The in-universe explaination for sneak attack in D&D 3...

STOP BULLYING 3.5! IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A SIMULATIONIST SYSTEM! I DON'T SEE YOU FUCKS PLAYING GURPS! ALL YOU DO IS SIT IN YOUR ROOM AND SHITPOST ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!

>IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A SIMULATIONIST SYSTEM!

The problem is really that it's half-assed. It's simulationist when it's about shitting on martials, but gamist because classes, levels, HP, etc.

>I ask you this: why the FUCK can't a fighter learn to sneak attack
Because he's not a Rogue.

What games/editions do sneak attacks well?

Casters are perfectly balanced, most GMs are just shitty and let their players rest too often.

>It's simulationist when it's about shitting on martials
This is what most martial players want though. When it gave them a real solution they screeched about "weaboo fightan magic",

he can- it's called multiclass, dumdum.

Unironically 4e.

Unless your group chews through CLWs like candy, the fighter will have to rest sooner.

5e doesn't use simulationism to shit on them, without going weeaboo fightan.

Hence they are now not abjectly terrible, merely not as good as the casters.

>Unless your group chews through CLWs like candy
They do, if my players do not feel like they are being challenged and placed on the verge of death I have failed as a GM.

You'd think that the concept "hit them where it hurts" would be covered by basic fighting training is all.

Half the monster manual is immune to Sneak Attack

With gane rules, 4-6 separated encounters per day, a fullcaster caster above 5th level will never run out of spells, unless the player is a retard. GM will have to homerule (adding mpre combats) to make no stupid full casters suffer. And the you have clerics and druids who can still beat ass without spells

>tennants

Have you tried playing a classless system?

In 3.5, being caught off guard gives an advantage to the attacker in the form of denying Dex bonus to AC. Rogues are particularly adept at striking that way and get bonus damage.

Other option:
>Play True20
>Be warrior
>Pick sneak attack
>Profit

Let's assume that playing 3.5/Pathfinder is non-negotiable for the sake of the argument.

What would happen if you transformed Sneak Attack into a Feat?

Rogues get it for free, at usual intervals.
But anyone who feels like it and meets the critera (whatever those would be) can take it.

How would that effect the matter?

I'm 100% certain this exists in a splat book, maybe Complete Scoundrel.

There's a variant fighter in Unearthed Arcana called the thug that gets sneak attack dice on exchange for some feats.

It's a variant rule in the 3.5 DMG IIRC.

I guess I'll have to look into it.
Thanks for the tip.

d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter

Scaling with levels? Rogue 1 dips for Penetrating Strike would be a no brainer. Not scaling with levels so you gain SA dice for each feat? Well, maybe Craven would make it worth it.

I'm thinking along the lines on how Vital Strike scales in Pathfinder.

Poorly?

Eh, I like the Feat.

And it's pretty far between the intervals so a regular Rogue would still retain some competitiveness.

Why both sneak attack and critical hits exist?

Because they had to make a backstab equivalent or grognards would bitch.

>Pre-emptive self-defence
Well, that one is going right up there with prevenge. Thank you for that.

But the fighter can get rogue levels. What's the problem?

Because maybe "stab them in the soft bits" should be a system option instead of a class feature.

That's already what a character is trying to do anyway.

The Rogue is just better at it.

While somehow being less accurate at attacking in general, the Rogue has the unique ability to strike accurately at someones goolies and other soft bits.

Fighter doesn't train to do that. He trains on reliable extra attacks. If a fighter does want to get better at attacking vulnerable areas against a distracted opponent, then they take levels in Rogue.

I also want to say that there are other ways to get Sneak Attack depending on the system.

>play wizard
>do stuff
>juice runs out
>nearly nothing to do in combat (in a combat centric game)
>guess imma gunna go cook pizza guys ok?
>disbis gud gaem design :)

The Rogue is that guy who'd try to do nut shots repeatedly.

And he's really good at nut shots.

Too bad that landing a nut shot perfectly is actually quite hard if your opponent is paying his full attention to you.

