Can a Tiny-Sized Rogue Sneak Attack a Colossal-Sized Creature?

[TroubleBrewing]

Just what it says on the tin. The argument for "no" consists mainly of this quote:

"A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. 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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. "

Go to town, gentlemen and ladies!

[Silva Stormrage]

I would rule that unless the rogue is flying or the colossal sized creature has a heart in it's foot that the rogue is unable to sneak attack.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Yes, because the rogue must be in that creature's square to even attack it (melee, at least) - and have you ever had your hamstrings damaged?:smallsigh:

[RagnaroksChosen]

I would say they could... think about it.. pressure points? Kinda like bad acnipuncture. Achilles heal and what not.

[Kojiro]

I know there was a feat for fighting underfoot, but unless it also allows for climbing onto something, or there's a similar feat, I agree with Silva, for most monsters, at least.

Well, unless the Rogue is Swallowed Whole; Sneak Attack works whenever the target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC, and that's one of those situations. That, plus that it's probably easier to find something's vitals on the inside of it, could make for an argument for it applying then.

This is also why any Rogue who gets more than one attack in a Full Attack, especially a dual-wielder, should never, ever be eaten alive.

[Silva Stormrage]

Yes, because the rogue must be in that creature's square to even attack it (melee, at least) - and have you ever had your hamstrings damaged?:smallsigh:

The problem with that is that a tiny size greatsword would not even be able to do any damage to a colossal size being's hamstring. If the entire blade could cleanly cut through the skin of the colossal being like air it still wouldn't really damage the hamstring.

Then again by that logic tiny sized creatures shouldn't be able to hurt colossal size creatures at ALL so I guess its just another weird game rule that needs to be in.

[Zaq]

Arteries are vital organs, and for a Rogue, they're not THAT hard to get to.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The problem with that is that a tiny size greatsword would not even be able to do any damage to a colossal size being's hamstring. If the entire blade could cleanly cut through the skin of the colossal being like air it still wouldn't really damage the hamstring.

Then again by that logic tiny sized creatures shouldn't be able to hurt colossal size creatures at ALL so I guess its just another weird game rule that needs to be in.

Welcome to DND: by RAW, yes, a rogue can - as long as sneak attack conditions are met - sneak attack something so big that he could theoretically live its entire life inside of it.

[CTrees]

A rogue of size: fine should have a dagger that's infinitesimally small - should he basically never be able to make sneak attacks? Is that fair?

Small rogue v. colossal creature: obviously this thread is started because of dragons. Dragons' scales interlink, and it's possible to wedge a blade between them - this would be made easier by being smaller. After that, looks for arteries - you don't need a big cut to cause a lot of damage; just a well placed one. Oh, hey, legs have arteries, tendons, and so forth. Joints have to slot together somehow, maybe it's softer, there, but takes a really precise strike (dealing precision damage!) to hit it. Etc.

Alternatively, pressure points. You know the monk's quivering palm? Maybe something is set up, bad-vibration-wise, like that by high level rogues.

Or, magic. "Hey, this sword is magically enhanced to hurt things better. Maybe it hurts things better." Seems like that works as a handwave...

.................................

So, really, if you're dealing with a colossal dragon, and it has a hide that's 3d6+10 inches thick (statistic pulled from the aether), and you're a small character (w/o SA) using daggers. Let me ask you, if you're on the "no" side of this argument - how is that character going to do damage at all, without it being handwaived as "the rules aren't that detailed?" Do you favor making certain very large creatures immune to damage caused by PCs that are too small, because "it seems more realistic?" If not, how do you resolve these two different stances?

[Silva Stormrage]

A rogue of size: fine should have a dagger that's infinitesimally small - should he basically never be able to make sneak attacks? Is that fair?

Small rogue v. colossal creature: obviously this thread is started because of dragons. Dragons' scales interlink, and it's possible to wedge a blade between them - this would be made easier by being smaller. After that, looks for arteries - you don't need a big cut to cause a lot of damage; just a well placed one. Oh, hey, legs have arteries, tendons, and so forth. Joints have to slot together somehow, maybe it's softer, there, but takes a really precise strike (dealing precision damage!) to hit it. Etc.

Alternatively, pressure points. You know the monk's quivering palm? Maybe something is set up, bad-vibration-wise, like that by high level rogues.

Or, magic. "Hey, this sword is magically enhanced to hurt things better. Maybe it hurts things better." Seems like that works as a handwave...

.................................

So, really, if you're dealing with a colossal dragon, and it has a hide that's 3d6+10 inches thick (statistic pulled from the aether), and you're a small character (w/o SA) using daggers. Let me ask you, if you're on the "no" side of this argument - how is that character going to do damage at all, without it being handwaived as "the rules aren't that detailed?" Do you favor making certain very large creatures immune to damage caused by PCs that are too small, because "it seems more realistic?" If not, how do you resolve these two different stances?

Ya I was basically stating that argument then in my head saying... wait then it can't hurt it AT ALL and went stated that I think it was a rule for balances sake. Thinking back on it I would allow the rogue to sneak attack but I would probably make a joke about how weird it would be.

[TwylyghT]

Now picture the fine/tiny sized rogue with an active spider climb finding its way in to a colossal creatures ear canal or nasal passage... or other unmentionable orifices.

[Runestar]

I say yes. So long as he meets the mechanical requirements for SA, he gets the bonus damage. :smallsmile:

[The Glyphstone]

I know there was a feat for fighting underfoot, but unless it also allows for climbing onto something, or there's a similar feat, I agree with Silva, for most monsters, at least.

Well, unless the Rogue is Swallowed Whole; Sneak Attack works whenever the target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC, and that's one of those situations. That, plus that it's probably easier to find something's vitals on the inside of it, could make for an argument for it applying then.

This is also why any Rogue who gets more than one attack in a Full Attack, especially a dual-wielder, should never, ever be eaten alive.

That depends on how literally your DM takes the reading of Swallow Whole - as raw, attacking the Gizzard/stomach of the creature could be read as doing damage to a separate target, so any damage in excess of the X needed to cut free is wasted since it doesn't affect the creature's HP total.

[Safety Sword]

Rogue archers can sneak attack too.

Please give generously. Your donation could save a gnome from a life of pretty crime and homelessness. :smallfrown:

[Kojiro]

That depends on how literally your DM takes the reading of Swallow Whole - as raw, attacking the Gizzard/stomach of the creature could be read as doing damage to a separate target, so any damage in excess of the X needed to cut free is wasted since it doesn't affect the creature's HP total.

Point, but I say that any DM who rules that a creature's stomach is not part of the creature is insane and should be prescribed multiple forms of medication. And not the good kinds.

Alternatively, the rules say that you can try to cut your way out, not that you have to. You can just go for stabbing them in the heart/lungs/pancreas until they die, and any DM who'd try that sort of weaseling out of the situation gets to see what it's like when RAW is used against them. If he doesn't give up, use a bludgeoning weapon, so you can't get out, but can still tenderize the monster's guts.

[Boci]

Hm. And here I thought that being unable to reach something would be blindingly obvious to be a size issue.

It isn't, because there are no rules for where vital organs are located on the vast majority of creatures, so a creature's size is kinda moot.


And yet, the rule (not guideline. Guidelines are stated as such, as in the Magic Item Cost Estimation section) is still there, no matter how you try to talk it away.

The rules also say that every PrC is useful to a party and powerful in their own way. Clearly therefor weak ones need to be adjusted, since the rules say they are not useless.


The starting rule would likely be the one we're discussing. Add in rules for vertical reach (see Jump skill in the SRD), to start. From there, look at Draconomicon, p.51 (which outlines the general dimensions of a red dragon).

Last one doesn't count. Core rule, core sources only.


Combine with the accompanying image,

When else is an image used for RAW?


Smaller size, while it certainly helps one hide, does have the disadvantage of requiring a stepstool to get to the top shelf of the cupboard.
Look at sneak attack at level 1. A single sword stab (1d6+1) is unlikely to kill an NPC fighter (4.5 damage vs 7 average HP). A single sneak attack (2d6+1) is very likely (8 damage vs 7 average HP). Does this accurately portray scabbing the skin? No. It portrays a bleeding lung wound, that instantly incapacitates.

I'm not talking about a 1st level humanoid, I'm talking about a very old red dragon, against which the rogue's SA isn't nearly as fatal.


No, the fact that sneak attacks don't list what they target. They only apply certain restrictions (must have a discernable anatomy, target must be flat footed or flanked, sneak attacker must be able to reach a vital organ), and the ability functions normally within those restrictions. No magic involved. The creature could be one giant artery; doesn't matter. The rules don't impose any restrictions, limitations, or added benefits based on the circulatory system (except for parts of it which are organs).

It doesn't work for the same reason that Charm Person doesn't work on dogs.

Creature type is not abstract, SA damage is.


They don't target vital organs. They don't target arteries. 3.x did away with called shots. They target CHARACTERS, and apply a SPECIAL ABILITY to that. No body part targeting at all. Sneak attack takes all that into account, provided you follow the rules... ALL of the rules... for the ability.

I am impressed by how persistently you dodge this question. Let me try again.

You are the DM. Rogue is flanking a human guard and hits, describing his attack as nicking the leg artery. As a DM, what do you says? "No sorry you cannot target arteries, just vital organs in general?"

[BobVosh]

Point, but I say that any DM who rules that a creature's stomach is not part of the creature is insane and should be prescribed multiple forms of medication. And not the good kinds.

We actually do this in our group, assuming it was a balance thing. It works reasonably fine, although I guess we have never been attacked by more swallow whole then party members.

[Kojiro]

You are the DM. Rogue is flanking a human guard and hits, describing his attack as nicking the leg artery. As a DM, what do you says? "No sorry you cannot target arteries, just vital organs in general?"

Well, considering that a regular sword-slash to the leg, such as in a tripping attempt, would sever the same artery and then some, I myself would say that it's an especially poor Sneak Attack description. Especially if this is during the levels of 6-10d6 Sneak Attacks. Really, the whole point of Sneak Attacks is massive damage through precise strikes, and while blood vessels are important they are also just as easy to hit with normal attacks, even if you managed to hit the precise square centimeter and the Fighter just swung into the appendage's area in general.

So, in short, no. I would not say that they could not target such, just that, thinking about it for five seconds, that would be a terrible Sneak Attack target, unless you assume that all "normal" attacks don't break the skin or hit some abstract part of the enemy instead of, well, any actual part of it, which would be full of blood vessels to be severed en masse by a single sword swing. And if we're still talking about your dragon, then "nicking" anything would be nigh impossible thanks to all those scales.


We actually do this in our group, assuming it was a balance thing. It works reasonably fine, although I guess we have never been attacked by more swallow whole then party members.

Taking it as a balance thing, hm, maybe. It does make Swallow Whole a less suicidal move. My (somewhat joking) comment there was referring to trying to argue such a thing based on in-game monster structure, not as a game mechanics thing.

I personally still hold that getting your insides stabbed would deal damage to your total HP, though.

[Boci]

Well, considering that a regular sword-slash to the leg, such as in a tripping attempt, would sever the same artery and then some, I myself would say that it's an especially poor Sneak Attack description. Especially if this is during the levels of 6-10d6 Sneak Attacks. Really, the whole point of Sneak Attacks is massive damage through precise strikes, and while blood vessels are important they are also just as easy to hit with normal attacks, even if you managed to hit the precise square centimeter and the Fighter just swung into the appendage's area in general.

So, in short, no. I would not say that they could not target such, just that, thinking about it for five seconds, that would be a terrible Sneak Attack target, unless you assume that all "normal" attacks don't break the skin or hit some abstract part of the enemy instead of, well, any actual part of it, which would be full of blood vessels to be severed en masse by a single sword swing. And if we're still talking about your dragon, then "nicking" anything would be nigh impossible thanks to all those scales.

I don't think you understand how quickly a damaged artery will kill you.

[Kojiro]

I don't think you understand how quickly a damaged artery will kill you.

No, I do. However, I also understand that any single attack in the D&D world that deals physical damage would likely sever at least one blood vessel, and yet no one seems to bleed out from normal sword attacks. Describing your Sneak Attack as such is saying that you do less than the most basic move available.

[Boci]

No, I do. However, I also understand that any single attack in the D&D world that deals physical damage would likely sever at least one blood vessel, and yet no one seems to bleed out from normal sword attacks. Describing your Sneak Attack as such is saying that you do less than the most basic move available.


So despite the fact that it is more fatal than a kidney stab, attacking the leg artery is not a valid SA?



becomes quite ironic in the light of your latest post, considering that you ignored all but one point of my response to you.

Because I needed to get some things clear. Besides, they had dodged the querstion multiple times.

[Kojiro]

So despite the fact that it is more fatal than a kidney stab, attacking the leg artery is not a valid SA?

I am not quite sure how it would be more fatal than cutting through more layers of flesh, muscles, and blood vessels, to organs that filter, and thus receive, massive amounts of blood (according to Wikipedia, 20% of cardiac output), but I am looking at this in relative terms. A sword slash would cut through multiple arteries and then some, and yet it deals somewhat low damage overall. Cutting a single artery, which would be included in the above attack, therefore, should not inflict more overall damage. I am not arguing the fatality of such an injury in real life, but saying that, when it comes to this game, it doesn't quite work.

It's sort of like how arrows and such would ruin a person, yet many PCs beyond the low levels can shrug off a rain of them, I suppose. There's a certain amount of suspension of disbelief going on, and when one thing that is comparatively small (a nicked blood vessel to a sword wound going through to bone) is far more effective (1d4-6 + <a lot>d6 versus, at most, 2d6, before modifiers), that disbelief takes a large blow. While both would be deadly, if the latter is not a big deal in the game, then the former shouldn't be either unless poison or something was involved.


Because I needed to get some things clear. Besides, they had dodged the querstion multiple times.

Actually, I decided that what this is in response to was unnecessarily aggressive and only partially accurate, and thus edited it out (although not fast enough, it seems). Sorry about that.

[Boci]

I am not quite sure how it would be more fatal than cutting through more layers of flesh, muscles, and blood vessels, to organs that filter, and thus receive, massive amounts of blood (according to Wikipedia, 20% of cardiac output), but I am looking at this in relative terms. A sword slash would cut through multiple arteries and then some, and yet it deals somewhat low damage overall.

A rogue can target the major arteries for SA. I just checked and it turned out I was wrong, getting stabeed in the kidney and the femoral artery are equally fatal.


Cutting a single artery, which would be included in the above attack, therefore, should not inflict more overall damage. I am not arguing the fatality of such an injury in real life, but saying that, when it comes to this game, it doesn't quite work.

Why shouldn't it? Damage is abstract.

[Kojiro]

A rogue can target the major arteries for SA.<...>

Why shouldn't it? Damage is abstract.

Latter first, I suppose it comes down to preference; personally, as I take RPGs to be not unlike books, movies, and other narratives, I would find someone dropping dead of (what at least appears to be) a minor injury after shrugging off many, many major injuries, that in most cases included the damage from the "minor" injury and then some, to be a bit nonsensical. Like how in some games you can drop the moon on a character and they'll be fine, and then in a cutscene they die to a single, not-particularly-special attack. It's rather silly when you look on the work as a whole.

Former thing now, I'll partially alter my stance on this, actually. Certain arteries and such would not be included in a "normal" strike's damaged areas (arteries running along the inner arm, while most sword slashes would hit the outer side, as an example that hasn't had much thought put into it), so getting some more damage out of them is... Arguable, at least. Although, hm. Are there rules on losing limbs? For some reason I remembered a discussion on such that really downplayed the damage from that, and it led my mind to someone taking more damage from a slight prick in their arm than from outright losing the other one.

Then again, this has gotten a bit off-topic. Although I think the main topic was at least mostly answered; it depends on how you do it, and your DM's willingness to accept you explanations and/or his interpretation of the rules. Shouldn't be impossible, at least, though.

[Boci]

Latter first, I suppose it comes down to preference; personally, as I take RPGs to be not unlike books, movies, and other narratives, I would find someone dropping dead of (what at least appears to be) a minor injury after shrugging off many, many major injuries, that in most cases included the damage from the "minor" injury and then some, to be a bit nonsensical. Like how in some games you can drop the moon on a character and they'll be fine, and then in a cutscene they die to a single, not-particularly-special attack. It's rather silly when you look on the work as a whole.

