|
Like the title says.
I'm a big fan of the expansion of sneak attack to most all creatures, because it removes the utter lameness of, for example, fighting undead or constructs or a bunch of other monsters than can dominate an entire adventure; it also makes sense because most creatures (excluding oozes, etc) would, in fact, be susceptible to particularly precise attacks. However, I did like the reasoning behind the old "if you can crit it, you can sneak attack it" rule and I'd like crits expanded for the same reasons that sneak attackability is expanded.
Plus I'll get more use from my critical hit deck, of course.
Makes sense to me.
|
|
Also, apologies if I missed this elsewhere. I somehow didn't realise that the combat design forum was open until today (I blame lack of sleep as caused by 7-week-old baby).
I do know that James Jacobs mooted the possibility of expanding criticals as per sneak attack, in a thread a month or more ago. I was in favour then and (obviously) I still am.
It's got a good beat. I can dance to it.
Plus, it saves me (as DM) remembering another category of monster - those susceptible to sneak attack but not crits (as well as those immune to both and those vulnerable to both).
Should help the fighter types too who are likely to take improved crits and keen weapons compared to wizards and other spellcasters who are a lot less likely to do so.
Yes. I'm expecting more clarification on the Sneak Attack rule, but I think it's best to keep Sneak Attack/Critical equivalence, just because it's easier for everyone to remember that way (hey, the old consistency argument!) If this means Sneak Attack works against slightly less things, so be it, but having to track Critical vulnerability separately from Sneak Attack vulnerability seems loathsome.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also want to see criticals affect anything that a sneak attack could. Not only does it make things easier to keep track of, but it simply makes sense to me. If a rogue can consistently hit the weak spots on a skeleton or golem, then a fighter or other combatant should be able to hit them through dumb luck every now and then also (i.e. rolling a 20 or their weapon's threat range.)
Also, it makes fortification armor equally valuable to all creatures, instead of having the "can be sneak attacked but not critical hit" creatures value it less.
yea, I believe 3.5 got it wrong when you had to burn feats to crit undead or constructs. IF YOU CAN CRIT IT, YOU CAN SNEAK ATTACK IT!!
Totally agree with this, good call.
I wasn't for the whole SA change and would be even more against the change to allow critical hits. As it is with the changes to SA just about all the creatures that used to be a challenge in part because of the immunity to such attacks were seriously weakened. Those creatures generally had smaller hit dice and no CON bonus to hit points and are all the sudden taking a great deal more damage from attacks (even at low levels SA is double or triple the amount of damage of the base weapon). As it stands all the creatures that are now valid targets for SA should have their CR reduced because they didn't get anything to compensate for the change. I do understand why they made the change but that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it. Rogues have a ton of skill points, options, and were already fairly well off in combat(if that was the type of rogue you wanted to play) prior to the Pathfinder bump. I don't believe they needed the SA buff on top of it. When playing I like coming up on monsters that are a challenge and the various immunities played a big part of that, opening up the monsters to SA took away from it and opening them up to crits would just destroy it all together. So I'd have to say a big N-O for this.
A unification would be the simpler. But I agree on the fact that some monsters should have their CR downgraded a bit.
If you don't like it, you can still give an immunity as long as you can provide your players a good reason
Heck just give the golems Fortication if need be. No reason you can't hit a weak spot on most constructs. Undead... maybe the incorporeal ones but most of the corporeal ones are humanoid in shape and therefore have similar structural weaknesses.
I allow the Rogue to sneak attack more monsters but I use a simple DR system based on how many hit dice the target has to represent the added difficulty in sneak attacking them.
I do not think allowing a blanket if it can be sneak attacked it can be critted rule is a good idea because it will seriously alter the CR of many different creatures.
Looking at the bigger picture, the base races have all had boosts and you now get more Feats. These changes alone mean old CR's are now weakened.
The whole point of the rule change is to prevent situations where the Rogue became useless, and not to boost other melee classes.
|
|
The whole point of the rule change is to prevent situations where the Rogue became useless, and not to boost other melee classes.
