Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ydars" data-source="post: 4735746" data-attributes="member: 62992">Danny: I don't think you are getting what I mean about constucts etc. IMHO, the ONLY way to fight them would be with agility and targetting "vital" areas like gem-stones, or via valves (like the statue in Jason and the Argonauts where it had a valve in its heel). This is because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to fight a construct, even a man sized one, with a sword, axe or warhammer. It is a question of mass and inertia. We are made of flesh and blood but an animated, man sized construct would be enormously massive because it is MUCH denser. This means that any blow from such a creature, even if it was "slow" would have substantial momentum and would be UNSTOPPABLE by a sword/axe/warhammer or shield and armour would be USELESS against such a creature, because with that amount of mass, a blow would simply crush you. If you cannot stop a blow from your enemy, you cannot fight him, because he will kill you once you enter his threat range. There is no way around this in melee combat: defence is the basis for attack, and I am talking about my experience of real metal sword combat here, not something abstract. As for damaging constructs with melee weapons, it is crazy. Plate armour, which was just a thin covering, was proof against sword or axe blows 99% of the time. This is why warhammers and polearms were invented and the standard tactic was a trip attack followed by a rondel dagger (specially stiffened triangular section blade) to the joints or through the visor. Warhammers could inflict trauma, but trauma relies upon density differences in the target's tissues. A construct is SOLID and would have equal density all the way through. Hence, these things would be useless. It would be like pounding on a huge block of iron or stone with a hammer: not terribly effective. So the idea of a fighter standing up to a construct, especially a larger than man-sized one, is LUDICROUS because he would be slow, armoured and unable to damage the creature significantly in any way. An Iron Golem would just be unstoppable. It would be like a man with a sword trying to take on a tank, but worse because tanks are actually platforms for ranged weapons whereas a construct is a platform for melee weapons. And tanks aren't solid metal or stone either so they don't mass so much. So my thesis is that nerfing a Rogue's but not a fighter's attacks versus constructs makes NO sense whatsoever and is based upon flawed logic. I would argue the same about undead. The problem with them, is their ill defined nature. How does an undead "sense" anything if its sense organs are dead? Does it use its eyes or ears or is there something else at work? Does the macabre energy filling these monsters flow or have a nexus of power? The D&D game does a bad job answering this kind of question but once you have the answer, you have the answer to sneak attacks. If nexi or sense organs exist, they can be targetted and since Rogues are more likely to spot this, as the most aware of PCs, it makes sense they would exploit it. Also, if you cut a zombie's backbone, it is cut in half and not likely to be that effective in combat since it cannot walk anymore or the lower half cannot really fight. Since no-one seems to mind the idea of damage not being real damage in 4e I see no problem positing the same with respect to sneak attacks in 3.5: i.e. that damage represents "making the creature less effective in combat". So many things in D&D make no sense when looked at from the point of view of physics that I am always amazed by the things that people target as raising a "flag of disbelief". Sneak attacks versus constructs/undead rates very low on this scale, believe me.</blockquote>

Verification