rogue vs construct/undead

[King of Nowhere]

My campaign is about to include a lot of undead and golems iin the foreseable future, and I worry that the party rogue may feel useless. I was exploring options to avoid this.

My main idea is to give him a homebrew weapon designed to sneak attack such creatures

new weapon property:
interference
this weapon is enchanted to disrupt the spells that keep a magically animated creature moving. it lets the wielder see the spells that animate it, and it grants instinctive knowledge of where to strike to disrupt them. It allows to apply precision damage, such as that from sneak attack, against magically animated creatures that would be normally immune to it.
Price: ???
Limitations and drawbacks (because just saying "ok, now you can do it" feels kinda lame): ???


however, I decided to ask if there are other conventional options first

[Mike Miller]

ACFs: Death's Ruin, Penetrating Strike

MiC: Demolition crystal, Truedeath crystal

DMG: Bane weapons add nice damage

[Mystral]

My campaign is about to include a lot of undead and golems iin the foreseable future, and I worry that the party rogue may feel useless. I was exploring options to avoid this.

My main idea is to give him a homebrew weapon designed to sneak attack such creatures


however, I decided to ask if there are other conventional options first

Just use the Pathfinder sneak attack as a houserule. In pathfinder, SA works against nearly anything.

[King of Nowhere]

wasn't aware of augmentation crystals. they make sense as they give some much-needed flexibility to weapons, and those you mentioned do exactly what i wanted. they are also cheap.
only (minor) problem i'll have is why they weren't introduced before in the campaign. maybe i can pass them as a recent invention that has yet to spread.

[gkathellar]

It is absolutely within reason to do away with type restrictions on Sneak Attack entirely, especially in an undead-heavy game. Even against a creature with no discernible anatomy, it’s perfectly sensible to say, “well, you caught it off guard, so you can commit a little more to the blow.”

[Rynjin]

Just use the Pathfinder sneak attack as a houserule. In pathfinder, SA works against nearly anything.

This. Sneak Attack works against everything that has vitals (so basically everything but Oozes) in PF. It's far better than the nonsensically restrictive version 3.5 has.

[Particle_Man]

I had something like this happen to my rogue before pathfinder came out and had to make do with multiple vials of holy water.

[ShurikVch]

Sneak Attack works against everything that has vitals (so basically everything but Oozes) in PF.Actually, Elementals, Incorporeals, and Swarms are explicitly out too.
And to use SA, Rogue must be able to see and reach a "vital spot"; where is the "vital spot" of a Skeleton? :smallconfused:

It's far better than the nonsensically restrictive version 3.5 has.If you would allow Rogue to SA an Iron Golem, the next time he may ask to SA an iron door (because, hey, what's the difference?)

The real strength of the Rogue class is the skills, not SA.
Well-experienced Rogue should turn intelligent enemies fanatical (or, at the very least, helpful), and bluff non-intelligent ones by impersonating their master

[Troacctid]

Golem strike and grave strike are both 1st level spells that you can get in wand form. You have Use Magic Device, right?

[Particle_Man]

And to use SA, Rogue must be able to see and reach a "vital spot"; where is the "vital spot" of a Skeleton? :smallconfused:


Head shots are traditional ways to take out zombies and skeletons.

[ShurikVch]

Head shots are traditional ways to take out zombies and skeletons.You mean - for sci-fi Zombies?
D&D Zombies are using their heads mostly for bite attacks...
(See the Getting Ahead and Staying Ahead (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) :smallwink:)

[gkathellar]

And to use SA, Rogue must be able to see and reach a "vital spot"; where is the "vital spot" of a Skeleton? :smallconfused:

It's wherever you want it to be, since animated skeletons don't exist.

There are a million possible explanations, if you desire them: the rogue targets the joints. The rogue knows or can deduce the physical locations the animating magic is anchored to. The rogue is trained to take advantage of the opponent being off guard by leaning into their strikes more than would otherwise be safe or practical. If these off-the-cuff suggestions sound arbitrary, that's because they are - but then, so is the notion that one should be able to "kill" a pile of animate bones by bashing it repeatedly with a sword in the first place.

None of this is any more or less reasonable than saying, "well, sneak attacks are specifically stabbing things in the liver, and so only work on things that have livers," but in general I would suggest that it's probably more fun for players and is unlikely to present any kind of problem in gameplay.

[King of Nowhere]

The real strength of the Rogue class is the skills, not SA.
Well-experienced Rogue should turn intelligent enemies fanatical (or, at the very least, helpful), and bluff non-intelligent ones by impersonating their master

actually, those uses are more cheesy than i allow. even dominate person won't turn someone fanatical without allowing a lot of new saving throws first.

anyway, the "skill" part is much undertoned in my campaign. the party at first didn't have a rogue, and wasn't much interested in the "skill" part anyway, so I got them to work for a big nation that provides plenty of experts to take care of the diplomatic part.
the other guy joined the party when they were around level 10, and wanted to play a rogue. however, by then, the world was pretty much set up, and the party can access any kind of skill check as long as their goals align with those of the nation, or at least don't go against it.
In general, I disseminated my world with enoug spy networks that a single rogue won't do much

[ShurikVch]

nonsensically restrictive version 3.5 has.Actually, in 2E it was much much worse:
To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply).
...
Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective....


