|
Alpha 2, page 23
Sneak Attack: [...]
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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
Alpha 2, page 26
Designer Notes: Sneak Attack
Sneak attack now works against nearly every creature you might face. While some might have specific immunity, the change was made so that rogues might be more productive in combat regardless of the adventure. Now it represents being able to find a weak spot more so than striking at vital organs. Generally speaking, only creatures that do not have a weak spot at all, either due to a homogenous nature or near indestructible build, are immune to sneak attack. Examples might include air, earth, fire, and water elementals, most oozes, and some undead.
3.5
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks.
Remarks
I understand the motivation for the extension of the sneak attack target audience. :-) Fighting undead is not as fun when the rogue's signature ability doesn't come into play.
I don't have a problem with the fact that more opponents than in 3.5 may have weak spots.
The first issue is the small terminological inconsistency on page 23 and 26 (vital spot vs weak spot)
The second issue is a bit bigger. What I'm struggling with is the rogue's training. In 3.5, I assumed that a rogue could be fairly easily introduced by his mentor to the general anatomical principles applicable to living creatures with discernible anatomies. ("If you strike the between the ribs, the bugger will be in for lot of pain and you may even puncture the lung.")
In Alpha 2, where would the rogue learn enough about constructs, oozes, plants, undead, swarms (all immune to critical hits and therefore to sneak attacks in 3.5) to be able to find their weak spot in the middle of combat? That's a large body of practical knowledge on top of the general anatomical principles applicable to living creatures mentioned earlier.
Would it be excessive to require a certain number of Knowledge (Religion) ranks before letting the rogue sneak attack undead?
Would it be excessive to require a certain number of Knowledge (Religion) ranks before letting the rogue sneak attack undead?
Considering in 3.5 it took a feat or magic item to let you do that, requiring a few skill ranks seems quite minor in comparison. Personally, I'd be totally on board with that suggestion.
|
And personally, I would say that they should not get their full sneak attack bonus when attacking such creatures, because their weak spots (if they really have any) are not nearly as vital as in other creatures. I would say that against such foes, Rogues get only the minimum bonus (a flat +1 damage per sneak attack die. So +5d6 becomes a flat +5 against such foes) That is still a bonus, still makes use of the Rogue's skills, but preserves the power and unique make-up of such creature... because let's face it, an ooze or a plant doesn't really have weak spots to backstab. So the Rogue definitely should NOT get his full bonus against such creatures. Going with a flat bonus is a fair compromise, IMO.
And personally, I would say that they should not get their full sneak attack bonus when attacking such creatures, because their weak spots (if they really have any) are not nearly as vital as in other creatures. I would say that against such foes, Rogues get only the minimum bonus (a flat +1 damage per sneak attack die. So +5d6 becomes a flat +5 against such foes) That is still a bonus, still makes use of the Rogue's skills, but preserves the power and unique make-up of such creature... because let's face it, an ooze or a plant doesn't really have weak spots to backstab. So the Rogue definitely should NOT get his full bonus against such creatures. Going with a flat bonus is a fair compromise, IMO.
Even a Alpha2 rogue doesnt get sneak attack damage against oozes and many plants... see the designer notes (no damage vs creatures with homogeneous nature).
Of course, it would help out if when they come out with the redone MM that they include under special defenses if a creature is immune to sneak attacks.
If it's only 1 point per die, I'm not sure it's worth the rogue sticking out his neck. If the sneak attack damage has to be reduced, just roll it and halve it.
Personally, while I can see some point to not being able to sneak attack things like undead and constructs, I think it has been taken too far. Just because it's a dead body that doesn't have a beating heart or circulatory system doesn't mean it shouldn't take extra damage when certain areas of the tissue are hit. But rather than causing shock and organ failure, you just end up breaking apart more vulnerable areas of the corpus and thus dismantling the monster.
I don't think I would require any skill investment. A rogue doesn't have skill ranks in know (nature) or Healing to be able to sneak attack any number of highly varied creatures from humans to animals to outsiders.
|
Of course, it would help out if when they come out with the redone MM that they include under special defenses if a creature is immune to sneak attacks.
I propposed several days ago something similar here
It is a very simple append to each monster in MM based in the Fortified armor special ability.
As someone who has played an insane number of rogue type characters, including scouts (with the skirmish ability), I fully understand the problems and benefits associated with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.