I understand that, but given that damage to the kidneys and arteries can be equally fatal, how a severed artery minor?


Former thing now, I'll partially alter my stance on this, actually. Certain arteries and such would not be included in a "normal" strike's damaged areas (arteries running along the inner arm, while most sword slashes would hit the outer side, as an example that hasn't had much thought put into it),

Its the same case with the arteries of the leg. Presumable they are located there due to the increased protection they recieve.


Are there rules on losing limbs? For some reason I remembered a discussion on such that really downplayed the damage from that, and it led my mind to someone taking more damage from a slight prick in their arm than from outright losing the other one.

No. If you ever do lose one, the rules make is pretty easy to figure out what you can and cannot do, but there are no rules on how to make it happen. I would make some short of a heal check and a special non-fatal coup de grace personally. Mid combat it would be preactically impossible, save for as a death description.

[ILM]

Yes, because rogues need more restrictions on SA like they need a hole in the head.

[candycorn]

It isn't, because there are no rules for where vital organs are located on the vast majority of creatures, so a creature's size is kinda moot.DMG states that for most non-defined areas, use real world as a guideline. Water is, therefore, wet, although no rules explicitly say so. People who have bags over their head cannot see, although no rules explicitly say so.

These things are what is known as, "common sense", and luckily, that rule does exist. Vital organs exist primarily within the torso of virtually every vertebrate in existence. Case closed there.


The rules also say that every PrC is useful to a party and powerful in their own way. Clearly therefor weak ones need to be adjusted, since the rules say they are not useless.I shall assume this is sarcasm, and give it the answer I believe such things deserve:Nope. Nothing here.

Last one doesn't count. Core rule, core sources only.Rules is rules is rules. You made no stipulation of core only to begin with. Don't arbitrarily impose additional restrictions mid-debate. It's poor debating, and poor form.


When else is an image used for RAW?When the RAW is not fully and clearly defined, and you need to get a feel for characteristics of a creature to make a ruling. Yeah, that seems to fit this situation nicely.


I'm not talking about a 1st level humanoid, I'm talking about a very old red dragon, against which the rogue's SA isn't nearly as fatal.No, you're talking about sneak attack and scabbing skin. Not cracking scales and scarring hide. Go back and look.


Creature type is not abstract, SA damage is.Totally correct. And totally irrelevant.
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.That's VERY, VERY clear. If a character cannot reach a creature's vitals, the character cannot claim a sneak attack by striking the limbs of that creature, no matter how many arteries there are in those limbs. The creature could walk on nothing BUT arteries, and it would be irrelevant. If the vitals are beyond reach (by DM ruling, which does require a judgement call), then the rogue cannot hamstring it in the shins. That's the rules, no matter what you'd like to argue otherwise.


I am impressed by how persistently you dodge this question. Let me try again.

You are the DM. Rogue is flanking a human guard and hits, describing his attack as nicking the leg artery. As a DM, what do you says? "No sorry you cannot target arteries, just vital organs in general?"
Incorrect. Target is a reserved term in D&D. Let me correct you. Again.

Correct Rules interpretation:
Rogue attacks. Target is: Human guard.
Rogue is flanking a target with a discernable anatomy, whose vitals are within reach. There is no concealment. Rogue Qualifies for Sneak Attack.
Rogue deals weapon damage, plus sneak attack.
Full Stop. That's it. The description can include an artery wound, a kidney shot, WHATEVER YOU WANT. Doesn't matter. That is fluff.

The mechanics are: Target the creature. Deal damage you are qualified to deal, based on the circumstance. Done.

The rules care about your artery discussion about as much as a subarctic penguin cares about how many houses are in South Dakota.

[Boci]

DMG states that for most non-defined areas, use real world as a guideline. Water is, therefore, wet, although no rules explicitly say so. People who have bags over their head cannot see, although no rules explicitly say so.

So arteries are a valid source of sneak attack damage, since in real life a severed artery is just as fatal as a kidney strike, the later being an attack on a vital organ. Most creatures with a discernable anatomy have arteries in their legs, so as long as you can reach their legs you can SA them.
Which part of this do you not agree with?



Rules is rules is rules. You made no stipulation of core only to begin with.

I shouldn't have to. The rule appears in core, therefor you need to support it with core only, since that is the only guranteed books any group playing 3.5 will use.


No, you're talking about sneak attack and scabbing skin. Not cracking scales and scarring hide. Go back and look.

Scales are skin for a dragon.


Totally correct. And totally irrelevant.

Abtract and non-abstract rules comparison adds nothing to the discussion.


The rules care about your artery discussion about as much as a subarctic penguin cares about how many houses are in South Dakota.

But if arteries are a valid source of SA damage, then you generally do not need to worry about reach against anything standing on legs. Why is this so hard to understand?

[candycorn]

So arteries are a valid source of sneak attack damage, since in real life a severed artery is just as fatal as a kidney strike, the later being an attack on a vital organ. Most creatures with a discernable anatomy have arteries in their legs, so as long as you can reach their legs you can SA them.
Which part of this do you not agree with?The rules explicitly state that extremities (such as arms and legs) are not eligible. Trying to add a bit of handwavium and makumbelievium to render the statement irrelevant implies that the rule was created and typed for no reason than to be ignored.

That part IS defined. Therefore, it does not follow the part about "undefined stuff".


I shouldn't have to. The rule appears in core, therefor you need to support it with core only, since that is the only guranteed books any group playing 3.5 will use.You should ALWAYS have to state the terms and limits on debate request. Without them, one would assume there are none. Now, the question was originally posed under a very specific situation, wherein the DM was, in fact, using said book. It was posed of a very specific creature, also, which used that book.

As such, assuming rules contained within that book is a given. No more discussion will be made on this topic by me. You can answer if you want; however, such an answer will be disregarded without comment.

Scales are skin for a dragon.And they don't scab. Keep backtracking, to hide the error, though.

Abtract and non-abstract rules comparison adds nothing to the discussion.Then why are you bringing it up, except to obfuscate the issue?

But if arteries are a valid source of SA damage, then you generally do not need to worry about reach against anything standing on legs. Why is this so hard to understand?It's easy to understand. It's equally easy to discredit as incorrect. The source of SA damage is the Rogue dealing the damage. The target of a sneak attack is the character being attacked. Rogues cannot deal sneak attack damage to a creature, if s/he can only reach extremities.
Legs are extremities.

Therefore: If a rogue can only reach a creature's legs... And a rogue cannot sneak attack if s/he can only reach extremities....

Then a rogue cannot sneak attack.

[Boci]

The rules explicitly state that extremities (such as arms and legs) are not eligible.

Where? Is it the term vital organs? Because common sense would include arteries.


You should ALWAYS have to state the terms and limits on debate request.

I thought it went without saying that the core rule should have an implementation plan that draws solely from core. I'm sorry I didn't state that.


As such, assuming rules contained within that book is a given. No more discussion will be made on this topic by me.

So for a core only group, ther "vital organs must be within reach" rule is unusuable without the DM willing in a lot of gaps?


Then why are you bringing it up, except to obfuscate the issue?

I was pointing out that your habit of comparing abstract SA damage to clear cut issues (i.e. creature type) are not valid and add nothing to the discussion.

[BobVosh]

Taking it as a balance thing, hm, maybe. It does make Swallow Whole a less suicidal move. My (somewhat joking) comment there was referring to trying to argue such a thing based on in-game monster structure, not as a game mechanics thing.

I personally still hold that getting your insides stabbed would deal damage to your total HP, though.

I read something (definitely not core, may even be second ed stuff) that explained it as a creature that developed and evolved for this they had extremely good regen or fast healing in the stomach so you cut out and it heals it back almost instantly. Also why each character cuts out individually.

[candycorn]

Where? Is it the term vital organs? Because common sense would include arteries.
"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."
If arteries were to be included, then the bolded statement would have no meaning. Common sense would indicate that rules are generally intended to have at least SOME application. Therefore, we can infer that your personal opinion on the meaning, which would be so inclusive as to render this statement entirely unusable, is less usable than official written rules.

Therefore, when I have to decide between a rule that COULD have an application, and random internet person's personal opinion that would say that rule does not...

Common sense would indicate that I not put any stock in your opinion.



I thought it went without saying that the core rule should have an implementation plan that draws solely from core. I'm sorry I didn't state that.

So for a core only group, ther "vital organs must be within reach" rule is unusuable without the DM willing in a lot of gaps?

I was pointing out that your habit of comparing abstract SA damage to clear cut issues (i.e. creature type) are not valid and add nothing to the discussion.Ignored statements redacted.

SA damage is rather clear cut too.

1) Does the target have a discernable anatomy?
If no: No sneak attack.
2) Is the target within sneak attack range?
If no: No sneak attack.
3) Does the target have concealment?
If yes: No sneak attack.
4) Is the target either flanked or denied Dex to AC?
If no: No sneak attack.
5) Are the creature's vitals within reach?
If no: No sneak attack.

If you haven't been told "no sneak attack", and you have the sneak attack ability? Then you get it.

Since we can reasonably infer that rules are intended to have application, we can infer that "or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach" reasonably means to exclude any body component present in all extremities. Add on the fact that extremity wounds, with direct pressure and elevation, are not generally life threatening... And your arterial argument bleeds out quickly. Give it a rest. Arteries are not mentioned in the rules, not covered in the rules, and are a meaningless obfuscation with the only aim to render rules inapplicable in all cases, in an effort to nullify them, and claim it's rules legal.

Interpretations which use a rule to invalidate itself, when other interpretations exist that do not invalidate rules, are themselves not valid.

That interpretation is: Since striking extremities is specifically excluded by the rulestext above, it does not allow you to use guesswork to determine if extremities might then be allowed under questionable opinions that cause rules to negate themselves.

EDIT: Incidentally, from Dictionary.com:
VITALS:
1 : vital organs (as the heart, liver, lungs, and brain)

Examples of VITALS

<remember to wear a full vest to protect your vitals while sparring>[/quote]
By your interpretation (which is not common english usage), that example would be meaningless, unless "vests" are full body suits.

Which they're not.

So your interpretation even fails the test of common meaning of the words. So, it's not a defined meaning in the game... It's not a defined meaning in the english language...

What are we using here? Boci's guide to word meanings?

[Boci]

"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."
If arteries were to be included, then the bolded statement would have no meaning.

No, it could mean you cannot SA a creature who is attacking from out of your reach.

Besides, skin is a vital organ. I know common sense would indicate its not that kind of vital, but arteries apparantly aren't important to creatures in the D&D universe, so why should that be a problem.


Ignored statements redacted.

You cannot keep on making points whilst just ignoring the fact that core has insefficient rules for the whole "reaching vitals organs" thing to be implemented.

[dextercorvia]

No, it could mean you cannot SA a creature who is attacking from out of your reach.

Agreed. The height of a creature is not a problem. The entire creature is considered reachable if you can reach any of the squares it occupies.

[Hazzardevil]

Dexter, your right he can reach it, but by RAW the rogue couldn't sneak attack it on the ground.
By RAW If he was climbing on it he could sneak attack it.
But, even if he would an Awl Pike, being tiny sized the Pike couldn't reach into the skin far enough to reach any vitals. That's presuming he didn't have any problem breaking the kin.

[Boci]

Dexter, your right he can reach it, but by RAW the rogue couldn't sneak attack it on the ground.

I'd argue its actually by RAI, because the actual words are to vague to constitute RAW.

Besides, doesn't that mean colossal creature's are flat out immune to melee weapon attacks from tiny creature?

[Spiryt]

My personal answer to all of this would be always use not so common sense when DM rules as it should be to make sense given the setting and all.

Constructing general, absolute answers with system that abstract can get pointless.


Besides, doesn't that mean colossal creature's are flat out immune to melee weapon attacks from tiny creature?

Indeed in most cases it's hard to imagine what the hell could Grig do to Tarrasque, with largest sword, torch, electrical shock device it could possibly wield.

[Boci]

Indeed in most cases it's hard to imagine what the hell could Grig do to Tarrasque, with largest sword, torch, electrical shock device it could possibly wield.

And ironically enough RAW only acknowledges the reverse of this: creatures (individuals in a small swarm) too msall to be damaged by weapons.

[CTrees]

Besides, doesn't that mean colossal creature's are flat out immune to melee weapon attacks from tiny creature?


This is exactly what I was getting at. To me, all of the arguments for creatures immune to SAs from creatures much smaller than them seem to apply equally well to making them immune to taking damage, at all. I don't see how you can have one and not the other. Can someone explain this?

And, then, this takes the game from "melee can't have nice things" to simply "melee can't have things." I'm not in favor of that.

[Deimess]

This is exactly what I was getting at. To me, all of the arguments for creatures immune to SAs from creatures much smaller than them seem to apply equally well to making them immune to taking damage, at all. I don't see how you can have one and not the other. Can someone explain this?

By RAW the rogue cannot SA the "colossal" creature, but that does not mean they can't damage it. If we are still talking about a dragon, then a medium fighter's greatsword slashing the dragon in the leg probably goes just as deep as a tiny rogue's well-placed dagger strike.

[Silva Stormrage]

We need to stop thinking about this logically. Yes realistically a fine size creature would not be able to actually damage a colossal sized creature with any weaponry. Thats not the point, in the game they can do that, so its assumed that they can reach beneath the skin to stab something vital. Wether it be hamstring/Achilles tendon/arteries etc. For rogue's sneak attack they aren't always stabbing the heart, if they were than every attack would be insta kill. They are simply stabbing areas that are MORE lethal than just taking a random swing on their body.

[Xtomjames]

Simple answer is yes, complicated answer is yes depending on the situation and weapons used. Bearing in mind most characters that are tiny in nature can fly (unless otherwise magically altered to be that size) and reaching a vital point depends on the creature in question. A rogue can sneak attack with ranged weapons as well as with melee weapons. What more the bonuses for a tiny creature to hit and damage a colassal creature are extremely good. Not to mention with weapon finesse, underfoot tactician and many other feats that exist, the base damage of the weapon isn't truly a concern, it is the extra damage dealt.

[dextercorvia]

Dexter, your right he can reach it, but by RAW the rogue couldn't sneak attack it on the ground.
By RAW If he was climbing on it he could sneak attack it.
But, even if he would an Awl Pike, being tiny sized the Pike couldn't reach into the skin far enough to reach any vitals. That's presuming he didn't have any problem breaking the kin.

The argument before wasn't so much about skin, but that it would be forced to attack the legs. My argument is that the creature is assumed to occupy all of its spaces fully enough to be attacked in any given round. This is similar to the lack of facing.

To your point, is there any RAW on the thickness of the skin of a colossal creature?

[Deimess]

The thickness doesn't really matter, a hit assumes you bypassed the external defenses like scales and pierced the skin, doing base damage. This can be done from anywhere on a creature, regardless of size. A SA is a strike that hits a particularly painful area (a vital organ by RAW).

[candycorn]

No, it could mean you cannot SA a creature who is attacking from out of your reach.No, because you can't make such an attack anyway. You can't make melee attacks at creatures out of your reach at all to begin with. Once again, you're stating an interpretation that makes a rule irrelevant, because, and only because, you WANT that rule to be irrelevant. See earlier comments for the invalidity of your argument.


Besides, skin is a vital organ. I know common sense would indicate its not that kind of vitalSkin is not a vital organ in the sense it refers to. Word usage would indicate that, not common sense. Protecting your vitals does not refer to putting on a scuba suit. It refers to protecting your torso area, which contains organs who would, with a quick pierce, lead to a quick death. Skin is simply not vital in that sense. It can be pierced and broken without threatening human life. If this were not so, no child would survive to adulthood. Once again, your argument is at odds with both D&D rules and the english language, in any way that doesn't take the english meanings dreadfully out of context. More evidence that your personal opinion doesn't hold water. The interpretation you refer to would qualify every attack to be a sneak attack, which falls under "invalid" as it nullifies the restriction in place.


You cannot keep on making points whilst just ignoring the fact that core has insefficient rules for the whole "reaching vitals organs" thing to be implemented.
Discussions about the validity or invalidity of certain rules are no longer an option for discussion with me, regardless of how much you try. I have made my stance clear on the issue, and I will not rise to bait. You can keep playing tennis with that wall, but don't expect a return serve.