There are a million possible explanations, if you desire them: the rogue targets the joints.Nonsense!
Those joints are have no sinews or cartilages.
If anything, Skeleton's joints are more protected: Rogue's blade may cut trough a dry bones (however difficult it may be), but it can't cut the thin air!

The rogue knows or can deduce the physical locations the animating magic is anchored to.Except we're know - there is no "animating magic"!
Undead operates just fine in the AMF, Dead Magic areas, and even the "0th circle" of the Outlands.


If these off-the-cuff suggestions sound arbitrary, that's because they are - but then, so is the notion that one should be able to "kill" a pile of animate bones by bashing it repeatedly with a sword in the first place.I, personally, prefer to look at Undead like at WW1 battleships and airships: they were able to eat ridiculous amount of fire before going down; suffered hit after hit without any visible effect; for a unexperienced, they may look invulnerable, but in truth - put enough shots in, and they would go down.
Same thing for Undead, except with Negative Energy rather than air.


the other guy joined the party when they were around level 10, and wanted to play a rogue. however, by then, the world was pretty much set up, and the party can access any kind of skill check as long as their goals align with those of the nation, or at least don't go against it.
In general, I disseminated my world with enoug spy networks that a single rogue won't do much:smalleek: 10 levels without a Rogue?!
How the heck they're deal with traps?
And what's about a scouting? Weren't they ambushed because of to lack of skilled support?

[Rynjin]

Actually, in 2E it was much much worse:...

I'm aware. "Better", doesn't mean "good" though.

[Malphegor]

:smalleek: 10 levels without a Rogue?!
How the heck they're deal with traps?
And what's about a scouting? Weren't they ambushed because of to lack of skilled support?

Hah. My group only recently got a rogue, and here is my list of how we deal with Rogue situations:

1. Door: Fire. If not flammable, insert more fire until it is flammable. Insufficient fire still? Well I guess we can switch to acid.

2. Traps: Minions can trigger them. Also send the barbarian with them.

3. Scout: We have a giant monstrous spider, basically a pack of wolves, and a bat amongst our many pets. The bat and spider can tremor/blindsense, the spider is a really fast tank, and the wolves basically round out our pets to be a low level party of their own.

4. Sneak Attack: Well technically fireball does d6 damage, so it's kind of like a sneak attack?

5. Stealing: Teleport spells/mage hand/murder usually works

6. Socialisation: We hire bards to be our speaky persons.

7. Locks: Can we explode it? No? Okay well let's just buff the barbarian and start trying to break down the wall with his fists.

8. Stealth: What's that?

9. Ambushes: Honestly so long as they don't have spell resistance or immunities to, say, fire, we're mostly ok. What's that, our campaign is heavy on demons and devils, whose summoners resort to guerrilla tactics? ... crap.

[Hua]

Leave it as it is.
Did the rogue ignore use magic device? shame because lots of useful wands and such.
As mentioned before, Bane weapons do some really nice damage. Holy does too, although that assumes the rogue is not evil.
Ghost touch is nice if you have a lot of non-corporeal.
Wonderous items, like necklace of fireballs? Lots of useful items.
Maybe the rogue focuses on the non-undead enemies? Almost certain to be some of them.
Rogue likely tumbles into position, so providing flanking to others. Rogue does not always have to be a high damage dealer.

By assuming the rogue is only good because of sneak attack is really short changing the class and the player. Above all else, rogues are versatile. Damage dealing is not supposed to be their most important function.

Heck, use a lot of tanglefoot to have the rogue control the flow of battle by immobilizing enemies, so they can be dealt with easily. So many options. zero reason to modify the class.

[Rynjin]

Leave it as it is.
Did the rogue ignore use magic device? shame because lots of useful wands and such.
As mentioned before, Bane weapons do some really nice damage. Holy does too, although that assumes the rogue is not evil.
Ghost touch is nice if you have a lot of non-corporeal.
Wonderous items, like necklace of fireballs? Lots of useful items.
Maybe the rogue focuses on the non-undead enemies? Almost certain to be some of them.
Rogue likely tumbles into position, so providing flanking to others. Rogue does not always have to be a high damage dealer.

By assuming the rogue is only good because of sneak attack is really short changing the class and the player. Above all else, rogues are versatile. Damage dealing is not supposed to be their most important function.

Heck, use a lot of tanglefoot to have the rogue control the flow of battle by immobilizing enemies, so they can be dealt with easily. So many options. zero reason to modify the class.

