In my experience DMing two campaigns, allowing Rogues to sneak attack pretty much any type of creature has gone too far. It is true, that the wide variety of enemies that Rogues could not sneak attack before the change was not good for Rogue gameplay, but the converse of having them able to use full sneak attack on anything is just as bad and makes them too good at fighting in all situations, especially when coupled with the other changes to the Rogue, such as the large number of talents that Rogues now get. It also makes what should be an ability making Rogues deadly against specific opponents used all the time, which makes Rogues very effective, but decreases the variety in gameplay. All character classes do not have to be equally powerful in all situations - this is a cooperative game - let's have different classes shine in different situations.
I am not advocating a return to 3.5E, where many creatures would be completely immune to Rogue sneak attack. Rather, I would like to see the effectiveness of sneak attack reduced against the creatures that were formerly immune to it (those that are still immune to it should, of course, retain their immunity). There are several possibilities I want to suggest as how this could be accomplished and I would be fine with any of them:
1) Use lower damage dice: Against the formerly immune creatures, sneak attack damage dice are reduced from d6 to d4 or even lower.
2) Roll fewer damage dice: Against the formerly immune creatures, sneak attack rolls less damage dice. This could be done in two ways:
2) A) A fractional sneak attack progression (say 1/2 normal rogue sneak attack progression, thus 5d6 at level 19)
2) B) Rogue levels would be treated as X levels lower (say 5 levels lower) when attacking the formerly immune creatures.
3) Damage done to formerly immune creatures would be multiplied by a fraction. For example, sneak attack could do half-damage against the formerly immune creatures.
4) A) The sneak attack dice could do fixed damage to formerly immune creatures (e.g. 2 hit points per d6)
4) B) Tere could be a cap on each die (e.g. the same number of sneak attack dice are rolled, but any roll higher than for example 2 is treated as 2 [or perhaps rerolled, but I prefer the former])
5) A fixed amount of hit points could be subtracted from the damage done by sneak attack (though it could not, of course, be reduced below zero) to formerly immune creatures. This would, in effect, give the formerly immune creatures damage reduction against sneak attack damage.
6) Formerly immune creatures could gain a new way to avoid or mitigate the damage. For example, they could be allowed a saving throw for half damage (or to avoid it altogether). I would lean towards a Fortitude saving throw, but of course, many of those creatures don't have a Constitution score, so maybe the Reflex saving throw would be better.
7) Extra conditions could be imposed on the rogue trying to sneak attack formerly immune creatures. For example, instead of simply flanking, he could be required to use a standard action to make a single sneak attack against the formerly immune creatures to indicate their lower vulnerability and the associated greater difficulty in finding weak spots.
I really think the universality of Sneak Attack does need to be scaled back somewhat. If you agree with this sentiment, do you like any of the solutions I offer above and if so which one? Alternatively, feel free to post your own idea on how to scale back the universality of Sneak Attack.
I also want to present a more radical approach, but because it is so radical, I did not want to include it in the introductory post.
Sneak Attack could be changed to cause 1 point of Constitution damage per damage die in place of the normal hit point damage. Creatures that don't have a Constitution score would thus be naturally immune to Sneak Attack.
New talents could then be introduced:
Hamstring Attack:
This talent enables the Rogue to switch Constitution damage caused by his Sneak Attack ability to Strength damage.
Numbing Attack:
This talent enables the Rogue to switch Constitution damage caused by his Sneak Attack ability to Dexterity damage.
Of course, taking these talents would enable the Rogue to bypass the immunity of creatures with no Constitution score to his Sneak Attack. They would probably be better off as advanced talents and might or might not have pre-requisites.
This change would, of course, make Sneak Attack even more deadly than it currently is against creatures that it would be able to affect, since Constitution damage is very potent. As such, Sneak Attack should probably be made usable only once per round or even as a single standard action if these changes are implemented (and arguably even if they are not implemented, but that is probably unnecessary). Alternatively or even additionally, creatures could get a Fortitude saving throw to avoid half of the ability damage.
|
I just wanted to say that, following a playtest session with a 13th level rogue, I agree that the Beta has made them too good in combat. (I started my own topic to that effect, in fact.)
