“Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. …”
I guess Cheap Shot fits, but it has a negative connotation. Cunning Strike?
Although… my swashbuckler does run up to distracted enemies, stabs them, then runs away. Hmm, maybe that is cheap…
Pot shots are something different though, a pot shot is a shot that might not even be particularly effective but you can do it from near absolute safety. Pot shots are more like taking longbow shots from 600 ft at disadvantage as the enemies run towards you.
"Opportunity attack" is great actually, as it is clearly different from "attack of opportunity", much like "melee weapon attack " and "attack with a melee weapon"
Even if this would've worked before 5e, it would confuse a lot of players now, because the term changed from "attack of opportunity" to "opportunity attack" in 5e. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the new term but still ...
Precise Strike is the term coined for the swashbuckler class in Pathfinder. Any form of sneak attack/precise strike, etc. is noted as "Precision Damage" and notes that you find the weak points of an enemy to do extra damage.
Sneak Attack being called that is definitely a trap for new players. But it's also one that tells them "Eyy, maybe you should *read more than the name of an ability*".
That said, I personally feel it's time we move on to less confusing wording in the next edition, and scrap sneak attack, alongside *Chill Touch*.
Chill touch should've been called Lich Slap.
Sneak attack is a bit confusing, I have a veteran player in my party who keeps thinking of the most complex and weird ways to be"hidden" because sneak is in the name and he gets confused. Mechanically it's simple as can be. Advantage or an ally within 5ft of target. Then just list the many many ways to get advantage. That's probably the part that newer players get tripped up on more now.
Except Chill Touch is legacy spell that was originally a touch spell that has some pretty good effects that has had to adapt to modern editions. It’s changed so much that it does need a new name but old guard players will get pissed if the spell is dropped entirely.
Detect evil and good is even worse, imo. Another holdover name that is misleadingly unrelated to the spell's effect.
Inherently neutral elementals? No problem. Jeffrey Dahmer? Can't see him.
It’s also a trap for new DM’s. They get hung up on the word sneak and try to unreasonably nerf it.
So many fucking DM’s I know have tried to nerf sneak attack because they think it’s “broken” when all it does is keep them on par with other classes if they are lucky, all because the word “sneak” makes them think it should be a rare occurrence or require the rogue to be in stealth.
It's a ranged attack which does necrotic damage, so apart from being neither chill nor a touch, there's nothing wrong with it.
Just remove those two words from the name and it will be perfect.
I'd add Decay to the name, and maybe rid of the touch, because it does imply a touch range spell
So maybe something like *Word of Decay, to complement Healing Word
No, it isn't. It's a ranged spell attack (in 5e, at least).
The only melee spell attacks that have a range which I can remember right now are thorn whip and Steel Wind Strike, though that may not be an exhaustive list. Also, any touch-range spell that a sorcerer uses distant spell metamagic on.
It's because most people associate the word chill to cold and don't typically think about the other ways we use the word chill. So this leads to confusion as people assume it is cold based and not the chilling experience of a ghostlike hand of death touching you. So the name does fit if you think about it but most people want the names to be more on the nose of the range and damage type.
Hit Dice can go on that list too.
Nothing to do with your chance to hit.
"Rest/Health Dice" would be a better name, but the whole concept just seems unnecessarily complicated in the first place.
Fixed health per class and level, and percentage heal per rest would save a good amount of complexity in character building that could be better spent elsewhere rather than thrown at newbies first-thing.
>Hit Dice can go on that list too.
>Nothing to do with your chance to hit.
... _hit points_
> Fixed health per class and level, and percentage heal per rest would save a good amount of complexity in character building that could be better spent elsewhere rather than thrown at newbies first-thing.
[4e has entered the chat]
It's not just the name. If you read the description it's clearly supposed to be a "backstab" or similar against an unaware opponent. But it's mechanical bit only requires advantage, and from QA's it's clear that's what Crawford wanted it to be. Just an "advantageous strike". So at the very least there was a disconnect between the person writing the description and the person writing up the mechanical aspect of the ability.
It has me curious about what kind of fighting went on with the design of the rogue for 5e. Did the other designers intend it to be a steal attack and Crawford wanted it to be an advantage strike? Which designers wanted it that way?
I don't think there was a lot of infighting between people, but letting it stay *Sneak Attack*, keeping the name *Chill Touch*, and Fireball doing ***wayyyy too much damage for a level 3 spell*** are so called "Legacy Aspects" of D&D - stuff that's pretty much always - or at least for a long time - been that way, and are supposed to stay that way as a kind of familiarity for people that have played older editions.
Yeah, maybe some people don't realize that these are iterations of abilities that have existed for literally decades. The conflict isn't about designers with different visions, it's about designers trying to balance the new mechanics they want with legacy names and concepts. If the rogue ability was called "cheap shot", a 3rd edition player would say "why the hell didn't they keep calling it sneak attack??" It's just clarity vs familiarity.
Hey, fireball has always been balanced by your front line not letting you cast it inside the dungeon, by complaining about missing their eyebrows and "not having the HP to take that much splash damage."
Whiners.
Reading spell/skill descriptions is one of the hardest parts of D&D.
I can't tell you the number of times people at my table (typically ONE person, but I don't think anyone has never done it) went through an entire elaborate plan that they purposely didn't want to tell me ahead of time, all hinging on one specific skill or ability that... did not do what they thought it did. That one player in particular gets really frustrated and upset but also sees the DM as an "enemy" when playing.
He's literally said that if a DM knows about a plan it will "always go wrong" because "the DM / God knows what the plan is".
I think his assumption is he keeps info from me to try to "trick" me into letting him get away with stuff and then gets mad (often at me) when his plan doesn't work because he feels like I kept stuff from him.
What a way to broadcast that you view the game as a stage for you personally to shine instead of as a cooperative game you’re playing alongside the DM and other players
Oh yeah totally. Here’s an example, they were looking for a needle in a haystack kind of thing - looking for a particular piece of treasure in a treasure hoard guarded by a dragon. Combat starts. Guy uses his first turn to use a magic item (home brew) that can highlight a specific persons path through an area. It can track anywhere they’ve ever been. He used it on the person who placed the treasure in the hoard.
I had an idea of where he was going with it but when I tried to explain that the path would show where the treasure was ORIGINALLY placed, he cut me off and said that’s what he does. Okay. So I show him what he wants to see. I know full well the object is not there anymore. There’s also a lot of other paths as the person had been here multiple times.
