the rogues turns. Its not once per round, like if I'm the rogue and last in the initiative order, that doesnt mean I can AoO with sneak attack on the next character because its a new round. Once you take a turn if you attack someone and sneak attack you cant sneak attack again until you get a new turn. If you attack and miss however, you can still use your sneak attack in an off hand attack or an AoO before your next turn. Could they have made the wording clearer, yes they could have. But I think the point they were trying to make is quite clear.
You are assuming that when it says "once per turn" that it means once per everyone's turn, I disagree I think it only meant once per turn [of the rogue].
Before we got Mearl's take on rest disturbance I would've said that the RAI was that the rogue gets sneak attack only once per ROUND. But after his bizarre interpretation and the silliness of the wording of rest disturbance, I have no idea what those crazy kids had in mind with SA.
obsid wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Interestingly the Cleric’s Divine Strike description uses the wording “Once on each of your turns” rather than the “Once per turn” used for Sneak attack.
I could not say for certain that the rogue was not an oversight, but the designers are certainly capable of writing clearly that they only get one of something no matter what.
Guys, this is common language within 4th and 5th edition. Once per turn is not once per round or once per each of the rogue's turns. It's once per turn. Each entry in the initiative list represents a turn within the round. This is very very basic stuff. If they wanted once per round, they would have said that. If they wanted once per each of the rogue's turns they would have said that (just look the the cleric's Divine Strike example above). This is not hard, the rules do what they say they do, nothing less and nothing more. Once per turn is simply once per turn nothing more and nothing less.
Noctaem wrote:
He should only be able to use Sneak Attack once and only once until the requirements are met again for another Sneak Attack. I don't see how it could be interpited as being able to do it twice in a round / turn. OoA gives you 1 melee attack and that's it. I think it is kind of simple. As a DM you can do whatever you want, but I just don't see it any other way.
h347h50 wrote:
FireballFace wrote:
Not sure if you're just trolling but for the sake of the discussion I'll give a detailed explanation...
Each element in the initiative order represents a turn within a round. Abilities that can be used once every turn mean they can be used once during each of the turns within a round. So if the rogue somehow could get an attack that met the requirements of sneak attack on every creatures turn in a round, he/she would be able to do sneak attack once for every one of those turns. So if there's 5 creatures in the initiative including the rogue:
A = 5 initiative
B = 4 Initiative
C = 3 Initiative
D = 2 Initiative
Rogue = 1 Initiative
And during A, B, C and D's turns the rogue somehow managed to attack with advantage he/she would get to apply sneak attack every single time, to a maximum of once per turn. Then the rogue would get his/her own turn and do an attack which can benefit from sneak attack as well. And repeat. The only limitation for sneak attack is that it can only be used once per turn. Not once per round, not once per the rogue's turns, not once per blue moon. Once per turn. A has a turn, B has a turn, C has a turn, D has a turn and the Rogue has a turn. All of those turns form a round. Just read the rules with the basis that they do what they say they do. Nothing more and nothing less.
FireballFace wrote:
I don't think there's an actual way for the rogue to get that many attacks in a round to begin with, but people need to understand how to read rules text or this is never going to end lol.
Noctaem wrote:
Reactions are once per round. When an encounter starts and initiative is rolled, you can do one reaction between the time the encounter starts and the start of your turn within the initiative order unless you're surprised. After that you can only take one reaction between the end of your turn and the start of your next turn since you can't take reactions during your own turn.
What they wrote in the rules and what they intended are possibly two different things. I agree as written you can sneak attack on each participant's turn in a fight if you meet the requirements. I doubt that is what they intended, but who knows.
Why would it not be what they intended? What basis are you using to even assume to know what they intended? Just follow the rules. If they didn't want it to be once per turn they for one wouldn't have written once per turn and second they can errata it later if it's a mistake (it's not). Considering how many attacks the rogue can get outside of his/her turn there's no reason to get all crazy and ignore the rules about how sneak attack works or screw over the rogue player.
Noctaem wrote:
That makes no sense. That's how the rogue sneak attack worked in 4e, and in 3e it was very similar. There's no reason to believe, just because you don't like the fact that the rogue can do sneak attack on every turn, that they made a mistake and that it wasn't intended. In fact everything points toward that, it is in fact, very much so intended.
