Its simple. Swing the axe when they are distracted. It might be less sneaky then a rapier thrust in the back, but it is still more sneaky then a normal attack. Sneak attack is essentially an attack made by a rogue when the opponent cant or isnt devoting their full attention to the rogue. That distraction applies whether there is an axe, a rapier, or a hidden dagger involved.
The rogue does more damage nut just because of where they hit, but also because the target is not properly defending themselves due to being flanked or flatfooted. If you were talking to a friend in a bar and i walked up behind you and hit you in the back of the knee with an axe, you would most certainly be surprised, and there is no difference (in game terms) in my ability to sneak while holding an axe as there is in my ability to sneak when holding a rapier.
Not really. Any character class can attack a flanked or flatfooted enemy and get a bonus to their attack roll.
However, ONLY the rogue can exploit this situation to attack a vital spot. No matter the enemy or what he is wearing.
That is because the rogue is particulary good at exploiting the flank. Ever see a Jackie Chan movie? Most of the time those guys arent making full use of their flank. Sure they have an advantage, but they arent exploiting it to its fullest degree. That is what the rogue does.
To me you avatar suggest not one but two sneak attacks to your head, likely resulting in your current state.....
;)
LOL. Well at least I HAVE an avatar... ;-)
And no, that damage was just a "normal" bludgeoning attack.
The question then becomes, how does a slashing weapon EVER do damage to a highly armored target?
It most certainly can do damage against heavy armor. I'm just disputing that you can precisely target vital spots while doing so.
Because there is no way you could slash tendons, or arteries.If you show me how to "sneakily" swing an axe between your enemy's legs to hit the inside of his thigh while he is wearing plate cuisses, I'll change my mind.
The question isn't can I do it in a specific instance -- you've stated that it shouldn't be possible period -- which means if I can find one case where I can hit a vulnerable spot on a person with a slashing weapon while flanking or they are suprised the entire premise of your position (that slashing weapons shouldn't be allowed to do sneak attack damage at all) falls apart.
You know daggers can be slashing weapons right?
If I manage to hit you in the side with a greatsword or a club, and it hits your kidneys or whatever, that is a hit on a vital area.
The question isn't can I do it in a specific instance -- you've stated that it shouldn't be possible period -- which means if I can find one case where I can hit a vulnerable spot on a person with a slashing weapon while flanking or they are suprised the entire premise of your position (that slashing weapons shouldn't be allowed to do sneak attack damage at all) falls apart.
Admittedly, that is a dilemma. And I think that's where abstraction comes in. That means there are two solutions. Either allow slashing weapons and ignore the cases it doesn't work (which is the current situation). Or restrict it to piercing and bludgeoning weapons and ignore the cases in which a slashing weapon would work.
In the end it comes down to what is "abstracter". And I think since the sneak attack rule is already quite abstract in that it always allows the rogue to attack a vital spot even without knowing the enemy's anatomy, might as well be a little stricter on the weapon types side.But then I'm just arguing that point for the sake of a good discussion.
EDIT:
Also, if you guys think this would weaken the Rogue too much, I'm all for giving him something instead. For example he could gain a +1 bonus for every 5 class levels to attack rolls for sneak attacks. Or one could increase the sneak attack damage dice to d8s. Whatever works.
The question isn't can I do it in a specific instance -- you've stated that it shouldn't be possible period -- which means if I can find one case where I can hit a vulnerable spot on a person with a slashing weapon while flanking or they are suprised the entire premise of your position (that slashing weapons shouldn't be allowed to do sneak attack damage at all) falls apart.Admittedly, that is a dilemma. And I think that's where abstraction comes in. That means there are two solutions. Either allow slashing weapons and ignore the cases it doesn't work (which is the current situation). Or restrict it to piercing and bludgeoning weapons and ignore the cases in which a slashing weapon would work.
In the end it comes down to what is "abstracter". And I think since the sneak attack rule is already quite abstract in that it always allows the rogue to attack a vital spot even without knowing the enemy's anatomy, might as well be a little stricter on the weapon types side.
The question becomes why be strict on this specific thing? What happens with non-armored targets? What about natural armor? How much natural armor applies? Can you slash through leather armor for vital spots? What about padded leather? How many slashing attacks does it take to get through a chain shirt? There are lots of things about pathfinder combat that dont make sense. To zero in on this one thing is down right silly, and makes the rules inconsistently abstract, which is never good design.
