Suggestion: Lower fish DR from 5/-

[merlin34baseball]

How about adding sneak attacks with the bow?

[darkstorme]

Yeah, but you're faced with a school of fish.  Sneak attack's extra damage is based on the ability to hit vital areas.  A rogue would have to be truly epic to be able to spot and hit the vital areas of a fish despite ripples and refraction.. and even if he could, what would be the point?  All you have to do is lodge the arrow in the fish - you don't have to hit a vital spot.  It makes no sense realistically, and mechanically, it gives an unfair advantage to rogues in one discipline.  (Not that I'm against unfair rogue advantages, mind you...)

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

It really is a shame that we don't get Sneak Attack ('Cause that would be super), but it's totally understandable why we don't. We have Crits, so we'll be happy with them.

Still, can we get some input from official-people on whether or not the idea to lower fish DR is reasonable?

[aragwen]

Not the official word, but I doubt it would be lowered.
  You have an alternative using a pole, which should be the way to fish.
  Now Jacc never uses a pole, cause he is an archer, much easier and quicker to use the bow for him. But to be true the sense of fishing you should use a pole in my opinion, but he only fish to eat, no other reason.

[Acacea]

aragwen - 7/16/2006  1:09 AM    You have an alternative using a pole, which should be the way to fish.
  Now Jacc never uses a pole, cause he is an archer, much easier and quicker to use the bow for him. But to be true the sense of fishing you should use a pole in my opinion, but he only fish to eat, no other reason.

 Hehe, not really talking either way here, just curious... how much sense does this make, exactly? It likely will not be lowered, because people should be using a pole--it's the way to fish!  ...But Jacc does not use a pole because he is an archer and needs to eat. Isn't it the shortbow-wielding 'archers that need to eat' that are requesting this?    Other than that... sneak attacks don't make any sense as a solution, as for some reason that's just saying "rogues are the best bow fishermen out there for some completely arbitrary mechanical reason!"  

Ye gotta sneak up on 'em, lad... aye, catch 'em when they be lookin' at a foine ladyfish, an' then ye foire a splinter roigh' inna the water an' STRAIGH' up the fish-knickers... aye, it be a good lesson t'learn in loife.

 (Need more pole fishermen and grub eating druids, though...)

[aragwen]

mmm....yes....maybe that was a bit double edged.
  But what I meant was due to the fact that Jacc is an archer and he has a bow with mighty +3 damage, the DR does not necesary bother him and neither does hitting the fish, so he fishes with a bow. And would not have mattered if it was a longbow or shortbow. He is an archer and he finds it good practise to fish with a bow as well, quite a challenge actually. If you think RL it is much much harder to shoot a fish with a bow than using a pole.
  And in a certain way the DR makes sense, from the point of view that the arrow needs to travel through the water and then still have enough power to pierce the fish. So you will need some muscle behind the shot.
  So my point was if you cant hit or catch the fish cause you not a "proper" archer (no disrespect meant) then use a pole.
  Hope that makes a bit more sense.

[LoganGrimnar]

How about fishing Bolts?

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Not feasible. Try tieing a fishing line to a quarrel, and then firing it from a crossbow.

[Pen N Popper]

Stephen, do not let your imagination be limited by your experiences:  http://www.selfdefenseweapons.com/fishingcrossbow.htm

Google is proof that everything you can think of is likely out there for sale.  :-)

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

*He shrugs.* Sure, sure, if you want to mount the line on a spool in the very front of the crossbow... *Sticks out his tounge and laughs.*

[darkstorme]

@ Argawen - a number of the polynesian cultures only used spears or bows to do their fishing - "proper" fishing had nothing whatsoever to do with a pole.  Using bow and net to catch fish is perfectly precedented.

[Crunch]

I personally favor allowing fishing with Meteor Swarm.  It's merits are practically beyond counting and it is really quite similar to the traditional dynamite fishing which is still practiced in many parts of asia.

1.  Fish come out precooked.
2.  Covers a large area.
3.  Fish are only somewhat "blowed up"
4.  It looks cool
5.  People of Hlint are already used to stuff like that.  : )  (In fact the garbage can would be safe b/c someone has started putting resist elements on it again.)

[Crunch]

I guess I should clarify.  It's merits are beyond half-giant counting.