If fixing sneak attack is the solution (or part of it), my preference would be for half the normal progression. Half damage requires sneak attack dice to be segregated, and d4s, especially in numbers, are difficult to roll well (and most people don't keep 10 of them on the table).
-- Jeff
Honestly, I was fine with a lot of things being immune to sneak attack. The rogue isn't supposed to be an especially great fighter anyway, and sneak attack never felt underpowered before either.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Actually in my group the improved Sneak Attack has worked out very well. It makes Rogues nasty, very nasty. You don't want one of those in your back, ever. However, with constitution rarely being "primary", they have only moderate HP, and thus usually go "splat" without too much trouble.
I am against the suggestion of changing sneak attack to ability damage. For one thing, this leads to strange effects (3d4 > 2d6 > 1d12), but also it forces the GM to recalculate hit points, attack boni and saves on the fly. Quite a hassle for players, but more so for the GM. I know there are other effects that do that, but I feel we really need not add to these a bread and butter ability.
|
|
sneak attack never felt underpowered before either.
It's not so much that sneak attack was underpowered, but rather that whole adventures could be (and were) built around mostly sneak attack-immune foes, and that really sucked for the rogue. For example, the Age of Worms adventure, "Spire of Long Shadows" (which we just completed in one of my games) was at least 85 percent stuff that the rogue couldn't do much against in combat.
-- Jeff
It's not so much that sneak attack was underpowered, but rather that whole adventures could be (and were) built around mostly sneak attack-immune foes, and that really sucked for the rogue. For example, the Age of Worms adventure, "Spire of Long Shadows" (which we just completed in one of my games) was at least 85 percent stuff that the rogue couldn't do much against in combat.
Frankly, tough. The bard and casters that stress enchantment are both shafted as well, and the Cleric and Paladin get much much better. If you theme an adventure, some classes will necessarily become better and others will necessarily become worse. You could try to compensate by giving the rogue some really nasty traps to disable, some tightropes to walk, or what have you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Frankly, tough. The bard and casters that stress enchantment are both shafted as well, and the Cleric and Paladin get much much better. If you theme an adventure, some classes will necessarily become better and others will necessarily become worse. You could try to compensate by giving the rogue some really nasty traps to disable, some tightropes to walk, or what have you.
As a rogue player in my group commented in that adventure "Well, i might as well not show up, then you'd at least save the money to buff and potentially resurrect me". Noone likes sitting around the table for ~12 hours being dead weight.
I think any player should have a shot at an adventure. Sure, undead-heavy adventures may not be the brightest way to shine for a rogue - but degrading rogues to stand on the sidelines entirely is not a wise choice. I think keeping sneak attack as it currently stands is a good way to ensure Rogues always have something to contribute.
As a rogue player in my group commented in that adventure "Well, i might as well not show up, then you'd at least save the money to buff and potentially resurrect me". Noone likes sitting around the table for ~12 hours being dead weight.
I think any player should have a shot at an adventure. Sure, undead-heavy adventures may not be the brightest way to shine for a rogue - but degrading rogues to stand on the sidelines entirely is not a wise choice. I think keeping sneak attack as it currently stands is a good way to ensure Rogues always have something to contribute.
Once again, an Enchanter would say the same thing (an enchantment-heavy Sorcerer would say it even harder). The Bard is also doing worse. In a highly social campaign, the Barbarian might complain as well.
Also, what I was getting at earlier is that combat isn't the only arena in the game in which a character can shine.
What it comes down to is that if this is a problem, it's a problem [u]with the adventure[/u]. By stressing one thing, you necessarily remove stress from other things. Since the classes all excel at different things, they will (ideally) all shine at different times. If your adventure makes one character class shine less sometimes, it should make them shine somewhere else.
