|
Unaware is not the same as helpless. If the target was sleeping, you could use a coup de grace action to effectively cut his throat though, forcing a fortitude save or die.
I agree with Alexander and would add that if the target successfully saved, it should probably be helpless for the next attack in the same round.
|
That makes sense. The Rogue player was completely fine with how the rules work, but we all did ask the question "why couldn't you just plant your dagger into the back of his neck, if he doesn't even know you are there?"
Thats what the extra significant damage from the sneak attack is already representing. The rogue is also doing this in a surprise round in this situation, and if he wins initiative he can do it again with a full attack, finishing the job before the poor mark can stop him.
Think of it from the other end- if your character was to be killed without a roll because 'the invisible stalker snuck up on you, no saving throw' you'd be quite miffed as a player.
PF is a fantasy rulesets where characters battle dragons and beasts beyond what an ordinary man could ever hope to stand against. Warriors can stand and shrug off blows from giants, leap aside from fireballs, escape intradimensional prisons and unleash magics that can destroy armies. Having characters that are able to do that simply killed by a single blow from a dagger just seems bizarre.
That said, go look at the Assassin prestige class for the Rogue character- this is likely what he wanted to be able to do.
That makes sense. The Rogue player was completely fine with how the rules work, but we all did ask the question "why couldn't you just plant your dagger into the back of his neck, if he doesn't even know you are there?"
Well cool. Thanks for the reply.
Another thought is that HP to some degree are an abstraction.
A 100 HP medium-level fighter isn't supposed to be a guy so tough he can get stabbed with a dagger by someone with an average STR around 40 times and shrug it off (although you could play it that way if you wanted for whatever reason) -- his HP are supposed to represent that he has the kind of training/reflexes/luck/etc. to overall absorb the kind of punishment that would be that to a weaker person.
So with that perspective, if the rogue sneaks up on someone who's totally unaware and whips out the sneak attack damage, think of it as, the target got lucky and moved just enough to ruin the kill shot, or noticed them at the last second, etc. -- but still got hit in a bad way by the rogue.
That said, go look at the Assassin prestige class for the Rogue character- this is likely what he wanted to be able to do.
And if you are not evil, there is a non-evil equivalent class. Forgot the name, and I think it's from 3.5, but essentially has all the stuff Assassins get, just with different fluff reasons.
Should be easy to convert (take assassin, call it something else, done :) )
The 'goose points an important point out: HP are abstract. They're more than just enduring wounds, they're also turning deadly blows into glancing ones, or rolling with the blow, or actually evading it (but getting more tired and losing your "hero's edge" in the process)
That's why anyone can survive a hit from a giant's club (try being hit with what is basically a small tree by something several times as strong as yourself and see how much chance you have surviving that once, not to mention a dozen times, which is what high-level warriors can easily laugh off)
It's hellishly unrealistic, yeah, but that's how it is. And thinking that through, backstabbing rogues aren't the only ones getting shafted here: A solid hit with a big enough blade will kill everyone. Especially if you hit a sensitive area (let's say, with a "critical hit"). You don't shrug away a blade piercing a couple of your internal organs, especially not without any negative effect to your fighting ability.
But in Pathfinder, you totally do. A guy crits you with a really sharp greatsword and you are still standing (maybe shouting "Cleric!") and returning the favour. A dragon (weighing several tons) steps on you with the intention to robbing you of at least one spatial dimension, and you still get to fight back. That's the stuff of heroics.
And Alex has a pretty important point to make, too: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't get to "just kill" anyone, but neither does anyone get to "just kill" you, either, and the "everyone else" part of the world usually outnumbers the heroes. Heavily.
Plus, if we're talking about a moderately experienced rogue and a lowly guard or even commoner, you'll probably get an instant kill, anyway (or at least dropping the enemy - onto the fast line of bleeding dry)
Same reason the NPC rogue behind you cannot "just kill you" :)
I've allowed a sneak attack to auto kill an NPC bad guy mook in my games. Chances are it would be death if damage was rolled anyways. So basically I just added up the max damage of the sneak attack and if that exceeds the victim's total hp plus their con stat then I just rule it an auto kill. No need to roll the dice and the story moves on.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) Is this something that is just DM's discretion?
2) Rogue (2nd level) successfully snuck behind a Dark Creeper and
3) proceeded to initiate Sneak Attack, which he did successfully
4) If the target is completely unaware of the attacking Rogue, why wouldn't he be able to just kill the creature outright?
1) A DM can always Rule 0 anything, including house rules.
2) Not likely possible, since D.C. get See in Darkness, so unless there is a hedge he is standing next to that the rogue could hide in there would be no way to "snuck behind". Also there is no facing so there is no behind.
3) Since he isn't likely hidden, he can't sneak attack because the D.C. would be aware.
4) He would get sneak, which the damage might kill. But he would never get "auto kill". That is an ability called Death Attack.
So if the Dark Creeper is standing at a table applying poison to daggers (because his master told him to), and his back is toward the entrance of the room, there is no way a Rogue could sneak up behind him and Sneak Attack him?
Really?
Have you really seen Dragons breath fire? Or a wizard summon angels and Demons? Its a game, its not the real world so you cant always apply logic to it. The rules are there for balance and to keep the game moving as fast as possible.
There are no rules for facing in Pathfinder. Creatures are assumed to look around all the time, so you can't sneak up on someone without cover or concealment.
However, I think that was mostly meant for combat situations. Beyond that, I'd say it's the GM's task to adjudicate things: The guy standing guard and staring ahead (or at least not moving his head/eyes about that far) might not be attentive to things going on behind him and you can attempt a stealth check without cover or concealment.
