PDA

View Full Version : To kill a rogue...



Mandar
2010-07-27, 04:42 PM
Okay guy's I need your help. I am currently in a campaign split down the middle with 2 groups, 3 pc's are evil guy's (all rouges with one being a rouge/assassin) and the 3 good guy's are a 3 paladin/ lvl 3monk (myself) , 3 paladin and a 3 sorcerer. Now, the Rouge assassin is level 9 rouge/4 assassin, the second rouge is lvl 6 and the final rouge is level 3. And the good guy's (myself included) are all lvl 6. How can we defeat these 3 rouges? Any ideas? We haven't met them yet. Any questions and I will be happy to answer. Thanks!

Snake-Aes
2010-07-27, 04:43 PM
http://rougedeluxe.blogspot.com/2010/05/cleansing-express-eye-makeup-remover.html

Xallace
2010-07-27, 04:46 PM
http://rougedeluxe.blogspot.com/2010/05/cleansing-express-eye-makeup-remover.html

Ba-Dum Pish! (http://instantrimshot.com/)

Don't let them flank you and see if you can find one of the many ways to become immune to crits? What're your races, what're your sorcerer's spells?

Siosilvar
2010-07-27, 04:47 PM
Rouge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Rouge_powder.jpg/250px-Rouge_powder.jpg

Rogue:
http://www.olsonstudios.com/zanteal/bindusara4/fantasy_graphics/Rogue_Lidda.jpg

Defiant
2010-07-27, 04:47 PM
Rouges are overpowdered, in my opinion

Psyx
2010-07-27, 04:48 PM
ZING!

...And...will saves.

oxybe
2010-07-27, 04:52 PM
Rouge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Rouge_powder.jpg/250px-Rouge_powder.jpg

Rogue:
http://www.olsonstudios.com/zanteal/bindusara4/fantasy_graphics/Rogue_Lidda.jpg

http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/images/2008/02/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg

Boci
2010-07-27, 04:57 PM
Obscuring mist grants everyone concealemnt, but removes the chance of SA unless they have been built to overcome it. Glitterdust for a -20 penalty to hide. Plus you might might blind them. Buy scrolls if the wizard does not know the spells. You might want to eat the extra cost of a higher caster level to increase the duration.

elpollo
2010-07-27, 05:01 PM
Ouch, Defiant.

Can you clarify on the levels of the good guys? There's a monk 3/paladin 3, what appears to be a paladin 3/something 3, and a sorceror 3/something 3?

Siosilvar
2010-07-27, 05:05 PM
Rouges are overpowdered, in my opinion


ZING!

...And...will saves.

Will saves to counter the rogues or will saves against that pun?

Eldan
2010-07-27, 05:06 PM
... you need a verte.

Anyway. How come two of you are level 3 and the other three are all level 6? In any case:

a) Do not let them pick the terrain. If they have a spot to hide and can lay an ambush, they can sneak attack you in the surprise round. Don't let that happen. Find out where they are, ambush them. In a straight up fight, rogues lose.

b) If you have the money, get your sorcerer some higher level spell scrolls. Rogues have low will and fortitude saves. I don't remember any good fort-or-sucks right now, but Hold Person should work well on them. You can then coup de grace them. Faerie fire helps against hiding.

c) If they use mobility: caltrops are cheap and useful. Get a few bags full, pepper the battlefield.

Lothmar
2010-07-27, 05:08 PM
Here's a question - why 'must' you kill these rogues? Is it an obvious Team A vs B issue or do all the good guys have overwhelming evidence etc of the various rogues wrong doings and thus a reason to bring them to justice? ex: Did you witness the assassin murder someone etc - or is this just a 'JU />373C7 45 3\/1L! 1 5/\/\173 U!!11one1!2!' ?