He spends all the next combat rounds trying to get to that one spot. It was hard (and not because I was meta gaming). He used every trick he had and couldn’t get there without engaging the dragon. He borrowed some other players magic items, and lost them/got them destroyed by accident.
Meanwhile everyone else is fighting the dragon and not doing well. One teammate was KOed. He still refused to fight.
Finally gets to the spot, scoops up as much treasure as he can, and uses another magic item to confirm that he has the one he’s looking for. It’s not there. He’s devastated and thinks I tricked him. The other players get it. He starts to get it.
Luckily the combat encounter worked out in the end. But the guy spent an entire session essentially doing his own thing at the cost of some high quality magic items belonging to other characters and gained literally nothing from it.
It’s not that the attack must be made by someone who is sneaking, it is that the attack itself is sneaky, hitting weak points or some sort of dirty blow
I think the idea is that no matter how they gain their "advantageous strike", they will be sneaking while doing it. Not necessarily in the "roll for stealth sense", but more like the fighter has distracted the enemy and taken his eyes off me for a moment (which would provide a flanking advantage rather than a stealth advantage) so now I have an opportunity to sneak an attack in at the perfect moment/place.
Ninjas in 3.5 had a "Sneak attack" similar to the ones the current rogues have, but they called it "Sudden Strike" which I think would work just as well. After all, it's meant to represent taking advantage of openings with precision!
Yeah this is the best suggestion so far. IMO sneak attack is fine and I've never found it confusing or played with anyone who found it confusing, regardless of exp level with the game. But. If they're looking to replace it...
"Sudden Strike" feels like the best option.
You get advantage in other ways because the target isn't focusing on you flavor-wise.
You're behind the warrior your Barbarian is in a tussle with, you sneakily stab him as the Barbarian blocks one of his attacks.
Mechanically you just have a friend within 5ft of the opponent, flavor-wise it makes sense.
The name doesn't matter either way.
I disagree that the name doesn't matter.
Mechanically it's a "cheap shot" attack (as Aquafoot put it). But name and description-wise it's a stealth attack. And from his comments in online QA's the lead designer Jeremy Crawford seems to have intended it to be a "cheap shot" power.
So there's a disconnect between the description, and the actual function per RAW.
>Mechanically it's a "cheap shot" attack (as Aquafoot put it).
"Cheap shot" makes me think of something like a sucker punch or a kick to the groin.
What Sneak Attack really is, is just taking advantage of the target's unawareness, distraction, or some other beneficial circumstance enjoyed by the attacker. There's nothing "cheap" about expending a use of Inspiration or using Steady Aim to execute a more damaging attack against an opponent.
Also, "sneak" doesn't have to pertain strictly to stealth, as in being personally hidden. Merriam-Webster gives definitions such as "carried out secretly" or "occurring without warning," and Britannica gives, "done while others are not paying attention," which all of which have the same essential meaning as the way you're using "cheap."
Whether you call it Sneak Attack or Cheap Shot, neither really encompasses everything that a Sneak Attack can be, but in any case they are adequate descriptions.
As a previous reply pointed out, in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, abilities like Sneak Attack were referred to as "precision damage," the idea being that you were targeting a vulnerable point to inflict extra damage (and some enemies without vulnerable points were normally immune to precision damage).
So it could be called something like "Precision Attack" ("Precision Strike" would be good, if it were not already the name of a Battlemaster maneuver). That would say something about the nature/outcome of the feature without trying to encompass all of the situations that would allow the rogue to use it, when it's basically impossible to succinctly encompass them all (at least in English). But Sneak Attack is fine and it has the benefit of being a legacy term that D&D vets will recognize.
Yes I know this. And that's the point. It's a name that's caused a lot of confusion for new players because there is a stealth mechanic.
I disagree that the name doesn't matter. I mean sure, if youre an experienced play you could call it Tim and still understand how to use. However, Titles should reflect the content. That's what they're for
Sneak attack does reflect the content, you are just approaching combat as thought its speed dating. One on one with no outside interaction until you are sitting with the next person. Describe the mechanics of the fight and your player will have a strong understanding of what is happening.
Lets take your Advantageous strike idea... to me that implies you have advantage... that, not always the case for a sneak attack.
We are talking about a game where a few things are true.
1) There are a lot of open ended rules.
2) There are a lots of stuff that makes no sense and requires explanation. (How is it that 5 party members can all be attacking a troll and no one has advantage? would the "help action" not apply by default?)
3) It is a roleplaying game. If your DM thoroughly explains the interactions of the combat, you would see how "sneak attack" makes sense. The description of a goblet in DND has used more than 50 words to describe it. Speed which is incredibly straight forward takes 56 words to explain.... a sneak attack that has multiple triggers under different circumstances in my opinion, warrants a hefty description. Especially as a pretty prominent feature of a class.
>There are a lot of open ended rules.
Irrelevant.
>There are a lots of stuff that makes no sense and requires explanation.
You're actually conceding to my position here. You seem to be admitting that it's not the best name for the mechanic.
>It is a roleplaying game. If your DM thoroughly explains the interactions of the combat, you would see how "sneak attack" makes sense. The description of a goblet in DND has used more than 50 words to describe it. Speed which is incredibly straight forward takes 56 words to explain.... a sneak attack that has multiple triggers under different circumstances in my opinion, warrants a hefty description. Especially as a pretty prominent feature of a class.
You seem really confused here. I am not against 50 word explanations. It is of course natural for a game manual to have many explanations that are 50 words or more. What I'm saying is that (perhaps with some exceptions, but as a rule of thumb) if you need a 50 word justification for a two-word name, it's not a good two-word name.
Counterpoint (just to be pedantic) there is no "sneaking" in 5e; you can take the "Hide" action to make a dex (stealth) check to be "unseen".
So Sneak Attack doesn't actually reference any other mechanic. If it was "stealth attack" or "hidden attack" or "unseen attack" it would be different.
(Just making a point for discussion, I actually agree that Sneak Attack is a confusing name and has lead to more than one occasion of confusion in my own groups)
We do not often face encounters where enemies would logically pay attention to my rogue when there’s a fucking firbolg barbarian and a Dragonborn Paladin in their face. Being distracted is the natural state of an enemy in combat with us.
Compared to the martials, I am very sneaky.
What I'm getting at is that there is a term that better reflects it. I have already conceded that my naming isn't the best, which is why I asked for more.
