Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KingNeo 09-17-06, 01:54 AM	Yeah I thought that might catch your attention. |o| Seriously though is it too powerful or not. I'm talking about all creatures in general, not just undead and constructs (which can be bypassed with two feats). Would be a too powerful ability, but as a side effect sneak attack damage is reduced by half (dice wise) so 8d6 becomes 4d6? Yeah thinking of ideas, might or might not work. Thanks Neo
fatchuck 09-17-06, 08:00 AM	I'm talking about all creatures in general, not just undead and constructs (which can be bypassed with two feats). Would be a too powerful ability, but as a side effect sneak attack damage is reduced by half (dice wise) so 8d6 becomes 4d6? Yeah thinking of ideas, might or might not work. For a houserule, it would work as long as you point it out upfront before character creation. Out of curiosity, what two feats allow one to bypass NoCrits for constructs and undead?
Grizzled Gryphon 09-17-06, 11:56 AM	They are in Complete adventurer, I think. The Lurk, in Complete Psionics, has the ability to sneak attack anything, I believe. Look into that for ideas.
frasmage 09-17-06, 12:17 PM	um, there are no feats in CAdv that allow SA vs. undead or constructs. There are however two swift spells that allow you to sneak attack either undead or constructs for one round
Teydyn 09-17-06, 12:47 PM	um, there are no feats in CAdv that allow SA vs. undead or constructs. Um, there is. CAdv p112, Razing Strike
frasmage 09-17-06, 01:18 PM	Oh ya, I completely forgot about that one... of course it is technically not sneak attack, just damage equal to your sneak attack - thus you cannot trade the dice to hamstring, wound, etc.
KingNeo 09-17-06, 03:13 PM	For a houserule, it would work as long as you point it out upfront before character creation. Out of curiosity, what two feats allow one to bypass NoCrits for constructs and undead? One is in the undead book and the other is in the aberration book. Sorry about me not knowing the names Lords of Madness is the aberration book, but I can't type the undead book right. Lords of Madness has the construct bypass feat and the undead book has the undead bypass feat. On a general note they are not call "bypass" Anyway in general this ability is not overpowered right? We cn agree on that right? So is half sneak attack damage a good trade off to be able to deal sneak attack? Is it too harsh? If it is too harsh then what would be a just as good trade off? Thanks.
Alvoros Darkleaf 09-17-06, 03:38 PM	Um, there is. CAdv p112, Razing Strike Yeah...but to use it, you have to have caster level of 5 and give up spell slot for the action...I would think you already have a lot of spells that would do greater damage than what is left of your sneak attack capability. Alvo
Alvoros Darkleaf 09-17-06, 03:49 PM	One is in the undead book and the other is in the aberration book. Sorry about me not knowing the names Lords of Madness is the aberration book, but I can't type the undead book right. Lords of Madness has the construct bypass feat and the undead book has the undead bypass feat. On a general note they are not call "bypass" Anyway in general this ability is not overpowered right? We cn agree on that right? So is half sneak attack damage a good trade off to be able to deal sneak attack? Is it too harsh? If it is too harsh then what would be a just as good trade off? Thanks. Hmmm...took a look through the "Lords of Madness" and can't find the feat you think is there....but since it is a book on aberrations, I don't see why a contruct defeating feat would be there. Libris Motis, The book of Undead does not seem to have a feat to allow sneaks on undead either. Unless I missed them, perhaps you are thinking of the spells mentioned in the thread earlier? Alvo
KingNeo 09-17-06, 03:55 PM	Hmmm...took a look through the "Lords of Madness" and can't find the feat you think is there....but since it is a book on aberrations, I don't see why a contruct defeating feat would be there. Libris Motis, The book of Undead does not seem to have a feat to allow sneaks on undead either. Unless I missed them, perhaps you are thinking of the spells mentioned in the thread earlier? Alvo Oh well I believe it was there but I could be wrong since I do not own either book. Anyway is being able to sneak attack any creature, but having sneak attack be reduced to half damage (dice wise) a good balance? Is it too harsh on the character's part, not being able to have enough damage come from it?(probably not from what I planning).
