Rogue query: How to solve a problem with unliving

[cogminded]

I'm looking at running my first campaign, and it's going to be very heavily populated with unliving (as in, nigh on exclusively)

The only concern this raises for me is that the party rogue might end up pretty useless in combat with no sneak attack damage.

What can you brilliant people suggest as a way to prevent this? (beyond changing the unliving focus)

Characters haven't been rolled yet, I'm looking for options to suggest for items, feats or classes that mean that the rogue role can be filled but undead can be made deaddead.

[A.A.King]

There are a few ACF which make it possible for the rogue to function against undead:
Death's Ruin (Complete Champion) - Trade away Trap Sense for the abillity to sneak attack Undead creatures (at half strength)
Penetrating Strike (Dungeonscape) - Trade away Trap Sense for the ability to sneak attack all creatures who are otherwise immune to sneak attacks, but only when flanking them (and at half strength)

There is also the first level Cleric/Paladin spell Gravestrike (Spellcompendium) which helps Rogues with undead. All he needs is a wand with it and nothing else to do with his swift actions

Ofcourse, you don't need someone playing the Rogue class. If with "Rogue Role" you mean "Trapfinder", then have a Cloistered Cleric with the Kobold Domain. Kobold Domain gives Trapfinding and Search & Disable Device as class skills.

[Pluto!]

If you're looking for existing variants, Feat Rogue from Unearthed Arcana and Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape and Castle Ravenloft work. There are a few PrCs and pieces of equipment that also do the trick (a Wand of Gravestrike from Spell Compendium or Complete Adventurer, a Weapon Augment Crystal from Magic Item Compendium, the Skullclan hunter PrC from Miniatures handbook).

If you're looking for rules tweaks you could make, I'd consider letting an easy Know: Religion roll allow half sneak attack damage against an undead (DC=5+HD?), and a hard roll to allow full SA damage against undead (DC=20+HD?), as the Rogue recognizes weak points (eg. going for the brain in Zombie movie-style).

[Grod_The_Giant]

If your campaign is going to be neigh-exclusively undead, and someone wants to play a precision damager, offer them a free ACF where their sneak attack works at full strength against undead, and half strength against living creatures. (With appropriate spells and items to kick that up to full power against the living, if they so desire). Maybe also swap out Knowledge (Local) for Knowledge (Religion). Call it "Undead Sniper" or something like that. Basically, you shouldn't require the player to expend build resources to contribute to the main campaign.

Although... are you sure someone's going to play a rogue? There are other ways to get Trapfinding (Scout, Beguiler, Factotum, the Find Traps spell, the Kobold domain, the Theft's Gloves soulmeld...). And beyond even that, I've found that most campaigns work just fine without regular traps...

[Curmudgeon]

I would never recommend Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike for a Rogue, as the bonus damage from this ACF isn't declared to be sneak attack damage; that means Craven wouldn't apply without a house rule by your DM. For a superior alternative, Lightbringer Penetrating Strike (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208) works similiarly but does deal sneak attack damage; that ACF is well worth the Lightbringer annual dues.

Trap Sense is a poorly-thought-out class skill. Trapfinding is a key ability for the class, and Search is both a class skill and one for which multiple skill-enhancing items exist, such as Goggles of Minute Seeing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#gogglesofMinuteSeeing). The Rogue is the class which is least likely to stumble across undetected traps. Additionally, the Rogue has a good Reflex save and thus would avoid damage from most traps even if they should trigger them. So Trap Sense, which provides minor benefits when blundering into undetected traps, makes sense for a Barbarian but is nigh-useless for a Rogue. Pretty much any Rogue ACF which trades away Trap Sense for something else is worthwhile, and Lightbringer Penetrating Strike is so worthwhile against many common enemies in D&D that I use this ACF on nearly all of my Rogue characters.

