|
The question i have in the new Pathfinder game is can a rogue use sneak attack on undead, constructs,etc. and same for critical strikes? In 3.5 you didnt get them so do you now?
Yes, anything that could feasibly be crit, can be crit. I once made an arguement that medieval doors are notoriously frail, and therefore a good kick aimed at the door knob could have resulted in a crit. Maybe not even the door knob, but just near the position that the locking mechanisms are. The sudden jarring hit could crit it.
He allowed it, even if he didn't have to.
The point is, undead can be sneak attacks and crit, as can constructs now. The only things that cannot be snuck attack are things that expressly state they are immune to critical hits (Such as the level 20 abberrant blood lined sorceror), swarms, oozes, and elementals.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incorporeal creatures can't be sneak attacked or critically hit either.
But yeah, everything else (physical undead and constructs included) can be sneak attacked or critically hit unless they have special abilities that specifically protect them.
|
|
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.
My friend, before making such claims, please feel free to read what was written...
The point is, undead can be sneak attacks and crit, as can constructs now. The only things that cannot be snuck attack are things that expressly state they are immune to critical hits (Such as the level 20 abberrant blood lined sorceror), swarms, oozes, and elementals.
I don't believe anyone claimed an elemental was crittable. Only Undead and Constructs who have joints or gears you could be damaging.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.
Well, as someone else pointed out, you can't critically hit elementals. But a stone golem isn't exactly "a walking rock"; it's a carved statue in the shape of a large, bulky humanoid. That means that there are parts of it that are thinner than others, stress points in the stone, fracture lines--basically, all the same things that allow construction workers and farmers to shatter boulders with a hammer and chisel, or gemcutters to precisely cut gemstones.
Now, to follow that up, is it "realistic" that a rapier has a better chance to crit a stone golem than a warhammer or a pick? Not really, but that's the price you pay for a rules abstraction. ^_^
Jeremy Puckett
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as magically created constructs, a golem (or ANY construct) is likely to have parts of its body where that animating magic is more focused, and just as a direct hit on a robot's microchips will really mess it up, so can a direct hit on a golem's magical nexus make it hurt.
|
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.Well, as someone else pointed out, you can't critically hit elementals. But a stone golem isn't exactly "a walking rock"; it's a carved statue in the shape of a large, bulky humanoid. That means that there are parts of it that are thinner than others, stress points in the stone, fracture lines--basically, all the same things that allow construction workers and farmers to shatter boulders with a hammer and chisel, or gemcutters to precisely cut gemstones.
Now, to follow that up, is it "realistic" that a rapier has a better chance to crit a stone golem than a warhammer or a pick? Not really, but that's the price you pay for a rules abstraction. ^_^
Jeremy Puckett
I understand what you are saying and I could agree with a critical strike to a weak spot but sneak attacks are usually with light weapons striking at vital areas. A dagger to the eye of a flesh and blood creature is gonna feel quote different than a dagger to the eye of a golem. I just feel that rogues need some balance like maybe half or even 1/4 sneak attack damage vs constructs since they don't have to deal with issues of shock, trauma, lack of air, blood loss, ect like living creatures do. I don't even see where golems (except flesh golems) really need joints since they are animated with the animate objects spell. In old school D&D the mage or priest carved the statue whole from a solid block of material and the animated it. They didn't create a gears and pulleys and encase it in a iron, stone, clay frame ect.
|
|
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.My friend, before making such claims, please feel free to read what was written...
The point is, undead can be sneak attacks and crit, as can constructs now. The only things that cannot be snuck attack are things that expressly state they are immune to critical hits (Such as the level 20 abberrant blood lined sorceror), swarms, oozes, and elementals.I don't believe anyone claimed an elemental was crittable. Only Undead and Constructs who have joints or gears you could be damaging.
Sorry. I read about constructs being critable. I was asking if elements were as well.