More details would be nice, especially the environment etc.

super dark33
2010-07-27, 05:10 PM
get to melee with them, dont let them sneak or flank you

elpollo
2010-07-27, 05:10 PM
Rogue: I check for traps.
DM: Ok, you don't find any but
*fatooom*
DM: you are shot by a ballista on to the valley of very spiky spears of poison.
Rogue: :smalleek:

Are you saying they should trap the room? There is a level 13 character (I think), who will have a fairly decent spot and reflex save. Also, there's no guarantee that the "good guys" will get to choose the location of the fight.

true_shinken
2010-07-27, 05:25 PM
Really, you guys are screwed. A level 13 assassin against an unoptimized 6th level character and two others at level 3?! You guys have no chance. Absolutely no chance. The assassin does not even need death attack to one-shot each of you.
Your best bet is to hide underneath the wings of a powerful NPC.

Zergrusheddie
2010-07-27, 05:26 PM
A huge amount of the fight comes down to "Who goes first?" and "Where are they fighting?" Unless the fight scenario severely hinders the Rogues or gives a boost to the other team the Rogues are likely going to win.

If the Rogues go first, they charge and obliterate most of the team. If the Rogues sneak up on them, it will be a slaughter and might not even allow the other side to act at all. An assassin getting Death Attack on one of the targets with low Fortitude save is almost a guaranteed kill. A level 13 Assassin against three level 6's is likely an unwinnable situation as is.

elpollo
2010-07-27, 05:45 PM
Why is there such a disparity in levels for the "bad guys", and why does the DM think the two groups fighting is a good idea?

Xefas
2010-07-27, 05:59 PM
You seem to be vastly outmatched if the numbers you gave are correct: Level 13, Level 6, and Level 3 versus a Level 6, and two Level 3s.

You won't win in a straight-up slugfest. You probably won't even win by ambush, as the level 13 could still probably solo you guys.

The solution? Non-mechanical bonuses.

You're the good guys. And pretty damn capital-G on the "Good" part considering you have two paladins. You're facing off as the righteous underdogs versus the clearly superior evildoers. This is a class face-off.

First, have everyone pray. Pray to ye gods as hard as possible; even the Sorcerer. Promise to slaughter a virgin lamb in their name, or release a flock of white doves, or open an orphanage -- if they'll just help you in the coming battle.

Second, rabble-rouse. These sound like shady dudes. They've probably wronged a good number of people in the past. Find those people, and start a pitchfork riot. Make it known to these heathens that they may never rest, never find safe havens, never go a day without looking over their shoulders, because the populace will not suffer their wickedness to live!

Third, call the authorities. "Assassin" makes me think this guy has a history. One or more city, nation-wide, or religious organizations may already be out for their heads. Send word. Notify them of these guys locations. Band everyone together against a common foe.

Fourth, sow descent. In the thick of battle, offer one or more of them redemption and/or money for their cooperation. They're evil *rogues*; probably not the most honorable or loyal. Remind them that their entire team is composed of backstabbers and that it's only a matter of time before their interests conflict, and who is going to get a knife in their sleep that night?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-27, 06:01 PM
As you have a paladin in your group, the only thing I could think to aid you is saying three simple words: Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-27, 08:26 PM
I have two words for you:


Run away!

Seriously. If you're contemplating fighting characters who are more capable than you and much sneakier, you're going to die. Go somewhere else, and hope to stay alive to become more powerful yourselves.

Azernak0
2010-07-27, 08:40 PM
{Scrubbed}

Dr.Epic
2010-07-27, 08:40 PM
three words:

constructs, constructs, constructs

also, fighting them from a distance (hurts their sneak attack)

Hawriel
2010-07-27, 08:43 PM
paladins are good guys. As such they should be able to walk up to the door of any law enforcment headquarters and say "there these three criminal scum in your lands". Follow that with all the information you know about them and offer to help any group of law enforment that they deside to use to hunt the scum down.

Remember just because your a paladin does not meen you should or have to do things alone.

You dont have to take them down all at once. Pick your battle get them alone. Or you can see if their own evil ways will cause their downfall. With a good shove from you. Sow discontent among them. By asking questions and telling the trueth.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-27, 08:58 PM
constructs, constructs, constructs
Don't you think that 13th level character would be smart enough to pick up a Greater Demolition weapon augment crystal (full sneak attack damage to constructs)? And the lower-level Rogues would have the Penetrating Strike alternative class feature ( sneak attack dice to constructs, plus full Craven bonus)?

Trust me. Rogues are too sneaky for you to catch them unprepared.

