|
The section on concealment does have a paragraph headed "Varying Degrees of Concealment" which basically says that you're allowed to use numbers other than 20% and 50% if you feel it's appropriate to the situation. Those are simply the two default conditions.
Yup, that's what I recall from 3.0, but got simplified in 3.5.
I'm happy to use varying scale, but not every DM is, what with it being seen as an 'optional rule' (ie heresy).It's like the cover rules; they used to have percentages that related to the actual proportion covered, now it's a flat modifier.
"Whoo-Hoo, There's a small rock shielding my left foot! Plus Four AC! No Attacks of Opportunity! Eat it!"
"Whoo-Hoo, There's a small rock shielding my left foot! Plus Four AC! No Attacks of Opportunity! Eat it!"
LMFAO!!
Director of Games
|
It's like the cover rules; they used to have percentages that related to the actual proportion covered, now it's a flat modifier.
"Whoo-Hoo, There's a small rock shielding my left foot! Plus Four AC! No Attacks of Opportunity! Eat it!"
I would not count on that +4 anymore.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Rogues can now use sneak attack on Undead and Constructs just like in the Beta. Although the complete inability in 3.5E to sneak attack those monster/creature types was too restrictive, the ability to conduct full sneak attacks against them is too good. I was hoping for some kind of partial sneak attack against the formerly immune creatures (e.g. half of the sneak attack damage, or perhaps Undead/Constructs and so on could have DR against precision damage [sneak attacks, crits, etc.]). Oh well, it will have to be a house rule.
I also like that non-rogues can find and disarm mechanical traps. Another good fix. It seems that at low levels other classes could be better at finding and/or disarming traps than the rogue? By mid levels the rogue's trapfinding bonuses should offset stat bonuses that put other classes (who buy up WIS) ahead of the rogue at lower levels, but it might be a little awkward for the rogue to take a back seat in the beginning of the campaign when it comes to traps.
Even at low levels, I'd expect a rogue to be competitive. Let's assume a human non-rogue with a base 18 wisdom, 1 rank in perception and the human racial bonus applied to wisdom. That's a perception modifier of +5 (wis) +1 (rank) = +6.
Wisdom is a useful stat, so lets assume our rogue has a 12. Certainly not a prime stat, but reasonable for a secondary stat. With one rank, that gives +1 (wis) +1 (rank) +3 (class skill) = +5.
Skill focus or a racial bonus could help, but that sort of boost is available on to both characters. So even at first level, the rogue is only at -1 relative to wisdom based character without perception as a class skill.
If the character does have perception as a class skill, the rogue is now at -4 instead of -1. That probably requires a Monk or a Druid, as Wisdom isn't a primary ability score for Bard, Barbarian or Ranger. Most monks and many druids won't have a 20 wisdom either, so the difference is likely to be less even at first level.
I can somewhat see a monk as a trap finder. He contemplates the area, looking to see what about it does not fit, looking to see where the aura is wrong. A druid as a trap finder seems strange. It probably makes sense in a cave, but not a building or a constructed dungeon.
I would not count on that +4 anymore.It's like the cover rules; they used to have percentages that related to the actual proportion covered, now it's a flat modifier.
"Whoo-Hoo, There's a small rock shielding my left foot! Plus Four AC! No Attacks of Opportunity! Eat it!"
It's now a 50% miss chance.
Even at low levels, I'd expect a rogue to be competitive. Let's assume a human non-rogue with a base 18 wisdom, 1 rank in perception and the human racial bonus applied to wisdom. That's a perception modifier of +5 (wis) +1 (rank) = +6.it might be a little awkward for the rogue to take a back seat in the beginning of the campaign when it comes to traps.
I think Dosgamer was comparing to say, a Ranger, who would have decent wisdom, and a class skill of Perception (maybe 14 wis, +4 from rank+class = +6 also). Also having any competition at all when it comes to Searching is fairly unusual in 3.5 + downshifting from Int to Wis.
However, most low level traps are not higher than DC 20, and so could be found by others before also (just most didn't try).
Jason, has something been done about all sorts of concealment denying a rogue his sneak attack?
Rogues can now use sneak attack on Undead and Constructs just like in the Beta. Although the complete inability in 3.5E to sneak attack those monster/creature types was too restrictive, the ability to conduct full sneak attacks against them is too good. I was hoping for some kind of partial sneak attack against the formerly immune creatures (e.g. half of the sneak attack damage, or perhaps Undead/Constructs and so on could have DR against precision damage [sneak attacks, crits, etc.]). Oh well, it will have to be a house rule.
You and I think alike here.