I disagree that a crit would have much effect on constructs or undead. Sure, you can slow them down but they will keep coming after you because they tend not to register pain, shock, fatigue, etc. I think that constructs should be rogue killers as well as mage killers.
|
|
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.Elementals cannot be criticalled, however, in my game I'm likely going to line up opposing elements (Acid vs air, lightning vs earth, cold vs fire, fire vs water) and if an attack incorporates the oposing element (say, for example, a frost rapier from a flanking rogue on a fire elemental) then the elemental takes sneak attack/crit damage, using the oposed element to target their vulnerabilities.
I could see where that would make some sense since you are attacking a elemental with its bane.
I disagree that a crit would have much effect on constructs or undead. Sure, you can slow them down but they will keep coming after you because they tend not to register pain, shock, fatigue, etc. I think that constructs should be rogue killers as well as mage killers.
Why not?
Most classic literature that involves skeletons is fairly consistent that if you lop off its head the fight is over. Likewise, it's not much of a fight if you hack the spine, severing the ribcage from the pelvis. Or maybe a good hit to the sternum explodes ribs and clavicles and vertebrae all over the place and the skeleton falls to bits.
Everyone from books to hollywood pretty much agrees, nearly universally, that if you shoot, stab, hack, or crush a zombie's brain, it drops and never moves again.
Ghouls and ghasts and wights all have basic human characterstics, including nervous systems (frequently literature has such creatures howling in pain as they are injured), brains, joints, etc. Surely there's plenty of critical/precision points to choose from here.
Vampires are the ultimate example of a critical weakness with the old steak through the heart. They also bleed, so hacking a major artery, like the carotid, femoral, or sub-clavicular could do a great deal of damage. Not to mention, they need eyes to see, brains to think, and intact limbs and joints to move around.
Liches are just big old skeletons with, perhaps, many of the same weaknesses.
Mummies are just zombies wearing lots of bandaids. Brendan Fraser had little trouble hacking/shooting them to bits, often with one blow or shot.
Incorporeal undead, such as shadows, ghosts, wraiths, etc., have built-in immunity to critical hits due to their incorporeal nature.
I believe that other forms of undead that I've left out, for the most part, conform to one of those types I listed here.
As for constructs, some of them are quite fragile. I can think of a dozen critical locations on Frankenstein, not the least of which is his brain and his nervous system, which were animated by electricity. He has joints like ankles where his legs are the thinnest, knees where they are the most fragile, and hips where all the weight is borne. Shoulders and elbows are needed for his attacks. His neck keeps his head/brain in communication with the rest of him. Ultimately, he's just a flesh golem in D&D terms.
Clay, stone, and iron golems have the same joints, and they have some animating force of their own that could likely be targeted by someone who knows how.
Clockwork creatures are basically just people, horses, or other beasts that have motors, actuators, control rods, hydraulics, sensors, etc. - all of which might be vulnerable to attack.
Other types of constructs follow much the same parameters, consisting of multiple materials mounted on a framework, held together with fasteners and joints, powered by either mechanical or magical motors and devices, and often reliant on sensors such as optical and auditory receptors (eyes and ears). Plenty of precision targets.
And none of that takes into consideration flaws or existing damage. Whether undead or construct, it's entirely possible that both such creatures might have damage that can be exploited. A cracked bone, or an existing wound, or a broken/fissured piece of its framework, etc., all might provide a great place to drive home a weapon to do extra damage to an already weakened spot.
Yeah, some undead and constructs seem more or less vulnerable, and a few of them might logically be immune, but for the most part, almost all of them can be explained to have rational precision targets.
|
|
How can you critically hit a walking rock such as a stone golem? Does that mean that elementals can be hit with a crit or sneak attack? If so, I personally feel that is just wrong.My friend, before making such claims, please feel free to read what was written...
