Bad Wording... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Bad Wording... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
CrippleMrOnion
03-05-04, 11:01 PM Do any other DMs have a problem with the name Sneak Attack? Sneak attacking has very little to do with sneaking. It has to do with using an opportunity to strike a vulnerable area. The word "Sneak" infers that there's something underhanded about it, but, honestly, it's just intelligent fighting.

I've had a situation where a player didn't think a paladin/rogue could sneak attack because he didn't know if it was an inherently evil act; it kinda sounded, to him, like it was dishonorable--all that "sneaking" stuff. I found the idea absurd, but he was genuinely concerned.

I think the main problems is that the two most obvious (to me, at least) names for the ability are both too similar to other game
concepts: Opportunistic Attack or Critical Strike

For the record, I don't want a long, drawn out debate about whether my paladin ruling was right or wrong, I'm just curious as to whether any other DMs had any phenomena like mine or whether my player was just being overly cautious.

Have any other DMs had this problem or another problem with inappropriate--not unclear, but inappropriate--wording?
Sucineri
03-05-04, 11:51 PM Well, the character doesn't tell people he is going to be sneaky and assassinate someone does he? Cuz then it might be evil..but if he is going to "even the odds" then I would just say it is good strategy.
Plunderer_of_the_planes
03-06-04, 01:13 AM My own opinion here:

Paladins usually fight under a rigid code of honor that historically do not allow "sneak attacks", attacks from behind, or other underhanded manuvers.

Since the rogues sneak attack ability only works from events that disallow the dex bonus or from a flanking position (I have also interperated this as from behind) it would conflict with the Pally's code and Alignment.

However if done strictly from the Dex bonus denial (flat footed etc..) I wouldn't see it as evil. Yes it limits the SA a bit but, that is also why most players never mix the two classes.

Also this is based of the 3e rules...
Dauntless
03-06-04, 01:26 AM Does the Paladin's Code prevent the Paladin from flanking?

If not, he should not be prevented from taking full advantage of the flanking situation. The same can be said for feinting in combat (high cha score + some ranks in bluff helps) or attacking from invisibility or against flatfooted targets.

While your specific Paladin's code might forbit certain types of attacks (sneaking up in the shadows and backstabbing someone maybe), it shouldn't prevent him from taking full advantage of any situation which he is allowed to use (flanking, feinting, etc)
Gingerbread Guy
03-06-04, 06:04 AM Hiho,

Sneak Attacks are "sneaky" in that they are usefull only when your opponent is not prepared. I don't think its bad wording, although there certainly is better wording. I would have gone with Opportunistic Strike, myself.

~Ginger
Autosponge
03-06-04, 07:21 AM In most cases you're striking someone from behind, catching them unawares, or double-teaming them. You're also suppose to be hitting their "vitals" which is intentionally going to kill them if successful. While not 'evil' per se, they are not lawful. I can see only a CG-NG character using these practices regularly and without remorse (against evil opponents)--which is why rogues aren't lawful.
primemover003
03-06-04, 07:50 AM Why are people so hung up about Paladins being able to Sneak Attack??? It says nowhere that they cannot. Poison-NO, Sneak Attack-completely fine. Even the Book of Exalted Deeds states Paladins are fully able to use Sneak attack. It's no different than Smite.
Salla
03-06-04, 07:50 AM Uh, Autosponge? Rogues can be lawful.

The BoED specifically states that Sneak Attacking is not an evil act. It's completely unaligned. It's not a matter of aiming for vital spots; if you're not aiming for vital spots whenever you're attacking, you're simply being stupid ("And with a mighty swing, my Paladin attempts to sever the demon's big toe!") ... the only difference is that a rogue is BETTER at it.

Really, I think it's just connotative baggage; you're reading too much into the name, like many people do with Monks or Barbarians.
Plunderer_of_the_planes
03-06-04, 10:11 AM Hell I still call it backstab 90% of the time. But as I stated above it was my own interperitation ofthe rules that disallows Pally's to use it. And even after I get BOED that stance is unlikely to change.....
Autosponge
03-06-04, 10:51 AM Originally posted by Salla
Uh, Autosponge? Rogues can be lawful.

First, allow me to apologize for forgetting the changes in 3.0+ about alignment restrictions.

