"Only creatures that do not have a weak spot at all, either due to homogenous nature, or near indestructable build, are immune to sneak attack. Examples might include air, earth, fire, and water elementals, most oozes, and some undead".
Sadly, that's all the information we have to go on.
I was hoping the P-Beta would go a tiny bit into monsters (like the original DM's guides did, that were released prior to the MM's) to give us some specific examples, but sadly we don't have that.
It clearly expands Sneak Attack but leaves each individual DM to interpret just what exactly "some undead" means.
Does it mean skeletons and zombies aren't immune anymore? Ghouls? Ghasts? Morghs?(err sp?) Bodak?
Nearly any undead could potentially have some weak spot to exploit (I sever the spine from teh hips! -zombie flops over-).
But aTM, we have no more information than "some undead" unless I missed an official post explaining it.
-S
Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to define "some undead" as incorporeal undead.
Makes sense to me. Solid undead have weak spots. Incorporeal undead don't.
|
The sidebar states that it works on more creatures... but it doesn't explain how it works on more creatures. When sticking with backward compatibility, it makes the power exactly the same as it was, at least when reading the monster books. I'm not sure why it's there, or what exactly it's referring to.
There will be a Monster book after the final RPG is released. Until then, or until more information comes our way (in the forthcoming DM tools, I'd wager), I would advise you to use your common sense (a DM quality that has been underplayed by Wizards for some time...). Plus, at this point, it gives you in effect the choice, as DM, to keep Sneak Attack's effectiveness as it was or to increase it as you will, using your logic and own balance consideration as specific criteria. This is good.
Now, that said, this is the Ability Scores and Races forum. The Beta playtest will concentrate on one area of the rules after the other. So this thread isn't appropriate here (maybe in General if you absolutely want to talk about right now, now. But the time will come to talk about it. Patience!).
Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to define "some undead" as incorporeal undead.
Makes sense to me. Solid undead have weak spots. Incorporeal undead don't.
This is what my group is doing, too. Incorporeal undead, or things that are basically just a big lump (oozelike undead, if you will).
I strongly agree that we need something hard to tell us what is and is not subject to sneak attack. I could even see zombies as going either way; you can decapitated them, does that one weakness count as enough?
This is what my group is doing, too. Incorporeal undead, or things that are basically just a big lump (oozelike undead, if you will).Until I hear otherwise, I'm going to define "some undead" as incorporeal undead.
Makes sense to me. Solid undead have weak spots. Incorporeal undead don't.
Same here. Their possibly humanoid shape is just a figment of their living selves.
But what do we do with golems and similar constructs? Do they have "loose gears" or "main seams" which sneak attack can hurt?
Same here. Their possibly humanoid shape is just a figment of their living selves.
But what do we do with golems and similar constructs? Do they have "loose gears" or "main seams" which sneak attack can hurt?
I would say so, yes. In fact, constructs aren't listed at all as an exception. I'd say a sneak attack against a golem is striking at joints, where it has to be flexible (and thus less armored), or other structural weak points where the force of a blow would have the most impact.
Same for zombies - they can be decapitated, as BlaineTog said, but they can also have tendons cut, joints smashed, etc., all of which would do more damage to the zombie's "structural integrity" than just stabbing it in the chest or whatnot.
|
|
By "some undead" being immune, I am positing that it means undead with some semblance of living anatomy or feeding capability are subject to sneak attack.
Examples of undead that ARE vulnerable due to anatomy (namely, they require a food source and/or maintain similarity to their living self):
-ghouls
-vampires
-wights
-devourer
Examples of undead that are NOT vulnerable due to lack of anatomy or no reliance on anatomy (in regards to feeding or no reliance on living self in any sense of relative use):
-skeletons
-ghosts
-zombies
-bodak
-mohrg
-any incorporeal regardless of feeding
Liches are a weird example of something falling in between - the do not rely on their living form but often resemble it. As they have no feeding pattern, I am inclined to put them into the IMMUNE group. Bodaks being PURE undead, I am also inclined to think they have no discernable anatomy aside from appearing humanoid - they are perfect constructs of negative energy.
Agreed, its extremely confusing and needs further clarification.
As a huge fan of rogue class this change is very welcome to me that rogue can now sneak attack more wide variety of creatures.
However it would be more simplistic to just list types of creatures that sneak attack wont work (for example: all elemental´s, incorporeal undead´s, constructs (not including creature like constructs such as golem´s), oozes and also swarms are not subject to sneak attack).
The constructs are the hardest part to explain i think, but when you think the "weak spots" first i come to conclusion that animated objects such as frying pan or longsword cannot be sneak attacked but creature like constructs such as golem or animated creature like statue can be because if you cut its leg off it seriously hampers its functionality.
Of course i possibly cant know what creatures Paizo wants rogue to be able to sneak attack, but as i understood it, they want that all creatures that have any kind of "weak spot" that can be exploited is also vulnerable to sneak attack.
