New Sneak Attack Rule: Ultimatum


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

A character who can sneak attack can declare their intentions to deliver an ultimatum to their targets before any damage is dealt. The PC then makes his attack roll. If successful, the PC may withhold their damage and issue the target an ultimatum. The ultimatum can come in any form of demand. While the ultimatum is being worked out the target is still considered flat-footed to the PC. The ultimatum ends when the PC lets the target go (letting them regain their dex bonus) or the PC may roll damage as if making the sneak attack.

So basically, a rogue can sneak up behind a guard, place a knife against his throat (making the attack without rolling damage), and then say "Give me the keys". If the guard attempts to escape or call for support the rogue can then simply roll damage.

Thoughts?


I like it. It allows Rogues to do something that is very much in-character for Rogues to do.

Verdant Wheel

dotting


Dotting. I might just have to Add this as a Houserule.


I like it!

Can the rogue issuing the ultimatum still do as he pleases when the condition is fulfilled?

Example of your guard: Rogue says give me the keys *rolls sneak attack roll*
Guard gives keys
What can the rogue then do?
- Let guard go (as if!)
- Still roll sneak attack damage (dastardly! - but appropriate)
- Choose to do subdual sneak (but that would require dropping the blade, drawing a sap and trying to hit again - or do we use the same attack roll again)?


Leaving a dot here and approving of the idea.


Very cool idea!

I'm shocked that this hasn't come up sooner or if it has why it hasn't been shouted from the rooftops for rogues everywhere to know of and rejoice in.

Would this only be used on during a surprise round or could this be done at any time? It seems like it'd be considerably more difficult to accomplish this without the element of surprise.


@Robert: I would assume it can be done at any time, but would also require a grapple (sort of) check in normal combat. Otherwise it can become quite powerful, but very flavorful :-)


I don't really see how it would be powerful in combat; all it lets you do is give the enemy a chance to not get shanked (in combat, this probably means surrender). If they disagree then they just get damaged as normal.

Still a very cool idea.


Ilike it too. I wish i had had this rule in my very first dnd game back in 3.0. There had a situation where this would have been nice.

I ctually think this should be available to any character except only sneak attackers can deal sneak attak damage with it. I mean a fighter too can put his sword to someone's neck, and a gunslinger can hold somebody at gunpoint, etc.


I like this. I may have to steal it!


Excellent rule!!!

What about a +1 bonus/sneak dice to Intimidate check??


Also allows for those few Good rogues to be merciful without repeatedly hitting targets with a leather sack filled with sand for nonlethal damage.

Speaking of which... I wonder if a merciful/lawful rogue deserves its own archetype, making the sap more viable as a combat avoidance tool and letting him use his sneak attack in less lethal ways like this, like some device disabling sunder.


I'm glad to get such a positive response. I improvised this rule a month ago when my catfolk ninja got the drop on a centaur tribe leader. I didn't want to kill him, just give him the choice of surrender or death. He chose death and then I rolled mostly 1s on my damage dice lol.

Anyway, I think that any class could use this rule (roll the attack, hold damage until you get what you want, etc). It would add a pleasant tension to the game as well as dramatic effect.

Now, could ranged attack ultimatums be plausible? "Don't move! I got you in my sights." Basically rolling the ranged attack (without actually shooting or throwing anything yet) and then not rolling damage unless your demands are met...or if you are evil, rolling damage anyway?


Arcanemuses wrote:

I'm glad to get such a positive response. I improvised this rule a month ago when my catfolk ninja got the drop on a centaur tribe leader. I didn't want to kill him, just give him the choice of surrender or death. He chose death and then I rolled mostly 1s on my damage dice lol.

Anyway, I think that any class could use this rule (roll the attack, hold damage until you get what you want, etc). It would add a pleasant tension to the game as well as dramatic effect.

Now, could ranged attack ultimatums be plausible? "Don't move! I got you in my sights." Basically rolling the ranged attack (without actually shooting or throwing anything yet) and then not rolling damage unless your demands are met...or if you are evil, rolling damage anyway?

Ranged attacks i would say only from 5 to 10 feet distance, where the character can put their gun/bow/whatever almost directly to the target's head.