Saelorn wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lol so different is 5e in fact that they have been marketing it so far as the edition to bridge them all together. Anyway, there's very similar things about the previous editions within 5e, I believe that's the point. I mean the language for sneak attack is almost exactly like the one from 4e except that they added the whole enemy of the target within 5 feet portion which just makes it easier to get sneak attack. So you're wrong there. As for your second point it doesn't seem valid either.
Frankly, this is getting more and more silly. You guys are ignoring rules text because you don't like it. Fine, you can run your tables however you want after all. But don't talk in a rules questions forum like if it's the rules as written. Keep your houserules out please 
We have a big enough task to help people who have questions without having to deal with misinformation and this kind of nonsense.
Noctaem wrote:
does it or does it not say once per turn?
And when you say "everyone else" does that include: Jay_Ibero_911, Overpromises, Ashrym, BoldItalic or any of the others who have agreed? It's really starting to get silly here that you would assume to know the intent of the people who wrote the sneak attack feature in 5e and that you now seem to ignore those who don't agree with you by claiming "everyone else" does. Buddy you have problems if that's how you're going to try to argue. I'm pretty sure you're getting into fallacy territory in fact.
You have 0 basis for claiming that the RAI is something other than the RAW. 0, none, nada, niet. Other than your own dislike of how the rule works. Find something to base it off of other than your own dislike of the rule and maybe you can have some ground to stand on.
The Cleric language would not accurately be applied to what the rogue’s sneak attack does. The cleric says “Once on each of your turns.” That would not be accurate because AoO can use sneak attack (if it hasn’t already been used), so the “on each of your turns” phrase would not be correct as it can be done even when it’s not your turn.
Instead the sneak attack “once per turn” is more like the language in casting a multi-round spell, which says: “When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below).” Can you can see it says “you must spend your action each turn” and it clearly doesn’t mean EVERY turn by every character when it says “each turn” it means your own turn. Likewise the sneak attack can only be used once per the turn of the rogue that is sneak attacking.
So in boldItalic’s example (assuming inspiration), the rogue would get a sneak attack on the AoO against the goblin as he has not yet used it. Then when his turn starts it is again his turn, so he can sneak attack the goblin with the shortbow. Now lets say he pulls out the rapier again before the end of his turn, and the goblin again runs past, then he would not get a sneak attack with his AoO (assuming the shortbow shot hit and he used sneak attack), as it was already used before the rogue had a turn again.
RAW is clear, but RAI is split. That's all there is to it. You can play it either way, and nobody can say that it's a house rule.
Noctaem wrote:
obsid wrote:
the key difference here obsid is the part where it says you must spend your action each turn. Since you can't spend your action outside of your turn, your example isn't valid. You can't apply that to sneak attack, these are totally different mechanics. The way spells work is not the way sneak attack works. This is like the most basic and straightforward example of a feature in the edition. You can use this feature every turn but only once during each of those turns. I've done a detailed explanation to go over how turns work, how turns form a round and went over the feature. I don't even understand how you guys can argue against that frankly. Now Saelorn isn't even arguing the RAW, his position is completely based on his own feelings about the feature. And I've shown multiple times now how flawed the reasoning is. He's willing to ignore those who don't agree with him and he's using blanket statements. Unless you guys can produce a real argument that's actually related to the feature in question, there's not much more to add. And since this is the rules forum, we should be sticking to what the rules say and not what some random persons arbitrary houserule is.
Noctaem wrote:
so whats the correct official answer?
Noctaem, I suggest you read my response to this issue in the Simple Question thread, if you haven't done so already. I disagree with your interpretation of the rules.
