|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed this has changed in Pathfinder from 3.5. It appears that fewer types of creatures are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. So far on the list I have:
Ooze Type
Elemental Subtype
Incorporeal Subtype
So corporeal undead and constructs are off the list. Excellent! Anyone find anything I've missed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed this has changed in Pathfinder from 3.5. It appears that fewer types of creatures are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. So far on the list I have:
Ooze Type
Elemental Subtype
Incorporeal SubtypeSo corporeal undead and constructs are off the list. Excellent! Anyone find anything I've missed?
you forgot plant type;
still; i'd rather have penetrating strike (Sweet Dungeonscape, deal 1/2 total sneak attack damage to creatures normally immune) than trap sense (+1/3 level vs. traps.) anyday, if i can find a dm that allows a human with the CoCL's 2nd level ability as a feat, (Elegant strike, the class itself had horrible prerequisites, and no more than 2 levels were ever dipped, first, it required random throwaway feats out the wazoo, skills up to the neck, and it required you to be a tree hugging elven hippie.) and HiPS as a rogue talent (why should i take 4 feats and waste a ton of skill points? just for a single ability that should be a rogue talent. why must i dip a level in a poorly made class for 1 frontloaded ability and deny myself the following? 1 point of bab, 1 point of reflex, 2 skill points, a flavorful capstone, a level of my favored class, a rogue talent, and thats just that 20th level list, several more skillpoints and 4 feats burned meeting the requirements.)
I don't like to use sneak attack as done in pathfinder, though I am considering to allow a rogue to make an attack followed by disable device on a construct to do the check result as damage, or something similar.
Undead, I am more inclined to giving them 50 % chance to ignore crits and half damage for sneak attacks.
Just my opinion, some things I do not like in pathfinder some things are awesome, I rather mix it in with my 3.5 campaign rather than switch to pathfinder fully so I can decide what I keep and toss.
it's more flavour that bothers me more than actual gamebreaking in this case, as is I think rogues are pretty well off, loads of fun to play.
An encounter once in a while that makes it harder for the rogue to deal damage, can be a good thing as long as it isn't used to completely neautralize a rogue in an encounter, and for several encounters in succesion at that.
Now a pixie rogue launching a full attack on an iron golem tearing it apart with two tiny daggers is kinda not for me. two weapon rogues seems ok for flair, but I can't imagine very well how that would make sneak attack better. I prefer a vital strike like ability for sneak attack rather one devastating attack than squeezing out as many attacks as possible.
Don't mind the rant much, I just can't agree with some things in D&D fully.
CoCL's
Cockerel?
Ever tried playing AoW (or any undead-heavy adventure for the matter) under vanilla 3.5 ? It goes more or less like this:
Can I sneak attack this ? No, undead.
And this ? Neither, dead-dead too.
Or maybe this ? I think you can, hold on a sec ... ouch, sorry. Plant.Glad that PF got rid of that.
I'm playing a monk in ThCfcaoU (Thorsten's homebrew Campaign featuring copious amounts of Undead), and it's frustrating. No stunning fist, no scorpion style, no gorgon's fist.
And anything that lives is assaulted by pseudo-mystic mumbo-jumbo because I'm just happy I get to use one of my many uses of stunning fist...
I actually like that corporeal undead are subject to critical hits/sneak attacks. One, it keeps the rogue relevant in a lot of combats where before they would have been useless. And two, I would think most undead's physical forms could suffer more damage from precise or heavy hits. For instance, shouldn't an accurate shot against a skeleton perhaps get its very vital spine? Or a powerful blow against a zombie cut it really really good?
In light of that, I would've liked to have seen undead keep their d12 HD AND get the Cha to hit points. You know, something to make up for their being able to take higher amounts of damage. Now, unless they have 14 Cha or more they will actually have less hps than before, and be subject to crit/sneak attacks.
One thing I'm not happy with is that it appears that undead and constructs are now subject to bleed damage. That just doesn't make any sense to me. How is a Stone Golem supposed to bleed? Is he going to drip pebbles each round?
I'd agree on the very small rogues having more difficulty pulling off sneak attacks. They still need to be able to reach a vital area of the target. Nicking somethings foot probably shouldn't count.
Plants are no longer immune.
