Elemental Subtype: An elemental is a being composed entirely from one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water. An elemental has the following features.
Immunity to bleed, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.
Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Elementals do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
It doesn't say elementals aren't subject to nonlethal damage, but ... really? It can't be stunned or put to sleep or sneak attacked, but I can hit a creature composed of earth or fire or air over the head with a sap and knock it unconscious? That seems just really, really weird. Am I missing something somewhere?
Add to this, that per Pathfinder RAW, constructs aren't immune to critical hits.
Nor are aberrations.
In 3.5, both of those were immune to critical hits, per creature type.
I'm not sure how, exactly, that halfling rogue is going to rack up so much sneak attack damage (assuming he hits) against an iron golem, but hey, more power to him.
Seems wrong to me, and unless I discover a reason to use the RAW, I'm inclined to houserule both back to 3.5 norms.
|
Add to this, that per Pathfinder RAW, constructs aren't immune to critical hits.
Nor are aberrations.
In 3.5, both of those were immune to critical hits, per creature type.
I'm not sure how, exactly, that halfling rogue is going to rack up so much sneak attack damage (assuming he hits) against an iron golem, but hey, more power to him.
Seems wrong to me, and unless I discover a reason to use the RAW, I'm inclined to houserule both back to 3.5 norms.
3.5 aberations werent immune to crits
An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.
Features
An aberration has the following features.
d8 Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric).
Good Will saves.
Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.
Traits
An aberration possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Proficient with its natural weapons. If generally humanoid in form, proficient with all simple weapons and any weapon it is described as using.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Aberrations not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Aberrations are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Aberrations eat, sleep, and breathe.
Add to this, that per Pathfinder RAW, constructs aren't immune to critical hits.
Nor are aberrations.
In 3.5, both of those were immune to critical hits, per creature type.
I'm not sure how, exactly, that halfling rogue is going to rack up so much sneak attack damage (assuming he hits) against an iron golem, but hey, more power to him.
Seems wrong to me, and unless I discover a reason to use the RAW, I'm inclined to houserule both back to 3.5 norms.
"Not making the rogue useless against about half the number of creatures they'll ever see" isn't a good enough reason?
Damn, you must hate rogues more than I.
I stand corrected on the 3.5 aberrations. For some reason, I was remembering the alien anatomy thing as making them immune to crits.
Cheapy, I'm coming back to playing, after being sucked into WoW for about 6 years, so what I say is based off of my recap of the system that I've been reading up on for approximately three weeks now.
If I were to see a rogue in my group not being able to use sneak attack 50% of the time, then I'd probably consider my houserule to be in error.
There's the age old argument about incorporating what we think we know of real-world physics into a magical fantastical world. Sneak attack started out as hitting vital organs, like finding the sweet spot in between ribs, and then evolved. Now, it's such an iconic ability of rogues, that I can see why the PF rules allowed more things to be subject to sneak attacks.
Not to mention criticals, which seem to be much more played up in PF than in 3.5.
But back to the OP: Do you guys really think that it makes sense to force the RAW for elementals? Per RAW, there is nothing disallowing an elemental to be sapped. Call me a relic, but that just goes against my 20+ year history with the game.
Let's also consider another RAW regarding elementals, and specifically a druid wild shaping into a fire elemental. In 3.5, you got all of the (Ex) abilities, and none of the (Su) abilities of a creature you wild shaped into (IIRC). In PF, a druid wild shaping into a fire elemental is not specifically granted either fire immunity, nor cold vulnerability. I tend to think both the sapping scenario, and the fire elem-shaped druid getting burned are both rules oversights.
IMO, an elemental should not be subject to non-lethal damage, and a wild shaped [fire elemental] druid should have fire immunity and cold vulnerability.
Check out this thread then Ashenfall. It's really best to just forget everything about 3.5.
When you realize it's 19 pages long, go here for the most up-to-date list full list of everything.
Also, when polymorphing you get the resistances of the creature, so the elementals would be immune.