Rogue Sneak Attack - Page 13

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

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?

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.

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.

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.