Yes, that took me by surprise too, coming from NWN.
Be advised it also only works with melee weapons. Also unlike NWN. Also took me by surprise.
What I'd still like to know (not that I think I have the patience for two thieves in a party) is if a single critter can be sneak attacked multiple times by separate sneak attackers.
So why is it not available once per round to crossbow and sling users?
Not sure where they got the idea that ranged weapons were okay for NWN 3E sneak attack, but not for IWD 3E sneak attack.
I don't see how that would've been game-breaking. As it stands, I have a difficult enough time fitting 2-3 characters into the melee, let alone trying to jam a thief in there.
I'm not sure if your quote is correct. This is what the 3.5E PHB says about Sneak Attacks:
"Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet."
Also, in PnP 3.5E, you can Sneak Attack with ranged weapons only once, unless you hide again. You cannot keep sneak attacking them at range like in melee, basically, because they are not flanked.
In short, NwN1 is wrong about ranged sneak attacks. It's based on those rules, it's not perfect and many other rules are missing or are changed to fit the game.
Secondly, you get 1d6 Sneak Attack every 2 levels after 1st. (1st 1d6, 3rd 2d6, 5th 3d6, 7th 4d6 etc etc).
Third, they thought it was okay to sneak attack at ranged because you control only one character and can have AI companions. They did that in order to not make Rogues useless. In PnP you have a full party to assist you. That's why it's much easier and forgiving than the Infinity Engine games.
Also, I will repeat what I said. This is still an ADnD game. They're not going to implement everything from 3E (when it JUST came out). Sneak Attack shouldn't even be in the game. It was an alternate bonus.
Not only is it restricted to melee weapons, it is restricted to thief weapons so no sneak attacking with axes or two handed swords or whatever for fighter thieves. *kicks dirt dejectedly*
But I thought I've seen it work once per round not only once per target? Maybe because most things die after a sneak and full round of attacks from everyone.
I'm reading the 3.0E PHB also (the 3.0E skills like Pick Pocket vs Sleight of Hand, Animal Empathy and different Animal Companions are there so I know it's 3.0E and not 3.5E) and the description for the Sneak Attack is different.
Can you post a picture of it? Maybe some of us is doing a mistake and is using a wrong or outdated book.
@amk320 Probably because they took NwN1's code and put it into NwN2 without changing too much.
For example, the Pale Master in 3E is 5/10 casting. In 3.5E it's 9/10 casting. In NwN2 it's 5/10 casting.
Many stuff in NwN2 are relics from NwN1.
Also about the restriction to melee weapons in 3.5E (not NwN2): That's how flanking and threatened squares work. They don't allow ranged sneak attacks to work exactly like melee sneak attacks.
And the reason for that is balance. In PnP, doing multiple ranged sneak attacks per round means that the enemy cannot turn and hit you, which would make sneak attacks way too good.
Or imagine a scenario with multiple rogues that shoot and move at an enemy while he cannot do anything about them.
It's risk vs reward. In melee you can do a ton of sneak attacks but you're not safe. At range you can sneak attack and you're safe.
I'm asking about the restriction to melee weapons for sneak attacks in IWD.
Nothing to do with PnP. NWN engine vs. IWD engine.
If a thief can make unlimited sneak attacks at range in a game like NWN2 without the game being broken, I don't understand why a thief in IWD can't make a single sneak attack at range. Especially in light of the "once per enemy" IWD restriction.
How is a single arrow/bolt/stone + sneak attack damage any different from a single katana swipe + sneak attack damage? (Other than that the ranged weapon would allow the thief to sneak attack more often, against more opponents, at range. I don't see this as being too game-breaking. Single class thieves are already a bit lackluster.)
It would also allow many people who can't fit thieves in the front line to take advantage of sneak attack. As I said, I've already got enough characters tripping over one another in the melee without trying to jam the thief in there too.
I'm reading the 3.0E PHB also (the 3.0E skills like Pick Pocket vs Sleight of Hand, Animal Empathy and different Animal Companions are there so I know it's 3.0E and not 3.5E) and the description for the Sneak Attack is different.
Can you post a picture of it? Maybe some of us is doing a mistake and is using a wrong or outdated book.
I'm asking about the restriction to melee weapons for sneak attacks in IWD.
