and of course, allow elves to stand on snow and slide down stairs with a shield while shooting arrows with accuracy.
Make your own iconic image, don't allow others to dictate yours.
You mean your elves can't do this??
I thought that was standard
I hear your call. Look for it in the homebrew section sometime tomorrow.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.
The finished item looks great crunch wise. I'll transfer it into a Google doc tomorrow and post it in homebrew.
Hammer to the temple when the enemy isn't looking. Lethal bludgeoning sneak attack.
No, I haven't read the thread, and I'm not going to bother.
Everything that Ezio Auditore does as a finisher with any of the hammers, spears, swords and knives you can wield in Assassin's Creed 2 is a sneak attack.
I am especially fond of the stabbing them in the chest and shooting with the gun sneak attack.
|
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.
See, this is the problem with your entire method of argument.
You try to impose definitions on things that are not the definitions in the game, they are only your own personal opinion. Thus "Pathfinder maces are not flanged maces" and "the kind of slashing attack you are referring to does not qualify as a sneak attack".By this method, your arguments are unassailable, because you and only you get to set the definitions, and are always right. However, this method is also spurious and transparent, and will not get you many converts.
The solution you are looking for is "House Rules". Pathfinder is unlikely to change to suit your whims.
-Kle.
The rules contradict him in any case. Not only is the example mace flanged but the description of mace specifically mentions an ornate head. That is hardly a ball on a stick. He also abandoned the discussion when it was shown that his points were nothing but hot air.
See, this is the problem with your entire method of argument.
You try to impose definitions on things that are not the definitions in the game, they are only your own personal opinion. Thus "Pathfinder maces are not flanged maces" and "the kind of slashing attack you are referring to does not qualify as a sneak attack".By this method, your arguments are unassailable, because you and only you get to set the definitions, and are always right. However, this method is also spurious and transparent, and will not get you many converts.
The solution you are looking for is "House Rules". Pathfinder is unlikely to change to suit your whims.
-Kle.
I'm not imposing any definitions. The rules for maces are quite clear. They deal bludgeoning damage. I didn't even bring up the flanged maces.
I am not trying to "convert" anyone either. As I said before, I was trying to have a civilized discussion and wanted to find out what the arguments for both sides were. In fact, if you read through the thread you will notice that I am the only one to even make concessions and to incorporate other people's arguments.
However, it is an unfortunate fact that people on these forums take a discussion about RPG rules personally. And, as soon as somebody doesn't submit to their opinion, they start making ad homs about supposedly dishonest/faulty argumentation methods or resort to outright badmouthing, flaming and insults.
The rules contradict him in any case. Not only is the example mace flanged but the description of mace specifically mentions an ornate head. That is hardly a ball on a stick. He also abandoned the discussion when it was shown that his points were nothing but hot air.
This is the perfect example for what I mean. Instead of accepting that someone else has a different opinion, some people need to badmouth others behind their backs, even after they have left the discussion.
The reason I left the discussion was because no new arguments were being put forth and it had devolved to people attacking me for not submitting to their opinion. There wasn't anything constructive about it anymore.
The forums sure are in a sad state if this is how an honest effort to have a civilized discussion ends...
I am just curious alch, but would you disagree that in a real life situation, a slashing weapon like an axe or a big sword would end up doing bludgeoning damage to a heavily armored target? I mean if a mace could take out a knee as you seem to agree, wouldnt an axe swung at the same place do a similar amount of damage even if it didnt cut through the armor?
I am just curious alch, but would you disagree that in a real life situation, a slashing weapon like an axe or a big sword would end up doing bludgeoning damage to a heavily armored target? I mean if a mace could take out a knee as you seem to agree, wouldnt an axe swung at the same place do a similar amount of damage even if it didnt cut through the armor?
Ok, because you ask, I'll present my argument one last time.
If a slashing weapon, that isn't designed to do bludgeoning damage, is reduced to doing that, then it will do less damage. Especially if you compare it to the much higher damage a specialized piercing or bludgeoning weapon could deal on the same attack.
What makes it worse for the slashing weapon, is that as soon as it's blade doesn't hit in a perfect 90 degree angle, the kinetic force it delivers drops even more. This, by the way, is the main advantage of a mace compared to bladed slashing weapons and even hammers; it doesn't have a "front side" and is always effective if it hits.