Grod_The_Giant raises a point that makes sense generally, but is largely irrelevant in this particular case.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would never recommend Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike for a Rogue, as the bonus damage from this ACF isn't declared to be sneak attack damage; that means Craven wouldn't apply without a house rule by your DM. For a superior alternative, Lightbringer Penetrating Strike (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208) works similiarly but does deal sneak attack damage; that ACF is well worth the Lightbringer annual dues.
Although it's a pretty obvious ruling for a non-robotic DM. Penetrating Strike also has the advantage of coming from a more common, non setting-specific book.


Grod_The_Giant raises a point that makes sense generally, but is largely irrelevant in this particular case.
How so? I mean, it's pretty easy to get half your sneak attack damage back, but it seems pretty unfair to start a campaign where a whole swathe of classes and PrCs are automatically reduced to half power. (Unless that power reduction is a major element of the setting)

[Curmudgeon]

Although it's a pretty obvious ruling for a non-robotic DM.
I disagree. Lightbringer Penetrating Strike has a higher cost (lose trap sense and pay organization dues), so it makes sense for it to provide a greater benefit. I see Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike as the stripped-down, less powerful ACF.

Penetrating Strike also has the advantage of coming from a more common, non setting-specific book.
And your argument is that a more common source, at lower cost, should yield a more powerful ability? :smallconfused: Things don't generally work that way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I disagree. Lightbringer Penetrating Strike has a higher cost (lose trap sense and pay organization dues), so it makes sense for it to provide a greater benefit. I see Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike as the stripped-down, less powerful ACF.

And your argument is that a more common source, at lower cost, should yield a more powerful ability? :smallconfused: Things don't generally work that way.
My argument is twofold:

Penetrating Strike is a lot more likely to be available, because Dungeonscape is a more common book than EtCR. It's more likely that someone in the group has access to the book, it's more likely that it won't get tossed out for being setting-specific, it's more likely that it won't get discarded because of RP restrictions.
It takes an extremely literal reading to say that Penetrating Strike damage isn't sneak attack damage, and so Craven wouldn't apply. It's a pedantic RAW-based argument, but one applied to unnecessarily hurt players, rather than achieve TO shennanigans. If you don't read like a computer (and you shouldn't; this is a game for people, not robots), the meaning is clear: you still do half as many dice of sneak attack. Is it "double check with your DM" ambiguous? Perhaps.


In summary: 99.9% of groups would read the two abilities exactly the same way. They trade away the same class feature. Let's go with the one that's more accessible.

(Oh, and obscurity within the rules (rather than within the setting) shouldn't have anything to do with power, and adding an insignificant gold to an ability isn't a meaningful restriction)

[Curmudgeon]

In summary: 99.9% of groups would read the two abilities exactly the same way. They trade away the same class feature. Let's go with the one that's more accessible.
I don't buy your "99.9%" figure. I play mostly Rogue characters, so this has come up a lot. 8 out of 11 DMs that I can recall, including all 4 DMs at conventions, read Penetrating Strike damage as untyped rather than sneak attack. Every one of those 11 DMs read Lightbringer Penetrating Strike damage as sneak attack.

(Oh, and obscurity within the rules (rather than within the setting) shouldn't have anything to do with power, and adding an insignificant gold to an ability isn't a meaningful restriction) I wouldn't call 200 gp (100 gp fee to join, plus 100 gp annual dues) insignificant at that level. That's 11% off the top of the expected wealth gained at level 2, which has to be set aside rather than spent, just to be able to pick up that one ACF upon reaching 3rd level.

[AnonymousPepper]

Pulling this directly from the Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis:

TRUEDEATH
Price (Item Level): 1,000 gp (4th) (least); 5,000 gp (9th) (lesser); 10,000 gp (12th) (greater)
Body Slot: — (weapon crystal)
Caster Level: 5th
Aura: Faint; (DC 17) evocation
Description: This amethyst is carved in the shape of a humanoid skull.
Clerics craft truedeath crystals to aid themselves and others in sending undead to their final rest.
Least: A weapon with this crystal attached deals an extra 1d6 points of damage to undead.
Lesser: As the least crystal, and the weapon also functions as a ghost touch weapon.
Greater: As the lesser crystal, and the weapon can deliver sneak attacks and critical hits against undead as if they were living creatures.
Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, consecrate.
Cost to Create: 500 gp, 40 XP, 1 day (least); 2,500 gp, 200 XP, 5 days (lesser); 5,000 gp, 400 XP, 10 days (greater)
Editor: If you are fighting undead or incorporeal critters, for the price, this is sort of expensive, but it isn’t THAT expensive. A least crystal stacks with a bane (undead) weapon, which is nice. No, this crystal becomes purple when you are a rogue or other sneak attack/critical heavy type fighter. Then this is a must have. Ten thousand gold is a small price to pay to see the look on a lich’s face when you crit him and it actually hurts.