Beorn080
2010-07-27, 09:20 PM
Never stop detecting evil. Paladin gets a 60ft cone to detect anything evil in front of him. Never turn it off. That makes it less likely that they will get a surprise round.

Burn the rogue's Character sheets. Your paladin is lawful good. You probably aren't.

Grease may be a good option.

chiasaur11
2010-07-27, 09:29 PM
Burn the rogue's Character sheets. Your paladin is lawful good. You probably aren't.

Hey, Sam Vimes is Lawful Good and he's the king of dirty fighting.

On the other hand, this seems a bad idea if you'll ever play with these people again.

If they find out you did it.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-27, 09:39 PM
three words:

constructs, constructs, constructs

also, fighting them from a distance (hurts their sneak attack)

....how, exactly, do you expect a trio of 3rd-level characters to afford even a single construct to fight for them anyways? A Clay Golem costs 41,500 GP to construct, not counting the money involved in hiring a caster to make the thing.

Coidzor
2010-07-27, 10:43 PM
Cut out the middle men.

Take the DM out of the equation.

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-28, 12:10 AM
http://rougedeluxe.blogspot.com/2010/05/cleansing-express-eye-makeup-remover.html
And for that matter, http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif.


Promise to slaughter a virgin lamb in their name
... Isn't that more something that the Evil team might consider? The thought of Good characters attempting to gain the favor of their Good patron deities by doing that brings to mind the various ways of angering your own god with poorly-chosen sacrifices in Nethack.

Xefas
2010-07-28, 12:49 AM
... Isn't that more something that the Evil team might consider? The thought of Good characters attempting to gain the favor of their Good patron deities by doing that brings to mind the various ways of angering your own god with poorly-chosen sacrifices in Nethack.

I assume it's a cultural thing. Sure, nowadays murdering things doesn't seem all that "good", but from what I hear, even the holiest of ancient deities was a slavering bloodthirsty sociopath waiting to happen. Source: Watching "Rome". :smalltongue:

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-28, 02:06 AM
:smallconfused: But in D&D, destroying innocent life is Evil and protecting innocent life is Good. This is independent of what gets called "good" or "evil" by characters in the game world. The former is alignment; the latter is semantics. The approval of society or of an authority, whether mortal or divine, would make something Lawful, if anything.

The gods most venerated might well be Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood), but those aren't the sorts of gods that paladins are going to pray to, obviously. (Nor would they be "holy" in D&D terms, as that word pretty much means "both divine and Good or at least not Evil" in that context.)

Krazddndfreek
2010-07-28, 02:28 AM
Yeah, you guys are pretty much boned. I mean unless you do all that stuff Xefas said and your DM decides that's enough for him to help out, that level 13 assassin can just walk around in broad daylight and kill you without sneak attacks. Seriously. He has enough hp (probably) and you guys don't seem to be particularly optimized. Of course, if you have the DM on your side, its a different story altogether. No one beats the DM.

Xefas
2010-07-28, 02:32 AM
:smallconfused: But in D&D, destroying innocent life is Evil and protecting innocent life is Good. This is independent of what gets called "good" or "evil" by characters in the game world. The former is alignment; the latter is semantics. The approval of society or of an authority, whether mortal or divine, would make something Lawful, if anything.

The gods most venerated might well be Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood), but those aren't the sorts of gods that paladins are going to pray to, obviously. (Nor would they be "holy" in D&D terms, as that word pretty much means "both divine and Good or at least not Evil" in that context.)

I was being silly. Hence the silly face: :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2010-07-28, 02:43 AM
Nah, they just like innocent and pure things.

Is why no one ever sacrifices mothers.

Psyx
2010-07-28, 03:04 AM
Also: Blur. Anything that gives a miss chance deprives them of their precision damage. Turning the lights out would do it, too.

Killer Angel
2010-07-28, 03:31 AM
Maybe the sorcerer can hire the assassin? :smallbiggrin:

Jackolas
2010-07-28, 03:36 AM
Secret anti rogue plan

RUN AWAY!!! :smallyuk:

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-28, 04:49 AM
I think that several magic items grant some form of concealment and thus negate sneak attacks completely, but they seem to generally be too expensive for 6th level characters.