But aside from the underlying logic -- many currently-immune creatures, as a recent poster pointed out, have structural and locational vulnerabilities -- it's meleers that need the most help in this game anyhow.
As for CR, some will be wrong, but then, many of them already are (indeed, this might even fix some), particularly for advanced creatures. In any case, the expansion to sneak attack -- which I support -- already did a bunch of that.
I was also against the sneak attack change, at least to the extent that is has changed ("structural weaknesses"? - to me backstab/sneak attack has always been about *organs* more than anything).
That said, I'm more in favor of expanding criticals to match than leaving it like it is. It's confusing even to me. Example:
Rogue flanks a Void zombie and sneak attacks - for now have to actually remember that he can do that (I'm sure it will seem normal in time). Paladin steps up and 20's - oops, can't crit undead. But wait, you can crit a Void zombie, special quality. Ugh.
I'm still more in favor of half dice, or half damage, or as someone mentioned 50% fortification, for sneak attack. Perhaps for both? It's a useful mechanic, kinda like a "critical" miss chance. Simple rule - corporeal undead, elementals, plants, etc., have 50% fortification.
Two important things to note for those on the side against (my side):
1. This doesn't impact "critical effects" such as vorpal or shocking burst - those went off before anyways.
2. The biggest type this affects, Undead, now get Charisma modifier to hit points, so the argument against them is somewhat limited. Immunity would now be a bonus, instead of a compensating factor for no con mod.
I was also against the sneak attack change, at least to the extent that is has changed ("structural weaknesses"? - to me backstab/sneak attack has always been about *organs* more than anything).
That said, I'm more in favor of expanding criticals to match than leaving it like it is. It's confusing even to me. Example:
Rogue flanks a Void zombie and sneak attacks - for now have to actually remember that he can do that (I'm sure it will seem normal in time). Paladin steps up and 20's - oops, can't crit undead. But wait, you can crit a Void zombie, special quality. Ugh.
I'm still more in favor of half dice, or half damage, or as someone mentioned 50% fortification, for sneak attack. Perhaps for both? It's a useful mechanic, kinda like a "critical" miss chance. Simple rule - corporeal undead, elementals, plants, etc., have 50% fortification.
Two important things to note for those on the side against (my side):
1. This doesn't impact "critical effects" such as vorpal or shocking burst - those went off before anyways.
2. The biggest type this affects, Undead, now get Charisma modifier to hit points, so the argument against them is somewhat limited. Immunity would now be a bonus, instead of a compensating factor for no con mod.
The DR system I use is very easy to use and remember, whether you apply it to all (SA and all Crits) or just to SA (as I currently do).
Up tp 5 hit dice >> DR 5
Up to 10 hit dice >> DR 10
Up to 15 hit dice >> DR 15
...you get the idea...
I'd prefer a scaling system over a blanket 50% Fortification, which seems a little too simplistic.
I have a Brain --- I don't play 4th edition!!
As for CR, some will be wrong, but then, many of them already are (indeed, this might even fix some), particularly for advanced creatures. In any case, the expansion to sneak attack -- which I support -- already did a bunch of that.
I think the new PF MM will be required after all the changes have been finalized. As we agree, many monsters have already had their CR's altered.
I was under the impression that immunity to criticals or sneak attack isn't going to be an "all or nothing" thing, i.e. undead as a whole won't be immune to them, but in individual entries, they might be listed as being immune, so that you might have a wraith being immune to both and a vampire being vulnerable to both . . . which means most of this issue won't be resolved in the core rules so much as in the Bestiary.
|
To be honest no matter if Paizo actually decides against this, I think most people will Houserule this one.
In fact I am starting to see more and more stuff that might need to be houseruled, and my list is seriously growing.
My houserule list in 3.x was rather short cause so much was screwed up anyway. Now that more stuff makes sense, we find so many little things that do not make sense any more.
Unfortunately, the folks at Paizo sometimes appear to resist these changes, fearing it makes PCs too powerful. Which of course is the point of the game- you WANT the PCs to win eventually. I think people forget that sometimes.
