# Sudden Strike vs. Sneak Attack?



## rowport (Jan 14, 2005)

Hiya, folks.  I am looking to the esteemed ENWorld Community for a rules interpretation of the differences between Sudden Strike and Sneak Attack.  Reading both, the only difference I noticed was that Sneak Attack can be used for non-lethal attacks with the right weapon (like sap) while Sudden Strike cannot.  But, I read a passing reference somewhere that it Sudden Strike is less useful than Sneak Attack, so I am wondering: are there other differences that I missed?


----------



## Caliban (Jan 14, 2005)

rowport said:
			
		

> Hiya, folks. I am looking to the esteemed ENWorld Community for a rules interpretation of the differences between Sudden Strike and Sneak Attack. Reading both, the only difference I noticed was that Sneak Attack can be used for non-lethal attacks with the right weapon (like sap) while Sudden Strike cannot. But, I read a passing reference somewhere that it Sudden Strike is less useful than Sneak Attack, so I am wondering: are there other differences that I missed?




Sudden Strike (from the Ninja core class in Complete Adventurer) only works on opponents who are denied their Dex bonus. 

Sneak Attack can be used on opponents who are currently denied their Dex bonus, or who are currently *flanked*. 

It's generally much easier to consistently flank someone than it is to consistently deny them their Dex bonus (it can be done, it's just not easy).


----------



## rowport (Jan 14, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Sudden Strike (from the Ninja core class in Complete Adventurer) only works on opponents who are denied their Dex bonus.
> 
> Sneak Attack can be used on opponents who are currently denied their Dex bonus, or who are currently *flanked*.
> 
> It's generally much easier to consistently flank someone than it is to consistently deny them their Dex bonus (it can be done, it's just not easy).



Wow- I just re-read the descriptions- you are right.  That is a SERIOUS difference.  In fact, the class kind of sucks, then.   :\   I could understand eliminating non-lethal attacks, since ninjas are 'assassin-like', but not taking out the flank effect.  That weakens the effect so much, it is hardly worth it.  Hmph.  Back to the drawing board with rogue levels...


----------



## Felix (Jan 15, 2005)

rowport said:
			
		

> In fact, the class kind of sucks, then.




Well, when you can become invisible X number of times per day as a swift action, it generally gets a little easier to make sure the other guy doesn't have a Dex bonus to AC.


----------



## rowport (Jan 15, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Well, when you can become invisible X number of times per day as a swift action, it generally gets a little easier to make sure the other guy doesn't have a Dex bonus to AC.



That is undoubtedly true, but on balance it still suffers by comparison to the rogue abilities as far as I can tell.  If you had more uses per day, or invisibility longer than one round, it might balance out, but as it is, it is *very* limited in actual utility.  Maybe it is too strong to say the class sucks- but it does not stack up to the rogue.  Maybe if the use was limited, but the effect greater (say, +1d8 instead of +1d6) that might help balance.  *shrug*


----------



## Felix (Jan 15, 2005)

> That is undoubtedly true, but on balance it still suffers by comparison to the rogue abilities as far as I can tell.



It allows him to be able to survive 1 on 1 combat, which the rogue cannot do so well. Being able to turn invisible denies Dex bonuses so he can get his Sudden strike damage at least once a round. A rogue must Feint, and that is a Standard Action, so he'd only be able to do it once every other round.

Really its a question of fighting styles. Rogues will do better when there are flanking buddies, but they will suffer 1 on 1. A ninja can lay a hurting 1 on 1, but his efficasy doesn't improve with companions to help him.

/aside
What would be really silly is a Ninja/Scout/Rogue
Swift Action: Turn Invisible
Move 10 feet. 
Attack with +3d6 extra damage.

Of course, your BAB would super-suck, but hey.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 15, 2005)

The ninja sudden strike ability _shouldn't_ balance exactly with the rogue sneak attack, because the ninja gets all sorts of other benefits.  If you gave them full sneak attack they'd pretty much outrogue the rogue.

