I don't remember rogues being 100% useless in 3.0 or 3.5, frankly. I'm not "making" them anything - I'm questioning the logic of changing these particular paradigms. One typically assumes that there is a non-arbitrary reason for making changes.
The rogue wasn't 100% useless but they were severely limited when it came to constructs and undead in 3E games.
As for the change I think reason was to give all the non magic using classes a good boost. In the case of the rogue it was to improve sneak attack and the talents. Much like the fighter got more feats to pick, weapon training, armor training and bravery. It seemed these were much needed boosts in my opinion especially at high levels when you saw casters becoming so much more powerful.
Also in most fantasy stories and legends there is always a weakness to exploited. Wasn't there one movie of large copper statue that attacked but was defeated by attacking specific spot on the heal. I'm thinking it might have been "Jason and the Argonauts", film from either the late 70s or early 80s. I picture that as what the rogues is doing.
Still if I want to make an Iron Golem immune to sneak attack I'll do that but it's special case not the norm. Same with undead, maybe these skeletons are special and there for immune to sneak attack but not every skeleton will be. I like that better than all undead are immune and it's special case when sneak attack does work.
Perhaps the key to understanding elementals is that they are not from this world. A water elemental is a "perfect" water, with no trace amounts of anything else in it's body. They are more pure than even distilled water. The same holds true for the other types of elementals. So therefore, an earth elemental SHOULD be without flaws, whereas a statue, or block of granite, or golem is not 100% pure and DOES have flaws. Flaws that a rouge may be able to exploit.
So go build a golem from stone on the elemental plane of earth. Will that one be immune to critical hits, or is it "otherworldly energy" that is making the elemental immune, rather than physical materials? If so, why are undead vulnerable? They're animated by otherworldly energy too - energy from the Negative Material Plane. I mean, if we're talking about the vulnerability of form, we can point out that the average undead has already been subjected to enough trauma to KILL it before negative energy made it stand up and start killing people.
Hell, a shadow is made out of... shadow... and if you happen to have a ghost touch weapon, you can still backstab that sucker.
I'm no geologist, but I assure you "dirt" and "stone" are rather nebulous terms.
The assertion was that there was variability in the material nature of constructs and undead, but none in elementals - that they were a single, consistent material such that no one part was weaker than another. While I sincerely understand that you're no geologist, do you think you can find your way to agreeing that dirt is typically weaker than stone, and that dirt, stone, and gems are not materially identical?
Speaking of absurd things that are in the mechanics that I don't see you whining about - stone/iron/ice golems not being immune to ranged weapons (no ranged weapon will ever put out enough force to pierce any of those), anyone but Monks being able to hurt an armored foe with an unarmed strike even with Improved Unarmed Strike (I don't see Improved Whip Wielder), pretty much anything a Bard can do, etc
No non-magical ranged weapon, certainly, unless there's adamantine involved. You don't see me "whining" about anyone being ineffective against an enemy type - that'd be the people who are saying these changes NEED to be in place to make rogues less "underpowered". You'll encounter that same issue with elementals, too, 'cept for the fact that adamantine won't overcome their DR.
Time to slap "flaming" on your bow, since the fire damage is not reduced by physical DR.
Or maybe the joint. The joints are always weak points. Always.
Except in elementals. A zombie squid only has one actual mechanical "joint" - in its beak. Aim for the beak! I can't even FIND a shambling mound's head... or its arms, really. I'm fairly certain they don't have bones, but then again, I'm not a 10th level rogue, right?
Well, by RAW, unless Golems are alive, you can't. But let's not let facts get in the way of hating Rogues.
This is actually true - I hadn't gone back and read the "Bleeding Attack" text, and was going on the wounding weapon description. I don't hate rogues, I just hate crappy design decisions. Wounding weapons cause skeletons and statues to bleed. I'm all ears for your smartass explanation for that one.
Ok, I change the class to give it the ability to sneak attack golems and undead. I win.
You win "crappy, arbitrary designer of the year" award, yes. Here's a quarter - dont' spend it all in one place.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
A whole lot of argument for argument's sake.
You're just being obtuse. One might even say...trolling.
Qtips and steak knives? Please. Your examples are even less logical than those of the people who are trying to respond to your original query. This, added to your complete unwillingness to find any merit in an argument counter to your own, and you can see why so many of your responders are getting defensive.
I bid this thread, and you, Sir Troll, adieu.
You win "crappy, arbitrary designer of the year" award, yes. Here's a quarter - dont' spend it all in one place.
It's not the least bit arbitrary. It's just grounded in balance rather than pretend stabbing scenarios.
And he should get a dollar just for talking to someone as rude as you.
|
• Darkvision 60 feet.
• Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
• Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects.
• Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. Positive energy (such as a cure spell) deals damage to undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score. Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.
• Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
• Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.When was this thought up? 3.0, 3.5, 3.75 or 3.P?
EDIT-I ask because this would be WONDERFUL for my homebrew and I don't want to step on any toes.
Frank Trollman made the suggestion that undead should have just been a creature that is damaged by positive energy. I edited the Undead type from the PRD into that in about five minutes after posting about it. Neither of us care if you use it. We share our work with anyone that listens.
You're just being obtuse. One might even say...trolling.
Man, I need an egg timer so I can count down the seconds between someone not being agreed with and them declaring the other person to just be trolling. That goes for every thread in every forum.
Qtips and steak knives? Please. Your examples are even less logical than those of the people who are trying to respond to your original query. This, added to your complete unwillingness to find any merit in an argument counter to your own, and you can see why so many of your responders are getting defensive.
Actually, the qtips and steak knives aspect is a totally legitimate form of debate - it involves taking someone's proposed logic to the extremes of what remains possible within the framework they've laid out and showing that their ideas only hold water when you're dealing with small mid-ranges. Chopsticks will do what... 1 point of damage under d20.. maybe? However, chopsticks in the hands of a gnomish rogue can deal three times the damage to a giant, iron statue as a greataxe in the hands of an ogre. And you call ME obtuse?
I don't see sufficient merit in the arguments being presented to say "oh, ok, that makes total sense", no. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that you can't "talk sense into me" by your definition of sense, but I'm not going to lie and say that I agree with you just because that's less confrontational than the truth.
It's not the least bit arbitrary. It's just grounded in balance rather than pretend stabbing scenarios.