Also, as a side note, the flanges of the specific type of mace called the 'flanged mace' were not sharp edged. Their main purpose was to be the support of sharp points. As such, they wouldn't deal slashing damage, but could be considered as a sort of morningstar (which, as per the rules, deals bludgeoning and piercing damage).
My argument is that, because of this reduced effectiveness, slashing weapons shouldn't be usable for a sneak attack, which is an ability that is supposed to do extra damage to a vital spot in 1 hit.
How one could consider this an "inconsistent argument" is beyond me...
The finished item looks great crunch wise. I'll transfer it into a Google doc tomorrow and post it in homebrew.I hear your call. Look for it in the homebrew section sometime tomorrow.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 can't believe my snark got turned into a homebrew gunslinger. I don't know whether to be proud or insulted.
|
|
I am just curious alch, but would you disagree that in a real life situation, a slashing weapon like an axe or a big sword would end up doing bludgeoning damage to a heavily armored target? I mean if a mace could take out a knee as you seem to agree, wouldnt an axe swung at the same place do a similar amount of damage even if it didnt cut through the armor?
Ok, because you ask, I'll present my argument one last time.If a slashing weapon, that isn't designed to do bludgeoning damage, is reduced to doing that, then it will do less damage. Especially if you compare it to the much higher damage a specialized piercing or bludgeoning weapon could deal on the same attack.
What makes it worse for the slashing weapon, is that as soon as it's blade doesn't hit in a perfect 90 degree angle, the kinetic force it delivers drops even more. This, by the way, is the main advantage of a mace compared to bladed slashing weapons and even hammers; it doesn't have a "front side" and is always effective if it hits.
Also, as a side note, the flanges of the specific type of mace called the 'flanged mace' were not sharp edged. Their main purpose was to be the support of sharp points. As such, they wouldn't deal slashing damage, but could be considered as a sort of morningstar (which, as per the rules, deals bludgeoning and piercing damage).My argument is that, because of this reduced effectiveness, slashing weapons shouldn't be usable for a sneak attack, which is an ability that is supposed to do extra damage to a vital spot in 1 hit.
How one could consider this an "inconsistent argument" is beyond me...
All weapons are less effective when the angle of attack is not ideal. Both the force of the blow and the point hit need to be appropriate for maximum effectiveness.
This really gets to the heart of your inconsistent and arbitrary arguments. You talk about angle of attack and not getting all you can out of an attack and ignore all the cases where that applies to pointed weapons.
In your mind stabbing weapons seem to have armpit and armor chink seeking points. They never hit at an angle that is less than perpendicular. Yet every other weapon we discuss is wielded by inept morons who don't know which part is the dangerous part.
As I have said before give bashing and slashing weapons the same benefit of the doubt you give stabbing weapons and your points are moot.
The rules contradict him in any case. Not only is the example mace flanged but the description of mace specifically mentions an ornate head. That is hardly a ball on a stick. He also abandoned the discussion when it was shown that his points were nothing but hot air.This is the perfect example for what I mean. Instead of accepting that someone else has a different opinion, some people need to badmouth others behind their backs, even after they have left the discussion.
You can have a different opinion. What you can't typically do (or, at least, and get away with it) is assert your opinion as fact when other information contradicts it.
Examples of Sneak Attack that work well with different types of weapons :
Kneecap : A bludgeoning weapon is perfect for shattering a knee cap, even if you are wearing armor. The whole point of bludgeoning is to slam something hard, and the armor just slows it down, it doesn't stop it.
Throat/Neck : A slice to a throat can do massive damage, without doing much penetration at all. A bludgeoning weapon can still cause massive damage because it can sever the spinal cord despite armor. A slice to the back fo the neck can sever the spinal cord as well.
Eye : The classic is to stab in with a piercing weapon, however, you can do massive damage by slicing via the eye-slit as well, cutting through the eye itself from side to side (depends on the helmet design of course). If the guy isn't wearing a helmet, you can likely slice across both eyes.
Wrist : A slashing weapon can open up a major artery on the arm, classically suicide is with a razor, not an ice pick.
