Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4735558" data-attributes="member: 19675">For you, maybe, but not for everyone. OK, at least we agree there.  I'd also continue to extend that logic to undead, since their organs are not vital for their continued existence.The truth of that assertion is campaign specific, actually.I've been DMing since the 1980s.  Some of my campaigns have been devoid of either constructs or undead, others seemed like undead or constructs (never both) were behind every stone or tree.I can buy that, but only insofar as it is knowledge above and beyond the training a typical Rogue might have- IOW, a Feat or PrCl.I sympathize that you may not have Supplement X- I, too, have a vast library but not everything WotC printed for 3.X graces my shelves- but if a player came to me with your lament and I didn't have the relevant sourcebook (or disliked their version of it), I'd work with him to HR a Feat or PrCl. I do.  While both combatants are looking for weaknesses in a foe's defenses, the Rogue is looking for and has specialized training targeting certain specific ones- eyes, necks, arteries, joints or bowels that are exposed or unguarded, even if only for a second- in order to do debilitating damage with a single stroke.  The warrior is just looking to get past a blocking shield or the foe's combat style, and is as trained at wearing down his foe with the death of 1000 cuts as a decapitation.  He knows how to kill when the "vitals" are well protected.This problem arises from the highly abstracted nature of D&D combat.  Realistically, certain constructs should be more vulnerable to bludgeoning or piercing damage...and even then, only from certain kinds.  But D&D doesn't go for that particular kind of realism.But look at the bright side: at least they didn't make it so that constructs only take damage from Sundering attacks.I think that the abstract nature of D&D combat reflects that absence of the need for self preservation among most Undead quite well, evident in things like their immunity to crits, sneak attacks, and that gaudy D12 HD.They only fear the power of the divine, really.For most Undead- think of almost any prose or cinematic depiction- whacking off a limb or striking a sense organ doesn't matter.  Some don't have sense organs and yet still perceive normally (most obviously, the skeletal types).  Others, finding themselves deprived of a limb, will strike you with the wet end...or the severed limb may strike out at you on its own.  Those that DO have some kind of weakness?  Typically its an object that must be destroyed, a spell that must be spoken.  Even those with a "vital organ" can only have it disrupted by certain kinds of implements- like wooden stakes (and sometimes only certain kinds of wood), fire or salt- more indicative of breaking a curse or "grounding out" the animating magic than injuring the creature with a weapon.I'll grant you this, though- you're presenting a stronger arguments with the Constructs.  Weaknesses are a common theme with them- trying out an animating gemstone, opening the ankle of Talos, jamming the Master Gear of a clockwork critter, or even erasing the first letter of the etched word on a Golem's head so that Emet ("Truth") becomes Met ("Dead").  But even so, almost universally, those weaknesses have nothing to do with actual weapon damage.  Whack them all you want, those Constructs keep coming and coming.  You have to know their secret and get in close, typically doing something with your bare hands, not some weapon.</blockquote>

Verification