So rogues can apply their sneak attack bonus after an attack roll if they meet the criteria for a sneak attack once per turn.
How does this get applied, and in what order, if the rogue has multiple attacks in an action (say for high level or action surge, haste or whatever)?
There seem to be two ways it could be done and both have significant implications and can get kind of wierd. Using an example of a rogue with 3 attacks do they:
Option 1: Roll all 3 attacks with damage on each during their turn. They look at all the rolls and decide to apply it to attack 2 because that one crit. This gets very strange because each of the attacks have already happened, and some may have even triggered reactions on the part of other characters or players. Now they go back and apply the sneak attack to attack two, this has the effect of killing the target and makes attack number 3 that's already occurred (and any potential reactions) not have happened and I need to go back and retcon all of that.
Option 2: Roll each attack and decide if you want to apply the sneak attack before moving onto the next attack. This is MUCH cleaner but has the downside that the player may end up choosing not to apply the sneak attack to attack 1, which hit normally, in hopes one of the later attacks might crit. This creates a situation where a rogue player might lose their sneak attack and feel slighted.
Of the two options, I prefer option 2 as it's dramatically less messy to run and causes a lot less confusion. I'm hesitant though because I don't want to put my player at a disadvantage because it's easier.
It would be resolved on a per attack basis. So some folks might wait to see if they roll a crit, but if you wait and miss your followup attacks, then too bad so sad.
In practice, I've tended to see Rogue players use it on the first roll that hits. That's typically because they've been rolling one hit at a time. Personally, as a DM, if I had to, I'd say it's the first roll the player decides to apply it to. I haven't come across min-max or power players of late, but if I had to, I'd tell the player to tell me on a per-damage-roll basis if they're sneak attacking rather than allowing them to roll all their attacks at once and picking the best one.
I've enough feedback that it seems they have to declare it before they roll the next attack.
I wouldn't advise ruling it that the first attack that hits has to be the sneak attack. It's entirely possible they may hit someone with the first attack, move and attack someone else and want to use it there if it hits, which is totally valid.
(Folks, please read the post rather than responding to the title.)
I understand how people like to roll all their attacks at once so play moves faster. However, the game assumes you roll your attacks one at a time, except perhaps for simultaneous attack roll spells like Scorching Ray. As you say, not only do creatures get reactions and consequential effects from attacks in some cases, but you also run the problem of "What happens if your first attack of two kills the monster?" Do you waste your other attacks, or redirect the second attack toward a different creature with a different AC? Now you're nominating dice to be your first vs. second vs. etc. attack. I've seen people roll attack and damage on matched pairs of dice ("green is my first attack and damage if it hits, red is my second attack and damage if it hits") but it doesn't necessarily make things go that much faster and gets even more confusing with Advantage thrown in.
Unless you have a very clean system in place for rolling multiple attacks at once, I wouldn't. I also don't see why you think you're "weakening" sneak attack with the second option - crits just don't come up all that often, and I can't imagine anyone would delay their sneak attack in hopes of rolling a 20. It seems too metagame-y to apply your sneak attack on anything other than the first hit anyway, and because they only get one most Rogues won't strain to get multiple attacks (other than as insurance) anyhow.
Yea, I agree and I think I've converged on this as my assumption too. I'm getting ready to run my first real 5e game (not a new DM but returning to it after a number of years). You're right in that it's not weakening the attack. I was more concerned about understanding the generally understood assumptions and didn't want my player to feel weakened if I had a wrong assumption. This being my first campaign in 5e, learning the nuances of the system as it's commonly understood is a part of the exercise. Thanks
Yeah, one of the things about this edition is definitely letting go of assumptions of intent, especially based on previous editions. Now we're on rolling all the damage dice for a spell and applying them to everyone in the area. But because you can break up the Attack action (what used to be "Full Attack" in 3.5e) with movement and the like, it definitely makes more sense to roll one attack at a time IMO (not even considering how confusing it can be to do mental math on multiple attacks sometimes).
I understand how people like to roll all their attacks at once so play moves faster. However, the game assumes you roll your attacks one at a time, except perhaps for simultaneous attack roll spells like Scorching Ray.
I also don't see why you think you're "weakening" sneak attack with the second option - crits just don't come up all that often, and I can't imagine anyone would delay their sneak attack in hopes of rolling a 20.
Yeah, that's pretty much always a losing move unless you can push the sum of your hit chance and crit chance above 100%. Since by default a 1 is always a miss and only 20s are crits, that can't happen at all without advantage and you still need need to be able to hit with 6 on the d20. That said, if you have advantage and the Elven Accuracy feat (roll 3 dice), you only need to be able to hit with a 12 to see payoff.
It seems too metagame-y to apply your sneak attack on anything other than the first hit anyway
What's metagamey about knowing you could potentially find a better opening?
... It seems too metagame-y to apply your sneak attack on anything other than the first hit anyway, and because they only get one most Rogues won't strain to get multiple attacks (other than as insurance) anyhow.
