PDA

View Full Version : rogues should be able to sneak attack everything



taltamir
2010-03-22, 07:39 PM
everything but oozes should be sneak attackable by default, and oozes should be with the aid of magic.

Sure they don't have internal organs, but they have structural weak points. The rogue is already a specialist in attacking the weak points of creatures (thats pretty much all they have).

Is this too powerful? or a fair change?

Sneak attacking an ooze:
http://www.hookiedookiepanic.com/geist/comic.php?ID=33
"the lake is bleeding, knob... how does -water- bleed!?"
"they are -really- good knives!!!"

Inhuman Bot
2010-03-22, 07:43 PM
There's feats that let you do this, though they are epic, I think.

Frosty
2010-03-22, 07:44 PM
The feat is called: Switching to Pathfinder version of Rogue.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-22, 07:46 PM
everything but oozes should be sneak attackable by default, and oozes should be with the aid of magic.

Sure they don't have internal organs, but they have structural weak points. The rogue is already a specialist in attacking the weak points of creatures (thats pretty much all they have).

Is this too powerful? or a fair change?

Sneak attacking an ooze:
http://www.hookiedookiepanic.com/geist/comic.php?ID=33
"the lake is bleeding, knob... how does -water- bleed!?"
"they are -really- good knives!!!"

Wands of Gravestrike, Golemstrike, and Vinestrike would like to submit that a rogue already can, with minimal investment.

BRC
2010-03-22, 07:51 PM
Wands of Gravestrike, Golemstrike, and Vinestrike would like to submit that a rogue already can, with minimal investment.
Which require the rogue spending extra money(Games do take place at levels where 2250 gold is a big deal), putting ranks into UMD (Which they should anyway), having access to both Spell Compendium and Rules Compendium, and noticing that Rules Compendium changed the way Wands work without drawing any special attention to it.

All to use an already limited class feature against three very common enemy types.

Sorry, I had this discussion before. It just bugs me to see people say "These spells exist, therefore the problem does not exist".

taltamir
2010-03-22, 07:54 PM
Which require the rogue spending extra money(Games do take place at levels where 2250 gold is a big deal), putting ranks into UMD (Which they should anyway), having access to both Spell Compendium and Rules Compendium, and noticing that Rules Compendium changed the way Wands work without drawing any special attention to it.

All to use an already limited class feature against three very common enemy types.

Sorry, I had this discussion before. It just bugs me to see people say "These spells exist, therefore the problem does not exist".

exactly my point... a rogue is such a low tier for a reason (and yes, i know tiers is not just combat powers)...
sure spells and items exist to mitigate those problems, but they shouldn't be necessary... I am saying that rogues should be able to act like that out of the box.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-22, 07:54 PM
Which require the rogue spending extra money(Games do take place at levels where 2250 gold is a big deal), putting ranks into UMD (Which they should anyway), having access to both Spell Compendium and Rules Compendium, and noticing that Rules Compendium changed the way Wands work without drawing any special attention to it.

All to use an already limited class feature against three very common enemy types.

Sorry, I had this discussion before. It just bugs me to see people say "These spells exist, therefore the problem does not exist".

I wasn't aware people ran into Plant type all that frequently. Most of my rogues who duo-wield use a pair of (weapon) with a Wand Sheath. One has Golemstrike, one has Gravestrike. 750 each, total investment of 1,500. I've never really encountered any Plant types, or I'd have a backup wand of Vinestrike, just in case. I do have a Wand of Scorching Ray, though... that should deal with most plants.

taltamir
2010-03-22, 07:55 PM
The feat is called: Switching to Pathfinder version of Rogue.

interesting... i gain more respect towards pathfinder.