Second, let me add this to the paladin comments:

"A paladin's valor is particularly evident on the battlefield. He regards war as a noble enterprise, and combat as an opportunity to glorify the institution he represents. A paladin attacks an enemy without hesitation, continuing to fight until the enemy withdraws or is defeated. Whenever possible, a paladin chooses the most formidable enemy—a powerful monster, a giant, a dragon, or the leader of an army—as his primary opponent. In general, a paladin prefers melee to missile combat, so he can engage his opponent face to face."

I assume face to face means not sneak attacking or flanking.

Most Paladins would regard the "back stab" or sneak attack against their virtues of bravery and valor.

"Evil Violations: Evil violations include intentional acts of theft, treason, cowardice, betrayal, greed, cheating, and blasphemy. Any ethos violation resulting in deliberate physical harm to a lawful good character is considered evil."

Penalty: Even a single evil violation results in the immediate and irrevocable loss of the paladin's status..."

And whoever said Smite Evil is the same as sneak attack is high. That's the most rediculous comment I've ever heard regarding paladins.
CrippleMrOnion
03-06-04, 06:34 PM As valuable as I find everyone's opinions, I stated at the beginning that I wasn't looking for anything on paladins and sneak attacking... I was looking for any other instances DMs might have had that stemmed from poor diction.
As interesting as I suppose what we already have is, does anyone have any examples of the topic?
Vaalingrade Ashland
03-06-04, 06:49 PM SA is really just an intimate knowledge of anatomy and to use it, you need to strike when you have an opening. There's no dishonor at being effective with your attacks.

Edit: oops, sorry, missed the last post.
zodiki
03-07-04, 03:00 AM The whole what's rest/sleep argument is a case in point.
Mergandisevender
03-07-04, 04:58 AM I called it "Shank" for a while.

Then one of the PCs asked if they could Shank someone with a club.

I asked if a Club was pointy. They said no. I said no.

.. then I realized they wanted to "Sneak Attack" the troll. Not shank him with the wide-end of a Club.
Autosponge
03-08-04, 12:27 AM It still more or less makes sense, it's tough to hit vital areas with a club, it has a wide focus and therefore hard to pinpoint those areas. At best you could whack kneecaps or the head--everything else would difuse the power of the attack and it would cease to be a 'sneak attack'.
Xavim
03-08-04, 06:30 AM I'm pretty sure having someone take a bat to your kidneys is supportive enough for a sneak attack cercumstance.
TheGogmagog
03-08-04, 08:21 AM While I wholeheartedly disagree with Autosponge's assumptions and logic, I can see where a player might draw the connection that sneak attack doesn't meet his character's values. There are certainly no R.A.W. restrictions on alignment or ethos for the use of sneak attack. There is also no support that you can't sneak attack with a blunt weapon (ever hear of an sap?)

I would let him role play it as he see's it, maybe give him role playig rewards. It makes me wonder why he took level of rogue though. I would think bard would have been a more appropriate choice given his character's views.
Linthar
03-08-04, 08:50 AM In the description chapter of the 3.0 players handbook and probably the 3.5 players handbook there was an section mentioning that players could call an ability something else, so if the name didn't work for them they could call it something like precise strike and just use the same mechanics. After all thats basically what a sneak attack is a precise strike that is so involved in making it that for it to connect the opponent needs to be distracted.
SureFoot
03-08-04, 11:43 AM 1) I have not encountered the issues you are discussing, mainly because we try to keep flavor text (such as the names of feats/abilities) out of rule interpretations. For example, the spell Trap the Soul can, in fact, work on soulless beings like constructs.

2) Linthar has it right: just change the name if you want to.

3) Autosponge and P_o_t_P seem, from their above posts, to have confused Lawful Good with Lawful Stupid regarding paladins and flanking. In an honorable, straight-up combat with multiple combatants, there is no dishonor in flanking an opponent. You would be foolish NOT to if the situation presented itself. It is a sound, time-honored military tactic that works.
The dishonor comes from an actual sneak attack (not the SA ability, but striking an unprepared foe with surprise). This is not to say that a defending army of paladins could not mount a surprise attack against an army who has invaded a goodly nation and who knows the paladins are out there/know they are in a war zone. But a paladin would NOT take part in an ambush in most cases (it *could* happen, in certain circumstances, but not often).

