What do you do without balance?

[Ydars]

What makes the sneak attack thing SO annoying is that it really kicks in at precisely the time (ca 11th level: because so many CR11+ monsters are undead or constructs) when magic is also starting to sideline the Rogue outside of combat as well. It really is poor design and something I am glad that both Pathfinder and 4E have fixed.

I also see NO logic to nerfing sneak attacks but letting fighters continue to be good fighters against the same foes. Has anyone around here ever actually ever hit a tree or a boulder with a sword? I have, and the result is a broken sword after about 3-7 swings. There is even one famous video where a fully sharp and very expensive (and authentically made Del Tin) sword is used to attack bamboo and is wielded by an expert swordman (John Curtis) who then proceeds to break his sword by hitting the bamboo at a slightly wrong angle. This just shows how fragile the average blade was and how silly the idea of fighting constructs is.

Similarly, fighting undead would actually be impossible because most of the rules of sword-fighting are predicated on the idea that the other person is afraid of getting killed: if they aren't, because they can't feel anything or are mindless undead who know no fear, then they would VIOLATE the living combatant very quickly.

So I don't think the so called "realism" of D&D is very realistic at all, and we are applying different standards to different character classes. It is simply because the people who write the game have NO idea about the practical realities of sword/axe/polearm combat: for the love of Micheal, we actually think a Longsword is a one handed weapon whereas historically it CANNOT be wielded one-handed. I mention this as one example of where D&D has a certain code of "accepted lore" about many things that is completely ahistorical and wrong.

I always think of sneak attack as striking vital areas not stabbing organs. In an undead, this is a weak and unprotected joint or a rotting limb or the sense organ. In a construct, it is a fissure or maybe a valve or magical symbol required for animation, or perhaps the gem that holds the life-force or animation magic for the construct.

Sorry for the rant, but I have had an interesting year PLAYING, which many DMs never do: before this I almost exclusively DMed and all my playing experience was limited to a few sessions here and there between my own campaigns. For the first time, I have really got into playing and I think I will be a much better DM as a result. I feel alot of the "realism" and "I don't like this class or that ability" arguments come from DMs who have forgotten or never knew what it is actually like to PLAY.

Try playing a class for 12 levels where your major abilities are stymied on a regular basis and you will understand what "real" and "balanced" actually FEELS like.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First, the goal is for all characters to be balanced in combats.

For you, maybe, but not for everyone.

I have no problem with the flavor logic of ruling that sneak attack is striking vulnerable vitals that a magically animated boulder does not have.

OK, at least we agree there. I'd also continue to extend that logic to undead, since their organs are not vital for their continued existence.

The consequence of this though is that it takes away the significant combat abilities of the rogue a significant amount of time. This
leaves the rogue impotent in a significant number of combats.

The truth of that assertion is campaign specific, actually.

I've been DMing since the 1980s. Some of my campaigns have been devoid of either constructs or undead, others seemed like undead or constructs (never both) were behind every stone or tree.

Sneak attack can work as well from a flavor description using "vulnerable points" instead of "vitals" and letting it work against everyone.

I can buy that, but only insofar as it is knowledge above and beyond the training a typical Rogue might have- IOW, a Feat or PrCl.

I sympathize that you may not have Supplement X- I, too, have a vast library but not everything WotC printed for 3.X graces my shelves- but if a player came to me with your lament and I didn't have the relevant sourcebook (or disliked their version of it), I'd work with him to HR a Feat or PrCl.

I also see NO logic to nerfing sneak attacks but letting fighters continue to be good fighters against the same foes.

I do. While both combatants are looking for weaknesses in a foe's defenses, the Rogue is looking for and has specialized training targeting certain specific ones- eyes, necks, arteries, joints or bowels that are exposed or unguarded, even if only for a second- in order to do debilitating damage with a single stroke. The warrior is just looking to get past a blocking shield or the foe's combat style, and is as trained at wearing down his foe with the death of 1000 cuts as a decapitation. He knows how to kill when the "vitals" are well protected.

Has anyone around here ever actually ever hit a tree or a boulder with a sword? <snip several excellent points>

This problem arises from the highly abstracted nature of D&D combat. Realistically, certain constructs should be more vulnerable to bludgeoning or piercing damage...and even then, only from certain kinds. But D&D doesn't go for that particular kind of realism.