Also, you might be able to time your advance so that you move when he looks the other way. As a general rule of thumb, I'd say the distance you can cover this way should be equal to your stealth bonus (if that doesn't work out, adjust upward or downward. Make it half or double, depending on what you think of the original number).
|
|
FYI, there is this feat from AEG Feats:
"ASSASSIN’S STRIKE [GENERAL]
You can kill a man with a single blow.
Prerequisites: Dex 17+, Agonizing Strike, Back Alley Brawler, Crippling Strike, Painful Strike, Wicked Strike, Wounding Strike, base attack bonus +12 or higher, ability to sneak attack.
Benefit: When you damage an opponent with a sneak attack, he dies instantly."
as long as the players are happy then everybody is happy :)
+1
There might not be any rules for facing in the game, but in my opinion you still have to take into account "common sense facing". If you completely take out the facing concept, then it wouldn't make any sense to have flank attacks.
Then You could just say that anytime a monster is attacked by 2 or more characters at a time then you get the flanking bonus, no matter where the attackers are attacking from.
And the sneak attack in question did not take place during combat, combat hadn't started yet, so I think that in a case like that then facing would definitley come into play, then again these are just my opinions and how we play, as long as the players are happy then everybody is happy :)
I think you are in the right frame of thinking here, as was the post about DMs adjudicating reasonable LOS/facing out of a combat situation. The rules exist to have a basis to work from and to fall back on, something that everyone can be aware of and agree upon, and the DM can and should make calls appropriate to the game and situation that make things work the way s/he and the group like to play.
I'm pretty sure the reason there is no facing in PF, or any 3.X D&D, is that it makes combat even more time-consuming and cumbersome than it already is, and has to be. As DM, I generally allow for what guards/NPCs are looking at or being distracted by to benefit players in these sorts of circumstances, allowing a more "realistic" approach to stealth, at least when dealing with fairly run-of-the-mill mookish guys.
And, to address the original point about auto-kills: a coup-de-grace from a mid-level rogue can definitely kill a vast majority of things, it is just a matter of making the enemy helpless, not just unaware. We actually got lucky in a recent plotline that our rogue didn't know the CDG rules offhand when he snuck in to pilfer something from a fire giant captain. If he had, his average CDG DAM was about 55, he would have easily slit the captains throat and made our escape much more difficult, not to mention weakening the giants that were fighting off the horde of dragons we needed to sneak past. :)
I think you are in the right frame of thinking here, as was the post about DMs adjudicating reasonable LOS/facing out of a combat situation. The rules exist to have a basis to work from and to fall back on, something that everyone can be aware of and agree upon, and the DM can and should make calls appropriate to the game and situation that make things work the way s/he and the group like to play.I'm pretty sure the reason there is no facing in PF, or any 3.X D&D, is that it makes combat even more time-consuming and cumbersome than it already is, and has to be. As DM, I generally allow for what guards/NPCs are looking at or being distracted by to benefit players in these sorts of circumstances, allowing a more "realistic" approach to stealth, at least when dealing with fairly run-of-the-mill mookish guys.
That's pretty much my take on it as well. The rules were streamlined from 2e to 3e to do away with specifics about facing (like ACs from behind or the flank, when a shield can be used, whether rogues got a +4 to hit for a backstab or a +2 like everyone else if they didn't get surprise, etc) to dealing with giving all flankers a +2 to hit and allowing sneak attack because the flanked target has to divide his attention between enemies.
DMs can make liberal use of the distracted idea to allow stealth in plenty of situations without assuming any line of sight negates all applications of stealth.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So if the Dark Creeper is standing at a table applying poison to daggers (because his master told him to), and his back is toward the entrance of the room, there is no way a Rogue could sneak up behind him and Sneak Attack him?
Really?
Correct. The only way you could do this is if you came up to him and maintained cover (and therefore your stealth) all the way up to being close enough to him to be in melee reach.
There is no facing in D&D so there is no "his back is toward" anything. Consider it this way, if he was looking at the door, could you sneak up next to him without him seeing you? If so, you get sneak attack. Otherwise you don't.
f you completely take out the facing concept, then it wouldn't make any sense to have flank attacks.
Flanking is simply a tactical maneuver. It doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not their back is to you.
As for everyone being happy, they may lose the excitement when the DM uses this trick against them.
There might not be any rules for facing in the game, but in my opinion you still have to take into account "common sense facing". If you completely take out the facing concept, then it wouldn't make any sense to have flank attacks.
Then You could just say that anytime a monster is attacked by 2 or more characters at a time then you get the flanking bonus, no matter where the attackers are attacking from.
I don't think you need a concept of facing per se to say: it's harder to defend yourself from two attackers on opposite sides of you than it is from two attackers standing next to each other. (Unless you have Improved Uncanny Dodge, which is, you know, uncanny and all.)
I mean, if I'm a medium sized creature completely surrounded by 8 medium sized enemies, they all mechanically have flanking and certainly there isn't a common sense facing interpretation by which my back is turned to all of them.
|
As to the "everybody is looking in every direction" ideas. Perception is not just sight, but all senses and stealth is not just hide, but also move silent. I would allow a rogue to try to sneak up behind something that is working at a table for example, but the NPC would get a perception check vs the rogues stealth to hear them come in and sneak up.
I view stealth as even more then just the old skills hide and move silent. I also view it as luck (the NPC just happened to look away at the right time) and actual skill (the rogue notices that the NPC has a certine pattern to how he looks around, so he plans for that). Now, having said that, the rogue can not end his turn standing out in the open, but must either be spotted or find cover at the end of their turn. n ranged attacks with.
So if the Dark Creeper is standing at a table applying poison to daggers (because his master told him to), and his back is toward the entrance of the room, there is no way a Rogue could sneak up behind him and Sneak Attack him?
Really?
If the DC is "distracted" then you can sneak up behind him... ;)