I don't like to use sneak attack as done in pathfinder
I love it, for the usual reasons (not being forced to be commoner-level supporter in COUPE combats)
it's more flavour that bothers me more than actual gamebreaking in this case, as is I think rogues are pretty well off, loads of fun to play.
You mean the fact that rogues can now find weak spots in every critter that has them? I think it makes sense.
Undead may not live, but they have certain places that when attacked will disrupt their power more than usual, or stuff that if lopped off will damage them more.
An encounter once in a while that makes it harder for the rogue to deal damage, can be a good thing as long as it isn't used to completely neautralize a rogue in an encounter, and for several encounters in succesion at that.
Well, every class and every character could use the occasional encounter that leaves them vulnerable or ineffective, but if you give blanket immunity to several types that between them comprise a fairly large portion of classical fantasy crittery, it can be a problem, especially if the GM decides to make one or more of them a central point of his campaign.
"Sorry, I want a campaign where you fight a necromancer's undead horde, so everyone who wants to be effective in combat better not play rogue."
Now a pixie rogue launching a full attack on an iron golem tearing it apart with two tiny daggers is kinda not for me.
What about a halfling rogue launching a full attack on a great wyrm red dragon?
Or a human rogue launching a full attack on some weird, alien aberration thing that is all eyeballs and tentacles? I mean, where the hell is that thing's heart? Does it even have one? Does it have hundreds?
two weapon rogues seems ok for flair, but I can't imagine very well how that would make sneak attack better.
Well, more attacks, more chances to see those extra sneak dice in action.
I prefer a vital strike like ability for sneak attack rather one devastating attack than squeezing out as many attacks as possible.
Remember that you need to keep the requirements for sneak attack up for each sneak attack. That usually means surprise, flanking or greater invisibility. If you manage to walk/run up to someone, swords drawn, and hit him before he notices you, and get him at a really bad moment where he is slow to react, then he will be hurt. If you let people flank you, you're in really big trouble in real life, too. And someone you can't even see? He could stand right beside you right now, his sword an inch from your throat.
If you find yourself in the position that a rogue can launch a full sneak attack on you, you have to do something about it. Get out of there (maybe provoking an AoO, but denying him his full attack), or exploit the fact that even though he is right now almost as good as a fighter in matters of damage dealing, he's softer and squishier. Make him think twice about staying in your reach.
I think sneak attacking everything that can move with the same ease is a bit bland in flavour, adding some special abilities that would make them better able to participate is fine, partly covered by adding abilities and feats and a bigger HD to rogues.
An attempted disable device check on a golem would be nicer in my opinion, undead sure I can imagine it.. though at the same time it should be hard to damage them they are just not weak in the same way people are, undead appear to be less scary.. what with all the channeling (which I dislike) and ease of destruction, I'd have liked a more creative way to deal with this.
plants no longer subject to sneak attack, yea I am sure I can think of something, but it seems farfetched.
the necromancer campaign kinda thing.. well yea, it can be bothersome, many spells suck as well, I can understand why it is done, but something in between to keep the flavour would have been nice.
a halfling rogue stabbing a dragon to death with a full attack is slightly less silly, really unless every attack hits an eye it isnt going to happen, that doesn't make new equally weird or weirder rules alright though
If such an abberation without shape and weird anatomy shows up it might not be weird to give it partial immunity, but I can see it won;t go for all abberations
I can see how two-weapon fighting makes sneak attack better mechanically, just doesn't fit my vision of sneak attack.
again it isnt so much about what it mechanically does, I just like it to make more sense, more attention to balance is given than realism, which is fine I'll just have to adapt to suit my own tastes.
Channeling doesn't seem to me to be something that makes undead less of a threat. It balances out the last edition's turn undead rules. Hordes of minions would either be wasted by a single die roll, or the DM had to make things immune to a class feature on a regular basis.
I played in a game once where the math was easy to figure out. All undead were exactly one hit die higher than the cleric could turn with a natural 20, or they were flat out un-turnable. Most character class baddies were barbarians 3 level lower than the rogue, and so on. Needless to say, when the game got to this point, the fun of the players dropped dramatically.
As a player I'd prefer more of a constantly useful ability than a boom or bust one that either trashes the encounter or is ineffective.
As a DM I'd prefer the same, since it makes it easier for me to gauge the encounters I throw at my players.
