Sneak attack and size category differences

[Geki]

Hey,

I've already come across a few threads on this (and the fierce debates that have gone on with regards to the wording of SA in the PHB), but my question is a little more specific.

Basically, I'll be playing a gnome rogue. I want to know if sneak-attacking a large-sized creature is feasible. From what I gather, I must able to reach a 'vital spot' (the meaning of which is in itself debatable). Assuming that my DM decides that 'vitals' means organs in the torso, and given that a gnome's vertical reach, going off the SRD, is 4ft, do you think it's possible for him to reach high up enough to hit a vital spot?

[sonofzeal]

Back of the ankles is a "vital point" by almost any definition - wounds there tend to bleed a lot, and it's easy to permanently cripple someone there.

More generally: a good DM should find excuses for you to be able to sneak attack, not rule against you to make your entire character concept unfeasible. Halflings are the definitive Rogues, and you're no smaller than one. If Lidda can Sneak Attack something, you can too.

[candycorn]

Well, let's see. 4 foot vertical reach. Let's go strictly by the rules.

A small creature may attack into any adjacent square with any standard weapon he wields. For most characters, that would be ground level and +5 altitude, which means that if a bird were flying at the altitude of an ogre's chest, you could hit it. That makes is reasonable, even under the interpretation that you have to reach the vitals.

Generally, where it gets iffy under the assumed DM interpretation is when we compare at over 3 size categories. That's when we start dealing with reach weapons to make the sneak attack, or ranged weapons. For example, a small creature attacking a Gargantuan humanoid, or a colossal quadruped (such as a dragon).


Back of the ankles is a "vital point" by almost any definition - wounds there tend to bleed a lot, and it's easy to permanently cripple someone there.



I want to know if sneak-attacking a large-sized creature is feasible. From what I gather, I must able to reach a 'vital spot' (the meaning of which is in itself debatable). Assuming that my DM decides that 'vitals' means organs in the torso, and given that a gnome's vertical reach, going off the SRD, is 4ft, do you think it's possible for him to reach high up enough to hit a vital spot?
Emphasis mine. It's fine to have your own opinion on the issue, Sonofzeal. However, it's not helpful to advocate it when the OP begins with the premise that your opinion is not ruled to be the one that is used. It's much more constructive to provide an answer which actually answers the question posed.

It's like if a player wants help building a monk, and says that TOB is not allowed, and you respond with "build a swordsage". Whether it's better or not is irrelevant, when that option isn't on the table.

[Gavinfoxx]

Wait... there aren't any rules that say you can't sneak attack a creature, regardless of the size difference. Nothing about sneak atatck says anything about size as far as I can tell. Unless I am forgetting something??

[olentu]

Well it is not like the location of the parts of a creature are that well defined in their space.

[candycorn]

Wait... there aren't any rules that say you can't sneak attack a creature, regardless of the size difference. Nothing about sneak atatck says anything about size as far as I can tell. Unless I am forgetting something??
There's a restriction that you must be able to reach the vitals. It's a debated point, and some DM's seek to apply that rules text.

[Lord.Sorasen]

4 feet makes it seem like it's not enough, but it's important to remember the extended reach that a weapon gives. You might consider, if the sneak attack ruling is that way, making your combat style incorporate a longer weapon.

Another option, though a weirder one, is to jump.

[sonofzeal]

Emphasis mine. It's fine to have your own opinion on the issue, Sonofzeal. However, it's not helpful to advocate it when the OP begins with the premise that your opinion is not ruled to be the one that is used. It's much more constructive to provide an answer which actually answers the question posed.

It's like if a player wants help building a monk, and says that TOB is not allowed, and you respond with "build a swordsage". Whether it's better or not is irrelevant, when that option isn't on the table.
The key word in his phrase was "ASSUMING". I'm saying it's a bad assumption, if the DM's remotely reasonable. It's certainly something that should be cleared up in conversation with the DM, as friends.

Put it this way - if the DM is closeminded and doesn't think a Gnome can sneak attack an Ogre, the DM's going to rule against it whatever we say. But a reasonable DM should be flexible on the issue and allow it without us needing to quote rules. Either quoting rules won't help, or quoting rules isn't needed.