BTW, I mean no offense to Autosponge or PotP for the Lawful Stupid thing, but not allowing paladins to flank falls well within that categorization, IMHO.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CrippleMrOnion 03-05-04, 11:01 PM	Do any other DMs have a problem with the name Sneak Attack? Sneak attacking has very little to do with sneaking. It has to do with using an opportunity to strike a vulnerable area. The word "Sneak" infers that there's something underhanded about it, but, honestly, it's just intelligent fighting. I've had a situation where a player didn't think a paladin/rogue could sneak attack because he didn't know if it was an inherently evil act; it kinda sounded, to him, like it was dishonorable--all that "sneaking" stuff. I found the idea absurd, but he was genuinely concerned. I think the main problems is that the two most obvious (to me, at least) names for the ability are both too similar to other game concepts: Opportunistic Attack or Critical Strike For the record, I don't want a long, drawn out debate about whether my paladin ruling was right or wrong, I'm just curious as to whether any other DMs had any phenomena like mine or whether my player was just being overly cautious. Have any other DMs had this problem or another problem with inappropriate--not unclear, but inappropriate--wording?
Sucineri 03-05-04, 11:51 PM	Well, the character doesn't tell people he is going to be sneaky and assassinate someone does he? Cuz then it might be evil..but if he is going to "even the odds" then I would just say it is good strategy.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-06-04, 01:13 AM	My own opinion here: Paladins usually fight under a rigid code of honor that historically do not allow "sneak attacks", attacks from behind, or other underhanded manuvers. Since the rogues sneak attack ability only works from events that disallow the dex bonus or from a flanking position (I have also interperated this as from behind) it would conflict with the Pally's code and Alignment. However if done strictly from the Dex bonus denial (flat footed etc..) I wouldn't see it as evil. Yes it limits the SA a bit but, that is also why most players never mix the two classes. Also this is based of the 3e rules...
Dauntless 03-06-04, 01:26 AM	Does the Paladin's Code prevent the Paladin from flanking? If not, he should not be prevented from taking full advantage of the flanking situation. The same can be said for feinting in combat (high cha score + some ranks in bluff helps) or attacking from invisibility or against flatfooted targets. While your specific Paladin's code might forbit certain types of attacks (sneaking up in the shadows and backstabbing someone maybe), it shouldn't prevent him from taking full advantage of any situation which he is allowed to use (flanking, feinting, etc)
Gingerbread Guy 03-06-04, 06:04 AM	Hiho, Sneak Attacks are "sneaky" in that they are usefull only when your opponent is not prepared. I don't think its bad wording, although there certainly is better wording. I would have gone with Opportunistic Strike, myself. ~Ginger
Autosponge 03-06-04, 07:21 AM	In most cases you're striking someone from behind, catching them unawares, or double-teaming them. You're also suppose to be hitting their "vitals" which is intentionally going to kill them if successful. While not 'evil' per se, they are not lawful. I can see only a CG-NG character using these practices regularly and without remorse (against evil opponents)--which is why rogues aren't lawful.
primemover003 03-06-04, 07:50 AM	Why are people so hung up about Paladins being able to Sneak Attack??? It says nowhere that they cannot. Poison-NO, Sneak Attack-completely fine. Even the Book of Exalted Deeds states Paladins are fully able to use Sneak attack. It's no different than Smite.
Salla 03-06-04, 07:50 AM	Uh, Autosponge? Rogues can be lawful. The BoED specifically states that Sneak Attacking is not an evil act. It's completely unaligned. It's not a matter of aiming for vital spots; if you're not aiming for vital spots whenever you're attacking, you're simply being stupid ("And with a mighty swing, my Paladin attempts to sever the demon's big toe!") ... the only difference is that a rogue is BETTER at it. Really, I think it's just connotative baggage; you're reading too much into the name, like many people do with Monks or Barbarians.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-06-04, 10:11 AM	Hell I still call it backstab 90% of the time. But as I stated above it was my own interperitation ofthe rules that disallows Pally's to use it. And even after I get BOED that stance is unlikely to change.....