Verdant Wheel

i think any character could be allowed to do this, but for the most part it ought to require a Stealth/Disguise roll, or some other circumstance whereby 'the drop' could be gotten.

wait maybe, >

following the Stealth roll, the rogue/character rolls an attack against their foe's flat-footed CMD, triggering the 'Ultimatum Maneuver' - thus folding this into the combat maneuver rules.

...agreed with Threeshades about the 5 foot distance for ranged attack...

Liberty's Edge

Note that you could also pull this off using a Readied action.

You use a move action to go up the target, a free action to tell him what will happen, "Tell me where the treasure is or I'll gut you like a pig.", and then ready a standard action to attack if he so much as moves. If he so much as flinches, you can stick him with the pointy end of the dagger.


RedDogMT wrote:

Note that you could also pull this off using a Readied action.

You use a move action to go up the target, a free action to tell him what will happen, "Tell me where the treasure is or I'll gut you like a pig.", and then ready a standard action to attack if he so much as moves.

I think that you'd already need to have rolled the attack. Just telling the baddie that you plan to stick him (readied action which still might fail) isn't the same as a knife against an artery (a successful hit withheld for ultimatum). Or at least that's how I see it working.

On the whole though, something rubs me wrong about giving this ability to non-sneak attack having classes. And doing it out of surprise rounds seems like a monumental waste of time. It would require at least two separate grapple check to put someone in the position, not to mention the actual sneak attack itself.

Liberty's Edge

Robert Cameron wrote:
On the whole though, something rubs me wrong about giving this ability to non-sneak attack having classes. And doing it out of surprise rounds seems like a monumental waste of time. It would require at least two separate grapple check to put someone in the position, not to mention the actual sneak attack itself.

Ah Pathfinder, a place where a common man has around 6 hit points while an adventuring warrior only a few weeks in the field could have 50. If you were the 50 hit point warrior facing the pointy end of a sword, you probably would snicker; but if you were the commoner you might have a different opinion. Don't get me wrong, I love Pathfinder, but this is one of the places the game breaks down, so we do the best we can.

I think using a readied action as a solution works fine for a couple reasons. First, it follows guidelines that already exist. Second, if the attacker knows the result of the attack roll, it will influence the outcome. For instance, if you roll a 1 on the ultimatum attack roll, then what? The attacker knows they can't do damage. Does the defender also know? What if a 20 is rolled? Should the attacker know? What about the defender?

I do agree that an ultimatum is best done during surprise rounds or when the target is at a disadvantage (weaponless, prone, close to death, etc). It also would work well with Intimidation.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RedDogMT,
this is indeed a very sticky place per the rules. and what has been proposed so far is interesting but not quite solid yet. i think it could be further developed on this thread into something worthwhile. you pose good questions.

my first question is > what are the qualifiers?

1) rogue has beaten someone in opposed Stealth vs Perception.
2) rogue has used Disguise to a similar effect. more elaboration here...
3) target was helpless to begin with.
4) target was pinned? not so sure here. what if the rogue's friend was the grappler? what if the rogue was?

did i miss any?
next, what is the die roll. some ideas:

1) attack roll
2) combat maneuver roll
3) Sleight of Hand

now, complicating questions:

1) does the Ultimatum happen with prior knowledge of the die roll (above)? on behalf of both parties involved?
2) how does it interact with Intimidate?
3) or Aid another action?
4) can the person who is threatened counter with a Bluff to fake compliance only to bide their time for a round or two?

Liberty's Edge

rainzax wrote:

RedDogMT,

this is indeed a very sticky place per the rules. and what has been proposed so far is interesting but not quite solid yet. i think it could be further developed on this thread into something worthwhile. you pose good questions.

Hi rainzax. From your post, I get the impression you may think my suggestion for the Ultimatum would cause the target to loose their Dexterity bonus or result in some sort other bonus for the attacker. This is not what I am suggesting. My suggestion is a way to use the existing rules to allow anyone to deliver and follow-up on an Ultimatum. This means that some of your questions would be answered by the existing rules and some would probably need to be adjudicated by a GM on a case by case basis. If you would still like to discuss your post, I would be happy to give you my viewpoint on each of your comments.