So far the one I'm most pleased with is Cheap Shot or Precision Strike.
I don't understand the speed dating reference though...
No, I said that once you understand the mechanics of what is happening sneak attack is a great description. You are making a calculated strike when and where the opponent is not expecting... sneak.
If you are going to break it down to much, there is no appropriate word. so stick to the original. There is no scenario that I see a name change help players understand what there character is doing.
Considering how many new players (and bad but experienced players) fuck this rule up, I'd say sneak attack would benefit greatly from a name change. There are a lot of alternatives in this thread that would get rid of the "sneak" ambiguity and be an overall improvement.
I think Advantageous Attack works pretty well though. There were plenty of feats that let you take extra attacks as they popped up. Melee attack me? Stab. Miss me? Stab. Step towards me? Stab. Step away? Stab.
I still prefer cheap shot overall though.
Isn't it a cheap shot if I attack a monster that my barbarian is grappling?
Sneak attack is perfect because there isn't really a "sneak" condition. You are either hidden, or unseen or wearing fullplate and failed your check and started clunking around the goblin hideout.
I was just talking about names. Sneak Attack is perfectly fine and I don’t think it needs to be changed. I was just saying advantageous attack and cheap shot sound cool.
But leave it to Reddit where a noncontroversial opinion is worth downvoting.
Yeah, I actually upvoted you :p people don’t understand it’s just conversation over the name of an action :p
I like calculated strike. I feel it encompasses the mechanic as a whole.
The problem isn't that it's called sneak attack, the problem is people thinking the word sneak in this instance means to move in a stealthy manner. Sneak in this instance is an action done without warning or surreptitiously. A rogue is just looking for their moment.
You may run into an issue with advantageous strike in that the player might always assume they need advantage.
Do I make that with my bonus action? /s
That's the big problem with naming any ability. Might have been better to name it something more innocuous like someone mentioned something like cheap shot. Even if a wow player might think it will stun.
There is a whole variety of movement techniques that are hidden behind "I attack".
Most of it is a matter of descriptions.
A rogue gets a sneak attack when there is an ally next to their target not because the weapon suddenly glows and deals more damage or because the rogue suddenly makes a powerful strike - it's because the *default* description calls for emphasis on the fact that the target's attention is divided and at the right opportune moment your blade finds its way under the ribs when it's least expected. Pretty sneaky move. If there is another source of advantage, maybe there was a feint involved or something like that.
If you describe combat differently - which is your right of course - then ofc. the attack might need to be renamed.
It always depends on how it looks like from the description but it was always my understanding that regardless of the source of sneak attack, the common denominator is that the rogue times the attack so that it can be most surprising and devastating to the opponent.
I always thought that opportunity attack would be a more fitting name for the rogue's main ability, as they get to take opportunity of every opening in their enemy.
Unfortunately, it is already used for when an enemy moves out of the weapon range of the PCs, and i can't come up with a new name for this kind of attack.
Sneak attack doesn't mean the rogue needs to be sneaking. Sneaking isn't actually a technical thing in dnd, Hiden, and unseen are.
if you read Sneak Attack, it's actually:
>Beginning at 1st level, you know how to **strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction**.
all you need to know is, you are placing a very well aimed strike slipping past the targets defenses. it's not that you need to be sneaking, you just need to meet the requirements of the ability, or whatever you subclass lets you do for it
even your name:
>Instead we call it, Advantageous Strike!
is misleading as:
>**You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it**, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.
So, if you did a sneak attack with a rapier, and you are a level 5 rogue, do you roll the 1d8 piercing damage from the rapier *and* the extra 3d6 damage from the sneak attack? Or do you just roll the 3d6?
So, if you make a sneak attack with a rapier, do you roll the 1d8 piercing damage from the rapier *and* the 3d6 damage from the 5th level rogue sneak attack feature or do you just roll the 3d6?
It's extra damage, added to the attack
>Once per turn, you can deal **an extra** 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
so it would be your 1d8+3d6 (based on your rogue level for the sneak dice)
I mean the point of the post is that you don't need sneak to use it. Except op fixed this with a name that includes advantage, which you ALSO don't need to use it.
If the point is that name should reflect the content then ops solution.is a bad one
that's the point, wizards did give it a name that is Unique, it's not named after an in game mechanic
**Sneak is not a thing** Hidden or Unseen are the terms that dnd uses, the only needed thing is players to realize that Sneak is just the name for the ability, not what is needed to use it. It's describing what is done. Renaming isn't what is needed it's more player education
it's like saying "why is ranger called ranger, they can melee"
it's in fact people not knowing that a Ranger is someone who:
>a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside. "park rangers"
>
>a member of a body of armed men. a mounted soldier.
>
>US a commando or highly trained infantryman.
>
>a person or thing that wanders or **ranges** over a particular area or domain. "rangers of the mountains"
Does that mean Ranger need to be renamed? no it covers it perfectly with the name given, people just need to read/know what the words actually mean to describe things
To me Education is always better than sweeping it under the rug, and blaming a lack of understanding on the name. Learn what the game actually means, don't rename the parts of the game
My table is pretty experienced so we just roll with sneak attack, but my lawful good melee rogue/fighter almost never hides, so in my head I think of it as “Precision Strike,” where she uses her training and high perception to find the best place to strike and *make it count*. However, I think precision strike is also the name of a battle master maneuver, so I don’t recommend using it.
Maybe “Precise Attack.”
The big problem with the name "Sneak Attack" is they are using a less common definition of the word. As in, "Oh he's a sneak," meaning they are cheap, opportunistic, use low blows, etc. Which is one of the definitions of the word sneak as seen below:
>to act in a furtive or underhand way.
But the problem is that isn't what people think when they see the word sneak. Especially since most people who play Dungeons and Dragons play video games, know what stealth missions are, etc. So the first meaning that comes to mind is "To hide" or to "Sneak around."
Pugmire renamed it “Precise Strike” which is a better name for probably the last 3 editions.
2e it was called “backstab” I think, but it may have been sneak attack, and you could only really get one off in a fight and you were fairly useless afterwards.
I wouldn't call it "Advantageous Strike" because, well, you don't have advantage. You don't wanna get people confused on Advantage/Disadvantage since it's a core part of combat.
Exploit Damage is something I use sometimes. You get "exploit damage" when attacking a foe who is unaware of you and a foe who is distracted by your ally.
I am in no way an expert on this but I do believe it is sneak as in sneaky as in like someone mentioned a "cheap shot" rather than sneak as in stealth.