Sorry, aren't all rogue attacks "pretend stabbing scenarios"? If you want perfect balance then eliminate all classes and give everybody a 10 in each stat. If we're not looking to have SOME level of "real world" realism in our games, then lets give all characters a fly speed and x-ray vision while we're making arbitrary changes...
And for the record, I don't give healing hugs. You seem overly concerned with some sort of "bad vibe" you get from the way I word my posts. If the the content of statements is less important to you than how they are presented then you're absolutely right - you should probably stay well clear of anything I post. That said, I don't think I've made any vicious personal attacks on anybody. Some people may take their positions so seriously that they FEEL that an attack on their position is an attack on their person, but that's more mental illness than legitimate complaint :)
VoodooMike: I was AGREEING with you. But since you seem to be in the mood to debate (and I love to debate)...
So go build a golem from stone on the elemental plane of earth. Will that one be immune to critical hits, or is it "otherworldly energy" that is making the elemental immune, rather than physical materials?
Actually, traveling to an elemental plane to harvest "pure" material for your golem sounds like an AWESOME adventure, and a special (if not unique) case. Certainly not something that every wizard does. In other words, I't not the standard golem from the bestiary. If you went to that length to make your golem, I would think it entirely reasonable that your golem would have a higher CR and be immune to crits. Most golems are made from whatever local stuff is available, not pure elemental material. Notice, I said MATERIAL, not SPIRIT. To put it another way, the creature's body, not soul.
If so, why are undead vulnerable? They're animated by otherworldly energy too - energy from the Negative Material Plane. I mean, if we're talking about the vulnerability of form, we can point out that the average undead has already been subjected to enough trauma to KILL it before negative energy made it stand up and start killing people.
You said it yourself. ENERGY. Not the undead's MATTER, but it's ENERGY. As I said above, "To put it another way, the creature's body, not soul." I doubt you belive that a sneak attack is damaging a creature's soul.
Hell, a shadow is made out of... shadow... and if you happen to have a ghost touch weapon, you can still backstab that sucker.
I'm not familiar with ghosttouch weapons. Neither I, not anyone at my table ever used one, and I'm currently without my books. So I can't respond to this.
Eh guys let it go. By this point the OP has made it clear he does not care why, nor does he care if it makes sense or not. All he wants is folks to say he is right and everyone else is wrong. Not alot of point in hashing it out with someone who has no interest in trying to hear what ya are saying
Anyhow carry on.
We share our work with anyone that listens.
Were you talking? Again?
I thought we settled that in the other thread.
So go build a golem from stone on the elemental plane of earth. Will that one be immune to critical hits, or is it "otherworldly energy" that is making the elemental immune, rather than physical materials? If so, why are undead vulnerable?
It won't be immune to critical hits because it will be a construct, not an elemental. Unless you intend to start arguing Howlers are immune to sneak attack because they are from the plane of chaos.
Hell, a shadow is made out of... shadow... and if you happen to have a ghost touch weapon, you can still backstab that sucker.
If you want to cherry pick, I'm sure you can rewrite to rules and release Pathfinder.5 so that we can have all the generic kinks designed into the system worked out so nothing doesn't make sense (other than the obvious stuff)
The assertion was that there was variability in the material nature of constructs and undead, but none in elementals - that they were a single, consistent material such that no one part was weaker than another.
That wasn't even remotely what was said. You are misconstruing at least two statements to make a completely absurd argument. I am pretty sure that counts as some logical fallacy.
No non-magical ranged weapon, certainly, unless there's adamantine involved.
Wrong. They may not get hurt from it, but they are not immune. And neither should a person with an adamantine bullet in a sling be able to hurt them. There is no way to put in enough force at range to hurt it.
You don't see me "whining" about anyone being ineffective against an enemy type - that'd be the people who are saying these changes NEED to be in place to make rogues less "underpowered".
Funny how that's not what I said. You are whining that it "doesn't make sense" that a Rogue can sneak attack undead and constructs while hand-waving a number of inherently nonsensical things involving both.
Except in elementals. A zombie squid only has one actual mechanical "joint" - in its beak. Aim for the beak! I can't even FIND a shambling mound's head... or its arms, really. I'm fairly certain they don't have bones, but then again, I'm not a 10th level rogue, right?
1) Elementals have no joints because they are made up of a random but constant amount of material that they themselves give shape to.
2) Trees don't have bones, but - and I'm not an arborist either - but I can assure you that they have joints.3) What isn't a weak spot on a soft spongy thing like a squid or shambling mound? Never mind the fact that shambling mounds arn't constructs or undead. Are you adding "Rogues shouldn't be able to sneak attack plants" to the list now? And "organs" are usually good things to aim for - which zombies and shambling mounds have.
Frank Trollman made the suggestion that undead should have just been a creature that is damaged by positive energy. I edited the Undead type from the PRD into that in about five minutes after posting about it. Neither of us care if you use it. We share our work with anyone that listens.
• Darkvision 60 feet.
• Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
• Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects.
• Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. Positive energy (such as a cure spell) deals damage to undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score. Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.
• Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
• Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.When was this thought up? 3.0, 3.5, 3.75 or 3.P?
EDIT-I ask because this would be WONDERFUL for my homebrew and I don't want to step on any toes.
I'm saving this. You will both be fully credited when I get to that aspect of my homebrew.
[EDIT] I'm also thinking about sneak attack doing half damage to creatures that are normally immune to it under 3.5 rules(mine is a 3.5 homebrew) unless someone takes a corresponding feat for that type of creature.
Actually, the qtips and steak knives aspect is a totally legitimate form of debate - it involves taking someone's proposed logic to the extremes of what remains possible within the framework they've laid out and showing that their ideas only hold water when you're dealing with small mid-ranges. Chopsticks will do what... 1 point of damage under d20.. maybe? However, chopsticks in the hands of a gnomish rogue can deal three times the damage to a giant, iron statue as a greataxe in the hands of an ogre. And you call ME obtuse?
There is a very fine line between ad absurdum arguments being a valid argument and being a logical fallacy.
|
To sum this thread up: There is a way to make this make sense. It isn't the most concrete or easily understood thing in the world, but it isn't a real stretch either. If you don't like the explanation, then don't allow sneak attack on those creatures.
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
|
|
Were you talking? Again?