It seems that at low levels other classes could be better at finding and/or disarming traps than the rogue? By mid levels the rogue's trapfinding bonuses should offset stat bonuses that put other classes (who buy up WIS) ahead of the rogue at lower levels, but it might be a little awkward for the rogue to take a back seat in the beginning of the campaign when it comes to traps.
The likely classes which might overshadow the rogue in perception due to WIS, Monk, Druid, Ranger, and likely in that order. In fact if your monk keeps perception up then the rough won't catch him until 6th level or maybe higher.
Most likely these classes already had that advantage anyways though because there aren't a lot of low level traps that are higher than DC20 to spot in any case.
|
Rogues can now use sneak attack on Undead and Constructs just like in the Beta. Although the complete inability in 3.5E to sneak attack those monster/creature types was too restrictive, the ability to conduct full sneak attacks against them is too good. I was hoping for some kind of partial sneak attack against the formerly immune creatures (e.g. half of the sneak attack damage, or perhaps Undead/Constructs and so on could have DR against precision damage [sneak attacks, crits, etc.]). Oh well, it will have to be a house rule.
Not trying to pick at you here or others that think the same way but my question is; why? Why is it not ok for them to sneak attack undead and constructs but anything else it's fine? Just because that's the way it's been so it's a flavor thing?
I guess I myself am happy with the changes as I don't see a problem in no longer penalizing a rogue because they fight undead for 2-3 game sittings.
(once again, this is not snarky. Honest question for those who find it overpowering)
Cuts down the table time, and helps cut out a lot of the metagaming that occurs when a player gets asked to make a passive roll, rolls low, and then 'suddenly gets a hunch' that they need to start examining every pebble with a magnifying glass.
If there's 20 places to look in the room, but only one thing of interest, then roll for that one thing (with maybe some decoy dice, so the players can't meta that there was only one thing to find).
I like the idea of decoy dice to thwart metagaming, except that it sounds like you're expecting players to trust you. How do they know you're not changing your mind about which d20 is real and not the decoy? At least one player should be able to confirm your honesty, if only to make the result more believable. Maybe you could put a matching dice in a bag and let players take it out after the fact, to see the color of the true result.
Rogues can now use sneak attack on Undead and Constructs just like in the Beta. Although the complete inability in 3.5E to sneak attack those monster/creature types was too restrictive, the ability to conduct full sneak attacks against them is too good. I was hoping for some kind of partial sneak attack against the formerly immune creatures (e.g. half of the sneak attack damage, or perhaps Undead/Constructs and so on could have DR against precision damage [sneak attacks, crits, etc.]). Oh well, it will have to be a house rule.
Whilst I don't think sneaking attacking more things fixes that many problems, it does sound like a step in the right direction to me. I've always wanted to try an undead heavy doomsday campaign, but then anyone choosing a rogue would seem so underpowered compared to the Ranger with favoured enemy (Undead) and the turn-happy cleric.
Though admittidly I might be applying some house rules myself. If it was me, I'd keep it as before (Can't sneak attack undead or constructs) but then maybe add rogue talents that allow the rogue to do so, that way the rogue isn't needlessly getting the short end of the stick in an undead campaign, but not always gaining such a handy benifit for free.
I'd like to jump in at this point about Dispelling Magical Traps... not the best idea. Magical Traps are more or less Wondrous Items and would only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds.
Not to mention the caster level check, which can make things near impossible if the designer set the DC high. Dispel magic has never been much of a solution to magic traps.
Sneak attacking undead and constructs is a godsend. Rogues got to be unplayable in the mid-levels. 1d4+1 damage against hardness 10 is a joke.
Sneak attacking undead and constructs is a godsend. Rogues got to be unplayable in the mid-levels. 1d4+1 damage against hardness 10 is a joke.
Amen to that, brother!
And yes, when I mentioned earlier about rogues taking a back seat at trap finding in the early going (low levels), I was thinking specifically of other classes who buy up WIS and get perception as a class skill. Our group typically does not have wise rogues, so there may be more of a gap in our group compared to other groups who have wiser rogues.
It's not a huge thing, and it should resolve itself by the early mid-levels (level 6+) when the trapfinding bonuses start stacking up. But since I'm planning on starting a campaign at level 1 in the near future, the rogue in the group may take a back seat for several months. Depends on what the group makeup is, of course. /salute!
Sneak attacking undead and constructs is a godsend. Rogues got to be unplayable in the mid-levels.
Unplayable as front-line combatants, yes. But that was never their role until 3e, which shifted the paradigm from "the thief is the guy who finds and disarms the traps, and the fighter is the guy who fights" to "everyone should be equally effective in combat because, you know, everything else is secondary and is pretty much unimportant."
