Rogues and Undead

[Auramis]

Hey everyone!

I'm going to be DMing a campaign soon, and I'm trying to come up with the second NPC in a party of four before we get started. At this juncture, one of my players has confirmed he's going to play a wizard. My second player (there's only those two and myself) is still deciding what he wants to do. I've already determined one of the two NPCs I'm rolling to be a prestige paladin (starting knight). The second NPC is up for debate, given I don't know what player #2 is going to be doing just yet. Just in case, though, I'm making plans for what I could throw into the party.

Now, the problem I'm facing right now is that I'm planning to make this an undead focused campaign eventually. While I could easily throw a bard or beguiler into the party and avoid this issue entirely, I really like the idea of adding a rogue into the party. The problem is that, later in this game, the rogue's sneak attack will be all but useless. In order to fix this, I contemplated the Bonus Feat variant rogue that takes away sneak attacking. At first, it sounded like a crap idea, but, the more I considered it, their skills and utility remain in place, they just lose the Sneak Attack. I was wondering if this sounded like an alright idea.

Keep in mind before answering, this will NOT be a magic item heavy campaign (unless the players make them themselves), so I don't want to solve any of the rogue's shortcomings with magic items.

[Kazudo]

So what you do is you swap out Trap Sense for Penetrating Strike, and the rogue gets to use half its SA die against the Undead as long as he's flanking it and it's not immune to being flanked.

[Auramis]

What book is Penetrating Strike in?

[Kazudo]

It's an ACF for rogues from Dungeonscape, IIRC.

[Auramis]

You remembered correctly. Found it! Thanks, mate.

[manyslayer]

What book is Penetrating Strike in?

Dungeonscape (PAGE 13)

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, the Rogue in an Undead-heavy campaign doesn't want Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike, for two reasons:

The Penetrating Strike damage is untyped, not stated to be sneak attack damage. That means bonus sneak attack damage (from the Craven feat) wouldn't apply. :smallfrown:
There's a superior ACF specific to this need: Death's Ruin (Complete Champion, page 51). While Penetrating Strike works against all sneak-resistant foes but requires flanking, Death's Ruin only works against Undead but doesn't require flanking. Penetrating Strike excludes all ranged attacks. :smallmad:

[Segev]

The spell wraithstrike in the Spell Compendium is a swift-cast spell that lets you sneak attack Undead for one round. With the RC ruling on wands and trigger times, a rogue could UMD a wand of this effectively.

Alternatively, you could use what I believe PF says: undead are not inherently invulnerable to sneak attack; only those which call out being immune are. Generally, it bases this on the idea that sneak attack can attack structural weak points, not just "vital organs," so only creatures with "no discernible anatomy" and thus no real structural weak points (e.g. oozes) are honestly immune.

[Calimehter]

The spell wraithstrike in the Spell Compendium is a swift-cast spell that lets you sneak attack Undead for one round. With the RC ruling on wands and trigger times, a rogue could UMD a wand of this effectively.

Alternatively, you could use what I believe PF says: undead are not inherently invulnerable to sneak attack; only those which call out being immune are. Generally, it bases this on the idea that sneak attack can attack structural weak points, not just "vital organs," so only creatures with "no discernible anatomy" and thus no real structural weak points (e.g. oozes) are honestly immune.

Isn't Grave Strike the spell you are thinking of? I'm away from my books ATM, but I thought wraithstrike was the one that allowed your melee attacks to become touch attacks (more or less).

[Khedrac]

And then there is Lightbringer Penetrating Strike from the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft which does half sneak attack damage against any flanked opponent who is immune to sneak attack, not just undead. It is generally regarded as the best worded version.

[Kazudo]

And then there is Lightbringer Penetrating Strike from the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft which does half sneak attack damage against any flanked opponent who is immune to sneak attack, not just undead. It is generally regarded as the best worded version.

I think you have those backwards.

[Red Fel]

Or just drop a Greater Truedeath Crystal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20070209a) once the campaign becomes undead intensive. Let the Rogue find it. It allows him to deal SA damage and crits to undead. And it adds 1d6 damage to undead. And treats the weapon as Ghost touch.

He'll thank you for it, and no feats or ACFs required. You don't even need to tell him the undead are coming; he won't have to prepare in any way.

[Curmudgeon]

Unless the Rogue already has a +3 numeric enhancement on their weapon, the Greater Truedeath crystal isn't going to be fully functional. So someone would need to supply an Identify or Analyze Dweomer, because figuring it out by use is problematic.

[Segev]

Isn't Grave Strike the spell you are thinking of? I'm away from my books ATM, but I thought wraithstrike was the one that allowed your melee attacks to become touch attacks (more or less).

Yes, that's the spell I meant. Sorry.

I think, now that I think about it, wraithstrike makes your attack a touch attack. So yes, grave strike is what I meant.

[Auramis]

I'm liking Death's Ruin from the Complete Champion. I wasn't as concerned with the rogue being denied sneak attack against constructs. As an NPC, I'm not worried about a player feeling useless. This would actually allow the players to shine a bit where the NPC failed, which is good, as far as I'm concerned. I just didn't want the rogue to become entirely useless once we hit the undead heavy part of the campaign. Death's Ruin in addition to Holy Strike in the Complete Champion seem like a great fix for it.

[Kazudo]

I had actually forgotten about Death's Ruin. It's been a while since I've had to talk to anyone about rogues being rogueish.

[Auramis]

Just to check on the notion: Does anything think the Bonus Feat variant rogue is any good? When I thought about it, it didn't seem like that bad of an idea, honestly. It could be fun.

[Kazudo]

I don't know. It's not as optimized as it could be, that's for sure.

My opinions are that if you're going to do Feat Rogue, you might as well just use it as a dip and go Fighter instead. Situationally, Sneak Attack can be great. Not always, but as a definite "sometimes".

[Auramis]

Well, the reason I'd want the NPC to be a rogue is because of the skills they offer. Given the party, at this juncture, has a prestige paladin and a wizard (God help me with balance on him), I didn't want to overload the 4 man party with too much magic. Going fighter would ruin the skills available to the rogue.

[The Grue]

Well, the reason I'd want the NPC to be a rogue is because of the skills they offer.

So make the NPC a Factotum.