Lotus Crane 09-17-06, 06:27 PM	Considering how much effort a rogue would normally need to put into sneak attacking certain creatures (he'd have to multiclass into 3 levels of wizard or cleric to get access to the appropriate spells), for a straight-up feat that lets you sneak attack all creatures that are normally immune, half damage might be too much. I'd say that a feat that allows minimum sneak atack damage against normally immune creatures would be more balanced. In other words, if you normally get +5d6 damage against most creatures, against normally immune creatures, you would get just +5 damage.
KingNeo 09-17-06, 08:11 PM	Considering how much effort a rogue would normally need to put into sneak attacking certain creatures (he'd have to multiclass into 3 levels of wizard or cleric to get access to the appropriate spells), for a straight-up feat that lets you sneak attack all creatures that are normally immune, half damage might be too much. I'd say that a feat that allows minimum sneak atack damage against normally immune creatures would be more balanced. In other words, if you normally get +5d6 damage against most creatures, against normally immune creatures, you would get just +5 damage. Actually recently I just discovered that the lurker, a feat in Complete Adventure, and other things allow full sneak attack, damage wise. So I'm just trying to figure out what each has to give up in order to do so. So...still thinking. But honestly only +1 damage per die that would be way to harsh. So...again still thinking.
frasmage 09-17-06, 08:14 PM	do remember the feat in CAdv requires 5 caster levels, that is a huge break from your SA progression
OneWinged4ngel 09-17-06, 08:19 PM	Yeah I thought that might catch your attention. |o| Seriously though is it too powerful or not. I'm talking about all creatures in general, not just undead and constructs (which can be bypassed with two feats). Would be a too powerful ability, but as a side effect sneak attack damage is reduced by half (dice wise) so 8d6 becomes 4d6? Yeah thinking of ideas, might or might not work. Thanks Neo No... not too powerful. Actually, you can already do this with things like gravestrike. However, you don't just get these abilities for free.
Lotus Crane 09-17-06, 08:23 PM	Actually recently I just discovered that the lurker, a feat in Complete Adventure, and other things allow full sneak attack, damage wise. So I'm just trying to figure out what each has to give up in order to do so. So...still thinking. But honestly only +1 damage per die that would be way to harsh. So...again still thinking. 1) That's the lurker's class balance, and keep in mind that normally, a lurker already gets a much slower sneak attack progression than rogues anyway. Roughly speaking, a lurker using his special ability to deal his full sneak attack, is still no stronger than a normal rogue with the ability to deal half of her sneak attack. 2) Razing Strike requires 5 caster levels anyway, which means your rogue is already forced to give up +3d6 sneak attack just to take the feat, it requires the sacrifice of spells to use, and it doesn't actually let you apply real sneak attack damage, but rather a small spell level-based bonus which would generally be much smaller than the sneak attack damage of an equal level rogue. It also applies to just one creature type. 3) Spells like golem strike and grave strike require again, a rogue sacrificing +2d6 or +3d6 of sneak attack in order to take the necessary multiclass levels. For a normal rogue, who isn't required to multiclass, fulfil any other prerequisites, or sacrifice limited-use abilities, a general feat to let him apply minimum sneak attack damage to all normally immune creatures, is more than generous. You're asking us to approve of you getting something for nothing, but that's not the way D&D works. You're also obviously making wild claims about the existence of material you haven't actually read. Since most of us actually own the books in question, just trust us when we say there is no easy way for rogues to sneak attack normally immune creatures, so a feat that lets you do so, should grant only a small portion of the damage (ie minimum possible).
