If undead are no longer immune to crits (which I am fully behind), I am wondering what ideas there are to offset their lower HPs (due to no CON bonus). Now that they can be critted - they may drop a lot quicker (especially if the rouge sets up their sneak attacks well)
Is this even an issue?
Should Undead HP be pumped up? And if so how?
Some ideas off the top of my head:
Increase all current 3.5 undead's HP by a set number (the way constructs get)?
or base bonus HP on CHA the way the Boneclaw gets (I believe without checking it's something like +CHA bonus/HD).
Curious what PAIZO is thinking and what everyone else would like to see done about this?
BTW - this goes for oozes, constructs, plants, etc. too.
I don't think any thing needs done its just like getting a crit it happens they still have to set it up not a huge change undead need no beefing up for just this . and oozes are still immune as are elemental and I would say incorporeal undead . I have been using this rule a long time and I never beefed em up at all.
For all undeads, give them their Charisma bonus as hit points for each level, like Constitution bonus for living creatures
|
There could also be a flat hp bonus similar to what constructs get, based on size.
I prefer this approach, but the 'Unholy Toughness' precedent (extra hp based on Cha) is also an option.
With some undead, such as Vampires, I'm not sure I like the idea of them not having a Con score. Vampires of lore are quite often susceptible to poison, and some settings even have them susceptible to disease, frostbite, etc. They have some sort of metabolism going on, with the need for blood.
Ghouls also are a strange in-betweener case, needing to feed, reproducing, etc. and yet not being considered 'alive.'
Unlike Skeletons and Zombies, most of the feeding, reproducing undead seem to be 'alive by other means' more than 'dead, yet moving around.'
The rules that apply to undead generally should not do so. Some Undead should have no Con score, some Undead should be immune to fear, some Undead should be uncritable But not all the Undead.
We made much longer arguments on this exact subject Here.
-Frank
I really think undead should be immune to crits. The whole idea is your hitting something vital. Undead are moving masses of meat, no vitals to hit.
However, most corporeal undead have a weakness. Zombies - take off their head, vampires - impale through the chest.
So in a way - they do have vitals and should be subject to crits.
Same with constructs - a blow into a gear or joint stiffens them up.
Plants - cut off a vital root.
Oozes - well you got me there. :-)
I really think undead should be immune to crits. The whole idea is your hitting something vital. Undead are moving masses of meat, no vitals to hit.
Unfortunately you technically can't stake a vampire through the heart so long as they aren't critable. Sure, there are rules for what happens after you pound a stake into their heart, but as long as they are immune to crits you can't even take a coup de grace action on them, you can just make a regular attack with your stake - and regular attacks never puncture the heart save as flavor text if the blow is already lethal (which it never is against a vampire).
It's a real problem. In order to stake a vampire you have to step completely outside the rules, as their nonsensical crit immunity has rendered it impossible to do that iconic scene "by the book."
-Frank
Director of Games
|
The problem here is that there a number of different combat types and, in some cases, entire adventure concepts that leave rogues with little to do for most of the fight. Undead, construsts, plants, and oozes are all common enough in the game that it can create a real problem for that character type. Hence, the removed immunity.
As for undead HP. I think you will certainly see a number of undead receiving a bonus to their HP equal to their Charisma modifier x their HD.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Of the following creatures, which of them would you say it would be inappropriate to see them dispatched by an iconic critical hit such as stabbing them through the heart, shattering their life gem, or cleaving their neck?
