Once again, I've come into conflict with my players. Quite some time ago, one of them determined that, in order for contructs to be inmmune to critical hits, they must have no gears, pipes, pistons, or other things, since those are the equivalent of mechanical organs. I didn't really agree with that so much, but as it was purely aesthetic, I went with it. It was obviously the case for such things as iron and clay golems.
After reading "The Clockwork Fortress", that subject came to my mind again, and it became apparent to me that most constructs, such as iron golems, ARE meant to have gears and such. It is their lack of a circulatory, resperational, and nervous system that gives them immunity to critical hits. Also, their "innards" aren't the fine robotics and delicate circuit boards of today- they are bulky, cumbersome clock/steam work, powered by magic, and every bit as hard to break as any other part of the construct, thus not vulnerable to critical hits.
I mentioned this to the player, thinking he would be interested to hear the new view to the argument. He, however, continues to think that if it has gears, it should be subject to critical hits. He views this as the exact same as a skeletal system that can be broken, or any part of the body that, if broken, takes the rest of it out of comission.
This is largely aesthetic, again, but I really don't see why I have to make things like "clockwork horrors" not really clockwork, just to satisfy his logic problem. I am the DM, and can make them however I want, but he's going to complain as long as constructs have mechanical parts, I'm sure. He also wants to be able to stick wrenches, or anything else, in them and stop them if they have gears, which will also mean, to him, that they are vulnerable to criticals. I could say that almost anything he sticks in will just be crushed by the gears, but then if he ever goes to stick a "wrench" into anything else mechanical, he'll get on me again. Does anyone have a good counter argument? What are the masses' views on the nature of constructs? If any of the editors know for certain how certain constructs are intended to be portrayed, that would help, too. Saying, "Just look at the pictures of Inevitables" probably won't help.
Once again, I've come into conflict with my players. Quite some time ago, one of them determined that, in order for contructs to be inmmune to critical hits, they must have no gears, pipes, pistons, or other things, since those are the equivalent of mechanical organs. I didn't really agree with that so much, but as it was purely aesthetic, I went with it. It was obviously the case for such things as iron and clay golems.
After reading "The Clockwork Fortress", that subject came to my mind again, and it became apparent to me that most constructs, such as iron golems, ARE meant to have gears and such. It is their lack of a circulatory, resperational, and nervous system that gives them immunity to critical hits. Also, their "innards" aren't the fine robotics and delicate circuit boards of today- they are bulky, cumbersome clock/steam work, powered by magic, and every bit as hard to break as any other part of the construct, thus not vulnerable to critical hits.
I mentioned this to the player, thinking he would be interested to hear the new view to the argument. He, however, continues to think that if it has gears, it should be subject to critical hits. He views this as the exact same as a skeletal system that can be broken, or any part of the body that, if broken, takes the rest of it out of comission.
This is largely aesthetic, again, but I really don't see why I have to make things like "clockwork horrors" not really clockwork, just to satisfy his logic problem. I am the DM, and can make them however I want, but he's going to complain as long as constructs have mechanical parts, I'm sure. He also wants to be able to stick wrenches, or anything else, in them and stop them if they have gears, which will also mean, to him, that they are vulnerable to criticals. I could say that almost anything he sticks in will just be crushed by the gears, but then if he ever goes to stick a "wrench" into anything else mechanical, he'll get on me again. Does anyone have a good counter argument? What are the masses' views on...
Well...remember the First Rule: The DM is RIGHT.
Whatever YOU think is the best resolution to the issue will be the last word - your player might cry and b1tch, but in the end, he MUST accept your decision.
My "Second" Rule: For lack of consensus, stick to the letter of the rulebooks - which means, if the rules SAY that constructs are immune to critical hits, they ARE immune to critical hits, until you can agree on a 'house rule' that they do not.
My gut is telling me that your player is trying to gain any advantage he can against your world; this might be a case of "give and inch today, he'll ask for a foot tomorrow and a yard next week"...
