Sneak-Attack Sleight-of-Hand

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or special
feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?

Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand
Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
check to steal a small item from the target. In this case, the target
does not get a spot check unless you fail your check. Standard DC20
gets you a random small object (coin purse, ring, small weapon)
determined by the GM. For specific items (I want the knife from his
right belt sheath.) have a DC determined by the GM. This action does
no additional damage.

Questions: Is this too weak? Too strong? Would it make a good feat,
or should I leave it as a Special ability of the PrC?
Some Background: The PrC will be designed for city characters, probably
with a split in abilities (like the Ranger TWF/Bow split). One main
branch will be this type of up-close and personal theft, while the
other would focus on B&E heists. Any additional ideas along those
lines would also be appreciated.
21 answers Last reply
More about sneak attack sleight hand
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    That is an Interesting use of hit & steal tactics, Does your PrC have a
    name?
    -Dragonkat
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Not officially yet. Urban Thief is what I'm using for the moment, but
    it's a bit bland. Any other comment on the ability?
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I would like to see the PrC when it is finished. Have you thought of a
    third option for the split or other neat tricks common to all in the
    PrC. How about something that adds to Move Silently/Hide in
    Shadows/Climb (Like +5 or +10 Ranks) & allows a version of hide in
    plain sight for getaways...
    I do like the combat pickpocket!
    -Dragonkat
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    > I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
    > Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
    > abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or special
    > feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?
    >
    > Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand

    I don't like the name too much. How about something like Sneaky
    Stealer?
    Because it's not a feat for the full range of SoH,
    but only for stealing from others...

    > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    > check to steal a small item from the target.

    Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??

    > In this case, the target
    > does not get a spot check unless you fail your check.

    Why not?

    > Standard DC20
    > gets you a random small object (coin purse, ring, small weapon)
    > determined by the GM. For specific items (I want the knife from his
    > right belt sheath.) have a DC determined by the GM. This action does
    > no additional damage.

    Why the randomness (unless the thief picks an item without seeing it)?
    I would let the thief decide what he wants, among items not held in
    the hands or fingerrings. Everything from items in a belt pouch or
    pocket, to light weapons, necklaces, earrings, a dagger in the shaft
    of a boot etc could be stolen.

    >
    > Questions: Is this too weak? Too strong? Would it make a good feat,
    > or should I leave it as a Special ability of the PrC?

    The idea sounds interesting, could be fun to play.

    > Some Background: The PrC will be designed for city characters, probably
    > with a split in abilities (like the Ranger TWF/Bow split). One main
    > branch will be this type of up-close and personal theft, while the
    > other would focus on B&E heists.

    What's a B&E heist?

    LL
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > Pythor wrote:
    > > I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
    > > Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
    > > abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or special
    > > feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?
    > >
    > > Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand
    >
    > I don't like the name too much. How about something like Sneaky
    > Stealer?
    > Because it's not a feat for the full range of SoH,
    > but only for stealing from others...
    >

    Reasonable. I hadn't come up with anything more colorful, yet. OTH, I
    can imagine using the same skill to plant a small item on the target,
    it's just a less likely use, so I didn't elaborate on it.

    > > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    > > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    > > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    > > check to steal a small item from the target.
    >
    > Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    > Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??

    Flavor wise, you are attacking to distract your opponent from the act
    of pick-pocketing him/her. A failed attack roll would not really help
    in that manor. OTH, I could accept that a Skill Check is the only roll
    necessary, and include the unarmed damage as a side effect of the
    attack, but that seems difficult to balance, since you are then
    ignoring the AC of the target.
    >
    > > In this case, the target
    > > does not get a spot check unless you fail your check.
    >
    > Why not?

