It does feel odd to me that heavy weapons can be used to 'hit a weak spot', when they are designed to smash the whole opponent.
If it's feasible, I would certainly be in favor of sneak attacks be restricted to small weapons (maybe medium, i dunno)
It'd put more use for the dirty fighting feat, too.
Just my monthly 2c.
That's a horrible idea.
There is no need to make certain things more realistic. That would be as if requesting to give large weapons fewer attacks per round because they are more difficult to swing, or having certain flame spells inflame the environment, dooming everyone to a fiery death.
I am in support of fire weapons inflaming the environment and dooming everyone to a fiery death.
Let's petition for it. Will you start the thread, or should I?
A large weapon can hit a weak spot as much as a small weapon. Surely with a shortsword is easier, but if the oponent is distracted i bet even a greataxe can be aimed to a defenceless point.
Besides, no matter what the weapon might be, or where it strikes. If you hit someone and he is not expecting it or can't take action to defend against it, it will deal more damage. Sneak attack is basically striking when the oponent cann't prepare himslef for the attack, so it makes sence in ANY weapon, even magic (no, i'm not suggesting fireballs to deal sneak attack damage) although that is not used in D&D.
I am for fireball sneak attacks.
This suggestion is not possible. This is why:
1. You would have to hook this in to when the weapon is equipped, to see if it's a light weapon or not.
2. If it's not, you would have to strip the Sneak Attack feat.
3. Stripping the feat would require the character to relog in order for the change to take effect.
4. Same relog problem for adding the feat back when the weapon is switched to a valid weapon.
*golf-swings a great-axe into the opponent's nuts*
Win!
That's also a good point, Mr. Grendel. Whether you're slipping a dagger between some ribs, or smashing those ribs to pieces with a well-placed hammer strike, you're fucking somebody up while they weren't paying attention.
Quote from: Letsplayforfun;122210It'd put more use for the dirty fighting feat, too.
Quote from: ScottyB;122237you're fucking somebody up while they weren't paying attention.
quote of the year.
also Nuclear Catastrophe's motto.
Quoteyou're fucking somebody up while they weren't paying attention.
Actually, you're fucking somebody up while they're targetting you but another enemy ran in, forcing them to take an attack of opportunity and turn their side to you for almost a whole round. Lame.
You're fucking somebody up in darkness, even when they have blindfight and don't need their eyes to target you at all. Lame.
You're fucking somebody up when they're entangled, even if they're facing and attacking you. Lame.
You've been distracted by the enemy and forced to react or get stabbed in the back, not lame, but reality.
You have more keen senses for fighting the unseeing, you aren't all-seeing. You for sure don't see and know everything, you are just better than many. Reality, again.
You're entagled. What more is there to say. Your feets are caught up, you can't move or change your stands really, you're fucked up. I do think there is quite many reasons for why this simply is not lame.
Damn, sneak attack is lame as well?
At this rate, all the things I enjoy in a build will be decreed lame and nerfed into oblivion.
Quote from: Letsplayforfun;122210It'd put more use for the dirty fighting feat, too.
Actually..
Dirty fighting sucks anywhere else. But i belive in EFU it can be a very good feat. After all, not many characters get three attacks per round, general tanks and damage dealers, as well as dual wielders would stay away from it, but a non-dual wielding rogue, or a melee mage, a cleric.. before they reach level 9 they will only have 1 attack per round, and that 1d4 extra damage with no penalty at all does no harm. Melee mages SHOULD take it, sine they will be stuck with one attack per round forever.
So it's uses are limited, but it can be used.
EDIT: Actually entirely due to this thread i decided to test it. And it works well. A pure melee mage can get in once he/she reaches level 6, but once there it can contribute masively to the damage: imagine a dwarf with a greatswrord, a total buffed strenght of 18, greater magic weapon level 6 and flame weapon:
That would be 2d6 + 1d4 + 6 + 2 damage with an AB of 9. Pluss whatever flame weapon may add. That's 11-24 damage per round, with an average of 16. Plus whatever flame weapon adds, wich if i'm corect would be 1d4 + 6. And it can be hasted to two attacks per round.
Correct me if i'm wrong but that's a lot of damage for a character who could also be buffing the party.
