PDA

View Full Version : Concealment, precision, and attacks



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.

Jasdoif
2008-04-30, 02:01 PM
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)."The SRD has this line, except without any mention of the favored enemy bonus.
—Creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra damage due to precision (for example, a sneak attack).

I can't check errata right now, but I'm fairly certain the line was changed in the DMG via errata, or was meant to be. Or should be :smalltongue:

From what I know, the ranger's favored enemy damage was treated like other precision-like stuff in 3.0; however this was changed in 3.5.

Epinephrine
2008-04-30, 02:33 PM
Oh, that's interesting that there's a difference between DMG and SRD.

Makes sense as a relic from 3.0, it wasn't caught in the errata though either.

Still (even if one allows rangers their bonuses), the fact that a wilderness rogue (and potentially scouts) can never deal bonus damage in the woods seems a bit off.

Jasdoif
2008-04-30, 03:18 PM
It's not really too off with sneak attack. I mean, you're expecting to be able to pick out a vital spot when there's these bushes and roots for someone to hide behind?

Take the terrain into account. Remember that moving into a square with underbrush takes more movement then usual, and thus more effort; someone who isn't looking for cover isn't going to inconvenience themselves that much. They're more likely to find a path then stumble through undergrowth.

Also, the rules for determining if concealment applies to a ranged attack start at a corner of your square; so if you're on the edge of a patch of undergrowth you'll have a clear line out. Since the undergrowth still provides concealment to you there, you can hide there without needing any special ability, and catch your target off-guard as he wanders past.

Epinephrine
2008-04-30, 03:30 PM
So your suggestion is that the rogues only attack people on the few squares (10% in medium woods, 0% in heavy woods) that don't have concealment? I suppose, but it kills rogues in general. Heck, any smart opponent steps into the bushes to fight a rogue. It'd be hard to see wanting a rogue in your party when he's not getting his damage ever, essentially.

What about an "if you have woodland stride, you can ignore the 20% concealment of light undergrowth for melee combat" type rule? it allows wilderness rogues (from UA) who opt for it, rangers, scouts, druids, and other woodsy types an advantage when fighting in the light underbrush that is nearly everywhere in a forest. They already move through it without penalty, and take no penalties on skills (no "other impairment"). It might be too much of an advantage though, if others miss 20% of the time and they don't.

Pirate_King
2008-04-30, 03:34 PM
Is there a comprehensive list somewhere of everything that is considered precision-based damage? I hadn't even heard of it until I started working on the Avatar project.

lord_khaine
2008-04-30, 03:42 PM
So your suggestion is that the rogues only attack people on the few squares (10% in medium woods, 0% in heavy woods) that don't have concealment? I suppose, but it kills rogues in general. Heck, any smart opponent steps into the bushes to fight a rogue. It'd be hard to see wanting a rogue in your party when he's not getting his damage ever, essentially.



i think you are severly overestimating how much concealment you can get in heavy woods, yes there are a lot of big trees you can stand behind, but at the same time that means there isnt that much in the way of bushes to hide in.

also being a rogue or a ranger means having hide as a class skill, that means you can usualy pick the place to fight in.

Jasdoif
2008-04-30, 03:42 PM
So your suggestion is that the rogues only attack people on the few squares (10% in medium woods, 0% in heavy woods) that don't have concealment?Don't forget though, paths are mentioned right there in the DMG too.
Pathways wind through most forests, allowing normal movement and providing neither cover nor concealment. These paths are less common in dense forests, but even unexplored forests will have occasional game trails.Someone traveling through the forest is quite likely to make use of these paths.


Hmm. I suppose you could just UMD a wand of fireball or such if you wanted to clear out the undergrowth....

Curmudgeon
2008-05-01, 09:18 AM
I think the key is that the Rogue picks their hiding place, and waits for the opponent to walk by. So the Rogue can be in an area of concealment while the surrounding squares will have none. Thus hiding is possible where the Rogue is, but there's nothing preventing sneak attack in those adjacent spots.

Danzaver
2008-05-01, 09:48 AM
I would just ignore the whole silly thing.

If there's a circumstance where I feel sneak attack is not possible, I will say so. At most, I would consider it a suggestion. Where there is concealment, I will consider whether sneak attack is possible.

If you want a random element or can't decide, make an additional concealment miss chance check before rolling to hit. If the check indicates a miss, sneak attack is negated.

Lycar
2008-05-01, 10:52 AM
Now we know why we love our smokesticks so much: Instant immunity to sneak attacks. Or cast Obscuring Mist, same effect.

But what about insufficient light? Well, there are people with low-light vision, darkvision, infravision... or wear Goggles of Night. Or suffer for being a lowly human rogue and don't get your SA in a badly lit backalley. :smallamused:

Lycar