The 1/2 sneak attack idea mentioned in this thread was mine. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's thought of something like that. Regardless, feel free to use the idea. It was offered as advice for anyone upset with the current sneak attack rules for certain creatures, and therefore was intended to be used. I'm flattered that an idea of mine will be used in someone's game.
I'm saving this. You will both be fully credited when I get to that aspect of my homebrew.
[EDIT] I'm also thinking about sneak attack doing half damage to creatures that are normally immune to it under 3.5 rules(mine is a 3.5 homebrew) unless someone takes a corresponding feat...
Oh man, I didn't even realize you said it before I did. I will give you credit as well, but I'm going to put my name in there after yours ;-)
Also, in a larger context, I'm interested in polling people here on this niggling topic- should a rogue be able to sneak attack everything in sight? Although he put it in a rather inflammatory way, I do agree with VoodooMike on this one(and I'm amazed, considering my long-term hatred of/rivalry with people named Mike...I'll just call him Voodoo for now): I don't think that the rogue being able to sneak attack everything(and with any weapon, mind) is the best way to handle things, and I can see where Pathfinder is balanced differently with a different philosophy in mind vs. 3.5 as opposed to just being flat-out better. My own homebrew is my approach to 3.5 as is another good friend of mine's- although we both love Pathfinder and will continue to play and support it with the vast, vast majority of our RPG budget.
As with any of the Pathfinder Precision damage modifications, I add the caveat...
You need to identify the weak points...
Make a relevant knowledge check...or someone in your party make it...say like...the bard, or the lore master...
"If you strike a brain eating zombie in the skull, you can destroy it's brain...that's it's weak point."
"Stab a Vampire in the heart with a stake to immobilize it, then chop off its head."
Takes the metagaming aspect out of it.
Player: I got a sneak attack the zombie
DM: You stab where the zombie's kidneys would have been, but fail to inflict additional damage.
Player: I try to recall if zombies have a weakness. Rolls Knowledge: Religion.
DM: Crush the skull or sever the spinal column...Yes, I like knowledge skills to be used in my games.
Profession (Undead Slayer) would work also...
I'm a fan of knowledge skills as well(as well as a prominent anti-metagamer), but I'm not really in favor of something like Undead Slayer...there should be existing skills that you can use to help you figure that stuff out. I'd say more Heal checks than Knowledge: Religion, but that's just me probably being nit-picky.
Wow.
I'm in awe. Really. In awe :)
I'm interested in polling people here on this niggling topic- should a rogue be able to sneak attack everything in sight? {snip} I don't think that the rogue being able to sneak attack everything(and with any weapon, mind) is the best way to handle things{snip}
Need some clarification here before I respond to your question - are you saying that you think PF's changes allow rogues to "sneak attack everything in sight" OR are you asking if people think the rules should be expanded to that extreme?
I'm interested in polling people here on this niggling topic- should a rogue be able to sneak attack everything in sight? {snip} I don't think that the rogue being able to sneak attack everything(and with any weapon, mind) is the best way to handle things{snip}Need some clarification here before I respond to your question - are you saying that you think PF's changes allow rogues to "sneak attack everything in sight" OR are you asking if people think the rules should be expanded to that extreme?
I'm asking what people think about the rogue's current sneak attack abilities in Pathfinder. I should have separated my thoughts/opinion from the question I was asking.
Since we know that 3.0 and 3.5 both were made with consistency and balanced gameplay in mind.Yeah, and we all hated them so much that we opted to stick with it even when the company wanted us to move to their 4E. Pathfinder isn't phenomenally well balanced any more than 3.0 or 3.5 was - its just balanced differently.
And again I say - if you want to make a change, there should be a good reason for it, otherwise its arbitrary. Are we saying the rogue class was so terribly broken and unplayable that this change was needed lest the rogue would fade into obscurity as a class?
Yes that exactly what I'm saying. The rogue was virtually useless in 3E with so many restrictions on the sneak attack and when it could used.
I mean in many games you had to through in token monster for the rogue to sneak attack so they felt useful as you crept through grand temple of the dead or while storming the wizards tower. Being a rogue in 3E wasn't bad if you had no casters and played in urban campaigns where you never really fought monsters at all. But that restrictiveness equals broken in my mind.
We switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder because of the changes to the fighter and rogue classes. It fixed the rogue and it's fun to play, in my opinion.
I'm a fan of knowledge skills as well(as well as a prominent anti-metagamer), but I'm not really in favor of something like Undead Slayer...there should be existing skills that you can use to help you figure that stuff out. I'd say more Heal checks than Knowledge: Religion, but that's just me probably being nit-picky.As with any of the Pathfinder Precision damage modifications, I add the caveat...
You need to identify the weak points...
Make a relevant knowledge check...or someone in your party make it...say like...the bard, or the lore master...
"If you strike a brain eating zombie in the skull, you can destroy it's brain...that's it's weak point."
"Stab a Vampire in the heart with a stake to immobilize it, then chop off its head."
Takes the metagaming aspect out of it.
Player: I got a sneak attack the zombie
DM: You stab where the zombie's kidneys would have been, but fail to inflict additional damage.
Player: I try to recall if zombies have a weakness. Rolls Knowledge: Religion.
DM: Crush the skull or sever the spinal column...Yes, I like knowledge skills to be used in my games.
Profession (Undead Slayer) would work also...