With that in mind, I really don't like Wis for trapfinding. I'd rather see a pair of skills -- Disable Device for finding/disarming/constructing mechanical devices, and Spellcraft for disarming magical traps and using magical devices.
|
|
Personally, for passive skill checks by my players or any rolls by NPCs I don't want the players to know occured (Notice/Perception/Listen/Spot/whatever, primarily) I print out a page of random integers between 1 and 20 from THIS LINK and cross them off in order 'rolled' as needed.
{link fixed}
Yup, that can work too.
|
|
Not trying to pick at you here or others that think the same way but my question is; why? Why is it not ok for them to sneak attack undead and constructs but anything else it's fine? Just because that's the way it's been so it's a flavor thing?
I'm not Roman, but I'm sure our reasoning is similar since we both feel the same way about the rule.
It's mostly a flavor thing: Sneak attack - which is developed and evolved from previous editions: "Back-Stab" was always a thematic way to doing extra damage like a sniper or assassing hiting a critical vein or artery or organ.
Thief slices dagger across throat slitting it. Thief slices upen jugular. Thief slips the dagger in between the ribs in the back, punturing the lung preventing the mark from screaming out as he dies drowing in his own blood.
These are the images of a sneak attack (for many of us).
Doing so agains a stone golem just doens't......do it for me.
That in a nutshell is why I have a problem with it.
HOWEVER, I can see and admit how such encounters, or worse entire adventures and campaigns heavily populated with "non-sneak attackable" creatures would be highly unfun for a rogue and significantly dwindle his effectiveness.
Thus I have allowed the room for consideration of being able to sneak attack such creatures - but requiring some trade-off.
I posted this once before - and I notice a few posts recently indicating that they would have preferred a "half-sneak attack" or such or using talents etc - so I'll post again:
What I did during the BETA playtesting was offer thematic rogue talents that allowed the option of a player to choose to be able to sneak attack certain types of creatures (that was previously unable to be done so), and gave it some flavor - such sneak attacking was done as if Rogue was HALF of it's class level against those creatures. So a 10th level rogue would do 3d6 against that creature type.
Also the individual talent lent itself to some interesting flavor as well - meaning that a rogue taking one of the talents is thematically trained in doing so - perhaps for a reason. This potentially adds roleplaying flavor and fluff to the rogues personality.
Such as:
Rogue Talent: Undead Slayer - The rogue is specially learned and trained in the macabre and their destruction. They can now apply their sneak attack damage to undead creature types as if they were half their rogue level.
Rogue Talent: Tinkerer - the rogue has a knack for gadgets and constructs, especially at disassembling them. Such a rogue may apply his sneak attack damage to constructs and animated objects as if they were half their rogue level.
There's an Ooze-slayer, a Defiler (plants - word taken from Dark Sun magic that destroys plants), and an Elemental-bane talent as well to cover all bases.
Advanced talents exist to apply full rogue level that build on this, too.
These have truly worked out well. In my current Age Of Worms game - characters are 9th level now - the rogue at 8th level just took the undead slaying one - so in a campaign such as AoW where undead is so prevalent it provides an option to make a rogue who is built to sneak attack to be effective in so many more encounters than they would have been in the 3.5 model.
Robert
|
|
Well said stuff
Not trying to pick at you here or others that think the same way but my question is; why? Why is it not ok for them to sneak attack undead and constructs but anything else it's fine? Just because that's the way it's been so it's a flavor thing?
So long as it's a flavor thing, I get that entirely. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some strange mechanical reasoning I was missing out on. I do understand what you're saying about the flavor too and given it's origins, I can't argue you. I remember back in 2nd edition the priceless look on my brother's face when he popped out of the shaodws and backstabbed a "fellow". He had like a x4 multiplier or something and he thought himself golden ... until the fellow turned out to be a vamp.
... look on his face was priceless. I had to go save him but he usually was the one who popped out and destroyed things. Sneak attack (and back then, backstab) is a very powerful ability. Hell it's even more so now with being able to flank and do it EVERY attack.
Personally I would have thought a good trade off for balancing would have been it can be used against undead but sneak attack itself only triggers once a round or something else. Ah well, in any case I enjoy running undead/zombie survival campaigns (where if they bite, they DO infect) and this sneak attack thing makes rogues viable.
However looking back on it, backstab has come a long way. Kind of hard to find a weak spot with things that have none (especially constructs). Maybe they can attack the more damaged parts of a stone golen to make a leg fall off? Flavor wise, it doesn't make sense, no. But I can overlook that for this change I see mostly as positive.