But then I'm just arguing that point for the sake of a good discussion.EDIT:
Also, if you guys think this would weaken the Rogue too much, I'm all for giving him something instead. For example he could gain a +1 bonus for every 5 class levels to attack rolls for sneak attacks. Or one could increase the sneak attack damage dice to d8s. Whatever works.
I think it wouldnt be matter of weakening the rogue, it would just limit them conceptually. The simply wouldnt use slashing weapons. There isnt a practical reason to do this and only this thing to the weapon combat rules.
The question becomes why be strict on this specific thing? What happens with non-armored targets? What about natural armor? How much natural armor applies? Can you slash through leather armor for vital spots? What about padded leather? How many slashing attacks does it take to get through a chain shirt? There are lots of things about pathfinder combat that dont make sense. To zero in on this one thing is down right silly, and makes the rules inconsistently abstract, which is never good design.
As I said, it is just as bad right now. Why would a slashing sneak attack be able to slash through a full plate.
It comes down to what is worse (ie "more abstract"). And I think allowing slashing weapons is "more abstract" than forbidding them.I think it wouldnt be matter of weakening the rogue, it would just limit them conceptually. The simply wouldnt use slashing weapons. There isnt a practical reason to do this and only this thing to the weapon combat rules.
One could say the same for all kinds of rules.
Why shouldn't the Druid wear metal armor?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooooh, realism. In a game where Gargantuan Flame-Breathing Spell-casting Lizards duke it out with Colossal Winged Demon Princes in Abyss. And AM BARBARIAN does rangelancedandepouncetrounce while sundering pocket dimensions as his Wizard buddy implodes reality around them.
Yeah, and there's the issue of slashing weapons being "not realistic" for sneak attack.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Stabbing a helm is somehow easier? I don't think you understand how helms work. You can stab for eyeholes and some knights carried daggers specifically for this form of grim work. But, helms are typically made to deflect such attacks away from the head. It's usually much more economic to simply crush the skull in with a hammer, axe, or pointy warhammer to the brain.As you admit yourself one can stab the eye-slits. Or one can stab under the rim of the helmet.
Crushing a skull or a knee joint takes a wide movement and a heavy weapon. Both increase the time it takes to execute the attack and don't really have anything to do with what the rulebooks characterize as a "precision-based attack".
Remember this is a "Sneak Attack" we're talking about. It should be very fast, depend on the right timing and the extreme precision of the uniquely skilled Rogue to accomplish.
Caving in a skull or crushing a joint is just a "normal" critical hit any character class could place.
Thats the point of "off camera" precision damage. Say..a sneak attack to the back of the head/neck of a foe with a helm. On the table, its a couple of dice rolls. In game, it can be explained in many ways..the bad guy is distracted and looks down, allowing the back of his neck to be unarmored for a brief second, or something as simple as a really hard blow with a mace or hammer to the back of the helmet..thats what they were designed to do, hurt through armor, and because it is a sneak attack, the poor fellow takes the full force of the blow, without rolling with it or ducking. If this is not realistic, then how on earth can you explain anyone..or anything for that matter..taking more than one hit from a great axe?
"Vital spot" is relative. The vital spot for an unarmored guy might be the throat. Cutting him there with an axe does more good than, say, in the arm. The vital spot for a guy in fullplate might be the armpit. Shoving an axe into the armpit does more good than, say, slamming the axe against the well-protected chest.
You don't always go for the throat and then when he's got fullplate it doesn't work - the rogue is opportunistic, hits where it hurts the most at the time being.
Thus, depending on where you hit you do different damage. Since precision is part of it, precision damage such as sneak attack works.
On a tangent, I find it interesting that people promote the idea that undead should have blanket immunity to precision damage/critical hits. It seems so odd and reversed - no creature type I know is famous for being ONLY vulnerable by precision damage in culture! The stake through the heart of the vampire, the chopped of zombie head, both precision damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So sneak attack Ballista... hey its a Pierce weapon so it's legit.
Ooooh, realism. In a game where Gargantuan Flame-Breathing Spell-casting Lizards duke it out with Colossal Winged Demon Princes in Abyss. And AM BARBARIAN does rangelancedandepouncetrounce while sundering pocket dimensions as his Wizard buddy implodes reality around them.
Yeah, and there's the issue of slashing weapons being "not realistic" for sneak attack.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Yeah, realism is soooooooooooooooo overrated.
Heck, why do we even differentiate between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning?I want a Barbarian casting Time Stop and a Wizard 1-hitting that Dragon with his trusty little dagger.
|
|
Let us take a look at humans (and there are a lot of humoids in PF). How many vital spots can we count off?