BRC
2010-03-22, 07:59 PM
I wasn't aware people ran into Plant type all that frequently. Most of my rogues who duo-wield use a pair of (weapon) with a Wand Sheath. One has Golemstrike, one has Gravestrike. 750 each, total investment of 1,500. I've never really encountered any Plant types, or I'd have a backup wand of Vinestrike, just in case. I do have a Wand of Scorching Ray, though... that should deal with most plants.
Alright 1500 gold and relying on beating a DC20 skill check every round.
It's still reliant on the rogue having access to both Spelll comp and Rules Compendium, and noticing that small change in Rules Compendium (Which supposedly doesn't change anything).

taltamir
2010-03-22, 08:02 PM
Alright 1500 gold and relying on beating a DC20 skill check every round.
It's still reliant on the rogue having access to both Spelll comp and Rules Compendium, and noticing that small change in Rules Compendium (Which supposedly doesn't change anything).

and even if the DM allows those it still requires that the player know this sort of trick. And it still a heft expense for some good levels (especially in lower wealth games)... so it is more sensible to just let them sneak attack things

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-22, 08:03 PM
interesting... i gain more respect towards pathfinder.

He's somewhat correct: Constructs and undead are sneak attack targets in PF. Plants, Oozes, and Elementals, however, remain.

taltamir
2010-03-22, 08:05 PM
odd, plants make more sense for sneak attack then an undead or a golem.
and elementals are technically living creatures...

thanks for clarifying it for me.

Inhuman Bot
2010-03-22, 08:06 PM
odd, plants make more sense for sneak attack then an undead or a golem.
and elementals are technically living creatures...

thanks for clarifying it for me.

Yeah, but they probably don't have the same vulnerabilities to take advantage of as an undead or golem would have from it's death/construction process.

Optimystik
2010-03-22, 08:08 PM
Elementals have no anatomy to speak of. Undead I can see.

Constructs... you're kind of assuming they're all flawed in some way, which isn't really fair to the crafter :smalltongue: and what about astral constructs? They're made out of ectoplasm, how is that different than being an elemental?

Eldariel
2010-03-22, 08:15 PM
Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape already does it. Yeah, I advocate making it default part of the attack á la PF.

taltamir
2010-03-22, 08:17 PM
Elementals have no anatomy to speak of. Undead I can see.

Constructs... you're kind of assuming they're all flawed in some way, which isn't really fair to the crafter :smalltongue: and what about astral constructs? They're made out of ectoplasm, how is that different than being an elemental?

you can make an exception to such constructs then... maybe include a "fortified construct" ability which costs a little extra on creation of construct and makes it immune to sneaks. give it for free to astral constructs.

BRC
2010-03-22, 08:17 PM
Elementals have no anatomy to speak of. Undead I can see.

Constructs... you're kind of assuming they're all flawed in some way, which isn't really fair to the crafter :smalltongue: and what about astral constructs? They're made out of ectoplasm, how is that different than being an elemental?
SA immunity makes sense for Golems, but clockwork type mechanisms have plenty of vulnerable bits.
Also, just because it dosn't bleed dosn't mean some spots don't hurt it more than others. Elbow Joints for example.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-22, 11:42 PM
elementals are technically living creatures...
They're classified as such, but that classification makes no sense. By the rules, you can even give an air elemental a disease, but that's plainly ridiculously stupid.


what about astral constructs? They're made out of ectoplasm, how is that different than being an elemental?
Well then, clearly they should be reclassified as ectoplasm elementals. :smalltongue:

Of the creature types, Elementals and Oozes can't even be flanked. I think that we can safely assume that they're too amorphous to have specific weak spots. Constructs, Undead, and Plants are not subject to critical hits... but maybe at least some of them should be.

And magic definitely shouldn't be required to use a non-spellcasting class's class feature effectively; that's just dumb. A special character option shouldn't even be required. If a creature has weak points, a Rogue should be able to hit them For Massive Damage!, and if it doesn't, then a spell or alternate class feature shouldn't allow anyone to attack its weak points, since they don't exist.

So, yeah, Penetrating Strike for everyone.

cfalcon
2010-03-23, 02:12 AM
He's somewhat correct: Constructs and undead are sneak attack targets in PF. Plants, Oozes, and Elementals, however, remain.

Plants, Oozes, and Elementals are just fine in my book as being sneak attack proof. Hell, elementals are so homogeneous you can't even FLANK them.

If you allow constructs and undead I think you'll likely end up with a better game. If you allow all of them, hey, maybe too. You probably shouldn't allow elementals, because they lack structure, but, whatever.

Sneak attack limitations are one of my pet peeves about the system.

