Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1801350" data-attributes="member: 5890">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.</blockquote>

Verification