|
A big thanks to the brilliant remarks from the posters in the many SA threads, including:
Sneak attack - weak spot - immunities - p. 23 and 26
Sneak Attack & Monsters
Sneak Attack as a Standard Action
Previous version of the tweak:
here
Notes
Under 3.5, rogues could deal sneak attack damage to living creatures with discernible anatomies. Other creatures, such as undead, plants or constructs were immune to that ability. In order to expand the rogue's utility in adventures featuring these creatures, Alpha 3 increased the number of creatures that could be sneak attacked by introducing the wider concept of weak point to replace the concept of vital point.
As much as I agree with the objective of the change, I had a problem with rogues acquiring "overnight" the ability to identify the new target's weak points. To address that, I came up with a system which allows the rogue to deal sneak attack damage against a specific foe, provided that he has studied that foe by spending skill points/ranks.
The system encourages cooperation between party members through the special Aid another check.
If you are interested in giving a watered-down version of the sneak attack ability to other classes, you may like the feat suggestion based on the Knowledge skill and progressing with BAB in this thread:
[Feat] Sneak Attack (reloaded)
If you are interested in reducing the possible abuse of the SA damage by a rogue performing multiple attacks against a single target, you may like the tweak suggested by YULDM and discussed in this thread:
SNEAK ATTACK minor tweak proposition
Tweak
Class ability: Sneak Attack: [..]
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 studied them and their weak points and have the specified number of ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill. The +3 bonus for class skill counts as 3 ranks for the purpose of this rule.
The rogue's Knowledge check is always assumed to be 10 + ranks. 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 ranks in the relevant Knowledge skill may use the a special Aid Another check 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 1st level cleric with 1 rank in Knowledge (religion) engaged in the same encounter may allow the rogue to sneak attack CR 4 undead on a successful Knowledge (religion) check against a DC 14.
Note
(a) The lower DC reflects the targeted nature of the Knowledge check.
|
|
Reposted from Rogue Suggestion (sneak attack talents)
You should edit your propossition to add the "take 10" variant that you explain us previously to reduce the time in play.
Thanks for the feedback. I think it works more like the minimal ranks for Performance checks or like the skill prerequisite for a feat, rather than Take 10.
The aid another option should work only if the helper continue investing his turn (standard action) to direct the attacks of the rogue, not only once for all the combat, I think.
I'm seeing this more as a free action. On a successful Knowledge check, the cleric shouts "Avoid the ribcage and go for its joints" which the rogue uses to determine the most accessible weak points of the shambling mockery of life. :-)
Once the check is successful, the rogue should be fine for the rest of the combat against this enemy.
|
Great idea. I love the way it makes Knowledge useful.
My only hesitation is the part about the +3 class-skill bonus counting as 3 ranks for this purpose. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other case where this is true. I'm a little leery of anything that blurs the line between real ranks and the class-skill bonus, #1 because some people with a 3.5 mindset still think of the +3 as +3 ranks, not a bonus, and #2 because I'm not a big fan of special, unique formulas - I like when as many systems as possible use the same formula to make remembering them easier.
Can you explain why you want it that way? Is it to give the rogues that 15% boost?
Again, great idea overall.
|
|
Great idea. I love the way it makes Knowledge useful.
Cheers. The skill needs all the love it can get. :-)
My only hesitation is the part about the +3 class-skill bonus counting as 3 ranks for this purpose. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other case where this is true.
An Int 10 cleric with 1 rank in Knowledge (religion) knows much more about undead and deities than an Int 10 rogue with 1 rank in Knowledge (religion). The +3 bonus functions like 3 additional ranks.
I'm a little leery of anything that blurs the line between real ranks and the class-skill bonus, #1 because some people with a 3.5 mindset still think of the +3 as +3 ranks, not a bonus, and #2 because I'm not a big fan of special, unique formulas - I like when as many systems as possible use the same formula to make remembering them easier.
As much as I like the new skill system, buying ranks with ranks and the unnamed class skill bonus are ...<censored>. Full rant here.
Can you explain why you want it that way? Is it to give the rogues that 15% boost?
No boost, as the rogue doesn't have the main monster ID systems Knowledge (arcana, religion) as class skills.
But it allows cool <foe> hunter concepts (cleric/rogue or (wizard/rogue).
Wow... It really looks like we are going somewhere with all this!
I like very much this use of knowledge skill, but I am not sure about having to make skill check (take 10 is fine)
.
This is a simplified proposition:
.
A rogue can sneak a creature if his knowledge of this creature (skill mod) is at least equal to creature's HD.
A 4th-level Rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge(religion), with an 14INT (+2) would be able to sneak a 6HD Undead.
