That's why I was saying there has to be general advice about which creatures it won't work on. The per-monster Bestiary descriptions would just be gravy.
Mark my words: this will lead to arguments. The moment you put stuff like whether or not a class ability works against a given monster into a gray area, you have cause for intra-group fighting, and this is much, much worse than poorly designed adventures which focus on one type of bad guy and don't give everyone a chance to shine.
|
[SNIP] I think keeping sneak attack as it currently stands is a good way to ensure Rogues always have something to contribute.
[off-topic] Hey TerraNova, we could use a visitation from Dergo over in this thread. [/off-topic]
Sorry for the momentary threadjack, y'all!
|
|
That's why I was saying there has to be general advice about which creatures it won't work on. The per-monster Bestiary descriptions would just be gravy.Mark my words: this will lead to arguments. The moment you put stuff like whether or not a class ability works against a given monster into a gray area, you have cause for intra-group fighting, and this is much, much worse than poorly designed adventures which focus on one type of bad guy and don't give everyone a chance to shine.
At first blush, I was thinking that putting a general statement in the class ability that Sneak Attack may not be fully effective on some creatures (many undead) or effective at all on others (most amorphous ones), with a stipulation that the individual monster or Type be consulted for spefifics was the way to go, but this wreaks havoc with backwards-compatibility, or the ability of the Pathfinder GM to use monsters that were printed under 3.0/3.5, including monsters from the first three or four Paizo APs!
The text is gonna have to be there in the class ability and based on Types (half SA on undead or plants, no SA on blobs or elementals, etc.), with later monsters that might be exceptions (such as a vampire-like undead that very much does have and use 'vital organs' to store and transport blood, etc. and is therefore 'crit-able') spelled out as specific exceptions in their individual write-ups.
As for Rogues not being able to use Sneak Attack usefully in every encounter, well, that's the cost of doing business, the same cost that an Enchanter, Beguiler, Telepath, etc. would be paying in some Undead encounters, or a Necromancer would be facing in a fight with constructs, or a TWF Ranger or Barbarian or most Fighters would be paying against a flying encounter that scoffs at the dozen Feats they took to be melee cleave machines of death.
Not every class ability is going to be useful in every fight, and a Rogue is far more useful without Sneak Attack than a Wizard is in a fight with a high-SR Mind Flayer or a TWF Ranger is against a flying monster.
If the adventure calls for *nothing* but Sneak Attack immune foes against the party, the GM might want to allow the Rogue the option to play another character for a session and have the Rogue character do some intrigue / plot-advancing blue-book stuff between sessions to set up a future part of the adventure where he'll be able to shine as normal (getting commensurate exp for this side-quest, so that he doesn't fall behind, and facing appropriate challenges). If the GM *isn't* running a pre-set scenario with encounters that he can't modify, then he can just swap out some encounters to allow the Rogue to shine. Sure, there may be undead, but add a couple of nasty Indiana-Jones-style traps, and the Rogue feels less like Man of Tissue Paper and more like a valuable contributer who saves the entire party a time or two *between* Mummy-bashes. Or one of the undead encounters can be replaced with a rival adventuring group, and the Rogue might have to both identify and disarm the booby traps the Majestrix's Expeditionary is leaving behind for their competition, and be ready to backstabbinate the Chelaxian creeps in the eventual climactic dance-off.
If the player character is just freaking useless for the adventure, and the GM doesn't choose to give him something to do, then Sneak Attack isn't the problem, anymore than an Enchanters weakness against Undead/Constructs/Vermin wouldn't be the problem. The problem is the GM forgetting that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just the non-Rogues, non-Enchanters, non-Necromancers, non-Illusionists, etc., etc.
|
|
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.
Exactly what I was going to say. Everyone get's so hung up on rules they forget the fluff aspect. Undead certainly can be severely disabled. Sure they can soak up damage from crits but a sneak attack is a sneaky slice to the hamstring. A bashed kneecap. etc. Lop off a zombies leg or sever the spine and the zombie is much less a threat.
Now my other issue is comments about the Rogue being TOO good in a fight. A Rogue SHOULD be good in a fight. They should be quick and agile, able to duck, weave, and slash at their opponent. they should be hard to hit and pack a punch. The trade off is that they are fairly delicate. yes they have an increased HD BUT they are still pretty delicate. I'm at 17 HP at second lvl. We were running up against some foes that if they had hit me could easily drop me to unconscious in one swipe.
Personally I feel the new rogue is even more exciting to play with much more flavor and tricks up their sleeves. Don't change a thing.
|
The initial proposal seems to present a number of great ideas for balancing out Sneak Attack, but also [I feel] lead to a lot of bookkeeping. So why not make it even simpler? Create feats that allow rogues to sneak attack formerly immune creature types (there are some that are not OGL, so wording and such would have to get changed).