I thought we settled that in the other thread.
Who are you again?
I'm saving this. You will both be fully credited when I get to that aspect of my homebrew.
[EDIT] I'm also thinking about sneak attack doing half damage to creatures that are normally immune to it under 3.5 rules(mine is a 3.5 homebrew) unless someone takes a corresponding feat...
Well, thank you! It's not all that much, but since I try to credit others when I stea-ahem, borrow from them, I appreciate it.
I think half-SA is a decent compromise between not letting the rogue play and letting him run roughshod over everything. I could play with either that or PF rules.
Edit: And GB, if you were joshing me, I was responding in kind. If you weren't, well, I don't even remember the argument you're talking about. I do recall we had one tho.
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
Wait! You can do that on the internet?
VoodooMike: I was AGREEING with you. But since you seem to be in the mood to debate (and I love to debate)...
I know you were, but yes, I'm always in the mood for good debate. That said, most of this thread is not that, its arbitrary and poorly thought out status quo support.
Actually, traveling to an elemental plane to harvest "pure" material for your golem sounds like an AWESOME adventure, and a special (if not unique) case. Certainly not something that every wizard does. In other words, I't not the standard golem from the bestiary. If you went to that length to make your golem, I would think it entirely reasonable that your golem would have a higher CR and be immune to crits. Most golems are made from whatever local stuff is available, not pure elemental material. Notice, I said MATERIAL, not SPIRIT. To put it another way, the creature's body, not soul.
I suppose we'll hit an impasse here because Paizo doesn't have enough source material to decide what their take is on elementals. In past D&D, the material body of an elemental was not necessarily otherworldly material - you were turning material plane material of that elemental type into the elemental and thus required a substantial sum of that material in order to bring forth the elemental. That's why you'd have massive earth elementals with trees sticking out of them and such, or kelp floating around in a water elemental. They were effectively elemental spirits bound into material plane bodies.
Likewise, even the old Paizo campaign setting book gives very, very little detail when it comes to the planes, so we don't know their take on the elemental planes besides their positioning relative to the other planes. Previously there was mining done on the plane of earth, something that'd be almost futile if the earthen materials on the plane of earth were perfectly consistent. Likewise, elemental planes themselves had "flaws" - incursions of other elements within them. The planes themselves lacked the material perfection that we're claiming the denizens of those planes absolutely do, one and all.
You said it yourself. ENERGY. Not the undead's MATTER, but it's ENERGY. As I said above, "To put it another way, the creature's body, not soul." I doubt you belive that a sneak attack is damaging a creature's soul.
The majority of these people have been yammering on about the material "joints" of an animated skeleton. I'm saying that materially the undead are heaps of disjointed bones and rotting flesh, so they're already "critcialled" all up the wazoo... enough so that they're DEAD. Its the negative energy that makes them animate and gives them structure again - those skeletons are just a pile of bones without the animating force.
The animating force behind the undead is thus a major, important part of their structure. Without that negative energy they DO fall to pieces without a single hit. That's why undead were a pain in the ass, previously, because you had to hack them to bits such that even with that obnoxious negative energy animating them, they posed no further threat. That, or you zotted them with positive energy and they just deanimated.
I'm not familiar with ghosttouch weapons. Neither I, not anyone at my table ever used one, and I'm currently without my books. So I can't respond to this.
A +1 bonus magical property that negates an incorporeal creature's immunity to critical hits. The base definition is that a "ghost touch" weapon counts as both corporeal and incorporeal. So, you can sneak attack a ghost!
Eh guys let it go. By this point the OP has made it clear he does not care why, nor does he care if it makes sense or not. All he wants is folks to say he is right and everyone else is wrong. Not alot of point in hashing it out with someone who has no interest in trying to hear what ya are saying
It is quite megalomaniacal to believe that because I don't agree with you, or see merit in your argument, that I am incapable of agreeing with anyone or seeing merit in anyone's arguments. I don't care about acknowledgement, and have said from the beginning that I am simply looking for a good reason to use the rule change in my campaigns.
The only worthwhile statements I've seen have been about undead being a prevalent enemy type (in some campaigns) and rogues feeling powerless against them. I don't agree, however, that making these creature types vulnerable to sneak attack is the answer to that problem. I think it is a cheap-and-dirty fix applied to the universe rather than to the class... and I'm not 100% convinced the class NEEDS a change. While I only rarely play a rogue, I have a hard time imagining that sneak attack is all a rogue is good for, even in combat. Likewise, there have always been answers to creature defenses.
What it DOES seem to come down to is a lot of rogues being "dice junkies" - getting so used to rolling 10d6 per attack that being reduced to NORMAL weapon damage gives them the shakes. I don't think the game needs altering to prevent rogues coming down off that high, I think rogues need to stop looking at themselves as being sneak attack on legs. If the class needs some work to make it easier for rogues to do that, then I'm not opposed to that either, really. I never mind showing the various classes some love.
The attempts by some folks to justify the change based on physics and anatomy have been, however, pretty lame. That's why it probably seems to you that I ridicule them - because I do! I've found those arguments to be, thus far, quite silly, and thus, my responses have invovled treating them like they're silly, because they are.
Golems in particular are purposefully made from the neccisary materials and the required components and spells to create - once made, a Golem is more than simply an 'Animated Object', it doesnt have Hardness anymore (though an Animated Object does), it has Damage Reduction and a slew of HP, attack bonuses and they are often immune to almost all magic (as long as it allows SR otherwise the spell works just fine).
Animated Objects are clumsy, slow and awkward - an animated suit of armor is just an object, but a Golem is capable of programmed intellgence to some degree and can fight to the best of its ability depending what its creators instructions are.
Golems are not 'chiseled' out of a single block of stone like a solid statue, they are often always made from several parts, held together by magic and mechanical or artificial joints.
Look at the Flesh Golem for example, its more or less a stitched together corpse fuelled by elemental energy, covered in tubes and wires that crisscross its body like a basic circulatory network.
Elementals on the other hand are not 'manufactured' like Golems are, they simply exist from whatever energy/substance that they imbue. A water elemental occupying a pool of water can simply sit still and 'be' water if it likes, and a fire elemental could look like a bonfire, or an earth elemental could look like a pile or rocks. Thats all its composed of.