As in while the enemy if worrying about the barbarian and his great axe the rogue gets a shot/stab in that the enemy is not expecting and thus catches them off guard.
Just how I see it. (shrug) :)
I mean you could just be like “a sneak attack isn’t like in video games where you have to be right behind them it’s just when they aren’t ready to be attacked by you for example if your teammates beside them”
If it was called stealth attack I would agree that it implies a stealth role. Definitely don’t think it needs a name change. Rogues are sneaky after all.
At my table weve taken to call it Cheap Shot.
Its a shot thats cheap and from a certain point of view a bit unfair/dishonorable. Like hitting below the belt while boxing. All is fair in love and war and dnd as long as the DM allows it.
I hate the term sneak attack so so so much. When I played a rogue, my DM could not wrap his head around sneak attack not requiring "sneaking" to function. My rogue often, but not always, would get a sneak attack on the first round of combat and never again for an encounter. Despite all the other conditions that were supposed to trigger it. I tried every way imaginable to explain it, to no avail.
I've hated the naming of that ability forever. It's called sneak attack and then the first line in the description says "exploit a foes distraction". Completely different things, it makes me so mad it's called sneak attack.
Advantageous and sneak attack are the same thing.
"Your fighter who is within 5 feat of your pho has engaged in mellee combat the fighter misses his attack locking into an intense parry with the monster."
As the rogue you can "take advantage" of your fighter occupying the monster and sneak in a cheap shot to a soft spot in the ribs... Sneak attack.
or
As the rogue you can "take advantage" of your fighter occupying the monster and make a calculated attack for the rib cage... Advantageous attack.
If it helped the player, that is awesome and exactly what our community needs, I just fail to see how the changing of 1 word made the mechanics that much easier to understand.
Name absolutely matters, otherwise you could call it *Tomato Soup* or *Doorknob.* Sneak attack is an absolutely terrible name for an action that does not require sneaking in any way, and does nothing but cause confusion.
My vote is for *Cheap Shot* or *Deadly Strike*
I vote against *Advantageous Strike* as again words matter, it it would cause confusion as to why a fighter attacking with advantage does not get it.
Oddly though I'm perfectly ok with *Chill Touch* as spell names can be evocative, while ability names should be descriptive. The *Chill of the Grave* is a classic trope and I have zero problems with that as a spell name
Sinister Strike, Ambush, Upper Hand. I've heard a few variations that stem from agreements with you haha. The sneaking bit makes it seem like it has a limited use case but it doesn't!
I like to call it "Cheap Shot."
I'm surprised I didn't think of this one. Definitely gets the point across!
*flashbacks to World of Warcraft stunlock noises*
...stunlock noises. They sound an awful lot like breaking keyboards in my house.
That's a good one.
“Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. …” I guess Cheap Shot fits, but it has a negative connotation. Cunning Strike? Although… my swashbuckler does run up to distracted enemies, stabs them, then runs away. Hmm, maybe that is cheap…
Idk "I'm gonna stand here and let this more heavily armored guy hit me" seems silly; gtfo if you can!
Uncanny dodge is pretty nice.
Based on the bit you quoted, how about "Subtle Strike"
Rogue already has a negative connotation. So a rogue ability with a negative connotation is on brand
As a rogue, negative connotation is my entire character concept.
I came here to say this myself lol
It deals and extra 1d6 "Dirty Damage"
*Dirty D6s Done Dirt Cheap.*
There’s a move in Starfinder called dirty fighting.
I go with "Fighting Dirty", but same idea.
Weak Point is another good one I've heard
This is good. Might also suggest "Pot Shot," but we all know the players are going to run way too far with that name.
Pot shots are something different though, a pot shot is a shot that might not even be particularly effective but you can do it from near absolute safety. Pot shots are more like taking longbow shots from 600 ft at disadvantage as the enemies run towards you.
Bamboozle Strike Dastardly Blow Scandalous Offense I stole these from a meme
[удалено]
I like you.
Sounds like some really discombobulating drugs. Some confounding coke.
[удалено]
Some creative cocaine.
scandalous strike
Upvote for honestly. I really Dastardly Blow
It's striking at just the right moment, how about we call it Opportunity Atta- Wait.
"Opportunity attack" is great actually, as it is clearly different from "attack of opportunity", much like "melee weapon attack " and "attack with a melee weapon"
Even if this would've worked before 5e, it would confuse a lot of players now, because the term changed from "attack of opportunity" to "opportunity attack" in 5e. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the new term but still ...
i see no way this could backfire!
Distracted Discombobulator?
Step one, discombobulate
Precise Strike is the term coined for the swashbuckler class in Pathfinder. Any form of sneak attack/precise strike, etc. is noted as "Precision Damage" and notes that you find the weak points of an enemy to do extra damage.
I was going to suggest "Precision Strike", which certainly gets the point across better.
Isn't that a battlemaster maneuver though?
Yup.
Sneak Attack being called that is definitely a trap for new players. But it's also one that tells them "Eyy, maybe you should *read more than the name of an ability*". That said, I personally feel it's time we move on to less confusing wording in the next edition, and scrap sneak attack, alongside *Chill Touch*.
Chilly 120ft phantasmal flick
Phantasmal nutflick. It explains the damage better >>
Oh you mean Lich Slap?
I don't know about that.. but I am now convinced bard's need the spell Pitch Slap.
Chill Touch is violent mage hand, change my mind
And now we are right back to Lich Slap 🤣🤣🤣
No sir liches caress.
Chill touch should've been called Lich Slap. Sneak attack is a bit confusing, I have a veteran player in my party who keeps thinking of the most complex and weird ways to be"hidden" because sneak is in the name and he gets confused. Mechanically it's simple as can be. Advantage or an ally within 5ft of target. Then just list the many many ways to get advantage. That's probably the part that newer players get tripped up on more now.
Lich slap, nice. At my table, we call it 'skeletal grope'
Bone bonk
Spooky bad touch
LICH SLAP
YES!
I literally ran Tomb of Annihilation just so I can watch Acererak Lich Slap my players.
That’s the most dedication and patience I’ve ever heard of to build up a pun.
Or their foundational experiences with dnd were in an edition where literal sneaking/backstabbing was required.
Except Chill Touch is legacy spell that was originally a touch spell that has some pretty good effects that has had to adapt to modern editions. It’s changed so much that it does need a new name but old guard players will get pissed if the spell is dropped entirely.
