Question regarding Sneak Attack

[Binho]

Although a kick to the shin are painful, it is not so vital spot. But, of course, you can still gain some advantage kicking the shin rather than hitting the stomach, the movement would be compromised. That's the reality.
At the game play, hitting with a dagger on the face and hitting the finger of the right feet with the same dagger is the same: it will cause 1d4 points of damage + bonuses (and still can kill the victim). If the fluff stuff makes it cool, why not allow it? The game would be still not realist plus more fun.

I wanted to take the chance and ask about the vital spots and the type of damage of the SA. I don't know if I should create another threat or not, but if so, just say and I will make it.
The question is based in handbooks scattered by internet that say that a rogue with the spell Flame Blade or other light saber spell like can use SA on creatures immune to critical, just because the spell deals energy damage. In other words: an undead can't take SA because it doesn't have vital spots, unless it comes from an energy attack. Is it right?

 

[Binho]

I could definitely buy the idea that shins are not traditional vital areas (breaking that bone is pretty hard to do), but then why were greaves invented?

That is not so hard (strong scene) :

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiwcWb-HXNw"]Futebol - Perna Quebrada - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Crust]

I would not allow a rogue to deal sneak attack damage by kicking someone (especially a larger someone) in the shin, and especially if the person being kicked is standing in melee range directly in front of the rogue and is expecting the rogue (or rogue/wizard) to cast a spell or perform any action that shows prowess of any kind. The werebear shouldn’t have been surprised by the kick in the first place. A readied action to move should the prisoner try to touch or strike the werebear might have been a good idea.

The werebear in question may not be an experienced jailor, not realizing that he might want to move when he clearly sees his prisoner haul back for a kick (or avoid entering a prisoner’s cell altogether). Still, the shin is not a vital area. It hurts breaking a shin, but it's not a vital area. If the gnome rogue had crippling strike or something like that, I could understand the strike to the shin affecting movement or lowering strength, but the idea of killing someone with a blow to the shin is laughable at best. But still, how the werebear didn't move when the gnome directly in front of him attempted the kick is beyond me.

Also, I wouldn't surprise a rogue PC with sneak attack damage he/she did not intend to deliver. Player intention is very important to me. It seems the gnome wanted to insult the werebear, like spitting in his face. His intentions do not appear to be lethal, and given the situation, if the werebear had dropped dead after a kick to the shin, I would worry if my players didn’t find that ridiculous.

On a side note, I most-definitely wouldn't allow a PC to power attack while describing his actions as "I want to make it seem like I'm taking it easy on my opponent, like I'm pulling punches." Such a suggestion could only be sarcastic.

 

[Mercutio01]

His intentions do not appear to be lethal

Sneak Attack can be used for nonlethal damage, explicitly in the rules. Do you limit that?

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION] As a practitioner, you're probably pretty familiar with figures such as these (http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squ...3515621photo_1270316261vital_body_targets.jpg), outlining striking areas and nerves.
In D&D, "vital areas" mean areas with vital organs underneath of them - the chest, stomach, and head. The last line of sneak attack says "A rogue cannot sneak attack ... the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach." If they were true to martial arts, the vitals of every humanoid creature would always be within reach, so why make the distinction?

A weapon must be used in it's most effective manner to have a Sneak Attack modifier (cannot use SA with a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage).

Greaves were probably invented to protect riders on horseback from peasants trying to stab them in the calves.

 

[Mercutio01]

In D&D, "vital areas" mean areas with vital organs underneath of them - the chest, stomach, and head.

Exactly where are you getting that information from? I've yet to see "vital areas" defined in D&D rules.

The last line of sneak attack says "A rogue cannot sneak attack ... the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."

That applies mostly to creatures of either a completely different anatomical structure to humans (say, like a beholder) or something that is so much larger that the vital areas are literally out of reach.

A weapon must be used in it's most effective manner to have a Sneak Attack modifier (cannot use SA with a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage).

But weapons that are made for nonlethal damage (saps, unarmed strikes) are able to be used for sneak attacks. The meaning is that you can't use an axe haft or the flat of a sword to deliver a sneak attack (although there are feats for that), not that you always have to use lethal force.