KingNeo 09-17-06, 09:01 PM	You're asking us to approve of you getting something for nothing, but that's not the way D&D works. You're also obviously making wild claims about the existence of material you haven't actually read. Since most of us actually own the books in question, just trust us when we say there is no easy way for rogues to sneak attack normally immune creatures, so a feat that lets you do so, should grant only a small portion of the damage (ie minimum possible). Actually I'm not I'm just trying to figure out a balance for such an ability. Oh and like I said I thought there were feats to bypass immunity, but that I was not sure in the first place. Oh and I keep saying ability for a reason, this is not going to be a feat (I hate building feats) this is a class ability, so its there to always change and counterbalance for anything. Seriously though how fair would it be if a rogue could sneak attack everything for a simple feat, without some cost (like feats to spend on a prestige class and levels taken in the class)? Do you think I'm some type of idiot? Dude I can kill a dragon in one round, two rounds tops, with sneak attack and I'm talking about great wyrms here, not weaklings so I know how ridiculous and destructive it can get. Anyway so lets talk about the ability in general. We set up a 10 level class. It possesses sneak attack. Sneak attack begins at first level, and increases every two levels (so 1st then 4th, then 7th, and so on) (that would reduce sneak attack to 7d6 or 8d6 at 20th level I think). So would that be a fair balance then? Seriously though what is up with the rants? I'm just trying to make an ability and trying to find a balance for it.
Lotus Crane 09-17-06, 09:16 PM	Actually I'm not I'm just trying to figure out a balance for such an ability. Oh and like I said I thought there were feats to bypass immunity, but that I was not sure in the first place. But now you know that there aren't such feats. Reason 1 why such an ability should either be difficult to acquire (a painful amount of multiclassing), or relatively tame (minimum damage possible). Oh and I keep saying ability for a reason, this is not going to be a feat (I hate building feats) this is a class ability, so its there to always change and counterbalance for anything. You could have been more clear about that, and what "change and counterbalance" are you talking about? You didn't mention what, if anything, you'd be willing to sacrifice, and from a casual reading of your comments, it sounds like you just want as much sneak attack damage as possible, against all creature types, with little or no drawbacks. Generally speaking, no class should grant more than +1d6 normal sneak attack damage per two levels, but a class with the special ability to sneak attack even normally immune creatures, should not be capable of dealing more than +1d6 sneak attack damage per three levels. Seriously though how fair would it be if a rogue could sneak attack everything for a simple feat, without some cost (like feats to spend on a prestige class and levels taken in the class)? It wouldn't be fair, unless it was for minimum damage possible, ie +10d6 reduced to +10. Do you think I'm some type of idiot? Dude I can kill a dragon in one round, two rounds tops, with sneak attack and I'm talking about great wyrms here, not weaklings so I know how ridiculous and destructive it can get. Actually, that does make you sound pretty stupid, since it's actually not that easy to kill dragons in actual play. 1) A rogue's attack bonus is too low to actually hit with all of those attacks (you're assuming most or all of your sneak attacks hit, which they won't), 2) a dragon has blindsight, so there are less circumstances under which it can be sneak attacked at all, 3) depending on the DM, rogues can't sneak attack creatures more than 2 size categories larger than himself anyway, due to not being able to actually reach the vitals, so that means it's impossible to sneak attack wyrms. Sounds pretty newbish to me. Seriously though what is up with the rants? I'm just trying to make an ability and trying to find a balance for it. You could have been more clear that you were trying to design a class, and weren't interested in a feat solution. Besides that, the fact that you think it's "too harsh" for a feat to allow minimum sneak attack damage rather than half, even when there's no other prerequisites or sacrifices necessary, demonstrates you understand very little about balance. But anyway, a feat that allows minimum sneak attack damage against any creature, with no other prerequisites or sacrifices, is very generous, perhaps enough so that most DM's wouldn't be comfortable allowing such a powerful feat into the game.