Then have it scale at half the rate of sneak attack dice (one sneak attack feat every four levels). Now rogues are still much more versitile in their use of SA, but it wouldn't be quite as broken as it is right now.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
[SNIP] I think keeping sneak attack as it currently stands is a good way to ensure Rogues always have something to contribute.[off-topic] Hey TerraNova, we could use a visitation from Dergo over in this thread. [/off-topic]
Sorry for the momentary threadjack, y'all!
Wow... I really should not trust the RSS feed to keep me on top of things. Getting my ass over there now.
[/threadjack]
My wife uses improved feint to get her ranged sneak attacks off to good effect.
|
My wife uses improved feint to get her ranged sneak attacks off to good effect.
See page 151 of Pathfinder Beta. Feinting applies to next melee attack.
To reiterate: in playtest, as DM in one game and as a fellow player in another, the rogue in Pathfinder Beta is too good. I don't doubt that rogue players love the changes. (The rogue players in our games openly say that the jump in power is probably too much, but I imagine that's not the norm.)
Whether the line was crossed by the increase in HD, by rogue talents below 10th level, by the consolidation of skills, by favored class bonuses, or by some combination of all of these is arguable. But the rogue needs to be toned down somehow. I've heard a lot of complaints about "power creep" in Pathfinder, but this is the first time I've completely agreed with the criticisms.
-- Jeff
I think the rogue is now much more on par with the spell-casters. Of course, he can't cast Meteor Swarm or Storm of Vengeance, but he does have a lot of versatile talents and a few unique abilities and is much more capable than before.
The issue is making sure everyone is at that same plateau of power.
|
|
Not to mention...Sneak attack does NOT work on everything. Pg. 40 states "...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."
It implicitly states that Sneak Attack is finding a weak spot not striking vital organs. Makes complete sense, due to the new fluff, that sneak attack works on a wider array of monsters now.
Creative Director
|
Actually... We probably SHOULD allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked. One of the reasons 3.5 worked the way it did was because undead didn't get bonus hit points; the theory was that they'd be immune to sneak attacks and crits and that their low hit points would balance. Didn't work out that way, alas, especially if you've got a high level melee undead (death knight is a Perfect Example) in which case you can easily have a CR 20 monster with less than 100 hit points.
Since undead in Pathfinder RPG are going to gain their Charisma bonus to hit points (and probably to Fort saves), this won't be as much a problem any more. Undead will have hit points appropriate to their CR, and thus allowing sneak attacks and crits to hurt them doesn't weaken them.
After all... anyone who's seen a vampire movie (particularly Blade) or a zombie movie (particularly Night of the Living Dead) knows that the concept of critically hitting an undead target is actually pretty cool.
|
|
Actually... We probably SHOULD allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked. One of the reasons 3.5 worked the way it did was because undead didn't get bonus hit points; the theory was that they'd be immune to sneak attacks and crits and that their low hit points would balance. Didn't work out that way, alas, especially if you've got a high level melee undead (death knight is a Perfect Example) in which case you can easily have a CR 20 monster with less than 100 hit points.
Since undead in Pathfinder RPG are going to gain their Charisma bonus to hit points (and probably to Fort saves), this won't be as much a problem any more. Undead will have hit points appropriate to their CR, and thus allowing sneak attacks and crits to hurt them doesn't weaken them.
After all... anyone who's seen a vampire movie (particularly Blade) or a zombie movie (particularly Night of the Living Dead) knows that the concept of critically hitting an undead target is actually pretty cool.
I am entirely down with this. Crits should be available most of the time, for sure.
|
|
I am entirely down with this. Crits should be available most of the time, for sure.Actually... We probably SHOULD allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked. One of the reasons 3.5 worked the way it did was because undead didn't get bonus hit points; the theory was that they'd be immune to sneak attacks and crits and that their low hit points would balance. Didn't work out that way, alas, especially if you've got a high level melee undead (death knight is a Perfect Example) in which case you can easily have a CR 20 monster with less than 100 hit points.
Since undead in Pathfinder RPG are going to gain their Charisma bonus to hit points (and probably to Fort saves), this won't be as much a problem any more. Undead will have hit points appropriate to their CR, and thus allowing sneak attacks and crits to hurt them doesn't weaken them.
After all... anyone who's seen a vampire movie (particularly Blade) or a zombie movie (particularly Night of the Living Dead) knows that the concept of critically hitting an undead target is actually pretty cool.
Yeah, me too. Crits worked on everything back in AD&D, and it never posed a problem with Suspension of Disbelief -- after all, even golems and corporeal undead have their "weak spots". My suggestion would be to make only *incorporeal* creatures immune to crits...
Or, another option would be to rule that only half of the sneak attack dice and crit damage work on constructs, undead and such.