- Abyssal Ghoul (FF):
- Allip (MM):
- Angel of Decay (LM):
- Atropal Scion (LM):
- Banshee(MM2):
- Bhut (FF):
- Blaspheme (LM):
- Bleakborn (LM):
- Blood Amniote (LM):
- Bloodfiend (FF):
- Bloodmote Cloud (LM):
- Boneclaw (MM3):
- Bone Drinker (MM3):
- Bone Naga (MM2):
- Bodak (MM):
- Bone Rat Swarm (LM):
- Bone Yard (LM):
- Brain in a Jar (LM):
- Charnel Hound (MM3):
- Cinderspawn (LM):
- Corpse Gatherer (MM2):
- Corpse Rat Swarm (LM):
- Crawling Head (FF):
- Crimson Death (MM2):
- Crypt Chanter (LM):
- Crypt Thing (FF):
- Deathbringer (MM2):
- Death Knight (MM2):
- Deathlock (LM):
- Deathshrieker (MM3):
- Demilich:
- Desiccator (LM):
- Devourer (MM):
- Dream Vestige (LM):
- Drowned (MM3):
- Dust Wight (MM3):
- Ephemeral Swarm MM3:
- Effigy (MM2):
- Entomber (LM):
- Entropic Reaper (LM):
- Famine Spirit (MM2):
- Forsaken Shell (LM):
- Ghast (MM):
- Ghost Brute (LM):
- Ghostly Visage (FF):
- Ghoul (MM):
- Gravecrawler (MM2):
- Gravetouched Ghoul (LM):
- Grim Weird (MM3):
- Huecuva (FF):
- Hulking Corpse (LM):
- Hullathoin (FF):
- Hunefer (ELH):
- Jahi (MM2):
- Lavawight (ELH):
- Lich (MM):
- Morhg (MM):
- Mummy (MM):
- Murk (LM):
- Necromental (LM):
- Necronaut (MM3):
- Necropolitan (LM):
- Nightshades (MM):
- Plagueblight (LM):
- Plague Spewer (MM3):
- Quell (LM):
- Quth-Maren (FF):
- Ragewind (MM2):
- Raiment (LM):
- Revived Fossil (LM):
- Salt Mummy (MM3):
- Shadow (MM):
- Shadow of the Void (ELH):
- Shape of Fire (ELH):
- Skeletons (MM):
- Skin Kite (LM):
- Skirr (LM):
- Skulking Cyst (LM):
- Slaughter Wight (LM):
- Slay Mate (LM):
- Spawn of Kyuss (MM2):
- Specter (MM):
- Spectral Lyricist (LM):
- Swordwraith (FF):
- Tomb Mote (LM):
- Ulgurstasta (FF):
- Vampires (MM):
- Vampire Spawn (MM):
- Vasuthant (MM3):
- Visage (LM):
- Voidwraith (LM):
- Wheep (LM):
- Wight (MM):
- Winterwight (ELH):
- Wraith (MM):
- Zombie (MM)
-Frank
|
I don't know if this sounds like that good of a solution, but I always felt that if a rogue in the new system was encountering undead and constructs on a regular basis (such as being in the AoW adventure path), then they could be allowed to take the new Minor Magic talent and the spell from Complete Scoundrel that allows one to sneak attack undead. But I can understand otherwise just allowing them some sneak attacks on some undead and not on others.
Mmm...
Should undead be susceptible to sneak attacks/critical hits?
Corporeal undead? Yes, unless the creature's body has suffered a significant physical transformation. An animated puddle of blood should be immune to critical hits, but a vampire or zombie should not.
Incorporeal undead? No, though I could see a rogue with a ghost touch weapon disrupting enough of the creature's ectoplasmic field with a carefully aimed attack. So perhaps yes with the right weapons?
Undead need more hit points in general. I've always thought that. This just makes it more of an imperative.
Perhaps undead creatures should take only half damage from sneak attacks and only 50% more damage from critical hits? This would make them susceptible to critical hits and sneak attacks, but less so than normal creatures.
The problem here is that there a number of different combat types and, in some cases, entire adventure concepts that leave rogues with little to do for most of the fight. Undead, construsts, plants, and oozes are all common enough in the game that it can create a real problem for that character type. Hence, the removed immunity.
As for undead HP. I think you will certainly see a number of undead receiving a bonus to their HP equal to their Charisma modifier x their HD.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I agree with you. This is precisely where we should be focusing - how to make the game fun for all PCs so no one ever has to sit back and go - "I can't do anything this encounter" rather than whether or not it makes sense if an undead has a vital spot.
My current campaign is in Nightfang Spire - and this module has dragged out for many, many, sessions (no fault of any one - it's just a tough module). The two rouges in the party felt pretty useless by not being able to do significant damage to all the undead. Half-way, when I heard 4e was going to remove the immune to crit rules, we created a house rule that any extra damage from cits or sneak attacks was treated as "nonlethal damage" and when the undead or golems in the tower reached the point where they would "fall unconscious" I instead declared them "slowed" - able to take only one action.
This satisfied the party but not me so much as I had more to track (nonletal and regular damage) It came to me we should just give the undead more HP so they remain a challenge but the rouges and fighters (when they crit) can still have their fun too. Then I came across the Boneclaw and its bonus hp in one of the MM's and I said - hmmm, this is an idea.
I am glad you are considering the CHA bonus thing too - I will use this now for the finale with the vampire lord Gulthias.
Nightfang Spire hey?
We played through that as a group once. Now whenever we come into a room that is empty (regardless of who is running the game) and the DM says "The room is empty" we alway add "except for funerary wrappings and debris."
|
Of the following creatures, which of them would you say it would be inappropriate to see them dispatched by an iconic critical hit such as stabbing them through the heart, shattering their life gem, or cleaving their neck?
well the swarms have the swarm trait and there are too many small beings to have 'vital parts'. I agree that it should be based on if they are corporal or not.