Inner Thigh : A slashing weapon can open up a major artery on the inner thigh, which is traditionally lightly armored, due to necessity of walking. :)
Spine : A slashing weapon can sever a spinal cord with a relatively light penetration, and a bludgeoning weapon can crush a spine even through armor.
Elbow : See Knee above.
Hamstrings : Relatively easy to slash them.
Kidneys : A bludgeoning weapon can easily damage kidneys. For that matter, any internal organ in the abdomen. Again, the whole idea of a bludgeoning weapon is mass transferring energy over a large area.
Nononononono.
The killing areas you want are anything neck related, liver, spleen, kidneys, heart, brain or major arteries. Almost anything else is what you would call a non-vital area. I am counting the eyes as a brain part here, but you would be hard pressed to slash both eyes in one go. Nose is the bulbous thingy in the middle of the face, you know. The spine is a very sturdy organ, easily equated with a column of steel, so don't imagine you could do much to it without crushing it, no matter how sharp your edge or point is. The vulnerable part is the cervical spine. As for internal organs, you will bleed to death pretty quickly from a hit in the spleen, kidneys or liver. As for arteries, you need to hit the upper arms or legs, preferably at the groin or the shoulders, because they grow smaller quickly and bleeding is related to size of the cross section. Slashing your wrists are a lousy way to die, and in fact a piercing weapon is a far better option. Finally, the skull is a very tough obstacle, so if you want to kill someone through a brain hit, you need a crushing weapon. Generally, crushing weapons were considered far more lethal than other kinds, especially when applied to armoured foes. And finally, the idea of a crushing weapon is to apply as much force/weight as possible against as SMALL an area as possible. Warhammers were not blocks of stone with a haft, and maces and the like had spikes.
|
|
Reminds me of 1st edition when some armor was better against some weapons!
Dwarf to elf
diplomacy check
Rogue's had it kinda nice then. Remember weapon speeds? The rogue with the dagger was almost always going first because you subtracted your weapon speed from your initiative. Then if you had a second attack you had to subtract your weapon speed again and wait for that initiative to come up for your second attack.
The fighter with the great sword was going last.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter with the great sword was going last.
Making the last attack is better than the first ;)
Also, OP, where does it say that sneak attack needs to penetrate armor? A slash over armor is painful. A perfectly executed one is moreso. A sneak-attack with a scimitar for a total of 5d6 is not gonna kill the fighter with 200 hp. He is not inflicting damage to his vitals.
What you are describing is terminal damage, not just severe damage, and the mechanic for that is NOT sneak attack, but the assassin's death attack.
I am just curious alch, but would you disagree that in a real life situation, a slashing weapon like an axe or a big sword would end up doing bludgeoning damage to a heavily armored target? I mean if a mace could take out a knee as you seem to agree, wouldnt an axe swung at the same place do a similar amount of damage even if it didnt cut through the armor?Ok, because you ask, I'll present my argument one last time.
If a slashing weapon, that isn't designed to do bludgeoning damage, is reduced to doing that, then it will do less damage. Especially if you compare it to the much higher damage a specialized piercing or bludgeoning weapon could deal on the same attack.
What makes it worse for the slashing weapon, is that as soon as it's blade doesn't hit in a perfect 90 degree angle, the kinetic force it delivers drops even more. This, by the way, is the main advantage of a mace compared to bladed slashing weapons and even hammers; it doesn't have a "front side" and is always effective if it hits.
Also, as a side note, the flanges of the specific type of mace called the 'flanged mace' were not sharp edged. Their main purpose was to be the support of sharp points. As such, they wouldn't deal slashing damage, but could be considered as a sort of morningstar (which, as per the rules, deals bludgeoning and piercing damage).My argument is that, because of this reduced effectiveness, slashing weapons shouldn't be usable for a sneak attack, which is an ability that is supposed to do extra damage to a vital spot in 1 hit.
How one could consider this an "inconsistent argument" is beyond me...
I guess I missed it in your earlier posts I admit that I havent read everything in this thread, so I apologize if it was retread, but I didnt say I thought you were inconsistent. I dont agree with you, as I said I think it is an odd time to decrease the abstraction of combat, but I dont think what you are saying is inconsistent.
