Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Make Sneak Attack Passive

Any attack that hits, while the rogue is meeting the criteria, should be eligible for sneak attack. This will become even more important when we have multiclassing and you end up with rogue/fighters with extra attacks. While you can only add sneak attack damage to 1 attack per turn, a sneak attack can't "miss" as it is just extra damage added to a successful attack so it shouldn't be able to be wasted on a miss. Sneak also should apply to AoO. Under the current system we can't even use sneak with magical ammunition because it is its own attack just like sneak attack is. This could be easily rectified with either a prompt on successful, qualifying attack to add sneak damage OR a toggle that automatically applies sneak damage to a successful, qualifying attack.

I believe the metamagic showed us proper way to do this ...

If rogues would get that kind of toggle button as Sorcerers did, it would work perfectly with every possible attack.
Same goes for Battlemaster Fighters.

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but the Expansion mod on nexus adds exactly such a toggle button, and it works perfectly. I hope Larian implements this as well some time, because it obviously works.

They managed to make Colosssus Slayer passive with parameters, so Sneak Attack should be possible too. Making it a mainhand action only nerfs the Rogue by reducing the effective accuracy of Sneak Attack.

Rogues have gotten the short end of the schtick in BG3 in general. Where is their Expertise feature? It is really important.

Well, now when you mention it ...
Shouldnt that also be toggable? I mean you loose quite huge tactical advantage, if your valuable resource is consumed for first attack that meets the conditions. :-/

Colossus Slayer has never given us the option for not using it. Let's compare Colossus Slayer and Sneak Attack in the PHB:

Colossus Slayer
...When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.

Sneak Attack
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack...


In short, according to the PHB wording, Sneak Attack should be a toggle and Colossus Slayer should be as it is now.

Interesting ...
Okey, thanks for the info.

That's about half the story, right?

https://tabletopjoab.com/sneak-attack-in-dd-5e-explained/

The PHB likely says "can" because it's allowing for cases where you can't, such as having disadvantage, or there not being one of your allies within range to make your attack qualify for Sneak Attack. Which of those conditions cancels out Colossus Slayer? This isn't something that's toggled, it has rules that apply to when it can and cannot apply. When those conditions are met, it's a passive bonus to your attack, when they're not, they don't apply, hence "can".

Sneak attack should NEVER be passive. Read your own quote of the PHB... once per turn (when you meet the conditions) you CAN deal an extra... can makes it a choice and especially when one has multiple attacks it should be a choice and not just something that happens.

Since debate started i get the impression that answer is not so clear as i thought ... so i did some research and look what i have found:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/727574491711209472

I don't need to? You don't have to roll a special attack for that damage, it is applied on a successful attack, where the conditions are met, hence it is, in fact, passive. You don't roll a "Sneak Attack" with your crossbow, when an enemy is engaged with one of your allies, your roll an attack roll, and since the target is engaged with an ally, you get your sneak attack bonus damage. If you attack from stealth, you also do not roll a "Sneak Attack", but just your regular attack, and the bonus damage is applied, if you hit. Sounds pretty passive to me. Even the way the die for that damage is acquired is passive, since it accrues as the character levels, no special feats or skills that require you to choose them, they are added at the appropriate class levels, for free.

Sorry Robert, but the use of 'Can' in 5e style-writing is very clear - it's a choice the player has, and it is not automatic or essential.

If I am a rogue and I am standing next to a goblin that has been hit once, knocked prone, but against all odds is still fighting... and the BBEG is *over there*, 20 feet from me, with my ally harassing them in the middle... I want to use my sneak attack on the big guy, not the little goblin. I need to kill the goblin first though, because I don't want to risk an OA while I'm on 3Hp...

So, in standard 5e rules, I can stab the goblin with my attack action, and I can *choose* not to apply sneak attack to the damage there, because I'm confident that my minimum damage will drop it, so that I can then safely move up to the boss and stab them in the back with my bonus action off-hand dagger... and apply my sneak attack to the main target when/if I hit. This is an important player choice value point to the feature, and it's one you'll find in a lot of other class features in other classes as well. If it's something that simply happens and is not a choice, they do not use the word 'can'; this is very much deliberate in the style.

Ideally, we should be able to do this in game as well.


That said, if we have to choose between the current implementation (ick) and having sneak attack add itself to the first legitimate attack that meets its requirements each turn (including other creature's turns), and those are our only two options... then I would prefer the latter, because at least that would be closer to reasonable than the current mess. I definitely want proper control over it, but at this point I'll take any improvement over the current.

