|
It has been stated and discussed several times that the rogue can now sneak attack anything, or at lest everything that has an anatomy. This includes corporeal undead and constructs, who were previously (3,5) immune to sneak attacks.
But I can't find the rules anywhere. Where does it say that that rogues can now sneak attack undead? Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Entropi,
It's on p. 40 of the Beta rules in the Designer Notes sidebar.
CR
|
This has been a HUGE problem for some people using Pathfinder with 3.5 MM. Because there is no clear cut, definitive call on which monsters are susceptible to precision based attacks. That will be fixed when Pathfinder Bestiary comes out. Until then, just use common sense for what would be vulnerable to precision based attacks.
I think what will eventually end up happening is that all creatures will be susceptible to sneak attack unless the monster entry specifically states otherwise. That said, I would imagine the core rules entry on sneak attack will state as such to alleviate any confusion.
CR
|
|
Yes, but it seems that thas is not the case anymore. Corporeal undead and constructs are still immune to crits, but no longer to sneak attacks.
Another question: One of my players said that he was positive that a rogue can't sneak attack with his off-hand weapon. I just can't find any rules concerning this, nor any clarifications on the boards. Can a rogue sneak attack with his off-hand weapon?
|
Another question: One of my players said that he was positive that a rogue can't sneak attack with his off-hand weapon. I just can't find any rules concerning this, nor any clarifications on the boards. Can a rogue sneak attack with his off-hand weapon?
Hmm. I've always allowed sneak attacks with the off-hand. You apply less of a strength bonus on damage with the off-hand, but that's the only limitation I can think of.
|
Again, from memory, the offhand attack occurs after all other attacks. If the primary was a sneak attack this does not mean that off hand attacks are also sneak. If the conditions off the off hand attack mean that sneaks are allow, such as flanking, then the off hand is sneak. A lot can happen in a round and smart characters would want to move away from the sneak attacking two weapon rogue. :)
You can sneak attack with everything that requires an attack roll and does HP damage: Your main weapon, your off weapon, natural attacks, weapon-like spells (rays and touch spells etc.), you name it.
And as long as the requirements are met, you can sneak attack as often as you want. Even if you happen to be a hecatoncheires rogue and have a hundred attacks, you can sneak with all of them.
So a full-attacking rogue with three attacks does sneak attack damage three times?
I've seen it in play, but thought it was some feat exploit.
Any attack that meets the criteria (has the class feature, vulnerable to sneak attacks, denied Dex bonus or flanked) is a sneak attack.So a full-attacking rogue with three attacks does sneak attack damage three times?
I've seen it in play, but thought it was some feat exploit.
Thanks for clearing that up. I haven't played a rogue since they were thieves!
I haven't played a rogue since they were thieves!
A pity. One of the coolest classes.
And yes, as long as the criteria are met, you can keep sneak attacking.
If you shoot from hiding, you're no longer hidden after the first attack, so the other attacks aren't sneak attacks. Same with regular invisibility.
But if you use improved invisibility, you stay invisible, so you can keep sneak attacking. Same if you attack from a flanking position, or if the enemy's still flat-footed (win init and the enemy can say goodbye to his dearest organs.)
Millipede!
|
Millipede!
Ooooh I found my next character, I'll have it take leadership and have a lower level awakened milipede rogue/monk cohort. With enough ranks in acrobatics we'll be unstopable and kill any creature in two rounds.
Of course we'll be monstrous milipedes, not normal milipedes, medium size baby. A one level monk dip gives an armor bonus and increased damage die oh this is fun.
Of course we'll be monstrous milipedes, not normal milipedes, medium size baby. A one level monk dip gives an armor bonus and increased damage die oh this is fun.
Don't be silly lastknight... diminutive size gives +4 AC and Attack bonuses and +12 to Stealth!
Of course we'll be monstrous milipedes, not normal milipedes, medium size baby. A one level monk dip gives an armor bonus and increased damage die oh this is fun.Don't be silly lastknight... diminutive size gives +4 AC and Attack bonuses and +12 to Stealth!
Exactly! Plus, everyone's sneak attack dice are the same size. Great equaliser!
On the other hand, you can't flank if you don't have reach, so you should be at least small size.
Wait, wait: Wasn't there some feat for really small critters that let them enter someone else's square and then sneak attack them?