It's like you say basically, except as a DM you are expected to challenge players in a rough encounter with undead most of the time turning wouldn't work, the rest of the encounters where it did work nobody liked it.
since a near useless ability is now a very useful ability how is this not significant, it is a very useful ability and it is spamable (which is kinda boring), arguably less so than encounters where you can only spam healing.. still not very good, and it is an extra weakness of the undead, with sneak attack and vulnerabilty to crits and many spells and abilities that targets undead specifically the threat from undead is not so threatening.
I am very pleased with this change. I also believe it makes sense. Let me just put out a few examples:
Skeletons: Defenitely have more vital areas to hit not the least of which is the spinal column. A Skeleton which is destroyed by a sneak attack or crit probably had their spine bisected or their skull crushed.
Vampires: There is a lot of fiction that shows that, even though Vampires don't have a heartbeat, they still store blood in their bodies and have a general anatomy. Cutting a Vampire's throat or bashing their freaking brains in should still be a critical hit and stabbing their spleen should cause serious blood loss (sneak attack).
Zombies: These are the hardest because there's a ton of lore out there about, like, chopping a zombie's head off and the thing still moving around and directing its body regardless. I don't see why Pathfinder MUST follow this model. I think Zombies could be very negatively affected by most muscle damage or, of course, the obligatory brain crush or decapitation.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say any of these are not immune to critical hits for one reason or another.
|
It's like you say basically, except as a DM you are expected to challenge players in a rough encounter with undead most of the time turning wouldn't work, the rest of the encounters where it did work nobody liked it.
since a near useless ability is now a very useful ability how is this not significant, it is a very useful ability and it is spamable (which is kinda boring), arguably less so than encounters where you can only spam healing.. still not very good, and it is an extra weakness of the undead, with sneak attack and vulnerabilty to crits and many spells and abilities that targets undead specifically the threat from undead is not so threatening.
Look at it this way, if the DM throws five zombies at a party of five 1st lvl guys (say, the usual -- fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue and barbarian), no one is going to have an easy time with their particular zombie. Sure the fighter and barbarian fare best seeing as they've got the best hp and ac, but all of them aren't going to think those zombies an easy kill.
The cleric, for instance, only deals 1d6 with his channel energy. He's not going to destroy the zombie in one round (he might do it in two with both rolls a 6 in damage).
The rogue similarly probably won't do it in a round and would want to stay away from the zombie's slam attack.
CoCL'sCockerel?
Champion of Correlan Larethian, it may be listed as a 10 level class, but all it really is amounts to nothing more than a heavily resource comsuming 2 level dip for what should be a feat (Dex to damage with a limited variety of weapons. a little reworking could turn it into a feat.)
Ever tried playing AoW (or any undead-heavy adventure for the matter) under vanilla 3.5 ? It goes more or less like this:
Can I sneak attack this ? No, undead.
And this ? Neither, dead-dead too.
Or maybe this ? I think you can, hold on a sec ... ouch, sorry. Plant.Glad that PF got rid of that.
i agree, pf got rid of most of these immunities, the immunity should have dissapeared entirely. i vote no more immunity to sneak attack. who's with me. i don't want to have to be taxed an alternate class feature/magic item slot/feat/book/ or other resource to deal with immune creature types.
who is with me in the quest to end sneak attack immunity?
Make everything both sneak attackable and crittable. who is with me. who wishes to join my petition.
Don't Cripple the rogue!
Undead I can imagine a whole lot better, though some resistance wouldn't be out off place either in many, if not most, cases.
The whole sneak attack angle seems forced just to make rogues not suck, but why not sneak attack objects if you can sneak attack constructs ?
Can rogues now sneak attack a tree or does she have to wait till the druid animates it for him ?
Animated weapon can be destroyed at will, just not when it is actually a dancing weapon.
To me it seems Pathfinder itself doesn't support the realism of it either, but at least it makes the rogue an allround monkey.
|
To me it seems Pathfinder itself doesn't support the realism of it either, but at least it makes the rogue an allround monkey.
It's a game where people come back from death, limbs regenerate, dragons breathe frost, fireballs fly, shocking grasp cast underwater has no special effects and one can't help but to wonder why the word "realism" gets invoked here and there :)
It's a game where people come back from death, limbs regenerate, dragons breathe frost, fireballs fly, shocking grasp cast underwater has no special effects and one can't help but to wonder why the word "realism" gets invoked here and there :)
To me it seems Pathfinder itself doesn't support the realism of it either, but at least it makes the rogue an allround monkey.
