Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Orogustus78 12-23-06, 05:43 PM	I recently started a campaign off with a fairly combat heavy adventure, so I blame myself for steering my players toward that min/max play style that sometimes seems to border on the ridiculous. However I was wondering if anybody else has a problem seeing the logic in a tactic that my players seem to be falling back on alot. First the party rouge took a level of fighter and bought a great sword. And now in almost every fight she is enlarged by the spell casters and deals crazy damage with her enlarged weapon and sneak attack, since her reach is 10' and she flanks easier. I just find it hard to justify sneak att dam from a large creature using a large great sword against medium or even small creatures. I'm thinking of house ruling that sneak attacks are somhow harder to acheive against targets smaller than the attacker. What do y'al think?
Galeigh 12-23-06, 06:05 PM	I don't see anything wrong with it, think of it this way if someone isn't paying attention an elephant could easily sneak up on them. Same rules would apply for a large size creature. A sneak attack is basically an attack aimed a weak point that the target doesn't see coming.
ShinAkuma2 12-23-06, 06:08 PM	To sneak attack, you have to be able to see and target a weak point. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. If you really have a problem with it, make him take spot checks whenever engaging a new enemy. If he fails the DC of your choosing, based on the relative size differences, he can't Sneak Attack. If you're going to do this, don't make the DCs too bad. Assume DC 5 for no difference in size, maybe 9 for one difference, 13 for two, etc. Otherwise, it starts to seem like, "No, you can't Sneak Attack because I said so." Of course, you could always fall back on the typical Rogue-screwers: Undead, constructs, invisible enemies, etc. There's no real need to change anything.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 12-23-06, 06:51 PM	I feel ya' man. My personal beef is dual-wield sneak attacks. I mean wailing on somone with two weapons uber-qick dose not feel sneaky. I could sort of see a greatsword (or at least a falcion, greataxe, or large bludgeoning weapon) as a sneak attack weapon, throwing one good hit in, aimed at a vulnerable area (neck, joints, back of the head, ect...)
Steevo 12-23-06, 07:21 PM	I recently started a campaign off with a fairly combat heavy adventure, so I blame myself for steering my players toward that min/max play style that sometimes seems to border on the ridiculous. However I was wondering if anybody else has a problem seeing the logic in a tactic that my players seem to be falling back on alot. First the party rouge took a level of fighter and bought a great sword. And now in almost every fight she is enlarged by the spell casters and deals crazy damage with her enlarged weapon and sneak attack, since her reach is 10' and she flanks easier. I just find it hard to justify sneak att dam from a large creature using a large great sword against medium or even small creatures. I'm thinking of house ruling that sneak attacks are somhow harder to acheive against targets smaller than the attacker. What do y'al think? The character is remembering to take her -1 to hit and AC for being size Large, right? Assuming so, this tactic seems perfectly fair and square. If you want to tone it down a bit, perhaps try messing with the enlarged aspect of the combo. Have a couple of sorcerers use dispel magic or reduce person to nullify the enlarge person spell (but don't do it every fight or you'll quickly become annoying.) Set up fights in tight quarters where the rogue would become squeezed if she enlarged herself. If you can find a spell or tactic that hurts Large creatures more than medium ones, throw that around a bit. Basically show the players why its not good to be a one trick pony. The sneak attack ability is a fairly core aspect of the rogue class, so trying to make her stop sneak attacking things is probably going to be more trouble than it's worth, so focus on disrupting the other parts of the combo. Make sunder attacks against the greatsword, etc.
UndeadViking 12-23-06, 08:03 PM	Nothing wrong with this. Sneak attacks seem to be more about being able to target a vital spot of the target's anatomy because they currently don't have all their defenses up or are distracted, etc. To counter the enlarged greatsword wielding sneak attacker, use narrow, 5 ft. corridors where size Large creatures don't fit easily, then ambush them there. Or throw opponents with reach weapons against them. A large humanoid monster with a size large halberd and the Short Haft feat can be nasty, since it already has natural reach of 10 ft. and I think a size large halberd might give it even greater reach (not sure about this, tho....). Monsters that aren't subject to sneak attacks, such as undead, oozes and constructs, would also be challenging, as well as monsters with damage reduction: bludgeoning or piercing. You can also throw some spiked chain wielding rogues or ninjas at them for sneak attack and sudden strike damage. Skirmishing scouts with bows might also be fun. You can always throw a very strong monster or NPC with a two-handed weapon and improved disarm or improved sunder, then disarm the enlarged rogue or sunder her sword. Grappling foes would also be a pain, since you can't use a two-handed weapon in a grapple effectively. Multiple monks with stunning fist could even things out a bit, too.
