4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

Dannyalcatraz said:
When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow IS incapacitating.

He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...

Heck, it almost triggers the death by massive damage rule.

No, it's not. The fighter in question has been wounded severely, but not incapacitated. He has no penalty to any of his actions. His movement rate is not impaired. If he then kills the rogue before he can get hit again, he will not die, even without healing. If the sneak attack were an attack to an organ, he would be impaired in combat, his movement would be reduced and he would die without magical healing.

To pick a more extreme example. Assume that the rogue sneak attacks a 200 hp dragon. The 40 points of damage he deals can in no way be assumed to be an organ hit. It's only 1/5th of the dragon's hit points.

My point is that the assumption that sneak attack equates to an organ strike or a strike to the vitals doesn't work from a logical point of view. The damage on a sneak attack can be single digits. Against a triple digit opponent, this cannot conceivably be a strike to the vitals. The only logical way to look at sneak attack is as a precision strike that damages weak points. Even if a construct doesn't have vital organs, it has joints, a neck and most likely fractures within the stone that could result in massive damage from such a hit. Just ask any beginning sculptor or stonemason (assuming you can find such a person in this modern world).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

2) If the fundamental property is its physical form (sharp, fairly thick, and capable of really destroying the heart), then an iron spike would work or even a large knife, but an arrow might not be massive enough.

Then a Hollow Point slug from a large caliber weapon should work just as well, but we've seen the modern vampire stories and know that's not the case.

When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow IS incapacitating.

He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...

Heck, it almost triggers the death by massive damage rule.

No, it's not. The fighter in question has been wounded severely, but not incapacitated. He has no penalty to any of his actions. His movement rate is not impaired. If he then kills the rogue before he can get hit again, he will not die, even without healing. If the sneak attack were an attack to an organ, he would be impaired in combat, his movement would be reduced and he would die without magical healing.

Again, that's due to the highly abstract nature of damage mechanics in D&D.

Otherwise you'd have rogues (and really, fighters as well) hamstringing opponents, slicing tendons in their wrists or even femoral arteries in the legs or carotid & jugular of the neck and dropping opponents with single blows. The accumulation of strikes would hinder att and dam mods, initiative, AC, etc.

In every combat.

Instead, there are no crit location tables and almost no way to cripple someone in that fashion.

That loss of 61% of his hp in a single blow represents a great degradation in the fighter's capability, especially if you consider that is approximately what the fighter should expect to lose in 2 encounters (or so I'm told).

And as it so happens, I just thought of a RW example. I recently watch a mixed-martial arts bout in which one of the guys was struck in the lower right side of his torso. Despite his training, he had obviously suffered a major blow- his defense on that side dropped immediately, followed by his left hand covering the spot of the blow. He winced in visible pain as he retreated and doubled up. Here was his opponent's chance- he charged in to finish the bout...and before he could administer the "coup de grace," he was K.Oed by a right to the jaw. The winning boxer collapsed seconds after the ref declared the bout.

Clearly, the man had been struck in a vital area- perhaps a broken rib, perhaps even that rib piercing an organ- but he still had the ability to put away a similarly proficient opponent (they were, in fact, training partners) with a single blow despite being seriously debilitated.

Even if a construct doesn't have vital organs, it has joints, a neck and most likely fractures within the stone that could result in massive damage from such a hit. Just ask any beginning sculptor or stonemason (assuming you can find such a person in this modern world).

I've done some sculpting in my past as part of getting an Art/Art History minor.

Most artistic interpretations of constructs such as stone or iron golems lack visible joints- texture and sculpting features exist that may resemble armor, but not true joints. I would assume that the magic that animates them prevents them from cracking or bending with metal fatigue when their limbs flex or their necks turn, etc.
 
Last edited:

I think there's also the "how often is the rogue useless" that also needs to be considered.

A MU is never useless in that its class abilities ("spellcasting") will always provide options, while a fighter is only useless if ihs weapon is taken away (and if he's an unarmed fighter, that goes away as well).

Compare this with rogue. Want to play one in Ravenloft? Or the typical "dungeon where a lich makes its home"? scenario.

That's WAY too often IMO,
 

AllisterH said:
Compare this with rogue. Want to play one in Ravenloft? Or the typical "dungeon where a lich makes its home"? scenario.

