Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 11-27-05, 11:36 PM	Recently, a number of us WP/VP enthusiasts on the board came to the decision that, since sneak attack damage is not normally multiplied in a critical hit, sneak attack damage would always be Vitality damage in the WP/VP system. Sure, this is keeps balance, but it doesn't make sense one bit; sneak attacks are all about precision. Immunity to Critical hits and Sneak Attack are the same thing, which makes me think that sneak attacks should be Wound damage, or at least be altered to within WP/VP systems to fit in more. I have a quick suggestion, but I'd really like to see what these boards can come up with together. Sneak Attack dice are removed. When a rogue attacks a target that meets the conditions for a sneak attack, they deal automatic wound damage based on their rogue level (damage equal to the number of dice they would have dealt). I do think that flanking would need to be removed from the rogue's list of methods of attaining a sneak attack, as this would mean a possible 10 wound damage per hit at 19th level in a flank. But again, what are the opinions of the board?
Grug the Just 11-28-05, 12:04 AM	I've tried to convince my players to try the new system, no take. Mostly because it has a few flaws. Understandably the idea of a sneak attack going directly to wounds makes sense. Assassin sneaks up on an individual and **shink**...dead. The problem becomes the fact that sneak attack is a lot easier to administer than a critical hit. Try and look at it this way; let's assume you use the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method for chracter ability score generation. Now, I've never seen constitution as a primary stat it's usually a median stat, as it is necessary for most character's survivability. Now assuming with this rolling method 12 is average. Wound points equal Con score. So now an 8th level rogue has an average chance on any given sneak attack to knock an average character into the negatives. As a DM, that makes rogues way, way too overpowered. So sneak attacks shouldn't be wound damage How to change it to make it more suitable, I don't know. Also, I see power attack adding to critical hits being a problem just about any warrior worth his salt hitting with power attack and critting would kill just about whatever he wants.
Xeviat-DM 11-28-05, 01:25 AM	I didn't say full Sneak attack damage, just 1 point per die. So when a 1st level rogue performs a sneak attack, they deal 1 point of wound damage in addition to regular damage. When a 11th level rogue performs a sneak attack, they deal 6 points of wound damage in addition to regular damage. And I never heard anyone suggest power attack going to wounds. That's scary.
Grug the Just 11-28-05, 01:43 AM	One point per die seems very reasonable. Although it does give rogues a bit more "oomph". Maybe opting to deal some damage in lieu of each sneak attack die. Theres a class ability that I'm thinking of some similarities between. Also, I only assumed that since power attack is not only added to critical hits but is doubled as well, being a numerical addition and not added dice, that it was merely assumed that in the vitality system the intended it to go to wound points.
Xeviat-DM 11-28-05, 02:36 AM	Also, I only assumed that since power attack is not only added to critical hits but is doubled as well, being a numerical addition and not added dice, that it was merely assumed that in the vitality system the intended it to go to wound points. Yes, power attack damage goes to wounds in a critical hit, not normally. But remember, power attack reduces your to hit, which makes it harder to crit.
RaspK FOG 11-28-05, 11:24 AM	I've already found a solution to this: since I use a variant rule which effectively makes critical hits occur by surpassing one's AC by some amount or another (and since I also use the generic classes for the campaign these mechanics go for), I turned Sneak Attack into a skill which, for a successful check at DC 10, grants a +1 bonus on attack in regard to whether the attack is a critical hit only (if it does not hit without the bonus, it still does not hit) and damage rolls, and an additional +1 bonus for every 5 points by which you surpass 10. Higher numbers provide multiples under this variant, too... Thus, say you make a successful "sneak attack" against your enemy and then make the skill check; provided you rolled a 22, you deal an additional 3 points of damage, and get a +3 bonus on the attack roll to confirm it's a critical hit, meaning that if your attack wasn't a critical by 1 to 3, it becomes a critical and deals Wound damage. I haven't had the opportunity to playtest this thing yet, though... :weep:
Xeviat-DM 11-29-05, 02:59 PM	I use critical hits because, mathematically, they balance critical misses in the normal HP system. But we're talking about Wound/Vitality, and scoring wound damage when you beat a target AC by an amount sounds potentially rediculous.
Ranger REG 11-30-05, 03:55 AM	Whoa. Deja Vu. I thought this was discussed some time ago, particularly when applying VP/WP into D&D and Sneak Attack (Plus Bonus Damage Dice).
Thelon Fairblade 11-30-05, 10:29 AM	In the Grim & Gritty system, Sneak Attack was redefined as a +4 bonus to hit in the triggering situation, and the ability to ignore 1 point of DR per die you would normally get. So a 7th level rogue doing a sneak attack gets a +4 to hit, and bypasses 4 points of DR (equal to a chain shirt using full DR rules, or full plate's DR in half AC / half DR rules). The +4 bonus doesn't make a critical hit more likely, but it does make get a hit at all more likely as well as *confirming* a crit more likely. Granting 1 Wound damage per die of Sneak Attack... *any* wound damage is a handicap to the target. I would say that the sneak attack simply saps vitality as with any other bonus damage, and does bonus wound damage instead on a crit (the 1 point per die).
Xeviat-DM 12-01-05, 12:52 PM	Thelon, I'm not familiar with the Grim & Gritty system. Which house rules go into it?
Jerks 12-01-05, 01:44 PM	I can understand the opinion that sneak attacks should automatically deal wound damage, but I can't agree with it. Yes, it is precision damage, but in a way you can think of Vitality as a person's ability to turn a precise attack into a glancing blow. Even "just" going through vitality, sneak attack is a powerful ability that can quickly burn through whatever vitality reserves some characters might have. One thing I find that helps is that you can't think of each roll as a discrete and seperate part of the round. Instead the sum of everything that happens leads to a descriptor. The rouge attacks, hits, deals sneak attack damage and the result of this (whether the opponent dies, is hobbled or more or less healthy) is all descriptor. With that said, if you want sneak attacks to go directly to wounds, I wouldn't use the 1:1 method. That's actually worse than making it do 1d6 vitality first, and you get lots of weird exceptions. For example, if a creature normally has no vitality how does this work? If a creature that normally has vitality runs out and is sneak attacked how does this work? If you want sneak attack to reflect an increased ability to inflict wound damage I would instead make every +1d6 of sneak attack add +1 to the threat range of the attack. This would make rouges deadly, but keep the damage relatively low (the normal damage of the weapon). If the threat range seems to large for you at high levels, you could cap this benefit at some number and then have additional sneak attack die beyond it do +1d6 vitality first as normal. Or just alternate +1d6/+1 threat progression.