Steevo 12-23-06, 08:20 PM	Viking has some good ideas there. Another one I just thought of: Make an NPC who uses the same tactic against the party. Often times there's no better way to make a party stop doing something twinkish than to give them a taste of their own medicine. (As an aside, I don't actually consider this tactic twinkish myself. The enlarged greatsword is nasty, yeah, but sneak attack is only adding another d6 or two, it's not a huge deal, really.)
claypigeons 12-23-06, 08:45 PM	Sneak attack is poorly named. No where is it stated that you have to be sneaky to pull it off. You just need to make an attack that qualifies. It should be "Vital spot explodey attack"...then people would stop with their constant statements along the lines of "ZOMG!! Sneak attack with a greataxe!!! ZOMG BROKENZOR!!1one1!" .... That aside .... I dont think taking advantage of the spells available to a person is broken or unfair. Just keep in mind the rogue has the "medium" base attack bonus, as well as a -1 on attacks for being large. Really, this isnt any more "unfair" than an enlarged or naturally large fighter wielding a spiked chain to decent effect. Beyond that... it takes a round of prep to do this. This means they are either preparing just before combat, or are wasting a round during combat... Enemies shouldnt be pushovers for PCs just because they are PCs....
Galeigh 12-23-06, 10:19 PM	I feel ya' man. My personal beef is dual-wield sneak attacks. I mean wailing on somone with two weapons uber-qick dose not feel sneaky. I could sort of see a greatsword (or at least a falcion, greataxe, or large bludgeoning weapon) as a sneak attack weapon, throwing one good hit in, aimed at a vulnerable area (neck, joints, back of the head, ect...) This is not possible, you can only sneak attack with the first weapon that hits, the second is a normal attack.
CryoSilver 12-23-06, 10:27 PM	This is not possible, you can only sneak attack with the first weapon that hits, the second is a normal attack. WRONG. Sneak attack damage applies to any attack that meets the conditions. A favortite high level tactic of mine is to dual-wield wounding swords and go TWF crazy on an enemy, gaining flanking bonuses from summoned monsters.
Vegepygmy 12-23-06, 10:57 PM	This is not possible, you can only sneak attack with the first weapon that hits, the second is a normal attack.That's a common misconception, Galeigh. If a rogue gets multiple attacks in a round (such as from a high base attack bonus or the Rapid Shot feat), can she make sneak attacks for all of them? Yes, but only if each attack meets a requirement to be a sneak attack. For instance, a rogue who flanks an enemy can deliver a sneak attack with every melee attack she makes. A rogue under the effect of a greater invisibility spell treats every attack as a sneak attack, since she remains invisible despite attacking. If later attacks in a round no longer meet any requirement to be a sneak attack, they aren’t sneak attacks. For example, a rogue under the effect of an invisibility spell would deal sneak attack damage only with her first attack in a round, because she turns visible as soon as she makes the attack.
StruckingFuggle 12-23-06, 11:15 PM	If you think a TWF'ing rogue is bad (after seeing one in play and seeing how many off and iterative attacks hit vs. how many miss), look at it like this - at least they're not a barbarian two-handed power attacking with their greataxe or keen falchion (especially if they have Leap Attack or Combat Brute or Stormguard Warrior).
Plothos 12-23-06, 11:36 PM	Heh, yeah, you should see our party's barbarian. One level of sorcerer lets him cast true strike all over the place. Basically, if he ever spends a round and doesn't attack, he can drop a true strike and throw a full raged powerattack with his glaive. Nasty. Though he seems to roll a lot of 1s for some reason. :) That said, same guy also runs a TWF rogue who has a higher to-hit even with TWF penalties. She's been dominating battle the last few times. Helps that the party wizard keeps dropping greater invis. on her. :)
SkullsForKhorne 12-24-06, 12:36 AM	I recently started a campaign off with a fairly combat heavy adventure, so I blame myself for steering my players toward that min/max play style that sometimes seems to border on the ridiculous. However I was wondering if anybody else has a problem seeing the logic in a tactic that my players seem to be falling back on alot. First the party rouge took a level of fighter and bought a great sword. And now in almost every fight she is enlarged by the spell casters and deals crazy damage with her enlarged weapon and sneak attack, since her reach is 10' and she flanks easier. I just find it hard to justify sneak att dam from a large creature using a large great sword against medium or even small creatures. I'm thinking of house ruling that sneak attacks are somhow harder to acheive against targets smaller than the attacker. What do y'al think? Only a coward refuses to fight his foe face to face on the field of combat! You should take his skull as tribute to Khorne and burn his remains to honor chaos!!!!!!!