It is little things like this that will make houserules lists grow long.
At the risk of being repetetive, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring as asking for this change. Just because a creature doesn't have a functioning or normal anatomy doesn't mean it doesn't have weak-points.
Immunity to critical hits is VERY frustrating for players. Having run a Ravenloft game, the mess of undead the players came across was extremely aggravating because it meant that martial damage would never be increased AND a host of feats and rogue levels would generally be wasted. The rule certainly hinders melee characters, whose average damage without criticals drops to anemic levels.
Widening criticals gives melee characters more efficacy against opponents, more incentive to take feats that improve criticals or have special effects on critical hits, and adds a lot more dynamic back into combat.
It also makes the select monsters who are immune to criticals more dangerous and different.
...exceptionally so, Krome :-)
It's too fun for the players to crit/sneak attack. To remove that, unless (as noted above) it is a specific feature to that type of monster, removes the fun.
In favor of crit/sneak attack. Danger of CR's being off? When have CR's ever been accurate? I can add Hit points to something I want to be tough.
-Campbell
|
I would suggest that, for simplicities' sake, to just make every monster vulnerable to criticals and sneak attacks by default. For the few that aren't, include a single line with the immunities that says:
Immune to precision damage.
Then define somewhere in the back of the main book that Precision damage is Critical Hits, Sneak Attacks, etc. Then make sure to reference the word when defining certain future class abilities (the Scout's Skirmish comes to mind as an example, despite that it will not be ported for copyright reasons).
I would suggest that, for simplicities' sake, to just make every monster vulnerable to criticals and sneak attacks by default. For the few that aren't, include a single line with the immunities that says:
Immune to precision damage.
Then define somewhere in the back of the main book that Precision damage is Critical Hits, Sneak Attacks, etc. Then make sure to reference the word when defining certain future class abilities (the Scout's Skirmish comes to mind as an example, despite that it will not be ported for copyright reasons).
Basically this is 3.5 rules.
Yes other ways to compensate as explained above would be a DR which seems quite logical and challenging, or a partial immunity to sneak/criticals ( a bit like when we test for miss chance ? )
|
|
Basically this is 3.5 rules.
Indeed, same system but with less crit immunity in that, eg, undead and construct traits won't include crit immunity.
As for DR and/or partial immunity, I can see the former being OK -- I meam, it's no change from the current rules -- but I wouldn't want to see so much of the latter (although on rare occasions it might be OK.).
Well it depends on how you view critical hits, I suppose.
To me critical hits are lucky strikes on a vital area, unlike sneak attacks which are carefully placed hits on areas the rogue knows will hurt its target. Organs for living things and, with the new rules, cogs or powercores on constructs or golems.
For those looking for a rule representation and explanation of this:
A rogue that crits on a normal attack won't apply sneak attack damage, so its safe to say that crits and sneak attacks are different things.
|
|
The key element though, is that they're both locational ("precision damage"). The reason that you don't roll sneak attack twice or more with a crit seems to me to be about balance, although could construct an argument that you already got that benefit and the crit just means you placed it extra well and the best way to represent that is to roll crit damage on the base.
|
|
To be clearer!
What I mean to say is that crittability means that they have locational vulnerability, and if they have locational vulnerability, they should be sneak-attackable as well as crittable. In addition to that, it's my opinion in that in 3.5, too much was crit-immune (it didn't make sense; undead mostly do have locational vulnerabilities) so that I like the expansion of sneak-attackability in PFRPG but don't see why the 3.5 logic of crittability=sneak-attackability wouldn't still hold and also I think it'd make the game more fun to play as well as making more sense to me in terms of a representation of the "fantastic reality" the game depicts.
I'll agree with you about locational weaknesses but I will go as far as to say that its not all that goes in a sneak attack vs a normal attack.
A sneak attack needs specific circumstances in order to be valid. That's why if the rogue crits on a target she hits with a normal attack, she does not apply critical hit damage and, to me, the reason a critical sneak attack does not deal double sneak damage is because you exploit the weak point to its fullest and at the same time your blow was hard enough to cause more collateral damage on the surroundings.
