What's the rationale behind non-crittable monsters again?

[Emirikol]

Buffy almost invariably went through a process of wearing down the vampire's 'hit points' through normal means, before finishing them off with thye stake. )

Resident evil 4 was that way with zombies. I guess if you punch a zombie in the gut he goes "oooh, puff puff." What a horrible, cheaply-done movie. It should have been made by SciFi, even they would have done a better job.

Anyways, I think if a zombie get's cut with a claymore from head to pubis, I'd call that a crit. Even "rocks", as Jason Nesmith Commander Taggart so falsely notes, all rocks have a point at which when struck will shatter or crack the rock more than other areas. Gemologists know this from cutting diamonds too. Golems..well, theres some real fantasy

Perhaps a house rule that a DR'ed weapon can't do a critical may be a better approach. Sure, you can crit a skeleton with a club..but not a arrow. Probably somethign to watch for in 4.5 (JUST JOKING

Jay

 

[Mercule]

You can decapitate someone in combat. Just thought I'd point that out.

In real-world combat you can. In D&D, not so much, barring a vorpal weapon -- no hit-location table. Heck, D&D doesn't even have facing, so there is no mechanical way to tell whether you've hit your foe in the front or back.

Critical hits are kind of amusing, but don't fit with the definition of hit points too well in D&D. If they stay, I hope they remain roughly as applicable as in 3E.

Come to think of it, I don't like any of the rumored changes to crits in 4E. I don't like critting undead/constructs/oozes. I don't like the loss of a confirmation roll. I don't like that all weapons are x2/20 (or whatever). I suppose, that's in order of least bothersome to most, though it's pretty close between those last two.

I thought having the battle axe be somewhat wild, but dangerous; while the longsword was more controlled, but less likely to cut someone in half on a fluke; and the rapier was dainty, but most likely to regularly poke you in the kidney, liver, etc. was a very cool and easy way to add some flavor and variation to each weapon. Sword and Fist did the math that showed each was statistically pretty much equivalent in campaign-lifetime damage output. They just felt different.

I like the confirmation roll just because I have an issue with crits happening on 5% of all hits.

 

[Mercule]

Perhaps a house rule that a DR'ed weapon can't do a critical may be a better approach. Sure, you can crit a skeleton with a club..but not a arrow.

Now, that, I could get behind. I think I like it better than the current critter-type breakdown. No matter how much you beat on a balor with a bar stool, you're not going to get a lucky hit and knock a tooth out.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Which is a distinction I kinda like - optimal use of a weapon is rolling max damage. Hitting "harder" is greater str bonus, power attack and all that. Crits and sneak attacks are precision strikes. (Decapitation, imo, fits more into the optimal use and greater power category than it does a precision strike, so the fact some undead can be effected by it is irrelevant.)

 

[Evilhalfling]

I allow crits on corpral undead. Cutting off the head or breaking an important joint Is still going to mess the thing up. Its practically a staple in stories.

Clockwork type golems could be critted. Animated statues could not, but the arguments here have changed my mind.

Not oozes or elementals, or ghosts.
still on the fense with plant critters.

Of course I use a critical hit deck now, and have ruled that the crit described fails to have an effect.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Buffy almost invariably went through a process of wearing down the vampire's 'hit points' through normal means, before finishing them off with thye stake. In the cases where she did not, the vampire was a mook, and so can be modelled as having only a few hit points in the first place.

In either case, the rules can model this by stating "if the blow that reduced the vampire to 0 hit points were landed using a wooden stake, the vampire is destroyed as the stake impales its heart. Otherwise, it adopts gaseous form and flees". There is no need to allow crits to vampires to cover this case.

(Which is not to say undead necessarily shouldn't be crittable - I can see arguments either way on this front. If, however, they are to become subject to critical hits, then they need many more hit points than they currently have.)

A reasonable interpretation. I also see it as a supports for the notion that because hit points are so abstract, critical damage probably shouldn't be described as striking a vital organ, but instead just be considered a hit that somehow was spectacularly good.

Staking a vampire, hitting a major artery, slicing an orc in half, shattering the skeletons rib cage, that only happens when the hit points are gone.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I thought having the battle axe be somewhat wild, but dangerous; while the longsword was more controlled, but less likely to cut someone in half on a fluke; and the rapier was dainty, but most likely to regularly poke you in the kidney, liver, etc. was a very cool and easy way to add some flavor and variation to each weapon. Sword and Fist did the math that showed each was statistically pretty much equivalent in campaign-lifetime damage output. They just felt different.

I like the confirmation roll just because I have an issue with crits happening on 5% of all hits.

I agree that this is a positive part of the current critical rules. But maybe the feel of "more controlled" and "more wild" will be found in other mechanics, maybe due to feats or talents. It's not a "default" thing you notice just because you happen to use the weapon, but a experienced warrior learns how to utilize these properties.

 

[sirwmholder]

Now, that, I could get behind. I think I like it better than the current critter-type breakdown. No matter how much you beat on a balor with a bar stool, you're not going to get a lucky hit and knock a tooth out.

This is the greatest post ever! I nearly sprayed Coke all over the keyboard... ah good stuff.

William Holder

 

[Abstraction]

Another thought I had on the subject...since all the playtesters are playing the same playtest characters, what we might be seeing is simply a feat or talent that allows this particular rogue to sneak/crit undead.

 

[sirwmholder]

A reasonable interpretation. I also see it as a supports for the notion that because hit points are so abstract, critical damage probably shouldn't be described as striking a vital organ, but instead just be considered a hit that somehow was spectacularly good.

Staking a vampire, hitting a major artery, slicing an orc in half, shattering the skeletons rib cage, that only happens when the hit points are gone.

Sounds like you want a finishing move that only happens infequently and always after the battle has gone on for a few rounds... not that I disapprove of wanting the encounter to be meaningful... but consider this...

In the FireFly pilot episode... Mal comes back to Serenity sees Lawerence holding River, shoots him in the head and goes about his day... very quick but no less dramatic... or in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows... Neville sees the Sword of Gryffindor and beheads the Infernal snake with one clean swipe... I see that as a Critical Hit at the beginning of combat... yeah it could have been a longer battle... but it doesn't make the achievement any less grand.

Just something to think on,
William Holder