But look at the bright side: at least they didn't make it so that constructs only take damage from Sundering attacks.

Similarly, fighting undead would actually be impossible because most of the rules of sword-fighting are predicated on the idea that the other person is afraid of getting killed: if they aren't, because they can't feel anything or are mindless undead who know no fear, then they would VIOLATE the living combatant very quickly.

I think that the abstract nature of D&D combat reflects that absence of the need for self preservation among most Undead quite well, evident in things like their immunity to crits, sneak attacks, and that gaudy D12 HD.

They only fear the power of the divine, really.

I always think of sneak attack as striking vital areas not stabbing organs. In an undead, this is a weak and unprotected joint or a rotting limb or the sense organ. In a construct, it is a fissure or maybe a valve or magical symbol required for animation, or perhaps the gem that holds the life-force or animation magic for the construct.

For most Undead- think of almost any prose or cinematic depiction- whacking off a limb or striking a sense organ doesn't matter. Some don't have sense organs and yet still perceive normally (most obviously, the skeletal types). Others, finding themselves deprived of a limb, will strike you with the wet end...or the severed limb may strike out at you on its own. Those that DO have some kind of weakness? Typically its an object that must be destroyed, a spell that must be spoken. Even those with a "vital organ" can only have it disrupted by certain kinds of implements- like wooden stakes (and sometimes only certain kinds of wood), fire or salt- more indicative of breaking a curse or "grounding out" the animating magic than injuring the creature with a weapon.

I'll grant you this, though- you're presenting a stronger arguments with the Constructs. Weaknesses are a common theme with them- trying out an animating gemstone, opening the ankle of Talos, jamming the Master Gear of a clockwork critter, or even erasing the first letter of the etched word on a Golem's head so that Emet ("Truth") becomes Met ("Dead"). But even so, almost universally, those weaknesses have nothing to do with actual weapon damage. Whack them all you want, those Constructs keep coming and coming. You have to know their secret and get in close, typically doing something with your bare hands, not some weapon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Try playing a class for 12 levels where your major abilities are stymied on a regular basis and you will understand what "real" and "balanced" actually FEELS like.

I play about as much as I DM.

For me as a player, combat is not the end-all, be-all. I went through an entire campaign with a Ranger who faced his first Favored Enemy only once- it didn't bug me (and no, it wasn't something exotic, it was something mentioned in the PHB).

Still, I recognize that some people place a higher value on that.

Thus, when I DM, if I see someone designing a PC that could suffer due to something that is skewed a certain way in my campaign- a Rogue in an Undead heavy campaign, a Druid in an entirely Urban campaign, a Paladin on a demiplane of Evil- I let them know.

 

[Ydars]

Danny: I am NOT a combat munchkin either, but if you are playing in a game where everything outside combat is a bit underdeveloped and the DM a little inexperienced, then you have to work with what you have. Many younger players really do assume that D&D is all about whacking things, and with the way the rules for 3.5 and 4e are written, who can blame them? I actually had GREAT fun playing in such a game, even though I am normally a hard-core roleplayer, but I had to shift my perspective a bit.

I don't deny that in a good and well run compaign, my annoyances would be completely minor, but I think you have to admit that a hefty minority of games are not that well run or are run by quite inexperienced DMs.

In those cases, where combat is King, and everything else is given scant spotlight time, nerfing your character's abilities is just plain annoying.

 

[Ydars]

Danny: I don't think you are getting what I mean about constucts etc.

IMHO, the ONLY way to fight them would be with agility and targetting "vital" areas like gem-stones, or via valves (like the statue in Jason and the Argonauts where it had a valve in its heel). This is because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to fight a construct, even a man sized one, with a sword, axe or warhammer.

It is a question of mass and inertia. We are made of flesh and blood but an animated, man sized construct would be enormously massive because it is MUCH denser. This means that any blow from such a creature, even if it was "slow" would have substantial momentum and would be UNSTOPPABLE by a sword/axe/warhammer or shield and armour would be USELESS against such a creature, because with that amount of mass, a blow would simply crush you. If you cannot stop a blow from your enemy, you cannot fight him, because he will kill you once you enter his threat range. There is no way around this in melee combat: defence is the basis for attack, and I am talking about my experience of real metal sword combat here, not something abstract.

