Sneak Attack and Two Weapon Fighting

[Dean Kimes]

So I am somewhat nervous about extending sneak attack to work on creatures that were previously immune. While I sympathize with the plight of rogues caught fighting something they can't sneak attack, it is the combo of sneak attack and two weapon fighting that most needs balancing I believe.

It is far too easy for a relatively low level ranger/rogue multicalss to deal out completely obscene amounts of damage to the point where no solo monsters or mob leaders are at all viable as opponents. Even at 8th level with a mere 3d6 of sneak attack the character can deal out 4 attacks at 5d6 apiece with the aid of a lesser energy crystal on each weapon. There are other combinations that are even more frightening in this manner such as swashbuckler rogues who can pull off the same feat at 7th level and with even larger damage bonuses. Up to 5d6+5 with only 14 Str/Int and a +1 wpn, at +11/+11/+6/+6 tp hit with wpn finesse...

Such characters become virtual living cuisinarts against which creatures several CR in excess of them cannot even stand toe to toe for a single round if someone provides a convenient flank. Sneak Attack really needs to made into a special std action rather than adding to a normal attack as it does now.

[Robert Brambley]

I'm not so worried about the two-weapon issue; but I will admit that allowing the sneak attacks to things previously immune to such things does bring to question their power level?

Are we then going to allow fighters to do critical hits to such things?

I say if we allow a rogue to sneak attack undead for instance, there should be a feat needed to take in order to do this.

And perhaps even make it less effective than a normal sneak attack.

For instance

UNDEAD SLAYER:

Prerequisite: Sneak Attack 3d6
Benefit: You can apply sneak attack damage to undead creature that are otherwise immune to criticl and sneak attack damage. When applying Sneak Attack Damage to such an undead treat the rogue as if he were half his level. (i.e. A 10th level rogue would be considered a 5th level rogue for the purposes of sneak attacking an undead - thus allowing only 3d6 sneak attack damage instead of the 5 he would ordinarily have).
Normal: Undead creatures are ordinarily immune to all form of damage contributed by sneak attacks.

GOLEM SLAYER:
(same as above) - but for golems and constructs and animated objects.

Also available are:

PLANT SLAYER
OOZE SLAYER
ELEMENTAL SLAYER

If going the route of so many feats is displeasing - perhaps make them some of the rogues special abilities they can learn from their talent trees.

Robert

[Joey Virtue]

I think thouse feats as a part of thieves special abilities would be a great idea

[Razic]

I imagine that a "find the weakness" feat would address this while still being believable. This feat allows a thief to do half sneak attack damage to anything on which a weak point can be found. I see undead as just another sort of construct. They don't have vital organs to poke but they do have physical structures that can be intelligently deconstructed.

Oozes, elementals, and purely magical entities should (IMHO) be permanently immune to sneak attacks. Their nature seems to be lacking vulnerable spots to target.

Of course I could just be lacking imagination. For me the applicability of a general "find the weakness" feat would be case by case and subject to DM approval. This works for story based roleplayers, but would probably cause more problems than it would solve for rule lawyers.

Perhaps those more familiar with nitty gritty mechanics could come up with a solid inclusion/exclusion list based on creature subtype or other features.

[Robert Brambley]

Razic wrote:

I imagine that a "find the weakness" feat would address this while still being believable. This feat allows a thief to do half sneak attack damage to anything on which a weak point can be found. I see undead as just another sort of construct. They don't have vital organs to poke but they do have physical structures that can be intelligently deconstructed.

Yes that would work fine - I think thats a very pragmatic approach to validating and adjudicating this type of thing.

You're right about Elementals and Oozes being harder to suspend disbelief about such things; but I could buy into it if it was the precedence being set.

Otherwise: undead, plants, and constructs are quite viable targets of this ability IMO.

Robert

[Devilkiller]

One of the PCs in a 3.5 game I play has an alternate class feature for Rogue which lets him do half his regular sneak attack damage against things immune to sneak attack. We've found it takes him down a notch but doesn't make him totally useless against undead and such.

I don't think we'll see Paizo removing the ability to combine TWF and sneak attack as it is a very popular combo.

[fiddler]

I like that Sneak Attacks affect more creatures now. Some adventures have a logical theme that makes them heavy with undead or constructs, and it gets pretty tough for the Rogue to contribute. Not a big deal for one battle, but an entire adventure's worth of battles is too much to be left out of.

For Two-Weapon Fighting, I can see it both ways. The Two-Weapon fighter does have to make an investment in Feats and fighting style (sticking around for full attacks in melee) to pull this off, so it isn't without tradeoffs. That said, I think limiting Sneak Attacks to once per round (and maybe requiring a Feat to allow Two-Weapon attacks to get Sneak damage?) would be OK too.

As for criticals, I'm toying with a house rule that you can Sneak Attack anything, and the constructs, undead, oozes, etc just turn all weapons into 20/x2 for purposes of critical hits, but that's slipping off-topic.