Nor'Morgwae 12-01-05, 08:07 PM	Xeviat: The Grim and Gritty rules are from MOngoose Publishings Ultimate Game Designers guide. I read through them and never even considered using them. It's been a while but as I recall they were overly complicated and really wouldn't add much to a game. As to sneak attack I don't think it works well in a wound/vitality system. My opinion is that it needs to be replaced by other comperable abilities. I would suggest making a few different abilities and giving a rogue their choice of which they wwant to take, maybe even allowing them to take a different one at different level. For instance, you could give them a skill that works like sneak attack but only affects vitality, cannot do wound damage but is a little easier to use, essenntially a technique to exhaust your opponent while fighting. Or an option that adds to the damage you do but only when you do wound damage, likely 1 or 2 damager per dice of sneak attaack. Or even allowing the rogue to learn to 'sneak attack' with skill. They could pick a skill and ad that extra d6 to checks with that skill instead of gaining a damage bonus. The last suggestion allows for a more skill oriented rogue but should not be done lightely. The bonus dice need to be limit some how or a diplomacy rogue will be unstoppable. These are just suggestions off the top of my head. Feel free to commence tearing them apart in a most brutal fashion.
Jerks 12-01-05, 08:16 PM	Skill sneak attacks. I really like the concept behind that one. An additional d6 on a skill of the Rogue's choice. Not sure about the fine tuning of it, but it could be a very workable system.
Nor'Morgwae 12-02-05, 12:23 AM	I had that inspiration some time ago. I was reading through the afformentioned Ultimate Games Designers Guide and saw a section on "Social Combat", essentially making diplomacy into a more involving event than "I rolled a twenty and told him I like his shoes, can I go in the bar now?" I thought, "hey, if you could do that with diplomacy, what about other things?" and so I kind of batted around the idea of using Disable Device, Heal or Open lock in a more combat-like style. I never really persued the idea very far though. The jist was to have a lock, for instance, would have "lock points" basically HP for unlocking it. The equivilent of an attack would use the skill bonus to beat the DC and lock picking 'damage' would be based on the characters relevent ability (dex in this case) and the tool being used. This would allow for more variance in non-combat equipment and allow and easy translation of non-combat scenerios into combat without it being no more than a single roll of the dice. And now back to the topic the thread is actually about... (sorry for the derail)
Cynlas 12-02-05, 01:21 AM	Making Sneak attack damage "always" do either Wounds or Vitality will flub the system detrimentally one way or another. The whole point of Vitality is to represent the ability of heroic characters to ward off even the deadliest attacks, weather from 20-die spells, or hordes of Assassins. The precision of the attack is irrelevant. Unlike Vitality, which embraces an abstraction of luck, willpower, and other ephemarial and abstract concepts, Wounds are more tightly bound to actual physical damage capacity. As such, the VP/WP system changes the tenor of criticals to represent this separation of concepts. A critical is simply the ability to bypass this abtract heroism and strike directly at the physical target alone. As such, all damage of an attack should, under the principles of the VP/WP system, be applied to whatever pool of points that the attack roll indicates. Just because an assassin is attempting to strike at an opponent's kidney during a sneak attack, does not mean that they are going to be automatically successful in such a devestating attack, even if they manage to hit, and have 8 dice of SA damage. The dice indicate the higher damage potential of striking such a serious target, but the target could stumble before the blow is completed, or some other instance handled via the game mechanics of Vitality Points. Similarly, the assassin could get lucky enough (ie Crit) to execute the attack perfectly, causing the damage to be applied to the target's Wounds, and likely killing them outright... If it is a normal hit, then it goes to VP. If it was a crit, then all damage would go to Wounds, just like the Fire damage of a flaming sword. No one is questioning the applicability of fire damage, which is only going to "hurt" if it actually physically burns its target; why then would a Sneak Attack, or any other attack for that matter. WHile I realize the 1 WP per die of sneak attack was created to remedy the resulting problem of always applying SA to WP, but even still, it seems that having to create yet another houserule to "fix" one houserule should indicate that the first houserule was not an appropriate fix to begin with. But, just my opine, not worth any more than what you give it. Now, the reason some creatures are immune to Criticals and Sneak Attacks (as all of the ones I can currently think of are not immune to one or the other, but always both, and therefore SA damage would never be applied to the target regardless of if they have WP or VP) is due to a particular instance of either not having a vulnerability (as Zombies don't need those kidneys they are carrying around) or having such an alien anatomy that they cannot be attacked such ("THAT is it's heart? What the h### is it doing over there???" or "Whoah, it just moved its lung over to the other side of its chestwall!"). Neither of these conditions have anything to do with the actual Attack of the attacker, and therefore the damage delivered, or rather how much, but rather how it can receive that damage. Basic principle of all rules system changes, you should not "fix" the apples when it is the oranges that are in the wrong cart. Also remember, if you are implementing the VP/WP system, you need to be aware of the subtle changes it makes to the basic assumptions regarding what "damage" constitutes, both in how it is delivered, and how it is received/defended. FWIW
Jerks 12-02-05, 03:54 AM	... If it is a normal hit, then it goes to VP. If it was a crit, then all damage would go to Wounds, just like the Fire damage of a flaming sword. No one is questioning the applicability of fire damage, which is only going to "hurt" if it actually physically burns its target; why then would a Sneak Attack, or any other attack for that matter. ... Actually, the flame damage of a flaming sword is not considered part of the critical under RAW. Additonal dice of damage, such as this and sneak attack are not multiplied under the standard crit rules;therefore, whatever system of criticals used in Vit/Wound system would apply equally to a flaming sword as it would to a sneak attack. Having extra dice of damage always apply to Vitality first very closely mimicks the effects of this type of damage under the game as written. Any other type of system changes the nature of sneak attack damage and may have unintended balance consequences. Having it always do Wound damage gives that player an infinite, auto-confirming crit range. If you make the weapon do 1 pt of wound then it's nerfed against Huge and larger creatures with tons of wound points. Finally, if you make a work-around for crits then do you do the same for flaming swords? Under RAW these two types of damage are treated darn near identically for critical hits. How about spell damage? Logic dictates that if you fail you save, and get caught in the middle of a hellstorm that you shouldn't walk out alive. Should fireballs do some type of wound damage too? [I don't think they should, but I'm just throwing it out there]