Brain, eyes, throat, lungs, heart, numerous joints, Arteries in limbs, genitals, bones (breaking them), liver, major muscles...and I am petering out.
Now what weapons can accomplish these things:
Slashie: major muscles, joints, arteries in limbs, throat, genitals
Smashie: Brain, joints, bones, genitals
Stabbie: Eyes, lungs, heart, joints, genitals, liver
Not an exhaustive list.
Let us take a look at humans (and there are a lot of humoids in PF). How many vital spots can we count off?
Brain, eyes, throat, lungs, heart, numerous joints, Arteries in limbs, genitals, bones (breaking them), liver, major muscles...and I am petering out.
Now what weapons can accomplish these things:
Slashie: major muscles, joints, arteries in limbs, throat, genitals
Smashie: Brain, joints, bones, genitals
Stabbie: Eyes, lungs, heart, joints, genitals, liver
Not an exhaustive list.
Everything in slashie can be accomplished by stabbie.
Which is part of my point. Stabbing profits a lot more from precision than slashing. In exchange slashing is a lot better at dealing sustained damage to a wide range of enemies.
Let us take a look at humans (and there are a lot of humoids in PF). How many vital spots can we count off?
Brain, eyes, throat, lungs, heart, numerous joints, Arteries in limbs, genitals, bones (breaking them), liver, major muscles...and I am petering out.
Now what weapons can accomplish these things:
Slashie: major muscles, joints, arteries in limbs, throat, genitals
Smashie: Brain, joints, bones, genitals
Stabbie: Eyes, lungs, heart, joints, genitals, liver
Not an exhaustive list.
Everything in slashie can be accomplished by stabbie.
Which is part of my point. Stabbing profits a lot more from precision than slashing. In exchange slashing is a lot better at dealing sustained damage to a wide range of enemies.
..well..if I HAVE to choose..I would rather be stabbed in a major muscle group, than slashed...
And with the right dagger, you can do both.
Besides if we were to start getting upset about damage types versus armor we best start negating critical hits too. Also we should start simply ignoring leather armor, and chain shouldn't provide a bonus against bashing weapons and piercing weapons, and you shouldn't be able to do acrobatics in full plate ever (this is sarcasm -- I'm well aware that it is possible to do acrobatics in full plate).
Honestly either hit the entire system or none of it would be my position.
I already gave you your slashing request earlier, you just ignored it.
Most armor doesn't cover the inside of the thigh. All you have to do is bring the sword up between the legs, and pull it sideways against the inside of the thigh in the right spot. Then you've hit the femural artery and you're doing TONS of damage due to him losing a gallon of blood a minute.
You can't armor the inside of the thigh very well, especially from a hit from behind, as putting armor there sort of interferes with your ability to walk. Try putting a bucket between your legs and walk with it. :)
|
|
Let us take a look at humans (and there are a lot of humoids in PF). How many vital spots can we count off?
Brain, eyes, throat, lungs, heart, numerous joints, Arteries in limbs, genitals, bones (breaking them), liver, major muscles...and I am petering out.
Now what weapons can accomplish these things:
Slashie: major muscles, joints, arteries in limbs, throat, genitals
Smashie: Brain, joints, bones, genitals
Stabbie: Eyes, lungs, heart, joints, genitals, liver
Not an exhaustive list.
Everything in slashie can be accomplished by stabbie.
Which is part of my point. Stabbing profits a lot more from precision than slashing. In exchange slashing is a lot better at dealing sustained damage to a wide range of enemies.
Buy a nice steak. Draw a 2 inch square on it. Stab it with a pointy knife. Then chop it with an axe. Slashie is better because it hits more of the vital area. Buy a whole chicken. Stab it with a knife. Then chop it with an axe. The axe will do a lot more damage to a lot more areas.
We are talking about precision damage. That damage does not need to be limited to one location (stabbie usually) but can cut across several weak points (slashie). All we are talking about is being able to aim the weapon effectively. Look at videos of guys throwing big axes at targets. They are trying to be precise and succeeding.
You are putting artificial constraints on the ability. The only requirement is that he needs to hit certain vital spots. If I hack at you with an AXE when I hit I am almost guaranteed to hit a vital spot. It is actually more difficult when using a pointy weapon because the area of the weapon with which you can hit and do damage is so small. With a sword or axe I only need to hit with a portion of the cutting area to do damage. If i hit with the whole area i can do tremendous damage.
|
|
Besides if we were to start getting upset about damage types versus armor we best start negating critical hits too. Also we should start simply ignoring leather armor, and chain shouldn't provide a bonus against bashing weapons and piercing weapons, and you shouldn't be able to do acrobatics in full plate ever (this is sarcasm -- I'm well aware that it is possible to do acrobatics in full plate).