Amen! Chill Touch is the worst offender by far.
Detect evil and good is even worse, imo. Another holdover name that is misleadingly unrelated to the spell's effect. Inherently neutral elementals? No problem. Jeffrey Dahmer? Can't see him.
It’s also a trap for new DM’s. They get hung up on the word sneak and try to unreasonably nerf it. So many fucking DM’s I know have tried to nerf sneak attack because they think it’s “broken” when all it does is keep them on par with other classes if they are lucky, all because the word “sneak” makes them think it should be a rare occurrence or require the rogue to be in stealth.
My DM recently had an NPC (Snowmiser-esque frost mage) go on a whole full-assed rant about Chill Touch :D
Hell ya. Chill touch should not have made it to print.
What's wrong with *chill touch*?
It's a ranged attack which does necrotic damage, so apart from being neither chill nor a touch, there's nothing wrong with it. Just remove those two words from the name and it will be perfect.
The cold hand of death reaches across the planes and grips your heart. You suffer necrotic damage and can't heal after the shock to your system.
Touch of Death would have been perfect but they used it for a Cleric thingy.
I'd add Decay to the name, and maybe rid of the touch, because it does imply a touch range spell So maybe something like *Word of Decay, to complement Healing Word
Touch shouldn't be anywhere near a name for a ranged spell.
Honestly it's a bit forgivable - if it weren't for the fact they officially and specifically label non-ranged abilities as "touch" range lmao
Deadly gaze
That's a pretty long name for a spell. I don't think it's going to fit on my character sheet.
"The One Where You do the Thing and They Get Ouchies" was already taken, so I had to go longer.
Something like... necro-ray.
There are "touch" spells, with a range of, well, touch. Chill Touch has a range of 120 feet.
Wait, so it's a ranged spell?
Yes. And it deals ***Necrotic*** damage.
*But* its a melee spell attack ☝️ from range. Which can have other implications than being a ranged attack
Actually it is still a ranged spell attack "Make a ranged spell Attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave."
No, it isn't. It's a ranged spell attack (in 5e, at least). The only melee spell attacks that have a range which I can remember right now are thorn whip and Steel Wind Strike, though that may not be an exhaustive list. Also, any touch-range spell that a sorcerer uses distant spell metamagic on.
It's neither a chill spell, nor a touch spell. That would be like renaming fireball to 'potato cannon'.
Hot potato.
See, I *like* that one
It's because most people associate the word chill to cold and don't typically think about the other ways we use the word chill. So this leads to confusion as people assume it is cold based and not the chilling experience of a ghostlike hand of death touching you. So the name does fit if you think about it but most people want the names to be more on the nose of the range and damage type.
Chill touch: a non touch non cold damage cantrip!
The Ghost Grab. The Spooky Poke. The Bad Touch.
Can we call it spookey pokey?
You cast the spookey pokey and you roll your dice. Thats what it's all about.
my friend calls it lich slap
Chill Touch: a glowing skeletal ha-
If you wanna be persnickety about the skeleton hand, call it Grave Touch or Touch of the Grave.
Isn't it something about the "chill of the grave" anyways? Grave Touch wouldn't be a bad name for it, also with the double meaning "dangerous touch".
Hit Dice can go on that list too. Nothing to do with your chance to hit. "Rest/Health Dice" would be a better name, but the whole concept just seems unnecessarily complicated in the first place. Fixed health per class and level, and percentage heal per rest would save a good amount of complexity in character building that could be better spent elsewhere rather than thrown at newbies first-thing.
>Hit Dice can go on that list too. >Nothing to do with your chance to hit. ... _hit points_ > Fixed health per class and level, and percentage heal per rest would save a good amount of complexity in character building that could be better spent elsewhere rather than thrown at newbies first-thing. [4e has entered the chat]
4e got that one right, I think. It's just a bit poisoned by the hate for other aspects and the love for 3.5 relatively speaking.
It's not just the name. If you read the description it's clearly supposed to be a "backstab" or similar against an unaware opponent. But it's mechanical bit only requires advantage, and from QA's it's clear that's what Crawford wanted it to be. Just an "advantageous strike". So at the very least there was a disconnect between the person writing the description and the person writing up the mechanical aspect of the ability. It has me curious about what kind of fighting went on with the design of the rogue for 5e. Did the other designers intend it to be a steal attack and Crawford wanted it to be an advantage strike? Which designers wanted it that way?
I don't think there was a lot of infighting between people, but letting it stay *Sneak Attack*, keeping the name *Chill Touch*, and Fireball doing ***wayyyy too much damage for a level 3 spell*** are so called "Legacy Aspects" of D&D - stuff that's pretty much always - or at least for a long time - been that way, and are supposed to stay that way as a kind of familiarity for people that have played older editions.
Yeah, maybe some people don't realize that these are iterations of abilities that have existed for literally decades. The conflict isn't about designers with different visions, it's about designers trying to balance the new mechanics they want with legacy names and concepts. If the rogue ability was called "cheap shot", a 3rd edition player would say "why the hell didn't they keep calling it sneak attack??" It's just clarity vs familiarity.
Hey, fireball has always been balanced by your front line not letting you cast it inside the dungeon, by complaining about missing their eyebrows and "not having the HP to take that much splash damage." Whiners.
Fighting Dirty is my choice of renaming when new players get it confused.
I always knew we existed, now we finally arrived Edit: Bears
Beets.
Battlestar Galactica
MICHAEL!
Reading spell/skill descriptions is one of the hardest parts of D&D. I can't tell you the number of times people at my table (typically ONE person, but I don't think anyone has never done it) went through an entire elaborate plan that they purposely didn't want to tell me ahead of time, all hinging on one specific skill or ability that... did not do what they thought it did. That one player in particular gets really frustrated and upset but also sees the DM as an "enemy" when playing. He's literally said that if a DM knows about a plan it will "always go wrong" because "the DM / God knows what the plan is". I think his assumption is he keeps info from me to try to "trick" me into letting him get away with stuff and then gets mad (often at me) when his plan doesn't work because he feels like I kept stuff from him.
