| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
Does that mean a medium sized rogue can't sneak say a rune giant for example (if he can't fly that is)? He might slash the Achilles tendon, but "vital spots" - thats more like liver, heart, throat etc, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Does that mean a medium sized rogue can't sneak say a rune giant for example (if he can't fly that is)? He might slash the Achilles tendon, but "vital spots" - thats more like liver, heart, throat etc, right?
This is just an explanation for the next sentance (hence them being grouped together)
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
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.Does that mean a medium sized rogue can't sneak say a rune giant for example (if he can't fly that is)? He might slash the Achilles tendon, but "vital spots" - thats more like liver, heart, throat etc, right?
This is just an explanation for the next sentance (hence them being grouped together)
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Yeah, the first part:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot
But what about:
and must be able to reach such a spot.
EDIT:
Granted, this:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a
was written for 3.5.
BUT:
Sneak attacks are possible only when the attacker can reach the target's vital spots. If you're limited to beating the foe about the ankles, you can't make sneak attacks against him.
I mean the guy designed 3E. And the sentence in the sneak attack section was not changed from 3.5 to PF.
I believe you were ok with up to 2 size categories of difference.
Rogues already have a hard enough time as it is, let them go God of war on the big guys if they have to.
I believe you were ok with up to 2 size categories of difference.
Do you have a quote?
Rogues already have a hard enough time as it is, let them go God of war on the big guys if they have to.
Yeah, I am all for it, just wondered about RAW and whatnot.
- even with the rogue pointing out that he only had to reach up slightly to ruin the Giant's chances of having offspring... and that was a "vital spot" in anyones book.
And the femoral artery is right next door.
I just overlook that bit of text myself. I have no problem with rogues sneak attacking giants, dragons, rocs, titans, whatever. If you include that bit of text as RAW, then every odd encounter it is up to the DM to make the call. That leaves your rogue never knowing from one combat to the next if they can use one of their biggest class abilities or not, which isn't good for the class.
And don't forget, this is sneak attack, not death attack. The rogue's not reducing an opponent to dust, they're doing a few d6 extra damage.
That fits right in with, say, a nasty gash on the leg or crippling a tentacle. They don't have to be stabbing their opponent in the heart.
I certainly agree with everyones notion that sneak attack does not need to be nerfed or further hindered in any. way. I just wondered why that sentence is in the rules. Is there any situation at all you can think of in which you would cite this particular sentence and disallow a SA?
|
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.Does that mean a medium sized rogue can't sneak say a rune giant for example (if he can't fly that is)? He might slash the Achilles tendon, but "vital spots" - thats more like liver, heart, throat etc, right?
I see it not some kind of "hard" rule, but as mostly fluff that allow a GM to rule that a non standard monster can't be sneak attacked as its vital spots aren't reachable.
So if I want to create a 30 foot tall golem and say that it is immune to sneak attack (unless you aim to the gem in the middle of its forehead) I can point to this piece of the rulebook and say, "See, it is in the rules." if someone raise an objection.
As other have pointed out, there are fairly important blood vessels even in the ankles and cutting someone tendons or pulverizing his foot bones will impair him, so generally the rogue should not be penalized.
A death attack could suffer for further limitations, but usually that is a power of high level characters and they are more than capable to overcome this kind of limitation.
I certainly agree with everyones notion that sneak attack does not need to be nerfed or further hindered in any. way. I just wondered why that sentence is in the rules. Is there any situation at all you can think of in which you would cite this particular sentence and disallow a SA?
Please pardon the snark that may now ensue as I answer this.
The reason why a sentence is in the book can be one of two things:
1) Game mechanics. Example: the sentence after that says rogues cannot sneak attack foes with concealment.
2) Description, aka fluff: That would be the sentence you're discussing about vital spots.
Regarding situations, that sentence had a forefather in previous editions of D&D. I've played thieves (the precursors to rogues) who couldn't backstab (precursor to sneak attack) because DMs had notions that if the monster was too big you just couldn't hit a vital spot. Never mind about arteries and stranger abnormal anatomy. So this line about "vital spots" is to me a harkening back to those annoying days.
If it should come in your game, Hyla, here's my suggestion. When someone disallows SA due to this line, ask them to then cite the reference that defines a "vital spot". When they can't, tell them they're now operating outside of RAW, to stop doing so, and if need be withhold pizza, beer, and Mountain Dew from the offender until he/she/they/it see the error of their ways.
Sorry if this came across as strong, but it reminded me of games that left a sour taste in my mouth in decades past....
IMO, that sentence mostly refers to those types of creatures that are immune to sneak attack, which they usually are because their anatomy has no vital spots, or because their vital spots can't be reached through conventional means, and to creatures that are invisible or have concealment. I've certainly never prevented a Rogue from sneak attacking something that is visible and can be sneak attacked.