Rogues against undead

[Noldor Elf]

What should be adequate requirement for rogue to be able to use sneak attack damage against undead?

Feat? Ranks in knowledge: Undead?

In my campaign world undead will be the main enemy, so playing a rogue would not be very good idea unless they can somehow use sneak attack agaist undead.

 

[sparhawk]

Rogues vs Undead

What about knowledge undead and/or weapon focus blunt

 

[maddman75]

I wouldn't have sneak attack affect undead at all. Not only does it undermine one of the rogue's weaknesses, it doesn't make any sense. How exactly can you go after a zombie's most vital parts, when he can have his limbs severed and he'll still come after you.

At most, I'd allow the hamstring feat to work on corporeal undead, so the rogue can at least slow them down a bit .

Some worlds are not suitable for all classes. Just warn your players ahead of time that undead are the main foes, and a rogue may have a rough time of it.

 

[Balgus]

a one level prc (campaign specific) where you learn to hunt undead.

sneak attack (as is) means you learn to hit em where it hurts. Obviously, for undeads, there is no specific area. so- you can take a one level hit to be able to hunt undead.

something like:

hunter of the dead
D6
sp- 6
class abil- sneak attack +1d6, sneak attack undead, sense undead, craft special weapon
skill: all rogue skills , craft (weapons)

craft special weapon:
declare a weapon against undead. with this weapon, you are able to deal normal damage, regardless of weapon type:bludgeoning, piercing or slashing

sneak attack undead:
in melee range only (not bow) you are able to sneak attack undead.

sense undead- your senses for undead is heightened. Make a wis check DC 15. If successful, you learn if there are any undead within eyeshot (or if you can smell it or hear it)

or you can work something out with the char/ DM to have a 10 lvl prc for a rogue hunter...

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

There is a feat called 'Supernatural Blow' in MotW that makes undead susceptible to critical hits, although to a lesser extent. You could always just suggest they take rangers with undead as a FE, and multi-class to rogue to pick up the rogue-exclusive skills.


Or, if you really want sneak attacks on undead, how about:

Supernatural Strike

Prereq: Sneak Attack of at least 2d6, Knowledge (Undead) 5 Ranks, Wisdom 13+

Benefit: Whenever an undead opponent is denied it's Dexterity bonus for any reason, or when it is flanked, your attack deals your normal Sneak Attack damage minus 1 die. For example, if your normal sneak attack deals 3d6, sneak attacks against undead using the Supernatural Strike feat will deal 2d6. Undead with no dexterity score are still immune to sneak attacks. Sneak attack damage to incorporeal undead can only be dealt if a normal attack would have caused damage (for example, using a ghost-touch weapon).

Norma: Undead are immune to sneak attacks.

 

[Paragon Badger]

I actually think the opposite, because I never understood why undead wouldn't be effected by a good hit. If you cut off a zombie's leg it will be more effected than a stab in the arm. I'd still maintain the no sneak attack on incorpreal, of course.

Maybe you could offer a feat along the lines of Undead Sneak Attack: You can sneak attack undead to a lesser effect. If you attack an undead denied it's dex you deal a sneak attack damage using d4's. A rogue with 3d6 sneak attack deals 3d4 damage.

It represents the rogue's knowledge of where it hit undead to hamper their abilities most.

 

[Ravellion]

There's a feat in MotW which allows Ranger's to use their favoured enemy bonus to be used against creatures immune to crits, plus a sort of critical option.

Perhaps an adaption of that feat would be a good idea.

(edit: posting in multiple forums and Nutkinland means that it takes me a bit of time: people beat me to it)

I am actually opposed to the idea of it somewhat though. It's mostly a balance thing. undead usually don't have all that many hp because of their lack of a con modifier.

If you are going to allow this as a DM, I would actually give the undead a few more Hp, to let the combat last as long as it would otherwise, but now the Rogue feels useful.

Rav

 

[Balgus]

Actually, after thinking for a while- i don't think you should change the class any. A rogue is good at sneak attacking live enemies. But their weakness is undead. And it should stay that way.

If anything, If he wants to be a force against undead, then he should be a cleric. Changing a class just tosuit the player and making him stronger in an environment not conducive of producing them is just a bad idea. A rogue is already tempting enough to play- without making them more powerful.

edit:
Plus- undeads are usually in places like dungeons and caves- where rogues are alredy the main player. Having them open doors, pick locks, search for traps, and then kill the enemies is just overloading the rogue's pallette. where the barb, bard, ranger, and druid might feel a little underappreciated. the cleric might jock for position, and the wiz may find some useful spells to throw around...

 

[kengar]

Ways for a Rogue to be effective v. Undead:

1) Hide & Move Silently to scout ahead. Spotting any undead before they spot him. Then he can get a surprise attack and/or warn the party so they are better prepared.

2) Use that high DEX to fling bottles of Holy Water at them!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Actually, after thinking for a while- i don't think you should change the class any. A rogue is good at sneak attacking live enemies. But their weakness is undead. And it should stay that way.

Normally I'd agree 100%, but after debating the ranger issue again(!), I think that some sort of compromise can be helpful in campaigns whose setting is significantly different than the norm. No one would blink an eye if, in a setting dominated by undead, 'restoration' type spells or armor that protected against level drain were a little more common than the norm.

Personally, I'd multiclass ranger and rogue to do the same thing; the problem is, without rogues, traps, locks and general sneaky -hidey-ness is a lot harder to come by.