KingNeo 09-17-06, 09:37 PM	But now you know that there aren't such feats. Reason 1 why such an ability should either be difficult to acquire (a painful amount of multiclassing), or relatively tame (minimum damage possible). You could have been more clear about that, and what "change and counterbalance" are you talking about? You didn't mention what, if anything, you'd be willing to sacrifice, and from a casual reading of your comments, it sounds like you just want as much sneak attack damage as possible, against all creature types, with little or no drawbacks. lol true I could have been more clear I guess, but to claify I was willing to give up anything. I'm literally trying to figure out what to give up without making the ability being pointless (like +1 damage per die of sneak attack) Generally speaking, no class should grant more than +1d6 normal sneak attack damage per two levels, but a class with the special ability to sneak attack even normally immune creatures, should not be capable of dealing more than +1d6 sneak attack damage per three levels. It wouldn't be fair, unless it was for minimum damage possible, ie +10d6 reduced to +10. I agree with you with the sneak attack limits, mainly because I know how much damage output a player can get with it. Actually, that does make you sound pretty stupid, since it's actually not that easy to kill dragons in actual play. 1) A rogue's attack bonus is too low to actually hit with all of those attacks (you're assuming most or all of your sneak attacks hit, which they won't), 2) a dragon has blindsight, so there are less circumstances under which it can be sneak attacked at all, 3) depending on the DM, rogues can't sneak attack creatures more than 2 size categories larger than himself anyway, due to not being able to actually reach the vitals, so that means it's impossible to sneak attack wyrms. Sounds pretty newbish to me. To make a long story short didn't play a rogue (custom class), could bypass blind sight, used a ghost touched speeding crossbow, and was flying to shoot the thing in the back, and used the sniper class (custom class found on the boards) to extend sneak attack range. lol a lot of varibles huh? But it worked non the less. You could have been more clear that you were trying to design a class, and weren't interested in a feat solution. Besides that, the fact that you think it's "too harsh" for a feat to allow minimum sneak attack damage rather than half, even when there's no other prerequisites or sacrifices necessary, demonstrates you understand very little about balance. But anyway, a feat that allows minimum sneak attack damage against any creature, with no other prerequisites or sacrifices, is very generous, perhaps enough so that most DM's wouldn't be comfortable allowing such a powerful feat into the game. Now you were unclear |o| . I never wanted a feat in the first place, and when you said +1 damage per die of sneak attack I thought special ability, not feat. Like I said I don't like making special feats and they can become unbalancing. Seriously me dumb? |o| when the abyss freezes over! |o|
QaenyinAngelblade 09-17-06, 11:49 PM	Would 5 levels of Assassin qualify you for the Razing Strike feat? Or perhaps 5 levels of Blackguard? I'm curious since technically both are considered Spellcasting classes, and both get access to Sneak Attack. Would make Razing Strike much more accessible without damaging your class abilities much.
Dionon 09-18-06, 12:14 AM	This might be a little comic relief, but a friend of mine and I found a ruling that states "If something is not expecting your attack, immunity doesn't count...." SO all you have to do is an old fashion (2nd edition) sneak attack, and nothing is immune anymore.... Though this is the STUPIDEST rule in history....
zae 09-18-06, 02:12 AM	It actually sounds like you're about to DM an undead-heavy game and someone wants to play a rogue, and you don't want to render their most powerful form of attack useless. The <i>iaijutsu strike</i> ability (based on a skill check. Designed for the samurai to use well, others to be able to use somewhat if they really wanted to) affects undead, constructs etc. However it requires constantly investing skill points, skill focus etc. (not so bad for a rogue, certainly - providing they're a sneak attacker, and don't need to fill all the stealthy and social skills, along with minesweeping) and can only be performed once per round, and only on flat-footed opponents. Just so you can see the kind of difficulty involved in gaining sneak attack on things normally immune. Also, if it was standard for rogues to be able to sneak attack undead, I would think that any undead race/template would then deserve a lower LA. After all, immunity to rogues is one of their best tricks. It would probably also warrant a change of CR, however this would cause such creatures to be too strong for non-rogues, and require more rebalancing.
