Why are things immune to crits?

[jessemock]

I'm curious: what would that advantage be? Just how many plants need killing (without destroying) in your campaign? Does this really justify assuming something is terribly wrong with the critical hit rules?

I don't know if it does, because this has not at all been my intention, nor have I ever made any statement to that effect.

I suppose that, to me, the in-game difference between a living tree and a dead one is basically background information. "This dead tree won't support the weight of a character/creature of larger than Small size who tries to climb into it." Stuff like that. Again, just how many trees need killing (without destroying) in your campaign?

Sometimes it happens, but that's not really the point: there is a counter-intuitive relationship between plants and plant monsters.

Incidentally, it sounds like all these "nonviolent" ways of killing plants aren't things you can do in 6 seconds, or at least you don't see the results within 6 seconds. I could be wrong, but at combat scale it sounds like a lot of these things will do *no* damage to a tree... until after many, many rounds have elapsed. Assuming your DM doesn't just say, "Okay, the next day the tree is dead. Now you need to chop it down."

Well; I wouldn't call it non-violent, and I didn't, but neither did I point out that trees are alive and not objects in order to tie them to the combat round; I did it to establish a progression toward how we handle plant monsters in a combat round.

Now, what I want to know is: as Construct creatures that are still objects, do animated objects lose their vulnerability to "especially successful" attacks? I've got this treant mad at me....

Wait a minute--what? I would say that, first, yes, I think that Constructs should carry along whatever weaknesses their materials would normally have: stone golems should have the possibility for fracturing (why not call it a critical hit?), etc. The argument from magic is, of course, arbitrary, so who knows?

As for treants, well, yeah, obviously I've got them on my mind (though I don't know what they would have to do with constructs), and, really, it seems pretty clear to me that these creatures (and all plant types) should have an especial vulnerability to tools developed specifically for cutting down plants. Or even weapons merely resembling them.

Look, I despise Tolkien, but I love Ents--and Ents rightly fear and loathe axes.

Well, for one thing I roll fewer dice and don't have to multiply anything when my character's target is immune to critical hits. So in that regard not having to deal with a critical hit is a little simpler.

If you're measuring simplicity in terms of dice rolls, then yes, but keep in mind that that's an argument against the critical hit system in its entirety, not in a particular application of it.

If you're measuring in terms of rules or aspects to remember, then no.

Plus, there is always the dashing of those expectations when a player looks up from that natural twenty all starry-eyed, only to hear, "oh wait...immune to crits."

Do either of you, by any chance, play druids? Anyway, you've constructed a false dilemma in that there's at least one more possibility.

We've got party on party of them.

I don't think it's a false dilemma, however. There are loads of plant-type creatures out there, and I sincerely believe that they have their immunity to crits because nobody bothered to take a minute or two to think about plants.

You see this:

at the game's level of abstraction, plants have no vital organs

doesn't need to be true for simplicity's sake. "Immunity to Crits" isn't really simpler than "DR 10/slashing," but the second is much closer to reality.

 

[Scion]

I guess it all depends on whether you condsider other races with Base hd to be higher level than 1. Not every campaign world has humans as the most common race after all Though the core books tend to have that philosophy to be sure.

Even that commoner might have a con bonus, not everyone has 10's in every stat that is just to show they have +0 modifiers to all stats, not necissarily in all stats. Hard to work in the field everyday all of your life and not have a decent str and con, if he didnt he'd probably be dead.

I know what you are saying, I just dont agree that the world average for levels should be 2 or less. It just seems nonsensical that a 5th level character would be a god throughout the world. Probably just a case of the core books not always thinking things through. Hard to say though.

 

[The Souljourner]

Like I said, generic D&D world. You can make a world where babies are born with 21 levels of fighter. D&D is all based on the generic world outlined in the core rules. Change that, and lots of things have to change.

A 5th level character is *supposed* to be more powerful than 95% of the population. It's called being a hero, not to mention rich. Most 5th level adventurers have more wealth on their person than the typical commoner will see in his entire lifetime.

PCs are not average members of their race.

-The Souljourner

 

[Camarath]

I don't think it's a false dilemma, however. There are loads of plant-type creatures out there, and I sincerely believe that they have their immunity to crits because nobody bothered to take a minute or two to think about plants.

Would you please explain to me how you can kill the majority of a plant's (such as a tree) tissues in one or two minute's time using a weapon (such as an axe)? Plant tissues are just not as immediately dependent on one another as animal tissues are. Cutting a tree in half will kill it but not in anywhere near the same time frame that cutting a person in half.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I don't know if it does, because this has not at all been my intention, nor have I ever made any statement to that effect.

Then I hope you'll forgive me for inferring you believe that.

Sometimes it happens, but that's not really the point: there is a counter-intuitive relationship between plants and plant monsters.

I'm afraid I can't bring myself to agree. They're all immune to critical hits, for starters... but one stops moving and attacking when you remove all its hit points and the other is "ruined" -- destroyed, chopped down, sundered; however you choose to read that. It's based in how the rules differentiate creatures and objects, and I find it perfectly intuitive.

