Our group is fighting a lot of oozes at the moment who have critical immunity and very low AC.
Am I to understand the automatic knock prone critical effects from the flail and hammer still apply to Ooze even when the double damage does not?
And for those with deadly or fatal weapons, do those effects still apply to oozes?
I found some old threads on this I didn’t want to necro and it was still debated. It doesn’t appear to be addressed in the offical FAQ/Eratta. What’s the actual RAW saying here and has there been any word from in high about RAI?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the actual RAW, which you can find here
Immunity to critical hits works a little differently. When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of other actions that have the attack trait (such as Grapple and Shove).
There's been no official comment on this rule to my knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our group is fighting a lot of oozes at the moment who have critical immunity and very low AC.
Am I to understand the automatic knock prone critical effects from the flail and hammer still apply to Ooze even when the double damage does not?
Yes. Though, if you're looking for consensus about that here, you've come to the wrong place. I'd recommend looking at the wording of the rule Squiggit so graciously linked (it specifically mentions critical hit immunity) and judge for yourself.
And for those with deadly or fatal weapons, do those effects still apply to oozes?
That one's far more debatable in my opinion, especially deadly because it mentions happening after doubling the dice. I think technically it would be allowed, since rules are written with the base assumption in mind (in this case that dice are doubled), and that addition is simply a reminder of the existing rules that extra dice on critical hits aren't doubled.
That being said, in a home game I'd probably rule that deadly and fatal also don't work, but that's more for thematic purposes than RAW or game balance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the actual RAW, which you can find here
Immunity to critical hits works a little differently. When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of other actions that have the attack trait (such as Grapple and Shove).There's been no official comment on this rule to my knowledge.
This was the hot mess debated in a couple recent threads. I agree there is no consensus. The other important detail is THIS:
When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).
If you critically succeed at a Strike, your attack deals double damage. Other attacks, such as spell attack rolls and some uses of the Athletics skill, describe the specific effects that occur when their outcomes are critical successes.
Some people seem adamant that Critical Immunity only grants immunity to crits that only deal "double damage", so that something like hydraulic push (or other spells that don't deal "double damage") can Crit just fine.
IMO, that is a narrow reading that ignores the entire definition of what a Critical Hit is, but it's a popular reading right now. There's been enough debate that it could use an FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will repeat: read the rules on immunity and decide for yourself. The definition of a critical hit is certainly relevant, and informs how to read said rules, but that doesn't change the fact that under immunity it goes out of it's way to mention that it works differently than one might expect, and explains what this immunity does and doesn't cover.
Let's not muddy the waters by getting specific spells or abilities involved. Especially ones that are very similar to double damage in their effects, as that will only bring in more arguments about that specific ability and if it's close enough to count. This is a general question by someone looking for advice / a ruling, not a lengthy argument over a specific spell someone feels strongly about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that deadly and fatal do not work. Immunity to Crits says "you deal normal damage" using or adding the deadly or fatal dice is not "normal" damage.
The idea is that oozes and other creatures immune to critical hits have that immunity because they don't have a weak spot to hit just right. Other effects that key off a crit does not necessarily target said weak spot, but this is clearly a "ask your GM" category. Depending on what you are fighting the answer maybe different. Although a quick search for creatures that are immune to critical hits, its Wizard Sponge, a Tattoo Guardian and then oozes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that deadly and fatal do not work. Immunity to Crits says "you deal normal damage" using or adding the deadly or fatal dice is not "normal" damage.
The idea is that oozes and other creatures immune to critical hits have that immunity because they don't have a weak spot to hit just right. Other effects that key off a crit does not necessarily target said weak spot, but this is clearly a "ask your GM" category. Depending on what you are fighting the answer maybe different. Although a quick search for creatures that are immune to critical hits, its Wizard Sponge, a Tattoo Guardian and then oozes.
I'd appreciate quoting the actual relevant text in context next time, which is "it takes normal damage instead of double damage." I think it's perfectly reasonable to not allow deadly or fatal, but I want someone to come to that conclusion after reading the rules, not after reading an out of context clipping of the rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bolding that part is a distraction. It makes people equate "Critical Immunity" to "Double Damage Immunity". The relevant words are indeed "it takes normal damage", because not all Crits deal double damage.
