Paizo Top Nav Branding
Welcome, guest! | Sign In | My Account | My Subscriptions | My Downloads | My Wishlists | Shopping Cart   Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ
About Paizo   Messageboards   News   Paizo Blog   Help/FAQ  
Search
Links
Shop

Messageboards

Fight: how to speed things up, by Booloo

Summoner vs Conjurer, by Gorbacz

Help me protect my AC!!, by Ashiel

Evocation optimization?, by Egoish

That's NO WAY for a PC to die., by WhipShire

Can an Ogre Mage be Decapitated (Please answer your opinion even if you agree with everyone or no one), by Mothman

The Ruby Phoenix Tournament Experience in San Antonio [Spoilers!] With Pics, by Dragnmoon

Invisibility Clarifications, by Dragnmoon

This is sure to start a fight,...lol, by Squeatus

Can the Shadowdancer or Horizon Walker qualify for the Dimensional Agility feat?, by Lune

Homebrewed Weapon Properties, by Movin

Should the Synthesist be banned?, by FuelDrop

Very new to GMing and am seeking tips on making the experience better for my PCs, by Sean, Minister of KtSP

Kingmaker Obituaries, by Squeatus

Experience of new classes, how do they play out?, by wraithstrike

Online Campaigns

Her Dark Majesty Trilogy part 1: Where The Fallen Jarls Sleep Discussion, by Kaiden

StarWars Imperial Commandos, A Deepening Darkness, by Captain Quan Jenkins

DM Alexander Kilcoyne's Kingmaker PBP- Chapter 2, by Casimir

Star Wars - The Covenant of Shadows, by Darth Camris

Flesh and Bone-A zombiepocalypse story Discussion, by Watcher Uatu

DM Carbide's Through a Cracked Mirror: The Dark Road, by Rashun Tollinger

Wrath's OOC thread, by Lady Janas

New Beginnings!, by Benoit Leblanc

DM Voice's Envoy of Geb - OOC Crypt, by Grigore Veaceslav VI

Megan's Curse of the Crimson Throne [IC], by Shakhan

The Storm in Isger: Clouds on the Horizon, by Elinor Knutsdottir

Star Wars The Broken Empire, by Karval de Longinous

Navior's We Be Goblins / Jade Regent OOC, by Melon Sash

Voodoo's Caravanserai, by Sheik Voodoo

Navior's Jade Regent, by Melon Sash

   RSS Recent Posts Facebook Twitter Email

Paizo Publishing will be closed in observance of Presidents Day Monday, February 20.
We will reopen on Tuesday, February 21.


Note: The Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion forums will be locked on Friday, October 16, 2009. You will not be able to create new posts after this date, but existing discussion will still be available for reading.

Search
Search this Thread:

Taldor (Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Cards Subscriber)

First let me say thank you to Jason Bulmahn and Paizo for doing this...

Pathfinder RPG Alpha r1 wrote:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.

Since sneak attacks now affects "nearly every creature" and we have the guiding principle based on knowing a creature's weak spots here might be an awesome use for those Knowledge skills!

Example, how does a rogue know the weak spot some skeletal monster he's never seen before? Ranks in Knowledge(Religion)!

Just a thought...comments?

(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber)

DitheringFool wrote:
Just a thought...comments?

Excellent idea, makes sense, and gives Rogues somewhere else to put skills.


One of my platyers was discussing that as well, some type of check to let them find that weak point.


Perhaps the determining factor for whether a rogue can back stab is based on seeing the basic -physical- weakness of a being or creature. Thus, the rogue could recognize a joint or a vital spot instead of knowing the creature's vunerability. A creature such as an elemental or an ooze would not give any such clue, and no back stab would be possible (without a feat giving such specific knowledge). This would not entail a rules change- just a longer discription of Sneak Attack.
(You could also give a rogue with a weapon matching a monster's vunerability a chance to do back stab without the feat.)
Does this make any sense to you folks? As immunity to sneak attack was one of my pet peeves with the 3.5 rogue, I'm interested in the way this will work in the "Path".
(I can't stop myself from saying that- "the Path", "follow the Path"' I found the "Path". I fell like a Paizo cultist. Does this make me sound as giddy as I have been since I read the Alpha rules?)


