I always understood Sneak Attacks as pinpoint attacks at vulnerable spots.
Somehow doing this with, say, an axe seems strange...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
I've always paid more attention to the bolded part of the ability. It's not that hard to hit someone in a vital spot when they aren't defending themselves well.
A pinpoint attack at a vulnerable spot... what you mean like the back of their head? Axe works just fine :)
|
You are stuck in 1st edition thinking. It was super difficult for rogue's to pull off sneak attacks back then because they had to be behind the enemy and the game had facing.
3.x and PF don't have facing so sneak attack was changed. The overall power level of the game increased so the rogue had to move with it. Part of that was to allow better weapons for the times when sneak attack was still not possible.
In summary, your brain is a vital spot and a sword or mace is much better for handling that than a dagger.
Yeah, a mace or axe to the back of the head would work just fine.
|
Kneecapping a dude with weak armor at knees with a mace seems like it's exactly what sneak attack does.
Or attacking the hamstrings of a huge monster.
Or smashing the skull of a skeleton with a mace.
Ignoring the fact that it is logical, if this was done, the rogue would be even weaker. It's already considered a weaker class by a lot of people, don't weaken it further.
Sap. Subdual (to knock out), precision damage, Bludgeoning. Knocking someone on the head with a blackjack (sap) is classic rogue stuff.
Hmm... I suppose you're right...
But then, a helmet makes attacking the head quite hard... except with a piercing weapon...
Also, I was only talking about LETHAL damage. Non-lethal damage should still be applicable by other damage types.
And if I remember correctly, THE iconic fantasy Sneak Attack was delivered by a hobbit to the back of a certain witch-king's knee (ie hamstringing) with a dagger.
psssh helmets don't do anything in dnd/pathfinder unless its of brilliance
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... I suppose you're right...
But then, a helmet makes attacking the head quite hard... except with a piercing weapon...
Also, I was only talking about LETHAL damage. Non-lethal damage should still be applicable by other damage types.
And if I remember correctly, THE iconic fantasy Sneak Attack was delivered by a hobbit to the back of a certain witch-king's knee (ie hamstringing) with a dagger.
If you care about the iconic image so much, you should allow wizards to wield swords and fight better than fighters, remove the ability to cast spells completely, and only let them use magic items, and of course, allow elves to stand on snow and slide down stairs with a shield while shooting arrows with accuracy.
Make your own iconic image, don't allow others to dictate yours.
Since you can sneak attack undead, plants, and constructs, I don't see why you would be limited to piercing weapons. Bludgeoning and slashing weapons are also very appropriate.
Crushing the back of someone's skull? Slitting their throat? Still the same effect, death. I agree Rouges are OP but either way, they get the job done, especially on a sneak attack regardless of the weapon.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Allow me to join you in this hearty chortle.
That kind of change would completely destroy the utility of the sap for nonlethal takedowns.
Please read the title. Thx. ;)
Since you can sneak attack undead, plants, and constructs, I don't see why you would be limited to piercing weapons. Bludgeoning and slashing weapons are also very appropriate.
That is a very good point. That was one of the changes from 3.5 I never understood.
In 3.5 all three creature types were immune to critical hits/sneak attacks.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sap to the nads.
That is all.
Sap to the nads.
That is all.
LOL. While painful, that is definitely NON-LETHAL damage, which, as the title clearly says, I am not talking about.
Hello, is this the weekly meeting of the Jesus Told Me Rogues Are Overpowered Association? Yes? Jolly!
That really wasn't my intention. I don't think Rogues are overpowered.
The Sneak Attack rule as it is now just struck me as strange...
[
That is a very good point. That was one of the changes from 3.5 I never understood.
In 3.5 all three creature types were immune to critical hits/sneak attacks.
Which rendered rogues useless in many many situations. Hence the change.
Same with the piercing limitation. It's also because quite frnakly it makes no sense. Shattering a joint doesn't take a piercing weapon, chopping a limb doesn't need a piercing weapon.
Stabbing a helm is somehow easier? I don't think you understand how helms work. You can stab for eyeholes and some knights carried daggers specifically for this form of grim work. But, helms are typically made to deflect such attacks away from the head. It's usually much more economic to simply crush the skull in with a hammer, axe, or pointy warhammer to the brain.
Ultimately precision work is not just the realm of penetration and rogues are already pretty bad off without the unnecessary balancing for the sake of faux realism.
Since you can sneak attack undead, plants, and constructs, I don't see why you would be limited to piercing weapons. Bludgeoning and slashing weapons are also very appropriate.That is a very good point. That was one of the changes from 3.5 I never understood.
