|
I was having a debate with a GM over what can and cannot be sneak attacked. I had thought you guys had clarified that if it doesn't say it can't be sneak attacked, you can sneak attack it.
However, looking up sneak attack offered nothing for me. Did sneak attack stay the same? Because the GM ruled that I can't sneak attack the things that couldn't be sneak attacked in 3.5 i.e. undead and constructs.
Elementals, oozes, and swarms cannot be sneak attacked, if I recall the discussion in another thread correctly. Undead can be sneak-attacked, though I think the incorporeal ones can't be. I think constructs are now available as well. You need to look up each one in the Bestiary for the information, though it might still be in the Core book somewhere. Things have changed since 3.5, more critters now fear rogues.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was having a debate with a GM over what can and cannot be sneak attacked. I had thought you guys had clarified that if it doesn't say it can't be sneak attacked, you can sneak attack it.
However, looking up sneak attack offered nothing for me. Did sneak attack stay the same? Because the GM ruled that I can't sneak attack the things that couldn't be sneak attacked in 3.5 i.e. undead and constructs.
Almost EVERYTHING in Pathifnder can be sneak attacked. In fact, creatures that can't be sneak attacked are so rare now that they'll either mention the fact that they're immune as a special defense or it's part of their type.
Incorporeal creatures, swarms, elementals, and oozes are both immune to sneak attacks, but that's pretty much it. Corporeal undead, all constructs, and pretty much everything else can be sneak attacked (or by extension critically hit). And, ninjaed.
|
|
I was having a debate with a GM over what can and cannot be sneak attacked. I had thought you guys had clarified that if it doesn't say it can't be sneak attacked, you can sneak attack it.
However, looking up sneak attack offered nothing for me. Did sneak attack stay the same? Because the GM ruled that I can't sneak attack the things that couldn't be sneak attacked in 3.5 i.e. undead and constructs.
Almost EVERYTHING in Pathifnder can be sneak attacked. In fact, creatures that can't be sneak attacked are so rare now that they'll either mention the fact that they're immune as a special defense or it's part of their type.
Incorporeal creatures, swarms, elementals, and oozes are both immune to sneak attacks, but that's pretty much it. Corporeal undead, all constructs, and pretty much everything else can be sneak attacked (or by extension critically hit). And, ninjaed.
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.
|
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.
Then he is playing 3.5 with some Pathfinder updates, because all text referencing constructs and undead being immune to SA has been removed from Pathfinder.
Your GM is a ninny and needs to be hit over the head with a logic stick.
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.
Why use a logic stick when you've got the Core rules;)
Seriously hitting someone with the core rulebook would probably kill them. That thing's got some serious heft.
Seriously hitting someone with the core rulebook would probably kill them. That thing's got some serious heft.
And what's worse, it's an improvised weapon so you take a -4 penalty to the attack roll!
|
Creative Director
|
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.
Yeah; as was mentioned upthread, your GM is playing 3.5 with some Pathfinder tweaks, it sounds like.
Pathfinder is a different game than 3.5. It is self-contained. The whole POINT of Pathfinder is that you can play the game without having to rely on out-of-print rules (like 3.5 D&D).
If a GM wants to house-rule in some older 3.5 rules like this into his Pathfinder game, that's fine—he just needs to tell the players before they make their characters if he's going to fundamentally change key parts of the game like this, otherwise his players will be caught off guard and well within their rights to be annoyed at their "cheating" GM.
|
|
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.Yeah; as was mentioned upthread, your GM is playing 3.5 with some Pathfinder tweaks, it sounds like.
Pathfinder is a different game than 3.5. It is self-contained. The whole POINT of Pathfinder is that you can play the game without having to rely on out-of-print rules (like 3.5 D&D).
If a GM wants to house-rule in some older 3.5 rules like this into his Pathfinder game, that's fine—he just needs to tell the players before they make their characters if he's going to fundamentally change key parts of the game like this, otherwise his players will be caught off guard and well within their rights to be annoyed at their "cheating" GM.
Thanks James, appreciate the info! I'll just e-mail my DM a link to this thread
:D
The GM is basically saying that because it does not specifically say they are subjectible to sneak attacks, then they cannot be sneak attacked, assuming that it stayed the same as it was in 3.5.I was having a debate with a GM over what can and cannot be sneak attacked. I had thought you guys had clarified that if it doesn't say it can't be sneak attacked, you can sneak attack it.