To be clearer, If the rogue, when hitting the same areas the fighter would cannot sneak attack, the fighter can't either.
If the fighter knew how to hit weak points then sure, he would be able to cause more damage via sneak attacks (read: if he gained a rogue level) but he would still be unable to cause more damage through a lucky strike in whatever he is hitting, if it is immune to criticals.
Meh. I'm getting hungry and losing my ability to make clear points, but i think the idea gets through.
|
|
Sure, but how can the locational vulnerability exist for the rogue to sneak attack and not for the fighter to crit?
It seems to me that in most cases (undead, constructs, say), if one exists then the other should (as was the case in the 3.5 rules, but with too many things immune to either for my liking) and in most of those cases, the locational vulnerability does exist (and the difference between us is that I don't that it should be a different sort of locational vulnerability; I think that's too complex and would also lessen gamefun, as the prevalence of crit-immune currently do). Sneak attack and Critting are, as exactly you say, different things but they both have the same underlying locational vulnerability requirement and sneak attack then has additional requirements; I don't see how something should be sneak-attackable and not crittable, but I do like the expansion of what is sneak-attackable in PFRPG (so don't like the idea that the sneak-attackable undead, say, might not be crittable and do want what's crittable to be expanded to re-establish the crittable=sneak-attackle equivalence).
So, to me, it's just:
1. Crittability = locational vulnerability
2. Sneak Attack = ability to target locational vulnerability (as is, arguably, "improved critical").
I see what you're saying about critical sneak attack damage not multiplying and that, therefore, the Improved Critical not stacking with Sneak Attack damage might seem odd, but 3.5 has mechanical stacking rules already so it's not out of character to have a rule of this sort about how things do and don't stack.
|
Mechanically, I wopuld favor the fighter (critical hits) over the Rogues (sneak attack) for expanding. However, if they continue with the idea of allowing sneak attack against undead, which began to become retarded in the later 3.5 books, PathFinder will become dead to me. Seriously, a rogue that can sneak attack anything means I never want to hear b&#$%ing about overpowered Clerics.
|
|
I would suggest that, for simplicities' sake, to just make every monster vulnerable to criticals and sneak attacks by default. For the few that aren't, include a single line with the immunities that says:
Immune to precision damage.
Then define somewhere in the back of the main book that Precision damage is Critical Hits, Sneak Attacks, etc. Then make sure to reference the word when defining certain future class abilities (the Scout's Skirmish comes to mind as an example, despite that it will not be ported for copyright reasons).
Basically this is 3.5 rules.
Yes other ways to compensate as explained above would be a DR which seems quite logical and challenging, or a partial immunity to sneak/criticals ( a bit like when we test for miss chance ? )
While the idea of crits and sneak attacks all being part of the same 'precision damage' is part of 3.5, my main point was to include within the statblock of a monster an 'immunity' to said type of damage, instead of just assuming all constructs, undead, etc. are immune.
|
|
While the idea of crits and sneak attacks all being part of the same 'precision damage' is part of 3.5, my main point was to include within the statblock of a monster an 'immunity' to said type of damage, instead of just assuming all constructs, undead, etc. are immune.
Agree, do it on a monster by monster basis. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wouldn't have to be all or nothing - zombies might take 1/2 damage from precision attacks while vampires take full damage, iron golems might be immune while clockwork creatures take full damage, etc.
Please, do not add more randomness to play....
|
|
Mechanically, I wopuld favor the fighter (critical hits) over the Rogues (sneak attack) for expanding. However, if they continue with the idea of allowing sneak attack against undead, which began to become retarded in the later 3.5 books, PathFinder will become dead to me. Seriously, a rogue that can sneak attack anything means I never want to hear b~@#*ing about overpowered Clerics.