KingNeo 09-18-06, 02:43 AM	This might be a little comic relief, but a friend of mine and I found a ruling that states "If something is not expecting your attack, immunity doesn't count...." SO all you have to do is an old fashion (2nd edition) sneak attack, and nothing is immune anymore.... Though this is the STUPIDEST rule in history.... lol yeah I think we needed that one, it has getting a little too serious for a moment.
KingNeo 09-18-06, 02:49 AM	It actually sounds like you're about to DM an undead-heavy game and someone wants to play a rogue, and you don't want to render their most powerful form of attack useless. The <i>iaijutsu strike</i> ability (based on a skill check. Designed for the samurai to use well, others to be able to use somewhat if they really wanted to) affects undead, constructs etc. However it requires constantly investing skill points, skill focus etc. (not so bad for a rogue, certainly - providing they're a sneak attacker, and don't need to fill all the stealthy and social skills, along with minesweeping) and can only be performed once per round, and only on flat-footed opponents. Just so you can see the kind of difficulty involved in gaining sneak attack on things normally immune. Also, if it was standard for rogues to be able to sneak attack undead, I would think that any undead race/template would then deserve a lower LA. After all, immunity to rogues is one of their best tricks. It would probably also warrant a change of CR, however this would cause such creatures to be too strong for non-rogues, and require more rebalancing. well yeah and no, its more of an idea to use as a trump card later. Lets just say my characters like to use some pretty interesting stuff to get out of difficult situations. Like using polymorph and taking warshaper to become immune to criticals. So its nothing like a class for the enemy to shoot this guy at say 60ft and almost kill the bas****. Just trying to keep them on there toes, and as a bonus they would be able to learn and gain levels in this class if it goes well. I always try to add a story element to anything I create or allow, making it that much more interesting. Thats what D&D is all about, having fun. And how can you hae fun if you win to easy or not at all?
Xoaroidac 09-18-06, 02:57 AM	I read about half the posts then went straight to the bottom to post my opinion, so sorry if its been stated already. I think the best way to see if something is reasonably balanced is to test it in actual game play. Just warn your players ahead of time that it could be adjusted if you think it is too strong or too weak. If they all agree that it is ok to adjust it after a fair amount of testing, then just try it out. The only real opinion that matters to something being fair and balanced comes from your own playgroup.
Grey_Mage 09-18-06, 03:00 AM	Actually I'm not I'm just trying to figure out a balance for such an ability. Oh and like I said I thought there were feats to bypass immunity, but that I was not sure in the first place. Oh and I keep saying ability for a reason, this is not going to be a feat (I hate building feats) this is a class ability, so its there to always change and counterbalance for anything. Seriously though how fair would it be if a rogue could sneak attack everything for a simple feat, without some cost (like feats to spend on a prestige class and levels taken in the class)? Do you think I'm some type of idiot? Dude I can kill a dragon in one round, two rounds tops, with sneak attack and I'm talking about great wyrms here, not weaklings so I know how ridiculous and destructive it can get. Anyway so lets talk about the ability in general. We set up a 10 level class. It possesses sneak attack. Sneak attack begins at first level, and increases every two levels (so 1st then 4th, then 7th, and so on) (that would reduce sneak attack to 7d6 or 8d6 at 20th level I think). So would that be a fair balance then? Seriously though what is up with the rants? I'm just trying to make an ability and trying to find a balance for it. The rants are because you just dont seem to get that there isnt really a balance for it. Those immunities ARE a balance. They keep the rogue from getting to powerful against certain creatures allowing other classes to have a spot in the sun if you will. Now, you dont like feats eh? That causes a bit of a problem because mechanicly speaking feats are the easiest way to introduce new abilities into the game. In this case a feat chain would likely be in order, something with probly base attack bonus prereqs and a few under feats. You could also try making it available options for the rogues bonus abilities... each time chosen it applies to a singel Type of monster that is normally immune... say constructs. And it allows but 1/2 of normal sneak attach damage, subject to DR as appropriate for the weapon used. Just as an example. You might also look at the dwarven demolition substitution levels for rogues.