Well said stuff
Not trying to pick at you here or others that think the same way but my question is; why? Why is it not ok for them to sneak attack undead and constructs but anything else it's fine? Just because that's the way it's been so it's a flavor thing?
So long as it's a flavor thing, I get that entirely. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some strange mechanical reasoning I was missing out on. I do understand what you're saying about the flavor too and given it's origins, I can't argue you. I remember back in 2nd edition the priceless look on my brother's face when he popped out of the shaodws and backstabbed a "fellow". He had like a x4 multiplier or something and he thought himself golden ... until the fellow turned out to be a vamp.
... look on his face was priceless. I had to go save him but he usually was the one who popped out and destroyed things. Sneak attack (and back then, backstab) is a very powerful ability. Hell it's even more so now with being able to flank and do it EVERY attack.
Personally I would have thought a good trade off for balancing would have been it can be used against undead but sneak attack itself only triggers once a round or something else. Ah well, in any case I enjoy running undead/zombie survival campaigns (where if they bite, they DO infect) and this sneak attack thing makes rogues viable.
However looking back on it, backstab has come a long way. Kind of hard to find a weak spot with things that have none (especially constructs). Maybe they can attack the more damaged parts of a stone golen to make a leg fall off? Flavor wise, it doesn't make sense, no. But I can overlook that for this change I see mostly as positive.
Robert Brambley covered it pretty well - he is right - we share the same thoughts on the matter.
I do think, however, that there are some mechanical reasons too for not making the full sneak attack universally applicable. The ability is simply too powerful (at least judging from my playtests) to be universally effective and maintain some semblance of balance.
Now, there are many philosophies of balancing. One such philosophy purports that since you cannot predict the frequency of various situations in the game, the best way to balance classes is to ensure that they are all equally effective in all situations. This is essentially the 4E approach to balance and it does make for a balanced way. A different balancing philosophy is that you can estimate the average frequency of various situations and can therefore balance classes by making different classes more powerful in different situations. Of course, the balance achieved using this method will not be as perfect as using the first philosophy I mentioned, but the game will be more interesting and will give different classes and opportunity to shine at different times, which is something I definitely prefer.
That said, while it is fine to make some classes more or less useful in certain situations, the second philosophy shouldn't be taken so far as to make one class unbeatable at certain situations and others completely useless. For example, rogue being completely unable to sneak attack undead and constructs was, in my mind, pushing it too far.
Hence, I would prefer (and will use) sneak attack (and other forms of precision damage, such as critical hits) being applicable to undead, constructs, etc., but not fully. There are plenty of ways rogues could have partial sneak attack against such creatures, for example, sneak attack could cause half damage to undead and constructs, or these creatures could have damage reduction against sneak attack, or rogues could count as being several levels lower for the purposes of sneak attacking these creatures therefore having fewer sneak attack dice against them, or... you get the picture. In fact, I will surely use partial sneak attack rules in my games, though it would have been nice if such a house rule were not necessary. Oh well, it's no big deal - I will have plenty of house rules, one more won't make a huge difference.
Just out of curiosity, why is the rogue taking skill mastery for perception anyway? They could always just take 10 on their perception checks for a dungeon corridor. I can see it for disable device, and maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but skill mastery (Perception) isn't that smart, since you're usually not under duress when you're searching a hallway.
I am sad to see that Search wasn't backed out of Perception, though. I liked it being keyed off of INT instead of WIS, and Perception is such a freaking amazing skill to have now, what with it being three skills that were often useful on their own in 3.5. C'est la vie, I guess.
As for Sneak Attack, I'm of two minds there. On the one hand, I like that it's more applicable, but I'm not 100% that it should be 100% on previously immune monsters. A rogue hitting a stone golem with a measly +1 dagger shouldn't be doing 5d6 extra damage - he should be worried about the dagger breaking, not shattering stone. In my last game, we used Dungeonscape's alternate class feature, replacing the rogue's Trap Sense ability with 1/2 SA damage for normally immune undead and constructs. I was fine with that, and I'd be fine with it as talents or it being a standard rule, but I'm not entirely sure it should always do the same as to something made of squishy flesh and blood. I'd be curious exactly what the reasoning was on making it full damage in almost all instance.
I'd be curious exactly what the reasoning was on making it full damage in almost all instance.
That reason seems to be gamist, rather than simulationist, so to speak.
I'd be curious exactly what the reasoning was on making it full damage in almost all instance.That reason seems to be gamist, rather than simulationist, so to speak.