I'll repost it here for you:
R96: There is no such thing as "one round, many turns" for most features in 5E that I've seen. In fact, outside of the Reaction rules, which are expressly limited to once "per round," there does not seem to be a way to do things on other character's turns, in contrast to the opportunity actions from 4E. I would say that the intent is for 1 Sneak Attack per Rogue's turn, otherwise we could get into situations where a Rogue is a better melee fighter than the Fighter. I see 3 possible interpretations here: 1. "Once per turn" means "one time on the Rogue's turn." This is the strictest and allows only 1 sneak attack from the Rogue per round, and does not allow Sneak Attack on other actors' turns. 2. "Once per turn" means "one time for each turn the Rogue takes," or "You can do this once before the start of your next turn." This would allow only 1 Sneak Attack per round, similar to the rule for Reactions, but allows for possible Sneak Attacks as reactions. 3. "Once per turn" means "one time on each actor's turn." This would allow the Rogue to sneak attack once on his turn, and once on the turn of another actor if the Rogue has an attack as a Reaction. I would say that #1 is the safest and easiest option and captures the idea of a precise, surprise attack. #2 is a small stretch, because it is worded differently than other options (namely, Reactions) that take place outside of the actor's turn. #3 would be a way to literally interpret the rule but I believe goes against the spirit and balance of the game. If #3 were generally accepted, a common Rogue tactic may be to beg for Haste spells in order to both Ready an attack as well as perform a single haste Attack action, thereby doubling their damage output from a spell which seems to have been designed to be balanced and restricted with high-damage characters in mind (the extra attack action can grant only a single attack - Fighters do not disproportionately benefit, the extra action cannot be Cast a Spell - casters do not disproportionately benefit, Divine Strike does explicitly say "Once on each of your turns" - Clerics do not disproportionately benefit). I think the simplest explanation is the omission of the word "your" before "turn(s)" in the Sneak Attack description was accidental or rather the consequences were unforeseen.
The main point here is that, if your interpretation of Sneak Attack holds, the most effective way for a rogue to fight is to find a method to attack and to ready an action for trivial circumstances in the same round (such as a Haste spell). This would not only be almost twice as effective as any other way to deal damage with a Rogue, but it seems to go against the other safeguards put in place on the Haste spell, for example. This is reductio ad absurdum.
A similar "read as written" argument in favor of "end of round" terminating readied actions, which was slightly more strongly worded than this Sneak Attack "rule," was shown to be just a typographical mistake.
The omission of one word once in one sentence should not be construed as a firm reason to ignore the precedent set by the rest of the features of 5E which do not hold to a "one round, many turns" interpretation in the 4e sense of the idea.
As a personal aside, I would just like to note that a few posts in this thread in particular have taken what I infer to be as a markedly caustic, snippy tone which I think we could all do without.
Noctaem wrote:
Seuleslintan wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
obsid wrote:
I would have assumed it was pretty clear cut.
....The game organises the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is decided..."
So a Rogue can gain Sneak Attack damage "once per turn".
A Fighter can Action Surge "on your turn"
Once you take a reaction, you can't take another one until "the start of your next turn."
Remember that you can only take one reaction "per round"
So, the Rogue can Sneak Attack on an Opportunity Attack and on an attack on its turn, otherwise it would say once per each of your turns, or once per round or something else.
A round in definition is from the first step of the initiative order to the end of the last... But abilities that last 1 round, or once per round, start and stop at the character turn that it occurs on.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Youngy wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
- If we were to ask Mike Mearls on twitter for his take on what was intented, how would we word it? How about: "Can a rogue use his Sneak Attack in an AoO?" Would that settle it?
- I think we should try to avoid refering to earlier editions as a precedent, for fear of being ninja'd by the moderators. We aren't supposed to talk about earlier editions in this forum, even though doing so in this context is clearly helpful and benign.
- I could throw a spanner in the works by pointing out that a 17+ level Thief Rogue gets two full turns in the first round of combat and this breaks equating "until your next turn" with "one round".
Ashrym wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Hold Person/Monster have saving throws, though (repeated ones), which changes things a bit. There are many ways a Rogue can get adjacent allies or advantage, and doing so makes them more effective area controllers than Fighters, the class generally seen as the front-line area controller. Whereas a high-level Fighter may smack you for 2d6+5 (or +8, or +10) if you try to run away from him without disengaging, a double-sneak-attacking Rogue would hit you for 11d6+5 (or 8, or 10). This makes a Rogue much more 'threatening' than a Fighter, which I believe violates the intended class balances.
So can everyone agree that the RAW allows for the possibility of multiple Sneak Attacks per round even if we can't agree on intent? Just to be clear I'm not asking how you'd adjudicate it, but for a strict, literal, good old fashioned rules lawyering.
On intent I'm leaning towards "once per your turn" but I really hope I'm wrong. I don't think it blows the game balance out of the water at all. Allowing the rogue to occasionally out damage the fighter, and only with at least some setup, isn't a bad thing. The fighter is still going to be the king of melee. He consistently deals out high damage with out needing any tricks; he has a higher AC; he's got more HP. Letting the rogue spike higher in damage at times does nothing to supplant the fighter's role on the frontline.
