Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wolfshade 12-06-07, 10:00 AM	a friend of mine have read an article that said that you could not sneak attack something if you could only reach its ankles. But the article was not more specifikt than that, so i am wondering if there is a rule somewhere for this or if this article has no bearing on the rules. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a I added the link for the page.
Orenmir 12-06-07, 10:14 AM	*Not in a sarcastic tone* Try doing a search on this subject. It's been posted about numerous times. In the end, it's really the DMs call. Personally, I think the sneak attacker needs to be able to jump and reach his target's upper inner leg, near the crotch (to reach the femoral artery -- the lowest vital area on a humanoid).
Krusk 12-06-07, 10:27 AM	achiellies*sp? tendon isnt a vital spot? that said i dont limit it based on what the player can reach, and that article really isn't an official rule saying so.
Tordak 12-06-07, 10:46 AM	I'd hate to be an ahole (just kidding, I love being an ahole), but in the sneak attack description it is specified that you cannot sneak attack if you cannot reach a vital spot. A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. 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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
Orenmir 12-06-07, 11:07 AM	achiellies*sp? tendon isnt a vital spot? The Achillies Tendon is not vital. You can live with irreparable damage to your achillies. You can't live with irreparable damage to you Femoral Artery. vital (adj.) - required for the continuation of life http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vital
Krusk 12-06-07, 03:31 PM	i guess it comes down to how you define vital spot then. I would say that anything that when hit causes sevear pain and can debilitate a combatant vital. Others apparently say it needs to be 99% deadly to be vital.
Orenmir 12-06-07, 05:16 PM	I would say that anything that when hit causes sevear pain and can debilitate a combatant vital. Then, you would be breaking the rules. RAW (and already pointed out in this thread): A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. By your rules, cutting an achillies or smashing a kneecap would cause severe pain, thus a viable sneak attack. RAW states sneak attack can not target limbs.
Krusk 12-06-07, 05:54 PM	Lets go with an iconic larger monster the dragon. The rogue sets up for sneak attack by flanking with the fighter, DM says no because no vital within reach. The dragon has a bite attack does he not? will anyone argue that the face is not a vital point? Im going to assume yes and no to those questions. That dragon had better not be making a bite attack ever, so long as the rogue is denied sneak attack. logic -combat is representitive of the many swings and misses parries and nonsolid hits combined with the X- usually 1 to 4- attacks a round that have a chance of actually dealing damage. Damage represents not always a blood drawing hit, but an attack of sufficent skill so as to wear out the enemy. - Because we are to assume that there are other swings and parries in the round, we can assume that the dragon is using his bite attack -bringing his face and neck- multiple times a round, with 1 of those having a chance to deal damage. -the vitals are in reach on the rogues turn because it is assumed that the dragons neck and face are within reach, as he may or may not be making an attack at any given moment.
Orenmir 12-06-07, 06:04 PM	That dragon had better not be making a bite attack ever, so long as the rogue is denied sneak attack. In this example, the Rogue is not denied his Sneak Attack. Why? Because the dragon is putting his vitals within reach of the Rogue. If said dragon were to not attempt a bite attack, the Rogue would be denied his Sneak Attack. Why? Because no vitals are within reach. I guess one could argure that if the dragon was performing battle maneuvers (while not flying), he could be dipping and weaving, bringing some vitals close the the ground -- enough to warrant a SA from the Rogue. DM disgression.
Crimson_Concerto 12-06-07, 07:55 PM	Going purely RAW, there's nothing that specifies when a creature's vitals are out of reach. Creatures simply occupy squares, and that's all. The sentence is pointless and actually does nothing to restrict sneak-attacking except possibly in the few cases where limbs are able to be targeted (I think there are some creatures with tentacles, like the Grell that let you do that). Going for game balance? No reason to deny a rogue one of his only useful melee capabilities. Going common sense? Not usually worth it if it just pisses somebody off... All in all, I can't really think of a good reason to deny the Rogue his sneak attack, but that's just my two cents...
wizarddog 12-07-07, 12:08 AM	It should be noted that a rogue can still make a ranged sneak attack on a surprise round if the vitals are within 30ft. And he can always use a reach weapon.
Krusk 12-07-07, 12:34 PM	I guess one could argure that if the dragon was performing battle maneuvers (while not flying), he could be dipping and weaving, bringing some vitals close the the ground -- enough to warrant a SA from the Rogue. DM disgression. Thats what i would argue is happening every single round of combat, aside from maybe a suprise round.
Orenmir 12-07-07, 01:18 PM	Thats what i would argue is happening every single round of combat, aside from maybe a suprise round. Previously, you were arguing that you can SA anything as long as it creates enough pain. I'm glad you changed your argument. I brought up to concept of a huge or larger quadruped's vitals becoming in range when maneuvering in battle for a small rogue's SA. This seems more reasonable than the "pain" argument. BTW, this concept doesn't hold for a large enough biped. A biped's vitals are proportionally higher than a quadruped's. Even while maneuvering in combat, a 25' tall biped's vitals won't come into range for a small rogue to sneak attack (without a reach weapon -- as another poster mentioned).
Dog_O_War 12-07-07, 01:51 PM	One major problem with sneak-attacking a biting dragon; he is attacking, you are not. Holding your action 'til after he attacks; fine. But, as he is focused on you, you will be denied your sneak attack because he is not flat-footed. Also, creatures with blind-sight have the equivalent of all-around vision, so cannot be flanked (at least this is how I've read it).
Malchius 12-07-07, 02:02 PM	I think this is to due with a ruling I red in the DMG(I think) not sure what page either, it says that is a creatue with reach hits from ten feet away you can attack without moving but you can not gaina Critical Hit as you can reach a vital enough area.
imakuni67 12-07-07, 03:04 PM	Previously, you were arguing that you can SA anything as long as it creates enough pain. Like stabbing a frost giant under his toenails? That would work for me. ;)
ToastedAmphibian 12-07-07, 08:00 PM	Like stabbing a frost giant under his toenails? That would work for me. ;) WHY is everyone talking abou PAIN! A "Sneak Attack" is not about causing pain. There are other abilites like flaying strike that deal with causing pain. Pain has nothing to do with a sneakattack. If it did, then all combatants should just do crack. Then they would be immune to sneakattacks. Oh, and anyone who is unconcius through artifical means. If they cant feel pain, then the sneak attack fails right?
runestar 12-07-07, 08:11 PM	The way I play it, if you can hit your opponent, you can hit any vitals associated with where you are hitting. No need to go into all sorts of nitpicky details about whether that part of the body has vitals or not, I just assume that there are. Good enough for me.:)
Pandapeep 12-08-07, 01:47 AM	Well, as many people have already stated, the femoral artery is located in your leg, which, last time I checked mine, is a limb. So, therefore, saying you can't sneak attack at limb is, well, wrong. Also, any DM that would deny a rouge who is either flanking, or caught a sneak attackable opponent flat footed is, well, kinda a jerk of a dm.
Krusk 12-08-07, 02:16 AM	Previously, you were arguing that you can SA anything as long as it creates enough pain. I'm glad you changed your argument. I brought up to concept of a huge or larger quadruped's vitals becoming in range when maneuvering in battle for a small rogue's SA. This seems more reasonable than the "pain" argument. BTW, this concept doesn't hold for a large enough biped. A biped's vitals are proportionally higher than a quadruped's. Even while maneuvering in combat, a 25' tall biped's vitals won't come into range for a small rogue to sneak attack (without a reach weapon -- as another poster mentioned). I would argue both. A biped bringing his sword arm too close to that rogue is likely to get his wrist slit. One major problem with sneak-attacking a biting dragon; he is attacking, you are not. Holding your action 'til after he attacks; fine. But, as he is focused on you, you will be denied your sneak attack because he is not flat-footed. You should reread how combat is run in DND, according to the book both attacker and defender are constantly weaving, bobbing, making parries, missing attacks, ect each and every round. Even during each others turns. The only X times you roll to hit each round are to represent the overall weardown of hitpoints. You are correct on all around vision though.
Dog_O_War 12-08-07, 09:39 AM	You should reread how combat is run in DND, according to the book both attacker and defender are constantly weaving, bobbing, making parries, missing attacks, ect each and every round. Even during each others turns. The only X times you roll to hit each round are to represent the overall weardown of hitpoints. You are correct on all around vision though. Actually, it says that this may be one vision of combat; not every vision. I usually visualize and describe a median of the two though.
Tordak 12-08-07, 10:30 AM	I can easily picture a gargantuan Mountain Giant standing in his 15 ft square, hit small enemy with his enormous club while never bringing any vital part (including femoral artery, which is located in the tight) out of the reach of a medium size creature, unless that creature somehow climbs on the giant (using some feat). The giant never have to go up and down, and the fact that he is so high justifies the minus he gets on attack. I believe this is a good example of 'vitals beyond reach'. Much like a kraken attack on your ship, his tentacle are likely not sneak attack-able, and his vitals are also likely beyond reach. Whether or not there's an exact definition of what is 'beyond reach" or that creature only occupies square by RAW, this is an area where DM judgement is called; that's the reason why they wrote the line, because they want a DM to feel free to say "this doesn't make sense so and so". It is RAw that the DM makes the decision as to what are 'vitals beyond reach'.
Krusk 12-08-07, 01:09 PM	I can easily picture a gargantuan Mountain Giant standing in his 15 ft square, hit small enemy with his enormous club while never bringing any vital part (including femoral artery, which is located in the tight) out of the reach of a medium size creature, unless that creature somehow climbs on the giant (using some feat). The giant never have to go up and down, and the fact that he is so high justifies the minus he gets on attack. I believe this is a good example of 'vitals beyond reach'. Much like a kraken attack on your ship, his tentacle are likely not sneak attack-able, and his vitals are also likely beyond reach. Whether or not there's an exact definition of what is 'beyond reach" or that creature only occupies square by RAW, this is an area where DM judgement is called; that's the reason why they wrote the line, because they want a DM to feel free to say "this doesn't make sense so and so". It is RAw that the DM makes the decision as to what are 'vitals beyond reach'. That is a good example of when vitals might be kept out of reach, it is also an example when i would grant sneak attack based on my definition of vitals, not yours or apparently even the books.
Dheran 12-09-07, 07:07 AM	Since the whole "vitals beyond reach" idea was poorly thought out, it's not surprising that WotC is schizoid on this point. In particular I point you to the following Ambush feat:Hamstring You can wound your opponents' legs, hampering their movement. Prerequisite: Sneak attack ability, base attack bonus +4. Benefit: If you hit with a melee sneak attack, you may choose to forgo 2d6 points of extra sneak attack damage to reduce your opponent's base speed by half. So if you find an enemy too tall for you to hit anything except their legs, you can Hamstring them -- er, except that you need to be able to sneak attack them (which doesn't work on their legs) for Hamstring to work. :confused:
Frozen Yakman 12-09-07, 11:17 AM	Of course since we have no idea where the vital spots are for anything other than actual existing creatures the question is kind of silly. How are we to know that Frost Giants don't have a vital spot on its big toe or if the only vital spot an Illithid has is the third sucker from the bottom of the left-most (Illithid perspective) tentacle? Where are the vitals on an Elder Brain? Just because something looks like vaguely like something from the real world does not mean their vitals are all in the same place.
Gnarl 12-11-07, 07:40 AM	The way I play it, if you can hit your opponent, you can hit any vitals associated with where you are hitting. No need to go into all sorts of nitpicky details about whether that part of the body has vitals or not, I just assume that there are. Good enough for me.:) Same here. And I must say it works fine in our games. As a side note, do you think the balls of a male dragon qualify as vital parts? ;)
Orenmir 12-11-07, 10:33 AM	As a side note, do you think the balls of a male dragon qualify as vital parts? ;) Nope. Many animals live without them... dogs, cats, farm animals, DMs that allow SA when vitals aren't within reach. Sorry, just teasing. Seriously, any DM that allows SA when vitals are out of reach is breaking a rule. And, maybe it's an OK rule to break. Just be ready when the party's large-sized tank expanded to gargantuan size at 50' tall gets ****** off beacause he gets SA'ed by a small rogue, and throws the rulebook in your face.
Crimson_Concerto 12-11-07, 07:40 PM	Seriously, any DM that allows SA when vitals are out of reach is breaking a rule.Until the rules actually give a solid definition for what vitals are or when they are actually out of reach, it's almost purely flavor text, and altering flavor text is never against the rules. You might as well say the Flame Blade spell can't be made of yellow, white, or blue fire because it specifies "red-hot." If "red-hot" actually had a defined mechanical effect, that might be one thing, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. It's flavor text that will almost impossibly have an actual effect on the game, and that's the way it's supposed to be.
Orenmir 12-11-07, 10:21 PM	Until the rules actually give a solid definition for what vitals are or when they are actually out of reach, it's almost purely flavor text, and altering flavor text is never against the rules. Why does RAW have to define "vitals?" It's a word. Use a dictionary if you don't know what it means. How hard is it to grasp the concept of "out of reach?" A 3' rogue can not reach a 50' giant's vitals. It's not flavor, it's black and white.
Crimson_Concerto 12-11-07, 11:22 PM	Why does RAW have to define "vitals?" It's a word. Use a dictionary if you don't know what it means. How hard is it to grasp the concept of "out of reach?" A 3' rogue can not reach a 50' giant's vitals. It's not flavor, it's black and white. Dude, chill, we all get it, the RAW makes no sense and seems to contradict itself on matters of size and sneak attack. It says you can't sneak attack limbs, but then it later creates feats that helps you when you sneak attack a hamstring and (probably more importantly) in RAW, says creature are assumed to simply take up space and makes no effort to regulate when vitals are out of reach, making it seem completely up to the DM to adjudicate and thus actually having no rules at all in place. Enforcing the rule that you can't sneak attack if vitals are out of reach REQUIRES that you house rule. At the end of the day, is it really even worth it to bother making the sneak-attacker useless in these battles? Doing so doesn't enforce balance, and it doesn't make the game more fun, so what's the point?
Count Arioch the 28th 12-11-07, 11:48 PM	I'm not interested in micromanagement, so I allow rogues to sneak attack whenever. It's no big deal.
Voran 12-12-07, 12:32 AM	I'd say its a matter of size and reach. A rogue who's trying to sneak attack a dragon with a frickin DAGGER deserves to be laughed at. A rogue who uses common sense and instead snipes it with a crossbow bolt or an arrow, deserves to be feared.
Frozen Yakman 12-12-07, 07:11 AM	Why does RAW have to define "vitals?" It's a word. Use a dictionary if you don't know what it means. How hard is it to grasp the concept of "out of reach?" A 3' rogue can not reach a 50' giant's vitals. Except the rogue CAN reach that vital spot that happens to be 2' off the ground and 1" in the giants leg. EVERYBODY knows that's where the Giants foozwangle organ is and without a foozwangle, well the Giant just dies. That's the kicker nobody knows where the vitals of an imaginary creature might be. The Monster Manuals don't indicate where they are. Elves might look vaguely human but that doesn't mean their vitals are in the same places. We don't even know if they have a cognate to the heart or brain. And DnD humans can mate with them! Unless somebody comes along and says you must be able to strike at least 20' high to hit a 50' giant's vitals, I'm going to assume that there are vital spots within reach.
Enigmis 12-12-07, 11:48 AM	If for some reason you apply this to your game, you might as well replace rogue with the feat variation. There is no point playing rogue if you can never sneak attack, which is not what the designers intented.
Dog_O_War 12-12-07, 12:53 PM	If for some reason you apply this to your game, you might as well replace rogue with the feat variation. There is no point playing rogue if you can never sneak attack, which is not what the designers intented. Dude, it's not a "variation". It is a base rule that many people ignore. People try and jack sneak attack at every turn, through shady rules (like house-ruling that when you TWF, you can only sneak attack with the main-hand weapon, and crap like that), or just plain cheating (you don't get the flanking bonus cause he's focused on you!). The fact of the matter is that sneak attack has enough stipulations (like the rule above) that it doesn't need to be punished further for having it, and that if you're ignoring the rule above, you're adding power to a class that doesn't need it; the only thing the class needs is a creative player.
Enigmis 12-12-07, 01:03 PM	Dude, it's not a "variation". It is a base rule that many people ignore. People try and jack sneak attack at every turn, through shady rules (like house-ruling that when you TWF, you can only sneak attack with the main-hand weapon, and crap like that), or just plain cheating (you don't get the flanking bonus cause he's focused on you!). The fact of the matter is that sneak attack has enough stipulations (like the rule above) that it doesn't need to be punished further for having it, and that if you're ignoring the rule above, you're adding power to a class that doesn't need it; the only thing the class needs is a creative player. ??? i'm in favor of sneak attack, not what the op is saying... im saying if you do what he's saying you might as well not play rogue.
Dog_O_War 12-12-07, 03:12 PM	??? i'm in favor of sneak attack, not what the op is saying... im saying if you do what he's saying you might as well not play rogue. Yeah I know, it's just you sounded as if you were saying the above was some optional rule presented in a book, and that it should just be ignored. I'm saying that alot of DM's find reasons beyond the above there to deny the rogue his sneak attack, and that those ones are usually not aware of the rule above. I still think you should use the rule, because otherwise nobody would then bother moving through a giants' threatened space, and just attack the limbs as they came down. Kinda cheesy, eh?
Malchius 12-12-07, 04:23 PM	Maybe Underfoot Combat from Races of The Wild can help us solve the problem, one of the maneuvers is called "Knee Strike" and it basically means you trest the larger opponent as flat-footed which means yes to sneak-attack. This seems to imply that the knee is a vital area, although you can live without it.
Voran 12-12-07, 05:42 PM	Maybe Underfoot Combat from Races of The Wild can help us solve the problem, one of the maneuvers is called "Knee Strike" and it basically means you trest the larger opponent as flat-footed which means yes to sneak-attack. This seems to imply that the knee is a vital area, although you can live without it. Just ask Nancy Kerrigan. :)
Savin 12-13-07, 06:06 PM	In any of these cases i would say house rules apply. If the DM regards damage as any hit not in seperate areas then an ankle to them would count as a sneak attack. To me I think you hit someone in the ankle its not vital but it deals damage to them and more specifacally there leg. Their movement would be hindered. Hit someone in the arm they're not gonna hit you with that ax as hard. But a vital spot includes the femeral artery. so as long as the player specifies that they are going for that arterie and the DM judges it's okay, then you would. But it counts on house rules. Do you have a nice DM or a mean DM:confused:
Pandapeep 12-14-07, 12:39 AM	If the monster is sneak attackable, and you are in a position in which, it would flat footed to you, or you are flanking it, you sneak attack. Ruling otherwise would be like saying, "Oh, well, Mr. Paladin, you can't smite this dragon cause he is bigger then you."
Dog_O_War 12-14-07, 11:34 AM	If the monster is sneak attackable, and you are in a position in which, it would flat footed to you, or you are flanking it, you sneak attack. Ruling otherwise would be like saying, "Oh, well, Mr. Paladin, you can't smite this dragon cause he is bigger then you." And yet another person unaware that, "if you cannot reach the vitals, you cannot sneak attack". You don't sneak attack a dragon in the tail, just as you don't sneak attack a kraken in the tentacle; these are areas you can attack, but would not hold enough vitals to consider it vunerable. Since most dragons aren't built on stilts and actually have their bellies fairly close to the ground, this really isn't an issue. Like I said before; if you could sneak attack limbs, then what would be the point of natural reach? Like an ogre is going to claim an AoO ever again for a person moving through his reach.
Pandapeep 12-14-07, 01:15 PM	And yet another person unaware that, "if you cannot reach the vitals, you cannot sneak attack" I submit to you a few things to refute your argument: 1.) "if you cannot reach the vitals, you cannot sneak attack," is fluff text, added to the description of sneak attack to give you a idea of what it does. If the designers had intended that bit of information to be important, they would have provided rules, examples, and the like to back it up. They don't. It's just a random statement in the description like a dozen others. 2.) The feat Hamstring. If attacking the legs isn't a sneak attack, then how can you use an ambush feat to attack a limb? You couldn't. 3.) Please, show me the vital organs of a dragon. Because, since Dragon's are fictional and magical, assuming you'd know anything about they vital structure is wrong. With the vital spot text, you would have to make an appropriate knowledge check to see if you knew a vital spot to hit. So, in summation, a bit of fluff text that is poorly thought out in the context of a fantasy game does not a rule make. Oh, and on a slightly more serious note, read up on a deceased NFL player Sean Taylor, and then try and say an attack to a leg can't be lethal.
Dog_O_War 12-14-07, 03:26 PM	I submit to you a few things to refute your argument: 1.) "if you cannot reach the vitals, you cannot sneak attack," is fluff text, added to the description of sneak attack to give you a idea of what it does. If the designers had intended that bit of information to be important, they would have provided rules, examples, and the like to back it up. They don't. It's just a random statement in the description like a dozen others. 2.) The feat Hamstring. If attacking the legs isn't a sneak attack, then how can you use an ambush feat to attack a limb? You couldn't. 3.) Please, show me the vital organs of a dragon. Because, since Dragon's are fictional and magical, assuming you'd know anything about they vital structure is wrong. With the vital spot text, you would have to make an appropriate knowledge check to see if you knew a vital spot to hit. So, in summation, a bit of fluff text that is poorly thought out in the context of a fantasy game does not a rule make. Oh, and on a slightly more serious note, read up on a deceased NFL player Sean Taylor, and then try and say an attack to a leg can't be lethal. 1: "if you cannot reach vitals, you cannot sneak attack it" is as straight-forward a ruling as you're going to get; similar to, "if you shoot a cop inside a police station, bad things will happen to you". 2: As the feat Hamstring removes sneak attack damage, you can clearly see that attacking non-vitals is counter-productive. It also says that creatures with more than 1 pair of legs need multiple hamstrings to have reduced mobility; which further lends weight to the legs being not-so-vital. 3: Hobble down to your local gaming store and look-see into a copy of draconomicon; there you will see the complete anatomy of a dragon, in all its WotC endorsed glory. This is how I know where the dragon's vitals are. One last thing; when you show up for a gun-fight, make sure you've got the proper ammunition.
QQmaster 12-14-07, 04:21 PM	I never took the passage as a comment on size comparison from rogue to enemy. I understood it as say... Situation: Rogue is in a room, dragon sweeps a claw into the room to try and snag the adventurers. Rogue would be denied Sneak Attack since even though he may use a Hide check or some other mechanic to render the dragon SA-vulnerable he is only swinging at a limited portion on the enemy and thus cannot strike with deadly efficiency normally associated with SA. I think it is not a strict size comparison as I assume a rogue knows how to overcome an inherent size difference when attacking an exposed enemy no matter the size. I understood this ruling to govern when only a limb is exposed due to cover or clearance. -QQ :teach:
Traken134 12-14-07, 04:58 PM	Rules aside, I say Rogues get sneak attack when an opponent is flatfooted, or they are flanking. Unless something else major is applied, the reason for this is simple: No one else is penalized for something like that. A fighter attacking a giant's ankle still gets full Power Attack damage. A wizard still gets full fireball damage. That aside, hit points are an abstraction. If a giant can still fight with a sword separating his leg and foot, I don't think sneak attack makes that much of a difference.
Dog_O_War 12-14-07, 06:04 PM	Rules aside, I say Rogues get sneak attack when an opponent is flatfooted, or they are flanking. Unless something else major is applied, the reason for this is simple: No one else is penalized for something like that. A fighter attacking a giant's ankle still gets full Power Attack damage. A wizard still gets full fireball damage. That aside, hit points are an abstraction. If a giant can still fight with a sword separating his leg and foot, I don't think sneak attack makes that much of a difference. The difference though is that a rogue can power attack and throw fireballs, but can do those things in conjunction with sneak attack. There is nothing stopping a rogue from getting the power attack feat, or using a greatsword to sneak attack with (thus getting a better ratio with power attack). but to allow sneak attack on a non-vital area is to say a rogue can sneak attack the undead (as they have no vitals anywhere, just like a dragon's tail).
runestar 12-14-07, 06:22 PM	Dude, it's not a "variation". It is a base rule that many people ignore. People try and jack sneak attack at every turn, through shady rules (like house-ruling that when you TWF, you can only sneak attack with the main-hand weapon, and crap like that), or just plain cheating (you don't get the flanking bonus cause he's focused on you!). The fact of the matter is that sneak attack has enough stipulations (like the rule above) that it doesn't need to be punished further for having it, and that if you're ignoring the rule above, you're adding power to a class that doesn't need it; the only thing the class needs is a creative player. It is not that we actively ignore it, just that the ruling is so vague and ambiguous that we really have no way of delineating the boundaries and limitations of said rule and deciding once and for all just what it is supposed to mean. In the end, the ruling is as good as non-existent. So you can't reach it vitals. But even that is subject to open debate, as has already been shown in this thread. I could assume that a rogue with a short dagger would still get creative and find some way of reaching the vitals of say, a colossal foe. So I can't describe how he might do it. But then again, I am not the rogue, I am merely playing one. He might know how to achieve such a feat, I wouldn't.
Dog_O_War 12-14-07, 09:41 PM	The ruling though, seems pretty straight-forward to myself, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I'm just saying that the basic assumption is that anything vital is in the centre mass; that's how things are designed. We know that our ribcages protect us from outside forces, just as a door is placed on the outside of a house to protect it from the elements. Going on that everything in the game has a "base position", ie: the squares it occupies, it is a safe bet that this is where the vitals are; not in the limbs it stretches out to attack with. If the vitals were inthe limbs, the creature as a race would not survive. Basically the rule stands as "if you cannot attack the base square, you can't get percision based damage". Make more sense now?
runestar 12-14-07, 10:22 PM	Basically the rule stands as "if you cannot attack the base square, you can't get percision based damage". What different is that from my take?:confused: Basically, so long as you can attack any square the creature occupies, you can sneak attack it if you meet the requirements. What's all this talk about its vitals being concentrated in the center?
Krusk 12-15-07, 04:26 AM	1: "if you cannot reach vitals, you cannot sneak attack it" is as straight-forward a ruling as you're going to get; similar to, "if you shoot a cop inside a police station, bad things will happen to you". is actually a pretty vauge ruling. What exactly is abad thing defined as. I think stubbing my toe is a bad thing, others consider being shot a bad thing. Thats actually a pretty good analogy to this debate though. Both you and the PHB use a vague term and believe it to be straight forward.
kelvinaw273 12-15-07, 09:19 AM	I've given this some thought, and my first thought in the sequence was "Vanilla or strawberry?" as this is largely a matter of taste. Sneak attack uses precision to inflict significantly more damage than would normally be possible with the weapon in hand due to using precision to hit more damaging spots. This, in my mind, does not always mean killing. To kill, I would agree you have to hit a very vital spot; on a 50 foot high giant hitting a vital organ is next to impossible without a greatspear. But ... is a small rogue likely to manage inflicting this much damage with just a dagger? No. But they can inflict disproportionate damage even if they can only reach the ankles - open a vein, slash a tendon etc. will do so, IMHO. In fact, one of the most famous sneak attacks in fantasy literature was a knee-strike (cookie for the person who can tell me the book ;) ). So basically, I would allow a sneak attack under most circumstances.
Dog_O_War 12-15-07, 09:27 AM	is actually a pretty vauge ruling. What exactly is abad thing defined as. I think stubbing my toe is a bad thing, others consider being shot a bad thing. Thats actually a pretty good analogy to this debate though. Both you and the PHB use a vague term and believe it to be straight forward. It's only as vague as "when your life ends, you're dead" We all know what that means, but what dead means to each of use is open to debate. It's pretty obvious though that it entails not living. Just as not hitting vitals means no extra sneak attack damage. Also, for Runestar; Beyond an artery, show me one creature that stores it's vitals in a limb. You'll find none. People here are talking about attacking limbs and doing sneak attack damage, which would clearly strip certain monsters of every advantage they had. Even though the legs are in the base square (usually) how do you differentiate the "arms" from the "legs" of a dragon? The body of a dragon sits fairly close to the ground, so it is not that big an issue. But with a giant, espescially ones huge and larger, why should you glean sneak attack damage when you clearly cannot reach anything but the lmbs? The point I'm making here is that if you can sneak attack limbs, then why bother moving through a threatened space if the limb will just come to you? While it stands bad enough that the rogue can sneak attack an ancient wyrm with a dagger sized for a halfling (like a 2 inch blade is going to puncture the hide or even the layers of muscle below), the ruling says that you can sneak attack with the weapon; just as you can with a fist. Logic implies that you should not, but the rules say that you can, so we side with the rules. If the rules say that you cannot sneak attack if you cannot reach vitals, then why are we ignoring the fact that limbs do not carry vitals?
teamfireyleader 12-15-07, 10:42 AM	Dog_O_war octapusses have vital organs in their legs/tentcles/limbs. I don't think that that is particulaly relevent though, because they are different. I think you should probably rule that no not every square on a dragon is sneak attackable. I'd say wings are the only part of the body you could sneak attack without a reach weapon. The heart and stuff are too far in and so you need to use a reach weapon to get to them. Really you should look to similar examples in life. An elf is like a human. Stab to the heart. A unicorn is like a horse, get the lungs. A chaos beast is like... er nothing so you don't know where its vital organs are, but probably the rogue wouldn't know either so couldn't sneak attack. The same goes for size, is it feasable: Does she know where the organs are? Could she reach them? If no to #1 then she can only get lucky and score a crit. THis applies to all classes, If no to 2, she can't score a normal crit. or sneak attack Also for the 2 inch dagger thing, That is what natural armour is. This is why i say no crit ever unless you can reach vitals (including arteries, which are centered in the leg, in a great wrym a 2 inch dagger is not going to reach an artery).
Krusk 12-15-07, 02:59 PM	Until wizards puts out a book similar to draconomicon and lords of madness which desribe the locations of vital organs for all monsters, including more human looking ones like giants and elves I am going to assume all vital organs are stored in the hands and knees of these monsters unless specified otherwise. when your life ends you are dead is quite specific. Much diffrent than your other comparison. Why bother moving through threatened squares? well if you want to ready an action to full attack until right befor the enemy swings at you feel free, thats a pretty lousy idea though. I would much rather tumble up next to the enemy so i can flank and get sneak attack on a lot of full attacks instead of holding my action until they are about to swing, and then hopeing that it cooses to attack in my direction.
QQmaster 12-15-07, 06:41 PM	My take is that as long as the rogue has access to strike the dragon without obstruction then we must assume the rogue knows where to strike to deal the deadly damage of the Sneak Attack. I must assume in the years it takes a character to achieve level 20+ or whatever to fight the evil dragon/tarasque/etc, then the character has learned how to deal the deadly damage of SA to any size creature. The text of that restriction is prevent rogues from gaining SA if a dragon is sweeping into a room with its tail or claw or the rogue is hindered in attacking the dragon by some clearance or cover mechanism. Size should not effect a fantastic hero in attacking a giant creature in a grid based combat system, we must assume she has figured out how to deal their primary damage maneuver to creature larger than she. -QQ :banghead:
Orenmir 12-16-07, 11:44 AM	Until wizards puts out a book similar to draconomicon and lords of madness which desribe the locations of vital organs for all monsters, including more human looking ones like giants and elves I am going to assume all vital organs are stored in the hands and knees of these monsters unless specified otherwise. Size should not effect a fantastic hero in attacking a giant creature in a grid based combat system, we must assume she has figured out how to deal their primary damage maneuver to creature larger than she. Both of you are making assumptions that simply better your cause because there is no official rule. There's no rule that states when you throw a rock into a lake it falls to the bottom. We use common sense. The outer anatomy of a giant, elf, and human are remarkably similar. Using Occam's Razor (google it), we can knowledgeably assume their inner anatomies are similar. I can't believe so many people just turn a blind eye to this rule -- claiming it is vague. It is not vague. It's as clear as "the rock falls to the bottom of the lake." Barring any magical properties in D&D, we must use Occam's Razor and simple common sense when reading and interpreting rules. It seems like many people loose sight of that simply because D&D has a fantasy setting. Even though it is fantasy, it is rooted in realism. Gravity, vitals, arm's reach -- all have properties that can't be refuted without magic.
Enigmis 12-16-07, 02:57 PM	I can't believe so many people just turn a blind eye to this rule It's not a rule, where in the books is their any ruling on being able to reach a vital spot. The only place I can find this description is in the article, and I find published books to be a far better source than some random article.
Crimson_Concerto 12-16-07, 04:58 PM	...There's no rule that states when you throw a rock into a lake it falls to the bottom. We use common sense...Actually, it depends on the type of rock, but I digress. :P I can't believe so many people just turn a blind eye to this rule -- claiming it is vague. It is not vague. It's as clear as "the rock falls to the bottom of the lake."...See here's the problem with your analogy: D&D DID NOT invent the principles of density and buoyancy. D&D DID invent Sneak Attack. You can't make the argument you're trying to make with something that doesn't exist in real life. Sneak Attack is purely a concept of D&D mechanics, and so it's the burden of D&D mechanics to tell us EXACTLY when it applies and when it doesn't, BUT IT DOESN'T DO THAT, so we really have little choice but to ignore this vague little piece of flavor text.
Dog_O_War 12-16-07, 11:22 PM	Actually, it depends on the type of rock, but I digress. :P See here's the problem with your analogy: D&D DID NOT invent the principles of density and buoyancy. D&D DID invent Sneak Attack. You can't make the argument you're trying to make with something that doesn't exist in real life. Sneak Attack is purely a concept of D&D mechanics, and so it's the burden of D&D mechanics to tell us EXACTLY when it applies and when it doesn't, BUT IT DOESN'T DO THAT, so we really have little choice but to ignore this vague little piece of flavor text. Are we talking sneak attack the game mechanic, or sneak attack the strategy, which D&D also did not invent. Also, stiking vitals to ensure death is not something that is exclusive to D&D; people don't snipe world leaders in the foot to kill them because "there gun has a crit range of 13-20/x5". They aim for the heart of the head (vitals) for the kill. Vitals are as follows; internal organs (brain, heart, lungs, etc...) nervous system (the major pathway; the spine). Everything else is non-vital; arms, legs, tails, etc... As you cannot flank an arm, leg, or tail, or catch anything beyond the soles of your feet flat-footed (pun), you cannot sneak attack them. I just don't see how we can apply real-world "rules" to the game (such as gravity, breathing oxygen, and the need to eat and sleep - without the rules saying so), and yet we cannot accept that vitals are stored in the torso and head, not the limbs.