[Faldred]

darkstorme - 7/15/2006  11:14 PM

Yeah, but you're faced with a school of fish.  Sneak attack's extra damage is based on the ability to hit vital areas.  A rogue would have to be truly epic to be able to spot and hit the vital areas of a fish despite ripples and refraction.. and even if he could, what would be the point?  All you have to do is lodge the arrow in the fish - you don't have to hit a vital spot.  It makes no sense realistically, and mechanically, it gives an unfair advantage to rogues in one discipline.  (Not that I'm against unfair rogue advantages, mind you...)

Actually, from a "realism" standpoint, I could argue in favor of sneak attack against a school of fish -- a stealthy rogue would be less likely to "spook" the fish before the arrow flew, making it easier to hit them cleanly.  Of course, with that level of "realism", fish would have to be spookable -- i.e., someone lumbering up to the edge of the pond or river rattling fin ull armor would scare them away, and even then, if the first shot doesn't hit cleanly, they're gone.



Of course, realism and game mechanics are two completel different things...

[Faldred]

Stephen_Zuckerman - 7/5/2006  2:53 PM

Um... If you have a STR penaly, it's impossible to get a DRed fish with a shortbow.

Actually, not true -- you can still score a critical hit, and Point Blank Shot will get you back 1 point of damage lost from STR penalties.  (And what self-respecting archer doesn't have PBS?)

[Acacea]

If the fish could be spooked and disappear if approached carelessly, then the move silently would be the sneak, not the extra damage from the actual attack. The fact that they are sneaking up on it is the advantage, and is the same one that a ranger or another stealthy character would have. There is no reason for them to have some kind of crippling fish attack.

[Faldred]

"crippling fish attack"

Sounds like something from a Kung Fu movie...  

[Dorganath]

Think about that for a moment....do you think that after doing 3d6 (or more) sneak attack damage to a fish that there'd be much fish to reel back in? If there was anything, that would be one tough fish!  

[Faldred]

Dorganath - 7/25/2006  8:44 AM

Think about that for a moment....do you think that after doing 3d6 (or more) sneak attack damage to a fish that there'd be much fish to reel back in?  If there was anything, that would be one tough fish!  

And this is different from a critical hit how?  Not to be argumentative, but HP and damage are supposed to be relative terms -- a high HP creature can't necessarily take more punishment, they are just harder to hit cleanly.  That's what the extra HP is supposed to simulate -- a sword thrust to the heart will kill anybody, but the 10th level fighter manages to slip it enough to only get nick in the shoulder, whereas a commoner or low-level mage would be slain outright by the same "hit".

A critical hit or a sneak attack is a matter of being precice, not hitting harder, and bypassing such skill and protection.  If anything, a critical hit or sneak attack would cause less damage to the fish (that is, less damage to the fish meat), because the hit was better targetted.

I'd also like to point out that I'm against adding sneak attack damage to fishing, but that I was just making a "devil's advocate" argument from a "realism" standpoint.  Game mechanics and balancing is a different issue entirely.

Edit: Clarifications

[Dorganath]

Actually, to a degree it is a measure of how tough they are....how much of a beating they can take and how they are able to ignore (to a degree) or work through the pain and injuries of combat.  Being able to hit cleanly is more the domain of AC than HPs.  Giants, for example, are pretty simple to hit cleanly, but they have a bunch of HPs, so they take longer to kill....though I suspect we're talking about aspects of the same thing and using different words.    
  To answer your question more directly, critical hits and sneak attack vary in some fairly important ways.  I see a lot more sneak attacks succeeding than I do critical hits. Also, a good sneak attack can very much exceed a non-sneak critical hit from the same character. Since everyone likes to bring up PnP a lot, in PnP, if I did 18 sneak attack damage to a 3 HP fish, the Gm would make sure I knew that the hit tore through the fish with startling efficiency and effect, slicing the fish into two pieces which both proceeded to sink to the bottom of the pond.  And no...I'm not going to code it so that too much damage destroys the fish, so don't worry.
  Oh...another important distinction is that with the right combination of things, a rogue could ensure a sneak attack every time, where a critical hit is far more random.
  At the risk of a semantic argument, I'll not go into whether sneak attacks are more precise or not...the fact is that in terms of game mechanics, they do more damage.  Precision to me implies some intent to be precise, and most of us don't have that level of precision.  Called Shot is a good example of precision and intention.  Sneak attacks are more opportunistic, and so one takes what one can get.  Critical hits are lucky and/or unusually powerful strikes.