Hiya.
Ok, what use is a Sap? I know it does non-lethal damage only. But that's about it. A thief, successfully sneak-attacking someone with a sap should have at least *some* chance of KO'ing his opponent, right? If it goes strictly by damage, then a thief with a sap may be able to k-o a housecat, small dog, or perhaps a child...but the guardsman at the bridge? Not very likely.
We have looked everywhere for any rules on it (or even similar), and can't find anything. Maybe some kind of Fortitude save, with the DC based on damage done or something?
Right now, I'm thinking the DC would be whatever the player rolled on his d20 attack roll, plus damage of the Sap. So a player rolling a 17 and doing 5 points of damage with his sap (weapon plus STR) would yield a DC of 22 for a Fortitude save. Sound reasonable?
^_^
Paul L. Ming
That's what the sneak attack damage is for.
Which is why no one but Rogues use saps.
Cartigan has it right. The point of a sap is that a rogue can use the sap to get sneak attack damage as nonlethal damage. That means a rogue CAN use a sap to easily beat people unconscious. So can other characters with damage-increasing abilities, like Power Attack and Weapon Training, who don't want to take the -4 on attack rolls.
But since rogues can't get nonlethal sneak attack damage without using an attack that deals nonlethal damage, the sap is of particular value to them.
A thief, successfully sneak-attacking someone with a sap should have at least *some* chance of KO'ing his opponent, right?
Wrong. Beyond sufficient non-lethal damage being done to render your unconscious, the sap should totally not have a chance to knock someone out.
Why? Because other weapons, like axes and swords, don't have a chance to simply kill you, beyond sufficient damage to put you down.
Hiya.
Ok, I should have prefaced this with our play style. :) We do not play the "gamist" style very much, or, to put it a different way, we have absolutely no problem at all with a sorcerer putting on a suit of plate mail, grabbing a bastard sword, and helping to defend the front door against the onslaught of goblins. I simply assign appropriate modifiers (armor check penalty, for example) for the situation and off we go.
So, with that in mind, thieves WOULD have a better chance to KO in my example. The rogue would get his backstab damage added on, increasing the DC to a level from which most 'normal' folks probably wouldn't succeed. However, a Sap is *designed* to render someone uncouncious. A 14 year old girl could walk up behind a town guard and clock him on the head, and, IMHO, she should have SOME chance of knocking him out. She's not a thief, and probably has a low strength...but the point is that the *weapon* is doing 'most of the work' once contact with the opponents skill is made.
Anyway...I guess the next question would be: Does anyone see any serious problems with allowing the DC-or-KO'ed rule I initially pondered above?
Thanks again! :)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Hiya.
Ok, I should have prefaced this with our play style. :) We do not play the "gamist" style very much,
So you often play such that a single blow from an axe can kill a man?
Hiya
So you often play such that a single blow from an axe can kill a man?
If the situation warrants it, yes. That said, an axe used as a weapon is designed to kill. A person who sneaks up behind someone who is totally unaware of them would qualify as "Helpless" in our game...allowing a coup de grace (re: the guard standing at the bridge watching for approching persons).
I guess we just play a more "realistic" style of game. We find it helps with our suspension of disbelief. If we didn't use common sense, then a dwarf with 75 lb of firewood on his back would sink like a rock if he tried swimming accross a river... ;)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
You can't sneak up behind someone in PF. There is no facing. And I do not mean that as a smartass answer.
The problem with the Sap is that PC's do not, generally, attack things of such a lower CR than them that they can accurately one shot them. that's really what you are asking for- a special weapon to one shot an opponent.
Anyone can do it. Just get 5-10 levels on them, swing, hit, and whap.
Don't believe me?
level 10 barbarian. level 1 goblin.
Who wins.
Barbarian.
Goblin likely doesn't go first- and if he does he isn't very likely to hit.
The barb on the other hand is likely to go first, and to also one shot the goblin. This is true whether he's using his +3 great axe or the back of a chair he just broke in half.. over the goblin's skull.
The fact of the matter is that what you are asking for is to give a rogue the ability to snag a cheap little weapon and one shot a bad guy. Not a good idea. It is *far far* easier to jump your stealth far higher than anyone can reasonably expect their perception to be- and once you've done so the sap would become incredibly dangerous. More dangerous in fact than the barbarian with the +3 great axe.
Would this hurt in a 1 player campaign? Not really. Sounds rather interesting actually.
Would it hurt in a normal game? Yes. Invisibility + stealth + sap = you win.
Greater invis + stealth + sap = you win more.
Is it realistic the way it works currently? No- but it is balanced with the rules. One shotting someone with the sap isn't balanced.
-S
|
Homebrew Rule Time!
Sap
If you attack a flat-footed character with this weapon, triple the damage dice rolled. Do not increase the damage dealt by any source other than the damage dice themselves (such as strength, precision damage, or weapon enhancement damage).
EDIT: Obviously, this changes your game and makes the sap more powerful. You can make it double or quadruple, but triple sounds nice to me. I won't play with this rule, but I hope you like it!