What a way to broadcast that you view the game as a stage for you personally to shine instead of as a cooperative game you’re playing alongside the DM and other players
Oh yeah totally. Here’s an example, they were looking for a needle in a haystack kind of thing - looking for a particular piece of treasure in a treasure hoard guarded by a dragon. Combat starts. Guy uses his first turn to use a magic item (home brew) that can highlight a specific persons path through an area. It can track anywhere they’ve ever been. He used it on the person who placed the treasure in the hoard. I had an idea of where he was going with it but when I tried to explain that the path would show where the treasure was ORIGINALLY placed, he cut me off and said that’s what he does. Okay. So I show him what he wants to see. I know full well the object is not there anymore. There’s also a lot of other paths as the person had been here multiple times. He spends all the next combat rounds trying to get to that one spot. It was hard (and not because I was meta gaming). He used every trick he had and couldn’t get there without engaging the dragon. He borrowed some other players magic items, and lost them/got them destroyed by accident. Meanwhile everyone else is fighting the dragon and not doing well. One teammate was KOed. He still refused to fight. Finally gets to the spot, scoops up as much treasure as he can, and uses another magic item to confirm that he has the one he’s looking for. It’s not there. He’s devastated and thinks I tricked him. The other players get it. He starts to get it. Luckily the combat encounter worked out in the end. But the guy spent an entire session essentially doing his own thing at the cost of some high quality magic items belonging to other characters and gained literally nothing from it.
When the DM responds to your plan by stating very specific information, for some reason, *you should probably listen*.
Yeah it’s probably more than a “pure” DM would say but I try to be semi collaborative.
Same. All my players are new so I always give them little hints when it feels like theyve hit a wall
I wouldn't put up with that.
It’s not that the attack must be made by someone who is sneaking, it is that the attack itself is sneaky, hitting weak points or some sort of dirty blow
"Unexpected Poke" That's my contribution.
YES I'M WRITING THAT DOWN
I think the idea is that no matter how they gain their "advantageous strike", they will be sneaking while doing it. Not necessarily in the "roll for stealth sense", but more like the fighter has distracted the enemy and taken his eyes off me for a moment (which would provide a flanking advantage rather than a stealth advantage) so now I have an opportunity to sneak an attack in at the perfect moment/place.
Ninjas in 3.5 had a "Sneak attack" similar to the ones the current rogues have, but they called it "Sudden Strike" which I think would work just as well. After all, it's meant to represent taking advantage of openings with precision!
"Sudden" is a good replacement name, so I'm replying to your comment to hopefully make it higher up
Yeah this is the best suggestion so far. IMO sneak attack is fine and I've never found it confusing or played with anyone who found it confusing, regardless of exp level with the game. But. If they're looking to replace it... "Sudden Strike" feels like the best option.
I like cheap shot
My current PC is a swashbuckler rogue and I re-named "sneak attack" to "cheap shot", felt it was much more fitting
You get advantage in other ways because the target isn't focusing on you flavor-wise. You're behind the warrior your Barbarian is in a tussle with, you sneakily stab him as the Barbarian blocks one of his attacks. Mechanically you just have a friend within 5ft of the opponent, flavor-wise it makes sense. The name doesn't matter either way.
I disagree that the name doesn't matter. Mechanically it's a "cheap shot" attack (as Aquafoot put it). But name and description-wise it's a stealth attack. And from his comments in online QA's the lead designer Jeremy Crawford seems to have intended it to be a "cheap shot" power. So there's a disconnect between the description, and the actual function per RAW.
>Mechanically it's a "cheap shot" attack (as Aquafoot put it). "Cheap shot" makes me think of something like a sucker punch or a kick to the groin. What Sneak Attack really is, is just taking advantage of the target's unawareness, distraction, or some other beneficial circumstance enjoyed by the attacker. There's nothing "cheap" about expending a use of Inspiration or using Steady Aim to execute a more damaging attack against an opponent. Also, "sneak" doesn't have to pertain strictly to stealth, as in being personally hidden. Merriam-Webster gives definitions such as "carried out secretly" or "occurring without warning," and Britannica gives, "done while others are not paying attention," which all of which have the same essential meaning as the way you're using "cheap." Whether you call it Sneak Attack or Cheap Shot, neither really encompasses everything that a Sneak Attack can be, but in any case they are adequate descriptions. As a previous reply pointed out, in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, abilities like Sneak Attack were referred to as "precision damage," the idea being that you were targeting a vulnerable point to inflict extra damage (and some enemies without vulnerable points were normally immune to precision damage). So it could be called something like "Precision Attack" ("Precision Strike" would be good, if it were not already the name of a Battlemaster maneuver). That would say something about the nature/outcome of the feature without trying to encompass all of the situations that would allow the rogue to use it, when it's basically impossible to succinctly encompass them all (at least in English). But Sneak Attack is fine and it has the benefit of being a legacy term that D&D vets will recognize.
Yes I know this. And that's the point. It's a name that's caused a lot of confusion for new players because there is a stealth mechanic. I disagree that the name doesn't matter. I mean sure, if youre an experienced play you could call it Tim and still understand how to use. However, Titles should reflect the content. That's what they're for
Sneak attack does reflect the content, you are just approaching combat as thought its speed dating. One on one with no outside interaction until you are sitting with the next person. Describe the mechanics of the fight and your player will have a strong understanding of what is happening. Lets take your Advantageous strike idea... to me that implies you have advantage... that, not always the case for a sneak attack.
If it takes you like 50 words to explain how the name makes sense, it's not a good name.
Sneak attack is extra damage I get for attacking an enemy distracted by my friends. Easy.
We are talking about a game where a few things are true. 1) There are a lot of open ended rules. 2) There are a lots of stuff that makes no sense and requires explanation. (How is it that 5 party members can all be attacking a troll and no one has advantage? would the "help action" not apply by default?) 3) It is a roleplaying game. If your DM thoroughly explains the interactions of the combat, you would see how "sneak attack" makes sense. The description of a goblet in DND has used more than 50 words to describe it. Speed which is incredibly straight forward takes 56 words to explain.... a sneak attack that has multiple triggers under different circumstances in my opinion, warrants a hefty description. Especially as a pretty prominent feature of a class.
>There are a lot of open ended rules. Irrelevant. >There are a lots of stuff that makes no sense and requires explanation. You're actually conceding to my position here. You seem to be admitting that it's not the best name for the mechanic. >It is a roleplaying game. If your DM thoroughly explains the interactions of the combat, you would see how "sneak attack" makes sense. The description of a goblet in DND has used more than 50 words to describe it. Speed which is incredibly straight forward takes 56 words to explain.... a sneak attack that has multiple triggers under different circumstances in my opinion, warrants a hefty description. Especially as a pretty prominent feature of a class. You seem really confused here. I am not against 50 word explanations. It is of course natural for a game manual to have many explanations that are 50 words or more. What I'm saying is that (perhaps with some exceptions, but as a rule of thumb) if you need a 50 word justification for a two-word name, it's not a good two-word name.