I should have mentioned that Four Winds Gaming's Monster Information Cards are a great help in this- I use them in all of my games, Pathfinder and 3.5 alike.
I understand why Paizo changed the rules concerning sneak attack, but I do not like the change.
I do not consider doing damage to be the primary ability of rogues. We are not talking about a MMO. Being sneaky, being tricky, those are more important aspects of the class.Rogues certainly should not be imagined as the ones chopping off limbs - that should be the barbarians and fighters. Rather they are doing precision damage, stiking in particularly vulnerable spots, which I prefer to imagine that magically animated creatures do not have. I like the image of someone knocking the skull off a skeleton and the rest of the body continuing to attack.
I think I would have given many of the critical immune creature specific vulnerabilities, so that if you attacked with the right type of weapon you can critical them.
For skeletons perhaps good aligned crushing weapons.
For zombies perhaps good aligned slashing weapons.
For vampires wooden piercing weapons :)
Perhaps bane weapons would allow criticals against their particular type.I might also give rogues a ability at 6th level to use their number of sneak attack dice as a bonus on some non damaging tactics that would work even again crit immune creatures, providing they are otherwise vulnerable to a sneak attack. specifically tripping and disarming, and for aid another, granting the number of sneak attack dice in place of the normal +2.
I like the sneak attack of the rogue. It makes sense to me. Like the rogue studies the golem seeing the opportunity to cripple it. So the rogue says to the fighter "Distract the beast while I slip behind, I want to try something". The rogue slip into a flanking position an repeatedly plunges the dagger into a small crack widening it causing the golem damage as the magical energy is released.
When it comes to undead or a skeleton to be specific I think of the whole head shot double tap concept. The fighter is is bashing the thing to pieces the rogue though manages to make the head shot and stomps the skull for good measure.
Just my style though. Nothing wrong with yours.
I do not consider doing damage to be the primary ability of rogues. {snip} Being sneaky, being tricky, those are more important aspects of the class.
Do all of your players share that same exact vision of the Rogue?
Are all Rogues in your campaigns played in that manner?To me, it isn't just about how I play or DM Rogues. It is about how my players interpret the Rogue and how they will have fun with it. Currently, I am running a Rogues-only PF campaign. There are the 'slinker' sorts but there are also the players who are constantly whetting their blades, drooling for the opportunity to stick them in someone's back. Clearly, their sense of 'fun' and how they define what are and are not a Rogue's 'important aspects' are tied to slitting throats. That is their vision of the Rogue and it is as valid as any other.
I'm asking what people think about the rogue's current sneak attack abilities in Pathfinder. I should have separated my thoughts/opinion from the question I was asking.I'm interested in polling people here on this niggling topic- should a rogue be able to sneak attack everything in sight? {snip} I don't think that the rogue being able to sneak attack everything(and with any weapon, mind) is the best way to handle things{snip}Need some clarification here before I respond to your question - are you saying that you think PF's changes allow rogues to "sneak attack everything in sight" OR are you asking if people think the rules should be expanded to that extreme?
It is currently weaker than a fighter. Fighter vs rogue in terms of raw damage breaks downs like this
Fighter Pros-More combat feats
-Access to special feats
-Higher BAB
-Better armor
-No special requirements for dealing full damage
Rogue Pros
-Higher damage per hit
A TWF rogue who is able to full attack with sneak attack is pretty close to a two-hand fighter in terms of damage. If the rogue cannot sneak attack they lose about 75% of their damage output, and there are still a lot of things that can negate a rogues ability to sneak attack(concealment, unflankable opponents, etc)
I removed some personal attacks. Keep it clean and civil.
|
really. It takes very little force for a harder material to scratch or in some way damage a softer material, though I'll agree that slings in general are a silly weapon, and its hard to imagine a sling hurting any monster regardless of what the stone is made of.You do know that the romans had special pliers to remove sling bullets from bodies? You can penetrate sheet metal with a sling. The sling is a very respectable weapon, though it's D&D incarnation doesn't give it enough credit it's still useful.
Yup! if you watch Spike TV's deadliest warrior, the opening episode (gladiator vs Apache) they proved the validity of David vs Goliath story. they had a sling from 15 feet away hit a face square in the nose, and with enough force to penetrate to the brain.
Freehold DM:
I am happy with the pathfinder rules as is - undead are always supposed to have weak points (the vampire's heart, the zombie's brain), as do golems (the gem in the heart, the joints like the ankles, etc). They aren't the same as the weak points on a human, but they are there. I can rationalise to my own content the creatures that do and don't have vulnerability to sneak attack based on their anatomy, and I'm happy with that.
On the broader concept, I can understand why some categories of creature were added - undead and constructs are large categories of monsters which you encounter a lot; for those interested in combat rogues this can be very frustrating. The rogues sneak attack isn't broken by any means, not compared with the damage that fighters can be dishing out at the same kind of level.
Yup! if you watch Spike TV's deadliest warrior, the opening episode (gladiator vs Apache) they proved the validity of David vs Goliath story. they had a sling from 15 feet away hit a face square in the nose, and with enough force to penetrate to the brain.really. It takes very little force for a harder material to scratch or in some way damage a softer material, though I'll agree that slings in general are a silly weapon, and its hard to imagine a sling hurting any monster regardless of what the stone is made of.You do know that the romans had special pliers to remove sling bullets from bodies? You can penetrate sheet metal with a sling. The sling is a very respectable weapon, though it's D&D incarnation doesn't give it enough credit it's still useful.
