|
Classically any enemy you could sneak attack you could also use your favored enemy on. Thus Favored Enemy (Undead) was nearly worthless because 'precision damage' did not apply to undead. Under Pathfinder Sneak Attack is specifically singled out as now affecting undead.
Does this mean Favored Enemy now affects undead? Is it going to continue to be the rule of thumb that things that are affected by SA are affected by Favored Enemy? I don't believe this was actually spelled out explicitly in the D&D rulebooks but I think it's important.
Since I'm starting a few one offs to test the ranger this would be nice to know because I would love to test out an undead hunter ranger :)
|
Classically any enemy you could sneak attack you could also use your favored enemy on. Thus Favored Enemy (Undead) was nearly worthless because 'precision damage' did not apply to undead.
Is that right? I didn't know that Favoured Enemy bonus damage couldn't be used on creatures immune to sneak attacks / critical hits in 3.5. By my reading of the rules this isn't so (although I could well be wrong).
Is this ruling according to the RAW, or has it been errated or clarified elsewhere?
|
|
Agreed with Mothman and Jal Dorak.
Though it has been true that creatures immune to sneak attack are immune to critical hits, and now that is not the case. We have found that keeping it straight what creatures are now sneakable but are not critable is confusing.
Those two, I think, should be 'linked'.
Favored enemy damage for rangers in 3.0 was restricted to creatures that could be struck with a critical/sneak attack. In 3.5 it was altered to untyped damage. In 3.0 undead wasn't a good choice for a ranger since you only gained the assorted bonuses on skill checks and not the damage.
Hmm... you know this is something that I had been told was in the FAQ but Krell is correct. I just double checked and the 3.5 FAQ and it states specifically that undead are affected. Under 3.0 this was not the case which is I'm certain where that confusing bit of knowledge came from but considering I've never played 3.0 I feel pretty silly now.
I'm going to partially agree with some posters that at least *some* undead should be crit-able. Seriously, vampires have vulnerable spots. If you get a critical hit with a spear, maybe you just shoved the equivalent of a wood stake through his heart? Even skeletons have bones that are more important than others (notably the long bones). Just letting them be vulnerable to critical hits is a lot easier than having to specify possible special interactions. Those which really don't have any special susceptibility could be called out explicitly as being immune to crits.
I definitely agree with this. Shatter a skeleton's thigh bone and how useful is it? It would be nice if the game mechanics allowed for things like skeletons dragging along the ground relentlessly trying to attack players but sadly it doesn't :( Zombies have head and everyone knows if you behead a zombie it dies... or at least flails around uselessly. Vampires definitely have vulnerabilities....
I would kind of like to see the concept of precision damage returned and have only a small number of creatures immune to Sneak Attack, Favored Enemy, and Criticals... Oozes, Golems, and few things like that come to mind.
I definitely agree with this. Shatter a skeleton's thigh bone and how useful is it? It would be nice if the game mechanics allowed for things like skeletons dragging along the ground relentlessly trying to attack players but sadly it doesn't :(
It doesn't?
DM rules the critical hit shattered the skelly's femur. It goes down. Maybe the pelvis was shattered and it's just a torso now. What you have is a small creature (just the torso) prone moving at say, 1/4 movement. That's all do-able within game mechanics.
You don't even say the skeleton is destroyed - just say "it's down" - and the players will usually go after the next target. Next thing you know, the skeleton is crawling up behind them, grasping at their ankles, either clawing or grappling, and maybe flanking them.
Next time, PCs, make sure the skeleton is *really* down. :D
I definitely agree with this. Shatter a skeleton's thigh bone and how useful is it? It would be nice if the game mechanics allowed for things like skeletons dragging along the ground relentlessly trying to attack players but sadly it doesn't :(It doesn't?
DM rules the critical hit shattered the skelly's femur. It goes down. Maybe the pelvis was shattered and it's just a torso now. What you have is a small creature (just the torso) prone moving at say, 1/4 movement. That's all do-able within game mechanics.
You don't even say the skeleton is destroyed - just say "it's down" - and the players will usually go after the next target. Next thing you know, the skeleton is crawling up behind them, grasping at their ankles, either clawing or grappling, and maybe flanking them.
Next time, PCs, make sure the skeleton is *really* down. :D
I guess the use of the word "allowed" was a poor choice. There is no mechanism built into the core game for this.
|
Yep... same with mummies. I am writing an adventure, for myself really, that features mummies as the dominant critter. The way I have it written, if a mummy is critted it's body shatters into smaller parts. The remaining HPs are divided among the parts, 1d4+1 parts.
