The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
I don't see anything in there about losing Dex bonus to AC, therefore you won't be sneak attacking it as the dead horse walks around taunting the rules and common sense.
Rynjin, is this some of that "player entitlement" I keep hearing about?
|
What is with the influx of "The rules don't matter, I don't care if other posters point them out to me, I want devs to come down and clarify every tiny clearly spelled out in the rules bit of stuff" people lately?
To me it just screams "I recently made a horrible argument about an established rule and I'm desperately trying to get some support for it."
But that's just me.
Wait at Ninten mentioning Golems: Are Golems still immune to Sneak Attacks & Criticals? Didn't that get changed?
Rynjin, is this some of that "player entitlement" I keep hearing about?
Looks more like GM Entitlement to me!
Let the derail begin!
I thought so. So even Golems are vulnerable. Which is fitting. Anyone who has had to demolish one of those infernal cement statues can attest to. And they will also understand why I call them infernal.
While it's not 100% related to your question, there is this post by a developer. In it, he explains that when you are invisible and attack, you lose the bonuses of invisibility for all future attacks that round. Now, this was answering a question of whether or not a full-attack sneak attack when invisible would give you multiple sneak attacks.
If there was a hard limit of one sneak attack per round, then the answer given by the developer makes no sense: you wouldn't be getting more than one anyway, so why does it matter when invisibility ends?
Oh, and this in particular.
After your invisibility breaks, normal conditions of the attack apply. Sometimes that means you'll be able to continue getting sneak attacks (flat-footed, blind, helpless), sometimes it doesn't.Emphasis his (which should be obvious, really, as it the emphasis doesn't help the issue at hand.)
Dev saying you can keep on getting more sneak attacks per round if the conditions are right :)
Yes, this was a large debate, which is why in my answer I said "when you are FLANKING". But in PF it's pretty clear- Invis can only be depended upon to get you one good sneak.
I believe the OP has left. You all can stop saying the same thing over and over again.
He was here just three hours ago, and continued his untenable stance even after several solid answers, so perhaps he is still not convinced. OTOH, if he's isn't convinced by now, he can't be.
I believe the OP has left. You all can stop saying the same thing over and over again.He was here just three hours ago, and continued his untenable stance even after several solid answers, so perhaps he is still not convinced. OTOH, if he's isn't convinced by now, he can't be.
Oh come on, that horse isn't half dead enough yet.
|
Am I reading the posts right that I have over 50 responses and none of them yet by GM with any stars, an official of Paizo, or a venture officer?
I appreciate the comments (except the dead horse rant), but I'd like to know what's official so that I can judge by the rules for future OP events. In the game in question, it didn't matter anyway because the 2nd attack missed, but I want to have a definite answer for my player who will doubtless use two weapons again with an ally trying to help him flank.
The comments about D&D 3.0/3.5 don't answer the questions about PFRPG, which has some distinct differences and gets new things ruled via post and FAQ and new additional resources that become legal for OP. When I speak of the "spirit of the rule", I am coming from an ancient perspective and am talking about how the current PRFRP flanking sneak attack was designed to be similar (or different) in flavor from 1st ed D&D which I've played since the 1970s.
My question is 2 parts: "what is the rule" and "what should it be"? An answer that I am picking on rogues is pointless. Some of my best friends are rogues and I don't think any less of them because they can't stand in the front line and dish out the same damage as fighter-types. When did that ever become a requirement of that class? PFRPG already gives rogues and arcane types more hit points than D&D did, and I never really saw that as a necessity for a good fantasy RPG. In fact, I've had rogues help the party accomplish missions several times using skill checks and other actions that helped the party avoid some combats entirely. You can be a valuable character in the party in lots of ways besides melee if you understand the group objective, your role in the party, and how your skills and abilitiies can best be used.
In the end, the answer will be what the designers and editors want the role of the rogue to be in this game system. If the current player base is demanding rogues that are more capable of delivering damage in melee, then I suppose the answer will be that multiple attacks in one round all qualify as sneak attacks, (even if the opponent becomes aware of that risk) as long as you have an ally on the opposite side. I don't have to like the answer (or use it in my home games) but I think what appears to be the common thinking on the advantage of flanking is worth challenging here.
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?
I'm not going to bore anyone with hit probabilities and damage averages, but there are also cases (weapon finesse, lower ACs, lower levels) where the rogue's chance to hit really isn't that much different from the fighter's. The question isn't about whether each class can do comparable damage - it's more about whether you can be repeatedly sneaky in one round just because there is someone standing across from you. Most of you are saying that's the rule, and if that is the case, the more significant question is "should it be the rule"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it should.