Currently playing a rogue, and also have a player exited to play one in an upcoming campaign I'm running. I have to say I like this version.
Most importantly, it's practical. You can strike a skeleton in the neck and sever it's head, break a zombie's knee, and jam your adamantine dagger into a key gear in the Iron Golem.
Everything has weakspots and that's what I see sneak attack as. Getting the drop on the target, lining up your attack and hitting where it hurts, or at least, where it disables the most.
|
My vote goes to:
- halve Sneak damage against creatures immune to Criticals/Precise damage (Undead, Plants, Constructs, Elementals)Regards,
Ruemere
In my home game, we made a house rule that allowed people to sneak attack and cause criticals against critters if they had weapons that overcame their DR. It worked nicely but still left a number of critters immune to the effect (No DR then this mechanic doesn't work).
However, once pathfinder came out we just converted to that. Lost the extra crits (they dind't roll out too many times anyway) but gained many more sneak attacks.
Our group would like to see the Pathfinder version stay as is. Gives the rogue lots more love and versatility in combat.
However, for those who don't like it, you could try the house rule above and see how that pans out for you.
Cheers
Well, my group always had one rogue in the party, and his role was to disarm traps. The guy with the short straw had to play the rogue. Sure, there were moments when he really shined, especially in maze-type heavily trapped dungeons or on the streets of a big city. Pathfinder's changes to sneak attack changed that. Does it seem over-powered allowing sneak attacks on more critters? Well, the lightly armored rogue must first flank his opponent or catch them flat-footed. Then get close enough to make the attack. Poor little fellas usually get slapped for that. My monsters really hate rogues and un-fair fighters. So they kind of watch for them. I like what Pathfinder has done. It has brought the rascally rogue into play. That is my experience.
In your game, if the rogues are doing as well as fighters in combat, something else seems out of balance. I suggest playing monsters smarter and making it hard to flank them. That may do the trick.
I don't want to go back to 3.5e either, but please note that a TWF fighter / rogue is now an awesome combatant if there's any opportunity to flank.
although lighter in ac (normally, but not necessarily) and hp than a standard fighter they still are more robust than a standard rogue
we haven't seem any monster write up yets - i wonder if the solution would be to make specific monsters (as opposed to entire groups) immune to crits / sneak attack to prevent sneak attack becoming a 'must have' ability.
(I haven't had much opportunity to playtest this with PF, but i did have a F4/R4/Shadowdancer in my 3,5e campaign who used to pincushion anything who allowed a full attack. the only thing that stopped her massacring entire encounters was the occasional crit / sneak attack immune enemy)
I think the sneak attack rules are good the way they are. They make sense (even a zombie has spots to hit that can make it collapse) and finally give the rogue something to work with when going through a Necromancer's or a Construct-crafter's dungeon. And it still doesn't work against everything. Creatures without any weak spots are still unaffected (oozes, elementals and even a few undead creatures) because after all these are usually just a single mass that is pretty much the same everywhere.
I really like the improvements to sneak attack, this combined with the better HP, elevates them to a stealthy melee striker as opposed to just being the trap monkey who is usefull against humanoids. I like them being on solid footing with the Ranger and Monk as non magic damage generators.
I like the d4 idea.
I'm currently using a DR system based on how many hit dice the target has.
I think it's important to use an existing mechanic rather than create any new ones.
|
|
I know this isn't popular, but we are play-testing with Sneak Attack only being effective on the first attack.
Another option I've been thinking about is letting the victim get a reflex save for half or something. If you try to stab me from behind I am going to wiggle like mad on subsequent thrusts - makes hitting something vital a bit tougher.
|
I think I like the half damage idea. One concern with full sneak attack damage against foes like undead and constructs is that those creatures do not gain bonus hit points from Constitution, which makes many of them have lower hp totals than other creatures of the same CR (the construct bonus can be pretty minor, in most cases). If that was changed (like giving undead bonus hp according to their Charisma and just increasing the construct bonus), then I could see allowing full sneak attack damage against them.