QuoteThat would be 2d6 + 1d4 + 6 + 2 damage with an AB of 9. Pluss whatever flame weapon may add. That's 11-24 damage per round, with an average of 16. Plus whatever flame weapon adds, wich if i'm corect would be 1d4 + 6. And it can be hasted to two attacks per round.
Ladies and gentlemen, LiS's heir.
Bloody mechanically-minded people...
P.S. I'm for fireball sneak attacks. I want to see a Wizard (5) Assassin (2) Rogue (3). Oh heck yes.
P.P.S. Yes, that is an AoE death attack with sneak attack damage too.
A greatsword wielding lvl 6 fighter (with a modest 16 str) has way more damage potential.
(2d6 + 2 (wpn spec) + 4 (str bonus)) x 2
16-36 dmg, ab of 10 and 5. No buffs.
Damage enhancing buffs are more effective when used on the guy with more attacks.
Wait, what's this thread about again?
INTERESTING FACT:
Sneak attacks aren't just attacks that cause extra damage, because the opponent is currently occupied primarily with something else.
The disadvantage caused by this is the flanking bonus to attack.
Sneak attacks are, however, trained attacks that are designed to be undetectable when made at an opponent that is not focused on you.
The ability to expertly jab the weapon through gaps in armor isn't represented by Sneak Attack, but by Weapon Finesse (chance to cause damage is determined by dexterity and thus precision of the hit, not the force and speed of it)! Therefore, Sneak Attack works perfectly with large weapons.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that blackguards get sneak attacks... Its not just a thing for nimble rogues...
I can't help but lol at the answers, honestly.
You know: i do make builds with a warhammer+sneak attack, not so much because i want the sneak attack, but because i dual class rogue for the skills. If i could get those rogue skills without the sneak attack, i certainly would.
But you can rationalize it all you want: sneak attack was once called 'backstab', designed to give rogues a tactical advantage at one moment in a battle: that sniper shot, that gutting from behind, etc. Not 'oh, i'm standing a little on the side in a huge melee, so my great axe will be 50%more efficient'.
Dual class has totally screwed this, because any warrior can sudddenly be a dire flanker, at little expense for the warrior class. An archer can suddenly increase bow damage by 80% only because he's standing 10m back, a little on the side.
The assassin prestige class has inherited the death attack to compensate this, but then, who plays an assassin on EfU?
When you explain that a golf club can hit someone in the balls, that's not a sneak attack, thats the first thing i used to teach my students, because it doesn't require any training.
But i'll certainly stand on Scotty's "it's not feasible" argument. I do enjoy those Scotty answers, because they tell me why it's not feasible.
Maybe pulling sneak attack at lvl3 then?
I can't help but lol at the answers, honestly.
You know: i do make builds with a warhammer+sneak attack, not so much because i want the sneak attack, but because i dual class rogue for the skills. If i could get those rogue skills without the sneak attack, i certainly would.
But you can rationalize it all you want: sneak attack was once called 'backstab', designed to give rogues a tactical advantage at one moment in a battle: that sniper shot, that gutting from behind, etc. Not 'oh, i'm standing a little on the side in a huge melee, so my great axe will be 50%more efficient'.
Dual class has totally screwed this, because any warrior can sudddenly be a dire flanker, at little expense for the warrior class. An archer can suddenly increase bow damage by 80% only because he's standing 10m back, a little on the side.
The assassin prestige class has inherited the death attack to compensate this, but then, who plays an assassin on EfU?
When you explain that a golf club can hit someone in the balls, that's not a sneak attack, thats the first thing i used to teach my students, because it doesn't require any training.
But i'll certainly stand on Scotty's "it's not feasible" argument. I do enjoy those Scotty answers, because they tell me why it's not feasible.
Maybe pulling sneak attack at lvl3 then?
Before I start, I gotta say, this change definitely won't happen because by the sounds of what ScottyB was saying and with my limited knowledge of nwn mechanics (relating to feats particularly) it'd probably be an utter pita.
However, I agree with letsplayforfun. Completely.
In 2E, sneak attack doesn't exist- backstab does, and you can only do it with certain weapons. Shortswords and daggers are among those weapons, greataxes certainly aren't.
