D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 E, older D&D and Pathfinder. What do D&D vets think of pathfinder

[payn]

As always, tastes differ.

My rogues being denied sneak attack damage never bothered me, though I can understand that it may bother some.

They certainly do. I am kind of in the middle. It makes sense that certain undead/constructs/x would be fortified and sneak attack not possible. Giving entire classes of monsters immunity seems like a stretch in the other direction. I would have preferred them just list in the bestiary, this monster can not be sneak attacked. I understand this would have created alot of extra work and taken more book space but, to me that makes more sense. Anyone else?

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

They certainly do. I am kind of in the middle. It makes sense that certain undead/constructs/x would be fortified and sneak attack not possible. Giving entire classes of monsters immunity seems like a stretch in the other direction. I would have preferred them just list in the bestiary, this monster can not be sneak attacked. I understand this would have created alot of extra work and taken more book space but, to me that makes more sense. Anyone else?

I think that's exactly what they did . . . but I may be mistaken, and I don't have time to check it out right now.

 

[renau1g]

During me 3e playing days, our DM had mad love for undead, so my rogue was severly gimped against them. In PF at least I wouldn't have been punished for it. I love rogues so much, great class, super versatile and very effective in battles.

I do think the PF rules are very well put together, but if you don't like 3.xe I don't think you'll enjoy these ones. Personally, I prefer 4e ruleset myself, but this one is my second favourite. The adventures however are head and shoulders above any others in the industry

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

Undead I can understand. Snap a pelvis and the undead is severely damaged. But where do you hit an ooze to cripple it?

 

[grufflehead]

Must...resist...urge...rant...sneak...attack...


<insert sounds of a straining Grufflehead>


Hey, whadda you know? I managed it this time! Go me

 

[Redbranch]

Undead I can understand. Snap a pelvis and the undead is severely damaged. But where do you hit an ooze to cripple it?

I totally agree with you there. Oozes and creatures without structured anatomy should be immune to crits and sneak attack damage.

I guess this just stresses the importance of balancing encounters and using a variety of opponents. Immunity to sneak attack is okay as long as GMs don't overly rely on undead and the like.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

From the Pathfinder Bestiary, under Ooze Traits:

• Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.

Jellies and Oozes possess Ooze Traits. Swarms are also immune to critical hits, flanking and sneak attacks. As are quite a few of the other beasties.

They didn't throw the baby out with the bath water, here.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

From the Pathfinder Bestiary, under Ooze Traits:

• Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.

Jellies and Oozes possess Ooze Traits. Swarms are also immune to critical hits, flanking and sneak attacks. As are quite a few of the other beasties.

They didn't throw the baby out with the bath water, here.

Nice to know, thanks; however, I was only using oozes as an example. If other creatures with weird anatomies follow this same reasoning, I'm fine with it.

 

[Votan]

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.

I am kind of mixed. Sneak attack got a lot stronger in 3/3.5/PF then in 1E/2E. Making some creatures immune to it makes it harder to balance the rogue as a character class given how much of an important feature it is.

Some creatures still resist it (just as some creatures resist magic) but it isn't as hard to have the rogue over or under perform. You see the same thing in 4E, where many powers are flavored to (for example) effect minds (but work on the mindless) or to trip (but work on oozes).

An equally effective design tactic would be to reduce the impact of sneak attack and give other rogue abilities; if this type of fix were seen as undesirable.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I would prefer the return of the thief. A weaker character in combat, with more emphasis on sneaking and trap finding. But the ninjaesque rogue is here to stay, I'm afraid.