Hey, has a question about the wording involving the Rogue class. Our DM ruled that our Rogue couldn't opt to avoid using a Sneak Attack on an ally who had the Confused condition, making said ally flat footed. Our DM is willing to flex on this if there's an errata or a post from the game developers. Anybody know anything in regards to this class feature interaction?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the rogue have to sneak attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems wrong. I wouldn't enforce that.
However, have your rogue attack using non-lethal damage. The sneak attack would be as well.
I think some context would help as to why the rogue doesn't want to do that.
Taking damage gives a character a new save to recover from the confused condition.
Taking damage gives a character a new save to recover from the confused condition.
One of the Rogue's allies is affected by the Confused condition. Taking damage allows for another save against the condition. Given that it's still an ally, he wants to do as little actual damage to it as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly.
Which is why I suggest using non-lethal damage. It will have the same type, and if the character keeps failing the DC 11 flat check, you can just knock him out.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking there's no 'may' or 'can' in the sneak attack description.
But both given the context and the flavor of sneak attack this feels like a weird thing to do to two of your players idk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the kind of thing devs aren't going to make explicit... It seems obvious that extra damage for stabbing someone in the kidney can be avoided by simply not stabbing their kidney. If your GM insists regardless then the solution is to do the sneak attack as a nonlethal punch.
If the GM follows RAW that strictly, just attack with the hilt of your dagger (Improvised weapon). You will suffer a -2 to attack but will lose the damage from Sneak Attack.
You're right, that would strongly reduce your chances to hit. But the goal would be reached.
Technically, a punch being Finesse you'll apply Sneak Attack so it doesn't solve the issue of dealing far too much damage to an ally.
I would personally allow a player to forgo Sneak Attack, because by concept a character who is skilled enough to focus his attacks on weak points is skilled enough to avoid them.
By RAW your GM is right but I think we need some RAI in this situation.
|
It's similar to landing a crit when trying to knock someone out.
You hit them exactly as you wanted, but now you deal double damage and they are dead, too bad...
Quite clear RAW, but not fun.
I think the hilt or an umarmed strike (aka slap) with 1d4+x are good solutions, but if the DM does not agree there is not much to do about it.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The in-game outcome is more than a little ridiculous. "Oh no! I'm so sorry, I'm TOO GOOD, I can't HELP hitting all your weak points! I swear I'm moving my hand towards your armguards but DAMMIT I stabbed your kidneys again! And now I've twisted the knife, Oh no!"
Hey, has a question about the wording involving the Rogue class. Our DM ruled that our Rogue couldn't opt to avoid using a Sneak Attack on an ally who had the Confused condition, making said ally flat footed. Our DM is willing to flex on this if there's an errata or a post from the game developers. Anybody know anything in regards to this class feature interaction?
As others have said, there is unfortunately no "can" clause in Sneak Attack. If you land a Strike, and qualify for Sneak Attack, you get Sneak Attack whether you want it or not.
Your best bet here, if your GM isn't willing to budge, is for the Rogue to have a Frying Pan (d4, simple, no agile, no finnesse) to bonk people with just for this situation (unless they're Ruffians, in which case the non-lethal Punch is your best bet even with Sneak Attack).
But yeah this is one case where I'd rule the Rogue can choose to not apply Sneak Attack if they don't want to.
As a side note, the Barbarian could also ask to not use all his Strength modifier on damage. After all, what prevents you from doing 1 point of damage only?
May I also request casting a cantrip for only one point of damage?
If not, may I request casting a cantrip at Rank 1 instead of at its maximum possible heightened Rank?
|
This is the kind of thing devs aren't going to make explicit... It seems obvious that extra damage for stabbing someone in the kidney can be avoided by simply not stabbing their kidney. If your GM insists regardless then the solution is to do the sneak attack as a nonlethal punch.
Fun note : if the party is 1st level, that might still be enough to cause the target PC to die from massive damage.
As a side note, the Barbarian could also ask to not use all his Strength modifier on damage. After all, what prevents you from doing 1 point of damage only?
Honestly, Barbarian is the only class that such a thing wouldn't fly on my table.
It would have to be a very specific flavor of Barbarian for me to allow this. Otherwise, Barbarians wouldn't normally have the wherewithal to pull their punches while at the same time being into a frenzied rage that confers them superpowers.
Otherwise, as bad as it is, Moment of Clarity would be an actual dead feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have to be a very specific flavor of Barbarian for me to allow this. Otherwise, Barbarians wouldn't normally have the wherewithal to pull their punches while at the same time being into a frenzied rage that confers them superpowers.
Interesting.
Because Barbarians while raging are by default allowed to retreat from battle, use Battle Medicine on an ally, and Feint.
