|
Ok, first a few remarks.
This is a serious discussion, not a troll posting. I have made my views known in other posts that I do not agree with the pathfinder rules in which constructs are vulnerable to sneak attacks. I am not starting this thread to have that discussion. Please do not post reasons for its vailidity here.
I would like to discuss alternatives however. Maybe a complete lack of sneak attack may be too harsh. However, constructs are made of sturdy stuff (stone, clay, iron). Weapons such as daggers, rapiers, short swords, etc. are not going to be effective against alot of these materials. However, as people have said all structures have weak points. Here are some alternatives I have thought up to compromise.
1) All sneak attacks against constructs roll D4 instead of D6. If a critical is rolled, D6's are rolled as normal for any other creature.
2) Each golem has a set amount of sneak attack resistance. Similar to weapon damage for any martial class. A golem ignores "X" amount of D6's based upon the golem type. This cannnot be overcome unless the golem's body type changes to a different form of material. Flesh golems would have zero sneak attack resistance as they body type is that of a normal person.
3)Maybe a rogue needs to overcome a matrial resistance similar to the caster level check a caster makes to overcome spell resistance. This rating could vary depending on the innate toughness of the material composing the golem.
4) Give all golems improved uncanny dodge equal to half their hit dice. Sneak attacking a walking wall should be difficult and would be no different that fighting an npc that has that ability.
These are just a few examples I had though of. Any others suggestions would be welcome.
1) All sneak attacks against constructs roll D4 instead of D6. If a critical is rolled, D6's are rolled as normal for any other creature.
This one would be simplest to implement, but remember that sneak attack is not multiplied on a critical.
Maybe require an intelligence check with a DC that scales with HD as a standard or move action to find the weak spot, and allow sneakage?
Examples:
DC10+HD, you study the construct as a standard action, locating its weak-spot, and are now able to sneak attack it as normal.
DC5+HD, as a free-action, as you make an attack with which you would deal sneak attack against a normal target, you can against the construct.
*Edit: Intelligence in place of knowledge.
Well I've used a system where the new creature types that are now sneak-able have a DR against the sneak damage based on their CR. This was during Alpha/Beta testing.
I haven't read the entire core rulebook yet.
Am I to understand Pathfinder has no sneak attack immunity for Golems?
Does this toss out the feat and augment crystal that bypass the immunity? I'm all for putting back a simple form of surprise attack resistance for golems, but it's got to be simple. Pathfinder simplifies things in a good way. It doesn't smash holes in things like certain other companies who should remain nameless. For simplicity, flesh golems should not be singled out, as the frankenstein monster was not the living man his creator wanted. He was a stiched together corpse filled with embalming fluids and electrolites and charged with lightning and/or magic.
I hope augment crystals are included in Pathfinder because I want to declare brooches of shielding as augments for cloaks while belt buckles of protection are augments for belts. In other words, one augment device for each magic device.
Shouldn't this be in the Houserule section?
Where is the houserule section?
Also, one member of my gaming group has asked that our Pathfinder campaign not have any houserules. I've yet to see how he reacts to my "No characters with a level adjustment till they can have a true character level", ruling.
|
Correct, and also for Undead. With a few exceptions like incorporeal and oozes, all creatures are now able to be Sneak Attack unless they have a specific immunity, which is very rare.
As for other option, I like the idea of reduced dice size, but not the actualy affect. I think it should stay d6's, though the number of d6's would be a better solution, in my opinion. Possibly more along the lines of just straight half Sneak Attack Dice, to subtracting a certain amount, (min 0 allowed).
Personally, I would much prefere that Undead and Constructs had Moderate or higher Fortification at least, maybe like 5% per HD/CR, that maxed out at 80% (or only 20% that a sneak attack gets through), (unless they are otherwise immune or a special case). Furthermore, one would need the right weapon. Skeletons might require a "blessed" bludgeoning weapon, Liches a Magical Bludgeoning (and blessed?), Golems an Adamantine one, etc. . .
There would obviously be some exceptions, like Positive Energy damage to Undead would ignor the DR, Crit Resistance, and "Fortification".
I do however think that everything (or dang near it) should be able to be "crited". This would much more reasonably show "hiting a zombie in the head", or "smashing an Iron Golem's gears", is not restricted to one class, (it is rather stupid that only a Rogue can "head shot" a zombie), and adds to everyones fun, while also representing the different creature types as actually different.