That is a weak argument against realism, I find in a roleplaying game of fantasy it is important to maintain a certain ammount of realism, it rather is the mix of realism and fantasy making for a better game.
Especially when it comes down to non-magical effects, realism helps players see eye to eye with the DM in many cases.
Might as well say : "I don't like your view on the matter just because"
The way I see it very, very few things do not have a weak spot.
Zombies are animated by magic, so a "headshot" could kill em, maybe a rogue sees where the weak point is and hits it. Damned common in every zombie movie I have ever saw.
If it can have a weak point you should be able to hurt it there.
|
|
It's a game where people come back from death, limbs regenerate, dragons breathe frost, fireballs fly, shocking grasp cast underwater has no special effects and one can't help but to wonder why the word "realism" gets invoked here and there :)
To me it seems Pathfinder itself doesn't support the realism of it either, but at least it makes the rogue an allround monkey.That is a weak argument against realism, I find in a roleplaying game of fantasy it is important to maintain a certain ammount of realism, it rather is the mix of realism and fantasy making for a better game.
Especially when it comes down to non-magical effects, realism helps players see eye to eye with the DM in many cases.
Might as well say : "I don't like your view on the matter just because"
Sure, but the realism should be coherent. If we are arguing about the finer points of scoring critical hits against creatures that defy real-life biology, we should also address the shocking grasp underwater and falling damage issues, as they are in even greater disconnection with The Real World. Because, if I can sneak attack an object, then why on earth am I not able to insta-kill all those sahuagin in a pool just by casting a Ligthing Bolt at the pool ?
And that leads to the trap of Simulationism, if we follow the GNS theory. Meaning, in order to simulate reality we create rules for *everything*. More than a few RPG systems have gone this way, and most of them turned up unfun.
D&D escapes this by being modular, ie. you can make rules for all those subsystyems, or you can ignore them/simplyfy/handwave if you wish and still have fun.
Zombies still use muscle to get about. Skeletons have important joints and bones.
Sever tendons and break joints. That's your sneak attack on undead.
I doubt the muscle part, but you could see it that way I suppose doesnt take away they have the same joints and stuff skeletons do.
I want to see something to reflect their undead state better, maybe allow sneak attack with weapons they are vulnerable to.
Zombies and skeletons are low level threats not meant to be unkillable. Not saying some arn't hard to kill, but they are simply parts held together by magic, shatter enough of the parts and the magic fades,
elementals have weak points too as far as i'm concerned.
first one, joints, or else, how does the thing even move?
all creatures with movement modes would technically have joints.
"But a fire elemental is a big animated flame!"
a fire elemental is not made of fire, it is made of magma, lava and semisolid rock, some of thse would have to be weaker to allow movement
elementals as drawn in the bestiary and the monster manual do not do the creatures justice, instead of thinking of made of liquid/gaseous form of element, think of something similar within that element that is more justifiable, such as more likely forms of matter or even creatures related to that type
Oozes, gelatin is not 100% consistent all around. there are some inconsistancies. some of which are weak points.
Incorporeal Undead. just because a ghost isn't solid doesn't mean it doesn't have weak points, just get a weapon that lets you hit it. it's joints may be incorporeal, but nothing wrong if you get ghost touch weapon. to make it sneak attackable.
Fire elementals are made of fire. That's why they're elementals. You're thinking of magma para-elementals. More to the point, they're magical invertebrates, so skeletal systems are the least of their problems.
Fire elementals are made of fire. That's why they're elementals. You're thinking of magma para-elementals. More to the point, they're magical invertebrates, so skeletal systems are the least of their problems.
if they are made of fire and not magma, how can a fighter even damage them with a weapon? they have to have something solid enough to be smacked, so technically my theory at least justifies them being smacked by a greatsword and taking damage. you can smack semi cooled magma, but not a flame.
the same concept applies to other elementals, by "Made of thier element" it is not as literal as one thinks. they are made up of representitives of thier element. such as magma for fire elementals, snow, sleet and frost for water elementals, birdlike anatomy for air elementals or rocks, sand and mud for earth elementals. or else 3 or those 4 elementals could not be damaged by anything but spells.
some things cannot be handwaved but need justification. i found a way to give it. everything has a weak point, for every strength, a weakness, for every action, a reaction, every defense, a method to breach.
i do not with to start an ugly debate. i was just listing how to make certain things actually possible.
heres my quintessential ruling!
if the fighter can damage it with a greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it.
