Mmmm...Libris Mortis.

[coyote6]

In this light, I would say that the property should be simply that it does an additional ammount of damage to incorporeal undead. Looking at the properties, perhaps this property should be somthing that can only be added to a ghost touch weapon. Not a positive energy burst as that would be useful against all undead, but a special damage bonus that is only useful against incorporeal undead. I would propose 2d6. So:

The ghost strike weapon has the same properties as a ghost touch weapon except that it does an additional 2d6 damage against incorporeal undead.

Ghost touch is a +1-equivalent ability, so presumably ghost strike would be more than +1 (since it includes ghost touch's effects and more). However, a ghost touch undead bane weapon can hit incorporeal foes and does +2d6+2 damage (from the bane property), and is a total of +2 -- so ghost strike would be inferior to this combination.

Thus, I'd say ghost strike would need to be at least +2d8 damage -- that would barely equal the extra damage of the ghost touch + undead bane combo. Yet it would still be weaker, since it would affect many fewer targets (being useless against all those liches, vampires, skeletons, etc.).

So maybe it ought to be +2d10, be +2d6 or +2d8 and have a burst effect (i.e., if critical hit is rolled, it deals extra d10s of damage, as flaming burst & co.), or give some other minor extra benefit (nothing comes to mind immediately).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable.

I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous.

A lich still has a head, arms and legs. So do most constructs. Either has places that are stronger or weaker than others. Plants still have parts where a large part of the whole can be removed by attacking a weak point. Elementals often have the same.

Oozes, I almost completely agree with the 'no crits' stance (except in the case of the ooze creature template from SS).

IOW - all of these have places that are more vulnerable to damage than others.

I think that SA should have some way of being made to apply (most likely in a reduced capacity and based on the knowledge of the character). I think that crits should apply (but to a reduced degree). I think all this should be done without necessarily needing to invent a magical explanation.

I think that immunity to crits (along with a lot of other qualities, but that's for another debate) should NOT be a part of a creatures type, but a part of a specific creatures entry.

IE - a stone wall golem would be immune to crits - it's just a mobile wall. A regular stone golem should not be. A stone golem which requires it's instructions to be written on a piece of paper and placed in a hollow within it's head should certainly be vulnerable to crits, and should be subject to the ability of a vorpal sword to boot.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Piercing Cold (metamagic +1 spell level, only to spells with cold descriptor)
if creature has cold resistance, the resistance doesn't apply
if creature has cold immunity, they take half damage (save as normal for 1/4)
cold subtype: still unaffected by the spell
fire subtype: double normal damage instead of +50%

Okay, my bad. That's not quite so silly Obviously, I didn't read the feat quite as well as I thought I had.

 

[mythusmage]

Speaking of Undead

There's a radio ad running for Disney's southern California theme parks. It features three undead - a ghost, a skeleton, and one unspecified - hitch hiking to said parks, and having no luck. Their goal is either the Haunted Mansion, or the Hollywood Tower of Terror. They can't decide on which, and an argument breaks out on the matter.

Finally the skeleton tells the ghost to, "Drop dead."

To which the ghost replies with, "A little late for that now, don't you think?"

 

[SSquirrel]

Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable.

I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous.

A lich still has a head, arms and legs. So do most constructs. Either has places that are stronger or weaker than others. Plants still have parts where a large part of the whole can be removed by attacking a weak point. Elementals often have the same.

Oozes, I almost completely agree with the 'no crits' stance (except in the case of the ooze creature template from SS).

IOW - all of these have places that are more vulnerable to damage than others.

I think that SA should have some way of being made to apply (most likely in a reduced capacity and based on the knowledge of the character). I think that crits should apply (but to a reduced degree). I think all this should be done without necessarily needing to invent a magical explanation.

I think that immunity to crits (along with a lot of other qualities, but that's for another debate) should NOT be a part of a creatures type, but a part of a specific creatures entry.

IE - a stone wall golem would be immune to crits - it's just a mobile wall. A regular stone golem should not be. A stone golem which requires it's instructions to be written on a piece of paper and placed in a hollow within it's head should certainly be vulnerable to crits, and should be subject to the ability of a vorpal sword to boot.

The point about why crits don't affect undead is that you can't stab at say, their heart or kidneys or lungs for an especially incapacitating strike. That is why crits do not affect them. Being undead, they have no vital organs to strike and since core rules doesn't handle lopping off arms and heads (generally) taht isn't much of a consideration.

Hagen

 

[Saeviomagy]

The point about why crits don't affect undead is that you can't stab at say, their heart or kidneys or lungs for an especially incapacitating strike. That is why crits do not affect them. Being undead, they have no vital organs to strike and since core rules doesn't handle lopping off arms and heads (generally) taht isn't much of a consideration.

But the core rules DO handle those - a crit isn't just loss of an internal organ - it's also loss of the use of a limb, eye etc. It's all abstract, but it's all there.

Unless you bring in creatures which are immune to crits (despite often having places that are critical to their functioning), when it suddenly starts breaking down.