I recommend talking to the DM rather than quoting rules. If the DM's openminded but wants plausible explainations, the ankles thing works perfectly, which is why I provided it.

[Crasical]

Rogues have proficiency with Simple Weapons. Longspears are simple weapons. Longspears have reach and can strike from 10 feet away for a small or medium creature.

[candycorn]

The key word in his phrase was "ASSUMING". I'm saying it's a bad assumption, if the DM's remotely reasonable. It's certainly something that should be cleared up in conversation with the DM, as friends.Yes, that is the key word.

If we were to assume that vitals means torso, then talking about the ankles is irrelevant. That's what assuming means. It means that we take it as a given, and try to provide help based on that, even if we don't personally follow that point.

Also, your bolded text is disparaging my playstyle, as I consider myself quite reasonable, and don't consider it a bad assumption. Can we keep that kinda talk outside of this, please?

Put it this way - if the DM is closeminded and doesn't think a Gnome can sneak attack an Ogre, the DM's going to rule against it whatever we say. But a reasonable DM should be flexible on the issue and allow it without us needing to quote rules. Either quoting rules won't help, or quoting rules isn't needed.This isn't a "good DM/bad DM" issue. This is a "his DM" issue. If the DM believes that you must reach the torso to sneak attack, then you show him how you reach the torso.

In other words, you assume that if the DM doesn't allow the rogue to sneak attack ankles, he must be a bad DM and a poor DM. That's simply not supported.


I recommend talking to the DM rather than quoting rules. If the DM's openminded but wants plausible explainations, the ankles thing works perfectly, which is why I provided it.If the DM is open-minded but has ruled, as the OP already stated, that "vitals" means "organs in the torso", then what you provided is not useful.

If the OP says that things outside the torso don't count, then arguing why they should isn't productive. The best bet, in that case, isn't to advocate he butt heads with the DM on prior rulings, but rather give support as to how he can accomplish what he wishes within those rulings.

Heck, I ascribe to that DM's view. I don't think that a gnome with a dagger should be sneak attacking a colossal dragon, unless he's in that dragon's square and flying or attacking with a reach/ranged weapon. That doesn't mean I'm closed minded, it just means that I make that ruling, and I work with players within that ruling. Players don't get far with me arguing why my ruling is wrong, just as they wouldn't get far arguing why rogues really should be able to sneak attack undead. I'm open minded, sure, but not when it comes to ignoring rules text.

See, you are equating "doesn't agree with your view" with "closed minded bad DM". That's not cool.

[sonofzeal]

Yes, that is the key word.

If we were to assume that vitals means torso, then talking about the ankles is irrelevant. That's what assuming means. It means that we take it as a given, and try to provide help based on that, even if we don't personally follow that point.

Also, your bolded text is disparaging my playstyle, as I consider myself quite reasonable, and don't consider it a bad assumption. Can we keep that kinda talk outside of this, please?
This isn't a "good DM/bad DM" issue. This is a "his DM" issue. If the DM believes that you must reach the torso to sneak attack, then you show him how you reach the torso.

In other words, you assume that if the DM doesn't allow the rogue to sneak attack ankles, he must be a bad DM and a poor DM. That's simply not supported.

If the DM is open-minded but has ruled, as the OP already stated, that "vitals" means "organs in the torso", then what you provided is not useful.

If the OP says that things outside the torso don't count, then arguing why they should isn't productive. The best bet, in that case, isn't to advocate he butt heads with the DM on prior rulings, but rather give support as to how he can accomplish what he wishes within those rulings.

Heck, I ascribe to that DM's view. I don't think that a gnome with a dagger should be sneak attacking a colossal dragon, unless he's in that dragon's square and flying or attacking with a reach/ranged weapon. That doesn't mean I'm closed minded, it just means that I make that ruling, and I work with players within that ruling. Players don't get far with me arguing why my ruling is wrong, just as they wouldn't get far arguing why rogues really should be able to sneak attack undead. I'm open minded, sure, but not when it comes to ignoring rules text.