Lastly, Rogues should not be able to Sneak Attack objects, and I'm also thinking maybe no crits either.
|
|
I've yet to see how he reacts to my "No characters with a level adjustment till they can have a true character level", ruling.
There is also no LA in PF. Instead, you take the CR, and that is the equivalent Level for that race as a player race, but mostly in DM's hands. Aasimars and Tieflings are mostly ok for 1st level characters, (a tad strong due to 3 energy resistances, but that also goes away fairly fast).
As far as your ruling, is that the norm?
Why not just...you know...not change it?
Sneak attacking golems doesn't make rogues these super powerful campaign smashing monstrosities.
I see no reason you'd smack rogues and make them crappier.
Edit: I ask not for your fluff reasons, but your mechanical ones. Do you want rogues to perform less ably against golems? Do you want rogues to have a different set of tactics for golems? THat's what I'm asking.
|
|
For me, a bit of both. I want Rogues to perform less ably against Undead, because I think that is very good place for Paladins and Clerics to shine. But also, and one of the biggest things is that it would make Undead a bit unique again, which honestly I feel the PF has absolutely trashed. Sneak attack has more than a little to do with that as well, but just the general downgrading of Undead is also a big factor.
It is more logical to me to require some sort of Rogue buy in, (feats, prestige class, alternate class feature, weapon crystal, or a few new Rogue Tricks) that allow Rogue to overcome this if they want to specialize, and that I think makes sense, in the same way that angers can focus on Undead (or Golem) Hunting, and by their nature Clerics and Paladins aleady do as part of the class.
For Golems, I'm less of the opinion of absolute sneak attack immunity, though I think there should be some sort of Sneak Attack DR, (-#d6's). Again, I think the Golems, and Constructs in general should require the Rogue, (like it does most other classes) to focus on completely different tactics for encountering them. Golems are much more of a caster threat than anyone else, even in 3.5 when they couldn't be either Crited or Sneak Attacked. Maybe itis just that I like being challenged by differet sorts of threats, but as is, Rogues have plenty of other options when facing a Golem. Primarily that most Golems are specifically spellcaster created beings. They are personal bodyguards to spellcasters, and that means that if you find a Golem, you are also most likely fighing a spellcaster of some sort as well. All but one require Arcane Casters, (Clay can be made by Clerics), so why isn't the Rogue taking them down (with Sneak Attack)? Back again to a small point with Undead, Golems (and Undead for Necro Clerics & Wizards), are freaking expensive. Particularly in games that do not have full parties. PF has (mostly due to Sneak Attack, but other things too) made these overall fairly weak meatshields, which for those to are their biggest purpose.
What is so wrong about Rogues taking the back seat for a little while? Clerics have to do it often, and there are plenty of times that Bards, Monk's, Paladins (if there are not a lot of Evil encounters), and some Wizards just don't have the right tool for the job, or are better of saving their stuff until later.
|
|
While I like that direction, I think it should maybe be a little bit more than that. I also think it should maybe include the rest of the party a bit more, so maybe a Cleric might need to cast Bless or Bless Weapon, or some low level, fairly common spell for casters, (or Undead Bane Weapon too), while a Golem might require something a bit more exotic than a simple Adamantine Light Mace.
A higher (but not unreasonible) Knowledge check might be in order, like DC 20 + HD, (15 maybe?) in addition to the Rogue being aware of the targets creature type, (much more important for higher CR Undead, or Illusions).
Another big part of my problem is that it really throws some classic clas concepts to the wind, especially with Undead. Undead used to be feared without a Cleric (or similar Divine presence) in the party, and flavorwise, I think rightfully so. But that is a bit off topic.
This annoys/weirds me out as well..
Golems are not Robots -- a clay golem, for example, is a single block/solid chunk of clay.
-.o It has a humanoid shape but... it's clay. There's no internal worky-bits, a slash to the throat is really slashing throat shaped clay - there is no spine, no bones no real system of supports/vital architecture beyond it's form/shape.
...ooh...
The madness...
I have no idea if Iron Golems are solid chunks of Iron. That would makes more 'sense' (yes yes, fantastical sense lulz11! -.o). Is 5,000 pounds about the right weight for a solid metal humanoid figure of 'average' (ho ho ho) build roughly 12' tall?
However, if they have 'worky-bits' then I'm all for sneak attacking the sods -- a metal spine is still a vital support that can be focused upon, a metal tendon breaking is going to be more damaging than a blow to the shoulders etc etc
Anyhoo -- aye, sneak attacking solid chunks of ..stuff.. seems.. strange.
As voiced above in other posts - what's wrong with a few encounters/beasties that require a rogue to engage/react with more than simple sneak attacks?
Granted it's a 'design decision' but.. it's seemingly a sucky one! :)
:. :: :.
How bout making it real simple.
A successful sneak attack against undead or constructs does level x dam factor in hp damage - regardless of weapon.
So an Iron or Stone golem sneak attacked by a 6th level rogue does 6 extra damage. 1 (they're about as tough as a construct gets) times the level of the attacker.
Wood golems might be dam factor 2, paper golems dam 3. There is no dam 4 (or some such). Eventually you fall back to normal sneak attacks.
You can have the attacker roll and simply reduce the damage if it exceeds the total or adjust to the total before the roll.
sigurd
If that's too little damage make it level*Dam factor+weapon bonus. So a 6th level rogue swinging a +3 scimitar is going to do a _maximum_ of 9 extra damage on a sneak attack. In this example a construct gets the best number available.
|
This annoys/weirds me out as well..
Golems are not Robots -- a clay golem, for example, is a single block/solid chunk of clay.
-.o It has a humanoid shape but... it's clay. There's no internal worky-bits, a slash to the throat is really slashing throat shaped clay - there is no spine, no bones no real system of supports/vital architecture beyond it's form/shape.
...ooh...
The madness...
I have no idea if Iron Golems are solid chunks of Iron. That would makes more 'sense' (yes yes, fantastical sense lulz11! -.o). Is 5,000 pounds about the right weight for a solid metal humanoid figure of 'average' (ho ho ho) build roughly 12' tall?
However, if they have 'worky-bits' then I'm all for sneak attacking the sods -- a metal spine is still a vital support that can be focused upon, a metal tendon breaking is going to be more damaging than a blow to the shoulders etc etc
Anyhoo -- aye, sneak attacking solid chunks of ..stuff.. seems.. strange.
As voiced above in other posts - what's wrong with a few encounters/beasties that require a rogue to engage/react with more than simple sneak attacks?
Granted it's a 'design decision' but.. it's seemingly a sucky one! :)
:. :: :.
And the original Golem of Prague was destroyed when the symbol for man on it's forehead was changed to the symbol for death. Does that not sound like the sort of thing you should be able to sneak attack? Smashing the mystic gems, carving off the symbols that animate it, ripping up the chem? Sounds pretty like a sneak attack to me.
Also, you can have a few encounters: incorporeal creatures, elementals and oozes are still immune. But having a 1/4 monsters be immune to the primary combat ability of a class? That's kind of sucky design, too.
|
|
I think the Golems, and Constructs in general should require the Rogue, (like it does most other classes) to focus on completely different tactics for encountering them.I like this for both undead and constructs. I think both should in general be immune to criticals and thus sneak attacks. That fits the stories of such creatures better.
However I also think some should have specific vulnerabilities so that if attacked in certain specific ways they can be criticalled. The most obvious one being that vampires should be vulnerable to wooden piercing weapons (stakes) :)
This I agree with. As I've said, I hink just about everything should be able to be critted on, as that represents a good, "lucky", or solid hit. Vulnerable is a bad word, because it implies a weakness to, but I just mean it should be allowed on almost everything.
I also think rogues need a boost to make using other tactics a more viable option. I do not have a fully formed schems but what I am thinking of is something like:1) At 2nd level let rogues add the number of sneak attack dice they have as a bonus when attempting to trip or disarm a foe that is denied a dex bonus to AC or is flanked.
2) At 3rd or 4th let rogues use dex in place of strength when trying to trip or disarm, In Pathfinder that would be giving them Agile Maneuvers as a bonus feat.
3) At 5th or 6th level let rogues using the Aid Another action give a bonus equal to their number of sneak attack dice rather than the normal +2.
I like 1 and 2. 3 seems a bit strong. It sort of forces a high level Rogue at high levels, (for the good of the party) to not Sneak Attack when they can instead give a +10 to someones attac rolls or AC.
Migt be better for 3, (and maybe 1 also) to be a +1 for every 2d6 they have. Also, I just wanted to be clear, you do mean that the number of Sneak Attack dice tranlates directly to a bnus, not what they roll with Sneak Attack, right? So a Rogue with 2d6 would get a +3, notwhat they rolls with 3d6.
|
|
How about a simple houserule type of fix
Disable device ranks is the maximum of additional dice of damage you can do to a mechanical construct.