What about rolling sneak-attack damage as normal but only doing 1/2 sneak attack damage vs. certain creatures?
My vote goes to:
- halve Sneak damage against creatures immune to Criticals/Precise damage (Undead, Plants, Constructs, Elementals)Regards,
Ruemere
My same idea. Also, please clarify the type of creatures that are totally immune to Sneak Attack (especially Undead - I'm on the "Incorporeal Undead only" school, but not everybody is of the same opinion).
What about rolling sneak-attack damage as normal but only doing 1/2 sneak attack damage vs. certain creatures?
Yes, that would be option 3. It is what I have provisionally transitioned to in my games, after the uber-rogue against all opponents experience, but I have certainly not shut off the other options for my future games.
Here's my question: why does the rogue get to apply sneak attack damage against these guys... but they ignore critical hits? If hitting a zombie in the head is better than hitting it in the chest, then why can't a fighter do it with a longsword? I might plea backwards compatibility because of the can of worms this change opens up.
And no matter what, it needs to be unambiguous who is and who isn't vulnerable.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
What about rolling sneak-attack damage as normal but only doing 1/2 sneak attack damage vs. certain creatures?Yes, that would be option 3. It is what I have provisionally transitioned to in my games, after the uber-rogue against all opponents experience, but I have certainly not shut off the other options for my future games.
Half sneak attack damage vs. "immune to crits" is the rule I have used. Don't worry about halving the number of dice; just roll your sneak attack dice like normal and halve the resulting total.
The creatures that are totally immune to crits and sneak attacks would be any creature with the 'amorphous' trait, as I called it in my game. This includes any creature that has an essentially shapeless form, where every part of it is pretty much the same as every other, which includes elementals, oozes, swarms, and incorporeal creatures (undead or otherwise), plus a few oddballs, usually aberrations (e.g., gibbering mouther).
What about rolling sneak-attack damage as normal but only doing 1/2 sneak attack damage vs. certain creatures?Yes, that would be option 3. It is what I have provisionally transitioned to in my games, after the uber-rogue against all opponents experience, but I have certainly not shut off the other options for my future games.Don't worry about halving the number of dice; just roll your sneak attack dice like normal and halve the resulting total.
The creatures that are totally immune to crits and sneak attacks would be any creature with the 'amorphous' trait, as I called it in my game. This includes any creature that has an essentially shapeless form, where every part of it is pretty much the same as every other, which includes elementals, oozes, swarms, and incorporeal creatures (undead or otherwise), plus a few oddballs, usually aberrations (e.g., gibbering mouther).
Indeed - I do not halve the number of dice - I halve the sneak attack damage after the dice are rolled. This applies to creatures that were formerly immune, such as Undead, or Constructs, that do not have any real significant organs/internal anatomy, but still have overall structural weaknesses that can be targeted (e.g. smashing the knee of a skeleton).
You are also correct that amorphous creatures are immune entirely - that is the case both in my games and under current Pathfinder Beta rules.
Here's my question: why does the rogue get to apply sneak attack damage against these guys... but they ignore critical hits? If hitting a zombie in the head is better than hitting it in the chest, then why can't a fighter do it with a longsword? I might plea backwards compatibility because of the can of worms this change opens up.
You make a fair simulationist point. I suppose critical hits doing half extra damage (thus 1.5x overall normal damage for those that would normally do 2x damage) might be a feasible solution to that discrepancy.
And no matter what, it needs to be unambiguous who is and who isn't vulnerable.
That I completely agree with. It needs to be very clearly defined who is vulnerable, who is resistant and who is immune.
|
|
What about rolling sneak-attack damage as normal but only doing 1/2 sneak attack damage vs. certain creatures?Yes, that would be option 3. It is what I have provisionally transitioned to in my games, after the uber-rogue against all opponents experience, but I have certainly not shut off the other options for my future games.Half sneak attack damage vs. "immune to crits" is the rule I have used. Don't worry about halving the number of dice; just roll your sneak attack dice like normal and halve the resulting total.