Honestly either hit the entire system or none of it would be my position.
The 1st edition system was super complicated in this regard. Each weapon had individual bonuses/penalties vs. certain armors. They usually had a certain sweet spot of armor where they were especially effective.
What Karkon said ^
The 1st edition system was super complicated in this regard. Each weapon had individual bonuses/penalties vs. certain armors. They usually had a certain sweet spot of armor where they were especially effective.Besides if we were to start getting upset about damage types versus armor we best start negating critical hits too. Also we should start simply ignoring leather armor, and chain shouldn't provide a bonus against bashing weapons and piercing weapons, and you shouldn't be able to do acrobatics in full plate ever (this is sarcasm -- I'm well aware that it is possible to do acrobatics in full plate).
Honestly either hit the entire system or none of it would be my position.
I am aware, I've played first, but I didn't find it worthwhile on the armor charts stuff.
Rogues were fixed, while they can do significant amounts of damage, there are many things which circumvent that damage ability.
Immunity to criticals is one. Unfamiliar anatomy is another...
In 3.5 they were only effective as trap monkeys and against a small amount of mobs.
If Rogues were limited to piercing only weapons, then we'd be right back at trap monkey dip class...
..well..if I HAVE to choose..I would rather be stabbed in a major muscle group, than slashed...
And with the right dagger, you can do both.
Not me. With the slash it's always possible that it doesn't penetrate deep enough and doesn't get past the skin/fat. With a stab, especially in a tendon, it's game over.
Most armor doesn't cover the inside of the thigh. All you have to do is bring the sword up between the legs, and pull it sideways against the inside of the thigh in the right spot. Then you've hit the femural artery and you're doing TONS of damage due to him losing a gallon of blood a minute.
You can't armor the inside of the thigh very well, especially from a hit from behind, as putting armor there sort of interferes with your ability to walk. Try putting a bucket between your legs and walk with it. :)
Some leather (not to mention chain or mail) on the inside of the leg and your trick won't get you anything.
As I said, as soon as any armor is present, slashing needs to rely on brutal strikes. That's not to say that they aren't effective. It's just not sneak attacking vital points anymore.Buy a nice steak. Draw a 2 inch square on it. Stab it with a pointy knife. Then chop it with an axe. Slashie is better because it hits more of the vital area. Buy a whole chicken. Stab it with a knife. Then chop it with an axe. The axe will do a lot more damage to a lot more areas.
We are talking about precision damage. That damage does not need to be limited to one location (stabbie usually) but can cut across several weak points (slashie). All we are talking about is being able to aim the weapon effectively. Look at videos of guys throwing big axes at targets. They are trying to be precise and succeeding.
You are putting artificial constraints on the ability. The only requirement is that he needs to hit certain vital spots. If I hack at you with an AXE when I hit I am almost guaranteed to hit a vital spot. It is actually more difficult when using a pointy weapon because the area of the weapon with which you can hit and do damage is so small. With a sword or axe I only need to hit with a portion of the cutting area to do damage. If i hit with the whole area i can do tremendous damage.
Again, as I said before, this isn't sneak attacking anymore.
This is a fighter or barbarian attacking an enemy from a flanking position by hacking at them with their axe.I'm interested. To you, what is the difference between a Rogue sneak attacking from a flanking position and a fighter attacking from the same flanking position?
|
|
You give stabbing every benefit of the doubt. Slashes might not penetrate enough but stabs will somehow. Stabs can get through the slits in armor but somehow slashing never will. Stabbing is super accurate and can hit exactly where you want but slashing never could. It is ridiculous. If you gave slashing the same benefit then your argument is moot.
You also have a strange definition of sneak attack that is not supported by the rules. It only requires that the opponent is unable to defend himself effectively. When someone can't defend himself any weapon can be useful because the enemy cannot use his defenses (armor, shield, movement, etc) to their full effect.
I'm interested. To you, what is the difference between a Rogue sneak attacking from a flanking position and a fighter attacking from the same flanking position?
I assume you mean with a slashing weapon.
Mechanically, the rogue gets his sneak attack dice. Fluff: Since his fancy longsword can only bash armor (per your definition) then the rogue smashes a leg joint or breaks a bone with the concentrated kinetic force of the edge of his blade. Using it similarly to a bludgeoning weapon when that is most effective.