Ooh, what about fortification (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#fortification) armor? That's pretty much the anti-Rogue armor enhancement. It's even available in different levels of protection depending on budget. And even the Sorcerer can use it without penalty if it's placed on a mithral buckler or light shield. :smallcool:

Krazddndfreek
2010-07-28, 05:00 AM
At that point, even without sneak attack, I think the rogue could outlast them in a slugfest. Especially considering how unoptimized they all are. Seriously, the OP has 3 levels of monk, coupled with paladin, which don't synergize at all. Even without poison, he'd have loads more hit points than them from having 8-11 more HD than them. Their only options are:

A) Pray to the DM
B) Run and die

Dr.Epic
2010-07-28, 05:12 AM
....how, exactly, do you expect a trio of 3rd-level characters to afford even a single construct to fight for them anyways? A Clay Golem costs 41,500 GP to construct, not counting the money involved in hiring a caster to make the thing.

Hey I never said it had to be a powerful construct. Just cast animate object on everything in your living room.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-28, 07:55 AM
Ooh, what about fortification (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#fortification) armor? That's pretty much the anti-Rogue armor enhancement.
Two things:

You can get fortification without armor, in a Gemstone of Fortification (Draconomicon, page 83).
The Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape, page 13) allows the Rogue to deal normal sneak attack dice, plus full Craven bonus, against 100% fortification. With Penetrating Stike full fortification will only decrease their sneak attack damage about 30%.

Vantharion
2010-07-28, 11:21 AM
Realistically you won't kill them
However, leading them into an ambush is not bad.
People assume paladins blindly charge to their own deaths at every chance they get in the name of justice. Paladins can be smart enough to say 'Hey bigger law enforcement, deal with them'
The trick is making it so the higher level assassin doesn't sneak away.

Also note: Covert Ops against Evil does not break Code of Conduct. (Or shouldn't)

Edit note: If they're in the dark, you can see them with Detect Evil I believe... That would give you guys concealment and they wouldn't gain anything.

olentu
2010-07-28, 03:11 PM
Two things:

You can get fortification without armor, in a Gemstone of Fortification (Draconomicon, page 83).
The Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape, page 13) allows the Rogue to deal normal sneak attack dice, plus full Craven bonus, against 100% fortification. With Penetrating Stike full fortification will only decrease their sneak attack damage about 30%.



Er leaving aside everything else I do not recall that the extra damage from penetrating strike is actually listed as being sneak attack damage. Rather I recall that it is extra damage based upon your sneak attack damage but is not listed as such.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-28, 03:42 PM
Er leaving aside everything else I do not recall that the extra damage from penetrating strike is actually listed as being sneak attack damage. Rather I recall that it is extra damage based upon your sneak attack damage but is not listed as such.
OK, if it's not sneak attack damage, what sort of bonus is it? There are two versions of Penetrating Strike that a Rogue can choose. The Penetrating Strike in Dungeonscape is admittedly unclear:

Benefit: Whenever you flank a creature that is immune to extra damage from sneak attacks, you still deal extra damage equal to half your normal sneak attack dice. This benefit does not apply against creatures that cannot be flanked, nor against foes that are otherwise denied their Dexterity bonus to AC or flat-footed but not flanked. The Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is rather less ambiguous:
Benefit: Whenever you flank a creature that is immune to sneak attack damage, you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage. Note that this benefit does not extend to creatures that ignore your sneak attack damage because you cannot flank them. In addition, you still cannot gain sneak attack damage against such foes if they are flat-footed. You must flank a creature that is immune to sneak attack damage in order to use this ability.
The claim that "you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage" makes it clearer that this is still sneak attack dice you're adding, not some untyped damage bonus. Since these ACFs have slightly different names, you can choose whichever version makes things clearer for your character.

This also looks like the same sort of question that was inspired by the language used for the Telling Blow feat:
Benefit: When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit. This is sneak attack damage, too, and not just some untyped bonus damage equal to your sneak attack. If the bonus from Telling Blow is sneak attack damage (and thus doesn't stack with some other way of qualifying for sneak attack), so then the bonus from Penetrating Strike is sneak attack damage, too, and qualifies for Craven.

olentu
2010-07-28, 04:06 PM
OK, if it's not sneak attack damage, what sort of bonus is it? There are two versions of Penetrating Strike that a Rogue can choose. The Penetrating Strike in Dungeonscape is admittedly unclear:
The Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is rather less ambiguous:
The claim that "you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage" makes it clearer that this is still sneak attack dice you're adding, not some untyped damage bonus. Since these ACFs have slightly different names, you can choose whichever version makes things clearer for your character.