Because in IWD, Sneak Attack uses the code of a Backstab, more or less. It's that simple. And that code doesn't allow backstabbing with ranged weapons and other stuff.
Also, Backstab is still viable. If you could Sneak Attack a ton of times from range, why would anyone use Backstabbing?
I'm just kind of bummed after finding this out. I was expecting it to work like 3E given the name of the option. According to the quote by @Archaos each strike catching the opponent off guard should deal extra damage, which is how I remembered it from NWN.
It makes sense now that I know it's using the same code as backstab (which requires thief only melee weapons)...
But I also wish it was possible with a ranged weapon. As I said, that doesn't seem too game-breaking given the restriction in place that each enemy can only be sneak attacked once. It also has a legitimate PnP basis and would be a helpful boost to single-classed thieves.
Don't take my word about the code being similar, but knowing how some things work, it really seems like changing some variables in it's code, based on it's behavior.
Like I said, if Sneak Attack was made superior in everything, backstab would be useless. Right now, backstab multiplies all of the damage, while sneak attack only adds some dice but makes it easier to land it. So that's where the balance factor comes in.
Maybe it was intentional exactly for this balance reason.
They're probably completely different parts of code using an if (!variable) or while (!variable) to differentiate one from the other (after reading the .ini file of course).
@Archaos Backstab and sneak attack are two completely different things. Whether one is superior to the other is irrelevant. If you're going to give the option of 3E SA, make it right. Those who don't like it for balance reasons or whatever can still opt for backstab. Besides, you'll never make them perfectly balanced.
That's another case of "I want to eat my cake and have it too."
No it's not irrelevant. If one option is vastly superior to another and it makes the other useless, then that's bad design. Period.
And good design and giving viable/balanced options is what the designers should do. If they're going to implement something that makes the other thing crap, then they shouldn't bother implement the other thing in the first place.
On the other hand, you don't like how the Sneak Attack is implemented in an ADnD game where it shouldn't even be there in the first place? Don't use it. They're not going to change the way a whole class plays, implementing a bunch of other code, for one optional ability.
I prefer it like that over making backstabbing useless. Now you have to decide which one to use based on your style.
And no, nothing will ever be perfectly balanced, that's no excuse to not try to give viable options on both sides.
Josh Sawyer, the lead designer of Icewind Dale, shared the same views about balance in an interview about Pillars of Eternity. Please go blame him for it instead or change it yourself.
The Sorcerer, Monk, Blackguard, Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer are not implemented exactly like in 3E and there's a reason of balance for that. And so is not Sneak Attack. They are under no obligation to make everything exactly like 3E when it's not even a 3E game.
Part of it saddens me, part of it makes me respect it. Anyone who played NWN2 knew damn well one of the silliest strategies was controlling Neeshka and running around all enemies and stabbing them in the back while the party kept aggro and keep on doing this until everything died. It's the same damn reason they decided to make late-game enemies immune to crits (and thus sneaking attacks), which effectively crippled rogues and killed the desire to play a pure rogue or backstab build in the campaign without multi-classing.
@FinneousPJ That's another case of "I want to eat my cake and have it too."
No it's not irrelevant. If one option is vastly superior to another and it makes the other useless, then that's bad design. Period.
That's not how things work period and no it's not irrelevant. A mage can kill everything with a fireball does that make warriors irrelevant? It's clearly superior as you would say. And say if you are a fighter, you could use Wisdom as a dump stat does that make it bad design for the game to have wisdom?
It's there you can use it or put points into it if you want to or not. It's the same type thing with backstab and sneak. Maybe some people like backstab, maybe some like sneak attack. You can choose backstab or you can choose sneak. Remember that you don't HAVE TO POWERGAME.
They are under no obligation to make everything exactly like 3E when it's not even a 3E game.
This bit holds true. But they should at least implement something in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense that you can only sneak a target once when you can re-hide and backstab continuously.