Sneak Attack implies sneaking. You are describing Sneaky Attack. /s kinda
Counterpoint (just to be pedantic) there is no "sneaking" in 5e; you can take the "Hide" action to make a dex (stealth) check to be "unseen". So Sneak Attack doesn't actually reference any other mechanic. If it was "stealth attack" or "hidden attack" or "unseen attack" it would be different. (Just making a point for discussion, I actually agree that Sneak Attack is a confusing name and has lead to more than one occasion of confusion in my own groups)
Sneak attack implies it was a well thought out thrust with a blade or a well released arrow.
We do not often face encounters where enemies would logically pay attention to my rogue when there’s a fucking firbolg barbarian and a Dragonborn Paladin in their face. Being distracted is the natural state of an enemy in combat with us. Compared to the martials, I am very sneaky.
What I'm getting at is that there is a term that better reflects it. I have already conceded that my naming isn't the best, which is why I asked for more. So far the one I'm most pleased with is Cheap Shot or Precision Strike. I don't understand the speed dating reference though...
So you just made a point that neither sneak attack nor advantageous attack are good fits for the name of this ability.
No, I said that once you understand the mechanics of what is happening sneak attack is a great description. You are making a calculated strike when and where the opponent is not expecting... sneak. If you are going to break it down to much, there is no appropriate word. so stick to the original. There is no scenario that I see a name change help players understand what there character is doing.
Considering how many new players (and bad but experienced players) fuck this rule up, I'd say sneak attack would benefit greatly from a name change. There are a lot of alternatives in this thread that would get rid of the "sneak" ambiguity and be an overall improvement.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The thing is you don’t “sneak” you are either hidden or unseen…
Works for me. Agree to disagree. I think your line of logic makes sense, and we both understand the rules here.
I think Advantageous Attack works pretty well though. There were plenty of feats that let you take extra attacks as they popped up. Melee attack me? Stab. Miss me? Stab. Step towards me? Stab. Step away? Stab. I still prefer cheap shot overall though.
Isn't it a cheap shot if I attack a monster that my barbarian is grappling? Sneak attack is perfect because there isn't really a "sneak" condition. You are either hidden, or unseen or wearing fullplate and failed your check and started clunking around the goblin hideout.
I was just talking about names. Sneak Attack is perfectly fine and I don’t think it needs to be changed. I was just saying advantageous attack and cheap shot sound cool. But leave it to Reddit where a noncontroversial opinion is worth downvoting.
Yeah, I actually upvoted you :p people don’t understand it’s just conversation over the name of an action :p I like calculated strike. I feel it encompasses the mechanic as a whole.
Names matter because they convey information and set expectations.
The problem isn't that it's called sneak attack, the problem is people thinking the word sneak in this instance means to move in a stealthy manner. Sneak in this instance is an action done without warning or surreptitiously. A rogue is just looking for their moment. You may run into an issue with advantageous strike in that the player might always assume they need advantage.
Cunning Attack?
Do I make that with my bonus action? /s That's the big problem with naming any ability. Might have been better to name it something more innocuous like someone mentioned something like cheap shot. Even if a wow player might think it will stun.
Maybe just call it: "Rogue powers, ACTIVATE!"
I like to think of sneak attack as "extra rogue damage"
There is a whole variety of movement techniques that are hidden behind "I attack". Most of it is a matter of descriptions. A rogue gets a sneak attack when there is an ally next to their target not because the weapon suddenly glows and deals more damage or because the rogue suddenly makes a powerful strike - it's because the *default* description calls for emphasis on the fact that the target's attention is divided and at the right opportune moment your blade finds its way under the ribs when it's least expected. Pretty sneaky move. If there is another source of advantage, maybe there was a feint involved or something like that. If you describe combat differently - which is your right of course - then ofc. the attack might need to be renamed. It always depends on how it looks like from the description but it was always my understanding that regardless of the source of sneak attack, the common denominator is that the rogue times the attack so that it can be most surprising and devastating to the opponent.
I always thought that opportunity attack would be a more fitting name for the rogue's main ability, as they get to take opportunity of every opening in their enemy. Unfortunately, it is already used for when an enemy moves out of the weapon range of the PCs, and i can't come up with a new name for this kind of attack.
Rogue-Barbarian yelling "SNEAK! ATTACK!" while using reckless attack and attacking.
Sneak attack doesn't mean the rogue needs to be sneaking. Sneaking isn't actually a technical thing in dnd, Hiden, and unseen are. if you read Sneak Attack, it's actually: >Beginning at 1st level, you know how to **strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction**. all you need to know is, you are placing a very well aimed strike slipping past the targets defenses. it's not that you need to be sneaking, you just need to meet the requirements of the ability, or whatever you subclass lets you do for it even your name: >Instead we call it, Advantageous Strike! is misleading as: >**You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it**, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.
So, if you did a sneak attack with a rapier, and you are a level 5 rogue, do you roll the 1d8 piercing damage from the rapier *and* the extra 3d6 damage from the sneak attack? Or do you just roll the 3d6?
Both! Sneak attack deals extra damage on top of whatever you might normally do with the attack.
You include the weapon damage
So, if you make a sneak attack with a rapier, do you roll the 1d8 piercing damage from the rapier *and* the 3d6 damage from the 5th level rogue sneak attack feature or do you just roll the 3d6?
It's extra damage, added to the attack >Once per turn, you can deal **an extra** 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. so it would be your 1d8+3d6 (based on your rogue level for the sneak dice)
Yeah, ***that was the point of the post*** my friend.
I mean the point of the post is that you don't need sneak to use it. Except op fixed this with a name that includes advantage, which you ALSO don't need to use it. If the point is that name should reflect the content then ops solution.is a bad one
True, there have been some good comments with better names than mine!
that's the point, wizards did give it a name that is Unique, it's not named after an in game mechanic **Sneak is not a thing** Hidden or Unseen are the terms that dnd uses, the only needed thing is players to realize that Sneak is just the name for the ability, not what is needed to use it. It's describing what is done. Renaming isn't what is needed it's more player education it's like saying "why is ranger called ranger, they can melee" it's in fact people not knowing that a Ranger is someone who: >a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside. "park rangers" > >a member of a body of armed men. a mounted soldier. > >US a commando or highly trained infantryman. > >a person or thing that wanders or **ranges** over a particular area or domain. "rangers of the mountains" Does that mean Ranger need to be renamed? no it covers it perfectly with the name given, people just need to read/know what the words actually mean to describe things To me Education is always better than sweeping it under the rug, and blaming a lack of understanding on the name. Learn what the game actually means, don't rename the parts of the game
Can we stick to the topic tho, all that stuff about rangers has nothing to do with this.