Ashrym wrote:
If anyones done programming, you know you can slip up and assign results you do not intend to make with just a scant few words.
For the people who assume on any old characters turn the 'can do sneak attack' boolean resets to true, the fact that you don't consider this could possibly be a screw up just makes you look like you're simply want that and plug your ears to the very simple idea that the text may have been written poorly.
I mean it's one of the most awkward ways of granting something - X gets something every time someone else...well, they don't even have to do anything - as soon as they get the chance to choose to do something, X gets something. It's only the number of reactions that caps it, otherwise it'd just go stupid. When it's falling through to a second system to stop it going stupid, that aught to raise alarm bells unless you're biased towards getting your own way.
If you had something like a free heal with no reaction restriction, it'd mean the more monsters there are (and more PC's there are) the more heals you could do. Does that ever seem like a good way to write a game, even if the limit on reactions caps this? What else could cap it - writing what you're supposed to do
Is there anywhere that you get something when someone else does absolutely nothing?
It's the something for nothing nature of this that should make it seem pretty off.
Further, the difference between 'One time during your turn you can...' vs 'Once per turn, you can...' is very, very little. It's hardly any sort of clear cut 'every time someone else has a turn, I get something for free!' reading. It is instead poor technical writing.
Ranting 'you get it every turn!' doesn't mean it isn't a technical writing screw up.
But the people saying their interpretation isn't a house rule are wrong - any interpretation at this point is a house rule. You don't somehow get two interpretations and yet they are both somehow official at the same time. That is make believe.
Valheru_Blade wrote:
For me it is simple:
a rogue can sneak atack on opportunity attacks, if he has advantage. I see no reason why it should be not intended. If the rogue can do an average of 90 damage once in awhile in a single round, I am really not concerned at all. A fighter still outclasses him in a fair fight.
Okay. It's clear that after 70 posts in this thread, we are not a lot nearer to agreement.
So let's move forward.
We can ask Mike Mearls for a ruling.
Of couse, as individual DMs we need not be bound by his ruling but at least we will each be in a position to know whether we are going to be house-ruling this or not.
And then, when we know what is intended, we can suggest that the wording in the Basic rules be clarified because, between us, we think it doesn't unequivocally express the design intent.
It's too late for the PHB (it's already being printed) but it's in line with the "living game" ideals.
Just don't ask the 'Can a rogue do sneak attack on an AoO?' question.
Because a rogue could simply not use their sneak attack and save it for their AoO and that'd be consistant with once per rogues turn interpretation.
'Can a rogue do a sneak attack on their turn, and then another sneak attack during an AoO?'
I tweeted this question to Mike Mearls "Can a 5e rogue benefit from sneak attack once during each turn of every creature, including his/her own in the initiative order?"
Like that people can't start arguing later that the battle master granted attacks can't benefit from it. If it's once on every creature's turn just like the feature says, and Mike Mearls agrees with it, hopefully that will be the end of it.
Noon wrote:
Once per turn is once per turn... Not once per rogue turn... Nor once per round...
RAW - That is how it is.
RAI... I would say the same as well - you don't run away from someone who is going to stab you in the back the moment you do.
I know Youngy, many of us agree. Some people though somehow think they know what the intent of the Dev's is based on, or that high level spells being available somehow means that it's not intended, or that a level 17 rogue get's Thief Reflexes clearly shows that it's not intended, or how spells or some other random thing works shows that the feature can't possibly work the way it's clearly written, or whatever other reason they can invent. Hopefully with Mike Mearls giving us an answer (can't believe I'm saying this) it'll settle things for good.
But the bottom line here for me is that for whatever reason, their personal dislike of a feature somehow makes it ok for them to come on a rules forum to say the rules as written are wrong. When people come asking questions they shouldn't be getting houserules for answers, they should be getting the rules from the books. This needs to stop immediately for the sake of everyone asking questions.
Why do people keep saying that the rogue’s damage ends up too high with the rules as written? Any monster that actually gets hit by a sneak attack opportunity attack made such a bad decision that it deserves to die.
There will be almost no extra damage whatsoever as a result. A far more likely result is for monsters to stay put and attack the rogue, or possibly to use Disengage.
To me the problem in this discussion is people are mixing up explanations of what a Turn is, with when a Rogue can Sneak Attack on their Turn.