The Pathfinder rule that sneak attack affects just about anything seems pretty popular (I'm a big supporter of it, too) and I don't see any sign that will change. So it may be that Pathfinder is already dead to you, alas. Have you playtested it, though, is it the idea of it that offends or is it obvious to you that it's going to make your games less fun?
It is the idea that what can't a rogue do now. Why have a party, you have a rogue.The Rogue can do a lot of damage when context is right (a context which generally requires other characters to help). Other than that, he's the skillmonkey. There's a lot of other roles you'd want filled...
I know where you're coming from Beckett. After all the "right context" of flanking or feinting is pretty darn easy to manage in most circumstances.
The idea that a skeleton, or zombie, or iron golem is just as vulnerable to "precision damage" to its "vitals" as a human, is to me rather absurd.
That said, it was a major problem in 3rd for rogues - if you tended to have lots of undead or constructs, rogues got very very bored. Particularly because their side features (social skills, even usually trapfinding) were also less likely to be used/needed in those situations. This solves it, though I do think it goes too far. It won't make every rogue a one-man killing machine though.
Bagpuss, I have to disagree that Criticals are inherently precision based damage, or rather that they are inherently location vulnerability damage. They are not "precision based" because they are basically lucky hits - the precision of sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses involves much more intent and expert precision.
I feel they are not best described as location-vulnerability damage, but rather as fortunate strikes. Not at spots necessarily, but through defenses, with good power, at the right angle, etc. The wild swing that slips past the defenders shield, or the spear that finds the weak link in the armor.
However, based on what is *immune* to criticals in 3rd edition, that is not how they are described. Virtually everything that is immune is that way due to lacking distinct living organs - undead, constructs, elementals, plants. So I'm more arguing what it should be, not what it has been lately. And given the changes being made on this topic, I feel it is open to be adjusted.
I'd prefer a scaling system over a blanket 50% Fortification, which seems a little too simplistic.
50% Fortification *does* scale. The more damage you do, the more is negated on average. It does however scale with the attacker, not the defender (this would mean a lowly skeleton would be just as likely to negate a crit from a 1st level wizard as a 12th level fighter).
On the other hand DR does not stack, so it would not scale with anything that already has DR.
|
|
Note that I somehow missed the last paragraph before interspersing points, so at the end I agree that Majuba and I do interpret the current/3.5 rules pretty much the same way. I left the points in because some of them I didn't make earlier, but they aren't really rebuttal of Majuba's interpretation (although they look that way in the context they are in).
I know where you're coming from Beckett. After all the "right context" of flanking or feinting is pretty darn easy to manage in most circumstances.
The idea that a skeleton, or zombie, or iron golem is just as vulnerable to "precision damage" to its "vitals" as a human, is to me rather absurd.
I do thin that 'vitals' needs to go; it;s just locational vulnerabilities and a skeleton has those (and in the case of a skeleton in particular, they're easier to see than for a normal humanoid). In any case, 'vitals' damage would be way more debilitating thhan extra damage dice; as D&D has no real mechanic for that stuff, I's say that we shouldn't think of precision or critical damage as damage to 'vitals' in general (if it kills them, i.e., takes them beyond -10hp, we can always say "you sliced through its neck/spine/whatever" to express that it was locational damage).
Bagpuss, I have to disagree that Criticals are inherently precision based damage, or rather that they are inherently location vulnerability damage. They are not "precision based" because they are basically lucky hits - the precision of sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses involves much more intent and expert precision.
They aren't 'precision' but they locational. Yes, lucky hit on a vulnerable area, which is why in 3.5 crittability (existence of vulnerable areas) was the same as sneak-attackability (putting the blow deliberately into those vulnerable areas, ie, using precision). 'Precision' damage is specifically targetted at vulnerable areas and crits are hits on vulnerable areas, is how it more-or-less worked in 3.5. I like the 3.5 link between them, I just think that waaaay too many creatures were immune to crits and, therefore, to sneak attack. PFRPG fixes the immunity problem for sneak attack but not, as yet, for crits, whilst breaking the old crittability=sneak-attackability link (which I liked).