Problem solved. Must be a +3 EB weapon though.

[PsyBomb]

Pepper beat me to it, Greater Truedeath Crystals are the easiest way to get SA on the Undead (plus saving the cost of ghost Strike)

[The Grue]

In summary: 99.9% of groups would read the two abilities exactly the same way.

Yes, well, 76% of statistics are made up on-the-spot with zero factual basis to back them up, and are often used as an attempt to add legitimacy to the speaker's own preconceptions.

[Curmudgeon]

Pepper beat me to it, Greater Truedeath Crystals are the easiest way to get SA on the Undead (plus saving the cost of ghost Strike)
Of course that easiest way is 10,000 gp + the cost of a +3 magic weapon (either 18,000+ gp, or constant castings of Greater Magic Weapon at CL 9+); it's not going to become available until level 9, or more likely later.

[Juntao112]

Wasn't there some way of sneak-attacking a Ranger's favored enemy?

[Troacctid]

If you need a trapfinder in an undead-heavy campaign, it seems a lot simpler just to use a class that doesn't rely on sneak attack. Beguiler, Scout, Factotum, Incarnate (with Theft Gloves), and the "Feat Rogue" should all work.

[AnonymousPepper]

Of course that easiest way is 10,000 gp + the cost of a +3 magic weapon (either 18,000+ gp, or constant castings of Greater Magic Weapon at CL 9+); it's not going to become available until level 9, or more likely later.

By a slightly - but not overly so - permissive reading of Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon's granting of enhancement boni, it's not so bad.

Also you're acting as though the least and lesser effects aren't awesome in and of themselves. +1d6 (Least) isn't awful, in fact is very strong at the levels you'll be getting it (+1d6 doesn't come otherwise with augment crystals until Lesser, with Energy Assault, and the otherwise best energy crystal line, Lifedrinking, grants a piddly +1 lifesteal, 10HP max, at Least), and being able to hit incorporeal undead every time (Lesser) are pretty nifty, tbh.

[cogminded]

For clarification -
The party will be starting at level 6, so sadly while that would be the perfect weapon enhancement for the campaign, it's a little outside of the starting price range.

I have access to pretty much every book, I just need to know where it's from so I know what to ask to borrow from some very generous friends who have accumulated them over their many years playing, and Ravenloft was suggested to me by our old DM to look at when I mentioned I was looking to run an unliving heavy campaign.

It's not so much that I know someone will run a rogue (the class), as that the trap-finding, lock picking ect will have to be done by someone and if there is a class that can do it as well while being able to affect unliving then I would like to be able to point the players towards that over someone whose main damage output would be so heavily reduced

[Juntao112]

A Ranger with the Trap Finder ACF can also find and disable traps.

[AnonymousPepper]

For clarification -
The party will be starting at level 6, so sadly while that would be the perfect weapon enhancement for the campaign, it's a little outside of the starting price range.

I have access to pretty much every book, I just need to know where it's from so I know what to ask to borrow from some very generous friends who have accumulated them over their many years playing, and Ravenloft was suggested to me by our old DM to look at when I mentioned I was looking to run an unliving heavy campaign.

It's not so much that I know someone will run a rogue (the class), as that the trap-finding, lock picking ect will have to be done by someone and if there is a class that can do it as well while being able to affect unliving then I would like to be able to point the players towards that over someone whose main damage output would be so heavily reduced

Artificers can do it too and can bane their weapons against undead given some prep time from level 1.