Now, I don't want to take away from Arcanemuses' suggestion. It may be exactly what they need in their game. I just so happened that I recently was brainstorming on the exact same thing, so I wanted to provide an alternate view.


It's very simple, really. Whenever you make a successful attack roll against a helpless/flat-footed/unsuspecting target you can choose to belay or delay the damage roll, because the attack was successful, they are at your mercy.


I guess my only question is: Why isn't this a built-in option to the game?

Also, since your Rogue has them in a compromised position, could they then wallop 'em upside the head with the hilt of their dagger instead of slitting their throat (if they comply)?

Verdant Wheel

it works for "give me the keys" but not "show me the way to the chest"

what are the rules for the round after?


rainzax wrote:

next, what is the die roll. some ideas:

1) attack roll
2) combat maneuver roll
3) Sleight of Hand

It sounds like it would work smoother as an intimidate check, with the damage from your attack held off until after the Ultimatum. Maybe add a bonus to intimidate check equal to... rolled sneak attack damage? 1/2 sneak attack damage? Another possibility could be declaring this after you hit with the attack roll, then making the intimidate check before rolling damage. This would work for a bonus like 'equal to the character's rogue level' or 'equal to the character's sneak attack dice'.

rainzax wrote:

my first question is > what are the qualifiers?

1) rogue has beaten someone in opposed Stealth vs Perception.
2) rogue has used Disguise to a similar effect. more elaboration here...
3) target was helpless to begin with.
4) target was pinned? not so sure here. what if the rogue's friend was the grappler? what if the rogue was?

I would suggest using something similar to the wording for the assassin prestige class's death attack ability, where they would have to be unaware of the user or not consider them an enemy. I would also allow it on helpless victims as well. (After beating them to a pulp - "I'll give you one more chance...")

Rynjin wrote:
Also, since your Rogue has them in a compromised position, could they then wallop 'em upside the head with the hilt of their dagger instead of slitting their throat (if they comply)?

Take a -4 to deal non-lethal damage? While you can't deal non-lethal sneak attack damage with a lethal weapon, I think this is more of a special case where it would be possible, seeing as the opponent is not an active combatant. Though this only really makes sense with my suggestion that you can't use this on every sneak attack.

rainzax wrote:

it works for "give me the keys" but not "show me the way to the chest"

what are the rules for the round after?

I think this would mostly be up to the GM, as there are too many cases to really specify. Just treat it as intimidation, as per the CRB.

My two cp.


RedDogMT wrote:

I think using a readied action as a solution works fine for a couple reasons. First, it follows guidelines that already exist. Second, if the attacker knows the result of the attack roll, it will influence the outcome. For instance, if you roll a 1 on the ultimatum attack roll, then what? The attacker knows they can't do damage. Does the defender also know? What if a 20 is rolled? Should the attacker know? What about the defender?

I think it only works if the attack is known to be a success by both parties, that way it actually becomes an serious ultimatum rather than a (possibly) hollow threat of a readied action. If you roll a one you fail to put knife to throat (or whatever) and alert the defender.

Now would this be an option that any sneak attacker could have or would this be a rogue/ninja trick?


Robert Cameron wrote:
I think it only works if the attack is known to be a success by both parties, that way it actually becomes an serious ultimatum rather than a (possibly) hollow threat of a readied action. If you roll a one you fail to put knife to throat (or whatever) and alert the defender.

I concur. I think that making an attack roll as either part of the ability or a precursor to the ability would work best.

I like the idea of having as a rogue trick (seems more rogue-ish to me, and they can cross over anyways), but the other sneak attack classes (assassin, halfling opportunist off the top of my head) would then have to burn a feat to do this. I think it really depends on how different it is from a standard sneak attack. If it adds bonuses to rolls and acts as a new ability, then treating it as a talent would be fine.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

takin' a crack at it:

Ultimatum: (new combat maneuver)

If you can win an opposed Stealth vs Perception check or Disguise vs Sense Motive check by 5 or more to catch a victim flat-footed and unawares, you may perform a special combat maneuver on the surprise round by making a standard attack roll against your victim's CMD.