I would be fine with both options.
Actually... We probably SHOULD allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked. One of the reasons 3.5 worked the way it did was because undead didn't get bonus hit points; the theory was that they'd be immune to sneak attacks and crits and that their low hit points would balance. Didn't work out that way, alas, especially if you've got a high level melee undead (death knight is a Perfect Example) in which case you can easily have a CR 20 monster with less than 100 hit points.
Since undead in Pathfinder RPG are going to gain their Charisma bonus to hit points (and probably to Fort saves), this won't be as much a problem any more. Undead will have hit points appropriate to their CR, and thus allowing sneak attacks and crits to hurt them doesn't weaken them.
After all... anyone who's seen a vampire movie (particularly Blade) or a zombie movie (particularly Night of the Living Dead) knows that the concept of critically hitting an undead target is actually pretty cool.
Yes, critical hits, sneak attack and other precision damage should have unified rules on vulnerability, resistance and immunity.
A number of the outlined solutions would work for resistance in such a unified mechanic, among them 1/2 damage from precision damage (sneak attack, critical hits, skirmish damage, etc.) or special damage reduction against precision damage, or saving throws against precision damage, etc.
Yeah I just reread wow I need to apologize to some people for being wrong on the feint thing.
However Improved Feint is still an useful thing if you find yourself fighting something you can't flank for some reason, and you always get your five foot step if you need to move.
Actually... We probably SHOULD allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked. One of the reasons 3.5 worked the way it did was because undead didn't get bonus hit points....
Please, let's stay on topic. Sneak attack is not the same thing as critical hits....and you don't have to flank a to score a critical hit.
I'm starting to get paraniod here. Is this an ongoing campaing to make the fighter a GOD? With a Good strength scorre, a great axe (or any axe), Weapon Specialization, Weapon training and Devastating Blow and power attack of course you want to allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked.
If you got a good strength score or / and a nice weapon and improved Crit of course you want to allow critical hits against undead and any thing that can be sneak attacked.
Let's add a quote:
Obviously we're not talking about a change in rules that benefit rogues.
So what class / classes are we talking about?
Fighters? Well, pick a new thread.
Barbarians?, Well, pick a new thread.
Rangers? Well, pick a new thread.
Paladins? Well, pick a new thread.
So you think tanks suck? Well pick another thread.Or are we talking about the rules on critical hits? Well start a thread on critical hit.
As I see it, I've seen sane threads on almost all topics but when fighter-lovers gets started it just get silly.
I'm getting tired of "hey, fighters suck because:
- they got poor will saves
- they only get 2 skills / level
- they only got d10 dh
- they got a problem with flying opponents
- the got problems with invisible opponents
- they can't score critical hits on undeads and constructs
- wizards can cast meteor swarm (and fighters don't? ...Yes they don't)
- rogues now can sneak attack undeads and constructs"I don't think sneak atack is overpowerd, but that's only one of many oppinions. Some people agree with me, some don't, fine. But let's talk about rogues and their sneak attack.
I usualy play rogue, Paladin or Cleric. When I play rogue, and when most of my friends play rogue, we tend to focus on opportunistic sneak attacks, that is spring attack. Why, rogue are fragile. Low AC and low on hit points. And yes. The Rogue now got more hit points, but with the poor AC a smart DM will have no problem taking out the rogue if he's to nasty.
So what about sneak attack? You need to flank to sneak, you can only flank in melee. So a rogue can only sneak attack at range at a surprise ronud. That is once per fight. Invisibility? Glitterdust buy, buy sneak.
A rogue cant't flank all creatures (elemnetals, etc.) and classes (not high level rogue or barbarians) and rogue AC suck and their BAB is not as good as tanks.
Rogue don't benefit from Crits, since sneak attack damage is not multiplied and since they got a poor strength score and use light weapons. etc. etc.Let's talk about rogue and sneak attacks. Please.
Please, let's stay on topic. Sneak attack is not the same thing as critical hits....and you don't have to flank a to score a critical hit.
For all that they are different, they use the same principle, at least they do in Pathfinder: there are better and worse places to hit the enemy, and sneak attack/criticals hit the especially good points. If you can Sneak Attack a zombie, you should be able to get a critical against it -- maybe you hit it in the head or ripped some crucial muscles out or something.
Please, let's stay on topic. Sneak attack is not the same thing as critical hits....and you don't have to flank a to score a critical hit.For all that they are different, they use the same principle, at least they do in Pathfinder: there are better and worse places to hit the enemy, and sneak attack/criticals hit the especially good points. If you can Sneak Attack a zombie, you should be able to get a critical against it -- maybe you hit it in the head or ripped some crucial muscles out or something.
Agreed - they are all considered precision damage and mechanics should deal with them consistently.