See, you are equating "doesn't agree with your view" with "closed minded bad DM". That's not cool.
The phrasing of the OP suggests that the poster has not talked to the DM yet. "Assuming that my DM decides" says to me that the DM has not decided.

And I stand by what I said - a good DM should find excuses to make it work, even if it seems a little implausible at first pass, because Small Rogues are so iconic and Large monsters are so common. I'm not saying it's bad for a DM to need an excuse for it to work, not all DMs are comfortable with that level of handwaving, but again that's why I provided an excuse.

And I stand by what I said. If a DM is in the habit of heavily nerfing such normal characters as Small-sized Rogues because of technicalities, and refuses to accept alternate and entirely feasible explainations, then they're probably a bad DM. It's insulting to the players they clearly don't trust, it's condescending to think only their interpretation could possibly be valid, and it's closeminded to rule out reasonable alternatives even when presented with one.

Such a DM would not be my friend, and would not be someone I would want to play with.

[candycorn]

The phrasing of the OP suggests that the poster has not talked to the DM yet. "Assuming that my DM decides" says to me that the DM has not decided.

And I stand by what I said - a good DM should find excuses to make it work, even if it seems a little implausible at first pass, because Small Rogues are so iconic and Large monsters are so common. I'm not saying it's bad for a DM to need an excuse for it to work, not all DMs are comfortable with that level of handwaving, but again that's why I provided an excuse.I disagree. A good DM should make sure everyone has fun. That's the first, last, and only goal of about 99% of games out there. If everything works, then there's no challenge, and no point in playing. The challenge lies in what you do when things aren't going your way. If you like games your way, that's one thing, but it's a bit closed minded to assume that if someone isn't doing it that way, that they're playing the game wrong.


And I stand by what I said. If a DM is in the habit of heavily nerfing such normal characters as Small-sized Rogues because of technicalities, and refuses to accept alternate and entirely feasible explainations,Then let's let rogues kill anything they hit and hit anything they want. After all, let's not nerf those small rogues over such trivial technicalities as rules, right?

It's insulting to the players they clearly don't trustA DM can trust players, without agreeing with them. You're vilifying proponents of this position without cause or logical reason.

it's condescending to think only their interpretation could possibly be valid...So, unless a DM accepts your opinion of vitals as the only interpretation that could possibly be valid...
Then they're condescending? :smallconfused:

and it's closeminded to rule out reasonable alternatives even when presented with one.Not true. If they hear it, consider it, and disagree with it for a logical reason, it's not closed minded. That's the definition of open minded. Disagreeing with someone isn't closed-minded, as long as it's considered.

Such a DM would not be my friend, and would not be someone I would want to play with.I'm sorry you have such a problem being tolerant of others. Luckily for you, you aren't the one playing with such a DM. Geki (the OP) is. And if Geki doesn't have a problem with Geki playing with such a DM, is there any reason for you to? And is there really any reason for this soapbox tirade of yours?

Well, other than to promote your own personal opinion, despite the fact that opinions on what the DM should rule weren't solicited. Justification for getting this to work based on a specific ruling (that you ignored) was.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Here's the thing you have vital points all over your body. It stands to reason any living creature of any size with a discernible anatomy would be the same.
A gnome is tall enough to slice the femeral artery on a 20ft giant. A fatal wound in real life.

[Greenish]

I disagree. A good DM should make sure everyone has fun. That's the first, last, and only goal of about 99% of games out there. If everything works, then there's no challenge, and no point in playing. The challenge lies in what you do when things aren't going your way.Are you saying it's currently too easy for rogues to sneak attack? :smallconfused:

[Edit]: And do you think it's a good way to create challenges by randomly going "lolno, your class features don't work because I said so!"?

[sonofzeal]

I disagree. A good DM should make sure everyone has fun. That's the first, last, and only goal of about 99% of games out there. If everything works, then there's no challenge, and no point in playing. The challenge lies in what you do when things aren't going your way. If you like games your way, that's one thing, but it's a bit closed minded to assume that if someone isn't doing it that way, that they're playing the game wrong.

