PDA

View Full Version : Feat for sneak-attacking undead?



Argent
2007-02-01, 05:09 PM
Backstory:
In our current Evil Guy Campaign, our party has come under the control of a vampire that we (whoops) unwittingly released from an old temple. He's been using us to do his dirty work, thanks to his Dominate ability, and frankly, my character (a dwarven rogue) is getting tired of it.

So we're preparing to pants this guy sometime in the near future, and I'm looking to pick up a feat that will allow my sneak-attack ability to work on undead. I'd swear I've seen such a feat somewhere in the myriad of sourcebooks but can't find it -- can anyone assist?

Saithis Bladewing
2007-02-01, 05:10 PM
I know there was a variant class concept in the DMG that took a ranger and pretty much mixed it with a rogue and made it themed to hunt undead, and it had a Sneak Attack that only worked against undead. Other than that, there's probably a feat like it somewhere but I don't know exactly where it would be.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-01, 05:15 PM
There's a Cleric 2 spell that allows it. Gravestrike.

shaka gl
2007-02-01, 10:26 PM
It wouldnt make any sense. I know catgirl`s lives are at risk here, but men, come on: if supposedly Sneak Attack is extra damage cause you get hurt in your vital organs, theres NO FRIKIN WAY you can hurt someone with no organs, no matter how good you are at dong it. As a DM, i wouldnt allow it. But if your DM says its cool, then take advantage...

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-01, 10:35 PM
It's not necessarily "organs." Just a vital or weak spot in general. I'm not saying rogues should be sneak-attacking undead normally, but if they get special guidance from a spell or class ability, it's not completely unbelievable. I mean, you can sneak attack a Lantern Archon last I checked, and it's a ball of light.

FdL
2007-02-01, 10:44 PM
No, sorry. In no way this should be allowable. If you do you are taking away one important, defining feature of undead AND it would not be sneak attack.

If this is in a splatbook I wouldn't allow it.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-01, 10:51 PM
Agreed. It is so ridiculously overpowered that the defining class feature of the Rogue has the slightest chance of not becoming utterly useless when facing udead enemies. :smallwink:

Aximili
2007-02-01, 11:06 PM
Of course undead can't take damage from being hit in vital organs, but they definetely have some weakspot. After all, the ranger can inflict extra damage when facing them. What's the problem of a trained rogue also knowing these weakspots?

Ravyn
2007-02-01, 11:20 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/5M5QGsJ5mpbLfAHduZG.html

If Rich can turn the ability to sneak attack undead into a first-level class feature, even if the class in question is a prestige class, then making a feat out of it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

clericwithnogod
2007-02-01, 11:23 PM
Grave Strike is 1st level for both clerics and paladins....but has a range of Personal. Just the thing for all those Paladin/Rogues out there. Someone put it in the Spell Compendium just to give rogues who find out their group is going to be playing a Ravenloft module a little false hope before kicking them in the tender area. If you're good at UMD, you could get a wand I guess....

I could have sworn I saw a feat recently that did something to allow sneak attack damage to undead, but it wasn't written that simply...some kind of more complex formula, but letting you apply sneak attack damage to things not normally susceptable to sneak attacks and/or critical hits...maybe a ranger/rogue feat combined with favored enemy or something. But, I can't remember where and could be wrong.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-01, 11:25 PM
No, sorry. In no way this should be allowable. If you do you are taking away one important, defining feature of undead AND it would not be sneak attack.

If this is in a splatbook I wouldn't allow it.

There are already myriad ways to take it away. You can hit the undead with a Spark of Life spell. You can cast Gravestrike. You could take the Skullclan Hunter prestige class and gain the ability.

I think that's probably too good for a single feat (it becomes a "must-have"), but your reasoning is terrible.

FdL
2007-02-01, 11:44 PM
No it's not. You can take it as an opinion if you don't like it or don't understand it.

Thankfully there's plenty material out there so that everyone can choose what to use and what not. The OP asked about a feat to allow sneak attack to work on undead. Sneak attack doesn't work on undead by definition. Undead can't be sneak attacked by definition. Are there workarounds or prestige-class features that allow it? Fine, personally I don't like it and I won't.

Aximili
2007-02-01, 11:52 PM
Definitions are very mutable. Specially when it comes to feats, spells, and class features.