That's WAY too often IMO,

How is the rogue useless in these situations.

Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that really matters.
 

Reynard said:
How is the rogue useless in these situations.

Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that really matters.
That's unnecessarily snarky when addressing someone who has a valid point, even if you disagree :)

The rogue's class abilities all focus tangentially on (stealthy) combat, trapfinding, and stealth. In trapfinding, only the rogue gets to do anything, so that's not exactly fun for the whole party; against a large number of enemies, the rogue's sneak attack is useless and thus in combat, he's basically a helpful NPC -- flanking bonus here, aid another there, but nothing actually unique. That leaves stealth and subterfuge, at which the rogue excels.

Great!

But that's one minor thing at which the rogue is best, topped by the wizard and cleric anyway. It doesn't seem unreasonable to bring the other two abilities up to par.

Or, to put it another way: Even if combat isn't the be-all, end-all, it's still a fairly big part of the game; it's not a well-designed game if it's predicated on long swaths of individual suckage.
 

Reynard said:
How is the rogue useless in these situations.

Oh, wait, you are talking about combat, the only thing that really matters.
Indeed. Unless, off course, scouting around and talking with locals is all that matters and takes up most of the time. (And is actually resolved with dice rolls, and you really play a "social"/"scout" Rogue instead of an athletic and pick-pocketing one.)
 

Lackhand said:
That's unnecessarily snarky when addressing someone who has a valid point, even if you disagree :)

That presumes a valid point. ;)

Even if combat isn't the be-all, end-all, it's still a fairly big part of the game; it's not a well-designed game if it's predicated on long swaths of individual suckage.

True -- but the poor design is on the part of the DM, not the game. If one is going to run a game (whether a campaign or a one shot) with undead as the primary enemy, and a player expresses interest in playing a rogue for the length of that game, it is incumbent upon the DM to either

a) Inform the player that one of the rogue's special abilities is going to be severely limited
b) provide the rogue player with an alternative (such as a variant class feature)
and/or c) ensure that the rogue character is useful outside of combat with undead.

Notice I said "length of the game", by the way. An adventure in a long term campaign in which the primary enemy is undead, for example, shouldn't require the DM to bend over backwards. And while we are only talking about the rogue here, it applies across the board: antimagic zones for casters, incorporeal or otherwise physically immune enemies for fighters. Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.
 

Reynard said:
Notice I said "length of the game", by the way. An adventure in a long term campaign in which the primary enemy is undead, for example, shouldn't require the DM to bend over backwards. And while we are only talking about the rogue here, it applies across the board: antimagic zones for casters, incorporeal or otherwise physically immune enemies for fighters. Used judiciously, "nerfing" PCs can have a very positive impact on the overall fun level of the game.

This is where I disagree with you. Unlike the rogue and undead, "to nerf a PC" requires that the DM purposely set out to do so. Really, look at the amount of adventures published and the popularity of undead specifically and compare that with how often "antimagic zones" appear.

As for the incorporeal/physically immune case, that ALSO screws the rogue over already. So why should the rogue suffer twice?

Personally, I totally understand why the designers think there's something wrong with a class when basically in an adventure, an equivalent-level NPC class could do just as welll (In fact, a warrior is probably a better class in those scenarios than a rogue).
 

AllisterH said:
This is where I disagree with you. Unlike the rogue and undead, "to nerf a PC" requires that the DM purposely set out to do so. Really, look at the amount of adventures published and the popularity of undead specifically and compare that with how often "antimagic zones" appear.

This keeps coming up, and no one has yet to actyually show how often these things appear relatibve to other things.

Personally, I totally understand why the designers think there's something wrong with a class when basically in an adventure, an equivalent-level NPC class could do just as welll (In fact, a warrior is probably a better class in those scenarios than a rogue).

Emphasis mine. Only as it pertains to "inflict hit point damage". the rogue has a great number of skills and abilities that can make them very useful to the whole party on the battlefield even without their sneak attacks.
 

Reynard said:
This keeps coming up, and no one has yet to actyually show how often these things appear relatibve to other things.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is an obligation to prove that undead are more common than anti-magic zones?
 

Remove ads

Top