The only thing we exclude now are anything incorporeal, elementals, and oozes. Everything else is open to sneak attacks and critical hits.
My group has debated simplifying this, and as someone who has little enough time to set up with all my other hobbies and work and whatnot. This is probably what I'll end up doing with a House rule.
If they're immune to crit (based on current 3.5 rules) then Sneak attack damage will do 1/2 added damage. Much like the reasoning of damaging the structure, or whatnot... Just one less thing to adjudicate/plan for on all my conversions. Of course, the option will still be there for the 'oddity' that isn't affected at all.. DM perogative and all..... Though I'm still trying to figure exactly how to work Armor Fortification into this mindset, ehh, it'll come to me.
By "some undead" being immune, I am positing that it means undead with some semblance of living anatomy or feeding capability are subject to sneak attack.
Examples of undead that ARE vulnerable due to anatomy (namely, they require a food source and/or maintain similarity to their living self):
-ghouls
-vampires
-wights
-devourerExamples of undead that are NOT vulnerable due to lack of anatomy or no reliance on anatomy (in regards to feeding or no reliance on living self in any sense of relative use):
-skeletons
-ghosts
-zombies
-bodak
-mohrg
-any incorporeal regardless of feedingLiches are a weird example of something falling in between - the do not rely on their living form but often resemble it. As they have no feeding pattern, I am inclined to put them into the IMMUNE group.
Bodaks being PURE undead, I am also inclined to think they have no discernable anatomy aside from appearing humanoid - they are perfect constructs of negative energy.
we went a diff way all undead that have bodys can have a weak spot. Skeletons have joints and a spine and such so pretty much I see only undead that have no bodys as being immune
Creative Director
|
The only thing we exclude now are anything incorporeal, elementals, and oozes. Everything else is open to sneak attacks and critical hits.
That's pretty much right.
Sneak attack in the PF RPG isn't about hitting a specific functioning organ like a heart or brain as much as it is being able to strike a solid, devastating blow against a target. Anatomy plays a role in sneak attacks against living foes, but not so much against undead or construct foes.
Against living creatures, this manifests as arrows to the eye, axes to the neck, clubs to the head, and other massive internal trauma.
Against the undead, a sneak attack represents something like lopping off part of an arm, staving in a head, shattering a ribcage, and the like. The headshots that kill movie zombies are a good example of a critical hit on an undead creature, as is a well-placed wooden or silver stake to a vampire's heart in the Blade movies.
Against constructs, a sneak attack is all about striking at magical nexus points and other power centers; points where the animating force are concentrated. Jason hacking at the plug on Talos's heel in the movie "Jason and the Argonauts" is a good example of this.
|
The only thing we exclude now are anything incorporeal, elementals, and oozes. Everything else is open to sneak attacks and critical hits.That's pretty much right.
Good, that's how I've been ruling.
Jason hacking at the plug on Talos's heel in the movie "Jason and the Argonauts" is a good example of this.
Holy crap, a 'Jason and the Argonauts' reference! There's something you don't see everyday (or maybe you do in the Paizo offices). Thanks for making my day, James!
Can we get clarification if the new Pathfinder sneak attack rules also apply to critical hits? The sidebar doesn't mention them, but common sense suggests that if you can sneak attack something, you can crit it also.
Me and a player were talking of this. I can see his point however I can see where it would not affect crits as sneak attack is you trying to find and hit that weak point and crits is more a solid hit. But useing the crit deck it could be called a lucky hit so yeah we need this cleared up
The only thing we exclude now are anything incorporeal, elementals, and oozes. Everything else is open to sneak attacks and critical hits.That's pretty much right.
Sneak attack in the PF RPG isn't about hitting a specific functioning organ like a heart or brain as much as it is being able to strike a solid, devastating blow against a target.
That's pretty much the way our group had interpreted it. Let me know if we are also right in assuming that it applies to critical hits as well. We have been playing like this since June and it is working out fine.
|
|
The only thing we exclude now are anything incorporeal, elementals, and oozes. Everything else is open to sneak attacks and critical hits.That's pretty much right.
Sneak attack in the PF RPG isn't about hitting a specific functioning organ like a heart or brain as much as it is being able to strike a solid, devastating blow against a target. Anatomy plays a role in sneak attacks against living foes, but not so much against undead or construct foes.
Against living creatures, this manifests as arrows to the eye, axes to the neck, clubs to the head, and other massive internal trauma.
Against the undead, a sneak attack represents something like lopping off part of an arm, staving in a head, shattering a ribcage, and the like. The headshots that kill movie zombies are a good example of a critical hit on an undead creature, as is a well-placed wooden or silver stake to a vampire's heart in the Blade movies.
Against constructs, a sneak attack is all about striking at magical nexus points and other power centers; points where the animating force are concentrated. Jason hacking at the plug on Talos's heel in the movie "Jason and the Argonauts" is a good example of this.
So why not expand this to critical hits as well then? Certainly chopping off a zombie's head is a crit.