WTF is the point of playing a class if everything you do comes from items? Literally nothing you mentioned is Rogue specific; he cold pllay a Commoner and do all that. That doesn't make Commoners a good class that should be a part of the average party.

[Kelb_Panthera]

WTF is the point of playing a class if everything you do comes from items? Literally nothing you mentioned is Rogue specific; he cold pllay a Commoner and do all that. That doesn't make Commoners a good class that should be a part of the average party.

WBL is an important aspect of the game, particularly for non-casters. A rogue uses all of the mentioned gear -better- than a commoner on the difference in HD related benefits alone, nevermind having actual class features to supplement them. The truedeath and demolition crystals, at least, benefit rogues and other sneak-attackers far more than most other classes.

As for gear reliance, very nearly every class is reliant on gear to one degree or another; wizards are glorified commoners without their spell books, clerics lose tremendous potency without their holy symbols, etc and so on. Those who have no supernatural abilities just need more of it. Unless you plan to only ever play sorcerers, psions, and druids; you will not do well in the long-term in your birthday suit in the wilderness so this complaint has always struck me as specious at best.

[Rynjin]

WBL is an important aspect of the game, particularly for non-casters. A rogue uses all of the mentioned gear -better- than a commoner on the difference in HD related benefits alone, nevermind having actual class features to supplement them. The truedeath and demolition crystals, at least, benefit rogues and other sneak-attackers far more than most other classes.

As for gear reliance, very nearly every class is reliant on gear to one degree or another; wizards are glorified commoners without their spell books, clerics lose tremendous potency without their holy symbols, etc and so on. Those who have no supernatural abilities just need more of it. Unless you plan to only ever play sorcerers, psions, and druids; you will not do well in the long-term in your birthday suit in the wilderness so this complaint has always struck me as specious at best.

I don't see it as specious at all, and neither do you really from your other points. Yes, every class needs gear "to one degree or another". But when your entire pitch for a class is that it can use items to make up for the fact that in a given campaign one of its defining features doesn't work, you're talking out of your ass.

To go back to your Wizard without a spellbook idea...would you willingly play a Wizard in a campaign where you know you're never going to have a spellbook? If no, why would you then play a game where you're a Rogue that can't Sneak Attack? Why not play literally any other class?

[Morty]

Making sneak attack not work against undead, constructs and such doesn't make the game more interesting or provide a tactical challenge. It just shuts down a whole class's main source of damage output against one very common category of enemies and several less-common ones. All in the name of... misplaced, selective realism. Getting sneak attacks in can already be a pain and requires either positioning or setting enemies up. I just don't see any benefit in making it straight-up impossible against a whole enemy type. Except for, again, satisfying some people's sense of realism.

[Eldariel]

I don't see it as specious at all, and neither do you really from your other points. Yes, every class needs gear "to one degree or another". But when your entire pitch for a class is that it can use items to make up for the fact that in a given campaign one of its defining features doesn't work, you're talking out of your ass.

To go back to your Wizard without a spellbook idea...would you willingly play a Wizard in a campaign where you know you're never going to have a spellbook? If no, why would you then play a game where you're a Rogue that can't Sneak Attack? Why not play literally any other class?

Because Rogue still has 8+Int skill points on a huge skill list including Use Magic Device and some other nice utility in the special abilities, alongside medium BAB? It's not like a Rogue is reliant on Sneak Attack to contribute. Skills are a huge source of power in the game and Rogues are one of the better classes at utilising those (of course, not the best since they can't push the results that far past the break-even point, but they're pretty good with Skill Mastery, huge list and the largest amount of skillpoints in the game, and of course stuff like Trapfinding). That said, Penetrating Strike [Dungeonscape] and Darkstalker [Lords of Madness] should be parts of the core Rogue chassis. With those you can Sneak Attack almost anything (though only for half damage and while flanking for many of the weirder ones) with other great stealth utility (almost necessary for a Rogue).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't see it as specious at all, and neither do you really from your other points. Yes, every class needs gear "to one degree or another". But when your entire pitch for a class is that it can use items to make up for the fact that in a given campaign one of its defining features doesn't work, you're talking out of your ass.

Two cheap items to reactivate a secondary class feature that I could've swapped out for something more useful for this campaign anyway is hardly a major hurdle. In any case, pointing out that there are work arounds for one of a class' weaknesses isn't pitching that class. It's helping the OP whose player has already decided to play one to not force him into uselessness.


To go back to your Wizard without a spellbook idea...would you willingly play a Wizard in a campaign where you know you're never going to have a spellbook? If no, why would you then play a game where you're a Rogue that can't Sneak Attack? Why not play literally any other class?

Apples and oranges, my dude.

A wizard without a spellbook is pretty much helpless to do anything but die horribly. Maybe the eidetic spellcaster ACF from dragon magazine can salvage it depending on whether the DM rules that the "free" spells can be gained in whatever circumstance has made acquiring a book impossible and allows dragon content in the first place.