Or you sneak into their ear. They cannot see you there, and you should be close to some vitals. Sneak attack forever. Muahahaha.
|
I seriously doubt they will actually go this far. I am thinking that rogue players are reading to far into what was just more a generalization.
If Rogues an sneak attack "anything", it completely ruins any sense of backwards compatibility for 100% of all thoe old 3.5 material, which is not the "mission statement" of PathFinder. It also completely overpowers Rogues (and other classes with similar abilities).
I am thinking that rogue players are reading to far into what was just more a generalization.
Nope, the beta says, in so many words, that rogues can sneak attack anything that doesn't have any weakspots
If Rogues an sneak attack "anything", it completely ruins any sense of backwards compatibility for 100% of all thoe old 3.5 material
No, it doesn't. It doesn't even scratch BC that much. You can still use monsters and rogue stat blocks exactly the way you could if the sidebar wasn't there. No problem at all.
If you think that breaks backwards compatibility, you must have had a screaming fit when you read about changed HD and extra class features and different/ additional ratial traits.
You did read about all that, didn't you?
It also completely overpowers Rogues (and other classes with similar abilities).
No, it doesn't. It doesn't raise the power level at all. It just means that their power is not a bit more reliable. You can now play a combat-related rogue in a game centered on undead. You couldn't do that properly in 3e, because your main damage dealing ability is totally nixed.
And rogues still cannot hold a candle to a PF fighter if it comes to dealing damage. Even if they get to do use sneak attack on all their attacks - which they don't - the fighter will outperform him. Raw damage bonuses, more attacks, more reliable attacks... it all adds up.
|
|
Nope, the beta says, in so many words, that rogues can sneak attack anything that doesn't have any weakspots
Doesn't it say they can sneak attack anything that has a discernible anatomy? Anyhow, it certainly is 'nearly everything'. It'd better see expanded crittability to match (and the PFRPG duellist* relies on crittability, although intriguingly it also uses 'discernable anatomy' language), though, as I've claimed before.
*And why is it spelt 'duelist' rather than 'duellist' in the Prestige Web Enhancement? Is that an American spelling?
That does seem kinda silly. Personally I think that is broken and the 3.5 rule is superior. It also makes some rogue/other class feats redunant.
Pretty much none of which are OGL and thus cannot be included in Pathfinder as is.
Expanding what can be sneak attacked (and hopefully crit-ed) will not break the game and, hopefully, will keep rogues from being quite so sidelined in undead-heavy campaigns.
If you shoot from hiding, you're no longer hidden after the first attack, so the other attacks aren't sneak attacks. Same with regular invisibility.
Actually, you can. Under the sniping rules, you can try to continue to hide... though at something like -20 on the check. So, it's hard, but it's not impossible to stay hidden after firing off a sneak attack.
Actually, you can. Under the sniping rules, you can try to continue to hide... though at something like -20 on the check. So, it's hard, but it's not impossible to stay hidden after firing off a sneak attack.
If you shoot from hiding, you're no longer hidden after the first attack, so the other attacks aren't sneak attacks. Same with regular invisibility.
Pretty sure he meant the first attack in a round - that sniping/hiding takes a move action to do right?
Pretty sure he meant the first attack in a round - that sniping/hiding takes a move action to do right?Actually, you can. Under the sniping rules, you can try to continue to hide... though at something like -20 on the check. So, it's hard, but it's not impossible to stay hidden after firing off a sneak attack.
If you shoot from hiding, you're no longer hidden after the first attack, so the other attacks aren't sneak attacks. Same with regular invisibility.
It does, but I thought it might be worth making clear that the first shot, if that's the only shot you take, might not actually reveal you... with a good follow-up sneak check. I should have been clearer by saying "you can remain hidden."
Doesn't it say they can sneak attack anything that has a discernible anatomy?
"Generally speaking, only creatures that do not have a weak
spot at all, either due to a homogenous nature or nearindestructiblebuild, are immune to sneak attack."
*And why is it spelt 'duelist' rather than 'duellist' in the Prestige Web Enhancement? Is that an American spelling?
Yes. duelist is the American angle, while duellist is British.
Actually, you can.
Won't give you multiple sneak attacks in a round, though.