Rules exist allowing a DM to rule on the meaning and application of rules, and it is possible for DM's to exercise independent thought, and determine what "out of reach" means. This is why drown healing, under certain interpretations, heals in D&D... But also why you will almost never see it allowed in a game.

Is your interpretation imbalanced? No.
But is it being used to ignore a rule? Yes.
When players ignore the rules, are they playing by the rules? No.
No matter how you try to argue it, color it, twist it, or phrase it, you can't polish that poo to be anything other than poo.

[Boci]

No, because you can't make such an attack anyway. You can't make melee attacks at creatures out of your reach at all to begin with. Once again, you're stating an interpretation that makes a rule irrelevant, because, and only because, you WANT that rule to be irrelevant. See earlier comments for the invalidity of your argument.

Where as you're stating an interpretation that makes the rule relevant becayse you want it to be relevant.


Skin is not a vital organ in the sense it refers to. Word usage would indicate that, not common sense. Protecting your vitals does not refer to putting on a scuba suit. It refers to protecting your torso area, which contains organs who would, with a quick pierce, lead to a quick death. Skin is simply not vital in that sense. It can be pierced and broken without threatening human life. If this were not so, no child would survive to adulthood. Once again, your argument is at odds with both D&D rules and the english language, in any way that doesn't take the english meanings dreadfully out of context. More evidence that your personal opinion doesn't hold water. The interpretation you refer to would qualify every attack to be a sneak attack, which falls under "invalid" as it nullifies the restriction in place.

I know. I fully admit it is stupid, but so is arguing that ruptured ateries are of no concern to creatures.


Discussions about the validity or invalidity of certain rules are no longer an option for discussion with me, regardless of how much you try.

Why? I asked you to do it and you did. Then I asked you to do it without sourcebooks, since its a core rule and thus shouldn't require source books to be implemented and you clam up. Why?

Its not as if you can argue that its unrelated to the subject at hand so that leaves me with little possible ways to explain your reluctance to comment on the issue.

[Cerlis]

all i know is i stick on a sticker and cry out and keep pressure off my foot till i find it....

and it only goes in about a milimeter.

For smaller than collosal sized creatures, imagine someone stabbing you with a needle. Hurts like hell.

[JaronK]

By level 2 a Rogue can be in a 10X10 room, have a fireball go off in that room, and dodge the whole thing.

A Binder designed for it can, at level 10 or so, convert an otherwise hostile enemy to a friend just by talking for a round.

A Barbarian 10 can smash through an Adamantine wall with a wooden club, if he charges.

A Wizard 5 can freaking fly.

And we're wondering whether it's consistent in such a world for a small Rogue to hit an artery on a big creature? Really?

JaronK

[Boci]

And we're wondering whether it's consistent in such a world for a small Rogue to hit an artery on a big creature? Really?

Of course not. candycorn isn't saying a rogue cannot reach the artery of a big creature, they're saying that won't produce SA damage. Because apparantly arteries work differently in the D&D universe, no longer serving a vital purpose.

[TroubleBrewing]

I think JaronK's point was that this entire argument is asinine. Both sides are attempting to apply real-world realism to a world in which, to adventurers, a "challenging" encounter barely a quarter of the way through their career is a shark the size of a school bus. :smallannoyed:

Let it go. Dexter made an excellent point when he noted that big critters are assumed to occupy the entire area they occupy. D&D doesn't get more specific than this. With good reason, apparently.

[Boci]

I think JaronK's point was that this entire argument is asinine. Both sides are attempting to apply real-world realism to a world in which, to adventurers, a "challenging" encounter barely a quarter of the way through their career is a shark the size of a school bus. :smallannoyed:

Let it go. Dexter made an excellent point when he noted that big critters are assumed to occupy the entire area they occupy. D&D doesn't get more specific than this. With good reason, apparently.

But then their wouldn't be a debate. And isn't one purpose of these threads to lay out ideas for others to read and consider?

"Just let it go" is a perfectly valid stance, but as this thread shows its not good enough for everyone. So if a PC wants to persuade their DM not to further limit what their rogue can SA, I want them to be able to find points in my post they can use.

[candycorn]

Where as you're stating an interpretation that makes the rule relevant becayse you want it to be relevant.No, I'm stating an interpretation that makes a rule relevant in at least SOME situations because there's no point in it existing otherwise. I don't presume to know the exact design intent when making any specific rule, but I would wager that the intent is not "waste our time".

I know. I fully admit it is stupid, but so is arguing that ruptured ateries are of no concern to creatures.I'm arguing that there is no rules basis at all for allowing damage beyond that of standard damage for attacks to extremities. But thank you for arguing a point that I did not make. It would be a really great counter, had I actually said that.

Incidentally, thank you for agreeing to the sillyness of the point you did make, along with agreeing that the point I did not make was also.

Why? I asked you to do it and you did. Then I asked you to do it without sourcebooks, since its a core rule and thus shouldn't require source books to be implemented and you clam up. Why?Because the "if it ain't core, then it's not a valid rule" is a tired old debate, a silly debate, and I am frankly not going to get into it again with yet another person. I'm not changing my view. You're not changing your view. It's a colossal sized waste of time, and I will not do it.


Its not as if you can argue that its unrelated to the subject at hand so that leaves me with little possible ways to explain your reluctance to comment on the issue.
You don't need to explain my reluctance, then, since I've taken the trouble of doing it. IT IS POINTLESS, IT WILL RESOLVE NOTHING. There is a fundamental difference in the viewpoints of you and I, and there is an equal chance of me agreeing to your arbitrary terms as of you agreeing to my inclusive ones. I.E. None.

all i know is i stick on a sticker and cry out and keep pressure off my foot till i find it....

and it only goes in about a milimeter.

For smaller than collosal sized creatures, imagine someone stabbing you with a needle. Hurts like hell.And why then don't caltrops deal sneak attack damage? It's a painful wound, much like a gash on your arm. But it's not especially lethal.


By level 2 a Rogue can be in a 10X10 room, have a fireball go off in that room, and dodge the whole thing.

A Binder designed for it can, at level 10 or so, convert an otherwise hostile enemy to a friend just by talking for a round.

A Barbarian 10 can smash through an Adamantine wall with a wooden club, if he charges.

A Wizard 5 can freaking fly.

And we're wondering whether it's consistent in such a world for a small Rogue to hit an artery on a big creature? Really?

JaronKNo. HE'S arguing that. I don't give two craps about arteries and blood vessels. I am stating there is no rules justification for incorporating sneak attack damage based on arguments about a creature's circulatory system.

Of course not. candycorn isn't saying a rogue cannot reach the artery of a big creature, they're saying that won't produce SA damage. Because apparantly arteries work differently in the D&D universe, no longer serving a vital purpose.No, I'm saying sneak attack has rules that must be followed. And none of those rules incorporate arterial wounds into their rules. So make up that rule, if you like. Great houserule. But don't try to sell me poo and call it steak. If it isn't in the rules, it's not RAW.

The requirement for rogues to be able to reach vitals (that's the standard english definition of vitals, not Boci's guide to the English Language) to qualify for sneak attack is.

I think JaronK's point was that this entire argument is asinine. Both sides are attempting to apply real-world realism to a world in which, to adventurers, a "challenging" encounter barely a quarter of the way through their career is a shark the size of a school bus. :smallannoyed:

Let it go. Dexter made an excellent point when he noted that big critters are assumed to occupy the entire area they occupy. D&D doesn't get more specific than this. With good reason, apparently.
No, I'm trying to interpret a game rule in a way that doesn't render that game rule totally irrelevant in every and all cases. The game doesn't get more specific because there are a myriad of creatures, and it would be very difficult and complex to include. So they leave it simple, and trust in a person's ability to utilize judgement and reason when interpreting that rule.

[Boci]

No, I'm stating an interpretation that makes a rule relevant in at least SOME situations because there's no point in it existing otherwise. I don't presume to know the exact design intent when making any specific rule, but I would wager that the intent is not "waste our time".

No, it could also be fluff, reduncy or bad writing. Or it could mean "make a series of ad hoc rulings with little guidlines on us on the physical structure of the monster your group is fighting". Ad hoc ruling without guidlines from WotC for the most part? Gee, that sounds like a houserule.


Incidentally, thank you for agreeing to the sillyness of the point you did make, along with agreeing that the point I did not make was also.

But for the purpose of being stabbed, there is no difference between a vital organ and a major artery. They both cause you to bleed out, which the possibly exception of lungs, but I'm pretty sure even then blood loss will kill you.


Because the "if it ain't core, then it's not a valid rule" is a tired old debate,

That is not what I'm saying. The rule appears in core, therefor you should be able to implement it without using rules from other sourcebooks given that they wouldn't have existed when it was first printed.


No. HE'S arguing that. I don't give two craps about arteries and blood vessels. I am stating there is no rules justification for incorporating sneak attack damage based on arguments about a creature's circulatory system.
No, I'm saying sneak attack has rules that must be followed. And none of those rules incorporate arterial wounds into their rules. So make up that rule, if you like. Great houserule. But don't try to sell me poo and call it steak. If it isn't in the rules, it's not RAW.

So RAW trumps commen sense? But part of implementing the rules "vital organs must be reached to get SA" involves common sense.


The requirement for rogues to be able to reach vitals (that's the standard english definition of vitals, not Boci's guide to the English Language)

Then the skin is also a valid target being a vital organ, since the letter of RAW trumps common sense.

[candycorn]

No, it could also be fluff, reduncy or bad writing. Or it could mean "make a series of ad hoc rulings with little guidlines on us on the physical structure of the monster your group is fighting". Ad hoc ruling without guidlines from WotC for the most part? Gee, that sounds like a houserule.Ah, but a necessary one, to apply a written rule. As for fluff? It's listed opposite reserved mechanic terms...

"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."

It's listed in a list with strictly mechanic terms. And even if rules are poorly written, they are still rules (and I'm not saying they are. I fully agree with the restriction). To assume that a rule you don't like must be redundant and irrelevant, and to jump through hoops to make it so... That's stretching the bounds of sanity, to say nothing of common sense.


But for the purpose of being stabbed, there is no difference between a vital organ and a major artery. They both cause you to bleed out, which the possibly exception of lungs, but I'm pretty sure even then blood loss will kill you.In real life? Sure. They are equally lethal, with the exception that extremity wounds are rarely lethal, given the most basic care (elevation and pressure).

In D&D?
No rules basis to support your position.

That is not what I'm saying. The rule appears in core, therefor you should be able to implement it without using rules from other sourcebooks given that they wouldn't have existed when it was first printed.And you can. Using good judgement. I realize that, much like additional books, that does not exist at the table of every D&D game, but there it is. And there lies our fundamental difference. I look at the game as it IS. You look at the game as it WAS. I don't live in the past there, I won't live in the past there, and you are wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise.

No matter what you say, or how you say it...

This. Will. Not. Change.


So RAW trumps commen sense? But part of implementing the rules "vital organs must be reached to get SA" involves common sense.In cases of conflict, yes, RAW trumps common sense in a RAW discussion. That doesn't invalidate common sense, however, in cases where RAW does not speak. If there's no RAW to explicitly cover a specific, there's nothing to trump.


Then the skin is also a valid target being a vital organ, since the letter of RAW trumps common sense.
I will explain this one more time. No character, in D&D, will ever, by the rules, TARGET an organ, blood vessel, eyeball, hand, left eardrum, or any body part.

TARGET is a reserved term, and unless an ability description EXPLICITLY allows the targeting of body parts, then body parts are not targeted. Creatures are. The skin may be attempted to be used as a justification to bypass the restriction on sneak attack... But that doesn't make that attempt correct or valid.

"Vitals" is an existing term in the english language, which is our source for definitions when the RAW don't have them, and does NOT include skin.

This isn't an issue of common sense. This is a case of you trying to call a beach ball a potato. It's not.

[Taelas]

Ah, but a necessary one, to apply a written rule. As for fluff? It's listed opposite reserved mechanic terms...

"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."

Did you consider that they might mean someone who is readying actions to strike at a creature's limbs while they are attacking with reach? That completely satisfies the wording.

I agree with dextercorvia: A creature is assumed to occupy every square it fills, thus if you can reach one square, you can reach the vitals.

[Boci]

Ah, but a necessary one, to apply a written rule.

If a rule requires a houserule to be applied, then I got news for you. Its not a rule. At best, its guidelines for an optinal rule.


To assume that a rule you don't like must be redundant and irrelevant, and to jump through hoops to make it so... That's stretching the bounds of sanity, to say nothing of common sense.

I don't assume the rule is redundant because I don't like it. I thionk its redundant because:

1. Its too vague, requiering pictures from source books released yeats later to help implement it, and even then it comes down to guess work on a lot of monster.
2. Whilst it seems to be there to increase realism, its medically inacurate.


In real life? Sure. They are equally lethal, with the exception that extremity wounds are rarely lethal, given the most basic care (elevation and pressure).

In D&D?
No rules basis to support your position.

D&D is assumed to work like real life unless the rules state otherwise. I believe you quoted the exact wording from core earlier in this discussion.


And you can. Using good judgement. I realize that, much like additional books, that does not exist at the table of every D&D game, but there it is. And there lies our fundamental difference. I look at the game as it IS. You look at the game as it WAS. I don't live in the past there, I won't live in the past there, and you are wasting your breath trying to convince me otherwise.

No matter what you say, or how you say it...

This. Will. Not. Change.

"Sure its a proper rule. I mean, you pictures from a source books that were published years afterwards to implement it, and even then its guess work the majority of creatures, but that does compromise its integrity does it?"


I will explain this one more time. No character, in D&D, will ever, by the rules, TARGET an organ, blood vessel, eyeball, hand, left eardrum, or any body part.

I use the word target. Can you please stop getting caught up on it, unless you generally do not know what I mean.

A rogue can reach the skin, which by RAW isd a vital organ.


"Vital Organ" is an existing term in the english language, which is our source for definitions when the RAW don't have them, and does NOT include skin

Yes it does. The skin is an organ, and its vital. A dictionary reference to what an armoured vest protects is not the final authority on what english means.

[Deimess]

But SA is a single strike, thus in this case of wording, a vital organ does not mean "something in your body that you can't live without." It means something that does more damage to the body if struck than other parts. A cut on my skin would do hardly anything compared to a cut on my heart.

(Edit): And since mobs are apparently assumed to take up the whole space, I keep getting an image in my head of giants and dragons scooting around instead of walking so rogues can strike their organs

[Big Fau]

Arteries are vital organs, and for a Rogue, they're not THAT hard to get to.

Considering the feet of bipedal creatures contain a large number of veins, and that severing them can cause massive blood loss, I'd say there's no problem here.

[Deimess]

Also, a "discernable anatomy" does not mean that it works the same way. Whilst a dragon might clearly have a brain, stomach, liver, heart, arteries, whatever, their "vitals" are probably out of reach or unattainable or the rule probably wouldn't be there.

[Big Fau]

Also, a "discernable anatomy" does not mean that it works the same way. Whilst a dragon might clearly have a brain, stomach, liver, heart, arteries, whatever, their "vitals" are probably out of reach or unattainable or the rule probably wouldn't be there.

Do remember that there is a pretty big Artistic License applied to DnD when it comes to biology (especially anatomy). Science in general really.


Because apparently Ogres are made of balsa wood.

[TwylyghT]

And ironically enough RAW only acknowledges the reverse of this: creatures (individuals in a small swarm) too msall to be damaged by weapons.

So if we scale this to relevant sizes, must we assume that the colossal opponent can not harm a swarm of tiny rogues at all with weapons!



No, I'm saying sneak attack has rules that must be followed. And none of those rules incorporate arterial wounds into their rules. So make up that rule, if you like. Great houserule. But don't try to sell me poo and call it steak. If it isn't in the rules, it's not RAW.


I will explain this one more time. No character, in D&D, will ever, by the rules, TARGET an organ, blood vessel, eyeball, hand, left eardrum, or any body part.


Arterial Strike waves hello from the pages of Complete Warrior.

Arterial Strike states "Your sneak attacks target large blood vessels, leaving wounds that cause massive blood loss" this would seem to be fairly solid RAW justification to argue for arteries to be vital and a target for the use of sneak attacks.