Crimson_Concerto 12-17-07, 01:07 AM	Are we talking sneak attack the game mechanic, or sneak attack the strategy, which D&D also did not invent.No, no, you were right the first time. I'm talking about the game mechanic which D&D invented. The rest of what you're talking about is the same stuff even a basic Fighter does. Also, I'm gonna go ahead and clarify that I agree that the vitals are stored in the torso, and I'm not the one who said I was pretending vitals were stored in the limbs. I agree with your Occam's Razor interpretation that most things that look humanoid probably have at least a vaguely humanoid internal anatomy. I just think it doesn't matter.
Pandapeep 12-17-07, 02:04 AM	I still fail to get this. If I'm adjacent to a giant, flanking/and or said Giant is flat footed, but, since I'm medium, and sans a reach weapon, if Dog-O-War was my dm, you'd deny me the main class ability that makes rouges combat viable? Really?
Orenmir 12-17-07, 10:13 AM	I still fail to get this. If I'm adjacent to a giant, flanking/and or said Giant is flat footed, but, since I'm medium, and sans a reach weapon, if Dog-O-War was my dm, you'd deny me the main class ability that makes rouges combat viable? Really? That's right, he would. I would too, because I follow the rules. Is there something wrong with denying a character his main class ability? Heck, every once-in-a-while a wizard is stuck in an AMF. You have to learn how to adapt and overcome. Be flexible. Maybe a Rogue should carry a reach/ranged weapon for the rare occasion he fights an enemy with vitals out of reach. Or boost his jump skill through the roof, so he can jump to reach the vitals. Makes the game more fun to play anyway.
Dog_O_War 12-17-07, 10:59 AM	I still fail to get this. If I'm adjacent to a giant, flanking/and or said Giant is flat footed, but, since I'm medium, and sans a reach weapon, if Dog-O-War was my dm, you'd deny me the main class ability that makes rouges combat viable? Really? If it were a huge giant instead of a large giant, yes. Same thing goes if you were a small character and it were a large giant. Also, calling rogues rouges will get you your sneak attack denied in my games as well ;) Seriously though, unless the giant was prone, or you had some type of height equalizer (flight, good jump check [as a move action], climbing onto the giant [as a move action], reach weapon, or ranged weapon) I would deny sneak attack. I don't know how other people play, but I am used to rogues getting denied sneak attack all the time; and as such I hate doing this myself, though this is a situation I would do so without remorse. Giants and other big creatures are supposed to be big, scary opponents, not sneak-attack fodder. Why should the giant have a penalty to AC for being tall, and not have any of the advantages for BEING tall? I stop at a height bonus to attack, which means I already slant things into the PC's favor. Just this one issue I will not bend on, as I'm sick of stupid, power-hungry players "wasting" everything simply because a DM does not know how to run a creature properly. Honestly though, if you're fighting giants of the huge category, you'll probably have some way of equalizing it out with the height problem (wizard casts fly, that sorta deal). Sneak attack is deadly enough, no need to hand it out like candy.
Enigmis 12-17-07, 12:25 PM	Where in the books is there any mention of sneak attack needing to reach a vital?
Orenmir 12-17-07, 01:56 PM	Where in the books is there any mention of sneak attack needing to reach a vital? PHB/Classes/Rogue/Class Features/Sneak Attack (sorry, I don't have the book in front of me to cite the page) or here: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html or earlier posts in this thread that quote it (start with #4).
Crimson_Concerto 12-17-07, 05:31 PM	That's right, he would. I would too, because I follow the rules.See, here's the thing. Just because you follow the rules in denying said Rogue his Sneak Attack doesn't mean that I don't follow the rules by not denying the Rogue his Sneak Attack. The game isn't necessarely unbalanced either way be either of the rulings, but the the rogue player is having more fun and/or feeling more useful with one of our rulings. Guess which one that is. This isn't about following the rules. We're both doing that. This is about consistency, simplicity, speed, and fun. What it really comes down to is that your interpretation is inconsistent, changing from round to round with the situation, making it more complex and slowing the game down, and it doesn't make the Rogue player feel as useful because you keep denying him his class feature when there are plenty of valid interpretation of the same rules that wouldn't do that.
Orenmir 12-17-07, 05:56 PM	Just because you follow the rules in denying said Rogue his Sneak Attack doesn't mean that I don't follow the rules by not denying the Rogue his Sneak Attack. Not denying a Rogue his SA against a creature with vitals that are out of reach IS breaking the rule. Whether it's flavorful or not is besides the point. I would argue it's more flavorful for said Rogue to be creative to find a way to SA within the rule. I don't mind if a DM houerules that Rogues can SA when vitals are out of reach (sure, I disagree with it). What I'm arguing for is the rule -- RAW or RAI, no SA when vitals are out of reach.
Crimson_Concerto 12-17-07, 06:09 PM	Not denying a Rogue his SA against a creature with vitals that are out of reach IS breaking the rule.Perhaps, but as you've already been shown but refuse to accept, there's nothing actually saying when vitals are out of reach and when they aren't. It required both houserule and metagaming to make that work, and even then, it's clunky, inconsistent, pointless, and just not fun. Heck, even the space a creature takes up and a player's reach are all a simplified abstraction of what's actually going on during combat, so really, even if you have a colossal opponent and a small PC, you don't know when vitals are out of reach or not unless you as the DM make some arbitrary situational ruling that probably involved some degree of metagaming whether you realize it or not. That's not a rule; that's a power trip.
Orenmir 12-17-07, 06:41 PM	No houserule; no power trip; no metagaming. How to determine if vitals are out of reach: Study case #1 -- 3' Rogue vs. 30' Giant Rogue's vertical reach is approximately 4' off the ground. Giant's lowest vital area (Femoral Artery) is approximately 10' off the ground. In order to SA, the Rogue must find a way to reach 10' off the ground. Possibilities: reach or ranged weapon; very high jump check. How these parameters determined: Common sense; Occam's Razor; DM judgement.
elonin 12-17-07, 07:19 PM	Orenmir, What about the spells grave strike and golem strike? It would be easy to comment that neither of these classes of creatures have any vital areas (both being completely animated by magic), but yet sneak attack is possible using both of these spells. What vital spot was struck? Also, you've pointed out rather vocally about the knees not being vital points. As has been pointed out before the feat hamstring allows a rogue to sacrifice 2d6 and get a different effect which is limited speed for the target. So if a rogue meets the conditions of sneak attack (hitting a vital area while his foe is distracted) and then get the above listed effects of sneak attack. I can't think of anyone who would argue that your hamstring is in your torso or head. Another point for you.... if you play dnd with monsters etc and argue from critical thinking from real life, something is amiss.
Crimson_Concerto 12-17-07, 07:35 PM	No houserule; no power trip; no metagaming. How to determine if vitals are out of reach: Study case #1 -- 3' Rogue vs. 30' Giant Rogue's vertical reach is approximately 4' off the ground. Giant's lowest vital area (Femoral Artery) is approximately 10' off the ground. In order to SA, the Rogue must find a way to reach 10' off the ground. Possibilities: reach or ranged weapon; very high jump check. How these parameters determined: Common sense; Occam's Razor; DM judgement. I want to arbitrarily ask you to do that consistently for every monster ever published, but it's a moot point because A) I know you can't, and B) it wouldn't change anything anyways, because your house rules (yes, that's what they are) aren't RAW. So I'll just move one... You make the assumption that neither is moving at all, which is completely unrealistic in combat. For example, if this is combat, then then giant is probably trying to attack too, right? Well, if he's trying to hit something that short, he probably need to bend down or something, right? Well, when he does that, does he not probably need to bend he legs and get said artery lower to the ground? And doesn't everything that happens in a round of combat happen at the same time? And if said giant is truly flanked, then the Rogue's flanking buddy is providing distraction even while the giant is attacking, yes? And the rogue is technically attacking while the giant is attacking? See, this is what I mean. If you're going to try to overcomplicate the game by trying to add in extraneous factors, then you adopt the burden of having to look at ALL the factors ALL the time. It's easier (and more importantly STILL CORRECT) to assume the Rogue has some kind of idea what he's doing. After all, we assume that he knows where he strikes to deal sneak attack damage, right? Is it not reasonable to conclude he also knows how to strike and when? The fact is, this is fantasy combat, and believe it or not, the Rogue is better at fantasy combat than you are. He's a sneaky one and he can come up with things you can't, DM or not. As a final point, I'm going to once again note that reach, space, and movement are abstractions of real combat. Your character can occupy a 5-foot square, but: A) He doesn't technically occupy all of it. After all, Humans aren't 5'x5'x5' cubes B) He doesn't need to occupy JUST that 5-foot square. Look at a dragon's wingspan, for example. If it's flying, it's taking up space outside of its square too. C) On the topic of reach being an abstraction, how long is a Halfling's arm? You really think that he plus his weapon can reach 5 entire feet away? No way, not without stretching and getting into positions not suitable for combat, which brings me to... D) The topic of movement as an abstraction: See, if a Halfling wants to stab a creature in an adjacent square, chances are he'll need to move towards it a little bit, especially if his target is moving, but wait, that little bit isn't represented in the rules. Hey, now the Halfling's dodging an attack, but now it looks like that movement isn't represented in the rules either. Now the Halfling's getting hit by a nuke, but he made his reflex save by moving and thus takes NO DAMAGE, but of course, that movement isn't represented either, which is pretty amazing considering the amazing effort and speed it must take to dodge a nuke. The above factors have led myself and plenty of others to a reasonable conclusion: You don't know whether or not vitals are withing a Rogue's reach unless you specifically go out of your way to house rule an arbitrary decision.
Pandapeep 12-18-07, 03:04 AM	I want to arbitrarily ask you to do that consistently for every monster ever published, but it's a moot point because A) I know you can't, and B) it wouldn't change anything anyways, because your house rules (yes, that's what they are) aren't RAW. So I'll just move one... You make the assumption that neither is moving at all, which is completely unrealistic in combat. For example, if this is combat, then then giant is probably trying to attack too, right? Well, if he's trying to hit something that short, he probably need to bend down or something, right? Well, when he does that, does he not probably need to bend he legs and get said artery lower to the ground? And doesn't everything that happens in a round of combat happen at the same time? And if said giant is truly flanked, then the Rogue's flanking buddy is providing distraction even while the giant is attacking, yes? And the rogue is technically attacking while the giant is attacking? See, this is what I mean. If you're going to try to overcomplicate the game by trying to add in extraneous factors, then you adopt the burden of having to look at ALL the factors ALL the time. It's easier (and more importantly STILL CORRECT) to assume the Rogue has some kind of idea what he's doing. After all, we assume that he knows where he strikes to deal sneak attack damage, right? Is it not reasonable to conclude he also knows how to strike and when? The fact is, this is fantasy combat, and believe it or not, the Rogue is better at fantasy combat than you are. He's a sneaky one and he can come up with things you can't, DM or not. As a final point, I'm going to once again note that reach, space, and movement are abstractions of real combat. Your character can occupy a 5-foot square, but: A) He doesn't technically occupy all of it. After all, Humans aren't 5'x5'x5' cubes B) He doesn't need to occupy JUST that 5-foot square. Look at a dragon's wingspan, for example. If it's flying, it's taking up space outside of its square too. C) On the topic of reach being an abstraction, how long is a Halfling's arm? You really think that he plus his weapon can reach 5 entire feet away? No way, not without stretching and getting into positions not suitable for combat, which brings me to... D) The topic of movement as an abstraction: See, if a Halfling wants to stab a creature in an adjacent square, chances are he'll need to move towards it a little bit, especially if his target is moving, but wait, that little bit isn't represented in the rules. Hey, now the Halfling's dodging an attack, but now it looks like that movement isn't represented in the rules either. Now the Halfling's getting hit by a nuke, but he made his reflex save by moving and thus takes NO DAMAGE, but of course, that movement isn't represented either, which is pretty amazing considering the amazing effort and speed it must take to dodge a nuke. The above factors have led myself and plenty of others to a reasonable conclusion: You don't know whether or not vitals are withing a Rogue's reach unless you specifically go out of your way to house rule an arbitrary decision. Also, since in 3.5 there are no called shots, as in, no rule based way to hit certain parts of a body to produce different effects ie: auto kill, penalty to attack, movement ect. you can't in turn try and say, "Well, the rules don't let you say where you aim at specifically, but.. you aren't aiming at this spot, cause I say so." If there is no rule based way to say "I hit his arm/head/leg/heart," then you can't turn around and say, "Well, you didn't hit his heart/head/liver/artery."
Mirannan 12-18-07, 04:45 AM	I've given this some thought, and my first thought in the sequence was "Vanilla or strawberry?" as this is largely a matter of taste. Sneak attack uses precision to inflict significantly more damage than would normally be possible with the weapon in hand due to using precision to hit more damaging spots. This, in my mind, does not always mean killing. To kill, I would agree you have to hit a very vital spot; on a 50 foot high giant hitting a vital organ is next to impossible without a greatspear. But ... is a small rogue likely to manage inflicting this much damage with just a dagger? No. But they can inflict disproportionate damage even if they can only reach the ankles - open a vein, slash a tendon etc. will do so, IMHO. In fact, one of the most famous sneak attacks in fantasy literature was a knee-strike (cookie for the person who can tell me the book ;) ). So basically, I would allow a sneak attack under most circumstances. I claim a cookie - the sneak attack mentioned was in Return of the King (Merry against the Witch-king of Angmar, IIRC). Incidentally, this supports the notion that a sneak attack can cripple an opponent not subject to the extra damage - if a Nazgul isn't undead, what is? Returning to the point - I seem to remember that the bit about "being able to reach the vitals" is quantified in the RAW into a maximum 2-step difference in size (thus a halfling can sneak attack a Large opponent at most). Reasoning behind it? Well, in the case of big, tall opponents maybe you just can't reach its left kidney. In some other cases, maybe your blade simply isn't long enough to reach anything important through the skin and tissue, or you can't put enough force behind the blow? (A STR 16 hobbit is weaker than a STR 16 human, as evidenced by the carrying capacity rules.) I would put in a feat similar to the one mentioned, with rather more general applicability - that even if you can't sneak attack you can do some sort of specific damage that limits mobility - damaging the wing fabric of a (small) dragon for example.
elonin 12-18-07, 08:25 AM	I'd tend to go against the ruling that you must reach the vitals. Isn't the reasoning about critical hits that you have hit a vital area thus causing "massive" damage? If this were the case why are we allowing sneak attacks in cases you don't crit? I surmise that all the precision damage reflects is being able to hit a vulnerable area.
Dog_O_War 12-18-07, 11:51 AM	Perhaps, but as you've already been shown but refuse to accept, there's nothing actually saying when vitals are out of reach and when they aren't. It required both houserule and metagaming to make that work, and even then, it's clunky, inconsistent, pointless, and just not fun. Heck, even the space a creature takes up and a player's reach are all a simplified abstraction of what's actually going on during combat, so really, even if you have a colossal opponent and a small PC, you don't know when vitals are out of reach or not unless you as the DM make some arbitrary situational ruling that probably involved some degree of metagaming whether you realize it or not. That's not a rule; that's a power trip. The rule is not vague, and uses what is appearently "uncommon" sense. Given the pictures in chapter eight of the PHB, where it shows what a human looks like beside an, ogre, storm giant, purple worm, and red dragon, you tell me how he's hitting anything besides the legs with having to jump or climb onto the giant, or without using a reach weapon? This size comparison is for people who cannot differenciate 6'6" and 66'6". We assume our characters know where the vitals are even if we don't, why then do we assume they are always in reach when we know they clearly aren't? I mean, if a tiny opponent has to enter your square (if you're small or larger) JUST to hit you, why would you assume that a tall creature's most vunerable parts are in his knees? Thinking like this is insane; it is like assuming that because it doesn't say a halfling can't be 10 feet tall due to genetic abnormality (it only lists average heights in the books), that he is allowed to be and have reach while being considered small. Going by "the rule, 'it says that vitals are beyond reach cannot be sneak attacked' is vague because it doesn't say that a giant's heart isn't on top of the bones in his feet" is ludicrus; it's akin to, "dwarven blood is 90% alchol". It also doesn't say that dwarves don't cry green beer, so I think I'll tap one next game for a quick liquor fix.
Orenmir 12-18-07, 11:53 AM	I want to arbitrarily ask you to do that consistently for every monster ever published, but it's a moot point because A) I know you can't, and B) it wouldn't change anything anyways, because your house rules (yes, that's what they are) aren't RAW. B) I think we define the term "houserule" differently. When a DM claim's the Rogue's reach is 4' and the Giant's crotch is 10' -- that's not a houserule (to me). That's a DM's judgement using common sense and Occam's Razor. Included in the DM's judgement is everything you claim can't be taken under consideration without metagaming and wasting time. A) Challenge me. Give me a scenario where you think a DM would have no choice but to either ignore the "vitals out of reach" rule or waste table time metagaming a decision.
Krusk 12-18-07, 01:41 PM	IF the vitals must be in reach and people are going to use occams razor, what possible reason is there for people playing rogues to not play maximum possible height for their race? Afterall the only time it will come up is if the character is attempting to reach a giants groin why on earth would you play anything but the tallest? especially if there is no mechanical diffrence. Sure i could play a 4 foot 6 human rogue, or i could plan a pean pole 7 foot 8 rogue. no one would argue that mr 7'8 would be unable to reach a ten foot ceiling, roughly 10ft. So he would be definatly be able to reach the giants groin, especially while holding a rapier. Which -i have no knowledge of swords- is at least 3foot long. His arms are what another 3~. that puts him able to reach groins at least 13'8 in the air. He had better make this note on his sheet so we dont have to recalculate on his turn everytime. Oh but he can also bob off the ground a little small jumps and such, so we will let him round up to 14 on a bob. So he is gonna need to write down a maximum groin reach when bobbing too, put that right next to his natural groin reach. Oh but mr. Bean Pole also likes to wear heels- he is a crossdresser- so we wil give him some stellettos adding another 6 inches to his natural groin reach, and another 3 to his bob groin reach -its harder to bob in heels so not as much as normal- Well heck now he is up to 14 foot 2 inch and 14 foot 3 inches. THats pretty high, he may even be able to reach another size catagory ups groin. Seriously people.
Krusk 12-18-07, 01:45 PM	It also doesn't say that dwarves don't cry green beer, so I think I'll tap one next game for a quick liquor fix. It dosnt, and if in your next game you ask thats a perfectly legit thing to ask the DM and then try. If the DM says "no the MM isnt clear on this, so im gonna say they do/do not" that is a houserule that you should follow. If you dislike the houserule enough that it would ruin your game to play under it feel free to leave.
Dog_O_War 12-18-07, 03:57 PM	It dosnt, and if in your next game you ask thats a perfectly legit thing to ask the DM and then try. If the DM says "no the MM isnt clear on this, so im gonna say they do/do not" that is a houserule that you should follow. If you dislike the houserule enough that it would ruin your game to play under it feel free to leave. I just don't understand why people refuse to admit fault, or to be consistantly counter to another's position, even if they are completely wrong. Occams razor has nothing to do with the books saying that "larger creatures are generally twice as tall as the size category below them." As reach is described as 5ft no matter if you are 3'0" wielding a dagger or 6'6" brandishing a greatsword, your attacking area is only 5ft beyond your base square. since large (tall) creatures are 5ft/5ft and 10ft tall (even if one guy is 13'0") his range is limited as such. When the next size category is 20ft tall, how can you justify hitting the stomach (which is considered to be 15ft up), if you can only reach 10ft? You cannot include genitals amoungst vitals no matter how painful it may be for a man to be hit "there", as women do not have the same weakness; that and genitals are not vital for personal survival (only the survival of the species). We already move and fight in "squares", why is it so difficult to understand that vitals on tall creatures are just a "square" too high up? I obviously lack the proper words to convince you, or others that the rule is not vague; this is a shortcoming on my part. But please, do not let willful ignorance blind you to the truth. ...This reminded me of a story I was told from my (older) friends in a game they played back in 2nd ED. The DM had them fighting a bebelith (that demon-spider thing). clearly it is tall; it is a huge spider. it sat at twice the height as the rest of the party, and the wizard wanted to throw a lightning bolt at it; he stated that, "I aim high, at the creature's head-height so as to miss my allies". This is fine; the game allows for 3-D combat; since the lightning bolt only covered a 5ft pathway (safe to assume a 5ft retangular prism, 400ft long) and yet the DM said, "okay, everyone make their saving throws." He hit them all, and killed one party member. Clearly this was a fault in logic as they would not have been in the area of effect, yet to the DM, everything was flat. Basically I'm saying get out of the flat 16th century, and into the round 21st one.
Krusk 12-18-07, 10:19 PM	Now wait a min. here. Someone else brought up using occams razor to hit an opponent in the groin, not me. I simply used their logic to prove my point. Now you are saying that everything is 5ft square? ok i can prove it this way too, thats fine, but i would like some consistancy while i am argueing a point here. Also if groin is not a vital spot, what about that artery right on the inside of the thigh that bleeds a ton and is fatal if cut? that is lower than the groin and surely vital, right? We can add 3 inches to mr bean pole. A person is clearly not a 5ft cube. -i really hope- A person is said in DND abstract terms to occupy the entire 5ft square. This is represented by the actions of combat, a person is said to be ducking weaving spinning and bobbing throughout their entire turn, and during the opponents as well. If the giant is ducking and weaving does it stand to reason his vulnerable spots may in fact be lower than they would be if he were to be standing straight up? Could they even be low enough so that the 3 foot halfling might be able to take a slice at a wrist or other vital spot, even if the creature normally stands 10ft tall. Argueing that sneak attack without reach of vitals is unrealistic and should not be allowed, but then using the logic that each person occupies the abstract space of 5ft sq. seems a little off. Because people are using the idea that in combat a creature who is 2 5 foot cubes tall has no vitals in reach of a creature that is 1 5ft cube tallI give you a Real Life Example to counter the idea. The only combat sport I currently participate in are a few form of wrestling. In 90% of the forms the proper combat ready stance usually has your center of mass lowerd to the ground so that you are crouched down and ready to spring in any direction. With your center of mass lowered your vital spots are lowered. Im bad at physical descriptions of body position using only words so ill find a picture for you. This man/boy is in the traditional american style stance for high school/college wrestling http://www.cortland.edu/athletics/wrestling/main_wrestling.jpg The stance for greco-roman wrestling is as follows. Demonstrated by these two gentlmen, a noe that in this sport attacking the legs is not allowed, and so their stances are higher than other wrestling styles. But still crouched in a similar manner. http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070407-F-4905S-030.jpg in sumo as well, note how the stance is lowered. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/57/300px-JapanSumoMatch.jpg As for forms of combat i dont crrently do, ill look but these might not be good examples of common stances, so forgive me. Fenching- http://athletics.vassar.edu/fencing/w-pics/fencing1.jpg aikido- http://www.stenudd.com/aikido/images/dojo/aikido-class4.jpg boxing- http://www.phila.gov/recreation/images/BoxingNLib.jpg bokken practice- http://thor.prohosting.com/kijaji/archive/KIAI10/JovsBokken1copy.JPG There is a reason all of these diffrent martial arts from diffrent parts of our world have a similar theme. That is because in combat, if you stand straight up, you will get laid down. it is much better to crouch low, and present a tightly coiled smaller target that could spring out in any direction. I tried to include some martial arts that use weapons, because in DND most enemies will be using them. I also seem to be confused as to why people refuse to admit fault, or to be consistantly counter to another's position, even if they are completely wrong.
Orenmir 12-18-07, 10:47 PM	Now wait a min. here. Someone else brought up using occams razor to hit an opponent in the groin, not me. Wow, that was a short grapevine. I used Occam's Razor to explain anatomy of fantasy species. I claimed SA is viable to the crotch - referring to the Femoral Artery. As you were.
Enigmis 12-18-07, 11:58 PM	I just don't understand why people refuse to admit fault, or to be consistantly counter to another's position, even if they are completely wrong. Me neither, but you and Orenmir keep posting anyway.
Aleolus 12-19-07, 12:09 AM	The Achillies Tendon is not vital. You can live with irreparable damage to your achillies. You can't live with irreparable damage to you Femoral Artery. vital (adj.) - required for the continuation of life http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vital True, however I think it goes without saying that using certain feats that make use of SA, like Hamstring, can be used in situations where you can't reach the target's vitals.
elonin 12-19-07, 07:31 AM	Aleolus: Hamstring doesn't grant the ability to attack a nonvital area and use the sneak attack. It implies that you already could have, or else it would have been noted in the feat that normally you can't. Orenmir: You are trying to use parsinomy in an argument about an imaginary setting which by definition is arbitrary. Earlier in this thread you argued that the Anatomy of dnd creatures must follow anatomy as we experience it. Not true.
Phelix_the_Warrior 12-19-07, 08:18 AM	did not read every response I think it shouldn't matter, since a sneak attack just causes extra damage, I say it would be loglical that you dont need a vital to cause extra damage, such as twisting the blade once its in, ect. if it had to hit a vital spot then every sneak attack would kill the subject.....but thats just how I would rule it if I was DMing
Orenmir 12-19-07, 10:00 AM	Orenmir: You are trying to use parsinomy in an argument about an imaginary setting which by definition is arbitrary. Earlier in this thread you argued that the Anatomy of dnd creatures must follow anatomy as we experience it. Not true. parsinomy: not a word parsimony: great frugality or unwillingness to spend money Are you sure that's the word you wanted to use? Anyway... Never did I say the anatomy of D&D creatues MUST follow anatomy as we experirence. I said we can use Occam's Razor to make a knowledgable assumption. I.E.: A giant or elf would have very similar anatomy to that of a human.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 10:09 AM	Hamstring, can be used in situations where you can't reach the target's vitals. Let me take Hamstring as an example why the "vitals out of reach" rule is valid. With Hamstring, the Rogue is not dealing SA (extra dice) damage. Why? -- Because he's not reaching a vital. In lieu of attacking a vital to deal more dice damage, he's attacking a non-vital to deal damage that will hinder movement. The Hamstring feat supports my case that the "vitals out of reach" rule is valid. (was that redundant, repetative, superfluous?) So, if you can't reach vitals to SA, Hamstring is a good back-up option.
Enigmis 12-19-07, 10:16 AM	Let me take Hamstring as an example why the "vitals out of reach" rule is valid. With Hamstring, the Rogue is not dealing SA (extra dice) damage. Why? -- Because he's not reaching a vital. In lieu of attacking a vital to deal more dice damage, he's attacking a non-vital to deal damage that will hinder movement. The Hamstring feat supports my case that the "vitals out of reach" rule is valid. (was that redundant, repetative, superfluous?) So, if you can't reach vitals to SA, Hamstring is a good back-up option. Except hamstring says: "If you hit with a melee sneak attack". You cant use hamstring unless you sneak attack, so you can't use it as a back up option.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 10:23 AM	Except hamstring says: "If you hit with a melee sneak attack". You cant use hamstring unless you sneak attack, so you can't use it as a back up option. As a DM, I'd rather rule that you can Hamstring when vitals are out of reach than you can SA when vitals are out of reach. Barring RAW or RAI, the mechanics make perfect sense.
Krusk 12-19-07, 10:36 AM	As a DM, I'd rather rule that you can Hamstring when vitals are out of reach than you can SA when vitals are out of reach. Barring RAW or RAI, the mechanics make perfect sense. Well thats your houserule, and it generally goes against your entire arguement. Now you ae letting people sneak attack when they normally cannot just to make use of a feat.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 10:49 AM	Well thats your houserule, and it generally goes against your entire arguement. Now you ae letting people sneak attack when they normally cannot just to make use of a feat. It does not go against my entire argument. It is a houserule concession that affects the feat Hamstring only. All mechanics of SA are still in place. My houserule would say: You can SA when vitals are out of reach only if you intend to Hamstring and the targeted area (the hamstring) is within reach. And, as I stated before, these mechanics make perfect sense. It does not make perfect sense to omit the "vitals out of reach" rule for SA.
Enigmis 12-19-07, 10:57 AM	It does not go against my entire argument. It is a houserule concession that affects the feat Hamstring only. All mechanics of SA are still in place. My houserule would say: You can SA when vitals are out of reach only if you intend to Hamstring and the targeted area (the hamstring) is within reach. And, as I stated before, these mechanics make perfect sense. It does not make perfect sense to omit the "vitals out of reach" rule for SA. It's a much bigger stretch from hamstring working when you can't sneak attack, then sneak attacking while ignoring this whole "vitals" crap.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 11:05 AM	It's a much bigger stretch from hamstring working when you can't sneak attack, then sneak attacking while ignoring this whole "vitals" crap. I claim you can Hamstring someone when thier hamstring is within range. I claim you can not SA when vitals are out of range. Please explain to me how either of these is a "big stretch."
Dog_O_War 12-19-07, 11:32 AM	Now wait a min. here. Someone else brought up using occams razor to hit an opponent in the groin, not me. I simply used their logic to prove my point. Now you are saying that everything is 5ft square? ok i can prove it this way too, thats fine, but i would like some consistancy while i am argueing a point here. Also if groin is not a vital spot, what about that artery right on the inside of the thigh that bleeds a ton and is fatal if cut? that is lower than the groin and surely vital, right? We can add 3 inches to mr bean pole. A person is clearly not a 5ft cube. -i really hope- A person is said in DND abstract terms to occupy the entire 5ft square. This is represented by the actions of combat, a person is said to be ducking weaving spinning and bobbing throughout their entire turn, and during the opponents as well. If the giant is ducking and weaving does it stand to reason his vulnerable spots may in fact be lower than they would be if he were to be standing straight up? Could they even be low enough so that the 3 foot halfling might be able to take a slice at a wrist or other vital spot, even if the creature normally stands 10ft tall. I never said a large creature cannot be sneak attacked by a medium one; infact I've said the exact opposite. As a large creature's entire body is within the range of a medium (and small) creature's normal reach, there is no problem. I was saying that huge giants (the ones that are considered to be 20ft tall) cannot because their vitals would be three 5ft squares up; out of reach. Argueing that sneak attack without reach of vitals is unrealistic and should not be allowed, but then using the logic that each person occupies the abstract space of 5ft sq. seems a little off. Actually, I never said that a person occupies a 5ft square; the non-abstract rules (ie: a monster's size/reach in the MM; can't get much clearer than 5ft/5ft, by 5ft for medium creatures) said this. I said that even though a character does not actually occupy these actual dimensions, they are treated as if they do; and using my previous example - no matter if you're a 3'0" halfling wielding a dagger or a 6'6" human brandishing a greatsword. I am using the rules of the game for this situation, even though my logic says otherwise. Because people are using the idea that in combat a creature who is 2 5 foot cubes tall has no vitals in reach of a creature that is 1 5ft cube tallI give you a Real Life Example to counter the idea. The only combat sport I currently participate in are a few form of wrestling. In 90% of the forms the proper combat ready stance usually has your center of mass lowerd to the ground so that you are crouched down and ready to spring in any direction. With your center of mass lowered your vital spots are lowered. Im bad at physical descriptions of body position using only words so ill find a picture for you. This man/boy is in the traditional american style stance for high school/college wrestling http://www.cortland.edu/athletics/wrestling/main_wrestling.jpg The stance for greco-roman wrestling is as follows. Demonstrated by these two gentlmen, a noe that in this sport attacking the legs is not allowed, and so their stances are higher than other wrestling styles. But still crouched in a similar manner. http://www.nellis.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070407-F-4905S-030.jpg in sumo as well, note how the stance is lowered. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/57/300px-JapanSumoMatch.jpg As for forms of combat i dont crrently do, ill look but these might not be good examples of common stances, so forgive me. Fenching- http://athletics.vassar.edu/fencing/w-pics/fencing1.jpg aikido- http://www.stenudd.com/aikido/images/dojo/aikido-class4.jpg boxing- http://www.phila.gov/recreation/images/BoxingNLib.jpg bokken practice- http://thor.prohosting.com/kijaji/archive/KIAI10/JovsBokken1copy.JPG You'll find that the best place to strike will always be the head; since the head is high, so too will combat stances. Wrestling is not about killing your opponent; it is about lowering him, putting him beneath you. A high stance in wrestling is considered foolish, but you aren't exactly out to strike your opponent's internal organs, now are you? Also, if your opponent is lowered, then so too would you be, taking the vitals (and reach) of everyone lower. Net gain: none. I wrestled a bit myself is junior high and high school, and I know what a disadvantage height is while wrestling, but this is not the case for things like boxing, or fencing for that matter. There is a reason all of these diffrent martial arts from diffrent parts of our world have a similar theme. That is because in combat, if you stand straight up, you will get laid down. it is much better to crouch low, and present a tightly coiled smaller target that could spring out in any direction. I tried to include some martial arts that use weapons, because in DND most enemies will be using them. Actually, this is only a common theme amoungst hand-to-hand fighting; specifically if it involves (or could involve) grappling. Non-grappling combat has techniques that favor gravity; swinging your sword/axe/hammer downward provides more speed and striking power than any other direction; this requires a high stance. If you've ever hammered concrete, rail spikes, chopped wood, etc... you'll have in variably raised the tool above your head to get the best possible strike in. I also seem to be confused as to why people refuse to admit fault, or to be consistantly counter to another's position, even if they are completely wrong. I was speaking of you, but it was a cheapshot on my part. Basically you've been applying logic to rules (the occupied space rule) that are counter to (logic); because a creature's reach will not allow it to strike in certain spots is something I think you've been missing. Also, as I had said before, I think you've been under the assumption that I was speaking of small/medium versus large giants, when I was talking huge (the ones that occupy a 10ft/20ft column).
Dog_O_War 12-19-07, 11:34 AM	It's a much bigger stretch from hamstring working when you can't sneak attack, then sneak attacking while ignoring this whole "vitals" crap. Actually given that your hamstrings are not behind your ears, it stands to reason that they are within reach, and that this creature (who can be sneak attacked if you can reach) can be hamstringed specifically - simply because you can reach the hamstrings.
Pandapeep 12-19-07, 11:48 AM	I say again, if I cannot by rule say where my hit, as a character, hits, then how, by those same rules can you as a DM say where my hit does not hit?
Enigmis 12-19-07, 12:02 PM	I claim you can Hamstring someone when thier hamstring is within range. I claim you can not SA when vitals are out of range. Please explain to me how either of these is a "big stretch." because the rules are less clear on vitals than they are requiring hamstring to have a melee sneak attack hit.