This also looks like the same sort of question that was inspired by the language used for the Telling Blow feat: This is sneak attack damage, too, and not just some untyped bonus damage equal to your sneak attack. If the bonus from Telling Blow is sneak attack damage (and thus doesn't stack with some other way of qualifying for sneak attack), so then the bonus from Penetrating Strike is sneak attack damage, too, and qualifies for Craven.

I was of course talking about the dungeonscape version being the one being discussed that as it does not say it is sneak attack it can not be said that it is without extending the rules. Clearly it is a bonus from the penetrating strike alternative class feature from dungeonscape.

Now of course either the one in expedition to castle ravenloft is the same ability and thus can not exist as valid at the same time as the one in dungeonscape or they are different. If the same the rules and language from the other version can not be used in the correct version since one can not say that such language was or was not deliberately removed. If different then they have no bearing on each other. Either way the expedition to castle ravenloft alternative class feature has no bearing on the one in dungeonscape except for possibly superseding it completely as either the dungeonscape one is correct and supersedes the lightbringer version, the one in dungeonscape is wrong and no longer is valid, one or the other is not in an allowed book and thus the dungeonscape version is either the only one or does not exist, neither is allowed and thus it does not matter, or they are different and have no bearing on the other.

And of course telling blow does not have any weight in the discussion of the abilities since it is not the same thing.

So the bonus damage is not listed as sneak attack damage and thus as with other things the rules do not say it is not to be assumed to be true. So not sneak attack or the dungeonscape version is invalid.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-28, 04:44 PM
If different then they have no bearing on each other.
If they're treated differently by the DM, the player can choose the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft ACF because that's the one that's clearer about delivering sneak attack damage. (Since the names are slightly different, the WotC update rule doesn't apply here.) If both ACFs are treated the same by the DM, it's not an issue because then both versions deal sneak attack damage.

The only remaining case is if Dungeonscape is an allowed source while Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is not, and the DM doesn't think the Dungeonscape ACF delivers sneak attack damage. In which event I encourage you to use your Rogue powers and sneak attack the DM. :smallbiggrin:

JaronK
2010-07-28, 04:49 PM
Your primary goal is to see them before they jump you, but if necessary just blunt their first attack. If you were evil I'd say go Necropolitan and disguise yourself as alive, so they waste their first attacks. Anyway, a Blindfold of True Darkness gives Blindsight within range of their sneak attack, thus negating their surprise. It can be stopped with the Darkstalker feat, but they might not have that. The Mindsight feat would let you spot them from a great distance away, but you'd need telepathy first (and Mindbender requires being evil).

Consider the use of Illusions. Having a concentration based illusion of you that they'll attack first gives away their position, so that's handy.

JaronK

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-28, 05:06 PM
Hold person the assasin and pray it works. Put out the money for a heightend scroll from an enchantment focused wizard with DC boosters just to make sure. Get every cent you can spare for this, if it fails you are dead.

You will have exactly one shot. Luckly he has low wis saves and likely has wis as a dump stat. Once he is locked, charge him with a sap or something and cu-de-gra him into a nice deep slumber. There is a better non-lethal weapon is BoED, and it's martial so the paladin is prof ok, or unarmed strikes can be used non-lethal.

Now those rogues can be delt with on a more even level. Keep the group blocked up to prevent flanking, and gain some form of concelment. Fight at dusk or something.

Remember, you are the good guys and you have the diplomacy to pull something off the rogues wouldn't even consider...

Jump them in the middle of a city street. They won't expect an ambush just outside thier hidyhole with witnesses everywhere. You can explain to the cops before or after, after all you are going after evil criminals. A good spot check will help them spot you, but the point is to catch them when they are not looking activly, so you can have a readied action to cast the scroll go off.