So deciding to hit an ally gently doesn't seem all that out of line.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Barbarian is the only class that such a thing wouldn't fly on my table.
It would have to be a very specific flavor of Barbarian for me to allow this. Otherwise, Barbarians wouldn't normally have the wherewithal to pull their punches while at the same time being into a frenzied rage that confers them superpowers.
Otherwise, as bad as it is, Moment of Clarity would be an actual dead feat.
Moment of Clarity has clear uses, it's far from a dead feat (even if it's a niche one).
Also, I discourage you to tell your player how their Barbarian feel. In my opinion, that's stepping on their territory.
As a side note, the Barbarian could also ask to not use all his Strength modifier on damage. After all, what prevents you from doing 1 point of damage only?
May I also request casting a cantrip for only one point of damage?
If not, may I request casting a cantrip at Rank 1 instead of at its maximum possible heightened Rank?
I mean there's games where you can voluntarily lower any damage you cause as much as you wish, no reason for it to not be an option in PF2e. It'd just never be used 99% of the time, so I'd allow it (then again, I already get rid of the -2 non-lethal rule and just let my players decide if their blows kill a dude or knocks them out, like in Fantasy AGE).
The Cantrip one is also a good point though. You should be able to cast them at whatever rank is available to you. You can do it with Signature Spells, why not with Cantrips? But again this is probably the developers (rightfully) concluding it would be a terrible move 99% of the time, so there's no reason to waste word count.
May I also request casting a cantrip for only one point of damage?
If not, may I request casting a cantrip at Rank 1 instead of at its maximum possible heightened Rank?
If I'm not remembering wrongly there's a note in PC that allows you to cast cantrips/focus spells in a lower rank. But I'm not sure. When the AoN get updated I will search for it again.
|
|
I'm not really seeing any valid justification for allowing the Rogue to disable SA here, even against YOURSELF if you can't target another creature.
Being allowed to pull your punches because it is an ally (or yourself) goes against the entire point of the condition which is that you can't think straight and have to randomly determine who you must attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm not remembering wrongly there's a note in PC that allows you to cast cantrips/focus spells in a lower rank. But I'm not sure. When the AoN get updated I will search for it again.
You might be remembering incorrectly. The rules for Focus spells have not changed.
Focus spells are automatically heightened to half your
level rounded up, just like cantrips are. You can’t cast a
focus spell if its minimum rank is greater than half your
level rounded up, even if you somehow gain access to it.
What you may be remembering instead is that a spontaneous spellcaster is unambiguously allowed to cast a lower Rank spell with a higher Rank spell slot for the lower Rank unheightened spell effect.
Honestly, Barbarian is the only class that such a thing wouldn't fly on my table.
It would have to be a very specific flavor of Barbarian for me to allow this. Otherwise, Barbarians wouldn't normally have the wherewithal to pull their punches while at the same time being into a frenzied rage that confers them superpowers.
Otherwise, as bad as it is, Moment of Clarity would be an actual dead feat.
Moment of Clarity has clear uses, it's far from a dead feat (even if it's a niche one).
Also, I discourage you to tell your player how their Barbarian feel. In my opinion, that's stepping on their territory.
Agree but for fun verisimilitude reasons I might ask it to make it roll a Will save vs its own class DC to check if it's able to control his rage enough to remove it from damage. Yet I still would allow it to remove the Str bonus from dmg. If it has a Moment of Clarity I also would allow it to use it to remove the rage bonus freely.
The other point that I also wouldn't allow is to diminish the number of damage dices of a weapon. IMO try to "slap" someone with a Major Striking rune it's like to try awake someone with a chainsaw! If you want to slap so use your unarmed Strike not your weapon.
If I'm not remembering wrongly there's a note in PC that allows you to cast cantrips/focus spells in a lower rank. But I'm not sure. When the AoN get updated I will search for it again....
What you may be remembering instead is that a spontaneous spellcaster is unambiguously allowed to cast a lower Rank spell with a higher Rank spell slot for the lower Rank unheightened spell effect.
Yes, that's it! Thanks!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really seeing any valid justification for allowing the Rogue to disable SA here, even against YOURSELF if you can't target another creature.
Being allowed to pull your punches because it is an ally (or yourself) goes against the entire point of the condition which is that you can't think straight and have to randomly determine who you must attack.
The rogue who wants to pull their punches is not the character who is confused. The rogue is in their right mind and thinking with their full faculties. The confused person is the one they're considering attacking.
As far as talking to a RAW GM, though...
Sometimes you are able to make the most of your attack through sheer precision.
It's a bit weak as a RAW argument, but the "you are able to" suggests that precision damage in general is voluntary and/or optional. Got that off the damage types rules at https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, the Barbarian could also ask to not use all his Strength modifier on damage. After all, what prevents you from doing 1 point of damage only?
