AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Its D&D, not the Medieval Ages, despite what quite a few people tend to think. A good example is in Dragonlance the character Caramon. He didn't know any of the finer points of combat till later in the series, but was considered one of the best fighters because he knew to swing hard, how to swing, and had a lot of Strength to back it up.

Thats basically a fighter. They don't have all that expert finesse and training. They just know how to swing something really really hard and to not get hit.

have you seen Caramons character sheet more often than not in those books they are ieither mixed class or multi-classed. You wouldn't believe all the classes Elminster had lol he started out as a rogue, then cleric, even fighter then eventually mage. I think they called that mixed classes since you couldn't gain experience in any other class while going up in a mixed class, not to be confused with multiclass.

No it's training maybe not through military but through hands on fight after fight they learn how to or may even pick up some training on how to use tactical maneuvers in combat even if they don't know what they're technical term is and BaB isn't all strength.

Oh, let's clear something up: I didn't suggest Sneak Attack is the equivalent of a Critical Hit or any other accurate strike. It's a more sophisticated (or depraved, whatever your point of view) technique that must be learned. That's why it's a seperate feat. It's the skill of taking the most advantage from flanking, tripping or surprising your opponent. It can be used in underhanded and dishonorable ways, but that's not an innate property of the feat.

Last edited by Greyweaver on Fri, Jan 14 2011, 15:17 PM, edited 1 time in total.

IronAngel wrote:

I'm not sure what your evidence is, to be honest. What is the causal connection between the (supposed, unproven) cowardice and selfishness of the rogue and his Sneak Attack? That's an ad hominen fallacy: the personal character of the rogue doesn't logically imply the immorality of everyone who happens to have something in common with him. What you're saying is actually analogous to claiming that because Hitler was vegetarian, vegetarians are bad.

Alright, I understand your argument here. If you prefer to not single out just evil rogues, call it cunning and trickery to gain the upper hand, in any case they don't fight face to face there not trained for it. They'd lose going head to head with a skilled fighter.

IronAngel wrote:

The description of Sneak Attack suggests nothing underhanded: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." Neither the Rogue class nor the Sneak Attack ability has any alignment restrictions - Rogues can be Lawful Good or any other alignment.

Good Rogues, would try and knock there opponent out using the cunning and trickery I mentioned. Neutral bent ones would use whichever was more appropriate at the time. Evil rogues would go for the kill, unless they wanted to question them lol. There tactics and extremity would vary from L,N,C/G,N,E any combination of those but with the same cunning and trickery would be used to get it done.

IronAngel wrote:

I won't repeat my earlier points which still stand. In this post, I have shown 1) that your argument is formally inadequate and 2) that there is clear positive evidence that Lawful Good does not conflict with Sneak Attack. You said yourself that you consider it cheesy, which is an emotional response.

It's cheesy because the build is blatantly a powerbuild. It has nothing to do with emotion actually. I've said nothing other than you were wrong about backstabbing paladins lol hell just the sound of that makes me laugh! and you have to start calling my argument formally inadequate when others agree. You confused Tactical Fighting with what a rogue does which is -not- even close to the same. If it were rogues would be fighters. Paladins wouldn't sneak attack. If they want to do it then let them fall and take Blackguard where it's available and appropriate to the class.

IronAngel wrote:

Oh, let's clear something up: I didn't suggest Sneak Attack is the equivalent of a Critical Hit or any other accurate strike. It's a more sophisticated (or depraved, whatever your point of view)

and yeah sneak attack is a critical hit that's why sneak attack doesn't get the mulitiplier involved with a crit.

In my opinion a sneak attack is a strike at a vital region using a very opportunistic state of mind in doing so. In truth, any ol' schmuck can perform a sneak attack under the guise that they have taken an opportunity to better the odds for themselves. By this rule, Sneak attacks, whether done with stealth, or whether done with surprise (i.e. flat-footed or flanked), are opportunistic strikes against vital regions to better the odds for the offender.

In regards to the paladin using sneak attacks... So far the arguments have been absolutely mechanical based (save Irons), stating that a Paladin class cannot be associated with a Rogue Class. This is wrong, as this is mechanics, and whether it goes against their code, or whether it is seen as simply a tool for survival, the paladin will utilise all tactics at his disposal in order to smite those that have opposed him. Are Paladins opportunistic? That is entirely context-reliant; and in the case that a Paladin does utilise an opportunist-like attack that would otherwise go against his oath, I think it is also up to the Deities discretion (i.e. DM or overseers).