Thelon Fairblade 12-02-05, 09:05 AM	Re: Sneak Attack and Fire Sword. I would apply the damage to VP first. If the VP runs out before the bonus damage does, the remaining bonus damage is lost. (More complicated: roll each die of bonus damage one at a time, until the VP are gone, with the remainder on *that die* being lost. Extra dice translate to +1 WP each.) If the target's VP has run out, 1 WP per die of damage. (prorated... 1d10s = 2 WP). If the target does not ever have VP, but would normally suffer the bonus dice (i.e. flaming sword on zombie), +1 WP per die. Re: Spells and the VP/WP system. I ruled that a failed save against a damaging spell inflicts a bonus of 1 WP per spell level; a successful save negates the bonus WP damage, regardless of the other effects of the spell. So failing your save against a Fireball (5d6 or 10d6, empowered or not) causes 3 WP of damage, besides the other damage effects. The same 10d6 inflicted by a Cone of Cold would inflict 5 WP on a failed save -- a reason to use the actual 5th level spell instead of the Empowered 3rd level spell. "What about damage spells with no save (i.e. Scorching Ray)?" No need for a mechanic -- they already have the ability to inflict a critical hit by using the "to hit roll" mechanic. Please note, a critical hit with a damage spell is now ultra-deadly... which brings the mid- to high-level blaster-mage back into style instead of playing second-fiddle to the save-or-die caster. (Having appropriate resistance gear to the spell attack foils the bonus damage, too... Fire Resistance 5 will negate the 3 WP "critical" damage of a Fireball.)
Xeviat-DM 12-03-05, 04:36 AM	It seems like the best two options that have been mentioned are, in my opinion, having Sneak Attacks deal +1 wound damage for every odd level of the rogue (and remove the ability to deal flanking sneak attacks), and to have every odd level of the rogue add +1 to the weapon's threat range. Again, I seriously doubt that a rogue, approaching an unseen target, will not succeed in striking a vital if they roll a hit. The fact that the target may stumble away or something else lucky is taken into account by the fact that the rogue has to roll to hit to land the sneak attack. Remember, targets with no con don't have vitality points: all of their HP are wound points, and they are immune to criticals so there's no worry about creatures without vitality getting sneak attacked. The only creatures with a con score who are immune to sneak attacks are elementals, plants, and oozes; you can't deal wound damage to them until their vitality is out. The only other option I can think of to replace sneak attack is to make an ability where rogues are able to strike precisely, thus ignoring a portion of their foes armor. I don't think that would work well, though, since every fighting class has some method of increasing their standard damage.
Xeviat-DM 12-09-05, 04:33 PM	Any more thoughts on this? I still think that sneak attack needs to be altered; I could see a non-lethal sneak attack with a fist or sap do tons of vitality damage (though I would rather see them deal non-lethal wound damage so you can knock someone out with a good hit). The more I think about it, the more I consider the possibility of having all attacks vs. flatfooted targets be autocrits, but that would be very dangerous for high initiative characters. But when you're unaware and cannot react to an attack, one would think that taking a hit would be a wound rather than vp damage.
Phoenix Knight 12-09-05, 05:00 PM	The more I think about it, the more I consider the possibility of having all attacks vs. flatfooted targets be autocrits, but that would be very dangerous for high initiative characters. But when you're unaware and cannot react to an attack, one would think that taking a hit would be a wound rather than vp damage. This makes perfect sense. However, it is incredibly dangerous. A character that catches another flat-footed can kill them in an instant. This kind of thing is typically not expected in D&D (it happens all the time in Shadowrun), where people expect a battle to be somewhat epic. From the perspective of a PC that happens to roll a 1 on Initiative, this pretty much means assuming your character will die before your first action. If you could find a balance between realism and power, it would be good. In regards to using skills to cover Sneak Attack. If Sneak Attack itself were a skill, a character (say a fighter) could level-dip into a rogue and continue to max the skill (since a single level in a class means your max ranks are always treated as though it were a class skill, even if you have to pay 2 points for a rank). Any melee character would want that one level of rogue, and get serious millage out of it. As far as using sneak attack on skills, the whole system would have to be rebalanced, as you could hit attrocious DCs. Even then, it seems questionable whether it is in flavor to sneak attack an appraisal check, or knowledge (planes) check. I think the most reliable option would be the improved crit range, but only have it apply in situations where the rogue could normally sneak attack. But that mechanic would take a lot of reworking, and I rather see a simple fix, even if it means just flat add 1 damage to WP when sneak attacking. I run Iron Heroes, where many sources can grant sneak attack (since you have no magic to overcome DR), so this debate is a big deal from my perspective. Changing the threat range would require significant reworking, but I also see danger in a 19th level character potentially dealing 13 WP damage without a critical just by flanking.
Phoenix Knight 12-09-05, 08:04 PM	As far as sneak attack dealing 1 WP per die directly, even on a non-crit, I was wondering how the numbers would work out. If we take a 15th level fighter (16 Con, average 108hp) fighting a 15th level rogue (12 str, +4 shortsword, 8d6 sneak attack): Under the standard rules, if the rogue flanks the fighter and manages to get in three hits, he would deal 27d6+16 points of damage (avg damage 110.5). He just barely drop the fighter in three hits (or just cut into his WP if using that system). Under the proposed system he would deal 3d6+16 points of VP damage (26.5 avg) and 24 WP damage. It would actually only take 2 hits to kill the fighter, the 3 would certainly do the trick. So the rogue comes out noticeably better in the second rule set, but not as much as we might have expected. Taking away the ability to sneak attack while flanking might solve the overbalance issue, but it could also prove too much of a hit to the rogue, however. Of course, the example assumes the fighter does nothing, and that the rogue has an ally to flank with, but the numbers were really the point here.
