I love Rogues too- many of my PCs (dating back to 1977) have at least some rogue or thief as part of their multiclass structure- but I hate this change with a passion.
D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 E, older D&D and Pathfinder. What do D&D vets think of pathfinder
- Thread starter Shoe
- Start date
I love Rogues too- many of my PCs (dating back to 1977) have at least some rogue or thief as part of their multiclass structure- but I hate this change with a passion.
While I can understand why people may not agree with this rule, and I know you shouldn't apply "real world" science to RPGs, think about it for a moment. The rogue gets extra damage because he/she knows how to hit where it hurts. Well, even if you are undead, a severed tendon or ligament is still going to have an effect. I guess at the end of the day, whatever allows people to have more fun is all that matters to me.
As always, tastes differ.
My rogues being denied sneak attack damage never bothered me, though I can understand that it may bother some.
My rogues being denied sneak attack damage never bothered me, though I can understand that it may bother some.
Steel_Wind
Legend
On the sneak attack issue, I think the issue was especially underscored in certain "themed" campaigns. Undead themed campaigns -- which are not all that uncommon -- certainly highlighted the issue.
In the end, it's a gameist vs. simulationist trade-off. I can see both sides of the argument, but I'm not put off by the new rule.
In the end, it's a gameist vs. simulationist trade-off. I can see both sides of the argument, but I'm not put off by the new rule.
One thing about the sneak attack rule that annoys me about it is that, IME, its a lot easier (read: "more popular") to HR something in than it is to HR something out.
IOW, its a lot easier for me as a DM to tell players that, for this campaign, I'm using a HR that allows Rogues to sneak attack _________, _______ and ________, but not _______ than it is for me to say that I'm restricting the Rogue's sneak attack to exclude undead, plants and constructs (and whatever).
IOW, its a lot easier for me as a DM to tell players that, for this campaign, I'm using a HR that allows Rogues to sneak attack _________, _______ and ________, but not _______ than it is for me to say that I'm restricting the Rogue's sneak attack to exclude undead, plants and constructs (and whatever).
Steel_Wind
Legend
When you give extras, the people with a vested interest never complain; however, when you are perceived as having taken away something that the game currently gives by default, you run into "entitlement" issues with the player.
It has ever been thus. It's not a sentiment restricted to RPGs
It has ever been thus. It's not a sentiment restricted to RPGs
I didn't say it was restricted to RPGs.
But yeah, that's essentially my point. Had Pathfinder not changed that rule, the overall situation would be happier than in the current situation: the advocates of the old rule would like the unchanged rule while the dissatisfied could happily HR it away. It is unlikely that someone would object to the DM relaxing the restriction. (Even I who prefers the original rule would not be ticked off.)
As things stand, the latter group is happy with Pathfinder's sneak attack rules, but those who want the older rule run the risk of antagonizing players who would feel (rightfully) that something had been taken away.
In cooking, it has been said that you can't "unseason" a dish. Once a seasoning has been added, you can't take it out. Its the same here.
But yeah, that's essentially my point. Had Pathfinder not changed that rule, the overall situation would be happier than in the current situation: the advocates of the old rule would like the unchanged rule while the dissatisfied could happily HR it away. It is unlikely that someone would object to the DM relaxing the restriction. (Even I who prefers the original rule would not be ticked off.)
As things stand, the latter group is happy with Pathfinder's sneak attack rules, but those who want the older rule run the risk of antagonizing players who would feel (rightfully) that something had been taken away.
In cooking, it has been said that you can't "unseason" a dish. Once a seasoning has been added, you can't take it out. Its the same here.
Last edited:
Aus_Snow
First Post
In my experience, that isn't the case. Um, well, it has been for cooking. . .
A house rule is a house rule, IME. So long as it makes sense, or appears to, or can be made to appear to, players don't mind at all. Besides which, all the GMs around here use house rules for every kind of game. Multiple sets to suit several styles is not an uncommon thing.
And again besides, I think (at least) most of us view published rulesets as substantially a bunch of house rules to begin with. The very first RPG began as exactly that, and each since then has been that as well.
Said perspective is only strengthened by constant new editions, in some cases 'new editions', as well as - again, in some cases - copious errata. . . and that's just what's found / acknowledged. Oh, and the rampant disagreements about rules interpretations, often enough with no clear indication from the creators themselves.
Eh, the list goes on.
Personally, I roll with whatever HRs are thrown my way by the GM. However, I've found that I'm sort of the exception in that regard.
If the HR change can be seen as being "arbitrarily" restrictive- such as the SA rule in question- it can actually drive players away from the table.
Of course, it depends upon the players in question. In my current group, I don't think there would be much of a fuss...at least, not at first. People like it when the party's rogue deals his extra SA damage.
Given the level of tactics our group practices, that rogue routinely gets to deal it, too. Several of the guys who play warrior types have admired his damage output...and as long as it is merely occasional, nobody gripes. However, by greatly expanding the pool of targets who can be affected by SA, it does somewhat step on the toes of the warriors.
Would there be griping? While I can't say for sure for most of the guys in our group, I can say that at least 2 particular guys would complain for sure.
Noir le Lotus
First Post
Almost that but Magic Items creation also requires skill checks (appropriate craft or spellcraft). The DC ca be increased to ignore a pre-requisite for the item creation.
A failure on the check can lead to the creation of a cursed item.
