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

[eriktheguy]

There's lots of stuff in D&D that defies easy explanation, but there's also nothing in the 4E rules that says an ooze has no anatomy. The glossary just says they are amorphous. So as a DM when I'm pressed for an explanation on how sneak attack work I usually say something along the lines of, you ready your blade for the moment it reaches out with a pseudopod, and you swiftly lop it off, or while it is occupied by the fighter, you notice a slightly more solid bit that you believe may hold more of its neural network and plunge your blade deeply into the area. When the fighter prones and ooze, I describe it as smashing it against the floor, and the ooze must take a move action to collect itself.

This is a great approach. Just because the creature doesn't have organs doesn't mean it has no weaknesses. Do fighters not deal extra damage to the ooze on a critical hit? One of my favorites was a sneak attack against a gelatinous cube. The rogue cut away some goop exposing the hilt of a sword the cube had picked up. The sneak attack damage was dealt by grabbing the sword and twisting it out of the monster.

 

[the Jester]

In my game world I'm planning to make oozes immune to combat advantage (and probably prone) but give them a couple damage vulnerabilities (different for each type of ooze). Obviously this handicaps rogues (and enhances poly-elemental blasters with high skill checks). Is that a bad thing?

Yes.

Blanket immunities are bad.

Specific creatures being immune to x are fine, but nerfing rogues so that they cannot play their role in combat- to deal out lots of damage- against a whole category of creature is not cool, imho.

Playstyle differences aside and all that, of course- YMMV- but I think nerfing a specific class is both lame and counter to 4e design principles. Have you noticed that there is no spell resistance in 4e? There's almost no "weapon resistance" either, although there is a bit here and there.

The key here is that you're too focused on the idea of "backstab" as a stab in the back. It isn't- it's a strike to a vulnerable spot.

Does an ooze have a nucleus? I'd say so. Is that a valid target for a sneak attack when the rogue's got an edge? Yep.

Prone doesn't always mean "off your feet"; in game terms, it means "here's a suite of effects that come from your condition." For an ooze, I describe being knocked prone as being hit hard enough that it shakes and wobbles violently, granting combat advantage, requiring a move action to recover, etc. Just two days ago one of the pcs in my campaign knocked a swarm prone- I described it as the zombies getting all tangled up in each other, with a few actually falling prone, but mostly it was just a confused mass of zombie limbs tangling together.

I think in 4e it's much better to stretch your imagination and ask, "How do these effects look on this creature?" than to say, "Oh, that doesn't work, it doesn't have a back to stab."

 

[Saeviomagy]

MOST oozes should be possible to target the vitals of: why? Because they're all described as attacking with pseudopods: ie - they are not a single, homogeneous, spherical mass. They have a shape. They have thin bits. Slice at the base of the pseudopod etc.

Furthermore, they have a limited number of targets that they can attack - even if they can be aware of multiple targets, they are limited in how many pseudopods they can extrude/control. That suggests that it is indeed possible to flank them (ie - if they're waving pseudopods at target A, they can't wave them at target B).

The one exception to this is the gelatinous cube. Even then, the cube contains items and other junk that haven't been digested (see previous example of a good sneak attack), and furthermore a cube has corners: Its entirely possible to maximise the amount hewn off vs the amount of slicing required. And it attacks by rolling forward over a target. If it's not doing that, you've got all the time in the world to line up a shot, so flanking makes perfect sense.

In other words, I find it really hard to make any case against accurate or critical strikes OR against flanking any of the ooze family. They're not homogenous and they have to direct their 'attention' at a single target.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think it was R A Salvatore that said that first edition required a creative DM, then fourth requires creative players.

 

[Noctos]

Twenty feet away Derminlus reappears with a red eight foot long bolt of fire in his hand. The oozes tentacle shoot towards him but fall short as the fire bolt zips through the air striking the oozes main mold. The oozes erupts in fire bubbling and sizzling until it's a flat sticky sludge. Derminlus returns to the high air and continues chanting spells with the others.