I rule that Fatal and Deadly do not work. As I linked and quoted earlier, it's important to understand that a Critical Success is not only something that deals double damage.
The section on Critical Immunity is telling us that actions such as Grapple and Shove can still Critically Succeed. NOT that any non-double-damage Crit succeeds.
I'd appreciate quoting the actual relevant text in context next time, which is "it takes normal damage instead of double damage." I think it's perfectly reasonable to not allow deadly or fatal, but I want someone to come to that conclusion after reading the rules, not after reading an out of context clipping of the rules.I would say that deadly and fatal do not work. Immunity to Crits says "you deal normal damage" using or adding the deadly or fatal dice is not "normal" damage.
The idea is that oozes and other creatures immune to critical hits have that immunity because they don't have a weak spot to hit just right. Other effects that key off a crit does not necessarily target said weak spot, but this is clearly a "ask your GM" category. Depending on what you are fighting the answer maybe different. Although a quick search for creatures that are immune to critical hits, its Wizard Sponge, a Tattoo Guardian and then oozes.
It would be easier to not include deadly and fatal for calculations. However, the bolded text above would make a case to allow them. The deadly trait specifies the extra die happens after the doubling of damage. The fatal trait changes the die type and adds a die, but one doesn’t have to double the damage rolled.
Bolding that part is a distraction. It makes people equate "Critical Immunity" to "Double Damage Immunity". The relevant words are indeed "it takes normal damage", because not all Crits deal double damage.
I rule that Fatal and Deadly do not work. As I linked and quoted earlier, it's important to understand that a Critical Success is not only something that deals double damage.
The section on Critical Immunity is telling us that actions such as Grapple and Shove can still Critically Succeed. NOT that any non-double-damage Crit succeeds.
And that is one interpretation of the text that you can get to when you actually read the rules. Assuming that that's the correct interpretation and depriving others of seeing the full rules by putting something in quotes that is not in fact a quote, and leaves out the biggest counter point to your position is helping no one.
The reason for the highlight was to point out the part that is contention, not to claim that I know how it should be handled with 100% certainty. I'd much rather someone highlight something that's unclear than eliminate it altogether in an attempt to invalidate the other side of the issue.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mentioned this in a different thread (because this KEEPS getting asked) but I believe the developers didn't intent to make crit immunity only prevent "double damage". Here's my opinion, with absolutely no proof to back it up so it's basically just a hypothetical situation:
They probably initially wanted any "crit" attack to become a success instead. But due to the unwritten rule about modifying the results of a roll, you can still end up with a "crit" under the right circumstances. To fix this, they just made it say they take "normal damage", but the main mistake was saying "instead of double damage". It may have sounded fine to them at first, since most attacks deal double damage on a crit, but they forgot about some spells simply dealing increased damage on crits, and forgot about Fatal/Deadly traits. This lead to the current discussion.
What I think should be done is an FAQ. It needs to be further clarified one way or the other how crit immunity is supposed to work. If my hypothesis is correct, it should be something like:
"If a creature is immune to Critical Hits, when an Attack roll that deals damage critically succeeds against the creature, it only deals damage as if the Attack was a normal Success instead. All other effects of the Critical Success (such as critical specializations that don't deal damage) remain." This solves all the problems with the current wording of Crits, and I believe satisfies everyone's desires, in one easy to understand package.
I have mentioned this in a different thread (because this KEEPS getting asked) but I believe the developers didn't intent to make crit immunity only prevent "double damage". Here's my opinion, with absolutely no proof to back it up so it's basically just a hypothetical situation:
They probably initially wanted any "crit" attack to become a success instead. But due to the unwritten rule about modifying the results of a roll, you can still end up with a "crit" under the right circumstances. To fix this, they just made it say they take "normal damage", but the main mistake was saying "instead of double damage". It may have sounded fine to them at first, since most attacks deal double damage on a crit, but they forgot about some spells simply dealing increased damage on crits, and forgot about Fatal/Deadly traits. This lead to the current discussion.