The one place I would like to see sneak attack get something of a nod is on ranged attacks as it stands it just doesn't happen that often. However I also understand that there are good game mechanical reasons for not giving full sneak attack on top of the advantages of ranged combat. Is there some level of compremise that would work though? Maybe only 1/2 sneak attack damage if you ready an action to shoot when your buddy just hit in melee?
|
|
I'm still in favor of full sneak attack damage against those creatures that are vulnerable, but creating a line of feats to scale the non-traditional ones.
Should rogues be able to sneak attack undead? You bet. Right away at level 1? Maybe. But then I don't want to see that same level 1 rogue get a sneak attack on a construct (like an animated chair or something). Making feats keeps the versitility while making the power scale.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
My concern with doing it this way is that it makes it much more difficult to use non-core monsters, thus backstabbing backwards compatibility.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
I suspect it will be very obvious what creatures should and shouldn't have these abilities, so GMs can simply add them to old creatures without worrying too much about backward compatibility. I don't really know exactly what Jason is planning, but it definitely will not be the type of thing where it will be a mystery which creatures are and aren't immune. In many cases it will likely be an issue of types and subtypes.
|
|
Trying to be polite about this, but I find the argument that immunity to sneak attack can't be shifted over to the monster side of things because of "backwards compatibility" somewhat insulting.
I'm certainly not so dumb I can't figure it out on my own, and I'm willing to bet none of the people who are making this argument want to fess up to being so slow-witted they need to be hand-held through the process. So who exactly do they think the dummies are?
Speaking of dumb, somehow my players and I convinced ourselves that in Pathfinder you can critically hit undead and constructs. I was a bit surprised to read in this thread that it wasn't an actual official rule change, and now I'm wondering where we got that from. It's how we've been playing our entire playtest, and it hasn't caused any problems at all. Quite the opposite, it has smoothed out combats and increased my player's enjoyment.
We always thought it made very little sense that you can't crit a zombie. You can kill it by hacking it up, but you can never land a really telling blow that cleaves deep into it and cuts it in half? What the hell kind of fantasy game is this?
I also use Paizo's critical hit and fumble decks (I highly recommend them), and the construct and undead's lack of CON already makes them sensibly immune to a lot of the effects in that deck (like the many "organ damage" results that do CON bleed).
|
|
I favour a differentiation between formerly immune creatures and other critters, too.
In other words: reducing hit probability or decreasing damage output for sneak attacks against creatures formerly immune to sneak attacks makes much sense to me.
My reasoning:
Some people pointed out that every creature has weak spots to attack. That's surely correct.
A different interpretation could be like this, though: Constructs and undead are per se immune to "pain" (being "unliving creatures") and therefore could be less severely hampered/ damaged by an attack from behind (aka sneak attack).
Just my 2 cents.
Kr,
Günther
Edit:The mandatory(?) addition to any Beta thread posting:
Please consider that this thread is simply about posting one's opinion on beta rules.
Repeating one's point over and over again and/ or trying to proselytise others
a) doesn't make one's point any more or less true,
b) is likely to decrease attractiveness of this thread to many board readers who would otherwise like to contribute and could enrich the thread by adding new point of views and innovative proposals,
c) is unlikely to impress those who watch over the rules (i.e. Paizo ;-)).
Trying to be polite about this, but I find the argument that immunity to sneak attack can't be shifted over to the monster side of things because of "backwards compatibility" somewhat insulting.
I'm certainly not so dumb I can't figure it out on my own, and I'm willing to bet none of the people who are making this argument want to fess up to being so slow-witted they need to be hand-held through the process. So who exactly do they think the dummies are?
The players. Just leaving stuff to the DM's discretion is terrible game design, at least for D&D. In a looser system you can get away with it, but 3.5/Pathfinder has rules for everything which implicitly encourages you to follow them. If you open up room for debate, you will get players arguing with the DMs that a given monster shouldn't be invulnerable.
A bigger issue that bothers me about sneak attack, though, is: how is the rogue supposed to know where to hit these things? I mean, a human? Sure, you aim for particular regions on the chest, or the neck, or the head, or you try to hit an artery. A zombie, though, you pretty much have to hit in the head, and why does every rogue ever know this automatically? What about aberrations? Why does the rogue know where the Beholder's kidneys are? I wouldn't so much mind sneak attack applying to everything as long as A) it was totally unambiguous who was vulnerable (and possibly how vulnerable each possible monster is), and B) the rogue had to make a knowledge check of some kind to give him a better idea of which place gives him an extra 10d6 points of damage and which point he only rolls his dagger.
|
|
Speaking of dumb, somehow my players and I convinced ourselves that in Pathfinder you can critically hit undead and constructs. I was a bit surprised to read in this thread that it wasn't an actual official rule change, and now I'm wondering where we got that from. It's how we've been playing our entire playtest, and it hasn't caused any problems at all. Quite the opposite, it has smoothed out combats and increased my player's enjoyment.
