On Sneak Attacks and Criticals

[Remathilis]

I'm probably opening up a can o' worms here...

As a self-professed rogue afficiando, I must confess I never really much liked the "discernable anatomy" rule concerning critical hits and sneak attacks. I get the rationale well enough, but I must admit its frustrating when some of the most prolific (and iconic) creatues in D&D are immune to the rogue's primary method of combat.

Fourth edition removed the SA/Crit immunity to all creatures, but it also removed things like SR and DR. As I understand it, Pathfinder also alters SA to allow a wider variety of creatures (though at the moment, I don't know in what way, anyone with the beta who wants to chime in, do so.) I'm not sure what Pathfinder does for crits.

I want to remove the rule for my current 3.5 game, but two things are stopping me; 1.) I'm afraid of game balance issues (like making golems or undead or elementals weaker than their CR would indicate by allowing them to be crit'd) and 2.) there is a part of me that want's rogues to fear undead and constructs, but not so much that they feel useless when facing one.

I'm currently thinking of making SA against normally "immune" foes work, but at 1/2 the dice. So a 3rd level rogue would do 2d6 vs. an orc, but only 1d6 vs. an orc zombie.

I'm at a loss as to what to do with criticals. I debated doing "max damage" criticals (so that all dice are maxed, but no doubling bonuses) but that seems strong with spell-crits.

I'm looking to see what others have done to modify SA/Crit immunity and what effect it had on their game. I'm open to all suggestions.

 

[Nebten]

As a long time lover of rogues, I understand your plight but I enjoy the challenge when non-sneakable creatures come a creeping. You just have to become more creative, assist in ways that are not damage dealing. UMD anyone? Otherwise you may have to take a more supportive role then a damage dealer.
You can also look at Disruptive Attack out of PHB II.

But if you want to just give 1/2 sneak damage to those who you can normally don't take that damage, then what about other feats that based off of sneak attack? Would those count as well? It becomes a slippery slope.

With reguards to the crit question, Maxing it vs rolling double averages about the same for those with x2 muliplier. Its a drawback for those using x3 or even x4 weapons, but it definatly will quicken things in game. You are not alone with this mind set.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Count me in as another who likes the "anatomy rule."

However, there are ways you can keep the rule while giving the rogue a way around it with some creative HRs.

For instance, you could make "Find Weakness" an altnerative use of the Spot or Search skill. A successful roll lets you find a weak spot on a single opponent who is otherwise immune to SA, with a DC based on the creature's AC or Touch AC, with appropriate modifiers.

Or you could develop a set of Feats that represent a rogue's learning how to combat a specific class of foes that are immune to SA- one for Constructs, one for Undead, etc.- via ancient tomes or the tutelage of those who know the secrets and are willing to impart them to others.

 

[Obryn]

Personally, I think undead have a very discernable anatomy. You'd know this if you watched enough Zombie movies. I think it's very reasonable to hit them in critical spots - most undead die if you behead them, for example. They also get hurt in other ways if you can disable their limbs.

Golems, I could see, too. Those things have weaker points and stronger points, and I think it's reasonable a rogue could hit one of the weaker points - a joint, say. Or an eye. (They have eyes for a reason, right?)

The miserable part about both of these guys is that they have no CON score. Even with d12 hit dice, undead can get hosed quickly. Golems at least have a size benefit, but still tend to fall behind the curve.

Oozes? Slimes, molds, jellies? Jell-o molds? I don't think they have a discernable anatomy to speak of. Under 3e, I'd be less inclined to make them sneak-attack-able. OTOH, they do get CON bonuses, so at least they're not screwed there.

-O

 

[malraux]

I would give undead, golems, etc, something like SA/crit resistance ( while upping the HP a little). So a skeleton has SA resistance 2, meaning that it ignores the first 2 points of sneak attack damage per hit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I think undead have a very discernable anatomy. You'd know this if you watched enough Zombie movies. I think it's very reasonable to hit them in critical spots - most undead die if you behead them, for example. They also get hurt in other ways if you can disable their limbs.

Actually, while many undead have discernable vital anatomy, most of it is non-functional.

Zombies are more the exception rather than the rule, and their one vital area is the brain.

Even though Vampires die if you strike their heart, you have to strike that target with a wooden stake- a weapon made of a particular material.

But many undead keep moving if you disarticulate them...and incorporeal undead? No vital anatomy at all.

 

[Obryn]

I'd say the majority of undead are more zombie-like than not. Zombies, skeletons, liches, ghouls, ghasts, etc.

Ghosts? Yeah, just floating pools of ectoplasm.