I do like the idea of it being used against forms of creatures that are immune to critical damage, such as undead, and the way they explained that it represented hitting weak points in a creature's form, not necessarily an artery or an organ. I do think, however, that during playtesting they'll need to tweak the amount of damage depending on creature types.
Perhaps humanoids and other common enemies would take normal sneak attack damage, whereas certain abberations or undead would only take partial sneak attack damage, unless a knowledge check in the appropriate field was made?
Someone earlier had suggested that a knowledge check be required to do sneak attack damage to an undead. While this might make some sense, it then basically says that a rogue has enough religious knowledge to apply it to other checks and the like. How many rogues do you play with that can sit down and have a theological discussion with a cleric?
If people wish to add any rolls to confirm sneak attack damage I would suggest either rolls depending on creature type, like I mentioned above, or perhaps a perception check against the monster's CR.
While I like that rogue's can now sneak attack more creatures types I feel that it shouldn't allow them to do full sneak attack damage to creatures such as undead or constructs.
As mentioned above, a special MM append to undead and constructs that states that these creature types only take 1/2 the amount of the sneak attack damage would be fitting IMO.
Would it be excessive to require a certain number of Knowledge (Religion) ranks before letting the rogue sneak attack undead?Considering in 3.5 it took a feat or magic item to let you do that, requiring a few skill ranks seems quite minor in comparison. Personally, I'd be totally on board with that suggestion.
I'd suggest some sort of Knowledge (Creature Type) or Knowledge (Exotic Anatomy) with a DC depending on CR.
If people wish to add any rolls to confirm sneak attack damage I would suggest either rolls depending on creature type, like I mentioned above, or perhaps a perception check against the monster's CR.
In this effect (among others), i use the skill Knowledge/Monsters (Int), to determine the ecology, threat and vulnerabilities of a monster. The DC is quite high, DC20+CR.
I know that's quite similar to Knowledge/Dungeons, but i prefer that.In the case of a rogue looking for a sneak attack on, let's say an undead, if he makes his knowledge/monsters roll, then he can add half of his sneak attack damage. If the creature actually has a weak spot, then he might be allowed to add the full bonus.
Can't say I agree with having to make a knowledge check in order to deal sneak attack damage. It an additional roll thats going to bog down the game.
Imagine a Scenario in which the rogue is facing off with an evil lich necromancer and its horde of minions consisting of various undead. Thats a lot of needless rolls just to deal half damage.
Can't say I agree with having to make a knowledge check in order to deal sneak attack damage. It an additional roll thats going to bog down the game.
Imagine a Scenario in which the rogue is facing off with an evil lich necromancer and its horde of minions consisting of various undead. Thats a lot of needless rolls just to deal half damage.
I wouldn't make him make a roll but rather assume an auto 10 roll so if you have know(religon) with 4 ranks invested you can effect any undead that would be equal to DC14 (I'ld say the DC should be 1/2CR+10 so in this cas3e up to CR8 undead). If the same thief multiclassed into 1 level of cleric lets say , those same 4 ranks +3 for class skill would allow him to sneak attack CR14 Undead. BTW, I have never played a rogue with less than 14Int so that's (assuming not human) 10 skill points per level and crossclass skills are 1 skill pointt per rank.... Of course if Precision Damage could only be applied once in a round, you could get rid of all the discussions about what should be effected, how fast a rate sneak damage should be and a host of other things relating to the imbalance in fighting prowess of the rogue vs the fighter.
BTW, I started playing in 1979 so really am annoyed at how the thief turned from a specialty skill character that could do massive damage occasionally to the best damage output non-spellcaster.
|
|
I proposed several days ago something similar here
It is a very simple append to each monster in MM based in the Fortified armor special ability.
Sorry, I didn't spot that. Neither have I seen Archade's post in that same thread.
What I did in my game, is require the sneak attacker to have 5 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) to sneak attack constructs, 5 ranks in Knowledge (religion) to sneak attack undead, etc.
|
|
I wouldn't make him make a roll but rather assume an auto 10 roll so if you have know(religon) with 4 ranks invested you can effect any undead that would be equal to DC14 (I'ld say the DC should be 1/2CR+10 so in this cas3e up to CR8 undead). If the same thief multiclassed into 1 level of cleric lets say , those same 4 ranks +3 for class skill would allow him to sneak attack CR14 Undead. BTW, I have never played a rogue with less than 14Int so that's (assuming not human) 10 skill points per level and crossclass skills are 1 skill pointt per rank...