FdL
2007-02-02, 12:02 AM
Go for it if you like it. I simply understand it as a deviation from the rules, and one with which I don't agree.

AtomicKitKat
2007-02-02, 12:28 AM
I don't see it as that much of a problem. I'd personally prefer it if say, Gravestrike allowed Sneak Attacks to work at half-strength or similar, since you'd have to aim for joints rather than the larger target of the torso. Making it work at half-strength also reduces the chance that someone would argue that their Arterial Strike/Crippling Strike/Hamstring attacks would work. Crippling Strike probably wouldn't just because it's Ability Damage. Arterial Strike may count as "wounding", which Undead should be immune to. Hamstring is the only one that I might conceivably allow to work.

Person_Man
2007-02-02, 12:29 AM
Rogue damge progression (+1.75 per level) is slower then the damage progression of most other classes. Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper, normal blaster spells, blaster spells + metamagic, Cleric buffs, Wildshape, Duskblade coolness, all of them can deal far more damage much more consistantly then a Rogue.

So yeah, maybe its a little too powerful for a feat. But there are already plenty of ways to do it with spells or prestige classes. I'd even be fine with it if it was part of some feat chain - maybe requiring 2 or 3 of the suck-tackular ambush feats from the Comp. Scoundrel. In fact, now that I think about it, a Ranger 1/Scout 3 with the Swift Hunter feat can apply their Skirmish damage to their Favored Enemy, even if its normally immune. So something similar for Ranger/Rogues wouldn't bother me too much.

Jothki
2007-02-02, 01:05 AM
It wouldnt make any sense. I know catgirl`s lives are at risk here, but men, come on: if supposedly Sneak Attack is extra damage cause you get hurt in your vital organs, theres NO FRIKIN WAY you can hurt someone with no organs, no matter how good you are at dong it. As a DM, i wouldnt allow it. But if your DM says its cool, then take advantage...

Don't vampires pretty much still have organs? They're one of the more unusual forms of undead.

oriong
2007-02-02, 01:14 AM
There are plenty of ways you could arguably sneak attack undead. Perhaps they have 'chakras' of energy that you can strike (with the knowledge, and perhaps supernatural abilities granted by the feat) that you can hit to disrupt their energy.

It's not overpowered, it's certainly not abusive, and it's not impossible to justify or explain either.

The_Pope
2007-02-02, 01:17 AM
Don't vampires pretty much still have organs? They're one of the more unusual forms of undead.

Yeah, but they don't use them. They're just....there. All they need is their heart to keep working, and they're set.

I've even read a few splatbooks that explains that vampire organs (save for the heart) all evaporate when they become a vampire.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 01:33 AM
Not an uncommon approach. I believe there's similar references in a lot of different "modern vampire mythologies" (Rice, V:tM...?). The organs are there, but they're dried out and useless. Definitely worthless targets for sharp objects.

cupkeyk
2007-02-02, 01:58 AM
Uhh, Razing Strike from PHB2 lets you drop a divine spell and deal sneak damage to an Undead. Prereqs is caster level 5 and Sneak attack. So Cleric1 Rog1 could get it or a Ranger Rogue or a Paladin Rogue. So Clr1Rog4Skullclan Hunter1 Can Deal double his sneak attack dice plus 1d6 more for dropping a first level spell and flanking or catching a undead guy unaware since Razing Strike does not qualify as SA, so the two sources will stack.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 02:20 AM
How could a Cleric 1/Rogue 1 get a feat that requires Caster Level 5th? And as a paladin or ranger, you'd have to be 10th-level to get that...

oriong
2007-02-02, 02:47 AM
Practised Spellcaster?

Dervag
2007-02-02, 02:49 AM
If a rogue has to go to the trouble of buying a feat just to extend their Sneak Attack ability to undead, given that they only get seven or eight feats in their entire non-epic level progression, I'd say that isn't unfair. It's not as if undead suddenly become totally powerless when confronted by sneak attackers, and the absence of sneak attacks makes a rogue virtually useless. No character should be virtually useless in any extended series of encounters (such as an undead module).

Thomas
2007-02-02, 02:51 AM
Practised Spellcaster?

Practice Spellcaster can't bring your caster level above your character level. A Cleric 1/Rogue 1 with Practiced Spellcaster has a caster level of 2.