However, looking up sneak attack offered nothing for me. Did sneak attack stay the same? Because the GM ruled that I can't sneak attack the things that couldn't be sneak attacked in 3.5 i.e. undead and constructs.
Almost EVERYTHING in Pathifnder can be sneak attacked. In fact, creatures that can't be sneak attacked are so rare now that they'll either mention the fact that they're immune as a special defense or it's part of their type.
Incorporeal creatures, swarms, elementals, and oozes are both immune to sneak attacks, but that's pretty much it. Corporeal undead, all constructs, and pretty much everything else can be sneak attacked (or by extension critically hit). And, ninjaed.
Show him the monsters we said could not be sneaked attacked, show him those monsters. Then tell him to do the same for you, for other monsters. I am willing to bet he wont find anything or point him to his post, and what MR.Jacobs had to say about it. I know James can't make him go by the rules, but at that point he has to admit he is wrong or say its a house rule. This is also a good time to get a list of all of his houserules.
|
|
As the offending GM... How can one critically strike a construct? You cannot kidney shot it or hope to cripple it. The same goes for undead, it doesn't bleed so removing an arm or even the head will not fell the beast. So sneak attack and crits, in my opinion, will not work against these types of enemies.
And that's a perfectly fine houserule, but it is not PF RAW. We've had plenty of arguments over this on the forums, do a search and I'm sure you'll see them.
As the offending GM... How can one critically strike a construct? You cannot kidney shot it or hope to cripple it. The same goes for undead, it doesn't bleed so removing an arm or even the head will not fell the beast. So sneak attack and crits, in my opinion, will not work against these types of enemies.
For golems, it's less about kidney shots and more about sabotaging it. Rogues are great at finding the "weak" spots. These are things that are built. They aren't built perfectly. Take a sledge to the right place and you can do some serious damage (critical hit) or take out the right cog, lynch pin or weld.
Hit a skeleton in the lower spine. Stab a vampire in the heart with a stake (or wooded arrow). Bash the zombie's head in twice (double tap). Remove their heads.
Beheading most things (with a head) kills them. Even if it didn't, they most likely lose the ability to perceive the heroes.
If you want to keep it so that rogues can't sneak attack about 25% or more of the creatures they fight... sure, go for it. As it's stated all over the furoms, finds ways to tell your players "yes." It makes the game more fun for them.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Those are more like called shots than crits or sneak attacks....those I would allow as such...causing wxtra damage to them.....now intelligent undead and constructs....hmmm those feel pain, loss, perhaps fear as well? Those are different entirely....hmmm thinking brains still have nerve endings that can be severed and fried.....those would be critical hits ans sneakable. (Grabs a pipe, pushes his wizards hat out of the way and says " got some writing to do, if I could find that quill and ink.....)
Wouldn't a stab to the Kidneys be a Called Shot as well though?
If you're using a Called Shot mechanic, you might try ditching Sneak Attack all together and instead give Rogues some kind of Bonus to Called Shots (only applicable under normal Sneak Attack circumstances, obviously).
Just a random thought :)
Things like a stab to the kidneys are the fluff, not the mechanics. A rogue sneak-attacking a human might score sneak attack damage with a kidney stab. Against a golem, he hits it in the knee joint or the shoulder joint. Moving objects with joints are still vulnerable due to engineering principles. The things that are currently immune to SA are things generally made all of one homogeneous material where there's nothing to differentiate between part A and part B.
Sneak attack gives rogues a way to contribute to combat in a world where:
1) barbarians rage
2) bards inspire courage
3) druids wildshape
4) fighters hit things really hard
5) clerics buff up themselves
6) monks run around
7) paladins smite
8) rangers hit their favored enemy a lot
9) sorcerers and wizards bend the battlefield to their whims.
Who wants to just score hits in a world like that?
Wow...isn't it funny when ever the mechanic of sneak attack gets brought up people mention kidneys and other organs...Yea because anatomy was sooooo well known...How many Rogues out there take Heal as a skill to justify such arguments? A Rogue has the understanding of anatomy as a commoner, ziltch. All they know is sticking a blade in the soft parts of an enemy kills them quicker.