In 3.5 all three creature types were immune to critical hits/sneak attacks.
And there are reasonable interpretations why they should be immune - no vitals to hit. However, it's also reasonable to assume that they may have weaker spots that should cripple them/destroy them faster than other parts. 3x went with immunity and that caused certain problems in game play, particularly because those sorts of creatures tend to thematically cluster. Old haunted castle? You'll see lots of undead of varying stripes. Mad wizard's labyrinth? Probably going to see lots of constructs and animated objects. Pathfinder benefited from those experiences and went with the second interpretation - that these creatures may have vulnerabilities.
I believe PF made the better choice.
Stabbing a helm is somehow easier? I don't think you understand how helms work. You can stab for eyeholes and some knights carried daggers specifically for this form of grim work. But, helms are typically made to deflect such attacks away from the head. It's usually much more economic to simply crush the skull in with a hammer, axe, or pointy warhammer to the brain.
As you admit yourself one can stab the eye-slits. Or one can stab under the rim of the helmet.
Crushing a skull or a knee joint takes a wide movement and a heavy weapon. Both increase the time it takes to execute the attack and don't really have anything to do with what the rulebooks characterize as a "precision-based attack".
Remember this is a "Sneak Attack" we're talking about. It should be very fast, depend on the right timing and the extreme precision of the uniquely skilled Rogue to accomplish.
Caving in a skull or crushing a joint is just a "normal" critical hit any character class could place.
How about slicing throat with a razor? What about blow to the base of the neck with hammer. Seems just a likely as a stiletto to the kidneys.
Examples of Sneak Attack that work well with different types of weapons :
Kneecap : A bludgeoning weapon is perfect for shattering a knee cap, even if you are wearing armor. The whole point of bludgeoning is to slam something hard, and the armor just slows it down, it doesn't stop it.
Throat/Neck : A slice to a throat can do massive damage, without doing much penetration at all. A bludgeoning weapon can still cause massive damage because it can sever the spinal cord despite armor. A slice to the back fo the neck can sever the spinal cord as well.
Eye : The classic is to stab in with a piercing weapon, however, you can do massive damage by slicing via the eye-slit as well, cutting through the eye itself from side to side (depends on the helmet design of course). If the guy isn't wearing a helmet, you can likely slice across both eyes.
Wrist : A slashing weapon can open up a major artery on the arm, classically suicide is with a razor, not an ice pick.
Inner Thigh : A slashing weapon can open up a major artery on the inner thigh, which is traditionally lightly armored, due to necessity of walking. :)
Spine : A slashing weapon can sever a spinal cord with a relatively light penetration, and a bludgeoning weapon can crush a spine even through armor.
Elbow : See Knee above.
Hamstrings : Relatively easy to slash them.
Kidneys : A bludgeoning weapon can easily damage kidneys. For that matter, any internal organ in the abdomen. Again, the whole idea of a bludgeoning weapon is mass transferring energy over a large area.
|
|
Stabbing a helm is somehow easier? I don't think you understand how helms work. You can stab for eyeholes and some knights carried daggers specifically for this form of grim work. But, helms are typically made to deflect such attacks away from the head. It's usually much more economic to simply crush the skull in with a hammer, axe, or pointy warhammer to the brain.As you admit yourself one can stab the eye-slits. Or one can stab under the rim of the helmet.
Crushing a skull or a knee joint takes a wide movement and a heavy weapon. Both increase the time it takes to execute the attack and don't really have anything to do with what the rulebooks characterize as a "precision-based attack".
Remember this is a "Sneak Attack" we're talking about. It should be very fast, depend on the right timing and the extreme precision of the uniquely skilled Rogue to accomplish.
Caving in a skull or crushing a joint is just a "normal" critical hit any character class could place.
Rogue trigger Sneak Attack in 2 ways. If the opponent is flanked, or if the opponent is denied his DEX to his AC against your attack.
A rogue doesn't do straight up fights. They look for weaknesses that other classes don't seem to think of. You can flavor this however you like. It could be the opponent is flanked, so when his attention is away for 1 second, the rogue smashes the opponent's foot with a mace, hurting the opponent badly. It could be a stab in the kidney area. It could be an eye gouge with a spiked gauntlet. It could be virtually anything that is limited by your imagination. You are choosing not to think that way.
If realism was more important than balance, then we should all play wizards and be greater than all the other classes because of their lack of magic, which is allowed to overcome physics and realism. If realism was important, then Paizo should put in place a rule that forces the player to know the anatomy of the opponent he is facing, or else Sneak Attack cannot apply because the player do not know where to aim.