Likewise, elemental planes themselves had "flaws" - incursions of other elements within them. The planes themselves lacked the material perfection that we're claiming the denizens of those planes absolutely do, one and all.
Textbook strawman. It must be rather easy to defeat an argument that you yourself created from thin air.
The majority of these people have been yammering on about the material "joints" of an animated skeleton. I'm saying that materially the undead are heaps of disjointed bones and rotting flesh, so they're already "critcialled" all up the wazoo... enough so that they're DEAD. Its the negative energy that makes them animate and gives them structure again - those skeletons are just a pile of bones without the animating force.
Are you then arguing that skeletons are just a magically moving jumble of bones - a "bone elemental" if you will - instead of bones magically held together in the shape of the skeleton of the creature it once was? Well, that raises all sorts of questions.
While I only rarely play a rogue
I was hoping the rest of that statement would be "my opinion can therefore be ignored."
Likewise, there have always been answers to creature defenses.
Like getting an item that let's you Sneak Attack the thing negating your primary class ability?
When undead/golems/plants (apparently) walk around emitting fields of silence or antimagic, then we can have this discussion about Bards, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers.
To sum this thread up: There is a way to make this make sense. It isn't the most concrete or easily understood thing in the world, but it isn't a real stretch either. If you don't like the explanation, then don't allow sneak attack on those creatures.
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
+1, and the next discussion is on pirates vs ninjas.
Success is not an option. Also, Picard was better than Kirk.Wait! You can do that on the internet?
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
Make it so.
It won't be immune to critical hits because it will be a construct, not an elemental. Unless you intend to start arguing Howlers are immune to sneak attack because they are from the plane of chaos.
Howlers have a form of metabolism (hence the constitution score). I'm totally willing to go for the assertion that anything that has some form of physical metabolism almost certainly has specific spots that are more important than others, and thus, is vulnerable to precision damage, within reason. Some things have such ambiguous anatomies that there's no good place to stab them... a slime, for example.
Elementals are material with animating force, more or less. That's true of golems and undead as well - the animating force is not reliant on the physical anatomy, unlike a living creature. It is made a mobile creature by the animating force, and the animating force upkeeps the material form, rather than the material form upkeeping the animating force.
That said, I seem to recall in Fiendish Codex 1 or 2, that either demons or devils (I forget which) were actually empty save for small sacks containing larval forms of every other demon type. I guess in their case you'd be stabbing for the balor sacks?
If you want to cherry pick, I'm sure you can rewrite to rules and release Pathfinder.5 so that we can have all the generic kinks designed into the system worked out so nothing doesn't make sense (other than the obvious stuff)
I'm actually saying "they DID make sense previously, but don't now". They had to make an ACTIVE CHANGE to the system to make things make less sense. The cherry in question was stapled to the tree after the fact.
That wasn't even remotely what was said. You are misconstruing at least two statements to make a completely absurd argument. I am pretty sure that counts as some logical fallacy.
Really? Lets see...
The only thing that really makes sense to be immune to crits are elementals and incorpereal beings. Things that are pretty much made up of one type of matter, be it ectoplasm, fire, or ooze.
If something is purely uniform in substance as an elemental or ooze. Then its getting immunity to critcal hits. As it doesn't matter where or how you strike it, is identical throughout thus not subject to criticals.
Elementals, separate from golems, are made of generic matter. A constant quantity, but of no particular form.
Though, in addition to there being plenty of assertion about elementals differing from golems in being "pure" or "generic" or "consistent all the way through" (despite them being described otherwise) it should be noted that incorporeal creatures are NOT inherently immune to critical hits - only immune to critical hits from purely corporeal sources. If you are incorporeal, or using a ghost touch weapon, they're not immune to those critical hits. That "made of nothing but ectoplasm" ghost can still be backstabbed.
Wrong. They may not get hurt from it, but they are not immune. And neither should a person with an adamantine bullet in a sling be able to hurt them. There is no way to put in enough force at range to hurt it.
Straight material hardness, really. It takes very little force for a harder material to scratch or in some way damage a softer material, though I'll agree that slings in general are a silly weapon, and its hard to imagine a sling hurting any monster regardless of what the stone is made of. I've never actually encountered a player using a sling, but when I do I'll let you know if it offends me :)
1) Elementals have no joints because they are made up of a random but constant amount of material that they themselves give shape to.
How can people spout this as being logical, and then turn around and talk about how ANYTHING that has joints of any sort has weak spots nomatter what? Earth elementals are not blobs - they have form, and they have limbs. We know this from the fact that they are described as having definitive shape, are shown with limbs, and have limb based attacks. Any assertion you make that they can just change shape at will and thus are just using randomly created pseudopods is TOTALLY FABRICATED BY YOU.
2) Trees don't have bones, but - and I'm not an arborist either - but I can assure you that they have joints.
So do earth elementals.
3) What isn't a weak spot on a soft spongy thing like a squid or shambling mound? Never mind the fact that shambling mounds arn't constructs or undead. Are you adding "Rogues shouldn't be able to sneak attack plants" to the list now? And "organs" are usually good things to aim for - which zombies and shambling mounds have.
Its a miracle that squids manage to live through the day! I don't think the assertion has ever been that things immune to critical hits are impossible to stab - it has been that there is no particular place you can stab them that will hurt them worse than others. They have no heart to stab, no brain to damage, and so on. So, no... a zombie squid has no "weak spot" in the way you're mentioning.
Shambling Mounds have organs? Are we making things up again, Cartigan? Where do you get THAT information from? Where do you knife a tree to make it die the quickest? Ironically, you'd want to ring the tree... so its "vulnerable spot" is its skin. Lets make all hits on plants critical hits!
Also, which organs do zombies use that makes them critical enough to hit?
There is a very fine line between ad absurdum arguments being a valid argument and being a logical fallacy.
I'm sure there is. The disagreement is about whether that line was crossed. I think you find things to be logical fallacies just because they aren't in agreement with you, but am totally open to your explaining my logical fallacies to me. Logical fallacy implies, for example, that I'm wrong about a gnomish rogue with chopsticks being able to outdamage an ogre with a greataxe, when attacking an iron golem - is that what you're saying?
I'm also thinking about sneak attack doing half damage to creatures that are normally immune to it under 3.5 rules(mine is a 3.5 homebrew) unless someone takes a corresponding feat for that type of creature.