Ramza00
2007-02-02, 02:52 AM
Not exactly what you are looking for but still very helpful. Undead Bane Weapon from the Spell Compedium. Cleric 4/Pal 3. Effectively it adds the Bane Undead Quality to a weapon for hours/lvl, touch spell. Great buff spells similar to GMW if you know you are going up against undead.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-02, 02:55 AM
Load up on cure spells and spank him with them. From surprise, obviously.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-02, 10:32 AM
If a rogue has to go to the trouble of buying a feat just to extend their Sneak Attack ability to undead, given that they only get seven or eight feats in their entire non-epic level progression, I'd say that isn't unfair. It's not as if undead suddenly become totally powerless when confronted by sneak attackers, and the absence of sneak attacks makes a rogue virtually useless. No character should be virtually useless in any extended series of encounters (such as an undead module).

Rogues actually have the potential for more than eight feats, since their later-level "Special Abilities" can be exchanged for any feat the Rogue qualifies for.

Argent
2007-02-02, 10:46 AM
There's a Cleric 2 spell that allows it. Gravestrike.

Thanks, Fax - thought there was a feat, but I've heard of that spell. May have to talk to my party cleric about it (or Spark of Life).

And believe it or not, I'd ordinarily never allow sneak attacks versus undead either (even though I asked the question). To my mind, sneak attacks are about things like pressure points, weak spots in armor, puncturing vital organs... stuff that really won't affect undead. The only rationale I have for this case is story-based. At this point, our party's been enslaved by this vampire for quite a while now. He's drunk my character's blood on numerous occasions, treated the party like dirt and done everything but push us down in a mud puddle behind the monkey bars. The entire party's got a mad on for this guy like you wouldn't believe. So for storyline reasons, in this one case I could see it, even if there's no good physical rationale for it.

But since it doesn't sound feasible, even with Gravestrike, I may just have to try to stock up on Necklaces of Fireballs instead. Thanks to all who've weighed in on the question!

Fax Celestis
2007-02-02, 10:49 AM
You could get a weapon of on-hit gravestrike

Talya
2007-02-02, 10:50 AM
Vampires should be susceptible to sneak attacks anyway. They have two vital organs that do incredible damage to them if hit (their heart, and their neck...okay, the neck is not an organ per se, but it holds their head on, which is essential to them.) They just don't have as many vital organs, it's much harder, so I'm thinking that sneak attacks should only function on a critical hit...(and criticals should work, too.)

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:26 AM
Feat: Vampire Staker. Your can sneak attacks work on vampires, provided you're using piercing (heart) or slashing (decapitation) weapons?

Aximili
2007-02-02, 11:27 AM
They just don't have as many vital organs, it's much harder, so I'm thinking that sneak attacks should only function on a critical hit...(and criticals should work, too.)
If you wanna go down that road, I'd suggest giving him some ammount of fortification (75, maybe 50%). They do have less vital spots after all, and that means only a certain part of critical hits will hit actual critical areas.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 01:49 PM
I probably wouldn't kick up much of a fuss if there were a Feat that allowed Rogue's to Sneak Attack Undead.

Argent
2007-02-02, 02:46 PM
You could get a weapon of on-hit gravestrike
If our DM wasn't so stingy on magic items and cash, I could -- plus, he just loves this vampire as an NPC, so he's not gonna make it easy on us to whack this guy. So something tells me I'm not gonna have a lot of luck finding/creating an item with Gravestrike. :smallamused:

Roderick_BR
2007-02-02, 02:52 PM
I don't know of this spell, but if it's oficial, you could give him a gravestrike weapon.

@Aximili: Rangers can't deal precision damage on undead. Check the entry on Favored Enemy. It says something about not being able to deal damage, but they can still use the skill bonuses to track them.

Hmm... I remember reading somewhere that while vampires are immune to critical hits, cutting their heads is still valid, so vorpal weapons (usually useless against this kind of creatures) still works on vampires. Is that right?

oriong
2007-02-02, 02:57 PM
@Aximili: Rangers can't deal precision damage on undead. Check the entry on Favored Enemy. It says something about not being able to deal damage, but they can still use the skill bonuses to track them.


Nope, never mentions undead, oozes, constructs, or elementals as being immune to favored enemy damage, in fact it never defines it as anything like 'precision based'

Matthew
2007-02-02, 03:03 PM
I think that was a 3.0 thing.