If you want your 3.5 rogues, go play 3.5
As you admit yourself one can stab the eye-slits. Or one can stab under the rim of the helmet.
Which isn't easier by any stretch of the imagination. Which is what you were trying to claim.
Crushing a skull or a knee joint takes a wide movement and a heavy weapon. Both increase the time it takes to execute the attack and don't really have anything to do with what the rulebooks characterize as a "precision-based attack".
Remember this is a "Sneak Attack" we're talking about. It should be very fast, depend on the right timing and the extreme precision of the uniquely skilled Rogue to accomplish.
Except none of that is used to define sneak attack, not in its language, not in the description. No anything. These interpretations are merely additions you added to fit your notions. The words "Sneak attack" are only there for the sake of backwards compatibility which is one of the main plagues of pathfinder.
Trying to tell me that a precision based attack is based solely on a narrow definition is frankly an insult not just to medieval swordsmanship but also eastern and western style martial arts who can give you quite a good lesson about precision based damage without a dagger or rapier.
Caving in a skull or crushing a joint is just a "normal" critical hit any character class could place.
As is stabbing someones heart, jabbing them in the eye, or any number of nasty things you can do with a piercing weapon. So I don't see the point you are trying to make here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember this is a "Sneak Attack" we're talking about. It should be very fast, depend on the right timing and the extreme precision of the uniquely skilled Rogue to accomplish.Caving in a skull or crushing a joint is just a "normal" critical hit any character class could place.
No, this is a 'Sneak Attack', it's called hitting someone when they can't defend themselves. It means taking your time to hit him in the most painful area you can.
Here's an example. From my life, oddly enough (I find those better). When I was 14, I had a friend over and we were messing around hitting each other with pipe insulation (if you've never seen this, think of a thin fun doodle made from thick heavy black rubber foam, for putting over water pipes).
He got distracted (the next door neighbor had someone over to swim in their above ground pool, and the woman was, uhm, very top heavy and in a bikini). I recovered first, and aimed very carefully and caught him in the family jewels.
It took him about 5 minutes before he could move around again, and he tried to beat heck out of me (trying to return the favor). He never did hit me there because I was defending, but I accidently caught him a second hit in the same spot. He fell down again but got up after a minute this time.
The first time was the Sneak Attack, everything lined up exactly right and I smacked the **** out of him. The second time, I got a critical hit and hurt him but didn't do nearly the same damage.
THAT is the difference between Sneak Attack and Critical.
Which is what you were trying to claim.
I am? News to me. What I'm saying is that a sneak attack always does damage to a vital spot if it hits. IE the rogue knows where to attack to do damage, no matter what kind of armor the opponent is wearing.
Doing heavy damage IN SPITE of any armor/protection the opponent is wearing (ie right through it) is a lot harder and does depend on luck (even for skilled fighters).
Except none of that is used to define sneak attack, not in its language, not in the description. No anything. These interpretations are merely additions you added to fit your notions. The words "Sneak attack" are only there for the sake of backwards compatibility which is one of the main plagues of pathfinder.
Gotta love it when people accuse others of something, only to do just that, in the very next sentence. LOL.
"Sneak Attack" is the name of the class feature. It is self describing. Everything else is, as you put it, "interpretations to fit your notions".
In the bestiary it is described as a "precision-based" attack, I'm just quoting.
Trying to tell me that a precision based attack is based solely on a narrow definition is frankly an insult not just to medieval swordsmanship but also eastern and western style martial arts who can give you quite a good lesson about precision based damage without a dagger or rapier.
LOL, just LOL. I'm insulting people because of this now? LOL.
Come on guys, you gotta decide. Am I being too realistic or not realistic enough?
As is stabbing someones heart, jabbing them in the eye, or any number of nasty things you can do with a piercing weapon. So I don't see the point you are trying to make here.
The difference is that you have to be able to reliably reach those targets, no matter what protection the opponent is wearing.
Axes are far more precise than people seem to give them credit for. Don't see why they get such a bad rep. They are not flails.
Allow me to join you in this hearty chortle.Crushing the back of someone's skull? Slitting their throat? Still the same effect, death. I agree Rouges are OP but either way, they get the job done, especially on a sneak attack regardless of the weapon.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The difference is that you have to be able to reliably hit those targets, no matter what protection the opponent is wearing.
You seem to be under the impression that armor makes you immune to damage. I assure you it doesn't.
Feel free to try the following test. Take a 1 foot piece of steel pipe, about 4 inches in diameter. Cut it in half length wise. Now, take one half and cut it in half again, so that you have two equal length pieces, each a half pipe about 6 inches long.