The creatures that are totally immune to crits and sneak attacks would be any creature with the 'amorphous' trait, as I called it in my game. This includes any creature that has an essentially shapeless form, where every part of it is pretty much the same as every other, which includes elementals, oozes, swarms, and incorporeal creatures (undead or otherwise), plus a few oddballs, usually aberrations (e.g., gibbering mouther).
pretty much how I've been playing it.
Here's my question: why does the rogue get to apply sneak attack damage against these guys... but they ignore critical hits? If hitting a zombie in the head is better than hitting it in the chest, then why can't a fighter do it with a longsword? I might plea backwards compatibility because of the can of worms this change opens up.
You make a fair simulationist point. I suppose critical hits doing half extra damage (thus 1.5x overall normal damage for those that would normally do 2x damage) might be a feasible solution to that discrepancy.
And no matter what, it needs to be unambiguous who is and who isn't vulnerable.
That I completely agree with. It needs to be very clearly defined who is vulnerable, who is resistant and who is immune.
|
I have a level 12 rogue in a "playtest" game currently.
Now, he has a bunch of non-OGL 3.5 stuff, which is the reason for the quotes above.
Point Blank
Precise Shot
Crossbow Sniper
Rapid Reload
WF: Light Crossbow
Telling Blow.
Rapid Shot
with a +1 Keen Crossbow, he's hitting quite frequently, and with a 17-20 crit range and sneak attack applied on crits, he's doing LOTS of damage from 60' away, not to mention the over 100 hp, what with d8's, high con, and favored class Rogue.
I like him, but he does seem a little crazy powerful with all the splatbook resources.
with JUST PF stuff, he'd be closer, not getting crit=sneakattack, but HP and AC would remain the same.
long story short: he's much more powerful than a 3.5 Rogue, and a blast to play.
-t
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there all,
I think the issue of rogue sneak attack damage is one that needs to be handled from the monster side of things, instead of making blanket statements in the rogue write up. There are certainly some monsters that should be immune (oozes), while others should get some sort of reduction (some types of undead). The problem with the previous rules was that they gave blanket immunity to the primary class feature for a wide variety of monsters, meaning that for some types of adventures, they just became ineffective. I want to limit that problem, but still keep the flavor.
I think some of the suggestions here hold some merit, but I am thinking (currently) that this is problem to be handled from the monster side of things.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey there all,
I think the issue of rogue sneak attack damage is one that needs to be handled from the monster side of things, instead of making blanket statements in the rogue write up. There are certainly some monsters that should be immune (oozes), while others should get some sort of reduction (some types of undead). The problem with the previous rules was that they gave blanket immunity to the primary class feature for a wide variety of monsters, meaning that for some types of adventures, they just became ineffective. I want to limit that problem, but still keep the flavor.
I think some of the suggestions here hold some merit, but I am thinking (currently) that this is problem to be handled from the monster side of things.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Would that entail a special rule/note regarding sneak attack in each monster description when relevant?
It would certainly clean things up from the player's side of things.
Our group really had a problem with this for rogues.
We think with the new talents it would be the best way to handle this
it would be a tiered set of talents
Dead Hunter
With this talent you do half your sneak attack damage to undead
Dead Slayer
Requirement Dead Hunter,
With this talent you do full sneak attack damage to undead
I think you could do this for all the types of creatures who are imune to sneak attacks
If you're going to make it a talent, make it just that - a talent per type. Wasting two or three talents per creature type is useless.
|
|
Our group really had a problem with this for rogues.
We think with the new talents it would be the best way to handle this
it would be a tiered set of talents
Dead Hunter
With this talent you do half your sneak attack damage to undeadDead Slayer
Requirement Dead Hunter,
With this talent you do full sneak attack damage to undeadI think you could do this for all the types of creatures who are imune to sneak attacks
It doesn't really make sense to me that it requires extra training to realise that hitting a skeleton through the neck beats breaking one of its ribs.