Nuke
2010-03-23, 02:51 AM
Not to hijack the thread or anything, but plants are sneak attackable in PF as well. Oozes, Elementals, Incorporal Undead, and Swarms are not.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack

Killer Angel
2010-03-23, 02:55 AM
Wands of Gravestrike, Golemstrike, and Vinestrike would like to submit that a rogue already can, with minimal investment.

...and for this reason, if you play Core only (or without Spell Compendium), it's a fair house rule. For a golem, a sneak attack is a structural damage.

Smythen
2010-03-23, 05:02 AM
I wasn't aware people ran into Plant type all that frequently. Most of my rogues who duo-wield use a pair of (weapon) with a Wand Sheath. One has Golemstrike, one has Gravestrike. 750 each, total investment of 1,500. I've never really encountered any Plant types, or I'd have a backup wand of Vinestrike, just in case. I do have a Wand of Scorching Ray, though... that should deal with most plants.

Where is wand sheat from? And how does it work?

Runestar
2010-03-23, 05:09 AM
I always assumed that was the reason why sneak attack scaled so quickly for a rogue - you could only affect so many types of foes with it.

I do think that if you revised SA to affect anyone, then maybe it might need to scale at a slower rate (say once every 3 lvs?).

Zeta Kai
2010-03-23, 05:22 AM
In my games, I filled the Rogue's dead level at 14th level with a class feature that lets them SA anything except for oozes & elementals. It gives them a boost when they need it, doesn't break them in any tangible way, has a decent justification, & still lets me throw them in the hot seat when I need to.

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-23, 05:42 AM
I give "sneak attack magically created creatures" as an option for a rogue bonus ability.

The player picked gape of the serpent instead.

I cannot flaw him for style points.

Optimystik
2010-03-23, 05:54 AM
SA immunity makes sense for Golems, but clockwork type mechanisms have plenty of vulnerable bits.

That's still a problem - how do we decide which constructs have SA vulnerability and which don't?


Also, just because it dosn't bleed dosn't mean some spots don't hurt it more than others. Elbow Joints for example.

That would only apply to constructs that approximate humanoid or animal structure - not all of them do by a long shot.

My personal fix would be to give constructs fortification (like Warforged have) rather than full-on critical/SA immunity.


Not to hijack the thread or anything, but plants are sneak attackable in PF as well. Oozes, Elementals, Incorporal Undead, and Swarms are not.

I can't believe I forgot Swarms. I don't see any way you could feasibly SA those.


I always assumed that was the reason why sneak attack scaled so quickly for a rogue - you could only affect so many types of foes with it.

I do think that if you revised SA to affect anyone, then maybe it might need to scale at a slower rate (say once every 3 lvs?).

Giving them a buff isn't that bad an idea, they're only Tier 4.

Runestar
2010-03-23, 05:56 AM
Giving them a buff isn't that bad an idea, they're only Tier 4.

But do they need a buff in that area? Or might rogues be better served by boosting some other area instead?

What exactly makes a rogue tier 4 again? Just because their SA can't affect half the monsters in the MM?

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-23, 06:04 AM
I thought rogues were pretty much the archetypical tier 3, tied with factota.

2xMachina
2010-03-23, 06:05 AM
But do they need a buff in that area? Or might rogues be better served by boosting some other area instead?

What exactly makes a rogue tier 4 again? Just because their SA can't affect half the monsters in the MM?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with.

So, yeah, the SA would be a large part in keeping them from T3.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-03-23, 06:31 AM
You should thank your luck you didn't get a brutal DM! In one of the first 3.0 games I played, the DM read:

"The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot."

And ruled that my 'small' sized rogue could not sneak attack any creature that was large sized or bigger, since I couldn't reach any vital spots. I think he found that the rogue was 'broken' rolling all those SA dice. I was mainly an out of combat rogue for that game...

Killer Angel
2010-03-23, 06:39 AM
And ruled that my 'small' sized rogue could not sneak attack any creature that was large sized or bigger, since I couldn't reach any vital spots. I think he found that the rogue was 'broken' rolling all those SA dice. I was mainly an out of combat rogue for that game...