If this attack hits, you initially deal no damage but hold your foe at the mercy of suffering belated damage. You and your foe are considered to be grappling, except that if the foe attempts to break the grapple they may do so automatically without having to roll, triggering the belated damage roll. Any precision based damage that applied to the original attack carries through to the belated damage roll.

This maneuver may not be performed against a victim wearing full plate.

Improved Ultimatum: (new rogue talent)

You may substitute your Sleight of Hand skill bonus for your attack roll when performing an Ultimatum combat maneuver. Further, you may attempt this maneuver against a victim in full plate armor, but at a -4 penalty.


Ok, here's my critique.
<standard disclaimer>
My intention is to honestly assess, not insult you or your creation, so my apologies if anything comes across as belligerent/insulting. </standard disclaimer>

Ultimatum wrote:
If you can win an opposed Stealth vs Perception check or Disguise vs Sense Motive check by 5 or more to catch a victim flat-footed and unawares, you may perform a special combat maneuver on the surprise round by making a standard attack roll against your victim's CMD.

This first sentence seems a little clunky, with too much piled on at once. I find that the order that the sentence explains conditions makes it hard to interpret. Also, it makes an attack roll vs CMD - it should either be a CMB check, or a straight attack roll.

The section about stealth/disguise checks doesn't really mesh with how combat maneuvers tend to work - more on this later.

Ultimatum wrote:
If this attack hits, you initially deal no damage but hold your foe at the mercy of suffering belated damage. You and your foe are considered to be grappling, except that if the foe attempts to break the grapple they may do so automatically without having to roll, triggering the belated damage roll. Any precision based damage that applied to the original attack carries through to the belated damage roll.

I noticed you missed the part that mentioned the use of ultimatum - to threaten the opponent. Possible revision, aiming for the wordings/style used by Paizo:

Ultimatum:

You can attempt to deliver an ultimatum as a standard action in the surprise round, in place of a melee attack. You can only deliver an ultimatum to an opponent who is flat-footed. If you do not have the Improved Ultimatum feat, or a similar ability, you cannot deliver an ultimatum to an opponent wearing full plate.

If your attack is successful, you do not deal damage to the target. Instead, the damage is belayed, and you may speak to your opponent before dealing this belayed damage. You and the opponent gain the grappled condition, but your opponent may free himself as a free action without making a combat maneuver check. You may deal the belayed damage as a free action at any point during your turn in the surprise round.

Improved Ultimatum wrote:


You may substitute your Sleight of Hand skill bonus for your attack roll when performing an Ultimatum combat maneuver. Further, you may attempt this maneuver against a victim in full plate armor, but at a -4 penalty.

My issue with this is that it allows you to substitute a skill check for an attack roll. Mechanically, this gives the rogue what is likely a massive increase to chance to hit, on an attack that will deal sneak attack. While it is extremely situational (only usable in surprise round as a standard action) it still allows a hypothetical rogue with 18 dex, 10 str, and no weapon finesse to go from +0 to +8 on the attack roll. Rogues don't tend to have great to-hit bonuses, but are excellent for skills. While I think this should allow them to make ultimatums more often, I don't think it should let them make an attack for full damage by using a skill as an attack roll.

Looking over the concept as a whole, I do not think the ability works well as a combat maneuver. I think it would work better as an extraordinary ability. With all the conditions in there (surprise round, flat-footed, undetected (I assume this is the purpose of the stealth/perception)) it becomes difficult to get it off, which is not really the purpose of combat maneuvers. The strongest restrictions on combat maneuvers is on bull rush and overrun, which must be done as the attack roll on a charge. As this is a once-per-encounter situation at best, I think it is better relegated to a rogue talent or feat, or something more like that.


I agree that it shouldn't be a combat maneuver. I think that it should work as a part of sneak attack or as a rogue talent or feat.

Also, the restriction on full plate doesn't make much sense to me. Look at an actual suit of armor from the back and you'll see that it's quite open and vulnerable, the perfect place for a stealthy rogue to slip a blade.


So far, I like everyone's ideas on how to employ this mechanically. There is some good brainstorming going on here.