    This is actually the main advantage of the manuever. For a normal SoH
    Pick-Pocket attempt, you'll always be spotted by a good Spot roll.
    Which gimps a standard Rogue who wants to make a living from picking
    pockets. Since there are plenty of real-world pick pockets that do
    just that, I was looking for a way to deny the target their Spot check.
    Flanking combined with SA and/or a teammate(see my other thread) made
    sense to me.
    >
    > > Standard DC20
    > > gets you a random small object (coin purse, ring, small weapon)
    > > determined by the GM. For specific items (I want the knife from his
    > > right belt sheath.) have a DC determined by the GM. This action does
    > > no additional damage.
    >
    > Why the randomness (unless the thief picks an item without seeing it)?
    > I would let the thief decide what he wants, among items not held in
    > the hands or fingerrings. Everything from items in a belt pouch or
    > pocket, to light weapons, necklaces, earrings, a dagger in the shaft
    > of a boot etc could be stolen.
    Again, mostly flavor. The orignal idea was using the chaos of a bar
    brawl to disguise the fact that you are robbing people blind. Not
    terribly condusive to careful targeting of specific items. You could
    rule that any of those items would still have DC20, without changing
    the description. It also leaves it up to the DM to decide which items
    on the target are more difficult to get to in certain circumstances. I
    like leaving it up to the DM here. Also opens story hook possibilities.
    >
    > >
    > > Questions: Is this too weak? Too strong? Would it make a good feat,
    > > or should I leave it as a Special ability of the PrC?
    >
    > The idea sounds interesting, could be fun to play.
    >
    > > Some Background: The PrC will be designed for city characters, probably
    > > with a split in abilities (like the Ranger TWF/Bow split). One main
    > > branch will be this type of up-close and personal theft, while the
    > > other would focus on B&E heists.
    >
    > What's a B&E heist?
    Hmm. Not sure if this is American slang or what... Sorry. B&E is
    Breaking and Entering, a standard legal term here for going into
    someone's house without permission, usually with the intent to steal.
    Heist I added to give the flavor of the more spectacular jobs pulled in
    movies and television, where a single expedition into a guarded
    building yields a very high reward.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    If there is, I'd like to know it, as well. I have a limited library,
    and less patience, but I didn't find one anywhere I looked.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Pythor" <pythor@gmail.com> wrote in
    news:1126029754.310115.184700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

    > I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
    > Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
    > abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or
    > special feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?
    >
    > Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand
    > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a
    > single
    > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    > check to steal a small item from the target. In this case, the target
    > does not get a spot check unless you fail your check. Standard DC20
    > gets you a random small object (coin purse, ring, small weapon)
    > determined by the GM. For specific items (I want the knife from his
    > right belt sheath.) have a DC determined by the GM. This action does
    > no additional damage.
    >
    > Questions: Is this too weak? Too strong? Would it make a good feat,
    > or should I leave it as a Special ability of the PrC?
    > Some Background: The PrC will be designed for city characters,
    > probably with a split in abilities (like the Ranger TWF/Bow split).
    > One main branch will be this type of up-close and personal theft,
    > while the other would focus on B&E heists. Any additional ideas along
    > those lines would also be appreciated.
    >

    Your way would provoke an AOO, in fact there is a feat that already does
    this and does it better in fact. IIRC the preqs are Improved Unarmed
    Strike, Sleight of Hand 5 ranks and Bluff 5 ranks.

    More or less the feat I recall allows a character to make a feint/bluff
    to disguise a sleight of hand attempt to lift an item off an opponant as
    "missed/failed" attack attempt.

    Perhaps someone recalls the name and source of this feat in question.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    >> > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    >> > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    >> > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    >> > check to steal a small item from the target.
    >>
    >> Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    >> Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??
    >
    > Flavor wise, you are attacking to distract your opponent from the act
    > of pick-pocketing him/her. A failed attack roll would not really help
    > in that manor. OTH, I could accept that a Skill Check is the only roll
    > necessary, and include the unarmed damage as a side effect of the
    > attack, but that seems difficult to balance, since you are then
    > ignoring the AC of the target.

    I think the attack + skill check is preferable. Should be touch attack
    though. And will it provoke an AOO in that case?

    Spinner
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in news:3o8csnF4nuq1U1@individual.net:

    >>> > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    >>> > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    >>> > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    >>> > check to steal a small item from the target.
    >>>
    >>> Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    >>> Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??
    >>
    >> Flavor wise, you are attacking to distract your opponent from the act
    >> of pick-pocketing him/her. A failed attack roll would not really help
    >> in that manor. OTH, I could accept that a Skill Check is the only
    roll
    >> necessary, and include the unarmed damage as a side effect of the
    >> attack, but that seems difficult to balance, since you are then
    >> ignoring the AC of the target.
    >
    > I think the attack + skill check is preferable. Should be touch attack
    > though. And will it provoke an AOO in that case?


    Yes it would provoke an AOO, in fact there is a feat that already does
    this. IIRC the preqs are Improved Unarmed Strike, Sleight of Hand 5
    ranks and Bluff 5 ranks.