Very stupid attitude, probably partially justifiable with a poor knowledge of the new (at those time) system.

Correct answer by the wise player: "I don't mind Giant's throat. I'm cutting his leg's tendons" (while rolling SA damage)

SpikeFightwicky
2010-03-23, 06:53 AM
I tried that :smalltongue:

He said it wasn't 'vital' in the context of sneak attack (it'll mess up your stride, but you won't bleed out or die quickly like if you attack the throat/heart/lungs/eyes/etc...)

Nero24200
2010-03-23, 06:57 AM
Sorry, I had this discussion before. It just bugs me to see people say "These spells exist, therefore the problem does not exist". Welcome to D'n'D, where characters need magical equipment to manage. Try playing a game without them at all, even at the lower levels you'll find yourself struggiling. So why is it a problem when rogues tend to go for the same items? Spellcasters always seem to go for metamagic wands, Martial characters always go for better weapons/armour/physical stat buffs, so what's wrong with msot rogues going for certain items?


Yeah, but they probably don't have the same vulnerabilities to take advantage of as an undead or golem would have from it's death/construction process.This is something I don't get, what vulnurbilities? If a rogue cut's a man's arm off, he'll be in alot of pain and may even bleed out. Cut a zombie or skeleton's arm off and you've just inconveinced them.

I understand the zombie movie mentality of "go for the head", but D'n'D isn't a zombie movie. In fact, vampire's are specifially given as an example in the Vorpal weapon entry as function just fine without their head.


I give "sneak attack magically created creatures" as an option for a rogue bonus ability. This, in my opinion, is the best way. It means you can still have rogues sneak attack everything if really wanted, but it means the rogue actually has to give something up to do it.

Rogue's just aren't going to automatically know which cog to knock out of a clockwork golem, or which part's of a treants bark is easiest to peirce. Having someway to show a degree of specialisation would do alot for me personally.

Optimystik
2010-03-23, 07:02 AM
Which require the rogue spending extra money(Games do take place at levels where 2250 gold is a big deal), putting ranks into UMD (Which they should anyway), having access to both Spell Compendium and Rules Compendium, and noticing that Rules Compendium changed the way Wands work without drawing any special attention to it.

All to use an already limited class feature against three very common enemy types.

Sorry, I had this discussion before. It just bugs me to see people say "These spells exist, therefore the problem does not exist".

Agreed completely. Saying Rogues are "fine" because the DM can always bestow Gravestrike and Vinestrike scrolls from on high in his campaign world is textbook Oberoni.

taltamir
2010-03-23, 07:06 AM
Welcome to D'n'D, where characters need magical equipment to manage. Try playing a game without them at all, even at the lower levels you'll find yourself struggiling. So why is it a problem when rogues tend to go for the same items? Spellcasters always seem to go for metamagic wands, Martial characters always go for better weapons/armour/physical stat buffs, so what's wrong with msot rogues going for certain items?
The items listed at 1500 are, if I am not mistaken, custom.
The rogue needs an usually heavy investment into spells and items that are quite far afield from core. Most don't even know that they exist (it requires having asked about it specifically on forums, or having read an inordinate amount of DnD splatbooks in your "free time").
And the rogue needs more magic items then the rest. A rogue with those spells is still not a fighter or a barbarian... besides, why are you comparing them to those weaklings?
your argument that CASTERS need money is simply not true... a metamagic wand is NICE but is not in any way shape or form needed.


This is something I don't get, what vulnurbilities? If a rogue cut's a man's arm off, he'll be in alot of pain and may even bleed out. Cut a zombie or skeleton's arm off and you've just inconveinced them.
If by "inconvenience" you meant "make it unable to attack / defend itself... the best thing to cut off the undead is their legs btw, not head or arms (well, start with the legs, follow by arms, finish with the head)... it doesn't matter if it is still "undead" if it can't move.


This, in my opinion, is the best way. It means you can still have rogues sneak attack everything if really wanted, but it means the rogue actually has to give something up to do it.
No, the rogue being tier 4 specifically means it needs to give up nothing for extra power, until it progresses to a higher tier.