Beorn080
2010-07-28, 05:11 PM
I second the motions to get help. Heck, even if you just go to a decent sized Temple of Pelor-equivalent, you should have enough clerics and such around that you can have a decent chance. Even 10 1st level clerics spamming Command or similar will probably have an effect.

Remember, your paladins. Even the chaotic good gods respect them, if they don't particularly care for the Stick class feature. Though you'll probably owe out some serious favors, at the very least helping them patch up and revive their dead.

olentu
2010-07-28, 11:05 PM
If they're treated differently by the DM, the player can choose the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft ACF because that's the one that's clearer about delivering sneak attack damage. (Since the names are slightly different, the WotC update rule doesn't apply here.) If both ACFs are treated the same by the DM, it's not an issue because then both versions deal sneak attack damage.

The only remaining case is if Dungeonscape is an allowed source while Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is not, and the DM doesn't think the Dungeonscape ACF delivers sneak attack damage. In which event I encourage you to use your Rogue powers and sneak attack the DM. :smallbiggrin:

If they are the same then there is not actually a they. Either there is only the one in dungeonscape or there is only the one in expedition to castle ravenloft. If there is only the one in dungeonscape then unless the DM specifically chooses to add a house rule that it is a sneak attack then it is not. Similarly if dungeonscape is the only source it is not sneak attack.

And of course if they are different then the lightbringer version really does not matter to the dungeonscape one and the dungeonscape one is still not sneak attack barring DM interference.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-29, 12:06 AM
If they are the same then there is not actually a they.
They are clearly different, because I quoted the different Benefit text of each. However, they may be treated the same by a DM, in which case both versions deliver sneak attack damage.

olentu
2010-07-29, 03:49 AM
They are clearly different, because I quoted the different Benefit text of each. However, they may be treated the same by a DM, in which case both versions deliver sneak attack damage.

Oh so your position is that everything that is reprinted is actually a different thing and does not replace the previous version unless it specifically says that it replaces the original. That certainly does make things confusing since just from the name of a thing one can not actually know what the mechanics are in all cases since it could be any of the exactly the same named things.


However should that not be the case then there is only one single penetrating strike class feature. Now it seems that you are not saying that if there is only one ability then the one in expedition to castle ravenloft is the correct one as if you were then you would just say so. Thus I must assume that you are still trying to add rules text to the dungeonscape version. However in doing so you are in fact adding rules and thus houseruling. So without houseruling in extras the dungeonscape version is not sneak attack since it does not say that the bonus damage is such. You can keep saying that it is but without presenting some actual rules that says that it is it is not. Just in case you try to make the case that I have not presented rules saying specifically that it is not I will make the following comment.

The rules do not need to say everything that they do not allow specifically. Rather what they do not say happens must be assumed that it does not. Please if you disagree on this point tell me as if this can not be resolved then the discussion or basically any discussion can not be resolved as either side can make up anything outside of the rules to prove their point. So to reiterate please tell me if you disagree on this position as it is rather important to be resolved if any discussion is to be had.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-29, 07:28 AM
Oh so your position is that everything that is reprinted is actually a different thing and does not replace the previous version unless it specifically says that it replaces the original.
Huh? No, WotC's update rule is that if something (class, magic item, feat, spell, or whatever) is replaced with a new item of the same type and same name, the new version is a replacement and the old version is no longer available in any game that uses the source (usually a book) containing the new version. Also any officially declared replacements, such as those here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x), replace the older versions.

Since the Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and the Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF in Dungeonscape do not have identical names, and Dungeonscape does not have text declaring it an official replacement for the EtCR ACF, it is not a replacement according to the update rule. Without an official replacement a player may choose either ACF for their character under the rules.

Beorn080
2010-07-29, 11:09 AM
Two things:

You can get fortification without armor, in a Gemstone of Fortification (Draconomicon, page 83).
The Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape, page 13) allows the Rogue to deal normal sneak attack dice, plus full Craven bonus, against 100% fortification. With Penetrating Stike full fortification will only decrease their sneak attack damage about 30%.


What about against Medium Fortification armor? Technically, the target isn't immune, its more a miss chance, since it isn't 100%.