So I pretty much agree with Jason that this should be address monster-side (although as we want people to be able to use 3.5 materials as well as the forthcoming -- we're told -- Pathfinder bestiary, there will have to be general guidelines of the sorts already mentioned, that it won't affect oozes, etc).
Hey there all,
I think the issue of rogue sneak attack damage is one that needs to be handled from the monster side of things, instead of making blanket statements in the rogue write up. There are certainly some monsters that should be immune (oozes), while others should get some sort of reduction (some types of undead). The problem with the previous rules was that they gave blanket immunity to the primary class feature for a wide variety of monsters, meaning that for some types of adventures, they just became ineffective. I want to limit that problem, but still keep the flavor.
I think some of the suggestions here hold some merit, but I am thinking (currently) that this is problem to be handled from the monster side of things.
Well, some of the suggestion do look at it from the monster-side of things. For example, giving formerly immune monsters DR against Sneak Attack damage (or precision damage in general, including critical hits), or allowing formerly immune monsters to make saving throws to avoid or halve sneak attack damage. Even allowing half-damage from sneak attack against certain monster types is looking at it partially from a monster-side of things and the rule is also flexible enough to apply to critical hits and other precision damage (e.g. Scout's Skirmish) for greater consistency.
The problem with doing this from the monster-side of things is that you have to include this in the description of every monster, which makes backward compatibility worse, because it will only apply to new monsters. Unless, of course, you go by types and subtypes of monsters rather than individual creatures, but than you might as well include it in the Rogue description.
I do agree that in 3.5E Sneak Attack was too restrictive for the Rogue, so I understand why the change was made, but it ought to be scaled back somewhat for reasons and experiences already outlined above. Hence the proposals to limit the damage it does to formerly immune creatures and make them resistant creatures (well, the list of resistant creatures would not have to correspond to formerly immune creatures precisely, but it is a good place to start at least).
Hey there all,
I think the issue of rogue sneak attack damage is one that needs to be handled from the monster side of things, instead of making blanket statements in the rogue write up. There are certainly some monsters that should be immune (oozes), while others should get some sort of reduction (some types of undead). The problem with the previous rules was that they gave blanket immunity to the primary class feature for a wide variety of monsters, meaning that for some types of adventures, they just became ineffective. I want to limit that problem, but still keep the flavor.
I think some of the suggestions here hold some merit, but I am thinking (currently) that this is problem to be handled from the monster side of things.
Well, some of the suggestion do look at it from the monster-side of things. For example, giving formerly immune monsters DR against Sneak Attack damage (or precision damage in general, including critical hits), or allowing formerly immune monsters to make saving throws to avoid or halve sneak attack damage. Even allowing half-damage from sneak attack against certain monster types is looking at it partially from a monster-side of things and the rule is also flexible enough to apply to critical hits and other precision damage (e.g. Scout's Skirmish) for greater consistency.
The problem with doing this from the monster-side of things is that you have to include this in the description of every monster, which makes backward compatibility worse, because it will only apply to new monsters. Unless, of course, you go by types and subtypes of monsters rather than individual creatures, but than you might as well include it in the Rogue description.
I do agree that in 3.5E Sneak Attack was too restrictive for the Rogue, so I understand why the change was made, but it ought to be scaled back somewhat for reasons and experiences already outlined above. Hence the proposals to limit the damage it does to formerly immune creatures and make them resistant...
I don't see how this isn't as restrictive as the 3.5 version. Off the top of my head I can think of feats, spells, and magic items which grant rogues their sneak attack (or at least part of their sneak attack) damage against foes normally immune.
I agree with the "suck it up" idea. I don't see anyone saying paladins should get their smiting against non-evil foes or rangers should get their favoured enemy bonus all the time, so why go out the way to make the rogues sneak attack the exception when, as you yourself have said, it's too powerful when applied to all monsters.
Our group really had a problem with this for rogues.