Of course, that gets to another point about assumptions. You say hitting armor with a sword is just bludgeoning them. You admit bludgeoning is an effective sneak attack method. Therefore bludgeoning with my sword is just as effective.
Boom, done, Lawyered.
It's more like the fighter tries to break the leg with his swing, while the rogue attempts to collapse the leg at the knee joint.
The fighter tries to lop off the entire head while the rogue aims for arteries.
The fighter attempts to cave in the entire rib cage while the rogue attempts to eviscerate the opponent by cutting open his belly.
The fighter is stronger and more able to penetrate armor (STR+Full BAB), while the rogue has to attempt to hit vital locations with deadly attacks (lower STR+3/4 BAB)
You give stabbing every benefit of the doubt. Slashes might not penetrate enough but stabs will somehow. Stabs can get through the slits in armor but somehow slashing never will. Stabbing is super accurate and can hit exactly where you want but slashing never could. It is ridiculous. If you gave slashing the same benefit then your argument is moot.
No.
I suppose the same amount of force and the same precision for both the stabbing and slashing attacks.A stabbing attack concentrates the kinetic force at it's tip, while the slash spreads it along it's entire length, thus the stab always penetrates deeper.
To enter a small space the stabbing attack only needs to enter with it's tip while the slash won't fit or will have a harder time hitting since it has to land with it's entire length.
You also have a strange definition of sneak attack that is not supported by the rules. It only requires that the opponent is unable to defend himself effectively. When someone can't defend himself any weapon can be useful because the enemy cannot use his defenses (armor, shield, movement, etc) to their full effect.
Both the normal character class and the rogue are in the same situation against an opponent that can't defend himself. The difference is that the rogue has the skill to exploit this situation even further by precisely attacking a vital spot (I'm quoting the rules here btw).
The emphasis is on attacking the vital spot, not on the defenseless opponent.I assume you mean with a slashing weapon.
Mechanically, the rogue gets his sneak attack dice. Fluff: Since his fancy longsword can only bash armor (per your definition) then the rogue smashes a leg joint or breaks a bone with the concentrated kinetic force of the edge of his blade. Using it similarly to a bludgeoning weapon when that is most effective.
Of course, that gets to another point about assumptions. You say hitting armor with a sword is just bludgeoning them. You admit bludgeoning is an effective sneak attack method. Therefore bludgeoning with my sword is just as effective.
Boom, done, Lawyered.
Not.
He is using a slashing weapon. By the rules this means he does slashing damage and by mine he wouldn't be doing a sneak attack.
Fluff interpretation: The "bludgeoning with a slashing weapon" means that, while he does damage, it can't be considered striking a vital spot (ie extra damage), since a real bludgeoning weapon would be much more effective with the exact same attack (and thus meriting the sneak attack extra damage).
|
|
You also have a strange definition of sneak attack that is not supported by the rules. It only requires that the opponent is unable to defend himself effectively. When someone can't defend himself any weapon can be useful because the enemy cannot use his defenses (armor, shield, movement, etc) to their full effect.
Both the normal character class and the rogue are in the same situation against an opponent that can't defend himself. The difference is that the rogue has the skill to exploit this situation even further by precisely attacking a vital spot (I'm quoting the rules here btw).
You really answered your own question. The rogue has the skill to attack vital spots and others do not.
I assume you mean with a slashing weapon.
Mechanically, the rogue gets his sneak attack dice. Fluff: Since his fancy longsword can only bash armor (per your definition) then the rogue smashes a leg joint or breaks a bone with the concentrated kinetic force of the edge of his blade. Using it similarly to a bludgeoning weapon when that is most effective.
Of course, that gets to another point about assumptions. You say hitting armor with a sword is just bludgeoning them. You admit bludgeoning is an effective sneak attack method. Therefore bludgeoning with my sword is just as effective.
Not.He is using a slashing weapon. By the rules this means he does slashing damage and by mine he wouldn't be doing a sneak attack.
Fluff interpretation: The "bludgeoning with a slashing weapon" means that, while he does damage, it can't be considered striking a vital spot (ie extra damage), since a real bludgeoning weapon would be much more effective with the exact same attack (and thus meriting the sneak attack extra damage).
You keep listing back and forth between fluff and rules and real world to make your arguments work. The mechanics are unimportant because you just have to follow RAW and boom they work. This discussion is about the fluff of why can a rogue use any weapon to sneak attack. Earlier when discussing fluff you admitted a bludgeoning weapon was useful for a sneak attack. Then you later said that hitting an armored opponent with a slashing weapon is just bludgeoning them. These are not exclusive things. My argument stands.