NO ONE is saying that a Rogue can Sneak Attack at will on every turn during 1 round of combat.
What's being said is that IF a Rogue gets to attack, and IF a Rogue has met the requirements of Sneak Attack for that ONE attack, THEN they get the extra damage.
Example:
On inititative count 20 in round 2 of combat the 1st level Rogue has her turn. She's Two-Weapon Fighting with daggers. She's attacking a goblin, who is attack her friend (so the condition of adjacent ally is met). With her main-hand attack she hits and can add the Sneak Attack extra damage. This is her "once per turn" (on inititative count 20). Then with her off-hand attack she hits again. She cannot add Sneak Attack damage because she's already used it (on inititative count 20). She decides to stay where she is and her turn (on inititative count 20) over.
On inititative count 15 of round 2 of combat the goblin has had enough and moves away from her, provoking an Opportunity Attack from the Rogue. The Rogue gets 1 attack, even though she's holding two weapons. She hits the goblin, and since the goblin still has an ally adjacent to it, the Rogue can apply Sneak Attack damage to the 1 attack on inititative count 15. This is her "once per turn" (on inititative count 15).
On inititative count 10 of round 2 of combat another goblin comes up, stands between the Rogue and her friend, and attacks the Rogue. The Rogue can do NOTHING because she's already had her turn and used her reaction on inititative count 15 of round 2 of combat.
In the above example you can replace the 1st level Rogue/Sneak Attack with an 8th level Cleric/Divine Strike, and the results would be exactly the same. If either of these class features stated "once per round" then in the above example the Opportunity Attack would NOT be eligible for the extra damage.
I just tweeted a link to the above comment #79 to Mike Mearls and asked if he'd confirm that it is correct. Stay tuned!
E-Tallitnics wrote:
right the example you gave E-Tallitnics is wrong for the reason Overpromises just explained. Please be vigilant and don't muddy the water further.
Noctaem wrote:
ah boo, you're one of those people 
That's unfortunate. Your previous post was not clear. You claim like others to know the intent of the devs. Action economy has nothing to do with how the rogue's sneak attack feature works lol. Comparing apples to oranges yes?
How do you get to once per your turn if it doesn't even say that to begin with?
I cannot believe this is even being debated. It clearly says, and means, once per TURN (ie, you can deal it with an AoO AND with one of your attacks) just like in 4e. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the RAI are different from the RAW other than a DM's desire to unfairly nerf a rogue.
Let's pick and choose some of what we think RAI should be to nerf some other classes...
A fighter's archery fighting style only applies to Long Bows and Short Bows, because its called "Archery"
A cleric can only cast spells in his Domain Spell list, because those are the only spells his god has power to use (it its domain)
a wizard can only cast spells from his chosen school, because those are the only spells his school studies
Saying a rogue doesn't get Sneak attack once per turn, even though it says once per turn, is just as ridiculous as any of the above, and there is no more evidence in the rules to rule against the rogue than to apply any of the above.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Noon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@SilentSin
OMG finally people who make sense!!!
There is also only one other instance of "once per turn" that I can find in the rules, and those are the rules governing oil:
If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. A creature can take this damage only once per turn.
This clearly means once per turn as well. If a creature is pushed into the burning oil, say on a mage's turn by thunderwave, he immediately takes the 5 damage. Then on his turn, if he doesn't move out of the oil's AOE, he takes the damage again.
There is no reason to think that this use of "once per turn" is any different from a rogue's sneak attack. If we apply the once per turn ruling that people apply to the rogue, and its once per the creature's turn, then he gets pushed into a pool of flaming oil not on his turn, walks out when his turn comes up and just passed through fire completely unscathed. This makes no sense.
Clearly there is a rules concept of "once per turn" (ie, once per any creature's turn) and to make an assumption that that concept does not apply to the rogue's sneak attack seems blatant nerf targetting.
Most of them have already explained that their reasoning is based on the combination of the rogue's sneak attack feature as written and other game elements or simply because they don't like it. Like the high level haste spell or the 17th level rogue's Thief's Reflexes. So because they view a level 17 rogue being able to maybe reliably deal sneak attack multiple times, it's suddenly a big deal and they need to make sure it can't work that way by assuming they know the intent of people that they have never even met. I'm just thankful these people aren't in politics!