And it is. Wraithstrike has linked more than one James Jacobs quote, did you read them? Your question has already been officially answered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I told you it wasn't dead enough yet. It's gonna take some beating on this dead horse to make it dead enough. I guess it requires magic weapons or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stars do not show up outside of the PFS forums, so they wouldn't appear here. Further, the developers rarely answer questions where the poster says "Dev response required" because that sets up a precedent for others to try to do that. You could try to convince others to hit the FAQ button, as this does come up once in a blue moon, but the answer won't differ from the one you've been given.
Further, the developers have already stated it. Once again, I link you to this post.
But Mergy, as the venture-captain of Ontario with three stars and someone on the Paizo blog right now explaining the rules, what say you?
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?
Nope. Rules-wise, facing does not matter, nor is a sneak attack a backstab.
I'll leave the group with an example that is a little more extreme. In the game in question, the rogue was significantly higher level than the other party members. It was only a few levels here, but it could have been more. Could a 1st level fighter hireling with one attack really distract a BBEG such that the rogue on the other side could repeatedly strike him with sneak attacks? Wouldn't the guy just turn around and defend himself from the real threat?
Actually, even if he turns around to defend himself from the real threat, every hit that real threat manages to get past its victim's defenses, would still be a sneak attack, as long as the baby fighter is threatening him from the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I reading the posts right that I have over 50 responses and none of them yet by GM with any stars, an official of Paizo, or a venture officer?
..
We quoted James Jacobs the freaken Creative Director of Paizo, what more do you want? Him to come by and post again to say the same thing? Geez, you'd be one of those guys that when Moses brought down the tablets would insist on talking to the Big Guy himself.
Trust me, the rogue is the most nerfed class in Pathfinder. By far. It's down there with the poor bard & Monk, but even the Bard has a special role few other classes can fill.
If they do anything to the rogue in the next edition i.e. "what the rules should be" it will get a boost, not a nerf.
If I say I am a Dev would it make you happy?
I suspect Diversion, up thread, got pretty close to the real issue here.
Anyone who didn't have an agenda on this would have accepted the unanimous agreement of the entire board on this.
Offensive Defense rogue talent.
Benefit: When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for one round.
Does the dodge bonus from the “offensive defensive” rogue talent (Advanced Player’s Guide, page 131) stack with itself? Does it apply to everyone, or just to the target I’m attacking?
There are two issues relating to this rogue talent.
One, in the first printing it provided a +1 circumstance bonus against the attacked target, which was a very weak ability. The second printing update changed it from a circumstance bonus to a dodge bonus, but accidentally omitted the “against that creature” text, which made it a very strong ability.
Two, it doesn’t specify whether the dodge bonus stacks with itself, and because this creates a strange place in the rules where bonuses don’t stack from the same source but dodge bonuses always stack. While we haven’t reached a final decision on what to do about this talent, we are leaning toward this solution: the dodge bonus only applies against the creature you sneak attacked, and the dodge bonus does not stack with itself. This prevents you from getting a dodge bonus to AC against a strong creature by sneak attacking a weak creature, and prevents you from reaching an absurdly high AC by sneak attacking multiple times in the same round.
There you go. Proof that you can sneak attack multiple times in the same round by the Pathfinder Design Team.
Amusingly, while searching for a developer response, I found a clarification by Sean that humans pee and poop. No word on elves though.
Hope that helps! :)
@Cheapy: Wait what!? That actually came up?
Well you have to admit weather rouges get sneak attack on full attacks does not come up much.
Peter, I assume you must have a little familiarity with AD&D? Because that's the most likely source of your misconceptions about sneak attack in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. The target no longer needs to be unaware of the attack as he did in AD&D. Rather, he just needs his defenses hampered by being flanked or losing his Dex bonus to AC. Those are the conditions that matter in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Being unaware of the attack is merely one means of achieving that condition.
|
|
James Jacobs again..
Thanks, this is what I was looking for (for part 1 of the question). A JJ post I'd take for granted as the official rule as of the date of the post.
For some reason, the link didn't open the first time I clicked it, and a sea of less helpful messages distracted me in the interim. I must have been searching the PFS board or somewhere else to miss this thread the first time through.
A few of the posters perhaps should read the "most important rule" for the messageboards below. I just want to do right by my players, and folks should be happy that there are GMs who care enough to search for official rulings when they find something that they feel is unclear or unfair or against the intent of the rules, from their perspective.
I still don't like the rule here, but I'll use it for OP until such time as it ever may change. IMO this overrates the advantages of flanking, but as I said, I'm of the school where you only got extra damage of this sort from a surprise backstab. It's a whole new world out there with today's players and rules for actions that depend so heavily on relative positions on the grid. Obviously there are some folks that have been playing this way for a "long time" in their perspective - perhaps almost 2 years if they were reading James' posts that far back. For me, a long time ago in RPG play experience would be 2-3 decades ago. I've only been checking Paizo message boards for about 6 months. Most of my experience on how things should work comes from earlier sources, and the current rules don't always agree.