I feel they are not best described as location-vulnerability damage, but rather as fortunate strikes. Not at spots necessarily, but through defenses, with good power, at the right angle, etc. The wild swing that slips past the defenders shield, or the spear that finds the weak link in the armor.
Then why are so many creatures immune to crits? Even if you want the current situation to hold, I don't see how this explanation would make skeletons immune to crits, say. It seems to me that you have to have something like locational vulnerability (which is why, for example, entirely amorphous creatures would still be immune, mostly) for it to make much sense at all (and it's not perfect sense, but this is D&D combat we're talking about, which is about the gold standard for unrealistic combat in rpgs).
However, based on what is *immune* to criticals in 3rd edition, that is not how they are described. Virtually everything that is immune is that way due to lacking distinct living organs - undead, constructs, elementals, plants. So I'm more arguing what it should be, not what it has been lately. And given the changes being made on this topic, I feel it is open to be adjusted.
Ah, and that will teach me to be interspersing comments without thoroughly reading the whole thing first... I see that more or less we agree on how it is at present, just disagree on what it ought to be.
to be honest I never liked how sneak attack works, I cant really get myself appreciating the pixie pc sneak attacking with 4 attacks per round (2-weaponfighting daggers pixie-size) dealing about 30 to 40 damage per attack. while a crit will do 5 damage at most.
it is bad enough seeing it take down giants, now we can add iron golems to that...
|
|
it is bad enough seeing it take down giants, now we can add iron golems to that...
Smaug fell to a single arrow...
Personally, I don't like the idea that the only way to defeat many monsters is the same way that you would break a rock. A rock with no shape or fissures or fault lines or other weaker points that you could exploit. So, even harder than attacking a rock. It makes for No Fun and empowers the casters, with their many options that aren't about direct damage, even more by comparison.
That said, it was a major problem in 3rd for rogues - if you tended to have lots of undead or constructs, rogues got very very bored. Particularly because their side features (social skills, even usually trapfinding) were also less likely to be used/needed in those situations.
Well that's not strictly true....
They can still Tumble around to flank monsters for +2 goodness.
They can aid/assist another.
They can still Trip/Sunder monsters.
They can cast anything on a wand [assuming Use Magic Devise is maxed out, which it usually is]
Agreed, they don't want to come up against Undead, Plants and Constructs but they can still contribute.
(I was tempted to use adventures with no undead as an example of how the Cleric might become bored, but then I remembered he was Superman...so I didn't!)
|
|
That said, it was a major problem in 3rd for rogues - if you tended to have lots of undead or constructs, rogues got very very bored. Particularly because their side features (social skills, even usually trapfinding) were also less likely to be used/needed in those situations.
Well that's not strictly true....
They can still Tumble around to flank monsters for +2 goodness.
They can aid/assist another.
They can still Trip/Sunder monsters.
They can cast anything on a wand [assuming Use Magic Devise is maxed out, which it usually is]
That is the point. Golums and Undead are suppossed to be nasty. If your Rogue can't do anything and is getting bored, that they are probably not playing the Rogue right.
I was also wondering, where does it say Rogue can sneak attack almost anything? Are you sure it is not included because it is part of the 3.5 Core MM? The reason I ask, is because a 20th level Elemental Sorcerer becomes immune to critical hits and sneak attack when they become an elemental. That is part of the creature type, not the class ability.
|
|
It is the idea that what can't a rogue do now. Why have a party, you have a rogue.The Rogue can do a lot of damage when context is right (a context which generally requires other characters to help). Other than that, he's the skillmonkey. There's a lot of other roles you'd want filled...
Those contexts are rediculously easy to fill. Especially against a lot of creature types that are immune to crits and sneak attack, undead, constructs, Rogues normally get that first round for free, than any time they flank a target. Whenever they are invisible or hidden, they can bluff check it, or any time any target is denied their dex.