    More or less the feat I recall allows a character to make a feint/bluff
    to disguise a sleight of hand attempt to lift an item off an opponant as
    "missed/failed" attack attempt.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:

    > Pythor wrote:
    >
    >>I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
    >>Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
    >>abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or special
    >>feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?
    >>
    >>Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand
    >
    >
    > I don't like the name too much. How about something like Sneaky
    > Stealer?

    SNEAK ATTACK HEAD BUTT!!!

    - Ron ^*^
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    > Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    >
    > > > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    > > > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    > > > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    > > > check to steal a small item from the target.
    > >
    > > Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    > > Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??
    >
    > Flavor wise, you are attacking to distract your opponent from the act
    > of pick-pocketing him/her. A failed attack roll would not really help
    > in that manor.

    I thought surprise or flanking would be the distraction and
    the SoH is the only action done by the thief.

    If the thief attacks and steals in one action, I've got other
    questions:
    Why an unarmed attack?
    Is he required to attack and steal with the same hand?
    BTW is this maneuver a full-round or standard action?

    > OTH, I could accept that a Skill Check is the only roll
    > necessary, and include the unarmed damage as a side effect of the
    > attack, but that seems difficult to balance, since you are then
    > ignoring the AC of the target.

    If damage shall be done in addition, an attack roll should be required.

    > >
    > > > In this case, the target
    > > > does not get a spot check unless you fail your check.
    > >
    > > Why not?
    >
    > This is actually the main advantage of the manuever. For a normal SoH
    > Pick-Pocket attempt, you'll always be spotted by a good Spot roll.
    > Which gimps a standard Rogue who wants to make a living from picking
    > pockets. Since there are plenty of real-world pick pockets that do
    > just that, I was looking for a way to deny the target their Spot check.

    Okay, now I see the point.
    Maybe denying the Spot check is a bit much.
    Would a bonus to SoH resulting in a higher DC for Spot and faciliating
    the theft action be better?

    > Flanking combined with SA and/or a teammate(see my other thread) made
    > sense to me.

    Yes, that's the classic.
    I remember Donald Sutherland as a pickpocket-teamleader in a movie
    IIRC,
    where they did just that - but I forgot name and story of the movie...

    > > Why the randomness (unless the thief picks an item without seeing it)?
    > > I would let the thief decide what he wants, among items not held in
    > > the hands or fingerrings. Everything from items in a belt pouch or
    > > pocket, to light weapons, necklaces, earrings, a dagger in the shaft
    > > of a boot etc could be stolen.
    > Again, mostly flavor. The orignal idea was using the chaos of a bar
    > brawl to disguise the fact that you are robbing people blind. Not
    > terribly condusive to careful targeting of specific items. You could
    > rule that any of those items would still have DC20, without changing
    > the description. It also leaves it up to the DM to decide which items
    > on the target are more difficult to get to in certain circumstances. I
    > like leaving it up to the DM here. Also opens story hook possibilities.

    On the downside it opens DM bothering the player possibilities.
    "What? I picked a cursed saltshaker -1 *again*??"
    I know a DM who liked stuff like that, but that's another story.

    Ok, back to the feat basics, I could imagine it working in a
    slightly different way:

    "When you qualify for a (melee) sneak attack against an opponent you
    gain a bonus of +X to any SoH attempt to steal from that opponent."

    My reasoning is, that the victim is already unaware or distracted,
    because of surprise or flanking or use of Improved Bluff.
    X has to be set to a balanced value or maybe it could be tied
    to SA damage somehow? 4 + 1 per die of SA??
    BTW, if SA wouldn't be a prereq. Bards could take it too at +4 to SoH,
    but rogues would get add. boni for SA. Just a thought.

    I'm afraid you won't like this, but I post it anyway ;-)

    > > What's a B&E heist?
    > Hmm. Not sure if this is American slang or what... Sorry. B&E is
    > Breaking and Entering, a standard legal term here for going into
    > someone's house without permission, usually with the intent to steal.
    > Heist I added to give the flavor of the more spectacular jobs pulled in
    > movies and television, where a single expedition into a guarded
    > building yields a very high reward.

    Never mind, it's because I'm german I think.
    I guessed blackmail or burglary, but the E was a mystery to me.