Aleolus 12-19-07, 12:09 PM	...Wow, seems I opened up a can o' worms, mentioning Hamstring.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 12:13 PM	because the rules are less clear on vitals than they are requiring hamstring to have a melee sneak attack hit. What is unclear about vitals? The PBH doesn't have to explain what vitals are -- look the word up in the dictionary. The Hamsting feat, however, is poorly worded and very unclear -- needing a slight houserule. RAW, Hamstring will allow you to use the feat to "hamstring" a dragon when he pops his head out of the ground in between you and your ally, even though the rest of his body (including his hamstring) is under ground. Does that seem logical? No -- it needs either errata or a houserule to become logical. SA does not need errata. If that same dragon sticks his paw out of the hole in the ground in between you and your ally -- you can not SA it. Why not? -- Because its vitals are "OUT OF REACH."
Enigmis 12-19-07, 12:17 PM	What is unclear about vitals? The PBH doesn't have to explain what vitals are -- look the word up in the dictionary. The Hamsting feat, however, is poorly worded and very unclear -- needing a slight houserule. RAW, Hamstring will allow you to use the feat to "hamstring" a dragon when he pops his head out of the ground in between you and your ally, even though the rest of his body (including his hamstring) is under ground. Does that seem logical? No -- it needs either errata or a houserule to become logical. SA does not need errata. If that same dragon sticks his paw out of the hole in the ground in between you and your ally -- you can not SA it. Why not? -- Because its vitals are "OUT OF REACH." obviously something is unclear, because currently it is 2 vs everyone else.
Orenmir 12-19-07, 12:32 PM	obviously something is unclear, because currently it is 2 vs everyone else. This is not a competition, it's a debate. If you can contribute, feel free. If you can't contribute, I'd suggest not posting.
Dog_O_War 12-19-07, 01:18 PM	obviously something is unclear, because currently it is 2 vs everyone else. Also, just because others are not arguing on myself and Orenmirs' "side" does not mean we don't have support. They might figure that the rule is as clear as a freshly cleaned window. Originally posted by Pandapeep I say again, if I cannot by rule say where my hit, as a character, hits, then how, by those same rules can you as a DM say where my hit does not hit? You can, by rule, say where you hit. If a monster is 20ft tall, and you are using a longsword as a medium creature, then you can only hit him in the first 10ft of his "person". Since our bodies (like many of the human-shaped monsters) are roughly half legs half torso. Seeing as the legs contain no vitals, you cannot possibly've hit this creature in a vital spot. The same goes to a colassal dragon sticking his claw through a doorway; since every part of him has full cover except his claw, you cannot strike him in the face, the body, the tail, the rear leg, etc... So far we've given out logical, sound arguements, and we've recieved back the above. You (readers) can decide from this.
elonin 12-19-07, 01:59 PM	Except hamstring says: "If you hit with a melee sneak attack". You cant use hamstring unless you sneak attack, so you can't use it as a back up option. Using the logic presented in this thead a sneak attack can only be used if you can reach the vitals. That comment was made to point out how that arguement falls apart. Per the feat you make a sneak attack to someone's lower leg (not a granted power from the feat) and you can hamper their movement by giving up 2d6 of sneak attack). Given the logic presented here (sneak attacks must target vital areas); either the feat is useless or the definition of vitals used previously (in this thread) is wrong. I'd tend to follow the core source.
Dog_O_War 12-19-07, 02:44 PM	Using the logic presented in this thead a sneak attack can only be used if you can reach the vitals. That comment was made to point out how that arguement falls apart. Per the feat you make a sneak attack to someone's lower leg (not a granted power from the feat) and you can hamper their movement by giving up 2d6 of sneak attack). Given the logic presented here (sneak attacks must target vital areas); either the feat is useless or the definition of vitals used previously (in this thread) is wrong. I'd tend to follow the core source. If you continue to read the feat though, you'll find the additional lines, "creatures with two pairs of legs need to be hamstringed twice in order to have effect. Creatures with more than this number of legs cannot be hamstringed." This stands as the legs become less vital the more you have of them. Yet we don't argue that "well if hamstring doesn't work, then why should the creature be sneak attacked at all?!" You're using the text of a feat that grants an additional use of said ability to represent the ability as a whole. That is akin to, "well, my fireball affected by searing spell metamagic can do damage to a red dragon, therefore my normal fireball can do damage to a red dragon."
Howland Reed 12-19-07, 05:17 PM	I'd like an answer to a question someone asked earlier...what about golemstrike/gravestrike? These would allow sneak attacks on creatures that literally HAVE no vital organs...how does this fit with your interpretation? Do these feats create vital organs? Do they make the creature's entire body into a vital spot? Does the thief have to strike where heart/lungs/arteries WOULD be? Since a stone golem is solid stone, there is literally no part on it which is more "necessary to life" than any other...so how is the rogue able to deal it sneak attack damage? In your interpretation of the "sneak attacks must reach/target vitals", with vitals meaning "parts that are essential to live", how do gravestrike/golemstrike fit in? Remember that HP are an abstraction...a sneak attack by a lvl. 1 rogue for 2d6 damage and a sneak attack by a lvl. 20 rogue for 11d6 damage both targeted THE SAME VITALS. Are we to assume the lvl. 20 rogue "stabbed someone in the heart better?" Also note how these different situations play out when applied to a lvl. 1 commoner and a lvl. 20 barbarian. Rogue1 vs. Commoner: I stab you in the heart, and you die. Yay! Rogue20 vs. Commoner: I stab you in the heart and you die, but better! Rogue1 vs. Barbarian20: I stab you in the heart...and you ignore it. Yay? Rogue20 vs. Barbarian20: I stab you in the heart, and bleed profusely, but still live. Par for the course. Just as HP do not represent actual blood loss and damage to tissue, DAMAGE does not represent any particular cutting of veins or rending of tissue, necessarily. Whittling away HP, by sneak attacks or any other means, are largely an abstraction to represent fatigue and the loss of ability to dodge/avoid/lessen damaging blows. That Barbarian20 didn't IGNORE a stab to the heart...his HP mean that he is experienced enough to turn a potentially fatal wound into a graze (or in the case of the Rogue20, a serious but non-deadly wound). The higher sneak attack dice don't mean that the blow is MORE deadly, so much as that it is better aimed and harder to avoid/lessen. Make sense?
Orenmir 12-19-07, 05:51 PM	In your interpretation of the "sneak attacks must reach/target vitals", with vitals meaning "parts that are essential to live", how do gravestrike/golemstrike fit in? Excellent question! The fact the the authors have writen 2 bits of rules that in essence contradict each other, I would propose to "bend" the rules of the concept that happens less frequently in the game -- in this case, Gravestrike and Golemstrike. And when I say "bend," I still mean: use common sense and Occam's Razor (broken record -- sorry). I propose that even a Stone Golem has its own anatomy. Sure, that anatomy is completely stone; but, there is some property (let's call it magic) that allows the stone molecules to behave in a way that creates movement. This magical property is much less vital to the stone golem in his big toe than it is in his armpit. By attacking a golem, damage is done in some way that will eventually make the golem cease to exist. This damage is related to destroying that magical property that gives the golem movement (afterall, a dead golem doesn't move). If that property was targeted in an area like the armpit, the golem would have repercussions that would affect his arm. This proves that the armpit is more "vital" than the big toe. So, the Rogue still needs to reach close to the torso (not limbs) to SA a golem. Afterall, RAW states you can't taget limbs. Now, I will be the first to admit that is pretty far-fetched, although it uses commen sense to explain something that can't exist in the real world. But, it is less radical then just ignoring the "vitals out of reach" rule in the PHB.
Voran 12-19-07, 06:27 PM	If the monster is sneak attackable, and you are in a position in which, it would flat footed to you, or you are flanking it, you sneak attack. Ruling otherwise would be like saying, "Oh, well, Mr. Paladin, you can't smite this dragon cause he is bigger then you." I don't follow the logic on this one. A Paladin's smite is a holy empowerment of their weapon, smoting the foe with divine ownage. It has nothing to do with where the Paladin hits the thing.
elonin 12-19-07, 07:22 PM	If you continue to read the feat though, you'll find the additional lines, "creatures with two pairs of legs need to be hamstringed twice in order to have effect. Creatures with more than this number of legs cannot be hamstringed." This stands as the legs become less vital the more you have of them. Yet we don't argue that "well if hamstring doesn't work, then why should the creature be sneak attacked at all?!" You're using the text of a feat that grants an additional use of said ability to represent the ability as a whole. That is akin to, "well, my fireball affected by searing spell metamagic can do damage to a red dragon, therefore my normal fireball can do damage to a red dragon." No. That text implies that the legs could normally be targets of sneak attacks. Otherwise the feat would have declared that "normally the legs are not targets of this special ability"; as had been stated with many other feats. Also this feat is found in a newer core source book than the origional rule. I pointed out grave and golem strike allowing the rogue to make sneak attacks vs undead if other conditions are met for it's value as an arguement that these creatures have no vitals (or working organs) dueto being animated by magic. Now that I think about it this point isn't as strong as I'd origionally thought. Trying to use occam's razor/parsinomy in a fantasy setting is useless. There isn't any guarentee that any creatures (even the human races) necessarily have any organs (in that sense) at all unless your DM says they do.
Krusk 12-20-07, 12:47 AM	I never said a large creature cannot be sneak attacked by a medium one; infact I've said the exact opposite. As a large creature's entire body is within the range of a medium (and small) creature's normal reach, there is no problem. I was saying that huge giants (the ones that are considered to be 20ft tall) cannot because their vitals would be three 5ft squares up; out of reach. Their vitals are not 100% out of reach, they are considered to be in all 20x20 ft of their square. This means that while some could be 20ft up in the air, others could very well be at ground level. I hate to bring anime into this arguement, but if someone were to say their character fought in a similar manner to Mugen from samurai champloo, while wanting no mechanical benefit whatsoever. Would you still consider their vitals out of reach at all times, even if they happened to be a frost giant, or titan? -if you havent seen champloo, i will recomend the first 5 episodes to anyone, even if they arent a fan of anime. The last part i recomend only to anime fans. You'll find that the best place to strike will always be the head; since the head is high, so too will combat stances. Wrestling is not about killing your opponent; it is about lowering him, putting him beneath you. A high stance in wrestling is considered foolish, but you aren't exactly out to strike your opponent's internal organs, now are you? Also, if your opponent is lowered, then so too would you be, taking the vitals (and reach) of everyone lower. Net gain: none. I wrestled a bit myself is junior high and high school, and I know what a disadvantage height is while wrestling, but this is not the case for things like boxing, or fencing for that matter. Ah, but if younaturally stand 15 feet lower than your opponent you can risk standing higher than normal, especially if this is needed to plunge a dagger deep into their stomache. As someone who has boxed in a couple of matches here and there, I can say that standing high up is a bad bad plan. The result is usually you getting punched in the face. you need to stay low so as to be able to twist and protect yourself easier. if your high you present a larger vital area to your opponent. As for fencing Ive never done it, but I would assume a similar idea is presented. Actually, this is only a common theme amoungst hand-to-hand fighting; specifically if it involves (or could involve) grappling. Non-grappling combat has techniques that favor gravity; swinging your sword/axe/hammer downward provides more speed and striking power than any other direction; this requires a high stance. If you've ever hammered concrete, rail spikes, chopped wood, etc... you'll have in variably raised the tool above your head to get the best possible strike in. I definatly chop wood on a regular basis. I get a nice low square stance. Then i bring the hammer behind me and let the weight of the head chop right through the wood with minimal effort on my part. Main point being that i get a good square low stance so that i am steady and there is little chance of me falling from a wild swing, and i get a square stance so i dont cut my foot off if i go through some rotten wood. I was speaking of you, but it was a cheapshot on my part. Basically you've been applying logic to rules (the occupied space rule) that are counter to (logic); because a creature's reach will not allow it to strike in certain spots is something I think you've been missing. Also, as I had said before, I think you've been under the assumption that I was speaking of small/medium versus large giants, when I was talking huge (the ones that occupy a 10ft/20ft column). I was aware, thats why i repeated it in turn.;) No harm no foul, i understand the frustration in arguing when it is you vs 100, go back and read the old thread of he knight class sneak attacking. I was in your shoes, but then ask wizards finally came around and agreed with me. Medium vs large and medium vs huge really dosnt have a big diffrence for the arguement. So Ive been lumping it together. If wizards would define where all vitals are located on al monsters during all of combat, in every concievable combat stance I would abide by a rule of "you can't sneak attack with vitals out of reach" but as that is a waste oftime on their effort, I won't be doing it. As it stands now I believe it is to prevent assassins from gaining sneak attack on the foot of a noble while staying in optimal hiding spot. "no you cant quite reach, you can only touch his toe from the sewer as he walks by."
Krusk 12-20-07, 12:50 AM	In your interpretation of the "sneak attacks must reach/target vitals", with vitals meaning "parts that are essential to live", how do gravestrike/golemstrike fit in? Its MAGIC is probably the best answe anyone can give you on that one.
Howland Reed 12-20-07, 02:54 AM	"It's magic" is a non-argument...it's a catchall that allows justification for anything, INCLUDING sneak attacking large creatures even though you can't hit their vitals. Face it...if you can rationalize sneak attacking a creature that HAS NO vitals, you can rationalize sneak attacking one who DOES HAVE vitals, but which are out of reach. In fact, I can do the latter much more easily. Some might say "but golemstrike/gravestrike requires a feat!". Okay. Would you allow a rogue to take a feat that let them sneak attack huge creatures? It's okay for them to sneak attack non-existent vitals, but not out-of-reach ones? As to Orenmir's response about "golems really do have vitals, they're just magical vitals"...sorry, I don't buy it. Golems are magically animated stone...the magic that animates them (by RAW) is not fixated in any key spot or vital place that a rogue can strike (otherwise, they wouldn't need a feat...a simple knowledge check should be sufficient). It's all throughout them. Your rationalization requires massive assumptions on your part which have no basis in the rules. You are in fact making things up out of whole cloth, strictly to fit with your own interpretation of existing rules. I find my way more elegant: both situations are examples of using abstract rules to represent fantasy situations. You don't NEED to use "logic" or "real world examples"...you can use the rules. Since the rules say "you can sneak attack dudes", and don't say when vitals are out of reach, it's simplest to assume you can reach their vitals unless the rules say you can't. So that's how I play it. (Hell, something you said earlier...like, maybe a rogue can make a Jump check to reach the femoral artery or some such crap. If the rules intended this, don't you think they would have included DCs in the monster manual description, for how high you need to jump to sneak attack them? Wouldn't the rules support this interpretation SOMEHOW? They just don't. They didn't think they needed to...since they pretty clearly intended that "rogues can sneak attack dudes". Yes, it's meant to be limited...that's why their target needs to be flatfooted/flanked. In my book, if you are flatfooted/flanked, there is SOME WAY that a rogue can stick you where it hurts. Period.
Voran 12-20-07, 05:03 AM	There are sentence snippets from the PHB I think apply, and honestly I'm having a hard time figuring out why people think they're so ambiguous. "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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment (refers to page number) or striking the limbs of creatures whose vitals are beyond reach" It seems we're going in circles, but it seems the book is asking us to use good judgment... I mean, it doesn't specify that you CAN'T use a blackjack (sap) on a dragon and somehow beat it senseless, but without using a 'well its a magic sap' explanation, how would one rationalize how its even possible? I mean, as it is, if we go "If the rogue can touch it, its a valid 'vital spot', then by that example, a rogue could BAREHANDEDLY subdue a dragon by punching it repeatedly and somehow be more successful in doing so than the fighter dude or the barbarian dude...or the MONK dude." Sure a Dragon has DR, but past a certain point of Sneak Attk dmg, the rogue is still pumping out stuff. Unless you rule something like "If the pre-Sneak attack damage doesn't bypass the DR, you don't get to apply sneak dmg either."
elonin 12-20-07, 06:26 AM	Those examples of rogues beating dragons senceless with black jacks or by punching appear a bit extreme. I'm not aware of anyone making the arguement that a rogue could accomplish this in one round. In either case the rogue could try with the attacks for a round worth of actions, after which the dragon would likely pulp the poor rogue. Back to the origional conversation. I'm contesting that a rogue doesn't necessarily need to hit a vital area. Instead they need to satisfy the normal conditions of sneak attack by either having their opponent oblivious to them or be distracted by someone else flanking. I can see precision damage to someone attacking only a leg or arm if the other conditions are met. Otherwise why not require the rogue to have ranks in knowledge anatomy and require that they beat a certain dc to get their sneak attack? Of course clerics making heal checks would also need this in order to heal etc. But of course wizards didn't add this knowledge because it adds another level of complexity that the game doesn't need. Lastly, a few people have commented about this; combat isn't static. that really large creature is going to have stoop down in order to fight the smaller opponent.
Orenmir 12-20-07, 10:18 AM	In my book, if you are flatfooted/flanked, there is SOME WAY that a rogue can stick you where it hurts. Period. I'm contesting that a rogue doesn't necessarily need to hit a vital area. Instead they need to satisfy the normal conditions of sneak attack by either having their opponent oblivious to them or be distracted by someone else flanking. I can see precision damage to someone attacking only a leg or arm if the other conditions are met. So, what both of you are saying is that it's OK to SA a creature that has its big toe sticking out of the ground (even though the rest of its body is underground) as long as that big toe is either flanked or flat-footed. IMHO, that directly goes against the PHB RAW which states you can't SA limbs. In the end, it's a houserule that deliberately reverses an official rule. It's only slightly imbalancing (mainly due to its infrequency) and will usually only benefit the PCs. As I said before, the PC that can expand to gargantuan size might get mad when this houserule allows him to get SA'ed by a small enemy. The DM should be prepared to have the PHB thrown in his face if this happens, if he hasn't disclosed said houserule prior.
Enigmis 12-20-07, 10:56 AM	How do you guys explain this The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. It doesn't mention vitals at all, it just says whenever they are denied dex you gain sneak attack.
Orenmir 12-20-07, 11:10 AM	How do you guys explain this It doesn't mention vitals at all, it just says whenever they are denied dex you gain sneak attack. How very "Michael Moore" of you. You've edited out everything but the one part that makes your case. If you keep reading the desciption of SA, you'll find this: A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. ...which is the crux of the debate presented on this thread.
Dog_O_War 12-20-07, 11:40 AM	@ Krusk; That's cool, and It does suck when it feels like it's 100 to 1. As for the grave/golem strike thing; I'm not familiar with those abilities, but I will say that they are probably supernatural ones. Also, I think that I have a good point to render this debate finished. We can agree (I hope) that a creature's limbs, such as the arms, cannot be sneak attacked; this would defeat the whole purpose of reach. The thing of it is that creatures like giants can be monks; kicking is considered an unarmed strike and would provide the same reach. Why would the legs be considered vunerable when it says that limbs are not? If limbs are not vunerable, then only the torso would be, and as you can tell from the size comparision chart in the PHB (looking at the green giant, the ogre, and the human) The ogre comes up to the giant's waist (I know, he's slouching), and the human comes up to the ogre's waist. Combat "stance" aside, You'll note that the human connot hit the green giant in the torso unless he has a long weapon, or jumps or something. This would stand that many (if not all) of his vitals are out of reach unless some type of unique attack were performed. Even though limbs can be attacked and will deliver damage to the creature as a whole, there is nothing in them (usually) that would indicate that a single strike to that area would kill the target. While certain feats will allow you to target these areas specifically with sneak attack, you'll also note that these feats reduce sneak attack in order to apply a specific effect that will only affect said area specifically (like hamstring). You'll also note that while this effect may happen, it has a reduced effect on creatures with multiple legs (in the case of hamstring), until it cannot be applied at all (ie: creature has three pairs of legs or more). You'll also note that it can only be done once, as you only have so many hamstrings; a second hamstring will do nothing. This means that feats such as hamstring, golemstrike, gravestrike, etc... have a very unique effect that does something a regular sneak attack couldn't do otherwise (ie: undead and constructs have no vitals at all, yet you can "vitally" strike them with the feats). These feats (that target certain areas) have the same stipulation; targeting a "non-vital" for sneak attack damage. Since medium to huge comparisons (these are all 'tall' comparisons, not wide - which is a whole 'nother can-o-worms) to medium creatures make sence both logically and mechanically; huge creatures have vitals that are literally our of reach of your normal medium creature (though the thought is stretched thin due to WotC not wanting to jack small creatures completely, giving them the same area as a medium guy). So what I am saying is use your own judgement; if a creature's area says it is three 5ft squares tall, then it stands to reason that some of the vitals will be within reach (2.5ft of them), but if a creature is four 5ft squares tall, then they will be out of reach. As far as "wide" creatures, and creatures with unique shapes; use discression.
elonin 12-20-07, 01:07 PM	So, what both of you are saying is that it's OK to SA a creature that has its big toe sticking out of the ground (even though the rest of its body is underground) as long as that big toe is either flanked or flat-footed. IMHO, that directly goes against the PHB RAW which states you can't SA limbs. In the end, it's a houserule that deliberately reverses an official rule. It's only slightly imbalancing (mainly due to its infrequency) and will usually only benefit the PCs. As I said before, the PC that can expand to gargantuan size might get mad when this houserule allows him to get SA'ed by a small enemy. The DM should be prepared to have the PHB thrown in his face if this happens, if he hasn't disclosed said houserule prior. No Orenmir I'm not suggesting that a creature with only it's toe out of the ground can be attacked. It's got concealment. Please refrain from blowing my arguements out of proportion. As far as I'm aware concealment hasn't come up in this discussion. Please direct me to the direct passage that states you can't sneak attack limbs. Hamstring implies that you can do this normally. How would this only help pc's? It's quite possible that a pc could be fighting from above to the degree that this "ruling" would come into question. I've run into alot of npc rogues etc during my time playing.
Krusk 12-20-07, 02:05 PM	"It's magic" is a non-argument...it's a catchall that allows justification for anything, INCLUDING sneak attacking large creatures even though you can't hit their vitals. How is that dude flying? Well he had the fly spell cast on him. how does that let him fly around like that? Its magic. Same arguement. As for Dogs new point. A Huge+ monk is attacking with his fists and feet right? what about the rogue who slits his wrist? THe limbs themselves are not a vital target, but every limb has a few spots that can be snuck attacked. The wrist, the femoral artery. A couple of placesshowing diagrams of pressure points on the human body, one from wikipedia and two from a reliable source, one massuse and one combat training manual. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Pressure_points.jpg/400px-Pressure_points.jpg http://www.puremassage.co.uk/images/pressurepoints.bmp http://chairforce.com/fit2sit/combat-tactics/chapter_4.htm All of these indicate vital spots on the arms and legs that if struck can take a person out of a fight.
Dog_O_War 12-20-07, 02:09 PM	No Orenmir I'm not suggesting that a creature with only it's toe out of the ground can be attacked. It's got concealment. Please refrain from blowing my arguements out of proportion. As far as I'm aware concealment hasn't come up in this discussion. Please direct me to the direct passage that states you can't sneak attack limbs. Hamstring implies that you can do this normally. How would this only help pc's? It's quite possible that a pc could be fighting from above to the degree that this "ruling" would come into question. I've run into alot of npc rogues etc during my time playing. Acually, hamstring implies that with a feat you can sneak attack an area not nomally pone to sneak attacks, and that creatures with too many limbs are immune. Basically, with a feat you can do anything; cast spells, summon elementals, create duplicates of yourself, etc... Basing an arguement on a feat that allows you to something you normally cannot is hardly an air-tight case. We are saying that a rogue would have to be fighting "from above" in order to gain sneak attack, not that every monster of a larger size is too jaba-the-hutt (ocaja toe-wejo solo wookie-nipple-pinchy) like to stick a weapon in deep enough to be sneak-attacked. It comes down to a reach thing; if you can't strike the "squares" that the vitals are in, then you can't get a sneak attack.
Orenmir 12-20-07, 02:58 PM	Please direct me to the direct passage that states you can't sneak attack limbs. For about the 5th time now in this thread: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. I would guess that since you were unaware of this passage previously, you have now changed your mind about it and conceded the argument. ;)
dndfencer 12-20-07, 03:26 PM	I would say that if an opponent is denied of dex, or the rogue his flanking he gets sneak attack regardless of anatomy for two reason. Firstly, DnD has no specific rules about anatomy. It never says a giant's heart isn't in its toe. The second reason is that if you hit someone with a short sword you have scored a crit. I think of hp not literaly as, you can get hit with an arrow and not stop but rather as you very narrowly dodge that arrow but it takes a lot out you, thus the loss of HP. Seriously, having an 8th level guy who can get his head smashed in with an axe (a crit) and keep going is silly. It might make more sense if that axe hits in in the quadrecep which hurts his capacity to fight immensly (a large loss of hp). The idea comes from the vitality point system, but it still makes sense in an HP system.
Orenmir 12-20-07, 03:41 PM	I would say that if an opponent is denied of dex, or the rogue his flanking he gets sneak attack regardless of anatomy for two reason. Firstly, DnD has no specific rules about anatomy. It never says a giant's heart isn't in its toe. I think it would be best if I just pretended you didn't even write that. Have you read the previous posts in this thread? Please prepare yourself by doing so, if you'd like to join this debate. My apologies, if my tone sounds rude. I just hate having to explain things multiple times.
Dog_O_War 12-20-07, 03:52 PM	I think it would be best if I just pretended you didn't even write that. Have you read the previous posts in this thread? Please prepare yourself by doing so, if you'd like to join this debate. My apologies, if my tone sounds rude. I just hate having to explain things multiple times. I wouldn't appologize, as there is nothing saying that this guy isn't wearing his ass for a hat either.
Enigmis 12-20-07, 08:20 PM	I wouldn't appologize, as there is nothing saying that this guy isn't wearing his ass for a hat either. exactly :rolleyes:
elonin 12-20-07, 08:23 PM	Point taken. Skip Williams also seems to agree with you (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a). Hamstring is poorly written. There should have been a section that states "normal" and "Special" Would you agree that if a huge or bigger creature without reach would have to risk subjecting itself to sneak attack due to bringing his vitals down during every attack? Of course the rogue would have to hold his action till the creature's attack for this to work. The point is that the "attacking ankles" is forbiddin, but it makes sense that if you can get up to the femoral artery that would be counted as a vital area (even being limbish). Also, imagine a creature that is 50' tall (an example given earlier in this topic) fighting a group of small or medium size creatures. It would have to stoop down in order to engage them in melee.
Pandapeep 12-20-07, 10:18 PM	Also, I think that I have a good point to render this debate finished. I've brought up a point several times that should finish this debate, but it has been twice ignored. D&D has no called shots. I can't say whether or not I hit a creatures arm, head, hand, chest, leg, crotch ect. So, then, why can you as a DM say where I hit? You can't. At least not by the rules.
Crimson_Concerto 12-20-07, 11:30 PM	I've brought up a point several times that should finish this debate, but it has been twice ignored. D&D has no called shots. I can't say whether or not I hit a creatures arm, head, hand, chest, leg, crotch ect. So, then, why can you as a DM say where I hit? You can't. At least not by the rules.Pandapeep has an extremely valid point. Also, what you people keep forgetting is that we're NOT debating whether or not Rogues SHOULD be able to sneak attack giants if they can in certain instances only reach their big toe. We're arguing whether or not they CAN by the RAW, any by the RAW, there is no distribution of vitals among squares the creature occupies, because CREATURES MOVE. If it helps you at all, stop thinking of a huge creature as being nine 5ft. squares. It's not. It's a single 15 ft. square. By the RAW, it doesn't matter if you can hit all of it or even most of it. Either you can hit it or you can't. Whether it SHOULD be that way or not is NOT the issue. The issue isn't even whether that makes any sense at all. It's whether or not it works within the rules, and it does, because for simplicity's sake, the game designers decided that a creature is assumed to be spread uniformly throughout the square it occupies. If you decide to rule that logic and reasoning dictate that the rogue can't sneak attack this giant, whatever, but that's your house rule, not the RAW which is what we're supposed to be discussing if I'm not mistaken.
drunkman 12-21-07, 12:59 AM	I dont think it should matter. First of all, hands, chest, head, feat, etc. don't matter in the game. Second,you can argue that sneak attack means you hit a "vital spot" by an artery or vein and/pr that you made an especially deep cut that deals more damge, a sneak attack doesn't necessarily have to come from hitting someone in the crotch.
drunkman 12-21-07, 01:03 AM	And let me add, it doesn't have to make complete sense with reality, if we were technical about everything, the game would be too complicated, or maybe it would be unfair for a particular size, if large creatures can't be sneak attacked, that would be unfair. Let's go with the rules here.
Voran 12-21-07, 02:35 AM	A rogue's sneak attack ability depends entirely on its ability to reach the vital spots. It doesn't say it can't do it at range. Indeed it says that if you've got reach enough (melee or ranged) within 30 feet of said vitals, you can still do it. All it means is the rogue has to be willing to change tactics a bit if they want to use sneak attack. In this case, if whaling on a dragon, you switch from your pig-sticker, to a bow or crossbow or something that you can use to flick things into its face or under its 'armpit' or whatever. Or you start stabbing it with a spear or something. Or you use your previous actions to set you up in a way that makes it possible to reach vitals with your pigsticker, like tumble or climb or something to get on the dragon.
zuul88 12-21-07, 03:39 AM	As a DM, I'd rather rule that you can Hamstring when vitals are out of reach than you can SA when vitals are out of reach. Barring RAW or RAI, the mechanics make perfect sense. In 3 pages of sanctimonous crap(i will have the spelling of sanctimonous pointed out to me, too) this is the BEST one. YOU ARE HOUSERULING!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are fabricating rules out of thin air. "Barring" RAW (since RAI is a completely seperate fabrication I wont get into here) means you ARE ignoring the rules and writing your own. You can do that, its D&D but that doesnt make it everyones rules. It makes it your own made up rules loosely based on D&D that make you much happier then RAW. You do need to make up about 700 more to please a player like me. I would run you ragded, slow down combat, and generally make the gaming experience horrible for all involed. Why would I do this you ask. Mainly to highlight why DMs shouldnt meddle in affairs above there paygrade. Calm down and play a cleric. Respect Nathan P.S. If you dont think an Achillies Heel is vital, talk to Achillies about it.
elonin 12-21-07, 06:27 AM	Zuul88, if you don't mind me saying so; you'd do better by attacking the substance of what you disagree with. While I haven't agreeed with everything orenmir has said, he doesn't rate this personal attack. In this case he was commenting on how he sees the situation with sneak attack altered by hamstring. I disagree with orenmir but would rather debate the subject not the person. Flame wars have started in similiar ways.
drunkman 12-21-07, 10:50 AM	Again, the rules shouldn't be in complete touch with reality or else the sneak attack ability will lose almost all its power. If you're all technical with size, then larger creatures can't sneak attack smaller ones. Lets say you are a medum character and try to sneak attack a fly, you can't really see its vital area, so I can argue that you can't sneak attack really small creatures either. Then the sneak attack will limit you to around up to 1 size smaller and one size larger, in other words, you can't sneak attack creatues two sizes larger or smaller. It'll completely ruin the value of sneak attack if you are very limited to a few particular creatures. Let's just play by the rules and not have this body part and size thing as a factor.
Dog_O_War 12-21-07, 10:56 AM	I've brought up a point several times that should finish this debate, but it has been twice ignored. D&D has no called shots. I can't say whether or not I hit a creatures arm, head, hand, chest, leg, crotch ect. So, then, why can you as a DM say where I hit? You can't. At least not by the rules. I gave you your reason, but you clearly weren't interested in hearing how the rules would tell you where you can hit. Originally posted by Dog_O_War, back on the 4th page in response to Pandadeep You can, by rule, say where you hit. If a monster is 20ft tall, and you are using a longsword as a medium creature, then you can only hit him in the first 10ft of his "person". Since our bodies (like many of the human-shaped monsters) are roughly half legs half torso. Seeing as the legs contain no vitals, you cannot possibly've hit this creature in a vital spot. The same goes to a colassal dragon sticking his claw through a doorway; since every part of him has full cover except his claw, you cannot strike him in the face, the body, the tail, the rear leg, etc... Also, for the "monster has to lower his body in order to hit" thinking; most monsters where this would matter usually use weapons. This gives them about their arms' length in weapon that they can use to reach you. For ones that don't, and just use slam attacks; maybe. This would be up to the DM, but if you're willing to hold an action (risking to be hit as well) just to get in a sneak attack, then I'd probably let it slide. For Crimson_Concerto; read this story. ...This reminded me of a story I was told from my (older) friends in a game they played back in 2nd ED. The DM had them fighting a bebelith (that demon-spider thing). clearly it is tall; it is a huge spider. it sat at twice the height as the rest of the party, and the wizard wanted to throw a lightning bolt at it; he stated that, "I aim high, at the creature's head-height so as to miss my allies". This is fine; the game allows for 3-D combat; since the lightning bolt only covered a 5ft pathway (safe to assume a 5ft retangular prism, 400ft long) and yet the DM said, "okay, everyone make their saving throws." He hit them all, and killed one party member. Clearly this was a fault in logic as they would not have been in the area of effect, yet to the DM, everything was flat. Basically I'm saying get out of the flat 16th century, and into the round 21st one. I put this up back on the third page. It goes to say that people who treat the game as a flat world need to get out of the past. Monsters are not a 15ft square, as if you check the entire entry (especially for giants) they give a height. Sinse a 6'0" person generally does not have 5 & 1/2 feet of torso, it is safe to assume that neither do other humanoid creatures (that is have a torso that covers 90% of their bodies). "By the RAW", it states that if you can reach the base square, then you can attack the creature, but it does not "by the RAW" state that you automatically qualify for things such as sneak attack. For drunkman; it does matter where you strike. You cannot kill a hydra by striking the body - it needs to be hit in it's heads. Cutting the head off of living human will kill it, where as a zombie will not, so it matters here as well. If you cut the arm off of an ogre, then clearly if he survives he won't be using any two-handed weapons again. Chopping the eye-stalks of a beholder off gets rid of those special attacks it has, so again, where you strike matters. For Zuul88; Orenmir was ruling in favor of a poorly worded feat that allows you to do what he's saying anyways. No fabrication, no ignorance, just stating more clearly what the feat allows. Also, crack a book; Achillies didn't die from being shot in the heel, it was the tendon. He didn't even make it to the beaches of Greece. And you don't need sneak attack to kill an opponent, so try and not to meddle in affairs that are above your paygrade.
Dog_O_War 12-21-07, 11:02 AM	Again, the rules shouldn't be in complete touch with reality or else the sneak attack ability will lose almost all its power. If you're all technical with size, then larger creatures can't sneak attack smaller ones. Lets say you are a medum character and try to sneak attack a fly, you can't really see its vital area, so I can argue that you can't sneak attack really small creatures either. Then the sneak attack will limit you to around up to 1 size smaller and one size larger, in other words, you can't sneak attack creatues two sizes larger or smaller. It'll completely ruin the value of sneak attack if you are very limited to a few particular creatures. Let's just play by the rules and not have this body part and size thing as a factor. Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital.