Alpha 2, page 36
[...]you can only invest a number of ranks into a specific skill equal to your total Hit Dice.The level 1 rogue can only have 1 rank in Knowledge (Religion). With an assumed Take 10/auto-roll, he'd be able to sneak attack CR 1 and 2 undead, which are anyway the most plentiful opponent a Level 1 rogue would encounter.
I must say I find your solution (automatic Knowledge check for a specific piece of info on a foe with weird anatomies with DC equal to 10 + 1/2 CR) most elegant.
It doesn't make us do extra rolls in the middle of combat, nor distinguish between various kinds of weak spots, which are more or less susceptible to damage (full sneak attack damage, half sneak attack damage, minimal damage, etc.) and we don't have to have monsters which are able to ignore the damage in 0%, 25%, 75% or 100% of successful attack rolls.
|
|
I disagree with the basic assumption of the OP. It doesn't take much to say "hit the clockwork mechanism at the joint". While the fighter is probably doing similar (just as he's aiming for the vital spots of a person), the rogue is specifically taking the opportunity to strike at a distracted or unaware foe to pinpoint those spots.
It doesn't take much to say "aim for the head" on a zombie, or "aim for the heart" on a vampire, or "aim for the base of the stem" on a plant. The rogue is simply the one who thinks perfectly in those terms, and fights specifically to capitalize on those concepts.
That's player knowledge. A character wouldn't know about the vampire's heart or the treant's sap conduits, unless he had received training in that are or (thank you for leading my train of thoughts in that direction) were told where to strike in the case of a specific foe.
I'm thinking about the rogue's druid companion with 4 ranks in Knowledge (nature) make an Aid another Knowledge (Nature) roll and shout "Aim for the base of the stem" to the rogue This would add +2 to the rogue's auto-roll and allow him to sneak attack the CR 2 plant if the rogue has no ranks in Knowledge (nature) or a CR 4 plant if the rogue has 1 rank in Knowledge (nature). In essence, the rogue would be the one to strike where it hurts, but he'd work with a more knowledgeable party member.
I can see how some people feel about Rogue being able to Sneak Attack most creatures as overpowering. I don't see that as over powering or a game breaker. I look at the big picture yes a rogue can be a damage power house in the right circumstances but his damage output is situational at best. I don't think nerfing the Rogue to the point of having knowledge skill is or reducing his damage to +5. Maybe a better solution would be to reduce the amount of extra damage dice a rogue could do for all sneak attack to:
1st +1d6
5th +2d6
9th +3d6
13th +4d6
17th +5d6
I would like to keep extra dice roll to a minimum. I believe that too many dice rolls take away from the game or a least slows it down. Yes it is only of couple extra rolls, but when you lump it with the additional rolls suggested it could damage the quality of the game and make the DM work that much harder to immerse the players back into the story.
|
|
A problem that I can see of all generical options that we are propossing is that they treat all monsters of a subtype equal.
If we reduce the sneak dice against undead or constructs or need X skill ranks in X skill to sneak a subtype, we are missing that not all monsters are the same. An skeleton is very different of a zombie or a shadow... And all are undead. Same thing for an animated chain or a flesh golem about constructs.
I like the skill ranks aproximation, but I'm afraid that solution not is an answer, only a temporal patch.
|
|
A problem that I can see of all generical options that we are propossing is that they treat all monsters of a subtype equal.
If we reduce the sneak dice against undead or constructs or need X skill ranks in X skill to sneak a subtype, we are missing that not all monsters are the same. An skeleton is very different of a zombie or a shadow... And all are undead. Same thing for an animated chain or a flesh golem about constructs.
I like the skill ranks aproximation, but I'm afraid that solution not is an answer, only a temporal patch.
The Knowledge skill applies to all undead types.
The patch in rulespeak :-)
The rogue's training allows him to deal sneak attack damage automatically to living creatures with discernible anatomies.
In order to affect other creatures, the rogue must have invested the specified number of ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill. The rogue's Knowledge check is always assumed to be 10 + skill rank. The DC of the check is 10 + 1/2 of the target's CR. (a) For instance, the rogue with 1 rank in Knowledge (religion) may sneak attack CR 1 and CR 2 undead.
Characters with more ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill may use the Aid another option to grant the rogue a +2 to the rogue's Knowledge check. The DC for the aiding character's Knowledge check is 10 + target's CR.
For instance, a cleric with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) engaged in the same encounter may allow the rogue to sneak attack CR 1, CR 2, CR 3 and CR 4 undead on a successful Knowledge (religion) check.
