What's the rationale behind non-crittable monsters again?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
wedgeski
Adventurer
I'm not sure of the rationale. When I made the transition to 3e I kind of liked the idea, but over time you can only see the puppy-dog eyes of your resident rogue so many times before you house-rule it away (or was that just me?) 
.
They will be gone, or otherwise alleviated in some fashion, in 4e, from what we know.
.They will be gone, or otherwise alleviated in some fashion, in 4e, from what we know.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Someone thought that criticals had to mean that a vital organ were hit. Undeads, Constructs and Elementals don't have such a thing, so they are uncrittable.Emirikol said:
In my personal opinion, this approach quickly fails once you think about Vampires (beheading and staking is deadly to them according to myth - sounds like some vital organs retained) or mechanized constructs (like Robots).
There is no need anyway to make criticals related to vital organs - maybe it was just a very lucky hit? And it probably also hurts the abstract concept of hit points, because hit point loss doesn't need to mean actual physical damage.
As far as I can tell from the playtest reports from WotC, critting undead and constructs will be possible in 4th edition, so the flavor text was probably changed.
I wonder if this will also mean that the variable weapon criticals are gone now, too. (Both for balance and also because I can't really think of a flavor text explaining why Axes might have a high critical multiplier, while swords have a higher threat range).
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Basically the rationale was just that they don't have vital organs.
Thus constructs, undead, plant, elementals - you can't slice open their jugular vein or femoral artery, they don't have a heart to pierce and so on.
Some systems base critical hits on the idea of 'optimal use of the weapon', while 3e settled on the 'damage a particularly vulnerable part of the target' concept.
Thus constructs, undead, plant, elementals - you can't slice open their jugular vein or femoral artery, they don't have a heart to pierce and so on.
Some systems base critical hits on the idea of 'optimal use of the weapon', while 3e settled on the 'damage a particularly vulnerable part of the target' concept.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
The rationale was based on simulation based reasoning. A sneak attack works by hitting particularly vulnerable areas. The creatures that you cannot score a critical hit / sneak attack on do not have any especially weak areas.
- Zombies are not going to be especially damaged by getting shot in the heart that they no longer need anyway.
- Golems and Oozes do not have an anatomy
- Non corporeal creatures do not have any particular vulnerable areas.
From a game balance point of view, I do not see it as being an issue, and do see some benefit. Spell casters have to work around spell resistance. Fighters have to worry about damage reduction and regeneration. Rogues have to deal with some creatures that are not vulnerable to critical hits.
The only time such things become an issue is when you are planning a fight with a BBEG who has a benefit that largely nerfs the abilities of a particular player. In combat, Sneak Attack is often the only thing rogues bring to the table worth considering. Take that away and you have someone that has a low damage output and a decent AC.
I think that the best solution to this is to avoid making any given class dependant on a single trick or tactic in combat. I think they may already end up doing this even if unintentionally. If your 4th Edition warlock cannot use his magical striking, perhaps his control effects are still viable.
END COMMUNICATION
- Zombies are not going to be especially damaged by getting shot in the heart that they no longer need anyway.
- Golems and Oozes do not have an anatomy
- Non corporeal creatures do not have any particular vulnerable areas.
From a game balance point of view, I do not see it as being an issue, and do see some benefit. Spell casters have to work around spell resistance. Fighters have to worry about damage reduction and regeneration. Rogues have to deal with some creatures that are not vulnerable to critical hits.
The only time such things become an issue is when you are planning a fight with a BBEG who has a benefit that largely nerfs the abilities of a particular player. In combat, Sneak Attack is often the only thing rogues bring to the table worth considering. Take that away and you have someone that has a low damage output and a decent AC.
I think that the best solution to this is to avoid making any given class dependant on a single trick or tactic in combat. I think they may already end up doing this even if unintentionally. If your 4th Edition warlock cannot use his magical striking, perhaps his control effects are still viable.
END COMMUNICATION
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
That would be a mechanics change, not a flavour text change! However, it is a mechanics change which strongly implies a flavour text change, which is what I think you were saying
delericho
Legend
A critical hit/sneak attack is a hit to an especially vulnerable area. A stone golem, being a big chunk of rock, doesn't have any especially vulnerable areas - even if you break off the head, it will still keep on coming. As such, it cannot be critted (or sneak attacked). Likewise for other uncrittable monsters.
From a game-rule perspective, it has the useful of effect of differentiating encounter types. A golem is very much a 'Fighter's monster', being both uncrittable and immune to most magic. Likewise, undead play to the strengths of the Cleric, plants to the Druid, and so forth.
I expect this to change in the new edition.
From a game-rule perspective, it has the useful of effect of differentiating encounter types. A golem is very much a 'Fighter's monster', being both uncrittable and immune to most magic. Likewise, undead play to the strengths of the Cleric, plants to the Druid, and so forth.
I expect this to change in the new edition.
Similar Threads