Slings are actually just about as effective as non-composite bows (short or long) and can be fired more quickly. D&D has always done a poor job of representing just how good slings actually are, probably because the modern preconception of slings is tainted by the existence of slingshots.
Slings are actually just about as effective as non-composite bows (short or long) and can be fired more quickly. D&D has always done a poor job of representing just how good slings actually are, probably because the modern preconception of slings is tainted by the existence of slingshots.
As a whole D&D is not a great combat simulator..I mean come one 15 pound swords? But year slings could kill with east, they were very effective at braking bones,which was just as good at times.
Slings are actually just about as effective as non-composite bows (short or long) and can be fired more quickly. D&D has always done a poor job of representing just how good slings actually are, probably because the modern preconception of slings is tainted by the existence of slingshots.Yup! if you watch Spike TV's deadliest warrior, the opening episode (gladiator vs Apache) they proved the validity of David vs Goliath story. they had a sling from 15 feet away hit a face square in the nose, and with enough force to penetrate to the brain.really. It takes very little force for a harder material to scratch or in some way damage a softer material, though I'll agree that slings in general are a silly weapon, and its hard to imagine a sling hurting any monster regardless of what the stone is made of.You do know that the romans had special pliers to remove sling bullets from bodies? You can penetrate sheet metal with a sling. The sling is a very respectable weapon, though it's D&D incarnation doesn't give it enough credit it's still useful.
I was always in favor of a greater critical threat range for slings. I've always been awed the stunning amount of damage they could do to inanimate objects alone, and I really don't want to see what they could do to a living creature, much less people.
+1 on the Deadliest Warrior love. New episodes are the 20th. It's not the most accurate show on the face of the earth, and the program they use has a lot of holes in it, but it gets people talking, and that's important. I still think the Zulu team picked some of the worst weapons when they had Shaka go up against William Wallace.
Freehold DM:
I am happy with the pathfinder rules as is - undead are always supposed to have weak points (the vampire's heart, the zombie's brain), as do golems (the gem in the heart, the joints like the ankles, etc). They aren't the same as the weak points on a human, but they are there. I can rationalise to my own content the creatures that do and don't have vulnerability to sneak attack based on their anatomy, and I'm happy with that.
On the broader concept, I can understand why some categories of creature were added - undead and constructs are large categories of monsters which you encounter a lot; for those interested in combat rogues this can be very frustrating. The rogues sneak attack isn't broken by any means, not compared with the damage that fighters can be dishing out at the same kind of level.
Interesting, and I thank you for your thoughts.
are we seriously arguing this? In 3.5 a rogues PRINCIPLE CLASS FEATURE [sneak attack] was useless against about one fourth of the monsters in the bestiary, including some very classic and commonly used ones [think undead]. That is not like wizards not working against golems (and even then if they have the right spells they can still do stuff like buffs and non-SR spells). A design goal of pathfinder was to not have major class features commonly negated by monsters. That is why, thats it, physics doesnt matter, you can explain it 100 different ways, it doesnt matter, this is an example of GOR, gameplay over 'reality'.
Rogues are a major class, they are one of the original 4. Most parties have them. 3.5 also had a host of other abilities in their splat books that also didnt work against non sneakable monsters (the scout's skirmish for instance).
All of these major abilities simply did not work in common campaigns. And this is a game design problem. Have an undead campaign which also included traps? Problem in 3.5, not a problem in Pathfinder. The discussion doesnt have to go further then that.
Yep - and they ended up trying to 'fix' the problem with spells like Gravestrike and Golemstrike to let rogues SA common foes. Pathfinder just fixed the problem at source.
Agreed, but it also helped the melee classes as a whole as if ya can sneak attack it, then ya can crit it. Lets be honest alot of the 3.x ya can't crit it rules are odd. Lets not even go into how odd the undead rules are.
Agreed, but it also helped the melee classes as a whole as if ya can sneak attack it, then ya can crit it. Lets be honest alot of the 3.x ya can't crit it rules are odd. Lets not even go into how odd the undead rules are.
Indeed, like i said there were other abilities that built off it, including a crit specialist (someone wielding 2 high crit weapons for instance), that also get negated by this. Suddenly the rapier wielding duelist goes from good combatant to guy with a poking stick. The high level scout is basically a 1st level archer (doing an arrows worth of damage a round). There are a whole host of character concepts/abilities that got negated by that big chunk of monsters, the rogue was just the bigest and most visible one.
This is all helping me out a great deal and giving me a lot of stuff to consider for my homebrew. If I'm correct, the two main categories that could not be sneak attacked/critted were Undead and Constructs, right? Oozes and Elementals also could not be sneak attacked, but they were not encountered by rogues too often, no?
I'm a fan of knowledge skills as well(as well as a prominent anti-metagamer), but I'm not really in favor of something like Undead Slayer...there should be existing skills that you can use to help you figure that stuff out. I'd say more Heal checks than Knowledge: Religion, but that's just me probably being nit-picky.
Profession skills themselves are described as lump together skills required to make a living. Which is why I gave it as an example. While someone with Profession (undead slayer) might know how to deal with undead, they would have no knowledge of the gods, spells, or the abilities of priests.