Newton and fantasy wouldn't tend to get on, methinks. I easily handwave magical creatures, because they're magical. I save my slow torture of cat-girls for more mundane encounters :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The blade passes through the volume of the elemental, disrupting its coherence in the same way that you hurt oozes. Their shape, while uniform in material make up, is as much a part of their hit points as their organs (which they don't have). Wave your hand through a puff of smoke or mash a jello pudding. This disperses it, and your hand clearly isn't magical. Swing a weapon through an elemental. Same thing.
The first enhanced skeleton I saw was in 1975, it wore ...'gasp', ARMOR! Since then, I've seen and used countless modifications on the mindless undead theme. Allowing 'advanced' versions to have a special powers is a great idea.
|
|
you forgot plant type;I've noticed this has changed in Pathfinder from 3.5. It appears that fewer types of creatures are immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. So far on the list I have:
Ooze Type
Elemental Subtype
Incorporeal SubtypeSo corporeal undead and constructs are off the list. Excellent! Anyone find anything I've missed?
The plant type says nothing about ignoring critical hits so it stays off the list :)
I think sneak attacking everything that can move with the same ease is a bit bland in flavour
Well, the rogue will have to find his flavour elsewhere.
Fighters can attack everything with the same ease, too. Wizards can cast at everything equally well. (Well, there's SR, resistances and saves, but your fireball will affect all creature types.
though at the same time it should be hard to damage them they are just not weak in the same way people are, undead appear to be less scary..
They still are immune to bleeding, everything that requires a fort save (except the stuff that gets objects, too), and other things. And they can still do stuff like paralyse you or drain your life force.
Pretty scary still.
what with all the channeling (which I dislike)
Every channeling they blow on undead they don't use prolonging the characters' lifes.
and ease of destruction, I'd have liked a more creative way to deal with this.
Sometimes, creativity is misplaced.
the necromancer campaign kinda thing.. well yea, it can be bothersome, many spells suck as well, I can understand why it is done, but something in between to keep the flavour would have been nice.
I'm happy they cut that flavour - it sucked. Why can't you find an undead's weak spots at all but have no problems finding an aberration's? Or an outsider's? Outsiders are creatures of ideals, not nature - and aberrations are just plain weird. Yet the rogue can sneak them.
Either we make it equally easy to sneak them all, or we make it equally hard - And everything that doesn't force the rogue to take a dozen feats is good.
I can see how two-weapon fighting makes sneak attack better mechanically, just doesn't fit my vision of sneak attack.
Change it, then.
again it isnt so much about what it mechanically does, I just like it to make more sense, more attention to balance is given than realism, which is fine I'll just have to adapt to suit my own tastes.
I don't consider it less realistic or sensible. It all comes down to flavour.
That is a weak argument against realism, I find in a roleplaying game of fantasy it is important to maintain a certain ammount of realism, it rather is the mix of realism and fantasy making for a better game.Especially when it comes down to non-magical effects, realism helps players see eye to eye with the DM in many cases.
The game still has HP and people recovering from any injury within a couple of days. And I'm not talking about magical healing, just the normal recovery.
And there are other parts where realism is making way for game balance or simply enjoying the game.
So the argument isn't really weird.
And, of course, sneak attack is still realistic as it is now. Except against undead and stuff like this - such creatures are inherently unrealistic, so realism doesn't apply.
elementals have weak points too as far as i'm concerned.
first one, joints, or else, how does the thing even move?
They're outsiders. They don't need flesh or bone.
"But a fire elemental is a big animated flame!"
a fire elemental is not made of fire
Yes, it is. It totally is. That is its very definition, and the definition of the elemental subtype.
, it is made of magma, lava and semisolid rock, some of thse would have to be weaker to allow movementelementals as drawn in the bestiary and the monster manual do not do the creatures justice
No, they're exactly right for what elementals are in this game.
Oozes, gelatin is not 100% consistent all around. there are some inconsistancies. some of which are weak points.
The stuff is amorphous. There are no different kinds of body parts in there, everything has basically the same function.