The point is, undead can be sneak attacks and crit, as can constructs now. The only things that cannot be snuck attack are things that expressly state they are immune to critical hits (Such as the level 20 abberrant blood lined sorceror), swarms, oozes, and elementals.I don't believe anyone claimed an elemental was crittable. Only Undead and Constructs who have joints or gears you could be damaging.Sorry. I read about constructs being critable. I was asking if elements were as well.
I disagree that a crit would have much effect on constructs or undead. Sure, you can slow them down but they will keep coming after you because they tend not to register pain, shock, fatigue, etc. I think that constructs should be rogue killers as well as mage killers.
Try breaking somethings neck, then seeing how good it is at biting something. A loss of hit points doesn't just equate death in this case, but effectively eliminating the threat as well...
|
|
Try breaking somethings neck, then seeing how good it is at biting something. A loss of hit points doesn't just equate death in this case, but effectively eliminating the threat as well...
Breaking someone's neck with finesse weapons dosen't really seem likely to me. Rapiers deal a great amount of damage because they damage interaland disrupt bodily functions. Your arguement is flawed because hit points are so abstract that called shots really don't matter. A fighter who has 75 hit points is just as effective combat wise as when he has a single hit point. His combat effectiveness does not degrade with hit point loss whatsoever. So you can't claim that the rogue is snapping the zombies neck and thus taking it out of the battle. As long as the zombie has one hit point it can still make an attack to do damage. Since it does not know fear, pain, shock, and does not rely on respiration or hydraulic functions, sneak attacks should be useless against them as well as other undead and constructs.
|
|
Since it does not know fear, pain, shock, and does not rely on respiration or hydraulic functions, sneak attacks should be useless against them as well as other undead and constructs.
As J. Jacobs mentioned, the rogue (or the lucky critical strike) hits a weaker point in the magical structure of the undead or construct.
|
|
As J. Jacobs mentioned, the rogue (or the lucky critical strike) hits a weaker point in the magical structure of the undead or construct.
Since it does not know fear, pain, shock, and does not rely on respiration or hydraulic functions, sneak attacks should be useless against them as well as other undead and constructs.
Then how can you claim that certain weapon types do less damage against undead? Wouldn't an arrow striking a zombie be just as dangerous as as a sneak attack since the archer is looking for a weakness to exploit? (head, eyes, heart, ect?)
Then how can you claim that certain weapon types do less damage against undead? Wouldn't an arrow striking a zombie be just as dangerous as as a sneak attack since the archer is looking for a weakness to exploit? (head, eyes, heart, ect?)As J. Jacobs mentioned, the rogue (or the lucky critical strike) hits a weaker point in the magical structure of the undead or construct.
Since it does not know fear, pain, shock, and does not rely on respiration or hydraulic functions, sneak attacks should be useless against them as well as other undead and constructs.
The archer isn't trained to find those spots as well as the rogue, and the rogue is close in. Beyond that the weapon still has an effect on the damage the rogue actually deals -- he still has DR subtracted out, just like the archerer -- simply knowing where to aim, and connecting well with that point doesn't mean a rapier is suddenly better at cutting than it was before he aimed precisely.
|
|
It seems to me that now both sides have had a chance to lay out strong arguments for and against SA realistically applying to certain creature types.
Realism largely aside, personally I'm for a broader use of SA from a rules perspective - it's the main damage component for rogues, who are extremely poor in combat without it, and I'd rather have my rogue players contribute to more fights than less.
|
To echo what some other people have been saying, one of the main reasons to change the rules of what can be damaged by critical hits and sneak attacks, or “precision damage” is to expand the playability of characters that depend on it. In 3.5 a rogue was pretty much shut down combat wise if he faced constructs, elementals, undead, oozes, and plants. I probably forgot a category of monster. The argument then was that a sneak attack relied upon whether the creature in question had a discernable anatomy. Now the definition has been shifted to weather the creature in question has a “weak spot”. This is a much broader definition.