We think with the new talents it would be the best way to handle this
it would be a tiered set of talents
Dead Hunter
With this talent you do half your sneak attack damage to undeadDead Slayer
Requirement Dead Hunter,
With this talent you do full sneak attack damage to undeadI think you could do this for all the types of creatures who are imune to sneak attacks
It doesn't really make sense to me that it requires extra training to realise that hitting a skeleton through the neck beats breaking one of its ribs.
So I pretty much agree with Jason that this should be address monster-side (although as we want people to be able to use 3.5 materials as well as the forthcoming -- we're told -- Pathfinder bestiary, there will have to be general guidelines of the sorts already mentioned, that it won't affect oozes, etc).
I dont think it would matter where you hit them they should be imune to sneak attack but this is kinda like holy training and a meet in the middle point instead of just letting Rogues slaughter all the creatures without Con to the HP
the problem with addressing it Pathfinder Bestiary is that there are some of us that the main reason they support Pathfinder is backwards compatabilty with the thousands of dollars i spent on my 3.5 library
|
|
So this thread is now about the fighters and their critical hits?
Let’s keep to the subject shall we? Sneak attack has always been a rogues ability. One can argue why can a rogue find a weak point (sneak attack) and not the fighter? Well the anser is simble, the rules say so. Letting fighters (and others) crit undeads etc, constructs, elementals, etc. will make fighters (and other tanks) even more overpowered.
Well, we can't discuss this without discussing other classes too -- they're all in the same game, after all -- and you think that "fighters (and other tanks)" are somehow overpowered, which they clearly aren't (in the opinion of most of us, it seems).
I say have most creatures crittable and that's why sneak attack works against them, too. There's no overpoweredness in the melee classes, quite the opposite.
TomJohn, you seem to be missing that a rogue who can sneak attack with every blow that qualifies and that hits. With multiple blows and multiple damage dice, that can get very nasty indeed :)
Just one more copper in the ring here...
A fighter is a frontal, known combatant, armored, armed, and trained. He attacks and fights thus crits, higher BAB, etc.
When the rogue attacks in the same fashion.....he aint so impressive.
Now, if the rogue sneaks up, catches the varmint unawares, he gets a sneak attack. He was sneak'n up careful like in the dark, plann'n every move, every subtle twist of the blade, carefully feeling for them tender innards that bleed out faster and all. Or maybe the seaky rogue dances around behind the bugger waiting for a pal to distract him so as he can step in while he has him flanked, and tickle his ribs with his pointy steel. Point is, the fighter cant sneak attack and the rogue dont fight fair or with the same amount of clout.
I like it how is. I could live with a knowledge checks on not-so-humanoid critters though. That kinda makes sense. Heck, you could have rogues specialize in particular types of critters. It would further differentiate rogues who stab in tha dark from rogues who pilfer and disable traps. Just a thought...
Hey there all,
I think the issue of rogue sneak attack damage is one that needs to be handled from the monster side of things, instead of making blanket statements in the rogue write up. There are certainly some monsters that should be immune (oozes), while others should get some sort of reduction (some types of undead). The problem with the previous rules was that they gave blanket immunity to the primary class feature for a wide variety of monsters, meaning that for some types of adventures, they just became ineffective. I want to limit that problem, but still keep the flavor.
I think some of the suggestions here hold some merit, but I am thinking (currently) that this is problem to be handled from the monster side of things.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My concern with doing it this way is that it makes it much more difficult to use non-core monsters, thus backstabbing backwards compatibility.
|
|
I can't be 100% sure unless Jason clears this up, but I think he might mean that the blanket statements in the ability's description should be moved to the monster descriptions, or even the monster type descriptions, such as having a note under the Undead type saying that they only take half damage from sneak attack, and that Undead with the Incorporeal subtype are immune to sneak attack. Under oozes it would say that all oozes are immune to sneak attack. As long as there are some general rules for what creatures should have immunity/resistance to sneak attack, I'm cool with this change.
The other question is, though, if you allow sneak attacks against some Undead, then why don't you allow crits against undead?