From D&D Wiki
The ability should be "Trap Sense" not "traps sense". This typo occurs twice, that I noticed. --EldritchNumen 20:25, 13 December 2006 (MST)
- Fixed. —Sledged 20:30, 13 December 2006 (MST)
Shoudln't there be a starting gold listing? I'm certain there's one in the PHB. Theophenes 01:48, 1 September 2008 (MDT)
- Oddly enough, it was never included in the SRD, so it isn't OGL. You'll have to look in the actual PHB for the value. --Aarnott 09:06, 1 September 2008 (MDT)
For the record, it's 5d4*10 for Rogues.
Something got scribed wrong. -- Jota 11:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
- I can't spot anything wrong. Could you be more specific?--Dmilewski 15:50, 10 July 2009 (MDT)
- "This ability works like evasion, except that while the rogue still takes no damage on a successful Reflex saving throw against attacks henceforth she henceforth takes only half damage on a failed save." Maybe that's how it's written in the PHB, but it seems like poor English to me. Apologies if it's nothing. -- Jota 17:29, 10 July 2009 (MDT)
Metamagic Sneak Attack
If a spellcaster/rogue sneak attacks with a touch or ray spell that is affected by metamagic, such as maximize spell, is the sneak attack damage also maximized? I can't seem to find evidence for or against. --FreeHands 22:38, 17 February 2011 (MST)
- Well, I lied, I have an argument for both sides, but they are both pretty weak. The sneak attack damage could be considered to be an "effect of the spell" because the attack spell is causing the damage, including the sneak attack damage, so the sneak attack di(c)e would be maximized. Conversely, the sneak attack damage might not be strictly considered an effect of the spell, since it is not mentioned in the spell's description, and would not be maximized. --FreeHands 17:51, 19 February 2011 (MST)
Sneak Attack as a Bonus Feat?
Is there any rule that states this either way, be it within or outside the Rogue Class?
Sneak Attacks on immobilized targets?
I just noticed something in the Sneak Attack description that made me think it's possible to get the associated damage bonus on a target that not only can see you, but is actively observing you. The description, with the two phrases informing this idea, begins as follows:
"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..."
When a target is immobilized (i.e. bound, paralyzed, tightly manacled or otherwise restrained), that target is denied a Dexterity Bonus to AC. As such, should the Rogue's Sneak Attack apply regardless of concealment or flanking? It would seem to me that a Rogue could even be in the middle of a conversation with such a target and if so inclined, attack said target and apply the sneak attack bonus, as the target is incapable of defense.
That's how the phrasing makes it look to me anyway. So am I reading it right, or am I missing something here? Could anybody help me parse this one out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- Yep, you're reading that correctly. Because being flatfooted denies your Dex bonus, among the many circumstances where Dex bonus is denied but the rogue is actively seen, the Rogue will get the bonus damage. There are Rogue builds out there based on this fact, 'tis cool. --SgtLion (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (MDT)