College Rules Sneak Attack
CLICK HERE ---> https://urlin.us/2thWck
So some confusion between the DM and me on Sneak attack at range.I read it as I get it if they are denied there dex or I am flanking and I can flank at range of 30ft or less. He says no as flanking is only for melee and I say for all but Rogue as the sneak attack ability enables the rogue to flank at 30 or less. So who is correct
I think range sneak attacks is only viable with improved invisibility or some other way of getting foes flat footed like shatter defenses. Sniping will only get you 1 attack per round, which is mediocre damage at best.
Due to the range that you can sneak attack at and the one attack a round thing sniping is one of the few times where Vital strike is at least a better option than not using it but only if you can maintain your stealth and range enough to keep the target back.
If you have stealth, you can snipe with sneak attack. If you are invisible, you can shoot with sneak attack. If you have sniper goggles you can be further away than they can see in the dark and shoot them with SA. And there are a lot of other ways to go ahead and get SA damage on a ranged hit...
That paragraph has no bearing on a ranged attack.Grandlounge wrote:Look at the attack bonus table +2 for melee and - for ranged there is a dash not a +0. The dashes mean that it can't be done; see ranged weapon from prone and compare that to any of the +0s on the table. I agree that you get no attack bonus from range. As per the table.The point does give some traction, but per several FAQs I have noted, every single FAQ indicated text overrules the table. And the second paragraph is quite clear. Also, the table is about attack not damage.
This bonus is to the attack and not a damage bonus.The rogue's sneak attack precision damage is not a \"+2 bonus\" on attack, but a damage rider that applies under certain conditions after a hit is confirmed.
/cevah See that IF there. Your argument has no basis. If they take up more than one space, else the flanking rules already cover things adequately. There is simply no comparison between this and \"flanking refers to melee\".Merriam-Webster wrote:a : to have relation or connection : relateb : to direct attention usually by clear and specific mentionFlanking refers specifically to melee attacks.
Do you deny that there is a reference to occupying more than one squareNoSo why do the specifics matter to you when they don't for the reference to meleeWhatever you are trying to illustrate here then is entirely unclear to me. What does the flanking rules for larger sized creatures have to do with flanking requiring a melee attackCevah wrote:You use the definition of require where the CRB used the word reference.My mistake in pulling your second definition. The ones I provided for refer still apply though. The PDT used the word \"refers\" in their explanation.
Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range. The benefit is to make ranged AoOs, which is a much, much better benefit than +2 attack. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) bbangerter May 24, 2018, 12:10 am Cevah wrote:If you can use the reference to melee to mean require melee, I can use a reference to larger creatures as a requirement as well for the exact same reason.Not when that reference starts with IF.If this condition, then use these rules. Which means if not this condition, then don't use these rules. So no, trying to require flanking to only be available to creatures that take up more than one square is not a valid argument.
Either way, lots of ways outside of flanking to get sneak attack at range. And that's fine to feel that way. I have no objection for people who want to house rule it in. But as to what the actual rules say, well the PDT made it pretty clear what they intended. You don't have to like it. You don't have to play it that way. But you ought to understand what they intended so that if you make changes you can let your players know, and you can be aware of how those changes might impact the game. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) VoodistMonk May 24, 2018, 05:34 am I don't care much either way, as I'm not an archer or a Rogue, so I have very little invested in any of this.
And that wasn't the DM being generous, that's literally how everyone at the table interpreted the rules. This is exactly how the PDT intended it to work - see above for my link to their comments on it. AUC.register('auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay'); AjaxBusy.register('masked', 'busy', 'auc_MessageboardPostRowDisplay', null, null) Cevah May 24, 2018, 05:30 pm bbangerter wrote: Cevah wrote:If you can use the reference to melee to mean require melee, I can use a reference to larger creatures as a requirement as well for the exact same reason.Not when that reference starts with IF.Flanking wrote:When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.But it is ok if it starts with \"When\" and has \"if\" in the statementI don't buy that.
so the rules read like this (title) Flanking (indicating what the next section is about)[during which time that you are/in the event that you are] making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
No FAQ Required: As per the Gang Up FAQ \"flanking specifically refers to melee attacks,\" so no, the rogue can't do so. As an aside, though it isn't the question asked here, someone threatening with a ranged weapon can provide a flank to an ally who is using a melee weapon.That means the ranged weapon person can help someone who is in melee get a flank if they can threaten with their weapon, but they can not flank themselves. Which means no +2 and not sneak attack damage. Cevah one thing you need to remember is that the rules are not written in legalese or like a technical manual. They are written in conversational English for the most part so if someone wants to be anal enough they can always find a way to say \"it doesn't say ___ exactly\".
As to legalistic reading, I am not going that far. Legalistic reading gives long spear wielders not flanking as mentioned in a recent post. I read paragraph one as a way to get an attack bonus, and paragraph two as a clarification (i.e. definition) of the flanking condition, which is important for Sneak Attack. I think the two paragraphs are separate things under the Flanking section. Others do not. I go by how I learned English growing up. I got a 95 percentile college bound English score on my SAT, so I think my grasp of the language is good. Others do not read it that way. That is the basis of the dispute, as far as I can see.
During bombing missions, unescorted U.S. Republic F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers would often be attacked by MiG-21s. Heavily laden with ordnance, the F-105s were no match for the faster MiGs. On occasions when the F-105s were escorted by F-4 Phantom II fighter planes, the MiGs would refuse to engage. In addition, the rules of engagement on the U.S. side prevented attacking the MiGs when they were on the ground. This measure was intended to keep the Soviet Union from becoming further engaged in the conflict by preventing casualties to the Soviet mechanics and technical advisors who were assisting North Vietnam.
This is a mechanic I rarely see players use, even rogues. Pretty much just seen rogues and rangers use it at a distance to fire shots. But it can be very powerful. Would you ever use it to hide, and then sneak up (I believe at half movement speed) and do a melee attack, like the stereotypical assassin with poison dagger kind of thing
Using Magic Initiate to pick up Wizard spells seems like a poor choice, as INT is typically a dump stat and you say the primary purpose is to get the cantrips Green Flame & Booming Blade. Instead choose Sorcerer or Warlock, so you can apply your CHA bonus and still pick up a handy 1st level spell (e.g Shield or Absorb Elements). Yes you loose access to Find Familiar, but you already say the Swashbuckler will almost always be able to sneak attack, so the value of a familiar to Help is minimal.
Their main offensive ability is sneak attack, similar to the back stab of earlier editions but now deals bonus damage dice rather than a multiplier, and applies when flanking an opponent or in numerous conditions where the enemy's guard is down.
The rogue retains many iconic abilities from D&D third edition, including sneak attack (bonus dice of damage against an opponent if you have advantage), evasion (avoid area attacks) and uncanny dodge (avoid melee attacks). They also recover thieves' cant from AD&D.
A second scheme dealt with rules of engagement for naval battles. It was customary for a ship to warn another of engagement, such as by a warning shot. The Germans argued that submarines, due to the fact their hulls could be easily breached by weapons, could not always warn ships they encountered before attacking. Defense by destruction was the only method of engagement, as no time could be spent to figure out if the ship was friendly. Similarly, Germany had a smaller navy and had to be aggressive when dealing with the British Navy, then strongest in the world. 153554b96e