That'd nerf the rogue and damage compatibility. OTOH, I think the issue of it not working against targets in the dark (not necessarily total darkness, just "a bit dark") because they have concealment still stays.


Another aspect of the rogue is that sneak attack is negated by concealment.

This eliminates the archetype of the assassin in shadows. Further, it ironically makes one of the better rogue races the dwarf.

Perhaps its time for this aspect of sneak attack to go bye bye.

(RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8)

Stalker0 wrote:

Another aspect of the rogue is that sneak attack is negated by concealment.

This eliminates the archetype of the assassin in shadows. Further, it ironically makes one of the better rogue races the dwarf.

Perhaps its time for this aspect of sneak attack to go bye bye.

How about "If the target has partial concealment (e.g. the 20% miss chance) the rogue must roll perception vs the target's CMB to gain sneak attack damage."

Adds one roll (two if you use the 'knowlege check to find weak point' idea listed above).


I'm not in the same camp as everyone else on this. It doesn't really take a knowledge check to know that aiming at a skeleton's neck bone is likely going to knock it's head off... won't kill it, but it does damage a larger piece than a dagger in the ribs. (I'm not trying to launch a discussion of realism in combat here, just illustrate that you don't have to know everything about a skeleton to know that hitting the vital points will cause parts of it to fall off, just like you can aim at a human's hand to hurt his manual dexterity... and there are feats that accomplish this game effect)

I think a more general discussion of Knowledge checks vs. creatures is warranted, since the system is a little weird right now as it is. One player gets to make the knowledge check and learns anywhere from a little to everything about a given creature. He tells the rest of the party not to get hit with the Wyvern's poison, or to avoid the rust monster's touch, and if you make knowledge of a creature essential for a rogue's sneak attack, the wizard with all the knowledge checks also shouts out, "Hit the thing in the knee!" or something and it's back to business as usual for the party.

The problem with the knowledge system, in my opinion, is that it's keyed to hit dice, for one. "Is that a dragon?" "The little one is. I have no idea what that big thing is with the exact same coloration, features, and body type." Another problem is that a +10 modifier for something unusual is like saying that hundreds of different monsters are perfectly ordinary, but THIS one creature, yeah that's pretty weird, right there. Even if you want to accept that all but what the DM chooses as exotic monsters are commonplace enough for anyone with the knowledge skill to identify, those exotic monsters are still pretty easy to identify with the +10 to their knowledge DC. An 8th level wizard with decent intelligence is going to have a +15 to his knowledge check, so a comparable monster with about as many hit dice is going to be a DC 28 to identify if it's exotic. "New breed of Otyugh that's never been seen before on any plane... I think I read about them once..."

So unless the knowledge skill is revamped to account for how much information it gives players, bogging down a rogue with an extra check in addition to the check the group makes to identify a monster seems like it's just going to slow things down without any appreciable game-balancing effect.

Personally, I intend to make oozes immune to sneak attacks for their lack of anatomy along with anything else that's amorphous, and for extra durable creatures like certain constructs, I might institute something like DR for sneak attack dice. Applying DR to sneak attack separately might work as well, but it defeats the overall purpose of a more durable monster if the rogue can just slip in some adamantine arrows. Losing 1d6 of sneak attack per 5 points of DR, regardless of whether the weapon's regular damage can beat the DR seems fair (especially since the sneak attack wouldn't get through at all normally).

Just some thoughts.

Taldor (Pathfinder Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber)

I am with Christopher Carrig here, no need to complicate the use of Sneak Attack, nor do I believe we need to make it any simplier either. With the changes Sneak Attack is now a very effective combat tactic and concealment adds a much needed complication. The trick for the assasin in the shadows is for the assasin to be in shadows and his target to be in the open. Leaves a bit tactics in the use of the ability.

I am for smaller changes to 3.5.


Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / All Messageboards

Recent threads in Races & Classes

Non-SRD Classes



©2002–2012 Paizo Publishing, LLC®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Publishing, LLC, the Paizo golem logo, GameMastery, Pathfinder, Planet Stories, and Undefeated are registered trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure PathPathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Society, Pathfinder Battles, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Publishing under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.