Then let's let rogues kill anything they hit and hit anything they want. After all, let's not nerf those small rogues over such trivial technicalities as rules, right?
A DM can trust players, without agreeing with them. You're vilifying proponents of this position without cause or logical reason.
...So, unless a DM accepts your opinion of vitals as the only interpretation that could possibly be valid...
Then they're condescending? :smallconfused:
Not true. If they hear it, consider it, and disagree with it for a logical reason, it's not closed minded. That's the definition of open minded. Disagreeing with someone isn't closed-minded, as long as it's considered.
I'm sorry you have such a problem being tolerant of others. Luckily for you, you aren't the one playing with such a DM. Geki (the OP) is. And if Geki doesn't have a problem with Geki playing with such a DM, is there any reason for you to? And is there really any reason for this soapbox tirade of yours?

Well, other than to promote your own personal opinion, despite the fact that opinions on what the DM should rule weren't solicited. Justification for getting this to work based on a specific ruling (that you ignored) was.
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. We're talking about a houserule to prevent a T4 class from using its primary class feature effectively.

Just in case you're going to dispute that it's a houserule, here's a chart of "vital points" with traditional martial arts application, specifically the ones with boxes around them:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Chinese_meridians.JPG

Now, I don't disapprove of houserules in general, but I tend to be leery of houserule nerfs. If a DM thinks something is making something less fun for the group, that's a great reason to houserule it. My current IRL group has a houserule that limits Sneak Attack to once per turn; I questioned it, and the reason was that they'd found NPC Rogues were demolishing the PCs far too easily, and that this houserule made combat against them much more fun. Great reason, justified given the group, and I accept it without protest.

That doesn't seem to be the situation here. We aren't told much of anything about the DM or the situation, but the implication is that it's purely a semantic concern. All we know is that the poster is worried that his DM will interpret the rules in a way that nerfs his character concept badly. That's cause for concern, and my post that you objected to so harshly only said that I believe the worry to be most likely unfounded, and gave evidence to support it with an example of a vital point even a Tiny creature could strike on a Large one. I think that's entirely reasonable as a post - "don't worry, it's probably not as big a deal as you think."

Now, in the situation where the DM looks at a chart like that, shrugs his shoulders, and rules against Small->Large sneak attack anyway... well if I was the player, I think I'd have every right to be pissed. Playing a Rogue is already a situation where there's a large number of things that can prevent you from using your primary class feature; dramatically expanding that list with no real justification after I'd already decided on my character would be something I'd resent. It would make the game much less fun for me.

More importantly, it sounds like it would make the game less fun for the poster, since he came here looking for advice on how to deal with it, rather than simply accepting it at face value.

I think the "reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)" test applies. I do believe this is a situation where a reasonable person would resent the sudden and unwarranted rules change, and hence a situation where a reasonable person would enjoy the game less as a result. If he can work around it (and a spear's a good idea for that) then it's not all that bad. But if and when this rule actually came up and the DM was actively denying him Sneak Attack dice in a situation where he otherwise would have had them, then yes I think that would grate, and not be in any way a fun experience.

I don't see any way that this rule adds anything fun to the game, or contributes to the game being fun. All it does is buzzkill for the Rogue, and damage player/DM trust. Hence, I think it's categorically a bad rule.

[SaintRidley]

There's a restriction that you must be able to reach the vitals. It's a debated point, and some DM's seek to apply that rules text.

Perhaps ogres carry their lungs and hearts in their feet?

Now pardon me as I go make sure the ogres in my next game do just that.

[Geki]

Well, this got pretty intense.

The reason I haven't talked to the DM about this is he is pretty anal, and I don't want to bring the topic to his attention. Of course, it will come to his attention sooner rather than later, since something I plan to do with this build is use reduce person and attack medium creatures as a tiny creature (with a tonne of feats that grant benefits to attacking larger targets).