Note
(a) The lower DC reflects the targeted nature of the Knowledge check.
BTW, I started playing in 1979 so really am annoyed at how the thief turned from a specialty skill character that could do massive damage occasionally to the best damage output non-spellcaster.
Amen, brother!
A rogue's sneak attack damage isn't all that situational once he gets to a certain level, with improved invisibility available. Being able to sneak attack on every attack is the problem. A high level rogue (say 15th level) with two weapon fighting could theoretially get off 6 attacks with sneak attack in one round. If he's got a brilliant weapon (or a buddy with the brilliant blade spell), it is conceivable that he could hit with all of those attacks (his opponent has no dex or dodge bonus and no armor bonus), doing 6 x 8d6 in sneak attack damage in one round.
My opinion is that it should be reduced to one attack per round per weapon. This encourages more hit and run tactics, which is more rogue-like, and makes sure that a rogue can't do 48d6 damage in one round.
A counterargument might be that most of those secondary attacks won't hit unless the rogue has those spells going... well, then, if they're not going to hit then it's no big deal if they CAN'T do the damage.
The 9th rogue in our group has outstripped the Str 20, power attacking barbarian for sheer damage output, and that's just a bit wierd.
I think we really are getting to the point in this discussion where we have to step back to keep things simple. With the vast variety of thing the rogue can sneak attack now (from aberrations to vermin), I don't see needing a skill check on some groups of monsters as being particularly tenable. Plus, it complicates the hell out of things.
If Paizo wants to broaden the sneak attack (and by extension critical) range on monsters, I would suggest giving monsters a new possible quality. Instead of being either vulnerable to crits/sneak attacks or immune, create a quality called Critical Resistant (or something like that). Revise a bunch of monsters to be resistant, say it halves extra sneak attack/crit damage, and that should just about do it.
I would envision most corporeal undead to be given this quality (non-corporeal ones should stay crit immune). Constructs that have moving parts like clockworks or articulated joints, arguable weakspots. I would probably leave more constructs critical immune than I would undead but I could see some useful arguments either way. Oozes should probably all stay crit immune. Plants, I'm not sure.
|
|
With the vast variety of thing the rogue can sneak attack now (from aberrations to vermin), I don't see needing a skill check on some groups of monsters as being particularly tenable. Plus, it complicates the hell out of things.
In the system I suggested, there is no actual skill check, just evidence of some training in weird monster lore. I would imagine that the extra damage rangers inflict to their favoured enemies is based on training.
If Paizo wants to broaden the sneak attack (and by extension critical) range on monsters, I would suggest giving monsters a new possible quality. Instead of being either vulnerable to crits/sneak attacks or immune, create a quality called Critical Resistant (or something like that). Revise a bunch of monsters to be resistant, say it halves extra sneak attack/crit damage, and that should just about do it.
The Critical Resistant system consists in defining a three-tier system:
1. monsters with a "weak" weak spot (full sneak attack damage)2. monsters with a "strong" weak spot (half sneak attack damage)
3. monsters without weak spots (no sneak attack damage)
In 3.5, either a monster had weak spots or had none. I don't mind the complexity, but I'm not sure about the justification for the introduction of two types of weak spots. In other words, why some monsters would be more or less resistant to sneak attacks?
A monster's resistance to damage is already translated in its various resistances to damage types (piercing, slashing, etc.), weapon materials, general damage reduction, etc.
It's functionally nearly identical to fortitude, and in fact overlaps. Really, the fortitude effect would replace this suggestion, but I can definitely see its value. Essentially, it's the difference between somebody that can be killed by a gash to the carotid and something that can be seriously impaired but probably not killed by similar. A clockwork golem might lose functionality if a steampipe is punctured. However, it may still be able to function even if that steampipe is competely severed.
It really wouldn't be hard to use the fortified armor idea. You woudn't have to introduce a new concept. You just have to rate some "critical resistant" monsters on their relative fortification.
If people are worried about including ranks in knowledge or more rolls to justify being able to sneak attack certain things, they could change the way sneak attack works to function in some ways like a death attack, ie, spend "x" rounds studying a subject while they aren't aware of you.
|
BTW, I started playing in 1979 so really am annoyed at how the thief turned from a specialty skill character that could do massive damage occasionally to the best damage output non-spellcaster.Amen, brother!
I second that.
However, here's my idea. Make it a Rogue Talent. The Quintessential Halfling from Mongoose Pushling made a halfling racial where the character could make a Intellgence check to remember tidbits of information on monsters. However they didn't list how it worked at all or what it even did if you made the check.