It does, but I thought it might be worth making clear that the first shot, if that's the only shot you take, might not actually reveal you... with a good follow-up sneak check. I should have been clearer by saying "you can remain hidden."
Good clarification - thanks!
duelist is the American angle, while duellist is British.
Ever travel with a traveller? ;)
|
|
I am thinking that rogue players are reading to far into what was just more a generalization.Nope, the beta says, in so many words, that rogues can sneak attack anything that doesn't have any weakspots
To which you can just as easily and more realistically argue that Constructs have no anatomy (in the sense it is being used here) or "weakspots", and Undead have no working anatomy, and thus rogue players are reading to far into this and making it apear to do something it does not.
It is more realistic to have the rogue try to backstab the vampire through the kidney and back away in terror as they realize that their "nuke" attack fails because they are stabbing a dead shrivled organ rather than instakilling the vampire with a toothpick sneak attack.
If Rogues an sneak attack "anything", it completely ruins any sense of backwards compatibility for 100% of all thoe old 3.5 material
No, it doesn't. It doesn't even scratch BC that much. You can still use monsters and rogue stat blocks exactly the way you could if the sidebar wasn't there. No problem at all.
Ya, it really does.
If you think that breaks backwards compatibility, you must have had a screaming fit when you read about changed HD and extra class features and different/ additional ratial traits.
You did read about all that, didn't you?
There is a huge difference between tweeking a few spells and classes, and saying something like "Cleric spells no longer allow saves", which is the exact same thing that this implies.
There is a huge difference between tweeking a few spells and classes, and saying something like "Cleric spells no longer allow saves", which is the exact same thing that this implies.
Of course, saying "cleric spells no longer allow saves" is also completely backward compatible. You don't have to convert a singles stat block to use that rule (other than, I suppose, ignoring any listed save DCs for cleric spells).
I am thinking that rogue players are reading to far into what was just more a generalization.Nope, the beta says, in so many words, that rogues can sneak attack anything that doesn't have any weakspots
To which you can just as easily and more realistically argue that Constructs have no anatomy (in the sense it is being used here) or "weakspots", and Undead have no working anatomy, and thus rogue players are reading to far into this and making it apear to do something it does not.
It is more realistic to have the rogue try to backstab the vampire through the kidney and back away in terror as they realize that their "nuke" attack fails because they are stabbing a dead shrivled organ rather than instakilling the vampire with a toothpick sneak attack.
If Rogues an sneak attack "anything", it completely ruins any sense of backwards compatibility for 100% of all thoe old 3.5 materialNo, it doesn't. It doesn't even scratch BC that much. You can still use monsters and rogue stat blocks exactly the way you could if the sidebar wasn't there. No problem at all.
Ya, it really does.
If you think that breaks backwards compatibility, you must have had a screaming fit when you read about changed HD and extra class features and different/ additional ratial traits.
You did read about all that, didn't you?
There is a huge difference between tweeking a few spells and classes, and saying something like "Cleric spells no longer allow saves", which is the exact same thing that this implies.
I like the idea that rogue can sneak attack anything. I rule though they have to know what they are sneak attacking though. I'll use you Vampire example to. If the rogue thinks the vampire is a normal human and goes for shot to the kidneys as sneak attack the attack fails. I would rule it fails until they can figure out what it is.
I think for sneak attack everything might works best with a skill check such as knowledge. A rogue needs to determine where the weak spot is. A rogue would need to know where the week spot is in a vampire for example. With out that knowledge the sneak attack will always fail. It would be automatic for most living creatures but for undead I'd require the knowledge same for constructs or any other monster that normally in 3.5 couldn't be the target of sneak attack.
|
|
I think for sneak attack everything might works best with a skill check such as knowledge. A rogue needs to determine where the weak spot is. A rogue would need to know where the week spot is in a vampire for example. With out that knowledge the sneak attack will always fail. It would be automatic for most living creatures but for undead I'd require the knowledge same for constructs or any other monster that normally in 3.5 couldn't be the target of sneak attack.
Apart from the fact that it'd add further overhead to combat, logically having successfully fought and sneak-attacked them before (or maybe even specifically preparing for the combat) would allow for sneak attacking without the knowledge roll... and even more overhead. I can't see it catching on, to be honest; there's enough going on as it is, in 3.x combat.
...