[Deimess]

Then again it could also show that you need a feat to make your hits to the arteries effective. Darn you completes and your non-core meshing. :smalltongue:

[TwylyghT]

Quite true, you need to take feats to make lots of things work. The main point is that there are in fact RAW examples that very specifically allow it with no assumption or extrapolation needed.

Now me, I would try to further argue that arteries are always vital and the feat allows further benefits to attacking them beyond a standard sneak attack, but at that point I am trying to push it beyond the specific ruling, into assumption, but I wanty my sneak attacky.

[LaughingRogue]

Hopefully this is an excercise in just thought and actually not practice ... because if you are seriously looking to limit what a small creature can sneak attack...it is exercise in "how do we make melee worse than they already are"

[candycorn]

So if we scale this to relevant sizes, must we assume that the colossal opponent can not harm a swarm of tiny rogues at all with weapons!





Arterial Strike waves hello from the pages of Complete Warrior.

Arterial Strike states "Your sneak attacks target large blood vessels, leaving wounds that cause massive blood loss" this would seem to be fairly solid RAW justification to argue for arteries to be vital and a target for the use of sneak attacks.

Seems to be to be a justification for the opposite. Even after taking the feat, hitting those areas causes LESS sneak attack damage. With a feat, you may do an "Arterial Strike". Therefore, without the feat... Hm.

Let's look. Can I subtract an amount from my to-hit roll, and add a corresponding amount to my damage roll with a one handed weapon, or twice that number with a two handed weapon... if I don't have power attack?

Can I designate an opponent each round, and get a +1 dodge bonus to AC against them... if I don't have Dodge?

No. If you don't have the feat, you don't get the ability. The Arterial Strike feat outlines what happens when a sneak attack goes for large blood vessels (less sneak attack damage, and a wound which causes additional damage in following rounds) and what must be done to qualify to DO that (get sneak attack, get a base attack of +4, and take the Arterial Strike feat).

There's your RAW justification for targeting arteries with a sneak attack. To do so, you must sacrifice some of your sneak attack damage, and you must deal ongoing bleed damage. You also must have a feat.

TwylyghT, you can argue whatever you like... But that's how feats work. You take a feat, you get the ability to DO something. In this case, it's "hit arteries with sneak attacks". That means, without the feat, it's pretty cut-and-dry.

[unosarta]

EDIT: Incidentally, from Dictionary.com:
VITALS:
1 : vital organs (as the heart, liver, lungs, and brain)

Examples of VITALS

<remember to wear a full vest to protect your vitals while sparring
By your interpretation (which is not common english usage), that example would be meaningless, unless "vests" are full body suits.

Which they're not.

So your interpretation even fails the test of common meaning of the words. So, it's not a defined meaning in the game... It's not a defined meaning in the english language...

What are we using here? Boci's guide to word meanings?
First of all, let's get some stuff straight; organs are objects that reside within (or maybe outside, since we haven't seen every organism ever, but it doesn't subtract from the rest of the definition) the body of an organism and are made up of multiple tissues. Arteries fit this bill, having both muscle and connective tissue (wikipedia, that ever dreaded source, defines connective tissue as being "made up of cells separated by non-living material, which is called extracellular matrix. Connective tissue gives shape to organs and holds them in place. Both blood and bone are examples of connective tissue.") Thus, arteries are organs. The definition of vital is "necessary for life". Arteries are necessary for life. Any organism that has a vascular system needs the arteries and other parts of the vascular system in order to live, and thus they are necessary for the life of those creatures. Thus, arteries are considered vital organs. The definition of vitals? Vital organs. Thus, arteries are considered vitals.

[candycorn]

First of all, let's get some stuff straight; organs are objects that reside within (or maybe outside, since we haven't seen every organism ever, but it doesn't subtract from the rest of the definition) the body of an organism and are made up of multiple tissues. Arteries fit this bill, having both muscle and connective tissue (wikipedia, that ever dreaded source, defines connective tissue as being "made up of cells separated by non-living material, which is called extracellular matrix. Connective tissue gives shape to organs and holds them in place. Both blood and bone are examples of connective tissue.") Thus, arteries are organs. The definition of vital is "necessary for life". Arteries are necessary for life. Any organism that has a vascular system needs the arteries and other parts of the vascular system in order to live, and thus they are necessary for the life of those creatures. Thus, arteries are considered vital organs. The definition of vitals? Vital organs. Thus, arteries are considered vitals.

You may be thinking of an incomplete definition, or a medical one, not a common use one.

A quick check online (there's a reason Wikipedia isn't allowed at colleges. It's not a credible source of information, being open to edit by anyone) shows dictionary definitions of organ (once you get past the musical instruments) begins with:

"a fully differentiated structural and functional unit, such as a kidney or a root, in an animal or plant"

Arteries are not fully differentiated, nor are they functional units. Kidneys process urine. Livers process blood impurities. The heart pumps blood.

Arteries are like a pipe. All they do is HOLD. They do not function. They are not organs, in the traditional sense of the word. Eyeballs would be, though not vital. A tongue is. Voice boxes are.

But not arteries. They have a purpose, but they do not function. Their purpose is to hold, not act. No more, no less.

Regardless, to strike arteries, the rules are specific. You need the Arterial Strike feat, which, when you do, lessens the sneak attack damage you deal. However, that doesn't obviate other restrictions. You must be able to reach the vitals, regardless of what you actually hit.

Technically, by the RAW, you could fluff the attack as hitting the toenail, and call it a sneak attack, as long as you can reach the vitals. Those are the rules.

I'm truly sorry that you don't like them. Are they a bit silly? Sure.

Is D&D a game that favors magic over melee? Absolutely.

Does that mean we can restrict wizards to 5th level magic, and call it RAW, because it's a ruling that lessens the disparity? No.

RAW discussions provide a context from which we make houserules, disregard some rules, or reveal houserules that most of us have made automatically, and there is nothing wrong with that.

It's only wrong when you take those houserules, and call them RAW.

[Boci]

But not arteries. They have a purpose, but they do not function. Their purpose is to hold, not act. No more, no less.

Nope. Arteries constrict in rythme with the heart. They act.


Regardless, to strike arteries, the rules are specific. You need the Arterial Strike feat, which, when you do, lessens the sneak attack damage you deal.

No, you need that feat to strike arteries in such a way that the wound causes on gooing damage.


It's only wrong when you take those houserules, and call them RAW.

Like your house rules of when exactly vital organs can and cannot be reached on a creature?

[TwylyghT]

Seems to be to be a justification for the opposite. Even after taking the feat, hitting those areas causes LESS sneak attack damage. With a feat, you may do an "Arterial Strike". Therefore, without the feat... Hm.

Let's look. Can I subtract an amount from my to-hit roll, and add a corresponding amount to my damage roll with a one handed weapon, or twice that number with a two handed weapon... if I don't have power attack?

Can I designate an opponent each round, and get a +1 dodge bonus to AC against them... if I don't have Dodge?

No. If you don't have the feat, you don't get the ability. The Arterial Strike feat outlines what happens when a sneak attack goes for large blood vessels (less sneak attack damage, and a wound which causes additional damage in following rounds) and what must be done to qualify to DO that (get sneak attack, get a base attack of +4, and take the Arterial Strike feat).

There's your RAW justification for targeting arteries with a sneak attack. To do so, you must sacrifice some of your sneak attack damage, and you must deal ongoing bleed damage. You also must have a feat.

TwylyghT, you can argue whatever you like... But that's how feats work. You take a feat, you get the ability to DO something. In this case, it's "hit arteries with sneak attacks". That means, without the feat, it's pretty cut-and-dry.

True you may need a feat to do it, but the point is that there are in fact written rules that consider arteries a sneak attack target. Which was to counter the claim that no such rules existed at all.

"True but only with feat" is strikingly different than "Never true".

[thompur]

This is why tiny rogues should take a level of Warlock. They could SA with his Eldritch blast as long as they're within 30' of the target and the other conditions are met. So, to answer the OP, yes. Maybe not with a melee weapon, but a ranged attack certainly could reach a vital organ.

[dextercorvia]

Technically, by the RAW, you could fluff the attack as hitting the toenail, and call it a sneak attack, as long as you can reach the vitals. Those are the rules.

Doesn't this mean that you can't sneak attack at range unless you also have reach to their vitals?

[candycorn]

Nope. Arteries constrict in rythme with the heart. They act.They constrict due to additional pressure placed upon them. They don't act. They REACT.

No, you need that feat to strike arteries in such a way that the wound causes on gooing damage.No. Feat states that your sneak attacks target major blood vessels. Without feat, sneak attacks do not. You take a feat, you get a benefit. You don't take the feat, you DON'T GET THE BENEFIT. The ongoing damage is the EFFECT of striking an artery. It's not an additional benefit. When you make an arterial strike by the feat, you get that. When you choose not to, you don't get that. But then it's not an arterial strike. It's pretty darn simple.


Like your house rules of when exactly vital organs can and cannot be reached on a creature?No, it's nothing like my statement that the precise application of that RULE must be interpreted by each DM. My personal interpretation of that is founded in the rules, and doesn't violate them, or try to twist the english language until it's unrecognizable.

True you may need a feat to do it, but the point is that there are in fact written rules that consider arteries a sneak attack target. Which was to counter the claim that no such rules existed at all.And yet, it STILL supports my claim that sneak attack, BY DEFAULT, does not allow it.

"True but only with feat" is strikingly different than "Never true".Functionally identical to each other when considering the BASE ability of sneak attack. Which reduces this to a nitpick. If you cannot bring to bearing a point along this line of reasoning that actually constitutes a meaningful discussion, I won't further respond on it.

Doesn't this mean that you can't sneak attack at range unless you also have reach to their vitals?
The weapon can reach the vitals, it's good. Otherwise, you'd run afoul of range attack restrictions (a rogue can sneak attack with ranged weapons, up to 30 feet).

Interpretations should be made to COMPLY with rules, not to invalidate them as you see fit via personal shenanigans.

[dextercorvia]

The weapon can reach the vitals, it's good. Otherwise, you'd run afoul of range attack restrictions (a rogue can sneak attack with ranged weapons, up to 30 feet).

The "rule" that you are quoting doesn't specify that only ammunition needs to be able to reach, but that the character does.


Interpretations should be made to COMPLY with rules, not to invalidate them as you see fit via personal shenanigans.

But you are invalidating the normal rules of reach and access. You are using your own interpretations of overhead reach, etc, to invalidate the only explicit information we have on the subject. That is, if you can attack a square that a creature occupies, you can attack that creature. This is without regard to what particular part of the creature might or might not be in that square at that time. You can't claim that a Dragon is never going to have his belly lower to the ground than X feat, because it is not actually a pewter figure. It moves around. This is also why a Halfling is allowed to make a Sunder attempt against a Hydra's head.

[TehLivingDeath]

candycorn, why do you keep referencing the rules? You're the one making stuff up, do not try to shield yourself behind any measure of RAW. DnD collapses upon itself the moment you try to incorporate any sort of science while reading the rules. This is specially true to physics but also applies to biology.

The whole sneak attack thing becomes moot once you look at it though those lences. A giant sword wielded by someone strong will do a much better job at targeting vital organs than a precise dagger anyway (it will cut through multiple ones with one strike), the mechanic is just there to prevent the flavorful sneaky character from becoming useless in combat. If you analyse it like that, all of it stops making sense, not just the "reaching vital organs" part.

[candycorn]

The "rule" that you are quoting doesn't specify that only ammunition needs to be able to reach, but that the character does.And the character can. By firing an arrow into it. If you can reach a vital are with the weapon you're wielding, that would satisfy everything...

Well, except the nitpickers. But the rules, those would be satisfied.

But you are invalidating the normal rules of reach and access. You are using your own interpretations of overhead reach, etc, to invalidate the only explicit information we have on the subject.Incorrect. "Reaching vitals" with a melee weapon that has identical reach to an unarmed strike... is DISTINCTLY different than reaching vitals with a bow that can attack any square within LOS, to over 1000 feet.

If you cannot see how, then I cannot further debate this with you. If you can see how the two are different, then you should be beating this tired, dead horse.

That is, if you can attack a square that a creature occupies, you can attack that creature. This is without regard to what particular part of the creature might or might not be in that square at that time. You can't claim that a Dragon is never going to have his belly lower to the ground than X feat, because it is not actually a pewter figure. It moves around. This is also why a Halfling is allowed to make a Sunder attempt against a Hydra's head.No, a halfling is allowed to do that because no rule restricts the sunder attack to being able to reach a specific part of the target. That rule does exist for sneak attack.

No matter how you cajole, misdirect, distort facts, change subjects, nitpick tangents, or use inaccurate examples, that will not change.

The rule exists. Handwave it if you like, in your game.... But acknowledge that you are doing so.


candycorn, why do you keep referencing the rules? You're the one making stuff up, do not try to shield yourself behind any measure of RAW.Am I making up that the rules state: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."?

Am I making that up? Am I? No. That EXISTS. That has MEANING. What specific meaning it has is up to each DM, but the default isn't, "we don't like it, so it doesn't exist".


DnD collapses upon itself the moment you try to incorporate any sort of science while reading the rules. This is specially true to physics but also applies to biology.And yet abilities which require rulings on whether vitals are in reach exist. If the answer is always "yes" or always "no", then no ruling is requires. The fact that the rule exists implies that it is intended to have cases that go each way. Regardless of what other OPINIONS you may have on this subject, those are the facts of the matter.


The whole sneak attack thing becomes moot once you look at it though those lences. A giant sword wielded by someone strong will do a much better job at targeting vital organs than a precise dagger anyway (it will cut through multiple ones with one strike), the mechanic is just there to prevent the flavorful sneaky character from becoming useless in combat. If you analyse it like that, all of it stops making sense, not just the "reaching vital organs" part.You are right. You are absolutely correct. It's no more sensible than, say, launching an arrow 1000 feet through a 1 foot corridor (which requires IRL, for a ballistic object, speeds in excess of twice the speed of sound).

BUT IT IS HOW THE RULES ARE WRITTEN.

Houserule to make sense of things, if you like. Nobody's stopping you. I'm not kicking down the doors to your gaming stores, and tearing up your rogue sheets. I am just stating, "this is what the rules say". Deviation is FINE. It's PART of the game. The rules allow for this.

But saying that no deviation is happening, when some is? That's misunderstanding at best, and lying at worst.

[AMFV]

If we are going for realism then basically any attack with a large weapon is almost always fatal, instantly, period. Arterial strikes are always fatal without immediate medical attention. Nonfatal strikes frequently result in gangrene and therefore are also often fatal. Period warfare is a dangerous and ****ty business, in which people die often and easily. DnD is hardly an accurate representation of this. A medium sized creature should be able to damage a colossal-sized creature in the same sense a mosquito can damage a person, going by real life rules. Any argument based on realism rather than rules will result in creating an entirely new game, and in my opinion a much worse one. Taking away SA from a rogue makes them less capable, and they already lose SA far too often to other creatures. So mechanically this is an unsound argument, as rogues would lose something they need and one can reach a creature from any point in a the squares it occupies, which doesn't make that much sense either. As several people, and hopefully myself, have demonstrated arguing from a position of realism is also equally absurd. DnD was never made to be realistic, it was made to recreate fantasy literature.

[TehLivingDeath]

Define "vital". The rules are intentionally vague about it. Like it was already mentioned, arteries are a perfectly reasonable target, regardless of the fact that there's a feat based on striking at them (you can swing a sword in a circle without Whirlwind Attack).

[candycorn]

If we are going for realism then basically any attack with a large weapon is almost always fatal, instantly, period. Arterial strikes are always fatal without immediate medical attention. Nonfatal strikes frequently result in gangrene and therefore are also often fatal. Period warfare is a dangerous and ****ty business, in which people die often and easily. DnD is hardly an accurate representation of this. A medium sized creature should be able to damage a colossal-sized creature in the same sense a mosquito can damage a person, going by real life rules. Any argument based on realism rather than rules will result in creating an entirely new game, and in my opinion a much worse one. Taking away SA from a rogue makes them less capable, and they already lose SA far too often to other creatures. So mechanically this is an unsound argument, as rogues would lose something they need and one can reach a creature from any point in a the squares it occupies, which doesn't make that much sense either. As several people, and hopefully myself, have demonstrated arguing from a position of realism is also equally absurd. DnD was never made to be realistic, it was made to recreate fantasy literature.You're right. It was. And I have never seen, in fantasy literature, the plucky 3 foot rogue stab the 150 foot dragon in the spleen.