+1

Can you cite anywhere where I said it was "automatic"? The damage applies, only if the conditions apply. Those conditions are: Do you have advantage, or, does your target have an ally within 5 feet. If neither of these is met, then you will not get your SA damage. If either one is, including on an AoO, then you will. You do not roll a sneak attack, you roll your normal attack, and apply the damage. In every other parlance, this means that it's passively granted. Something that is granted passively is, by definition, passive. Again, because there are conditions to be met to qualify for SA damage, it says "can", because it's possible that the conditions won't be met, and you won't get the damage.

Now, go ahead and show me where, in the PHB, it says "you must roll a sneak attack to get sneak attack damage. Feel free to copy paste it, but do provide a link to the source.

You mean something like this?

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/802195721273294848

No one (except for Larian) is arguing that you have to roll a specific sneak attack. Just that you have the option to apply the sneak attack damage on a normal attack if the conditions are met.
And the best way of doing this is to set a toggle, so that the sneak attack procs on the first applicable instance automatically, but you can turn the toggle off if you don't want to waste sneak attack on a low-hp enemy.

Similar to how, e.g. for Great Weapon Master: "On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action." You don't have to make this bonus melee attack, but you have the option.

Or Monks: "When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a monk weapon on Your Turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action." Again, they don't have to make this unarmed strike. They can use their Bonus Action for something else instead.

Edit: And the link Rag put, but to be fair Jeremy Crawford's tweets aren't necessarily official rules, even if they are taken as gospel by many.

Ah, if you did not mean to imply that the SA damage simply applied automatically when the conditions were met, then I misunderstood your meaning. Phrases like these:


As well as the surrounding turns of phrase all lead it to appear as though you are saying that, in core rules, SA simply applies when the conditions are met, and that this is outside of the player's direct control. If that isn't what you're saying, then I misunderstood you; I am just clarifying that this interpretation is not correct.

In MOST parlance the definition of passive is something that is automatic or which applies outside of the player's direct choice or control. Active choice by the player is, in discussion of passive features, the key factor. Sneak Attack is in no way a passive in core rules, because it is controlled by player choice. The player chooses whether or not to apply their sneak attack damage when the conditions are met. They can choose not to apply the damage even when the conditions are otherwise met because they may wish to apply it to a follow-up attack on a different target in the same turn. This is an important aspect of the way the feature works, and it's not disputed; that is how the feature works in 5e. That is all I am clarifying here.


This is how I would like it to work in game, but I acknowledge that in other D&D games it's more common for it to simply be handled automatically by the game and applied the first time the conditions are met, for flow of gameplay; the extreme majority of the time in a combat-pillar focused video game, asking if you'd like to apply sneak attack to your damage will be answered with "yes", so in that sense it is at least understandable that games turn it into an automatic passive. It worked fine like that in the Neverwinter games, for example. I would prefer full control, but I will understand and be content if, for the video game translation, they opt for the passive route... as I said, nearly anything at all would be better than what we have now.

One thing they could do that might answer the extreme skewing of the situation but also not clutter up the game flow with a regular choice that you'll almost always answer the same way might be, rather than a basic toggle, a one-time switch that defaults to "on", that you can deliberately check off for an attack if you specifically don't want to apply it, but which will click itself back on again after one attack (perhaps with an options menu controller to change that behaviour); this way you wouldn't have to think about it the vast majority of the time when you know you will be applying it at every opportunity, but it's still only one single click to note Not to do so for a specific attack when that situation arises, and no additional clicks to put it back to normal.

Eh, I still think Solasta got it right with pop ups for that kind of stuff, functionality wise.

I agree with you for many abilities in 5e, like Smite. But 90+% of the time you'll want to sneak attack on the first attack you make during a turn, especially in BG3 where non-offhand-attack bonus actions are more prevalent. So in this specific case a toggle will result in vastly fewer clicks than a popup. And there's never* a situation where you won't use your sneak attack on a successful AoO, so a popup is useless there. And as @Niara says above, a toggle that automatically turns on after an attack is even more convenient.

*Unless you're forced to make an attack against an ally, but aren't forced to use sneak attack on said attack. Somehow.

Seems to me like all we really need is Off-hand Sneak Attack ...
And aply SA to AoO, since that is happening outside our turn, so we would not loss any resource ... and therrfore there is little to no reason to not aply that.

Anything beyond that would be just QoL improvements (reduction of buttons mostly)

The only problem there would be friendly fire in case that AoO is provoked ... but since that is different topic (reactions in general) i would let it bw for now.

//Edit:
Oh now i realized that i forget elemental arrows.