A rogue's sneak attack is only one of a number of class features and it can be swapped for other features readily enough. If I'm pretty much guaranteed to never be able to use sneak attacks, say a campaign centered around oozes and plants, I'd just swap it for fighter bonus feats and go on with my day.

If I'm reasonably assured there will be no gear available at all, I'll be seriously tempted to just pass on that game unless I know and trust that the GM knows what he's doing. Even just throwing out WBL is a big red flag.

But like I said, it's just not the same thing.

[Rynjin]

Two cheap items to reactivate a secondary class feature that I could've swapped out for something more useful for this campaign anyway is hardly a major hurdle. In any case, pointing out that there are work arounds for one of a class' weaknesses isn't pitching that class. It's helping the OP whose player has already decided to play one to not force him into uselessness.



Apples and oranges, my dude.

A wizard without a spellbook is pretty much helpless to do anything but die horribly. Maybe the eidetic spellcaster ACF from dragon magazine can salvage it depending on whether the DM rules that the "free" spells can be gained in whatever circumstance has made acquiring a book impossible and allows dragon content in the first place.

A rogue's sneak attack is only one of a number of class features and it can be swapped for other features readily enough. If I'm pretty much guaranteed to never be able to use sneak attacks, say a campaign centered around oozes and plants, I'd just swap it for fighter bonus feats and go on with my day.

If I'm reasonably assured there will be no gear available at all, I'll be seriously tempted to just pass on that game unless I know and trust that the GM knows what he's doing. Even just throwing out WBL is a big red flag.

But like I said, it's just not the same thing.

Is Hua your alt account or something? Because my initial response was to his suggestions, not you.

[Particle_Man]

FWIW you can do a wizard sans spellbook but you have to take Spell Mastery a lot. I suppose a very "no stuff" game might require Eschew Materials.

But at that point, one looks at the Sorcerer with envy. :smallsmile:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is Hua your alt account or something? Because my initial response was to his suggestions, not you.

Alt-accounts are against forum rules and we use completely different grammatical and writing styles. You were both making general comments on a public forum. Third party interjection is not only expected, it's rather the point of such platforms. I took issue with your position and said so; par for the course, really.


FWIW you can do a wizard sans spellbook but you have to take Spell Mastery a lot. I suppose a very "no stuff" game might require Eschew Materials.

But at that point, one looks at the Sorcerer with envy. :smallsmile:

Doesn't work. You can only take spell mastery for spells you already know. If you don't own a spellbook, you don't know any spells.

[ColorBlindNinja]

FWIW you can do a wizard sans spellbook but you have to take Spell Mastery a lot. I suppose a very "no stuff" game might require Eschew Materials.

If I was going to play a Wizard like that, I'd take Eidetic Spellcaster, Elven Generalist, Domain Wizard and Collegiate Wizard. I'd also take Spell Mastery for Uncanny Forethought.

[Particle_Man]

Doesn't work. You can only take spell mastery for spells you already know. If you don't own a spellbook, you don't know any spells.

Depends on whether the wizard once has a spellbook before losing it before starting their first adventure. Backstory is a thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on whether the wizard once has a spellbook before losing it before starting their first adventure. Backstory is a thing.

Hope you're not starting at low level.

[Rynjin]

Alt-accounts are against forum rules and we use completely different grammatical and writing styles. You were both making general comments on a public forum. Third party interjection is not only expected, it's rather the point of such platforms. I took issue with your position and said so; par for the course, really.

My issue isn't with interjecting, it's with making your own points after my post and retroactively assuming my first post had anything to do with the one you made afterward.

I made a post about his suggestion of using magical items anyone can use; you made a post about items you claim benefit a Rogue more than others. I don't know those items, but the quick description I can find is they just add an extra d6 to attacks against a target, like a ****ty version of Bane, so I don't know how they benefit Rogue more than any other class that can swing a weapon with 3/4 BaB anyway, but the (intended) content of your posts was also different.

Is this a 3.5 rule I don't know about? Do Rogues get more WBL innately? Is there a class feature or Feat I'm unaware of that adds to the effectiveness of their magic items?

I'm just unclear on what the argument is here, exactly. How are any of these magic items relevant, regardless of their efficacy? How do they benefit a Rogue SO MUCH that it completely overrides the lack of Sneak Attack and makes it more powerful than simply class-swapping to any other 3/4 BaB class with good skills?

[Kelb_Panthera]

My issue isn't with interjecting, it's with making your own points after my post and retroactively assuming my first post had anything to do with the one you made afterward.

I'm not sure I follow. You made a point about gear and a rogue or other non-casters' dependence on it; something to the effect of reliance on gear makes classes so reliant effectively interchangeable, an utterly silly position in the estimation of myself and others.