Person_Man
2007-02-02, 04:11 PM
I think that was a 3.0 thing.

Yup. The Favored Enemy damage bonus is not Precision damage in 3.5 D&D. It is applied every time you damage your Favored Enemy, and it's multiplied on critical hits.

There was some sorta restriction wierd 3.0 restriction on it that I've banished from my memory.

Draz74
2007-02-02, 06:15 PM
Maybe mixing up Favored Enemy with the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike? Insightful Strike is the only "precision damage" I know of that is a damage bonus, rather than extra damage dice.

Oh, and another thing: Besides the incorporeals, who says Undead don't have organs? People have already proved that Vampires do. But zombies/ghouls/wights/other things that still have flesh would too. Sure, they don't use most of them. I don't think a ghoul cares about its brain, heart, spleen, stomach, intestines, or anything else digestive, circulatory, or respiratory. However, you could argue that they do care very much about their muscles, which help them move around. Therefore, hamstringing them (for example) could be a useful Sneak Attack. (You could also argue that their movement is purely magical, and I couldn't prove you wrong. Personally I'd rule that their muscles are used at least a little bit.)

Liches and skeletons ... well ... here the "purely magical movement" makes more sense, and a Sneak Attack makes less sense in my imagination.

CrazedGoblin
2007-02-02, 06:22 PM
i allways thought that the idea of sneak attack would be mainly from the shock of being stabbed by something you werent sure was there so shocking the system and doing more damage and as undead are, dead and have a decayed everything it wouldnt effect them.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 07:17 PM
You're confusing shock, as in the medical term (which can kill you), and "shock" as in surprise, which doesn't kill you (and doesn't result in actual shock, which is caused by the body's inability to supply oxygen and nutrients to tissues).

Sneak attack is pretty explicitly described as targeting vital organs.


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.

Cybren
2007-02-02, 07:19 PM
Iunno rogues do need some more choices for their feats. What do they get now? Weapon Finesse, TWF(and improved/greater TWF), and uhh... improved initiative?

Thomas
2007-02-02, 07:28 PM
And more than you'll ever have feats for, if you have CWar, CAdv, and PHB2.

Cybren
2007-02-02, 07:42 PM
i didn't find anything particuarly usefull aside from the "flank things alone" thing but that's a discussion for another thread. Not to mention some people I asked for advice just kept saying MULTICLASS TO SWORDSAGE!!111. But that is alsoa discussion fora nother thread

Aximili
2007-02-02, 11:18 PM
I'f the rangers favored enemy bonus damage is not precision-based damage, than howcome it doesn't apply to an opponent with concealment?
(I specifically remember reading this either in the DMG's glossary or the FAQ)

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:29 PM
Elusive Target isn't useful?

FdL
2007-02-03, 01:04 PM
Iunno rogues do need some more choices for their feats. What do they get now? Weapon Finesse, TWF(and improved/greater TWF), and uhh... improved initiative?

Yeah, all the books they mentioned plus Complete Scoundrel which is pretty good.

Dervag
2007-02-04, 12:26 AM
And believe it or not, I'd ordinarily never allow sneak attacks versus undead either (even though I asked the question). To my mind, sneak attacks are about things like pressure points, weak spots in armor, puncturing vital organs... stuff that really won't affect undead. The only rationale I have for this case is story-based. At this point, our party's been enslaved by this vampire for quite a while now. He's drunk my character's blood on numerous occasions, treated the party like dirt and done everything but push us down in a mud puddle behind the monkey bars. The entire party's got a mad on for this guy like you wouldn't believe. So for storyline reasons, in this one case I could see it, even if there's no good physical rationale for it.Actually, vampires are perhaps the only undead that have an immediately obvious critical hit location that they might reasonably take sneak attack damage to.

Stake, anyone?

mikeejimbo
2007-02-04, 01:16 AM
Stake, anyone?

No thanks, I ate.

As for the sneak attacking, I would normally agree with the idea that it could be applied to finding weak spots in general and therefore worthy of a feat, but THEN I would say that you should be able to get a feat to deal sneak attack to constructs. With bonuses for an appropriate crafting skill. Iron Golem? With Craft (Metal) experience, you should know about where weak points would be.

Or something like that. If it doesn't hold up to physics/real life and you feel like killing a catgirl, remember that it's about 1:30 for me right now..

