Negating sneak-attack/crit immunity

[Altissimus]

Hey folks,

Undead & constructs (to name but two types) are built and balanced partly around their inability to be sneak-attacked or critted.

I now have a player in my campaign who wishes to modify a magic weapon for the express purpose of getting around this not-so-minor limitation.

In the Magic Item Compendium, for those that are familiar with it, there are two "crystals" whose sole purpose is to act as a weapon modification (removal/replaceable/reuseable) that then allows that weapon to crit constructs or undead.

So.

1) Do you think allowing such a change is massively imbalancing?

2) If you would allow such a change, what price would you make these items (assume standard levels of magic item/power in the campaign)?

Personally I do not agree with the pricing in the Magic Item Compendium - I think many items in that book are wayyyy underpriced. What price do you folk think should be paid to crit/sneak attack creatures that a) don't have anything particularly vulnerable to crit, and b) are designed and balanced around being invulnerable to such.

Answers on a postcard to....or just hit reply

Tank-oo!

A.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Personally, I don't think it's particularly unbalancing. Really all you're doing is removing those situations in which the rogue normally sits on the sidelines and watches the action. In fact, eliminating crit/SA immunity is such a common houserule that it's become the norm in 3.5e derivatives like Pathfinder and Trailblazer.

If the campaign truly makes it a balance issue for some reason, then I'd be inclined to price it "like a feat", a one-time expenditure to learn info along the lines of (for example) "to crit a construct, you have to aim for the gearbox, not the heart!" I've generally seen feats typically "priced" in the range of 3000-5000gp, depending. Not sure how that compares to anything in MIC, though?

Either way, if you still feel the need to offset it, maybe tack on an extra hp per HD per size category or something? YMMV, of course.

 

[Altissimus]

Thanks Orcy

 

[ValhallaGH]

Personally, I don't think it's particularly unbalancing. Really all you're doing is removing those situations in which the rogue normally sits on the sidelines and watches the action. In fact, eliminating crit/SA immunity is such a common houserule that it's become the norm in 3.5e derivatives like Pathfinder and Trailblazer.

If the campaign truly makes it a balance issue for some reason, then I'd be inclined to price it "like a feat", a one-time expenditure to learn info along the lines of (for example) "to crit a construct, you have to aim for the gearbox, not the heart!" I've generally seen feats typically "priced" in the range of 3000-5000gp, depending. Not sure how that compares to anything in MIC, though?

Either way, if you still feel the need to offset it, maybe tack on an extra hp per HD per size category or something? YMMV, of course.

Nothing to add, but I do agree.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Gah! Stupid double post. Please delete.

 

[krupintupple]

i think in Dungeonscape (sp?) or the book to a similar effect, there's a rogue class option where you trade out a relatively minor skill and then, from there on in, you may apply sneak attack to undead and constructs, albeit at half power.

combined with the gems, it might be a fairly good idea, no?

 

[HoboGod]

Being able to crit undead/contructs/oozes depends more on the type of game you're playing than the balance of these monsters. If you're running a game where horror is the bread and butter, NEVER let your players land critical hits and sneak attacks. It's awesome when a player rolls a natural 20 and you get to say, "Your sword hits true, tearing open the zombie's stomach. It's rotting intestines fall to the ground, but the creature still lives!" If you're running a game of heroes and asskickery(tm), go right ahead! A +1 enchantment to crit/SA one creature type is easily balanced against most other +1 enchantments.

 

[Gemma Neale]

Not necessarily but depends on how often you as a DM use those creatures. You could say that the party can't buy them and only give them as loot therefore limiting the number in the party or that they can only be used x amount times a day

 

[Greenfield]

MIC is, in my opinion, book full of bad ideas. The designers set the mid line of usefulness, from the DMG, as the base line for their items. In short, they average 50% more powerful. They also average 50% cheaper, for what they do.

Now if you are running a game ailed at the higher power levels that come from more powerful gear, then maybe it's a book for you.

But yours is the ultimate power in all of role playing: The ability to say "No", and make it stick. If you dan't want those items in your game, then simply say no. Say it early and often, and keep on saying it until they hear and accept.

And, as a DM, GM, Moderator, Director or whatever title a system uses, you should never let a player argue you into something you know is wrong. You let that happen and pretty soon you have the lunatics running the asylum.

 

[CapnZapp]

MIC is, in my opinion, book full of bad ideas. The designers set the mid line of usefulness, from the DMG, as the base line for their items. In short, they average 50% more powerful. They also average 50% cheaper, for what they do.

In all fairness, a lot of effects were prohibitively overpriced before the MIC.

I'm not saying there weren't the odd item that slipped through the cracks, and remained too cheap, but generally the MIC patched the system, it didn't wreck it.

Take those Rogue crystals as an example. As 5th edition has comprehensively shown, giving immunity to sneak attacks to certain monsters is utter nonsense. It's a giant Frak U to one particular class for nebulous "realism" reasons.

And so my on-topic reply is: no, those crystals wreck nothing. All they do is remove a huge obstacle to Rogue fun that shouldn't have been there in the first place.