Its not as simple as I would like, but my modified critical/sneak attack idea for vampires in my campaigns worked as follows:
A vampire is partially vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks. If the sneak attack or critical is delivered with a piercing or slashing weapon, and does enough damage to actually bring the vampire to 0 hit points, it doesn't turn to mist, it actually dies, as it has either been decapitated or pierced through the heart.
If the critical does less than enough to kill the vampire, it only takes normal damage from the attack.
I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with a wide open version of sneak attack. I'm thinking that some creatures, like undead and some constructs, might have weak points, but they are less "weak" than people with nice soft vitals. Perhaps having constructs with moving parts and some undead partially vulnerable to criticals, i.e. half the normal damage, might work.
Pulping a ghouls head in with a mace would certainly do it in, but a piercing attack to the belly? Not at all.
The undead should remain immune to critical damage/sneak attack damage, especially the corporeal ones. They have 0 for CON because their bodies no longer function like the living according to the mechanics of the game. Their bodies are really shells or containers for malevolent spirits (wights, morhgs, mummies and even the drone-like skeletons or zombies). Rogues can compensate just the same way as the other classes, get weapons and items that destroy the undead more effectively.
Disagree. Even if they're just shells, there are still more effective places to hit them... even if a skeleton is an evil spirit, you smash its knee or elbow, and it becomes less combat capable.
Honestly I don't see why anything should be immune to crits unless uniform in composition/structure (such as an ooze) or incorporeal.
As for undead and their weak hp, judging on the fact that they can use their Cha mod. as a bonus on Concentration checks, I would say that it's not such a stretch to say they all get a similar ability as Unholy Toughness (which--though I may be wrong--isn't included in any OGL books so Paizo would probably have to name it something else)
I'd be in favor of at least standardizing Necromaner's idea in the Tome of Horrors series, essentially making Unholy Toughness into a feat instead of a monster special ability, which means you could use existing undead and bump them with feat selection instead of radically altering how undead work.
I like the idea that since they are dead, they don't, you know, have a stat that pertains to bodily health. It makes sense, and to alter that changes 3.5, and further drives Pathfinder rules away from 3.5 backwards compatibility.
|
|
The rules that apply to undead generally should not do so. Some Undead should have no Con score, some Undead should be immune to fear, some Undead should be uncritable But not all the Undead.
-Frank
This comes down to the 'monster types aren't straightjackets' issue that leads to Awaken madness.
Fine, the Shadow is incorporeal and I can't hack it's head off. I'm clear on that. The Vampire tho? Heads will roll!
Disagree. Even if they're just shells, there are still more effective places to hit them... even if a skeleton is an evil spirit, you smash its knee or elbow, and it becomes less combat capable.A skeleton is a poor example since most have few hit points. If you want to split hairs about <i>where</i> you strike it, then it's a called shot as per the rules.
However, I'm not splitting hairs about where I strike it. I'm pointing out that, even though they don't feel pain, their bodies are still constructs which have weak points and can be broken more effectively by striking those. Where you strike is incidental; it's a matter of description. That you scored a critical... an attack that hit in a place that will lower long-term combat effectiveness more than normal (i.e. will cause a lot of damage because it hit a vulnerable spot)... is the important bit.
Change it from a skeleton to a morhg, or whatever they're called. Similar construction, more HP. If my fighter rolls a critical, or my rogue sneak attacks, I can explain it as being to a vital area (that tongue, an elbow or knee which would make it more vulnerable to destruction), even if it doesn't have meat and doesn't feel pain.
|
One of the pathfinder APs(#2 I believe) made use of unholy toughness(cha mod for HP and fort saves) and mentioned it in the sidebar, I thought it was a pretty useful way of making the undead tougher so you don't have to use such high HD undead(meaning turning becomes more useful again, though they are fixing that in 3p anyway).
I agree that anything should be sneak-attackable, with certain exceptions(such as oozes, or incorporable creatures). It both has a flavor feel to it, giving that perfect blow, and a mechanical feel that gives rogues and their type something exciting to do in battles that their options are otherwise rather limited.
I've played in two campaigns that ended up being heavy with creatures mostly immune to me, one I was a rogue but I took an ambush feat so when I would normally do sneak attack damage I could instead lower the AC of the monster by 5(snuck attack a vampire with holy water I did).
And the other I was a beguiler who steadily met up with oozes, undead and constructs through the whole adventure. Seemed the entire module just consisted of me casting haste first round then aiding another the rest of combat since I couldn't do anything else(first combat I shot an ooze with my x-bow and it split on me, everything else had DR I could only get through on a dream. When even the lowest DR thing you do 3 points damage to max, you're more effective letting the two handed fighter power attack for two more points and bypassing the likely chance you'll miss).
Still though, other then being useless, I still love that character. There was a girl with a fruitstand in town and anytime we were back that way he would be walking around eating an apple or something he didn't pay for. Love beguilers.
-Tarlane