4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Brother MacLaren]

So, in the end, allowin most creatures to be criticalled, and therefore sneak attacked, isn't going to break the game.

To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class. So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class. So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?

Well, it might be easier to just adjust their challenge rating (if the point was really critical* for the monster). Maybe adjust its strength or spellcasting ability score by 2 points to make the CR adjustment fair. I think few monsters really need this kind of defense.

For 4E, it will naturally be less of a problem, since such monsters would need a redesign anyway.


*what's with all the puns today?

 

[Lackhand]

To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class. So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?

No. Those monsters can and should remain either immune or get a damage threshold (your damage must be this big to die!) -- or, yes, they just get more hit points, or do bad stuff when they get snuck attacked, or whatever.

It's the "all undead are immune!" that's the problem, not "some (scarier) undead are immune!" -- that's cool and differentiates monsters.

 

[Hussar]

To some extent, immunity to crits and sneak attacks was intended as a defense for certain monsters, not solely as a constraint on the rogue class. So if these creatures are all vulnerable to Sneak Attack, should they have their HP boosted to account for the increased damage they'll take?

Not particularly. We don't adjust the CR of creatures if the party does not have a rogue, so, it's really a wash anyway. A party that has a barbarian instead of a rogue is going to have 4 PC's which are effective 100% of the time. Or, at least equally ineffective (such as facing incorporeal or concealed opponents). However, you won't have situations where 3 of the PC's are equally effective with 1 PC only equally effective 75% of the time.

Most creatures are swimming in HP's anyway. Letting the rogue be effective against golems isn't going to significantly weaken them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is, when the bit that your friend (say, combat) gets to shine in takes a ton of time and is massively detailed in the rules with lots of different approaches, while your bit (say, trapfinding and disarming) is two dice rolls.

That, btw, is the problem in a nutshell. In 3e, combat takes so damn long that it is disproportionately important to adventures when compared to previous editions. It is easier for a rogue to shine in 1e, say, where combat was quicker. If combat really is sped up in 4e, it'll be a good thing.

RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Not particularly. We don't adjust the CR of creatures if the party does not have a rogue, so, it's really a wash anyway.

You also don't adjust the CR if a party doesn't have a wizard -- but SR 100 should factor into the monster's CR anyway.

Most creatures are swimming in HP's anyway. Letting the rogue be effective against golems isn't going to significantly weaken them.

Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells. With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.

 

[Gort]

Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells. With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.

Well, those creatures would almost certainly get their HP buffed since they're losing their immunities. I always liked undead getting extra HP based on charisma, anyway.

 

[Hussar]

You also don't adjust the CR if a party doesn't have a wizard -- but SR 100 should factor into the monster's CR anyway.


Golems really don't have a lot of HP for monsters of their CR -- but they're supposed to be immune to Sneak Attacks and immune to all but a very small list of spells. With the huge variety of no-SR damaging spells, the latter defense has become basically irrelevant.
Most of the tougher undead (liches, vampires, incorporeal) also didn't have a lot of HP for their CR, since they didn't have a Con bonus.

Meh, it's mostly a wash. You might maybe bump the CR by 1. But, CR is mostly arrived at by factoring offensive capabilities, not immunities. Immunities are nice, of course, but, entirely situationally dependent. Losing the immunity to sneak attack (and not criticals) does not dramatically affect the combat capabilities of a creature.

Put it another way, a stone golem's CR is based mostly on the fact that it has decent hp's (with a pretty serious whopping DR to boot), a good AC, decent damage and it's slow ability. The construct trait of immune to sneak attack doesn't matter a whole lot.