And if I can choose not to apply sneak attack, why not weapon specialization bonus damage? There would need to be some rule for pulling punches and the limits of it, and there's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I go full RAI/narrative explanation:
The reason that taking damage can remove the confused condition is because it causes you to be able to clearly identify who your enemies are - the group of people attacking you.
So if your ally attacks you while you are confused and removes the confused condition, then you would consider your former allies as hostile towards you and act appropriately until the original duration of the confused condition ends.
But that isn't RAW either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for balance considerations:
The strict RAW reading (yes, you have to deal all damage that you are eligible for when hitting an ally to remove the confused condition) makes Snap Out of It a worthwhile feat.
If you are allowed to attack an ally for 1 point of damage with no feat investment, then the value of Snap Out of It goes down dramatically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for balance considerations:
The strict RAW reading (yes, you have to deal all damage that you are eligible for when hitting an ally to remove the confused condition) makes Snap Out of It a worthwhile feat.
If you are allowed to attack an ally for 1 point of damage with no feat investment, then the value of Snap Out of It goes down dramatically.
I'd say Snap Out of It's value would go down very slightly, if at all, rather than dramatically. The feat is much, much more useful than just removing Confused, and even if we were only taking into account how good it is at removing Confused, it doesn't require dealing damage and it gives a +1 to the save, making it much better than whacking your friend even for 1 damage, since that requires an attack roll and then a flat check. The only downsides are the immunity, and the range.
So no I don't think allowing you to attack an Ally for low damage makes Snap Out of It worth significantly less. It's still a great feat.
There is also No! No! I Created You!, Knock Sense, Defiance Unto Death, and Elucidating Mercy as well.
Knock Sense seems particularly applicable to this discussion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's similar to landing a crit when trying to knock someone out.
You hit them exactly as you wanted, but now you deal double damage and they are dead, too bad...
Quite clear RAW, but not fun.
I think the hilt or an umarmed strike (aka slap) with 1d4+x are good solutions, but if the DM does not agree there is not much to do about it.
It think the rogue example is much worse. You can absolutely kill people by accident. Mechanically, its unlikely beyond low level NPCs and almost impossible if you're using a d4 improvised weapon or unarmed attack without runes. And if you're dealing with a foe that fragile beyond level 4 they probably pose no threat and I wouldn't even bother rolling dice. Just have the player tell me what they want to do and that happens.
The rogue example is more relevant for all levels of play, and precision damage is explicitly targeting weak points, which is why it doesn't work on creatures without them. You should also just be able to... not do that. Or else you get Sy's "Oh no! I'm so sorry, I'm TOO GOOD, I can't HELP hitting all your weak points! I swear I'm moving my hand towards your armguards but DAMMIT I stabbed your kidneys again! And now I've twisted the knife, Oh no!"
That feels VERY different than just being too strong for your own good.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really seeing any valid justification for allowing the Rogue to disable SA here, even against YOURSELF if you can't target another creature.
Being allowed to pull your punches because it is an ally (or yourself) goes against the entire point of the condition which is that you can't think straight and have to randomly determine who you must attack.
The rogue who wants to pull their punches is not the character who is confused. The rogue is in their right mind and thinking with their full faculties. The confused person is the one they're considering attacking.
As far as talking to a RAW GM, though...
Sometimes you are able to make the most of your attack through sheer precision.It's a bit weak as a RAW argument, but the "you are able to" suggests that precision damage in general is voluntary and/or optional. Got that off the damage types rules at https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335
You could also use the description of Sneak attack that mentions "your enemy".
In fact the whole sentence is a great argument for being able to decide to add sneak attack or not : "When your enemy can't properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage."
Taking advantage is a very conscious choice.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry. The designers to have to write down that you can not use a character ability you have control over unless it's something like rage. You don't have to sneak attack if you don't want to. It's not like your rogue is mindlessly sneak attacking because they have no control over it.
Tabletop RPGs are not mindless games where the characters execute their abilities because they have them with no control.
If the rogue doesn't want to sneak attack and hit the vitals, they don't have to. I don't need the designers to write that down for me. Sneak Attack has always been optional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was the rogue in this fight. Seemed weird to me to lose agency in something that requires precise (and to my mind, intentional) damage. When you consider that the Confused condition imposes the Flt-Footed condition as well, there would be no way for a character with the sneak attack ability to avoid using it under a strict ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry. The designers to have to write down that you can not use a character ability you have control over unless it's something like rage. You don't have to sneak attack if you don't want to. It's not like your rogue is mindlessly sneak attacking because they have no control over it.
Tabletop RPGs are not mindless games where the characters execute their abilities because they have them with no control.
If the rogue doesn't want to sneak attack and hit the vitals, they don't have to. I don't need the designers to write that down for me. Sneak Attack has always been optional.
