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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that's how you dealt with them in the coffin when they were helpless to stop you, not in the middle of combat.

But do the rules _need_ to distinguish staking a vampire in midst combat to hitting a major artery on a normal living being?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

But do the rules _need_ to distinguish staking a vampire in midst combat to hitting a major artery on a normal living being?

Buffy.

 

[Remathilis]

I dunno, if 4e allows undead and constructs to be critted, I might consider playing a rogue again. As is, not so much.

Remathilis "Why does my DM love those two creatures so frickin much?" Ooi.

 

[Lord Zack]

"IT'S A ROCK! IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY VULNERABLE SPOTS!"
-- Jason Nesmith

That's not entirely true. I learned in sculpture class that rock does indeed have weak spots. I accidently broke a piece of stone in two by hitting it in the right place. Stands to reason you could do the same thing to a Golem.

 

[BASHMAN]

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.

Hmmm. If they follow this model in 4e, I will rule that Warlords cannot heal critical hit damage, nor can second wind since those don't actually repair injuries, just increase one's will to fight. Since you cannot will your spleen to re-attach itself.

I've always hated the non-critable rule-- and it was ridiculous when extended to robots-- they have critical systems that if damaged can shut the thing down. Golems could easily have the same thing-- but instead of it being mechanical parts, it would be the scroll in the mouth with the name of a god used to animate it, or the heart-shaped enchanted stone at its center... If you have a giant mace and are fighting a skeleton, of course you can crit it-- your mace shatters all the bones and sends them flying apart. I wouldn't allow them to be critted by a rapier-- but I'd just say that you cannot hurt them with a rapier anyway. A zombie could be critted by being chopped in half-- kinda makes them less effective in combat, you know?

 

[delericho]

But do the rules _need_ to distinguish staking a vampire in midst combat to hitting a major artery on a normal living being?

Buffy.

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.)

 

[pawsplay]

That's not entirely true. I learned in sculpture class that rock does indeed have weak spots. I accidently broke a piece of stone in two by hitting it in the right place. Stands to reason you could do the same thing to a Golem.

In fact, is there any other way to damage one? Golems are tough!

 

[pawsplay]

If you do not take off the head, it is not at all more damaging than a solid whack on the arm or leg.

If you happen to land on mattress, a fall from three stories is not much more dangerous than tripping on a rug. However, a blow to the neck is likely to take off the head.

Can you tell me why a Skeletal creature even needs it's head aside from bite attacks? Its not like it is using its eyes (which are by definition empty sockets)?

I can deduce this from the fact they can be destroyed. If all that mattered was the bones, skeletons would simply become multiple crawling skeleton parts, and finally bone dust that was attacking you.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Remathilis "Why does my DM love those two creatures so frickin much?" Ooi.

Taking the thread slightly off-topic here, but I'm guessing it's because undead and constructs are just so damn useful in dungeon-design terms. You can put 'em anywhere, since they don't really have an ecology. What's in the Lost Vault of Whatever, that hasn't been opened in 10,000 years? Undead and constructs, of course! The irony of this is that you almost certainly need a rogue in the Lost Vault of Whatever to deal with all the traps, but the rogue's player will be hating life as he gets to perform all the monkey-work but do exactly nothing in combat. It's a game-design shortcoming, IMO.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem I always had with uncrittable creatures was that so many of them seemed like they really should be crittable.

Corporeal undead? Why not? Everyone knows you shoot zombies in the head. Incorporeal undead are tougher, but if you can hurt them at all, why shouldn't stabbing them in the face be extra effective?

Golems? Well, this changes depending on how you imagine golems. If you imagine them as big rocks formed into a human and walking around, then crits don't make much sense. If you imagine them as having bolts and couplings and structure, then it does. I've always preferred my golems to look like someone built them, but that's a subjective thing.

The only monsters I can't see the logic of permitting crits on in any way would be oozes.