Another point is that they assume to know the intent of the dev's and then when it's suggested to ask one of the top tier dev's (Mike Mearls) what his intent was, they retort that it's his houserules and not to be relied on. So it's just gibberish at this point. You claim to know the intent of someone and when that person is asked what his intent was you say no no, that's not reliable. This has no place in a rules forum and people should be ashamed. Logical Fallacies abound!
kanageddaamen wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
Those saying it's too OP with RAW, how many out of turn attacks do you guys usually get in a session? I generally play fighter types and am usually in the thick of things. I end up getting 2-3 OAs a session. Maybe my DM is weird, I dunno. I don't see a rogue getting to instagib 2-3 thing a session that would of probably died in that round anyways is OP. Not to mention most of that dmg is probably going to be overkill and not get applied anyways...
E-Tallitnics wrote:
There you go, so those who claim to know the Dev's intent should perhaps rethink their position. Thank you!
Overpromises wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
frbelanger wrote:
I would certainly hope so! The amount of evidence now should make it clear for everyone. Even those who argue RAI should come to their senses now that one of the actual dev's has answered the question.
BoldItalic wrote:
Now that this is put to bed I need to reiterate how baffled I am that this was even discussed. The argument came down to "I don't like the way this works so I am going to assume the developers didn't want it that way, to the contrary of what the rule actually states"
If that is how you DM, I am surprised you have any players willing to deal with your targeted house rulings
^
This does appear to significantly disadvantage ranged rogues compared to those in melee who will get AoO far more frequently.
Noctaem wrote:
If that's how it was intended, then so be it. Anyone playing a rogue should really, really focus on gaining off-turn attacks whenever possible.
I strongly feel that this detracts from the gameplay experience, in much the same way as deciding to smite after finding out that you scored a critical hit (in the previous packet, where smite damage would have been maximized by that). It adds a whole other layer of "game" on top of trying to just play the character.
BoldItalic wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Not to mention that ranged rogues are just that, ranged!
kanageddaamen wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly (which may be the case, it's been a long time) a TURN in 2e was defined as 10 rounds. So compairing terms across editions is in no way a basis to make rulings.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Another key part of that logic, that you guys might be forgetting, is that the warlord (or battle master as they are going to be called IIRC) is most likely giving up his own main action during his turn in order to give the rogue or whoever an attack out of turn. There's a tradeoff here that is not being mentioned by people who feel it's overpowered. Also, it's ridiculous to not follow the rules because of the possibility of another class being added somewhere down the road that might grant attacks out of turn. Can we stick to the actual rules in the rules forum please??
Overpromises wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
When you have a fighter that is able to get out 8 attacks per round do you guys really think that giving out some random attacks with SA is going to make the game crash?
Noctaem wrote:
Excellent clarifications. Now we can divert this discussion to what it should be; away from irrelvancies like RAW and RAI and into the much more fertile territory of "Is this a good rule, and should it be houseruled if not?"
Ashrym wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Ok this is not a rule that can be interpreted in multiple ways UNLESS you ignore the evidence that has been presented so far. So please, stop it already. If you want to create a houserule for yourself and your group that's your perrogative but that has no business being in the rules forum. That's what the homebrew forum is for.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
?
1eejit wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Synric wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Synric wrote:
I think it's simply that the rogue is designed to be primarily a melee class. Unlike the fighter that actually gets an Archery fighter style, the rogue is meant to use archery as a supplement. Though who knows, maybe as the edition advances more stuff will be released to give the rogue more ranged options. For now though it's a melee class and that's nothing to complain about.
1eejit wrote:
Noon wrote:
ah no.. we're reading the text listed in the rules. Once every turn is exactly that, once every turn. And now we do know at least that one lead dev agrees with us. So we know that much for intent which is quite a bit more than what those who refuse to read the text do. That's no reason to try and start a flame war...
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
There have been misinterpretations from "RAW" in this edition already, which is why some people want to debate and examine rules that seem like outliers.
Implying that people who don't agree with someone "didn't read the text" is a bit presumptous.
E.g.: Thrown property, Magic Missile + Evokers, Ready action
Noctaem wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Now that the matter is resolved, what can we learn from the way the matter was disputed?
I think there is potential for misunderstanding what "turn" means in 5e and it depends on what previous edition you are coming from.