However, I think the question isn't can a Paladin take a rogue level to capitalise on extra damage per round? or, whether a Paladin's code does not cohere to the rogue way of life? I think the question is more or less should a Paladin utilise an opportunity when presented to him? I would say yes, which is why on those grounds I would see it as okay for a Paladin to take that rogue level; but on the same note - a A fighter, a Druid, a Monk, a Ranger, a Wizard, a Weaponmaster, and many other classes that have been presented with moments of altruistic honor or prevailing blows have 90% of the time also been opportunistic. Yet they don't have mechanical sneak attacks, and therefore I'd be inclined to say no. You shouldn't really mix the two classes, unless you have a damned good reason to: and not just sneak attacks.

Quote:

They'd lose going head to head with a skilled fighter.

Good Rogues, would try and knock there opponent out using the cunning and trickery I mentioned. Neutral bent ones would use whichever was more appropriate at the time. Evil rogues would go for the kill, unless they wanted to question them lol. There tactics and extremity would vary from L,N,C/G,N,E any combination of those but with the same cunning and trickery would be used to get it done.

You confused Tactical Fighting with what a rogue does which is -not- even close to the same. If it were rogues would be fighters.

I agree with absolutely nothing that you have said. Rogues are tactical fighters, and you've even contradicted your point by stating the tactics certain aligned rogues would commonly use, and then stating that rogues aren't Tactical.

I won't say I agree with your combination of rogue-esque alignment tactics. That is utterly wrong and entirely context driven anyway.

Peacock wrote:

You shouldn't really mix the two classes, unless you have a damned good reason to: and not just sneak attacks.

agreed and well put, I myself honestly think the game mechanics -should- make it impossible for toons that have Paladin in their build to pick rogue. Making Rogue prerequesite being any non-lawful would do it though and be more adherent to what the class represents. I think I might take that idea to the improving amia thread. I can't believe we've spent this long arguing over something so blatantly obvious lol. Good argument though and some points to think about. Paladin + Rogue= questions

For now I think they should need DM approval.

Well. I wouldn't say I'd restrict it to that extent, not at all. I am also not so sure you entirely understood my argument; I only disagree with the mechanical exploit in the sense that all those who engage willingly or unwillingly in combat will utilise whatever tactic and method they have at their disposal, not just rogues, otherwise it is perfectly viable for a Paladin to be opportunistic in the service of his Deity (although it depends on what the Deity is).

Rogues aren't the kind of unlawful scoundrels you paint them to be. The class description clealry states they come in all shapes and sizes. In any case, your idea that classes "should" represent one certain thing is contrary to long Amian practice (and IMHO, good sense). For me, classes are ultimately collections of miscellaneous tools you use to build a complete character. Every character is unique, every character should have abilities, strengths and weaknesses tailored for their story. Personally, I'd be happier with no character classes at all, but we have to deal with what we're given. In any case, Amia doesn't enforce any stereotype or one right way to play a class. Even the divine classes with explicit restrictions are given a lot of room for interpretation, as long as it's in the interest of good story and not just munchkinhood.

But this is all beside the point. You want rogues to be role-played in a certain way, somebody might have other ideas, you also think the combination is bad because of the supposed cheesiness of "powerbuild", I don't care how you play your classes or how you build. But all that is irrelevant. Whether something is a blatant powerbuild or abuse of the mechanics or against good taste, it has no relevance to the IC reality of whether a paladin would/could in some situation get Sneak Attack. Don't mix two seperate issues.

As for examples of canon Paladin/Rogues, Paladins of the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak can freely multiclass as Clerics, Fighters, Illusionists and Rogues. They get Invisibility, Camouflage and Displacement among other things in their Paladin spell list. They worship the god of deceit, secrecy and trickery, so I seriously doubt they'd have qualms about using Sneak Attack.

That's just one example, but it's enough to disprove every claim to the contrary. Clearly, in the correct circumstances, Paladins can and do multiclass as Rogues and use Sneak Attack. You might say that typically and on average, they wouldn't. But then you'd only be saying something just about everyone already agrees to. The contention is whether it's possible and justified under some, unspecified circumstances, not whether it's the Global Paladin Association's recommendation.

Was that reply directed at me or at Greyweaver? In any case, I will state it now that classes are entirely mechanical, which is why, I believe for integrity sake, classes can be multi-classed to, as you said, fine-tune it.

Oh, Greyweaver.

I see where your coming from but I'll stick with what peacock said about "they better have a damn good reason". That really stands out in my mind lol. I think making it prerequisite to make rogues have to be non-lawful and in rare cases like the Shadowy Cloaks being subject to DM approval should solve any issues, if that's even possible in game mechanics. I posted in the improving amia section about this.

