|
I don't think the fix should be on the class side, it should be a facet or feature of the creature type. I do think that some creatures should be crit resistant or reduced (not immune), problem is that in PFRPG (and D&D) it is handled in a very binary all or nothing fashion. You could have had a different rule and fix for undead and crits/sneak attacks - make check special weapon type:S, P, or B, and something for constructs - requiring to get past DR, etc.
I'm not all hat sure really what te big dfference would be, (other than it is a lot easier to rewrite the ogue entry than to delve through the Bestiary and all the various MM type books). In that sense, I think the fix is better as a class fix. I'm not clear about the getting past D.R., whci really seems to favor brute Rogues of intellegent clever ones. Or do you mean have a weapon that gets through D.R.? My only problem with that is, is that the common low level things (which are most of the real problem to start with) have simple D.R., in essence this canges nothing. A Rogue 3E or PF, would be using a Bludgeoning weapon against a Skeleton anyway. Nothing actually changes. If you mean however, that he normal weapon damage hase to get through the D.R. or Sneak Attack fails, it sounds nicer, but once again, at low levels this is practically irrelevent.
I guess my point is that it seemed like too easy of a blanket fix, and no if the rogue has to make a check to gain a benfit it does not make the rogue "unfun" or any other hyperbole, rogues are all about making checks. You could even give the class extra bonuses/tricks against different kinds of targets if he goes over on his check or makes multiple checks against a certain type of foe.
But to the make sneak attacks work against everything evenly as a blanket change is a bit of a lazy fix, imo of course.
Edit: as I type Kuma put good example ideas up, not always damage - getting advantages over foes in different ways still can help win a fight and save lives, doesn't always have to = +d6's
Completely agree. The implication that PF gave us was that the the PF Final, and then Bestiary would be fixing the Rogue problem by having a special "Sneak Attack D.R." for a lot of the monsters that used tbe immune to Sneak Attack, and that there would actually be specific ones that retained the immunity. I really dn't tink that the d6 -> d4 is a good solution, if for nothng else that d4's are not as stocked up on as d6's and out of game just makes it a little more bogged down. I much perfer the reducing of d6's over all.
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.
That sounds like a knowledge roll.
To get back on topic, I believe the question was do you increase the defenses of hard to kill constructs in the face of sneak attacks.
In fairness to the OP this is not a 'why' or 'is this right' thread. The OP was polite and asked to avoid a flame war. There's been too much vitriol and not enough consideration.
Feel free to start your own threads with other topics.
Sigurd
|
Wow. Thank you all for your responses. THis is great. I like many of the ideas given so far. Knowledge checks against a targeted DC, disable device checks, weapon materials, aid another bonuses, this is all good stuff.
Please don't allow this thread to get sidetracked into why/why not sneak attack should work vs constructs and or undead. There is too much positive feedback going on in this thread to have it shut down. I really appreciate the feedbaack and will be trying some of these thoughts in my campaign. Thanks community for the ideas!
After some idle pondering -- how about sneak attacks disabling the construct for a number of turns, dependant on sneak attack dmg levels/rogue level.
The golem could get a Fort save versus a DC, say, 10+ rogue level or the like?
Fiddle/juggle as your sense of balance dictates, natch.
Someone mentioned the original Golem myth and how the golem was destroyed by rubbing out the word on his head - to be exact, the first letter was removed and the remaining letters spelt 'death' = dead golem..
...that smacks of a wizard doing something nifty rather than a rogue attack - tho if either way it was seemingly a save or die affair >_<
..but aye, rather than damage yay/nay -- how about some disabling effects or the sneak attack 'opening up' the golem so future attacks do more damage - for a number of rounds/etc etc
(Yes my rule suggestions are awesomely vague -- I figure the gist is the core and the exact mechanics something for all to argue/debate)
:. :: :.
No posts have been removed, but I will strongly advocate that people take a deep breath before posting angry.