Knowledge arcane ranks is max additional dice of damage you can do to magical constructs.
Knowledge abberant ranks is max additional dice damage you can do to ozzes, slimes, etc....
Not sure how much sense this makes.....
With Know Religion for Undead, that actually make s alot of sense. I really really like it. Additionally, for every step to overcomming a DR, beybe they get another +1 to damage?
So if a creatures has DR Magic, Good, and Bludgeoning, a Rogue using a +1 Holy Mace gets an additional +3 allowed Sneak Attack Damage.
How about a simple houserule type of fix
Disable device ranks is the maximum of additional dice of damage you can do to a mechanical construct.
Knowledge arcane ranks is max additional dice of damage you can do to magical constructs.
Knowledge abberant ranks is max additional dice damage you can do to ozzes, slimes, etc....
Not sure how much sense this makes.....
With Know Religion for Undead, that actually make s alot of sense. I really really like it. Additionally, for every step to overcomming a DR, beybe they get another +1 to damage?
So if a creatures has DR Magic, Good, and Bludgeoning, a Rogue using a +1 Holy Mace gets an additional +3 allowed Sneak Attack Damage.
Arent we getting a little complicated here? Do you think each monster needs a special rule for how it interacts with a specific class feature? I think we should probably try to decide on which side of the issue things are changed before we go with any more ideas. Do you want to change the rogue (either how sneak attack works or by giving other choices in place of sneak attack) or do you want to change the monster rules. I think monster rules specifically singling out sneak attack isnt an elegant way to handle this. I think if you want this to gain any traction in the community it needs to make sense and be relatively simple to implement.
How about a solution where if the rogue can't bypass a monster's DR, he can't sneak attack that creature. So a rogue can't sneak attack golems unless he's got an adamantine weapon, can't sneak attack liches unless he's got a magic bludgeoning weapon, and so on.
I think your solution makes the most sense, although you will have to go beyond rogue to consider any type of specialized strikes whether is it rogue sneak attack, critical strike specialization from a fighter, ranger, etc.
I support from an abstract level being able to sneak attack and/or critical strike undead or golemns, because even those have weaknesses per arms joints and legs, or anywhere on the body that is similar.
|
|
Arent we getting a little complicated here? Do you think each monster needs a special rule for how it interacts with a specific class feature? I think we should probably try to decide on which side of the issue things are changed before we go with any more ideas. Do you want to change the rogue (either how sneak attack works or by giving other choices in place of sneak attack) or do you want to change the monster rules. I think monster rules specifically singling out sneak attack isnt an elegant way to handle this. I think if you want this to gain any traction in the community it needs to make sense and be relatively simple to implement.How about a simple houserule type of fix
Disable device ranks is the maximum of additional dice of damage you can do to a mechanical construct.
Knowledge arcane ranks is max additional dice of damage you can do to magical constructs.
Knowledge abberant ranks is max additional dice damage you can do to ozzes, slimes, etc....
Not sure how much sense this makes.....
With Know Religion for Undead, that actually make s alot of sense. I really really like it. Additionally, for every step to overcomming a DR, beybe they get another +1 to damage?
So if a creatures has DR Magic, Good, and Bludgeoning, a Rogue using a +1 Holy Mace gets an additional +3 allowed Sneak Attack Damage.
I don't think so. One of the reasons I loved this option is that
1.) is was so simple.
2.) it covers a lot of the problems that people have with Sneak Attack being to good or to easy to use
3.) requires a bit more tactic and diversity of weapons
4.) cuts down on the Sneak Attack in a sensible, realistic way without negating it.
5.) I would need to see it in action, but also has a very PF feel to it compaired to how the other casses have been changed I think.
I've always been confused at why people think that a rogue sneak attacking a golem is ridiculous, but a rogue sneak attacking a dwarf in full plate armor isn't...
|
|
I've always been confused at why people think that a rogue sneak attacking a golem is ridiculous, but a rogue sneak attacking a dwarf in full plate armor isn't...
Maybe because a dwarf in full plate armor is not a solid piece of iron and has soft squishy important things exposed in some areas? Backs of knees, through the visor in the helm, in the crotch... if the rogue hits one of these spots he makes the dwarf an unhappy camper.