The Glyphstone
2010-07-29, 11:10 AM
I think in that case you first have to check and see if the Fortification works or not. If it does, then Penetrating Strike (of either variant) kicks in - if it doesn't, then they're not immune, and they take sneak attack damage as normal.

Beorn080
2010-07-29, 05:15 PM
I think in that case you first have to check and see if the Fortification works or not. If it does, then Penetrating Strike (of either variant) kicks in - if it doesn't, then they're not immune, and they take sneak attack damage as normal.

I just read it, and it said that it merely negated the damage, not made them immune. So if Penetrating Strike does sneak attack dice, and thus triggers Craven, the damage is merely negated anyway.

*.*.*.*
2010-07-29, 06:37 PM
Candle of invocation a really powerful outsider in?

Dust of sneezing and choking?

Prodan
2010-07-29, 06:41 PM
Well, asterisk period asterisk period asterisk period asterisk, while that would undoubtedly work, it sure does feel like cheating, doesn't it?

Fax Celestis
2010-07-29, 06:43 PM
I think that several magic items grant some form of concealment and thus negate sneak attacks completely, but they seem to generally be too expensive for 6th level characters.

Ooh, what about fortification (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#fortification) armor? That's pretty much the anti-Rogue armor enhancement. It's even available in different levels of protection depending on budget. And even the Sorcerer can use it without penalty if it's placed on a mithral buckler or light shield. :smallcool:

Forget that, get gleaming (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/armorAndShields.htm#gleaming) armor. Literally makes you immune to sneak attacks.

*.*.*.*
2010-07-29, 07:38 PM
Well, asterisk period asterisk period asterisk period asterisk, while that would undoubtedly work, it sure does feel like cheating, doesn't it?

Did you really want to say that or just point out how odd my name is?

Beorn080
2010-07-29, 07:48 PM
Well, asterisk period asterisk period asterisk period asterisk, while that would undoubtedly work, it sure does feel like cheating, doesn't it?

To be fair, they ARE being attacked by a 13th level assassin at lvl 3ish.

Starbuck_II
2010-07-29, 08:24 PM
Forget that, get gleaming (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/armorAndShields.htm#gleaming) armor. Literally makes you immune to sneak attacks.

But +3 cost... granted worth it.

Boci
2010-07-29, 08:37 PM
But +3 cost... granted worth it.

Obscuring mist seems cheaper.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-29, 08:39 PM
Obscuring mist seems cheaper.

Obscuring mist affects you too. Gleaming does not.

Boci
2010-07-29, 08:54 PM
Obscuring mist affects you too. Gleaming does not.

And which is more likely to be available to three 6th level PCs?

olentu
2010-07-29, 09:41 PM
Huh? No, WotC's update rule is that if something (class, magic item, feat, spell, or whatever) is replaced with a new item of the same type and same name, the new version is a replacement and the old version is no longer available in any game that uses the source (usually a book) containing the new version. Also any officially declared replacements, such as those here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x), replace the older versions.

Since the Lightbringer Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and the Rogue Penetrating Strike ACF in Dungeonscape do not have identical names, and Dungeonscape does not have text declaring it an official replacement for the EtCR ACF, it is not a replacement according to the update rule. Without an official replacement a player may choose either ACF for their character under the rules.

That is not the argument you made. You said and I quote "because I quoted the different Benefit text" with your own emphasis. So clearly you were not making an argument based on the name as the name was not even mentioned. Thus I was not arguing against a name based argument but your benefit section based argument which is wrong. Now sure if you are now going to change your argument to one based on name that is fine but you did not make that argument in the first place.

Well then now that you have abandoned your original argument and moved to a more reasonable argument I will say again who cares about the expedition to castle ravenloft version. I was talking about the dungeonscape version you suggested be used and that still does not say that it is sneak attack.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-29, 09:53 PM
I just read it, and it said that it merely negated the damage, not made them immune.
And how is 100% chance of preventing sneak attack through fortification different from being immune to sneak attack?

Boci
2010-07-29, 09:55 PM
And how is 100% chance of preventing sneak attack through fortification different from being immune to sneak attack?