There was a feat in one of the 3.5 books that allowed good-alignment rogues to channel some minor amount of positive energy and thereby deal 2 points of additional positive damage per sneak attack die on attacks on undead that would have been sneak attacks against normal foes. It probably didn't satisfy those dice junkies, but it did allow rogues to still deal more damage than most party members against undead using their usual tactics.
Personally, I don't think the answer is to just allow rogues to now damage anything in the known universe. I think the answer would be to make rogues a more interesting class. Maybe open up their combat abilities a bit such that "sneak attack" is instead "precision attack" which can deal the damage to the creatures that have a rational vulnerability to it, or which can apply progressive bonuses to things like trip attack CMBs such that the rogue can outmaneuver the enemy and knock it on its ass by flanking it with the fighter, and so on.
To each their own, of course.
Make it so.Success is not an option. Also, Picard was better than Kirk.Wait! You can do that on the internet?
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
Silence, you fools. Everyone knows Sisko(Hawk!!!!) was the best.
Success is not an option. Also, Picard was better than Kirk.Wait! You can do that on the internet?
Now can we please argue about something where progress will be made?
I'll agree with that.
I'm saving this. You will both be fully credited when I get to that aspect of my homebrew.
[EDIT] I'm also thinking about sneak attack doing half damage to creatures that are normally immune to it under 3.5 rules(mine is a 3.5 homebrew) unless someone takes a corresponding feat...
The 1/2 sneak attack idea mentioned in this thread was mine. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's thought of something like that. Regardless, feel free to use the idea. It was offered as advice for anyone upset with the current sneak attack rules for certain creatures, and therefore was intended to be used. I'm flattered that an idea of mine will be used in someone's game.
VoodooMike is right. Rogue's should be able to sneak attack elementals as well. I expect it'll be errata'd soon.
really. It takes very little force for a harder material to scratch or in some way damage a softer material, though I'll agree that slings in general are a silly weapon, and its hard to imagine a sling hurting any monster regardless of what the stone is made of.
You do know that the romans had special pliers to remove sling bullets from bodies? You can penetrate sheet metal with a sling. The sling is a very respectable weapon, though it's D&D incarnation doesn't give it enough credit it's still useful.
Where do you knife a tree to make it die the quickest?
Depends on the tree, but if you want it to die from as little force as possible, hitting the roots might be a good idea. Or the bark, on some trees like birches (remove a square decimeter or three and the tree might get very sick, real quick).
A tree has hardness 5 though, so a greataxe-wielder without sneak attack will still be far more useful than someone with 1d4+1d6 damage with a dagger.Any assertion you make that they can just change shape at will and thus are just using randomly created pseudopods is TOTALLY FABRICATED BY YOU.
Like the assertion that a skeleton is wholly held together by magic, and that removing it's head won't kill it? Because that's something you seem to be insinuating without having a single shred of evidence.
The fact that elementals ARE immune to critical hits seem to indicate that they don't have weak spots. Likewise, the fact that zombies aren't, indicates that they have weak spots.
Though, in addition to there being plenty of assertion about elementals differing from golems in being "pure" or "generic" or "consistent all the way through" (despite them being described otherwise) it should be noted that incorporeal creatures are NOT inherently immune to critical hits - only immune to critical hits from purely corporeal sources. If you are incorporeal, or using a ghost touch weapon, they're not immune to those critical hits. That "made of nothing but ectoplasm" ghost can still be backstabbed.
What I and TriO said are true. The other is a bit of a stretch, but you are stretching it beyond what is said to attack it. Sure, there are different kind of earth but perhaps let's go and see how many types of fire or air or water there are? hell, your sad attempt at a counter example just proved what I said true, or are you going to further argue that "dirt," "stone," and "gemstones" are not nebulous terms?
How can people spout this as being logical, and then turn around and talk about how ANYTHING that has joints of any sort has weak spots nomatter what? Earth elementals are not blobs - they have form, and they have limbs. We know this from the fact that they are described as having definitive shape, are shown with limbs, and have limb based attacks. Any assertion you make that they can just change shape at will and thus are just using randomly created pseudopods is TOTALLY FABRICATED BY YOU.
Elemental "joints" are more of a construct of the term. Elementals are a mass which, at some point, may form joints in attacking. However, attacking the joint in no way hinders the rest of the mass as the damage to the joint would be filled out.
I also like your constant harping on earth elementals because they are loosely related to iron or stone golems.OK, I will now make my ENTIRE argument, from this point on, solely about flesh golems in my argument for sneak attacking golems. If you can be obtuse, so can I.
Shambling Mounds have organs? Are we making things up again, Cartigan?
I'm sure SOME ONE IS, but it is the guy who wrote the flavor text for Shambling Mounds in the Pathfinder SRD and not me.
Also, which organs do zombies use that makes them critical enough to hit?
Eyes? Muscles? Tendons?
VoodooMike is right. Rogue's should be able to sneak attack elementals as well. I expect it'll be errata'd soon.
They have no discernible weak spots or vital organs currently.
Does anyone know what the point of this thread is? It is definitely not a rules question. It is more of a "I hate this rule" thing, which belongs in another area. It seems he is looking for level of realism that makes sense IRL won't happen. A shield is not going to protect you when a gargantuan monster takes a swing. You and the shield would be airborne, as an example, and if the monster hit the shield and not you I am sure the shield would leave your hand.
Are you then arguing that skeletons are just a magically moving jumble of bones - a "bone elemental" if you will - instead of bones magically held together in the shape of the skeleton of the creature it once was? Well, that raises all sorts of questions.
I am, in fact, saying that skeletons are magically moving jumbles of bones, yes. They're skeletons... animated by negative energy. There has never been reference in ANY edition of D&D to anything more than bones and negative energy. If I've missed a reference that you know of, please enlighten me.
I was hoping the rest of that statement would be "my opinion can therefore be ignored."
Seriously? Because I don't play a rogue every time I play a d20 character I don't have a valid opinion on anything that might apply to rogues? Even you can't be THAT ignorant.
When undead/golems/plants (apparently) walk around emitting fields of silence or antimagic, then we can have this discussion about Bards, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers.
