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="Felon" data-source="post: 1801857" data-attributes="member: 8158">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification