| DiscOH |
I've heard conflicting accounts for uRogues. The wording under sneak attack had a clause removed stating that rogues could not deal sneak attack damage to targets in concealment (now changed to total concealment). However sneak attack deals precision damage which can not normally damage targets with any concealment.
Archetypes like "Dark Lurker" make assumptions that uRogues already can ignore standard concealment (and rogue talents like Sniper's Eye which grant the ability have been removed).
Basically my question is, should "A [uRogue] cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment." be treated as a rules text reminder (and a very poor one) or ability text to ignore standard concealment.
For completions sake the standard rogue text reads, "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
| Mark Seifter Designer |
Chess Pwn is correct. The reason why the "general rule" you mention for precision damage doesn't apply here is that, oddly and unfortunately for us in later publications, the existence of that rule is a Mandela Effect (I thought it existed too). Precision damage could stand to have been defined explicitly in the CRB, but it actually never was, so we've needed/tried to add in the concealment text every time a new class (like swashbuckler) gets precision damage.
| DiscOH |
Chess Pwn is correct. The reason why the "general rule" you mention for precision damage doesn't apply here is that, oddly and unfortunately for us in later publications, the existence of that rule is a Mandela Effect (I thought it existed too). Precision damage could stand to have been defined explicitly in the CRB, but it actually never was, so we've needed/tried to add in the concealment text every time a new class (like swashbuckler) gets precision damage.
Oh wow, that's really surprising.
Thanks for pointing that out.