In order to avoid any objections that he might raise, I want to know if I have a case for reaching the torso. If I can, then case closed. He can't possibly argue that sneak attacks are out. If I can't, then I can obviously go the route of arguing that 'vital spot' naturally includes arteries etc., but it's that tricky line from the SA description:


A rogue cannot sneak attack while [...] striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

There's also this from the 'all about sneak attacks' article on the WotC website:


Sneak attacks are possible only when the attacker can reach the target's vital spots. If you're limited to beating the foe about the ankles, you can't make sneak attacks against him.

Bolding mine.

However, I'm still not sold on this ruling out upper thighs/groins as valid sneak attack targets due to the following:

1) There is a difference between, say, a kraken tentacle which can be severed without hurting the kraken too much, and a giant's leg threaded with huge arteries and tendons. I can't help but wonder if the wording in the SA description was more intended to apply to the former rather than the latter.

2) Mr. Williams specifically states 'if you're limited to beating the foe about the ankles, you can't make sneak attacks[...]' (bolding mine), which implies that the rest of the leg is fair game.

[Jopustopin]

I think the consensus would have to be that a small creature can sneak attack a large; so a tiny creature could sneak attack a medium.

Beyond that is when the real disputes begin.

[sonofzeal]

Well, this got pretty intense.

The reason I haven't talked to the DM about this is he is pretty anal, and I don't want to bring the topic to his attention. Of course, it will come to his attention sooner rather than later, since something I plan to do with this build is use reduce person and attack medium creatures as a tiny creature (with a tonne of feats that grant benefits to attacking larger targets).
Going Tiny changes the issue dramatically. The game mechanics generally treat Small/Medium as the same (both occupy a single 5x5x5 cube), and often break down for larger or smaller PCs. RAW gets kind of funky in those situations.

I still recommend talking it through with your DM. Trust goes two ways - your DM should trust you enough to allow a bit of flexibility with his own "anal" leanings, and you should trust your DM enough to try to work things out ahead of time rather than springing them on him if you expect them to be problematic. Talk to him, explain that you'd really like to play this sort of character, and want to make sure it's okay so there's no surprises. Show him that chart of vital points, and ask how many size categories apart would be reasonable. And yes, bring up spears and reach weapons to see how they change things.

Oh, and one question so we can give further advice more appropriately - by "anal", do you mean sticks by the RAW at all costs, or sticks by his conception of verisimilitude at all costs? I'm assuming the latter, but clarification would help.

[Ashtagon]

I think the consensus would have to be that a small creature can sneak attack a large; so a tiny creature could sneak attack a medium.

Beyond that is when the real disputes begin.

This is where I'd set the ruling: a maximum of two size classes difference.

[candycorn]

{Scrubbed}

[Geki]

I think the consensus would have to be that a small creature can sneak attack a large; so a tiny creature could sneak attack a medium.

If that's the way he (my DM) goes, then it's all good by me. I'm just worried that, at later levels, he's going to see the havoc this build wreaks and start looking for loopholes to nerf me- understandable enough from one perspective, because no DM wants the players to ruin his best-laid plans with munchkin builds (although this is not necessarily a munchkin build). It is, ultimately, probably best that I just lay it out for him so I don't start with a character he's going to gimp later on. Although I do really wanna play this character.


Oh, and one question so we can give further advice more appropriately - by "anal", do you mean sticks by the RAW at all costs, or sticks by his conception of verisimilitude at all costs? I'm assuming the latter, but clarification would help.

Usually he sticks by RAW quite closely, and I think he'd look at RAW and see the line about 'striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are out of reach' and decide that, no, no melee SA for me on creatures two size categories or more larger, since I wouldn't be able to land hits on the vital organs in the torso. My build really isn't geared for ranged attack, so that would be rubbish, to put it mildly.

Perhaps I could argue that, since crits are possible (as per the 'confound the bigger folk' feat found in RotW- +4 to confirm crits when using the 'kneestriker' manoeuvre) when hitting below the waist, then surely sneak attacks are possible? One goes in hand with the other in terms of general possibility, unless I'm missing something.

Further to this, the 'arterial strike' feat (target arteries with SA in order to deal bleeding damage) would support the notion that arteries can be considered 'vital spots'.