IMHO,
M
Very much so- if I budge an inch, they've proven that they'll just ask for more and more. Which is wierd- my campaigns USUALLY have low death rates, because the players almost always roll up monster characters. If a it doesn't have at least a 17, it's considered near useless in my group. I let them roll 3 sets and pick the best, because one of the players had a long streak of really bad rolls. Now I'm thinking of limiting them again.
|
I think if maybe one of the characters studied how to combat or even construct a golem, then I might consider letting that character get a crit on a construct but not all of them, unless they all did it, of course. Maybe you have been using constructs too much recently. How do you let them roll up stats? I usually don't have a problem with low stats in my game.
The only thing you really need to tell your player is if it doesn't have a Constitution score, it cannot be crit'd. That's really what it all comes down to. Mind you, there are some nifty special abilities and feats out there that may allow someone to crit a construct or other creature that has no Con score, but it is usually due to some expertise with dealing with specific monster types or what have you.
Without a Constitution score there is no pain, no organ more vital than another, just senseless non-living matter. Some of the non-WotC publishers have devised rules for "called shots" that have their own implications when successful such as damaging a leg or arm, but these are still not critical hits.
Whether your player wants to debate this or not, the rules are on your side. See CONSTRUCT TYPE pg. 307 of the Monster Manual.
I completely agree with Steve :-) Constructs possess no soft internal organs, nor any form of circulatory or nervous system. Also, the argument that an iron golem has gears and pistons is 20th century technological thinking. An iron golem is powered by magic, so why can't it just be hollow, be filled with hot liquid magma, boiling lead, or mercury, or be solid iron? I know the clockwork fortress creatures have pistons and gears, but that's due to the nature of that particular adventure. Finally, to be facetious, a critical hit cannot break bones, so the guy who used that as the basis for an argument is barking up the wrong tree.
I think if maybe one of the characters studied how to combat or even construct a golem, then I might consider letting that character get a crit on a construct but not all of them, unless they all did it, of course. Maybe you have been using constructs too much recently. How do you let them roll up stats? I usually don't have a problem with low stats in my game.
I was thinking that, if there wasn't something out there to that effect, it might be a good idea to add an item or feat (feat chain maybe) that allows crits on constructs. And, I can't really remember the last time I used a construct against them- they just happen to be this player's favorite creature type, along with oozes (also immune to crits, and they HAVE Con scores!).
I do remember his first time DMing- it was pretty haphazard. He made this construct with a shotgun more or less, but deemed that it wouldn't be too devestating againt medium creatures or smaller. Then the cleric of Kord cast Enlarge Person and closed for melee with the thing. It plugged the shotgun into his gut and nearly killed the priest. He really likes constructs. Now that I think of it... he described his as clockwork, too. Hmm...
They roll stats normally- 4d6 and drop the lowest. I just let them do it three time and chose the best set. Two of my players role relatively average (they actually role a bit above, but it doesn't seem like it compared to the other two). I thought the others were cheating for a while, but when I watched them, they rolled a set of 18, 17, 16, 15, 12, 13 on the first try, no fudging. And they do this constantly.
I completely agree with Steve :-) Constructs possess no soft internal organs, nor any form of circulatory or nervous system. Also, the argument that an iron golem has gears and pistons is 20th century technological thinking. An iron golem is powered by magic, so why can't it just be hollow, be filled with hot liquid magma, boiling lead, or mercury, or be solid iron? I know the clockwork fortress creatures have pistons and gears, but that's due to the nature of that particular adventure. Finally, to be facetious, a critical hit cannot break bones, so the guy who used that as the basis for an argument is barking up the wrong tree.
Well, I like the thought of certain constructs with gears, and it seems that they were at least intended that way, if for no other reason than the artwork for them in the MM shows the iron golem with gears and such, and the zelekhut inevitable leaves nothing to the imagination about its make up! I like the thought of them having a sort of advanced-late Rennaissance machination feel to them. Basic mechanical structures animated and given sensory abilities by magic.