dengarbountyhunter 12-24-06, 01:09 AM	I wonder how long before that freak gets kicked... Seriously, Khorne, if you have nothing better to say, why not tie your hands behing your back instead of torturing your poor keyboard with the same sentence over and over? At least contribute to the thread...
SkullsForKhorne 12-24-06, 01:17 AM	I wonder how long before that freak gets kicked... Seriously, Khorne, if you have nothing better to say, why not tie your hands behing your back instead of torturing your poor keyboard with the same sentence over and over? At least contribute to the thread... Please quit being so uptight, I'm just having a little fun with the threads...and I do post "some" constructive content here and there. I'm at work, bored, and doing a little in character posting. I've not been deliberately rude to anyone, so why exactly do you choose to do so to me? You consider yourself a roleplayer, yet when someone shows up and obviously is doing some "in character" posting (obvious by my standards at least) you suddenly do the elitist and judgemental bit? You act as if I insulted your mother and your lineage. Relax. Gods forbid someone have a sense of humor around here. Am I only supposed to post what comforms to YOUR standards of forum etiquette? This is a public forum, not a formal address to a legislative body, it doesn't HAVE to be all business and seriousness. I'm sorry you don't see that. Anyway, in response to: I recently started a campaign off with a fairly combat heavy adventure, so I blame myself for steering my players toward that min/max play style that sometimes seems to border on the ridiculous. However I was wondering if anybody else has a problem seeing the logic in a tactic that my players seem to be falling back on alot. First the party rouge took a level of fighter and bought a great sword. And now in almost every fight she is enlarged by the spell casters and deals crazy damage with her enlarged weapon and sneak attack, since her reach is 10' and she flanks easier. I just find it hard to justify sneak att dam from a large creature using a large great sword against medium or even small creatures. I'm thinking of house ruling that sneak attacks are somhow harder to acheive against targets smaller than the attacker. What do y'al think? Many folks have already posted many possible counters to this. Also, if you really want to fix their little red wagon a time or two, chuck a beholder at them (those suckers are not so easily snuck up on). The moment it glances at the megarogue, he'll go back to being puny again. Also, fight magic with magic. Being big doesn't matter a whole lot to a magic missle....or ten.... And don't forget those size modifiers...big and small makes a difference...
Aryxbez 12-24-06, 01:57 AM	well khorne, I found it funny however you should also have something that actually contributes to the thread Sounds like you are letting the enemies getting ganged up by the pcs how else is the rogue sneak attacking all the time? I agree on the rule for size since you do need a clear shot to the groin to hit the groin. so to speak
prozacman 12-24-06, 02:17 AM	i had a rogue swashbuckler w/ TWF that was dominating... know what stopped him? a wizard w/ a shield golem. wall of force, to split the party Dispel magic to shrink him down big frikken golem to grapple him. He didnt do well in grapple checks... he usually succeeded an escape artist in a couple rounds and tumbled away. But thats a couple rounds of a wizards summons trouncing on the rest of the party. And he did actually die a couple times to grappling plant creatures.... stupid immunity to sneak attacks... GRRR point is! whats good for the goose is good for the gander... bust out some dispels, or a fighter w/ immunity to crits and a ring of null-magic zone. That'll put that fancy rogue right in line. also, a group of little guys and one big heavy hitter will usually discourage the rogue from melee. Throw in a half-giant w/ levels. give him hurl enemy, and some kobold minions when the rogue tries to flank, the piddling kobold in the back dispels his buff, The giant grabs him.. slaps him around for a round, then tosses him down the fighter's throat. also, battlefield control spells from the enemies end sneak attacks pretty quickly, evards black tentacles, wall of fire, wall of force, baleful teleport, charm person... yeah, charm person.. rogues usually arnt renouned for their will saves... after they bust out the enlarge trick dominate him and have him beat up the wizard.. that'll deffinately discourage the big guns... the wizard will be AFRAID to make him a killing machine can you tell i'm an avid player of rogues who has been foiled many times? my DM is kinda sadistic
UnknownMourner 12-24-06, 03:24 AM	It is easy to over-interpret Sneak Attack, especially if you hail from the days of backstab. I fought it at first too. Sneak Smite Evils, Sneak Charges, Sneak Charges with lances from horseback, mulitple Sneaks Attacks, Sneak Melf's Acid Arrow, Sneak Attacks with your free hit from Improved Trip after you just tripped the guy, Sneak attacks of opportunity on a guy that tries to grapple you, etc. They all made me roll my eyes. In the end it's a class feature rogues need to be balanced. The real problem in your scenario is the Enlarge Person. It's maybe too useful, but then again, must we force the wizard to only throw fireball and magic missile?
SkullsForKhorne 12-24-06, 03:33 AM	Sneak attacks of opportunity on a guy that tries to grapple you, etc. I could be mistaken, but don't attacks of opportunity rules stipulate that they are only standard attacks, not using any special attack forms?
UnknownMourner 12-24-06, 03:47 AM	Nope, you can AoO grapple, AoO trip, AoO disarm. If you have combat reflexes and improved trip, and a guy tries to move out of a square where you are flanking him you can trip him with the AoO, make your freebie attack from Imp Trip (applying SA damage), then when he stands up with his second move action trip him again and pop him again with sneak attack damage. (Why he didn't use his freebie 5 footer to get out of the square? I dunno, I aint playing him, maybe he still needed to take a normal move.) I don't know if you could trip him again on that second one since the AoO happens before the action that provoked it. I think you'd be reducing him to the prone condition before he stood up.
Potato Weasel 12-24-06, 08:03 AM	Well, if your rogue is the main damage dealer because of a splash level in fighter, something is terribly wrong. No, really, it sounds like there are only 2-3 people in the party- the rogue, the wizard, and maybe someone non fighty. The benefits from being embiggined should hardly make the rogue dominate unless he had a reach weapon as well. If you want to stop him from being the main fighter, throw a band of meaty, high hp/ac monsters at him. He has d6 hit die and should only be wearing light armor (if he isn't, then his evasion is gone) so that -1 ac for size and -2 dex for size should already be hurting him. Are you playing your smart/group oriented creatures smart/group oriented? I've breezed through many encounters with overwhelming odds because the dm just had his creatures charge in with no plan, practically beg them to be flanked and basicallyjust made themmeat toys with weapons attached. Think tactically. have maybe two guys charge, but put a third guy in back to prevent an easy flank. This works very well with just standard orcs from the manual. maybe give them better armor, and in a gang of six give two reach weapons and have the reachers constantly use aid another. This prevents flanks (if they're positioned well) and makes the man with d6 hit die rethink his role in life. Also- isn't enlarge a full round spell? and isn't it touch? this makes it very easy to disrupt, even with a kobold and a sling (please don't fling your kobolds at me) Also, worse comes to worse, have an ogre with fighter levels charge him. Don't power attack. Give the ogre two fighter levels, a two handed weapon, and improved disarm. With a rogues sub optimal attack, it should be easy enough to get him weaponless. And when your enlarged and drop your weapon.. Your weapon shrinks. It doesn't grow when you pick it up again. I've had this done to my fighter before. It's very scary to have no weapons, and be in the middle of a fight. (this is also cruel because you can't dismiss enlarge person)
Odimax 12-24-06, 09:17 AM	Well, I know all characters are different, but I know I would freak out if our mage enlarged my rogue character. I would really rather not be noticed by the enemy, due to my mediocre hit points and mediocre AC. And when you are enlarged, you might as well be screaming "Hey! Attack ME!" I think if you have the monsters start to focus on her more when she is enlarged, she might change her tactics. I think most rogues would rather let someone else get hacked up while they skulk around and get some free sneak attacks in. Does the party have another strong melee combatant in the group? If so, maybe the mage should enlarge that character instead. If not, then it's easier to see why the rogue and wizard are doing this. They are trying to pick up the slack for there not being a strong warrior in the group.
Spikes01k 12-24-06, 10:13 AM	Well all you can do is keep the -1 to hit from being large.
mkill 12-24-06, 12:05 PM	However I was wondering if anybody else has a problem seeing the logic in a tactic that my players seem to be falling back on alot. First the party rouge took a level of fighter and bought a great sword. And now in almost every fight she is enlarged by the spell casters and deals crazy damage with her enlarged weapon and sneak attack, since her reach is 10' and she flanks easier. I just find it hard to justify sneak att dam from a large creature using a large great sword against medium or even small creatures. I'm thinking of house ruling that sneak attacks are somhow harder to acheive against targets smaller than the attacker. What do y'al think? It's a viable low-level tactic. Unrealistic? Who cares. Just leave the rules as they are... And never ever tamper with the rules to make them seem "realistic". What the hell... If D&D was realistic, no fighter would ever last 20 levels because around level 3 somebody would have cut his arm off. Or he would have died from wound fever. Or somebody would have just split his helmet and the skull right with it. Instant death, regardless of hit points. Any spellcaster would be right out of the game anyway. Another argument: If the rogue would have stayed straight rogue and took TWF, he would do more damage, at least at later levels. So he is not even playing the optimum tactic. Just a good one. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, any DM that starts tweaking the rules just because his players use effective tactics are bad DMs, so don't start. Oh, and if you get too bored with him sneak attacking, just throw any of the following at the group: gelatinous cube, animated objects, skeletons / zombies, plant creatures. At higher levels you can use the fortification armor enhancement and improved uncanny dodge.
Orogustus78 12-24-06, 01:27 PM	Many good replies. Firstly, I hate to taylor encounters so specifically against my parties tactics. , and in particular against one player. After reading these post I have come too the conclusion that tampering with this rule to add realism would change the balance of the class. I do beleive that although it is a well balanced ability (mabey not with TWF combo), it has digressed from its first edition roots far enough that it is no longer really a " striking a vital spot' type ability and more a rogue just does more damage at certain times ability because they are "better" at dealing damage. So I guess that rogue frost giants can still sneak attack those poor pixies with there massive great clubs because rogue is not an optimal class for a frost giant and the game is still balanced and such. I guess this will just remain a "proud nail" for me.
claypigeons 12-24-06, 04:12 PM	Many good replies. Firstly, I hate to taylor encounters so specifically against my parties tactics. , and in particular against one player. You SHOULD tailor encounters against a party's tactics. The world is (or should be) dynamic. People gain infamy, and other people learn their tendencies. It's more realisitc (at least to me) when NPCs know your tricks. Makes it fun trying to overcome intelligent enemies that are played intelligently. After reading these post I have come too the conclusion that tampering with this rule to add realism would change the balance of the class. I do beleive that although it is a well balanced ability (mabey not with TWF combo), Combining it with two-weapon fighting is what makes it good. Using it for one attack per round kind of sucks, and would be underpowered and a waste of a class ability. There wouldnt be a reason to take rogue past level 2 unless you absolutely needed the skill points for something.
Dheran 12-25-06, 03:17 AM	You don't need to do anything unreasonable to counter Enlarge Person. Just remember one word: ceilings. In our world the common ceiling height is just under 8' from the floor. A large (tall) creature is always at least 8' tall, and being restricted to under 8' keeps the target of Enlarge Person at medium size restrictions: natural reach 5'. It's expensive to construct ceilings higher than the size needed for the usual occupants. It's not being in any way vindictive against the party to prevent them from benefitting from Enlarge Person in almost all indoor encounters. Why should someone pay extra money to make it easy for large invaders to attack them? Even in open spaces in town there will be height restrictions. Signs, washing lines, balconies, and lots of other hindrances will hang over streets at a height that doesn't impair medium characters, but will always require ducking (using the squeezing through manuever: half speed, -4 to attacks, -4 to AC) for taller creatures. Also note that any form of concealment (including from obstructions that only block the sight of tall creatures) prevent sneak attack. You probably haven't been paying strict attention to this one, but it's in the rules:A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. It doesn't matter if your tall Rogue can see their target's legs clearly, if their view to the enemy's torso is obstructed by a swinging inn sign that's hanging 7'-9' above the street. It even works the other way around: an obstruction that obscures the target from the waist down (any form of concealment) also prevents sneak attack. If you're on the road, expect any overhanging limbs to have been trimmed down to the height of a medium character on horseback, but there will be lots of branches getting in the way of someone over 8' tall.