Thanks also to anyone else who tried to respond in a helpful manner.
Finally, that horse is dead.
Peter, if you don't recognize that your attitude is the reason for the responses you got, I dunno what to tell you man.
IMO this overrates the advantages of flanking, but as I said, I'm of the school where you only got extra damage of this sort from a surprise backstab.
Obviously there are some folks that have been playing this way for a "long time" in their perspective - perhaps almost 2 years if they were reading James' posts that far back. For me, a long time ago in RPG play experience would be 2-3 decades ago.
You know, we have had a rogue for about 10 levels now. If/when he gets into flanking and can do a FAO, the Monster squishes him like a bug the next round, and he's down. Getting two rounds in a row would be very unusual. And since his BAB is only modest, he misses more than he hits even so. So yeah, it seems powerful, but it's not.
Since 1974 for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab. Sneak attack is not backstab.
I still don't like the rule here, but I'll use it for OP until such time as it ever may change. IMO this overrates the advantages of flanking, but as I said, I'm of the school where you only got extra damage of this sort from a surprise backstab. It's a whole new world out there with today's players and rules for actions that depend so heavily on relative positions on the grid. Obviously there are some folks that have been playing this way for a "long time" in their perspective - perhaps almost 2 years if they were reading James' posts that far back. For me, a long time ago in RPG play experience would be 2-3 decades ago. I've only been checking Paizo message boards for about 6 months. Most of my experience on how things should work comes from earlier sources, and the current rules don't always agree.
Peter, the rule isn't going to change and it's not merely been in effect since JJ's post 2 years ago. This has been the rule on sneak attack for a little more than a decade when it debuted with 3.0 and, clearly, that includes the entirety of Pathfinder's existence. PF's main change to sneak attack has been to reduce the number of creatures immune to it. That's quite a long enough time for it to be a "long time".
It's true that there are differences between Pathfinder and AD&D, but you've got to let yourself trust the newer rules and trust your ability to comprehend what they say when they disagree with the older rules. And if you're confused by something, you should ask on these boards but also be prepared to accept the answers of people genuinely trying to be helpful rather than holding out for an "official" answer. A bit of skepticism is healthy, overly bullheaded skepticism is not.
@meatrace: You forgot to say Om in your Meditation.
It's not backstab!!
It honestly sounds like you need to forget what you know from D&D and just read the Pathfinder books for a bit. If you call sneak attack backstab then you've got your wires crossed, man.
It's not backstab!!
It honestly sounds like you need to forget what you know from D&D and just read the Pathfinder books for a bit. If you call sneak attack backstab then you've got your wires crossed, man.
Well, sure, reading the PF book and understanding Pathfinder rules instead of shoe-horning what he did read into the mental box he had for AD&D would have been better. Then we'd never have even had this thread.
But that's a rather minor issue compared to coming to an active gaming board, asking a question about a rule and having unanimous agreement from the board members and still refusing to accept that and then demanding an "official" response from someone he would consider an authority.
The first is just a misunderstanding that can be quickly cleared up.
The second is... well... let's just say if I'm ever an innocent man in court I just hope he's not on the jury...
Some peoples' kids...
I think he's just looking at the potential of 4 attacks with haste or somesuch at level 20 potentially hitting for 28d6 plus weapon damage. It's an impressive number of dice but really only comes to about 100 DPR assuming it all hits. What he fails to realize that fighters, barbarians and wizards can effectively do more than that by then.
Either that or he's playing by old rules and a player is somehow getting way more attacks that bloat that number drastically and he's trying to scramble to figure out how and why.
Well Buri, if he was so badly mistaken (and so hard to convince) on one of the very core features of a core class, you could well be right, and he could be confused on other rules.
But he must have an understanding of single attacks vs full attacks to have even asked the question he did, so one would think that he would be aware of greatsword wielding raging barbarians making four or five attacks per round at 2d6+24 per round or so...
Or you'd think so.
Anyway, I probably should have just let it slide, but there's something about a person coming to an entire group of practiced, experienced, knowledgeable people to ask a question and then telling the entire group that they must be wrong.
It's like someone going to the orchestra and asking "What key are you playing in?" and refusing to accept an answer until the conductor came back from bathroom break or something. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
Hey AD, if you're up for another question now that this ones been answered what do you say you check out my Sword of the Planes post? :P Warning: it involves math.
Go for it. I generally don't post links to my thread in other threads though. Manners and all.