Enigmis 12-21-07, 11:03 AM	I put this up back on the third page. It goes to say that people who treat the game as a flat world need to get out of the past. Monsters are not a 15ft square, as if you check the entire entry (especially for giants) they give a height. In DnD, yes they are. Also, crack a book; Achillies didn't die from being shot in the heel, it was the tendon My sources say heel, where do you get tendon. I might be wrong, but want to know your source.
Orenmir 12-21-07, 11:30 AM	Well, I think my ability to contribute to this debate has finally become saturated. I felt like responding to some of the recent posts, but then I realized I would just be repeating many things I've already stated. The timing is right, since I'll be away from computers for the next 2 weeks (like many of you, I'm sure). This was a great debate; many solid arguments on both sides. Don't let it get out of hand like the "When do AoOs refresh?" debate on the DM Rules Counselling board! Thanks for the support, Dog. And thanks for watchin my back, Elonin, about the comments from Zuul. No worries -- those type of comments roll off my back. I prefer sticking with the intelligent debate. Keep it civil. And, I hope this horse is dead when I return! Cheers, Big O.
Dog_O_War 12-21-07, 11:58 AM	In DnD, yes they are. My sources say heel, where do you get tendon. I might be wrong, but want to know your source. Combat is 3d; so they cannot be flat. As for the heel question; there is no "achillies heel" to be struck. Achillies was struck in the heel, not the 'achillies heel'. And it was with a poisoned arrow. But even this is unclear. While I cannot quote my sources (as this knowledge stems from years ago reading old greek mythology books in the library, when I should've been doing other things), the name achillies tendon comes from somewhere, and that is the mythical figure Achillies - which goes to say that it may have well been the tendon that was hit, and not the heel.
Crimson_Concerto 12-22-07, 01:57 AM	For Crimson_Concerto; read this story.Actually, I DID read that story, and pointing it out to me again changes absolutely nothing about my argument or my point, so I would appreciate it very much if you would try responding to my last argument again but this time under the assumption that I HAVE read the rest of this thread, because I have. Monsters are not a 15ft squareThen pretend I said cube. I apologize if the term I used was not clear enough. I am quite familiar with 3D combat, and again, it changes nothing about my argument. "By the RAW", it states that if you can reach the base square, then you can attack the creature, but it does not "by the RAW" state that you automatically qualify for things such as sneak attack.Nothing within the rules indicates otherwise, I'm afraid. As far as the rules go, you either can hit a creature or you can't. Again, whether or not it makes sense isn't the debate. I agree that it probably makes very little sense in many cases, but that's not the point now is it? No, the question is about the rules, not about the logic. We're not trying to explain to you that your way of thinking is illogical. We're explaining to you that the rules are illogical. Yes, we can justify many of them with logic, but we only do that to try to make you feel better about how the rules actually are. It doesn't actually change a thing. It doesn't change the fact that they are the rules and doing anything otherwise is house-ruling. So AGAIN, the RULES for simplicity's sake assumes that a creature is basically a homogeneous cube, and so it doesn't matter where on the cube you hit or where you hit it from, because it's all the same. Is that logical? Of course not. Does it prevent us from wasting time determining exactly how a creature is positioned? Yes. It's all about elegant simplicity. If you want to complicate your game, go on ahead, but your complications are not a part of the RAW.
elonin 12-22-07, 06:15 AM	There are a few places in the rules that suggest that for a potential sneak attack requires that you have to have the possibility of being able to hit the vitals. It is said in the PHB and in the sneak attack SRD.
HassanNinkin 12-22-07, 08:30 AM	MY 2 cents if I may. People who ask for RAW don't know how to play, so they just read the rules as they go. People who know how to play are able to work over, under, and around the rules to have a great gaming session. The RAW lawyers all conveniently ignore the explicitly written rules that "The DM is allowed to change any and all of the rules." Those of us in the pro-Fiat camp know that rule as well and we use it because it's part of the game and it's what separates D&D from WoW. If you're offended by this, it's probably because you igore rule zero.
Dog_O_War 12-22-07, 10:54 AM	MY 2 cents if I may. People who ask for RAW don't know how to play, so they just read the rules as they go. People who know how to play are able to work over, under, and around the rules to have a great gaming session. The RAW lawyers all conveniently ignore the explicitly written rules that "The DM is allowed to change any and all of the rules." Those of us in the pro-Fiat camp know that rule as well and we use it because it's part of the game and it's what separates D&D from WoW. If you're offended by this, it's probably because you igore rule zero. I am OFFENDED!!! No, not really. While I see this statement as somewhat cryptic, after a bit of deciphering I can agree. Originally posted by Crimson_Concerto Nothing within the rules indicates otherwise, I'm afraid. As far as the rules go, you either can hit a creature or you can't. Not to sound like a broken record, but please read what I post, not just respond to it. "By the RAW", it states that if you can reach the base square, then you can attack the creature, but it does not "by the RAW" state that you automatically qualify for things such as sneak attack. You quoted me as saying this, and yet your response is as if you never read it. It says exactly what you said; by the rules you can hit a creature if you can reach the base square. But it also says that you do not automatically qualify for sneak attack; you need to have other conditions met (be in reach of vitals, flanking, enemy flat-footed, etc...). Also, if you go back a couple of posts (one of elonin's), one of the creators (Skip Williams) happens to agree with myself and Orenmir on this subject.
kelvinaw273 12-22-07, 01:57 PM	I claim a cookie - the sneak attack mentioned was in Return of the King (Merry against the Witch-king of Angmar, IIRC). Incidentally, this supports the notion that a sneak attack can cripple an opponent not subject to the extra damage - if a Nazgul isn't undead, what is? Returning to the point - I seem to remember that the bit about "being able to reach the vitals" is quantified in the RAW into a maximum 2-step difference in size (thus a halfling can sneak attack a Large opponent at most). Reasoning behind it? Well, in the case of big, tall opponents maybe you just can't reach its left kidney. In some other cases, maybe your blade simply isn't long enough to reach anything important through the skin and tissue, or you can't put enough force behind the blow? (A STR 16 hobbit is weaker than a STR 16 human, as evidenced by the carrying capacity rules.) I would put in a feat similar to the one mentioned, with rather more general applicability - that even if you can't sneak attack you can do some sort of specific damage that limits mobility - damaging the wing fabric of a (small) dragon for example. Well done - here's you cookie! :cookie: Although the ring-wraiths were not described as undead ... they were still-living men, although very altered by the power of the Rings. My point, though is this: if you rule that to sneak attack you have to hit the vitals, this implies that when you sneak attack successfully, you DO hit the vitals. At the same time, it doesn't exactly specify what 'vitals' are, although the implication is vitals = vital organs. Let me give you two examples; Roger the Rogue sneak attacks a foe as combat opens, and inflicts 20hp of damage: 1) Foe is medium-sized human, therefore rogue has hit the vitals, right? Wrong! this is Boris the Bold, with 100 hp left - he has only lost 20% of his hits, no way was that a hit on the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, brain etc. 2) Foe is Gerry the Giant, with 200 hp. Now has the sneak attack been successful if Gerry's vital organs are out of reach for the Rogue? Is it sane that unskilled but big Gerry takes LESS proportional damage from the Rogue than skillful but small Boris because Roger couldn't hit the vital organs, when we ruled on Boris that he didn't hit the vital organs? I would argue that, in both cases, 'vitals' means "inflicting damage out of proportion to the striking weapons normal capability in the rogues hands by using a precise attack at weaknesses he knows". Whether you strike an artery in a giant's ankle or score a near-miss on a man's kidney is immaterial - either uses precision to score significant damage beyond normal given the vague nature of the hit-point system. That last bit has to be born in mind, every time.
Dog_O_War 12-22-07, 02:21 PM	Well done - here's you cookie! :cookie: Although the ring-wraiths were not described as undead ... they were still-living men, although very altered by the power of the Rings. My point, though is this: if you rule that to sneak attack you have to hit the vitals, this implies that when you sneak attack successfully, you DO hit the vitals. At the same time, it doesn't exactly specify what 'vitals' are, although the implication is vitals = vital organs. Let me give you two examples; Roger the Rogue sneak attacks a foe as combat opens, and inflicts 20hp of damage: 1) Foe is medium-sized human, therefore rogue has hit the vitals, right? Wrong! this is Boris the Bold, with 100 hp left - he has only lost 20% of his hits, no way was that a hit on the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, brain etc. 2) Foe is Gerry the Giant, with 200 hp. Now has the sneak attack been successful if Gerry's vital organs are out of reach for the Rogue? Is it sane that unskilled but big Gerry takes LESS proportional damage from the Rogue than skillful but small Boris because Roger couldn't hit the vital organs, when we ruled on Boris that he didn't hit the vital organs? Does it make sense that Tina the tiny fey, who just so happens to be a 40th level barbarian has 600HP, as compared to Gerry's 200? Hit points and size are completely different matters, and are not on topic with this thread. Proportional damage has nothing to do with striking a vital, as there is only one indicator as to how well that vital was struck; the roll of the dice. I would argue that, in both cases, 'vitals' means "inflicting damage out of proportion to the striking weapons normal capability in the rogues hands by using a precise attack at weaknesses he knows". Whether you strike an artery in a giant's ankle or score a near-miss on a man's kidney is immaterial - either uses precision to score significant damage beyond normal given the vague nature of the hit-point system. That last bit has to be born in mind, every time. Again, this is a system flaw (hit points) ans has no bearing on if you were in reach of a vital, or actually struck a vital. Start another thread and we will discuss this there. Also, you'd be wrong and your arguement would fail if you were to say, "'vitals' means "inflicting damage out of proportion to the striking weapons normal capability in the rogues hands by using a precise attack at weaknesses he knows." This is because sneak attack is defined as If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. Key word being extra damage, not, "damage out of proportion to the weapon". Your weapon's damage does not change; only damage is added (or subtracted in the case of DR). Proportions have nothing to do with it, it is the skill of the rogue that matters.
Crimson_Concerto 12-22-07, 02:47 PM	Not to sound like a broken record, but please read what I post, not just respond to it.I do read what you post. You just don't like my responses to it. You quoted me as saying this, and yet your response is as if you never read it. It says exactly what you said; by the rules you can hit a creature if you can reach the base square. But it also says that you do not automatically qualify for sneak attack; you need to have other conditions met (be in reach of vitals, flanking, enemy flat-footed, etc...).No, no. You misunderstand. Now you're the one ignoring half of what I say, and the part you've just responded to wasn't the important part. We already agree on that part. I'm not arguing with you there. THIS was the important part we disagree on: So AGAIN, the RULES for simplicity's sake assumes that a creature is basically a homogeneous cube, and so it doesn't matter where on the cube you hit or where you hit it from, because it's all the same. Is that logical? Of course not. Does it prevent us from wasting time determining exactly how a creature is positioned? Yes. It's all about elegant simplicity. Also, if you go back a couple of posts (one of elonin's), one of the creators (Skip Williams) happens to agree with myself and Orenmir on this subject.Honestly, I don't care. Appeal to authority has never worked on me, and he's only saying the same thing you are. If he at least had some different argument, I might be more inclined to feel that article was significant. ... Hmm... Maybe this'll work if I approach it from a different angle... Okay, I got it. Let's see if this works: Let's pretend for a moment that the game had no rules for whether or not a creature has a discernible anatomy. Yes, I know it's kind of a stretch, but try to stick with me here... Well, the Rogue class clearly says that you don't get sneak attack versus creatures without a discernible anatomy, right? We all understand that. It seems pretty straightforward... But there's a problem. The rules of the game have left it up to us as DMs to decide whether or not a creature has a discernible anatomy. Now, one DM might rule that, say, an animated chariot has no biological anatomy. That makes sense, right? Problem: That ruling is not supported by the rules, and sneak attack can also be justified if the Rogue in question, say, strikes an important part of the chariot's stricture that holds the entire thing together, say the axle or something, I don't know. After all, it's not so difficult to pick out different parts of a chariot's structure. Does that count as a discernible "anatomy"? After all, "anatomy" doesn't just need to be biological. So what just happened? Because the makers of the game inserted a line of text that actually had no bearing on the game's rules, it has caused overly complex controversy, and this is a problem because DMs who ignore that little line are still following the rules (because the rules never actually spells out what it means by "anatomy"), and DMs who try to actually determine for themselves what an "anatomy" is supposed to be referring to are trying to follow the spirit of the rule more closely, but doing so REQUIRES that they house rule what does and does not have a discernible anatomy, which may seems pretty simple in some cases, but there are grayer areas, and in fact, there are many creatures in D&D now for which you could propose that no discernible anatomy exists. For example, what if a DM ruled that Outsiders or something actually had no discernible anatomy? Demons and Angels are supernatural enough that one could propose their forms are merely shaped into familiar forms suitable for their purpose. Whatever's actually vital to them isn't what their bodies hold but in fact the holy or unholy energy that embodies them. This is even supported by the idea that you can't bring an Outsider back to life because no amount of repair to their physical bodies actually matters, because their holy or unholy connection has already been severed, and that was the only thing actually vital to their existence. Is this an illogical ruling with absolutely no bearing on actually game mechanics? Definitely, I'd never rule something like that. It only serves to screw over the players. The problem is that it IS at least somewhat justifiable when you're trying to house rule what does and does not have a discernible anatomy yourself. SO if the game had no actual rules on what had a discernible anatomy, would you house rule or not? FORTUNATELY, the rules actually do tell us what does and does not have a discernible anatomy, so BS like this doesn't come up. UNFORTUNATELY, this kind of BS still happens with the line we're currently discussing, because the rules have decided to remain completely silent and require that a DM house rule in order to make a rule actually work. SO I'm NOT saying your position makes no sense. In fact, in many places, it's actually very logical. All I'm saying is that you're house ruling in order to make the line of the Sneak Attack description work.
drunkman 12-22-07, 04:24 PM	Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital. Well, then, shouldn't all larger creatures than a fly have a natural sneak attack (w/o having a class that does so) since their huge attacks are guarenteed to hit a vital spot. That seems unfair to me. And then shouldn't larger creatures gain no additional sneak attack bonuses from classes since they can't even see the vital area? it does matter where you strike. You cannot kill a hydra by striking the body - it needs to be hit in it's heads. Cutting the head off of living human will kill it, where as a zombie will not, so it matters here as well. If you cut the arm off of an ogre, then clearly if he survives he won't be using any two-handed weapons again. Chopping the eye-stalks of a beholder off gets rid of those special attacks it has, so again, where you strike matters. Technecally, yes, but if we were completely reality checking, the rules would be too complicated and perhaps give unfair advantages to certain creatures. This sneak attack rules you want would give a complete advantage to larger creatures,who dont even have to invest a lot of levels in a rogue to be great sneak attackers because they would already "hit" all the "vital spots" with their huge weapons, but the smallest creature, even with 1 million levels of rogue, can't sneak attack a single thing. Is this a fair D&D game? Being technecal also can take all the fun out of it. For example, magic and all these monsters and races are completely out of touch with reality just like the sneak attack rule, I guess we should take all that away too.
drunkman 12-22-07, 04:46 PM	Crimson_Concerto is totally right. And I'd like to add to his point. So we explained how technecally larger creatures and outsiders also can't e sneak attacked. But what about elementals. For them, An Earth elemental, a creature of stone, has vital areas WHERE? What about fire, where's fire's vital area, so same goes for fire elementals. What about wind and water? There goes elementals. And aberrations, huh? How can their atonomy be discerned or even if the HAVE vital areas. And dragons. Last time I checked, vital areas, WHERE? Especially those metallic dragons, they're big hunks a metal with some life in em, if that's one way you think about it, where's their discinerable atonomy? So that's all creatures too large plus all constructs, oozes, undead, outsiders, elementals, aberrations, and dragons that can't be sneak attacked. We might as well not have sneak attack as class feature.
zuul88 12-22-07, 08:13 PM	Zuul88, if you don't mind me saying so; you'd do better by attacking the substance of what you disagree with. While I haven't agreeed with everything orenmir has said, he doesn't rate this personal attack. In this case he was commenting on how he sees the situation with sneak attack altered by hamstring. I disagree with orenmir but would rather debate the subject not the person. Flame wars have started in similiar ways. I attacked the substance of what was said. I didnt call him a retard who wandered off the short bus into this thread. That is a personal attack. By the way, where is the substance of their argument? The rules are you cant SA someone with cover/concealment, or "limbs." That is fine since the only time I would SA "limbs" is when the creature itself has cover or concealment. Respect Nathan P.S. I am a Thread-Killer!! The only way to deal with trolls is with fire. You will not be confused if I am starting a flame-war.
Dog_O_War 12-22-07, 11:11 PM	No, no. You misunderstand. Now you're the one ignoring half of what I say, and the part you've just responded to wasn't the important part. We already agree on that part. I'm not arguing with you there. THIS was the important part we disagree on: Originally Posted by Crimson_Concerto So AGAIN, the RULES for simplicity's sake assumes that a creature is basically a homogeneous cube, and so it doesn't matter where on the cube you hit or where you hit it from, because it's all the same. Is that logical? Of course not. Does it prevent us from wasting time determining exactly how a creature is positioned? Yes. It's all about elegant simplicity. Okay, this is what I've been trying to say to you; the rules do not assume this; you do. The rules assume that you take up a cube; not a full cube, but X number of cubes is considered "occupied" by your person. A medium creature takes up one 5ft cube. A large(tall) creature takes up two 5ft cubes, one stacked on top of another. A huge(tall) creature takes up twelve 5ft cubes; 10ft by 10ft, three high (that's four 5ft cubes per layer). Striking the bottom cube will not glean you a head-shot; it just does not work this way. Unless I'm missing something, this is what you're trying to convince me of. Honestly, I don't care. Appeal to authority has never worked on me, and he's only saying the same thing you are. If he at least had some different argument, I might be more inclined to feel that article was significant. By this paragraph you're saying that the guy who wrote the rules is wrong. Appealing to "authority" has nothing to do with it. It isn't the same as getting a cop to rule that crossing the street is illegal; while his ruling may stand, he didn't write it, he just enforces it. The person I refer to wrote it. Hmm... Maybe this'll work if I approach it from a different angle... Okay, I got it. Let's see if this works: Let's pretend for a moment that the game had no rules for whether or not a creature has a discernible anatomy. Yes, I know it's kind of a stretch, but try to stick with me here... Well, the Rogue class clearly says that you don't get sneak attack versus creatures without a discernible anatomy, right? We all understand that. It seems pretty straightforward... But there's a problem. The rules of the game have left it up to us as DMs to decide whether or not a creature has a discernible anatomy. Now, one DM might rule that, say, an animated chariot has no biological anatomy. That makes sense, right? Problem: That ruling is not supported by the rules, and sneak attack can also be justified if the Rogue in question, say, strikes an important part of the chariot's stricture that holds the entire thing together, say the axle or something, I don't know. This is a very bad example because an animated chariot falls under the category of construct (see animated objects in the MM). And as a construct, it says specifically that a rogue cannot sneak attack it. So there is no proper justification; a better example would've been the chaos beast as it is a living creature that has no discernable anatomy due to its constantly shifting form. But even then this is a bad example as it is immune to critical hits. Bad for you that is, as it follows the lines of the sneak attack entry perfectly; Quoted from the SRD A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. As you can tell, those creatures with discernable anatomies will not have an entry that says "immune to critical hits" or one of the other disqualifiers (undead, elemental, etc...) After all, it's not so difficult to pick out different parts of a chariot's structure. Does that count as a discernible "anatomy"? After all, "anatomy" doesn't just need to be biological. Actually, anatomy does need to be biological as it is the consideration of the structure of living things (this can be found at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy), in the very first paragraph). So what just happened? Because the makers of the game inserted a line of text that actually had no bearing on the game's rules, it has caused overly complex controversy, and this is a problem because DMs who ignore that little line are still following the rules (because the rules never actually spells out what it means by "anatomy"), and DMs who try to actually determine for themselves what an "anatomy" is supposed to be referring to are trying to follow the spirit of the rule more closely, but doing so REQUIRES that they house rule what does and does not have a discernible anatomy, which may seems pretty simple in some cases, but there are grayer areas, and in fact, there are many creatures in D&D now for which you could propose that no discernible anatomy exists. Actually, the rules assume (poorly) that the players have cracked a book other than the PHB. For example, what if a DM ruled that Outsiders or something actually had no discernible anatomy? Demons and Angels are supernatural enough that one could propose their forms are merely shaped into familiar forms suitable for their purpose. Whatever's actually vital to them isn't what their bodies hold but in fact the holy or unholy energy that embodies them. This is even supported by the idea that you can't bring an Outsider back to life because no amount of repair to their physical bodies actually matters, because their holy or unholy connection has already been severed, and that was the only thing actually vital to their existence. This is wrong, and the DM would be changing the rules as most outsiders have the same weaknesses as everyone else, unless stated otherwise (ie: they die from a vorpal weapon, and do not include the lines "immune to critical hits", which is the bench-marker on whether something has a discernable anatomy or not). Is this an illogical ruling with absolutely no bearing on actually game mechanics? Definitely, I'd never rule something like that. It only serves to screw over the players. The problem is that it IS at least somewhat justifiable when you're trying to house rule what does and does not have a discernible anatomy yourself. As I've shown here several times now, this rule does have bearing on the games' mechanics. SO if the game had no actual rules on what had a discernible anatomy, would you house rule or not? FORTUNATELY, the rules actually do tell us what does and does not have a discernible anatomy, so BS like this doesn't come up. UNFORTUNATELY, this kind of BS still happens with the line we're currently discussing, because the rules have decided to remain completely silent and require that a DM house rule in order to make a rule actually work. I'm not sure what part of the definitions and examples were "unclear" in the PHB. Anatomy is not just a word describing inards of a mechanation (be it live or dead), just as vitals, discernable, and immunity all have very specific meanings as well. SO I'm NOT saying your position makes no sense. In fact, in many places, it's actually very logical. All I'm saying is that you're house ruling in order to make the line of the Sneak Attack description work. Actually, what you're saying is that my position has no place within the rules themselves; with the dissection of your post here, I hope you see they do. Also, I don't mean to sound like some kind of jerk here; I know that my writing style comes off that way (alot), but I have no ill-will towards you. I just find it tough sometimes attempting to explain myself; I'll jump to what I deem a logical conclusion, and state it, but forget to mention how I got there - I'll jump from A to G without mentioning letters B through F. Now fer the rest of you; drunkman; The game does not regulate size well when class is concerned. A tiny fey rogue 1 and a colossal giant rogue 1 deal the same damage with a sneak attack; 1d6. This is not a flaw of size anatomy but a flaw of size and class ability. As for completely reality-checking; you'll note that unless a creature's entry states specifically (or by class or weapon ability), you can never strike a specific part. This is known as the hit-points system. You'll also note that when you strike a vital, it does not say which vital you've struck. This system stays away from specifics like this. Otherwise When I sneak-attacked (and knew that the hit would not kill) I'd hit the eyes all the time. As for the "rightness" of Crimson_Concerto that you agree with, read this post again so you too can asimilate the information I've laid down here. zuul88; I cast ten searing fireballs at you.
Krusk 12-23-07, 02:17 AM	By this paragraph you're saying that the guy who wrote the rules is wrong. Appealing to "authority" has nothing to do with it. It isn't the same as getting a cop to rule that crossing the street is illegal; while his ruling may stand, he didn't write it, he just enforces it. The person I refer to wrote it. While he wrote it, he may have written something and intended for another to be obvious. This happens to everyone from time time. As you can tell, those creatures with discernable anatomies will not have an entry that says "immune to critical hits" or one of the other disqualifiers (undead, elemental, etc...) Actually, anatomy does need to be biological as it is the consideration of the structure of living things (this can be found at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy), in the very first paragraph). And according to a reliable soucre, not wikipedia, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anatomy anatomy can be used to mean anything animal or plant. Or perhapse they intended a diffrent definition, the one meaning "a skeleton". Just thought that was interesting. Actually, the rules assume (poorly) that the players have cracked a book other than the PHB. Rules should not be doing this. Rules should be the most basic thing, and cover every instance and explain everything in a very cut and dry manner. I just find it tough sometimes attempting to explain myself; I'll jump to what I deem a logical conclusion, and state it, but forget to mention how I got there - I'll jump from A to G without mentioning letters B through F. Perhapse the writes of the PHB did the same.
Crimson_Concerto 12-23-07, 02:52 AM	Okay, this is what I've been trying to say to you; the rules do not assume this; you do. The rules assume that you take up a cube; not a full cube, but X number of cubes is considered "occupied" by your person. A medium creature takes up one 5ft cube. A large(tall) creature takes up two 5ft cubes, one stacked on top of another. A huge(tall) creature takes up twelve 5ft cubes; 10ft by 10ft, three high (that's four 5ft cubes per layer). Striking the bottom cube will not glean you a head-shot; it just does not work this way. Unless I'm missing something, this is what you're trying to convince me of.Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to convince you of. In fact, a large creature does NOT take up 8 5x5x5 cubes. It takes up a single 10x10x10 cube. This is the same way the a medium creature takes up a single 5x5x5 cube and not 125 1x1x1 cubes. By this paragraph you're saying that the guy who wrote the rules is wrong.No, I'm saying his intent isn't what actually happened. This is a very bad example because an animated chariot falls under the category of construct (see animated objects in the MM). And as a construct, it says specifically that a rogue cannot sneak attack it.Actually, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example. In my proposed hypothetical situation where the rules don't ever specify what does or does not have a discernible anatomy, so an animated chariot would not ever be specified not to have a discernible anatomy, and as I subsequently showed, there would be possible justification for sneak attack being able to work since certain parts of a chariot are more vital to its construction than others. Actually, anatomy does need to be biological as it is the consideration of the structure of living things (this can be found at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy), in the very first paragraph).Anatomy is actually very often used in the non-biological metaphorical sense. If the PHB did not clarify what it meant in anatomy (by making accompanying rules for it such as being able to be critted upon, etc.), just as it doesn't clarify what it means by vitals being in reach, it could be justifiable to sneak attack a chariot the same way that within the current rules it's justifiable to sneak attack a creature 5 size categories larger. Actually, the rules assume (poorly) that the players have cracked a book other than the PHB.Cute, but you failed to make any kind of actual valid point with that remark, so... yeah... This is wrong, and the DM would be changing the rules as most outsiders have the same weaknesses as everyone else, unless stated otherwise (ie: they die from a vorpal weapon, and do not include the lines "immune to critical hits", which is the bench-marker on whether something has a discernible anatomy or not).THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! :D In a world where discernible anatomy isn't defined, it's unjustifiable to rule that outsiders don't have the same weaknesses as everybody else unless stated otherwise. With the same line of reasoning we can conclude that in this world where reaching vitals is not defined, it is unjustifiable to rule that huge creatures don't have the same weaknesses as medium ones unless stated otherwise. As I've shown here several times now, this rule does have bearing on the games' mechanics.See, you've actually helped to prove my point again. The paragraph you just responded to was NOT about reaching vitals. It was about the hypothetical situation in which discernible anatomy is not defined. You just said you would agree with the validity of a ruling that outsiders shouldn't be able to be sneak attacked (illogical by your beloved Occam's Razor)? And that it wouldn't be a house rule? ;) Actually, what you're saying is that my position has no place within the rules themselves; with the dissection of your post here, I hope you see they do.Nope. No luck yet. :P Also, I don't mean to sound like some kind of jerk here; I know that my writing style comes off that way (alot), but I have no ill-will towards you.Please, I write the same way. No harm no foul so long as you promise not to take too seriously my own somewhat condescending tone. :P
Dragoncat 12-23-07, 02:55 AM	Going to chime in here, kind of an outsider perspective. I'm for the "Just let them sneak attack" crowd, but I'll try to be open minded for this section. Here's my problem with the ruling. It's vague. This is the part where people violently disagree. So far, I keep seeing references to anatomy, how we all know what that is. That's not the problem. It's the reach. If a rule is vague, that means it leaves out some section for arbitrary decision making. If it is clear, we can apply it very easily, almost like a formula, yes? Now, take the following situation. We have a halfling, a gnome, a dwarf, an elf, a human, and a goliath, all rogues. Each is carrying a dagger, a shortsword, a longsword, a bastard sword, and a greatsword. They are facing off against a troll, an orge, a hill giant, a fire giant, an ettin, a frost giant, a cloud giant, and a storm giant. To give some comparisons, the heights are, respectively, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, ~6, 7-8 feet tall for the rogues, and the opponents are 9, 9-10, 10.5, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 21 feet tall. The storm and cloud giants are huge, by the by. The various weapon sizes, sadly, are disputed depending on the source, and the fact that some will by small sized versus medium may cause a bit of difficulty, sorry. I'll let you come up with exactly how long each weapon is, just keep it uniform, yes?. If the rule is perfectly clear, the following question should be easy. With what weapons, exactly, can each rogue sneak attack each monster? ... ... ... ... Having fun yet? Now then, let's say that question is answered. On to the next challenge of the day! Having defeated the giant horde, our heroic rogues face off against a new challenge, the vermin room! Inside they face nine beasts, sets of three Monstrous Spiders, Monstrous Scorpions, and Monstrous Centipedes. Each set, spider, centipede, and scorpion, comes in Large, Huge, and Gargantuan varieties. With what weapons can each rogue sneak attack each monster? ... ... ... ... For those who thought that was an amusing exercise, wait until I bring out the aboleth. If you can answer both of these questions, with exact reasoning that will allow us to apply the same rule to any monster within the manual within a reasonable amount of time(ambiguous, my apologies), I will concede that the rule is, in fact, "not vague".
drunkman 12-23-07, 01:41 PM	The game does not regulate size well when class is concerned. A tiny fey rogue 1 and a colossal giant rogue 1 deal the same damage with a sneak attack; 1d6. This is not a flaw of size anatomy but a flaw of size and class ability Just like the rules don't talk specifically about your size issue. The evidence you have for your size issue is playing with the "discernable atonomy" phrase, this is very general just like my claim for my size issue, which I'm basing it on something little like, "the PC can strike a vital area for extra damage". It says something like this in every sneak attack feature discription, but hey! Larger creatures CAN strike a vital area for extra damage. A collosal dropping his club down a tiny creature's head, he's hit a "vital area"; in fact, he's hit every frickin part of the tiny creature's body with his bulky club, doesn't he get a sneak attack? No? Why? Because the rules don't "specifically" say so? Well, that would make your rule invalid too. I could claim, well what if rules meant "discernable atonomy" by only "balls"? Well, creaure without balls can't be sneak attacked either, I guess. Also, you're speaking against your own teeth, When I tell you that collosals can't sneak attack tiny creatures because they can't even see a iny creature's vital spot, you tell me "Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital". I then go by your quote and say you don't even need sneak attack for collosals then because you can assume this on every strike the collosal makes. Now you tell me the rules don't "specifically" tell me I can do this. What is it man? Either the collosal can't even see collosal's discernable atonomy of very tiny creatures or you assume that "Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital", which would be then on every situation even in ones where the collosal doesn't catch an opponent flat-footed because every attack "will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital". Which is it?
Krusk 12-23-07, 05:15 PM	For those who thought that was an amusing exercise, wait until I bring out the aboleth. thats the easy one. His vitals are detailed in Lords of Madness with a labeled picture pointing out each and every vital organ in it. The problem comes up when this was only done for a few monsters and we are left to assume for the other. You know what they say about assuming... it makes this thread.
Dragoncat 12-23-07, 06:06 PM	thats the easy one. His vitals are detailed in Lords of Madness with a labeled picture pointing out each and every vital organ in it. Well played, good sir. Well played.
Voran 12-23-07, 07:18 PM	Man this thread isn't fun anymore.
MrCustomer 12-23-07, 08:20 PM	I would argue that the ability to stand is of itself Vital in combat. The achiles heel may not be vital to living, you won't bleed to death, but the overall damage to your ability to stand is rather "vital" in combat. The arguement would have more merit if it was worded "Just how useless do you want to make a rogue in combat" Seriously have you considered that fighting a 30 foot tall dragon would be akin to stepping in front of a City Bus, your not goign to win no matter what your sword skills are. There needs to be some suspension of realism in combat, we can't suddenly be nit picking realism in one case while ignoring the obvious fact that NO person could stand toe to toe against a 100 ton creature with what amounts to a pointy stick.