Profession (Hunter) animals
Profession (Monster Hunter) aberrations
Besides profession is a class skill for many classes.
You are skilled at a specific job. Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks. While a Craft skill represents ability in creating an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.
A design goal of pathfinder was to not have major class features commonly negated by monsters. That is why, thats it, physics doesnt matter, you can explain it 100 different ways, it doesnt matter, this is an example of GOR, gameplay over 'reality'.
Hey, quit trying to interject common sense into a game discussion. What's wrong with you?
What I find amusing is the OP's apparent insistence that the rule set he used when he first learned the game represents some "objective reality" that Must Not Be Tampered With. Conveniently ignoring the fact that in the first TWO incarnations of the game, sneak attack (backstab) was universal. As far as I can tell, it worked on everything. In the third incarnation it was greatly limited. Now it's somewhere between the two.
At times like this, I wonder if some people are unaware that the gaming universe doesn't actually exist.
A design goal of pathfinder was to not have major class features commonly negated by monsters. That is why, thats it, physics doesnt matter, you can explain it 100 different ways, it doesnt matter, this is an example of GOR, gameplay over 'reality'.
Hey, quit trying to interject common sense into a game discussion. What's wrong with you?
What I find amusing is the OP's apparent insistence that the rule set he used when he first learned the game represents some "objective reality" that Must Not Be Tampered With. Conveniently ignoring the fact that in the first TWO incarnations of the game, sneak attack (backstab) was universal. As far as I can tell, it worked on everything. In the third incarnation it was greatly limited. Now it's somewhere between the two.
At times like this, I wonder if some people are unaware that the gaming universe doesn't actually exist.
But in 1e/2e it only happened once per battle typically...
This is all helping me out a great deal and giving me a lot of stuff to consider for my homebrew. If I'm correct, the two main categories that could not be sneak attacked/critted were Undead and Constructs, right? Oozes and Elementals also could not be sneak attacked, but they were not encountered by rogues too often, no?
That, and they are much harder to justify a critical hit on. If something has a humanoid form like a golem, you can still attack weak points on it (joints and areas like the ankles or knees that are critically load-bearing) even if it doesn't have vital organs. On undead you can go for the heart, the brain, or something else looking important.
An elemental that can just shape another bit of itself as a limb if you lop one off is much harder, and oozes are ... well ... oozes! (sorry, I don't buy the single-celled argument and have never heard of any D&D oozes described that way - besides, even if it is single-celled, it doesn't have to have a nucleus).
This is all helping me out a great deal and giving me a lot of stuff to consider for my homebrew. If I'm correct, the two main categories that could not be sneak attacked/critted were Undead and Constructs, right? Oozes and Elementals also could not be sneak attacked, but they were not encountered by rogues too often, no?
Undead and construcsts are definately the big ones. I remember once a dm wanting to run ravenloft,
DM: "I'm going to run castle ravenloft, let me know who is going to play what. Its undead themed with some constructs. Oh and it has alot of traps and stuff"
US: "Well so far we have a paladin, a fighter a cleric and a wizard"
DM: "What about a rogue?"
US: "Lots of undead right?"
DM: "Yea no rogue"
That dm ran a different game, and then we returned to it when those stacking feats came out in i think complete scoundral. Where you could combine scout/ranger, or rogue/ranger. Because those feats allowed you to do skirmish or sneak attack against a favored enemy when it is normally immune. So obviously you choose favored enemy [thing immune to your class feature].
Golems are manufactured, plain and simple.
Elementals are not, they are simply raw earth, air, etc.
Golems may lack proper circulatory systems and whatnot, but they are still assembled, carved/forged and have various components, and possibly even gears and whatnot thrown inside (represented by the cost in 'raw materials' to make the Golem).
A Rogue can simply as others have said, find a crack in the Golems body somewhere, get into position, jam his weapon in the sweet spot and cause it to crumble more than just a regular hit could accomplish.
Think "Jason & The Argonauts" or the Tower Knight from Demon Souls if you have seen those, both had weak points on the ankles, that could constitute a 'sneak attack' attempt.
But in 1e/2e it only happened once per battle typically...A design goal of pathfinder was to not have major class features commonly negated by monsters. That is why, thats it, physics doesnt matter, you can explain it 100 different ways, it doesnt matter, this is an example of GOR, gameplay over 'reality'.
Hey, quit trying to interject common sense into a game discussion. What's wrong with you?
What I find amusing is the OP's apparent insistence that the rule set he used when he first learned the game represents some "objective reality" that Must Not Be Tampered With. Conveniently ignoring the fact that in the first TWO incarnations of the game, sneak attack (backstab) was universal. As far as I can tell, it worked on everything. In the third incarnation it was greatly limited. Now it's somewhere between the two.
At times like this, I wonder if some people are unaware that the gaming universe doesn't actually exist.
While I do see where you are coming from mynameisjake, I think Xanon of Korvosa's point trumps yours. I used to be a hardcore thief(not rogue) player. [slight embarrassment]It was all I played for about...god...what, 6 years?[/slight embarrassment] Maybe more? In all that time I only used my backstab ONCE- and missed horribly. I think its frequency and difficulty play a major part in everything being backstabbable in earlier editions- and I'll be checking my old school books at home to make sure that there weren't some things that couldn't be backstabbed.
Also, pjackson, I will be revisiting your ideas when I'm working on critical hits. As with the others, you will be fully credited if I use your idea wholly or in part.