Autosponge 03-06-04, 10:51 AM	Originally posted by Salla Uh, Autosponge? Rogues can be lawful. First, allow me to apologize for forgetting the changes in 3.0+ about alignment restrictions. Second, let me add this to the paladin comments: "A paladin's valor is particularly evident on the battlefield. He regards war as a noble enterprise, and combat as an opportunity to glorify the institution he represents. A paladin attacks an enemy without hesitation, continuing to fight until the enemy withdraws or is defeated. Whenever possible, a paladin chooses the most formidable enemy—a powerful monster, a giant, a dragon, or the leader of an army—as his primary opponent. In general, a paladin prefers melee to missile combat, so he can engage his opponent face to face." I assume face to face means not sneak attacking or flanking. Most Paladins would regard the "back stab" or sneak attack against their virtues of bravery and valor. "Evil Violations: Evil violations include intentional acts of theft, treason, cowardice, betrayal, greed, cheating, and blasphemy. Any ethos violation resulting in deliberate physical harm to a lawful good character is considered evil." Penalty: Even a single evil violation results in the immediate and irrevocable loss of the paladin's status..." And whoever said Smite Evil is the same as sneak attack is high. That's the most rediculous comment I've ever heard regarding paladins.
CrippleMrOnion 03-06-04, 06:34 PM	As valuable as I find everyone's opinions, I stated at the beginning that I wasn't looking for anything on paladins and sneak attacking... I was looking for any other instances DMs might have had that stemmed from poor diction. As interesting as I suppose what we already have is, does anyone have any examples of the topic?
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-06-04, 06:49 PM	SA is really just an intimate knowledge of anatomy and to use it, you need to strike when you have an opening. There's no dishonor at being effective with your attacks. Edit: oops, sorry, missed the last post.
zodiki 03-07-04, 03:00 AM	The whole what's rest/sleep argument is a case in point.
Mergandisevender 03-07-04, 04:58 AM	I called it "Shank" for a while. Then one of the PCs asked if they could Shank someone with a club. I asked if a Club was pointy. They said no. I said no. .. then I realized they wanted to "Sneak Attack" the troll. Not shank him with the wide-end of a Club.
Autosponge 03-08-04, 12:27 AM	It still more or less makes sense, it's tough to hit vital areas with a club, it has a wide focus and therefore hard to pinpoint those areas. At best you could whack kneecaps or the head--everything else would difuse the power of the attack and it would cease to be a 'sneak attack'.
Xavim 03-08-04, 06:30 AM	I'm pretty sure having someone take a bat to your kidneys is supportive enough for a sneak attack cercumstance.
TheGogmagog 03-08-04, 08:21 AM	While I wholeheartedly disagree with Autosponge's assumptions and logic, I can see where a player might draw the connection that sneak attack doesn't meet his character's values. There are certainly no R.A.W. restrictions on alignment or ethos for the use of sneak attack. There is also no support that you can't sneak attack with a blunt weapon (ever hear of an sap?) I would let him role play it as he see's it, maybe give him role playig rewards. It makes me wonder why he took level of rogue though. I would think bard would have been a more appropriate choice given his character's views.
Linthar 03-08-04, 08:50 AM	In the description chapter of the 3.0 players handbook and probably the 3.5 players handbook there was an section mentioning that players could call an ability something else, so if the name didn't work for them they could call it something like precise strike and just use the same mechanics. After all thats basically what a sneak attack is a precise strike that is so involved in making it that for it to connect the opponent needs to be distracted.
SureFoot 03-08-04, 11:43 AM	1) I have not encountered the issues you are discussing, mainly because we try to keep flavor text (such as the names of feats/abilities) out of rule interpretations. For example, the spell Trap the Soul can, in fact, work on soulless beings like constructs. 2) Linthar has it right: just change the name if you want to. 3) Autosponge and P_o_t_P seem, from their above posts, to have confused Lawful Good with Lawful Stupid regarding paladins and flanking. In an honorable, straight-up combat with multiple combatants, there is no dishonor in flanking an opponent. You would be foolish NOT to if the situation presented itself. It is a sound, time-honored military tactic that works. The dishonor comes from an actual sneak attack (not the SA ability, but striking an unprepared foe with surprise). This is not to say that a defending army of paladins could not mount a surprise attack against an army who has invaded a goodly nation and who knows the paladins are out there/know they are in a war zone. But a paladin would NOT take part in an ambush in most cases (it could happen, in certain circumstances, but not often). BTW, I mean no offense to Autosponge or PotP for the Lawful Stupid thing, but not allowing paladins to flank falls well within that categorization, IMHO.