Verdant Wheel

Braingamer, nice clean up on the idea/language. cheers.

do we want this whole interaction to take place only on a surprise round?

i figure if the rogue can gain a compromising position against their foe using this attack on a surprise round, it'd be possible to hold it for longer - hence the extended threat grapple idea. this might sound unfair, until we remember that the rogue chose to belay the damage she could have otherwise dealt with the same attack roll.

so again, what happens the round after?

or this: imagine a rogue serving another rogue with an Ultimatum. the second rogue capitulating to his attacker's demands, at dagger point, waiting for the perfect moment to enact a Turnabout's Fair Play (an escape/counter).

where are the provisions for Bluff or Sleight of Hand in this counter?

maybe a sort of a Reflex save for half (think = Evasion)?


As an alternative to 'surprise round only,' I would put forth that it is done similarily to the Assassin's Death attack. Something like this:

Ultimatum (Ex)
If the rogue succeeds in making a sneak attack with a melee weapon, she may have the chance to deliver an ultimatum. The ultimatum fails if the target detects the rogue or recognizes the rogue as an enemy (although the attack might still be a sneak attack if the target is denied his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class or is flanked).

The rogue may choose to belay the damage dealt to the target, and may attempt an immediate intimidate check against the target, with a circumstance bonus equal to her total sneak attack dice. At any point during the ultimatum, the rogue may choose to deliver the belayed damage as a free action. Once the belayed damage is dealt, the effects of the ultimatum end. If the belayed damage is not dealt against the target, it is lost.

Hmm, I'm not really liking the wording of the second paragraph. Regardless, the idea is there.
I used the same method as the assassin's death attack for the conditions, which I think would work well. One question I have would be whether or not it would be reasonable to limit the weapons useable to light weapons, melee weapons, or one-handed weapons. Though threatening someone with a greatsword would sort of be a similar idea, it is not quite the same as laying your knife on someone's throat.
From most of the ideas generated here, it seems that the effect intended is to intimidate the opponent into doing something they woudln't normally do. Luckily, this is already in the rules, as an intimidate check. Perhaps you could also substitute bluff for intimidate?
I understand what the idea is behind the grapple, but as it was in the original it was not really useful. Allowing the target to break out without a CMB check really made it superfluous.

Now, I suppose this could be a feat, with "sneak attack class feature" as a pre-req. Another option could be to do it as a rogue talent, but then you run into issues where an assassin/halfling opportunitist couldn't take it unless they had levels in rogue, despite their abilities to sneak attack. The final option is just to have it as a rogue ability, or a general ability that anyone with sneak attack can use.


I love this discussion, but I strongly disagree with the idea that this could not be done to someone wearing full plate.

First of all, realistically, there are plenty of places to put a weapon that aren't the throat but that would be lethal. Second, full plate is already adding to the AC, so by saying full plate is immune, you are implying that full plate adds infinite AC. There is an attack roll still involved, I think (it got a little hard to follow the back-and-forth at the end), and full plate is doing its job already. And lastly, isn't the guy in full plate the one you WANT to do this to? Burning a feat for the ability to target a single niche group (at least we don't often see full plate at our table) is a tax.

Personally, I think that trying to tie this down to a solid mechanic is not the way to go. This is a good general concept that is always going to require GM adjudication, no matter the circumstances. I propose that this idea be a "guideline" for potential ways to handle any scenarios that MIGHT come up, but nothing concrete.

The attack roll from the OP is the best way I think, except that I don't think the player should make that attack roll. I think that the best way to handle that (because a player sees a nat 1 and knows its flubbed) is to have the DM roll in secret, write the number, and hand it to the player face down and tell them to wait. When the ultimatum is made, then the player can look at the roll and state his total to-hit. This prevents metagaming and doesn't take a whole crap ton of mechanical finagling.