So how about we work with that?
d20+Int mod vs. Monster CR = Applicable Sneak Attack Damage
"You make the check once verses each type and you recieve full sneak attack to that type for the rest of the encounter."
That way those who want increased damage can take it, its not taking away from the rogue's skills, but still takes up a resource. So yes granted you may get full sneak attack damage with most monsters anyways, but this way its atleast balanced through a talent, and there will be the occasional fight where, maybe you won't.
I feel though, this is something that is going to have to be rolled for, as it is "random knowledge." I also wouldn't make it like bardic knowledge and add class level as even the 14 Int rogue would have full SA against anything CR 4 or lower. If you want to make it a little tougher at lower levels, maybe make the DC 10+CR.
My two crowns.
While there were a few points during 3.5 games that I was confused by the rogue's knowledge of where monsters hurt most ( I know where to hit the mimic because it is not immune to sneak attack! ), but I am much more comfortable with that that rolling dice every encounter or having to compare ranks to CR and such. For one, most of these methods seem to penalize the low Int rogue quite a bit and I don't really like that.
If it is really nessary to add some sort of knowledge to be able to sneak attack something I would suggest just letting a rogue pick a number of monster type that they can sneak attack at first level and they get more creature types later levels. That way they have to admit to studying the creature's anatomy which out pushing into skill points. (Maybe add some damage to each sneak attack if being able to sneak attack nearly everything was balanced)
|
|
I second that.BTW, I started playing in 1979 so really am annoyed at how the thief turned from a specialty skill character that could do massive damage occasionally to the best damage output non-spellcaster.Amen, brother!
I'm too. I wish sneak attack were as 3.5 but (and this is a BIG "but") I'm afraid that it is going to be impossible. Therefore, I'm working for the sneak (and criticals attacks) are controled and not overpowered.
An acceptable solution would be that only could be an sneak attack per action, or better than, that sneak attack were an standard attack and not part of a chain of attacks.
Another solution would be a mechanism of control about it: namely ranks in X skill or rogue talent against X subtype. But, as I said previoulsy, that solutions, IMO, are asking too little. Of course, they are better than nothing, but all of them are forgotting that not all monsters of a subtype are the same thing.
The Fortification option, however, treats each monster individually, and have the same advantages that skill or talent options in combat. The percentile roll is not going to slow the turn because is the same roll that a blur or blink spell and with these spell is not possible to sneak a monsters.
Cheers!
|
|
[...] but I am much more comfortable with that that rolling dice every encounter or having to compare ranks to CR and such. For one, most of these methods seem to penalize the low Int rogue quite a bit and I don't really like that.
Requiring 1 rank per level to sneak attack monsters of up to twice the rogue's HD doesn't strike me as excessive. Please note that there is no roll to make in the system I'm suggesting. A level 1 rogue with 1 rank in Knowledge (religion) knows enough to sneak attack CR 1 and CR 2 undead. A level 10 rogue with 10 ranks on Knowledge (aracane) knows enough to sneak attack CR 20 constructs.
If it is really nessary to add some sort of knowledge to be able to sneak attack something I would suggest just letting a rogue pick a number of monster type that they can sneak attack at first level and they get more creature types later levels. That way they have to admit to studying the creature's anatomy which out pushing into skill points. (Maybe add some damage to each sneak attack if being able to sneak attack nearly everything was balanced)
That's a good idea, but it has similar limitations as the rangers' Favoured Enemy system, when the selected enemies don't appear in the game. A rogue who spends 1 rank in Knowledge (Religion) and doesn't come near a crypt is better off than a ranger with Vermin as FE who fights orcs from dawn till dusk.
|
|
An acceptable solution would be that only could be an sneak attack per action, or better than, that sneak attack were an standard attack and not part of a chain of attacks.Inspirational! (scribble, scribble...)
I was thinking more about it... and it is no good as it seems.
Sure, Sneak as standard attack could be a solution, but it isn't work about critical hits in creatures, until now, immune to them.
Skill rank & Talent options manage the sneak for the rogue class, but don't handle criticals of another classes. Should the fighter (or the barbarian!) take ranks in Knw Arcana to to critical hits in a construct...? With only 2+Int skill ranks per level? I'm afraid that no.
I continue voting for the Fortified option.
|
|
Skill rank & Talent options manage the sneak for the rogue class, but don't handle criticals of another classes. Should the fighter (or the barbarian!) take ranks in Knw Arcana to to critical hits in a construct...? With only 2+Int skill ranks per level? I'm afraid that no.