Rogue's just aren't going to automatically know which cog to knock out of a clockwork golem, or which part's of a treants bark is easiest to peirce. Having someway to show a degree of specialisation would do alot for me personally.
Your random peasant isn't going to know that... rogues specialize in hitting the weak points of creatures, and half the creatures are non humans... they should learn which cog to knock.

appending_doom
2010-03-23, 07:09 AM
I tried that :smalltongue:

He said it wasn't 'vital' in the context of sneak attack (it'll mess up your stride, but you won't bleed out or die quickly like if you attack the throat/heart/lungs/eyes/etc...)

They're still tall enough to hit the arteries in the inside of the leg (can't remember the name), though, which, as it was described to me, is like "cutting the bottom off of a styrofoam cup".

Murdim
2010-03-23, 07:14 AM
Foostrike or not, size issues or not, Sneak Attack is killed by fortification anyway. :smallannoyed:

Also, rogues are tier 4 because they have many useful class skills, most importantly Use Magic Device. Without SA, they would probably still be T4. Same with an improved SA. But remove SA, add some nifty class features, and you get the Factotum, a strong T3 class.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-23, 07:17 AM
They're still tall enough to hit the arteries in the inside of the leg (can't remember the name), though, which, as it was described to me, is like "cutting the bottom off of a styrofoam cup".

Femoral artery.

taltamir
2010-03-23, 07:18 AM
btw, in regards to casters needing equipment:
In a recent game I played a heavily nerfed wizard (rearranger) whose sole worldly possession by level 11 was a spellbook and a +2 headband of int... Our sword and board fighter? He had an artifact sword (brilliant energy but can hit basically any enemy you want + totally indestructibly + other stuff). And you know what? I never actually needed any items. A well placed haste, glitterdust, or grease could alter the course of battle. Dungeon delvers ruin means not dying (cast as many of it as you want during the enemy's turn... gain temp HP), disintegrate is full of utility (and is nice to one shot an enemy with), stone skin can make or break a battle, and so on.


Foostrike or not, size issues or not, Sneak Attack is killed by fortification anyway. :smallannoyed:

Also, rogues are tier 4 because they have many useful class skills, most importantly Use Magic Device. Without SA, they would probably still be T4. Same with an improved SA. But remove SA, add some nifty class features, and you get the Factotum, a strong T3 class.

sure you could remove SA and give them better class abilities instead and they will go up... heck, remove SA and give them wizard casting and they will blast past tier 1 to become the best class in the game... whats the point to this argument?


I tried that :smalltongue:

He said it wasn't 'vital' in the context of sneak attack (it'll mess up your stride, but you won't bleed out or die quickly like if you attack the throat/heart/lungs/eyes/etc...)

your DM hates rogues, play something else... its really that simple...

Sometimes a DM a reads a class ability and is frightened, it sounds way overpowered to him... So he nerfs it to nothing. Sometimes the DM is wrong... if you can't convince him play something else.

Nero24200
2010-03-23, 07:27 AM
The rogue needs an usually heavy investment into spells and items that are quite far afield from core. Most don't even know that they exist (it requires having asked about it specifically on forums, or having read an inordinate amount of DnD splatbooks in your "free time"). And non-core is bad why? Core has the most problems when compared to splats.


And the rogue needs more magic items then the rest. A rogue with those spells is still not a fighter or a barbarian... besides, why are you comparing them to those weaklings? Not everyone...or even alot of people, want games where Tier 1 is the standard for balance. Some of us actually like having characters that aren't gods at the mid to high levels. Comparing rogues to "those weaklings" is thus more than approrpaite to aheive some degree of balance. And just an FYI, I said "martial characters", not fighter or barbarian.


your argument that CASTERS need money is simply not true... a metamagic wand is NICE but is not in any way shape or form needed. I don't recall saying they were needed, just that they are objects I see caster's reaching for first in the Magic Item shops.



If by "inconvenience" you meant "make it unable to attack / defend itself... the best thing to cut off the undead is their legs btw, not head or arms (well, start with the legs, follow by arms, finish with the head)... it doesn't matter if it is still "undead" if it can't move. Tell you what then, I'll freely allow sneak attack to be applied when the rogue does make an undead immoboile and helpless by, as you surgested, cutting off both legs and both arms.