Verdant Wheel

viz full plate:
as i initially proposed, the 'defense' to this trick was CMD. meaning difficulty would scale with combat ability, Strength, and Dexterity - as opposed to AC, which scales with quality of armor and Dexterity. (i still think the former is a more correct simulation). as CMD does not account for armor, i imagined that a neck piece would make it very difficult for our rogue to pull this off, so i added the 'no full plate' restriction.
naturally, if AC is used as the 'defense' to an Ultimatum, this redundancy needn't be implemented.
that said, i like what has since been proposed. an attack roll is not only simpler, it corresponds with sneak attack more intuitively.

viz talents/feats:
i am opposed to this trick necessitating a talent/feat to operate. but i am open to having a talent/feat improve it. i think it should either be an option for all characters, or at least all rogue (sneak attack) characters.

viz secret attack roll:
i am strongly opposed to having the outcome of attempting this trick be unknown. it defeats the purpose. either the rogue misses, and looks quite silly, or she 'hits' and puts her foe into quite a compromising position.

viz skill check as combat maneuver roll:
check out the advanced rogue talent Weapon Snatcher:

Spoiler:

Weapon Snatcher (Ex):
A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check in place of a combat maneuver check when attempting to disarm an opponent.

...

why do this?
the reason why this is worth trying to work out is because it gives the rogue a mechanically viable option to be other-than-an-assassin. however in order for this to be so, Ultimatum needs teeth. known-good but belayed sneak attack damage on pain of cooperation is viable.

finally, the new idea i have to contribute tonight concerns the flexibility of the Bluff skill, and it's interactivity with other skills (specifically Sleight of Hand and Sense Motive). mechanically, this is one of the most interestingly applied skills in the game. especially the applications:

1) Creating a Diversion to Hide (see Stealth skill)
2) the Feint

Rogue vs Rogue:

1) if Stealth can be thought of as 'sleight of body', then Sleight of Hand can be thought of as 'manual stealth' - and the Creating a Diversion to Hide concept could similarly be expanded to set the stage for a Sleight of Hand check to counter an Ultimatum. thematically this is the Turnabout's Fair Play concept. this of course is only possible if an Ultimatum can be held for longer than just a single surprise round. and, for a multi-round Ultimatum to have teeth, the known-good but belayed sneak attack damage must hold. (and despite the awkwardness of wording such a mechanic - this is what this thread is for!)

2) arguably the wonkiest mechanic in the game. but never-the-less a precedent (from the core rulebook no less). in which a skill check is rolled against the lesser of (10 + BAB + Wis) or (10 + Sense Motive)! wtf?!? anyway, this idea is not fleshed out, i just wanted to point out that there might be something worth looking into this which could serve as a mechanical model.

g'night folks

Shadow Lodge

I like the concept, but drop the Rogue/Sneak Attack thing completely.

Why can't a Fighter do the exact same thing (better, too), a Wizard walk up and use a finger with a Shocking Grasp, or a Cleric with an Inflict spell ready to go off in the exact same way, or a Monk with a Stunning Fist? I'm tempted to just use a sort of combo Intimidate and Grapple machanic, that essentually treats the target similar to Helpless (can be CdG'd) for a short period of time.

With the Rogue thing, it sounds like another Trap issue waiting to happen, the game needs Rogues because it has Traps, because they need to give Rogues something useful to do, because they need Rogues, because they have traps, because they have Rogues. . .

Verdant Wheel

i kind of agree with "Devil's Advocate"

as for the rogue, their access to skills, and especially their sneak attack ability ought to be a leg up but not a strict requirement.

the way to do this is to have a core couple of skills set the parameters. Stealth and Disguise to set up, resisted with Perception and Sense Motive, maybe intensified by Intimidate, where Bluff and Sleight of Hand enable the counter, or Escape Artist and Evasion enable the escape. other skills?

how could we incorporate Coup De Gras into Ultimatum without leaving this open as an abusable mechanic? maybe skill checks must exceed their victim's DCs by 5 or 10? maybe we offer the favorable between two 'defense' scores a la Feint?...

Shadow Lodge

I would say a pretty simple way is to just say if the target is caught unaware, (surprized), the character can opt to use Ultimatum. Following the normal rules for Intimidate to alter an NPC's attitude, except it lasts only as long as the target is "grappled".

Intimidate:
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent
to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a
successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 +
the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
If successful, the target gives you the information you
desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise
offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the
target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local
authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target
attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.