I don't know the specifics behind it, but it is by design. Similar to Wall of Moonlight, it's not that you can only use it once—rather, it's on a long enough duration (420) that most fights would probably be over by the time you can use it again. I'd say a major difference for Sneak Attack/Crippling Strike is that you don't need to be hidden/invisible for it to work, unlike Backstab. So long as you can get the attention of a creature with a different character (e.g. your tank), you can land a decent amount of damage before running away and letting the rest of the party take over. Being allowed to do this multiple times without needing to back away from the fight in order to hide in the shadows means that you would be able to kill most creatures with just a thief attacking it, provided that the creatures' attention was elsewhere.
If, however, you want to be able to use Sneak Attack more than once per character/creature, download and unzip the attached file and place it into your override folder. This removes the protection added once you land a hit. So, by using this file, your thief will be dealing anywhere between 12-25 at lower levels and 16-40+ with each hit at higher levels; turning your thief into a heavy hitter. Personally, I wouldn't advise using it, but it's there for those that might like it. Weighing it up, I'd say the reason is probably for balance, as said before.
What I'd still like to know (not that I think I have the patience for two thieves in a party) is if a single critter can be sneak attacked multiple times by separate sneak attackers.
No, since it is based on a spell it also adds protection to Backstab/Sneak Attack. Once a character or creature has taken a hit from Sneak Attack, it is then immune for a duration of 7 turns.
Per character round would be the same in most cases at lower levels. Not every attack will hit at lower levels, so every time it does hit it will likely use Sneak Attack damage (i.e. it will appear the same with or without the protection). The attached file has a duration of 6, which is a round. If you have two or more attacks per round, at least one attack per round should be successful (if you land a successful hit).
FinneousPJ
Member Posts: 6,456
Comments
But nevertheless, that's not how *3E Sneak Attack* works.
Be advised it also only works with melee weapons. Also unlike NWN. Also took me by surprise.
What I'd still like to know (not that I think I have the patience for two thieves in a party) is if a single critter can be sneak attacked multiple times by separate sneak attackers.
I imagine that they tweaked Backstab a little to work like a Sneak Attack but left the other parts of the code alone for a quick and dirty solution.
Remember, the game is still ADnD.
Not sure where they got the idea that ranged weapons were okay for NWN 3E sneak attack, but not for IWD 3E sneak attack.
I don't see how that would've been game-breaking. As it stands, I have a difficult enough time fitting 2-3 characters into the melee, let alone trying to jam a thief in there.
I'm not sure if your quote is correct. This is what the 3.5E PHB says about Sneak Attacks:
"Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet."
@amk320
Also, in PnP 3.5E, you can Sneak Attack with ranged weapons only once, unless you hide again.
You cannot keep sneak attacking them at range like in melee, basically, because they are not flanked.
In short, NwN1 is wrong about ranged sneak attacks. It's based on those rules, it's not perfect and many other rules are missing or are changed to fit the game.
Secondly, you get 1d6 Sneak Attack every 2 levels after 1st. (1st 1d6, 3rd 2d6, 5th 3d6, 7th 4d6 etc etc).
Third, they thought it was okay to sneak attack at ranged because you control only one character and can have AI companions.
They did that in order to not make Rogues useless. In PnP you have a full party to assist you.
That's why it's much easier and forgiving than the Infinity Engine games.
Also, I will repeat what I said. This is still an ADnD game. They're not going to implement everything from 3E (when it JUST came out).
Sneak Attack shouldn't even be in the game. It was an alternate bonus.
Limiting the sneak attack to once per enemy makes sense, but I'm baffled as to why it was also restricted to melee weapons.
But I thought I've seen it work once per round not only once per target? Maybe because most things die after a sneak and full round of attacks from everyone.
I'm reading the 3.0E PHB also (the 3.0E skills like Pick Pocket vs Sleight of Hand, Animal Empathy and different Animal Companions are there so I know it's 3.0E and not 3.5E) and the description for the Sneak Attack is different.
Can you post a picture of it? Maybe some of us is doing a mistake and is using a wrong or outdated book.
@amk320
Probably because they took NwN1's code and put it into NwN2 without changing too much.
For example, the Pale Master in 3E is 5/10 casting. In 3.5E it's 9/10 casting. In NwN2 it's 5/10 casting.
Many stuff in NwN2 are relics from NwN1.
Also about the restriction to melee weapons in 3.5E (not NwN2):
That's how flanking and threatened squares work. They don't allow ranged sneak attacks to work exactly like melee sneak attacks.