Xeviat-DM 12-10-05, 04:38 AM	Phoenix, I didn't mean "skill" in the same term as Diplomacy and Jump, just a tallent like spellcasting and rage. Your last post, though, was wonderful; that was a lot closer to being similar than I originally expected to. Strange ... eerily strange. Remember, rogues also have feint up their sleeve to get more sneak attacks. A flanking two-weapon fighting rogue would just be too deadly if I introduced such a system without removing flanking. I do think rogues could use a little touching up if I did take away flanking (it would be changing sneak attack almost to sudden strike). Not sure what could be added that wouldn't be too much.
FriendoftheDork 12-10-05, 10:30 AM	Could anyone explain to me why we don't just use sneak attack damage like normal damage? As in why this could be unbalancing? After all, a fighter with greatsword, 18 str and power attack is probably going to kill any human with a critical hit. So is a high level rogue. What's the difference?
Phoenix Knight 12-10-05, 01:09 PM	Phoenix, I didn't mean "skill" in the same term as Diplomacy and Jump, just a tallent like spellcasting and rage. A previous poster referered to sneak attacking with diplomacy. Which struck me as pretty funny. Ah, here: Or even allowing the rogue to learn to 'sneak attack' with skill. They could pick a skill and ad that extra d6 to checks with that skill instead of gaining a damage bonus. The last suggestion allows for a more skill oriented rogue but should not be done lightely. The bonus dice need to be limit some how or a diplomacy rogue will be unstoppable. Your last post, though, was wonderful; that was a lot closer to being similar than I originally expected to. Strange ... eerily strange. Remember, rogues also have feint up their sleeve to get more sneak attacks. A flanking two-weapon fighting rogue would just be too deadly if I introduced such a system without removing flanking. I do think rogues could use a little touching up if I did take away flanking (it would be changing sneak attack almost to sudden strike). Not sure what could be added that wouldn't be too much. Well, then I guess it might be helpful to see how it works out before high levels. I'll assume that the fighter in question starts with a 14 Con and doesn't improve it much, instead focusing on Str or Dex and his weapon. The rogue, being a finesse character, has only a 12 Str. I'll also assume that the rogue has a magic weapon with an enhancement bonus equal to 1/4 his level (+1 at 4th, +2 at 8th, etc), but with no elemental properties or other extra damage. At level 3 the fighter has 27 hp. The rogue has 2 sneak attack dice. It takes the rogue 7 WP sneak attacks to eliminate the fighters WP. 7 HP sneak attacks would deal 21d6+7 damage (avg 80.5). The fighter would be dead way before that, At level 5 the fighter has 42 hp, and the rogue 3 sneak attack dice. It takes the rogue 5 WP sneak attacks to eliminate the fighter. 5 HP sneak attacks would deal 20d6+10 (avg 80). At level 9 the fighter has 72 hp and the rogue has 5 sneak attack dice. It takes the rogue 3 WP sneak attacks to kill the fighter. 3 HP sneak attacks would deal 18d6+9 (avg 72). He now only drops the fighter, but does not kill him. At level 13 the fighter has gained +2 Con from an amulet. He now has 115 hp, and the rogue has 7 sneak attack dice. It takes the rogue 3 WP sneak attacks to kill the fighter. 3 HP sneak attacks would deal 24d6+12 (avg 96). He now does not even drop the fighter. Two-Weapon Fighting will make the attacks come in shorter succession, although it also makes them less likely to hit; however, this is true whether we are talking about hp damage or wp damage. Regularless, that is why I evaluated it by number of attacks, not number of rounds. So it looks to me like the issue only arrises at higher levels when sneak attack dice get really high. Perhaps you should tailor your solution to looking for some kind of fix at higher levels. Actually, at lower levels, this method really nerfs sneak attack, except for the attack causing automatic fatigue. Note: I think it important to note, however, that the player playing the fighter would know he's playing a modified system, and thus be likely to take a higher Con than normally, or especially take Toughness. If he takes Toughness even once, the rogue will have to him again, bringing the numbers more in line.
Xeviat-DM 12-10-05, 05:45 PM	I was worrying that sneak attack is less meaningful at low levels, but I don't know what to do about that. Leaving sneak attack as hp damage on regular hits, and having it be full wound damage on crits, might be the best solution within the rules, but it just doesn't make sense. Rogue - "I sneak up to him and attack. I get my sneak attack unless he's a barbarian or rogue, right?" DM - "Right. Roll" Rogue - rolls, hits, rolls damage DM - "Okay, you stab him in the back and deal 30 hp damage" Rogue - "what, I stabbed him, how isn't he wounded?" I just can't think of a simple solution.
Phoenix Knight 12-11-05, 01:52 PM	I was worrying that sneak attack is less meaningful at low levels, but I don't know what to do about that. Leaving sneak attack as hp damage on regular hits, and having it be full wound damage on crits, might be the best solution within the rules, but it just doesn't make sense. Rogue - "I sneak up to him and attack. I get my sneak attack unless he's a barbarian or rogue, right?" DM - "Right. Roll" Rogue - rolls, hits, rolls damage DM - "Okay, you stab him in the back and deal 30 hp damage" Rogue - "what, I stabbed him, how isn't he wounded?" I just can't think of a simple solution. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple solution. Almost anything we do to fix the low power at low levels will only exacerbate the overpowered issue at higher levels. Some options: The proposed increasing of critical multipliers. This continues to become progressively more powerful, so it could work. I find it a little unsatisfactory for Iron Heroes, however. I guess we might be forced to use it though. Of course, that actually makes it better to sneak attack with a scythe than a dagger... Also, after a certain point, lowering the crit range won't matter, since you still have to actually hit the AC (or Defense). It doesn't matter if a 7 is a threat if you need a 17 to hit the knight. Start out with more WP sneak attack damage and have it progress slower. You start with, say 1d4, and gain a +1 every 3 levels instead of every 2. You could also say you deal your weapon damage (but not str unless its a crit) in addition to the sneak bonus, but that increases the problem at higher levels and also makes it more desirable to sneak attack with a big weapon than a sneaky one. Then, of course, you could hamper sneak attack by saying it applies only when you can deal wound damage (on a crit, or possibly against a helpless target) and give another bonus. Or maybe this could be combined with the first option - you gain increased critical range, plus extra damage if you do crit. I can't really think of anything else right now.