I think sneak attack represents the 'hidden' nature of the smaller weapons to some extent, so yeah. It would be nice to do, and would certainly encourage the use of smaller weapons.
Sneak attacking scythes? You're having a bubble bath, guys.
Quote from: dragonfire9000;122715Ladies and gentlemen, LiS's heir.
Bloody mechanically-minded people...
P.S. I'm for fireball sneak attacks. I want to see a Wizard (5) Assassin (2) Rogue (3). Oh heck yes.
P.P.S. Yes, that is an AoE death attack with sneak attack damage too.
That's a 9d6 fireball when they aren't paying attention, and a 5d6 fireball once they start wanting to kill you. Pure wizard would have a 10d6 fireball at all times, and more of them. <_<; I think wizards don't really benefit from sneak attacks other then when they draw out that crossbow and try to hit the broad side of a barn to save on spells.
...oh sorry, I'm Off topic
Edit:: More on topic, give out daggers with bonus sneak attack imo. <_<
Quote from: Anonymous Bosch;122716A greatsword wielding lvl 6 fighter (with a modest 16 str) has way more damage potential.
(2d6 + 2 (wpn spec) + 4 (str bonus)) x 2
16-36 dmg, ab of 10 and 5. No buffs.
Damage enhancing buffs are more effective when used on the guy with more attacks.
Only if the fighter hits twice. I think it is more likely the Mage will hit once, than the fighter twice. Also i didn't add flame weapon to the final mix: 2d6 + 6 + 2 + 1d4 + 1d4 + 6 = 18-34 Damage. The average being 24.
Sure, a buffed fighter gets more than that, granted. But fighters can't buff themselves nor they can buff others, my mage can. I'm not saying melee mages are stronger than fighters (not in a low level setting, or where the panther familiar has been removed) All i'm saying is that a melee mage can be quite devastating and dirty fighting adds to it without penalty.
Quote from: Anonymous Bosch;122716Wait, what's this thread about again?
Dual wielding... i think.
Quote from: Ebok;122739That's a 9d6 fireball when they aren't paying attention, and a 5d6 fireball once they start wanting to kill you. Pure wizard would have a 10d6 fireball at all times, and more of them. <_<; I think wizards don't really benefit from sneak attacks other then when they draw out that crossbow and try to hit the broad side of a barn to save on spells.
...oh sorry, I'm Off topic
Edit:: More on topic, give out daggers with bonus sneak attack imo. <_<
Yess, but in exchange the wizard gets a better skillset. Besides, consider other spells: Ice dagger sneak attack, 5d4 (maximun) + 3d6 could be quite deadly, specially if you have the chance of paralizing the creature on the spot.
Also, wouln't a potentially paralising fireball be awsome? Death attack paralises you know?
Quote from: Ebok;122739give out daggers with bonus sneak attack imo.
yes!
Quote from: Letsplayforfun;122750yes!
I'd suggest kukris as well. Kukris with sneak attack bonus should be more common, also.
QuoteBut you can rationalize it all you want: sneak attack was once called 'backstab', designed to give rogues a tactical advantage at one moment in a battle: that sniper shot, that gutting from behind, etc. Not 'oh, i'm standing a little on the side in a huge melee, so my great axe will be 50%more efficient'.
Probably that's why it is changed from backstab to sneak attack. We are not backstabbing anymore. We are hitting people in the balls/whatever. Balls do not equal back. There are more ways you can hurt someone than simply stabbing them from behind. The body has plenty of vulnerable spots.
My esteemed character Kavotiin Morningblood would roleplay it as precisely striking the joints and gaps in the enemy's armour when he was distracted or immobilized.
And, frankly, since the DM's have already given their response, why is this thread not locked?
This is not possible!
This is not possible! It has been said at least three times in this thread. Even if anyone wanted this, there is no way to do it.
Quote from: AfroMullet;122763Probably that's why it is changed from backstab to sneak attack. We are not backstabbing anymore. We are hitting people in the balls/whatever. Balls do not equal back. There are more ways you can hurt someone than simply stabbing them from behind. The body has plenty of vulnerable spots.
Locking, because someone finally gets it, besides me.