It is more realistic to have the rogue try to backstab the vampire through the kidney and back away in terror as they realize that their "nuke" attack fails because they are stabbing a dead shrivled organ rather than instakilling the vampire with a toothpick sneak attack.
...
I guess it would be interesting to add something that requires the rogue to actually Know the creatures' type to apply Sneak Damage in some cases.
Attacking an "undercover" vampire or diguised flesh golem should really mess with sneak attack.EDIT: Ninja-ed!
To which you can just as easily and more realistically argue that Constructs have no anatomy (in the sense it is being used here) or "weakspots",
They cannot move, either. Something that's completely made of stone but moves? That's not realistic at all. And dead bodies moving about working on anti-life? Life's not a force, it's a process. There is no counter-process to it.
and Undead have no working anatomy, and thus rogue players are reading to far into this and making it apear to do something it does not.
Give it a rest. You can try to win this with semantics, but it won't work. The sidebar is making a very clear point about this, and only a lawyer who wants to wiggle out of something would read it otherwise.
By the way, the sidebar never mentions anatomy at all.
Constructs can have weak spots, same for undead. Corporeal undead can still be decapitated (which at least robs them of nearly all senses, and may disrupt the whole energy field that animates them), and constructs can have sensible parts that are more fragile.
It is more realistic to have the rogue try to backstab the vampire through the kidney and back away in terror as they realize that their "nuke" attack fails because they are stabbing a dead shrivled organ rather than instakilling the vampire with a toothpick sneak attack.
There is that word again: realistic. Anything that involves a Dracula-style vampire isn't realistic to begin with. Anything with magic and all that isn't realistic.
You might use a word like credible. But I don't see how a rogue who is taught all the weak spots of humans, elves, dwarves, all other humanoids, dragons, outsiders, animals, magical beasts,..... cannot be taught the weak spots of vampires and other undead, and pretty much every other creature, too.
Ya, it really does.
How? You don't have to change any stat blocks for this or anything. It doesn't increase the rogue's power level, either, only his versatility.
There is a huge difference between tweeking a few spells and classes, and saying something like "Cleric spells no longer allow saves", which is the exact same thing that this implies.
There's whole multiverses between sneak attack working on other creatures and cleric spells no longer allowing saves, and you know it.
I guess it would be interesting to add something that requires the rogue to actually Know the creatures' type to apply Sneak Damage in some cases.
I can see this. Make it an extra use of the disguise skill: Disguise your weak spots to gain sneak attack immunity. If the rogue makes his perception check, he sees through the ruse and can still hit you were it hurts most.
But as long as the type is known, I say let them sneak attack. It has always been like that: Rogues sneaking creatures they haven't met before, of races they haven't met before, even of monster types they haven't met before. Right now, they can sneak attack aberrations. Learning where to stap a neothelid won't help you find weak spots on a drider, or an aboleth.
But no one complained then, so I don't see why they shouldn't just know an undead's weak spots, either.
love the idea of using Disguise to make things more challenging :)
it's similar to developing a magic resistance or damage resistance
reminds me of a game that allowed vampyrs to move thier heart to a different body location to thwart being staked lol :D
also like a Knowledge check to know where to look for a weak spot in the first place for monsters :)
Rogues are skill monkeys, so make them use thier skills
granted knowledge isn't thier forte, but Barbarians need Wisdom for Survival LOL
every class has a little niggly like this, rogues should too.
Rogues are skill monkeys, so make them use thier skills
granted knowledge isn't thier forte, but Barbarians need Wisdom for Survival
Barbarians not getting that much of an ability bonus to survival and rogues being unable to sneak attack 90% of the existing monsters/monster types is not the same.
We're talking about 5 different skills here. That's about half the skill points a rogue gets.
Rogues are skill monkeys, so let them use their skills, not force them to put their points into knowledge - that's a wizard or bard thing.
...Make it an extra use of the disguise skill: Disguise your weak spots to gain sneak attack immunity...
Sound like a good call since disguise in also already linked to the polymorph sub-school it could work well for thoses cases too. And the rogue could realize something's off after "failing" a sneak against an opponent: Why isn't he bleeding? or worst: What the heck is that stuff oozing out?!
Now of course this can get into arguments of balance and crazy, huge amounts of damage, but Rogues can keep rolling fists full of d6s whenever they meet these criteria according to the RAW.