When the mummy is "killed" it crumbles apart. 1d6 rounds later a number of parts reanimate and either reattach as a whole mummy (two full rounds) at half HP, or 1d4+1 parts animate and attack again with half HP split between the parts. When the parts are destroyed they will decay into sand. THEN the mummy is dead- again.
But not every single mummy will reanimate. So far I am using a kind of DC to decide if they will. Charisma (DC15) to reanimate. I may drop that mechanic and just go with d20 1-10 nope, 11-20 reanimate. Not sure yet.
The idea is to have a FEW mummies do this leading up to the BBEG. So when she DOES reanimate, the PCs should be preapred for it.
Hey, side note here... Mummified Fire Giant... vulnerable to fire or not? Or just normal damage as vulnerability and resistence cancel out? What ya'll think?
I guess the use of the word "allowed" was a poor choice. There is no mechanism built into the core game for this.
I dunno, I don't think there was anything particularly special or rule-bending about the scenario I presented above. I think you have to put some imagination into the game yourself, you can't expect every single individual scenario to be spelled out word for word in the rule book.
|
|
I think you have to put some imagination into the game yourself, you can't expect every single individual scenario to be spelled out word for word in the rule book.
Blasphemy! If it isn't spelled out in the rulebooks then it CANNOT be done! EVER!
Ok just kidding there, but I know there are folks on here that believe that.
<snip>
Hey, side note here... Mummified Fire Giant... vulnerable to fire or not? Or just normal damage as vulnerability and resistence cancel out? What ya'll think?
Undead template overrides Giant and Fire types, so I'd say they lose it.
YMMV.
I guess the use of the word "allowed" was a poor choice. There is no mechanism built into the core game for this.I dunno, I don't think there was anything particularly special or rule-bending about the scenario I presented above. I think you have to put some imagination into the game yourself, you can't expect every single individual scenario to be spelled out word for word in the rule book.
I love house rules and this is a nice one. I am a huge fan of stuff like this. I'm not sure why you think I was implying your suggestion was counter to the core rules or whatever, I didn't even comment that it should be in core. All I said is there is no mechanism for it... you are reading things into what I said that aren't there.
I love house rules and this is a nice one. I am a huge fan of stuff like this. I'm not sure why you think I was implying your suggestion was counter to the core rules or whatever. All I said is there is no mechanism for it... you are reading things into what I said that aren't there.
I'm apparently not understanding, I think, your definition of "mechanism" - because I don't think what I've said has anything to do with house rules...seems all very straightforward and by the book to me. :/ I guess the only HR would be that the pelvis or femur is shattered. But that, to me, seems well within the judgment given to the DM.
The way I looked at it would be, if I created a skeleton torso as a standalone monster, how would it work? No critical hit needed, maybe the PCs wander into a sacked crypt and encounter a skeleton torso.
I love house rules and this is a nice one. I am a huge fan of stuff like this. I'm not sure why you think I was implying your suggestion was counter to the core rules or whatever. All I said is there is no mechanism for it... you are reading things into what I said that aren't there.I'm apparently not understanding, I think, your definition of "mechanism" - because I don't think what I've said has anything to do with house rules...seems all very straightforward and by the book to me. :/ I guess the only HR would be that the pelvis or femur is shattered. But that, to me, seems well within the judgment given to the DM.
The way I looked at it would be, if I created a skeleton torso as a standalone monster, how would it work? No critical hit needed, maybe the PCs wander into a sacked crypt and encounter a skeleton torso.
D&D has no rules anywhere for damage to specific appendages (save on a few select creatures). Nor does it have rules for a medium creature that is damaged becoming a small creature with limited movement.
Would a new DM know how to do what you suggest based on reading the books? No... because there is nothing in the books which describe this situation, there is no mechanism for doing it. It is a simple statement.
|
|
I guess the use of the word "allowed" was a poor choice. There is no mechanism built into the core game for this.I dunno, I don't think there was anything particularly special or rule-bending about the scenario I presented above. I think you have to put some imagination into the game yourself, you can't expect every single individual scenario to be spelled out word for word in the rule book.
Undead are immune to critical hits. If a player that knows the rule gets a threat, they're not likely to ask to confirm, since undead cannot be critted. They may ask once for clarification (especially if they think it is someone dressed up like a zombie a la Scooby Doo), but normally you can't score a critical hit against an undead.