I made a post about his suggestion of using magical items anyone can use; you made a post about items you claim benefit a Rogue more than others. I don't know those items, but the quick description I can find is they just add an extra d6 to attacks against a target, like a ****ty version of Bane, so I don't know how they benefit Rogue more than any other class that can swing a weapon with 3/4 BaB anyway, but the (intended) content of your posts was also different.

I was talking about gear in general for the most part but you should've dug deeper on the truedeath and demolition crystals. The greater versions of each (10k and 6k, respectively) enable sneak attacks and crits against undead and constructs.

Hua seemed more focused on going around a lack of sneak attacks, a perfectly viable course, because sneak attack isn't the rogue's only noteworthy feature; something several other posters in this thread have pointed out. Rogues have the highest number of skill points and UMD as a class skill, trap finding, evasion and a suite of other defensive features, and the special abilities before you even look at ACFs. The GM/ OP could simply suggest that it might be a good idea to go feat rogue and/ or allow retraining to facilitate that suggestion.

The point remains; being gear reliant doesn't make classes interchangeable.


Is this a 3.5 rule I don't know about? Do Rogues get more WBL innately? Is there a class feature or Feat I'm unaware of that adds to the effectiveness of their magic items?

When selecting gear, you base your choices, in part, around your chosen class' features; a fighter has little use for metamagic rods while a typical wizard has little use for the aforementioned weapon crystals. Using gear to supplement abilities you have with abilities you lack is also an obvious strategy and what abilities you lack are entirely dependent on your class, obviously. Point being; a rogue will make overall different choices than a commoner on gear even if what methods he uses to deal with certain enemies may be similar.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Couldn't the Rogue in this case take a 2 level dip in Cleric to pick up the Magic Domain? She could activate wands of Golem Strike and either cast/use wands of Grave Strike.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Couldn't the Rogue in this case take a 2 level dip in Cleric to pick up the Magic Domain? She could activate wands of Golem Strike and either cast/use wands of Grave Strike.

If you're going that way, you'd only need one level in cleric. The domain power specifies a minimum effective wizard level of 1. Of course, you could rack up a fair number of ranks in UMD in a single level and you're good to go once you can hit DC 20 somewhat reliably.

[ColorBlindNinja]

If you're going that way, you'd only need one level in cleric. The domain power specifies a minimum effective wizard level of 1.

Ah, I must have missed that part. That makes it even better, Cleric is one of the greatest 1 level dips in the game to begin with.


Of course, you could rack up a fair number of ranks in UMD in a single level and you're good to go once you can hit DC 20 somewhat reliably.

Also true.

[Rynjin]

I'm not sure I follow. You made a point about gear and a rogue or other non-casters' dependence on it; something to the effect of reliance on gear makes classes so reliant effectively interchangeable, an utterly silly position in the estimation of myself and others.


I made a comment about using gear that any class can use, yes. If your character's entire schtick is that he's using general purpose gear like Bane weapons and wands with UMD, what does it matter what class you are?

Yes, at that point the two are interchangeable, save a basic chassis. The Rogue chassis comes with 3/4 BaB, good Reflex saves, 8+Int skills, Trapfinding, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge/Improved, Trap Sense, and some high level ribbons. Plus Sneak Attack, which isn't hugely relevant in this scenario, even with your 10k GP crystals which only come online at 8th level at the earliest (if you want to spend half your WBL on one), and more realistically 10th if you want one of them, much less two.

So sans Sneak Attack, you're left with Trapfinding (dubiously worthwhile; most traps can be bypassed without it), Evasion (nice to have, but nothing I'd base my character around), Trap Sense (lol), and your 13th+ level ribbons (who cares?) plus the great skills, okay BaB, and worst Good save in the game. Sneak Attack is already a dubious reason to play a Rogue, but playing a Rogue without Sneak Attack "because you can use these other magic items anyone else can use" is frankly stupid.

"In that case, why not play any other class?" is a question I've already asked and got no answer to save a hyper-focus on my derision at the idea of using general purpose magic items to shore up the lack of a class feature. Surely, in all of 3.5's infinite splat, there is a class that can outperform a Sneak Attack-less goddamned Rogue. I'm sure there's plenty with 3/4 BaB, good Ref saves, and at least 6+Int skills (like, you know, a Bard). Why would you bother going so far out of your way to make that concept worthwhile?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I made a comment about using gear that any class can use, yes. If your character's entire schtick is that he's using general purpose gear like Bane weapons and wands with UMD, what does it matter what class you are?

The assumption was that the Rogue is using those wands to enable Sneak Attack/use it to bypass immunity to Sneak Attack, yes?

Not every class has access to Sneak Attack, so using wands to utilize Sneak Attack more effectively isn't something any class can do.

[Aetis]

We just let rogues SA undeads/constructs and it works out fine.

[Rynjin]

The assumption was that the Rogue is using those wands to enable Sneak Attack/use it to bypass immunity to Sneak Attack, yes?

No. Read the post I initially replied to.

[ColorBlindNinja]

We just let rogues SA undeads/constructs and it works out fine.