That seems to be my main problem with how the rogue is set up. I'm in a Beta game with a bunch of friends, and there's a Rogue in the party that is continuously out-damaging the Barbarian (who himself does over 100 damage an attack phase) with a dagger, has a higher AC than the rest of the party (32 now that we're level 10, I still don't know how), pluss more skills than anyone else in the game. It just seems to me that there's a HUGE balance issue here. The rogue is singly the most powerful character class in the game.
In my humble opinion, the problem doesn't lie in what the rogue can sneak attack, and only minorly with what he can sneak attack with (there's something wrong with a Rogue sneak attacking with a great-axe. But I digress). My main problem is with the amount of sneak attacks a rogue gets. Personally, I think it should be that you EITHER attack, or you sneak attack. If you sneak attack, you get the one attack, and that's it. In addition to the rogue having more skills than any other class, as well as the rogue's ability to successfully use magic items, despite being a non-magic using class, and with the added bonus special effects one can put onto sneak attack (like bleed, for example), this seems to be balanced.
It was said before that the rogue is one of the coolest classes. This should be a matter of personal opinion, and not of game statistics. Personally, I'm a fan of rangers. However, I know that if I'm a ranger in an urban or dungeon setting, most of my skills are going to be pretty useless ("I'm not sure if that moss is edible, or if it's going to try to kill us.") Every class has it's place and role in a party. Not everyone is a damage-dealer, nor should they be. The melee damage dealers should be the fighters and barbarians (though I've seen Paladins do a whole lot), mainly because that's all they have. They have the feats, the armor/damage reduction, and the health to stand up on the front lines and take the big hits. The backup damage is the Wizard and Sorcerer. If you have a party with only these people, you'll die. No healing, no protection from traps, just raw damage.
The rogue has always been a utility class, taking care of obstacles other than monsters. With a rogue sneak-attacking for 6d6 4 times (2 attacks with 2 off-hand attacks), he out-damages everyone in the party, can take care of all the traps, and can use all the magic items. With all that, why would anyone not be playing a rogue? Just load them all up with wands of Cure Moderate and have a party of 6 rogues. You don't need anything else!
This is a huge problem. It makes it so every other class is basically useless or plays VERY small, fringe roles. Who needs the Wizard except to identify? Who needs the Cleric except to recharge our wands when we can't reach a town and buy new ones? Who needs any other class at all?
I understand the needs for a rogue to be able to sneak-attack a lot more stuff, they shouldn't be totally useless in combat. But the pendulum has swung WAY to far in the other direction.
I guess it should be noted that back before 3rd edition came out, back during 2nd edition, the Thief was my favorite class. I loved Thieves because they could do things other classes couldn't do, like climb sheer walls and disappear into the shadows. Once 3rd ed came out, I found myself shying away from the rogue that everyone else seems to think they're so cool. They have a lot of skills and can do a lot of damage. That's never what the rogue was meant to be. They're there to supplement the party, not take it over.
I don't mean or intend to offend anyone, but I just don't think that rogues should be the end-all, be-all. No class should. Every class should have a basic role, and all those roles should compliment each other. The basic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard party is a good system, but under the new rules, you can feasibly have Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue and take out almost any campaign, regardless of who or what it may contain. I see a huge problem with this.
Anyway, those are just my personal opinions.
|
|
I fully agree. It is just way to easy for a Rogue to outdo the main damage-dealers, and that is not their job. Rather it is not suppossed to be.
I am much more for the Knowledge checks before sneak attack, (so much better than just they do it). Especially if those checks are not class skills, require some sort of action prior to the sneak attack (like the assassins death attack), and also means that it is not a constant super-power-ranger special attack.
It also means that the Rogue is going to have to specialize in something, (something the class has really been in need of), or just not be very good at certain combats.
Additionally, especially with the Disguise concept, it gives both a mechanical and thematic reason for monster to ignor the Rogue, (like the vampire example above).
It is just way to easy for a Rogue to outdo the main damage-dealers, and that is not their job.
I am much more for the Knowledge checks before sneak attack...
It also means that the Rogue is going to have to specialize in something, or just not be very good at certain combats.
Additionally, especially with the Disguise concept, it gives both a mechanical and thematic reason for monster to ignor the Rogue
Wow. Just Wow.