Take a larger pipe, about 4.5 inches in diameter, and about 3 inches long. Cut it in half length wise, so you again have two half-pipes.
Brade the corners of the second piece of pipe to the other two, so you have a 1 foot 3 inche piece of pipe that bends in the middle. Now strap that to your left leg.
Now, go get someone big and burly to swing a 5 lb mallet at your knee as hard as they can while you hold absolutely still. Not a wild swing, just a 3 or 4 foot arc on it, not the wild 6 or 7 foot swing you keep imagining.
Now, once you get out of the hospital, and have finished physical therapy and can walk again with your cane, please come back and tell us how well the armor protected your knee.
Now, imagine that someone had hit you with a 10 lb maul, or a 15 lb maul.
Explain to me how you can't precisely target a part of a body with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon.
You seem to be under the impression that armor makes you immune to damage. I assure you it doesn't.
Feel free to try the following test. Take a 1 foot piece of steel pipe, about 4 inches in diameter. Cut it in half length wise. Now, take one half and cut it in half again, so that you have two equal length pieces, each a half pipe about 6 inches long.
Take a larger pipe, about 4.5 inches in diameter, and about 3 inches long. Cut it in half length wise, so you again have two half-pipes.
Brade the corners of the second piece of pipe to the other two, so you have a 1 foot 3 inche piece of pipe that bends in the middle. Now strap that to your left leg.
Now, go get someone big and burly to swing a 5 lb mallet at your knee as hard as they can while you hold absolutely still. Not a wild swing, just a 3 or 4 foot arc on it, not the wild 6 or 7 foot swing you keep imagining.
Now, once you get out of the hospital, and have finished physical therapy and can walk again with your cane, please come back and tell us how well the armor protected your knee.
Now, imagine that someone had hit you with a 10 lb maul, or a 15 lb maul.
I admit your example is good.
I could argue that it's all a question of design, since one could make metal joints on both sides of the knee (like a brace) and attach the plates to it... but that would be stretching it...So you've shown how bludgeoning is valid for sneak attacks.
What about slashing?
A gorget protects against throat slashing and even light armor is relatively good protection against slashing attacks (unlike piercing ones) directed at arteries or sinews...
Just because some forms of armoring are good against some types of attacks doesn't mean the attack methods themselves cannot target a specific area.
Several slashing weapons have historical references of cleaving through armor without much problem, like the kukri, falcata, and khopesh.
Whips deal slashing damage -- are you telling me you can't precisely aim the tip of a whip (a generic you, not you as in the specific instance of your exact person)?
He can do sneak attacks with S/B weapons through the secret training that the rogue gets so he can bring down his enemies faster and be almost viable in combat. Why are we having this thread for the umpteenth time?
I admit your example is good.
I could argue that it's all a question of design, since one could make metal joints on both sides of the knee (like a brace) and attach the plates to it... but that would be stretching it...So you've shown how bludgeoning is valid for sneak attacks.
What about slashing?A gorget protects against throat slashing and even light armor is relatively good protection against slashing attacks (unlike piercing ones) directed at arteries or sinews...
A set of armor is a single piece as far as the rules go. If an attack HITS the armor has failed to protect the target regardless of whether particular areas are covered or not. The rules are abstracted for a reason, to simplify it. AC doesn't distinquish between a chain shirt or fullplate in terms of what body parts are immune to damage. If you hit you have defeated the armor one way or another, proceed accordingly.
You would need far more complicated armor rules to properly demonstrate it, singling out sneak attack is sill at best, cruel at worst (rogues suck enough without removing piercing weapons from their options).
A set of armor is a single piece as far as the rules go. If an attack HITS the armor has failed to protect the target regardless of whether particular areas are covered or not. The rules are abstracted for a reason, to simplify it. AC doesn't distinquish between a chain shirt or fullplate in terms of what body parts are immune to damage. If you hit you have defeated the armor one way or another, proceed accordingly.
You would need far more complicated armor rules to properly demonstrate it, singling out sneak attack is sill at best, cruel at worst (rogues suck enough without removing piercing weapons from their options).
I totally agree that the rules are abstractions and I wouldn't want to change that.
What I'm saying is just that, unlike the normal attack/critical hit, the sneak attack always does damage to a vital spot (if it hits). This means the Rogue always has to target those spots when sneak attacking, no matter who the opponent is and what he's wearing. This is best done with piercing and, as shown, bludgeoning weapons.
Because there is no way you could slash tendons, or arteries.
Hit points are an abstract concept, not a 'realistic' one.