Whereas with a golem... its umm.. solid stone? or iron? No soft squishy vital bits hiding between the chinks in the armor to aim at?
Knowledge Rolls:
Why not just require a knowledge check to be able to make a sneak attack on a particular baddie? ie... you can only crit them if you understand them. Knowledge checks are free actions.
Then perhaps it is better to limit their damage based on the qualities of the monster not the attacker.
Rogues get the highest number of skill points in the game. I don' think it strange that they use them.
In my terrible impatience, I skipped over some posts so forgive me if this is mentioned.
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? That makes it seem like this is just a cheap shot at Rogues because the generic some one doesn't like that they get to roll a bunch of d6s.
If we were going to limit what Sneak Attack could do to monsters or when it could be done, it is only fair to limit criticals in a similar manner.
But having a 1/4 monsters be immune to the primary combat ability of a class? That's kind of sucky design, too.Just so you're aware... there are 10 constructs listed in the PRD. TEN. I'm horrible at math but I'm pretty sure 10 is not 1/4 of 300.
Just sayin..
the 1/4 number comes from 3.5 where as additional monster manuals came out, more and more monsters were immune. In the current game its less then 1/4 but undead and constructs are still more common enemies then their count in the bestiary represent.
But that isnt the purpose of this thread, so...
I don't think so. One of the reasons I loved this option is that1.) is was so simple.
2.) it covers a lot of the problems that people have with Sneak Attack being to good or to easy to use
3.) requires a bit more tactic and diversity of weapons
4.) cuts down on the Sneak Attack in a sensible, realistic way without negating it.
5.) I would need to see it in action, but also has a very PF feel to it compaired to how the other casses have been changed I think.
So from a design perspective where do we describe this. Assuming we were re-writing the monsters and the rogue. Where do we make this known? Does the rogue KNOW he should take these skills to be able to sneak attack monster x? Does it require a feat? Alternate class feature? or is it just part of the sneak attack rules? Or do we just put it in the monster entry?
You say it is simple, I am not sure, so show me exactly what you mean. Write it out as if you were going to change the entry in the core rules or the bestiary.
|
|
But having a 1/4 monsters be immune to the primary combat ability of a class? That's kind of sucky design, too.Just so you're aware... there are 10 constructs listed in the PRD. TEN. I'm horrible at math but I'm pretty sure 10 is not 1/4 of 300.
Just sayin..
It is an over exagiration for a standard 3E campaign, but it also included all Undead, random Immune creatures, Heavy Fortification, and the fact that it was intended in the random encounters chart to have a little more Undead than other creatures to make the Cleric a desirable party roll in combat (because every knows the joke about being the healbot is usually boring "Ok who is going to be the Cleric" leads to a lot of party groans. . .)
It is really a problem of nonstandard campaigns and a lot of targets at the very high levels being immune outright. (Most Armor Enhancements are worthless :) ) so why not Heavy Fortification which was 100% immunity to Crits and Sneak Attack). That has all changed in PF, which should have solved the problem by itself.
Knowledge Rolls:
Why not just require a knowledge check to be able to make a sneak attack on a particular baddie? ie... you can only crit them if you understand them. Knowledge checks are free actions.
Then perhaps it is better to limit their damage based on the qualities of the monster not the attacker.
Rogues get the highest number of skill points in the game. I don' think it strange that they use them.
I like the knowledge check even better, because what it boils down to is knowing a creatures weaknesses, and it adds a little more flavor.
|
|
So from a design perspective where do we describe this. Assuming we were re-writing the monsters and the rogue. Where do we make this known? Does the rogue KNOW he should take these skills to be able to sneak attack monster x? Does it require a feat? Alternate class feature? or is it just part of the sneak attack rules? Or do we just put it in the monster entry?
You say it is simple, I am not sure, so show me exactly what you mean. Write it out as if you were going to change the entry in the core rules or the bestiary.
Rogue Entry
Sneak Attack - A rogue that catches a creature unaware, yada yada yada deals a number of extra d6's yada yada yada (basic Sneak Attack info).However, some non-human creature (types) are very resistance to Sneak Attack, while other are outright immune under normal circumstances.
Undead, Constructs, Oozes, Elementals, (whatever you might like to list in addition, [specific creatures that might have immunity will be listed with the creature and very rare]) follow special rules.
Each creature type has a Skill associated with it. The maximum damage a Rogue can eal to these creatures, (unless otherwise noted in he creature's entry) is equal to the Rogue's Ranks in the associated Skill (or any other class that grants Sneak Attack).