I think that the confusion may have arisen because it's not mentioned anywhere that critical hits don't affect undead, etc. That, however, is presumably because there's no Pathfinder MM, although like you I hope that when it does appear, there's very much fewer crit-immunities in it.
And on the general topic some have raised, crits and sneak attack clearly are linked in D&D, because you can't sneak attack what you can't crit (there are other requirements for various forms of precision damage like sneak attack, but the enemy being crittable is the key requirement across the board). I am more than happy for the crit-sneak attack limitation to stay there (which it implicitly isn't at the moment, as per nothing said about crittable creatures and the Designer's note on page 40 which could be read as implying a break of the crit-sneak link, although it could also be read as a reformulation of what crits mean, too) by making nearly everything crittable (and also, therefore, sneak-attackable).
So if a rogue don't know where to hit these things a tank don't know how to:
A bigger issue that bothers me about sneak attack, though, is: how is the rogue supposed to know where to hit these things?
hit it in the head or ripped some crucial muscles out or something.
The tank's ability to do that is primarily related to chance. A 20th level fighter has the same threat range as a 1st level cleric with the same weapon. The only instance in which "knowledge" comes into play is with Improved Critical, which is related to knowing how to use the weapon such that it hits crits more often, and is still largely a measure of chance. However, the rogue always gets sneak attack damage as long as he's flanking or the creature has been denied it's Dex bonus.
|
Creative Director
|
A bigger issue that bothers me about sneak attack, though, is: how is the rogue supposed to know where to hit these things? I mean, a human? Sure, you aim for particular regions on the chest, or the neck, or the head, or you try to hit an artery. A zombie, though, you pretty much have to hit in the head, and why does every rogue ever know this automatically? What about aberrations? Why does the rogue know where the Beholder's kidneys are? I wouldn't so much mind sneak attack applying to everything as long as A) it was totally unambiguous who was vulnerable (and possibly how vulnerable each possible monster is), and B) the rogue had to make a knowledge check of some kind to give him a better idea of which place gives him an extra 10d6 points of damage and which point he only rolls his dagger.
It's easy enough to assume that the sneak attack ability itself is based on knowledge. You don't just magically get those extra damage dice. As the dice go up, that's basically modeling the rogue's knowledge of anatomy and weaponplay, of how he knows not only how to handle his weapon but knows what part of the body will be most damaged by his blows. It's no problem at all to assume that a Pathfinder RPG rogue also learns about the best ways of killing undead and constructs and the like as he gains levels. For constructs, he'll be attacking seams and joints and places where the creature's body is weak, or perhaps striking at places where the magical or elemental animating force is most vulnerable. For undead, he'll have picked up knowledge like "Aim for a vampire's heart" or "Stab a zombie in the head" or "Aim for the center of the ribcage of a skeleton" and so on. Most folk wouldn't know how and where to attack a creature's vulnerabilities; that's why most folk don't have sneak attack.
|
|
I favour a differentiation between formerly immune creatures and other critters, too.
In other words: reducing hit probability or decreasing damage output for sneak attacks against creatures formerly immune to sneak attacks makes much sense to me.
My reasoning:
Some people pointed out that every creature has weak spots to attack. That's surely correct.A different interpretation could be like this, though: Constructs and undead are per se immune to "pain" (being "unliving creatures") and therefore could be less severely hampered/ damaged by an attack from behind (aka sneak attack).
Just my 2 cents.
But if the real reason crit immunity was there for undead was simply to mitigate the lack of a Con score, and Pathfinder undead will use Cha instead, I'm not sure we have an issue making nearly all undead crittable. The justification always seemed a little bit like the window-dressing of a balance-driven issue anyhow, to me.
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'm DMng a 3rd level TWF Rogue and he's dishing out a lot of damage. He's also pressing for Sneak Attack damage on any critter suffering a DEX penalty, not just being denied a DEX bonus. While this situation is easy to shoot down IMO the skill is a bit too powerful. Or at least too tempting.
I like it better than the 3.5 limitations, but I think it went a bit too far. I like the earlier suggestions about slowing the damage progression and lowering the damage against specific creaturtes.
|
|
I'm DMng a 3rd level TWF Rogue and he's dishing out a lot of damage. He's also pressing for Sneak Attack damage on any critter suffering a DEX penalty, not just being denied a DEX bonus. While this situation is easy to shoot down IMO the skill is a bit too powerful. Or at least too tempting.I like it better than the 3.5 limitations, but I think it went a bit too far. I like the earlier suggestions about slowing the damage progression and lowering the damage against specific creaturtes.