By the way google maces. Notice the flanges they have that were used to concentrate the mace's force along a narrow strip. I wonder what else could be like a narrow flange concentrating force....hmmm...it will come to me...oh yeah. Slashing weapons. You can't even be serious about this argument. I can break your arm with a dull axe just as effectively as I could a mace. If breaking an arm is not a sneak attack then this is not even a serious discussion.
Your by the "rules" argument is weak. Slashing is just a category of weapon and not a category of damage in the rules. Damage is not differentiated by the type of weapon used. If you are going to use the rules then use them as written not by throwing in your willy nilly interpretations. Any fool can do that.
Boom. Done. Lawyered.
You really answered your own question. The rogue has the skill to attack vital spots and others do not.
Yes, with a precision attack. Just hacking at an enemy's armor with an axe is not a precision attack targeting a vital spot, ie not a sneak attack.
You keep listing back and forth between fluff and rules and real world to make your arguments work. The mechanics are unimportant because you just have to follow RAW and boom they work. This discussion is about the fluff of why can a rogue use any weapon to sneak attack.
I'm not listing anywhere. The real world is the inspiration for the rules. And in my opinion there could be a slight change to the rules so as to better follow some basic ways real world combat works.
That's it, that's all this thread is about. You were the one that brought the fluff into here.
Earlier when discussing fluff you admitted a bludgeoning weapon was useful for a sneak attack. Then you later said that hitting an armored opponent with a slashing weapon is just bludgeoning them. These are not exclusive things. My argument stands.
No, it doesn't. Did you even read my response?
By the way google maces. Notice the flanges they have that were used to concentrate the mace's force along a narrow strip. I wonder what else could be like a narrow flange concentrating force....hmmm...it will come to me...oh yeah. Slashing weapons. You can't even be serious about this argument. I can break your arm with a dull axe just as effectively as I could a mace. If breaking an arm is not a sneak attack then this is not even a serious discussion.
First of all, AFAIK there are no rules for 'Flanged Maces'. The books only mention normal maces, which are basically sticks with a metal ball for a head. This means if there were rules for flanged maces they could very well deal both bludgeoning and slashing damage.
Second, if I'm wearing a plate on my arm, you won't be breaking anything with your dull axe while preforming a sneak attack (not that wildly swinging an axe in a wide arc has anything sneaky about it).
An arm beneath a plate is not the target of a sneak attack. There are much better places (ie vital spots) to place a sneak attack. Like the creases between the plates under the armpits, at the knees or at the neck.
A fighter attacking the same target with a sharp axe, however, might break an arm under the plate on a critical hit.
Your by the "rules" argument is weak. Slashing is just a category of weapon and not a category of damage in the rules. Damage is not differentiated by the type of weapon used. If you are going to use the rules then use them as written not by throwing in your willy nilly interpretations. Any fool can do that.
Boom. Done. Lawyered.
Slashing is very much a category of damage (see page 144 for example). You should read up on the rules...
But your ignoring of my arguments and your impolite tone show me that you won't and that any further discussion is futile anyway.
Good Night.
I'm not listing anywhere. The real world is the inspiration for the rules. And in my opinion there could be a slight change to the rules so as to better follow some basic realities of how real world combat works.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fixed it (I hope). Sorry about my English, it's not my main language.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Fixed it (I hope). Sorry about my English, it's not my main language.
It is a figure of speech. You keep talking about realism, but your arguments aren't necessarily realistic. You seem to have this image of a sneak attack as putting a blade precisely where you want it to go, and that is not how it works.
You seem to equate "Sneaky" with "Graceful" when talking about "wide" or "wild" swings. This is not always the case. Even stabbing weapons get a nice wide range of motion to maximize piercing force- you don't just place the tip where you want it and push.
Play the video game Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. You can do a Stealth Kill with a fire axe. It's awesome.
If you're caught up on the reality of piercing vs. slashing, think of this. When going for blood vessels, would you really rely on the narrow cross-section of an ice pick? You would likely miss. Even worse, you wouldn't miss, but the artery/vein might roll aside if you don't hit it dead on. The sudden reflex movement in response to being stabbed might make them roll the narrow gap in the armor you just pierced and spoil your stabber sideways (hey, now you've just caused a slashing-like cavitation in them!).
One of the most iconic methods of "stealth kill" is placing your hand over a target's mouth, pulling their head back, and slashing their throat open. Not stabbing them in the throat, slashing it open. It doesn't take a very deep cut to kill them like this, so piercing really doesn't have the advantage.