The Basic PDF is carefully worded and if you read it very carefully right through, as if you were studying a mathematics text-book, say, you should be able to interpret the rules correctly without prior knowledge. But not everybody is going to do that. The temptation is to skim through it, noticing a few things and making assumptions about the rest, based on your previous gaming experience. This may lead people astray and, once someone has the wrong idea about something, it can be very hard to shift it.
Perhaps what is needed is a collection of conversion guides for players (and especially DMs) coming from earlier editions, pointing out the fundamental assumptions that are different and that may lead you astray in your thinking. 5e is new, so in practice we are all coming from previous editions one way or another, so we could all benefit from such a scheme.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can
deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The
attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another
enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t
incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the
attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you
gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack
column of the Rogue table.
It can't be more clear. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. Example: A rogue attacks on his turn and hits his target while there's an ally of his within 5 feet from said target. This situation lets the rogue use his sneak attack against said target but only once on this turn, meaning that no matter if the rogue has 2 or 3 attacks left to make, he can no longer apply sneak attack damage. On the target's turn, the target decides to move away from the rogue and his ally, provoking oportunity attacks from the rogue AND his ally. The rogue attacks and hits. The rogue gets to apply his sneak attack If the target is still 5 feet away from his ally or otherwise, somehow, still holds an advantage over the target. It makes total sense rules-wise. It is what the rogue does. You give your back to a rogue, he will give you a back-stab. There is no need to interpret this mechanic as anything other than what it says. That's how rules are read. You read what is on the paper or screen and you apply it. I doesn't matter one bit If this is not what the game designers intended, Which I strongly doubt. If this is somehow NOT what the game designers intended, then they will change it eventually, but as it stands and reads, that's how it works.
Yes, the problem is that when people couldn't argue the RAW anymore they began to argue the intent behind the language used. Like if they could somehow know what that intent was to begin with. So we got a tweet sent to Mike Mearls who settled it by agreeing that it did work exactly like it says it does in the rules. Once per turn, every turn. As far as I can tell this is settled except for a few who still refuse to accept any of the evidence presented. At this point it stands as:
- The words themselves can't be interpreted as anything more than they are by RAW. Once per turn means just that, once per turn. Turn is a defined term within the rules.
- There's an item listed in the Basic Rules PDF, it's a kind of oil which states that creatures can only take the damage once per turn. By various other readings suggested this oil would stop working so it has to be once per turn just like Sneak Attack by RAW.
- As for intent we have the tweet from Mike Mearls agreeing that the intent is indeed just like the RAW.
Those who don't agree just seem to not like the feature because they deem it overpowered either by itself or in conjuction with high level spells (IE Haste) and game elements (IE Thief's Reflexes). I haven't read a single piece of actual evidence to support their side of the debate so far other than personal bias. There also seemed to be confusion as to what the game meant by Turn and Round for example. So it might have been just an issue of people not reading the rules or bringing from past editions the terms of the words. For example I think in 2e a turn was a term used for 10 rounds which is totally not what it means now.
I'm happy we got this settled though because frankly, like others, I'm very surprised that this was even debated to begin with.
Overpromises wrote:
I recommend no one let themselves fall into a flame war. It's not worth it. If people make personal attacks, just report them and move on.
Noctaem wrote:
Noon wrote:
I've updated my intial post in this thread, to summarise the outcome and included a link to Mike Mearl's answer, so that if anyone come new to this thread in the future, they won't need to wade though the whole discussion.
Just a side note that I'm not sure if anyone mentioned; even though a rogue can potentially Sneak Attack every TURN, he's still limited to one Reaction in a ROUND. Thus far the rules we've seen (Basic PDF and Starter Set) would, at best allow a rogue to use Sneak Attack twice in a round; once on his turn and once with a Reaction on something else's turn. And if I made the choice to make an Attack of Opportunity (with Sneak Attack damage) I may have just given up Uncanny Dodge, may or may not be worth it.
I think the question is is this regular language they are using or a sort of hyper compacted (so as to fit on a card) magic the gathering rules language and they've fallen into the habit of thinking everyone knows their thieves cant, so to speak?
From what I've seen it's not how it's read normally. It's nice that special people X know the lingo, but if you are selling to Y and not just X, you need to use the language Y uses. Just say the rogue can do it on their attack and on an attack of opportunity (there is no premium on space here like there is on the back of a magic card. Nor is this twitter.)