Dog_O_War 12-24-07, 03:47 PM	While he wrote it, he may have written something and intended for another to be obvious. This happens to everyone from time time. I see what is written in the PHB the same as what he wrote in that article. I came to this conclusion seperate from the article, and took the rule to mean just that. And according to a reliable soucre, not wikipedia, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anatomy anatomy can be used to mean anything animal or plant. Or perhapse they intended a diffrent definition, the one meaning "a skeleton". Just thought that was interesting. Your "reliable resource" says the exact same thing as wiki; given that plants are living and have structures above and beyond bones (same as sharks), your source and my source agree. Except you may be confusing the skeleton for structure alone, when it is apart of the whole. Rules should not be doing this. Rules should be the most basic thing, and cover every instance and explain everything in a very cut and dry manner. The "other books" I was refering to were the dictionary, or perhaps a text book or two while in school. The words to, too, and two are pronounced the same, but their meanings are different. Some people do not know this and would have to look it up to find out. As I had said before, the PHB assumes that you would look up words like anatomy instead of assuming you knew the meaning. Originally posted by Crimson_Concerto Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to convince you of. In fact, a large creature does NOT take up 8 5x5x5 cubes. It takes up a single 10x10x10 cube. This is the same way the a medium creature takes up a single 5x5x5 cube and not 125 1x1x1 cubes. You'd be wrong then, as a large creature takes up a 5x5x10 ft area, while a storm giant (huge, tall) takes up a 10x10x15 ft area. Since assuming they could be standing on their heads would be ludicrus, why then would you assume that they would always have their heads down? Does it not make more sense that a giant would attempt to keep its head out of reach, same as you or I would? We cannot assume that their vitals will be within reach, as people tend to keep those protected best. Also you forget that this "cube" gets into enough detail to have a front, sides, and back. If it has those, why not a height? And if it has a height, then why would you assume that the head of a giant is constantly within weapons range? No, I'm saying his intent isn't what actually happened. This is your personal opinion, which is fine. I see it the other way; I find that the rule in the PHB to not be vague, and to be exactly as he intended. Unfortunately your opinion is wrong (though I am loathe to say so sinse I believe that an opinion is never wrong) as people other than you find this rule to be exactly as the creator intended it to be. They (I) do not find it vague, and did not need for a re-statement on his part to come to this conclusion. Actually, that's EXACTLY why I used it as an example. In my proposed hypothetical situation where the rules don't ever specify what does or does not have a discernible anatomy, so an animated chariot would not ever be specified not to have a discernible anatomy, and as I subsequently showed, there would be possible justification for sneak attack being able to work since certain parts of a chariot are more vital to its construction than others. Anatomy is actually very often used in the non-biological metaphorical sense. If the PHB did not clarify what it meant in anatomy (by making accompanying rules for it such as being able to be critted upon, etc.), just as it doesn't clarify what it means by vitals being in reach, it could be justifiable to sneak attack a chariot the same way that within the current rules it's justifiable to sneak attack a creature 5 size categories larger. How you are using this term differs from offical sources posted by myself and Krusk. Anatomy is not how you describe it, and this is why you would be unjustified here. Regardless of how "it is often" used to describe something, only its official meaning should be assumed in a given text (which is why I hate using the word punk). Cute, but you failed to make any kind of actual valid point with that remark, so... yeah... The validity of the point was described here when Krusk responded to it, but I will repeat it again so as better to get it across. The book assumes a certain level of knowledge and intelligence. It assumes that you know the actual definition of a word, and that when you do not you will look it up. As you have shown with your assumptions with anatomy, you would need to look it up again to better understand the word (no offense). THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! In a world where discernible anatomy isn't defined, it's unjustifiable to rule that outsiders don't have the same weaknesses as everybody else unless stated otherwise. With the same line of reasoning we can conclude that in this world where reaching vitals is not defined, it is unjustifiable to rule that huge creatures don't have the same weaknesses as medium ones unless stated otherwise. Discernable anatomy is defined though, and it is defined as "immune to criticals" or "not immune to criticals". As every reference to sneak attack includes the lines "if immune to critical hits, then sneak attack cannot apply", it is a very safe assumption that if it is not immune it has a discernable anatomy. As I had said, to rule that a creature not immune to critical hits became immune to sneak attack based on you not actually knowing what the anatomy was like is wrong and would be a change of the rules. I doubt that is was your point. See, you've actually helped to prove my point again. The paragraph you just responded to was NOT about reaching vitals. It was about the hypothetical situation in which discernible anatomy is not defined. You just said you would agree with the validity of a ruling that outsiders shouldn't be able to be sneak attacked (illogical by your beloved Occam's Razor)? And that it wouldn't be a house rule? My point with that statement (As I've shown here several times now, this rule does have bearing on the games' mechanics.) discernable anatomy has been defined, but not in the manner to which you are accustomed to (immune to criticals, not immune to criticals, no sneak attacks on limbs). It is the limbs line that eliminates everything but the torso nad head. It is the "immune/not immune" which determines what is discernable. Originally posted by drunkman Just like the rules don't talk specifically about your size issue. The evidence you have for your size issue is playing with the "discernable atonomy" phrase, this is very general just like my claim for my size issue, which I'm basing it on something little like, "the PC can strike a vital area for extra damage". It says something like this in every sneak attack feature discription, but hey! Larger creatures CAN strike a vital area for extra damage. A collosal dropping his club down a tiny creature's head, he's hit a "vital area"; in fact, he's hit every frickin part of the tiny creature's body with his bulky club, doesn't he get a sneak attack? No? Why? Because the rules don't "specifically" say so? Well, that would make your rule invalid too. Actually, it assumes that a creature may strike a vital area for extra damage (critical hits), not that they can. Only a rogue can hit a vital with unerring acurracy, as described under sneak attack. All though sneak attack and critical hits can occur at the same time (with the same strike), it is again safe to assume that a "better hit" was attained. I could claim, well what if rules meant "discernable atonomy" by only "balls"? Well, creaure without balls can't be sneak attacked either, I guess. And I could claim that the sky is red, but we'd both be wrong. discernable anatomy is just that; anatomy that can be defined and categorized to a function within a living creature. Also, you're speaking against your own teeth, When I tell you that collosals can't sneak attack tiny creatures because they can't even see a iny creature's vital spot, you tell me "Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital". I then go by your quote and say you don't even need sneak attack for collosals then because you can assume this on every strike the collosal makes. Now you tell me the rules don't "specifically" tell me I can do this. What is it man? Either the collosal can't even see collosal's discernable atonomy of very tiny creatures or you assume that "Given that a dagger will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital", which would be then on every situation even in ones where the collosal doesn't catch an opponent flat-footed because every attack "will hit every inch of a flies' body, I'm sure it is safe to say that he hit a vital". Which is it? Actually, if they can sneak attack, then they can see. A creature (as defined under sneak attack) must be clearly visible to pick out a vital spot. As I had said before, class abilities do not translate well with creature size. A similar arguement is that, "the fey is a 6th level rogue, and cannot be sneak attacked by the collosal 1st level rogue, despite the collosal rogue being able to hit all the vitals at once. As I had said before, class ability does not translate well with size, but this is a completely different matter. Also, do not post bait (a lose/lose situation); it is a dirty tactic.
Crimson_Concerto 12-24-07, 06:00 PM	You'd be wrong then, as a large creature takes up a 5x5x10 ft area, while a storm giant (huge, tall) takes up a 10x10x15 ft area.Large creatures in the MMI and the space they take up (plus height if specified): Achaieria - 10 ft. (height 15 ft.) Angel, Planetar - 10 ft. (height 9 ft.) Angel, Solar - 10 ft. (height 9 ft.) Animated Object (Large) - 10 ft. Ankheg - 10 ft. Arrowhark, Elder - 10 ft. Assassin Vine - 10 ft. Barghest, Greater - 10 ft. Basilisk, Abyssal Greater - 10 ft. Beholder - 10 ft. (8 ft.) Belker - 10 ft. (7 ft.) Carrion Crawler - 10 ft. Centaur - 10 ft. (7 ft.) Chimera - 10 ft. (5 ft.) Chuul - 10 ft. Cloaker - 10 ft. Couatl - 10 ft. Huge creatures in the MMI and the space they take up (plus height if specified): Aboleth - 15 ft. Animated Object (Huge) - 15 ft. Athach - 15 ft. (18 ft.) Behir - 15 ft. Bulette - 15 ft. Would you like me to continue past the ABCs? :) It should be noted the the (tall) and (long) descriptors are only used to describe reach now in 3.5. They no longer have an impact on space. That being said, th mount of space taken up isn't actually the point, and I will concede that perhaps a perfect cube isn't appropriate for everything, but then again, humans aren't 5-ft. wide, and we give them some wiggle room, so I still say that a cube would be appropriate so long as we get close enough, such as with a Beholder. Then again, I will also concede that this is me house ruling, and this has no actual point in the RAW. Also you forget that this "cube" gets into enough detail to have a front, sides, and back.Actually it doesn't. Combat facing is a variant rule and not present in core D&D RAW. All sides of the "cube" are exactly the same. This is your personal opinionNo, it isn't an opinion. It's an observation that has evidence to prove its truth. Unfortunately your opinion is wrong (though I am loathe to say so sinse I believe that an opinion is never wrong)Oh please, opinions are wrong all the time. Or rather more accurately, things that are presented as opinions but can actually be proven one way or the other are wrong all the time. We're not debating an opinion. We're debating an observation/interpretation. How you are using this term differs from offical sources posted by myself and Krusk. Anatomy is not how you describe it, and this is why you would be unjustified here. Regardless of how "it is often" used to describe something, only its official meaning should be assumed in a given text (which is why I hate using the word punk).Words have more than one meaning, and it often happens that a metaphorical or even incorrect use occurs popularly often enough that it becomes an actual meaning of the word. :P The book assumes a certain level of knowledge and intelligence. It assumes that you know the actual definition of a word, and that when you do not you will look it up. As you have shown with your assumptions with anatomy, you would need to look it up again to better understand the word (no offense).As a matter of fact, in order to make sure I knew what I was talking about before I wrote it, I actually did look up the word before I made that argument. It turns out I was correct, so I went ahead and made the argument. Please do look the word up in a dictionary, and you will see that any analysis of a structure can be termed an anatomy correctly. Discernable anatomy is defined thoughYes, I know, but that's not what I'm asking you. For the purposes of that argument, I was asking you to pretend for a moment that discernible anatomy WASN'T defined. You seem to have missed the point of the hypothetical scenario entirely. Also, do not post bait (a lose/lose situation); it is a dirty tactic.Very much agreed on this point at least. :)
Krusk 12-24-07, 08:08 PM	But the dictionary saying that plants possess an anatomy means that they can be sneak attacked. Oh no I wish the PHB didnt assume i had read other books, because by using knowledge from other books I got the rule wrong. It also defines anatomy to mean "A Skeleton" which in Dungeons and dragons is animated and will attack you. Because I am using an outside book to define anatomy now i think you can sneak attack skeletons, but not other undead. Well great. Thats the problem with assuming something, it dosnt work at all. Take the lines " A rogue can sneak attack a target so long as it has a discernable anatomy" and combine it with this outside book source that defines anatomy as something a plant possesses and this can present a very convincing arguement to let people sneak attack a tree. "suprise trees! gotch ya" That is why you can't assume that people have read any book other than the rulebook for this game, and all terms they use need to be clearly defined. Also, wikipedia, while good for getting a general unerstanding of a concept cannot be called a reliable source. Anyone can post anything to it, without any form of credentials, or citing any form of a source. In addition all content on it is subject to change at any moment, meaning that if Wikipedia were cited as a source for information there is no gaurentee that it is still a source of that information. If you or anyone use this website for legitimate reaserch I would advise you to stop.
Pandapeep 12-25-07, 01:27 PM	Actually, the rules assume (poorly) that the players have cracked a book other than the PHB Isn't there an old saying about assuming and you and me? I do believe this argument has proven that old saying true, on both sides of the coin.
ravenshrike 12-25-07, 01:57 PM	or just plain cheating (you don't get the flanking bonus cause he's focused on you!). Actually, I've played with this rule, and as long as it's followed by the accompanying rule, it's fine. Being treated as flat footed for everybody else attacking you, including ranged attackers, is a fair trade off.
Dog_O_War 12-25-07, 11:19 PM	Actually, I've played with this rule, and as long as it's followed by the accompanying rule, it's fine. Being treated as flat footed for everybody else attacking you, including ranged attackers, is a fair trade off. It's hard to FF a rogue, or barbarian, which is what those creatures usually turn out to "have a few levels in". Sorry, old grudge....
Dog_O_War 12-25-07, 11:20 PM	Isn't there an old saying about assuming and you and me? I do believe this argument has proven that old saying true, on both sides of the coin. Unfortunately, in proper English it is you and I, and since there is no "I" in that saying, it only leaves you...
Dog_O_War 12-25-07, 11:53 PM	Large creatures in the MMI and the space they take up (plus height if specified): Achaieria - 10 ft. (height 15 ft.) Angel, Planetar - 10 ft. (height 9 ft.) Angel, Solar - 10 ft. (height 9 ft.) Animated Object (Large) - 10 ft. Ankheg - 10 ft. Arrowhark, Elder - 10 ft. Assassin Vine - 10 ft. Barghest, Greater - 10 ft. Basilisk, Abyssal Greater - 10 ft. Beholder - 10 ft. (8 ft.) Belker - 10 ft. (7 ft.) Carrion Crawler - 10 ft. Centaur - 10 ft. (7 ft.) Chimera - 10 ft. (5 ft.) Chuul - 10 ft. Cloaker - 10 ft. Couatl - 10 ft. Huge creatures in the MMI and the space they take up (plus height if specified): Aboleth - 15 ft. Animated Object (Huge) - 15 ft. Athach - 15 ft. (18 ft.) Behir - 15 ft. Bulette - 15 ft. Would you like me to continue past the ABCs? :) With some exceptions (like in everything) you'll find that my dimentions are correct. though you may have to lay them on their side for the "long" creatures. Still, I'm not getting this inference here - it seems like your trying to tell me that a centaur is not two 5ft cubes, as I had said previous (though before I had referenced an ogre, which is two cubes "stacked"). Also, if you go back to one of my first postings, you'll note that I also said that "despite actual dimentions (re: the 3ft halfling and the 6'6" human) they occupy the same 5ft cube. It should be noted the the (tall) and (long) descriptors are only used to describe reach now in 3.5. They no longer have an impact on space. Actually the "reach" descriptor is used to describe reach. Tall and long only make references to what is most likely. Take a choker for example. I made no references to reach except when specifically citing a race, with the exception of tiny creatures. A human just cannot reach that 15ft square with a normal weapon which would eliminate the head from being a viable target on a storm giant (no vorpal). That being said, th mount of space taken up isn't actually the point, and I will concede that perhaps a perfect cube isn't appropriate for everything, but then again, humans aren't 5-ft. wide, and we give them some wiggle room, so I still say that a cube would be appropriate so long as we get close enough, such as with a Beholder. Then again, I will also concede that this is me house ruling, and this has no actual point in the RAW. Yes, and a beholder has a very unique shape. But if he is too high up while flying, why would you think that you could cut off eye-stalks when you can only scrape his underside? Actually it doesn't. Combat facing is a variant rule and not present in core D&D RAW. All sides of the "cube" are exactly the same. You are right; this is the 3.0 in me. Things still have a top and bottom though. As a matter of fact, in order to make sure I knew what I was talking about before I wrote it, I actually did look up the word before I made that argument. It turns out I was correct, so I went ahead and made the argument. Please do look the word up in a dictionary, and you will see that any analysis of a structure can be termed an anatomy correctly. Well, I just checked the dictionary, and it still does not reference anything besides living organisms. Yes, I know, but that's not what I'm asking you. For the purposes of that argument, I was asking you to pretend for a moment that discernible anatomy WASN'T defined. You seem to have missed the point of the hypothetical scenario entirely. I didn't miss the point of the hypothetical, I disregarded it entirely. Hypotheticals weren't apart of the original question, or discussion. I'm not here to interpret them, or debate them, I'm attempting to spead a bit of truth and logic into the community at large. Hypotheticals get the original topic cloudy, as most people do not know what then is being debated. Originally posted by Krusk But the dictionary saying that plants possess an anatomy means that they can be sneak attacked. Oh no I wish the PHB didnt assume i had read other books, because by using knowledge from other books I got the rule wrong. Actually, it says that the plant is immune to critical hits, not that it is "unliving" or that it lacks a discernable anatomy. Nothing to a plant is critical, really (in terms of, "will this one precise strike kill it?"). It also defines anatomy to mean "A Skeleton" which in Dungeons and dragons is animated and will attack you. Because I am using an outside book to define anatomy now i think you can sneak attack skeletons, but not other undead. Well great. No you're just being beligerant. You know very well that the terms in D&D are well defined on the topics of undead and animated "objects". Both are immune to critical hits, and therefore cannot be sneak-attacked. Thats the problem with assuming something, it dosnt work at all. Take the lines " A rogue can sneak attack a target so long as it has a discernable anatomy" and combine it with this outside book source that defines anatomy as something a plant possesses and this can present a very convincing arguement to let people sneak attack a tree. "suprise trees! gotch ya" That is why you can't assume that people have read any book other than the rulebook for this game, and all terms they use need to be clearly defined. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Is it because I said that the rules "assume more than you may actually know"? Or was it when I said that "they assume you will look up words you do not know the meanings to"? If you're doing neither, and assuming that words like critical hit mean "auto-win", then you have problems beyond attemping to comprehend a thousand-page set of rules. Also, wikipedia, while good for getting a general unerstanding of a concept cannot be called a reliable source. Anyone can post anything to it, without any form of credentials, or citing any form of a source. In addition all content on it is subject to change at any moment, meaning that if Wikipedia were cited as a source for information there is no gaurentee that it is still a source of that information. If you or anyone use this website for legitimate reaserch I would advise you to stop. And what makes the dictionary so reliable? The fact that it is old, or that it has terms and definitions that like wikipedia, you too have no idea who actually wrote them? Wikipedia has a very high level of monitoring, and is incredibly acurate as it pulls the definitions directly from the dictionary, as well as common and phenom-internet definitions as citings for how we currently use words in our day and age. That is something most every other "reputable" source cannot claim.
Enigmis 12-25-07, 11:59 PM	Unfortunately, in proper English it is you and I, and since there is no "I" in that saying, it only leaves you... Now you're just being a douche. His point was that you shouldn't make assumptions, your just being mean.
Dog_O_War 12-26-07, 12:07 AM	Now you're just being a douche. His point was that you shouldn't make assumptions, your just being mean. Actually, he was saying I had made an ass of myself. But you know what they say about assumptions...[/sarcasm]
yrogerg 12-26-07, 12:49 AM	Unfortunately, in proper English it is you and I, and since there is no "I" in that saying, it only leaves you... Actually, in proper English, it would be me. I is for when you're doing the action, and me is for when the action is being done for you. In this case, the action is being done to me, not I. </pedantry>
Krusk 12-26-07, 01:55 AM	No you're just being beligerant. You know very well that the terms in D&D are well defined on the topics of undead and animated "objects". Both are immune to critical hits, and therefore cannot be sneak-attacked. And what makes the dictionary so reliable? The fact that it is old, or that it has terms and definitions that like wikipedia, you too have no idea who actually wrote them? Wikipedia has a very high level of monitoring, and is incredibly acurate as it pulls the definitions directly from the dictionary, as well as common and phenom-internet definitions as citings for how we currently use words in our day and age. That is something most every other "reputable" source cannot claim. Yes I was being beligerant, but i was doing so to prove a point. Pretend I was unaware as to the rules for undead and plants on sneak attack. If i red those lines and went by definitions outside the rulebooks I would be incorrect. 1- I do know very well. but according to the dictionary an anatomy is defined as a skeleton. That means skeletons can be sneak attacked. -logic like this is why you can't assume people have read other books. 2- dictionaries and other in print/online reputable sources are reputable due to the fact that anyone can go back and check what you read and will come away with the same knowledge. Things like wikipedia can be edited since last citation, this means it isnt always the same thing. Reputable sources require citation for any ideas or theories that are not your own. wikipedia lets anyone write anything they want. Why just the other day I edited a movie entry in wikipedia to win a bet with my friend. -bet was, can wikipedia be incorrect, turns out it can- Reputable sources are written by reputable people. Wikipedia is written by anyone who feels like it. I can continue but its sort of irrelivant.
Crimson_Concerto 12-26-07, 02:01 AM	With some exceptions (like in everything) you'll find that my dimentions are correct.No, no I haven't. In fact EVERY large creature I've seen in 3.5 has a 10x10 base, and EVERY huge creature has a 15x15 base. :confused: Please show me a 3.5 exception that has no Errata. Still, I'm not getting this inference here - it seems like your trying to tell me that a centaur is not two 5ft cubes, as I had said previous (though before I had referenced an ogre, which is two cubes "stacked").Simply read the "Space/Reach" entry on page 6 of the MM, and you'll see that now in 3.5, everything has a square base. In fact, a strict reading would even support the "cube" theory, but that's not what's under debate right now, so I shall digress unless you REALLY feel like getting into that... Also, if you go back to one of my first postings, you'll note that I also said that "despite actual dimentions (re: the 3ft halfling and the 6'6" human) they occupy the same 5ft cube.Wait, but if you agree with that, then why don't you agree that large creatures are 10ft cubes and huge creatures are 15ft. cubes? :confused: A human just cannot reach that 15ft square with a normal weapon which would eliminate the head from being a viable target on a storm giant (no vorpal). Yes, and a beholder has a very unique shape. But if he is too high up while flying, why would you think that you could cut off eye-stalks when you can only scrape his underside?Yes, that's all very nice, but I'm not talking about what makes sense. I'm talking about the rules. Things still have a top and bottom though.As indicated by where in the rules? I know you want to say the rules don't need to say so because it's logic, but logic also dictates that things have a front, back, and sides, and the rules ignore all combat facing. What makes you think vertical combat facing is an exception? Well, I just checked the dictionary, and it still does not reference anything besides living organisms.I'll use dictionary.com, since it takes from multiple dictionaries: 7. an analysis or minute examination. 7. A detailed examination or analysis. 3. a detailed analysis. I didn't miss the point of the hypothetical, I disregarded it entirely.Unless you point out an actual flaw in my analogy and how it correlates with the discussion at hand, it is still a valid point, whether you like it or not...
Crimson_Concerto 12-26-07, 02:07 AM	Actually, in proper English, it would be me. I is for when you're doing the action, and me is for when the action is being done for you. In this case, the action is being done to me, not I. </pedantry>Actually, I'm afraid he's right. If I remember correctly, the phrase is: "When you assume, you make an *** out of you and me." The problem is that "out of you and me" is a prepositional phrase, and so it's not an object and "I" is in fact correct. It turns out "***" is the object of the sentence. </further pedantry> Still, the comment was uncalled for.
Dog_O_War 12-26-07, 10:46 AM	Actually, I'm afraid he's right. If I remember correctly, the phrase is: "When you assume, you make an *** out of you and me." The problem is that "out of you and me" is a prepositional phrase, and so it's not an object and "I" is in fact correct. It turns out "***" is the object of the sentence. </further pedantry> Still, the comment was uncalled for. Thankyou for that. Also, you are right about the space thing. It dents my credibility in this arguement, but I'd rather have the correct information than spread the "wrong" stuff (damn 3.0 and its logic... I feel a house rule coming on...). I was going off of 3.0 space/ reach. This makes all my "cube" theories incorrect (as far as 3.5 is concerned). This is why I was not agreeing with your size inferences with large and huge creatures. I have to agree with you now as far as "treated as a single cube" goes. Yes, that's all very nice, but I'm not talking about what makes sense. I'm talking about the rules. Well, the rules do not implicitly say that a creatures' "cube" does not have those 6 sides (front, back, sides, top, and bottom), so the RAW can rule in either direction. Our own common sense is the only thing we have to make the correct choice. While the rules ignore facing for combat (as people turn and duck and weave during it), it does not ignore facing; it says that cover can only apply when an attacking enemy is between you and the side the cover faces. It is all we can really go on here, besides logic and what makes sense. I don't really know how many more times I can repeat this; the rule is not vague; the book assumes more than you might know, or that you will look up things you did not know. While a monster might be a homogenous "cube", it still says that sneak attack cannot be performed on limbs, so even though they may have "vital points", you can't exploit them unless you have a special ability that ammends that rule (like hamstring). As a kick can be an unarmed strike that - for an ogre - is 10ft, how will you attack the body, if you know that it is atleast ten feet up? With common sense (even the homogenous "cube" of a monster needs some assumptions) that he can out-stretch that leg ten feet, but he isn't actually that tall. What I'm saying is the rules don't always make sense to everyone, or about every thing, but that doesn't mean they don't make sense at all, or that the point has been ascewed just because you do not understand it. Play with logic and common sense, because without it you'll be lost.
drunkman 12-26-07, 01:08 PM	Actually, it assumes that a creature may strike a vital area for extra damage (critical hits), not that they can. Only a rogue can hit a vital with unerring acurracy, as described under sneak attack Well, I could say, "The rules never said not only a rougue can sneak attack," But that would be if you read the rules in a general way that assumes you can do whatever the rules don't say you can't do. But then I can claim almost anything applies to the rules, which is why I don't agree with any of this and believe in a strict interpritation of the rules. I'm not trying to insult you but your claim is not backed up by the rules, it's backed up by such a little thing as the phrase "discernable atonomy" and you go through the trouble of looking it up in the dictionary and all that. I don't think the rule writers wanted you to go through that trouble to translate it exactement. I think they listed, "constructs, undead, oozes, and other creature immune to critical hits," for a good reason. And I honestly think that if they really wanted to include size as a actor, they would have wrote it down. I know it's not in touch with reality, but D&D was never in complete touch with reality, and I think the rules will be unbalanced if all these reality checks will be made. The only time I think this general kind of translation might help is when there's a situation that is not covered very well by the rules like the "hardness of flesh". Not covered very well. But sneak attack is not one of them, it's been covered very well in a variety of books. And one other point. So if larger creatures are immune to sneak attack, wouldn't they be immune to stunning and critcal hits too. This seems totally unfair for larger creatures. And I could claim that the sky is red, but we'd both be wrong. discernable anatomy is just that; anatomy that can be defined and categorized to a function within a living creature. Which is exactly why I don't think the phrase "discernable atonomy" makes your size claim any more in touch with the rules than my balls claim. Actually, if they can sneak attack, then they can see. A creature (as defined under sneak attack) must be clearly visible to pick out a vital spot. But the thing is, in reality, the tiny creature is barely "visible" to the collosal, he can clearly not see the vital areas, so I don't get why a clooosal rogue would do any better than a collosal fighter at hitting a vital organ. they both can't really see the organ yet they can strike every vital organ so that would entitl every collosal creature a critical hit or something. But I'm not going with reality, it would almost entirely get rid of the class feature for one thing. As I had said before, class abilities do not translate well with creature size. Which is why we should assume most class features aren't any different for size unless it involves a situation not covered at all like what the hp&hardness should be for flesh. A similar arguement is that, "the fey is a 6th level rogue, and cannot be sneak attacked by the collosal 1st level rogue, despite the collosal rogue being able to hit all the vitals at once. Well, that's not all of what I said. I was just saying, technecally, the collosal should be entitled to a free critical hit on every attack or something like that, but should get no additional sneak attack for being a rogue because he can't really see the vital spots, he just hits them all no mtter what class he is, assuming size matter this much to sneak attack. As I had said before, class ability does not translate well with size, but this is a completely different matter. Not exactly a different matter. You're talking about size and sneak attack, a "class ability", that's what this whole forum is about. Also, do not post bait (a lose/lose situation); it is a dirty tactic. Forive me, but know this. I wasn't trying to make it seem like lose/lose situation, it's just that I found two contradictory statements, and I wanted you to explain your case. I wasn't going to haunt you and call you a flip flop after you answered my question, like in those dirty political attack ads.
Dog_O_War 12-26-07, 02:03 PM	Well, I could say, "The rules never said not only a rougue can sneak attack," But that would be if you read the rules in a general way that assumes you can do whatever the rules don't say you can't do. But then I can claim almost anything applies to the rules, which is why I don't agree with any of this and believe in a strict interpritation of the rules. I'm not trying to insult you but your claim is not backed up by the rules, it's backed up by such a little thing as the phrase "discernable atonomy" and you go through the trouble of looking it up in the dictionary and all that. I don't think the rule writers wanted you to go through that trouble to translate it exactement. I think they listed, "constructs, undead, oozes, and other creature immune to critical hits," for a good reason. And I honestly think that if they really wanted to include size as a actor, they would have wrote it down. I know it's not in touch with reality, but D&D was never in complete touch with reality, and I think the rules will be unbalanced if all these reality checks will be made. The only time I think this general kind of translation might help is when there's a situation that is not covered very well by the rules like the "hardness of flesh". Not covered very well. But sneak attack is not one of them, it's been covered very well in a variety of books. Actually, it does say that only a rogue can sneak attack, as it says if a rogue (not a fighter, or paladin, or wizard) catches his opponent unable to defend himself, then he may hit for extra damage. If it were to include other classes then it would say so. And one other point. So if larger creatures are immune to sneak attack, wouldn't they be immune to stunning and critcal hits too. This seems totally unfair for larger creatures. Actually I never said being large makes you immune. I said that if you cannot hit a vital area then you cannot sneak attack. Being immune to critical hits is a completely different matter as you can critical things you cannot sneak attack (such as a creatures' limbs). I had said that a rogue would have to do something to eliminate the reach problem with hitting vitals of creatures larger than himself (and by defacto - creatures with vitals that are out of reach). Which is exactly why I don't think the phrase "discernable atonomy" makes your size claim any more in touch with the rules than my balls claim. You can live without "balls". Women do it all the time. They are in reach, but not vital to living day by day. You heart on the other hand is extremely vital, as you need it to live. Period. If a creature is 20ft tall and his "balls" are barely within reach, then clearly his heart wouldn't be. It is this distinction that the rule infers to. Basically you can't strike the brain of a dragon if all you can reach is his bum. But the thing is, in reality, the tiny creature is barely "visible" to the collosal, he can clearly not see the vital areas, so I don't get why a clooosal rogue would do any better than a collosal fighter at hitting a vital organ. they both can't really see the organ yet they can strike every vital organ so that would entitl every collosal creature a critical hit or something. But I'm not going with reality, it would almost entirely get rid of the class feature for one thing. Given that a mountain giant's eyes (a colossal creature) are 1000x better than our own, it would be hard to say what he can and cannot see. The larger the eye the better the sight generally. So in reality you'd be hard-pressed to say that he couldn't see the vitals. Which is why we should assume most class features aren't any different for size unless it involves a situation not covered at all like what the hp&hardness should be for flesh. Class abilities are completely different from combat, which is where size applies best. A colossal creature has a -8 to attack rolls, while a tiny creature has a +2 to AC because of size. This is where accuracy in attacks come into play. Obviously this makes sense where a tiny 20th level rogue wielding a 1d1 damage can deal a 1d1+10d6 sneak attack versus a colossal 1st level rogue with a huge dagger can only do 2d8+1d6. This again is why class abilities do not translate into size well. Into combat; yes. Well, that's not all of what I said. I was just saying, technecally, the collosal should be entitled to a free critical hit on every attack or something like that, but should get no additional sneak attack for being a rogue because he can't really see the vital spots, he just hits them all no mtter what class he is, assuming size matter this much to sneak attack. I know that is not what you said, that is why I said a similar arguement along the same lines as yours would be that. I was agreeing with you that "technically he can always get sneak attack because he can't miss". I was saying that this doesn't make sense, because again, size and class abilities do not translate well. Not exactly a different matter. You're talking about size and sneak attack, a "class ability", that's what this whole forum is about. Actually, I'm talking about combat and sneak attack (a combat modifier on an attack). If your attack cannot reach a vital, how then will your sneak attack? This is what I've been saying all this time.
drunkman 12-26-07, 11:42 PM	Actually, it does say that only a rogue can sneak attack, as it says if a rogue (not a fighter, or paladin, or wizard) catches his opponent unable to defend himself, then he may hit for extra damage. If it were to include other classes then it would say so. Well, actually, it never says, "only a rogue can sneak attack," it just says it in the rogue class features. Now I don't really think that a wizard should be entitled sneak attack, it's just that I think you are not directly translating the rules, you are playing with the phrase, "discernable atonomy", and making Actually I never said being large makes you immune. I said that if you cannot hit a vital area then you cannot sneak attack. Being immune to critical hits is a completely different matter as you can critical things you cannot sneak attack (such as a creatures' limbs). I had said that a rogue would have to do something to eliminate the reach problem with hitting vitals of creatures larger than himself (and by defacto - creatures with vitals that are out of reach). Well, if smaller creatures can't reach the vital spot to sneak attack, then he isn't able to reach the vitals needed to do a critical or stun either, you need to reach the same vitals for a sneak attack you need for a critical hit or stun. Think: can you technecally stun a person by hitting him in the bottom of someone's feet? of course not. Can you critical somone hitting them in the toe or such an low area from up where it really hurts? I think you need to "hit where it hurts" to get a critical. Does this seem fair for smaller creatures? You can live without "balls". Women do it all the time. They are in reach, but not vital to living day by day. You heart on the other hand is extremely vital, as you need it to live. Period. If a creature is 20ft tall and his "balls" are barely within reach, then clearly his heart wouldn't be. It is this distinction that the rule infers to. Basically you can't strike the brain of a dragon if all you can reach is his bum. This is true, I never denied it wasn't. But I just don't think it's fair for smaller creaures. Given that a mountain giant's eyes (a colossal creature) are 1000x better than our own, it would be hard to say what he can and cannot see. The larger the eye the better the sight generally. So in reality you'd be hard-pressed to say that he couldn't see the vitals. Well, I have way bigger eyes than an ant. I can't see its organs well to tell its vitals apart even if I bent down really closely. What exactly do you mean by "1000x better eyesight"? In the sense that a larger creature can see a wider scale of things, of course! But at the expense of seeing the mocroscopic details. At microscopics, I bet that giant is as blind as a bat compared to us. Class abilities are completely different from combat, which is where size applies best. A colossal creature has a -8 to attack rolls, while a tiny creature has a +2 to AC because of size. This is where accuracy in attacks come into play. Obviously this makes sense where a tiny 20th level rogue wielding a 1d1 damage can deal a 1d1+10d6 sneak attack versus a colossal 1st level rogue with a huge dagger can only do 2d8+1d6. This again is why class abilities do not translate into size well. Into combat; yes. Well, this is class features we're talking about buddy. It's size and sneak attack. And the higher weapon damage includes how much bigger, and therefore more devistating it is, not the "vital spots" it would hit. I know that is not what you said, that is why I said a similar arguement along the same lines as yours would be that. I was agreeing with you that "technically he can always get sneak attack because he can't miss". I was saying that this doesn't make sense, because again, size and class abilities do not translate well. Well, size and sneak attack doesn't translate well for your claims either, and I think the rulemakers had a good reason for not including size. It's unfair for certain sizes. Actually, I'm talking about combat and sneak attack (a combat modifier on an attack). If your attack cannot reach a vital, how then will your sneak attack? This is what I've been saying all this time. Same here, size factors in combat and sneak attack.