This just means that Rogue is closer to fixed, to me. Unless seriously depowering the casters is an option (and I don't think that it is, although they could roll back some of the new goodies they got) then I don't think that it does, say, the fighter any good to nerf the rogue, other than providing the fighter with company in the loser's canteen (corned beef hash all day, every day. Bring your own spork).
|
|
Warning: This comment is tangential at best.
It's easy enough to assume that the sneak attack ability itself is based on knowledge. You don't just magically get those extra damage dice. As the dice go up, that's basically modeling the rogue's knowledge of anatomy and weaponplay, of how he knows not only how to handle his weapon but knows what part of the body will be most damaged by his blows. It's no problem at all to assume that a Pathfinder RPG rogue also learns about the best ways of killing undead and constructs and the like as he gains levels. For constructs, he'll be attacking seams and joints and places where the creature's body is weak, or perhaps striking at places where the magical or elemental animating force is most vulnerable. For undead, he'll have picked up knowledge like "Aim for a vampire's heart" or "Stab a zombie in the head" or "Aim for the center of the ribcage of a skeleton" and so on. Most folk wouldn't know how and where to attack a creature's vulnerabilities; that's why most folk don't have sneak attack.
The big problem here is, of course, that this makes the Fighter look extra stupid. Twenty levels of doing nothing but mastering the fighting art, and the guy never learns to freaking aim? it boggles the mind.
I was reading Eric Flint's 1634: The Cannon Law a while ago, and there's this great scene where this aging Spanish swordsman takes on five Viennese thugs at once. He destroys them, primarily because while the young inexperienced fighters are swinging wild and relying on power, he's landing blows where they count: in inside of the groin, the armpit, the side of the neck. They hit him as many times as he hits them, but every blow he lands is instantly fatal while every blow they land is a graze or scratch. He does end up taking a mortal wound to the stomach, but it's one that will kill him in hours, while the mortal wounds he delivers cause the victim to bleed out in fractions of a second.
This is why I'm playtesting Weapon Training as +1/+1d6 rather than +1/+1, with the extra dice of damage modeling the Fighters ever increasing ability to aim his blows for maximum damage. Our party fighter just hit 5th level, so we're seeing the effect, and so far it's been quite lovely. Restored the Fighter to the position of mainline warrior, and returned the rogue to the position of Combat Support, which to me makes more sense than having the Fighter be a stupid meatshield who only exists to eat damage while setting up the rogue to "strike" and destroy the enemy (shakes fist at 4E!).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Speaking of dumb, somehow my players and I convinced ourselves that in Pathfinder you can critically hit undead and constructs. I was a bit surprised to read in this thread that it wasn't an actual official rule change, and now I'm wondering where we got that from. It's how we've been playing our entire playtest, and it hasn't caused any problems at all. Quite the opposite, it has smoothed out combats and increased my player's enjoyment.
As someone said, nothing official about critical hits, per se. But 3.5 ties critical hits very tightly in to precision damage. (For example, armor that negates one automatically negates the other.) The only time I've seen them decouple is with spellthief / rouge feats that allow special effects to substitute for dice of precision damage; there's nothing analogous with critical hits.
Undead can be attacked with precision damage. So the game design includes big arrows pointing to undead being subject to critical hits as well.
The big problem here is, of course, that this makes the Fighter look extra stupid. Twenty levels of doing nothing but mastering the fighting art, and the guy never learns to freaking aim? It boggles the mind.
I laughed out loud.
Fighters learn to aim, of course. That's what BAB is. But fighters are telegraphing their blows. Opponents guard their really tender bits, and the fighter relies on killing you everywhere else. (Every so often, on a critical hit, he gets lucky.)
The way I envision a rogue fighting, she's always doing something like feinting. She's better at slipping past an opponent's defenses. In terms of just hitting an opponent, the fighter's better. The rogue, with her lower BAB, looks for good shots, not knowing how to "make" mediocre shots happen.
That elderly Spanish fencer? Rogue.
It's easy enough to assume that the sneak attack ability itself is based on knowledge. You don't just magically get those extra damage dice. As the dice go up, that's basically modeling the rogue's knowledge of anatomy and weaponplay, of how he knows not only how to handle his weapon but knows what part of the body will be most damaged by his blows. It's no problem at all to assume that a Pathfinder RPG rogue also learns about the best ways of killing undead and constructs and the like as he gains levels. For constructs, he'll be attacking seams and joints and places where the creature's body is weak, or perhaps striking at places where the magical or elemental animating force is most vulnerable. For undead, he'll have picked up knowledge like "Aim for a vampire's heart" or "Stab a zombie in the head" or "Aim for the center of the ribcage of a skeleton" and so on. Most folk wouldn't know how and where to attack a creature's vulnerabilities; that's why most folk don't have sneak attack.