Sneak attack rules generally mimic fantasy literature against humanoid size targets. Possibly ogre. You're not "taking sneak attack away from the rogue", any more than enforcing arcane spell failure is "taking spellcasting away from wizards".


Define "vital". The rules are intentionally vague about it. Like it was already mentioned, arteries are a perfectly reasonable target, regardless of the fact that there's a feat based on striking at them (you can swing a sword in a circle without Whirlwind Attack).Yep, you can. But you cannot attack every adjacent creature precisely once as part of a combat maneuver without it. That's what whirlwind lets you do.

"swinging a sword in a circle" is about as accurate a description of whirlwind as "wiggling your fingers" is for casting spells.

Please, at least compose a cogent argument here. The rules ARE vague. It DOES require a judgement call. That is EXACTLY what I have been saying. But if the judgement is all one way, or all the other, then there is no point for the rule at all. Therefore, we are tasked to apply and interpret a vague rule.

Some would delve into the nature of arteries to skew it all the way to one side. Others have mentioned that delving too much into biology serves nothing.

So figure things out. But actually PAY attention to the rule, or handwave it away. And don't handwave it away, and claim that you're paying attention to all the rules. Be honest.

[ZealPaladin]

Ok, so after reading this thread (and being amazed at how long this debate is going) I'm going to have to side with Candycorn. It's in the rules.

If you don't like it, then house rule it out. To be honest, I can't think of any DMs that I know personally (and I know quite a few) that would NOT house rule this out.

However, if the debate concerns the RAW, then yes - according to the rules, a rogue cannot SA vitals he/she cannot reach. This is why we have ranged weapons and the fly spells - different encounters should require different tools to beat, and if you want to play EVERYTHING "by the book" then it helps to have versatile characters.

And yes, I would personally house rule that the SA works because I believe that melee is under-powered. If you create a campaign where the BBEG or one of the main villains is a Colossal dragon and you tell your hard-working Rogue that he can't SA the dragon, you are pretty much telling him "your class stinks, you should've made something tier 2 or higher. With magic." And I want my players to have fun. (Though, I'd warn my player of this beforehand, otherwise, that'd be bad DMing. Just take it as an example).

[Arundel]

I don't really want to take a side here, as they both have rather silly merits and flaws but I would like to challenge a couple assumptions.

The definitions of vitals (repost, I know):
"Those bodily organs that are essential to life, as the brain, heart, liver, lungs, and stomach"

This phrasing uses "as" to mean "included but not limited too", but more important is the first part, the "things essential to life" bit. Humans we can assume work similarly in both 3.5 and RL. Dragons we can use that absurdly devout Dragonomomomicon book, which as I recall gives a whole chapter to dragon anatomy. What about the imps? Or a devil? Or a delver? Even elementals are debatable. Someone point out to me where a solar's organ essential for life is not a tiny ball of love inside its humanoid outer shell.

For the ability to penetrate skin of larger creatures, I can promise I get sneak attack damage from mosquitos all summer long. Besides, there already is a separate mechanic for this issue, DR.

Lastly, a bit ago someone pointed out rules stating a creature was assumed to fill all the space it exists in. Doesn't that point end the debate?

[TehLivingDeath]

Please, at least compose a cogent argument here. The rules ARE vague. It DOES require a judgement call. That is EXACTLY what I have been saying. But if the judgement is all one way, or all the other, then there is no point for the rule at all. Therefore, we are tasked to apply and interpret a vague rule.

Some would delve into the nature of arteries to skew it all the way to one side. Others have mentioned that delving too much into biology serves nothing.

So figure things out. But actually PAY attention to the rule, or handwave it away. And don't handwave it away, and claim that you're paying attention to all the rules. Be honest.

You see, I don't need to wave anything away. What a rogue needs to sneak attack a big creature is right there in the description: the rules do not present what qualifies as a "vital", only that you need access to just one to be able to sneak attack. This is not houserulling, it is RAW. Subject to DM fiat, yes (even if only the most anal ones would actually stop you from doing so), but RAW nonetheless.

[candycorn]

You see, I don't need to wave anything away. What a rogue needs to sneak attack a big creature is right there in the description: the rules do not present what qualifies as a "vital", only that you need access to just one to be able to sneak attack. This is not houserulling, it is RAW. Subject to DM fiat, yes (even if only the most anal ones would actually stop you from doing so), but RAW nonetheless.

No, the rules state that you have to be able to "reach vitals", not just extremities. That's what the rules state. To state otherwise is inaccurate at best, and misleading at worst. As I stated before, if you can only reach extremities, you cannot sneak attack. What that means exactly is up to an individual DM. What that does NOT mean is "any DM disagreeing with TehLivingDeath is an Anal Fiater".

Should the rule be disregarded entirely? Well, it wouldn't be unbalancing to do so. And that also is a decision that each DM should feel empowered to make, without worrying about people calling him/her anal, or accusing them of Fiat.

In other words, the rules are not precise enough for any single view to be the definitive correct one. Therefore, the only view that can be correct, is that the rule is one that needs to be defined, or removed, at the table. It's not such that a simple reading will lead to a single answer.

[awa]

just jumping in here i agree with candy corn. getting an artery cut is likely to kill you but not as fast as a hit to the heart or lungs. but that part doesn't matter this part does

it specifically says you may not sneak attack the limbs so it doesn't matter if the arteries in the limb are vitals or not they are specifically excluded.

technically even with arterial strike you still cant get the limbs becuase it say you hit an Arteries no where does it say you can now sneak attack limbs which is a part of the rules. Arteries exist in other parts of the body besides the limbs so their is no reason to assume this feat allows you to ignore that part of the rules.

so i guess in conclusion your both right you can sneak attack a mans major blood vessels but only those not in their limbs because those are stab proof. now every one can be happy.

[TehLivingDeath]

No, the rules state that you have to be able to "reach vitals", not just extremities. That's what the rules state. To state otherwise is inaccurate at best, and misleading at worst. As I stated before, if you can only reach extremities, you cannot sneak attack. What that means exactly is up to an individual DM. What that does NOT mean is "any DM disagreeing with TehLivingDeath is an Anal Fiater".

Should the rule be disregarded entirely? Well, it wouldn't be unbalancing to do so. And that also is a decision that each DM should feel empowered to make, without worrying about people calling him/her anal, or accusing them of Fiat.

In other words, the rules are not precise enough for any single view to be the definitive correct one. Therefore, the only view that can be correct, is that the rule is one that needs to be defined, or removed, at the table. It's not such that a simple reading will lead to a single answer.

That is not what the rules state. In order for you to not be able to sneak attack, TWO conditions have to be met: 1) vitals are out of reach and 2) you're striking at the creature's limbs. They would always go hand in hand, unless your DM accepts a target defined by him as a "vital" (and he pretty much has to come up with a definition) located on a limb (so it has to be arteries), in which case 2) is met but 1) isn't. I realize this is somewhat shaky ground, but it's not like the sneak attack description is ironclad. At the very least it provides the DM a way of following the rules without further gimping melee characters.

I apologize if saying a dissenting DM is anal offended you. But in this case there is an entirely viable route allowing the DM to NOT gimp melee rogues against a good portion of high-CR encounters.

[candycorn]

That is not what the rules state. In order for you to not be able to sneak attack, TWO conditions have to be met: 1) vitals are out of reach and 2) you're striking at the creature's limbs. They would always go hand in hand, unless your DM accepts a target defined by him as a "vital" (and he pretty much has to come up with a definition) located on a limb (so it has to be arteries), in which case 2) is met but 1) isn't. I realize this is somewhat shaky ground, but it's not like the sneak attack description is ironclad. At the very least it provides the DM a way of following the rules without further gimping melee characters.Yes. It is. Very, very shaky. It requires willful misreading of rules. So much so that even you, when putting forth the idea, acknowledge that.

I apologize if saying a dissenting DM is anal offended you. But in this case there is an entirely viable route allowing the DM to NOT gimp melee rogues against a good portion of high-CR encounters.Yep. Flight (available at mid levels, easily). That is an option available to the PLAYER to solve the whole thing.

In fact, by level 13-15, if a character is NOT capable of flight, then s/he has a SERIOUS weakness, and is likely unduly hampering the party.

Such a ruling further encourages characters to find ways to fly, which obviates the entire issue. Chances are, this issue is going to come up before the mega dragon BBEG thing. The player will have time to acquire the tools s/he needs.

Tiny size is hard to achieve without specifically TRYING for it. Such creatures have a combat reach of 0 feet. Without taking special means to make sure you can get in there, I don't think that such a character should be able to sneak attack. Flight is a great option, but there are others (including increasing melee reach via feats, which could provide up to 15-20 feet reach).

A tiny creature occupies a 2.5 foot space. It stands a foot tall. If ever a creature was the application of this text, this is it.

I'm not doing this to hate on rogues. I'm not doing it to be an anal DM. I'm saying it because this is what is, before alterations. And frankly, if a character can spend enough resources to be permanently tiny, that character can afford flight. If that character doesn't, then that character should pay the consequences.

[Taelas]

There are no rules in the game regarding how to reach someone's vital organs. In game mechanical terms, the sentence is essentially meaningless; GMs are forced to put their own interpretations to the description to make anything of it.

It's a rule, but we don't know how that rule is supposed to play out in practice. We can't do anything with it (other than nerf rogues unnecessarily).

So tell me, candycorn, what are we supposed to do with this supposed RAW ruling of yours? Ignoring it through flight is not an option; you do not solve a problem by ignoring it. There are no rules for when you can reach a vital organ (or, for that matter, what is and what is not a vital organ; an eye may not be a vital organ, but it's a classic sneak attack target). Individuals can make their own snap judgment calls, but constantly house ruling the subject is not a satisfactory conclusion either.

[Cerlis]

(all comments are in regards to who it concerns. If i say "you did this" and you didnt do this, then i'm not talking to you)

I was addressing the original topic, not yall's little spat.

Point is a tiny milimeter long pointed object can hurt a human at least enough to completely alter their behavior (such as jumping on one foot going "ow ow ow")

thus showing that just outright assuming a fine creature cant hurt a colossal one isnt out of the question. Expessially if instead of a sticker, or ant stinger or whatever that it happens to be a lance, or magical relic. If the Colossal dragon would be hurt by whatever you are using to stab it, stabbing it in the eye, then it probably means they wouldnt like you putting it other places as well.

--------------
Also in regards to the whole "The point of this place is to debate ideas" while i'm not sure of the intent of the person you where replying too. but it hink its a fair point that "just drop it" in regards to an argument starting in which people are starting to insult each other as much as try to disprove each other.....is a valid sentiment.


------------------
now what was the last thing i wanted to say? hmmm. well i hope it was simular to this other thought. In one of the progenitors of modern fantasy "The Hobbit" we see an archer take out a colossal (or at least huge) dragon with an arrow to the heart. Its a fact that being big doesnt make you immune to damage from small objects, and even the most armored beast has weaknesses (which is the thing that sneak attack targets).

-------------

Oh right now i remembered. I think it was a very good point. People keep mentioning Skin and whether or not weapons of a certian size could pierce/cut through it.

I think we are forgetting that the rules already accomidate that. its called natural armor. If someone gets past that natural armor its assumed they either hit hard enough to get through it, or hit a weak spot.

So we can just throw the entire notion of not being able to hit because of skin depth out the window and just focus on other stuff like reaching vital organs.


I personally support the idea that a creature at one time fills all its squares, representing the basic movement and shifting within its square. there are already rules for the whole "it hit me with its fist but i can stab it in the neck" aspect of reality. its called Reach. Giants can hit you from 10 feet away, but you cant reach their vitals. however if you get next to a giants square, during all the dodging, rolling, flanking, swinging, moving, its assumed at some point you can get close enough to attack him. Whether thats him bending down to punch you and you stabbing him in the shoulder/neck/eye or you swinging and stabbing him in the thigh.


So it seems to me the rules ARE there.

[candycorn]

There are no rules in the game regarding how to reach someone's vital organs. In game mechanical terms, the sentence is essentially meaningless; GMs are forced to put their own interpretations to the description to make anything of it.Well, yes and no. It's not essentially meaningless. It has a meaning; GM's do need to put their own interpretation on it, though. One would hope they do that for most things, as many rules in D&D are not cut-and-dry, and require interpretation.


It's a rule, but we don't know how that rule is supposed to play out in practice. We can't do anything with it (other than nerf rogues unnecessarily).Thank you for agreeing that it's a rule. I'll take your second statement to mean that you think that using Arcane Spell Failure is nerfing wizards unnecessarily? Please note: I'm not saying this is how it SHOULD be played at a table... Though it wouldn't make a bad game. It's saying how is DOES play out, by the rules.


So tell me, candycorn, what are we supposed to do with this supposed RAW ruling of yours? Ignoring it through flight is not an option; you do not solve a problem by ignoring it. There are no rules for when you can reach a vital organ (or, for that matter, what is and what is not a vital organ; an eye may not be a vital organ, but it's a classic sneak attack target). Individuals can make their own snap judgment calls, but constantly house ruling the subject is not a satisfactory conclusion either.Then perhaps this isn't the game for you?

Seriously, house rules are a part of virtually every game of D&D. They are NEEDED to interpret many areas of the game.

What you are supposed to do with this RAW rule is this:

If you're a player: Ask your DM how it works.
If you're a DM: As with any rule, choose whether or not it will be in your game. If it is, interpret it to the best of your ability, and apply and adjudicate it fairly and evenly.

It's that simple. If that isn't satisfactory, then I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. If everything was cut and dry, there would be no reason to have a mediator. There'd just need to be a storyteller, and players, and everyone would know how everything worked.

[Taelas]

Well, yes and no. It's not essentially meaningless. It has a meaning; GM's do need to put their own interpretation on it, though. One would hope they do that for most things, as many rules in D&D are not cut-and-dry, and require interpretation.
That is just not true. For the vast majority of things, there are definitions you can turn to. When a rule doesn't work without a house rule, then that rule is broken, and not following it is just as correct as following it -- both cases involve house rules, and are not RAW.


Thank you for agreeing that it's a rule. I'll take your second statement to mean that you think that using Arcane Spell Failure is nerfing wizards unnecessarily? Please note: I'm not saying this is how it SHOULD be played at a table... Though it wouldn't make a bad game. It's saying how is DOES play out, by the rules.
No; it isn't. You cannot play it out, by the rules, since you are lacking part of them. No interpretation of a rule that cannot be played out as written is RAW.

I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. What does Wizards and Arcane Spell Failure have anything to do with this? Rogues are not top of the power pole like Wizards are. Denying a rogue sneak attack simply because his target is more than two sizes larger than him or whatever arbitrary limitation you impose is a completely unnecessary nerf. Sneak attack already has numerous conditions, some of which mean they do not work at all on some creatures.


Then perhaps this isn't the game for you?

Seriously, house rules are a part of virtually every game of D&D. They are NEEDED to interpret many areas of the game.
Then stop harping on how this is RAW. If you agree it is a house rule, stand up to it.


What you are supposed to do with this RAW rule is this:

If you're a player: Ask your DM how it works.
If you're a DM: As with any rule, choose whether or not it will be in your game. If it is, interpret it to the best of your ability, and apply and adjudicate it fairly and evenly.

It's that simple. If that isn't satisfactory, then I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. If everything was cut and dry, there would be no reason to have a mediator. There'd just need to be a storyteller, and players, and everyone would know how everything worked.
Yes, that I agree with. But you have continually insisted that your own interpretation is RAW, when it is nothing of the sort. It might be a necessary house rule to follow a RAW rule, but it is still a house rule.

In my opinion, that sentence is probably an artifact of an earlier version of the game, where they had planned to include rules on how it works. For whatever reason, they dropped said rules, but never removed the sentence, as it sounds perfectly sensible on the face of it. Ultimately, it is something which should be fluff which was poorly implemented as a mechanic.

[dextercorvia]

I personally support the idea that a creature at one time fills all its squares, representing the basic movement and shifting within its square. there are already rules for the whole "it hit me with its fist but i can stab it in the neck" aspect of reality. its called Reach. Giants can hit you from 10 feet away, but you cant reach their vitals. however if you get next to a giants square, during all the dodging, rolling, flanking, swinging, moving, its assumed at some point you can get close enough to attack him. Whether thats him bending down to punch you and you stabbing him in the shoulder/neck/eye or you swinging and stabbing him in the thigh.