BladeMage_1 12-11-05, 04:36 PM	Why can't you just use some kind of Max. damage threshold? Instead of applying the SA damage directly to WP or VP, make a threshold equal to the targets HD+1/2 WP. When rolling for sneak attack damage, compare the result of the damage inflicted from SA (all damage, including weapon damage) to the Max. Damage threshold. For every point of SA result more than the Max. threshold damage (DC), apply it directly to WP. Always apply the SA die number+normal damage directly to VP (1d6=+1,3d6=+3, etc.). A 1st level rogue (1d6 SA) flanks a 2nd level Fighter and successfully delivers a SA. The rogue is wielding a shortsword, and deals 5+2(Str.)+3(SA)=10 damage. The Ftr. has a WP total of 14, and 2 HD. The rogue beat the threshold by 1 pt. and deals 1 WP damage in addition to 8 VP damage. Still some kinks to work at but you get the idea.
darkwarrior42 12-11-05, 05:38 PM	What about a combination of methods? If the sneak attack is only a sneak attack by virtue of flanking, then it goes to vitality point; if the opponent is denied his dexterity or is flat-footed, the sneak attack damage can go to wound point. You could also modify this further (if the sneak attack damage is to VP, it's dice of damage; if it goes to WP, it's 1 WP/die.) This way, a rogue who's flanking with the fighter can still take advantage of the distraction to land blows in more vulnerable areas, but he can't accurately aim for the really vital areas unless his foe is relatively immobile or unaware.
Phoenix Knight 12-11-05, 07:06 PM	What about a combination of methods? If the sneak attack is only a sneak attack by virtue of flanking, then it goes to vitality point; if the opponent is denied his dexterity or is flat-footed, the sneak attack damage can go to wound point. You could also modify this further (if the sneak attack damage is to VP, it's dice of damage; if it goes to WP, it's 1 WP/die.) This way, a rogue who's flanking with the fighter can still take advantage of the distraction to land blows in more vulnerable areas, but he can't accurately aim for the really vital areas unless his foe is relatively immobile or unaware. That sounds like a good way to overcome the difficulty of sneak attack while flanking becoming too powerful. We still have to deal with the issue of 1 WP/die being too weak at low levels and too strong at high levels.
BladeMage_1 12-11-05, 07:48 PM	That sounds like a good way to overcome the difficulty of sneak attack while flanking becoming too powerful. We still have to deal with the issue of 1 WP/die being too weak at low levels and too strong at high levels. Reduce SA die. 1st: 2d6 4th:3d6 9th:4d6 13th:5d6 17th:6d6 Spread all other classes/PrCs SA bonus die in the same way.
darkwarrior42 12-11-05, 09:04 PM	That might work... although I'd reccomend either going something like this: 1: 2d6 5: 3d6 9: 4d6 13: 5d6 17: 6d6 to make the progression more even, or something that just occured to me: Since my reccomendation essentially makes Sudden Strikes (a la the Ninja) go to Wound Points, and flanking attacks from the Rogue go to Vitality Points, why not just have two seperate progressions? It's the extreme version of my original Idea. You can have something like this: Sudden Strike (Ex): A Rogue who catches her opponent unaware, flat-footed, or otherwise denied his Dex bonus to AC can deliver a blow to her opponents most vital areas. The attack does normal damage, and deals an amount of additional damage based on the Rogue's level. This extra damage is dealt directly to the opponent's wound points. The Rogue deals 2 extra points of Wound damage at level 1, and an additional point for every 4 levels the rogue gains (3 at level 5, 4 at level 9, etc.) Any creature immune to sneak attacks ignores this extra damage. A Rogue cannot use this ability in conjunction with Distracted Opponent; a sudden strike represents an attack of the highest lethality possible by mundane means. Distracted Opponent (Ex): A Rogue who is currently flanking an opponent can take advantage of her opponent's divided attention to deal blows to exposed areas of her opponents defenses. Thus, a Rogue who is flanking her opponent deals an amount of extra Vitality Point damage equal to a Rogue's normal sneak attack bonus. Any opponnent immune to Sneak Attacks is immune to this extra damage. A rogue cannot use this ability in conjunction with Sudden Strike; such an attack is already aimed at the most vital area available. Then you could leave the Ninja class alone; at higher levels, the Ninja is a master of striking a killing blow from the shadows, but cannot stand in normal combat the way that a rogue can. Once his foe is aware of the Ninja's presence, the Ninja's edge is lost.
Derrick 12-16-05, 08:05 PM	I was initiatlly inclined towards Sneak Attacks being an automatic threat, and dealing +1 damage per odd Rogue level. However, having given it some thought, a more moderate approach would be better. So, I'm thinking: at 1st level, a Rogue does +1 damage and gets +2 to the threat range of her weapon when Sneak Attacking; every two levels the damage increases by 1. If desired, a Feat or Special Ability to automatically threat on a Sneak Attack could be introduced, or perhaps just one to add another +2 to the threat range.