Sneak Attack is an Artificial Game Construct. Why people feel the need to disect it to the Nth degree amazes me. Its there so a Rogue can have Maximum Game Fun by doing hurty stuff with his Lil' B@stard (tm) Dagger and not just relegated to trap finder, scout, lock picker.
Other AGCs like "Why does flinging bat poo make Fireballs?" never get questioned so why do people pick on Sneak Attack?
|
Wow...isn't it funny when ever the mechanic of sneak attack gets brought up people mention kidneys and other organs...Yea because anatomy was sooooo well known...How many Rogues out there take Heal as a skill to justify such arguments? A Rogue has the understanding of anatomy as a commoner, ziltch. All they know is sticking a blade in the soft parts of an enemy kills them quicker.
Sneak Attack is an Artificial Game Construct. Why people feel the need to disect it to the Nth degree amazes me. Its there so a Rogue can have Maximum Game Fun by doing hurty stuff with his Lil' B@stard (tm) Dagger and not just relegated to trap finder, scout, lock picker.
Other AGCs like "Why does flinging bat poo make Fireballs?" never get questioned so why do people pick on Sneak Attack?
The term you are looking for is dissociated mechanic.
|
|
This is why I didn't bother arguing if SAing constructs makes sense. Each camp has their opinion, and it never changes no matter what the other side says.
The main point is that PF has crittable, SAble constructs and undead. If the DM wants to change that back to 3.5, he's well within his rights to, but has to let his players know he is changing the rules.
As the offending GM... How can one critically strike a construct? You cannot kidney shot it or hope to cripple it. The same goes for undead, it doesn't bleed so removing an arm or even the head will not fell the beast. So sneak attack and crits, in my opinion, will not work against these types of enemies.
You did show up to defend your position, which puts you in a low percentage of DM's(not counting the regulars here). I am glad you came by whether we end up convincing you or not.
Also, do you think it overpowers the rogue to be able to sneak attack? If yes, then perhaps a house rule is fine (I'd go with some level of fortification, not complete un-sneakableness, but that's just me). If no, then let them sneak attack away. Remember, if rogues are able to sneak attack an undead, the fighter is able to crit it...and a fighter criting does more damage on average than a rogue sneak attacking.
Actually I think that's a really reasonable compromise. As much as I am totally OK with constructs and undead being SA-able, making them have built-in 25% fortification seems reasonable to maintain the flavor they previously had.
|
Creative Director
|
As the offending GM... How can one critically strike a construct? You cannot kidney shot it or hope to cripple it. The same goes for undead, it doesn't bleed so removing an arm or even the head will not fell the beast. So sneak attack and crits, in my opinion, will not work against these types of enemies.
The same way real-world demolition guys place explosive charges at key places in a building to bring it down with a relatively small number of explosives.
The same way you can bring down a structure by destroying a single load-bearing bolt or joint.
The same way Jason takes down Talos in "Jason and the Argonauts."
The same way you can stop a clock (or any similar clockwork construct) by jamming a stick in the gears.
The same way you can ruin a car by poking a hole in the radiator or a fuel line.
Same with undead; watch any zombie movie and note how the only way to kill them is "shoot them in the head." The way this game handles things like head-shots is by the critical hit mechanic. Same with vampires—you stab them in the heart and they die. It's weird if undead aren't affected by critical hits, because all of a sudden undead in the games SPECIFICALLY don't work the way undead do in movies or books or other media.
|
|
As the offending GM... How can one critically strike a construct? You cannot kidney shot it or hope to cripple it.
So long as you're talking about a golem or an animated object, I completely agree. They are as amorphous as oozes and elementals. However, the construct category also includes clockwork creatures like inevitables, which IMHO should be vulnerable to precision damage (unless the Bestiary II moves inevitables from the construct category to the outsider category, in which case they are a bad example).
The same goes for undead, it doesn't bleed so removing an arm or even the head will not fell the beast. So sneak attack and crits, in my opinion, will not work against these types of enemies.
The change wasn't made because the designers modified their thinking about the vulnerable spots on zombies and golems, this change was made to make rogue damage less variable depending on creature type.
As James said, you are certainly free to houserule this, but make sure that your rogue PCs are aware of the change and are okay with it.
Like Jason said, removing sneak attack from undead is removing a lot of mythology. Undead frequently have the highest number of weaknesses amongst mythological creatures.