The change in sneak attacks and criticals is all for the best in my opinion. Having once played in an abortive age of worms campaign, I remember the rogue player would during combat, spend much of the game quietly reading something. He would attack when prompted, but because of the plethora of undead, he felt his character was essentially hamstrung for most of the game and could not make meaningful contribution to the combats. He perked up for the role-playing encounters, but would pick up his book when combat started. I hope this helps.
|
|
The archer isn't trained to find those spots as well as the rogue, and the rogue is close in. Beyond that the weapon still has an effect on the damage the rogue actually deals -- he still has DR subtracted out, just like the archerer -- simply knowing where to aim, and connecting well with that point doesn't mean a rapier is suddenly better at cutting than it was before he aimed precisely.Then how can you claim that certain weapon types do less damage against undead? Wouldn't an arrow striking a zombie be just as dangerous as as a sneak attack since the archer is looking for a weakness to exploit? (head, eyes, heart, ect?)As J. Jacobs mentioned, the rogue (or the lucky critical strike) hits a weaker point in the magical structure of the undead or construct.
Since it does not know fear, pain, shock, and does not rely on respiration or hydraulic functions, sneak attacks should be useless against them as well as other undead and constructs.
I have to disagree with you there. A highly trained archer is much more likely to make a precise shot than a rogue. You have to hit a bullseye after all. Rogues are more about pouncing on an opportunity and making it count. For there to be an opportunity, a weakness has to exist. I just don't believe that stabbing a golem in the back is going to cause the same amount of injury as stabbing me in the back. If you look at the list of rogue weapons only a rapier is really a precision weapon. Crossbows are much easier to use than longbows. Clubs, maces, daggers are all pretty simple too. The only weapons that I feel would require a a great deal of practice to master would be the rapier or the whip.
I have to disagree with you there. A highly trained archer is much more likely to make a precise shot than a rogue. You have to hit a bullseye after all. Rogues are more about pouncing on an opportunity and making it count. For there to be an opportunity, a weakness has to exist. I just don't believe that stabbing a golem in the back is going to cause the same amount of injury as stabbing me in the back. If you look at the list of rogue weapons only a rapier is really a precision weapon. Crossbows are much easier to use than longbows. Clubs, maces, daggers are all pretty simple too. The only weapons that I feel would require a a great deal of practice to master would be the rapier or the whip.
And I'm going to have to disagree with you. I may not have archery practice, but I do have military training with both the 9mm Beretta and the M-16.
Center Of Mass.
You always aim for center of mass when firing in combat. And this is with weapons that are inherently more accurate than any bow, at least at any distance, as bows you have to aim up after a certain distance, to compensate for how arrows drop in flight.
Bullets drop too, but they are moving so much faster that at pretty much any distance you can hit a target, the drop is negligible. And that speed means that there is less time for any movement of the target person to move the target body part to move out of the line of fire. (and I mean happenstance, not aiming).
You can actually deliberately defend against an arrow shot from a decent distance. Bullets, you have to dodge *before* they are shot. And yet with this increased accuracy and speed, one is still trained to shoot center of mass. So I doubt very much that most professional archers shoot for targets like eyes.
Now a sniper, that's another story... but that's what prestige classes are for.
The old lore about a golem is that they had words in their heads (essentially instructions written in ancient hebrew), so it seems to me stab a golem through the eye, you'll mess up the clay tablet in its head.
What fun! ^_^
From what I understand, the Kabbalic golem of legend had the Hebrew symbol for "life" on it's head, and the only way to deactivate it was to change that symbol to the character for "death", which was apparently only one brushstroke different. At least that's the story in the old Vampire: Redemption game. I trust it to be true, though. More than any game company I've ever encountered, White-Wolf -really- does it's homework for real life mythos and history.
From what I understand, the Kabbalic golem of legend had the Hebrew symbol for "life" on it's head, and the only way to deactivate it was to change that symbol to the character for "death", which was apparently only one brushstroke different. At least that's the story in the old Vampire: Redemption game. I trust it to be true, though. More than any game company I've ever encountered, White-Wolf -really- does it's homework for real life mythos and history.