[candycorn]

That's possible, though there are arguments to the contrary (since you get those abilities by feat, it's normally not possible to do so. I ascribe to this, though I also feel that if someone got arterial strike, I'd give them a pass on sneak attacking limbs, even if the rules state that rogues can't SA the limbs of a creature whose vitals are out of reach. The reasoning is that there is now specialized training dealing with doing extra damage to arteries).

That said, the biggest game changer for this argument is flight. Melee characters should really look for ways to get flight ASAP. Once you have it, it's not hard to show how you can reach those vitals. Flight is the game changer for this argument, and luckily, it becomes viable about the time creatures start getting Huge/Gargantuan.

[olentu]

That's possible, though there are arguments to the contrary (since you get those abilities by feat, it's normally not possible to do so).

That said, the biggest game changer for this argument is flight. Melee characters should really look for ways to get flight ASAP. Once you have it, it's not hard to show how you can reach those vitals. Flight is the game changer for this argument, and luckily, it becomes viable about the time creatures start getting Huge/Gargantuan.

Although if you are dealing with somewhat bigger creatures your DM may just rule that you can't sneak attack or perhaps even damage them at all because your weapons are too small comparatively.

[sonofzeal]

Although if you are dealing with somewhat bigger creatures your DM may just rule that you can't sneak attack or perhaps even damage them at all because your weapons are too small comparatively.
In that case, ask your DM if the Fighter's longsword hurts the Purple Worm.

[candycorn]

Although if you are dealing with somewhat bigger creatures your DM may just rule that you can't sneak attack or perhaps even damage them at all because your weapons are too small comparatively.

The argument on damaging has no rules basis, however. If a DM sticks to the rules, there's little that can be said to the rules on attacking threatened squares, and the consequence of hitting (dealing damage).

The argument on Sneak Attack is tenuous, at best. I don't know of anyone that would deny sneak attack due solely to size, if reach can be gained in another way. I don't know of any rules basis for it either.


In that case, ask your DM if the Fighter's longsword hurts the Purple Worm.Chances are, if the fighter's using a longsword, you have bigger problems than DM rulings.

[sonofzeal]

Chances are, if the fighter's using a longsword, you have bigger problems than DM rulings.
Eh, I had a Barbarian who used a longsword at lvl 9 or so. It was looted from a powerful enemy, +3 Longsword of Shadowstriking or somesuch, which made it a big step up from his +1 Greatsword. He used it two-handed for better accuracy and about the same damage. If a lvl 9 Barbarian can get away with using a Longsword, then a Fighter can too.

But this is off topic.

[olentu]

The argument on damaging has no rules basis, however. If a DM sticks to the rules, there's little that can be said to the rules on attacking threatened squares, and the consequence of hitting (dealing damage).

The argument on Sneak Attack is tenuous, at best. I don't know of anyone that would deny sneak attack due solely to size, if reach can be gained in another way. I don't know of any rules basis for it either.

Oh I do believe I have heard both arguments given completely seriously. Not to say that this particular DM would do such a thing but eh you just never know. I mean if the DM is going to rule in finer grained positions for specific parts of creatures in their space then this does not seem too out there. But perhaps our experiences have been different.

[candycorn]

Oh I do believe I have heard both arguments given completely seriously. Not to say that this particular DM would do such a thing but eh you just never know. I mean if the DM is going to rule in finer grained positions for specific parts of creatures in their space then this does not seem too out there. But perhaps our experiences have been different.

Perhaps they have been. I've seen ruling supporting the vitals clause. I've never seen made up houserules with no basis of supporting RAW, for the sole purpose of granting large creatures immunity to damage.

[olentu]

Perhaps they have been. I've seen ruling supporting the vitals clause. I've never seen made up houserules with no basis of supporting RAW, for the sole purpose of granting large creatures immunity to damage.

Well hopefully you will never have to see it come up.

[Curmudgeon]

The number of vital attack spots will increase when the attacker improves their capabilities with the right feats; that's built into a couple of Ambush feats (which improve sneak attack capabilities).