Disagree. I can easily see a rogue hitting a mechanically important spot on a golem, or taking the head off / destroying the spine / hamstringing a zombie/ vampire. Oozes are still immune, elementals are still immune and so are incorporeals.
Disagree. I can easily see a rogue hitting a mechanically important spot on a golem
Hmm... a shield guardian, based on the illustration, I can maybe see that.
But I have a real problem with this:A stone golem’s body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite
How does one pick out a "mechanically imortant" spot in a solid block of hard igneous rock?
I'm still wondering if we'll not see a few individual monsters that are better suited to resisting sneak attacks and criticals, since it was implied in the Beta that this might be the direction that the design is going.
That having been said, I can picture a Stone Golem having a slight crack that the rogue manages to slip a blade into to widen, etc.
How does one pick out a "mechanically imortant" spot in a solid block of hard igneous rock?
Attack at the thinner part so that less damage will break it quicker? Attack at points where it's structurally weak (even if it's one piece of stone, unless it's a cube or something it has them). Plus...if it's one chunk of rock, how does it move?
How does one pick out a "mechanically imortant" spot in a solid block of hard igneous rock?Attack at the thinner part so that less damage will break it quicker? Attack at points where it's structurally weak (even if it's one piece of stone, unless it's a cube or something it has them). Plus...if it's one chunk of rock, how does it move?
Magic. It's not like it's a robot with moving parts. It's a solid piece of stone animated by elemental forces. There are times when you need to shelve your scientific preconceptions and ideas about how things work in our scientifically based world...
Magic. It's not like it's a robot with moving parts. It's a solid piece of stone animated by elemental forces. There are times when you need to shelve your scientific preconceptions and ideas about how things work in our scientifically based world...
Ok, so then attack whatever is keeping the elemental forces bound to the chunk of rock, be it a scroll in the mouth, a sigil carved in the forehead, or whatever. Hit it there, the integrity of the magic is damaged - hit it enough, and the golem becomes a statue again. *shrugs*
Magic. It's not like it's a robot with moving parts. It's a solid piece of stone animated by elemental forces. There are times when you need to shelve your scientific preconceptions and ideas about how things work in our scientifically based world...Ok, so then attack whatever is keeping the elemental forces bound to the chunk of rock, be it a scroll in the mouth, a sigil carved in the forehead, or whatever. Hit it there, the integrity of the magic is damaged - hit it enough, and the golem becomes a statue again. *shrugs*
They come with a self-destruct / shutdown button? :) The original mythical golem (clay) had to have a rune carved in it's head if I recall correctly -- to animate it. Rub that out and no golem. They haven't been described as having that feature in D&D though. The lack of vital organs / a living system with weak points has always been why constructs and the undead (along with oozes, etc.) were immune to thief / rogue sneak attacks. I suppose in the PFRPG they may have decided the humanoid shape of these monsters gives them some exploitable vulnerability. We'll see.
They come with a self-destruct / shutdown button? :) The original mythical golem (clay) had to have a rune carved in it's head if I recall correctly -- to animate it. Rub that out and no golem. They haven't been described as having that feature in D&D though. The lack of vital organs / a living system with weak points has always been why constructs and the undead (along with oozes, etc.) were immune to thief / rogue sneak attacks. I suppose in the PFRPG they may have decided the humanoid shape of these monsters gives them some exploitable vulnerability. We'll see.
I know, I'm just giving reasons why they could be sneak-attackable. Especially for undead it never made sense to me that they couldn't be - sure, their organs may not be necessary, but cut a tendon or muscle or sever the head and it's going to do a lot more damage than just a normal stab, yeah?
They come with a self-destruct / shutdown button? :) The original mythical golem (clay) had to have a rune carved in it's head if I recall correctly -- to animate it. Rub that out and no golem. They haven't been described as having that feature in D&D though. The lack of vital organs / a living system with weak points has always been why constructs and the undead (along with oozes, etc.) were immune to thief / rogue sneak attacks. I suppose in the PFRPG they may have decided the humanoid shape of these monsters gives them some exploitable vulnerability. We'll see.I know, I'm just giving reasons why they could be sneak-attackable. Especially for undead it never made sense to me that they couldn't be - sure, their organs may not be necessary, but cut a tendon or muscle or sever the head and it's going to do a lot more damage than just a normal stab, yeah?
Maybe, maybe not.
Skeletons don't even have tendons or muscle, yet they can walk and wield weapons. So evidently tendons and muscle are not necessary for motor functions in some undead. Just because zombies do have tendons and muscle doesn't mean they are any more reliant on them for locomotion.