So the topic is; Would a Paladin use a sneak attack in combat? lol Only if he/she had a damn good reason

and their faith allowed it.

Greyweaver wrote:

So the topic is; Would a Paladin use a sneak attack in combat? lol Only if he/she had a damn good reason

and their faith allowed it.

I would replace faith with "personal code" which is part church-wide faith, part univeral morality, part local tradition and conceptions of honor, and part private relationship to your god. But yes, I can agree with that (only I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you do, but that's a difference of taste).

IronAngel wrote:

As for examples of canon Paladin/Rogues, Paladins of the Knights of the Shadowy Cloak can freely multiclass as Clerics, Fighters, Illusionists and Rogues. They get Invisibility, Camouflage and Displacement among other things in their Paladin spell list. They worship the god of deceit, secrecy and trickery, so I seriously doubt they'd have qualms about using Sneak Attack.

This is an interesting concept. Source?

Last edited by hendrack on Fri, Jan 14 2011, 20:17 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

Very_Svensk wrote:

I heard a story, Not long ago, About a paladin getting a fall out of partying with an assassin. Wont mention names, But if that's true - Then the General DM stance would be that 'Sneak attacks are Ok', But 'Death attacks are naughty' .

How do you know if someone is an assassin?
Metagame the death attack pop-up?

Curious about that as well. Is there a difference, Ic'ly, Of how Sneak attacks and death attacks are done?
Does one of them strike at the lower-spinal cord to render the victim's legs/lower parts paralysed, or is the other just a genital kick?

My pally got the fall because the whole party was evil and there was an efreeti summon as well. The assassin in the party was not the singular cause. Death and sneak attack are the same mechanically I think, but I think Grave said death attack paralyzes nerves too so it can have a visible effect.

Anyway, why's there so much fuss about pally/rogue again? Arvoreen, Barawar and Tormites (golden cup or something order) can multiclass as rogues, the others just take it for the cheese. Tumble can be taken as well with harper scout and monk, the rogue2 really is just for the saves.

Proper paladins grab feats to get 1 HS level instead for their tumble!

Oh God, what happened here? Man can't even go to sleep for a night without another pally thread erupting. >_>

Point of the whole thread, based off of what can be found IC. Sneak attack is not inherently evil or unchivalrously. It can be RPed as such, if wanted. Some people don't like how people play their Paladins. Nothing new here.

Silvarus wrote:

Yus. Standard bab progression implies ability to strike accurately where it hurts. Its the first lesson of all combat training. Sneak Attacks are something more than just not being dumb and hitting places that actually matter. Implying everything else than sneaks is just brutish clubbing makes no sense.

Hello. I am on a forum with a guy who does historical martial arts and sword fighting. He says NOTHING in DnD combat or weapon specs makes any sense whatsoever, even in the basics. He say not to even try that route.

Can you go back up to my point about Paladins and the question of hitting a flanked or prone opponent during fairly warned combat? I don't see how you can agree with getting AB benefits but object to damage, although I don't yet know if you do, hence my repeat. Sneak Attacks gained from coming out of stealth/invisibility or from attacking so quickly the player/character/DM-NPC doesn't have time to come out of flatfoot - I agree those are Fall fodder, but wouldn't they'd be just as naughty if you just did it for the huge AC drop and automatic Initiative win on the other guy?

The really absurd part of this debate is that ICly you learn how wands work, how to lace up Monk boots, sharpen your footwork and ducking skills a heck of a lot, but when it comes to fighting, you're totally incapable of not doing a little bit(or a hell of a lot for Kjetta's planned Rogue19/Ftr6/Pally5) of extra hurt. You can as a player and therefore character choose never to gain Sneak Attacks by coming out of stealth/invis or triggerhappiness, just as every Paladin can choose not to get the hitrate bonus, but you cannot refrain from twisting your sword a little when the enemy is liable to Sneak Attack? That's even more nonsensical than the DnD engine.

Uberuce wrote:

Hello. I am on a forum with a guy who does historical martial arts and sword fighting. He says NOTHING in DnD combat or weapon specs makes any sense whatsoever, even in the basics

This is more or less true, my good friend and fellow D&D companion, is also trained in sword fighting with and without armor, and he would agree with that statement.
Just look at the D&D morningstar, it has a solid shaft with a spiked ball on one side. A real morningstar was a spiked ball on a chain, similar to a flail but only one chain. (flail has multiple chains).
He says you would be surprised at how much movement you can get in full plate too.
But this is what we have to deal with if we want to play, your DM can always make a ruling.