I'm sorry, have you ever encountered a golem in any of your games.. ever? They were IMMUNE TO MAGIC in 3.0, which was downgraded to unbeatable spell resistance in 3.5. That's wonderful if your wizard knows ahead of time to stock up on conjuration spells, but then again, if the rogue knows ahead of time that he'll be facing a golem he can go snag himself an adamantine shortsword and a scarab of golembane. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
And they can stop the 'bleeding' by making a heal check. They have wisdom scores. Its not trained only.
Sure, as long as they can peel the iron bandages out of the iron packages. I hope they avoid the iron hairs on their arms, lets pulling it off in a few days will be painful!
+10d6 is better damage, as is +10million, as is +1. I never claimed to be a level 19 rogue. In fact I believe I stated it was pretty far fetched to consider any human comparable to a high level adventurer. I do claim percision damage exists even on constructs. You of course cannot distract an int 0 object as its immune.
Only when you separate the numbers from the mechanics. Sneak attack damage is specifically defined as precision damage - damage that is based on the location of the blow, not the force of it, which is why the weapon damage itself is irrelevant (ie, steak knives and chopsticks). By distract I was talking about the fact that flanking allows sneak attacks as the target cannot focus its attention on defending itself, hence is too distracted to avoid your precision attack. Skeletons and Golems have no intelligence stat but are still subject to this. It is unrelated to feinting.
A fighter/monk with a +2 strength modifier can damage the wall every time he makes a critical strike (2d3+4). Your strength 3 gnome only deals 2d3+1d6-4 on a crit. Of course as the characters level up, all of them will go be able to destroy the wall more quickly.
The wall example is reference to people's assertion that material plane stone has flaws that the rogue can exploit, hence it was talking about rogues "sneak attacking" walls just as well as they sneak attack stone golems. You're starting to remove the example from the context here.
BS. You are the one that assigned sneak attack the ability to turn a steak knife into a tank shell. Not me.
The game did, actually, though I'll admit that it was a bit of an exaggeration. D20 modern lists tank guns as dealing 10d12 damage, while a rogue is limited to a mere 10d6 damage with their sneak attacks, so... a rogue with a steak knife (lets day, 1d2) will average 36 points of damage while an M1A2 tank will average 65 points. That said, that rogue can potentially attack 4x per round, while the tank is limited to once. So, it was unfair of me to compare a steak knife attack to a tank cannon.. to be accurate, I should have said TWO steak knife attacks.
BS. When breaking boards you didn't strike the area center of the widest plane of the board at a nearly perpindicular angle. And oh, how was the wood cut? Funny did all of the wood grain travel in the same plane as the widest plane of the board which you struck nearly perpindicular too. You just attack which ever way was condusive to making contact with the most force possible? Striking the edge of the board traveling parrellel to the wood grain would of wielded similiar results for you. I just don't believe you. Lets see some video of breaking 2x4s by punching through them lengthwise master board breaker who didn't care how his target was set up.
If all this yammering is an attempt to say "you can break boards because you're hitting a thin spot and it is being braced at points far away from the point of impact" then that part is certainly true. If you read the posting you're attempting to ridicule you'll see that I was actually declaring that you absolutely ARE limited by the materials, regardless of your training. The wood wasn't the hardest possible wood in the world, and nobody can break them lengthwise. You won't be bending metal beams with your fist either... but none of these things are related to the inherent "flaws" in the material as has been suggested - they're based on very well-controlled setups.
If we're going to cite that as reason for anything physical to be vulnerable to precision damage then it calls into question the elemental immunity again. And hey, unlike me, that strength 3 gnome CAN punch through steel beams eventually, so long as they're moving (wouldn't a non-animated steel beam be exactly the same as an animated steel beam that was laying helpless?)
Golems are not 'chiseled' out of a single block of stone like a solid statue, they are often always made from several parts, held together by magic and mechanical or artificial joints.
Unless they're ALWAYS made from several parts and contain artificial joints, the joint concept is not sufficient. I've never seen any reference to a clay golem or stone golem being made from multiple pieces, so where are you getting your information?
Look at the Flesh Golem for example, its more or less a stitched together corpse fuelled by elemental energy, covered in tubes and wires that crisscross its body like a basic circulatory network.
According to the pictures, maybe... but as people keep assuring me when I reference the pictures, they're just artists renditions, not actual objective game material. Do I now have to argue every side of every possible argument? Howsabout I again ask you where you get your information that flesh golems have a circulatory system from?
Elementals on the other hand are not 'manufactured' like Golems are, they simply exist from whatever energy/substance that they imbue. A water elemental occupying a pool of water can simply sit still and 'be' water if it likes, and a fire elemental could look like a bonfire, or an earth elemental could look like a pile or rocks. Thats all its composed of.
This brings us back to the question: are elementals composed of material from their own elemental plane, or are they possessing material of the appropriate element from this plane? People have now claimed both sides of that particular debate as being relevant to their argument... when they're both arguing the same point.
As far as I know Paizo has nothing written to let us know their stance on the matter, hence my saying we're at an impasse on that topic.
Like the assertion that a skeleton is wholly held together by magic, and that removing it's head won't kill it? Because that's something you seem to be insinuating without having a single shred of evidence.
They're skeletons, and all that is required to make them is bones. The evidence for that is that they're SKELETONS and they're made from BONES. There has never been anything saying that the bones need to be held together by some form of additional physical material or the skeleton fails to come into existence. If they required ligaments they wouldn't have DR 5 against SLASHING weapons, would they?
As for the headless part - go read the information related to the Vorpal weapon quality on pg 472 of Pathfinder Core Rulebook. Be careful about assuming I'm inventing information, padre.
The fact that elementals ARE immune to critical hits seem to indicate that they don't have weak spots. Likewise, the fact that zombies aren't, indicates that they have weak spots.
That is unconscionably candy-assed. Paizo GAVE them these weak spots, but hasn't explained why - they didn't exist in 3.0 or 3.5, and any argument people can make to try to support the change also supports the idea that nothing at all should be immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. Why golems and not elementals? Why plants and not oozes? You can invent a quick way to explain having or not having crits for any of these that will satisfy people who don't want to think very hard, but at some point it just seems arbitrary. In 3.0 and 3.5 there was at least a rational dividing line: if something lacks discrete organic processes and doesn't have organs to target, then it is immune to critical hits and sneak attacks. Now... there's no such distinction.
voodooMike is right.