Also, even with gorgets, chain coifs, and other things defending a person, your proposed change doesn't differentiate between armored targets and non-armored targets. And if I can't throat-slash a naked goblin sentry I snuck up on, what good is sneak attack doing me? Fighter's better at armored targets anyway.
First of all, AFAIK there are no rules for 'Flanged Maces'. The books only mention normal maces, which are basically sticks with a metal ball for a head.
First of all, I know there are no rules for "Piercing only sneak attack". The books only mention Sneak Attack when your flanking or denied your dex which can be done with any weapon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
is any of this realistic?
While we're here, lets discuss another aspect of this. Crossbows.
Crowssbows were designed specifically to punch through armor. Shouldnt they hit touch AC instead of regular AC? That's faaar more realistic.
We really should get rid of wizards though. This game is obviously 16th century, and I don't recall mention of fireballs and magic missiles.
|
|
Yes, with a precision attack. Just hacking at an enemy's armor with an axe is not a precision attack targeting a vital spot, ie not a sneak attack.
A rogue does not need to just hack at the armor. All armor has weak points usually at the joints or the head. Joints and the head are noticeable vital spots. Hacking stupidly at the breastplate is not a precision attack. Hacking at the back of the knee because the armor happens to be weak there is a precision attack.
No, it doesn't. Did you even read my response?
I did read your response. Your response relied on certain false assumptions. One of which is that the power of a slashing weapon is all in the blade. The power of a slashing weapon is in the arc of the swing which imputes great power. These weapons are also heavy similar to bludgeoning weapons so they also have strength in massive force due to that mass+swing.
First of all, AFAIK there are no rules for 'Flanged Maces'. The books only mention normal maces, which are basically sticks with a metal ball for a head.
Second, if I'm wearing a plate on my arm, you won't be breaking anything with your dull axe while preforming a sneak attack (not that wildly swinging an axe in a wide arc has anything sneaky to it).
An arm beneath a plate is not the target of a sneak attack. There are much better places (ie vital spots) to place a sneak attack. Like the creases between the plates.
A fighter attacking the same target with a sharp axe, however, might break an arm under the plate on a critical hit.
Page 146. Look at the picture of the mace. That does not look like a ball on a stick. A Morning star is not a ball on a stick. Well a pointy ball but the example is not. The club on page 147 has spikes. Historical maces certainly had flanges.
Not everyone wears plate. If you are wearing chain or any armor with give I would most certainly break your arm. Even plate has weak spots and the essence of sneak attack is targeting those spots. Regarding the portion I bolded. The attack itself does not need to be sneaky it just needs to hit a vital spot. Also, why is every attack with a non-piercing weapon "a wild swing"? That is a silly assumption. People can hit accurately with slashing weapons.
[quote-alch]Slashing is very much a category of damage (see page 144 for example). You should read up on the rules...
But your ignoring of my arguments and your impolite tone show me that you won't and that any further discussion is futile.
Good Night.
I know the rules. When I get hit with a longsword I do not write down "8 points slashing damage". I just put 8 hit points lost. The type of damage is only important to certain enemies who are resistant to certain types of attacks (e.g. skeletons & Zombies). For those enemies it is listed as DR requiring a certain type of weapon (bludgeoning and Slashing respectively). Even then you could still kill a skeleton by stabbing it with a pointy stick you just have to subtract 5 damage off each hit. Take that and that you stupid bag of bones.
The real problem seems to be that you have this stealthy rogue sneaking up and stabbing people in the lungs between two ribs image in your head. Rogues can be so much more than that and the sneak attack rules are wide open to reflect that. A rogue could take Imp unarmed combat and sneak attack armored opponents with his fist. I am fine with that. I am also fine with the fighter/rogue sneak attacking with a great sword.
Rogues have been able to use any weapon for sneak attack for over 10 years since 3e came out. It was a tremendous improvement to a class which sorely needed it.
While we're here, lets discuss another aspect of this. Crossbows.
Crowssbows were designed specifically to punch through armor. Shouldnt they hit touch AC instead of regular AC? That's faaar more realistic.
Would be a great re-skin of the Gunslinger class imo.
Would be a great re-skin of the Gunslinger class imo.While we're here, lets discuss another aspect of this. Crossbows.
Crowssbows were designed specifically to punch through armor. Shouldnt they hit touch AC instead of regular AC? That's faaar more realistic.
I hear your call. Look for it in the homebrew section sometime tomorrow.
Alch, I've got a question for you...
