Does anyone else thinks it might be nifty if rogues could use Disable Device to hamper Constructs instead of using Sneak Attack to cause them extra damage? The DC to affect a construct might be 10 + 1/2 its HD + its Con modifier (usually 0 from Con -). Success means the Construct is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the rogue's Int bonus (minimum 1). For every 5 the DC is beat, a different condition would be applied, like entangled, slowed, dazed, etc.
Its an interesting idea, but it runs into a snag. It really only makes sense against about 25% of the total construct population. Specifically, those that have moving parts, rather than an animated homogenous mass.
Moving parts constructs that I can think of: automatons like the Hammerer and Pulverizer, anything of a clockwork nature, some animated objects that are complex objects like a grandfather clock, piano, or a chariot.
Homogenous constructs that I can think of: 99% of golems, the rest of the animated objects, anything else made out of a big chunk of some raw material.
I like the idea, don't get me wrong, it would be nice for some people who are generally "screwed" by constructs to find a possible advantage, and while I have long houseruled that various undead have various levels of fortification, its harder to do with constructs (as most still have just full fortification). Unfortunately, Disable Device just doesn't seem like the right mechanic to use.
Now, if you made a feat that had light prereqs involving Disable Device, Craft: Alchemy, and Knowledge Arc, I could see something.
Maybe give golems a +10 or +20 racial bonus to the DC to Disable them?
A feat might work, but it seems a little costly. A fighter doesn't have to spend a feat to still hit with a greatsword against constructs, a wizard or cleric doesn't have to spend a feat to still be able to cast against constructs (she just has to be canny enough to choose spells w/o SR....or spend a feat on a Reserve Feat (they're supernatural abilities, so they affect golems, etc., with that ultra-SR)).
Maybe more constructs should be clockwork, with monoliths like golems the exception rather than the majority.
A feat might work, but it seems a little costly. A fighter doesn't have to spend a feat to still hit with a greatsword against constructs,
A rogue doesn't have to spend a feat to sneak attack them.
Always depends on what you want to accomplish.
a wizard or cleric doesn't have to spend a feat to still be able to cast against constructs (she just has to be canny enough to choose spells w/o SR....or spend a feat on a Reserve Feat (they're supernatural abilities, so they affect golems, etc., with that ultra-SR)).
Wait: You say that the casters don't have to spend a feat to spend a Reserve Feat?? ;-P
|
Its an interesting idea, but it runs into a snag. It really only makes sense against about 25% of the total construct population. Specifically, those that have moving parts, rather than an animated homogenous mass.
Not really. A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps which do not have moving parts.
In fact, I feel that based on this ability, it is easy to assume that Rogues have a feel for weaknesses in magical things as well as mechanical/biological ones, which explains nicely how they can now sneak attack constructs, undead ...
When I think of a rogue sneak-attacking, I picture Karnak of the Inhumans. "There is always a weakness."
The Technosavant from D20 Future has a similar ability against robots. She does extra damage, and gets a bonus on her grapple checks vs robots to more easily use Disable Device against them.
I didn't mean that rogues and fighters were the same. I was just using the example that the fighter tool almost always works, so the rogue tool or wizard tool, etc., should also almost always work--or their tool belt should have more than one tool in it, so they don't just sit around, twiddling their thumbs.
Maybe tie sneak attack to Skills?
5 Ranks Disable Device - can sneak attack constructs
5 Ranks Knowledge (Religion) - can sneak attack undead
5 Ranks Knowledge (Dungeoneering) - can sneak attack oozes
5 Ranks Knowledge (The Planes) - can sneak attack elementals
5 Ranks Healing - bonus sneak attack die vs. humanoids
5 Ranks Knowledge (Arcana) - bonus sneak attack die vs. magical beasts/dragons
Maybe tie sneak attack to Skills?
5 Ranks Disable Device - can sneak attack constructs
5 Ranks Knowledge (Religion) - can sneak attack undead
5 Ranks Knowledge (Dungeoneering) - can sneak attack oozes
5 Ranks Knowledge (The Planes) - can sneak attack elementals
5 Ranks Healing - bonus sneak attack die vs. humanoids
5 Ranks Knowledge (Arcana) - bonus sneak attack die vs. magical beasts/dragons
I kinda like it, though it's like a skill tax. I rather see a special rogue ability, say at first and every 4 levels after to choose a monster type being immune to Sneak Attack in 3.X to be sneakable. That helps distinct rogues, at least in low and mid level.
The new system has gone a little bit too far.And disable Device to hinder a construct? Well it adds some extra juice to an already valueable skill but is *very* special. Well, nice idea, but more for a specialised, campaign specific PrC.
Maybe tie sneak attack to Skills?
I don't like it. Rogue's aren't supposed to be knoledgeable, and most of those skills aren't even on the class skill list - and neither should they be.
Plus, why don't they need Knowledge (Nature) to sneak humanoids? Why is it assumed they know more about humanoids than undead? Are they supposed to be all humans? No more vampire rogues?
"Skill tax" is a horrible practise. If it's a class ability, make it a class ability. If it's a skill, make it a skill. No rules muties.
As far as being useful against golems w/o moving parts, I can see where you might realize that you can hinder it by damaging a specific part of a glyph, rune or sigil on its surface, striking at a "power gem" or whatever just like you would know that using your dagger to scratch the little tail of the faintly visible curly-cue glyph is the only safe way to disarm a specific type of magical trap.
Why not be able, with, say, heal, to strike the solar plexus and disable a person? Why this discrimination against constructs - oh, wait, it's not constructs! It's "artificial people!" ;-)
It's less about discrimination and more about consistent rules.
What about allowing a Disable Device check (say, DC 20 + construct's 1/2 HD), so the rogue could devise a weak point and make use of sneak attack?