As for the head, what does a skeleton do with his head? It has no eyeballs, so it has no retinas to perceive light, so its vision is based off of something more magical than human vision is. Does it ever care about smelling anything with no nose/olfactory receptors? Hearing? Sure, maybe it still has those little ear bones, but does it he really need them any more than it needs his missing eyeballs? After all, even if those bones vibrate, it is missing its nerves and brain to transmit/interpret the sounds the way we do, so I doubt it hears the same way we do. So, really, chop off the head without dealing enough damage to destroy the skeleton, and it keeps fighting, just as effectively as before. No reason this is not also true of zombies, too - even more so since the entire zombie genre is rife with examples of amputations and decapitations having no effect on zombies.
Maybe some more sentient undead, like a ghoul, seems more "natural" it how it moves and functions. It has eyeballs, ears, a nose, and it isn't rotted into a gooey mass of shambling decomposition like a zombie. Maybe a ghoul needs its head, even if it doesn't need its heart or lungs or kidneys. Or maybe the same necromantic force that keeps skeletons and zombies moving around would also sustain a ghoul.
Let's not even go to ghosts, wraiths, banshees, etc., who very clearly have no corporeal tissue to impede/sever/destroy. Clearly at least these are immune to criticals and sneak attacks?
Sure, sure, the other side of this argument is equally valid. The skeleton/zombie/ghoul/wraith's/etc. is imbued with necromantic energy that infuses its whole corporeal or incorporeal body, and hacking off enough pieces of that body destroys the integrity of the energy. A normal hit hacks off a small piece, and a critical hit or sneak attack hacks off a larger piece, disrupting the energy much more than the normal hit.
It's all relative.
We each see it our own way. Neither is right or wrong, though clearly, some ways are more aligned with the actual rules, and some ways need house rules to instead.
|
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't go another way with constructs for Pathfinder: make them vulnerable to crits and sneak attacks, but then give them their Strength mod in bonus hp per hit die. It could result in truly absurd hp totals, I admit, and their DR would probably have to disappear from all but the nastiest of constructs in order to compensate, but it would depict an unstoppable killing machine fairly well.
|
Not trying to pick at you here or others that think the same way but my question is; why? Why is it not ok for them to sneak attack undead and constructs but anything else it's fine? Just because that's the way it's been so it's a flavor thing?
(once again, this is not snarky. Honest question for those who find it overpowering)
I have a lot of reasons I don't really approve of the sneak attack change. Some are mechanical, some are just personal views, and some are conceptual. These are just my opinions, you don't have to agree, like them, or whatever.
I don't like the way that Sneak Attacking nearly everything changes the general dynamic of encounters. Theives have always been exceptionally threatened by undead guarded tombs. I mean there is a reason that undead where placed there, in addition to traps and the like.
I don't like the way it changes the dynamic of a party. I'm a big fan of diversity, and classes being exceptionally good at certain foes, but not so effective against others. All classes also have circumstances that they really just can't function well under. That is part of the game, a challenge, and I feel that allowing Rogues to slide past that sort of spits in the face of everyone else, but it also sort of robs those other classes of their chance to shine in combat. In the the case of undead, Paladins, but especially Clerics should be the big guns. For Constructs, Wizards, and a little bit Fighters and Barbarians. Particularly against Golums, who are immune to most spells outright. This is i think my biggest problem personally.
On a side point to the above, I was not aware that they can also be "critted" on, though I suspected it. In my experience, Rogues tend to have some of the better crit ranges, from earlier on, and staying pretty close to Fighters later on. So without changing sneak attack from 3.5, Rogues still get a nice combat bump against Undead and Constructs, so Sneak Attack was not really needed.
I think Sneak Attack has always been too good, since 3.0. It probably needs a down grade to like a d4. Or the d6's need to be gained at a slower rate, like every 3 or 4 Rogue levels rather than every other.
I think Rogues, again since 3E, have become to combat Rogue focused, which is one of the primary reasons that Fighters are so displeased with upper levels. Sure, spellcasting plays a part, but I don't think that the Rogue's combat abilites are blaimed enough for stepping on the Fighters toes. PF sort of made this worse by giving the Rogue d8 HP rather than dropping their BAB.
Sneak Attack is not limited to number of uses per round. While I don't want to go so far as to say it should be a full attack action, I do think that Sneak Attack should only be used against any 1 target 1 per round, regardless of your number of attacks, speed weapons, or two weapon fighting. Similar to AoO's, once per target per reason. It is just to easy to break when unlimited.
