On Sneak Attacks and Criticals

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

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

I'll continue to quibble...

IMHO, there are some corporeal undead with "vital" areas and some who don't...and the "don'ts" outnumber the "dos."

Zombies, Ghouls, Ghasts? Definitely seem to be more lifelike than most of their undead "kin." The argument for them being vulnerable to SA is strongest. But even for zombies, that's a later addition to the legend.

Wights and Revenants? Could go either way.

Skeletons? No organs whatsoever- they're animated purely by magic and negative energy. No vitals. Ditto anything with a similar physiology, as far as I'm concerned.

Vampires and similar undead have defined vulnerabilities that, while they exist within their bodies, require specific methods of destruction, not mere strikes with any old weapon. No vitals.

Liches require you destroy their phylactery, which need not even be on their person. No vitals.

Mummies, like skeletons, have no organs within their bodies at all- they were all removed during the mummification process. No vitals.

But even if a corporeal undead creature has its organs, odds are they are entirely non-functional. Magic and energy are all that they need to exist, and as such, have no true vital organs that a mere weapon strike can disrupt.

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.

Actually, I'd counter-assert that the extra damage from SA is precisely an abstraction of a rogue puncturing a lung, hamstringing someone, and the like. Whittling down a foe for the killing blow is the Fighter's shtick- its what his repeated strikes do, after all- the Rogue's is making his foe gawp in pained surprise as he finds a couple more ounces of metal inside him than at the beginning of the day.

Ditto fireballs:

d20 SRD
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

<snip>

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Its just that D&D has no mechanical abstraction for injuries other than by HP. Perhaps the first few points of damage are your blisters...and everything else is your flesh being carbonized.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think that most of the creatures that are immune to SA/crits should generally be immune to physical attack altogether. I wonder if cutting fire in half is really useful.

And undead generally have DR, do they also need crit/SA immunity?
 

I recently had some personal insight on this, that I'll bring to my game:

Normally I only get to play about 1/month, however, I recently came back from GeekFest 4... a week of DnD with my old highschool friends. While there we had one guy who played a rogue. We probably had 1-2 major fights every day. Halfway through the week, we were about 6th level, and the undead, constructs and such started creeping in enough that suddenly all of us are fighting and this one guy got to sit on his hands... at least, he felt gimped.

I get alot of what's being said above, and DMing here at home I used sneak attack as written... now however, I think I'm going to allow 1/2 SA damage against those creatures immune. Crits are not changed.

I toyed with using knowlege checks and/or feats... but feats seemed excessive if they needed a feat for each type of creature.

I'm all for PC's being scared of certain creatures, and thinking outside the box to get around encounters. But the no SA is just for rogues, everyone else hacks or spells up...

I guess I can justify it with that it's a magical world and everyone has these gifts, class abilities/ whatever, that help them. If they can be trained to UMD and disarm magical traps, why not train to smack a zombie for +1/2 SA damage?

My two bits.
-b
 

Here's what I did for crits/sneaks:

Most creatures* that formerly immune to crits/sneaks now gain resistance. There are three levels: lesser, moderate, and greater.

Lesser resistance crits are reduced by 1 multiplier (a x4 weapon deals x3), and sneak attacks deal 1/2 damage (total damage, not dice).

Moderate resistance: Crits are reduced by 2 steps (a x4 weapons deals x2) and sneaks deal 1/3 damage.

Greater resistance: Crits are reduced by 3 steps (a x4 weapon deals x1) and sneaks deal 1/4 damage.

So who gets what?

Elementals and oozes have greater resistance to crits and immunity to SA (no discernible anatomy).

Incorporeal creatures are immune to both.

Constructs, plants, and undead have lesser resistance to both.
 

Halfway through the week, we were about 6th level, and the undead, constructs and such started creeping in enough that suddenly all of us are fighting and this one guy got to sit on his hands... at least, he felt gimped.

I noticed this while DMing EtCR in 3e. The scout (who has the same issue wrt the rogue's SA) would go several sessions between being able to use one of his signature abilities. In a normal campaign with a roughly even mix of monster types the crit immune creatures might not come up that often, but if you use a themed adventure (undead or plant heavy) then you are unbalancing the "fun".


Kerrick: those look like pretty good rules. But what has moderate resistance?
 

Normally I only get to play about 1/month, however, I recently came back from GeekFest 4... a week of DnD with my old highschool friends. While there we had one guy who played a rogue. We probably had 1-2 major fights every day. Halfway through the week, we were about 6th level, and the undead, constructs and such started creeping in enough that suddenly all of us are fighting and this one guy got to sit on his hands... at least, he felt gimped.

I can sympathize with that guy, but he's no more gimped than any other non-caster. His damage output, even diminished because he's not occasionally outdoing the warriors with a big SA strike, is still contributing to cutting the foes down to size.

When faced with this reality, most of the players of my acquaintance- and I as well- opt to flank so the big hitters get bonuses (even if the rogues aren't), take other actions (like mook-sweeping, aid another, and so forth) or simply master a bigger weapon along the way so they can boost their non-SA damage output overall.
 

Well, the frustrations of my friend's rogue at Geekfest4 partially came from the adventure the DM used: a FR tearing the Weave for the Shadow Weave thing (i'm not FR savy). Anywho, lots of creatures with darkness miss chance, displacement, or undead/ constructs. The long sessions for a week straight amplified things, perhaps.

My regular game everyone is about 9-10th level and contains a rogue (with a ring of invis) who is happy with his occasional SA, he spends some of various battles scouting around, partially for something to do, partially to see that they don't get snuck up on by reinforcements, then bam, back into the battle with SA. The party likes it when he "expands the map"

I'll give the 1/2 SA a try next campaign, if it turns out to be too unbalancing, they are understanding if i just remove it and go back to PH rules.
 

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.

This is how I house-rule it. I allow sneak attacks except for everything except incorporeal undead, elementals, and plants. If under 3.5 the creature was immune to sneak, they'd get bonus hp similar to constructs. If they are constructs, their bonus hp is doubled. Now the rogue can sneak stuff with the justification that they find "weak" spots with the creature or better openings. I still keep the crit rules the same though. If it can't be critted, then it can't be critted.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top