Incorporeal Undead. just because a ghost isn't solid doesn't mean it doesn't have weak points, just get a weapon that lets you hit it. it's joints may be incorporeal
It's not "unsolid". It's incorporeal. It doesn't have a body. It might have visual features, and a visible "form", but it's all just visual. The thing that looks like its leg just looks like its leg. It looks that way mostly out of force of habit. It doesn't really need its head to see, or its legs to walk, since it has a supernatural fly speed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, of course undead should be sneak attack-able.
How many zombie movies feature 'headshots,' or the whole thing about vampire hearts?
if they are made of fire and not magma, how can a fighter even damage them with a weapon? they have to have something solid enough to be smacked, so technically my theory at least justifies them being smacked by a greatsword and taking damage. you can smack semi cooled magma, but not a flame.
So we have a creature of living flame, moving around without the need for fuel, and you worry about how the sword works? The creature's very existence defies logic, it's magic. So any interaction with it is not necessarily subject to logic.
some things cannot be handwaved but need justification.
Creatures of living flame are not among those things.
i found a way to give it. everything has a weak point, for every strength, a weakness, for every action, a reaction, every defense, a method to breach.
That's so very logical, so adherent to the natural laws.
But your puny natural laws only apply to puny natural creatures in your puny natural world.
This world, while it may seem huge to you, is surrounded by elemental planes, which are a higher plane of existence. Higher still are the so-called outer planes. And around all is the Cerulean Void.
A plane's law doesn't extend to higher planes or those planes' creatures. And no laws can ever apply to the Void.
You can get your lawyers and loremasters and pound your books about logic, but there is no court that can convict the greater realities for not obeying your little laws.
if the fighter can damage it with a greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it.
OBJECTION! :P
sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.
heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.
|
|
sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.
heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.
The rogue can smack an elemental with his weapons as well. Same goes for undead and oozes, he just doesn't do as much damage to them. Although a 1st lvl rogue with Power Attack and a high strength score does about the same in damage as a fighter with similar stuff.
You could also applies this argument to spellcasters and fighters. A cleric, for instance, can damage evil outsiders who possess DR/good 10 with channel energy and Alignment Channel feat and bypass the DR. A fighter doesn't bypass the DR so should he get to bypass it just because the cleric can?
sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.
heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.
The rogue can smack an elemental with his weapons as well. Same goes for undead and oozes, he just doesn't do as much damage to them. Although a 1st lvl rogue with Power Attack and a high strength score does about the same in damage as a fighter with similar stuff.
You could also applies this argument to spellcasters and fighters. A cleric, for instance, can damage evil outsiders who possess DR/good 10 with channel energy and Alignment Channel feat and bypass the DR. A fighter doesn't bypass the DR so should he get to bypass it just because the cleric can?
you beat me. fighter's already have a way to bypass the DR. it's called a holy weapon. and since that is pretty quintessential, fighters are bypassing that DR already. but fighters don't need to bypass DR if they are built right; the fighter probably invested gold and some feats; the cleric probably invested feats and a limited per day ability. the rogue sneak attacking elementals, probably invested a lot of levels, and a lot of fights they couldn't contribute to. due to a designer having an associatiation of 10d6 = 60 damage (it really only equals 35 damage)
|
|
you beat me. fighter's already have a way to bypass the DR. it's called a holy weapon. and since that is pretty quintessential, fighters are bypassing that DR already. but fighters don't need to bypass DR if they are built right; the fighter probably invested gold and some feats; the cleric probably invested feats and a limited per day ability. the rogue sneak attacking elementals, probably invested a lot of levels, and a lot of fights they couldn't contribute to. due to a designer having an associatiation of 10d6 = 60 damage (it really only equals 35 damage)sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.
heres my opinion, if the fighter can smack it with his greatsword, the rogue should be able to sneak attack it with her daggers. if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack. which isn't 100% guaranteed. i say it should apply to all creature types. we should remove critical hit/sneak attack immunity from the game. it'll make certain creatures a lot less bothersome to deal with. such as elementals, whom will probably murder the fighter before the fighter can finish it. assuming only 1 fighter. now if the fighter can crit the elemental and the rogue can sneak attack it, that saves a lot of time. and plenty of healing.
The rogue can smack an elemental with his weapons as well. Same goes for undead and oozes, he just doesn't do as much damage to them. Although a 1st lvl rogue with Power Attack and a high strength score does about the same in damage as a fighter with similar stuff.