But what about plants?! :smallwink:

In all seriousness, I don't think it'd break anything to remove Sneak Attack immunity for Rogues.

[liquidformat]

If the game is going heavy undead maybe introduce Skullclan Hunter as a possible prc dip choice, or allow some retraining so the rogue can pickup the aforementioned ACFs, beyond that there are spells and magic items already mentioned.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I made a comment about using gear that any class can use, yes. If your character's entire schtick is that he's using general purpose gear like Bane weapons and wands with UMD, what does it matter what class you are?

Off the top of my head, your class influences which weapons you use and whether UMD is a class skill or not matters a -lot- for whether you're realistically going to use it or not. A rogue has UMD and a commoner doesn't while a commoner's poor BAB makes him using -any- weapon unlikely past level 5 or so.


Yes, at that point the two are interchangeable, save a basic chassis. The Rogue chassis comes with 3/4 BaB, good Reflex saves, 8+Int skills, Trapfinding, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge/Improved, Trap Sense, and some high level ribbons. Plus Sneak Attack, which isn't hugely relevant in this scenario, even with your 10k GP crystals which only come online at 8th level at the earliest (if you want to spend half your WBL on one), and more realistically 10th if you want one of them, much less two.

Yup, except for these things that make them different, they're exactly the same.


So sans Sneak Attack, you're left with Trapfinding (dubiously worthwhile; most traps can be bypassed without it), Evasion (nice to have, but nothing I'd base my character around), Trap Sense (lol), and your 13th+ level ribbons (who cares?) plus the great skills, okay BaB, and worst Good save in the game. Sneak Attack is already a dubious reason to play a Rogue, but playing a Rogue without Sneak Attack "because you can use these other magic items anyone else can use" is frankly stupid.

Special abilities start at 10, not 13. That aside, you don't pick a class for any one feature unless that's the only feature it gets, it's the only class that gets that feature, or you're just taking a dip. You're laser focused on sneak attack for some reason. If you're that hung up on it, trade trapsense for the death's ruin feature (half SA damage vs undead) and grab Holy stalker at 10 (+2 SA damage per die to undead.) That's the biggest category fixed and the greater demolition crystal is only 6k, as I mentioned above. Doesn't change the fact that a rogue is more defined by his choice of skills than by sneak attack though.


"In that case, why not play any other class?" is a question I've already asked and got no answer to save a hyper-focus on my derision at the idea of using general purpose magic items to shore up the lack of a class feature. Surely, in all of 3.5's infinite splat, there is a class that can outperform a Sneak Attack-less goddamned Rogue. I'm sure there's plenty with 3/4 BaB, good Ref saves, and at least 6+Int skills (like, you know, a Bard). Why would you bother going so far out of your way to make that concept worthwhile?

Because another class doesn't have the same blend of features that a rogue does whether you lack sneak attack for having traded it away or only effectively lack it because you're facing nothing but plants and(vine strike wand) oozes. Why not bard? Because 6 is less than 8 and certainly less than 10 (changeling rogue) or maybe I -want- to be the trap monkey or I want to be a skill type with a boat-load of feats (martial rogue). SA isn't the only draw of the class.

[Morty]

But what about plants?! :smallwink:

In all seriousness, I don't think it'd break anything to remove Sneak Attack immunity for Rogues.

Yeah, I've seen plenty of attempts to justify or rationalize it and not a single good reason why SA shouldn't work against those specific types of enemies. It's not like rogues are combat monsters even with SA.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, I've seen plenty of attempts to justify or rationalize it and not a single good reason why SA shouldn't work against those specific types of enemies.

The justification that the game itself uses (IIRC) is that Undead, Plants and Constructs lack vitals. YMMV on how logical that one is.


It's not like rogues are combat monsters even with SA.

You could get some nice damage values with the Craven feat. Maybe take some ranks in Iaijutsu Focus to try to pump your damage dice, but I think that works better with Factotums.

[Eldariel]

Just a quick note, Elementals are immune too. And anyone with crit immunity, be it from Heart of X-spells, magic items or something else.

[Mystral]

Actually, Elementals, Incorporeals, and Swarms are explicitly out too.
And to use SA, Rogue must be able to see and reach a "vital spot"; where is the "vital spot" of a Skeleton? :smallconfused:

Head or spine, obviously.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Just a quick note, Elementals are immune too. And anyone with crit immunity, be it from Heart of X-spells, magic items or something else.

Right, forgot Elementals.


Head or spine, obviously.

What about Wraiths? :smalleek:

[Deophaun]

What about Wraiths? :smalleek:Nether region.

[Knaight]

Actually, Elementals, Incorporeals, and Swarms are explicitly out too.
And to use SA, Rogue must be able to see and reach a "vital spot"; where is the "vital spot" of a Skeleton? :smallconfused:

If you would allow Rogue to SA an Iron Golem, the next time he may ask to SA an iron door (because, hey, what's the difference?)