The Rogue mus be aware of the creature type they are encountering, (which is usually obvious unless the target is attempting to hide their nature).
Elementals - Knowledge Nature
Oozes - Knowlede Dungeouneering
Undead - Knowledge Religion
Constructs - Either Knowledge Arcana or Disable Device
In addition, if these creatures have either a specific weapon vulnerability (such as vampires and wooden stakes, DM's Discretion) or DR that certain weapon might overcome, the Rogue adds 1 for each step that is overcome.
For example, Liches have DR Magic and Bludgeoning (I think). A Rogue that attempts to Seak Attack a Lich with a nonmagial Bludgeoning Light Mace, and has 4 Ranks in Knowledge Religion, can only deal up to 5 points of Sneak Attack damage. 6 if the Light Mace is also Magic.
[NOTE: I'm not clear if this version of Sneak Attack would overcome DR, which I think might]
In order for sneak attack to be applicable in other circumstances the rogue must have ranks in the apprpriate knowledge skill, those ranks limit the sneak attack damage. For example a first level rouge would have to have at least 1 rank in disable device to get +1d6 sneak attack damage to a construct. Other relevant knowledges include.....
Would you similarly limit the fighter's, bard's, paladin's, etc. ability to crit?
If not, why?
|
|
But having a 1/4 monsters be immune to the primary combat ability of a class? That's kind of sucky design, too.Just so you're aware... there are 10 constructs listed in the PRD. TEN. I'm horrible at math but I'm pretty sure 10 is not 1/4 of 300.
Just sayin..
This is true. The discussion so usually is vs. Constructs and Unxead that I thought it was applicable. IT appears I was wrong. Although at least I'm not alone in my ignorance.
|
|
Sneak AttackIf a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
In order for sneak attack to be applicable in other circumstances the rogue must have ranks in the apprpriate knowledge skill, those ranks limit the sneak attack damage. For example a first level rouge would have to have at least 1 rank in disable device to get +1d6 sneak attack damage to a construct. Other relevant knowledges include.....
This looks good as well, but I wasn't sure about the Ranks part? Does the Rogue need 1 Rank to sneak attack regardless of # of extra d6's, or do they need to keep investing ranks to increase the number of d6's?
I would suggest
Rank___________# of d6's allowed
1___________________1d6
3___________________2d6
5___________________3d6
7___________________4d6
9___________________5d6
11__________________6d6
13__________________7d6
15__________________8d6
17__________________9d6
19__________________10d6
This form I like as it requires the Rogue to devote to fighting a creature type rather than making it automatic, while at the same time, potentually cutting down on other types that are generally resistant.
|
|
Would you similarly limit the fighter's, bard's, paladin's, etc. ability to crit?
If not, why?
Why would it? Sneak Attack is lumped on with Crits, (If it is immune to Crits, it is also immune to Sneak Attack, but not always the other way around). From a balance side, Crit, everyone, regardless of Class can Crit. Also, unlike with Sneak Attack (POV), Critting on a Golem does make sense as Crits are about lucky shots, while Sneak Attack is about hitting vulnerable areas, (which might not exist). That's my opinion, anyway.
As a side note, up until 3E, Critical Hits where an optional Rule that literally meant that you hit twice, thus double damage. It was not a single good hit, but rather you managed to get another (sucessful swing in).
Why would it? Sneak Attack is lumped on with Crits, (If it is immune to Crits, it is also immune to Sneak Attack, but not always the other way around). From a balance side, Crit, everyone, regardless of Class can Crit. Also, unlike with Sneak Attack (POV), Critting on a Golem does make sense as Crits are about lucky shots, while Sneak Attack is about hitting vulnerable areas, (which might not exist). That's my opinion, anyway.Would you similarly limit the fighter's, bard's, paladin's, etc. ability to crit?
If not, why?
Since everyone ignored what I wrote when I wrote it the first time, I will repeat myself.
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? That makes it seem like this is just a cheap shot at Rogues because the generic some one doesn't like that they get to roll a bunch of d6s.
If we were going to limit what Sneak Attack could do to monsters or when it could be done, it is only fair to limit criticals in a similar manner.
Sure, a crit can be a lucky shot, but what does that mean? "Lucky shot" conveys no sense of HOW it was lucky or WHY it does so much more damage.