Yes, this one is wide-spread in Golem stories, though emet is truth, not life (met is still death, though).
I think this thread's HD is beyond your limit for animate dead. Let it be.
I have to disagree with you there. A highly trained archer is much more likely to make a precise shot than a rogue. You have to hit a bullseye after all. Rogues are more about pouncing on an opportunity and making it count. For there to be an opportunity, a weakness has to exist. I just don't believe that stabbing a golem in the back is going to cause the same amount of injury as stabbing me in the back. If you look at the list of rogue weapons only a rapier is really a precision weapon. Crossbows are much easier to use than longbows. Clubs, maces, daggers are all pretty simple too. The only weapons that I feel would require a a great deal of practice to master would be the rapier or the whip.
Every single post of yours in this thread has elicited this exact reaction from me:
You seem to disagree with the image that you are painting of how sneak attack interacts with constructs. Therefore, paint a different image.
You say that stabbing a golem in the back isn't going to cause the same amount of injury as stabbing you in the back? The obviously that's not what's happening. The rule is, sneak attack works against constructs. You can picture that working however you want- the rule isn't up for debate. If your (in this case, incorrect) view of how things are interacting doesn't make sense, then find a way to view it that DOES make sense. Several examples have been given in this thread. Regardless, D&D is not a reality simulator. The rules are the rules; if you can make it make sense from a standpoint of realism (realism from a world where magic doesn't exist), then all the better.
And for the record, stabbing a golem is NOT the same as stabbing a human, sneak attack notwithstanding. Golems have DR, humans (typically) do not. A rogue stabbing a stone golem is still effectively stabbing a stone wall, just a stone wall that moves and (obviously) has weak points of some kind. The only way to ignore that DR is to have an adamantine weapon, which (if you recall) cuts through stone and metal (even adamantine itself) like it was human flesh.
Rogues have a knack for DISABLING DEVICEs, such as traps, locks, machines, etc. Isn't a body just another form of device/machine? I say yes to the new rule!
Please look at the dates of the posts before posting. Thread first died a year ago, then died again 2 month ago.
What does a dead post have to do with anything if the subject is relevant? The best way I found as a GM to deal with a twink rouge in the party is to throw in a vampire or some other critter that could not be sneak attacked. It comes down to house rules then. I just learned of this rule when walking in on a PFS game the idea seems laughable and I fail to wrap my head around it. Was combat too hard? Or to many complaints perhaps from would be rogue players.
The logic behind it is pretty simple, really: Precision damage - the category into which sneak attack damage falls - is targeting the places on a creature or object that will cause the most damage or hinder it the most.
If D&D\Pathfinder used targeted shots and imposed penalties based on specific location of injury, then I don't know that it would have ever been questionable to allow it.
Swarms, elementals, oozes and incorporeal creatures are the only creatures in Pathfinder (without further special text) that are immune to sneak attacks and critical hits.
I like undead threads. This one is undead twice over.
Swarms, elementals, oozes and incorporeal creatures are the only creatures in Pathfinder (without further special text) that are immune to sneak attacks and critical hits.
I like undead threads. This one is undead twice over.
Which means we can crit it!
The question i have in the new Pathfinder game is can a rogue use sneak attack on undead, constructs,etc. and same for critical strikes? In 3.5 you didnt get them so do you now?
Well not in Core 3.5.
But Complete books and Dungeonscape let you sneak attack them in exchange for Trap sense (the one that granted +X to AC and reflex vs traps). But the damage was 1/2 rate.Unlike PF, it worked on incorporeals, oozes, Swarms, and elementals.
|
|
7 years old thread. It has risen as an undead.
RAW. the only creatures types that are immune to criticals and sneak attacks are those without an anatomy: Oozes, elementals, incorporeal, swarms, Aeon and Protean.
Then there are a few class ability or magical item that make you immune or resistant and some specific creature ability that do the same.