As a concrete example: A vampire can be staked, because it's heart is vulnerable. A vampire cannot live without it's head. Yet it is not possible to critically hit a vampire.

Where's the reasoning here?

 

[Milkman Dan]

General Feats
Vampire Hunter

Divine Feats
Spurn Death's Touch

As for what they do, if you are interested ask on some. I'll, of course, couch them in vague phrases so as to not violate copyright.

I'll bite! I'm curious about those two. My cleric PC's nemesis is a vampire. He also has some hunter of the dead levels, so I wonder if Spurn Death's Touch is the same as the 3rd level hunter of the dead class ability.

Oh! And thanks to the person who gave me the sacred purifier prereqs.

 

[JustKim]

A fire elemental comes from the Elemental Plane of Fire, the place described as the source of all fire in the Multiverse. I find it hard to believe that there can be any place hotter than that, yet fire elementals are comfortable living there, which to me implies that they don't continually take damage.

Being in the elemental plane of fire does 3d10 fire damage a round. A fireballing mage does 10d6 fire damage a round, twice as hot as the elemental plane of fire. Immersion in lava does 20d6 fire damage a round- four times as hot as the elemental plane of fire. There are a great many things hotter than the elemental plane of fire.

As for fuel, here's the quote about the Elemental Plane of Fire from the SRD:

"Fire survives here without need for fuel or air, but flammables brought onto the plane are consumed readily."

So on the elemental plane of fire, fire elementals don't require fuel. I think you missed my point entirely. It was not about where or in what circumstances fire elementals are in danger of burning out. Now we are simply splitting hairs.

 

[SSquirrel]

But the core rules DO handle those - a crit isn't just loss of an internal organ - it's also loss of the use of a limb, eye etc. It's all abstract, but it's all there.

Unless you bring in creatures which are immune to crits (despite often having places that are critical to their functioning), when it suddenly starts breaking down.

As a concrete example: A vampire can be staked, because it's heart is vulnerable. A vampire cannot live without it's head. Yet it is not possible to critically hit a vampire.

Where's the reasoning here?

See therein lies the problem. D&D doesn't want to have exact hit capabilities like other systems (Rolemaster is an excellent example). The DM is basically just encouraged to make it interesting rather than having called shots, the lopping off of limbs, etc.

The vampire example you provide simply backs up my point. Critical hits in D&D are more meant that you manage an especially good shot at a weak point in their defense. This could be just a matter of their arm being raised to expose a loose plate in their armor (Smaug anyone?) or it could mean you drove your dagger thru their chainmail to stab them directly in their kidney. The final description is up to the DM. Vampires hearts are in the same place as normal human hearts and thus they can be easily aimed for. Part of vampire lore has always been that the heart is the one internal organ they need as it is the source for all the blood. Thusly, stabbing them in the heart will kill them. Stabbing a vampire in the kidneys won't do any extra damage as they don't exactly need to process anything thru them anymore.

Use a vorpal sword with an appropriate roll to cut the head off of a vampire. In most games I've played in, if you left that vampire headless he would eventually be back together and he would be coming after you if you hadn't left him tied up for the sun and/or staked him in the heart to boot.

Hagen

 

[Felon]

Here's my take on critting (or Sneak attacking) the uncrittable. I simply don't believe that undead, plants, constructs and elementals are wholly homogenous. A lich still has a head, arms and legs. So do most constructs. Either has places that are stronger or weaker than others. Plants still have parts where a large part of the whole can be removed by attacking a weak point. Elementals often have the same.

That's a very old take on critting...one that goes as far back as critting goes, in fact. The general response--official and otherwise--is that your description of attacking vulnerable spots is accounted for in the randomness of the damage roll. After all, nobody's actively trying to score mere flesh wounds. Immunity to crits is a necessary defense in a game where there's supposed to be a paper for every rock. No, rogues shouldn't just waltz through every single fight tumbling to a flank position and doing ridiculous amounts of damage.

True, the game does allow for magic items to compensate for monster defenses (thus providing a scissor for the paper). That's why I agree that a property that allows for some extra damage to undead is reasonable. But outright allowing critting is not.

Agreed. If something is immune to cold, it's immune. If you want something that's colder, make it do more damage - that'll help against creatures with cold resistance, at least.

In a way it's funny that folks would complain about having a feat that allows a spell to bypass cold immunity. It's sort of like we're coming full circle, because folks have long complained on numerous occasions before--both on this board and at my gaming table--that immunity to cold and other elemental damage types is silly, at least in the case of many creatures:

"What, you pour liquid liquid nitrogen on a zombie or ghoul and it doesn't freeze and shatter? Bull___! It's just dead, putrified flesh!"

Folks make the same arguement about oozes and such; pretty much anything that obviously has some form of liquid in it should freeze if it gets cold enough. The response, of course, is "Look, it's magically protected, OK?"

So Piercing Cold makes a spell's effect potent enough to circumvent the magical protection. Whatever.