So I'd say corporeal undead = "vital" areas, or at least areas that are more vital than others, incorporeal undead = no vital areas for 3e.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

Currently, the crit-immune things consist of

Elementals (no anatomy; basically animated pools of element)
Plants (foreign anatomy because their sentient salad)
Undead (not alive, thus no soft-spots)
Constructs (not alive, thus no soft-spots)
Ooze (no anatomy, just puddles of snot)
Incorporal Creatures (commonly undead, but also some ethereal beings as well)
(In additons, SA's are foiled by concealment from any source).

Crit-immune creatures fall into two camps: No "organs" (plant, undead, construct) and amorphous form (elemental, ooze, incoporal).

The former is easy to justify removing: anything that can be hit with a sword can be hit "harder". A skeleton can be hobbled by breaking some ribs, or a golem have a weak spot in his armor chinked and a lucky blow on a plant-based monster cuts deeper than a normal blow could. This group is easy to justify half (or full) SA against, as well as crits (save for the lower hp totals on undead and on constructs).

The latter group presents an interesting quandry; if an elemental or ooze has no real facing or anatomy; what are you hitting in the first place? Is the fighter chopping off puddles of goo with every swing? What, exactly, does a fireball do to an air elemental? This begins the long debate on what hp represents and what each "blow" really does. In fact, the whole "anatomy" rule seems pretty weak to justify anyway; a sneak attack doesn't actually target a foes vital organ (no rogue backstabbing an orc punctures a lung or breaks a femur) it just abstracts an attack for purposes of widdling down a foe to the killing blow. In that case, what difference does it make if the foe has an anatomy or not? Unless fireballs cause blisters or sneak attacks puncture lungs, anatomy doesn't factor into D&D combat.

(I purposely left out incoporal creatures because they form a second quandry: how do you hit something that isn't even "there"? By the rules, 50% of all magical non-force/ghost touch attacks hits a ghostly foe.)

This returns us to the original point: It seems odd to have a group of foes immune to crits/SAs based on a simulation-style ruling when in no way, shape or form does simulation play into D&D combat (if it did, we'd have lasting injury tables). It seems tailor made just to chuck...

AND YET

As Obryn said, removing these immunities weakens those foes; particularly undead who suffer for a sever lack of hp as it stands. Perhaps the half-dice SA would be enough of an incentive to allow rogues to want to try and set up SAs (of course, oozes and elementals are immune to flanking as well) but without the insta-splat of a full-on SA attack. At most, a 20th level rogue is adding 5d6 damage to his SA vs. said foes, roughly what a 10th level rogue is doing to his normal foes.

Crits are another matter. Since any class can crit (and no class is built around critting, though some character builds can be) leaving well-enough alone seems perfectly reasonable. Of course, so does ignoring the anatomy rule and stating "if you can hit it, you can crit it".

Choices, choices...

 

[Starbuck_II]

I'm probably opening up a can o' worms here...

As a self-professed rogue afficiando, I must confess I never really much liked the "discernable anatomy" rule concerning critical hits and sneak attacks. I get the rationale well enough, but I must admit its frustrating when some of the most prolific (and iconic) creatues in D&D are immune to the rogue's primary method of combat.

Fourth edition removed the SA/Crit immunity to all creatures, but it also removed things like SR and DR. As I understand it, Pathfinder also alters SA to allow a wider variety of creatures (though at the moment, I don't know in what way, anyone with the beta who wants to chime in, do so.) I'm not sure what Pathfinder does for crits.

I want to remove the rule for my current 3.5 game, but two things are stopping me; 1.) I'm afraid of game balance issues (like making golems or undead or elementals weaker than their CR would indicate by allowing them to be crit'd) and 2.) there is a part of me that want's rogues to fear undead and constructs, but not so much that they feel useless when facing one.

I'm currently thinking of making SA against normally "immune" foes work, but at 1/2 the dice. So a 3rd level rogue would do 2d6 vs. an orc, but only 1d6 vs. an orc zombie.

I'm at a loss as to what to do with criticals. I debated doing "max damage" criticals (so that all dice are maxed, but no doubling bonuses) but that seems strong with spell-crits.

I'm looking to see what others have done to modify SA/Crit immunity and what effect it had on their game. I'm open to all suggestions.

Rogues dealing 1/2 sneak attack ro crit immune creatures is in one of the books already. You give up Trap Sense (the bonus to AC/saves versys traps) but get to deal at least 1/2 sneak attack damage.

I think it was Dungeonscape or Cityscape.

 

[Obryn]

The former is easy to justify removing: anything that can be hit with a sword can be hit "harder". A skeleton can be hobbled by breaking some ribs, or a golem have a weak spot in his armor chinked and a lucky blow on a plant-based monster cuts deeper than a normal blow could. This group is easy to justify half (or full) SA against, as well as crits (save for the lower hp totals on undead and on constructs).

These are all really good points. I think it's a game balance issue, pure and simple, because you can make simulationist arguments go either way.

-O