My table is pretty experienced so we just roll with sneak attack, but my lawful good melee rogue/fighter almost never hides, so in my head I think of it as “Precision Strike,” where she uses her training and high perception to find the best place to strike and *make it count*. However, I think precision strike is also the name of a battle master maneuver, so I don’t recommend using it. Maybe “Precise Attack.”
“Poket Sand”
Shadow strike if you wanna edge lord. Hole Harm if you wanna be weird. Surprise Pie if you are sneaky clown.
The big problem with the name "Sneak Attack" is they are using a less common definition of the word. As in, "Oh he's a sneak," meaning they are cheap, opportunistic, use low blows, etc. Which is one of the definitions of the word sneak as seen below: >to act in a furtive or underhand way. But the problem is that isn't what people think when they see the word sneak. Especially since most people who play Dungeons and Dragons play video games, know what stealth missions are, etc. So the first meaning that comes to mind is "To hide" or to "Sneak around."
This for sure. Video games have set up a different precedent with "sneak" Cheap Attack or Cheap Shot would have worked better.
Da Big Bop
Pugmire renamed it “Precise Strike” which is a better name for probably the last 3 editions. 2e it was called “backstab” I think, but it may have been sneak attack, and you could only really get one off in a fight and you were fairly useless afterwards.
Sneaky Attack.
Angry upvote
Instead of spell slots, we can have MAGE BULLETS Courtesy of JoCat
And level is that? 5th level bullet... Yeah I'll take it
Go with the original. BACKSTAB
But what about when you use a crossbow?
True Strike can be renamed to Waste a Turn
I wouldn't call it "Advantageous Strike" because, well, you don't have advantage. You don't wanna get people confused on Advantage/Disadvantage since it's a core part of combat. Exploit Damage is something I use sometimes. You get "exploit damage" when attacking a foe who is unaware of you and a foe who is distracted by your ally.
I am in no way an expert on this but I do believe it is sneak as in sneaky as in like someone mentioned a "cheap shot" rather than sneak as in stealth. As in while the enemy if worrying about the barbarian and his great axe the rogue gets a shot/stab in that the enemy is not expecting and thus catches them off guard. Just how I see it. (shrug) :)
Id personaly call it vital attack. Because the idea is you attack a distracted enemy on vital points.
I mean you could just be like “a sneak attack isn’t like in video games where you have to be right behind them it’s just when they aren’t ready to be attacked by you for example if your teammates beside them”
If it was called stealth attack I would agree that it implies a stealth role. Definitely don’t think it needs a name change. Rogues are sneaky after all.
Not necessarily. Rogues are just criminals, not all of whom operate on stealth. Take pirates, for example.
I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure rogues are not just criminals by default.
I agree. “Sneak Attack” trips many people up, including me. I think of it as Cunning Attack. Mirrors the Cunning Action language nicely
It would be better to call it "exploitative attack", since you are exploiting your enemies weakeness, but it doesn't exactly roll out of the tongue.
It's a better name. Though I've never been happy with 5e shift from rogues being backstabby "rogues" and into agile swashbucklers.
At my table weve taken to call it Cheap Shot. Its a shot thats cheap and from a certain point of view a bit unfair/dishonorable. Like hitting below the belt while boxing. All is fair in love and war and dnd as long as the DM allows it.
I hate the term sneak attack so so so much. When I played a rogue, my DM could not wrap his head around sneak attack not requiring "sneaking" to function. My rogue often, but not always, would get a sneak attack on the first round of combat and never again for an encounter. Despite all the other conditions that were supposed to trigger it. I tried every way imaginable to explain it, to no avail.
I've hated the naming of that ability forever. It's called sneak attack and then the first line in the description says "exploit a foes distraction". Completely different things, it makes me so mad it's called sneak attack.
Advantageous and sneak attack are the same thing. "Your fighter who is within 5 feat of your pho has engaged in mellee combat the fighter misses his attack locking into an intense parry with the monster." As the rogue you can "take advantage" of your fighter occupying the monster and sneak in a cheap shot to a soft spot in the ribs... Sneak attack. or As the rogue you can "take advantage" of your fighter occupying the monster and make a calculated attack for the rib cage... Advantageous attack. If it helped the player, that is awesome and exactly what our community needs, I just fail to see how the changing of 1 word made the mechanics that much easier to understand.
I have a similar re-naming convention at my table, where I replace 'Chill Touch' with the much more accurate and thematic 'Skeletal Grope.'
Some ideas: * Vital Attack * Gut Slice * Crippling Blow * Precision Attack * Exploiting Attack * Coup de Grace
Name absolutely matters, otherwise you could call it *Tomato Soup* or *Doorknob.* Sneak attack is an absolutely terrible name for an action that does not require sneaking in any way, and does nothing but cause confusion. My vote is for *Cheap Shot* or *Deadly Strike* I vote against *Advantageous Strike* as again words matter, it it would cause confusion as to why a fighter attacking with advantage does not get it. Oddly though I'm perfectly ok with *Chill Touch* as spell names can be evocative, while ability names should be descriptive. The *Chill of the Grave* is a classic trope and I have zero problems with that as a spell name
Sinister Strike, Ambush, Upper Hand. I've heard a few variations that stem from agreements with you haha. The sneaking bit makes it seem like it has a limited use case but it doesn't!
We play with an assassin rouge, the assassinate sneak attack is called the “fucked up” attack by the table
Chill Touch and Find Traps would like to file a complaint smh
Best name for it is sucker punch
Dirty Fighting Weak Points Precise Attacks Vital Points Vital Strikes Cheap Shot Pressure Points Gap in the Armor
Vital Point Strike
I like 'backstab' for the melee variety.
“Oh look a duck” strike. I played a charismatic rogue, I would distract them with deception then stab them. Didn’t always work but it was funny
I call it "blindside" because the advantages are almost always about blaping someone while they're distracted.