Your random peasant isn't going to know that... rogues specialize in hitting the weak points of creatures, and half the creatures are non humans... they should learn which cog to knock. Rogues aren't "specialised in hitting weak points", otherwise they'd have higher BAB and things like fortification shouldn't mean jack to them. Just because they aren't an NPC class doesn't instantly make them a master of everything related to their feild.

If it did, then by the same logic rogues should also get max ranks in every skill, fighter's should be proficent with every weapon that ever exists and wizard's would know about every form of magic that ever existed anywhere.

taltamir
2010-03-23, 07:37 AM
Not everyone...or even alot of people, want games where Tier 1 is the standard for balance. Some of us actually like having characters that aren't gods at the mid to high levels. Comparing rogues to "those weaklings" is thus more than approrpaite to aheive some degree of balance. And just an FYI, I said "martial characters", not fighter or barbarian.
there are plenty of tier 3 martial characters... mostly in tome of battle.

RebelRogue
2010-03-23, 07:38 AM
The feat is called: Switching to Pathfinder version of Rogue.
Or cut the Gordian Knot and switch to 4e...

Killer Angel
2010-03-23, 07:59 AM
This is something I don't get, what vulnurbilities? If a rogue cut's a man's arm off, he'll be in alot of pain and may even bleed out. Cut a zombie or skeleton's arm off and you've just inconveinced them.


think to it as "structural" damage.
You SA a living being? you cut an arter.
You SA an undead? you severely cripple a jointure (the ankle, the neck, etc)

Easily house-ruled with a feat and eventually less damage than the usual SA.


Also, rogues are tier 4 because they have many useful class skills, most importantly Use Magic Device.

Rogues are tier 4 as the norm, but they're not written in stone. A wise combination of Feats, UMD, wands and scrolls, can make'em T3.
The same if you pick an awful spell list, making your sorcerer a tier 3.

Eldariel
2010-03-23, 07:59 AM
Or cut the Gordian Knot and switch to 4e...

...yeah, that's gonna help :smallconfused:

Curmudgeon
2010-03-23, 08:03 AM
Foostrike or not, size issues or not, Sneak Attack is killed by fortification anyway. :smallannoyed:
Which is why the Penetrating Strike ACF is so useful, because it makes sneak attack only half killed by fortification.

Now if we had a similar way to deal with enemies that can't be flanked, Rogues might get a little more respect.

Eldariel
2010-03-23, 08:06 AM
Which is why the Penetrating Strike ACF is so useful, because it makes sneak attack only half killed by fortification.

Now if we had a similar way to deal with enemies that can't be flanked, Rogues might get a little more respect.

Darkstalker works on some of them. Of course, creatures that can't be flanked 'cause they are...well, mostly balls (anything Amorphous), are a bit larger problem.

Runestar
2010-03-23, 08:11 AM
The deadeye shot feat (PHB2) works for ranged attacks (foe hit by another PC is considered flat-footed against ranged attack you ready), somewhat. You will probably want to eventually get improved manyshot so you can apply sneak attack to all your attacks. :smallsmile:

Amiel
2010-03-23, 08:22 AM
The Pathfinder rogue pretty much allows you to sneak attack most things.
For the generic 3.5e game, you could introduce analogous feats (may be rogue specific) to cover this.

Otherwise, you could refluff the class and state the sneak attacks deal precision damage; that target the body irrespective of vital areas.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-03-23, 09:03 AM
They're still tall enough to hit the arteries in the inside of the leg (can't remember the name), though, which, as it was described to me, is like "cutting the bottom off of a styrofoam cup".

Vivid description :smallbiggrin:
If it ever happens again, I'll be sure to reference this arterial info. We were all just starting 3.0 (from 2nd ed.) so I think fear of the new system was keeping the DM weary and house ruling a lot of stuff.

Oddly enough, in a game we started a little later on, another player played a rogue, and after a couple of fights of sneak attacking, the DM had us fighting constructs, undead and oozes most of the time, because he found the SA mechanic too powerful.