... they didn't exist in 3.0 or 3.5 ...
Since we know that 3.0 and 3.5 both were made with consistency and balanced gameplay in mind.
Since we know that 3.0 and 3.5 both were made with consistency and balanced gameplay in mind.
Yeah, and we all hated them so much that we opted to stick with it even when the company wanted us to move to their 4E. Pathfinder isn't phenomenally well balanced any more than 3.0 or 3.5 was - its just balanced differently.
And again I say - if you want to make a change, there should be a good reason for it, otherwise its arbitrary. Are we saying the rogue class was so terribly broken and unplayable that this change was needed lest the rogue would fade into obscurity as a class?
And again I say - if you want to make a change, there should be a good reason for it, otherwise its arbitrary. Are we saying the rogue class was so terribly broken and unplayable that this change was needed lest the rogue would fade into obscurity as a class?
The Paizo staff seem to think so.
In reverse - is the change so unbalancing that it is untenable?
|
|
Elementals = Spirit from elemental plane takes up mass in purest form of like material from the prime plane it was summoned to (as vessel)
Golems = Weak ass vessels for animating elemental sprits, subject to going berserk, etc. Held together by magic, force of will, compulsion of creator.
Undead = Super weak ass vessels, not elemental spirits but powered by partial negative energy to fuel a machine/activate animus (walking, standing, etc) which it was NOT designed to fuel.
Also with corporeal undead there are some limitations. The skeletons and zombies (to be animated as such and not just parts) must more or less be whole, and once destroyed they CANNOT be reanimated. There is no MASS of tissue or bones which can be reanimated as a zombie or skeleton, maybe some amalgamation or golem (see above)
Their structure which holds a shadow of human spirit/essence/animus (more occult sources, not D&D) must somewhat be intact, just as if you were to raise dead, just much less so for animate.
I would say that elementals on the prime are the purest form of animated sprit & source material, everything else is weaker by comparison. Hell, elementals should probably get fast heal or regen if they are near a large source of core material when on the prime. You could always argue that it is the bond/sprits presence in a place which it shouldn't be which is being attacked and broken down thus forcing it back to its homeplane at 0 hp.
Howlers have a form of metabolism (hence the constitution score). I'm totally willing to go for the assertion that anything that has some form of physical metabolism almost certainly has specific spots that are more important than others, and thus, is vulnerable to precision damage, within reason. Some things have such ambiguous anatomies that there's no good place to stab them... a slime, for example.Elementals are material with animating force, more or less. That's true of golems and undead as well - the animating force is not reliant on the physical anatomy, unlike a living creature. It is made a mobile creature by the animating force, and the animating force upkeeps the material form, rather than the material form upkeeping the animating force.
Wow, this is an especially obtuse argument from someone who appears to enjoy making obtuse arguments.
Elementals are oozes made from elemental material. Constructs and corporeal undead have defined forms. Elementals do not. Elementals appear in whatever form they want to. If you accept that oozes cannot be crit, you therefore must accept that elementals cannot be crit. Furthermore, because you accept the reason for oozes being uncrittable, you should therefore accept that the inverse is the reason that undead and constructs are crittable.
Furthermore, on the topic of critical hits on undead, it is quite logical and consistent. By far the most common method of destruction for any arbitrary mythological undead creature in real life is to cut off or destroy its head. If that's not a weak point, what is?
As with any of the Pathfinder Precision damage modifications, I add the caveat...
You need to identify the weak points...
Make a relevant knowledge check...or someone in your party make it...say like...the bard, or the lore master...
"If you strike a brain eating zombie in the skull, you can destroy it's brain...that's it's weak point."
"Stab a Vampire in the heart with a stake to immobilize it, then chop off its head."
Takes the metagaming aspect out of it.
Player: I got a sneak attack the zombie
DM: You stab where the zombie's kidneys would have been, but fail to inflict additional damage.
Player: I try to recall if zombies have a weakness. Rolls Knowledge: Religion.
DM: Crush the skull or sever the spinal column...
Yes, I like knowledge skills to be used in my games.
Profession (Undead Slayer) would work also...
|
|
Okay, lets go over the categories of creatures we're talking about here.
1) Ooze. It is made of one continuous chunk of material, all of which is completely identical and none of which the ooze relies on more than any other. Easy case for immunity.
2) Incorporeal Undead. Regardless of whether or not you have Ghost Touch, they are made of Ectoplasm. A single substance, continuous and relied upon evenly much like an ooze. Same result.
3) Construct. Bits of otherwise inanimate material reformed to something that could "almost" work as a creature, then adding in magical energy to act as the engine/muscle/etc so as to make it run. You could argue this one either way.
EXCEPTION: Animated Objects do not depend on certain parts any more than others, but because of this they do not have vulnerability to critical hits and sneak attacks.
4) Corporeal Undead. Similar to constructs, it's bits of otherwise inanimate material that could "almost" work as a creature (it should, since it was a creature), then adding magical energy to make those bits move. The only difference is the type of energy is Negative energy that has its own vulnerabilities and strengths compared to constructs. Again, you could argue this one either way.
5) Elementals. Made of normally inanimate materials, but unlike constructs and corporeal undead these bits do not necessarily have to form a shape that makes sense or would almost work without special energies. In this case the damage you do is to the energy, but through the material the energy is within.
My argument would be that anything whose form has to be pretty close to workable before it can work at all has some kind of weak spot, otherwise it wouldn't need to have a nearly workable form. The animated object being the exception to the normal construct rules is a decent indicator that this is the deciding factor for vulnerability.
Based on the above idea I find the thought of giving 1/2 sneak attack on corporeal undead and constructs fair, but because I don't care that much I choose not to modify RAW.
As with any of the Pathfinder Precision damage modifications, I add the caveat...
You need to identify the weak points...
Make a relevant knowledge check...or someone in your party make it...say like...the bard, or the lore master...
"If you strike a brain eating zombie in the skull, you can destroy it's brain...that's it's weak point."
"Stab a Vampire in the heart with a stake to immobilize it, then chop off its head."
Takes the metagaming aspect out of it.
Player: I got a sneak attack the zombie
DM: You stab where the zombie's kidneys would have been, but fail to inflict additional damage.
Player: I try to recall if zombies have a weakness. Rolls Knowledge: Religion.