Your scenario, while 'cool' either ignores that rule (so you just do that when you feel like it without regard to a critical hit) or you allow undead to be struck by a critcal (not ignoring the rule, but definitely changing it) and either way, the effect you choose is not related to a critical hit.
While this might be a 'good DM thing' the rules should reflect DM best practices. So, if as a DM this is the type of thing you think you SHOULD do, the rules SHOULD tell you that as well. At least, that's my opinion. And if the rules CAN'T tell you everything, well, they should still try to lay out the guidelines for the types of things a DM should do for their game to avoid being a slave to the rules but still being fair when adjudicating them for their players.
Undead are immune to critical hits. If a player that knows the rule gets a threat, they're not likely to ask to confirm, since undead cannot be critted. They may ask once for clarification (especially if they think it is someone dressed up like a zombie a la Scooby Doo), but normally you can't score a critical hit against an undead.
Your scenario, while 'cool' either ignores that rule (so you just do that when you feel like it without regard to a critical hit) or you allow undead to be struck by a critcal (not ignoring the rule, but definitely changing it) and either way, the effect you choose is not related to a critical hit.
While this might be a 'good DM thing' the rules should reflect DM best practices. So, if as a DM this is the type of thing you think you SHOULD do, the rules SHOULD tell you that as well. At least, that's my opinion. And if the rules CAN'T tell you everything, well, they should still try to lay out the guidelines for the types of things a DM should do for their game to avoid being a slave to the rules but still being fair when adjudicating them for their players.
Well done. But go back and read this thread thoroughly. I'll summarize: It started on the discussion that Undead are now valid sneak attack targets. There was discussion that it was confusing that Undead could be sneak attacked by not critted. Then someone mentioned that maybe the two skills should be linked. Then there were some valid examples of how undead could be critically hit. Then, there was my back-and-forth with DdO about how to handle undead critical hits.
And then you came along and brought it all back to the beginning - we already know undead can't be critted. Thanks.
|
Hey, side note here... Mummified Fire Giant... vulnerable to fire or not? Or just normal damage as vulnerability and resistence cancel out? What ya'll think?
Depends on how you look at Type.
Since the Mummy template changes Type to Undead (Augmented) I would think the Fire Giant would become Undead (Augmented Giant) and lose the fire subtype. The SRD says a template that changes type pairs Augmented with the original type but makes no mention of subtypes. It is totally a judgement call as far as I can tell.
|
|
Agreed with Mothman and Jal Dorak.
Though it has been true that creatures immune to sneak attack are immune to critical hits, and now that is not the case. We have found that keeping it straight what creatures are now sneakable but are not critable is confusing.
Those two, I think, should be 'linked'.
Well done. But go back and read this thread thoroughly. I'll summarize: It started on the discussion that Undead are now valid sneak attack targets. There was discussion that it was confusing that Undead could be sneak attacked by not critted. Then someone mentioned that maybe the two skills should be linked. Then there were some valid examples of how undead could be critically hit. Then, there was my back-and-forth with DdO about how to handle undead critical hits.
And then you came along and brought it all back to the beginning - we already know undead can't be critted. Thanks.
I agree that they should be connected. I understand how undead can be critted. In the example you use, it seems as though you are suggesting that the DM apply some kind of effect 'on the fly' to describe what might happen with a critical hit. I'm very interested in what could happen. And I support adding that to the rules.
So, I don't mean to sidetrack or disrupt the ongoing discussion, but I do want to help channel the creative energy to a useful 'rule solution', not just suggestions for what the DM could do (since by definition, the DM could do whatever he or she wants to).
Hey, side note here... Mummified Fire Giant... vulnerable to fire or not? Or just normal damage as vulnerability and resistence cancel out? What ya'll think?
Dude - you are *sick*! I'm going to have to try something like this in my games. Thanks! As for the ruling - I'd say it depends on how high you want the CR to be. Using the 'real world', however, it couldn't have the resistance to fire as a) it's dead and dry and flammable, and b) it's covered in crazy flammable chemicals as a part of the embalming process. Not that you have to stick to the real world - it's a fantasy game after all - but it'd be nice to throw the players a clue as to what's going on.
E.g. they could find some canopic jars with the mummy's brain or something in it and could make an alchemy check or something to work out that the fluid is not flammable.
That'd scare the sh!t out of them, I can see it now.
"Hold on guys - has anyone else noticed how *big* these jars are?"
Peace,
tfad