Lastly, I am amazed that 3E made a combat Rogue so allowable, but that PF is so against combat spellcasters. Such a complete reversal of 1st and 2nd Ed roles, and even to a lesser extent the 3rd ed. The logic, as far as I can tell is that it isn't fun for the Fighter to be [nearly] outclassed by a Combat Rogue [almost always], because it's fun for the Rogue player, but for a Cleric to stand up with the Fighter [for short times and not every fight] is pure madness and needs shot down.
Not to argue, just to continue a good discussion:
Thieves (rogues) are still rather threatened by undead. They have a weak fortitude save, and many undead have abilities that specifically target that save. Add in that the others have Will save effects (mummy fear for example) which is another weak point and a rogue still has lots to worry about from the undead. Incorporeal undead have all this, are immune to criticals (as far as we still know, since they lack a body so to speak) and usually have other powers in addition to being hard to detect.
Now golems, we don't know so much about, and as others have correctly pointed out we haven't really seen the beastiary yet so we can't be sure that stone golems for example don't have a specific immunity.
Skeletons don't even have tendons or muscle, yet they can walk and wield weapons.
It was just an example. They do have legs and hands and knees and elbows etc.
Talking Logic? Hey. It's a world where people fly and get raised from the dead and there are golems and animated objects and undeads and gods walking the planet and people level up and get hit points etc. etc.
Sneack attack is not a matter of logic. My bet. Sneak attacking undeads = more fun. And more powerful undeads are now more powerful. So game balance might also be at play. Whatever. Just houserule anyway you want
[...]
I am sad to see that Search wasn't backed out of Perception, though. I liked it being keyed off of INT instead of WIS, and Perception is such a freaking amazing skill to have now, what with it being three skills that were often useful on their own in 3.5. C'est la vie, I guess.
[...]
Agree. Also I'd prefered if jump was a seperate skill, but most of all I don't like search wasn't backed out of Perception.
Search active, spot passive.But as you say, C'est la vie. No point beating a dead horse.
|
Skeletons don't even have tendons or muscle, yet they can walk and wield weapons.It was just an example. They do have legs and hands and knees and elbows etc.
Talking Logic? Hey. It's a world where people fly and get raised from the dead and there are golems and animated objects and undeads and gods walking the planet and people level up and get hit points etc. etc.
Sneack attack is not a matter of logic. My bet. Sneak attacking undeads = more fun. And more powerful undeads are now more powerful. So game balance might also be at play. Whatever. Just houserule anyway you want
I'm actually in favour of this change, but in honesty, it really makes undead go from being one of the most deadly foes, to sub par, as the channel energy for clerics really blows turn undead out of the water, and all the classes who were loosing damage from crits now critting, tomb raiding will be like shooting fish in a barrel
I'm actually in favour of this change, but in honesty, it really makes undead go from being one of the most deadly foes, to sub par, as the channel energy for clerics really blows turn undead out of the water, and all the classes who were loosing damage from crits now critting, tomb raiding will be like shooting fish in a barrel
I don't think the channel energy for clerics really blows turn undead out of the water. We been using the beta channeling and that's not our experience. And now channel energy has been nerfed, which is good. So channel is no problem. I would in fact say in some ways channel is weaker than turn undead.
A) you can't destroy them as easely as you could in 3.xB) you now have to choose if you want to hurt them or force them to flee.
....but i guess this is OT.
Also we have not yet read the Bestiary. Some may have crit. or sneak resistance. We do know that they now have 3/4 BAB and char bouns to HP.
As a general rule, undead are tougher in PFRPG than they were in 3.5, particularly the higher CR they get.
You can read the whole post here.
I'm actually in favour of this change, but in honesty, it really makes undead go from being one of the most deadly foes, to sub par, as the channel energy for clerics really blows turn undead out of the water, and all the classes who were loosing damage from crits now critting, tomb raiding will be like shooting fish in a barrel
Channel energy does 1d6/2 caster levels and it's a 30' radius centered on the caster... Doesn't even come close to fireball in effectiveness in most situations. Seems like a decent power but it was pretty decent before, just confusing. With undead conceivably having more hit points it might actually turn out to be a significant nerf to the old school version.
FWIW I'm all for rogues sneak attacking corporeal undead. If you crack a skeletons spine it's probably down for the count... the tradition of lopping off a zombie's head (or blasting it with a shotgun) to put it down is a rich tradition steeped in zombie lore. Vampires have their known weaknesses and are vulnerable to certain types of attacks as well.
Some constructs should probably maintain their invulnerability... I'm kind of ambivalent on them. I kind of like that constructs are tough to crack.
Skeletons don't even have tendons or muscle, yet they can walk and wield weapons.It was just an example. They do have legs and hands and knees and elbows etc.