You could also applies this argument to spellcasters and fighters. A cleric, for instance, can damage evil outsiders who possess DR/good 10 with channel energy and Alignment Channel feat and bypass the DR. A fighter doesn't bypass the DR so should he get to bypass it just because the cleric can?
Yes that's true. A fighter can purchase a holy weapon and be done with it, but that's an 18,000 gp price for something a cleric can do with a single feat, and much earlier.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for allowing rogues to sneak attack undead. But there has to be a limit somewhere. In my opinion a little restriction for every class goes a long way to create scenarios that challenge the players.
I doubt the muscle part, but you could see it that way I suppose doesnt take away they have the same joints and stuff skeletons do.
I want to see something to reflect their undead state better, maybe allow sneak attack with weapons they are vulnerable to.
It would be a bit cruel (particularly to small rogues), but I can completely see disallowing sneak attacks that fail to bypass DR, or to bypass DR/slash,bludg,pierce.
due to a designer having an associatiation of 10d6 = 60 damage (it really only equals 35 damage)
Just curious, where did that come from?
I doubt the muscle part, but you could see it that way I suppose doesnt take away they have the same joints and stuff skeletons do.
I want to see something to reflect their undead state better, maybe allow sneak attack with weapons they are vulnerable to.
It would be a bit cruel (particularly to small rogues), but I can completely see disallowing sneak attacks that fail to bypass DR, or to bypass DR/slash,bludg,pierce.
due to a designer having an associatiation of 10d6 = 60 damage (it really only equals 35 damage)Just curious, where did that come from?
look at how WotC designed sneak attack, they limited the creature types it applied to, wouldn't let it multiply on a crit, made a special series of armor enchantments to negate it, basically they were so afraid of it that they nerfed it like mad. 10d6 isn't realy a lot at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
10d6 isn't realy a lot at all.
Not by itself, no, but when you consider the fact that a rogue could potentially deal it 2, 3, 4, or more times in a single round, every round, it becomes more respectable. Plus the fact that a rogue doesn't really need to worry too much about enhancing his weapons except for +hit in Pathfinder (though flaming/shock/frost might be nice), once he gets a +5 weapon it slices through pretty much any DR in existance.
lol, WotC did not nerf sneak attack, they invented the damn thing.. in ages past they called it backstab... and it sucketh mightily
If, as a GM, someone is really concerned about Sneak Attack unbalancing a combat encounter, simply limit it to one attack, per opponent, per encounter. Rule it out as saying that once the Rogue has blown that first Sneak Attack, the opponent is now fully aware of the Rogue's tricksy ways, and thus can no longer turn the targets kidneys into hummus.
The target is still subject to all other combat modifiers from being flanked, surprised, what-have-you, but the Rogue no longer gets that all important Sneak factor on their attacks.
If, as a GM, you don't want a Rogue sneak attacking plants (and I can see why you wouldn't), either disallow it, or tell your players that in order to Sneak Attack a non-standard opponent (Undead, Elemental, Plant, what-have-you) that they have to have an appropriate Knowledge skill and the right tools for the job. Not only does this encourage players to think about what their character actually knows, but it enables the GM to say "Look, Bob, I get that Geebo Proudfeet Von Stabbinstein The Halfling has 'Knowledge: Botany' at 10 ranks, but you still can't eviscerate that Shambling Mound. It's got no vital spots, Bob. It's a giant walking lump of mulch! Now, maybe if you had successfully brewed that herbicide and put it in your Dagger Of Venom, we could talk, but as it is, no, not this time, Bob."
And next time, if Bob had brewed that weed killer and stuck it in his dagger, then by all means, let Geebo get his weed-whacking on.
There's really little about Sneak Attack that is game-shattering, as long as it is consistently handled.
(Edited because I forgot part of my point!)
I think Rogues should be able to sneak attack just about anything. I always hated how undead were immune since they clearly have weak points and anatomy. An ooze? Okay, I can see why you can't sneak attack that. But that's a limited case. Immunity to sneak attack should be a very rare feature. Rogues should not be useless against half the monsters in the game.
As for constructs, I honestly think the idea of using disable device on them is nonsensical. Golems are basically statues animated with magic. They're not robots. They have no gears or moving parts. Their ability to move is entirely magical. There's nothing to disable!
sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.
Because there is a difference between sneak attack and merely whacking things with swords? You can attack a block of solid stone with a weapon, but you cannot hit it it in the longs, can't you.
Many fighters really go for crits, what with crit feats? They don't get to use that against elementals?