I think it is simpler than that (or maybe this is just another way of saying what you are saying). They probably initially thought that immunity to critical hits was self-explanatory -- the target can be normal hit, but not critical hit. Then they realized that technically, because of how they defined immunity, someone could read it and say "ah, so if you roll a crit, it takes no damage, because it is immune to those" because, well, these forums. So they wrote the inelegant phrase, not thinking about the other (perhaps in their minds rather obvious) immunity to stuff like deadly and fatal.
Completely conjecture but it seems highly plausible to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely conjecture but it seems highly plausible to me.
See to me the odd choice of language is what signals that their goal is something else.
Because if they really just wanted those monsters to treat crits like regular hits the rule could just say that and none of this conversation would have happened because it would have been completely clear.
So I feel like the only reason to use oddly specific language like they chose to is if they wanted to specifically convey that it didn't work like that.
Deadly and fatal could still be clarified (because it hinges on how you read the normal vs double line), but not so much for other crit riders.
It seems wildly implausible to me that the professional game authors putting this game together wrote ... and made no alterations to that sentence in the first two passes of errata[/i] if they meant anything other than exactly what they wrote.
I think the answer is that Paizo developers are overworked, overstressed, and underpaid as much of the rest of us. Plus their boss is saying hurry up and get this new material done so we can sell it .
It is quite understandable. But I, like you, have a large list of obvious errata I'd like them to get to. Aside from obvious typos, the policy seems to be let the GMs sort it out. Every now and then a few trickle out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of starting yet another war, I'll go ahead and float my thoughts on this out into the ether.
My gut instinct reading of the Immunity to Critical hits rule is that it makes all Strike attacks not have a critical success entry. Nothing additional happens on a critical hit. Only the normal success effects happen.
My reasoning for thinking that is because the last sentence that allows additional effects for critical attacks calls out specifically for 'other actions that have the attack trait'.
But then I realize that if that was the intent, there are a lot less cumbersome and more clear ways of writing that.
So I think I agree with Squiggit that the intent of the rule is something more complicated than that. I just don't know exactly what that is.
How oozes are being knocked prone? I don't know, but yes it works.
That too is the subject of an unresolved debate, one not worth a tangent here as it's more about approaches to gaming/verisimilitude than rules quotes. I believe there's at least one thread on it already if one wanted to necro it.
As for the bonus effects from a crit, I think it makes sense to keep in mind the extremely low AC of such creatures. That suggests to me that other pumped up damage effects from weapon crits should likely be nixed too. It's not like the weapon couldn't find a weak point, yet the Rune (et al) could or that the attacker did exceptionally well.
Non-doubling spells seem a bit trickier, especially Hydraulic Push which IMO seems either built specifically for killing oozes or oddly written for who knows what reason. Thematically it seems suitable for a blast of water to be an ooze's worst enemy. Dunno.
Non-doubling spells seem a bit trickier, especially Hydraulic Push which IMO seems either built specifically for killing oozes or oddly written for who knows what reason. Thematically it seems suitable for a blast of water to be an ooze's worst enemy. Dunno.
OK. Now I am curious.
I'll agree that Hydraulic Push is written rather strangely. Most notably that the critical success effect doesn't actually double the success effect - it instead adds a flat +3d6 damage no matter the spell level.
So at spell level 6 (heightened 5 times) the success effect is 13d6 and 5 foot knockback, and critical success effect is 16d6 and 10 foot knockback.
So it is double damage at level 1, but a rather minor increase in damage at level 6.
As for whether spells should be prevented from doing increased damage on a critical success, it feels like that is the entire point of including the 'or other attack that deals damage' clause. The spell is an attack that deals damage. So it should do the normal success damage instead of the doubled damage from the critical hit.
And yes, I think that the 'instead of double damage' is a really bad way of wording that. Not all critical success effects from attack rolls deal double damage.
How It's Played has a video where he says he got clarification from Paizo that only non damage critical effects take place.
How It's PlayedI've also seen other places where developers say the opposite.
Yes this is frustrating as it is clear that this channel does have access to Paizo developers.
I guess we have to accept that this is a semi maybe offical clarification.