Here's the definitive MM picture on constructs that "don't have weak points".
https://1d4chan.org/images/5/5f/Inevitables_Regular.jpg

As for skeletons, depends on what they're skeletons off. Almost anything with a spine has at least two points where it's relatively easily cut (below and above the rib cage), so that comes to mind. Incorporeals are somehow even more ridiculous; if you can hit them at all their incorporeality really has no business preventing precision damage.


The justification that the game itself uses (IIRC) is that Undead, Plants and Constructs lack vitals. YMMV on how logical that one is.
That it will. Swarms are one thing, oozes a bit more borderline, but plants? It's like none of the designers have ever cracked a botany textbook.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Nether region.

Ouch. :smalltongue:



That it will. Swarms are one thing, oozes a bit more borderline, but plants? It's like none of the designers have ever cracked a botany textbook.

I'd be shocked if any of them have.

[Morty]

The justification that the game itself uses (IIRC) is that Undead, Plants and Constructs lack vitals. YMMV on how logical that one is.

It's just D&D's misapplied realism, like I said.


You could get some nice damage values with the Craven feat. Maybe take some ranks in Iaijutsu Focus to try to pump your damage dice, but I think that works better with Factotums.

Yeah, but "deal a lot of damage with a melee weapon" is hardly the most impressive thing you can do in 3E/PF. And trying to play a ranged rogue has you jump through its own set of hoops.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's just D&D's misapplied realism, like I said.

You could argue it makes more sense for constructs, but I get where you're coming from.


Yeah, but "deal a lot of damage with a melee weapon" is hardly the most impressive thing you can do in 3E/PF.

True enough, but it's damage that doesn't involve charging, so it has that going for it.


And trying to play a ranged rogue has you jump through its own set of hoops.

I believe Sniper's Shot is the easiest way to do that?

[Quertus]

ACFs: Death's Ruin, Penetrating Strike

MiC: Demolition crystal, Truedeath crystal

DMG: Bane weapons add nice damage


wasn't aware of augmentation crystals. they make sense as they give some much-needed flexibility to weapons, and those you mentioned do exactly what i wanted. they are also cheap.
only (minor) problem i'll have is why they weren't introduced before in the campaign. maybe i can pass them as a recent invention that has yet to spread.

The only way I can make your problem make sense is if you're playing with an item white list. But that seems odd for someone whose first response is to homebrew. Of course, your homebrew would have the same problem.


WTF is the point of playing a class if everything you do comes from items? Literally nothing you mentioned is Rogue specific; he cold pllay a Commoner and do all that. That doesn't make Commoners a good class that should be a part of the average party.

Well, that pretty well describes Armus... who was usually batting as his party's MVP...


It's not like rogues are combat monsters even with SA.

Being able to solo* monsters of your CR (usually 1-shot them with a Belt of Battle) isn't a combat monster?

* Flanking buddy optimal


Swarms are one thing, oozes a bit more borderline, but plants? It's like none of the designers have ever cracked a botany textbook.

Well, it's not like the party rogue has ever cracked a botany textbook (unless he took the "botanical rogue prestige class" or some such).

[DrMotives]

Well, it's not like the party rogue has ever cracked a botany textbook (unless he took the "botanical rogue prestige class" or some such).

The way Knowledge Devotion works, or that archivist ability that works along the same lines, it seems those should override any immunity to critical hits & SA damage. At least if you're going to believe the official explanation for why those don't normally work on plants, constructs, etc. You literally are hitting for more damage because you know the anatomy of the thing, and no creature type is immune.

[Kelb_Panthera]

wasn't aware of augmentation crystals. they make sense as they give some much-needed flexibility to weapons, and those you mentioned do exactly what i wanted. they are also cheap.
only (minor) problem i'll have is why they weren't introduced before in the campaign. maybe i can pass them as a recent invention that has yet to spread.

That's not a problem. Do you know every magic item in the game? No, of course not. How about every food item in your local convenience store? No again, I'm sure. So why would you expect anyone the PCs have interacted with to have known about either of these very specific items worth a lord's ransom except perhaps as an extremely vague rumor?

Now, if you meant augment crystals in general then that's another animal. Still an easy solve by simply having a caravan arrive with a stock of them or a merchant in the bazaar flag down the party with a sales pitch. Just because the party's never heard of them doesn't mean no one else ever has. The relative rarity of magic items in a typical setting (even the cheapest magic items cost months of wages for an unskilled laborer) make it perfectly plausible for only adventurers and merchants that deal with adventurers (mostly curio shops, temples, and magical colleges) to be "in-the-know" about such things and even then only in limited fashion for any individual.

[ShurikVch]

Head or spine, obviously.Head is, obviously, out - since
undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads.