Gnaeus
2010-03-23, 09:53 AM
Offer to run a one shot game with pregen level 10 characters. Make one character a barbarian with a high strength, charging with a 2 handed weapon, power attack and shock trooper. One a sorcerer or wizard with lots of high DC save or suck and no-save-just suck spells. One a cleric with Divine Metamagic: Quicken or Persist and half a dozen nightsticks. The last should be a rogue. If your DM is open minded, he will quickly get over the fear of rogues.

BRC
2010-03-23, 09:57 AM
Rogues, like warlocks, seem scarier than they are, because of the big numbers before "D6". However, ignoring the fact that Wizards get even bigger numbers, those D6's arn't as good as people think. Static damage boosts are easier to get and are generally more useful, especially since they arn't situational like a Rogues SA, or since they apply on full attacks unlike a warlocks Eldritch Blast (With the exception of Eldritch Glaive)

cfalcon
2010-03-23, 10:05 AM
I always assumed that was the reason why sneak attack scaled so quickly for a rogue - you could only affect so many types of foes with it.

I do think that if you revised SA to affect anyone, then maybe it might need to scale at a slower rate (say once every 3 lvs?).

Only if you have problems with rogues really rocking the combat in your games. If you having a sneak attack immune in there gives something that "finally, the rogue can't blow up!", then you might not want to run this rule.

In my games, the rogue usually gets punished pretty hard for being in melee, and usually is lower in damage than say, a fighter.

If you have a problem, you could also limit what KINDS of weapons he can sneak attack an undead or construct or whatever with- for instance, it could be limited to melee weapons, as many optimized rogue builds will opt to deliver their sneak attacks with a bow.

I think it would be a pretty safe houserule, or houseruled class feature as some others have said.

Mastikator
2010-03-23, 10:13 AM
everything but oozes should be sneak attackable by default, and oozes should be with the aid of magic.

Sure they don't have internal organs, but they have structural weak points. The rogue is already a specialist in attacking the weak points of creatures (thats pretty much all they have).

Is this too powerful? or a fair change?

Sneak attacking an ooze:
http://www.hookiedookiepanic.com/geist/comic.php?ID=33
"the lake is bleeding, knob... how does -water- bleed!?"
"they are -really- good knives!!!"
Just because a rogue understands that certain organs are especially vulnerable to attacks, and are able to identify where to strike in order to harm these organs, does not mean that said rogue is capable of finding the weak spot of a zombie, which has a completely different type (not just set) of weak spots.
Same with golems.
Same with plants.
Same should apply to outsiders (imo).

I'd say an appropriate knowledge check must at least be met.

Quietus
2010-03-23, 12:12 PM
Just because a rogue understands that certain organs are especially vulnerable to attacks, and are able to identify where to strike in order to harm these organs, does not mean that said rogue is capable of finding the weak spot of a zombie, which has a completely different type (not just set) of weak spots.
Same with golems.
Same with plants.
Same should apply to outsiders (imo).

I'd say an appropriate knowledge check must at least be met.

This is what I've been thinking, reading this whole thread. In my mind, 5 ranks in a skill makes a character a specialist in it - not necessarily "king of the world with this skill", but enough time and effort put into honing your abilities in that area that you know a thing or two. So I'd say, a DC 15+HD check in the relevant area - Architecture/Engineering, Religion, Nature - would allow a rogue to sneak attack that particular creature. I'd still leave oozes, swarms and elementals as outright un-sneak-attack-able, however, as I just can't imagine where you'd sneak attack say, a living fire, to do extra damage.

Ernir
2010-03-23, 12:16 PM
I just can't imagine where you'd sneak attack say, a living fire, to do extra damage.

That just means you don't have enough ranks in Knowledge: The Planes. :smallbiggrin:

BRC
2010-03-23, 12:28 PM
Here's my official opinion on the subject.
Anything that values it's organs (stuff vulnerable to SA under the normal rules) takes full SA damage and full critical damage.

Anything that, while it dosn't bleed,is not homogeneous (Corporeal undead, non-golem constructs, plants) takes half SA damage, and all critical hits have their multiplier reduced by 1. (Penetrating Strike, such a good idea, I think it dosn't need to be an ACF)

Anything that is Homogeneous (Oozes, Elementals, Golems) takes no damage from Sneak Attacks or critical hits.

taltamir
2010-03-23, 01:24 PM
Here's my official opinion on the subject.
Anything that values it's organs (stuff vulnerable to SA under the normal rules) takes full SA damage and full critical damage.