I tried telling him that the reason they have crit immunity was the lack of metabolism, a circulatory/respiratory/nervous system, and that every part of the construct is just as hard as the rest of it. He said that crit immunity from the lack of a metabolism was like saying that if one doesn't eat, one can't be killed by decapatation. I was a little confused at where this usually logical person was going with that....
There is a feat out there that allows critical hits against golems. I forgot what it was called or where it was located (maybe it was in an issue of Dragon?)
I didn't use it for my campaign, so I don't remember exactly, but it basically allowed a PC to take a full round action to study the construct, and then be allowed to take criticals against that particular construct, assuming the rolls were made of course.
Maybe someone's memory out there is better than mine.
I say stick to your guns (and the basic rules as stated in the core books) and NOT allow critical hits on constructs. I have always imagined golems as hollow/empty; though the iron golem with the clockwork gears is an interesting and appealing concept (I'd be willing to accept it). Your rationale that the magic driven gears,etc in such a creature are of equal toughness to the rest of the body and thus immune to crits seems logical to me. Lack of metabolism is also a good argument. (And with his example of decapitation, ... I guess I agree. Decapitate a skeleton or any undead [except a vampire] and they are not necessarily killed in my world.)
Anyway, from your description, it sounds like this player is going to b*tch no matter what you say or do. No amount of logic is going to sway him from his mission of overcoming your game mechanics. I would absolutely NOT allow any of the suggested avenues for his character to "study" or whatever and gain the ability to make critical hits against constructs. The lesson he'll learn from that is "if I b*tch enough, he'll back down and provide some way for me to gain the advantage". I think this player (no offense, since he is presumably a friend of yours) has some control issues. This could be a test for future arguments/conflict/rules-lawyering. You have to stand firm or in typical "give an inch take a mile" style, he'll just move onto the next issue and pretty soon take over/unbalance/disrupt the whole game.
|
|
I think that a feat on how to construct one and then a feat to destroy a construct isn't too out of the question. Make sure that they're not fighter feats and don't throw in too many constructs into the game. I don't think that's too out of the question because you'd have to wait until higher levels to have access and it wouldn't matter as much then.
I let my players roll 4d6 six times and let them reroll all ones. That gives them much above average stats.
As for the constructs, I agree with the majority: NO critical hits. Like the Undead, you just have to keep hacking until it doesn't move anymore (think Terminator).
As for your players 'needing a 17 or else they're useless'... Boy, your players would have a field trip in my world. I use the guideline in the rule books: If all combined bonuses equal +1 or higher, you're playing it. It makes it outstanding (special) when someone has a 17 somewhere. And much more heroic when your average-starting character makes it big in life.
What do you do to impress your players? They walk into a bar and everyone has 24 Strength? In my game, my group walks into a bar and they see a guy in the back with big muscles (16 Strength), they try their best to avoid that guy.
Ultradan
As for the constructs, I agree with the majority: NO critical hits. Like the Undead, you just have to keep hacking until it doesn't move anymore (think Terminator).
As for your players 'needing a 17 or else they're useless'... Boy, your players would have a field trip in my world. I use the guideline in the rule books: If all combined bonuses equal +1 or higher, you're playing it. It makes it outstanding (special) when someone has a 17 somewhere. And much more heroic when your average-starting character makes it big in life.
What do you do to impress your players? They walk into a bar and everyone has 24 Strength? In my game, my group walks into a bar and they see a guy in the back with big muscles (16 Strength), they try their best to avoid that guy.
Ultradan
I'm starting another campaign in addition to my AoW- one player, the one who had the problem with constructs (and now concedes the point, thankfully), got a set of something like 10, 12, 13, 5, 18, 18. His other two were almost identical, something like 13, 12, 10, 12, 16, 11. He, and the other players as well, didn't consider the two near-identical ones any good. He's sticking with the set with 2 18's (go figure), but is still really upset about the 5.