As a Full Round Action, (or as a Stand Actin during a Surprize Round if within 15ft), yu can catch an NPC unaware, essentually holding them bond, silent, and threatened for a short time while demanding some service from them.
As part of this manuever, the character makes an Intimidate check, and also makes a Grapple Attempt, (note that the target is Flat Footed and Unaware), and if both the Intimidate and the Grapple Check are successful, the NPC is concidred Helpless. They may attempt to break the Grapple on their turn, but otherwise are not able to move or act. At any point thereafter, the character may make a single Coup de Grace against the NPC, but doing so ends the Grapple.

Special: if th character is obviously of a rivaling faith, organization, or similar group, DC to initiat the Intimidate check increases by +5 - +10.

Verdant Wheel

any new developments?

I'd love to have something ready to pull out for my players.

also this idea may bland well with this one


I think it's best to keep it simple.
ULTIMATUM: "Freeze!" As a standard action a you may make a single melee or ranged attack at a target denied their dexterity bonus to AC.
If successful the target gains the 'Pinned' condition.The target may end this condition at any time but if they do so they take the damage that would have been by the successful attack roll.
While maintaining this condition.You may take no actions other than give verbal commands and may move up to half your speed.You may allow the target to move an equivalent distance and perform any actions you allow.
If the target ever leaves your threatened area or gains cover relative to you this effect ends.

I think a feat would be good,so that anyone could do it.Those with Sneak attack would be best.
Or just make it a house rule that anyone can do.There are enough feats anyway.
But a barbarian standing over you with his axe raised could be highly persuasive.

Verdant Wheel

i am a fan of the design parameters:

1) not a feat
2) not a maneuver
3) usable against a DX-denied foe
4) usable during the surprise round (so, no full-round action)
5) damage 'on hold' until some kind of trigger


You could easily call it a maneuver,since the target has to be denied their dex they can't make AOO anyway.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I like the concept, but drop the Rogue/Sneak Attack thing completely.

Yep. This ain't a rogue thing, this is anyone that gets the drop on someone.

Use the CdG rules. Simple.

Verdant Wheel

Coup de Grace? Simple!...how?

the point is that your enemy isn't helpless, just taken unawares. it's hardly fair to grant CdG just because you won initiative on a surprise round...

we need a risk factor

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why would you be granting this on a surprise round? Combat hasn't even started, and both parties are aware of each other. If the victim doesn't comply, and manages to survive the attack, normal initiative starts.

Verdant Wheel

i must misunderstand.

but can you explain "Simple"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If they do not comply, auto crit and Fort save or die.

Anyone can do it, and if you want rogues to be really dangerous compared to others let them add sneak attack too.

Verdant Wheel

how does one gain the upper hand such that they may consider their target helpless?

this is not an existing-rules question.

more importantly, in a way that is fair PC-NPC and reverse?

i guess i want you to shoot me a scenario or two.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
rainzax wrote:
how does one gain the upper hand such that they may consider their target helpless?

Stealth up to them without their Perception check succeeding. Then declare you're holding your knife to their throat.

The current rules don't work for this, hence why you need a houserule. And the simplest way to accomplish this is to ignore the need to have them be helpless in this case.

If you want, you could have them make a CMB check to achieve 'knife against the throat' status.

Verdant Wheel

i feel like my players would cry foul if all it takes is beating them at a Stealth check.

the "Halt We Have You Surrounded" thread (see post 39) created a Surrendered condition which effectively does exactly what you say (treat foe as if 'helpless' hence free CdG).

What I'm wondering is, since the commonality is treating an unawares foe as helpless, how not only can the two scenarios be combined (mechanically), but what kind of check(s) is fair all-round.

and I think it'd involve more than just Stealth + CMB check. maybe I'm wrong. But I'm posting in this thread to tease the idea out with other community members here.

example idea:
Exceed on Stealth vs Perception (or Disguise vs Sense Motive) by +10 and get a free CMB check? Grapple check? Dirty Trick check?

to complicate further:
what if you want to accomplish this in silence? what would that entail? or prevent verbal casting? if they talk anyway and then you CdG them and they die how difficult is the subsequent Stealth/Disguise/Bluff check to stay hidden or 'hidden'?...

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / New Sneak Attack Rule: Ultimatum All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.