This is all helping me out a great deal and giving me a lot of stuff to consider for my homebrew. If I'm correct, the two main categories that could not be sneak attacked/critted were Undead and Constructs, right? Oozes and Elementals also could not be sneak attacked, but they were not encountered by rogues too often, no?
LOL. Check the 'traps' thread. MANY DMs build traps with oozes, slimes, and molds. Since Rogues are the default trap disarmers, they frequently run into those beasties first. Aside from that, oozes (etc.) are often tossed into dungeons so if your rogue is going into a dungeon along with the rest of the party - you will be experiencing the 'joy of oozes'.
Basically, if you are a rogue in a party that is comprised of many different classes then you are going to run into elementals, undead, constructs, and oozes with the same frequency as the rest of your party. Only in strong 'theme' campaigns - i.e. 'rogues-only city-based' - are those encounters likely to be far less frequent.
Addendum: And that is an observation, not a rule. If your thieves go mucking around in the city sewer system... all bets are off.
I think its frequency and difficulty play a major part in everything being backstabbable in earlier editions- and I'll be checking my old school books at home to make sure that there weren't some things that couldn't be backstabbed.
I'm pretty sure undead couldn't be backstabbed, and I only say this because I had a character in posession of a minor artifact sword that allowed him to do so, where otherwise it was unpossible. :P But since that was 10-15 years ago, several editions ago, and I didn't have a copy of the books when I was playing in my friends game, it could easily all been homebrew rules.
I'm interested in polling people here on this niggling topic- should a rogue be able to sneak attack everything in sight? {snip} I don't think that the rogue being able to sneak attack everything(and with any weapon, mind) is the best way to handle things{snip} I'm asking what people think about the rogue's current sneak attack abilities in Pathfinder. I should have separated my thoughts/opinion from the question I was asking.
)#$*%)( Monster ate my post!
To sum up:
I like PF's changes.
3.x crippled the Rogue's sneak attack ability in terms of making the player jump through many hoops to even make an attempt. 'Hoops' include:
Did I catch the baddie flatfooted or is he denied the DEX bonus for some reason?
Am I within 30' (to do a ranged sneak attack if I even have that option)?
Can I flank him without drawing an AoO (since I'm squishy)?
Can I flank him without being perilously isolated from my team (since I'm squishy)?
Is his AC so high that, even with my bonuses, I'm likely to miss?
In short, the risk/reward ratio was often so poor that rogues rarely made sneak attacks. And when you factor in the large number of relatively common beasties (all undead) that were flatout immune to sneak attacks ... many rogues thought the sneak attack ability was a cruel joke.
While PF has gone some way to addressing that situation - there are still a number of hoops to jump through and a risk/reward ratio to seriously consider so I don't think a rogue can realistically attack everything with any weapon.
An 11th level Rogue trying to backstab a CR10 Clay Golem is likely to end up as wall paste without a team to back him up. He's got to flank the golem hopefully without drawing an AoO from the golem's 10' reach, then make the strike and hopefully roll high enough damage to overwhelm the pesky DR:10/Adamantine AND Bludgeoning requirement. I've yet to meet a rogue who carries an Adamantine Sap. And now that he has the golem's attention - he's got to get out of there before he gets smashed. Will he contribute some good damage to the team's effort? Sure. But it isn't a one-shot-kill.
|
I have chimed in on similar posts to this. But here goes again.
In theory sneak attack makes no sense vs constructs or undead. Especially with rogue weapons. A dagger to the eye or a knife in the back is not going to cause any harm to a robot or creature that long ago was able to survive without the basic necessities of life. Every class should have a weakness that cannot be overcome. If it is so easy to score a crit on undead or constructs, why have elementals and incorporeal undead been given immunity? The rule is not based in logic at all. It seems add hoc at best.
The only good reason to have sneak attacks affecting undead and constructs is because weapon training and weapon specialization should have no effect on these creatures either. Attacking a walking rock with a sword you are specialized in is going to have the same effect as attacking a rock wall with a sword. Absolutely zero. There should be a rule that knocks down the damage dice from D6 to D4 per die when fighting constructs, undead and elementals thus giving some logic to the notion of hitting a creature in a weak spot when it technically dosen't have one.
POST MONSTER ATE MY POST!!!
It seems we are getting off topic. The discussion seems to have branched out to personal attacks, the usefulness of slings, the frequency of sneak attacks, and several other things.
If your rogues don't get enough chances to sneak attack, consider changing the way flanking works. I proposed in the homebrew section, changing "flanking" from something granted to the attacker. Instead make flanked a condition imposed on the defender. It's a subtle difference, but will help melee combatants a little, ranged combatants a little more, and rogues a lot more.
Yes, slings don't get enough love, but then neither do crossbows. IRL, a heavy crossbow would punch a hole through platemail. IF the defender survived, they would both be lucky AND need to pay some serious $$$ to have their armor repaired.
For that matter, ALL of the weapons should be deadlier. IRL, every attack, even unarmed attacks, could potentially be fatal with a single hit. IRL getting stabbed or cut would cause you to bleed. Blunt weapons could break bones or cause dizzyness.
While we are at it, having armor would make you MORE likely to be hit (harder to dodge out of the way), but would have some sort of DR property, making each hit hurt less. You could go on and on about this, or any other game system.