Welcome to class-based systems.
Have you tried not playing DnD?

They can, if they take the time to learn how by multiclassing into rogue or assassin.

Otherwise they're going to focus on their forms and on how to get more hits in, and not focus on striking at the heart or through a gap in the skull with one thrust.

>pre-emptive self-defense

my thief is going to start saying this.

>"what?, no, I didn't murder those guards, that was pre-emptive self defense, they would have killed me, you know, for the murders.

4e. Rogues make fantastic duellists (They have a lot of riposte/re-positioning powers) and sneak attack plays up the fact (one of the at-wills lets you sneak attack even without combat advantage as you just out-skill the other guy). I would unironically suggest the class for anyone who wants to play a fencing master in the game.

A fighter is a particular sort of martial combatant, he's not the best or only sort of martial combatant by virtue of having 'Fighter' as his name.

But that's what trained warriors would try to do. It's just weird that 'hitting vital spots' is not Fighter staple but latched on the thief class, when you start thinking about it.

Well, 3.x calls it a "Rogue" not a "Thief". Hitting someone in the nuts; it's a bit of rogueish thing to do, no?

Worth mentioning that the Thief could only backstab from being hidden, and only once/combat, so it was basically just an "ambush" trick, not something you do every turn like modern iterations.

I think it's more that they don't go for sucker punches like a Rogue does.

Original D&D requires the enemy to be completely unaware of you for a backstab to succeed (otherwise it's treated as a normal attack).
It's basically a surprise attack hitting someone's vitals.

And remember D&D's combat is abstract so that attack could represent you stabbing them multiple times in the throat, kidneys, hitting them at full swing in the temple or back of the skull with a mace etc.

Like FATAL?

Let's put it into perspective. Rogues are generally not good confrontational fighters and have to use things like "sneak attacks" to take down an opponent. It's assumed that things like hitting vital areas on an enemy are common knowledge as evidenced by coup de grace being available to every class. Now that's well and good, but actually training to hit those targets in the heat of combat? That would require a bit of special training not only in anatomy of a lot of creatures but experience actually doing it. The fighter who is engaged in active combat against a defending opponent who is trying to dodge and parry doesn't have the luxury of precision in where he strikes his blows - hell, name one system where called shots/strikes don't carry massive penalties.

Sneak attacks are at their core, simplified called shots and learning the precision to accurately pull them off every time takes practice in a field that the fighter of old never trained in; namely assassination. Fighters are a holdover from the days in which every one of them was either a soldier or a knight, and rogues are a blend of thieves and assassins.

All that being said, just pick a different fighter archetype that does allow for sneak attack. There are plenty of links in the thread.

Is not, is pretty easy, flanking for example, you don't have a choice on it

>Rogue uses a heavy axe while screaming and charging
>Gets ""Sneak"" attacks because his pet dog is adyacent to enemies

I like how you can sneak attack even on a golem in 5e, but only ever using pokey things, scimitars and whips. They've clearly relaxed the concept to a more general tricky fighting, so why can't a light hammer get SA against a skeleton?

it's almost like you don't have your full attention focused on the rogue because you are being flanked, so his "kick you in the nads" strategy is actually working.

Because they wanted to force rogues into being Dex-monkeys.

Because it's not about making sense, it's about upholding sacred cows

I'd like a rogue option that rewarded Dex and Str at the same time.

But you can.

Thug is a Fighter variant that gets sneak attack instead of feats. You actually get 11d6 over 20 levels and the fighter chassis at the expense of not having actual class features.

It's not great, but it IS a very dippable class for sneak attackers.

Why do people shit on the fightan magic book?

Didnt it fix martials in 3.pf?

>play wizard
>deal 10d6 to everything in a 30ft radius 4 times
>juice runs out for 3rd level spells
>nearly nothing to do in combat (because everything is dead or near death, and not worth using higher level spells on)
>finish off combat with a few handfulls of auto hitting unblockable d4's
>go cook pizza guys ok?
>disbis gud gaem design :)

Because if they learned how to target vitals, they'd have a level in rogue.