As for damaging constructs with melee weapons, it is crazy. Plate armour, which was just a thin covering, was proof against sword or axe blows 99% of the time. This is why warhammers and polearms were invented and the standard tactic was a trip attack followed by a rondel dagger (specially stiffened triangular section blade) to the joints or through the visor.

Warhammers could inflict trauma, but trauma relies upon density differences in the target's tissues. A construct is SOLID and would have equal density all the way through. Hence, these things would be useless. It would be like pounding on a huge block of iron or stone with a hammer: not terribly effective.

So the idea of a fighter standing up to a construct, especially a larger than man-sized one, is LUDICROUS because he would be slow, armoured and unable to damage the creature significantly in any way. An Iron Golem would just be unstoppable. It would be like a man with a sword trying to take on a tank, but worse because tanks are actually platforms for ranged weapons whereas a construct is a platform for melee weapons. And tanks aren't solid metal or stone either so they don't mass so much.

So my thesis is that nerfing a Rogue's but not a fighter's attacks versus constructs makes NO sense whatsoever and is based upon flawed logic.

I would argue the same about undead. The problem with them, is their ill defined nature. How does an undead "sense" anything if its sense organs are dead? Does it use its eyes or ears or is there something else at work? Does the macabre energy filling these monsters flow or have a nexus of power? The D&D game does a bad job answering this kind of question but once you have the answer, you have the answer to sneak attacks. If nexi or sense organs exist, they can be targetted and since Rogues are more likely to spot this, as the most aware of PCs, it makes sense they would exploit it.

Also, if you cut a zombie's backbone, it is cut in half and not likely to be that effective in combat since it cannot walk anymore or the lower half cannot really fight. Since no-one seems to mind the idea of damage not being real damage in 4e I see no problem positing the same with respect to sneak attacks in 3.5: i.e. that damage represents "making the creature less effective in combat".

So many things in D&D make no sense when looked at from the point of view of physics that I am always amazed by the things that people target as raising a "flag of disbelief". Sneak attacks versus constructs/undead rates very low on this scale, believe me.

 

[D'karr]

I think that without balance I would stumble and fall, a lot. Kind of like what used to happen when I used to get drunk, but without the buzz.

Not a cool sensation I must say, specially without the buzz.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny: I am NOT a combat munchkin either, but if you are playing in a game where everything outside combat is a bit underdeveloped and the DM a little inexperienced, then you have to work with what you have. <good points>

In those cases, where combat is King, and everything else is given scant spotlight time, nerfing your character's abilities is just plain annoying.

I understand and sympathize, but designing rulesets to make the game more palatable for players with inexperienced/hack'n'slash only DMs is bad design. Its a RPG, not a wargame.

Besides, I just play what I feel like playing, and if it means I get outshined in combat, so be it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny: I don't think you are getting what I mean about constucts etc.

No, I understood you perfectly.

IMHO, the ONLY way to fight them would be with agility and targetting "vital" areas like gem-stones, or via valves (like the statue in Jason and the Argonauts where it had a valve in its heel).

<edited to link concepts>

So my thesis is that nerfing a Rogue's but not a fighter's attacks versus constructs makes NO sense whatsoever and is based upon flawed logic.

But in every one of those cases, the heroes' weapons were either not used or not used as weapons, therefore how much damage weapons do or don't do to constructs is IMMATERIAL.

In addition, your argument has a flaw: we're not nerfing the Rogue's non-sneak attack damage in favor of the Fighter's attacks. His weapon damage is as unaltered as the Fighter's is. It just so happens that most warrior types choose to use heavier weapons. Any defense that would render a Rogue's weapons useless would likely render the Fighter's equally moot.

What the designers are nerfing is the Rogue's sneak attack damage ONLY- that damage based upon exploiting anatomical weaknesses that constructs generally don't have, at least insofar as the run-of-the-mill Rogue.

Now, given what I've said about constructs in previous posts, I can see making it a HR that Constructs don't have HP that can be affected by weapons at all, and only take damage from supernatural effects (spells, psionics, weapon enhancements) and/or by meeting Construct-specific destruction rules similar to destroying relics or artifacts.

(Which, arguably, they should be anyway.)