Dog_O_War 12-27-07, 01:14 AM	Well, actually, it never says, "only a rogue can sneak attack," it just says it in the rogue class features. Now I don't really think that a wizard should be entitled sneak attack, it's just that I think you are not directly translating the rules, you are playing with the phrase, "discernable atonomy", and making At no time have I played with the phrase "discernable anatomy". Anatomy is as I have said it is; the structure of a living organism. You can pick out vitals on a giant, but those vitals might not be within reach. The only thing I have taken as an assuption (and the only thing we can go on; but books like Draconomicon and the Lords of Madness assure me of my assuption) is that vitals will be in the same places as they would be in humans, and that they would be stored in the torso and head areas. Well, if smaller creatures can't reach the vital spot to sneak attack, then he isn't able to reach the vitals needed to do a critical or stun either, you need to reach the same vitals for a sneak attack you need for a critical hit or stun. Think: can you technecally stun a person by hitting him in the bottom of someone's feet? of course not. Can you critical somone hitting them in the toe or such an low area from up where it really hurts? I think you need to "hit where it hurts" to get a critical. Does this seem fair for smaller creatures? Actually it never states that you must hit a "vital" with stunning fist or a critical hit, and I said that in the very words you've qouted me on. As they need not meet all the requirements that sneak attack must, they are not denied. And yes, you can stun someone by hitting the bottom of the feet. The heel of your body is aligned directly with your spine; strike it hard enough and you suffer a momentary lapse in motor control - but this is besides the point. Also it doesn't matter if "you think" you need to hit someone in a vital spot to critical - the rules say otherwise. This is true, I never denied it wasn't. But I just don't think it's fair for smaller creaures. And you think it's fair that striking the foot should allow a sneak attack? Because this is what you imply with your statement. Well, I have way bigger eyes than an ant. I can't see its organs well to tell its vitals apart even if I bent down really closely. What exactly do you mean by "1000x better eyesight"? In the sense that a larger creature can see a wider scale of things, of course! But at the expense of seeing the mocroscopic details. At microscopics, I bet that giant is as blind as a bat compared to us. Actually it is a matter of cone and rod cells, and the intake of light (this is biology BTW). The larger the eye, the more light it can intake and the farther it can see. Look it up if you don't believe me. Well, this is class features we're talking about buddy. It's size and sneak attack. And the higher weapon damage includes how much bigger, and therefore more devistating it is, not the "vital spots" it would hit. a friend of mine have read an article that said that you could not sneak attack something if you could only reach its ankles. But the article was not more specifikt than that, so i am wondering if there is a rule somewhere for this or if this article has no bearing on the rules. This is the topic; how it relates to combat, and what vital spots it will hit. The second quote here is the original question posted on the first page. It never infers weapon size, only where you hit with a sneak attack. The size comes into play with very large monsters; as the OP said, "you can't sneak attack if all you can reach are the ankles" (actually, the OP didn't say this, he just quoted it from the article). Well, size and sneak attack doesn't translate well for your claims either, and I think the rulemakers had a good reason for not including size. It's unfair for certain sizes. They translate just fine, it is you who does not understand.
drunkman 12-27-07, 12:06 PM	At no time have I played with the phrase "discernable anatomy" Yes you have, you've been suggesting things that the rules indirectly say. Actually it never states that you must hit a "vital" with stunning fist or a critical hit, and I said that in the very words you've qouted me on. As they need not meet all the requirements that sneak attack must, they are not denied. And yes, you can stun someone by hitting the bottom of the feet. The heel of your body is aligned directly with your spine; strike it hard enough and you suffer a momentary lapse in motor control - but this is besides the point. Also it doesn't matter if "you think" you need to hit someone in a vital spot to critical - the rules say otherwise. Exactly, the rules indirectly say these claims so they're wrong in gameplay but technecally right in reality, just like there's nothing in the rules that suggest to me that you have to reach higher than the ankles to sneak attack directly. All that the rules say directly are undead, oozes, plants, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be sneak attacked. And you think it's fair that striking the foot should allow a sneak attack? Because this is what you imply with your statement. Yes. Actually it is a matter of cone and rod cells, and the intake of light (this is biology BTW). The larger the eye, the more light it can intake and the farther it can see. Look it up if you don't believe me. I believe you. The eye can see the big picture more, but less micropic. This is the topic; how it relates to combat, and what vital spots it will hit. The second quote here is the original question posted on the first page. It never infers weapon size, only where you hit with a sneak attack. The size comes into play with very large monsters; as the OP said, "you can't sneak attack if all you can reach are the ankles" (actually, the OP didn't say this, he just quoted it from the article). This does relate, okay? I'm giving you similar size combat issue examples that I'd know you'd disagree with because they obviously aren't in touch with the rules and trying to show you how you claim doesn't fit in the rules either. They translate just fine, it is you who does not understand. Maybe I don't understand, but how they directly translate the rules is what I don't understand. Where in the rules does it say, "smaller creatures cannot sneak attack larger creatures if they can't hit higher than the ankles"? And I'm not talking about some magazine, I'm talking about an official book.
Pandapeep 12-27-07, 11:26 PM	Actually, he was saying I had made an ass of myself. But you know what they say about assumptions...[/sarcasm] Still, the comment was uncalled for. I also said I, among others on the other side of the argument where being asses, hence the you and me. It was a comment made in levity, people. A bit of a joke, ya know? And, this argument has proved gotten a bit snarky on occasion, so, I stand by my statement.
Dog_O_War 12-28-07, 04:07 PM	I also said I, among others on the other side of the argument where being asses, hence the you and me. It was a comment made in levity, people. A bit of a joke, ya know? And, this argument has proved gotten a bit snarky on occasion, so, I stand by my statement. I wasn't in the mood at the time, so I left a rude comment to match yours'; I appologize as I was getting agitated. This is also why I haven't responded to drunkmans' last post, as he seems more content to argue than to see reason. Basically there is nothing more for me to say. You either "get it" or you don't. I explain things better in person (as it allows me diagrams), so I may never fully convey my thoughts and reasonings here. Play how you're going to play, basically - just don't expect everyone to see it your way.
Crimson_Concerto 12-30-07, 04:25 AM	Our own common sense is the only thing we have to make the correct choice.The "correct choice" often has nothing to do with "common sense." For example in our current scenario, where "common sense" says you can't sneak attack something if you can only reach its toe, but the "correct choice" is actually the complete opposite. Please stop saying "common sense" has any place in the RAW, because it doesn't. The role of "common sense" in a D&D game is DM decisions and house rules made in order to keep the game moving, etc., for example when the rules are too vague on something to answer everything that needs to be answered about a specific scenario or when taking the time to look up a rule would be time-consuming and mood-killing. Face it: RAW makes no sense. it says that cover can only apply when an attacking enemy is between you and the side the cover faces.I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you please try rephrasing that if you really think that's a point worth getting across? It sounds like you're saying cover only applies if the attacker is between you and your own side. WTF? :confused: the rule is not vagueI'm not saying it is (and I don't remember ever saying that, and if I did, I was wrong). I'm saying that it's irrelevant. While a monster might be a homogenous "cube", it still says that sneak attack cannot be performed on limbsThat makes no sense. If by the RAW a monster is indeed a homogeneous cube, as you yourself have just agreed to, then its limbs are completely indistinguishable mechanically from the rest of its form. The rule that limbs cannot be sneak attack is thus irrelevant, because if the cube is homogeneous, then by very definition, it's completely the same everywhere. In other words, saying that the big toe can't be sneak-attacked is EXACTLY THE SAME as same as saying the heart can't be sneak-attacked! As a kick can be an unarmed strike that - for an ogre - is 10ft, how will you attack the body, if you know that it is atleast ten feet up? With common sense (even the homogenous "cube" of a monster needs some assumptions) that he can out-stretch that leg ten feet, but he isn't actually that tall.I have no idea what kind of point you think you're trying to make here. All I see you telling me is that the RAW makes no sense when you consider logic and common sense, which is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. For the last time, please try to separate your notions of logic and common sense from the RAW, because as I'm certain you've noticed, the RAW isn't logical. What RAW tries to do (whether successfully or unsuccessfully not being the point) is maintain a sense of simplicity and balance, and in making creatures homogeneous cubes, it helps to accomplish that goal. It accomplishes simplicity in that we don't have to look up a different rule for every creature and don't need additional rules to accompany that rule, and it accomplishes balance by making Rogues and their class feature actually useful and readily available to the party. If anything, you could say the rules aren't even supposed to make sense.
Dog_O_War 01-01-08, 12:15 PM	The "correct choice" often has nothing to do with "common sense." For example in our current scenario, where "common sense" says you can't sneak attack something if you can only reach its toe, but the "correct choice" is actually the complete opposite. Please stop saying "common sense" has any place in the RAW, because it doesn't. The role of "common sense" in a D&D game is DM decisions and house rules made in order to keep the game moving, etc., for example when the rules are too vague on something to answer everything that needs to be answered about a specific scenario or when taking the time to look up a rule would be time-consuming and mood-killing. Face it: RAW makes no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you please try rephrasing that if you really think that's a point worth getting across? It sounds like you're saying cover only applies if the attacker is between you and your own side. WTF? :confused: I'm not saying it is (and I don't remember ever saying that, and if I did, I was wrong). I'm saying that it's irrelevant. That makes no sense. If by the RAW a monster is indeed a homogeneous cube, as you yourself have just agreed to, then its limbs are completely indistinguishable mechanically from the rest of its form. The rule that limbs cannot be sneak attack is thus irrelevant, because if the cube is homogeneous, then by very definition, it's completely the same everywhere. In other words, saying that the big toe can't be sneak-attacked is EXACTLY THE SAME as same as saying the heart can't be sneak-attacked! I have no idea what kind of point you think you're trying to make here. All I see you telling me is that the RAW makes no sense when you consider logic and common sense, which is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. For the last time, please try to separate your notions of logic and common sense from the RAW, because as I'm certain you've noticed, the RAW isn't logical. What RAW tries to do (whether successfully or unsuccessfully not being the point) is maintain a sense of simplicity and balance, and in making creatures homogeneous cubes, it helps to accomplish that goal. It accomplishes simplicity in that we don't have to look up a different rule for every creature and don't need additional rules to accompany that rule, and it accomplishes balance by making Rogues and their class feature actually useful and readily available to the party. If anything, you could say the rules aren't even supposed to make sense. You're nit-picking words here, and arguing with no one. Either accept what I have said in the best of light; as the truth with all noble intentions, or don't. But don't attempt to re-tread what has already been covered, argued and dissected; it is pointless now as clearly you think one way and I think (know) another.
Crimson_Concerto 01-02-08, 12:53 AM	You're nit-picking words here,Where? :confused: and arguing with no one.Incorrect. I'm arguing with you. I felt that was painfully obvious. :uh-huh: Either accept what I have said in the best of light; as the truth with all noble intentions, or don't.What, have you run out of arguments? :confused: But don't attempt to re-tread what has already been covered, argued and dissected;I keep bringing things up again because you refuse to either successfully refute or accept anything I say about the topic. it is pointless now as clearly you think one way and I think (know) another.See, it's this elitist thinking that keeps you from admitting you're wrong. It's a shame. I expected you to actually give some kind of meaningful response to my last post. You've disappointed me...
Dog_O_War 01-02-08, 11:27 AM	Where? :confused: Incorrect. I'm arguing with you. I felt that was painfully obvious. :uh-huh: What, have you run out of arguments? :confused: I keep bringing things up again because you refuse to either successfully refute or accept anything I say about the topic. See, it's this elitist thinking that keeps you from admitting you're wrong. It's a shame. I expected you to actually give some kind of meaningful response to my last post. You've disappointed me... Dude, your arguements are old ones re-worded. You're telling myself and the creators of the game that we are wrong. We have proof; I came to the sumarization of the rule about sneak attack without having to read the article that the creator wrote after the fact, therefore I knew I was right about it. I've tried to explain this, and how I came about it but you don't want to listen. Otherwise you would've, and accepted the truth. Elitisism had nothing to do with it; annoyance and the truth did. That is why I stopped arguing, and said that I stopped arguing. I have run out of arguements because the truth can only be re-worded in so many ways. Please don't take this too personally, but yer being a Steve here. Your only reading things how you want to read them, and you're only seeing things from one point of view. You tell me how a halfling battling a Storm Giant is supposed to hit a vital, and saying, "by making an attack roll" just won't cut it.
Enigmis 01-02-08, 02:59 PM	Dude, your arguements are old ones re-worded. You're telling myself and the creators of the game that we are wrong. We have proof; I came to the sumarization of the rule about sneak attack without having to read the article that the creator wrote after the fact, therefore I knew I was right about it. I've tried to explain this, and how I came about it but you don't want to listen. Otherwise you would've, and accepted the truth. Elitisism had nothing to do with it; annoyance and the truth did. That is why I stopped arguing, and said that I stopped arguing. I have run out of arguements because the truth can only be re-worded in so many ways. Please don't take this too personally, but yer being a Steve here. Your only reading things how you want to read them, and you're only seeing things from one point of view. You tell me how a halfling battling a Storm Giant is supposed to hit a vital, and saying, "by making an attack roll" just won't cut it. I agree, elitism doesn't work. Now why are you using it? This thread didn't die down because everyone accepts your rulings, it died down because everyone relized arguing with you isn't worth it. No one who argued against you accepted your ruling they just gave up. P.S. I can't trust a word you say because your go into threads and bring up arguments you don't care about just to annoy everyone because your bored.
Dog_O_War 01-02-08, 04:44 PM	I agree, elitism doesn't work. Now why are you using it? This thread didn't die down because everyone accepts your rulings, it died down because everyone relized arguing with you isn't worth it. No one who argued against you accepted your ruling they just gave up. P.S. I can't trust a word you say because your go into threads and bring up arguments you don't care about just to annoy everyone because your bored. :confused: I am sorry you feel that way. I tend to speak my mind, and I view things as very black and white. I admit my mistakes, and make them know when I am wrong. I don't see how this is untrustworthy, but I guess I'll have to try harder. Also, as I had said, they aren't my rulings. Their WotC's, and I had no trouble decerning them that way without errata. May you will agree with me now? Also, where have I done this (bringing up arguements without caring about them); if this accusation is justified, then I appologize.
Orenmir 01-02-08, 11:45 PM	Wow -- I can't believe this thread is still going. And, it has become rather heated. It has also become cyclical and boring. I hope this will be my last post. A bird's eye view, if you will... Some people think the rule is vague, and therefore decide to ignore it. Some people think the rule is not vague, and decide to enforce it. We should all be able to leave it at that. Unfortunately, we cant -- even me... so here are my two cents: Personally, I don't like to ignore rules (even if some claim they are vague). If a rule is vague, I try to figure out a way to make it work. And this is how I make this rule work: 1. A small rogue attempts to SA a large foe. 2. DM: Wait a minute; there's a chance you might not be able to reach a vital organ! 3. DM compares heights, and discerns the anatomy of the foe (a good DM should be able to do this quickly). 4. DM: You can't reach the foe's vitals. 5. Rogue: I'll jump! 6. DM: You can roll a jump check as a move action. 7. Rogue rolls; maybe he fails, maybe he succeeds. 8. If he fails -- no SA. If he succeeds -- SA is allowed. This is just one scenario, many others are possible. And, I feel it is a simple interpretation of the rules. Also, it does not take up excessive table time -- maybe slightly more, but at least it adds some potentially exciting extra elements to a typical combat situation. I understand step #3 is where many of you will get hung up on -- anatomy, reach, vitals, etc. You can use common sense most of the time to make easy decisions (a limb does not typically contain vital organs; a giant has the same anatomy as a human; et-cetera). When the decision is more difficult and common sense can't be used, the DM can just make a judgment call (call it rule 0, if you want). This is not a houserule; this is simply the DM saying: "You know what, that dragon is just so much larger than you, you can't reach its vitals without an explanation of how you're going to." I'd rather see a DM try to make a rule work than just ignore it altogether. Afterall, the circumstance that we are all talking about is so rare, it doesn't deserve this 7 page thread.
Krusk 01-03-08, 12:44 AM	I stopped arguing, because i didn't feel like dealing with the impending flame war. That and I decided that since you will never be in a game I run, and I will never be in a game you run, I don't care how you want to run it. I know I don't plan to nerf the rogue without reason. I also know I don't plan to let my rogue suddenly suck at combat because someone says sorry, you are too short. It all boils down to this. Why not play the exceptionally tall dwarven rogue, nowhere does it say they cant be 7'11''. ANd I plan to battle nothing but the shortest of frost giants. 8'0''. I'm still medium, and they are still large. A flavor choice or description should not have an impact on any mechanical element of the game.
Crimson_Concerto 01-03-08, 07:15 PM	Dude, your arguements are old ones re-worded.I'm going to answer this with one of your own quotes:I have run out of arguements because the truth can only be re-worded in so many ways.I'll still keep trying, of course, and maybe eventually, you'll actually try to refute what I say instead of relying on proof by assertion. You're telling myself and the creators of the game that we are wrong.Yes, yes I am. The game's creators aren't perfect (surprise, surprise), and neither am I, and neither are you. We have proof; I came to the sumarization of the rule about sneak attack without having to read the article that the creator wrote after the fact, therefore I knew I was right about it.Which proves absolutely nothing? :confused: I did the same thing. I came to my conclusion about sneak attack without having to read the article that the creator wrote after the fact. Therefore, I already knew that the creators didn't actually put what was intended into the RAW. The article isn't helping your case at all either. It just says the exact same thing about it as the PHB does. In fact, if you'll take note, it doesn't cover ANYTHING in-depth about the topic in any of the four articles. It goes into mechanical depth about every single other little facet of Sneak Attack, so why not this one? The answer is simple; there is zero mechanical depth to it. It's not that it's vague; it's that it's irrelevant. It's a rule that can't be enforced without other rules. Those other rules don't exist, and so the rule we're discussing can't be enforced. The only way it can be enforced is by house-ruling more rules to go with it, but as we know, house-ruling isn't RAW. Thus, where RAW is concerned, the rule becomes irrelevant. I've tried to explain this, and how I came about it but you don't want to listen. Otherwise you would've, and accepted the truth.Of course, if I don't agree with you, the only possible explanation must be that I simply don't want to listen, even though I respond to everything relevant you say to me, a favor which I'm afraid you don't return. Please don't take this too personally, but yer being a Steve here. Your only reading things how you want to read them, and you're only seeing things from one point of view.Here's the problem here. You think I'm not seeing things from your point of view. I do. In fact, I agree that most of what you say is logical. However, I also have the luxury of being able to see outside this point of view. I can see that while most of your logic is sound (I don't know how the hell a pixie would sneak-attack a leviathan either), that logic has nothing to do with the RAW, which is the actual topic at hand. I'm not saying your rulings are wrong, because they're not. I'm just saying they're not RAW, because they aren't. The RAW gives no idea for exactly under what circumstances that Halfling can sneak attack that Storm Giant. It gives us no idea of how to determine when vitals are in reach, and you yourself have agreed that according to RAW, creatures are basically treated as homogeneous cubes, meaning that all parts of them are the same. You don't need to keep convincing me of what is logical and what isn't. I agree with you already. Stop trying to debate that because you're arguing with nobody.
Dog_O_War 01-04-08, 03:20 PM	I'm going to answer this with one of your own quotes:I'll still keep trying, of course, and maybe eventually, you'll actually try to refute what I say instead of relying on proof by assertion. Yes, yes I am. The game's creators aren't perfect (surprise, surprise), and neither am I, and neither are you. So, the guy who wrote the rule got it wrong, and you knew this because you were reading his thoughts.... right. There is a line from the movie re-make Maverick, "It's not our fault that the Indian was on our land first before we got here." They can't get wrong what was never defined. They defined the rule as such, and it is you who has "gotten it wrong". There is no greater refutation than being told "You are wrong" from the source; the guy who wrote it. Which proves absolutely nothing? :confused: I did the same thing. I came to my conclusion about sneak attack without having to read the article that the creator wrote after the fact. Therefore, I already knew that the creators didn't actually put what was intended into the RAW. Well we can't both be right, and since we came to different conclusions before a "clarification" was released. Since my interpretation followed the clarification, it would stand that I am right.
Orenmir 01-04-08, 04:21 PM	You're telling myself and the creators of the game that we are wrong. Yes, yes I am. That's a pretty bold (and arrogant) statement, considering the rule in question was confirmed by a second author after the inception and documented. How many times do the authors have to verify a rule before you (and everybody else who ignores it) agree to use it?
Pandapeep 01-04-08, 07:12 PM	That's a pretty bold (and arrogant) statement, considering the rule in question was confirmed by a second author after the inception and documented. How many times do the authors have to verify a rule before you (and everybody else who ignores it) agree to use it? When they decide to make the rule less vauge, and less nerfy to one character class.
Crimson_Concerto 01-07-08, 01:15 AM	So, the guy who wrote the rule got it wrong, and you knew this because you were reading his thoughts.... right. They can't get wrong what was never defined. They defined the rule as such, and it is you who has "gotten it wrong". There is no greater refutation than being told "You are wrong" from the source; the guy who wrote itLet's pretend I wrote a rule for 4E D&D that said: All elves have white hair. No, no, wait, I meant to write that they can have multiple different colors of hair. Oh well, the color of their hair is pretty irrelevant since there's no mechanical repercussions, so there's no real reason for me to go back and change what I wrote (no need to issue errata). Whatever my intent, I did write up there that their hair is white, though, and if I said I didn't write that, I would be WRONG. I could tell people what I meant to write, but for all RAW intents and purposes, all elves in 4E D&D now have white hair. It's stupid and irrelevant, but there it is. That's basically what happened. They might have intended to write something, but it didn't come out the way they intended. That doesn't mean they didn't write it that way, and since they haven't decided to change what they wrote (maybe since the rule is so irrelevant they didn't think it was important enough?), it's still written that way. So no, what they say now really doesn't matter. They wrote a rule without any actual relevance to the game that is unenforceable without houserules. It may not be what they intended, but that's what they did, and they've done nothing to change that. Well we can't both be right, and since we came to different conclusions before a "clarification" was released. Since my interpretation followed the clarification, it would stand that I am right.That would be true if the clarification had actually clarified anything. The problem is that it didn't. It clarified almost everything about sneak attack EXCEPT the part we're talking about. I'll refer you to a quote from my last post that you failed to address:The article isn't helping your case at all either. It just says the exact same thing about it as the PHB does. In fact, if you'll take note, it doesn't cover ANYTHING in-depth about the topic in any of the four articles. It goes into mechanical depth about every single other little facet of Sneak Attack, so why not this one? The answer is simple; there is zero mechanical depth to it. It's not that it's vague; it's that it's irrelevant. It's a rule that can't be enforced without other rules. Those other rules don't exist, and so the rule we're discussing can't be enforced. The only way it can be enforced is by house-ruling more rules to go with it, but as we know, house-ruling isn't RAW. Thus, where RAW is concerned, the rule becomes irrelevant. That's a pretty bold (and arrogant) statement, considering the rule in question was confirmed by a second author after the inception and documented. How many times do the authors have to verify a rule before you (and everybody else who ignores it) agree to use it?When they decide to change what they wrote so that that rule actually becomes enforceable, most likely in the form of errata that actually creates rules to go along with the currently unenforceable rule. Anything will do, really. How about errata that adds after that sentence: "This mean that a Rogue can only Sneak-Attack a creature up to 2 size categories larger than itself." Any one-sentence mechanically enforceable clarification would do, really...
Dog_O_War 01-07-08, 11:04 AM	Let's pretend I wrote a rule for 4E D&D that said: All elves have white hair. No, no, wait, I meant to write that they can have multiple different colors of hair. Oh well, the color of their hair is pretty irrelevant since there's no mechanical repercussions, so there's no real reason for me to go back and change what I wrote (no need to issue errata). Whatever my intent, I did write up there that their hair is white, though, and if I said I didn't write that, I would be WRONG. I could tell people what I meant to write, but for all RAW intents and purposes, all elves in 4E D&D now have white hair. It's stupid and irrelevant, but there it is. That's basically what happened. They might have intended to write something, but it didn't come out the way they intended. That doesn't mean they didn't write it that way, and since they haven't decided to change what they wrote (maybe since the rule is so irrelevant they didn't think it was important enough?), it's still written that way. If that were "basically what happened" then they would've issued an errata on it in the 3+ years 3.5 has existed. Instead, they issued a clarifier for people who have no concept of common sense. So no, what they say now really doesn't matter. They wrote a rule without any actual relevance to the game that is unenforceable without houserules. It may not be what they intended, but that's what they did, and they've done nothing to change that. "Height" is not a house rule. They give you mechanics for that. They give you everything inside normal human maximum. Nothing is saying you can't play a ten-foot tall human, but there is also nothing saying you can't play a human with a 30 natural strength. This is why we use (and have) a height modifier. That would be true if the clarification had actually clarified anything. The problem is that it didn't. It clarified almost everything about sneak attack EXCEPT the part we're talking about. I'll refer you to a quote from my last post that you failed to address: Like this here? If the attacker cannot meet either of these two conditions, no sneak attack is possible. If the attacker can meet at least one of these conditions, a sneak attack is possible, provided that something else doesn't intrude and spoil the sneak attack. Several things can kill a sneak attack, even if the attacker sets up the attack properly: Ranged attacks can be sneak attacks only if the range is 30 feet or less. The attacker must use a weapon optimally to make a sneak attack. If the attacker takes the -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage, no sneak attack is possible. (A weapon that normally deals nonlethal damage, such as a sap, can be used in a sneak attack; however, you deal nonlethal damage if you do so.) Sneak attacks are possible only against living creatures that have discernible anatomies. Undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures are not subject to sneak attacks, and creatures that are not subject to critical hits are not subject to sneak attacks also. Sneak attacks require a clear view of the target. Any degree of concealment -- even concealment from fog (a lousy 20% miss chance) foils sneak attacks. Sneak attacks are possible only when the attacker can reach the target's vital spots. If you're limited to beating the foe about the ankles, you can't make sneak attacks against him. Did you read the article? This here says that there are sensible limitors to the ability, like reach. I honestly do not know how you could possibly think that if you were at the foot of a creature 1000 feet tall, you should still gain sneak attack. This portion is clarified here for those people I mentioned earlier (those ones without that sense that is supposedly common). This is why time and again I said that I cannot make it any clearer without a diagram, and that the truth can only be re-worded so many times. This is why I said you are choosing to actively ignore what has been written here. When they decide to change what they wrote so that that rule actually becomes enforceable, most likely in the form of errata that actually creates rules to go along with the currently unenforceable rule. Anything will do, really. How about errata that adds after that sentence: "This mean that a Rogue can only Sneak-Attack a creature up to 2 size categories larger than itself." Any one-sentence mechanically enforceable clarification would do, really... You wanna hear a "mechanically enforceable" clarification? Rule 0. This "rule" here says that you (or rather the DM) can do anything you like; but if you want a ruling that does not require 0 to enforce? Common sense. This rule states that rules for things like jump have limitors because people cannot jump 20 feet high without some kind of outside help, be it extrodinary (pole, monk ability) spell (jump), or other such help. We didn't need a ruling on why jump is limited, why do we need one on why out-of-reach vitals would not be able to be sneak-attacked? Also, why do we need a ruling to tell us that a person 1000 feet tall cannot be sneak-attacked by a person 5 feet tall? We know things have a height (there are rules for this), why would you think that height is merely a flavor descriptor then? What you're asking here is for a rule for a rule; a lawyering of something that doesn't need it when you apply the outside force of "sense". Also, you example isn't even enforceable; What if the rogue were to be flying, and thus in range of vital spots on a giant, like the head? Because he's two categories larger though, you can't sneak-attack, even if you caught him in the jugular.
Crimson_Concerto 01-07-08, 07:29 PM	If that were "basically what happened" then they would've issued an errata on it in the 3+ years 3.5 has existed.You completely missed the entire point of that, dear. Please try again. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying they need to issue errata for elven hair color. It's simply not important enough to issue errata for because it just doesn't affect anything. Instead, they issued a clarifier for people who have no concept of common sense.A) The clarifier didn't clarify anything, as I later showed (and I'll get to your response to that later). B) The RAW was not built around common sense. If common sense is all the proof you can invoke, you've lost the argument. "Height" is not a house rule. They give you mechanics for that. They give you everything inside normal human maximum. Nothing is saying you can't play a ten-foot tall human, but there is also nothing saying you can't play a human with a 30 natural strength. This is why we use (and have) a height modifier.That response didn't actually respond to the quoted paragraph of mine that preceded it. That response has nothing to do with anything I said, as a matter of fact. It didn't even have to do anything with the debate any more since you already agreed creature in D&D are homogeneous cubes. Please try responding to that paragraph again with something actually relevant. Like this here?You mean that part down there that said almost exactly the same thing as the PHB? That part that clarified absolutely nothing? Yes, I saw that. Did you read the article?Yes. Fun fact: It doesn't say anything different than the PHB does. It's just the same stuff reworded. I honestly do not know how you could possibly think that if you were at the foot of a creature 1000 feet tall, you should still gain sneak attack.Okay, see, here's where you keep misrepresenting my stance, so I'll clarify for you one last time to see if it sinks in. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD. IN FACT, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY SHOULD. I'M SAYING THAT THEY DO. This portion is clarified...No, no it isn't. Please try to explain how it's any more clear than what's written in the PHB. This is why time and again I said that I cannot make it any clearer without a diagramThen draw me one. You wanna hear a "mechanically enforceable" clarification? Rule 0.You mean house-ruling? Which is exactly what I've been saying all along? Common sense.Honey, I've already refuted your so-called "common sense" multiple times. Get over it and move on or give up. We didn't need a ruling on why jump is limited, why do we need one on why out-of-reach vitals would not be able to be sneak-attacked?We don't need one on why. We need one on when. Also, why do we need a ruling to tell us that a person 1000 feet tall cannot be sneak-attacked by a person 5 feet tall?Because if that's true, then the current RAW doesn't reflect it. What you're asking here is for a rule for a rule; a lawyering of something that doesn't need it when you apply the outside force of "sense".There you go again... Also, you example isn't even enforceableI didn't say it was a GOOD example. I just said it was an example. ANYTHING would do. Even if it were a stupid rule that I would probably house-rule away, at least then it would be enforceable and actually have some kind of relevance in the RAW.
Orenmir 01-07-08, 10:48 PM	@ Dog -- It's pointless to argue anymore. When ignorance becomes that entrenched, a debate based on wisdom or intelligence is impossible. /counterpoint My apologies for being passive. I'm giving up. This thread/debate has lost all constructiveness.
Krusk 01-08-08, 04:50 AM	You wanna hear a "mechanically enforceable" clarification? Rule 0. This "rule" here says that you (or rather the DM) can do anything you like. Actully, according to Rule 0, a 2 ft midget can sneak attack the tallest frost giant/dragon in the world. Thats why we don't use rule 0 in a debate about what the RAW says. Rule 0 can say whatever we want it to. This rule states that rules for things like jump have limitors because people cannot jump 20 feet high without some kind of outside help, be it extrodinary (pole, monk ability) spell (jump), or other such help. We didn't need a ruling on why jump is limited, No longer a rule in 3.5 edition, it was taken out because it was a lame limitation that rarely came up anyway. DC to jump 10ft straight up with no running start is 40 as is. If you can get your jump check to 41, why not reward you. why do we need one on why out-of-reach vitals would not be able to be sneak-attacked? Also, why do we need a ruling to tell us that a person 1000 feet tall cannot be sneak-attacked by a person 5 feet tall? We know things have a height (there are rules for this), why would you think that height is merely a flavor descriptor then? What you're asking here is for a rule for a rule; a lawyering of something that doesn't need it when you apply the outside force of "sense". If we are going to be using the rules for height I would also like the rules for locations for the vital spots on all monsters, and drawings indicating all combat positions they may encounter. That way I can gaurentee that I always let my players know exactly when vitals are within reach. Until then I will continue to assume they are in reach.
Tectorman 01-08-08, 03:20 PM	A step-by-step reconstruction of my own thought processes when I first saw that particular rule and thought hard about what it meant, if you like. The PHB says that you need to be able to hit a creature's vitals, if such it has, in order to successfully sneak attack it. So in order to find out where said creature's vitals are, we look in the..., well, we go look in the book entitled... Hold on, now. Where are we supposed to find this stuff out? The Draconomicon and Lords of Madness? Okay, and having looked at that, I can now positively assert that if a dragon or an aberration is my foe, I can tell the DM (or if I'm the DM, I can make the ruling) that the such-and-such vein and/or the so-and-so nerve bundle is within my reach and I can make a sneak attack on it. For anything else that hasn't been explicitly laid out in the rules, either I or the DM or someone will have to make a judgment call and declare something. But wait, that's only good for my group (and only under the current DM, possibly only good for this campaign). What about the other groups? They're going by the same printed rules as my group, but will they make the same judgment calls as my group and come to the same conclusions? Not bloody likely. (The possible exceptions to this would be animals and humans. Animals (but not dire animals or vermin) and humans are supposed to be representative of creatures that exist in the real world and have real medical information documented for them, so assuming real information would be used in the game by any group that found it necessary to make such a ruling would not be a foolish assumption.) Please note that even this is an assumption. So, the point I believe Crimson Concerto is trying to make is this: when the rules are silent on an issue and you have to make something up in order to make the rule work, this is a "house rule". Considering that sneak attacking requires vitals to be hit (and therefore accessable to the one trying to do the hitting), this is a good house rule to make. But don't pretend it's official when it's not. If you can positively say that every time the issue comes up, no matter which group it comes up in, that the group will come to the same conclusion, then you've got a point (it'd still be a house rule, just more of a unanimous house rule). And I don't buy assuming like races will have like physiologies (and thus, like vitals). In my arm, I have a nerve bundle that if hit in exactly the wrong way will cause me a lot of discomfort (not actual pain, though). This is my funny bone. I also have a series of blood vessels close to the surface of my skin on the underside of my wrist that, when cut, could easily lead to death within minutes. Joe Giant over there has an arm like mine. If you look closely, he even has the same muscles bulging out here and there and the same bones defining those muscles as I do. But all his blood vessels have to do is have less blood going through them, or be less superficial, or be on the other side of the arm and all of a sudden a cut that would kill me in moments won't do jack to him. All Joe Giant needs is a nerve bundle more sensitive than my own to turn my funny bone hit from an "owie" to "writhing on the ground from a kidney stone". Even assuming his wrist blood vessels and funny bone to be the exact same as mine is a wrist because there are no actual giants to check and no information made up about them to confirm or deny this. Exactly how credible would I be if I suddenly declared "Well, this makes sense to me, so now it's official for everyone."? And it gets worse. Dwarves have eyes that violate the very laws of physics by being able to see in the dark, never mind that there's not a single photon of visible light here, and all of this being extraordinary (not magical). Elves (according to RotW) grow brighter and fade away as they age. And we're supposed to gather that their vitals are the same as a human's?
Orenmir 01-08-08, 04:19 PM	Thank you, Tectorman, for bringing up so many new points to the argument. Seriously, did you read even one of the previous posts? Here's a new idea I'd like to put on the table: Why do you need a book to tell you every aspect of D&D? What happened to imagination? I don't need Draconimicon to tell me where a dragon's heart is. Just use your brain -- D&D isn't as complicated as this thread is making it out to seem... Little Rogue; big Giant; can't reach vitals -- yes, it IS that easy! The authors of the PHB thought that the readers would have enough intelligence and imagination to figure out where vitals are and if they could be reached. To hunt for an explanation of this is not needed, and is simply an excuse to ignore a core rule for your own benefit.