Anything that, while it dosn't bleed,is not homogeneous (Corporeal undead, non-golem constructs, plants) takes half SA damage, and all critical hits have their multiplier reduced by 1. (Penetrating Strike, such a good idea, I think it dosn't need to be an ACF)

Anything that is Homogeneous (Oozes, Elementals, Golems) takes no damage from Sneak Attacks or critical hits.

probably the best solution thus far

Greenish
2010-03-23, 02:12 PM
In fact, vampire's are specifially given as an example in the Vorpal weapon entry as function just fine without their head.You might want to retry that Reading Comprehension check. Better take 20.

krossbow
2010-03-23, 02:59 PM
It shouldn't take alot to figure out where you should strike something usually; just by viewing something in combat, you should get a decent idea of where it is that you should attack.


That huge monster lumbering at you? All that weight's gotta put a strain on the legs; stab at a joint and you should mess up its day. That alien monstrosity? What part of it is it leading with, and what part is always being held backwards? odds are, whatever its keeping away from you will be more important than what its leading with.

also

Others, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires,

It distinctly singles vampires out as needing their head. Heck,

A popular tactic is to cut off the creature’s head and fill its mouth with holy wafers (or their equivalent)

randomhero00
2010-03-23, 03:38 PM
Anything that can die has a weak spot. SA immunities have never made sense to me.

This makes me recall a Steven Brust (fantasy author, the main character, Vlad, is an assassin) quote:

“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will cramp his style.”

Referring to beings that are nearly untouchable will still be hurt when stabbed. You kind of have to have read his books to get the joke, but whatever.

Anyways, I see it as a mistake that DnD writers thought that anything could exist without an anatomy, regardless of how alien or magical they are. If it moves it can die. If it can die it has a weak spot.

Nero24200
2010-03-23, 03:50 PM
You might want to retry that Reading Comprehension check. Better take 20.

Er...right. Well anyway, the point is it shows that quite a few creatures can function fine without certain body parts. My point still stands, the creatures given as examples (I.E other undead and golems) would not suffer anywhere near as much as a human if a limb was lost.

It wouldn't be a good thing for them yes, but it would do alot more damage to the human.


It shouldn't take alot to figure out where you should strike something usually; just by viewing something in combat, you should get a decent idea of where it is that you should attack. If it's so easy to spot why doesn't every class have sneak attack?

The rogue having sneak attack is a means of surgesting that the rogue can pick out weaknesess better. That doesn't mean, however, that the rogue can pick out weaknesses that don't exist.

taltamir
2010-03-23, 05:19 PM
speaking of... if a slime does not have a weak spot (say, a "core") that can be sneak attacked... then how can it be killed period aside from chemical warfare?

Think about it, imagine a blob of fungi or yeast... totally homogeneous... with enough hammer strikes you will platter it all over the place, but you will not be killing it, you will kill some of the cells, but mostly you will just splatter it all over the place.

anything that is immune to sneak attack should likewise be completely immune to physical damage.

EDIT: actually, don't some kinds of slime split into smaller slimes with a total HP and mass greater then the original slime if hit with certain weapons (slashing and piercing IIRC... fire for some)

tyckspoon
2010-03-23, 05:19 PM
The Pathfinder rogue pretty much allows you to sneak attack most things.
For the generic 3.5e game, you could introduce analogous feats (may be rogue specific) to cover this.


A reminder for people mentioning Pathfinder's Rogue: Pathfinder Sneak Attack works exactly the same as 3.5 Sneak Attack, down to the 'must be able to reach a vital area' line that invites DMs to screw with Sneak Attack regardless of type. The Pathfinder Rogue has no inherent improved ability to Sneak Attack things. The change was in the monster Types- Constructs and Undead no longer have Sneak Attack or Critical immunity as a function of their kind of HD (it still shows up on certain specific monsters; IIRC, Golems still have it.) Adopting Pathfinder classes will help the Rogue a little, but it's not Sneak Attack related.