A Rogue 3/ Cleric 1 (4 ranks in Religion and 14int), would have knowledge(religion) as a class skill (+3 bonus)... ability to sneak 9HD Undead
This system allows for caracter customization and specialization. If knowledge skills can also be used untrained (no ranks), rogues would have basic sneaking knowledge for lesser creatures.
A Rogue with skill focus feats, or multiclassing with Bard, would be able to sneak creature with very high HD (which is already possible with actual PFRPG rule).
|
|
I wonder if there's a reason you're excluding the full skill modifier from your formula.
Indeed. A smart rogue and a stupid rogue have the same chance to sneak attack living creatures with a discernible anatomy. (LCDA)
If we want to be consistent for other targets, only training i.e. ranks should count.I understand and support the reasoning behind limiting SA like this, but I think you're limiting it a bit much...
SA against LCDA is not limited.
As to the other monster types, I would argue that the system gives a lot of flexibility thanks to the:- special aid another action
- possibility to adapt the skill selection to the monsters appearing in the campaign. Of course, the system assumes that the monster types thrown at the characters follow a pattern and/or that the campaign follows a theme i.e the party goes against a consistent series of threats. In Age of Worms, that would mean that Knowledge (nature and undead) would be the skills to invest in to deal with vermin and undead or vermin-powered undead.
If the adventure is of the monster-of-the-week variety or a huge trek with most encounters generated with rolls on the Wandering Monsters table, the system breaks down unless the rogue invests in every Knowledge skill there is.
There is no rule which would satisfy paranoid or abuses players or protect against unfair GMs. I work with my players on skill and class ability choices and my tweaks assume that other GMs do that as well.
It's also ridiculously easy to minimize, and makes certain options very appealing to save ranks. Grab a level in bard and train some knowledge skills, and you save 3 ranks from each skill because of the +3 bonus.
That's fine. If multiclassing is free at your table, there is nothing in the rules that will prevent players from dipping into classes to gain benefits. A level in fighter gives all martial weapons and all armor types. Cheese can only be stopped by the referee. :-)
Or take that splat feat (Educated) that lets you treat knowledge skills as class; it wasn't particularly helpful before but it's looking nice now. There's even a feat in Races of Destiny to allow humans to treat EVERY skill as a class skill (it's level 1 only, but that's not really an issue).
My limitations are the same as PF. If it's not OGL, it cannot be tweaked, even if it is overpowered or underpowered or breaks completely the balance established in the core rules.
So if these feats or level swaps can save a rogue 9 ranks in knowledge skills, why not let skill focus (know.something) do the same thing?
Superb suggestion. Consider this added to the rule.
Why not make this a bit less painful, and apply all skill modifiers except the Int mod bonus?
See above.
Or, as an alternate, let your ranks (maybe + trained bonus, not sure it's as important here) be the maximum number of SA dice you can apply against any target...
No, as this would introduce of stronger and weaker weak points, which additionally depend on the attacker's skill and not on the creature's make up. In the system, a hit area is weak or it is not.
Anyway, thank you for your insightful comments and the Skill Focus suggestion.
|
|
Wow... It really looks like we are going somewhere with all this!
I like very much this use of knowledge skill, but I am not sure about having to make skill check (take 10 is fine)
Cheers. The rogue doesn't make any checks. :-) The result is always 10 + ranks. Also, no Take 10 allowed in combat.
A rogue can sneak a creature if his knowledge of this creature (skill mod) is at least equal to creature's HD.
See my answer to TarkisFlux regarding the non applicability of the Int modifier. The Knowledge system has switched to CR instead of HD in Alpha 3.
If knowledge skills can also be used untrained (no ranks), rogues would have basic sneaking knowledge for lesser creatures.
They can be used untrained for DC 10 and below. The DC for SA is 10 + 1/2 CR. Even if the system wouldn't require ranks, the rogue could SA a CR 0 creature.
Thanks for highlighting that. I'll add the precision for fractional CRs to the rule.|
|
Please note that the rule is essentially a believability fix. It aims to give a justification and a removable limitation to the ability to identify and exploit the weak points of hundreds of creatures, from the most common animal to the most bizarre and exotic thing that generations of game designers may have made up.
If you don't see an issue with a first level rogue learning to identify any weak point on any creature in your campaign setting, the rule is completely unnecessary and a waste of good pixels. :-)
I wonder if there's a reason you're excluding the full skill modifier from your formula.Indeed. A smart rogue and a stupid rogue have the same chance to sneak attack living creatures with a discernible anatomy. (LCDA)
If we want to be consistent for other targets, only training i.e. ranks should count.