Steevo 12-25-06, 08:53 PM	It doesn't matter if your tall Rogue can see their target's legs clearly, if their view to the enemy's torso is obstructed by a swinging inn sign that's hanging 7'-9' above the street. It even works the other way around: an obstruction that obscures the target from the waist down (any form of concealment) also prevents sneak attack. If a physical object is blocking part of the target that's cover, not concealment. The rogue takes a -4 to hit but she can still sneak attack. Concealment is always measured as a miss chance and includes things like darkness, fog, blindness (on the part of the attacker), the blur spell, etc. Concealment isn't going to stop a large rogue from sneak attacking any more often than it would prevent a medium rogue. I personally can't think of a situation where a target would have concealment from a large attacker and would not have concealment from a medium attacker standing in the same square. Remember that a large creature can choose to attack out of any square it occupies, so a large attacker could always choose the most advantageous single square to attack from.
Dheran 12-25-06, 10:21 PM	If a physical object is blocking part of the target that's cover, not concealment. No, if the physical object is opaque that's cover and concealment. The two conditions overlap a lot. Remember the definition of concealment (from the PH glossary):Something that prevents an attacker from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance). If you can't see the upper part of your opponent's body you can't tell what they're doing with their weapon(s) and/or shield. If you can't see the lower part of your opponent's body you can't tell which way their legs are going. Both situations obscure the opponent's likely actions, making your attacks less likely to hit (the concealment miss chance). Remember that a large creature can choose to attack out of any square it occupies, so a large attacker could always choose the most advantageous single square to attack from. While this is true, it only covers two-dimensional targeting. The large creature doesn't have an option on what height to pick for their sightlines. If your eyes are 10' above the ground, that's where your opponent is either visible or concealed for the purpose of adjudicating your miss chance.
Steevo 12-25-06, 11:06 PM	No, if the physical object is opaque that's cover and concealment. The two conditions overlap a lot. Remember the definition of concealment (from the PH glossary): concealment: Something that prevents the target from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance.) I disagree. I think that "clearly seeing the target" part fairly clearly refers to the attacker not being able to see the target's exact location. If the target is partically covered by a sign or another person, the target can be seen, he's just behind something. Now let's compare this to the definition of cover: cover: Any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to armor class. And just so there's no confusion, let's also look at the definition of a "miss chance:" miss chance: The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location. See concealment. miss chance roll: A d% roll to determine the success of an attack roll to which a miss chance applies. If you can't see the upper part of your opponent's body you can't tell what they're doing with their weapon(s) and/or shield. If you can't see the lower part of your opponent's body you can't tell which way their legs are going. Both situations obscure the opponent's likely actions, making your attacks less likely to hit (the concealment miss chance). So if the attacker is swinging at a target who's on the other side of a low wall that covers him up to the waist, he has to roll a percentile miss chance to see if his otherwise successful attack really hits? That's sure not the way I've ever played. In every game I've ever played in, the attack takes -4 to hit (more correctly the target gets +4 to AC, but same diff) because he can only swing at the upper half of his target's body, but he has no concealment miss chance because he can still clearly see the upper half of his target. Now, if the target was hiding in some thick bushes, on the other hand, he would gain a concealment bonus because the branches and leaves would make it difficult for the attacker to know exactly where the target was, but he would gain no AC bonus because the leaves aren't nearly strong enough to really stop the attacker's swing. If you still need further proof, let's get out of the glossary and actually look up the rules for cover and concealment in full in the combat chapter: Cover One of the best defenses available is cover. By taking cover behind a tree, a wall, the side of a wagon, or the battlements of a castle, you can protect yourself from attacks, especially ranged attacks, and also from being spotted. Concealment Besides cover, another way to avoid attacks is to make it hard for opponents to know where you are. Concealment encompasses all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow but where something interferes with an attacker's accuracy. ... Typically, concealment is provided by fog, smoke, a shadowy area, darkness, tall grass, foliage or magical effects that make it difficult to pinpoint a target's location. If someone is partially hidden by a wall or a signpost, the attcker can easily pinpoint their location, they just have to limit their attacks to the parts they can see.
strife_001 12-25-06, 11:16 PM	Throw in multiple enemies, just because they can do say 50d6 damage per strike, and attack say 8 times a round even if they kill one of the creatures by 400hp over what was nessesary it doesn't matter much, it is still only dead, although I think its vitals are severed, and then the party must spend a move action at least to flank another 1 and then strike again.
strife_001 12-25-06, 11:18 PM	What about if he was behind a low wall, while hideing in the bushes?
mkill 12-26-06, 04:24 AM	Firstly, I hate to taylor encounters so specifically against my parties tactics, and in particular against one player. This is a question of believability. A randomly encountered Gelatinous Cube will know nothing of the party's tactics, he'll just be there and hungry. No tailored tactics. On the other hand, the groups archenemy, who has faced them before and who monitors their every step, will have a very clear picture of their abilities and will try to find countermeasures as far as he can judge. And of course you should not keep throwing creatures immune to SA at them if this is their major tactic. But you might use them once in a while to keep the game challenging and to remind the players to diversify their tactics. And if SA is their main tactic critters immune to it may be harder for them than the CR might indicate. A golem is tougher to defeat for 5 rogues than for 5 barbarians.