    LL
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    >
    > > Pythor wrote:
    > >
    > >>I'm trying to devise a combat-light Rogue PrC, for use as a general
    > >>Thief character type, focused on master thieving skills and/or
    > >>abilities. I'm considering this for either a class ability, or special
    > >>feat available to the PrC. Any thoughts?
    > >>
    > >>Sneak Attack Sleight-of-Hand
    > >
    > >
    > > I don't like the name too much. How about something like Sneaky
    > > Stealer?
    >
    > SNEAK ATTACK HEAD BUTT!!!
    >
    > - Ron ^*^

    SNEAKY BUTTHEAD !!!

    LL
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > Pythor wrote:
    > > Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > >
    > > > > Preq: Sneak Attack,Sleight of Hand 5 ranks
    > > > > When you qualify for a sneak attack against a target, make a single
    > > > > unarmed attack, and, if you hit, make an immediate Sleight of Hand
    > > > > check to steal a small item from the target.
    > > >
    > > > Both attacking and a skill check? I would prefer one roll.
    > > > Skill check vs. DC 10 + Touch AC maybe??
    > >
    > > Flavor wise, you are attacking to distract your opponent from the act
    > > of pick-pocketing him/her. A failed attack roll would not really help
    > > in that manor.
    >
    > I thought surprise or flanking would be the distraction and
    > the SoH is the only action done by the thief.
    >
    > If the thief attacks and steals in one action, I've got other
    > questions:
    > Why an unarmed attack?
    > Is he required to attack and steal with the same hand?
    > BTW is this maneuver a full-round or standard action?
    >
    > > OTH, I could accept that a Skill Check is the only roll
    > > necessary, and include the unarmed damage as a side effect of the
    > > attack, but that seems difficult to balance, since you are then
    > > ignoring the AC of the target.
    >
    > If damage shall be done in addition, an attack roll should be required.
    >
    > > >
    > > > > In this case, the target
    > > > > does not get a spot check unless you fail your check.
    > > >
    > > > Why not?
    > >
    > > This is actually the main advantage of the manuever. For a normal SoH
    > > Pick-Pocket attempt, you'll always be spotted by a good Spot roll.
    > > Which gimps a standard Rogue who wants to make a living from picking
    > > pockets. Since there are plenty of real-world pick pockets that do
    > > just that, I was looking for a way to deny the target their Spot check.
    >
    > Okay, now I see the point.
    > Maybe denying the Spot check is a bit much.
    > Would a bonus to SoH resulting in a higher DC for Spot and faciliating
    > the theft action be better?
    >
    > > Flanking combined with SA and/or a teammate(see my other thread) made
    > > sense to me.
    >
    > Yes, that's the classic.
    > I remember Donald Sutherland as a pickpocket-teamleader in a movie
    > IIRC,
    > where they did just that - but I forgot name and story of the movie...
    >
    > > > Why the randomness (unless the thief picks an item without seeing it)?
    > > > I would let the thief decide what he wants, among items not held in
    > > > the hands or fingerrings. Everything from items in a belt pouch or
    > > > pocket, to light weapons, necklaces, earrings, a dagger in the shaft
    > > > of a boot etc could be stolen.
    > > Again, mostly flavor. The orignal idea was using the chaos of a bar
    > > brawl to disguise the fact that you are robbing people blind. Not
    > > terribly condusive to careful targeting of specific items. You could
    > > rule that any of those items would still have DC20, without changing
    > > the description. It also leaves it up to the DM to decide which items
    > > on the target are more difficult to get to in certain circumstances. I
    > > like leaving it up to the DM here. Also opens story hook possibilities.
    >
    > On the downside it opens DM bothering the player possibilities.
    > "What? I picked a cursed saltshaker -1 *again*??"
    > I know a DM who liked stuff like that, but that's another story.
    >
    As a DM, I would probably allow the Player to give me 3 or 4 items,
    give him a DC for each, and let him pick. Or he can go the random
    route, which is DC 20, anyway. Any more than 3 or 4 questions, and
    you've spent your turn observing the target, instead of stealing from
    him. (I'm not a jerk DM, but I'm not a pushover, either.) Also, as I
    said, a good DM could use this to his/her advantage, providing story
    hooks.
    (Off topic: What happens when someone steals a cursed item? Are they
    now cursed, or does the item transport back to the real owner just as
    it would if they threw it away? Karma-wise, the first makes sense,
    while balance-wise, it is way too easy to become uncursed then.)
    > Ok, back to the feat basics, I could imagine it working in a
    > slightly different way:
    >
    > "When you qualify for a (melee) sneak attack against an opponent you
    > gain a bonus of +X to any SoH attempt to steal from that opponent."
    >
    > My reasoning is, that the victim is already unaware or distracted,
    > because of surprise or flanking or use of Improved Bluff.
    > X has to be set to a balanced value or maybe it could be tied
    > to SA damage somehow? 4 + 1 per die of SA??
    > BTW, if SA wouldn't be a prereq. Bards could take it too at +4 to SoH,
    > but rogues would get add. boni for SA. Just a thought.
    >
    > I'm afraid you won't like this, but I post it anyway ;-)
    >
    Frankly, I'd probably allow something like that, anyway. Flanking
    gives +2 on attacks, I have no problem expanding that to SoH checks;
    and I would accept the logic of intentionally increasing the DC of a
    SoH attempt in order to penalise the Spot check. I wouldn't require a
    Feat or a Special Ability for those actions. Denying the Spot check
    completely, OTH requires something more.

