Why are things immune to crits?

[med stud]

Not really. The difference between random normal damage, and critical damage, is that in the first case the strike itself is more powerful, or better delivered, while in the second case the target of the strike is weaker, or more critical to the creature's functioning.

There simply is no "weaker" target when you're talking about a giant metal statue moved by magic. There's no weaker target that you can hit on an animated broom or table that will hurt it any more than any other part of it.

At least, this is how I see it. But I can see that others believe differently, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The problem with a critical strike hitting a vital organ in a living creature is that a hit to a vital organ in a human leads to certain death in 99 cases of 100. Not necessarily in the fight but certainly after the fight (unless healed by magic). There is no chance that anyone will walk away after a fight in which someone ran through his liver. Still people do that in D&D; many fighters doesnt even have to rest after having vitals ran through by a dagger three times. That means that the "hitting a vital"- concept doesnt really do it for me.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There is no chance that anyone will walk away after a fight in which someone ran through his liver. Still people do that in D&D; many fighters doesnt even have to rest after having vitals ran through by a dagger three times. That means that the "hitting a vital"- concept doesnt really do it for me.

But a fighter with a missing leg does?

 

[Metallian]

But Metallian, that is modelled already by randomly rolling damage.

I meant a way to deliberately do more damage by choosing the proper way to strike.

There simply is no "weaker" target when you're talking about a giant metal statue moved by magic. There's no weaker target that you can hit on an animated broom or table that will hurt it any more than any other part of it.

Some minerals have a certain "cleavage" that will cause them to break in half if you hit them at a certain angle and not if you hit them another way. Wood has a grain. Brooms have whatever it is that secures the brush to the handle. Even a giant metal statue may have a flaw in its workmanship, or a spot where an appendage joins the body so the metal is weaker (because it's "flexible" in the armpit or whatever). Or the metal "resonates" a certain way when you hit it just right and the vibrations cause additional damage. Or maybe you can exploit scratches or nicks that have been made in the past to get some leverage. Or a rusty spot. The exact way it works doesn't matter too much...we don't have to justify sneak attacks against humanoids by making "called shots to the kideys" or whatever. The point is that objects can have "weak spots."

I mean, if we're assuming that it's possible to beat up a stone metal statue with a sword anyway, none of that sounds too far-fetched to me. They sound like things that a person with proper training (skills and feats) could exploit.

The Metallian

 

[jessemock]

ISame with plants. An axe hitting a tree is damage, no question. But one part of the tree isn't particularly more vital than another. At the same time, do enough damage and the tree is dead.

I'd consider most undead and constructs much the same way. There is some sort of 'anima' keeping the thing moving and reacting to what goes on around it. Damaging the body will eventually scatter this anima, but there isn't any particularly special spot.

Trees seem to have this very vulnerable area right around the trunk--at least, that's where I always cut them down from.

A quick look at the SRD seems to indicate that there is no justification for a critical hit in terms of "vital spot". It's just a hit that, for some unknown reason, has caused extra damage.

Looking at the weapon entries, the criterion for increasing threat range seems to be "not a bludgeoning weapon," and, for increasing crit. dmg., "a cleaving or extra punch to the piercing quality". Neither of these covers all permutations.

But they do suggest that critical hits have something to do with getting into a body or cutting pieces off of it.

Does a zombie care if you get in there and mess around with his guts? Probably not even cosmetically. Same for a construct, I guess.

Still, it's likely stupid to say that no one could possibly get a lucky hit against one of these guys--and rolling a natural 20 is lucky, isn't it?

If you can cause some damage with a good shot, surely, you can cause more with a really good one? After all, if either of these types had some quality that only so much damage could be brought against them in a single blow, then wouldn't that make them just as effective against high-level charcaters, as against low-level ones? Wouldn't that call for some sort of inverted damage resistance mechanic?

Yes; it would--unless, of course, someone just threw in an 'immunity to critical hits' quality for whatever reason. Balance? Flava? Whatevs.

 

[jessemock]

Yes; it would--unless, of course, someone just threw in an 'immunity to critical hits' quality for whatever reason. Balance? Flava? Whatevs.

No; not 'whatevs'! How about offering up a rule?! Jeez, me!

Look; it seems that the notion of critical threats itself doesn't necessarily rely on vital hits, but that the weapon qualities of improved crits. do.

Therefore: creatures immune to crits are so no longer; from now on, you can critically hit them, but any improvements to this crit. cannot come from a weapon quality. Vs. a golem all weapons are 20/x2. Etc.

Feats could still improve threat range, however.

Satisfied?

Yes!

 

[Caliban]

I think allowing crits on normally uncrittable creatures is a mistake. Most creatures that are immune to crits don't have a Con score, which means that they can never get extra hit point from a high Con. This lack of extra hit points is generally balanced by not being vulnerable to massive damage from crits.

The other category of creatures immune to crits are those that have no discernable anatomy, and thus no part of them are more vulnerable to damage than any other. Mainly oozes and plants.

 

[med stud]

But a fighter with a missing leg does?

We were talking about how a critical attack would look on a golem, not a living creature. For golems, wooden doors and zombies I have no problems with the visual of hacking away on them to whittle down their HPs. When it comes to living creatures I never use that visual.

 

[dcollins]

A quick look at the SRD seems to indicate that there is no justification for a critical hit in terms of "vital spot". It's just a hit that, for some unknown reason, has caused extra damage.

A quick look in the DMG -- as quoted in the first reply of this thread -- would show otherwise. The first thing the DMG mentions as important to enabling critical hits is having "vital organs" (3.0 DMG p. 64).

 

[Gantros]

There seem to be a few people defending the rules for crit immunity, primarily by just pointing to the existing rules and balance issues for doing so. These are certainly valid reasons, but I'm still curious how these people describe what happens when a creature with crit immunity is killed.

To draw parallels with DR, the DMG states that creatures with this ability instantly heal any wounds that are not caused by a specific type of weapon. This allows descriptive visual feedback to be provided to players about what happens when they strike such a creature. But there is no such description provided for creatures with crit immunity. Only that they have no vital organs, yet still somehow die when reduced to 0 hit points.

So how do you kill a creature with no vital organs? It can't be by hacking off limbs or other body parts, since this would have other side effects that there are no provisions for in the rules. It can't be by bleeding it to death from small cuts, since these creatures do not rely on blood to survive. And having the creature just drop dead from some random blow that's no different from any other just seems very unsatisfying.

IMO the simplest solution would just be to do away with crit immunity and give those creatures more hit points (say, 25% or 50%), thus making them tougher than normal for their size and maintaining game balance. These creatures could then be killed in all the same ways as other opponents, but their lack of vital organs would allow them to take a lot more physical punishment before succumbing. I'd be interested to hear any other ideas though.

 

[dcollins]

...I'm still curious how these people describe what happens when a creature with crit immunity is killed.

In my campaign, the players are in fact hacking off limbs and chunks of such creatures as they fight them, but the creatures keep fighting without penalty. At the end, when hp are zero, the creature loses its head, its last limb, or is chopped in two through the torso. Think Dawn of the Dead for undead or Terminator for constructs.