dual wielding back attack

[jdizzy001]

If a rouge successfully back attacks and is dual wielding, does the atk and dmg bonus apply to both weapons?

[Lord Dynel]

In my games, I don't think I'd allow a rogue to make two attacks while dual-wielding in conjunction with a back attack. I'd probably only allow a single attack with whatever weapon the rogue wanted to use, out of the two he had in his hands (with appropriate bonuses and penalties for back attacking and dual-wielding).

That said, it's up to you. I think getting the +4 to attack and dealing double damage with both weapons is fairly powerful. I'd think that only the primary weapon would be the beneficiary of the back attack bonuses (+4 to hit, extra damage) and the secondary weapon would attack and deal damage normally.

[Snoring Rock]

I think that is even a bit too generous. Back attack is knowing where and exactly how to attack in order to do maximum damage. Handicapping yourself by attacking with two weapons instead of concentrating on the one attack, seems to me would interfere with the concentrated back attack. Doing it while duel wielding seems difficult. I would not allow duel wielding and back attack at the same time; one or the other but not both.

That is me though. You can do what you deem "possible" of feasible in your game. I will say this, if your rogue is duel wielding back attacking, he will be more effective than your fighter/s at times, if not all the time. Seems imbalanced and could wreck a game. Again, it all depends on the group and the CK.

My 2 coppers...

[Rigon]

I agree with the Rock. It would be either or in my game.

R-

[serleran]

After the first attack, the second one would no longer qualify as a back attack. Although, I may be misremembering how it is worded and thinking of sneak attack instead.

In any event, if you impose the restrictions on weapons allowed, the conditions needed, and the penalties... yes, absolutely, the bonuses should come in. This is not something that is going to find its way into combat every game, unless the player is exceptional and the opponents less than tactically minded. Plus, when the evil wraith rogues do it in return... well, turnabout is twice as fair.

[jdizzy001]

All vallid points. Being a 4e player, I am very generous with back atk and sneak attack. At first I was allowing a Back attack or a sneak attack if the pc was able to gain flanking. Now I am going to require the sneak/hide check as a move action in addition to gaining flanking or hiding somewhere. I ask because the rogue was quickly becoming stupid powerful (dishing out far more damage than anyone else) and I wanted to see how other gamers dealt with it. I agree that after the first strike you cant really "sneak atk" an off-hand weapon. Once a blade is in your back the villian is quite aware of your precense.

[Treebore]

Since it should be a moment of complete surprise I'd allow them to do both attacks. Its not a normal attack round where there is a bunch of parrying, dodging, etc... assumed to be going on, this is a matter of getting into position unnoticed and striking with no interference. I would keep the weapons limited to daggers, though. Anything bigger gets just a little too awkward to strike with precision into ones liver, etc...

[MischiefKeeper]

The RAW appear to support one attack. Looking at the relevant section on back attack (I believe page 14 or 15 of the 5th printing) it says the rogue may make an attack. An is singular. The text goes on to use the singular a in explaining the attack in the next sentence. Also after the first attack, the target would most certainly be aware.

[Dracyian]

The RAW appear to support one attack. Looking at the relevant section on back attack (I believe page 14 or 15 of the 5th printing) it says the rogue may make an attack. An is singular. The text goes on to use the singular a in explaining the attack in the next sentence. Also after the first attack, the target would most certainly be aware.

I agree with Tree on this, suggesting you are competent enough to weild two daggers there is no reason you wouldn't sneak up behind someone and make both of their kidneys holy at the same time. Or walk up slipping both daggers out from their compartment in your sleeve and sliding both of them between his ribs when is he isn't paying attention

[Treebore]

The RAW appear to support one attack. Looking at the relevant section on back attack (I believe page 14 or 15 of the 5th printing) it says the rogue may make an attack. An is singular. The text goes on to use the singular a in explaining the attack in the next sentence. Also after the first attack, the target would most certainly be aware.

True, but this is also C&C, a game written by Trolls. So we CK's pretty much HAVE to make our own decisions as to how things are done. Which the Trolls have also said as well. For example, RAW has no guidelines as to how to cover item bonus stacking. I sure am not going to allow all items to stack, so I adapted some house rules.

As for the back attack, it is not covered by normal combat rules. There is no awareness, there is no parrying, dodging, blocking, etc... going on. There is no "sequence of assumed actions". The target is completely unaware, so you sneak in, and do your attack. If the CK agrees that it is reasonable that you can slam two daggers into someones back simultaneously, then that is what happens. Even by the RAW, because the rules are not our "master", as that section in the PH explains.

[MischiefKeeper]

Just offering some other views. I do agree with Tree that we are not slaves to the rules and to each his own.

One other question although. In 2nd edition D&D the backstab only multiplied dice, not static bonuses (for example an attack with a +2 dagger would do 2d4+2 on a x2 backstab not 2d4+4). How do CK's choose to handle this? Are you allowing two hits and multiplying all bonuses as well? That can result in a nova round if not watched closely.

[Arduin]

Are you allowing two hits and multiplying all bonuses as well? That can result in a nova round if not watched closely.

As per the rules, I only allow 1 attack for "backstab". Handles it pretty well.

[jdizzy001]

Just offering some other views. I do agree with Tree that we are not slaves to the rules and to each his own.

One other question although. In 2nd edition D&D the backstab only multiplied dice, not static bonuses (for example an attack with a +2 dagger would do 2d4+2 on a x2 backstab not 2d4+4). How do CK's choose to handle this? Are you allowing two hits and multiplying all bonuses as well? That can result in a nova round if not watched closely.

That is the problem i was having. The rogue atk'ed 2x and multipled the total by 2. Yes, nova every round. I dont want to change ships mid stream and say she can only use it 1x per round so i'll just make it harder to use in general (higher sneak checks, etc).