Xeviat-DM 12-22-05, 03:55 PM	After much thought, I've decided I still want to work on this some more. First off, in my wound/vitality system, I've been working on a way to keep the variance of weapons in my game. I discovered that the system I'm about to present makes certain weapons mathmatically similar/identical, but still stylistically different: When you score a threat, roll damage normally and apply it to HP. Then confirm your crit: if the confirmation roll is successful, you also deal that amount of damage to wounds. Some weapons have altered threat ranges and altered wound damage amounts. 18-20/x2 weapons become 18-20/x1 weapons (the x1 part tends to be ommited from text, and it is just listed as 18-20 or 18) 19-20/x2 weapons become 19-20/x1 (listed as 19-20 or 19) 20/x2 weapons become 20/x1 (listed as 20) 20/x3 weapons become 20/x2 weapons 20/x4 weapons become 20/x3 weapons This means that a rapier will score many critical hits for less damage, and a pick will score less critical hits but for more damage. The rapier has the advantage of making an opponent fatigued from wound damage easier, while the pick could take an opponent out in one hit much easier. So, where was I going with this? My point is that I'd rather have rogues favor high threat weapons, not high mulitplier weapons; thus simply changing sneak attack to an autothreat might not be fair. But having it increase threat range and damage output on a crit might be. Is it possible to change sneak attack to the following: When you target a flatfooted charater with a melee attack or a ranged attack made within 30 feet, a rogue's threat range is increased by the number listed: +1 at first level, and +1 for every odd level there after. My only worry is that this becomes quite redundant quite fast; once you have a 10 threat range, bringing it lower than that becomes pointless. As a side note: I've been long searching for a way to simulate the fact that an axe is better against a tree than a sword is. One thing that came to mind was the fact that a tree doesn't have vitality, it only has wound points in a wp/vp system. Thus allowing high multiplier weapons to always deal their critical damage to objects, or at least when a coup de grace can be set up, might work. This runs contrary to object's immunity to critical hits, though.
Phoenix Knight 12-22-05, 05:39 PM	After much thought, I've decided I still want to work on this some more. First off, in my wound/vitality system, I've been working on a way to keep the variance of weapons in my game. I discovered that the system I'm about to present makes certain weapons mathmatically similar/identical, but still stylistically different: When you score a threat, roll damage normally and apply it to HP. Then confirm your crit: if the confirmation roll is successful, you also deal that amount of damage to wounds. Some weapons have altered threat ranges and altered wound damage amounts. 18-20/x2 weapons become 18-20/x1 weapons (the x1 part tends to be ommited from text, and it is just listed as 18-20 or 18) 19-20/x2 weapons become 19-20/x1 (listed as 19-20 or 19) 20/x2 weapons become 20/x1 (listed as 20) 20/x3 weapons become 20/x2 weapons 20/x4 weapons become 20/x3 weapons This means that a rapier will score many critical hits for less damage, and a pick will score less critical hits but for more damage. The rapier has the advantage of making an opponent fatigued from wound damage easier, while the pick could take an opponent out in one hit much easier. This is a cool idea. Have you playtested it? I'd like to hear if it gives you an unexpected problems. Certainly the scythe with improved crit becomes almost an auto-kill if it backs up a threat. Fighter lv8, 18 str, weapon spec, improved crit, +2 scythe, on a crit, deals 6d4+30 WP damage (avg 45) with no power attack. If he power attacked for 3 he would deal 6d4+48 damage (avg 63). Now 63 is a manly Con score. As opposed to by the standard rules, the scythe would be 15-20 crit, but deal only 2d4+10 damage on a crit (15 damage, avg). I'd think carefully about allowing x4 weapons to remain at x3. Heaven help you if some PrC ups the multiplier of the weapon to x5. So, where was I going with this? My point is that I'd rather have rogues favor high threat weapons, not high mulitplier weapons; thus simply changing sneak attack to an autothreat might not be fair. But having it increase threat range and damage output on a crit might be. I agree having them favor high threat weapons is better. Is it possible to change sneak attack to the following: When you target a flatfooted charater with a melee attack or a ranged attack made within 30 feet, a rogue's threat range is increased by the number listed: +1 at first level, and +1 for every odd level there after. My only worry is that this becomes quite redundant quite fast; once you have a 10 threat range, bringing it lower than that becomes pointless. As a side note: I've been long searching for a way to simulate the fact that an axe is better against a tree than a sword is. One thing that came to mind was the fact that a tree doesn't have vitality, it only has wound points in a wp/vp system. Thus allowing high multiplier weapons to always deal their critical damage to objects, or at least when a coup de grace can be set up, might work. This runs contrary to object's immunity to critical hits, though. As I mentioned previously, for a pure rogue, hitting many targets may require a decent roll, so crit ranges much below 15 may often become redundant. One possibility: Every odd level lowers the threat range, every even level adds +1 damage on a crit (would not work well on your keeping multiplier system). Keep up the good work. I'd like to see a solution, but I'm stumped for other ideas right now.
Xeviat-DM 12-23-05, 04:06 AM	I haven't had a chance to playtest my multiplier system thouroughly yet, but it is mathmatically identical to an expanded threat range. The only other option would be to make the current high multiplier weapons have 20/x1 crits, but either give them larger standard damage, or possibly the ability to ignore AC from Armor or DR. The reason they are mathmatically similar is that a rapier will threat on 3 rolls out of 20, dealing 1x damage with each. A pick will threat on 1 roll out of 20, but will deal 3x damage with it. I had to make sure that each dealt vp damage on threats as well, otherwise the high multipliers dealt more vp damage on average. If you have any ideas on what to do with the high threat range items other than keep their high threat range items, let me know. But remember, people still get a save when reduced to 0 wp. Much of the high multiplier's crit damage is waisted (though in my system it makes the save to resist dying harder to succeed). I would like to see a change in the system that made the current high multiplier weapons (axes, hammers, and picks) deal more damage, and thus have an easier time damaging inanimate objects and creatures immune to critical hits. I'm just not sure that a 1d6 18-20 weapon is really balanced against a 1d10 20 weapon. I'll have to do some math on it (I have a lot of math to do in the next couple of days, and a session to plan by tuesday. Oh my!)