>True20
>TRUE20
We never talk about True20!

>56058313
>Rogue uses a heavy axe while screaming and charging
>Gets "Sneak" attacks because his well trained attack dog is biting the enemy's leg and he cant focus on both defending himself from the dog and the heavily armed rouge behind him.

...

So 4e brutal scoundrels/ruthless ruffians?

Something about it being too "anime" or whatever. 3.5 causes brain damage.

If you catch an enemy COMPLETELY unaware, you can make a coup de grace for an automatic critical hit and force a Fort save or the target dies.

Right idea, yes.

That's if an enemy is unconscious or asleep though.

Hardly the same thing.

If it was then sneak attack would literally be quite useless as a mechanic.

I think the problem people are describing is that this is an example of 3.5's thematic elements not meshing well with its concept of versimilitude.

Because it tries to give hard-set concrete definitions for what a Rogue's sneak attack actually does and tries to apply those "logically" but then it still just gives those to the Rogue because it's thematic for him to have even if logically what he's doing is no different from what the fighter is doing.

This could be avoided if the book just let rogues sneak attack damn near anything, say it's cause it's thematic to the rogue and let the players suss out the in-game attack themselves but WHAT DO I KNOW?

But that doesn't fully hold up as the "fighter" in gurps could still take those TA skill penalties to get the sweet damage multipliers.

Why the hell is someone "off-guard" during a fitght to begin with?
Why does he keeps being "off-guard" after being caugh "off-guard" the first time?

Usually because it's being flanked, aka attacked by multiple opponents at the same time, or denied it's dex bonus/giving combat advantage due to debilitating conditions like stunning.

Your guard can be up but in the wrong direction, or someone can fuck with your guard.
>Why does he keeps being "off-guard" after being caugh "off-guard" the first time?
In general, you aren't? The rogue would have to stealth again, which basically means you lose sight of them and they, once more, attack from a vector you have not covered. Unless you have a dozen eyes and are completely shielded from all sides, there's going to be some angle you're not looking at, not protecting.

Undead and constructs are not immune to sneak attack in PF

Yeah, and they crapped on the Rogue in every other way to make up for that.

>Fighters are a holdover from the days in which every one of them was either a soldier or a knight
You mean the sort of people that specifically trained to thread the needle to bypass armor through it's tiny tiny gaps? Those people?

Because the class system used in D&D is inconsistent and nonsensically restrictive. There is no good explanation other than "fighters don't SA, that's a rogue thing".

You should check out Green Ronin's True20. In that instead of classes there are three roles that are basically "good at taking damage," "good at using skills," and "uses magic," and all the things normally relegated to class features are actually taken as feats. Want Sneak Attack, Favored Enemy, and Smite? You could do that at level 1.

I guess because fighters fight "with honor" and "like gentlemen" or whatever.

Yes but (at least in AD&D) it was called "backstab" because facing actually mattered, AC from behind was different from the one on the front and so on.
When 3e did away with facing, backstab became sneack attack in order to abstract a bit more that thing.

What's stopping the fighter from taking a level of rogue?

Nothing but what does hitting a guy who's flatfooted for extra damage have to do with trapfinding?

Try Fantasy Craft. Most sneak attack progression comes from feats, not class. Burglars don't even get sneak attack aside from a single die as an option from a "pick from a menu of abilities" class feature, though they do get a lot of bonus Covert feats which are the category with most of the sneak attack.
The Scout does get a dedicated sneak attack progression, but even there it's mainly feats that will drive your sneak attack.

There's already a flanking bonis, to each of those extra attacks, and surprise attacks that deny dexterity.

And, of you want to go for soft bits when they're easier to take advantage of, power attack.

It works kinda like that in Fantasy Craft, certain classes gain free sneak attack dice but you can also gain it from a feat chain that works on flanking enemies (Wolf Pack chain).

But power attack is explicitly you trading accuracy for damage.