That zombies go down when hit in the head is a modern concept associated with zombies as disease which does not apply to D&D zombies. And Golems are no construct in the sense that they have different parts like an "engine".
D&D 5E Q&A -- Dec 20: Puzzle monsters and spell points.
That zombies go down when hit in the head is a modern concept associated with zombies as disease which does not apply to D&D zombies. And Golems are no construct in the sense that they have different parts like an "engine".
D&D doesn't really go into detail of how construct animation or undead reanimation works. More importantly, it doesn't describe where the animating magic is kept. Part of the magic is the vagueness and part of the issue as well. Maybe all a zombie's or golem's magic is in their head much like a vampire and their heart and if you stab it hard enough all the magic escapes.
Personally a being with no weakpoints needs a lot of HP to feel right in combat.
Sage Genesis
First Post
Zombies as we know them are a modern invention anyway, invented just a few years before D&D was created. And mythological golems are animated with a special inscription in their head so they really should have a vulnerable spot. The "flesh golem" is really just Frankenstein's monster and that being was not a walking statue but a re-animated person, with organs and brains and all. The only reason D&D gets away with representing mythological critters so poorly is because it's done them wrong for so long that people have internalized them and no longer realize what the original version was like (see also: medusa/gorgon).
My point is, it's not hard to justify sneak attacks on such beings. You can use flavortext to argue either way so the pivot point lies with mechanics and game balance, IMO. And I see no mechanical reasons to punish Rogues any harder than the other weapon-using classes.
Jester David
Hero
I don't like every tactic working all the time. Burning fire elementals, charming zombies, backstabbing gelatinous cubes, and tripping oozes doesn't make sense to me. Some monsters should just be flat out immune to certain things.
That said, I agree that blanket immunities should be rare and make sense. 3e went too far and it will be nice to pull them back because you can still sneak attack a skeleton in its spine or critical a golem by hitting it's load bearing ankle.
However, most immunities should be obvious (the unburnable red dragon, the puddle of slime without vital organs or legs). A few rare monsters might have nasty surprises, but these should be rare and their xp should reflect their non-standard immunities.
That said, I agree that blanket immunities should be rare and make sense. 3e went too far and it will be nice to pull them back because you can still sneak attack a skeleton in its spine or critical a golem by hitting it's load bearing ankle.
However, most immunities should be obvious (the unburnable red dragon, the puddle of slime without vital organs or legs). A few rare monsters might have nasty surprises, but these should be rare and their xp should reflect their non-standard immunities.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
The point of zombies has already been mentioned by other posters, but with Golems even if there are no areas where the inscription is being kept like they were in the original Jewish legend (which would be a vulnerable spot), all Golems are roughly humanoid shape and areas like the limbs or the neck are thinner than areas like the torso. With areas that are thinner than others there's weaker points already, since last time I checked Golems weren't uniform shapes of solid matter.
Yet hitting those "weak parts" doesn't hurt the golem any more than hitting the center of the body. What hitting them might do is that it inhibits the golem in some way. If you manage to put a large dent into its arm it might hit for less damage or move slower when you crumble part of its leg. That would also work for undead.
But as long as the rogue only has a HP damage sneak attack instead of disabling attacks I vote for blanket precision damage immunity for things like undead, golems and oozes (which also can't be disabled if the rogue would have such attack).
And to not focus on the rogue alone, this blanket immunity also includes not burning fire elementals, freezing or poisoning undead, etc.
Teataine
Explorer
Like someone said, zombies are a modern invention in the first place.
I'm ok with undead not being imune to sneak attack. Same for golems. Flesh glems have stitches and bindings you can cut, clay golems should have an inscription on their forehead or some equivalent, metal golems have olts and screws that you can weaken or loosen. The only golem I can see being immune is the stone golem, which could make it one of those rarer exceptions where you need to figure things out.
Elementals though, I can see being imune to all kinds of "precision" damage, including critical hits. They're just swirling elemental energy. Same for incorporeal/insubstantial creatures I think.
I'm ok with undead not being imune to sneak attack. Same for golems. Flesh glems have stitches and bindings you can cut, clay golems should have an inscription on their forehead or some equivalent, metal golems have olts and screws that you can weaken or loosen. The only golem I can see being immune is the stone golem, which could make it one of those rarer exceptions where you need to figure things out.
Elementals though, I can see being imune to all kinds of "precision" damage, including critical hits. They're just swirling elemental energy. Same for incorporeal/insubstantial creatures I think.
RangerWickett
Legend
O-kay then. Time to design a custom combat system where monsters have traits that can be suppressed or destroyed by various PC powers. I love this thread!
Sneak attack does not rely on targeting a vulnerable or vital spot in 5E. It's taking advantage of a foe's distraction to score a more effective hit--which could just mean a dead-center blow with the rogue's full weight behind it. Nothing in the ability description mentions vital spots.
Similar Threads