Knowledge Rolls: Why not just require a knowledge check to be able to make a sneak attack on a particular baddie? ie... you can only crit them if you understand them. Knowledge checks are free actions ... Rogues get the highest number of skill points in the game. I don't think it strange that they use them.
I second this idea strongly!
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? ... (snip)
I've been thinking this the entire time of reading the thread up to now. A rogue's ability to sneak attack is limited by any creature's immunity to critical hits. 3.5 included undead and constructs in that number; PF does not. Certainly, this gives the rogue many more monsters to which he can apply his extra damage, but in truth, all classes benefit in that they all can confirm critical hits on these creatures now. The discussion really is broader than just a rogue's sneak attack ability.
However, the OP is asking specifically about ways to mitigate the rogue's newfound extra damage on constructs (primarily). I think the easiest house rule to use is that the rogue first makes a Knowledge check applicable to the creature type to determine if he even knows where the "weak spot" is. Yes, it might be a glowing rune, a "joint," or an embedded gem...but it might not be, too.
Further, I would suggest that since these creature types are now opened up to critical hits, rolling (and confirming) one does not require any special knowledge--it's a lucky shot after all. But the rogue's sneak attack, which is precision-based, requires specific knowledge of that creature's vital areas.
However, the OP is asking specifically about ways to mitigate the rogue's newfound extra damage on constructs (primarily).
I recognized that and put forward the question, relatively, of "How is this fair to the Rogues?"
|
|
Knowledge Rolls: Why not just require a knowledge check to be able to make a sneak attack on a particular baddie? ie... you can only crit them if you understand them. Knowledge checks are free actions ... Rogues get the highest number of skill points in the game. I don't think it strange that they use them.I second this idea strongly!
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? ... (snip)I've been thinking this the entire time of reading the thread up to now. A rogue's ability to sneak attack is limited by any creature's immunity to critical hits. 3.5 included undead and constructs in that number; PF does not. Certainly, this gives the rogue many more monsters to which he can apply his extra damage, but in truth, all classes benefit in that they all can confirm critical hits on these creatures now. The discussion really is broader than just a rogue's sneak attack ability.
However, the OP is asking specifically about ways to mitigate the rogue's newfound extra damage on constructs (primarily). I think the easiest house rule to use is that the rogue first makes a Knowledge check applicable to the creature type to determine if he even knows where the "weak spot" is. Yes, it might be a glowing rune, a "joint," or an embedded gem...but it might not be, too.
Further, I would suggest that since these creature types are now opened up to critical hits, rolling (and confirming) one does not require any special knowledge--it's a lucky shot after all. But the rogue's sneak attack, which is precision-based, requires specific knowledge of that creature's vital areas.
And you'd apply this to every other creature as well? So knowledge (Arcana) checks for dragons? Knowledge (Local) for humans and goblins? Knowledge (Nature) for guard dogs? Dungeoneering for aberrations? How many knowledge skills does a Rogue need to use one of its core features?
If not, why are constructs so speciasl that they need a whole extra subset of rules just to deal with them?
"How is this fair to the Rogues?"
I'm not suggesting it's "fair," only that it might serve the OP's purpose of limiting the rogue's newly acquired expansion of sneak attack, which the OP (and others) are struggling with. My own approach to the issue is entirely different, but this is offered up to help...hopefully.
And you'd apply this to every other creature as well? So knowledge (Arcana) checks for dragons? Knowledge (Local) for humans and goblins? Knowledge (Nature) for guard dogs? Dungeoneering for aberrations? How many knowledge skills does a Rogue need to use one of its core features.
If not, why are constructs sao speciasl that they need a whole extra subset of rules just to deal with them?
Hmmm, good question, which I thought about briefly. To do this certainly is consistent, but it also introduces a whole new dimension to the ability that the rogue hasn't had to deal with before. On the other hand, it would satisfy KinderKin's and Beckett's ideas without getting as involved. In other words, maybe so... Maybe leave the PF rules alone and adjust the rogue's (and other classes with precision-based bonus damage) ability to be workable IF he knows where to strike. It doesn't seem too complicated and will mitigate some of the "automatic" nature of striking down golems with ease (unless he has lots of ranks in Knowledge arcana).
My personal approach is to revert to 3.5 on the matter of immunity to critical hits. However, as has been brought up here and elsewhere, certain constructs and undead (not all) may have specific vulnerabilities that could be exploited if the rogue (or any other class) knew about them. (E.g. stake through a vampire's heart kind of thing.)
