Epinephrine
2008-04-30, 11:24 AM
I know the RAW already on this, but I'm looking for feedback on how you'd handle things as a thinking DM, not a rulebot. If you happen to agree with RAW, great, and that's valid, as it's a considered opinion.
The rules are of course all over the place, and don't offer precise definitions of terms. For example, there is something called "precision damage", and it's not clearly defined anywhere.
Typically, sneak attack, sudden strike, and skirmish are precision damage. So is a ranger's favored enemy bonus. I was surprised initially by the ranger rule, but the DMG says so in the section on fighting in the dark, "creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra damage due to precision (for example, a ranger's favored enemy or a sneak attack)."
Sneak attack and sudden strike both specifically say that concealment prevents them working. Skirmish doesn't have this limitation, though the scout must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot, and must be able to reach it. The ranger bonus says nothing of the sort, but has been characterised as precision damage by the DMG.
By RAW, sneak attacks and sudden strikes are thus impossible in shadowy illumination, or in light underbrush. Also, ranger bonus damage should not apply to more than one arrow fired with Manyshot, since it specifically says that you apply precision based damage only once - the FAQ contradicts this, but without citing why, and it's in answer to a different question, so the sage may not have looked it up. And I don't have a high opinion of the FAQ, anyway.
It is also possible that ranger damage shouldn't affect foes with concealment, and that skirmish damage should also be prevented. Full concealment obviously prevents these damages, since a fully concealed (invisible, for example) foe couldn't possibly be seen accurately enough for skirmish, and based on the DMG, a ranger needs to see to deal his damage.
Regular concealment (20%) becomes trickier - that's partial, really. It's enough to stop both sneak attack and sudden strike, but doesn't specifically rule out skirmish or the ranger's bonus damage. Could probably go either way - for consistency, one might rule that it prevents "precision damage" - a term used, but not defined in game.
I find all of this ludicrous.
What do you feel about the following?
1.) a thief hidden in a pool of deep shadow in an alley can step out behind a player passing in the shadowy illumination, and not get to sneak attack him? Seems a bit much, since standard dungeoneering/urban thieves are meant to do precisely that.
2.) a wilderness variant rogue, with specialised advantages like woodland stride, can't make sneak attacks in the woods. After all, in medium woods 70% of the squares are light underbrush and 20% are heavy. In a dense forest it's all forms of underbrush. Even in light forest, 50% of the squares provide concealment - you can apparently be immune to rogues in the woods.
3.) that a scout, or ranger, would consistently be unable to use their special damage bonus in the woods. This is the environment they are meant to function in, yet they don't get to add their bonuses if concealment prevents precision damage.
Personally, I'm leaning toward the idea that "light" concealment doesn't prevent these attacks. It presents too many problems with the theme, and little advantage in game (or too much - with the rule as it is written you can completely forget about using a rogue for wilderness adventuring, and scouts and rangers are on thin ice, depending on how a DM leans). Perhaps a second check to see whether the concealment interfered with the bonus damage (thus, 20% miss chance, additional 20% chance of not getting bonus damage).
If you have suggestions on how to make it function for a wilderness campaign (we've been entirely in forests so far) I'm all ears.
The rules are of course all over the place, and don't offer precise definitions of terms. For example, there is something called "precision damage", and it's not clearly defined anywhere.
Typically, sneak attack, sudden strike, and skirmish are precision damage. So is a ranger's favored enemy bonus. I was surprised initially by the ranger rule, but the DMG says so in the section on fighting in the dark, "creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra damage due to precision (for example, a ranger's favored enemy or a sneak attack)."
Sneak attack and sudden strike both specifically say that concealment prevents them working. Skirmish doesn't have this limitation, though the scout must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot, and must be able to reach it. The ranger bonus says nothing of the sort, but has been characterised as precision damage by the DMG.
By RAW, sneak attacks and sudden strikes are thus impossible in shadowy illumination, or in light underbrush. Also, ranger bonus damage should not apply to more than one arrow fired with Manyshot, since it specifically says that you apply precision based damage only once - the FAQ contradicts this, but without citing why, and it's in answer to a different question, so the sage may not have looked it up. And I don't have a high opinion of the FAQ, anyway.
It is also possible that ranger damage shouldn't affect foes with concealment, and that skirmish damage should also be prevented. Full concealment obviously prevents these damages, since a fully concealed (invisible, for example) foe couldn't possibly be seen accurately enough for skirmish, and based on the DMG, a ranger needs to see to deal his damage.
Regular concealment (20%) becomes trickier - that's partial, really. It's enough to stop both sneak attack and sudden strike, but doesn't specifically rule out skirmish or the ranger's bonus damage. Could probably go either way - for consistency, one might rule that it prevents "precision damage" - a term used, but not defined in game.
I find all of this ludicrous.
What do you feel about the following?
1.) a thief hidden in a pool of deep shadow in an alley can step out behind a player passing in the shadowy illumination, and not get to sneak attack him? Seems a bit much, since standard dungeoneering/urban thieves are meant to do precisely that.
2.) a wilderness variant rogue, with specialised advantages like woodland stride, can't make sneak attacks in the woods. After all, in medium woods 70% of the squares are light underbrush and 20% are heavy. In a dense forest it's all forms of underbrush. Even in light forest, 50% of the squares provide concealment - you can apparently be immune to rogues in the woods.
3.) that a scout, or ranger, would consistently be unable to use their special damage bonus in the woods. This is the environment they are meant to function in, yet they don't get to add their bonuses if concealment prevents precision damage.
Personally, I'm leaning toward the idea that "light" concealment doesn't prevent these attacks. It presents too many problems with the theme, and little advantage in game (or too much - with the rule as it is written you can completely forget about using a rogue for wilderness adventuring, and scouts and rangers are on thin ice, depending on how a DM leans). Perhaps a second check to see whether the concealment interfered with the bonus damage (thus, 20% miss chance, additional 20% chance of not getting bonus damage).
If you have suggestions on how to make it function for a wilderness campaign (we've been entirely in forests so far) I'm all ears.