Here's the definitive MM picture on constructs that "don't have weak points".
https://1d4chan.org/images/5/5f/Inevitables_Regular.jpgThey're made of metal; your dagger will blunt and bend
Seriously, it's just a picture - it's not a RAW
What's you're expecting to SA there? Is there an engine of some sort? Fuel lines? Power cords?
Also, writers, apparently, were very very against the idea of SAing Construct: for example, Anarch - CN Paladin from Dragon #310 - is able to inflict critical strikes on Constructs (or even objects!); that is - critical strikes, but not Sneak Attacks (it's directly forbidden)!
Also, Modrons were retconned as Living Constructs; Inevitables - left "as is". Coincidence?..


As for skeletons, depends on what they're skeletons off. Almost anything with a spine has at least two points where it's relatively easily cut (below and above the rib cage), so that comes to mind.Note: vertebrae in a spine are holds together not by cartilages, but by Negative Energy; without the Mace of Disruption, Grave Strike/Spark of Life, or (at the very least) Death's Ruin/LPS - your cut will cause no more damage than usual


Incorporeals are somehow even more ridiculous; if you can hit them at all their incorporeality really has no business preventing precision damage.Rules of the Game - There, Not There (Part Three) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040928a):
No matter what the creature looks like, it has no flesh, bones, protoplasm, or any other substance that makes up a corporeal creature's body. In effect, an incorporeal creature is a disembodied intellect or spirit.


That it will. Swarms are one thing, oozes a bit more borderline, but plants? It's like none of the designers have ever cracked a botany textbook.And what's you're proposing to SA?
I mean - no organs, no nervous system, no pain receptors, and sap isn't under pressure

Actually, IMHO, the more annoying part about the Plant type is immunity to poisons. I mean - come on! Can you spell "herbicide"?


Also, AFAIK, there are no RAW way to ignore Fortification - one more slap into SA face

Actually, Sneak Attack is a 1st-level class feature, and how many, exactly, good 1st-level class features are there?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Actually, Sneak Attack is a 1st-level class feature, and how many, exactly, good 1st-level class features are there?

Spellcasting?

[liquidformat]

Also, AFAIK, there are no RAW way to ignore Fortification - one more slap into SA face

Yes and no, Penetrating Strike ACF comes on line at third level giving you 50% SA to anything that is normally immune to SA and even getting light fortification you are looking at level 6ish before you can afford to have it as a PC, more so for an npc. So from that point alone Penetrating Strike is great bang for your buck if you are going melee rogue.

Furthermore, I am a bit unclear how Penetrating Strike is supposed to interact with heavy fortification by RAW but my reading RAI seems to suggest heavy fortification only gives 50% protection from a Penetrating Strike rogue as a creature wearing heavy fortification armor would be a 'creature normally immune' to SA.

Also the following are RAW ways to ignore fortification: dispel, disjuncture, anti magic...


Actually, Sneak Attack is a 1st-level class feature, and how many, exactly, good 1st-level class features are there?

Familiar, turn undead, animal companion, bardic music, rage, pounce, initiator maneuvers and stances, domains... There are plenty good 1st-level class features out there. Also good is a relative term that is in no way definitive as it is based on a lot of factors. Depending on what build you are going for, a one or two level dip of fighter to get bonus fighter feats is good. Heck at level 1-3 fighter level 1 bonus feat is general good if you aren't ever taking said character past level 5...

Insinuating that there are no good first level class features is honestly foolish and very short sighted as many builds are built completely or partially off the first level class features you can get from a class.

[Quertus]

The way Knowledge Devotion works, or that archivist ability that works along the same lines, it seems those should override any immunity to critical hits & SA damage. At least if you're going to believe the official explanation for why those don't normally work on plants, constructs, etc. You literally are hitting for more damage because you know the anatomy of the thing, and no creature type is immune.

For the duration of your use of this power, you gain the mystical knowledge, incomprehensible to the unaided mortal mind, that plants have feelings, too, and that where you strike the stone matters.

I guess that explains why they took "gem cutting" away as a skill in 3e - it is beyond the preview of mortals to comprehend inhuman weakness.

[Hua]

You should not have asked the question if you were not going to consider anything but an echo chamber of people agreeing you should get improved abilities because you want them.

I did point out a few ways, against specific foes, you could overcome that weakness. They were simple examples for specific incidents. The main point remains that there is no reason to enhance that class. What you are asking for is just a slightly limited version of claiming you should get sneak attack on every attack, even if you are not in position or enemy is at a disadvantage. You were in effect saying "Let me do it when I don't actually qualify for it". You simply did not open it up to all times you don't qualify for it. Likely that would be next if you add it here.

My point was that rogues are more than sneak attack. They have strengths and weaknesses and that sneak attack does not work on everything is part of the game. You know it going in and chose that class so deal with it. You asked for opinions. They were provided. Feel free to try to convince your DM of your opinion, but pointing to this thread likely won't help you.

And no, I am not posting under any other name. Just because more than one person disagrees with you does not make them the same person.