In the older editions, Backstab was much more balanced and affected a lot more targets because 1.) it was usually harder to achieve the correct position to do so, and 2.) did not apply to each and every attack you did when the conditions where right, usually just the first.
|
|
Those contexts are rediculously easy to fill. Especially against a lot of creature types that are immune to crits and sneak attack, undead, constructs, Rogues normally get that first round for free, than any time they flank a target. Whenever they are invisible or hidden, they can bluff check it, or any time any target is denied their dex.
The contexts are easy enough to fill that it's worth playing a rogue, is all, I think. I know what the conditions are, and mostly it's flanking, in combat at lower levels, in my experience. Once the Rogue gets access to invisibility, then yes, they use that.
In the older editions, Backstab was much more balanced and affected a lot more targets because 1.) it was usually harder to achieve the correct position to do so, and 2.) did not apply to each and every attack you did when the conditions where right, usually just the first.
In older versions, Backstab was really not very useful, not that it was particularly clear in the rules when it would count. So I guess you could call it 'balanced', although I would prefer "largely irrelevant".
In answer to the question in your previous post, yes, in the PFRPG Beta just about everything is now vulnerable to Sneak Attack. From the designer's note on page 40 (in the Rogue class description):
Sneak attack now works against nearly every creature you might face. While some might have specific immunity, the
change was made so that rogues might be more effective in combat regardless of the adventure. Now it represents being able to find a weak spot more than striking at vital organs. Generally speaking, only creatures that do not have a weak spot at all, either due to a homogenous nature or nearindestructible build, are immune to sneak attack. Examples might include air, earth, fire, and water elementals, most oozes and some undead.
It's one of the best single changes in PFRPG from 3.5, for my money. I just hope they make all those creatures crittable, too.
|
|
I still think this is a terrible idea. I can see it for crits, expecially against golems, but I really hope the remove undead from sneak attack. It takes away from other characters, and it also makes undea less a threat. It is not worth it to please rogue who got bored fighting undead, it really is not.
|
|
I still think this is a terrible idea. I can see it for crits, expecially against golems, but I really hope the remove undead from sneak attack. It takes away from other characters, and it also makes undea less a threat. It is not worth it to please rogue who got bored fighting undead, it really is not.
Undead can get more hit points now. Also, the problem with undead is that you can have whole adventures, lasting several play sessions, where nearly all of the opponents are undead. Even if the previous sneak attack and crit immunity made sense -- which I think it doesn't, because most undead clearly do have locational vulnerabilities -- it makes for No Fun. However, removing the immunity makes sense as well as making for more fun, so it seems like it's win-win to me.
|
At the risk of being repetetive, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring as asking for this change. Just because a creature doesn't have a functioning or normal anatomy doesn't mean it doesn't have weak-points.
Immunity to critical hits is VERY frustrating for players. Having run a Ravenloft game, the mess of undead the players came across was extremely aggravating because it meant that martial damage would never be increased AND a host of feats and rogue levels would generally be wasted. The rule certainly hinders melee characters, whose average damage without criticals drops to anemic levels.
Widening criticals gives melee characters more efficacy against opponents, more incentive to take feats that improve criticals or have special effects on critical hits, and adds a lot more dynamic back into combat.
It also makes the select monsters who are immune to criticals more dangerous and different.
It never felt "odd" or suspended our disbelief, when we critted undead and constructs back in AD&D -- we thought of it as finding the "weak" spots in their essence/body. For example, if a wraith came too close, a well-timed, lucky blow might shred its incorporeal essence and body to "ethereal pieces". Or, you might have jammed the iron golem's power source, or otherwise caught it with a devastating blow that shattered vital mechanical and/or magical components or parts (I remember someone shattering a golem's leg, and yet another blow that hit a "weak spot" in its breastplate, which "caved in"). At least for the "corporeal" beings, it isn't hard to imagine crits working in a normal fashion.
I can understand why some creatures would be immune to sneak attacks, but I definitely raise my voice in favor of making *EVERYONE* vulnerable to critical hits -- in case of most of the characters, they don't happen and too often and for the rest it's absolutely frustrating to spend feats on something which doesn't affect about *HALF* the monsters in the game. And if your DM is running a game with a strong undead/construct-theme...