That's a good remark. Immunity to sneak attacks (not a living creature no discernible anatomy in 3.5, therefore no vital spot) and immunity to critical hits are linked.
What happens when a weapon scores a critical hit?
A critical is a particularly effective attack from the point of view of the weapon (good battleaxe-fu) and from the point of view of the target (weak spot).
The sneak attack is not weapon-based. It is only a particularly effective attack from the point of view of the target (disadvantaged situation and weak spot).
Second difference: the critical hit requires a specific result on an attack roll (natural 20, 19, 18 or 17) and then a second confirmation roll. Therefore a critical hit is an essentially random occurrence. The attacker lucks out twice: by finding his weapon's sweet spot and by hitting the target's weak spot. I would say it doesn't require any specific knowledge of the target's weak spots.
A sneak attack is not a random occurrence. If the conditions (flanking, etc) are right and if the attack hits (no natural roll condition), the damage is applied.
In summary:
A sneak attack requires:
1. a class-based knowledge of the target's weak points (rogue's first-level training) for living creatures with discernible anatomies) (3.5)
2. a skill-based knowledge of the target's weak points for other creatures (my proposal)
A critical hit is a luck-based (not a skill-based) effect.
|
|
That's a good remark. Immunity to sneak attacks (not a living creature no discernible anatomy in 3.5, therefore no vital spot) and immunity to critical hits are linked.
What happens when a weapon scores a critical hit?
A critical is a particularly effective attack from the point of view of the weapon (good battleaxe-fu) and from the point of view of the target (weak spot).The sneak attack is not weapon-based. It is only a particularly effective attack from the point of view of the target (disadvantaged situation and weak spot).
Second difference: the critical hit requires a specific result on an attack roll (natural 20, 19, 18 or 17) and then a second confirmation roll. Therefore a critical hit is an essentially random occurrence. The attacker lucks out twice: by finding his weapon's sweet spot and by hitting the target's weak spot. I would say it doesn't require any specific knowledge of the target's weak spots.
A sneak attack is not a random occurrence. If the conditions (flanking, etc) are right and if the attack hits (no natural roll condition), the damage is applied.
In summary:
A sneak attack requires:
1. a class-based knowledge of the target's weak points (rogue's first-level training) for living creatures with discernible anatomies) (3.5)
2. a skill-based knowledge of the target's weak points for other creatures (my proposal)A critical hit is a luck-based (not a skill-based) effect.
Sure, you are right mechanically. Criticals is about luck and sneak is about knowledge.
I was explained in another thread that, for now, critical hits are not a problem and I was wrong mixing both them. It was because the designers had changed the way that sneak works, but they hadn't changed the way that the monster quality of immunity to criticals were working. Sneak attack is changed, but critical hit is not.
Even though I understand the mechanism that dismiss one thing to the other, I don't undestand how any creature could be sneaked (defined as a hit in a weak spot) but not could be affected by a critical hit. Is a thing that excels my undestanding.
Said that, whatever the solution may be, I'll be with it.
Cheers!
|
|
Sure, you are right mechanically. Criticals is about luck and sneak is about knowledge.
I was explained in another thread that, for now, critical hits are not a problem and I was wrong mixing both them. It was because the designers had changed the way that sneak works, but they hadn't changed the way that the monster quality of immunity to criticals were working. Sneak attack is changed, but critical hit is not.
Would you have the link to that thread?
Even though I understand the mechanism that dismiss one thing to the other, I don't undestand how any creature could be sneaked (defined as a hit in a weak spot) but not could be affected by a critical hit. Is a thing that excels my undestanding.
I'd love to find out the current basis for the immunity against criticals.
|
|
Would you have the link to that thread?Sure, you are right mechanically. Criticals is about luck and sneak is about knowledge.
I was explained in another thread that, for now, critical hits are not a problem and I was wrong mixing both them. It was because the designers had changed the way that sneak works, but they hadn't changed the way that the monster quality of immunity to criticals were working. Sneak attack is changed, but critical hit is not.
Sure, there is. Second and third post.
Even though I understand the mechanism that dismiss one thing to the other, I don't undestand how any creature could be sneaked (defined as a hit in a weak spot) but not could be affected by a critical hit. Is a thing that excels my undestanding.I'd love to find out the current basis for the immunity against criticals.
May be in Alpha 3....