If you have Hamstring and/or Arterial Strike (Ambush feats from Complete Warrior): the legs of your enemies (where hamstring muscles and femoral arteries are located) necessarily count as vitals for your sneak attack. Once the feats establish the extended vulnerability, that should remain true even when you're not making specific use of these Ambush feats.

[sonofzeal]

The number of vital attack spots will increase when the attacker improves their capabilities with the right feats; that's built into a couple of Ambush feats (which improve sneak attack capabilities).

If you have Hamstring and/or Arterial Strike (Ambush feats from Complete Warrior): the legs of your enemies (where hamstring muscles and femoral arteries are located) necessarily count as vitals for your sneak attack. Once the feats establish the extended vulnerability, that should remain true even when you're not making specific use of these Ambush feats.
On the other hand...

When using these feats you're explicitly targeting legs. All the feat lets you do by RAW is reduce SA damage for some debuff effect. The feats have no caveat about letting you SA those limbs in the first place. If legs were not SA-able by RAW, then by RAW Hamstring wouldn't work either because you wouldn't be getting SA damage to reduce.

Since the feats don't mention anything about allowing SA when attacking limbs, by RAW either you can SA limbs anyway, or the feat does nothing. Or, well, I guess you could be somehow "hamstringing" them by stabbing their spleen. Or something.



Here's the thing: RAW virtually never distinguishes body parts. Adventurers are treated in many ways as 5x5x5 homogenous cubes. Once you start challenging that, you get dozens of weird issues. Shouldn't a half-orc with a greatsword have a reach advantage over a halfling with a dagger? What about facing and shields? Why can't two people stand within 5 feet of each other?

IMO, you're best to leave the whole thing as an abstraction and simply not question it too much.

[olentu]

The number of vital attack spots will increase when the attacker improves their capabilities with the right feats; that's built into a couple of Ambush feats (which improve sneak attack capabilities).

If you have Hamstring and/or Arterial Strike (Ambush feats from Complete Warrior): the legs of your enemies (where hamstring muscles and femoral arteries are located) necessarily count as vitals for your sneak attack. Once the feats establish the extended vulnerability, that should remain true even when you're not making specific use of these Ambush feats.

While arterial strike really has somewhat compatible fluff in that it says that your sneak attacks target large blood vessels, unfortunately being fluff it does not specify which blood vessels are viable. Given that the DM is the one that would have to rule just which count (assuming he is even going to bother considering that fluff at all) it could easily be ruled to only be ones on the torso. Hamstring however gives an even worse case as it just says that you can would their legs but does not say how. Perhaps you learn how to wound legs by stabbing them in the chest since we are considering a case of deliberate DM nerf targeting. Given the ambiguity these are certainly not definite solutions.

But that is not to say they are necessarily not going to work. They might give you the edge needed in convincing the DM or they might not.

[hex0]

I, and probably many others, have a terrible phobia of nail injuries. (I think I was traumatized by that commercial with that goblin thing lifting up a toenail as a kid). So sneak attacking a collosol creature by jabbing them under their toenail seems feasible. That's my two cents and now I shall go throw up...

[Valyriar]

Just stumbled upon this thread and thank you guys for debating this... It seems I want to play the same character type (Strongheart halfling, rogue/swashbuckler, with underfoot combat, counfound the big folk and reduce person, TWF) and my DM tends to go out of his way to nerf us, kill us and then tell us we didn't read the rules/haven't done everything we could etc. I thought about both clauses already, and will argue if this problem should rise... so I'm gonna use this thread to my advantage :D.
Thanks again :D

As for my opinion: Whatever the situation, if the enemy has discernible anatomy, is two size cathegories larger than me and I don't have a reach weapon, SA is fine. 3 or more size cathegories... that is arguable, so if it were my campaign, I probably would houserule that SA would be possible only with one of the following: jumping (bizzare, but oh well..), reach weapon, ranged attack or some meaning of magical help, e.g. fly, enlarge person etc.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There was really no need for this Valyriar
http://i.imgur.com/4Zeah.jpg