all fine with some form of sneak attack working against constructs, I just hope they get fortification and hardness instead of DR X/adamantine.
the same weak spots could be used against many inanimate objects, would a rogue get to sneak attack a common stone statue or other object (like a weapon) ?
|
the same weak spots could be used against many inanimate objects, would a rogue get to sneak attack a common stone statue or other object (like a weapon)?
This is very true. It works for Constructs and undead as well. The Barbarian and the Fighter with all their Strength buffs go at the wall with sledge hammers, until the rogue wakes up from the nap to sneak attack it with a freaking spoon.
I really can see Crits. Like it has been said, they are a lot rarer, and based soley on chance. Sneak Attack is against constructs literally means you do not need fighters, because any rogue with an INT of 2+ is going to sunder their +10 weapons with ease, and you don't need Clerics or Paladins because a group or Rogue will own them in half the rounds that it would take the entire party with a Turning Cleric build to do it. Adding more HP means that Rogues take over the roll of Undead Hunters because all other Classes, ESPECIALLY CLERICS AND PALADINS can no longer even try and compete with them in combat.
It is too bad the rogue is bored fighting a lot of Undead. A Paladin would be bored trying to outsteal the local thieves guild, and a Wizard would be bored trying to rise in ranks of a Theocracy. Those things are not intended for all classes. The truth is, that the rogue does have meaningful, personal things they can still do when fighting undead. They can not fight at their max. potential, but neither can the fighter. Against most golems, the Wizard and Cleric are generally just as bad off, because many Golems are immune to or actually helped by offensive spells, and immune to the smalled amounts of damage they can do in melee.
|
the same weak spots could be used against many inanimate objects, would a rogue get to sneak attack a common stone statue or other object (like a weapon) ?
It wouldn't bother me if they were, although it seems to me that you could make a case for those things being crittable -- they have locational vulnerabilities -- but not being sneak-attackable because the rogue has no special insight. But it wouldn't bother me if, for ease of book-keeping, they were sneak-attackable too, because I definitely think they should be crittable. So, although my main interest is in re-establishing the crit-sneak-attack link for the new expanded set of sneak-attackable opponents, I don't mind if there are things like truly inanimate objects that are crittable but not sneak-attackable.
|
|
Also, as James Jacobs points out quite often, undead can now get their hp bonus from charisma (rather than suffer from lack of Con); as a consequence, the game balance reasons for excluding critting undead in 3.5, at least, are fading. Although there are world-logic arguments against the crittability/sneak-attackability of undead in 3.5, they always seemed to me to be motivated, under the covers, by the game balance issues which are no longer particularly valid. Consequently, I don't think that it's damaging things too much to roll it back so that undead are crittable (and then, I would prefer, as a consequence sneak-attackable, unlike the current Beta situation which breaks that crittability/sneak-attackability link in favour of expanded sneak-attackability; I want to preserve the link but achieve the same Beta expansion to sneak attack by expanding crittability).