Greaves were probably invented to protect riders on horseback from peasants trying to stab them in the calves.

Greaves were initially for infantry and were made to protect the front of the lower leg with straps wrapping around the back. Like shin-guards in soccer/football.

 

[Crust]

Sneak Attack can be used for nonlethal damage, explicitly in the rules. Do you limit that?

I didn't mean "lethal" as "lethal damage dealt through an attack." I meant "the gnome didn't intend to kill or incapacitate the werebear with his kick."

 

[Jackinthegreen]

@Mercutio01 As a practitioner, you're probably pretty familiar with figures such as these (http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squ...3515621photo_1270316261vital_body_targets.jpg), outlining striking areas and nerves.
In D&D, "vital areas" mean areas with vital organs underneath of them - the chest, stomach, and head. The last line of sneak attack says "A rogue cannot sneak attack ... the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach." If they were true to martial arts, the vitals of every humanoid creature would always be within reach, so why make the distinction?

A weapon must be used in its most effective manner to have a Sneak Attack modifier (cannot use SA with a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage).

Greaves were probably invented to protect riders on horseback from peasants trying to stab them in the calves.

It's possible to argue that the designers don't have martial (or medical) training enough to know about pressure points and bone-crunching disablers. Heck, if we're going into Ambush feats then technically we need to be able to hit vital organs... To deafen it or impede it. Both of those can be done quite fine without targeting the actual vital organs in real life. Then there's Eldritch Erosion which lowers the target's SR and PR by 5 points, which may or may not require attacking actual vital organs to work. It's magic, so it's open to possibilities.

As for the weapon and SA bit, I believe it's specifically referring to when the weapon has a hit penalty associated with switching to lethal or nonlethal. A monk/rogue could still use unarmed strikes to deal SA damage as lethal or nonlethal at no penalty. There's also the Merciful Strike feat which lowers the SA damage by 1d6 in exchange for allowing the nonlethal damage to go through regardless of how poorly built the weapon is for nonlethal.

 

[Sekhmet]

[MENTION=37277]Mercutio01[/MENTION] Creatures like Beholders do not have limbs. Extremities (limbs) are not vital to the human anatomy, and can generally be removed without significant impact on the health of the individual.
Vital areas in D&D were explained very early on as the medically relevant term, not the martial term. I don't think they've had cause to change them since 1st Edition.

[MENTION=6678119]Jackinthegreen[/MENTION] Feats alter how game mechanics work, and should not be used to argue the general rule (no sneaking extremities).
Aside from acute nerve damage, how do you intend to deafen a person with an unarmed strike without hitting the ear?

Yes, it is specifically referring to weapons used in ways they aren't meant to be used - while a sword can be used as a blunt object (pommel, flat), it is at it's least effective. An axe can do the same with the haft, a bow can be used as a club, and a kick can be used to irritate a lycanthrope.

 

[Omegaxicor]

an undead can't take SA because it doesn't have vital spots, unless it comes from an energy attack. Is it right?

I would say no, energy attacks would ignore Damage Reduction but not Sneak attacks because the weapon cannot hit vital spots even with the greatest skill behind the hits

Greaves were initially for infantry and were made to protect the front of the lower leg with straps wrapping around the back. Like shin-guards in soccer/football.

and the shin may not be a vital area but hacking off a leg will cripple a soldier

Just a question - but if the player had said he was performing a heel stomp, would you have allowed that?

How about a kick to the inside of a knee? A punch delivered directly at the sternal notch?

your knowledge clearly exceeds mine on the matter but I would say that a Heel Stomp would require the victim to be prone and I would ask if the player want to perform a Coup-de-Grace.

A kick to the inside of the knee or a punch delivered to the Sternal Notch (the center of the Collarbone, I had to look it up) are both covered by armour on conventional troops but both are normal attacks and as such have a chance to critical and deal massive damage nothing more

EDIT: I can't give you exp for your point but I agree that the designers don't have the specialised training of a martial artist and I think they probably factored all of the extra "power" of that knowledge into the Monk's unarmed attack bonus