It is absurd to assume that all rogues know the weak points of all monsters. It is even extremely unreasonable to assume that all rogues know the weak points of merely most monsters: why do all rogues know how to kill zombies or golems? What if my rogue never much cared about undead? What if he came from a society that just didn't have them and he had never heard of them until he ends up in a fight with a skeleton? It was bad enough that D&D has made all rogues concerned with stabbing people in the kidneys, but this limits the number of characters you can model accurately with the class to a ridiculous degree. All rogues apparently spend all their time reading obscure journals so that they know how to quickly kill every possible creature in existence.
Maybe a relevant knowledge roll would allow a rogue to succeed with precision damage?
Yeah, that was what I was getting at. I don't so much have a problem, conceptually, with a rogue being able to go for the golem's knees (though it should still be more difficult/less effective than SAing a human, who has all sorts of weak points), though I don't think the rogue really needs the power boost, but such a change means you need it to be something a given rogue might not be able to do.
|
|
It is absurd to assume that all rogues know the weak points of all monsters. It is even extremely unreasonable to assume that all rogues know the weak points of merely most monsters: why do all rogues know how to kill zombies or golems?
Zombies and Golems, in most cases, are made in the form of (or from) actual creatures. You shatter a kneecap, you've shattered a kneecap and limited the creatures mobility, no matter if it's an Iron Golem, a Lich or Syrillese, Queen of the Wood Elves. Damaging connective areas, jamming up joints, hacking off the head, etc. are all absolute no-brainers. No super-special training or exotic research would be needed.
Looking at a skeleton, I don't have to have ever seen one animated to be able to tell that the neck and the spinal column between the ribcage and the pelvis are the points where I only have to destroy a single vertabrae to cut the thing into two pieces. There's also those femurs, which also represent a single point of failure that I don't need an engineering degree to realize represent a vulnerability, any more than I need a degree in anatomy to realize that if I take out a living person's leg or foot, they will fall down.
Same with a zombie. The thing has a body, often a humanoid one. Structurally, it's no different than any other humanoid one. Being dead meat, I'll probably realize that there's little chance of being able to play rope-a-dope and tire it out, or nickle-and-dime it, hoping it succumbs to blood loss or shock. But since I've cut a steak before, I'm not completely clueless as to the mechanical principles behind hacking at meat. Cut off a leg, it can't walk. Cut off an arm, that's one less arm it's going to be able to slam me with. Cut off the head? Well gosh, I have no idea whether that's going to help or not...
My Rogue probably hasn't seen any George Romero movies, and I don't think personally that stabbing a zombie in the brain is going to impair it's cognitive abilities!
Zombies and Golems, in most cases, are made in the form of (or from) actual creatures.
Oh I'm not saying it's always a particularly difficult inference, just that it is an inference, and inferences like that are normally something the dice decide.
It's easy enough to assume that the sneak attack ability itself is based on knowledge. You don't just magically get those extra damage dice. As the dice go up, that's basically modeling the rogue's knowledge of anatomy and weaponplay, of how he knows not only how to handle his weapon but knows what part of the body will be most damaged by his blows. It's no problem at all to assume that a Pathfinder RPG rogue also learns about the best ways of killing undead and constructs and the like as he gains levels. For constructs, he'll be attacking seams and joints and places where the creature's body is weak, or perhaps striking at places where the magical or elemental animating force is most vulnerable. For undead, he'll have picked up knowledge like "Aim for a vampire's heart" or "Stab a zombie in the head" or "Aim for the center of the ribcage of a skeleton" and so on. Most folk wouldn't know how and where to attack a creature's vulnerabilities; that's why most folk don't have sneak attack.It is absurd to assume that all rogues know the weak points of all monsters. It is even extremely unreasonable to assume that all rogues know the weak points of merely most monsters: why do all rogues know how to kill zombies or golems? What if my rogue never much cared about undead? What if he came from a society that just didn't have them and he had never heard of them until he ends up in a fight with a skeleton? It was bad enough that D&D has made all rogues concerned with stabbing people in the kidneys, but this limits the number of characters you can model accurately with the class to a ridiculous degree. All rogues apparently spend all their time reading obscure journals so that they know how to quickly kill every possible creature in existence.
There are two basic ways of looking at this issue: gameplay and fidelity.
Gameplay:
Sneak Attack is the primary combat ability of the Rogue and because combat forms a major part of most D&D/Pathfinder games, it is important that the Rogue can get at least some use out of this ability in most battles. That was the rational for why the range of creatures invulnerable to Sneak Attack was narrowed down basically to only amorphous beings, completely devoid of any anatomy. This was a sound decision, but in my experience, this change has gone too far and I was forced to curb it again, by limiting (but not abolishing) the damage Sneak Attack does to formerly immune creatures. This still allows the Rogue the use of his ability at pretty much all times, but it is less useful in some situations and more useful in others.