And even further explanation. So I think at this point it's clear yes? I mean it's not about special people, which frankly is quite insulting btw Noon, but more about just understanding it correctly based on previous experience with exactly this kind of language. 4th edition worked like this as well, it's the same kind of language and so does modern MTG, which is why in his latest tweet Mike Mearls points to it. This is 2 tweets for intent on of top of everything else. The mountain of evidence continues to grow the more you dig, so let's move on already.
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Yep, it seems that there's a few arguments being made that don't take into account exactly what it is that they are proposing. The resource and opportunity costs involved are quite large and painful.
So, as I understand it, a thief can sneak attack any time during a round in which she is eligible to attack. But if a thief dual wields and makes two attacks in the same turn, only one of those can be a sneak attack. However, the limitations on making attacks still apply ( in terms of limits on AoO's and such).
Jbickley00 wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because Discussing Moderation and Trolling are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Noctaem wrote:
Now linked in the OP of this very thread, and discussed on basically every other page of this very thread.
thespaceinvader wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
As I posted earlier in this thread, there is always a risk that people coming to 5e from earlier editions may jump to erroneous conclusions about what the 5e rules mean. In that case, we can help by clarifying and that's what we did in this thread. We suceeded.
That's different from the case of people who do understand the rules well enough but knowingly choose to play the game differently. We don't need to argue about it. We respect each other's right to play the game how we like. No need to comment.
But this thread will get heated again if people who choose to play differently, insist that their way of playing is the only right one and everyone else (including the Senior Designer at WotC) has misunderstood the rules. That is bad karma.
^ this was extremely well said.
What should also be realized is that most of the current R&D team also worked on 4e. Therefore the expression of their ideas will most likely echo that style of writing.
In case this post was directed at mine:
BoldItalic wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
2097 wrote:
This is my personal position:
I feel that the only reason there is a distinction to the rogues sneak attack vs say the Clerics devine strike which read "once on each of your turns" is because thieves at level 17 get two turns per round.
I am quite confident that the spirit of the rule is once per each of your turns and not one anyone turn. Also the two tweets from Mike Merls do not address Sneak Attack specifically. They just confirm that you can indeed attack outside of your turn.
So in my games, it's one per each of the Rouges turns.
I also appreciate a lot of the comments with letting people play the way they want and don't encourage people to insist that one way of play is the only way of play. That gets a big thumbs up for me. feel that
sliceoffruit wrote:
The rogue already lack Extra Attacks, the last thing it needs is Sneak Attack nerfed...
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/12/sneak-turn/
Guys- it's once per the players turns. I feel like it's pretty obvious to me that's the case and they just wrote it that way because Thieves get 2 turns per round at 17th level.
sliceoffruit wrote:
Fine, I'll pay it that way. But a level 3 human rogue can easily score 6d6 per round if this is true with the right feat. Feels wrong to me, that's all.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
sliceoffruit wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
From a conversation I had on this matter that really convey my thoughts on the matter: Yeah, the "Once per turn" bullshit can get real ambiguous real quick. In terms of RAW, there are three interpretations that I'd say are logically acceptable. One is "Once per Rogue's turn, on the Rogue's turn." This is the one Mike refers to. Two, "Once per Rogue's turn, within the round." This would allow you to use it on someone else's turn using your Reaction if you didn't use it on your own turn. Three, "Once per turn," as in ANY turn. Like I said, I think all of them are acceptable and potentially easily balanced. Sadly, as far as I know, the wording on these issues don't give a clear RAW or RAI answer. I'm not sure which I'd lean towards... But it's hard to lean away from whatever Mike says.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
sliceoffruit wrote:
It sounds like the rules allow two times during a round when a rogue may make a Sneak Attack (assuming advanage or an ally within 5' of the target):
* On the rogue's turn using the Attack action.
* During another creature's turn using a Reaction (either a readied attack, or an OA)
Once the rogue reaches level 17, the first option is available twice per round.
This would appear to allow a total of 2 Sneack Attacks per round (3 at level 17+), without violating the restriction of "Once per turn".
If your interpretation relies on mind reading (once per turn REALLY means once per round or REALLY means on your turn) and the creators were just too sloppy to have actually written that, you are on really shaky ground.
For what it's worth, I've tweeted Crawford (twice) and have yet to receive a reply.
sliceoffruit wrote: