Well - what exactly is "vital" in a lump of walking clay/stone/iron? (golems don't *need* anything mechanical to work WHAT SO EVER!! They're magically animated period - not complex machinery that *could* arguably have some sort of "vital" bits somewhere.)
Undead ... are *already* dead. NOTHING is "vital" anymore at that point. ;-)
And, non-corporeal I have NO beef with this what so ever - they *have* no form TO be critically stricken in the first place ... unless we go all Ghostbusters and you want to crit some already inanimate ectoplasmed junk that got slimed - and that's a bit of a stretch as well. :-D
On the Rogue getting boned on damage in 3.5 - totally! PF is certainly MORE than made up for THAT slack, though, with the wide range of class features called Talents and Advanced Talents. Thrown into the mix and I'd play a rogue perfectly happy to NOT use SA on undead or golems. I mean, if I can stealth at full move, pick up 1-off magic tricks (feather fall would be INVALUABLE to a rogue in a low magic-type of thing for instance!), improve my combat potential (ala: Swashbuckler archetype options), I mean ... I'd be a *very* happy rogue ... VERY happy. So I can't crit something with NO freakin' necessary anatomy. OMG!!! I can still find PLENTY to do to make myself useful w/all those rogue talents I'll be accumulating. :-D
Undead ... are *already* dead. NOTHING is "vital" anymore at that point. ;-)
Well, there are vampires. Severed Heads, staked hearts.
I use an entirely subjective rule for crits and sneak attacks. If I can come up with a rationale on the spot, it works, otherwise, I get the pleasure of describing how it doesn't work. Either way, description is the key to making this kind of rule cool and not annoying.
"I stab it the book! No, I backstab it!"
"You can't backstab it, it doesn't have a discernable anatony."
"It has a spine!"
Undead ... are *already* dead. NOTHING is "vital" anymore at that point. ;-)Well, there are vampires. Severed Heads, staked hearts.
I use an entirely subjective rule for crits and sneak attacks. If I can come up with a rationale on the spot, it works, otherwise, I get the pleasure of describing how it doesn't work. Either way, description is the key to making this kind of rule cool and not annoying.
Zombies-headshot
Well I think just about everything is dropped when you cut its head off so I think pretty much all undead have a vital area on that score.I can see the argument for Golems a lot more easily, but I'm cool with accepting a little leeway in verisimilitude for the sake of class balance. There are lots of arguments like chipping away at joints, or magical sigils which animate it. Even statues have weak points that can be exploited, and if the only way to stop a giant walking rock is disassembly then that's just what you have to aim for.
True - undead have their "magic off" buttons, but, IMO, that's more in line with the DR X/silver, or DR x/called shot to head or something like that.
Then just elaborate a bit in the stat block on what the "head shot" looks like mechanically, and *poof* the undead w/the 1 magical off switch.
Those sort of undead, however, don't really have stats in game as it stands. I mean, *I* have yet to see a zombie statted up that way. It'd be HELLA cool to do that, though. I mean, full on Dawn of the Dead-style zombies ... you WILL not stop them unless the head/brain is rendered useless (interesting as this way I'd think even a vorpal sword *may* not kill the thing - behead it? sure. Does that "destroy" the head via called-shot like effects? Not necessarily - and I'd say it's even creepier to make it pointedly NOT stop the zombie [bonus points for making that headless zombie into the night's comic-relief until people figure out they need to bash the dang head in]!).
Anyway, my point on those "attack in method X always works" thing is that it's not exactly stat-block friendly, OR currently reflected in current stat-blocks (take your pick).
I'm down with the concept, though!
Back to Golems, though - chipping at joints ... *maybe* ok for crit-effects, IMO. Doesn't matter *who* does it, but it fits. You start calling it "vital" and my suspension of disbelief vanishes on the spot. (ie: works for a crit, but not SA or SA like damage). If golems have 'magical sigils' that animate it and they can be damaged ... you've left magic on the floor and just started taking a step towards Science and rationalization.
*Of course* disassembly is the only way to stop the giant walking rocks. That's why you just keep hammering at the damn thing (ie: chipping down HP's) until it finally keels over. You don't go and start looking for it's vital anatomical functions as - I guaran-damn-TEE you just because it looks like a man it will NOT have a heart ... it's a freakin' stone solid all the way through. ;-)
:shrugs:
Either way, Rogue Talents let them be super cool even when facing down things that they can't use SA against - there really *is* nothing bad in this, IMO.
By the end of 3.5, Rogues (and others) had little trouble sneak attacking or criticalling undead, due to the Truedeath Crystal found in the Magic Item Compendium.
|
Actually Romero style zombies, which are the type most people think of, do stop working when you cut their heads off, they also don't function too well without any limbs.
The True Death Crystal and the one for constructs (I can't be bothered to look up the name) were really expensive, some 50k gold each or so.
not unfair points
Just saying you can rationalize the rules a million ways. It's just sort of a 1984 think shift in PF. We're so used to rationalizing "of course undead can't be crit, they don't have any vital areas" and now you have to rationalize "of course they can be crit, everything has a spine or a head don't it?".
My suggestion, even if you don't like it thematically, is play with the PF rules as written and if your rogues are REALLY like uber-one shotting the golems and undead, house-rule in a 25 or 50% fortification.
Not directed at you, per se, but anyone who can't wrap their head around the rules change, which was quite obviously done for class balance sake and little else.
The True Death Crystal and the one for constructs (I can't be bothered to look up the name) were really expensive, some 50k gold each or so.
It was actually fairly cheap. 10k for the Greater Truedeath Crystal.
|
|
The True Death Crystal and the one for constructs (I can't be bothered to look up the name) were really expensive, some 50k gold each or so.It was actually fairly cheap. 10k for the Greater Truedeath Crystal.
Deconstruction gem, was the name of it. I believe I was thinking about another item with relatively limited use that is absurdly expensive for what it does, Greater Bracers of Archery.
@Kais: interesting on the Romero thing ... I still think it would be a nice 1 time move to have some headless undead *not* die (unless you head-bash it or something similar). Just for pure OMG! and shock value, though. :-D
@meatrace: I'm totally trying it straight first just for Ha-ha's to see how it plays. Used to be only melee heavies were really good against this one type of enemy ... now to see how badly rogues can mess w/it! However, thread-related, the 3.x's (hell, even AD&D, no?) barring of critical hits on undead/golems/stuff w/no real "vital" areas is something I preferred in 3.x.
:shrugs:
Just trying to NOT derail the whole thread now. :-D
True - undead have their "magic off" buttons, but, IMO, that's more in line with the DR X/silver, or DR x/called shot to head or something like that.
Every undead create has a weakness. Called shots do indeed exist - they're called sneak attack
Anyway, my point on those "attack in method X always works" thing is that it's not exactly stat-block friendly, OR currently reflected in current stat-blocks (take your pick).
Sure it is - they're sneak attackable and crit-able ;p
Back to Golems, though... If golems have 'magical sigils' that animate it and they can be damaged ... you've left magic on the floor and just started taking a step towards Science and rationalization.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You do realize this is how the original mythical golem worked, right? Are you going to argue that the myth and legend where golems arise from is too "scientific?"
*Of course* disassembly is the only way to stop the giant walking rocks. That's why you just keep hammering at the damn thing (ie: chipping down HP's) until it finally keels over. You don't go and start looking for it's vital anatomical functions as - I guaran-damn-TEE you just because it looks like a man it will NOT have a heart ... it's a freakin' stone solid all the way through. ;-)
:shrugs:...
"In some tales, a golem is inscribed with Hebrew words that keep it animated. The word emet (אמת, "truth" in the Hebrew language) written on a golem's forehead is one such example. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א) in emet, thus changing the inscription from 'truth' to 'death' (met מת, "dead"). Legend and folklore suggest that golems could be activated by writing a specific series of letters on parchment and placing the paper in a golem's mouth."
The only one claiming that golems have to be "magic robots" is you ;p
Wow these forums mangled the actual hebrew there.
|
I'm going to talk to Jason about creatures with grab being able to function like they had Improved Grapple, it's an interesting exercise.
Woohoo!
Oozes and octopi can say goodbye to 10 years of suck!And tiny parasites can now hitch a ride, without having to give away their presence!
(Mind you, one reason ochre jellies have grab and not Improved Grapple is because oozes are mindless and mindless creatures don't have feats.)
It's only a feat, if you call it a feat.
Otherwise, it's a 'racial ability'.It just got a bit silly that the Dex 10 dwarf in full plate was harder to catch than the Dex 18, base move 60', Tumble-freak.
Was there a reason why the initial touch attack was done away with?
I've heard some on this thread say it was an auto-pass, but I've not found that in my games. Not with low-HD grapplers, and high-Dex/dodge/deflection/luck ACs.
Was there a reason why the initial touch attack was done away with?
I've heard some on this thread say it was an auto-pass, but I've not found that in my games. Not with low-HD grapplers, and high-Dex/dodge/deflection/luck ACs.
1) One fewer roll means the acting creature's turn goes faster.
2) In general, a creature's touch AC is much lower than its regular AC, and against a CR-appropriate creature (whose regular AC is tuned to at an appropriate level), making that much-lower touch AC is easy enough to not be worth rolling. To say it another way, if a character is expected to be able to hit a monster's normal AC about 50% of the time, then making a touch attack edges into the 75% success category, at which point 3 out of 4 touch attack rolls are basically irrelevant to the action.3) The target's CMD includes aspects of the touch attack (CMD does not include armor, nat armor, or shield bonuses, so it's very much like a touch attack).
I'm going to talk to Jason about creatures with grab being able to function like they had Improved Grapple, it's an interesting exercise.Woohoo!
Oozes and octopi can say goodbye to 10 years of suck!
And tiny parasites can now hitch a ride, without having to give away their presence!
That would be a nice change. I have never used an ooze. Ok, once, but after that I just replace them with a monster of an equal CR.
|
That would be a nice change. I have never used an ooze. Ok, once, but after that I just replace them with a monster of an equal CR.I'm going to talk to Jason about creatures with grab being able to function like they had Improved Grapple, it's an interesting exercise.Woohoo!
Oozes and octopi can say goodbye to 10 years of suck!
And tiny parasites can now hitch a ride, without having to give away their presence!
+1.
Oozes have it hard enough already and since they all have a contact like effect it makes more sense that it operates like a touch type of attack which isn't too concerned about worn armor. I would still count the shield though -but that's just me, lol.
Oh, another thread reminded me of something else that kinda fits...but it's something I prefer from 3.0, not 3.5.
Weapon sizes.
I much preferred the old way of handling them (medium longsword used by a large creature counts as a short sword - or was it dagger? I forget - and used by a small creature counts as a greatsword). That's one of those things that left me going "huh?" when 3.5 came around.
Thought of another thing I miss: The Spiked Chain actually being worth a feat. Now it's inferior to a martial weapon, and there's a feat tax on it. I miss there being a weapon or two on the exotic list worth taking.
|
|
I miss the 3.5 Gnome, he was WAY cooler than the Pathfinder one, who is a lot more like the magical 4.0 elf.
Therefor in my campaigns there are both PF Gnomes, and 3.5 Gnomes that get +Int instead of Cha.
But I know that I'm probably the only person on the planet that liked to play a Gnome, because he thought they were unique.
I love Gnomes, actually...My favorite of the standard races.
And no, I don't play WoW, though I sure do know some folks who hate Gnomes just from that game.I first played a Gnome in 1st Ed, on a dare...
My friend Dave, back in 1986: 'Dude, Gnomes suck, their only stat mod is -1 Comliness... Who would play one of them!?!'
Grundigoot Cerderarn, Gnome Fighter/Illusionist Extraordinaire was born that night...
And my Gnome named Ferret And many, many more...
I usually DM, but when I get to play, I'm a fan of Gnomes.
-Uriel
Thought of another thing I miss: The Spiked Chain actually being worth a feat. Now it's inferior to a martial weapon, and there's a feat tax on it. I miss there being a weapon or two on the exotic list worth taking.
Yeah, after I saw the falcata, I started to wonder about Spiked Chain.
Eh, well.. there is Meteor Hammer.
|
I miss a few prestige classes from the assorted splatbooks (Hexblade, Seeker of the Song, Lyric Thaumaturge, Survivor, Master of Many Forms).
I miss some of the odd metamagic feats from the splatbooks (the Reserve Feats were so much fun).
I used to miss the 3.5 Bard until the APG came out.
I still miss the 3.5 rules for bardic performance (rounds per day = bleh).
I miss the Precise Swing feat so very very much.
I also miss the weapon size rules from 3.0, when halflings and gnomes were not as heavily penalized for being small (-2 STR is bad enough). My gnome barbarian was so sad when her greatsword 'shrank', similar to the first OOTS strip. It would be nice if there were eventually some halfling/gnome weapons that dealt more damage for the small folk than for the biguns but that is a gripe for another day.
Well - what exactly is "vital" in a lump of walking clay/stone/iron? (golems don't *need* anything mechanical to work WHAT SO EVER!! They're magically animated period - not complex machinery that *could* arguably have some sort of "vital" bits somewhere.)
"It's a Rock it doesn't have any vulnerable spots!"
(Mind you, one reason ochre jellies have grab and not Improved Grapple is because oozes are mindless and mindless creatures don't have feats.)
Just to point out that something like a giant ant is also mindless and it does have a feat. It is a racial bonus feat. So feats can be put on mindless creatures, they just have to be racial bonus feats.
Cut a golem's foot off and it will lose vital functions.
Only if it is not as effective walking on the stump as it is walking on the foot.
On the Rogue getting boned on damage in 3.5 - totally! PF is certainly MORE than made up for THAT slack, though, with the wide range of class features called Talents and Advanced Talents. Thrown into the mix and I'd play a rogue perfectly happy to NOT use SA on undead or golems.
While I agree that rogue is all-around better and more fun to play in PF than 3.5., I think you really do overestimate how much fun it is to play a feast-or-famine character in combats (e.g. will I be able to sneak attack and do real damage, or will my damage be on the level of a forgotten bonus or rounding error for anyone else?), especially when your "feast" is mostly on the power level of everyone else's "normal".
How many golems float?
(Shadesteel, I know, I know.)
He wasn't suggesting floating. He was suggesting that a golem can walk on the stump as though he always had two legs of different length. It's not like there's pain to discourage it or blood to make it slippery. The worst you could say it would do is mess with the golem's balance...maaaybe.
|
|
Yes, because amputees don't have to learn to walk again. Regardless of lack of pain, not having a foot will make turning on that leg harder.
And that's why sneak attack should not just = +Xd6
Just giving additional damage is a fight the rogue is not going to win against other classes. I'm glad that PFRPG added some sneak attack features, but they should have been a bit stronger. Right direction though.
The sneak attack rogue should be the #1 crippler in the game, followed by some fighter builds and monks. By crippler I mean shutdown, not just limping along.
Yes, because amputees don't have to learn to walk again. Regardless of lack of pain, not having a foot will make turning on that leg harder.
*Shrugs* Actual amputees have issues to deal with beyond "wait...my foot is gone" that gives them need to relearn walking. Golems are mindless, and painless. They won't have such issues unless the GM gives them such issues. If the GM says there's an issue, fine.
But, in the games I run, I would only apply such a bonus if the role play and strategy was so exceptional to remove the foot that I felt it deserved reward. There's nothing about a golem foot that would make the golem see it as vital.
But it is a point a rogue would strike at when sneak attacking.
*mindless Golem lumbers along*
*rogue SA's out of the blue and stabs it's foot*
*mindless Golem looks at the ground at rogue, then looks to foot lying severed*
*mindless Golem then pounds Rogue into a fine paste w/it's foot stump and fists*
Re: origin of Golems ... my only real exposure to anything like that was an X-Files episode. Before that all golem info I have was based around AD&D write-ups. None of which mentioned "names" or "runes of power" or "complex machinery" that made them function. It was magic.
Mythological origin certainly does for an interesting approach to *a* type of golem. But that is NOT current Golems at all ... holding that like the standard is nuts. Find me something in the stat-block talking about all that Hebrew malarky and *maybe* I'll consider it as somehow having validity at my table. Otherwise, it's just a new piece of mythology that I was previously unfamiliar with. It's interesting in and of itself, but golems as written are not really informed by it in the slightest.
:shrugs:
Find me something in the stat-block talking about all that Hebrew malarky and *maybe* I'll consider it as somehow having validity at my table.
For what it's worth, I think the berserk chance in the flesh/clay golem stat blocks is clearly drawn from the relevant Hebrew mythology.
|
|
*mindless Golem lumbers along**rogue SA's out of the blue and stabs it's foot*
*mindless Golem looks at the ground at rogue, then looks to foot lying severed*
*mindless Golem then pounds Rogue into a fine paste w/it's foot stump and fists*
Replace rogue with any other average BAB class and nothing changes. It makes no argument for golems to be SA-able or not. But since this argument has been done to death and we've both made our points, I bid you good game, sir.
|
|
But it is a point a rogue would strike at when sneak attacking.*mindless Golem lumbers along*
*rogue SA's out of the blue and stabs it's foot*
*mindless Golem looks at the ground at rogue, then looks to foot lying severed*
*mindless Golem then pounds Rogue into a fine paste w/it's foot stump and fists*
Unless the rogue takes a 5 foot step back and laughs as the golem falls on it's face. Because the rogue isn't a complete retard.
Oh, another thread reminded me of something else that kinda fits...but it's something I prefer from 3.0, not 3.5.
Weapon sizes.
I much preferred the old way of handling them (medium longsword used by a large creature counts as a short sword - or was it dagger? I forget - and used by a small creature counts as a greatsword). That's one of those things that left me going "huh?" when 3.5 came around.
I feel the same way.
Re: origin of Golems ... my only real exposure to anything like that was an X-Files episode. Before that all golem info I have was based around AD&D write-ups. None of which mentioned "names" or "runes of power" or "complex machinery" that made them function. It was magic.
Mythological origin certainly does for an interesting approach to *a* type of golem. But that is NOT current Golems at all ... holding that like the standard is nuts. Find me something in the stat-block talking about all that Hebrew malarky and *maybe* I'll consider it as somehow having validity at my table. Otherwise, it's just a new piece of mythology that I was previously unfamiliar with. It's interesting in and of itself, but golems as written are not really informed by it in the slightest.
:shrugs:
The only person talking about complex machinery or making them robots is you, man :p.
You're literally saying "I don't care about the myth or legend, I want magic robots"
As someone said earlier, for every excuse not to give sneak attack, there's an excuse to give it. The actual golem write up aims at neither - what makes the difference is the attitude coming in, and what causes that is the rule on if it can be sneak attacked or not.
In other words, people are against sneak attackable constructs simply because they haven't been sneak attackable in the past. Had constructs been sneak attackable in the past and the new rule is that they couldn't be, I gurantee you'd have just as many people claiming that this doesn't make sense and breaks their verisilimitude.
We've given a bunch of reasons why sneak attack could work. When I read the description of an orc, I don't see it talking about the orc's anatomy or his spine or weak points. We accept that an orc can be sneak attacked because "Well of course he has weak points - look, he can be sneak attacked!" Why not do the same with golems?
We've given a bunch of reasons why sneak attack could work. When I read the description of an orc, I don't see it talking about the orc's anatomy or his spine or weak points. We accept that an orc can be sneak attacked because "Well of course he has weak points - look, he can be sneak attacked!" Why not do the same with golems?
I agree, however, for people who are on the fence and want a compromise, maybe the rogue needs to have knowledge of what the weak points on a monster are and how to exploit them by having X ranks in the appropriate knowledge skill or making a DC X skill check on that knowledge.
This potentially glosses neatly over monsters you can't even figure out a weak point for -- I don't have the knowledge to make a golem, but my wizard can. Equally, I don't have the knowledge of what a golem's special vulnerabilities might be, but my rogue can.
Re: origin of Golems ... my only real exposure to anything like that was an X-Files episode. Before that all golem info I have was based around AD&D write-ups. None of which mentioned "names" or "runes of power" or "complex machinery" that made them function. It was magic.
You should read the monster writeups of the Golems then. Esp clay and flesh. Clay golem is based on the Golem of Prague, the flesh golem could equally be applied to the Golem from x-files (which I just watched, excellend episode) or Frankenstein's Monster. The fluff is there, and the rules about it going berserk etc is there.
Now read the writeup on stone golem, how it has symbols all over its body. We never mentioned complex machinery, you did. And how are "runes of power" and magical names/words NOT MAGIC?!You're welcome.
I dunno. I always figured that, if you allow rogues to sneak attack constructs in general, you'd have to be able to sneak attack all constructs. And, I can't see animated statues, candlesticks, or other objects as having weak points in any way. They move 100% through magic. There is no 1 part of the object that is integral to the creature "living," so a rogue can't really hit the weak spot. They are "defeated" either by destroying the magic or by hacking the object into such small pieces that none of the pieces are capable of doing harm.
I feel the same way about most undead. I can easily see zombies with their arms cut off having the arm able to continue moving anyway.
And, oozes feel the same way. They even have specific mechanics to be split into multiple still-working pieces.
When I created my worlds, that was how I created MY golems, undead, etc. The only "weak point" in golems, undead, elementals, or oozes was the magic that gives them life, in my worlds.
That said, rogues can disarm magic traps, maybe now they can hit the animating magics of golems and undead? That's the flavor I use when GMing Pathfinder.
They move 100% through magic. There is no 1 part of the object that is integral to the creature "living," so a rogue can't really hit the weak spot. They are "defeated" either by destroying the magic or by hacking the object into such small pieces that none of the pieces are capable of doing harm.
I feel the same way about most undead. I can easily see zombies with their arms cut off having the arm able to continue moving anyway.
And, oozes feel the same way. They even have specific mechanics to be split into multiple still-working pieces.
Bingo. Really I see this as well, like in the Pirates of the Carribean movies, where the undead would pick up their head or a severed arm would continue to attack or if their neck was broken they simply repostioned the skull correctly, etc.