Tectorman 01-09-08, 12:21 PM	Thank you, Tectorman, for bringing up so many new points to the argument. Seriously, did you read even one of the previous posts? Here's a new idea I'd like to put on the table: Why do you need a book to tell you every aspect of D&D? What happened to imagination? I don't need Draconimicon to tell me where a dragon's heart is. Just use your brain -- D&D isn't as complicated as this thread is making it out to seem... Little Rogue; big Giant; can't reach vitals -- yes, it IS that easy! The authors of the PHB thought that the readers would have enough intelligence and imagination to figure out where vitals are and if they could be reached. To hunt for an explanation of this is not needed, and is simply an excuse to ignore a core rule for your own benefit. When did I say ignore the core rule? When did I say you needed a book to explicitly spell everything out in order to play the game? What I said was: don't pretend that any adjudication done on your part is anything more than adjudication on your part (i.e., not official, not core RAW, and thus, a houserule). If you and Dog O War have admitted in one of your previous posts (that I'm not remembering at the moment) that what you come up with is your (reasonable) interpretation, not to be confused with the core rules, then I'll go ahead and say that I wasn't talking about ya'll, specifically. Put it another way. Can we agree that sometimes the official ruling is "We don't have an official ruling"? Take jumping, for example. I take a standard action to do something, then I use my move action to jump. I roll for it and come up with a distance of more than my move action would normally allow. Now, am I suspended in midair until the beginning of my next turn, or do I complete the action (taking more time than one move action would allow) and just assume that I'm denied my move action in the next round? The rules are silent on this. In other words, the ruling is "We don't have a ruling" or "Whatever you come up with, that's what it is" or "Use a houserule". Another example: I write in my character's description that he is 5' 8" tall. We're in a dungeon and have to walk down a path that's 5'5" tall. Am I now squeezing through the space at reduced speed? The DM says yes, but after I tell him that I just bend my head over and walk with a slouch, he changes his mind and says no. Well, that was good for that time, but what if we come across a 5' tall pathway? What if it's 4'10"? Eventually the DM is going to have to make something up (maybe "you are not restricted in your movement if the ceiling is 90% as tall as you are", or "if the ceiling is less than 90% as tall as you are, then you're restricted unless you have a number of ranks in Escape Artist equal to the two times the number of inches lower than 90% of your height the ceiling is"). Which is the RAW way? There isn't one. When the book expects you to "use your own judgment (intelligence and imagination, I believe you called it)", it's saying "Use a houserule." And has anyone considered the fact that a successful attack roll that costs the opponent hit points is not necessarily a physical contact? I swing with my axe and successfully imbed my blade a few inches into the guy's gut (thereby dropping his hit point total). OR, I swing with a sword and the opponent parries it (meaning my blade never touched his body), and the act of parrying my blade was a difficult enough exertion to take something out of him (again, his hit point total drops). Meaning a sneak attack could be nothing more than an attack that forces the opponent to pull something while he's parrying it. Which way's the right way? Yes. You mean this way or that way? Yes. So this way's the correct way. Yes. And the other way's wrong, then. No, they're both right. So, yes, I will say that you have to reach the vitals (the rules say so). I will not say where the vitals are because you won't find that anywhere (exceptions: Draconomicon, Lords of Madness, and the article on sneak attacking says that you won't find a vital in a foot (yeah, that clears up everything)). For my own games, I would assume that any vital will be no lower than the main body/trunk/torso/etc. of the creature in question, the bottom of which will be appr. 90% the length of the creature's legs from the ground (this assumes the creature will not be standing as tall as he possibly could just to foil the rogue (if I'm the rogue, I don't want the DM arbitrarily telling me the BBEG is standing on tiptoes just to deny me my class's main offensive ability because of a technicality and I wouldn't do that either if I were the DM)). The difference is I'll go ahead and say this is an assumption (houserule). Someone else could come along and say that everyone near humanoid in shape will have a femoral artery, which would lower the height some. Another person will come along and say that since humans have particularly vulnerable blood vessels in their wrists, Girallons, Anthropomorphic Apes, and Vanaras will have similar vulnerable areas in their legs (since their legs have structures similar to human arms, they should have similar vulnerabilities). Thus, creatues like this would be vulnerable to sneak attacks to the feet. Seems reasonable. Some would go as far as call it intelligent and imaginative. Which is right? Not a one of them. Which is wrong? Not a one of them. They're houserules.
Orenmir 01-09-08, 02:44 PM	When did I say ignore the core rule? When did I say you needed a book to explicitly spell everything out in order to play the game? Forgive me for not clarifying my original post. This:Thank you, Tectorman, for bringing up so many new points to the argument. Seriously, did you read even one of the previous posts?...was directed at you. The rest of my post:Here's a new idea I'd like to put on the table: Why do you need a book to tell you every aspect of D&D? What happened to imagination? I don't need Draconimicon to tell me where a dragon's heart is. Just use your brain -- D&D isn't as complicated as this thread is making it out to seem... Little Rogue; big Giant; can't reach vitals -- yes, it IS that easy! The authors of the PHB thought that the readers would have enough intelligence and imagination to figure out where vitals are and if they could be reached. To hunt for an explanation of this is not needed, and is simply an excuse to ignore a core rule for your own benefit....was a comment in general, not directed specifically at you. I was trying to move the argument in a new direction instead of rehashing the previous 6 pages. By the way, did you read those pages? Please do, if you'd like to contribute to this argument. As it stands, I have to completely ignore your last post because I have already debunked it (well, at least the parts that made sense).
Dog_O_War 01-09-08, 03:39 PM	Also, "core rules" do not include the anatomy of humans or animals, yet you assume they do. But the truth is you're using common sense to ajudicate that humans in D&D have the same anatomy as in real life because they are titled the same. Why then is it a stretch to assume that all creatures (unless otherwise defined) have an anatomy structure similar to other creatures of the same shape?
Malchius 01-09-08, 03:49 PM	I have only one problem with the whole Occam's Razor approach, the Shrimp, isn't it's heart in it's head? This is an animal with a strange anatomy compared to more or less all other animals so it wouldn't be surprising if a magical beast's heart(s) weren't in their shins(over-exaggeration). However most of your arguments make sense, but I'd personally houserule the "able to reach vitals" out of it because it makes Rogues weaker(especially compared to those devilish Warlocks).
Dog_O_War 01-09-08, 04:03 PM	I have only one problem with the whole Occam's Razor approach, the Shrimp, isn't it's heart in it's head? This is an animal with a strange anatomy compared to more or less all other animals so it wouldn't be surprising if a magical beast's heart(s) weren't in their shins(over-exaggeration). However most of your arguments make sense, but I'd personally houserule the "able to reach vitals" out of it because it makes Rogues weaker(especially compared to those devilish Warlocks). There are exceptions to every rule. But you wouldn't assume then that because there is one exception, that all of them are, would you?
Tectorman 01-09-08, 04:25 PM	Star Trek VI Martia: That was not his knee. Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place, Captain. Also, "core rules" do not include the anatomy of humans or animals, yet you assume they do. But the truth is you're using common sense to ajudicate that humans in D&D have the same anatomy as in real life because they are titled the same. Why then is it a stretch to assume that all creatures (unless otherwise defined) have an anatomy structure similar to other creatures of the same shape? Common sense will also tell you that attacking with something attached to your body would be a natural weapon, but your hand is apparently not. Common sense is actually not very common (or rather, it is, it just leads to different outcomes with different people). Okay, this part comes from something introduced in the Star Trek novel Starfleet: Year One called Underwood's Theory of Parallel Development. It says that creatures with similar bodies (assuming they have the capacity to invent) will invent similar objects for similar purposes. The function of these objects would be the same, but not the actual shape of the objects or how they accomplish their ends. For example, a human has an "arm", ending in a "hand" with "fingers" and a "mouth" with two hard structures (the upper and lower jaws) behind a flexible orifice (the lips). We also have a device to assist the arm in transporting food to the mouth called a "utensil". In Asia, they have the exact same body type and the exact same need for a device like a utensil, but how different is a pair of chopsticks from a fork or a spoon? Now imagine an alien species, same body type as a human, except his mouth is a great deal wider. His fork would be more like a comb with a handle (or even a small pitchfork). Change the fingers to a single finger. One finger grasping a handle wouldn't be a firm grip, but change the handle to more of a ring shape and he can hold it better. These are slight changes that create significant differences. Here's one: height/size. Dinosaurs (such as the Stegosaurus-like ones) did not require large brains in their heads, but they did need extra large nerve bundles throughout the spinal column in order to function. Take into account the fact that the human heart is a large pump, but that the blood vessels also have muscular tissues within them, and Joe Giant could have anything from multiple hearts to multiple brains. So to directly answer your question, yes, I am assuming that humans in D&D have the same anatomy as in real life (I believe I said as much), and no, I don't consider it a stretch to assume like-creatures to have like-anatomies. Just two things with this. A.) "Like" is not the same thing as "Same." B.) You're still assuming, you're still coming up with stuff that not everyone else will and as such makes your determinations yours only (i.e., "house rules"). And yes, Orenmir, I have read all seven pages of this thread. I had read them before I first posted, whether you believe it or not.
Tectorman 01-09-08, 04:26 PM	I got ninja'd. There are exceptions to every rule. But you wouldn't assume then that because there is one exception, that all of them are, would you? I would assume that if one exception can arise, that more can follow.
Dog_O_War 01-09-08, 04:35 PM	I got ninja'd. I would assume that if one exception can arise, that more can follow. Which is okay, but to disregard a rule just because one creature you fought wasn't 'anatomically similar' to others of it's shape is foolish. Also, Star Trek has an abnormally large amount of funny-faced 10 digit humanoids. It is quite possibly the worst example (or most extreme) of how there will always be exceptions. Point to note though; the first few races they make contact with have the same general anatomy, even if they are elementally different in structure.
Tectorman 01-10-08, 09:51 AM	Which is okay, but to disregard a rule just because one creature you fought wasn't 'anatomically similar' to others of it's shape is foolish. Agreed. Don't disregard the rule, but don't expect people to come to the same conclusions about when the rule applies as you do. Also, Star Trek has an abnormally large amount of funny-faced 10 digit humanoids. It is quite possibly the worst example (or most extreme) of how there will always be exceptions. Point to note though; the first few races they make contact with have the same general anatomy, even if they are elementally different in structure. That's only because the first few races they made contact with occured before Westmore took over how the races look. Although personally, the Original Series Gorn still looks better than the one we saw on Enterprise (they're supposed to have bug-eyes, dammit). But I always thought of Star Trek as being the single best example of why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Take Captain Kirk and Mister Spock. Except for the ear tips and the growth pattern of the hair of their respective eyebrows, they look to have the same anatomy. But suddenly, both of them collapse to the floor, neither of them having a pulse, and they need CPR. Well, Captain Kirk will make it, but poor Mister Spock will die because someone thought his heart would be in the same general area as a human's (his is, in fact, located at about the same place as a human's left kidney). Then we go to Star Trek Voyager and compare Kes, an Ocampan female, to Kathryn Janeway, a human female. Both appear to have the same kind of hip structure (that is, child-bearing hips), so you'd think that if human females give birth through the groin, that Ocampan females would, as well (Ocampan females actually generate something called a mitral sac that hangs off their back and the baby develops there, i.e., nowhere near the hips). And then let's look at their hands. A human's hand has bones, muscles, tendons, blood vessels, nerves, nerve endings, skin, fatty tissues right underneath the skin, hair, and sweat glands. It is primarily used to assist the human in manipulating the environment around him. You'd think an Ocampan's hand would do the same thing. Ocampan females have a sticky substance on their hands when they're ready to mate that facilitates the exchange of DNA (essentially, an Ocampan's genitals are in his or her hand). (Conversely, creatures that look different can also be more closely related than appearances would suggest. A Klingon is a Klingon whether he has brow ridges or not (the same thing with Romulans). Ktarians can have either skull spikes or feline eyes. Trill come in both the spotted variety and the, um, not-spotted variety.) And we can take this to other franchises as well. Andalites (from Animorphs) have legs ending in hooves that look about the same as the hooves of an Earth animal. Chop off the animal's hooves and he can no longer walk, but except for needing food brought to him, he can still go on. Chop off an Andalite's hooves and he can no longer eat (they simultaneously grind grass beneath their hooves as they walk and absorb the nutrients of the ground up grass through their hooves). See what Occam's Razor is getting you. We've got a dead Vulcan, an Andalite that can't even eat, let alone get around, and an Ocampan female who wants to sue you for sexual harassment just because you asked to hold her hand. And we can take this to D&D species, too. Describe for me the digestive system of a Centaur. "Well, you start with the mouth, go down the esophagus, get to the stomach..." "Hold on, where's his stomach? Is it in the human half or the horse half?" "It's in the human half, obviously. The mouth, the esophagus, and the stomach are in the human half, and the horse half has a really long small intestine, and then the large intestine." "No, that can't be it at all. You start with the mouth, go down the esophagus, and you get to the stomach after you've entered the horse half. Then it's the small intestine, then the large intestine." "Wait, who says they only have one stomach? Cows can have more than one stomach and they aren't even 'Monstrous'. Start with the mouth, go down the esophagus to the stomach in the human half, then go through whatever it is that takes stuff from one stomach in a cow to the next one, then you get to the stomach in the horse half, then the small and large intestines." And yes, this relates to whether a Rogue can reach a larger creature's vitals. A similar creature to a human may or may not have a femoral artery, and this femoral artery (which may or may not exist) may or may not be as high on the creature as it is on the human. Any DM can say "It's lower on this creature, so yes, you can reach it" or "Nope, this species doesn't even have one, sorry" and he's not in violation of the rules, he's not supporting the RAW, he's making a houserule, as unofficial as the next, as is anyone who finds they need to make a judgment call in order to keep the game going.
Dog_O_War 01-10-08, 10:49 AM	Take Captain Kirk and Mister Spock. Except for the ear tips and the growth pattern of the hair of their respective eyebrows, they look to have the same anatomy. But suddenly, both of them collapse to the floor, neither of them having a pulse, and they need CPR. Well, Captain Kirk will make it, but poor Mister Spock will die because someone thought his heart would be in the same general area as a human's (his is, in fact, located at about the same place as a human's left kidney). Then we go to Star Trek Voyager and compare Kes, an Ocampan female, to Kathryn Janeway, a human female. Both appear to have the same kind of hip structure (that is, child-bearing hips), so you'd think that if human females give birth through the groin, that Ocampan females would, as well (Ocampan females actually generate something called a mitral sac that hangs off their back and the baby develops there, i.e., nowhere near the hips). And then let's look at their hands. A human's hand has bones, muscles, tendons, blood vessels, nerves, nerve endings, skin, fatty tissues right underneath the skin, hair, and sweat glands. It is primarily used to assist the human in manipulating the environment around him. You'd think an Ocampan's hand would do the same thing. Ocampan females have a sticky substance on their hands when they're ready to mate that facilitates the exchange of DNA (essentially, an Ocampan's genitals are in his or her hand). (Conversely, creatures that look different can also be more closely related than appearances would suggest. A Klingon is a Klingon whether he has brow ridges or not (the same thing with Romulans). Ktarians can have either skull spikes or feline eyes. Trill come in both the spotted variety and the, um, not-spotted variety.) And we can take this to other franchises as well. Andalites (from Animorphs) have legs ending in hooves that look about the same as the hooves of an Earth animal. Chop off the animal's hooves and he can no longer walk, but except for needing food brought to him, he can still go on. Chop off an Andalite's hooves and he can no longer eat (they simultaneously grind grass beneath their hooves as they walk and absorb the nutrients of the ground up grass through their hooves). See what Occam's Razor is getting you. We've got a dead Vulcan, an Andalite that can't even eat, let alone get around, and an Ocampan female who wants to sue you for sexual harassment just because you asked to hold her hand. You're missing one very big part here. Those startrek races only had a random anatomy because the guy who created them had no idea about why we evolve the way we do. Your heart is exponentially more vital than your kidney, but by this guys' definition it does not need the increased protection of the ribcage (which is why our hearts are where they are). This says to me that these aliens were evolutionally destined to die. One punch just under that ribcage and you stop Spocks' heart; no protection for his most vital organ. Seems not to make sense, given that evolution states that we increase protection of these vitals, not expose them. Also, a humanoid woman with an eggsack on her back; yet another example of wanting evolution to wipe her species out (I know certain insects do the same thing, but you'll note that these creatures' backs are decidedly more protective of the egg). The brow-ridge of the Klingon is about the only evolutionary beneficial advance I've seen in startrek. And we can take this to D&D species, too. Describe for me the digestive system of a Centaur. "Well, you start with the mouth, go down the esophagus, get to the stomach..." "Hold on, where's his stomach? Is it in the human half or the horse half?" "It's in the human half, obviously. The mouth, the esophagus, and the stomach are in the human half, and the horse half has a really long small intestine, and then the large intestine." "No, that can't be it at all. You start with the mouth, go down the esophagus, and you get to the stomach after you've entered the horse half. Then it's the small intestine, then the large intestine." "Wait, who says they only have one stomach? Cows can have more than one stomach and they aren't even 'Monstrous'. Start with the mouth, go down the esophagus to the stomach in the human half, then go through whatever it is that takes stuff from one stomach in a cow to the next one, then you get to the stomach in the horse half, then the small and large intestines." And yes, this relates to whether a Rogue can reach a larger creature's vitals. A similar creature to a human may or may not have a femoral artery, and this femoral artery (which may or may not exist) may or may not be as high on the creature as it is on the human. Any DM can say "It's lower on this creature, so yes, you can reach it" or "Nope, this species doesn't even have one, sorry" and he's not in violation of the rules, he's not supporting the RAW, he's making a houserule, as unofficial as the next, as is anyone who finds they need to make a judgment call in order to keep the game going. What anatomy a creature has does not matter; only where. It is assumed that creatures that are not described with anatomy, yet are vunerable to it (not immune to critical hits) are descernable by the character in question. But it specifically states that attacking a limb will not allow sneak attack. so given a shape, like humanoid, and given a sizeable creature like a giant, it is safe to say that the first 7 feet of leg will not be vunerable to sneak attack, which means the prone rogue at his feet will not be striking the torso. This is what the last 7 pages have been about; occams' razor has only come into play for where vitals would sensically be stored; in the protective torso.
Tectorman 01-10-08, 03:32 PM	You're missing one very big part here. Those startrek races only had a random anatomy because the guy who created them had no idea about why we evolve the way we do. Your heart is exponentially more vital than your kidney, but by this guys' definition it does not need the increased protection of the ribcage (which is why our hearts are where they are). This says to me that these aliens were evolutionally destined to die. One punch just under that ribcage and you stop Spocks' heart; no protection for his most vital organ. Seems not to make sense, given that evolution states that we increase protection of these vitals, not expose them. Also, a humanoid woman with an eggsack on her back; yet another example of wanting evolution to wipe her species out (I know certain insects do the same thing, but you'll note that these creatures' backs are decidedly more protective of the egg). The brow-ridge of the Klingon is about the only evolutionary beneficial advance I've seen in startrek. You're missing one very big part here. Alien species on Star Trek are made up. Just like pretty much everything in the MM. Furthermore, evolution most definitely did not have anything to do with the origin of any of the races in D&D Otherwise, how would species dependent on thought and invention (the humanoid races) arise when the world still has large animals (dire animals even)? Not to mention the dinosaurs. Not to mention all the other creatures out there. Odds are, it was more a matter of one god saying to another "Okay, I've got this great new race going, but I can't figure out where to put the spleen?" "Oh, just cram it in behind the stomach. That's what all the other gods are doing." "Also, I was wondering about the eyes. I want them to be able to see in perfect darkness, but I can't figure out how to do it." "Dude, you're a god. Just put them in there, say it's godly magic, and be done with it." What anatomy a creature has does not matter; only where. It is assumed that creatures that are not described with anatomy, yet are vunerable to it (not immune to critical hits) are descernable by the character in question. But it specifically states that attacking a limb will not allow sneak attack. so given a shape, like humanoid, and given a sizeable creature like a giant, it is safe to say that the first 7 feet of leg will not be vunerable to sneak attack, which means the prone rogue at his feet will not be striking the torso. This is what the last 7 pages have been about; occams' razor has only come into play for where vitals would sensically be stored; in the protective torso. And if the phrase in question had been "You must be able to reach the creature's main body/trunk/torso/etc. in order to sneak attack it", this thread probably wouldn't be here in the first place. But since it says vitals, we have to add in non-torso vulnerable spots. When things like slittable wrists and femoral arteries exist on a human (and if we're going with Occam's Razor, human-like creatures), then limbs are potentially as valid as a torso. All a human-like creature has to have is thicker skin, though, and then the femoral artery (assuming the creature has one and that it's in the same place), while there, is no longer as vulnerable. And actually, Natural Armor could cover this. On the other hand, make the skin even thinner than a human's, and veins that we have that aren't normally vulnerable spots for us start popping up anywhere from the groin all they way down to (you guessed it) the foot. Alright, let me be clear. This is what I've been arguing against: "Don't just ignore the rule because the books don't come out and say what a vital is. Use some judgment. But only enough to come to the conclusion (as we did) that they mean the vitals on the torso. Any more imagination and you're just overcomplicating things." Okay, I probably have the wrong impression here. So how do ya'll really stand? Do you really think your conclusion is the only right one, the only reasonable one, the only intelligent and imaginative one?
Orenmir 01-10-08, 03:47 PM	Alien species on Star Trek are made up. Just like pretty much everything in the MM. Star Trek makes up species for entertainment. D&D makes up species that have to adhere to game mechanics. The game mechanics need to follow some form of logic and common sense or else the game breaks. Star Trek doesn't have any such guideline. So, please stop comparing the two. Do you really think your conclusion is the only right one, the only reasonable one, the only intelligent and imaginative one? A right one. A reasonable one. An intelligent one. An imaginative one. Yours is none of those.
Dog_O_War 01-10-08, 03:48 PM	You can live without the vein in your leg. You cannot live without your heart. You can stab a man in the artery, and he will most likely die, but it is not the artery itself that is the weakness. Cut out the kidneys and you again will die. Puncture a lung=death. have your arm cut off=can live. Stop the blood flow in the artery, and this will not immediately kill you, but stop the heart from beating and you again will die. Se a corralation here between vital and non-vital? While the book does not list what is not vital, it says that the limbs of a creature cannot be sneak attacked, therefore the "vitals" in those areas are not included. It's just that simple. You could store your brain in a bulbous sac in the palm of your hand, but it cannot be sneak attacked because limbs cannot be sneak attacked. This is generally why the assumption goes that creatures follow occams' razor unless otherwise stated. Brains in your palms is ludicrus, and unable to be sneak-attacked. EDIT: Okay, I probably have the wrong impression here. So how do ya'll really stand? Do you really think your conclusion is the only right one, the only reasonable one, the only intelligent and imaginative one? Ours is the right one; the makers of the game have quite literally told us so. It is also a reasonable one, maybe not the only reasonable one, but see further... Intelligent one is ours, and ours alone here. This is because we were willing to apply a bit of common sense simply because the book does not specifically state that humans in D&D breathe air. We assume the a minimum of reality is applied, and the reality is creatures in D&D have an evolutionary background. It is in all the history of all the fantasy books we read, as well as the very rules and splat books we modify our games with. Evolution states that stupidity dies off first, barring very random, very isolated incidents. Giants do not have groins in their knees because halflings would punch them there. We might be lacking in imagination, but you, like us attempt to follow the rules. But unlike us, it is seemingly hard to imagine that occams' razor has no place in a game that attempts to insert a somewhat realistic view of obviously fantastical creatures.
Tectorman 01-16-08, 01:19 PM	Star Trek makes up species for entertainment. D&D makes up species that have to adhere to game mechanics. The game mechanics need to follow some form of logic and common sense or else the game breaks. Star Trek doesn't have any such guideline. So, please stop comparing the two. A right one. A reasonable one. An intelligent one. An imaginative one. Yours is none of those. So everything in the D&D world starts out as human, does it? A Centaur is a human, just with a horse’s body. A Dwarf is a human, just with shorter legs. Instead of the different races being different races with different innards, they’re all just humans (with a human’s anatomy and a human’s specific set of vital points) with different things tacked on. So instead I offer up a view that rather than every race be the same, just with a different set of racial traits, that they be anatomically independent of each other. I imagine that just as no two humans are identical, so too are no two humanoid races identical. I imagine that even minuscule changes can result in significant differences between one species and another. That an entry of “+2 Con” means that whatever the Dwarves use for their innards, they must be fundamentally better (and thus, different) than a human’s. That an elf’s “-2 Con” means that his anatomy does not have all the same advantages as a human’s. And you call me unimaginative… Star Trek VI quote: “All things being equal, Lt. Valeris, I would agree. However, things are not equal.” “Star Trek makes up species for entertainment.” D&D is a game! And if your game is somehow unentertaining, please stop comparing yours to mine. And as for the game mechanics, they follow rules of logic and common sense, but only enough to streamline the game in order to prevent it from becoming bogged down in the technical parts. As an example, consider a human’s reach. Rather than have everyone calculate their height, factor in the length of their arm, and have them decide exactly how long their sword is, any human wielding a nonreach weapon has a reach of 5’. Consider 3.5’s default lack of facing rules. It takes a person less than no time to dart their eyes to the left, turn their head to the right, shift one foot over, hence no facing rules. Sure he can see in all directions over the course of a round, but not simultaneously, hence he can still be flanked. See, streamlined. Star Trek’s superficial treatment of how to explain how the different races they make up work is the same thing. Star Trek and D&D are science fiction and fantasy, respectively, and so neither of them are realistic. So you’ll excuse me if I continue to compare the two. Not imaginative, my ***. You can live without the vein in your leg. You cannot live without your heart. You can stab a man in the artery, and he will most likely die, but it is not the artery itself that is the weakness. Cut out the kidneys and you again will die. Puncture a lung=death. have your arm cut off=can live. Stop the blood flow in the artery, and this will not immediately kill you, but stop the heart from beating and you again will die. Sure, but a cut on the back of your hand is not as serious as a cut on your wrist. Getting stabbed in the foot is not as serious as a cut artery. If we were talking about an Assassin’s Death Attack, I could understand, but a Sneak Attack does nothing more than a normal attack, except lose the opponent more HP. You can live without a finger (a la Frodo; even without holding pressure on the wound, his life was not in immediate peril (at least, not from the wound)), you can live without an arm, but try living without the arm stump sewn together. Se a corralation here between vital and non-vital? While the book does not list what is not vital, it says that the limbs of a creature cannot be sneak attacked, therefore the "vitals" in those areas are not included. Where’s this? Because I mentioned the same thing earlier, but that was under the impression that I myself was houseruling. If Wizards realizes “yes, a human has vitals in his limbs and other creatures, whether their anatomy is the same or wholly different from a human’s, likewise have vitals in their limbs, but in order to streamline the gameplay, we’re only considering the trunk to be able to be Sneak Attacked”, then we no longer have a problem, sorry I brought it up. But where is this? And no, the article, as it only says a creature’s vitals aren’t in its foot, is not a sufficient enough answer. It's just that simple. You could store your brain in a bulbous sac in the palm of your hand, but it cannot be sneak attacked because limbs cannot be sneak attacked. This is generally why the assumption goes that creatures follow occams' razor unless otherwise stated. Okay, the only people I’ve actually seen supporting Occam’s Razor have been you, Orenmir, maybe other people, but more importantly, members of the forum, not the designers. A lot of the resistance here is that not everyone agrees with Occam’s Razor. Some, like me, think “Truth is very much stranger than fiction” and “Don’t judge a book by its cover” (Trekkie philosophy) and that taking a human and cut-and-pasting stuff onto him and saying that’s a new race doesn’t go far enough, not by a long shot. (SNIP) This is because we were willing to apply a bit of common sense simply because the book does not specifically state that humans in D&D breathe air. We assume the a minimum of reality is applied, and the reality is creatures in D&D have an evolutionary background. It is in all the history of all the fantasy books we read, as well as the very rules and splat books we modify our games with. (SNIP) We might be lacking in imagination, but you, like us attempt to follow the rules. But unlike us, it is seemingly hard to imagine that occams' razor has no place in a game that attempts to insert a somewhat realistic view of obviously fantastical creatures. Actually, the rules for suffocation do imply that yes, humans in D&D (well, creatures across the board in general) are said to breathe air. Read RotW. Halflings came into being when Yondalla took a bunch of the nobler traits from the other species and stuffed them into a pixie. Elves came from soil and blood. The other Races books tell similar stories about the beginnings of the common races. Sure, they’re in the section entitled “Mythic Origins”, but since your average D&D world will have magic and the supernatural and actual evidence of the god’s handiwork, I find it hard to believe that evolutionary natural processes are considered the default origins of any of the races. (Note: most of this stuff is just me being petty (Unimaginative, my foot!); the only thing I really need an answer to is the part in bold.)
Dog_O_War 01-17-08, 10:40 AM	Where’s this? Because I mentioned the same thing earlier, but that was under the impression that I myself was houseruling. If Wizards realizes “yes, a human has vitals in his limbs and other creatures, whether their anatomy is the same or wholly different from a human’s, likewise have vitals in their limbs, but in order to streamline the gameplay, we’re only considering the trunk to be able to be Sneak Attacked”, then we no longer have a problem, sorry I brought it up. But where is this? And no, the article, as it only says a creature’s vitals aren’t in its foot, is not a sufficient enough answer. Posted right in the sneak attack entry; If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty. A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. 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. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach. This bolded text states that if you cannot reach vitals, but can reach limbs, you are denied sneak attack. It is not too bold for a person to summarize that if you can only reach the limbs (and not the torso or head) then those limbs' vitals' must not be all that, well, vital. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Krusk 01-17-08, 02:45 PM	Posted right in the sneak attack entry; This bolded text states that if you cannot reach vitals, but can reach limbs, you are denied sneak attack. It is not too bold for a person to summarize that if you can only reach the limbs (and not the torso or head) then those limbs' vitals' must not be all that, well, vital. I hope this clears up any confusion. No, I'd have to say it is too bold to do that. I could summarize the sneak attack entry to "you can only sneak attack if your opponent dosnt know you are there. But that dosn't make it right.
Tectorman 01-17-08, 03:18 PM	Okay, I'm done. Thanks, Dog O War, that works for me.
Dog_O_War 01-17-08, 03:21 PM	Okay, I'm done. Thanks, Dog O War, that works for me. Actually, I would like to thank you, Tectorman. You are seemingly one of the few who can accept another's arguement when shown where and why they are right. Unlike Krusk's statement above. So again, thank you.:tiphat:
Faelar006 01-18-08, 03:58 PM	Posted right in the sneak attack entry; This bolded text states that if you cannot reach vitals, but can reach limbs, you are denied sneak attack. It is not too bold for a person to summarize that if you can only reach the limbs (and not the torso or head) then those limbs' vitals' must not be all that, well, vital. I hope this clears up any confusion. Unfortunately, your interpretation of the text you bolded is not supported by that text. This particular portion of the rules about sneak attack is too ambiguous to axiomatically support the interpretation that you have presented. The ambiguity exists because the writer failed to specifically define the word "vitals". Your interpretation is that vitals, in this specific context, refers to vital organs. However, medically, vitals may also refer to integral components of a system that are necessary to maintain the function of that system. In this interpretation, major arteries, such as the femoral artery, could definitely be considered vitals. What I do know to be true, however, is that the text you bolded does not say that vitals are not contained in the limbs. The bolded text, to translate it formally, specifically says "If you can only strike the limbs of a creature, and the creature's vitals are beyond reach; then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." Symbolically, your statement could be expressed as follows: p --> ~q where p = you can only strike the limbs of the creature, and q = you can claim sneak attack damage. The translation would be "If p, then not q", or "If you can only strike the limbs of the creature, then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." However, a more accurate assessment of the bolded text would be symbolized as: p * ~s --> ~q where p = you can only strike the limbs of the creature, s = you can reach the vitals of the creature, and q = you can claim sneak attack damage. This more accurate translation would be "If p and not s, then not q", or "If you can only strike the limbs of the creature and you cannot reach the vitals of the creature, then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." The bolded text most certainly does not say "p --> ~s", or "if you can only strike the limbs of the creature, then you cannot reach the vitals of the creature." The rule is therefore ambiguous, and is subject to varying house rules. Faelar
Dog_O_War 01-18-08, 04:32 PM	Unfortunately, your interpretation of the text you bolded is not supported by that text. This particular portion of the rules about sneak attack is too ambiguous to axiomatically support the interpretation that you have presented. The ambiguity exists because the writer failed to specifically define the word "vitals". Your interpretation is that vitals, in this specific context, refers to vital organs. However, medically, vitals may also refer to integral components of a system that are necessary to maintain the function of that system. In this interpretation, major arteries, such as the femoral artery, could definitely be considered vitals. What I do know to be true, however, is that the text you bolded does not say that vitals are not contained in the limbs. The bolded text, to translate it formally, specifically says "If you can only strike the limbs of a creature, and the creature's vitals are beyond reach; then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." Symbolically, your statement could be expressed as follows: p --> ~q where p = you can only strike the limbs of the creature, and q = you can claim sneak attack damage. The translation would be "If p, then not q", or "If you can only strike the limbs of the creature, then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." However, a more accurate assessment of the bolded text would be symbolized as: p * ~s --> ~q where p = you can only strike the limbs of the creature, s = you can reach the vitals of the creature, and q = you can claim sneak attack damage. This more accurate translation would be "If p and not s, then not q", or "If you can only strike the limbs of the creature and you cannot reach the vitals of the creature, then you cannot claim sneak attack damage." The bolded text most certainly does not say "p --> ~s", or "if you can only strike the limbs of the creature, then you cannot reach the vitals of the creature." The rule is therefore ambiguous, and is subject to varying house rules. Faelar Dude, read the last 8 pages and then say "I disagree". or, read the link in the opening post, and the post you quoted me on. Ambiguous? Only if you're Scarecrow for the Wizard of Oz.
Orenmir 01-18-08, 04:36 PM	I think this thread has turned into a lesson in how to defend ambiguity. I think defending ambiguity is much less wise than an unending quest for the truth. In this case, the truth is difficult, yet possible to discover. Dog and myself have found it, but all others (excluding Tectorman) fail to accept our discovery. I find that disappointing. I believe all those that don't accept the rule simply haven't found the truth yet. So, don't close yourself off to more research. The truth is out there. When you're ready, Dog and I (and maybe Tectorman) will help you find it. :detect: I said it before and I'll say it again... Instead of dismissing a vague rule, why not try to clarify it? Especially since other have clarified it. And the authors have verified it.