So, what I am wondering is why is this new found damage potential a problem when it applies to sneak attacks but not an issue when it applies to critical hits? Does the rogue now have an unbalancing benefit that the other classes do not enjoy and is it so large that the rogue outclasses the fighter who has a higher damage potential regardless of what a rogue does?
I admit that I could definitely be brainfarting, but I just am not seeing it.
|
|
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? That makes it seem like this is just a cheap shot at Rogues because the generic some one doesn't like that they get to roll a bunch of d6s.
If we were going to limit what Sneak Attack could do to monsters or when it could be done, it is only fair to limit criticals in a similar manner.
Sure, a crit can be a lucky shot, but what does that mean? "Lucky shot" conveys no sense of HOW it was lucky or WHY it does so much more damage.
It actually has been addressed a few times above, (though not in the detail you might want), good sir.
I personally (not answering for others), do not think anything needs to be addressed about Crits. They are fine as is. Just about everthing can be "crited", which serves everyone equally, but actually serves Roges a little bit more than most others, as Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
As for the opinion that Rogues are being singled out and cheap shotted, I can't argue that one way or the other. Your opinion is that they are, mine is they are not. Simple as that.
I can give reasons why I do not think Rogues are, foremost being a balance issue that Crits affect everyone while Sneak Attack is only one class. Remember all alternative suggested are to reduce or hinder the Sneak Attack potentual, not to negate it. This is perfectly in line with Saving Throws, S.R., D.R., E.R., and just about every other ability in the game, except Sneak Attack. If you think that Sneak Attacks should be universal, than you should also think that Spells need to not have any Saves, there shouldn't be any S.R. and the like, right. The same exact concept works the other way around. So no, I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bring them back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
|
|
Sneak Attack is limited by the ability of a creature to be critically hit. Given that fact, why are Critical Hits not being addressed? That makes it seem like this is just a cheap shot at Rogues because the generic some one doesn't like that they get to roll a bunch of d6s.
If we were going to limit what Sneak Attack could do to monsters or when it could be done, it is only fair to limit criticals in a similar manner.
Sure, a crit can be a lucky shot, but what does that mean? "Lucky shot" conveys no sense of HOW it was lucky or WHY it does so much more damage.
It actually has been addressed a few times above, (though not in the detail you might want), good sir.
I personally (not answering for others), do not think anything needs to be addressed about Crits. They are fine as is. Just about everthing can be "crited", which serves everyone equally, but actually serves Roges a little bit more than most others, as Rogues tend to have better chances of Critting next to Fighters and Rangers.
As for the opinion that Rogues are being singled out and cheap shotted, I can't argue that one way or the other. Your opinion is that they are, mine is they are not. Simple as that.
I can give reasons why, foremost being a balance issue that Crits affect everyone while Sneak Attack is only one class. Remember all alternative suggested are to reduce or hinder the Sneak Attack potentual, not to negate it. This is perfectly in line with Saving Throws, S.R., D.R., E.R., and just about every other ability in the game, except Sneak Attack. If you think that Sneak Attacks should be universal, than you {i]should[/i] also think that Spells need to not have any Saves, there shouldn't be any S.R. and the like, right. The same exact concept works the other way around. So no, I do not see this as a cheap shot at Rogues, but rather to bringtam back down to a balanced level comparitevely.
1) Sneak Attack is not universal. Elementals, Incorporeal creatures and Oozes are immunes.
2) Sneak Attack already has a mechanic theat prevents it from working. It's called an Attack Roll which is the equivalent of a saving throw. Any spells require both an attack roll and a saving throw?
3) Sneka Attack is not easy to set up. You need to be permenantly invisible or flanking to do it consistently. One is hard to get until the kind of levels when rogue sneak attacks are the least of the problem, and the other puts the rouge, with his d8 hit dice and light armour only, square in melee reach of whatever he's trying to sneak. Would you target him if he's doing that much damage? I sure would.
4) They ARE balanced. People have done the maths on this, see the DPR Olympics thead. Rogues are not outdamaging fighters unless the Rogue is optimised and the fighter isn't.
5) How do Rogues get better at crits than Fighters? Fighters hit more often (higher bab, more feats for things that add to attack rolls) so they confirm more often. They have access to better high crit weapons than rogues. They get more static bonuses to damage that are multiplied on a critical hit. They can take Improved Critical 3 levels earlier, etc, etc.