I understand your point. And it applies very well to LCDA.
I have some issue I would like to adress:
RANKS vs SKILL MOD
I would have thought that other type of creature (undead, construct,...) are more "complicated" to understand and find weak spot. This is why I would have include INT mod.
Two rogues (4 ranks in Know.Religion) attack undead. They can both sneak attack CR8. But if one is dumb (int mod-4) and one is smart (int mod+4), shouldn't this account or something?
And does the skill focus bonus also count as rank? (like class skill bonus)
CHECK IS FIXED NUMBER
To simpify your method, since no dice are rolled, maybe this is not a skill check against a DC? Maybe the 10+ part of your formula can be remove and just compare ranks to 1/2CR?
1/2CR
Why using half CR? Ranks and CR basically scale at the same rate. If using 1/2CR was only to allow the Rogue to SA target with higher CR than his level, I would prefer adding a fixed number. This would scale more proportionnaly
METAGAMING
"Oh man! I can't sneak attack this creature! Its CR must be higher than x! Everybody run!"
...or...
"Hey! I only have 1rank in Knowledge x, and I can sneak this creature anyway! Don't use up spell slots for these guys..."
|
|
RANKS vs SKILL MOD
I would have thought that other type of creature (undead, construct,...) are more "complicated" to understand and find weak spot. This is why I would have include INT mod.
Two rogues (4 ranks in Know.Religion) attack undead. They can both sneak attack CR8. But if one is dumb (int mod-4) and one is smart (int mod+4), shouldn't this account or something?
I wouldn't think so. The weak spot info is a very limited knowledge check. There is no actual roll, just the prerequisite number of ranks. Creatures' complexity or non-complexity is reflected in their CR and in the fact that they are covered by non-class skill for the rogue.
INT plays no role in SAs against LCDAs. I'm not sure why it should play a role for other critters.And does the skill focus bonus also count as rank? (like class skill bonus)
It does now (as per TarkisFlux's suggestion above)
CHECK IS FIXED NUMBER
To simpify your method, since no dice are rolled, maybe this is not a skill check against a DC? Maybe the 10+ part of your formula can be remove and just compare ranks to 1/2CR?
I'd rather not move away from the skill check with a base DC construction. It's a familiar one. Also, without the skill check concept, the Aid another action becomes even more special.
1/2CR
Why using half CR? Ranks and CR basically scale at the same rate. If using 1/2CR was only to allow the Rogue to SA target with higher CR than his level, I would prefer adding a fixed number. This would scale more proportionnaly
The weak spot info is a very specific knowledge check and the DC should be lower. Using 10 + CR, limits the valid targets significantly.
In the 10 + 1/2 CR system, a level 10 rogue with Knowledge (religion) maxed out can sneak attack CR 20 targets. In a normal adventure, he wouldn't go against creatures with CR > his level +4. So, 7 ranks spent over 10 levels or 5 ranks and his cleric or wizard pals' help, he can keep up and sneak attack CR 14 creatures. In essence, the more ranks you spend, the wider the CR ranges you can affect.
In the 10 + CR system, a level 10 rogue with Knowledge (religion) maxed out can sneak attack CR 10 targets. Not a very exciting return for a steady investment.
METAGAMING
"Oh man! I can't sneak attack this creature! Its CR must be higher than x! Everybody run!"[...]
Unavoidable, really. :-)
I understand your system, which is why I suggested an 'alternate' as opposed to a 'clariication'. I don't think your system is bad, but I do think your 'on' or 'off' system leads to some interesting scenarios that could be avoided. Skeletons, for example, change CR as they change size. Under your proposal, a rogue could lose SA against them just because they grew in size, even though there is no change in the underlying creature. The same is true of Death Knights; drop the template on a creature with a higher base CR and you may have made a creature that your rogue can't SA anymore. That may be acceptable from a balance standpoint, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
Hum... that's a good point. Like an undead taking level in a class. Same undead, higher CR... Same anatomy, no more sneakable... hum...
Could a knowledge of weak spots in special creature only requires a flat number of ranks in specific knowledge skill?
5 ranks on knowledge religion to sneak attack undead
5 in dungeoneering to sneak attack ooze (or whatever!)
5 in nature for plants
5 in arcana for constructs
....
and maybe different skill ranks for different subtype?
You invest skill points as you like, and once you know... you know!
|
|
This applies to the feat options as well. I totally agree that cheese can only be stopped by the ref, but that's no reason not to expect allowed abuses and plan for them where you can.