Do you want sneak-attack to work for all three damage types?
What I'm specifically asking is: given ONLY game rules balance, simplicity, consistency, flexibility and ability to be grasped by new players, as a game designer what would you do?
I think we know the answer.
So, now that we agree that sneak-attack being usable for all damage types is an attractive goal, let's figure out how to make that so. Here's how: find one instance where it makes sense.
Slashing: a guy in full plate is heavily armored and a spear might deflect off a curved chest plate and a hammer might only dent the armor while not doing above-average damage. Still, a scimitar might be quite easy - if you're talented - to slide along the wearer's arm bracers and slice over his vulnerable inner elbow. Verdict: slashing can work.
Bludgeoning: same guy in full plate. A spear might deflect... a sword might not slide into the right spot... but a big damned hammer might be quite easy - if you're talented - to smash right in the middle of a very large plate such as a leg bracer and break the bone inside. Verdict: bludgeoning can work.
Piercing: same guy in full plate. A sword might slide... a hammer might dent... but a spear might be quite easy - if you're talented - to shove through the eye-slit of a helmet and poke someone's eye out. Verdict: piercing can work.
Now we've come up with a scenario where it can work, all we need to do is STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT NOT WORK WHEN WE WANT IT TO. Job's done. Problem solved. The end.
Ok, for me the discussion has run it's course.
Both sides of the issue have good arguments and I think in the end it comes down to how one interprets what a sneak attack is.
And if one prefers to ignore the problems slashing weapons have with precision attacks against vital spots of heavily armored opponents, in favor of including their deadly effectiveness against unarmored opponents. Or vice versa.
In the end, I would agree that the arguments for a change aren't stringent enough to make it necessary.
In any case I had my fun discussing :-).
|
|
Ok, for me the discussion has run it's course.
Both sides of the issue have good arguments and I think in the end it comes down to how one interprets what a sneak attack is.
And if one prefers to ignore the problems slashing weapons have with precision attacks against vital spots of heavily armored opponents, in favor of including their deadly effectiveness against unarmored opponents. Or vice versa.
Most opponents are not heavily armored. Most have less than heavy armor. And that is if we even accept there is a problem with hitting vital spots. Your examples seem to mostly rely on using a dagger to hit spots from below. That ignores all the piercing weapons that can't really do that. How are you going to stab under an armpit with a short bow or a longspear? It feels like you just want to limit it to daggers and short swords and call it a day.
When I consider a change to the system I as myself one fundamental question: How does this make the game better? If it doesn't, then I scrap the whole thing.
So, by limiting sneak attacks (and similar attacks by extension) to piercing weapons, would it make the game better? Skip the "realism" argument for a bit. I say that because once you start arguing for realism in one area, you should consider it many other areas as well. So without the "realism" argument, would the game be improved if you made this change?
I like how OP is focusing on doing direct damage to vitals. To me, that is not a sneak attack, that is a killing blow. In an abstract HP system, the blow that is enough to outright kill a man is the one that takes him from 4hp to -10. No matter how it is done.
Sneak attack is NOT a direct hit to the vitals as far as I am concerned, unless it is the blow that kills. It is a hit with more precision, and thus more damage, than mundanely wielding a weapon. I mean in order to make people BLEED a significant amount (anyone who have passed a first aid course will tell you how easily we bleed in the face of physical trauma) in this game, you need to be a lv2+ rogue, focused on the task.
I like how OP is focusing on doing direct damage to vitals. To me, that is not a sneak attack, that is a killing blow. In an abstract HP system, the blow that is enough to outright kill a man is the one that takes him from 4hp to -10. No matter how it is done.
Sneak attack is NOT a direct hit to the vitals as far as I am concerned, unless it is the blow that kills. It is a hit with more precision, and thus more damage, than mundanely wielding a weapon. I mean in order to make people BLEED a significant amount (anyone who have passed a first aid course will tell you how easily we bleed in the face of physical trauma) in this game, you need to be a lv2+ rogue, focused on the task.
To be fair, under Sneak Attack is doe stat that it is an attack on a vital area. However, vital area is not nearly as well defined as we would like it. For example, human eyes are a vital area but they also have some amazing protection because of the way they sit in the eye socket. Ask almost anyone who's been hit in the eye socket with a baseball and they will tell you that they are surprised they aren't blind. The heart is protected by a bone but if hit just right by a bludgeoning object, like a baseball, it can be fatal.
As someone who has been a first responder in the civilian world and a combat life saver in the infantry, I can agree with your assessment on how well and easily we bleed.