Classes should have something interesting to do in nearly all situations, but ultimately I fundamentally disagree with the philosophy that they must be equally useful in all situations that seems to drive 4E. At many tables that basically ensures that the most 'dominant' players dominate the game in virtually all situations and the more 'meek' players never get the chance for their characters to shine. Ultimately, that reduces fun over time - at least it does from my perspective.
Besides, situations that put limits on an ability break the monotony of doing the same thing at all times. Spell resistance does this for spells of Wizards/Sorcerers/etc. and reduced damage against some creatures can do this for precision damage/Sneak Attack of Rogues/Scouts/etc.
Fidelity:
There are two basic types of weak points that can be targeted. The first set of weak-points are related to externally visible structure of the creature - where it has joints/seam/sense cracks in the hide/etcetera. Let us call them external weak points. These can be targetted on any creature (other than truly amorphous or symmetrically-shaped creatures) to a great extent even without prior knowledge of its anatomy.
The second set of weak-points refers to those based on the internal anatomy, internal organs and so on. Let us call them internal weak points. These are difficult to target without prior knowledge and indeed many creatures, such as the Undead, Plants and Constructs either lack them entirely, or have them in only a very limited fashion.
As such, it would make sense to arrange creatures into three natural categories for the purposes of precision-based damage:
1) Creatures vulnerable to precision-based damage (e.g. Sneak Attacks, Critical Hits, etcetera) - these have both external weak-points an numerous/well-known internal weak-points e.g. Humanoids
2) Creatures resistant to precision-based damage - these have external weak-points, but their internal weak-points are either non-existent or very limited/unknown e.g. Undead
3) Creatures invulnerable to precision-based damage - these have neither major external nor major internal weak-points e.g. Oozes
To simplify matters it would have to be whole types and subtypes assigned to each of those categories, though some special individual creatures can always be treated as exceptions and be assigned to a different category on a case by case basis in the new Monster Manual.
Note: Category number 2 would also work for creatures with no external weak points, but significant internal weak points, should such creatures make an appearance.
|
|
As such, it would make sense to arrange creatures into three natural categories for the purposes of precision-based damage:
1) Creatures vulnerable to precision-based damage (e.g. Sneak Attacks, Critical Hits, etcetera) - these have both external weak-points an numerous/well-known internal weak-points e.g. Humanoids
2) Creatures resistant to precision-based damage - these have external weak-points, but their internal weak-points are either non-existent or very limited/unknown e.g. Undead
3) Creatures invulnerable to precision-based damage - these have neither major external nor major internal weak-points e.g. Oozes
To simplify matters it would have to be whole types and subtypes assigned to each of those categories, though some special individual creatures can always be treated as exceptions and be assigned to a different category on a case by case basis in the new Monster Manual.
Note: Category number 2 would also work for creatures with no external weak points, but significant internal weak points, should such creatures make an appearance.
Cool idea. It would make new monsters easier to handle as well. For those who like the idea of Knowledge checks, maybe the Category 2 types would come with a DC for being able to do precision damage to them.
Cool idea. It would make new monsters easier to handle as well. For those who like the idea of Knowledge checks, maybe the Category 2 types would come with a DC for being able to do precision damage to them.As such, it would make sense to arrange creatures into three natural categories for the purposes of precision-based damage:
1) Creatures vulnerable to precision-based damage (e.g. Sneak Attacks, Critical Hits, etcetera) - these have both external weak-points an numerous/well-known internal weak-points e.g. Humanoids
2) Creatures resistant to precision-based damage - these have external weak-points, but their internal weak-points are either non-existent or very limited/unknown e.g. Undead
3) Creatures invulnerable to precision-based damage - these have neither major external nor major internal weak-points e.g. Oozes
To simplify matters it would have to be whole types and subtypes assigned to each of those categories, though some special individual creatures can always be treated as exceptions and be assigned to a different category on a case by case basis in the new Monster Manual.
Note: Category number 2 would also work for creatures with no external weak points, but significant internal weak points, should such creatures make an appearance.
Category 1 and Category 3 are both pretty clear, the first being the completely vulnerable creatures and the latter being completely invulnerable beings. Precision damage to Category 2 creatures would be dealt with by a universal rule giving them some sort of resistance to it or possibility to avoid it. This could take the form of something like taking half-damage (from Sneak Attack and other precision damage) or Damage Reduction or perhaps even Hardness against precision damage or some other unified rule, such as allowing them saving throws against it, or whatever other option was eventually settled on.
If we wanted the expand the system further, than this 'resistance' could be made by-passable by making the appropriate knowledge checks or taking feats expanding the use of Sneak Attack (or even critical hits) to the resistant types of creatures.