    > > > What's a B&E heist?
    > > Hmm. Not sure if this is American slang or what... Sorry. B&E is
    > > Breaking and Entering, a standard legal term here for going into
    > > someone's house without permission, usually with the intent to steal.
    > > Heist I added to give the flavor of the more spectacular jobs pulled in
    > > movies and television, where a single expedition into a guarded
    > > building yields a very high reward.
    >
    > Never mind, it's because I'm german I think.
    > I guessed blackmail or burglary, but the E was a mystery to me.
    >
    Think of the classic cat-burglar. Which is the expression I would have
    used in the first place if my brain had been working right when I
    posted the first time.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1126196858.760143.239540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de says...

    > > > I don't like the name too much. How about something like Sneaky
    > > > Stealer?
    > >
    > > SNEAK ATTACK HEAD BUTT!!!
    >
    > SNEAKY BUTTHEAD !!!

    Especially powerful in a combo: also take Karmic Twin (with another PC),
    and have another PC take Karmic Twin (with you) and Sneaky Beavis.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    <SNIP and apologies for self reply>
    > Frankly, I'd probably allow something like that, anyway. Flanking
    > gives +2 on attacks, I have no problem expanding that to SoH checks;
    > and I would accept the logic of intentionally increasing the DC of a
    > SoH attempt in order to penalise the Spot check. I wouldn't require a
    > Feat or a Special Ability for those actions. Denying the Spot check
    > completely, OTH requires something more.
    >

    I've been thinking about this, and now I'm not so sure about the second
    part. Basically, taking a penalty on SoH to induce a penalty on your
    target's Spot is functionally equivalent to Power Attack, and that
    requires a Feat. Do we need a Feat for this?

    The Hands are Quicker:
    Preq: Sleight of Hand: 5 ranks
    For any single SoH check, you can take a penalty of -2 to -10 in
    increments of 2. The same penalty applies to your target's Spot check,
    and one half that penalty to the Spot check of any other observers to
    detect your Sleight of Hand.

    Is this too weak? I thought about extending it slightly by saying that
    the Spot check is penalised double if you are flanking, but I thought
    that might be too strong.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    > Pythor wrote:
    > <SNIP and apologies for self reply>
    > > Frankly, I'd probably allow something like that, anyway. Flanking
    > > gives +2 on attacks, I have no problem expanding that to SoH checks;
    > > and I would accept the logic of intentionally increasing the DC of a
    > > SoH attempt in order to penalise the Spot check. I wouldn't require a
    > > Feat or a Special Ability for those actions. Denying the Spot check
    > > completely, OTH requires something more.
    > >
    >
    > I've been thinking about this, and now I'm not so sure about the second
    > part. Basically, taking a penalty on SoH to induce a penalty on your
    > target's Spot is functionally equivalent to Power Attack, and that
    > requires a Feat. Do we need a Feat for this?
    >
    > The Hands are Quicker:
    > Preq: Sleight of Hand: 5 ranks
    > For any single SoH check, you can take a penalty of -2 to -10 in
    > increments of 2. The same penalty applies to your target's Spot check,
    > and one half that penalty to the Spot check of any other observers to
    > detect your Sleight of Hand.
    >
    > Is this too weak? I thought about extending it slightly by saying that
    > the Spot check is penalised double if you are flanking, but I thought
    > that might be too strong.