And rogues aren't as much about fighting than fighters?
if one can't find a method to justify, here's one, game balance. many newbies who play rogues only care about one thing, sneak attack.
Game balance isn't about making every class identical. It's about making every class about equal, all things considered.
All things is more than just doing as much damage as possible.
The players just have to learn that playing a rogue for damage isn't that good an idea if there are some monsters of those few types (well, subtypes mostly) around (hell, it's a bad idea even if you *can* sneak attack everything all the time)
It's not the only thing they have to learn, after all. It's not the rules' job to hold their hands with everything.
After all, players have to learn that if you think that your wizard will never be attacked in melee, so you play an elf wizard with Con 5 and Dex 9. I mean, we don't get rid of negative ability modifiers, either, so characters like that don't get creamed.
I think Rogues should be able to sneak attack just about anything.
Nah, a few exceptions should persist.
I always hated how undead were immune since they clearly have weak points and anatomy.
Well, you can sneak attack them now. Everything with an anatomy can be sneak attacked now.
An ooze? Okay, I can see why you can't sneak attack that. But that's a limited case. Immunity to sneak attack should be a very rare feature.
It is. It only applies to the ooze type, as well as the elemental and incorporeal subtype, because those critters don't have an anatomy to speak of.
Rogues should not be useless against half the monsters in the game.
They're not, unless half the monsters in your game come from the above-mentioned type and subtypes.
sorry, but why must we have 3 whole creature types a rogue can't sneak attack but a fighter can smack with his greatsword.Because there is a difference between sneak attack and merely whacking things with swords? You can attack a block of solid stone with a weapon, but you cannot hit it it in the longs, can't you.
Many fighters really go for crits, what with crit feats? They don't get to use that against elementals?
And rogues aren't as much about fighting than fighters?
even with the changes to the skill system, a rogue still doesn't get enough skill points, unless they spread themselves too thin. rogues can afford some more if they forget backround skills and prc prerequisites as well as play 25 point buy (P.F. point buy).
Game balance isn't about making every class identical. It's about making every class about equal, all things considered.
All things is more than just doing as much damage as possible.
The players just have to learn that playing a rogue for damage isn't that good an idea if there are some monsters of those few types (well, subtypes mostly) around (hell, it's a bad idea even if you *can* sneak attack everything all the time)
i was going to get to that. most newbies that play rogues go for damage when they shouldn't. because all they see is +10d6. then they see TWF and think more attacks = more damage. i know the true purpose of rogues is the skills. but many young boys whose posts i have read try to focus too much on sneak attacking, a mistake my first rogue made a long time ago. in the later days of 3.5, before they made 4.0. sometimes i feel as i'm advocating help for the adolescent boys who misspell rogue as rouge and go overboard on the sneak attack. i realize now, a rules change may not be the best idea.
It's not the only thing they have to learn, after all. It's not the rules' job to hold their hands with everything.
After all, players have to learn that if you think that your wizard will never be attacked in melee, so you play an elf wizard with Con 5 and Dex 9. I mean, we don't get rid of negative ability modifiers, either, so characters like that don't get creamed.
i have never played with a con below 12 nor a dex below 16. so i am not familiar with the penalties of the above negative modifiers. i read how they can mess you up. but a mistake i have made is a finesse cleric w/ 8 str, 12 con and 16 dex. her weapon of choice was a shortsword. (she burned the feat in a 3.5 core only camapign.) she couldn't damage anything. 8 str will screw up anyone, even the party wizard. but any stat below 10 will screw you over in some way. i will not specicify how though, it varies with each attirbute and no it is not skill related, think other more vital stats such as initiative, hit points, carring capacity or saving throws.
again i'm sorry for asking for immunity removal without thinking ahead.
....even with the changes to the skill system, a rogue still doesn't get enough skill points, ......
Would you care to explain this?
not enough skillpoints to get all the skills I suppose lol
....even with the changes to the skill system, a rogue still doesn't get enough skill points, ......Would you care to explain this?
I would like to second this inquiry.
Rogues continue to get 8 + INT modifier, and with the new Favored Class rules, this can effectively be increased to 9 + INT (honestly, I can think of very few Rogue players who wouldn't take the +1 skill point, but I'm sure some would) for most Rogues.
While I'm a firm believer in skill-based characters, I must echo Wraithstrike's question.