Well, true, but the minute you start saying "OK, your rogue sneak attack's the skeleton and chops off its leg." is the same minute you'll hear "Sweet! Now I'm going to use that move on an orc. And a dragon! And..."
Soon you'll have legless monsters hopping around every battlefield.
Not to mention all the other arguments you'll get into, like when the players want to outrun the one-legged skeleton, or when they ask why the one-armed skeleton is still using its greatsword. Etc.
Knocking limbs off of undead is fun, but it's a whole new can of bees...
Talking Logic? Hey. It's a world where people fly and get raised from the dead and there are golems and animated objects and undeads and gods walking the planet and people level up and get hit points etc. etc.
Who's talking logic?
I thought my examples showed that magic is illogical. Undead that see without eyes, hear without brains, and motivate without muscle.
All I'm saying is that the only way to sneak attack a skeleton meaningfully is to cripple it - unless you read the last bit I posted about necromantic energy and disrupting the energy at a greater rate, which works just fine.
Hmmm, that's illogical - I seem to have argued both sides...
Sneack attack is not a matter of logic. My bet. Sneak attacking undeads = more fun. And more powerful undeads are now more powerful. So game balance might also be at play. Whatever. Just houserule anyway you want
Nah, game balance is a concept of logic, which as you point out, doesn't belong in a D&D world.
Oh, wait, we're not talking about the world? We're talking about game mechanics? Oh, well, then I guess we should consider logic after all. Both of us.
So yeah, maybe it's more balanced. Except when the party doesn't have a rogue. Unless the assumption here is that "more powerful undeads are now more powerful" just to offset only those groups with a more powerful rogue, and the rest of the groups are just screwed.
I think that, if it's true, "more powerful undeads are more powerful" to make those encounters more fun. And maybe to offset paladins, rogues, rangers, and especially clerics, all of whom are better able to destroy "powerful undeads" than thy were in 3.5. Oh, and so are barbarians, bards, and monks, too, because they are better at destroying everything they fight.
But I agree. If you're a rogue, and if you're the kind of rogue who is not satisfied with being extremely deadly against most encounters at the cost of being nearly harmless in the rest of the encounters, then yes, "Sneak attacking undeads = more fun".
For the rest of us, it's kind of cool to have a trade off. For the rest of us, it's not necessary to be the uber killer ninja rogue all the time.
Also, if the DM decides to have a campaign that is very heavy with stuff that is immune to sneak attacks, then the rogue PC ends up suffering in combat. Probably unnecessarily. And probably due to bad DM decisions - if the DM knows he has a combat-heavy game, a PC who is a rogue, and still throws countless battles at them where the rogue is essentially sidelined, then he's not being fair to that player. Make the game less combat-heavy, or sprinkle in plenty of stuff for the rogue to do in combat, or at the very least make sure to hook the rogue up with some sweet holy weapon and/or lots of useful combat magic items he can use instead of poking with his almost worthless rapier.
|
|
So, can a rogue now sneak attack objects? A door surely has weak points. And, if a rogue can sneak attack it, other characters should be also able to apply critical hits against objects.
It's not, that I don't see rogues as a rather weak class, it's just, that I view immunity to crits as something rahter flavorful.
Undead, constructs and vernim didn't lose their immunity to mind-affecting effects, so bards and enchanters have still a great group of monsters with immunity against their powers.
I'm in the group of people that would have prefered rogue talents to gain the ability to sneak attack single typres or undead and constructs or maybe a halved amount of sneak damage against types that used to be immune.
|
|
Undead and Constructs are animated by Magic.
The Rogue uses his sneak attack to hit where the magic is strongest and dissolves some of it.
So, for example, if the animating magic of a skeleton is located where the heart of a living being would be, the rogue stabs right there. Whereas the Fighter just smashes his 2handed Sword into the whole skeleton and destroys the vessel that holds the animating magic.
Looking at Constructs it is eaven easier. The Barbarian uses his Greataxe to cut away big chinks of rock from the Stone Golem. The rogue uses his sneak attack to carefully chip away the magic runes animating the Golem.
Remember, Sneak attack is precision based damage. So ordinary Fighters and other martial types are unable to duplicate this feat and also attack these small spots. Even Spellcasters who know where to hit are unable to actually hit there. Because they are not rogues.
Almost every zombie movie I've seen has had zombies vulnerable to critical hits.
The only way to kill a vampire is to stab them in a critical location with a specific type of object. Stabbing them in the same place with a large metal needle probably doesn't do them much good.
Depending on how a wizard assembles a golem, popping out a gear probably does it no good.
And any rogue worth his salt probably has a Disable Device check that would help with a door, at least popping it off its hinges.