That referred to me, was a direct quote. Damn you Uce, but my statement makes perfect sense even as a purely in-DnD statement. Who the hell imagines a fighting style where weak spots are not taken into account? It doesn't make sense even in the most retarded systems.

Greyweaver wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Its D&D, not the Medieval Ages, despite what quite a few people tend to think. A good example is in Dragonlance the character Caramon. He didn't know any of the finer points of combat till later in the series, but was considered one of the best fighters because he knew to swing hard, how to swing, and had a lot of Strength to back it up.

Thats basically a fighter. They don't have all that expert finesse and training. They just know how to swing something really really hard and to not get hit.

have you seen Caramons character sheet more often than not in those books they are ieither mixed class or multi-classed. You wouldn't believe all the classes Elminster had lol he started out as a rogue, then cleric, even fighter then eventually mage. I think they called that mixed classes since you couldn't gain experience in any other class while going up in a mixed class, not to be confused with multiclass.

No it's training maybe not through military but through hands on fight after fight they learn how to or may even pick up some training on how to use tactical maneuvers in combat even if they don't know what they're technical term is and BaB isn't all strength.

Actually Elminsters classes follow his story very well. If you read the first book all his classes are explained. Its why it's considered one of the best D&D novels.

Silvarus wrote:

That referred to me, was a direct quote. Damn you Uce, but my statement makes perfect sense even as a purely in-DnD statement. Who the hell imagines a fighting style where weak spots are not taken into account? It doesn't make sense even in the most retarded systems.

This is a game in which you can run around wearing nothing but a loincloth and defend against most attacks, or cast earth shattering spells with the share force of your personality.

Dark Immolation wrote:

Sneak attack works when your opponent is pre-occupied, not paying attention(flatfooted), or somehow incapacitated(KD'ed, prone, paralyzed).

There's nothing in most Paladin codes that would say "don't go for your enemy's obvious weaknesses." That's why paladin's can take Rogue just fine.

I've always lived in the expression that rogue's and assassin sneak/death attack is a trained thing, that you need to learn the secrets of trade, more numerous and more vulnerable weakspots which are not known to common man. So I wouldn't classify it as "using obvious weaknesses to your advantage"

obvious weakness is when you get a critical hit.

and elminster is, in chronologically received order: fighter 1 / rogue 2 or 3 / cleric 6 /wizard twentysomething

fighter 1/rogue 2/cleric 3/wizard 21/archmage 5

Unless and until Amia decides to follow the FR multiclassing rules, pally/rogue is unfortunately going to be as valid as any other pally or monk class combo that would not be restricted by alignment.

The Paladins of Baravar Cloakshadow would like a word with you.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Actually Elminsters classes follow his story very well. If you read the first book all his classes are explained. Its why it's considered one of the best D&D novels.

Very cool book "Elminster, The making of mage"-Ed Greenwood. One of my favorites, thats how I knew lol still got it in my library too. I may have missed some classes he had, thanks tormy, but yeah it's very well written how he advanced and entered into and out of one class to another according to circumstances. Sorry off topic, just thought I'd clarify. Oh and clerics aren't allowed to use swords either...lol j/k

Greyweaver wrote:

Oh and clerics aren't allowed to use swords either...lol j/k

One of the most sensible rules of 2E.

Yes, as long as they're bleeding on the inside that's okay.

Quote:

obvious weakness is when you get a critical hit.

I think Sneak Attack damage and Critical Hit damage are basically the same type of damage (touching a vulnerable spot) but applied in different ways; sneak attacks when your otherwise occupied opponent leaves a gap in his guard, and critical hit when you just get lucky and slide a hit past and smash a solid one in his groin, for example. I say this because the attack roll represents the luck component of an attack, and critical hits are tied to it whereas sneak attacks occur as soon as the opponent's focus isn't on you.

I disagree about sneak attack reflecting some kind of specialized training, because the rogue is a non-specialized class at its base; logically any and every character should have sneak attack, then, but I guess the rogue class needed a bone according to whoever set up the classes as they are.

Multiclassing is fine, though, because every paladin with rogue levels on Amia is a paladin of Baravar Cloakshadow.

Lizzie wrote:

This is an interesting concept. Source?

Champions of Valor, "Initiate of Baravar" under Feats and "Knights of the Shadowy Cloak" under Minor Organizations.