I disagree (heartly) with the OP about slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons being the factor that should decide about sneak attack.
Sorry, but you will have a HARD time trying to convince me that a Pike, Lance, Spear, or Spetum are more "sneak attack" than a pair of Kukris, a Club, or a Sabre. I'm black belt in ninjutsu, and I can tell you, with confidence, that slashing weapons, such as Kama, work just fine for "sneak attacks". So does a nunchaku. I have never trained with Kukris, but I've heard that Ghurkas Special Forces use them for excelent sneak attack silent kills.
I might agree that Sneak Attack should be done with medium weapons at most. Charging with a lance to a flanking position and getting a sneak attack bonus is somewhat not working in my mind.
However, Rogues aren't exactly overpowered. So probably any change that restrict them is out of place.
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.
You have to remember that the foe "cannot defend themselves properly" so it doesn't have to be a really fast blow. Your opponent could be open to attack for several seconds. And the difference between swinging a club and stabbing with a dagger is MAYBE a second at most. Look how fast baseball players swing a bat some time.
Also a sneak attack is not just aiming for a vital organ. It is taking advantage of ANY part of the body that your opponent cannot properly defend. Feint high then hack off a few toes counts just as much as feinting left then poking a kidney.
Besides there is no difference rules-wise between the speed of swinging a club and stabbing with a dagger.
Now if you want to go back to D&D 2nd ed when they had weapon speeds, be my guest. But that was a nightmare to keep track of and fairly broken to boot.
I've always thought that to bring sneak attacking back into the realm of sneaking and striking, Stealth would need fixed, first.
Making it a "stealth strike" potentially implies that it would need to be done as a standard action or as part of a special full-round action, and that only one "strike" could be executed.
In other to do THAT, it would need to be an uber-strike, along the strength levels of the cavalier's charge or the paladin's smite.
But, Stealth would need fixed first.
And with that sort of change, rogue talents would likely need altered, too.
It's a domino effect, unfortunately.
I guess I missed it in your earlier posts I admit that I havent read everything in this thread, so I apologize if it was retread, but I didnt say I thought you were inconsistent. I dont agree with you, as I said I think it is an odd time to decrease the abstraction of combat, but I dont think what you are saying is inconsistent.
No need to apologize. You asked politely, so I gladly answered.
Would that some others in this thread had your good tone and civility.And I even agree with you that it is a slightly arbitrary reduction of abstraction, especially since it does ignore the effectiveness of slashing attacks against unarmored opponents. Which is why I acknowledged that, overall, it isn't strong enough to necessitate a change.
Also, the comment about my supposedly inconsistent arguments was not directed at you, but at karkon.
All weapons are less effective when the angle of attack is not ideal. Both the force of the blow and the point hit need to be appropriate for maximum effectiveness.
This really gets to the heart of your inconsistent and arbitrary arguments. You talk about angle of attack and not getting all you can out of an attack and ignore all the cases where that applies to pointed weapons.
In your mind stabbing weapons seem to have armpit and armor chink seeking points. They never hit at an angle that is less than perpendicular. Yet every other weapon we discuss is wielded by inept morons who don't know which part is the dangerous part.
As I have said before give bashing and slashing weapons the same benefit of the doubt you give stabbing weapons and your points are moot.
Yet again, you manage to ignore most of my arguments, including my main point. (Color me surprised...)
First, and that was my main point, slashing weapons do reduced damage against armored targets because they are reduced to doing bludgeoning damage, which they were not designed for.
ADDITIONALLY, you have the problem that the slashing weapon needs to hit a relatively small area (the vital spot) with a relatively long edge. This problem is compounded by the fact that the small target area is surrounded by heavier armor, which means that if the slashing edge also touches the surrounding area it is deflected. Add to this the fact that the weapon needs a 90 degree angle and you have an almost unmanageable attack.
Second, one of my points you conveniently ignored, was that bludgeoning weapons and especially the mace are designed so that they ARE independent of the attack angle. As long as you make contact, you deal damage. The mace in particular was specifically designed to have no facing.
In the case of piercing weapons, yes, they do have the problem of reduced effectiveness at a bad attack angle. HOWEVER, unlike slashing weapons, they have a small tip that is able to hit the small target area and deliver ALL the force to the target.