No, I don't bend the rules and make people stronger just to put them in their place. I do this out of logic, not compassion. My players view a fight as just potential XP. They know by trial an error that they can generally take on something of a CR of up to party level +4 with a relatively high chance of only one, or no, death(s) (once they hit about 3rd level and higher). They all have access to monster manuals, so I can't limit their knowledge of creatures (so I get pretty serious with Knowledge checks), and if they think they can take it, they'll opt for whatever gives them the msot XP. They fear nothing. A death is just a chance to try something new.
I don't have a problem with this fearlessness in general practice, but it borders on contempt of the challenge of the adventure. I also like to stress good roleplaying, which considering everything as just potential XP is not. Nor is taking the tougher route for the same reason. I think this attitude is a direct result of the high stats they always get.
Not to mention, two of my players often act as if they've got something to prove. If they saw the "tough guy" in the back, they'd go over looking for a fight, since they're confident that his stats aren't as high as theirs. Needless to say, chaotic is the alignment of choice, and it often borders on evil (they generally shy away from going that far when I point this out to them, but it remains close).
As for the constructs, I agree with the majority: NO critical hits. Like the Undead, you just have to keep hacking until it doesn't move anymore (think Terminator).
As for your players 'needing a 17 or else they're useless'... Boy, your players would have a field trip in my world. I use the guideline in the rule books: If all combined bonuses equal +1 or higher, you're playing it. It makes it outstanding (special) when someone has a 17 somewhere. And much more heroic when your average-starting character makes it big in life.
What do you do to impress your players? They walk into a bar and everyone has 24 Strength? In my game, my group walks into a bar and they see a guy in the back with big muscles (16 Strength), they try their best to avoid that guy.
Ultradan
I'm starting another campaign in addition to my AoW- one player, the one who had the problem with constructs (and now concedes the point, thankfully), got a set of something like 10, 12, 13, 5, 18, 18. His other two were almost identical, something like 13, 12, 10, 12, 16, 11. He, and the other players as well, didn't consider the two near-identical ones any good. He's sticking with the set with 2 18's (go figure), but is still really upset about the 5.
No, I don't bend the rules and make people stronger just to put them in their place. I do this out of logic, not compassion. My players view a fight as just potential XP. They know by trial an error that they can generally take on something of a CR of up to party level +4 with a relatively high chance of only one, or no, death(s) (once they hit about 3rd level and higher). They all have access to monster manuals, so I can't limit their knowledge of creatures (so I get pretty serious with Knowledge checks), and if they think they can take it, they'll opt for whatever gives them the msot XP. They fear nothing. A death is just a chance to try something new.
I don't have a problem with this fearlessness in general practice, but it borders on contempt of...
What happens to them when they die? In my experience contempt of dying is usually the result of not suffering much if you happen to die. There is a fine line here as this is a game after all but you might consider upping the death penalties a little.
I use Proteges and you might consider going this route. Players may like it as it increases their options somewhat and as a DM I like it because it helps with dealing with dead PCs - makes their death less of an issue in the game and nicely penalizes them for letting a character die without making that penalty so overwhelming that I feel like I have to fudge dice rolls to keep them alive.
I have them make a new character a level lower than the one that died, at the time of the death. Proteges? As in, keep backup characters? I've thought about doing that, but my group is so spastic about their choices, they'd never be able to decide on a backup. It's hard enough for them to decide what their "normal" character is going to be at any given time.
I have two people in the group that are very vocal about "player's rights". They like the house rules the way they are, as they favor them (they like anything that favors them, regardless of balance), and are very power-gaming oriented, and they would NOT stop complaining if I changed anything to take something away from them. I don't think they'd quit- but they might try to make sure everyone had a miserable time until I changed things back. In the tiny rural area I'm in, I have yet to find any other players, so I couldn't just boot them and get replacements. It's not THAT big of a deal, generally- I just wish they weren't so power hungry all the time. One of them wanted to play an awakened dire ape for the +12 Str. Rather than getting into an argument about his "rights", I just made up a level adjustment for it that was too high (it doesn't have one normally).