I think that was aimed at medium fortification. When the armour does negate sneak attack, you are not technically immune, so its questionably whether or not the ACF kicks in.

olentu
2010-07-29, 09:56 PM
And how is 100% chance of preventing sneak attack through fortification different from being immune to sneak attack?

Well as I recall there are some creatures with an explicit immunity to the damage from sneak attack or something like that. Perhaps that is what he means.

Edit: Thinking about it it might actually be just immunity to sneak attack. Eh I suppose I may look it up later.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-29, 10:06 PM
I think that was aimed at medium fortification. When the armour does negate sneak attack, you are not technically immune, so its questionably whether or not the ACF kicks in.
Whenever any lesser version of fortification prevents you from taking sneak attack damage, at that moment you're immune to it. At least, that's the way it seems to me. It's pretty bizarre to think that 75% protection would provide a superior defense (compared to 100% protection) against sneak attack.

Boci
2010-07-29, 10:10 PM
Whenever any lesser version of fortification prevents you from taking sneak attack damage, at that moment you're immune to it. At least, that's the way it seems to me. It's pretty bizarre to think that 75% protection would provide a superior defense (compared to 100% protection) against sneak attack.

Even 100% resistance could be viewed as being different to immune. Especially if there was some feature that lowered resistence by a certain amount, then there would even be an actual difference. Personally, I would just rewrite the ACF to say "whenever your sneak attack damage is negated, you instead deal half of it", but RAW there is a bit of a grey area sadly.

olentu
2010-07-29, 10:17 PM
Even 100% resistance could be viewed as being different to immune. Especially if there was some feature that lowered resistence by a certain amount, then there would even be an actual difference. Personally, I would just rewrite the ACF to say "whenever your sneak attack damage is negated, you instead deal half of it", but RAW there is a bit of a grey area sadly.

That is a point. With the existence of an explicit immunity it could be argued that should the rules of the game use the term immune to sneak attacks it must refer to that in game immune to sneak attacks and not the general non game definition of immune in the case of sneak attacks.

Boci
2010-07-29, 10:21 PM
That is a point. With the existence of an explicit immunity it could be argued that should the rules of the game use the term immune to sneak attacks it must refer to that in game immune to sneak attacks and not the general non game definition of immune in the case of sneak attacks.

Yeah, but if you;re getting to that levels of nit picking you could argue that the ACF from EtCR does nothing, since the creature immune to SA is also immune to the half SA damage granted by the ACF.

olentu
2010-07-29, 10:30 PM
Yeah, but if you;re getting to that levels of nit picking you could argue that the ACF from EtCR does nothing, since the creature immune to SA is also immune to the half SA damage granted by the ACF.

Well I do not think it would be the first time they have made such an ability but actually that makes a lot of sense as it would explain the change on language in the dungeonscape version.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-29, 10:39 PM
Even 100% resistance could be viewed as being different to immune.

negate

Invalidate, prevent, or end an effect with respect to a designated area or target. The D&D glossary doesn't define "immunity" by itself.
Cold Immunity

A creature with cold immunity never takes cold damage. If you invalidate or prevent sneak attack damage, you don't take sneak attack damage. Seems like a simple use of a synonym.

Boci
2010-07-29, 10:46 PM
The D&D glossary doesn't define "immunity" by itself. If you invalidate or prevent sneak attack damage, you don't take sneak attack damage. Seems like a simple use of a synonym.

But then wouldn't DR also count as immunity, if it happened to be high enough to negate all the SA damage? Besides, I think fortification should be bypassed by penetrating strike, I'm just saying I can see some wiggle room for an argument against it.

olentu
2010-07-30, 03:23 AM
The D&D glossary doesn't define "immunity" by itself. If you invalidate or prevent sneak attack damage, you don't take sneak attack damage. Seems like a simple use of a synonym.

Like I said in specific places in the game immunity to sneak attacks is said to be such. So to make the argument. Thus one can not just say that anything that is not said to be immunity to sneak attacks is actually immunity to sneak attacks. It might be a bit different if nothing was specifically said to be immunity to sneak attacks as then we would be in one of those cases where any discussion can only be about house rules but it has been specifically given thus allowing some actual discussion of the rules.

Bayar
2010-07-30, 06:37 AM
Has anyone here mentioned the Head of Vecna yet ?