Under such a HR, a Construct would have a particular weakness defined in the MM or by the DM- a Talosian heel, an erasable Symbol, a pryable gem, a jamable gear, etc.- and weapons have no effect upon them beyond whatever enchantments exist upon them.

To figure out such a weak spot would be a task for a Bardic Knowledge, UMD, or Knowledge: Arcana roll, DC dependent upon the particular Construct in question.

If you cannot stop a blow from your enemy, you cannot fight him, because he will kill you once you enter his threat range.

No, you can win if you simply don't get hit while attacking/exploiting whatever weakness it may have (I remember a boxer who almost pulled that off versus Mike Tyson, FWIW). That either means being extremely agile OR attacking from range.

There is no way around this in melee combat: defence is the basis for attack, and I am talking about my experience of real metal sword combat here, not something abstract.

Again, defense isn't merely about taking or turning a blow. It is also about avoiding blows.

I would argue the same about undead. The problem with them, is their ill defined nature. How does an undead "sense" anything if its sense organs are dead?

The magic that animates it.

So many things in D&D make no sense when looked at from the point of view of physics that I am always amazed by the things that people target as raising a "flag of disbelief". Sneak attacks versus constructs/undead rates very low on this scale, believe me.

You mean like fireballs, flying 10 ton reptiles, 20 ton insects, shapechanging, astral projection, beings of pure Chaos, going to the elemental plane of water, non-functioning gunpowder, etc?

Simply put, you have to find your own particular line in the sand- the line beyond which your willing sense of disbelief is getting violated- and try not to cross it too often.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Non-combat activities? I assume you mean things like sneaking around (invisibility vs. hide in shadows), obstacle removal (find traps vs. find/disable traps), exploration (find the path vs. dungeoneering, knock vs. open locks), social encounters (friends or charm person vs. diplomacy), discovery (true seeing vs. search), reconnaissance (divination vs. gather info), hazard avoidance (spider climb vs. climb walls), research (comprehend languages vs. decipher script), "aggressive negotiations" (cause fear vs. intimidate), and item creation (major creation vs. craft)?

Notably these all feature the exact same balance as the wizard's contribution to combat: The wizard has limited resources.

The balance for pre-4E wizards depends on there being a sufficient number of encounters per day for the wizard's resource management to be meaningful. If there isn't, then you've got a problem.

If there are a sufficient number of encounters, OTOH, then the resource management becomes meaningful and adds depth and a distinct style of gameplay to the system.

I hate that kind of balance.

I played a lot of Shadowrun. I had a ton of fun playing it and think there are really cool aspects of the game. Astral and cyberspace adventuring however were terrible IMHO, take a couple hours where only a few or one PC gets to do anything and everyone else sits around not playing the game, waiting for them to do their thing and come back to the rest of the group.

There are a couple problems here:

(1) The hacker character isn't completely side-lined while other characters are doing their thing, so the hacker gets a special spotlight all his own that nobody else has.

(2) Because of the disparate time scales, the GM is unable to juggle multiple balls to keep the spotlight shifting. Everyone else is literally freeze-framed while the hacker does his thing.

So you're not looking at spotlight balance here, you're looking at spotlight IMBALANCE. Shadowrun's -up in this regard is actually a really strong argument that spotlight balance is very important.

And Shadowrun's spotlight imbalance is made even worse because the practical minimum spotlight time is so long. Players in RPGs are both performer and audience -- if you don't like watching other people do cool things at the game table, then you're missing out. But being pushed into the audience chair for an hour or two is also bad news.

 

[Beginning of the End]

What makes the sneak attack thing SO annoying is that it really kicks in at precisely the time (ca 11th level: because so many CR11+ monsters are undead or constructs) when magic is also starting to sideline the Rogue outside of combat as well.

Wait... what?

Just going by the MM:

CR 1 - 42 opponents, 7 can't be critted (16%)
CR 5 - 37 opponents, 6 can't be critted (16%)
CR 11 - 18 opponents, 4 can't be critted (22%)
CR 12 thru 23 - 48 opponents, 10 can't be critted (20%)

This is just spot-checking, but it looks like there's maybe a 5% shift at the higher levels. That shift doesn't seem particularly significant to me. And it ignores actual practice, in which many higher-level opponents are actually crittable humanoids with class levels.