Rogues and Double Damage (triple, quad, etc)

[Arduin]

Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Hmmm...if you are using all the penalties as normal for two-weapon combat, why not?

A rogues back attack bonus is for a very carefully aimed attack. Once you 1st hit someone, he/she/it is going to start moving to defend. That'll ruin it for a 2nd attack.

[Lobo316]

Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Hmmm...if you are using all the penalties as normal for two-weapon combat, why not?

A rogues back attack bonus is for a very carefully aimed attack. Once you 1st hit someone, he/she/it is going to start moving to defend. That'll ruin it for a 2nd attack.

What if the attacks are simultaneous? Again, not that I disagree Arduin. Heck, if the answer is simply "that would be to powerful" I can live with that. Just playing devils advocate.

[Arduin]

What if the attacks are simultaneous? Again, not that I disagree Arduin. Heck, if the answer is simply "that would be to powerful" I can live with that. Just playing devils advocate.

I was an avid fencer back in my youth. I don't see it with it supposedly being a high precision attack (the stated reason for the damage bonus). As a practical analogy, take two steak knives, walk out to a tree. Draw 2 one inch marks a foot or so apart. Now, with speed and strength behind it, strike both different targets at the same instant...

[mbeacom]

Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Hmmm...if you are using all the penalties as normal for two-weapon combat, why not?

A rogues back attack bonus is for a very carefully aimed attack. Once you 1st hit someone, he/she/it is going to start moving to defend. That'll ruin it for a 2nd attack.

What if the attacks are simultaneous? Again, not that I disagree Arduin. Heck, if the answer is simply "that would be to powerful" I can live with that. Just playing devils advocate.

While I tend to agree with Arduin as to the technicality of it all, there is a point where I want my games of fantasy to have at least a slight edge on reality. In other words, I'd very much like my fantasy combat to be more interesting that stabbing 2 kitchen knives into a tree.

Plus, I'll agree with you that the penalties for dual weapon attacking mostly accounts for when "the tree" moves a bit. However, as a DM who likes to allow cool improv but generally likes to stay more or less consistent, I'd probably make it clear that such an action is very special, perhaps making the CL necessary for hide/sneak prior to the attack a bit higher, to justify the incredibly exacting nature of setting up such an attack. Then I'd allow it and pray for a high to-hit roll because dang, here it comes! I say this because allowing a TWF back attack would allow a rogue to use DEX for the hit and damage, rather than STR, which would make this incredibly powerful.

[Relaxo]

I like rolling more dice. Players like that too. So for double damage, I have double the number of dice rolled.

~O

Yeah it sucks to roll a 1 for double damage.
I mean, sure, it's still 2, but you know.

[Lobo316]

Now would you allow a rogue to use two weapons at the same time for the back attack ...

Not a chance.

Hmmm...if you are using all the penalties as normal for two-weapon combat, why not?

A rogues back attack bonus is for a very carefully aimed attack. Once you 1st hit someone, he/she/it is going to start moving to defend. That'll ruin it for a 2nd attack.

What if the attacks are simultaneous? Again, not that I disagree Arduin. Heck, if the answer is simply "that would be to powerful" I can live with that. Just playing devils advocate.

While I tend to agree with Arduin as to the technicality of it all, there is a point where I want my games of fantasy to have at least a slight edge on reality. In other words, I'd very much like my fantasy combat to be more interesting that stabbing 2 kitchen knives into a tree.

Plus, I'll agree with you that the penalties for dual weapon attacking mostly accounts for when "the tree" moves a bit. However, as a DM who likes to allow cool improv but generally likes to stay more or less consistent, I'd probably make it clear that such an action is very special, perhaps making the CL necessary for hide/sneak prior to the attack a bit higher, to justify the incredibly exacting nature of setting up such an attack. Then I'd allow it and pray for a high to-hit roll because dang, here it comes! I say this because allowing a TWF back attack would allow a rogue to use DEX for the hit and damage, rather than STR, which would make this incredibly powerful.

Man, that last part (bolded above), yea...that can get out of control. I was just thinking damage-wise, but daaaang, useing Dex for the attack on a back stab...youch! Very powerful indeed. Now, if you're playing with Weapon Finesse as an Advantage, you may have that anyway (but not with two weapons).