Phoenix Knight 12-23-05, 11:38 AM	The reason they are mathmatically similar is that a rapier will threat on 3 rolls out of 20, dealing 1x damage with each. A pick will threat on 1 roll out of 20, but will deal 3x damage with it. I had to make sure that each dealt vp damage on threats as well, otherwise the high multipliers dealt more vp damage on average. If you have any ideas on what to do with the high threat range items other than keep their high threat range items, let me know. But remember, people still get a save when reduced to 0 wp. Much of the high multiplier's crit damage is waisted (though in my system it makes the save to resist dying harder to succeed). I would like to see a change in the system that made the current high multiplier weapons (axes, hammers, and picks) deal more damage, and thus have an easier time damaging inanimate objects and creatures immune to critical hits. I'm just not sure that a 1d6 18-20 weapon is really balanced against a 1d10 20 weapon. I'll have to do some math on it (I have a lot of math to do in the next couple of days, and a session to plan by tuesday. Oh my!) I like the idea of simply upping damage and lowering multipliers a little, though this spells yet more work and houserules, as each would have to be individually addressed. A bigger damage die is generally going to be better than a higher crit range in normal D&D because the bigger die applies all the time. The higher crit range only sometimes matters. The way WPs work, however, could partially shift the balance back towards the high crit weapon. I'm curious what your rule is to make the save harder. I kind of felt there should be one, in my early experiments with VP/WP so far. I also have some issue with the fact that when VP are gone, crits seem pointless (unless I'm missing something). On a side note, a scythe is really the biggest problem child of weapons, because not only does it have that x4 crit, but it has multiple damage dice, unlike most other medium-sized weapons. I think some weapons are given higher multipliers, others higher damage, and others better threat ranges, to add variance to weapons. It feels like the more we tweak them, the closer they will all become. I suppose the upside would be a person could then chose almost any weapon for flavor reasons, and not for crunch reasons. But I think we should still avoid driving towards the eventual conclusion that all weapons deal 1d8 and have a 19-20 crit range.
Xeviat-DM 12-23-05, 06:31 PM	High threat range items are balanced by the fact that 5 entire creature types are not affected by critical hits: undead, elementals, constructs, plants, oozes. My rule for increasing the saving throw to resist dying is simple: I track negative wound points. When you are reduced to negative, you make a fort save with a DC equal to 10 + 1/-5 wp you're reduced to. So if you're reduced to -5, the save is only 11, but if you're reduced to -80, the save is 26. Because wound points recover at a rate of one point per level per day, having negative wound points actually shows that it takes a long time to recover from some injuries (because living through something that reduced you to -80 is rediculous, so that person must be horribly injured). If you fail the save by 10 or more, you're dead on the scene. If you fail it by less than 10, you're dying. If you succeed, you're disabled. While disabled, if you take any more damage (either from your own strenuous action, which causes 1 wp damage, or from another attack), you must make a new save; if you fail the new save by 10 or more, you die; if you succeed or fail by 9 or less, you're dying. Diehard gives you the ability to, while disabled, remain disabled if you succeed your save against additional damage. Endurance applies it's +4 save bonus to the Fort save to resist dying. All instant death spells reduce you to 0 wounds. Harm is being worked on to deal a bunch of vp damage, but primarily reduce you to 1 wound and inflict a bunch of bad conditions (contagion and what not).
Phoenix Knight 12-23-05, 10:01 PM	High threat range items are balanced by the fact that 5 entire creature types are not affected by critical hits: undead, elementals, constructs, plants, oozes. My rule for increasing the saving throw to resist dying is simple: I track negative wound points. When you are reduced to negative, you make a fort save with a DC equal to 10 + 1/-5 wp you're reduced to. So if you're reduced to -5, the save is only 11, but if you're reduced to -80, the save is 26. Because wound points recover at a rate of one point per level per day, having negative wound points actually shows that it takes a long time to recover from some injuries (because living through something that reduced you to -80 is rediculous, so that person must be horribly injured). If you fail the save by 10 or more, you're dead on the scene. If you fail it by less than 10, you're dying. If you succeed, you're disabled. While disabled, if you take any more damage (either from your own strenuous action, which causes 1 wp damage, or from another attack), you must make a new save; if you fail the new save by 10 or more, you die; if you succeed or fail by 9 or less, you're dying. Diehard gives you the ability to, while disabled, remain disabled if you succeed your save against additional damage. Endurance applies it's +4 save bonus to the Fort save to resist dying. All instant death spells reduce you to 0 wounds. Harm is being worked on to deal a bunch of vp damage, but primarily reduce you to 1 wound and inflict a bunch of bad conditions (contagion and what not). I like that, it seems better than the default that no matter how much you take, the DC is the same. I might have actually set the DC to 10 + negative total, but I guess some hits could deal so much survival would be impossible. Not sure that's really a bad thing from a realism perspective, but I don't like losing PCs. It upsets the game. I want it to be a real risk, but only happen on occassion, baring player stupidity. Why not just say harm does not affect WP? It seems simplier. Of course, if you actually want it to be the opposite of heal, then having it add any of number of the conditions heal removes would make sense.
Xeviat-DM 12-24-05, 05:39 AM	A D&D vet friend of mine says Harm, in earlier editions, added ill status effects in addition to bringing the target down to 1 hp. And Harm has to affect WP, otherwise it isn't really harming them. Sure, it's horribly exhausting them if it just took away a ton of VP, but they aren't injured at all. And if Heal heals WP, then Harm has to damage it. Similarly, if cure heals 1d8 vp and +1 wp per level, inflict needs to deal similar damage (but inflict can never reduce someone below 1 hp). But back to the topic on hand: I'm going to run the numbers on just increasing the damage of high multiplier weapons. The only problem is that there would be no mechanical difference between former 20x3 weapons and 20x4 weapons. Any thoughts on that?