So it seems to me the rules ARE there.

This is the only RAW supported notion for what that rule means. You can't sneak attack a creature just because it can reach you -- you have to reach it.

[TwylyghT]

If you do choose to stick to a limbs do not count ruling, creature shape becomes more important. Most non-humanoids keep their torsos a lot closer to the ground. As long as the attacker can reach the part of the body thats containing the "vital organ" it should be allowed to work.

Bringing weapon length, and wound depth into penetrating a creatures hide is a can of worms you really do not want to open. Thats all handled already, by natural armor and DR. Far to much of D&D is an abstraction of reality to apply that much detail to weapon damage and organ trauma.

If a weapon hits, deals damage, and breaks DR its a deep enough hit to sneak attack.

[Morph Bark]

The problem with that is that a tiny size greatsword would not even be able to do any damage to a colossal size being's hamstring. If the entire blade could cleanly cut through the skin of the colossal being like air it still wouldn't really damage the hamstring.

Then again by that logic tiny sized creatures shouldn't be able to hurt colossal size creatures at ALL so I guess its just another weird game rule that needs to be in.

A Fine-sized greatsword would be between 1-1/2 and 2 inches long. Name one creature that exists on this earth that would be classified in DnD as Large that has skin that thick.

[dextercorvia]

A Fine-sized greatsword would be between 1-1/2 and 2 inches long. Name one creature that exists on this earth that would be classified in DnD as Large that has skin that thick.

Rhinoceros has skin up to 2 inches thick, but is thinner in other places. It is also rather on the large side of Large. Compare its 6000 lbs to a Horse, for example.

[Arundel]

Also bear in mind that if you are trying to stab your entire greatsword into an opponent, you're likely doing it wrong. It is a slashing weapon.

[term1nally s1ck]

"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."

Vitals = Vital organs. Check the definition online if you wish.

The 6 vital organs in a human are: (again, do some research online if you wish to confirm. I checked a few places, these are the only ones listed.)

Brain
Heart
Lungs
Kidneys
Liver
Pancreas

Skin is not there. They are all central organs, as makes sense, since they need to be kept safe.

Arteries are dangerous. They have the potential to kill very quickly. In small creatures (including humans). Who says any of the larger creatures have one large artery? It would be VERY difficult to maintain that much pressure on a large channel, and it would make more sense to have many arteries per limb, to save energy.

In a larger creature, unless you have specific evidence to say their vital organs are placed in the legs, or that they have some vulnerability, you are not permitted to Sneak Attack them if you can only reach the feet. Any ruling that the creature is vulnerable in some way from its feet is a houserule, because you are deciding based on your own opinion of what should happen, not the ruletext.

[Morph Bark]

Rhinoceros has skin up to 2 inches thick, but is thinner in other places. It is also rather on the large side of Large. Compare its 6000 lbs to a Horse, for example.

Yeah, creatures that are similar in size are classified as Huge, but that is mostly because they are higher at the shoulder. Still though, a Fine-sized creature could likely not even reach the places on a rhino's body where its skin is that thick.


Also bear in mind that if you are trying to stab your entire greatsword into an opponent, you're likely doing it wrong. It is a slashing weapon.

True, but as said, if you'd simply go for the wrists or ankles or similar locations, you would not have to cut so deep.


Arteries are dangerous. They have the potential to kill very quickly. In small creatures (including humans). Who says any of the larger creatures have one large artery? It would be VERY difficult to maintain that much pressure on a large channel, and it would make more sense to have many arteries per limb, to save energy.

In a larger creature, unless you have specific evidence to say their vital organs are placed in the legs, or that they have some vulnerability, you are not permitted to Sneak Attack them if you can only reach the feet. Any ruling that the creature is vulnerable in some way from its feet is a houserule, because you are deciding based on your own opinion of what should happen, not the ruletext.

Hmm, do elephants or whales have multiple large arteries in such a manner?

[AMFV]

The problem with this mechanically is that there is no way to determine which parts of an animal are vulnerable. Humans have most of their vital organs in their chest, do Sphinxes, or Hydras, or any other creature in D&D. Because you can essentially attack any part of the creature from the square next to it, per the rules. Adding something else is an overcomplicated and possibly unenforceable houserule. How can we determine the colossal dragon doesn't have a vital artery in it's big toe, we can't. Without making the system infinitely more complicated. I don't really want to have to study the biology and physiology of magical creatures to play D&D.

[Arundel]

Of note, the reason damage to solid organs (liver, kidney, pancreas) is so immediately fatal? Massive blood loss. The immediate terms of damaging those vitals is the same as hitting an artery. However, why are we still assuming everything has the same organ structure as a human?

[term1nally s1ck]

Elephants do not relative to size. Their arteries are indeed bigger, but not proportionally so compared to their size.

Same is true for whales. Their arteries are bigger, but nowhere near proportionally.

EDIT: The reason we assume vital organs are stored in the body rather than the limbs is that limbs are under proportionally much greater strain, and are much more vulnerable. A creature who had a heart in its leg would be at risk of death every time it stumbled.

Oh, and the reason vital organs are so immediately fatal is that there is no natural response to it being damage. Blood continues to flow.

If an artery is damaged, it tries to constrict and prevent blood flow.

[Arundel]

"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."

Vitals = Vital organs. Check the definition online if you wish.

The 6 vital organs in a human are: (again, do some research online if you wish to confirm. I checked a few places, these are the only ones listed.)

Brain
Heart
Lungs
Kidneys
Liver
Pancreas

Skin is not there. They are all central organs, as makes sense, since they need to be kept safe.

Arteries are dangerous. They have the potential to kill very quickly. In small creatures (including humans). Who says any of the larger creatures have one large artery? It would be VERY difficult to maintain that much pressure on a large channel, and it would make more sense to have many arteries per limb, to save energy.

Elephants have a startlingly similar artery structure to humans. (http://books.google.com/books?id=mTPI_d9fyLAC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=elephant+arteries&source=bl&ots=vKchH0A_dO&sig=9HVohrKtgPIPPQ7LDIuN637NPgA&hl=en&ei=br1GTundDJC_gQeo9qSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=elephant%20arteries&f=false) Note the diagram of artery, sidebar on the heart, and the text on circulation. It is a foolish endeavor to "define" vitals. Does a demon have organs? Have you proved a solar is not composed entirely of love filling a humanoid shell yet?

[AMFV]

Elephants have a startlingly similar artery structure to humans. (http://books.google.com/books?id=mTPI_d9fyLAC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=elephant+arteries&source=bl&ots=vKchH0A_dO&sig=9HVohrKtgPIPPQ7LDIuN637NPgA&hl=en&ei=br1GTundDJC_gQeo9qSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=elephant%20arteries&f=false) Note the diagram of artery, sidebar on the heart, and the text on circulation. It is a foolish endeavor to "define" vitals. Does a demon have organs? Have you proved a solar is not composed entirely of love filling a humanoid shell yet?

On a sidenote, I would love to see the anatomy of a slaad. I'm sure it's... interesting to say the least.

[term1nally s1ck]

Elephants have a startlingly similar artery structure to humans. (http://books.google.com/books?id=mTPI_d9fyLAC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=elephant+arteries&source=bl&ots=vKchH0A_dO&sig=9HVohrKtgPIPPQ7LDIuN637NPgA&hl=en&ei=br1GTundDJC_gQeo9qSmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=elephant%20arteries&f=false) Note the diagram of artery, sidebar on the heart, and the text on circulation. It is a foolish endeavor to "define" vitals. Does a demon have organs? Have you proved a solar is not composed entirely of love filling a humanoid shell yet?

And yet notice the size of the artery in the leg compared to the arteries in human legs.

Oh, and if there are no vitals, then you cannot sneak attack AT ALL. Don't try and play with ideas like that, because we're currently assuming the best case for the rogue, where he knows the layout of the organs in every species that he might fight. The rogue must by RAW be able to reach the creatures vitals, not just limbs or extremities, to sneak attack.

[Arundel]

And yet notice the size of the artery in the leg compared to the arteries in human legs.

Oh, and if there are no vitals, then you cannot sneak attack AT ALL. Don't try and play with ideas like that, because we're currently assuming the best case for the rogue, where he knows the layout of the organs in every species that he might fight. The rogue must by RAW be able to reach the creatures vitals, not just limbs or extremities, to sneak attack.

If you read my post, I did not say there were no vitals, I simple suggested that the vitals of fantastical creatures may be different on a lovecraftian scale. If a solar is powered by a ball of concentrated love in his left foot, then that would damn well be a vital area. He doesn't need to know where to hit, he just has to be able to do it. I read that much more as an instinct than an encyclopedic knowledge of anatomy. Instinct fits much much better.

[term1nally s1ck]

And if you wish to define it as such, feel free. That is a houserule, however, and make no mistake about it. You are choosing to come up with such an explanation, not looking at the rules.

The standard place for vital organs to be is the centre of a body. The safest and most logical place, given their function.

[AMFV]

''Aaah my squigly-spooge!''-Zim
''Humans don't have a squiggly spooge..."- Dib
From Invader Zim, I don't recall the name of the episode at this time.

I think that conveys what we are trying to. Magical creatures very well may have different organs. Outsiders certainly do. This is mechanically too complex to demonstrate (after all advanced knowledge of even our system of organs takes years.) Therefore it should not affect rules

[AMFV]

And if you wish to define it as such, feel free. That is a houserule, however, and make no mistake about it. You are choosing to come up with such an explanation, not looking at the rules.

The standard place for vital organs to be is the centre of a body. The safest and most logical place, given their function.

On Earth, in our plane, with our physics the safest place is the center. Maybe not so in the infinite layers of the abyss, or in Limbo. The reason we are ordered the way we are is due to evolution and the rules of our world, which clearly do not apply in D&D, making it likely that animals have widely different structures there than they would here.

[Arundel]

And if you wish to define it as such, feel free. That is a houserule, however, and make no mistake about it. You are choosing to come up with such an explanation, not looking at the rules.

The standard place for vital organs to be is the centre of a body. The safest and most logical place, given their function.

Ruling a rogue can hit vitals on instinct does not alter, create, or negate any existing rules. Its not a house rule, and it fits with the theme of the printed rogue class. Vitals are in a central location for meany reasons, all of them boiling down to "life on earth evolved". The majority of D&D creatures were magically created (in many cases, a wizard literally did it). It is a fallacy to apply reality to D&D creatures.

My point that isn't that alien organ systems are different, it is that determining when vitals are or are not in reach is solely the bounds of DM fiat, as the rules do not cover the absurdity that is the entire premise of this thread.

[TwylyghT]

If you go nuts over length of weapon, and trying to rule on it, and assuming that arteries and blood loss do not count as vitals, and only serious direct damage to an organ is a sneak attack...

With some variance to build and genetics, you would need to factor for about 4 inches of penetration on a medium humanoid for fatal organ trauma to the torso. (For the sake of presenting it, you need less than 2 centimeters for a fatal wound by bleed out)

.25 inches for fine

.5 inch for diminutive

1 inches for tiny

2 inches for small

8 inches for large

16 inches for huge

32 inches for gargantuan

64 inches for colossal.

Now for fum with rule synergies if you try to do this.

Tiny, diminutive, and fine creatures can not sneak attack at all in melee, not even against creatures their own size! This is because, no matter what they wield, as they have a reach of 0, and a reach of 0 is still less than even half an inch. (except for whips, which apparently are *always* 15 feet no matter what size you are lol)

Likewise medium and smaller creatures can not sneak attack colossal creatures with a non-reach weapon, no matter the size, as they have a reach of 5 feet, short of the 5.33 needed.

Real combined with abstract just makes for nightmares, breaks combat, and just is not worth the trouble. Don't do it. :smallannoyed:

[term1nally s1ck]

Tiny, diminuitive and fine creatures can attack while in the same square as their target.



And whether ruletext exists on where a creature has vital organs is irrelevant. You are creating a rule to allow him to sneak attack, houseruling it in.

I'd remind you that as per Core, if it is not covered in the rules, you look at real life for how it works. In real life, vital organs are stored at the centre of a creature's body.

Any other placement is a houserule, as you are making a ruling based entirely on what you feel like, rather than any actual reason, whether ruletext, or real life science based.

By RAW, you cannot make a sneak attack if he has no vital organs within reach. Since there's no description for where said organs are, we look at real life, where all vital organs are stored centrally.

What *should* be ruled, and what *is* ruled, are completely separate. If you wish to argue against this, I will not be replying unless you have A) Ruletext supporting creatures having vital organs in their limbs, or B) scientific evidence for similar.

[AMFV]

Tiny, diminuitive and fine creatures can attack while in the same square as their target.



And whether ruletext exists on where a creature has vital organs is irrelevant. You are creating a rule to allow him to sneak attack, houseruling it in.

I'd remind you that as per Core, if it is not covered in the rules, you look at real life for how it works. In real life, vital organs are stored at the centre of a creature's body.

Any other placement is a houserule, as you are making a ruling based entirely on what you feel like, rather than any actual reason, whether ruletext, or real life science based.

By RAW, you cannot make a sneak attack if he has no vital organs within reach. Since there's no description for where said organs are, we look at real life, where all vital organs are stored centrally.

What *should* be ruled, and what *is* ruled, are completely separate. If you wish to argue against this, I will not be replying unless you have A) Ruletext supporting creatures having vital organs in their limbs, or B) scientific evidence for similar.

What is ruled isn't there. Real life (scientific evidence) is COMPLETELY irrelevant to D&D. There are no rules for how far up you can attack, weird, right? Or for if you can reach vitals. The rule as written has no effect on the game. Because the supporting rules aren't there. Also if you think strikes to the ankle can't be fatal clearly you haven't studied much anatomy. There is a reason why in the real-world people make mines designed to target feet and damage those arteries, because it kills or maims. As maiming also exists in D&D only as hit point damage it is logical to assume that this sort of sneak attack is perfectly valid.

[term1nally s1ck]

Vertical reach is a written rule. It's in Core. DMG states specifically that the D&D world works just like the real world as far as is possible, and that would include where organs are stored in a body, since there is no rule that changes that.

Oh, and something that is powerful enough to blow off someone's feet is powerful enough to kill them straight out no matter where it hit them. If you take the same explosion to the chest, you're as dead.

And why, if the mines are so much more effective, did the bouncing betty get invented?

[TwylyghT]

Tiny, diminuitive and fine creatures can attack while in the same square as their target.



Completely true. They can attack anything they want by sharing its square.

The point is, if you try to argue that you have to realistically reach internal organs to sneak attack, AND also apply real world concepts for the positioning of organs in a creature as there are none written in RAW, the end result is that any creature with a reach of 0, can not sneak attack with a melee weapon, ever.

Even if a pixie somehow manages to pick up a 50 foot long gargantuan greatsword and swing it, the pixie still, by RAW, has a reach of 0 feet, and thus can not reach past the skin, and 0 feet is less than the .25 inches needed to reach internal organs on a creature of fine size (approximating from real life examples of creature size, as there is no anatomy details in RAW), no sneak attack.

It does not matter if the sword is 50 feet long, as melee reach *is* a defined concept in RAW. That reach for tiny and smaller creatures is 0, even if swinging a mile long sword.

See how absurd it is trying to rule reaching organs with the RAW?

[term1nally s1ck]

Very small creatures have a defined non-0 vertical reach.

Melee reach defines what squares you can attack from, not what you can hit from within said square.

[TwylyghT]

But once you go that route, you can sneak attack anything thats vitals are in a space you can reach, as ranges are calculated to the nearest point of the space occupied by a target. If you can reach a space, you can reach anywhere in that space.

Again, your back the problem of applying game mechanics and reality to the same situation.

Call it a house rule if one must, but I would rule for my game that if you threaten/can hit the space(s) that contain a vital spot, you can sneak attack.

And I would rule "vital spot" is a distinctly different term than "vital organ" and things like major arteries, the spine, and major nerve clusters are very much vital spots. The entire back of the head is a "vital spot" unless you believe to sap someone you actually have to bypass the skull and directly contact the brain.

Hell I think the only time I can think of that the term "organ" is specified in the players handbook is in the text for the preform skill.