I think we are all overanalyzing the system. No game is a perfect simulation of real life, much less of life in an imaginary world. My point being, if you want to propose a rule change, propose it. If you don't like the change, don't use it. I see no reason to argue.
I have chimed in on similar posts to this. But here goes again.
In theory sneak attack makes no sense vs constructs or undead. Especially with rogue weapons. A dagger to the eye or a knife in the back is not going to cause any harm to a robot or creature that long ago was able to survive without the basic necessities of life. Every class should have a weakness that cannot be overcome. If it is so easy to score a crit on undead or constructs, why have elementals and incorporeal undead been given immunity? The rule is not based in logic at all. It seems add hoc at best.
Wait, logic? Please to explain the logic of HAVING Undead in the first place? or constructs for that matter? Even if the rules are arbitrary (which they arent, feel free to read up for various arguments for and against), its a game. A game in which a 5'1 fighter can somehow survive a fight with a 60ft tall dragon. A wizard can bend time, space, matter and life itself to his whim, a bard can literally charm you out of your pants, and you are worried about if a rule is logical? Its a game, in order for the game to not suck for rogues (and other classes/concepts) alot of the time, it works this way. Thats it, thats all we need, we are done. Its not add hoc, it's strategic game design to you know, make a fun game for everyone. (or at least as many people as possible)
In theory sneak attack makes no sense vs constructs or undead. Especially with rogue weapons. A dagger to the eye or a knife in the back is not going to cause any harm to a robot or creature that long ago was able to survive without the basic necessities of life. Every class should have a weakness that cannot be overcome. If it is so easy to score a crit on undead or constructs, why have elementals and incorporeal undead been given immunity? The rule is not based in logic at all. It seems add hoc at best.
The only good reason to have sneak attacks affecting undead and constructs is because weapon training and weapon specialization should have no effect on these creatures either. Attacking a walking rock with a sword you are specialized in is going to have the same effect as attacking a rock wall with a sword. Absolutely zero. There should be a rule that knocks down the damage dice from D6 to D4 per die when fighting constructs, undead and elementals thus giving some logic to the notion of hitting a creature in a weak spot when it technically dosen't have one.
The way I look at it, in order to start walking your rock wall must not be entirely normal rock. It has to have legs, for a start, and those legs must bend, creating stress-points. Stress-points are weak points. As stated above, if the viability of the monster depends on it's physical form, as undead and constructs are, they can be sneak attacked because those forms have weak points, even if those weak points are not the same as they would be on a living creature.
Oozes, elementals and incorporeal undead have bodies that are composed of homogeneous material - the element for an elemental animated by the spirit, ectoplasm for incorporeal undead and protoplasm for oozes. Where they differ from constructs like golems is that even if they have the appearance of a structured creature, they do not depend upon this appearance for their viability. For example, an earth elemental can crush you as easily in the form of a rolling ball of earth and rock as it can with a humanoid fist, whereas a golem has to have legs to walk, arms to hit with, etc.
|
|
The way I look at it, in order to start walking your rock wall must not be entirely normal rock. It has to have legs, for a start, and those legs must bend, creating stress-points. Stress-points are weak points. As stated above, if the viability of the monster depends on it's physical form, as undead and constructs are, they can be sneak attacked because those forms have weak points, even if those weak points are not the same as they would be on a living creature.
Oozes, elementals and incorporeal undead have bodies that are composed of homogeneous material - the element for an elemental animated by the spirit, ectoplasm for incorporeal undead and protoplasm for oozes. Where they differ from constructs like golems is that even if they have the appearance of a structured creature, they do not depend upon this appearance for their viability. For example, an earth elemental can crush you as easily in the form of a...
You are correct in saying that a joint will be a stress point. That does not mean that the stress point will be vulnerable to weak and ineffective weapons like daggers or rapiers. A rapier doing structural damage to a door is laughable. Sneak attacking a door hinge will not have the same effect as sneak attacking me. Stick a knife into a thick block of clay and the knife will not penetrate very far. These are all examples. Since hit points are very abstract and called shots are non-existant, your theory that sneak attacks hamper undead or constructs by attacking weak points such as joints really dosen't hold up. If a giant golem is 15 feet tall then all attacks are going to be at joints since the chest and/or head will be out of reach unless you have superior reach as well.
|
|
I have chimed in on similar posts to this. But here goes again.
In theory sneak attack makes no sense vs constructs or undead. Especially with rogue weapons. A dagger to the eye or a knife in the back is not going to cause any harm to a robot or creature that long ago was able to survive without the basic necessities of life. Every class should have a weakness that cannot be overcome. If it is so easy to score a crit on undead or constructs, why have elementals and incorporeal undead been given immunity? The rule is not based in logic at all. It seems add hoc at best.
Wait, logic? Please to explain the logic of HAVING Undead in the first place? or constructs for that matter? Even if the rules are arbitrary (which they arent, feel free to read up for various arguments for and against), its a game.
Undead and constructs are logical in a fantasy setting. Magic from some source animates the creature and causes it to function. It is that simple. Magic provides sustenance, drive and functionality.