Faelar006 01-18-08, 05:17 PM	Dude, read the last 8 pages and then say "I disagree". or, read the link in the opening post, and the post you quoted me on. Ambiguous? Only if you're Scarecrow for the Wizard of Oz. I have read the past eight pages. Beyond an article stating that stabbing a giant in the foot does not grant sneak attack damage (which I concur with), I have seen no official sources that clarify the term "vitals" as meaning "only vital organs contained in the cranium and/or chest cavity". Occam's Razor, which you and Orenmir seem to be so fond of, would seem to dictate that the femoral and other large arteries would be considered "vitals", since severing these arteries can lead to system failure within a matter of a few minutes. Your earlier arguments regarding needing vital organs to live but not needing a femoral artery to live and using that as a basis to determine what "vitals" are is specious at best. To be precise, there are only two incidents that can cause near-instantaneous death, barring death by massive trauma, in which death is caused more from shock than any specific injury. The two incidents are an injury to the heart that grossly impairs its function and a severing or injuring of the brain stem. People can and regularly do live with injuries to the lungs, kidneys, liver, stomach and intestines. Heck, some people even live, without life support, with an entirely missing frontal lobe of their brain. People cannot and do not, however, live with extensive injuries to the circulatory system without getting immediate medical attention. Because of this, I would deem it certainly plausible to allow sneak attack damage in instances where the femoral or other major arteries can be reached, even if the rogue cannot reach the torso or abdomen of the creature in question. Faelar
Crimson_Concerto 01-18-08, 05:26 PM	Oh Jesus, is this thread really still going? I was hoping it had died. :bored: *sigh* All right, let's see what I missed... All right so a quick read through reveals that apparently still nobody has shown how the article about sneak attack actually clarified anything that they claimed it clarified, and I don't have the diagram I was promised... Great... Okay, so ignoring the parts that are just insults (*glares at Orenmir*), let's see what I can do... Here's a new idea I'd like to put on the table: Why do you need a book to tell you every aspect of D&D?I don't. I just need it to tell me about the mechanics, because that's the point of the books. The core books by their very definition should include all of the mechanics I will need to use to run the game. Importing any other mechanics is house ruling. It doesn't have to be bad house ruling. In fact, there's very good house ruling, but either way, if you're using or making up rules not described in the books, you are house ruling. Little Rogue; big Giant; can't reach vitals -- yes, it IS that easy!Yes, I agree. House ruling is in fact that easy. The authors of the PHB thought that the readers would have enough intelligence and imagination to figure out where vitals are and if they could be reached.Sure, just like they thought we'd be intelligent and imaginative enough to decide when a creature is flanked and whether or not a creature has a discernible anatomy, but we still got actual mechanical information on the latter two, so we don't have to house rule that part. *reads on* Okay, I see a long conversation about Star Trek, where vitals are placed, Occam's Razor, and exceptions to Occam's Razor. Too bad this conversation is completely irrelevant because we've already agreed that creatures in D&D are mechanically homogeneous cubes... Ours (conclusion) is the right one; the makers of the game have quite literally told us so.No, no they haven't. The article you keep referring to doesn't actually say anything different than the PHB does. It just words it differently. Please, if you actually can, clarify for me what that article says differently than the PHB. In addition, even if the game's makers had told us you were right, all that would do is make them wrong too, as I've already explained to you but you seem to keep ignoring. If it really mattered at all, they would have already put out errata on it. In short, please stop trying to appeal to authority, because that's a logical fallacy, and it's not working. This bolded text states that if you cannot reach vitals, but can reach limbs, you are denied sneak attack. It is not too bold for a person to summarize that if you can only reach the limbs (and not the torso or head) then those limbs' vitals' must not be all that, well, vital. I hope this clears up any confusion.Except that once again, you've already agreed that creatures in D&D are mechanically equal to homogeneous cubes, and because called shots and hits to different body parts don't exist outside of house ruling, it turns out that in D&D striking the arm is the same as striking the head is the same as striking the leg is the same as striking the heart is the same as striking the groin; none actually exist. You can only strike the creature, not its parts. Thus, the bold text is completely meaningless. *to Faelar006* Dude, read the last 8 pages and then say "I disagree".I did, and I still disagree with you. Don't assume he hasn't... And the unquoted insult that followed was uncalled for and fallacious. Maybe it would be better if you would actually try responding to his logic instead of just calling him stupid? *Cute but very irrelevant text* Instead of dismissing a vague rule, why not try to clarify it?There's nothing wrong with that. Just realize that in mechanically clarifying and then implementing that mechanical clarification is house-ruling. Especially since other have clarified it. And the authors have verified it.The former has occurred only in the sense of house-ruling. The latter has not occurred, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter unless the actual text were changed (errata).
Faelar006 01-18-08, 05:32 PM	I think this thread has turned into a lesson in how to defend ambiguity. I think defending ambiguity is much less wise than an unending quest for the truth. In this case, the truth is difficult, yet possible to discover. Dog and myself have found it, but all others (excluding Tectorman) fail to accept our discovery. I find that disappointing. I believe all those that don't accept the rule simply haven't found the truth yet. So, don't close yourself off to more research. The truth is out there. When you're ready, Dog and I (and maybe Tectorman) will help you find it. :detect: I said it before and I'll say it again... Instead of dismissing a vague rule, why not try to clarify it? Especially since other have clarified it. And the authors have verified it. A vague rule can only be clarified by determining the original intent of the author(s). Since it is nigh impossible to determine intent short of the author(s) coming out and saying "My/our intent was...", we must use our faculties to try and determine that intent. However, being as we are only human, we cannot determine that intent with 100% certainty, so any determination made on our part is simply a house rule. Because we have different interpretations, we end up with different house rules. I would be willing to reconsider my interpretation if you can point me to an official source that states something along the lines of "You only gain sneak attack damage when you attack the head or torso of a creature" or "you never gain sneak attack damage when you attack the legs or arms of a creature". Even if such a resource existed, which I do not believe it does, I would most likely invoke Rule 0, since I believe it is asinine to assert that a creature's circulatory system is not vital to its continued survival, and as such, is not subject to sneak attack damage. Faelar
Krusk 01-19-08, 12:29 AM	I'd like to say that I've been participating in this thread since the begining, -less so recently- and I still don't agree with dog and his camp. So just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they have not been paying attention. Just that some people differ on these opinions. Instead of dismissing vauge rule clarify it. OK. If you are sneaking around a dragons den, and can only reach the dragons tail from where you are situated you will not get sneak attack*. Close in to its torso head and neck. That satisfies the "if you can only reach the limbs no sneak attacking" rule. And it still allows for rogues to partake in melee combat without sucking. *totally ignores the fact that we have no idea where a dragons vitals are located. I'd like to assume that, like a stegasaurus, it keeps a small brain in its tail because of the reacton time between something touching its tail and its brain would be too slow due to their size. *Also any houserule such as "dragons have no vitals in their tails" should be presented to players before it comes up in game, preferably before the first session. I wouldn't be offendd though if the DM were to only mention it when he heard the plan to sneak up on the dragon and said "well dragons don't have vitals in their tails sorry that won't work you should find a new plan."
zuul88 01-19-08, 02:59 AM	Actually, in proper English, it would be me. I is for when you're doing the action, and me is for when the action is being done for you. In this case, the action is being done to me, not I. </pedantry> :bow: :bow: :bow: Best burn I have seen in quite a while. I have decided to quit this thread. Arguing with these ******* ****** ******* is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you are still a retard. Respect Nathan
Dog_O_War 01-19-08, 09:52 AM	I'd like to say that I've been participating in this thread since the begining, -less so recently- and I still don't agree with dog and his camp. So just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they have not been paying attention. Just that some people differ on these opinions. I know you have been here in this thread for awhile; that comment was not directed at you. Faelar006 had not been; I asked him (maybe rather harshly) to become learned on the topic at hand before posting a disagreement. Instead of dismissing vauge rule clarify it. OK. If you are sneaking around a dragons den, and can only reach the dragons tail from where you are situated you will not get sneak attack*. Close in to its torso head and neck. That satisfies the "if you can only reach the limbs no sneak attacking" rule. And it still allows for rogues to partake in melee combat without sucking. *totally ignores the fact that we have no idea where a dragons vitals are located. I'd like to assume that, like a stegasaurus, it keeps a small brain in its tail because of the reacton time between something touching its tail and its brain would be too slow due to their size. *Also any houserule such as "dragons have no vitals in their tails" should be presented to players before it comes up in game, preferably before the first session. I wouldn't be offendd though if the DM were to only mention it when he heard the plan to sneak up on the dragon and said "well dragons don't have vitals in their tails sorry that won't work you should find a new plan." The problem with this example though is that we DO know where a dragon's vitals are located. It (your example) becomes completely wrong here due to this factor. Dragons' brains are not in the tail, nor are any other vital organs so striking them there will have no 'critical' effect. Also, Crimson Concerto seems to think that one rule out weighs another, and I think that you too Krusk, have missed this fact; the game may allude to a character being a "homogenous cube" in terms of facing, but it does not in terms of location. It specifically states that a limb is not vital enough to be sneak-attacked. It gives other examples of location specific attacks and there effects; vorpal weapons are one such instance, a mindflayer's brain-suck being another (it says that the tentacles latch onto the head, and not another body part to suck out the brain of an opponent). I'm am truely sorry that some of you guys have trouble reading between the lines here, but just because one rule states that there is no difference in the direction we face in terms of combat does not mean that a location specific attack will affect the whole "cube".
Krusk 01-19-08, 01:49 PM	The problem with this example though is that we DO know where a dragon's vitals are located. It (your example) becomes completely wrong here due to this factor. Dragons' brains are not in the tail, nor are any other vital organs so striking them there will have no 'critical' effect. Do we know where a dragons vitals are? Can you show me in the rules where it says that dragons do not have a stegasarus like brain in their tails? Keep in mind it should be covered in the core 3 books, all thats needed to play the game. If not in the core rules, can you show me in the expanded rules. Maybe in draconomicon the book detailing dragons? My point is that we have no idea where a imaginary creatures vital spots are, and the stegasarus theory is a pretty valid point in determining where a dragons would be.
Crimson_Concerto 01-19-08, 02:21 PM	Best burn I have seen in quite a while.. . . Except that it was wrong? :confused: Read shortly after that post to learn about prepositional phrases. I know you have been here in this thread for awhile; that comment was not directed at you. Faelar006 had not been; I asked him (maybe rather harshly) to become learned on the topic at hand before posting a disagreement.I think the point he was trying to make is that just because somebody new comes in and disagrees with you, that's no reason to assume they haven't read the entire thread before posting. After all, both Krusk and I have been here for the entire time and we still disagree with you, so it's not impossible for others to read the thread and disagree with you either. Dismissing him altogether because of that is simply fallacious. Also, Crimson Concerto seems to think that one rule out weighs anotherNo, I don't. I think that one rule with mechanical effects outweighs another that doesn't. If both actually had mechanical effects, then we'd have a problem. the game may allude to a character being a "homogenous cube" in terms of facing, but it does not in terms of location.First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "location" in this sense, but if you're talking about where specific body parts are, then... Second of all, facing isn't the only place the game assumes creatures are homogeneous cubes. There's also the attack and damage rules which specifically do not include called shots, making it impossible to target different body parts of a creature. I've obviously hit some part of the creature, but that part is unspecified and can be described as being any location that I want because the mechanical effects will all be the same. It specifically states that a limb is not vital enough to be sneak-attacked.But since limbs can't be targeted and when I hit a creature, I can always simply describe my attack as hitting elsewhere, and that becomes irrelevant. It gives other examples of location specific attacks and there effects; vorpal weapons are one such instance, a mindflayer's brain-suck being another (it says that the tentacles latch onto the head, and not another body part to suck out the brain of an opponent).What about your precious Occam's razor? :confused: The exceptions don't change the default rules, dear. The Vorpal weapon enchantment and Illithids have the specific special ability to target and affect a creature's body parts under certain circumstances (and even then, not convincingly purely mechanically speaking). These are specific special abilities, not the general rule. It may also be worth noting for you that the description of Vorpal doesn't include the same line Sneak Attack does about needing to be able to reach the creature's head. I wonder how you feel about that... Would you agree that by the RAW a halfling can chop off a giant's head with a Vorpal weapon? but just because one rule states that there is no difference in the direction we face in terms of combat does not mean that a location specific attack will affect the whole "cube".. . . But location-specific attacks DO affect the whole cube. When you sneak attack, the entire creature loses HP. When a colossal creature has one square within the radius of a fireball, the entire creature loses HP. If I've misinterpreted what you were trying to say, please clarify...
Dog_O_War 01-19-08, 02:22 PM	Do we know where a dragons vitals are? Can you show me in the rules where it says that dragons do not have a stegasarus like brain in their tails? Keep in mind it should be covered in the core 3 books, all thats needed to play the game. If not in the core rules, can you show me in the expanded rules. Maybe in draconomicon the book detailing dragons? My point is that we have no idea where a imaginary creatures vital spots are, and the stegasarus theory is a pretty valid point in determining where a dragons would be. You're right; we should not need splat books (like draconomicon) to tell us where the vitals of these creatures are. We do know that vitals in limbs such as tails are non-sneak-attack-able, as the rule states so. So while there is nothing stopping you from having your giants with brains in their feet, the rule stands that said brain cannot be sneak-attacked if it is in a limb.
Krusk 01-20-08, 04:56 PM	We do know that vitals in limbs such as tails are non-sneak-attack-able, as the rule states so. The rule says if we cannot reach the vitals (Y), but can only reach the limbs(X) then we cannot sneak attack(Z). if Y and X are present move to Z. In the case of the stegasarus dragon it has vitals in its limbs. We can reach its vitals. (B) We can also reach its limbs. (X). We have B and X, meaning we do not move to Z.
Orenmir 01-20-08, 11:57 PM	Being that most (maybe all) of this debate has become cyclical and stale, I hope nobody minds if I bring something new to light. I just happened to be reading the description for the feat Deflect Arrows, when the last sentence of the benefit caught my eye: Unusually massive ranged weapons and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected. I haven't scoured all the sourcebooks; but, I doubt that an "unusually massive ranged weapon" is ever defined. Is it a 50-pound boulder? Is it a 10-pound rock? Is it an improvised chair? What if the chair weighs 50 pounds? Since "unusually massive ranged weapon" is vague, should we ignore this part of the feat's description? If we do, we could deflect 50-pound boulders from a hurling giant. Heck, we could deflect 5000-pound projectiles from a demi-god. Just curious what my debate adversaries think about this find. And, since I only stumbled upon this tidbit, there's a good chance the rules are filled with little vague descriptions similar to it. So, do we ignore the rules every time they are vague? Are you prepared to ignore an "X" percentage of the core rules? My point is this... The authors left these "vague" descriptions in specifically with rule 0 in mind. The DM should make an educated decision about what an "unusually massive ranged weapon" is, or if "vitals are out of reach." <sidenote> The DM exercising rule 0 is not the same as a houserule. There is a big difference. Rule 0 is used constantly by DMs. For example: When the DM says, "you slip and fall on the ice" without offering you a balance check or reflex save -- he is using rule 0. It's not a houserule that you aren't given the chance to save; it's just the DM using his judgement. Maybe you were running on the ice, with bare feet, encumbered with a heavy load, and pushed -- the DM has more than enough right (and rule 0 on his side) to just say: "You fall!" This is not a houserule. The DM claiming vitals are out of reach or qualifying an unusually massive ranged weapon is the same thing -- Rule 0; not a houserule. </sidenote>
Krusk 01-21-08, 12:54 AM	That is a good question. Unless the DM defines unusually massive before the game I would say the monk can deflect any sized arrow he wants. That said a DM could very well say when and before the feat is taken, "just so you know you can deflect things bigger than say 25lbs" and that is perfectly reasonable. Because that rule is so vauge the DM is forced to make a rule, any rule the DM needs to make is a houserule. -rule 0 is a houserule too- All houserules should be made before the first game session. Personlly I would say exceptionally large meansthings like a wagon, or horse that have been thrown. Or similar object that is not normally a projectile. But I could see where a DM might rulethat this does not cover thrown spears. After all you deflect arrows, not spears and they are diffrent enough that it is too hard. -the rules are full of vauge statements like that, and 99% of them should be ignored unless the DM makes a specific note of it before the game starts.
Crimson_Concerto 01-21-08, 11:37 PM	I just happened to be reading the description for the feat Deflect Arrows, when the last sentence of the benefit caught my eye: Unusually massive ranged weapons and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected. I haven't scoured all the sourcebooks; but, I doubt that an "unusually massive ranged weapon" is ever defined. Is it a 50-pound boulder? Is it a 10-pound rock? Is it an improvised chair? What if the chair weighs 50 pounds? Since "unusually massive ranged weapon" is vague, should we ignore this part of the feat's description? If we do, we could deflect 50-pound boulders from a hurling giant. Heck, we could deflect 5000-pound projectiles from a demi-god.Off the top of my head, I'd rule that you can deflect any object weighing up to your maximum light load (though now that I'm proof-reading my post, I admit this seems too much.)... but of course, that's not RAW, that's just my house-ruling. According the the RAW, you are correct; one would be able to deflect any ranged ranged weapon not tagged as "unusually massive." You SHOULDN'T be able to be able to deflect said 5000-pound demi-god projectile, but unless the DM makes a judgment call and defines "unusually massive," then yes, yes you can. However, that's an unusually extreme example of a vague rule, and there's no reason to suggest that anybody who does ignore "that line" of Sneak Attack would also ignore this one, and it would be fallacious to base an argument about Sneak Attack on this suggestion for a key reason: Other core rules of the game work against "that line" of Sneak Attack but none work again "that line" of Deflect Arrows. The game explicitly disallows called shots, as we've pointed out before. The game also ignored facing and generally assumes creatures to be homogeneous cubes. The combination of all of these factors specifically work against putting into play "that line" of Sneak Attack. There are no such rules similarly and specifically working against the enforcement of "that line" of Deflect Arrows. I like that you brought up Deflect Arrows thing, though. I think it really helps us to more clearly define the argument. Thank you. So, do we ignore the rules every time they are vague?No. Just every time they're vague and other game rules work against them and their logical implementation. Of course, this is more a question to my particular play style and has little to nothing to do with RAW. Are you prepared to ignore an "X" percentage of the core rules?Yes, when they are vague enough to require house rules to function and have other core rules explicitly working against them. But like your previous question, this is more a question to my particular play style and has little to nothing to do with RAW. My point is this... The authors left these "vague" descriptions in specifically with rule 0 in mind. The DM should make an educated decision about what an "unusually massive ranged weapon" is, or if "vitals are out of reach."I don't disagree, but it's important to realize that rule 0 and DM decision IS required. It's obvious we implement them differently, but that shouldn't get in the way of recognizing that rule 0 and DM decision are not RAW. <sidenote> The DM exercising rule 0 is not the same as a houserule. There is a big difference. </sidenote>House rules, Rule 0, etc. are all subsets of DM judgment and decision. Whatever distinction you feel like making between the two doesn't really matter because neither is RAW, and that's the point. However, in making this sidenote argument, you have conceded that enforcing "that line" of Sneak Attack requires Rule 0 (aka houserules, aka DM judgement, aka DM decision, aka NOT RAW), so... Well, there it is.
Dog_O_War 01-22-08, 10:35 AM	Other core rules of the game work against "that line" of Sneak Attack but none work again "that line" of Deflect Arrows. The game explicitly disallows called shots, as we've pointed out before. Ah, but the game includes targeted shots, under specific conditions; the game has locations, but these are reserved for specific abilities. I'm afraid you are wrong in that the game explicitly allows called shots, but they must meet certain cryteria. The game also ignored facing and generally assumes creatures to be homogeneous cubes. Actually, while the game considers a creature/character to be able to face any direction at a given time, the game does not assume a creature is a homogeneous cube. See above as to why. The combination of all of these factors specifically work against putting into play "that line" of Sneak Attack. There are no such rules similarly and specifically working against the enforcement of "that line" of Deflect Arrows. That is because you have gotten those specific factors wrong. D&D has targetable locations; sneak attack itself supports that (must target a vital). No. Just every time they're vague and other game rules work against them and their logical implementation. Of course, this is more a question to my particular play style and has little to nothing to do with RAW. It only seems vague and contradictory because you've convinced yourself that D&D has no specific locations that a player can target. However, in making this sidenote argument, you have conceded that enforcing "that line" of Sneak Attack requires Rule 0 (aka houserules, aka DM judgement, aka DM decision, aka NOT RAW), so... Well, there it is. Orenmir may have, but that is because you are a hard crowd to convince. I stand by my position, and rule 0 is not apart of that.
Orenmir 01-22-08, 10:57 AM	However, in making this sidenote argument, you have conceded that enforcing "that line" of Sneak Attack requires Rule 0 (aka houserules, aka DM judgement, aka DM decision, aka NOT RAW), so... Well, there it is. I do concede that enforcement of the rule requires rule 0 (not a houserule -- we simply have different views on the definitions of rule 0 and houserule -- I believe they are separate entities). But, I am not willing to ignore the rule because of it. Just because a rule requires DM judgment and decision to enforce (0.1% of the time, by the way), doesn't mean the rule should be ignored. If that were the case, many rules would be ignored -- such as my Deflect Arrows example.
Tectorman 01-22-08, 03:39 PM	Maybe it would help if I explained what it was that changed my mind. The phrase in the PHB: "A Rogue cannot sneak attack while ... striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach." has two (and maybe more) readings. Reading 1: There are no vitals a creature's limbs, and since they're not there in the first place, you couldn't sneak attack the creature on their limb anyway. Naturally, this creates a problem. People do, in fact, have vulnerable spots in rather easy to reach areas. And even taking that into account, other species can be the same, or better off, or worse off, and no one to say which is which. This is why I brought up all the Star Trek examples, to show that if fantastic creatures can differ so wildly in the important organs of their bodies, then saying that a femoral artery is still accessible on a larger creature, or something just like it can be found in a giant's ankle, isn't a stretch. That's how I was reading that phrase (and the article, and most of this thread), and that's what I was arguing against. On the other hand, we have one more reading of that phrase. Reading 2: There may or may not be vital targets on a creature's limbs, but since it requires too much detail to go into every species like this, we'll streamline the rules to say that you're just simply not allowed to target them. With this reading, whether a giant's femoral artery is in the same relative place as a human's or not (let alone the rest of his anatomy) becomes a nonissue. As for the Hamstring feat, there are two ways to reconcile that conflict under the new reading. 1.) Since it was written after core, it defines a specific circumstance under which the default rules do not apply (when the feat is activated). In all other circumstances, the default rules are still fine. 2.) The feat, not being core, is creating a loophole in the default rules where there shouldn't be, in which case, it's not the PHB's fault there's a discrepancy. Now, there are still problems with this class ability restriction. For example, let's take a Halfling Monk and have him throw an unarmed strike (for simplicity's sake, otherwise we also have to determine the length of the weapon) straight up (without recourse of a ladder, a rock, or anything to stand on and he is not jumping). Take the picture in the PHB of all the races. The Halfling is, for lack of a better term, 16 lines tall. His arm is about eight lines long, and since he won't be sticking that arm out of his head but rather his shoulder, we can conclude he will have a reach of 20 lines (or 1.25 times his own height). This means that according to the random height generator in chapter six, a Halfling male's height will be no more than 3' 4", and his vertical reach will be no more than 4' 2". So he can't even reach the top of his own 5' cube, let alone the 5' cube above him. But since we streamline the rules concerning reach (to avoid complicated distinctions between reach, reach with this weapon, reach with that weapon, etc.), the Halfling still has a reach of 5'. He can hit anything in the 5' square (cube, really) next to him, or on a diagonal. He can hit anything in the 5' cube above him (with an unarmed strike, no less, and without jumping or standing on something, remember) and even anything in the 5' cubes next to the 5' cube directly above him. So the rules about the location of an opponent's vitals are fine. The rules about reach, however, are suspect. Does the Halfling reach up to the actual lenght of his arm (+ his height, if he's reaching straight up), or do we streamline this into "anywhere in the 5' cubes touching his 5' cube"? Or do we only streamline it in horizontal cases (the 5' squares next to him, but not above him)? And we still have the rules about an opponent's size to consider. Sure his approximate height can be determined, but he could be standing normally, squatting to hit the targets so far below him, or standing on tiptoes just to place the main trunk of his body just out of reach of the sneak attacking rogue (meaning that the DM is being a jerk "Oops, sorry, he's standing on his tiptoes, now you can't reach him"). A quick and streamlined rule for this (maybe like "A Sneak Attack can be conducted on any creature up to two size categories larger than yourself, or three size categories larger than yourself if the creature is a Long creature, except in cases where the creatures limbs are not holding it up (such as snakes and worms).") doesn't actually exist. What to do then?
Enigmis 01-22-08, 05:53 PM	How are we targeting the limbs or vitals in the first place? 3.5 has no rules targeting specific areas of the body. Wouldn't the vitals being in reach just require the target creature be in reach?
Crimson_Concerto 01-22-08, 11:24 PM	Ah, but the game includes targeted shots, under specific conditions; the game has locations, but these are reserved for specific abilities. I'm afraid you are wrong in that the game explicitly allows called shots, but they must meet certain cryteria.Care to back this assertion up? Heck, even with the Mind Flayer example where the flavor is that it targets the head, the only mechanic for this is that it checks to make sure the target HAS a head and would be killed by its removal. After that, the only thing the Mind Flayers actually does to that head happens in flavor. The mechanics just say it makes a series of normal grapple checks and the creature is then killed. There are no modifications for targeting the head, and I wonder why that is. Could it be that it's because targeting the head is exactly the same as targeting the creature in general? Called shots and the targeting of specific parts of a creature only happen in flavor. Actually, while the game considers a creature/character to be able to face any direction at a given time, the game does not assume a creature is a homogeneous cube. See above as to why.Odd, before you agreed that they were homogeneous cubes. Either way, as I've already shown you, the facing rules are a reason for this yes, but it's not the only reason. Again, see the game's (lack of) rules for called shots, etc. That is because you have gotten those specific factors wrong. D&D has targetable locations; sneak attack itself supports that (must target a vital).Which is the flavor of the ability. Targeting a vital is exactly the same as targeting a non-vital; neither exists outside of flavor because there is no targeting of specific parts of a creature. There are no called shots. It only seems vague and contradictory because you've convinced yourself that D&D has no specific locations that a player can target.It only seems enforceable to you because you've convinced yourself that D&D is somehow based on common sense. ...you are a hard crowd to convince.Same to you. :P I do concede that enforcement of the rule requires rule 0...That, dearest, is my one and only point. :) But, I am not willing to ignore the rule because of it.That's your DM style. If you choose to have house rules, whatever. I have house rules too. The only point I've been trying to make is that you recognize that "that line" of sneak attack is unenforceable as is and requires you to rule 0 in order to make it work. Just because a rule requires DM judgment and decision to enforce (0.1% of the time, by the way), doesn't mean the rule should be ignored.I agree, such as with your example of Deflect Arrows. However, I personally don't see how not ignoring "that line" of sneak attack makes the game more fun, brings balance to the game, is otherwise beneficial to the game, or goes against the spirit of the Sneak Attack ability. Furthermore, I don't like the rule contradictions that would come from enforcing "that line" of sneak attack, and that is why I personally choose not to enforce it.
Dog_O_War 01-23-08, 10:35 AM	Care to back this assertion up? If you insist. Heck, even with the Mind Flayer example where the flavor is that it targets the head, the only mechanic for this is that it checks to make sure the target HAS a head and would be killed by its removal. After that, the only thing the Mind Flayers actually does to that head happens in flavor. The mechanics just say it makes a series of normal grapple checks and the creature is then killed. There are no modifications for targeting the head, and I wonder why that is. Could it be that it's because targeting the head is exactly the same as targeting the creature in general? See the following. Called shots and the targeting of specific parts of a creature only happen in flavor. Only flavor eh? Given that the "flavor" of a vorpal weapon only activates apon a creature having a head, seems pretty mechanical to me. Hamstring allows you to target an otherwise non-sneak attackable area with a crippling strike. If a creature does not have the "flavor" of legs, then this mechanic cannot be applied. Sneak attack requires that a creature's vitals be targetted. If you struck a non-vital, this mechanic too is denied. The stump knife is a weapon that can only be added to a missing end limb (hand). Given that if you can lose a hand (or must lose a hand) to wear a stump knife, the "flavor" of having a hand is not applicable. No more two-handed weapons for that character. As you had stated, the mindflayers' brain-sucking attack only requires that it make a grapple check, but what you seem to have missed is that it only works on creatures with brains in their head. Not chest or any other place, but head. All of these seem pretty mechanical in "flavor" to me. There are locations, but as the game clearly outlines, you must have special abilties to target them and reap a greater benefit. Odd, before you agreed that they were homogeneous cubes. Either way, as I've already shown you, the facing rules are a reason for this yes, but it's not the only reason. Again, see the game's (lack of) rules for called shots, etc. True, I did agree that creatures were homogeneous cubes, an error on my behalf with a missuse of wording. Also, given that a greature can only be blinded if their eyes are exposed to certain effects (like the spell flare) You would see the games bountiful examples of called shots. Which is the flavor of the ability. Targeting a vital is exactly the same as targeting a non-vital; neither exists outside of flavor because there is no targeting of specific parts of a creature. There are no called shots. As I said in the previous post, you have convinced yourself that there are no targetable areas when there clearly are. It only seems enforceable to you because you've convinced yourself that D&D is somehow based on common sense. There is alot of places that need common sense applied to the game. These enrich the game greatly if done so. Preconcieved notions of supposedly "common knowledge" are instead applied under the guise of common sense all too often though. These instances of common knowledge are often wrong.
ravenshrike 01-23-08, 07:22 PM	You cannot live without your heart. Since sneak attack is not an auto-kill, it sure as hell doesn't consider the heart a vital spot. You get stabbed in the heart and you're dead.
ravenshrike 01-23-08, 07:28 PM	This bolded text states that if you cannot reach vitals, but can reach limbs, you are denied sneak attack. It is not too bold for a person to summarize that if you can only reach the limbs (and not the torso or head) then those limbs' vitals' must not be all that, well, vital. Here's something interesting. You can ready an attack to attack a creature with reach when it tries to hit you, even though you're not in reach of the square it occupies. Oddly enough the bit you bolded there sums that up pretty damned exactly.
Enigmis 01-23-08, 07:29 PM	Hamstring allows you to target an otherwise non-sneak attackable area with a crippling strike. If a creature does not have the "flavor" of legs, then this mechanic cannot be applied. not this again... Hamstring does not let you sneak attack when you otherwise couldn't. It requires you to "hit with a melee sneak attack". This just turns SA damage into a movement hindering effect. The location you hit them is just flavor.
Dog_O_War 01-24-08, 12:43 PM	Here's something interesting. You can ready an attack to attack a creature with reach when it tries to hit you, even though you're not in reach of the square it occupies. Oddly enough the bit you bolded there sums that up pretty damned exactly. Wow, just realized that did we? I said previously that if the ruling worked as the opposition to my position says, then rogues would do just that to avoid AoO due to reach. But given that when such a limb moves into range, you can't sneak attack it, even if there are vitals there, because the limbs of a creature cannot be sneak-attacked. Also, you are right; stab a creature in the heart and he would die. Realism tells us this. That is why vitals are left as "vitals" and not "heart, lungs, kidneys," etc... While the vitals entry includes these, it is left non-specific to avoid exactly the arguement you've proposed. Remember, your head is a vital, and the vorpal enhancement doesn't deal damage, it kills you by removing that vital. Special abilities are given specifics for just this case.
Dog_O_War 01-24-08, 12:48 PM	not this again... Hamstring does not let you sneak attack when you otherwise couldn't. It requires you to "hit with a melee sneak attack". This just turns SA damage into a movement hindering effect. The location you hit them is just flavor. Vorpal requires that you critical with a melee attack, but criticals do not kill (unless damage exceeds HP). What then makes vorpal different? The fluff. It states that the head is severed. The fluff of hamstring states that the melee attack is applied to the leg (limb); not the body, head, or arm (limb), but specifically the leg. Location does not require "attack mods" for D&D, it requires special abilities. Location is not flavor; it matters. Ask any member of WotC, any sane DM (no offence if you DM. I'm reasonably sure yer sane, just not seeing the facts before you properly), and anyone that played in a game involving Vecna's limbs.
Enigmis 01-24-08, 01:07 PM	Vorpal requires that you critical with a melee attack, but criticals do not kill (unless damage exceeds HP). What then makes vorpal different? The fluff. It states that the head is severed. The fluff of hamstring states that the melee attack is applied to the leg (limb); not the body, head, or arm (limb), but specifically the leg. Location does not require "attack mods" for D&D, it requires special abilities. Location is not flavor; it matters. Ask any member of WotC, any sane DM (no offence if you DM. I'm reasonably sure yer sane, just not seeing the facts before you properly), and anyone that played in a game involving Vecna's limbs. Vorpal specifically states that they need a head to cut off, hamstring specifically states you need to hit with a melee sneak attack. Thus you can't hit them in the legs if their vitals are out of reach.
Dog_O_War 01-24-08, 02:46 PM	Vorpal specifically states that they need a head to cut off, hamstring specifically states you need to hit with a melee sneak attack. Thus you can't hit them in the legs if their vitals are out of reach. Actually, hamstring states that the creature must have legs for the ability to work. And that the more legs, the less likely it is to work. Vorpal also "only" requires an attack roll.
Enigmis 01-24-08, 06:43 PM	Actually, hamstring states that the creature must have legs for the ability to work. And that the more legs, the less likely it is to work. Vorpal also "only" requires an attack roll. ok, but that does not mean you can hamstring when you couldn't otherwise sneak attack.
Dog_O_War 01-25-08, 11:15 AM	ok, but that does not mean you can hamstring when you couldn't otherwise sneak attack. To a point, yes. You can't hamstring stuff like zombies obviously. But since it targets areas that have to be in reach in order to work, you could hamstring when you might not be able to perform the standard sneak attack. This is limited though, because you can only cut a creatures' hamstring 2-4 times (the limit built into the feat itself).
Enigmis 01-25-08, 11:19 AM	To a point, yes. You can't hamstring stuff like zombies obviously. But since it targets areas that have to be in reach in order to work, you could hamstring when you might not be able to perform the standard sneak attack. This is limited though, because you can only cut a creatures' hamstring 2-4 times (the limit built into the feat itself). No, you can't. You can only use hamstring when you hit with a melee sneak attack, how can you hit with a melee sneak attack if you can't sneak attack. You can not. And thus you can not hamstring when if you can't normally sneak attack.