[term1nally s1ck]

That's fine. A Tiny or smaller creature against a Colossal creature probably cannot reach those squares at all.

And it says vitals, not vital spot. Vitals are by definition vital organs. Check out the medical dictionary online if you wish.

[TwylyghT]

actually...


If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.


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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Thats two "vital spots" and one "spot" for 3 total spots, vs one vitals.

also... from websters.


Definition of VITALS

1: vital organs (as the heart, liver, lungs, and brain)
2: essential parts

see #2.

[olentu]

That's fine. A Tiny or smaller creature against a Colossal creature probably cannot reach those squares at all.

And it says vitals, not vital spot. Vitals are by definition vital organs. Check out the medical dictionary online if you wish.

Interesting if you had rules that state in what square each creature keeps its vitals at all times then presenting them would have already resolved the argument. I would wonder why you have waited so long to present such rules.

[term1nally s1ck]

A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

As for the 'which square a creature has its body' I'd suggest looking at the shape of the creature whenever possible.

In general, though, a Colossal creature will not have any part of its main body less than 5' off the ground except in rare circumstances.

[candycorn]

No; it isn't. You cannot play it out, by the rules, since you are lacking part of them. No interpretation of a rule that cannot be played out as written is RAW.Yes. Yes it can be, provided that the rule interpretation does not VIOLATE RAW/


I would thank you not to put words in my mouth. What does Wizards and Arcane Spell Failure have anything to do with this? Rogues are not top of the power pole like Wizards are. Denying a rogue sneak attack simply because his target is more than two sizes larger than him or whatever arbitrary limitation you impose is a completely unnecessary nerf. Sneak attack already has numerous conditions, some of which mean they do not work at all on some creatures.First: It's not arbitrary. It's rules-backed. Second, if we base our interpretation of what is and isn't RAW based on the power level of the character, we are not ruling on the RULE, but on the CHARACTER. If the rogue's sneak attack instantly killed anything it hit, would your stance on this be the same? If so, then you're not basing your judgement on the rules, but rather, how fair you think they are, and how fair you think they should be.

Then stop harping on how this is RAW. If you agree it is a house rule, stand up to it.It is. It is RAW that requires interpretation to apply. Ignoring it entirely, or claiming it is a fluff requirement that is totally meaningless? That is violating RAW.

There's a difference between houserules that don't violate existing RAW, and houserules that do. The former act in accordance with existing rules. The latter act in defiance of them. My interpretation is the former. Yours is the latter, out of some sense of sympathy for the rogue's plight in the power curve.


Yes, that I agree with. But you have continually insisted that your own interpretation is RAW, when it is nothing of the sort. It might be a necessary house rule to follow a RAW rule, but it is still a house rule.But when you do so, and FOLLOW that rule, you are acting in accordance with RAW. When you do so, and IGNORE the rule... You are not.

As for my "insisting that my interpretation is the one true RAW"... I refer you to your earlier statement (which I bolded). I stated that IGNORING this rule is a violation of RAW, which means it would be not the way it can be played RAW. Beyond that, it is up to the DM (something I have said... MANY times) to interpret precisely how the rule should be applied.

I have stated how I'd interpret it, if I wanted to do so in a way that violated and ignored no RAW. I never stated that my view was the only way. It's merely an interpretation that is in accordance with rules.

[AMFV]

Actually in this case you could sneak attack anything wearing armor. That generally covers vitals... So by your interpretation sneak attack is completely worthless. That's kind of the whole point of armor in real life, and it generally works. Which is why in real medieval battles people used claymores and such to shatter joints and cause you to bleed out, not a very precision based thing at all. Again realism does not apply to D&D, it just doesn't make sense.

[candycorn]

Actually in this case you could sneak attack anything wearing armor. That generally covers vitals... So by your interpretation sneak attack is completely worthless. That's kind of the whole point of armor in real life, and it generally works. Which is why in real medieval battles people used claymores and such to shatter joints and cause you to bleed out, not a very precision based thing at all. Again realism does not apply to D&D, it just doesn't make sense.

Incorrect. Armor can be penetrated, and almost never perfectly covers these areas.

On a side note, Picks and other piercing weapons were created explicitly to puncture armor. They were rather good at the task. "covering vitals" in a way that doesn't prevent you from reaching them... isn't really covering them, now is it?

[Taelas]

I'd remind you that as per Core, if it is not covered in the rules, you look at real life for how it works. In real life, vital organs are stored at the centre of a creature's body.
I completely agree. Especially since the description includes the need for a discernible anatomy.

But without rules for how to reach those vitals, when apparently it is separate from the rules regarding how to reach creatures, we cannot use the sentence for anything, by RAW. We cannot simply go to real life in this instance -- real life does not use mechanics, and we need a mechanic here. Any mechanic created based on real life is a house rule.


Yes. Yes it can be, provided that the rule interpretation does not VIOLATE RAW/
No. When a rule does not function without house rules, the rule is broken. Adding house rules does not fix the broken rule.


First: It's not arbitrary. It's rules-backed. Second, if we base our interpretation of what is and isn't RAW based on the power level of the character, we are not ruling on the RULE, but on the CHARACTER. If the rogue's sneak attack instantly killed anything it hit, would your stance on this be the same? If so, then you're not basing your judgement on the rules, but rather, how fair you think they are, and how fair you think they should be.
I am not saying the rule is wrong because it nerfs rogues unnecessarily. I am saying the rule doesn't work, and besides, it would nerf rogues unnecessarily if implemented. Whether it has an impact on rogues' viability or not does not change that the rule does not work.


It is. It is RAW that requires interpretation to apply. Ignoring it entirely, or claiming it is a fluff requirement that is totally meaningless? That is violating RAW.
You cannot violate RAW when it is broken. The rule, as written, cannot be followed. You need house rules to make it work, but that is not RAW.


There's a difference between houserules that don't violate existing RAW, and houserules that do. The former act in accordance with existing rules. The latter act in defiance of them. My interpretation is the former. Yours is the latter, out of some sense of sympathy for the rogue's plight in the power curve.
There is no difference. Both are house rules, thus both options are not part of RAW. Yes, yours enable RAW to work. That doesn't matter.


But when you do so, and FOLLOW that rule, you are acting in accordance with RAW. When you do so, and IGNORE the rule... You are not.
I repeat, it doesn't matter. You are still not following the rules as written when you implement house rules, even if those house rules are necessary for the RAW to work.


As for my "insisting that my interpretation is the one true RAW"... I refer you to your earlier statement (which I bolded). I stated that IGNORING this rule is a violation of RAW, which means it would be not the way it can be played RAW. Beyond that, it is up to the DM (something I have said... MANY times) to interpret precisely how the rule should be applied.
I may have misunderstood; I'm not about to go back through your posts and find if I am correct or not. If so, I apologize.

Ignoring the rule is a "violation" of RAW, whatever that is supposed to mean, but adding any house rule (even one that causes RAW to work) is outside the scope of the term "rules as written". You cannot assume a house rule to be in affect in any game; thus, the proper RAW response to the question posed in the original post is that it is up to the GM. You have said that, at least.


I have stated how I'd interpret it, if I wanted to do so in a way that violated and ignored no RAW. I never stated that my view was the only way. It's merely an interpretation that is in accordance with rules.
That is not how it read.

[candycorn]

I completely agree. Especially since the description includes the need for a discernible anatomy.

But without rules for how to reach those vitals, when apparently it is separate from the rules regarding how to reach creatures, we cannot use the sentence for anything, by RAW. We cannot simply go to real life in this instance -- real life does not use mechanics, and we need a mechanic here. Any mechanic created based on real life is a house rule.

And not creating any mechanic at all is disregarding rules. So, there is no way to handle this situation without either violation of rules, or interpretation of them, which requires rulings to cover areas not outlined.

Now, when one holds that violation of the rules is against RAW, all we have left is interpretation. While this doesn't have the luxury of having a unified and cohesive RAW answer that applies universally, it is the only solution that is RAW-compliant.

[Taelas]

And not creating any mechanic at all is disregarding rules. So, there is no way to handle this situation without either violation of rules, or interpretation of them, which requires rulings to cover areas not outlined.

Now, when one holds that violation of the rules is against RAW, all we have left is interpretation. While this doesn't have the luxury of having a unified and cohesive RAW answer that applies universally, it is the only solution that is RAW-compliant.

The only applicable RAW answer is to state that the rule doesn't work without GM interpretation (and house rules). Assuming the house rule to be in effect is wrong.

[candycorn]

The only applicable RAW answer is to state that the rule doesn't work without GM interpretation (and house rules). Assuming the house rule to be in effect is wrong.

Your phraseology is misleading. It would be more accurate to assume that rules are to be made to work or discarded. As discarding is not a RAW option, the more accurate way to phrase that is to say:

The rule requires a GM ruling. Check with your GM to see how he handles this (whether it is disregarded in your game, or whether rulings are made to apply it).

No matter what, a GM's ruling is required to resolve the subject. Since RAW compliance is closer to RAW than discarding RAW, one cannot assume a position where the default is discarding RAW is the closest answer to RAW, when interpretation can make the rule completely compliant with existing RAW.

No matter how you try to phrase it, "ignoring rules" is never going to be RAW. That's what you're trying to say, and it's utter poppycock. Ignoring a rule is not the RAW answer.

[Taelas]

Your phraseology is misleading. It would be more accurate to assume that rules are to be made to work or discarded. As discarding is not a RAW option, the more accurate way to phrase that is to say:

The rule requires a GM ruling. Check with your GM to see how he handles this (whether it is disregarded in your game, or whether rulings are made to apply it).
I don't see the difference.


No matter what, a GM's ruling is required to apply it. Since RAW compliance is closer to RAW than discarding RAW, one cannot assume a position where the default is discarding RAW is the closest answer to RAW, when interpretation can make the rule completely compliant with existing RAW.
I am not doing discarding the rule in this context.


No matter how you try to phrase it, "ignoring rules" is never going to be RAW. That's what you're trying to say, and it's utter poppycock. Ignoring a rule is not the RAW answer.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

I am not ignoring the rule. I am saying it doesn't work, and that adding a house rule that makes it work is not RAW.

[candycorn]

I don't see the difference.In that case, you shouldn't have a problem defaulting to mine.

The difference is that yours establishes the default: "Rule broken, cannot be used", and an intervention action available, "DM steps in to make it usable with houserules".

It glosses over the fact that ruling it unusable and disregarding is, in itself, a houserule. My phraseology calls to light the fact that a ruling is required, and that ANY ruling is a house ruling.


I am not doing discarding the rule in this context.If a rule cannot be used (your default), then the default is not using it. If you're not using a piece of rule text, you're discarding it.

Where is my thought process wrong? Your statement makes the discarding of the rule ineveitable, when it establishes "cannot be used" as a default.


Stop putting words in my mouth.I'm not putting them in. I'm looking at what you said and following it to its only possible conclusion.

I am not ignoring the rule. I am saying it doesn't work, and that adding a house rule that makes it work is not RAW.And discarding it as unusable is not RAW, either. However, one is RAW-compliant (in that it does not violate any existing RAW). That is mine.

Discarding the rule is NOT RAW-compliant (in that it DOES violate existing RAW, in that it is not used. The reason WHY it is not used is completely irrelevant. Even if you think it can't be used at all, the fact that you are not using a rule, is in itself, a houserule.)

And since your own view is a houserule that violates RAW...
And mine is a houserule that does not...

And no matter what, a houserule must be made....

The closest applicable answer is the one that does not violate the rules.

[olentu]

All right guys let me see if I can explain the situation. There is a rule that is not sufficiently clear under the rules. By that I mean that no interpretation can be said to be the one true interpretation given the currently presented evidence (there may be an answer from a yet unreferenced source but from the evidence I remember being presented there is not).

This means that the rule can not be followed without using houserules. The rule is a mishmash of words that has no definite meaning without houserules.

Now this is not unheard of and all that means is that should this rule become applicable then without houseruling the game becomes unplayable as any course of action that resolves the situation is a houserule.

And so really all that there is is that there is no ruling under the rules nothing more.

Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled discussion of houserules.

[candycorn]

All right guys let me see if I can explain the situation. There is a rule that is not sufficiently clear under the rules. By that I mean that no interpretation can be said to be the one true interpretation given the currently presented evidence (there may be an answer from a yet unreferenced source but from the evidence I remember being presented there is not).

This means that the rule can not be followed without using houserules. The rule is a mishmash of words that has no definite meaning without houserules.It has a definite meaning. It just has no single definite APPLICATION. It's not a mishmash. It's just incomplete.

Now this is not unheard of and all that means is that should this rule become applicable then without houseruling the game becomes unplayable as any course of action that resolves the situation is a houserule.That is correct.

And so really all that there is is that there is no ruling under the rules nothing more.Some rulings violate no existing rule, however. Others do. That creates a situation that while no view is definitively the one RAW answer, some views ARE definitively violating RAW.

[olentu]

It has a definite meaning. It just has no single definite APPLICATION. It's not a mishmash. It's just incomplete.
That is correct.
Some rulings violate no existing rule, however. Others do. That creates a situation that while no view is definitively the one RAW answer, some views ARE definitively violating RAW.

Hmm well I suppose if you mean that the definite meaning is multiple presumably incompatible meanings (hence the disagreement) all at the same time then I would agree. Or perhaps you mean that like all things it has a definite meaning to each person but that would apply to any collection of words and is so obvious I found it unnecessary to state. Or perhaps you are putting the opinion of the original author over all other opinions to which I would find that a bad way to read the rules as that stance would overrule even some rules that have a meaning that can be agreed upon.

So I suppose that it could be said to have a definite meaning but, unless you are thinking of some way that I am not at the moment to say that it does, saying that seems to only hamper discussion of the situation.




Oh sure there are perhaps some that could be said to be wrong but unless that whittles the number down to 1 this is meaningless with regards to the fact that there is none that can be said to be the only correct one. Thus it remains that there is no ruling under the rules.

[candycorn]

Hmm well I suppose if you mean that the definite meaning is multiple presumably incompatible meanings (hence the disagreement) all at the same time then I would agree. Or perhaps you mean that like all things it has a definite meaning to each person but that would apply to any collection of words and is so obvious I found it unnecessary to state. Or perhaps you are putting the opinion of the original author over all other opinions to which I would find that a bad way to read the rules as that stance would overrule even some rules that have a meaning that can be agreed upon.

So I suppose that it could be said to have a definite meaning but, unless you are thinking of some way that I am not at the moment to say that it does, saying that seems to only hamper discussion of the situation.
I am saying that there was definite intent in the writing of it. That intent, based on the text of the rogue's ability is:

To sneak attack a creature, it must have a discernable anatomy, and you must be able to effectively reach the parts of that anatomy that are more vulnerable to damage.

The specific application of that (how do we determine effective reach to anatomy) is the matter that is unclear.


Oh sure there are perhaps some that could be said to be wrong but unless that whittles the number down to 1 this is meaningless with regards to the fact that there is none that can be said to be the only correct one. Thus it remains that there is no ruling under the rules.That is true.

I am not attempting to say that my ruling is the only true correct ruling. I have said (multiple times) that there is more than one way to interpret this.

What I AM saying is that the primary opposition view is necessarily incorrect, from a RAW standpoint, as it actively violates RAW.

[olentu]

I am saying that there was definite intent in the writing of it. That intent, based on the text of the rogue's ability is:

To sneak attack a creature, it must have a discernable anatomy, and you must be able to effectively reach the parts of that anatomy that are more vulnerable to damage.

The specific application of that (how do we determine effective reach to anatomy) is the matter that is unclear.

That is true.

I am not attempting to say that my ruling is the only true correct ruling. I have said (multiple times) that there is more than one way to interpret this.

What I AM saying is that the primary opposition view is necessarily incorrect, from a RAW standpoint, as it actively violates RAW.

Oh surely there was an intent but that is meaningless.



Oh is that all. Well I can't agree since it seems to me that you are basing your argument on several things not strictly defined to be absolutely true in the rules.

[term1nally s1ck]

But without rules for how to reach those vitals, when apparently it is separate from the rules regarding how to reach creatures, we cannot use the sentence for anything, by RAW. We cannot simply go to real life in this instance -- real life does not use mechanics, and we need a mechanic here. Any mechanic created based on real life is a house rule.


No. When a rule does not function without house rules, the rule is broken. Adding house rules does not fix the broken rule.