DM: Crush the skull or sever the spinal column...Yes, I like knowledge skills to be used in my games.
Profession (Undead Slayer) would work also...
+1
I love it.
It's not the least bit arbitrary. It's just grounded in balance rather than pretend stabbing scenarios.Sorry, aren't all rogue attacks "pretend stabbing scenarios"?
Nope. Basically everything in the game comes down to math. When the math gets skewed in some fashion, the designers try to fix it. Everything attached to the math is really fluff.
And for the record, I don't give healing hugs. You seem overly concerned with some sort of...
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't accept them if you did. I'm not overly concerned with the vibe of your posts. I'm precisely the right amount of concerned that you can't make your arguments without insulting several people I like and respect. (Which is my job, =P) My original thought was that maybe you had become so caught up in making your point that etiquette was forgotten, something that happens to all of us. The language and phrasing you use in your posts have since provided ample evidence that you just want to ruffle feathers. If you FEEL I've misjudged you, you might work on your communication skills. Your arguments, flawed as they are, would be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt if you weren't making them in your chosen rhetorical style.
For those who are actually interested, take a look at the Skullclan Hunter prestige class. It's pre-pathfinder and wasn't core even in 3.5, but it's evidence that even the previous edition staff didn't feel that rogues were very effective versus undead opponents. Also, Complete Adventurer had several spells that allowed the recipient to SA constructs, undead, etc. The humor here being that clearly it's not totally blasphemous for a rogue to gain their primary class ability against those opponents, they just had to wait until another party member gave them permission.
I am, in fact, saying that skeletons are magically moving jumbles of bones, yes. They're skeletons... animated by negative energy. There has never been reference in ANY edition of D&D to anything more than bones and negative energy. If I've missed a reference that you know of, please enlighten me.
Then why are skeletons of different creatures any different?
They were IMMUNE TO MAGIC in 3.0, which was downgraded to unbeatable spell resistance in 3.5.
Which doesn't manage to stop defensive magic.
|
|
If you object that certain constructs do not rely on their form and certain oozes do, then by all means flip the norm on those creatures, the creature type only specifies the norm not the absolute. Make your opinion on the norm.
Before stripping away sneak attack, ask yourself if there is any conceivable way that the universe's workings are such that the creature has some spots that (when hit) cause the creature take more damage than others. If the answer is yes, and the flavor doesn't make you head explode from stupidity, then it can probably be sneak attacked. If not, it can't.
A creature that depends more on one part of its anatomy than another must inherently have some kind of weak spot, even if its not that easy to find. A creature that is not made of one uniform perfect material will have some spots where that material is less well formed than others. In minerals and living creatures (that have anatomies) this is more pronounced and reveals a weak spot. Note that bones are minerals.
Oh, I want to know where the heck you're pulling this "incorporeal creatures can be crit/sneak attacked by other incorporeal" creatures thing. I can honestly say that I've never seen that bit of text in any book, 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder. I'm not saying I've read all of it, but I'd like to know if it's actually a rule or just your houserule.
I'm not going to argue/participate in this thread any longer as its obvious that you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it. Peace.
Flesh Golems are made from several corpses, they are more or less Frankensteins Monster - they are NOT corpses that are whole and intact fuelled by an elemental spirit, in 3.5 you needed to have Heal and Craft (Leatherworking) to at least have a shot of stitching together body parts from different creatures, and the whole act of creating a golem requires raw materials in the first place.
What then if anything is there to add to a corpse by your logic if its simply fuelled by elemental energy?, its not. Golems are prone to go Beserk based on a percentile chance, caused by the elemental spirit that fuels the chassis breaking free of a sort and the creator losing control of it.
It doesnt matter if you argue that the picture is down to 'artistic interpretation'. I have NEVER seen a picture of a Flesh Golem where its not in some way like a misshapen Frankensteins Monster.
All Golems are more or less built from parts, I remember in Advanced D&D 2nd Edition, all Golems had to include an enchanted gemstone of some high value to be used as the 'heart' of the Golem which sometimes could be salvaged for its GP value after a fight.
All Golems require raw materials to be made, look up the feat in the Bestiary, its the same as an item creation feat, you need materials, you need components, and you need spells.
Elementals are for all purposes Oozes of the appropiate element, and there is NO nucleus of any kind to target in what is a composite creature shaped mass of earth, air, water or fire. Animated Objects do NOT require 'raw materials' in the way Golems do, which implies there is no finicky tweaking/stitching/wiring/etc going on and/or unusual chemicals or substances being involved.
By far the most common method of destruction for any arbitrary mythological undead creature in real life is to cut off or destroy its head. If that's not a weak point, what is?Please refer to Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg 472 under "Vorpal". You tell me!
Please read the text you quoted again and you'll see why your answer is a complete non sequitur.
How do you mean "different"? Skeletons generally take the form of the creature whose bones it is using.
That's not what you said when I asked you that question.
Are you then arguing that skeletons are just a magically moving jumble of bones - a "bone elemental" if you will - instead of bones magically held together in the shape of the skeleton of the creature it once was? Well, that raises all sorts of questions.I am, in fact, saying that skeletons are magically moving jumbles of bones, yes. They're skeletons... animated by negative energy. There has never been reference in ANY edition of D&D to anything more than bones and negative energy. If I've missed a reference that you know of, please enlighten me.
I highlighted the relevant part of my post.
It's pretty clear that however we define creatures to allow critical hits and sneak attacks on some but not others, VoodooMike will say they are defined differently (or could be) and so this does not apply.
I'm with StabbityDoom on this one, that if the form has to be structured and workable, then it can be sneak attacked, and if it doesn't then it can't be is a good rationale.
As for single-celled oozes, well, if you can find one that says it is single celled, let us know - I won't hold my breath.
I don't actually object to elementals being immune to crit/sneak, I just object to people sitting back and saying its totally logical that elementals are immune but constructs are not. Again, there may be no simple way to tell the difference between an earth elemental and a stone golem - not all stone golems are well-made statues, as it is not a requirement. Not all creatures of the elemental type are ambiguous lumps of element, either.
Stone golems are well formed compared to an elemental. A golem has to have realistic locomotion in some form and has to be solid - dripping mud isn't going to form a golem. I already explained the deal with elementals comparatively.
Besides, it makes perfect sense to sneak attack all golems because of, you know, flesh golems.