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

[D.Shaffer]

While I dont mind the idea of uncrittable creatures, I'd rather this be a special property of the creature itself rather then a broad base for all creatures of a 'similar type'.

For example, while many undead wouldnt be effected by critical attacks, what about the ever popular movie zombie?
Most oozes wouldnt be effected by criticals, but if you made something like a giant amoeba, it would definitely have vital structures.
Many plants might be effectively immune to criticals, but others would have circulatory tissue you could exploit.

I would rather have 'Immune to Criticals' placed on creatures that truly deserve it.

 

[Celebrim]

While I dont mind the idea of uncrittable creatures, I'd rather this be a special property of the creature itself rather then a broad base for all creatures of a 'similar type'.

Whether this is a good idea depends on whether you think the number of creatures of a given type which have the special property 'not crittable', is less than the number of creatures of that type that have the special property 'crittable'.

I'd rather make 'movie zombies' subject to criticals as a special extraordinary feature.

I wonder if we are really over thinking this. How much problems would be resolved if we just addressed the root of the complaint and made the ability to do sneak attack damage not tied to whether or not the monster is subject to criticals?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I wonder if we are really over thinking this. How much problems would be resolved if we just addressed the root of the complaint and made the ability to do sneak attack damage not tied to whether or not the monster is subject to criticals?

Or the other way around, uncouple the ability to do critical damage from the monster's suceptibility to sneak attacks. It would probably resolve quite a bit of WTF tidbits, like that extra damage the ranger gets vs. special enemies, or the coup de grace (that would easily solve the "impale helpless vampire with a stake" scenario, too...instead of a Fort save, it gets a Ref save to simulate its heart jumping slightly to the left ).

 

[Mercule]

I think the rationale behind critical hits will also see considerable reworking now that Fireball (and presumably other damaging spells) can strike critically.

Speaking of changes to 4E critical hits with which I have an issue....

 

[Gort]

Or the other way around, uncouple the ability to do critical damage from the monster's suceptibility to sneak attacks.

Yeah, this is my problem with uncrittable monsters, really. Once you hit the high levels, the rogue's attacking six times for 11D6+6 (AKA 260-ish damage if he lands all his hits) and is a complete damage monster - if he's allowed to critical. However, if the - often very arbitrary-feeling - decision is made that the monster can't be critted, he's completely useless in combat. Lots of people like to say, "Well, even if he can't attack, he can use his skills to affect the combat!" but I can't say I've seen that very often. Sure, at low levels perhaps things like aid another actions, cutting ropes on bridges, or other tricks to use the environment against the monster might work, but at high levels, when flying monsters, monsters with DR/magic/something else, monsters who can teleport and monsters who can regenerate or need a special way of killing them abound, the 3D6 damage dropping a barrel on its head does just feels completely pathetic.

What 4th edition needs to do is make the rogue a powerful combatant no matter what he's attacking. Don't tie him to a single ability - like others have said, parroting "sneak attack! sneak attack!" every round does not make for varied combats.

So what I think needs to happen is for sneak attack to go away. I'd like to see the backstab multiplier come back, perhaps - as a first-round boost for the rogue to encourage them to sneak up on things, but not as the be-all and end-all of rogue combat. They should have other abilities to help them fight.

 

[pawsplay]

I'd prefer to have those two damage types treated differently, since they represent something different in the intention.

Yeah, I think so. Stabbing someone in the trachea with a dagger is a little different than whether a given creature can be cleaved crown to groin by a halberd.

 

[Ahglock]

Straying into house rules, but I've been thinking that the ability to crit something should be knowledge and feat based.

Lots of details to work out, but your ability to crit / sneak attack a particular target would depend on your knowledge of their anatomy. Different creatures would have a skill level requirement to crit them -- BAB for creatures of your own type; Knowledge: Stonework for stone golems; Knowledge: Engineering for many other constructs. That works even better if we treat "healing" as "Knowledge: Anatomy", and give dwarfs "Knowledge: Stonework" as a class skill (for example).

Improved Critical could be an automatic benefit of a favored enemy ability, and you could take favored enemy (type) to allow criticals against foes of a particular type.

And, particular foes could have a crit modifier that made it harder to achieve a critical against them. The simplest that I can think of is an extra critical confirmation role, very similar to the miss roll for concealment.

Letting this gel ... give particular creatures a "critical difficulty rating" and have an extra roll against this rating, modified by +1 for every 5 points of knowledge of the appropriate type and with a bonus due to favored enemy as well.

I'd prefer if the crit system was set up more like the armor fortification ability. X% chance to resist crits. Then people could make skill checks against the monsters fort defense in order to reduce the level of fortification by 25% or something. Heck give some monsters more than a 100% fort, like give oozes a %300 chance which would effectively make them immune for the couple creatures that should flat out be uncritable.

 

[Celebrim]

Or the other way around, uncouple the ability to do critical damage from the monster's suceptibility to sneak attacks. It would probably resolve quite a bit of WTF tidbits, like that extra damage the ranger gets vs. special enemies, or the coup de grace (that would easily solve the "impale helpless vampire with a stake" scenario, too...instead of a Fort save, it gets a Ref save to simulate its heart jumping slightly to the left ).

One of the very first house rules I had after reading through the PH was that the ranger automatically gained the ability to do critical hits to its favored enemy even if that favored enemy was normally imune. Hense, his bonus damage and any other damage normally limited to creatures that weren't immune to critical hits was immediately applicable. If a rogue was really worried about his ability to be effective in combat vs. undead, it would have been enough to simply splash a level in ranger and take favored enemy undead to fix the problem. Add to that the ability to take extra favored enemy as a feat, and I think this sort of concern is largely mitigated.

But that was just my solution. Whether its a better solution than what 4e does is something I'll decide when I see the whole package, but so far I'm having a hard time being sold on the idea that Mearls house rules are a big improvement from mine.

 

[Nylanfs]

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.<snip>

Actually I use Torn Asunder by Bastion Press (now the rights are owned by Dragon Wing Games). They did a REAL good job of adapting critical hits and limb loss and different hit-location tables per body type to the d20 game system.

 

[VirgilCaine]

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

Of course rocks have vulnerable spots.

I had this idea for a house rule where, it's just you need special techniques to notice and take advantage of them, and it's harder to do so than to deflate a hag's oh so vulnerable lung. Same for elementals and plants and whatnot.
So you can SA them, you just get fewer dice.

I think the idea I had was, plants and oozes are 2 less dice, elementals and undead are 3 less dice, and golems are 4 less dice.