Gravity does not exist in the RAW universe. It is never mentioned.

By your interpretation, the Jump skill lets you jump a certain number of feet in the air, and then stay there.

By your interpretation, falling damage need never occur, because nothing makes objects fall.

AS RAW, the DMG EXPLICITLY says that the world works as closely to real life as is possible while still following the rules.

[olentu]

Gravity does not exist in the RAW universe. It is never mentioned.

By your interpretation, the Jump skill lets you jump a certain number of feet in the air, and then stay there.

By your interpretation, falling damage need never occur, because nothing makes objects fall.

AS RAW, the DMG EXPLICITLY says that the world works as closely to real life as is possible while still following the rules.

Reverse gravity.

[term1nally s1ck]

Doesn't say what gravity does normally, does it.

[olentu]

Doesn't say what gravity does normally, does it.

No but clearly it is mentioned.

[term1nally s1ck]

As are the positions of vitals in a body. Doesn't say where they are or how to get to them.

Gravity is mentioned, but it doesn't say what it does. Do we have to disregard gravity as a rule because it doesn't work without looking at IRL.

[olentu]

As are the positions of vitals in a body. Doesn't say where they are or how to get to them.

Gravity is mentioned, but it doesn't say what it does. Do we have to disregard gravity as a rule because it doesn't work without looking at IRL.

I was not aware that most creatures in the D&D rules exist in the real world.

[term1nally s1ck]

Nope, they don't. However, the large majority are very similar to creatures irl, and they all have their vital organs in their core, not at the extremities.

The obvious and *extremely* easy to justify reason is that it just makes more sense to have vital body parts in a protected area. This is even more true for creatures that are created rather than those that just evolved that way.

If you do wish to define a humanoid creature as having vital organs elsewhere, then fine. Its a houserule, but it's there.

IMO, an aberration with no normal anatomy should not be sneak attackable unless you have at least a fair few ranks in the relevant knowledge. In that situation, it's completely DM interpretation.

However, for the large majority of creatures, that are in standard shapes, and have standard bodies, or are based off irl creatures, it makes sense to just say 'they're the same as everything else', in the distinct lack of any rules saying otherwise.

[olentu]

Nope, they don't. However, the large majority are very similar to creatures irl, and they all have their vital organs in their core, not at the extremities.

The obvious and *extremely* easy to justify reason is that it just makes more sense to have vital body parts in a protected area. This is even more true for creatures that are created rather than those that just evolved that way.

If you do wish to define a humanoid creature as having vital organs elsewhere, then fine. Its a houserule, but it's there.

IMO, an aberration with no normal anatomy should not be sneak attackable unless you have at least a fair few ranks in the relevant knowledge. In that situation, it's completely DM interpretation.

However, for the large majority of creatures, that are in standard shapes, and have standard bodies, or are based off irl creatures, it makes sense to just say 'they're the same as everything else', in the distinct lack of any rules saying otherwise.

My my, similar, easy to justify, and even makes sense how subjective and arbitrary based upon one's personal opinion. But that is the end of it I suppose. I can see that you will not be swayed from your houserules and we are at the point where it would be meaningless for me to bother to actually try and discuss with any real effort so I will not bother unless you greatly desire me to or it strikes my fancy at a later time.

[Taelas]

Gravity does not exist in the RAW universe. It is never mentioned.

By your interpretation, the Jump skill lets you jump a certain number of feet in the air, and then stay there.

By your interpretation, falling damage need never occur, because nothing makes objects fall.

AS RAW, the DMG EXPLICITLY says that the world works as closely to real life as is possible while still following the rules.

...

This is nothing but a straw-man argument. None of that is by my interpretation.

You cannot draw from real life when you require a game mechanic. It isn't possible. Real life doesn't work according to game mechanics. We need a game mechanic to establish when vitals are within reach to enable sneak attacks, since it is apparent that it is different from when the creature is merely within normal reach.

Creating a mechanic, even one based on real life expectations, is a house rule -- period.


In that case, you shouldn't have a problem defaulting to mine.

The difference is that yours establishes the default: "Rule broken, cannot be used", and an intervention action available, "DM steps in to make it usable with houserules".

It glosses over the fact that ruling it unusable and disregarding is, in itself, a houserule. My phraseology calls to light the fact that a ruling is required, and that ANY ruling is a house ruling.
What? No. I am not "ruling" it unusable, it is unusable.


If a rule cannot be used (your default), then the default is not using it. If you're not using a piece of rule text, you're discarding it.
That is not "my default". What I am saying is that, since any ruling on the matter is a house rule, discarding the rule is every bit as valid as creating a house rule to enable it to work.


Where is my thought process wrong? Your statement makes the discarding of the rule ineveitable, when it establishes "cannot be used" as a default.
No, it does not. It cannot be used without a house rule. That is what I am saying.


I'm not putting them in. I'm looking at what you said and following it to its only possible conclusion.
You're drawing conclusions from thin air, it seems to me.


And discarding it as unusable is not RAW, either. However, one is RAW-compliant (in that it does not violate any existing RAW). That is mine.
There is no such thing as a "RAW-compliant" house rule. It is nonsensical. A house rule alters the rules as written. Yours clarify and alter a rule to make it work.


Discarding the rule is NOT RAW-compliant (in that it DOES violate existing RAW, in that it is not used. The reason WHY it is not used is completely irrelevant. Even if you think it can't be used at all, the fact that you are not using a rule, is in itself, a houserule.)
And the fact that you are altering the rule to make it work is in itself a house rule.


And since your own view is a houserule that violates RAW...
And mine is a houserule that does not...
And no matter what, a houserule must be made....

The closest applicable answer is the one that does not violate the rules.
Any house rule "violates" RAW, period.

The only applicable answer is that the rule requires GM adjudication, as it cannot be used as written.

[Sandman]

Just wanted to point out, that the same rogue you are arguing that he/she/it couldn't reach nothing but the legs of a dragon, would still cut his head off with a 20 and a vorpal weapon. :smallbiggrin:

The same square that you are imagining containing the leg, may as well have the head/tail/wing/whatever in the same round (it's not a j-rpg, the characters don't just move to attack and then jump back to their position).

Also this logic would make it imposible to SA a, let's say, huge dragon, using medium sized daggers, since their length is less than it would take reach a vital organ after piercing the skin, but it would be ok with a greatsword.


You're right. It was. And I have never seen, in fantasy literature, the plucky 3 foot rogue stab the 150 foot dragon in the spleen.


Well, there was this kender that stabbed an overdeity. :smallwink:

[dextercorvia]

Some rulings violate no existing rule, however. Others do. That creates a situation that while no view is definitively the one RAW answer, some views ARE definitively violating RAW.

And my ruling that this references the usual reach rules does not violate RAW, and does not create complications where a DM is required to determine whether a rogue can sneak attack on a case by case basis by looking at an artist's rendering of the creature in question.

Occam called. He would like to loan you this razor.

[term1nally s1ck]

...

This is nothing but a straw-man argument. None of that is by my interpretation.

You cannot draw from real life when you require a game mechanic. It isn't possible.

Do I need to say more. Gravity is a houserule in your games, apparently.


My my, similar, easy to justify, and even makes sense how subjective and arbitrary based upon one's personal opinion. But that is the end of it I suppose. I can see that you will not be swayed from your houserules and we are at the point where it would be meaningless for me to bother to actually try and discuss with any real effort so I will not bother unless you greatly desire me to or it strikes my fancy at a later time.

I'm taking the text in the DMG where you are required to make the world match real life whenever possible, and looking at real life for what we can conclude about where a creature's vital organs are.

If you want to make strange rulings on strange creatures, go ahead. By the RAW text, where it specifically calls out limbs as not counting, limbs do not count.

[candycorn]

No. When a rule does not function without house rules, the rule is broken. Adding house rules does not fix the broken rule.It's not the rule that doesn't function without house rules here... It's the ENTIRE GAME. Your option is houseruling as well, and time and again, you emphasize that in others and gloss over it with yours. It is misleading, and is poor form.


I am not saying the rule is wrong because it nerfs rogues unnecessarily. I am saying the rule doesn't work, and besides, it would nerf rogues unnecessarily if implemented. Whether it has an impact on rogues' viability or not does not change that the rule does not work.But it affects your decision on implement vs. discard. Which means your view is biased on something other than rules. Power levels have ZERO relevance in this discussion. Bringing it up points to your bias based on them.


You cannot violate RAW when it is broken. The rule, as written, cannot be followed. You need house rules to make it work, but that is not RAW.Yes, you can. There may be no way to follow it without ruling, but choosing not to follow it IS a choice NOT to follow the rules. There is an option, as I pointed out, allowing you to follow it. When you make the CHOICE (and it is an active choice), you are CHOOSING to disregard the rules. There is no other interpretation of your active choice that is valid.


There is no difference. Both are house rules, thus both options are not part of RAW. Yes, yours enable RAW to work.And yours does not.

That doesn't matter.Unless you care about following the rules, perhaps.

I repeat, it doesn't matter. You are still not following the rules as written when you implement house rules, even if those house rules are necessary for the RAW to work.Yes you are. You are following every written rule. You are also following ADDITIONAL house rules. But you are following every written rule.

[olentu]

Do I need to say more. Gravity is a houserule in your games, apparently.



I'm taking the text in the DMG where you are required to make the world match real life whenever possible, and looking at real life for what we can conclude about where a creature's vital organs are.

If you want to make strange rulings on strange creatures, go ahead. By the RAW text, where it specifically calls out limbs as not counting, limbs do not count.

You can't actually match something with how it works in real life if it does not exist in real life to work. Thus you are taking what your opinion of how the creature would function should it be real and then making a ruling based purely on your theoretical approximation. That is like any other choice to base your DM fiat upon a perfectly reasonable decision but it does not make it any less DM fiat.

But really like I said you seem to be too invested in your particular ruling. It is most likely useless to discuss as I doubt that you will ever relent in the position that your rule is the one and only way that the rules could possibly be interpreted by anyone.

[candycorn]

And my ruling that this references the usual reach rules does not violate RAW, and does not create complications where a DM is required to determine whether a rogue can sneak attack on a case by case basis by looking at an artist's rendering of the creature in question.

Occam called. He would like to loan you this razor.

Misapplication of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is used to explain things that are happening/have happened... Not as a tool to determine what choice should be done.

For example: You see a group of people in uniforms of the Zhentarim in a bar in a Zhent city. They're sitting around a table talking and drinking. We could have:

1) Off-duty Zhent soldiers enjoying booze

2) Covert agents, infiltrating the bar to make contact with double agents within the Zhent empire.

The simpler solution (1) is more likely. It is used to explain something that happens, that is observed.

It's not used to determine what the laws of physics will BE. It explains the laws of physics that are already in place and observed.

Since we are trying to determine what happens, rather than explain why something happened, Occam's Razor does not apply here, any more than the pythagorean theorem applies when determining the area of a circle.

On a side note: your ruling assumes that the rule: Only disallows attacks that aren't legal.

Let's take the observed:
1) extra ink was used when making this rule, and time was taken creating and adding it.
2) companies typically avoid wasted cost when possible and foreseen
3) mechanical text that does not apply to the game is wasted text.

Now we can assume:

1) the rule does have an application, and eliminate interpretations that force otherwise

2) assume that the company willfully wasted time and money, to no effect, for the sole purpose of telling people things that were already disallowed.

Now, use that razor you like so much to trim this down for me.

[dextercorvia]

You may ready an action to strike a Hydra's head when it attacks you even if you don't have reach to the Hydra. However you can't sneak attack it, since you don't have reach normally.

[Taelas]

Do I need to say more. Gravity is a houserule in your games, apparently.
:smallsigh:

I do not need a mechanic for gravity beyond what is already in the game (like falling damage and Jump checks), and I can easily default on the rules text that states it is the same as in real life. There's no issue, and I do not appreciate you trying to make me out as ridiculous by creating straw-men you can put to the torch.

We need a mechanic that clearly tells us when we can reach vitals for the rule to work. If we don't have that additional rule, GMs are forced to make judgment calls, i.e. make up the rule on the fly, every single time they're up against the issue.

It can be something as simple as you can only sneak attack creatures that are within two size categories of yourself, or it can be as elaborate as determining each case individually (which is what happens if you do not do anything and try to run it as written), but we need something, and because the rules do not supply it, we are forced to create a house rule.


Yes you are. You are following every written rule. You are also following ADDITIONAL house rules. But you are following every written rule.

Except you are changing the basis for discussion. It doesn't matter if you are following RAW when you are including a house rule. You are no longer discussing just RAW, you are discussing RAW as seen through your house rule.

You cannot expect every poster on these boards to use any particular house rules. RAW is our common ground; it is the null assumption. Your house rule that makes RAW work? It is not part of that null assumption. It violates RAW every bit as much as my suggestion to discard it, because it means we no longer have that common ground if we choose not to follow any particular house rule.

[Preaplanes]

Replying to OP: Yes, so long as they meet the conditions and are either on the same square (melee) or within 30 feet (ranged, though PHBII has "Crossbow Sniper", a favorite feat of mine, to double the SA range).

A paperclip in the pupil or a needle in the cervical vertebra would STILL be very painful, and that's for Fine vs Colossal+. Besides, it's D&D, the HP doesn't exactly represent how much life you have left so much as a more abstract concept, such as your ability to turn a life-threatening attack into a less dangerous one at the last moment.

Otherwise, explain 1hp people fighting at full capacity. Hell, I used a Cure Minor Wounds just last week so I could get back in the fight from 0.

[Khatoblepas]

Wait, so, if you need to be able to strike a vital organ in order to deal sneak attack damage...

1) How does a rogue with Gravestrike on deal sneak attack damage to an undead? Wording says:


For 1 round, you can deliver sneak attacks against undead as if they were not immune to sneak attacks.
To attack an undead creature in this manner, you must still meet the other requirements for making a sneak attack.

For an undead, no organ is vital. They are literally sacks of meat, and or they are bones. Or ghosts. Or incorporeal shadows. What about a dry lich? In order to sneak attack their vital organs, you need to be able to reach one of their phylacteries. Not very useful in the middle of combat.

2) How does a rogue with Golem Strike do the same thing? Most constructs do not have vital organs. Some are animate clay. Some are robots. Some are clothes whirling on an animus. Some are end tables.

Since we can discount anything that isn't a "vital organ" (attacking arteries doesn't count, only vital organs. You can't attack something's animated spirit, as that's not a vital organ. You can't attack gears or pulleys, those aren't vital organs) sneak attacking anything immune to sneak attack, even when you make them vunerable to sneak attacking, negates your sneak attack.

Do these spells do nothing, then?

[magwaaf]

I would say they could... think about it.. pressure points? Kinda like bad acnipuncture. Achilles heal and what not.
agreed, puncturing an achilles or something like that around a foot counts

[Preaplanes]

agreed, puncturing an achilles or something like that around a foot counts

Especially if it's Achilles' Achilles.

[RedDragons]

Don't use logic in a fantasy game

[Rubik]

Please give generously. Your donation could save a gnome from a life of pretty crime and homelessness. :smallfrown:But it's a rouge. He's got to use his Charisma score for SOMETHING other than UMD, right?

[Gildedragon]

Thread necromancy guys. This is from 2011

[RedDragons]

Replying to OP: Yes, so long as they meet the conditions and are either on the same square (melee) or within 30 feet (ranged, though PHBII has "Crossbow Sniper", a favorite feat of mine, to double the SA range).

A paperclip in the pupil or a needle in the cervical vertebra would STILL be very painful, and that's for Fine vs Colossal+. Besides, it's D&D, the HP doesn't exactly represent how much life you have left so much as a more abstract concept, such as your ability to turn a life-threatening attack into a less dangerous one at the last moment.

Otherwise, explain 1hp people fighting at full capacity. Hell, I used a Cure Minor Wounds just last week so I could get back in the fight from 0.



How in the world did you even find this thread, did you google midgets stabbing giants?

[Preaplanes]

"tiny creature" "sneak attack", actually.

Was looking up the rules and forgot that this was an archived discussion. My apologies for the accidental "Raise Thread." *rimshot*

[RedDragons]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Renen]

Logically, if the weapon is so small, it might not even penetrate the skin.
Imagine a mosquito trying to stab you in the heart with it's nose.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread necromancy. Please don't do that.