J


----------



## rowport (Jan 15, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> It allows him to be able to survive 1 on 1 combat, which the rogue cannot do so well. Being able to turn invisible denies Dex bonuses so he can get his Sudden strike damage at least once a round. A rogue must Feint, and that is a Standard Action, so he'd only be able to do it once every other round.
> 
> Really its a question of fighting styles. Rogues will do better when there are flanking buddies, but they will suffer 1 on 1. A ninja can lay a hurting 1 on 1, but his efficasy doesn't improve with companions to help him.
> 
> ...



Re: Sudden Strike: you are convincing me, I have to admit.  Question: the Ghost Step (Invisible) reads "...for 1 round."  Does that mean that if you had multiple attacks (either through BAB or Two-Weapon Fighting, or both) that they would all be eligible for Sudden Strike unless the opponent could see past your invisibility?  If so, that is pretty darn effective.  I am pretty sure that is how it works, too.

Re: Fighting styles: this is a good way of looking at it.  I was making the mistake of comparing Sudden Strike to Sneak Attack one-for-one, while the context of the rest of the character's abilities and party composition will make a difference.  It does imply that Ninjas might be better NPCs than PCs, though, since it is pretty easy for players to coordinate flanking.

Re: munchkin sneaky dude.  Um, wow.  What can I say?    

To drnuncheon: You are right, also, to look at the big picture.  What is interesting to me is that side-by-side, the rogue looks better at low level (getting evasion and uncanny dodge) while the ninja looks better at high level (with lots of nifty Ki powers).  I wonder if this might just lead to more folks taking the front loaded rogue (like fighter, or even hexblade) and not the full progression.  *shrug*

On balance, I do think that the Ninja class is a better fit for the archetype than Rogue/Monk multiclass (although it is kind of ironic that the Ascetic Rogue Feat in the same book makes that combo more viable)!  So, when all is said and done, I think I will be rebuilding my Rog/Mnk PC as a Ninja.  Thanks for all the input, guys!


----------



## Felix (Jan 15, 2005)

rowport said:
			
		

> Does that mean that if you had multiple attacks (either through BAB or Two-Weapon Fighting, or both) that they would all be eligible for Sudden Strike unless the opponent could see past your invisibility?



I would treat it in every way like _Invisibility_. Meaning that if you decided to run for it, your invis would last until the beginning of your next turn, when you could do it again. But if you attacked, then you would become visible. Still, you'd have your extra damage dice and a +2 to hit for being invisible. So, no, you wouldn't get Sudden Strike damage for your iterative attacks.  

You would get it when you want it X number of times per day though, which is in some ways better than the hoops the rogue has to jump through.




			
				rowport said:
			
		

> It does imply that Ninjas might be better NPCs than PCs



I agree, and think they are more of an NPC class. This is generally the case with classes that survive on being virtually undetectible or classes like Deepwood Sniper (MotW) that rely on starting fights at extreme distance. When you have a clunky party of PCs, they won't be stealthy, and when you're outdoors, fights will start at or around 100 yards... about 2 rounds worth of shooting for the sniper, and then he's in trouble.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> I would treat it in every way like _Invisibility_. Meaning that if you decided to run for it, your invis would last until the beginning of your next turn, when you could do it again. But if you attacked, then you would become visible.




Does it say you "become invisible (as the Invisibility spell)" or just that you "become invisible for one round"?

Turning visible on attacking is not a feature of the invisible condition, but of the spell...

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Jan 15, 2005)

"...become invisible for 1 round.  Using this ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> "...become invisible for 1 round.  Using this ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity."




Okay.  I'd say you're invisible for one round, no matter how many attacks you make.

-Hyp.


----------



## Felix (Jan 16, 2005)

> Okay. I'd say you're invisible for one round, no matter how many attacks you make.
> 
> -Hyp.



Yeah, what with it not saying "Invisible as the spell", or having it italicized like "turn _invisible_ for one round".

Still and all, I'd rather the ninja have to make the choice between getting a +Xd6 to damage strike in, and being invisible when the other guy makes his attacks.


----------