Phoenix Knight 12-24-05, 11:23 AM	A D&D vet friend of mine says Harm, in earlier editions, added ill status effects in addition to bringing the target down to 1 hp. And Harm has to affect WP, otherwise it isn't really harming them. Sure, it's horribly exhausting them if it just took away a ton of VP, but they aren't injured at all. And if Heal heals WP, then Harm has to damage it. Similarly, if cure heals 1d8 vp and +1 wp per level, inflict needs to deal similar damage (but inflict can never reduce someone below 1 hp). But back to the topic on hand: I'm going to run the numbers on just increasing the damage of high multiplier weapons. The only problem is that there would be no mechanical difference between former 20x3 weapons and 20x4 weapons. Any thoughts on that? In 2E, harm reduced a person to 1d4 hp and gave them a disease. There's no list, but I guess the book was relatively open-ended in a lot of ways. I assume you mean that in the RAW, a 19-20/x3 weapon would be as good as a 20/x4 weapon? I think there's a functional difference in the WP system, as no one could possibly stand up to a x3 hit to WP with a scythe. Even many monsters would go down in one hit to my earlier example. An 8th level fighter single-handedly dealing 63 WP damage on a single hit. A CR 10 red dragon has a 19 Con. It's only large, so it gets no multiplier to its WP. Meaning that one hit drops it 3 times and then some. Granted, 63, is a significant chunk of its 168 hp, but at least it would then have the chance to fly away. Now the dragon would be AC 24, so if the fighter power attacking for 3 would need a 12 to back up the crit - slightly less than 50%. So maybe you consider it acceptable that the guy has a small chance of single-handedly dropping the encounter in the first blow. I have mixed feelings about it. What would definately bother me, however, is if it happened to a PC. The player would be upset (as he pretty much had no chance, other than the Fort save), and a character would be sitting out the fight, even if he did survive. Having a quarter of the party down and out in the first round certainly makes it less likely the other PCs can defeat the scythe-wielding NPC. I like the idea of keeping variance, but I wonder if the practical effect on the game might exceed the numerical similarity.
Xeviat-DM 12-24-05, 12:20 PM	Probably as bad as a Rapier wielder getting one crit out of three attacks three rounds in a row. And 19-20/x3 is actually worth 20/x5. The only thing I can see doing is changing the x4 weapons to have some sort of armor ignoring ability (since picks were designed to punch through armor; I'm talking battle picks not minning picks). Once we remove the need for high multiplier weapons, then I think having sneak attack grant the rogue a higher threat range might work. I'd like to say the easiest solution would just be that the rogue's sneak attack deals automatic wound damage, +1 damage per odd rogue level. But this would favor 19-20 weapons over 18-20 weapons, since 19-20 weapons have higher damage dice. Having sneak attack give you a bonus to your threat range might be cool, but it wouldn't work most of the time until very high levels.
Phoenix Knight 12-24-05, 12:48 PM	Probably as bad as a Rapier wielder getting one crit out of three attacks three rounds in a row. And 19-20/x3 is actually worth 20/x5. The only thing I can see doing is changing the x4 weapons to have some sort of armor ignoring ability (since picks were designed to punch through armor; I'm talking battle picks not minning picks). Once we remove the need for high multiplier weapons, then I think having sneak attack grant the rogue a higher threat range might work. I'd like to say the easiest solution would just be that the rogue's sneak attack deals automatic wound damage, +1 damage per odd rogue level. But this would favor 19-20 weapons over 18-20 weapons, since 19-20 weapons have higher damage dice. Having sneak attack give you a bonus to your threat range might be cool, but it wouldn't work most of the time until very high levels. I think combining the methods would work best. The rogue deals extra damage on a crit, and has an increasing chance of criting. Useful at all levels, however, at higher levels, the increasing crit range reaches diminishing marginal returns, no matter what the base weapon threat range is. If you use the armor as DR rules (I recommend the die-type DR presented in Iron Heroes over the UA version, it was one of the first things that sold me on the book), you can have it ignore DR. Having it ignore armor as AC is effectively giving it a bonus to hit.
Xeviat-DM 12-25-05, 01:11 PM	A new idea came to mind. First, compare the average damage dealt by a first level rogue to the average hp of an average CR 1 encounter: Sneak attack deals +1d6, and their shortsword could possibly be doing 1d6+1 (str) at this point. That's 8 damage, which is about as much hp as most CR 1 monsters. This slowly scales down as the rogue gains levels. Instead of having sneak attack scale, I offer a more simple solution. At first level, a rogue deals automatic wound damage with a sneak attack. This favors the lower threat range items because those have higher damage, but I think that could work if characters can still score criticals with a sneak attack, and thus deal double wounds. Then, at one or two other points in the rogue's progression, they switch to dealing double or even tripple normal damage to wounds on a sneak attack. And I think that works fine with sneak attacks from feints, but maybe not with flanking. What do you think? A first level rogue probably won't kill someone in a single hit (1d6+1 damage to wounds definately won't kill someone with a 10 con).
Phoenix Knight 12-25-05, 05:54 PM	A new idea came to mind. First, compare the average damage dealt by a first level rogue to the average hp of an average CR 1 encounter: Sneak attack deals +1d6, and their shortsword could possibly be doing 1d6+1 (str) at this point. That's 8 damage, which is about as much hp as most CR 1 monsters. This slowly scales down as the rogue gains levels. Instead of having sneak attack scale, I offer a more simple solution. At first level, a rogue deals automatic wound damage with a sneak attack. This favors the lower threat range items because those have higher damage, but I think that could work if characters can still score criticals with a sneak attack, and thus deal double wounds. Then, at one or two other points in the rogue's progression, they switch to dealing double or even tripple normal damage to wounds on a sneak attack. And I think that works fine with sneak attacks from feints, but maybe not with flanking. What do you think? A first level rogue probably won't kill someone in a single hit (1d6+1 damage to wounds definately won't kill someone with a 10 con). I think having you increase every other level gives more incentive to continue taking levels in the class. As I believe I mentioned on the TWF board, I tend to favor fighter/rogue builds. Typically, more rogue than fighter (mainly skills). Your idea might tend to leave people more inclined to level dip into a rogue for that special ability at first level and never look better. Sure, those that keep progressing eventually get the better version (I assume you meant around level 6, or so). I don't know. It seems like it might be a good step, but it would need a little tweaking or else it becomes like the 3.0 ranger - a one level class.
Xeviat-DM 12-26-05, 05:30 AM	I was worried about that too; I was just comparing it in my mind to the old backstab mechanic. Gah, why does this have to be so difficult? I still say that sneak attack always going to vitality makes mechanical sense (since it normally wasn't added into a crit), but makes no sense descriptively.