I slap my chum on the back. "Good job!"
He explodes.What?! Dang it. Forgot to turn off my Sneak Attack again!
That's in the silly "can't control new superhero powers" comedy realm, not high fantasy with a well-trained expert making precise, chosen motions. So yeah, one can absolutely "turn off" Sneak Attack by ya' know, just attacking (which if anything should be easier!).
As for reducing other damage, that falls into a gray zone IMO as many are tied to general competency or a weapon's firepower.
I slap my chum on the back. "Good job!"
He explodes.
What?! Dang it. Forgot to turn off my Sneak Attack again!
I'm reading this as hyperbole. Because that is what makes sense to me. And it is a pretty good hyperbole example of taking this idea too far.
But certainly the mechanics difference between slapping a chum on the back and making a Strike against a confused ally in order to try and remove the confusion is that the Strike requires an attack roll.
Where I fall on the balance scale is that you can opt to not use precision damage or other damage boosters (including Rage bonus damage and Weapon Expertise), but you are going to be doing the weapon's basic damage plus your attribute (generally Strength) bonus damage. You do have to make an actual attack, but it doesn't have to be a particularly good one.
I would also recommend using nonlethal weapons or taking the penalty and adding nonlethal. But that is a player's choice.
An unarmed attack (in PF2) does nonlethal damage and has Agile and Finesse traits. So a Rogue should be pretty darn awesome at subduing party members (or others) -- and know how NOT to murderate someone.
After all, murder is 15-Life (usually), petty theft is a fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonlethal damage hurts just as much as lethal with the only exception being the final damage taking the target to zero hit points, and you're still knocking them out. "Just do nonlethal" is no consolation!
If anything, one sign of mastery is being able to control the amount of damage one does with a blow, as in sparring or most any media involving a master & disciple, much of which is fantasy and would be simulated with attack rolls. Saying a high-level PC can't spar w/ a 1st level character w/o knocking out the student EVERY SINGLE STRIKE (or worse) is absurd to both the genre and verisimilitude.
---
That said, it seems the easiest answer here seems to be to carry low-level alchemy to do 1 point of splash damage. :-)
Confused condition removal through damage is silly anyway. When you see spells like Warp Mind, it's clear there's an RAI issue somewhere.
Confused condition removal through damage is silly anyway. When you see spells like Warp Mind, it's clear there's an RAI issue somewhere.
Pretty sure the RAI is to prevent the murder-loops one could (and in previous editions did) cause with Confusion, especially on a group. Watched fights where the enemies did most of the damage to each other.
Now it's comparable to Slow w/ extra effects, just not TOO many, though I can't say what the target balance point is/was/should be. Obviously there is an issue with the permanency of Warp Mind if one can bypass the difficult Counteract limits with a solid slap to the face instead. That seems like an oversight where somebody balanced one spell without regard to another (perhaps several others). Would 2 7th Rank spells (w/ failed saves) warrant locking two enemies (likely only at-level or lower) in a death spiral? Thinking about the inverse of two PCs getting tagged and that seems a bit severe though I'd have to run through comparable spells & effects to justify that.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure the RAI is to prevent the murder-loops one could (and in previous editions did) cause with Confusion, especially on a group.
Murder loops have been removed, so there's no issue with that anymore. While Confused you continue to act randomly when attacked, you no more focus on whoever attacked you.
Maybe the issue is that they have both removed the murder loop and added a way to get out of it so now it make Confused a silly condition. Considering how the Condition is "expensive", it should be more than a couple of actions lost.
Confused condition removal through damage is silly anyway. When you see spells like Warp Mind, it's clear there's an RAI issue somewhere.Pretty sure the RAI is to prevent the murder-loops one could (and in previous editions did) cause with Confusion, especially on a group. Watched fights where the enemies did most of the damage to each other.
Now it's comparable to Slow w/ extra effects, just not TOO many, though I can't say what the target balance point is/was/should be. Obviously there is an issue with the permanency of Warp Mind if one can bypass the difficult Counteract limits with a solid slap to the face instead. That seems like an oversight where somebody balanced one spell without regard to another (perhaps several others). Would 2 7th Rank spells (w/ failed saves) warrant locking two enemies (likely only at-level or lower) in a death spiral? Thinking about the inverse of two PCs getting tagged and that seems a bit severe though I'd have to run through comparable spells & effects to justify that.
I had a player critically fail a warp mind save. We thought their character was hammered. Then we read the Confused condition and punched her a couple of times, she was fine. No spell slot or wish or what not required to clear a critical fail on a warp mind. It made a very scary spell pretty much pointless and ridiculous.
Warp Mind is now like most spells: a temporary condition. Even a critical fail.