QUOTE="Kolokotroni"]
A game in which a 5'1 fighter can somehow survive a fight with a 60ft tall dragon. A wizard can bend time, space, matter and life itself to his whim, a bard can literally charm you out of your pants, and you are worried about if a rule is logical? Its a game, in order for the game to not suck for rogues (and other classes/concepts) alot of the time, it works this way. Thats it, thats all we need, we are done. Its not add hoc, it's strategic game design to you know, make a fun game for everyone. (or at least as many people as possible)
No. There are points were the game cannot be fun for everyone evenly at all times. The golem is a perfect example. In the real world. Alternating extreme heat and cold causes metal to become brittle and break down. Attacking an iron golem in Pathfinder with this method simply slows the creature and wastes spells. Do I need to complain because fireball is not the OPTIMAL choice every single time? Heck no, I need to diversify a bit. What makes your rogue so special that you have to use the same 'tried & true' method of sneak attack and when that fails a player is allowed to call foul? Pure rubbish. Multiclass into a martial class, take ranks in use magical device, carry potions and vials of acid or flaming oil. Try to envision your character in a different way instead of just having tunnel vision and trying the same approach. Casters have been doing that since the game started and have thrived because of it.
|
No. There are points were the game cannot be fun for everyone evenly at all times. The golem is a perfect example. In the real world. Alternating extreme heat and cold causes metal to become brittle and break down. Attacking an iron golem in Pathfinder with this method simply slows the creature and wastes spells. Do I need to complain because fireball is not the OPTIMAL choice every single time? Heck no, I need to diversify a bit. What makes your rogue so special that you have to use the same 'tried & true' method of sneak attack and when that fails a player is allowed to call foul? Pure rubbish. Multiclass into a martial class, take ranks in use magical device, carry potions and vials of acid or flaming oil. Try to envision your character in a different way instead of just having tunnel vision and trying the same approach. Casters have been doing that since the game started and have thrived because of it.
One would argue then that the Wizard casting fireball repeatedly does the same thing over and over, while the rogue has to find the weak spot and exploit it, perhaps in a different way each time.
Also one would argue the rogue is in by far a less optimal position as his answer to the golem puts him right in attack range, while the wizard has the best ac in the game, not being around to GET hit.
No. There are points were the game cannot be fun for everyone evenly at all times. The golem is a perfect example. In the real world. Alternating extreme heat and cold causes metal to become brittle and break down. Attacking an iron golem in Pathfinder with this method simply slows the creature and wastes spells. Do I need to complain because fireball is not the OPTIMAL choice every single time? Heck no, I need to diversify a bit. What makes your rogue so special that you have to use the same 'tried & true' method of sneak attack and when that fails a player is allowed to call foul? Pure rubbish. Multiclass into a martial class, take ranks in use magical device, carry potions and vials of acid or flaming oil. Try to envision your character in a different way instead of just having tunnel vision and trying the same approach. Casters have been doing that since the game started and have thrived because of it.
First of all there is a HUGE difference between not having fun ALL the time, and not having fun against 1/4 of the monsters in the monster manual including certain ones entire campaigns are based around.
Second, the rogue is not a flexible as a caster, recommending he should multiclass so he can participate in a large portion of combats is not only stupid(classes should work on their own), but counter to one of the principal design goals of pathfinder (namely to make it worthwhile to play single base classes). Its not about tunnel vision, sneak attack is ALL A ROGUE HAS in combat, thats it, end of story. Thats what the class gets. Yea you can get a few extra feats, but saying he shouldnt rely on sneak attack is like saying the fighter shouldnt rely on weapons, the wizard shouldnt rely on spells, the barbarian should not be raging much, the bard shouldnt sing. This is what the class does, it's what it's meant to do. It should work against most enemies. And its not like its a done deal, you still need stealth, surprise or flanking, which is never a given.
The fact is, when it comes to combat, if he's not sneak attacking the rogue isnt doing anything at all, and that is not fun, and its not good game design.
Your spell example is total nonsense. The wizard has a whole arsenal of spells, that is his principle class feature. Saying sneak attacking is like using fireball is plain not true, saying a rogue should be able to get by without sneak attack is like saying a wizard should get by WITHOUT SPELLS. So at level 10 he has his 1d4+5 acid dart and a crossbow, yea that is going to contribute against level appropriate enemies right? That's what the rogue is without sneak attack, a pair of daggers or a bow at 1d4x2 or 1d6, basically doing nothing at that level.
A rapier doing structural damage to a door is laughable. Sneak attacking a door hinge will not have the same effect as sneak attacking me.
I beg to differ. You have to realize that over level 5, we can't really compare the game to the real world even in matters where magic and such isn't relevant.
To a wooden door, precision damage from a rapier would clearly be relevant - stick it a weakness in the hinges or the lock, stick it in an open knot in the wood and twist to cause splintering.To a steel door it might not do as much difference, but a steel door has hardness 10 so there won't be a lot of damage anyway.
I'll add to that, a real world rapier is a very sturdy weapon - it's not a fencing foil, it's a battlefield weapon designed to pierce the weak-points in armour.
No. There are points were the game cannot be fun for everyone evenly at all times. The golem is a perfect example. In the real world. Alternating extreme heat and cold causes metal to become brittle and break down. Attacking an iron golem in Pathfinder with this method simply slows the creature and wastes spells. Do I need to complain because fireball is not the OPTIMAL choice every single time? Heck no, I need to diversify a bit. What makes your rogue so special that you have to use the same 'tried & true' method of sneak attack and when that fails a player is allowed to call foul? Pure rubbish. Multiclass into a martial class, take ranks in use magical device, carry potions and vials of acid or flaming oil. Try to envision your character in a different way instead of just having tunnel vision and trying the same approach. Casters have been doing that since the game started and have thrived because of it.