I don't know I agree with this specific statement. However a Rogue ends up with multiple attacks, I can think of a number of scenarios where they don't want to use a sneak attack on the first attack. For instance, say they have multiple foes and one is fairly well wounded and about to fall over, they may want to use their regular attack to ensure they put the wounded one down before moving onto a fresh enemy with later attacks and apply the sneak attack bonus. I can imagine others, but that's one perfectly valid example. All these are probably edge cases, but... you know... gaming ends up happening on the edge more than any of us expect. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So rogues can apply their sneak attack bonus after an attack roll if they meet the criteria for a sneak attack once per turn.
How does this get applied, and in what order, if the rogue has multiple attacks in an action (say for high level or action surge, haste or whatever)?
There seem to be two ways it could be done and both have significant implications and can get kind of wierd. Using an example of a rogue with 3 attacks do they:
Option 1: Roll all 3 attacks with damage on each during their turn. They look at all the rolls and decide to apply it to attack 2 because that one crit. This gets very strange because each of the attacks have already happened, and some may have even triggered reactions on the part of other characters or players. Now they go back and apply the sneak attack to attack two, this has the effect of killing the target and makes attack number 3 that's already occurred (and any potential reactions) not have happened and I need to go back and retcon all of that.
Option 2: Roll each attack and decide if you want to apply the sneak attack before moving onto the next attack. This is MUCH cleaner but has the downside that the player may end up choosing not to apply the sneak attack to attack 1, which hit normally, in hopes one of the later attacks might crit. This creates a situation where a rogue player might lose their sneak attack and feel slighted.
Of the two options, I prefer option 2 as it's dramatically less messy to run and causes a lot less confusion. I'm hesitant though because I don't want to put my player at a disadvantage because it's easier.
Does anyone know how it runs?
They get ONE.
It would be resolved on a per attack basis. So some folks might wait to see if they roll a crit, but if you wait and miss your followup attacks, then too bad so sad.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
In practice, I've tended to see Rogue players use it on the first roll that hits. That's typically because they've been rolling one hit at a time. Personally, as a DM, if I had to, I'd say it's the first roll the player decides to apply it to. I haven't come across min-max or power players of late, but if I had to, I'd tell the player to tell me on a per-damage-roll basis if they're sneak attacking rather than allowing them to roll all their attacks at once and picking the best one.
I've seen this as well. It would be a good in-house rule. How are you sneak attacking after you already hit the guy?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I've enough feedback that it seems they have to declare it before they roll the next attack.
I wouldn't advise ruling it that the first attack that hits has to be the sneak attack. It's entirely possible they may hit someone with the first attack, move and attack someone else and want to use it there if it hits, which is totally valid.
(Folks, please read the post rather than responding to the title.)
I understand how people like to roll all their attacks at once so play moves faster. However, the game assumes you roll your attacks one at a time, except perhaps for simultaneous attack roll spells like Scorching Ray. As you say, not only do creatures get reactions and consequential effects from attacks in some cases, but you also run the problem of "What happens if your first attack of two kills the monster?" Do you waste your other attacks, or redirect the second attack toward a different creature with a different AC? Now you're nominating dice to be your first vs. second vs. etc. attack. I've seen people roll attack and damage on matched pairs of dice ("green is my first attack and damage if it hits, red is my second attack and damage if it hits") but it doesn't necessarily make things go that much faster and gets even more confusing with Advantage thrown in.
Unless you have a very clean system in place for rolling multiple attacks at once, I wouldn't. I also don't see why you think you're "weakening" sneak attack with the second option - crits just don't come up all that often, and I can't imagine anyone would delay their sneak attack in hopes of rolling a 20. It seems too metagame-y to apply your sneak attack on anything other than the first hit anyway, and because they only get one most Rogues won't strain to get multiple attacks (other than as insurance) anyhow.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Yea, I agree and I think I've converged on this as my assumption too. I'm getting ready to run my first real 5e game (not a new DM but returning to it after a number of years). You're right in that it's not weakening the attack. I was more concerned about understanding the generally understood assumptions and didn't want my player to feel weakened if I had a wrong assumption. This being my first campaign in 5e, learning the nuances of the system as it's commonly understood is a part of the exercise. Thanks
Yeah, one of the things about this edition is definitely letting go of assumptions of intent, especially based on previous editions. Now we're on rolling all the damage dice for a spell and applying them to everyone in the area. But because you can break up the Attack action (what used to be "Full Attack" in 3.5e) with movement and the like, it definitely makes more sense to roll one attack at a time IMO (not even considering how confusing it can be to do mental math on multiple attacks sometimes).
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
The attacks of Scorching Ray are sequential too.
Yeah, that's pretty much always a losing move unless you can push the sum of your hit chance and crit chance above 100%. Since by default a 1 is always a miss and only 20s are crits, that can't happen at all without advantage and you still need need to be able to hit with 6 on the d20. That said, if you have advantage and the Elven Accuracy feat (roll 3 dice), you only need to be able to hit with a 12 to see payoff.
What's metagamey about knowing you could potentially find a better opening?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I don't know I agree with this specific statement. However a Rogue ends up with multiple attacks, I can think of a number of scenarios where they don't want to use a sneak attack on the first attack. For instance, say they have multiple foes and one is fairly well wounded and about to fall over, they may want to use their regular attack to ensure they put the wounded one down before moving onto a fresh enemy with later attacks and apply the sneak attack bonus. I can imagine others, but that's one perfectly valid example. All these are probably edge cases, but... you know... gaming ends up happening on the edge more than any of us expect. :)