Thus, to sum things up, slashing weapons are doubly penalized. They can't hit the target area well AND they are reduced to dealing a type of damage they were not designed to.
I might agree that Sneak Attack should be done with medium weapons at most. Charging with a lance to a flanking position and getting a sneak attack bonus is somewhat not working in my mind.
Good point.
If you say so -- a slashing weapon does an excellent job at cutting through limbs and vital spots as far as I can tell.
Wasn't Houdini killed by a punch he was not ready for? Sounds like a Sneak Attack to me. ;)
Yet again, you manage to ignore most of my arguments, including my main point. (Color me surprised...)
First, and that was my main point, slashing weapons do reduced damage against armored targets because they are reduced to doing bludgeoning damage, which they were not designed for.
ADDITIONALLY, you have the problem that the slashing weapon needs to hit a relatively small area (the vital spot) with a relatively long edge. This problem is compounded by the fact that the small target area is surrounded by heavier armor, which means that if the slashing edge also touches the surrounding area it is deflected. Add to this the...
That would be an argument about being unable to sneak attack people in full plate. Why would I not be able to use a Kukri, or Kama, to strike vital spots against an unarmored target? Or light armored? Or medium armored? Or even people in full plate but without a full helmet (like, say, a paladin with a "head band of charisma")
So, bassically, I should use sneak attack with slashing weapons against Sorcerer, Wizards, Rogues, Rangers, Druids, Barbarians, and most Clerics and paladins, plus all animals, magical beasts, aberrations, and most outsiders, fey, etc. What's the point, really?
That would be an argument about being unable to sneak attack people in full plate. Why would I not be able to use a Kukri, or Kama, to strike vital spots against an unarmored target? Or light armored? Or medium armored? Or even people in full plate but without a full helmet (like, say, a paladin with a "head band of charisma")
So, basically, I should use sneak attack with slashing weapons against Sorcerer, Wizards, Rogues, Rangers, Druids, Barbarians, and most Clerics and paladins, plus all animals, magical beasts, aberrations, and most outsiders, fey, etc. What's the point, really?
As I acknowledge before, the fact that slashing weapons would only have problems with medium and especially heavy armor, is why overall, the argument isn't strong enough.
What remains, is an inconsistency that has to be accepted as an abstraction (unless one wanted to unnecessarily complicate the rules, which I wouldn't).Conversely, your argument that sneak attacks should be restricted to one-handed or smaller weapons, doesn't suffer from this problem.
Polearms offer a slight problem with that in my mind, and a lance used while on horse back is handled as if it was a one handed weapon (in addition we have the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe).
Technically bows are two handed too aren't they? It would require more refinement (though not as much as trying to separate out based on damage type).
A war scythe is a different deal.
I thought sneak attacks were best made with siege weapons...
im going to suspect this opening poster is not a cat owner,
cats are natures rogues. they without doubt do slashing claw and piercing bite damage. as can be visible by the many scratches cat owners have when they roughhouse with thier cats. cats also scoff at whatever long sleeved impromptu armor you try to use. =D
their claws drag and slash through flesh and skin quite easy. i imagine weapons act in the exact way when your looking at blades.
you might try to bring up that a cat is a cat and cant rip through plate armor. fair enough, lets go with lions.
lions claws also rake through flesh and modern car doors quite easily.
bears with large claws also ripe and peel cars and garbage dumpters (aka garbage armour) effortlessly. armor/steel/metal to slashing weapons is a afterthought.
=) in conclusion, yay cats,
Hit points are an abstract concept, not a 'realistic' one.
You aren't walking around with 30 arrows sticking out and fighting away at full effectiveness, the damage is abstracted to represent close calls, battle fitness, actual small glancing blows and grazes etc.
You aren't always being literally 'hit'.
NEVER do this.
Never describe hits as 'near misses' because if you do, you run the risk of having to make up some BS reason why the "brave" warrior without a scratch on him due to multiple 'near misses' is retreating from a battle in full sight of his soldiers, his lord, or his lady love.
Damage is damage, and as long as you describe it as such, no observer would ever question the courage, honor or character of a wounded warrior, dripping with blood, pierced by many arrows and partially on fire who withdrew from a fight.