    Given that the base DC for spotting Sleight of Hand is the SoH result,
    any time you use this Feat you are making it harder to succeed (i.e.
    hit DC 20) while simultaneously making it just as easy to spot. So any
    use of the Feat makes it strictly worse than not using it. So yes, it
    is quite weak!
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    > Pythor wrote:
    > <SNIP and apologies for self reply>
    > > Frankly, I'd probably allow something like that, anyway. Flanking
    > > gives +2 on attacks, I have no problem expanding that to SoH checks;
    > > and I would accept the logic of intentionally increasing the DC of a
    > > SoH attempt in order to penalise the Spot check. I wouldn't require a
    > > Feat or a Special Ability for those actions. Denying the Spot check
    > > completely, OTH requires something more.
    > >
    >
    > I've been thinking about this, and now I'm not so sure about the second
    > part. Basically, taking a penalty on SoH to induce a penalty on your
    > target's Spot is functionally equivalent to Power Attack, and that
    > requires a Feat. Do we need a Feat for this?
    >
    > The Hands are Quicker:
    > Preq: Sleight of Hand: 5 ranks
    > For any single SoH check, you can take a penalty of -2 to -10 in
    > increments of 2. The same penalty applies to your target's Spot check,
    > and one half that penalty to the Spot check of any other observers to
    > detect your Sleight of Hand.
    >
    > Is this too weak? I thought about extending it slightly by saying that
    > the Spot check is penalised double if you are flanking, but I thought
    > that might be too strong.

    As I understand the rules and your feat proposal, it does nothing!
    So: yes, it's too weak. ;-)

    >From the SRD (* from me):
    "If you try to take something from another creature, you must make a DC
    20 Sleight of Hand check to obtain it. The opponent makes a Spot check
    to detect the attempt, opposed by the *same* Sleight of Hand check
    result you achieved when you tried to grab the item."

    If you take a -x penalty to your SoH it's easier to spot by the same
    amount, because your result sets the DC for Spot.
    The feat just states that this -x applies to the Spot check too as a
    "benefit".

    As it's an opposed roll the best our thief can do is raise his SoH
    skill.
    This makes it both easier to steal (with -20 as a free action) and
    reduces
    the chances to be spotted.

    Your feat proposal to deny the victim a Spot check is another (and IMO
    better)
    way to help the thief get away...

    Another feat idea:
    Design a feat that makes SoH an attack action instead of a standard
    action.
    Allows high-level thieves more tries per round.

    LL
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz.L...@gmx.de wrote:
    > Another feat idea:
    > Design a feat that makes SoH an attack action instead of a standard
    > action.
    > Allows high-level thieves more tries per round.
    >
    > LL

    Except you can't (without this whole
    Sleight-of-Hand-as-a-side-effect-of-attacking Feat thing) use
    Sleight-of-Hand against somone you are in combat with: you use Disarm
    instead.

    Though you could loot a corpse for a dagger with an attack action then
    complete a full attack with the retrieved dagger, so it might
    occasionally be useful. My high-level Rogue uses the "-20" free action
    to pass his Luck Stone around and sometimes it could be worth blowing
    an attack to do it more reliably.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    OK... I somehow got it into my head that the Spot check was DC 20, not
    equal to the SoH check. Must've been asleep there.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:>
    > Except you can't (without this whole
    > Sleight-of-Hand-as-a-side-effect-of-attacking Feat thing) use
    > Sleight-of-Hand against somone you are in combat with: you use Disarm
    > instead.
    >

    Where does it say that? If I'm trying to pick-pocket the guy who's
    attacking me, or better, the guy who's attacking my friend, why can't
    I?
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Pythor wrote:
    > ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:>
    > > Except you can't (without this whole
    > > Sleight-of-Hand-as-a-side-effect-of-attacking Feat thing) use
    > > Sleight-of-Hand against somone you are in combat with: you use Disarm
    > > instead.
    > >
    >
    > Where does it say that? If I'm trying to pick-pocket the guy who's
    > attacking me, or better, the guy who's attacking my friend, why can't
    > I?

    I had a quick dig and I can't see the rule I as thinking of: I'll
    follow up again if I find any evidence for my claims!

    Possibly I was thinking that because there are rules for Grabbbing
    Items in the Disarm rules that they superseded any rules on Sleight of
    Hand, but I guess they "stack": if you want to take an item secretly
    you use Sleight of Hand (and fail if untrained) or if you are not
    bothered, use Grabbing Items rules. Maybe it just struck me as odd that
    for my character (+21 to SoH) it is easier to do it sneaky than it is
    doing it obviously, so I'm better off doing it the way that is supposed
    to be harder. I guess its no different than an experienced Monk being
    better off without a weapon than with one.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games