And the reason for that is balance. In PnP, doing multiple ranged sneak attacks per round means that the enemy cannot turn and hit you, which would make sneak attacks way too good.
Or imagine a scenario with multiple rogues that shoot and move at an enemy while he cannot do anything about them.
It's risk vs reward. In melee you can do a ton of sneak attacks but you're not safe. At range you can sneak attack and you're safe.
Nothing to do with PnP. NWN engine vs. IWD engine.
If a thief can make unlimited sneak attacks at range in a game like NWN2 without the game being broken, I don't understand why a thief in IWD can't make a single sneak attack at range. Especially in light of the "once per enemy" IWD restriction.
How is a single arrow/bolt/stone + sneak attack damage any different from a single katana swipe + sneak attack damage? (Other than that the ranged weapon would allow the thief to sneak attack more often, against more opponents, at range. I don't see this as being too game-breaking. Single class thieves are already a bit lackluster.)
It would also allow many people who can't fit thieves in the front line to take advantage of sneak attack. As I said, I've already got enough characters tripping over one another in the melee without trying to jam the thief in there too.
And that code doesn't allow backstabbing with ranged weapons and other stuff.
Also, Backstab is still viable. If you could Sneak Attack a ton of times from range, why would anyone use Backstabbing?
But I also wish it was possible with a ranged weapon. As I said, that doesn't seem too game-breaking given the restriction in place that each enemy can only be sneak attacked once. It also has a legitimate PnP basis and would be a helpful boost to single-classed thieves.
Like I said, if Sneak Attack was made superior in everything, backstab would be useless.
Right now, backstab multiplies all of the damage, while sneak attack only adds some dice but makes it easier to land it.
So that's where the balance factor comes in.
Maybe it was intentional exactly for this balance reason.
That's another case of "I want to eat my cake and have it too."
No it's not irrelevant. If one option is vastly superior to another and it makes the other useless, then that's bad design. Period.
And good design and giving viable/balanced options is what the designers should do.
If they're going to implement something that makes the other thing crap, then they shouldn't bother implement the other thing in the first place.
On the other hand, you don't like how the Sneak Attack is implemented in an ADnD game where it shouldn't even be there in the first place? Don't use it.
They're not going to change the way a whole class plays, implementing a bunch of other code, for one optional ability.
I prefer it like that over making backstabbing useless.
Now you have to decide which one to use based on your style.
And no, nothing will ever be perfectly balanced, that's no excuse to not try to give viable options on both sides.
Josh Sawyer, the lead designer of Icewind Dale, shared the same views about balance in an interview about Pillars of Eternity.
Please go blame him for it instead or change it yourself.
The Sorcerer, Monk, Blackguard, Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer are not implemented exactly like in 3E and there's a reason of balance for that. And so is not Sneak Attack.
They are under no obligation to make everything exactly like 3E when it's not even a 3E game.
It's there you can use it or put points into it if you want to or not. It's the same type thing with backstab and sneak. Maybe some people like backstab, maybe some like sneak attack. You can choose backstab or you can choose sneak. Remember that you don't HAVE TO POWERGAME. This bit holds true. But they should at least implement something in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense that you can only sneak a target once when you can re-hide and backstab continuously.
If, however, you want to be able to use Sneak Attack more than once per character/creature, download and unzip the attached file and place it into your override folder. This removes the protection added once you land a hit. So, by using this file, your thief will be dealing anywhere between 12-25 at lower levels and 16-40+ with each hit at higher levels; turning your thief into a heavy hitter. Personally, I wouldn't advise using it, but it's there for those that might like it. Weighing it up, I'd say the reason is probably for balance, as said before. No, since it is based on a spell it also adds protection to Backstab/Sneak Attack. Once a character or creature has taken a hit from Sneak Attack, it is then immune for a duration of 7 turns.
Can you make a version where it works once per round instead of once per 7 turns? Instead of turning off the protection completely.
Per character round would be the same in most cases at lower levels. Not every attack will hit at lower levels, so every time it does hit it will likely use Sneak Attack damage (i.e. it will appear the same with or without the protection). The attached file has a duration of 6, which is a round. If you have two or more attacks per round, at least one attack per round should be successful (if you land a successful hit).