That's asinine. "Multiclass your Rogue if you want to be effective in combat." Then why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in the first place? It would be less played than a bard. And monsters don't even exude auras of silence! Sneak Attack is the ONLY combat ability Rogues have, if they can't use it, why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in a campaign where they have to fight? They wouldn't, that's why. "Hey, your Wizard can't cast spells here because the ENTIRE DUNGEON is an anti-magic field! But hey, it's ok, you can multiclass into a fighter." Bzzzt, wrong. You wouldn't even play a Wizard if you knew that ahead of time.
That's asinine. "Multiclass your Rogue if you want to be effective in combat." Then why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in the first place? It would be less played than a bard. And monsters don't even exude auras of silence! Sneak Attack is the ONLY combat ability Rogues have, if they can't use it, why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in a campaign where they have to fight? They wouldn't, that's why. "Hey, your Wizard can't cast spells here because the ENTIRE DUNGEON is an anti-magic field! But hey, it's ok, you can multiclass into a fighter." Bzzzt, wrong. You wouldn't even play a Wizard if you knew that ahead of time.
+1.
I can't put it better than that.
I will add that if VoodooMike feels that sneak attack is overpowered affecting so many things, the answer would not be to make more things immune to sneak attack, it would be to downgrade sneak attacks total effects - say from d6 to d4 dice. I don't think it is, though, not unless you've let a munchkin get away with outrageously cheating by multi-weapon fighting with reach weapons and feats that let him self-flank a foe ...
My personal view of the situation was that it made the most sense to the developers to allow critical hits to affect constructs and undead. And sneak attack just came along with the territory.
The fact that constructs and undead couldn't be critted affected EVERYONE who fought with a weapon, not just rogues. Rogues built solely on doing sneak attack damage could be screwed, but in my games, the rogues just switched tactics when dealing with those kind of monsters (usually fought defensively and became hard-to-hit distractions while the fighters and clerics could do their thing). The people who were complaining were the people with high-crit weapons who felt like they wasted the rolled 20 or whatever.
I think it is possible to crit an undead creature or a construct. As someone said, you smash its bony ribs, you squash its zombie skull, you weaken its hinged metal knee, you strike the animating gem in the center of the rock golem's torso, whatever. It makes sense to me. And if you can crit it, you can probably sneak attack it.
People keep saying "but it's really hard to stab a skeleton or pierce a golem with a plain old rapier" and yes, it is. That's why those creatures have DR/bludgeoning and DR/Adamantine. Which still applies even when calculating crit or sneak attack damage.
I can imagine a number of ways to fluff how crits (or sneak attacks) work on constructs and undead; heck, I've watched enough zombie and Frankenstein movies to imagine these creatures get critted all the time.
I do have trouble imagining how to fluff crits would affect a uniform blob of ooze or fire, and agree with the posters who have argued that differentiating constructs and undead from oozes and elementals makes a great deal of sense, based on my perceptions of the game and what the mechanics are supposed to represent.
That's asinine. "Multiclass your Rogue if you want to be effective in combat." Then why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in the first place? It would be less played than a bard. And monsters don't even exude auras of silence! Sneak Attack is the ONLY combat ability Rogues have, if they can't use it, why the hell would anyone play a Rogue in a campaign where they have to fight? They wouldn't, that's why. "Hey, your Wizard can't cast spells here because the ENTIRE DUNGEON is an anti-magic field! But hey, it's ok, you can multiclass into a fighter." Bzzzt, wrong. You wouldn't even play a Wizard if you knew that ahead of time.+1.
I can't put it better than that.
I will add that if VoodooMike feels that sneak attack is overpowered affecting so many things, the answer would not be to make more things immune to sneak attack, it would be to downgrade sneak attacks total effects - say from d6 to d4 dice. I don't think it is, though, not unless you've let a munchkin get away with outrageously cheating by multi-weapon fighting with reach weapons and feats that let him self-flank a foe ...
While I agree on some parts(d4s for sneak attack is a DAMN INTERESTING idea that maybe should have been considered originally- we need to use more d4s, I think) and , I think where you(Dabbler) and Cartigan and possibly Koloa few others are off a bit off is in that Sneak Attack is not the ONLY thing the rogue can do in combat, just as casting spells isn't the ONLY thing the wizard can do in combat. These are the only CLASS-SPECIFIC ACTIVE things they can do in combat. As distasteful as some find it, they can do other things in combat including picking up a weapon and swinging with wild abandon, attempting to trip, fighting defensively, bluffing, joining in flanking attempts(and this is where Jason Rice's surrounding/overwhelming idea in another thread could really work, although I do agree facing is an issue) and all of the other things that people usually only attempt when they have "built" a character around that "concept". They won't be god awesome at it, but it IS still a viable option. I know it doesn't work out so well, and it is one of the areas I am working on very hard to improve in both my house rules and homebrew rules.
I think the problem we're running into here is a difference in simulationist/gaming/(insert the other one here) philosophy, and that's a bridge that's almost impossible to cross, which is why I hate such terms, as evidence-based as they are.
[EDIT]I tend to agree with DeathQuaker's argument re: how sneak attack got looked at in the Pathfinder system.