FdL
2007-02-04, 02:38 AM
4:30 here. So it does make sense, but not surprisingly it doesn't apply in combat, because there's no localized damage in D&D...It's kinda funny.

oriong
2007-02-04, 02:41 AM
Well, there is localized damage, it's just eternally unspecified. Striking a constructs structural weak points would be just as 'localized' as the rogue striking at a person's undefined 'vitals'

Cybren
2007-02-04, 04:43 AM
Yeah, all the books they mentioned plus Complete Scoundrel which is pretty good.

yeahhhhh, get five people to make, say, a rogue 10, and the builds will all likely be indentical. I haven't read complete scoundrel yet but the issue isn't options, it's good options.

Now, back on topic.
How balanced would it be for a feat to allow you to use half sneak attack against one of the types that are unseakattackable? Depending on what it was, it would require knowledge religion (undead), knowledge architecture/engineering(construct), knoweldge straw-based weaponry(ooze)...


If this feat existed it would have at the very least made neeshka a lot less worthless in NWN2.

Matthew
2007-02-04, 07:18 AM
I don't think it would be unbalanced at all. You could even make it so that the allowed Sneak Attack Damage scales with the Skill, so that for every 2 Ranks above 4 you could add an extra die of Sneak Attack (given that you have enough Sneak Attack Dice to begin with) [i.e. Via this Feat, a Level 19 Rogue would need Knowledge (Undead) 22 to get his full 10D6 Sneak Attack against Undead.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-04, 12:30 PM
Sneak attack is pretty explicitly described as targeting vital organs.Have to disagree, once more. The text you quoted says "vital spot."
"Vital spot" does not equal "vital organs."
For instance a tank, which has no organs, has places that are more vulnerable to attack. If you hit there, you'll do more damage. Those are "vital spots."

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that rogues should get to sneak-attack undead or constructs. But the debate in this thread seems to be going in the direction of "Undead don't have vital organs, so you can't sneak attack them even with a spell." Which doesn't work, because it doesn't have to be organs. The spell lets you hit the undead, or construct, in a vital spot, which you couldn't normally do. There's no reason to believe that even a skeleton doesn't have vulnerable points.

Thomas
2007-02-04, 12:59 PM
Have to disagree, once more. The text you quoted says "vital spot."
"Vital spot" does not equal "vital organs."
For instance a tank, which has no organs, has places that are more vulnerable to attack. If you hit there, you'll do more damage. Those are "vital spots."

Granted, it says "spot."

Then it says...


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.

Let's just say, then, that "organs" is heavily implied. Undead, constructs, elementals, and oozes pretty much by definition lack organs (or ones that work, at least), and it's indicated that limbs do not contain "vital spots"... (So apparently arteries don't count as "vital spots," either.)

Edit: Obviously you're right that grave strike etc. do let you sneak attack undead - that's why they exist, after all. (There's spells for plants and constructs, at least.) It's magic; you're striking them more effectively. The specifics hardly matter.

MeklorIlavator
2007-02-04, 01:37 PM
I believe that there is a feat somewhere(Complete Scoundrel?) that allows rouges to sneak attack things normally immune if they have ranger levels, and the rangers favored enemy is on of the sneak attack immune things.

Maxymiuk
2007-02-04, 02:09 PM
Doesn't Complete Adventurer has a feat that allows dealing precision damage to undead? Sacred Strike or something along those lines (sorry, I don't currently have access to a copy).

FdL
2007-02-04, 02:11 PM
Have to disagree, once more. The text you quoted says "vital spot."
"Vital spot" does not equal "vital organs."
For instance a tank, which has no organs, has places that are more vulnerable to attack. If you hit there, you'll do more damage. Those are "vital spots."


I see your point, only that you're missing the "vital" part in your tank example :) And it makes a whole world of difference.

Sure, there's no localized damage in D&D but there's normal damage on one side, and precision damage on the other. Thing is your regular fighter can't attack vital spots directly, so it's not really a system.

Thomas
2007-02-04, 02:16 PM
Doesn't Complete Adventurer has a feat that allows dealing precision damage to undead? Sacred Strike or something along those lines (sorry, I don't currently have access to a copy).

Razing Strike. It was mentioned. It requires Caster Level 5, and you must expend spell slots to use it (divine to deal sneak attack damage to undead, arcane for constructs). You also deal extra damage, and gain an insight bonus to attacks.