 

[TarionzCousin]

How do you backstab an ooze?

Where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep?
[sblock]Wherever it likes.[/sblock]

 

[Frankie1969]

Thanks for the variety of interesting answers. Several of them are similar to ones for a previous question I posted about the rationale of martial dailies. They invoke the real meta-issue: "If a conflict arises between my game world vision and the rules, which one should change?"

In previous eras (1E & 2E) my answer was almost always "the rules, duh". My group & I replaced daily spells with mana points and divine domains. We rewrote psionics and many other things. We thought about unifying the experience tables and distinguishing evasion from armor (finally!), but instead converted the multiverse to Hero System. Even then we tinkered with combat mechanics (and later went diceless/freeform until disbanding).

However, 4E is a more rigid framework with a substantially different philosophy. It has a vastly heavier emphasis on uniformity and play balance than previous editions. It's a lot to consider.

 

[Saeviomagy]

However, 4E is a more rigid framework with a substantially different philosophy. It has a vastly heavier emphasis on uniformity and play balance than previous editions. It's a lot to consider.

I think this is more an attitude thing, and not ingrained in the system really. My own attitude (having been a tinkerer in lives past) is to just keep the game system as is unless there's an insurmountable problem. As long as you're willing to ignore the exact words used to describe things, it's pretty rare to find something that doesn't work unless you're using an RPG that's just bad for the genre you're playing.

 

[airwalkrr]

How do you backstab an ooze? This is an age-old question really. It goes back to the original D&D thief and his backstab ability and what exactly you are allowed to backstab and when. Starting in 3e and continuing further into 4e, this became more of an abstract principle wherein rogues (thieves) were good at catching their enemies when and where they were vulnerable as opposed to literally stabbing them in the back.

So to answer the original question, no you can't really backstab an ooze. But you can wait for an opportune moment to hack away as much of its ooziness as possible, and that is what the rogue is good at, being a striker. You'll also notice they don't call it "backstab" anymore. It is now sneak attack. And a sneak attack is a skilled attack at a vulnerable point, which rogues are good at exploiting.

I like the idea of giving each player center stage for a short period of time. But as it turns out, combat is usually not the best place for that. A combat encounter is supposed to take about an hour, if you go by the core assumptions described in the DMG. If you take away your striker's primary means of dealing extra damage then you have just increased that time. You aren't actually giving someone else center stage, you are just wearing on everyone's patience.

4e is a good system insofar as it gives everyone a chance to take center stage within the same encounter. Everyone gets to use powers that make a dramatic impact on battle. Some powers might be better than others in some situations, but the game is designed to reward clever tactical play more than dumb luck (i.e. just so happening to have the right tool for the right job). When it is the fighter's turn, he gets to make a difference by drawing the monster's attention. When it is the wizard's turn, he gets to make a difference by hampering the monster's progress. When it is the cleric's turn, he gets to make a difference by keeping the fighter healed while he sets up a good tactical position. When it's the rogue's turn, he gets to make a difference by stepping in to flank and deal massive damage with sneak attack. Center stage is passed around the table fairly evenly in this manner. In my humble opinion, it's a much better way of doing things than giving one player the center stage for an entire battle just because that player happened to have a flaming longsword to cut off the heads of the hydra while the rest of the party basically sits on the sidelines and cheers.

 

[eriktheguy]

How do you backstab an ooze? This is an age-old question really. It goes back to the original D&D thief and his backstab ability and what exactly you are allowed to backstab and when. Starting in 3e and continuing further into 4e, this became more of an abstract principle wherein rogues (thieves) were good at catching their enemies when and where they were vulnerable as opposed to literally stabbing them in the back.

So to answer the original question, no you can't really backstab an ooze. But you can wait for an opportune moment to hack away as much of its ooziness as possible, and that is what the rogue is good at, being a striker. You'll also notice they don't call it "backstab" anymore. It is now sneak attack. And a sneak attack is a skilled attack at a vulnerable point, which rogues are good at exploiting.

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.