Norric121 12-26-06, 02:20 PM	Sounds like a great tactic. If this is upsetting to you as a DM, I recommend you humor me and change your point of view for a minute. Your group is cooperating together. They are creating Synergy. Your Wiz/Cleric is using a spell on his turn, your fighter is moving to flank and your rogue is aiming (literally) for the kill. That's sound teamwork. You should applaud your group. Teamwork in D&D is what it's all about. However, I'm sure it gets old. But instead of trying to nerf the tactic, as the DM you can just change the scenario. A rogue cannot sneak attack creatures immune to criticals, such as golemns, swarms, oozes and undead. Undead should be a fairly common enemy. A rogue cannot sneak attack through concealment. Darkness, Fog and other obscuring environments end sneak attacks. You could stop the flank - throw the party up against Barbarians (because your rogue took a level of fighter he'll have to be 5 character levels higher than the Barbarians to negate this), use rough terrain to negate 5' steps making it more difficult to flank, or use Tanglefoot bags, Webs and other entangles to hault movement. Also, this kind of tactic diminishes against a large number of enemies. Keep in mind the complexities of the tactic as you judge it. Rogues have low HP and typically have low AC as well, meaning he's taking a nice risk when he moves to make this attack. A melee monster like a Gorillon or Cave Troll will tear a rogue apart just as fast as the rogue can with sneak attack. Both the fighter and the rogue need to spend movement to get into position, which denies full attacks; the wizard is spending time casting a 1st level spell when he could drop a web or fireball.
DarkRhystar 12-26-06, 04:25 PM	I had a friend who used to say "I am for the kidneys" whenever he qualified for a Sneak Attack with his Rogue. I'm quite positive that if I presented this situation to him today that his response would be along the lines of "So what, being large just means I can aim for both kidneys at the same time." :)
High Octane 12-26-06, 08:24 PM	I had a friend who used to say "I am for the kidneys" whenever he qualified for a Sneak Attack with his Rogue. I'm quite positive that if I presented this situation to him today that his response would be along the lines of "So what, being large just means I can aim for both kidneys at the same time." :) This is the smartest thing I have ever seen written. Ever.
DarkRhystar 12-27-06, 12:15 AM	This is the smartest thing I have ever seen written. Ever. I'm not sure whether to hope you're being serious or sarcastic. :)
Steevo 12-28-06, 11:55 PM	What about if he was behind a low wall, while hideing in the bushes? In that case the target would have both cover and concealment. Cover from the wall and concealment from the bushes. Same thing if there was a third person standing between the attacker and the target (this assumes the attacker has either reach or a ranged weapon,) and the target was enshrouded in fog. Cover from the third party standing between the two, concealment from the fog. I wasn't trying to say it's impossible to benefit from both, only that having one does not automatically imply the other. Cover is what you get if something physically blocks part of the target and prevents the attacker from striking that portion of the target's body, concealment is what you get if something obfuscates the exact location of the target, so that the attacker must guess where to strike. As far as sneak attack is concerned, I think the assumption is that any creature which is vulnerable to sneak attacks has enough vital points that nothing short of total cover will protect them all (and I think that's reasonable - of course DM fiat could always overrule a particular situation.) With concealment, you can't really aim for vital spots if you're not even sure where the target is in general.
High Octane 12-29-06, 03:13 PM	I'm not sure whether to hope you're being serious or sarcastic. :) Totally. Cereal. If I had room I would quote that.
Morgotho 12-29-06, 05:00 PM	There are plenty of options already listed, so I'll just throw in my own two copper. Try attacking thier tactic from a few other angles as well. Disrupt or otherwise occupy the caster from time to time. Push the fighter out of the way (repelling blast/attack that will save) to occasionally break up the flanking. Don't nerf the tactic entirely, just give them a reason to learn a few more tricks.