4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why is it ok that I can sneak attack a gibbering mouther, or a bone devil, but not an ooze or a skeleton?

Asked and answered already- in every edition previous to 4Ed, sneak attack has been couched in language of targeting vital spots, which is not quite synonymous with "weak" or vulnerable spots. Vitals, at least to me, implies that the creature has organs that are essential to its continued operation.

With negative energy as its sole animating force, a skeleton (really, any undead) has no vitals, unless you're arguing that a rogue should be able to disrupt the skeleton's..."nexus of unlife."

An ooze generally has no true organs either- they generate what organelles they need when they need them and in some sense, the nucleus is an undifferentiated mass of genetic info. The rogue and everyone else are essentiallly aiming at the same targets- protoplasmic pseudopods reaching out to strike or the center mass.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I have no problem with the idea that undead, constructs and so on could have vulnerable points. If anything it fits the source material better - vampires must be struck in the heart, zombies in the head etc.

It's true that the 3e description of sneak attack refers to vital spots which does indeed suggest living targets only. Newsflash, 3e <> 4e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The discussion isn't whether its different, but whether its a good change or not.

I'm firmly in the "Not good" camp.

As for striking vampires in the heart...its not just striking them in the heart, its doing that with a wooden stake- it represents the breaking of a magical spell or curse, kind of like the conditions under which a classic magical relic can be destroyed.

Zombies being vulnerable to head shots is purely from modern cinema (discounting, of course, the RW "zombies" poisoned by the tetrodoxin mix used by certain unscrupulous types in the Carribean). Look at supernatural zombie legends and you'll find that it was salt that was their bane.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I said it fits the source material better, not perfectly. Also D&D zombies come from George Romero, not Haitian voodoo.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I said it fits the source material better, not perfectly. Also D&D zombies come from George Romero, not Haitian voodoo.

1) True, but fast zombies are definitely post-Romero.

2) If we're going to talk about "source material" that a) opens up a LOT of books, movies, legends etc., and b) returns us to the assertion that "vital areas" has always meant organs as targets. The vampire's heart is not a true vital area- its an area you must strike with force and with a specific kind of material. You're not so much striking a vital area as dispelling an unnatural force or breaking a curse.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

1) True, but fast zombies are definitely post-Romero.

2) If we're going to talk about "source material" that a) opens up a LOT of books, movies, legends etc., and b) returns us to the assertion that "vital areas" has always meant organs as targets. The vampire's heart is not a true vital area- its an area you must strike with force and with a specific kind of material. You're not so much striking a vital area as dispelling an unnatural force or breaking a curse.

But why can't a Rogue apply the same training he used for striking the heart of living creatures to strike the heart of a unliving creature? Even if he has to use a stake to do it effectively?

Though this is, in the end, beside the point. The question is if sneak attack has to be related to vital organs or not. Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter, but D&D 4 will apparently not rely on vital organs to justify sneak attacks. (Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures. And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter

Actually, those who say "Yes" have a firm justification in 30 years of D&D history. Those who say "No" have a firm justification in the upcoming edition.

Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures.

Which could be a good thing, I'll admit, though I'd have to see the whole 4Ed sneak attack mechanic to judge fully.

And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't

Of that list, the only thing I'd say might be worth changing over being vulnerable is the last. After all, it would be disingenuous of me to assert the whole "vital organs" interpretation without also admitting there are several species hailing from the elemental planes that are, essentially, elementally templated versions of denizens of the PMP or who otherwise DO have discernable vital organs.

Who knows, perhaps vulnerability to sneak attacks will be based on a species by species basis...or upon each individual rogue's studies (represented by some kind of skill check) and not simply a blanket "everything is vulnerable" rule, but rather an "everything is potentially vulnerable if you've done your homework" rule.

 

[kennew142]

But why can't a Rogue apply the same training he used for striking the heart of living creatures to strike the heart of a unliving creature? Even if he has to use a stake to do it effectively?
.....
Though this is, in the end, beside the point. The question is if sneak attack has to be related to vital organs or not. Some say yes, some say no. Nobody is right or wrong in that matter, but D&D 4 will apparently not rely on vital organs to justify sneak attacks. (Though maybe this is wrong - maybe they are actually just adding "vital" parts to most creatures. And maybe Oozes and pure elementals will still be immune to sneak attacks. But most creatures - including undeads, constructs and many elemental species won't)

You can put me in the 'good idea' camp. I find it difficult to believe that a sneak attack is necessarily an organ strike. If a 10th level rogue sneak attacks a 10th level fighter (say 65 hit points) for average damage (say 40 points of damage), he has clearly done some damage. If it were an organ strike, wouldn't it have killed the fighter, not just reduced him to below half hit points? I have always rejected anything but a killing or incapacitating blow as a shot to the vitals.

A sneak attack targets weak points. Undead and constructs have weak points, even if they don't have vitals.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When you take into account the extremely abstract nature of HP in the game, reducing a warrior from 65 to 25 HP with one blow IS incapacitating.

He's gone from being able to fight "all day" to wondering if he can take the next blow...

Heck, it almost triggers the death by massive damage rule.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As for striking vampires in the heart...its not just striking them in the heart, its doing that with a wooden stake- it represents the breaking of a magical spell or curse, kind of like the conditions under which a classic magical relic can be destroyed.

Going off topic, but this is something I've always wondered -- why did D&D come to embrace the importance of the wood?

Of the various vampire legends, some did require a wooden stake and some did not. But most stakes would be made of wood in a pre-industrial period, so if the tradition was trying to convey the sense of either "pinning it to the ground" or "using a weapon large enough to entirely destroy the heart," a wooden stake would work for those reasons. It's possible that some traditions were specifically focused on the fact of it being wood, and others on the fact of it being a stake.

In Dracula, there is no discussion of wood being necessary -- only "a stake" is mentioned.
[about Lucy] "I shall cut off her head and fill her mouth with garlic, and I shall drive a stake through her body."
[about Dracula] "...find this great UnDead, and cut off his head and burn his heart or drive a stake through it, so that the world may rest from him."

So it looks like decapitation plus destruction of the heart are essential. It seems that a large knife works as well a stake. The Count himself is killed by decapitation with a Kukri and a Bowie knife in the heart; the sunlight was not a factor ("the eyes saw the sinking sun, and the look of hate in them turned to triumph").