You aren't walking around with 30 arrows sticking out and fighting away at full effectiveness, the damage is abstracted to represent close calls, battle fitness, actual small glancing blows and grazes etc.
You aren't always being literally 'hit'.
I totally agree that the rules are abstractions and I wouldn't want to change that.
What I'm saying is just that, unlike the normal attack/critical hit, the sneak attack always does damage to a vital spot (if it hits). This means the Rogue always targets those spots, no matter who the opponent is and what he's wearing. This is best done with piercing and, as shown, bludgeoning weapons.
The question then becomes, how does a slashing weapon EVER do damage to a highly armored target? In reality it either ends up just bludgeoning the opponent (heavy western longswords were great for that) or it cuts through the armor. But we dont have a system for normal attacks damaging armor though all weapon types would do that reducing its effectiveness over time. This is something that has to stay abstract or you force a heavy degree of complication and record keeping in the rules.
If you want to be realistic about it, when hit by a slashing weapon, your armor has been cut through (assuming a heavily armored target) and damaged. Same with piercing weapons. Bludgeoning weapons bend the armor out of shape, sometimes imobilizing opponents.
Because there is no way you could slash tendons, or arteries.
If you show me how to "sneakily" swing an axe between your enemy's legs to hit the inside of his thigh while he is wearing plate cuisses, I'll change my mind.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd say you're asking the wrong questions. It doesn't really matter whether it's easier to land a killing blow with a piercing weapon in real life as compared with a blunt or slashing weapon. The real question is how will limiting a rogue's ability to make a sneak attack to only piercing weapons affect gameplay.
As some have mentioned before, the rogue is oft criticized round these parts for being a Bad, No-Fun, Weak Character Class. Thus, any change that would further restrict/weaken the rogue (e.g., limiting the types of weapons they can use for a sneak attack) is generally seen as a bad idea.
If you still want to change the rules to conform to the model of reality you are putting forth, you may wish to consider some further modifications to offset the restrictions imposed. My hunch is that the rogue weapons already point heavily towards piercing (no pun intended), so I doubt that limiting them to piercing weapons won't have a significant in-game consequence (unless you're campaign involves a war against skeletal armies), but the question of how it affects the game is the only one that really matters. The rest is just window dressing.
Come on guys, you gotta decide. Am I being too realistic or not realistic enough?
Only you can decide that, we merely offer opinions.
MY two cents: "Sneak Attack" becomes a rather fuzzy concept when granted by position (flanking) rather than only concealment/surprise/etc, but as it currently function in the game, no, shouldn't require piercing weapons.
Backstab on the other hand...
Because there is no way you could slash tendons, or arteries.If you show me how to "sneakily" swing an axe between your enemies legs to hit the inside of their thigh while he is wearing plate cuisses, I'll change my mind.
Its simple. Swing the axe when they are distracted. It might be less sneaky then a rapier thrust in the back, but it is still more sneaky then a normal attack. Sneak attack is essentially an attack made by a rogue when the opponent cant or isnt devoting their full attention to the rogue. That distraction applies whether there is an axe, a rapier, or a hidden dagger involved.
The rogue does more damage nut just because of where they hit, but also because the target is not properly defending themselves due to being flanked or flatfooted. If you were talking to a friend in a bar and i walked up behind you and hit you in the back of the knee with an axe, you would most certainly be surprised, and there is no difference (in game terms) in my ability to sneak while holding an axe as there is in my ability to sneak when holding a rapier.
An axe swing deals a heavy impact to a precise spot. There is a reason we use axes to split firewood and such. Also, an axe can hurt you places where I have more trouble imagining a rapier doing damage. A well-placed axe blow can hurt THROUGH armor much easier.
Its simple. Swing the axe when they are distracted. It might be less sneaky then a rapier thrust in the back, but it is still more sneaky then a normal attack. Sneak attack is essentially an attack made by a rogue when the opponent cant or isnt devoting their full attention to the rogue. That distraction applies whether there is an axe, a rapier, or a hidden dagger involved.
The rogue does more damage nut just because of where they hit, but also because the target is not properly defending themselves due to being flanked or flatfooted. If you were talking to a friend in a bar and i walked up behind you and hit you in the back of the knee with an axe, you would most certainly be surprised, and there is no difference (in game terms) in my ability to sneak while holding an axe as there is in my ability to sneak when holding a rapier.
Not really. Any character class can attack a flanked or flatfooted enemy and get a bonus to their attack roll.
However, ONLY the rogue can exploit this situation to attack a vital spot. No matter the enemy or what he is wearing.