How do you backstab an ooze? (and more general play time considerations)

[airwalkrr]

This seems to be the general consensus of the thread. On the other hand, there is a large body of players who want their games to be more simulationist. "A rogue's sneak attack ought to have some defined mechanism", or, "a rogue should be able to sneak attack better against targets with vital points". I think that most elements of 4e are more abstract and most elements of 3e are more simulationist.

And this really sucks for people that want simulation, because 4e is a damn good system. It's easier to learn and more balanced than earlier editions (I think most people would agree). It's easier to DM (again, I think most people would agree) and more fun (my own opinion). So I empathize with people that want better realism.

It seems you grasp the dichotomy of the situation. It is difficult to simulate something well while still making a simple game and that's because the more you like simulations, the more details you crave, and details bog down play.

I recommend that OP play 3.5 of Pathfinder. There is a lot more simulationism in that system. And a good number of players who appreciate simulationism over gameplay prefer to stick with it. That isn't the only reason they stick with it, but it is often a good part of the reason.

 

[eriktheguy]

I recommend that OP play 3.5 of Pathfinder. There is a lot more simulationism in that system. And a good number of players who appreciate simulationism over gameplay prefer to stick with it. That isn't the only reason they stick with it, but it is often a good part of the reason.

People in this thread have (and will continue to if you ask) suggest other systems that they think are better simulation than 4e or 3.x and also very fun.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Originally Posted by airwalkrr
How do you backstab an ooze? This is an age-old question really.

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

 

[Saeviomagy]

How do you solve a problem like Maria?

Does it involve backstabbing?

 

[Norcross]

If you want a simulationaist approach, 4e isn't the game for you. A lot of players get thrown off by that. It is natural to first decide what your character is going to do and then roll the dice to find out what happened. If you want to do that, there are plenty of systems you can choose from. In 4e specifically (and in all versions of D&D to some extent) you first roll the dice to see what happened and then after that you come up with what your character did to cause that result - which means the exact mechanisms don't have to be defined by the rules, just the end result (ie, extra damage, can't attack next turn, etc).

 

[Nightson]

I absolutely do not think that 4e is less simulationist.

The difference between 4e and 3.5 in this regard that people keep referring to as simulation, is whether the presented options are character options or player options, at least for martial characters.

A 4e character slugs it out in battle responding to the situation and generally trying to bring as much hurt as possible. When the opportunity presents itself, or the opponent makes a mistake or slips at the wrong time then the character takes advantage of that. The player was the one who used the encounter or daily to bring it about, the character did not decide to suddenly do more damage.

Now, some people don't like this and I can see why, but it's perfectly compatible with simulationism.

Now certain abilities like Come and Get It or Blinding Barrage may present mechanical effects that are downright impossible to explain mechanically in certain circumstances (not unexplainable in all circumstances to be sure). These can erode the simulationism of the game.

 

[OSEZNO]

Why not just make the Oozes immune to 5/10 weapon and vulnerable 5/10 fire or cold or lightning or radiant or whatever your party does when it's not stabbing things.

That's certainly how some worlds/games treat oozes, and it makes it no more unfair than when a creature is, let's say, resist 10 fire.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

Immunity to sneak attacks would mean that the monster is always aware of everything all around it. While sneak attacks have replaced backstabbing, sneak attacks are not necessarily backstabbing. For example, if you feint, and the enemy falls for it, you can sneak attack them, despite the fact that they are looking right at you. (or you activate, say, a magical item's power to grant you combat advantage to sneak attack, without being behind your target)

 

[fba827]

I agree with some of the premise of the OP but not all.
1) it is true that rogues get plenty of chances to shine
2) it is true that oozes (and some other creatures) don't have backs and anatomy to speak of... so "called shot to the nuts" doesn't really work here.

Having said that, knocking an ooze prone doesn't have to be literal prone. You could describe it as causing it to splatter a bit and it has to use the move action (which would otherwise represent standing up) to recollect itself. And sneakattack could be faking an attack from one side so that the ooze is braced on one part of its body only to have the rogue shivel and hit it from the "thinner/less viscous" side of the body that isn't braced for impact.... i see the conditions as just codified terms and you can fluff them as needed for the situation.

Having said all that, you could always try it for as a special case for a single ooze as if it's that oozes special feature and then see how your players react because, obviously, this sort of thing all comes down to table agreement rather than game-system-audience wide agreement.