I know what you mean. Plugging those holes in the rules rather than relying on the GM to argue with the players if they come up with cheesy dips (pun intended) in another class is always preferable and should be done as much as possible within the core rules. The thing is that splat books create unpluggable holes.
Also my system is a "believability" fix. If the rogue dips in one level of bard for the Knowledge boost without any intention to do bardy things, believability and consistent character concepts (as I understand it) have gone out the through the window ages ago. :-)If this is so, what about mods from other skill increasing feats. I get why you want to remove the int bonus/penalty, but why exclude everything else? Why make a special case of skill focus and class skill bonuses?
What other feats grant a permanent and unconditional bonus to the skill check?
Skeletons, for example, change CR as they change size. Under your proposal, a rogue could lose SA against them just because they grew in size, even though there is no change in the underlying creature. The same is true of Death Knights; drop the template on a creature with a higher base CR and you may have made a creature that your rogue can't SA anymore. That may be acceptable from a balance standpoint, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
The APL system recommends that the party shouldn't really tackle anything at CR>APL+3.
A level 4 rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA undead of up to CR 8. By the APL+3 rule, the fight with a CR 7 undead is Epic. In a Challenging fight, he will encounter a CR 5 undead which he can SA with 3 ranks (or 1 rank and the cleric's involvement).For an APL 1 party, a CR 1 creature becoming a CR 2 can still be the target of a SA.
A CR 1 creature becoming a CR 3 creature can still be the target of a SA with cleric's or wizard's help, but the CR change makes it an APL+2 encounter for an APL 1 party which should be the exception and suitably harder.
Theoretically, I don't see the rogue losing the SA against creatures and not coming up against an exceptional or even inappropriate challenge at the same time.
Of course, if he stops investing in ranks, i.e. if he stops studying the foe, he will eventually not be able to SA larger and stronger members of the species/monster type. These creatures are only "larger" versions of the base creature only from a metagaming point of view (HD advancement, template). In game, they are distinct creatures with more strengths and harder-to-exploit weaknesses than their smaller partners in crime.
|
|
Hum... that's a good point. Like an undead taking level in a class. Same undead, higher CR... Same anatomy, no more sneakable... hum...See above for the APL system.
Could a knowledge of weak spots in special creature only requires a flat number of ranks in specific knowledge skill?
That's another way fix the believability of the expanded SA ability. The thing is that in Alpha 3, rogues can SA all monster types from level 1. Requiring 5 ranks takes away the ability and gives it back at level 5 (or 2 if you use the +3 class bonus as ranks). I'd rather have a scaling system which rewards gradual investment.
Loads of undead in the campaign? Let's train. No more undead? Let's focus on aberrations or vermin or whatever.|
|
You don't feel that it's an improvement, and that's fine, but you should understand that your system requires rogues who want to SA enemies around their CR to place ranks in those skills for the rest of their careers. If they don't, they lose the ability to SA creature types that they could before, and that looks like an issue to me.
A level 10 rogue with:
- max. ranks in a non-class skill.
- 7 ranks in a class skill
- 7 ranks in a non-class skilland Skill Focus
- 5 ranks in a class skill and reliable wizard or cleric pal
is good to go for up to CR 20 critters.
The APL system recommends that the party shouldn't really tackle anything at CR>APL+3.
A level 4 rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA undead of up to CR 8. By the APL+3 rule, the fight with a CR 7 undead is Epic. In a Challenging fight, he will encounter a CR 5 undead which he can SA with 3 ranks (or 1 rank and the cleric's involvement).
Sorry, but I have to show this again.
A 10th-level Rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA Undead of up to CR8 (APL-2). The same Undead with 2 class levels (CR10, APL+0) becomes unsneakable without any change in its anatomy.
Maybe your system should not take in account any class levels or templates that are not changing the anatomy? But that will be more complex...
|
|
Sorry, but I have to show this again.
A 10th-level Rogue with 4 ranks in Knowledge (religion) can SA Undead of up to CR8 (APL-2). The same Undead with 2 class levels (CR10, APL+0) becomes unsneakable without any change in its anatomy.
Maybe your system should not take in account any class levels or templates that are not changing the anatomy? But that will be more complex...
Good remark. SAs are not about anatomy and vital areas any more. They are about weak points. Advanced or augmented creatures have more HD, better BAB and AC, more spellcasting powers, etc. and are generally physically tougher. I hope it's not too much of a stretch to assume that their weak points are harder to spot and identify.
The rogue in your example is also not too keen on hunting undead, if I may say so. :-)
(Meta-note: It's very gratifying to have such attentive critics.)
(Meta-note: It's very gratifying to have such attentive critics.)
Should be like this in EVERY threads! hehe!