Are you guys for real?
Are you going to put the same limitations on all the classes?
Rogues ARE supposed to be damage dealers; they are melee DPS which is situationally based - they are already restricted in that they need to be within melee range, and then need to be correctly positioned to do their thing. Mages/Sorcs etc can stand well back from the fracas and nuke away, and ranged spec Rangers can be right beside them plinking away from relative safety.
So to answer your point, they are already specialists at something - close quarter melee subject to the vagaries and strategies of their opponents - are you suggesting similar restrictions on other classes - ie Fighters having to make Int checks in order to use any sort of 'strategic' tactics or they wont be able to employ their weapons effectively? How about Wizards making Spellcraft checks every time they fire off or take some kind of penalty... what about Clerics reciting the prayer properly by using Knowledge(Religion) every time?
Disguise concept is also pretty silly... can you imagine a Vampire climbing out of his coffin and applying bandages on the odd chance a Rogue might happen along that day and confuse him for a Mummy?
Smart monsters should be played in an intelligent fashion, and if they do that they CAN ignore the Rogue (to an extent) while they deal with the more pressing threats.
Yeah, I'm with Shifty.
Wow.
"The rogue is singly the most powerful character class in the game."
If you believe that, I've got a bridge I can sell you.
Rogue IS an awesome class. I love them. But if you think a rogue can outdamage a well-built barbarian/druid/wizard/cleric you need to take a critical eye to the aforementioned characters in your game, NOT the rogue.
Granted, 3.5 druids aren't the insanity that they once were, but you can still do all sorts of unhealthy things with them. Clerics are even more powerful now than they used to be, and are the most powerful class in my opinion.
Mages, yeah. Your rogue doesn't do so hot against the ability to spot him despite his stealth and nuke/control/summon all over him. Not to mention that there are plenty of buffed up casters that could just swat him down with a quickness in melee.
Barbarians/Fighters can choose to do amounts of damage in melee that no other class can touch. Or they can not. If they decided to go with finesse weapons or spring attack or whatever, it's not the rogue's fault that they prefer something besides raw damage.
I don't know what you're playing, but you might ask your rogue for some tips to how to make the other characters in your game slightly more on par with his.
More on topic:
I played a rogue/good-aligned assassin (I know it was a joke class =P) in age of wyrms, and let me assure you that not being able to SA undead was bull. They've got eyes/arms/ankles. Well, mostly. Anyway, if it weren't for the skullclan hunter prestige class, I'd have been up a creek 80% of the time.
I'm okay with some things not being subject to sneak attack. Oozes spring to mind. But I honestly believe everything in the game should be susceptible to crits. It's an extra powerful attack, which I see as being extra effort/good fortune on the part of the attacker; not the target. But I digress...
|
|
I believe it because I have seen it. I've seen it way to much, and it is not fun for anyone but the Rogue(s). Rogue is way to easy to Min/Max and PowerGame. It is not something the Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin did wrong, it is the fact that there is not much they can do that a Rogue can't also do, and usually better. Sneak Attack is that good. It barely qualifies as a circumstancial, because what is needed is very easy to get. (Proficiency with a big weapon, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Charge on the first round destroys most things, or dang near close to it, before anyone else can even act. Toss in Cleave, maybe a Longspear, or a few other feats and the Rogue takes down not only the boss, but mocks the Fighter by saying he could finish the cleave and drop him.)
I do agree that anything should be able to be critted. That makes sense to me. That helps everyone out more rather than one single class, because even the Sorcerer out of spells can drop someone with a lucky crossbow shot. However, I'm on the opposite side of what should be able to be sneak attacked. In my opinion, I see no reason that Oozes and Constructs shouldn't be able to be sneak attacked. I can see a Rogue sneaking up behind a warforged and shoving their dagger in and it gets stuck in some gears and there is a big grinding noise and steam and than a loud clank and a lot of shaking. Or they stab and Ooze and it pops like a jellyfish. Undead though, no.
Why would anyone bother making undead to guard tombs from thieves, when the thieves will probably destroy the mummies (for example) before they even crawl out of the sarcafigi? Zombies are now useless, because the party just takes their tea while the rogue goes around "Taking 2" to sneak up and get rid of all the guards to the evil Necromancers cave.