Also of note in the same book are Torm's paladins in the Order of the Golden Lion, who can freely multiclass as anything.

Zinovy wrote:

Quote:

obvious weakness is when you get a critical hit.

I think Sneak Attack damage and Critical Hit damage are basically the same type of damage (touching a vulnerable spot) but applied in different ways; sneak attacks when your otherwise occupied opponent leaves a gap in his guard, and critical hit when you just get lucky and slide a hit past and smash a solid one in his groin, for example. I say this because the attack roll represents the luck component of an attack, and critical hits are tied to it whereas sneak attacks occur as soon as the opponent's focus isn't on you.

I disagree about sneak attack reflecting some kind of specialized training, because the rogue is a non-specialized class at its base; logically any and every character should have sneak attack, then, but I guess the rogue class needed a bone according to whoever set up the classes as they are.

Multiclassing is fine, though, because every paladin with rogue levels on Amia is a paladin of Baravar Cloakshadow.

so improved critical feat just increases your luck?

I see it as a character adapting their fighting style to their weapon's strenghts (from tutoring or past experience in the "critical hits" they have landed), so as to increase their chances of a nasty blow; so yes, but rather than "increasing luck" I would say it's "putting luck on your side". This opposed to Weapon Focus, which would be just accuracy from better handling the weight, swing, and so on of a given weapon.

Improved Critical is exactly what it is: it improves your critical threat range, and it's available to characters who meet certain criteria (+8 BAB) at a certain time (when they gain a bonus feat). That's it. Anything beyond that is speculation, fluff, taste, an area where there's no clear right or wrong. So arguing about is pretty pointless. Most posts seem to make that mistake, and try to assert universal statements induced from particular examples. Another mistake is basing one's argument on the assumption that D&D combat mechanics are sensible and consistent. They simply are not - though it's also an unwarranted exaggeration to say they make no sense and can't be rationally discussed. They're just not consistent enough to base a very strong case on them.

Saying that the attack roll is the luck component of an attack is invalid because you say so? I guess your reasoning is more solid than mine. I formulated it as my interpretation of it, anyway, and was not arguing for or against it; someone asked for an elaboration on a previously stated view regarding sneak attack and critical hit damage type.

Saying that a feat is only mechanical is akin to saying the mechanics are entirely separate from the thing they represent. No, D&D is not notoriously consistent or realistic, but then why call it "Courteous Magocracy" and not "The +2 Lore and Spellcraft Feat"? Why not make a character that is an undead hunter IC, who has 10 Pale Master levels to avoid Critical Hits and ghoul stunning?

I'm open to reasoned criticism to what I said, if it isn't limited to "any attempt to rationalize mechanics will fail", because I can make sense enough of my interpretation for it to be a satisfying rendition. Add to that the fact that the entire thread - which you replied in often to make similar interpretations - is based on extrapolating an interpretation for what Sneak Attack is.

I'm just saying: I think that, if one wants to rationalize the Sneak Attacks and Critical Hits, and Improved Critical by a similar swing, it can be done the way I said, among other ways, insofar as combat style and effectiveness can come up in-character.

I wasn't really criticizing your interpretation, nor aiming my post specifically at you. The most immediate target is Tero and his silly question: he sarcastically sets up a strawman and besides phrases his question as if he expects an objective answer to a question of arbitrary taste. What I said applies to anything that tries to categorically claim what a combat concept is "supposed" to represent without sticking to the absolute minimum of mechanical information. Basically, the where I'm coming from is that you can make particular statements or negative universal statements ("In case X/from the perspective Y, Sneak Attack could represent Z" or "Not every Sneak Attack is a surprise", respectively), but you can't make universal statements that say anything positive beyond the minimal rules. Because we simply have no way of knowing or agreeing beyond the absolutely certain evidence. I actually quite agree with your interpretation.

If I were to answer Tero based on your theory, I'd say that Improved Critical has nothing to do with your luck and his logic is sloppy. You say that the d20 is the "luck" involved in combat (but I guess we agree it's a complex sum of situational factors). A critical hit happens when you get lucky with your swing, or more likely, when the opponent gets unlucky with their defence. But Improved Critical doesn't affect this roll at all. Your luck is unchanged. What actually happens is that your critical threat range increases. Translated to IC combat, it seems that you get better at taking advantage of fortunate positions and holes in the opponent's defense. The situation you're in remains the same, but you get better at making the most of it. I guess this is basically what you mean by "putting the luck on your side", but I guess it's prudent to show Tero the flaw in his reasoning.

What's So Sneaky About Sneak Attack?

Who is online