Well; I wouldn't call it non-violent, and I didn't, but neither did I point out that trees are alive and not objects in order to tie them to the combat round; I did it to establish a progression toward how we handle plant monsters in a combat round.

By "non-violent" I mean "without weapons." But I fear we are missing each other's points on this one. And anyway, I erred when I went down the path that includes assigning hp damage for non-hacking means of killing trees. Mea culpa. As I said in my edit above, trees, as objects, take hp damage only from attacks which harm their structure, such as weapon attacks and energy attacks.

As for treants, well, yeah, obviously I've got them on my mind (though I don't know what they would have to do with constructs),

Treants have the ability to animate trees. Living but non-creature trees are objects. Animated objects gain the Construct type.

[EDIT] Whoops again! On a closer read of the SRD, it turns out treants animate trees as if with the liveoak spell, which turns ordinary trees into temporary treants. [/EDIT]

and, really, it seems pretty clear to me that these creatures (and all plant types) should have an especial vulnerability to tools developed specifically for cutting down plants. Or even weapons merely resembling them.

Again, the "especially successful" rule permits a DM to assign extra damage against ordinary plants (objects) in whatever circumstances the DM deems reasonable. That Plant creatures are immune to such extra damage can be easily handwaved. Or, a DM has the right to waive a Plant creature's critical hit immunity if desired. But the answer to the question "why are Plant creatures immune to critical hits" has already been answered.

I don't think it's a false dilemma, however. There are loads of plant-type creatures out there, and I sincerely believe that they have their immunity to crits because nobody bothered to take a minute or two to think about plants.

You're entitled to believe that. But you described two alternatives and said you chose between them; I say that's an instance of the logical fallacy "false dilemma" because I posit more than two alternatives exist to explain why the designers chose to make Plant-type creatures and objects such as living plants immune to critical hits (however, the DM is entitled to assign living plants, as objects, extra damage from axes etc. if desired). In particular, I think it's possible the designers knew more than nothing but less than a lot about plant biology and made their choice for the reasons expressed already in this thread. Ergo, there is at least one more alternative.

"Immunity to Crits" isn't really simpler than "DR 10/slashing," but the second is much closer to reality.

Then you have a perfect solution in the form of a house rule that ought to work just fine for you and your group. I'm okay with the critical hit rules as written. It still seems like you feel there's something terribly wrong with them. I'm sorry I failed to address your concerns. Thanks for listening though!

 

[dcollins]

Looking through various wotc releases it seems even the common folk have at least a few levels. Most games I've been in have had an average world population level of 11 or 12, ie almost everyone has at least 3 or 4 levels in something, usually more.

I agree with other posters, that qualifies as insanely high. Look at the end of DMG ch. 4, where the level of all characters in a standard community is given (3.0 DMG p. 140). In a "typical hamlet of two hundred people", 160 of those are calculated as being 1st-level Commoners. Only 6 are calculated as being anything above 1st level. This is basically consistent with everything published for D&D since the 1970's.

I'm beginning to think this whole thread is straight from bizarro-land.

 

[Scion]

I know which part you are talking about, that particular part of the world strikes me as 'bizarro-land'. 5th level characters should not be gods, they are barely even into the world, they arent even in prestige classes yet. It would be hard to have whole organizations dotted all over the place. Those 1st level commoners are effectively the same as children between the ages of 0 and 15, relative ages of course. If you have a profession you start getting exp, if you interact with the world you get exp.

It goes against that particular part of the dmg to be sure, and I know that. But it has to be one of the crazier things around. Mainly it seems like a throwback to earlier editions where characters didnt really do anything after level 9 or so, and all of the townsfolk were level 0. They could do nothing nor did they ever get better. 160 Level 1's with a few maybe up to 8 or so. How did they get to be level 8? How come those level 1 people didnt hit level 2? Its not a big step, especially after say 10 years of a profession. Not everyone can be a layabout who doesnt do anything at all.

Ahh well. sorry for the highjack, I'll go back to my happy little world where people can have a modicrum of potential, and heros have heroic potential. Sorry to bother

 

[Henry]

Though critical hits are not always death blows in fact in most games I have played they tend not to be, they are simply more damaging hits. They really don't properly represent getting hit in a vital organ.

The way I play it (to me, the way that makes the best sense) is to treat normal hits as near-misses, nicks & scrapes, bruises with the flat of the blade or glancing bludgeon-blows, etc. A critical hit means you got a solid hit - one that makes the blood flow, though not vitally. It's the last hit (the one that take you to negatives) that counts as the "critical." THAT's the one that really strikes meat.

In other words, I treat hit points kind of like wound/vitality points.

 

[dcollins]

If you have a profession you start getting exp, if you interact with the world you get exp.

I think you'll find that that's not part of the D&D rules anywhere. Gaining XP for NPCs is left undefined -- the only core way of getting XP is through adventuring and combat. In my view, one of the goofiest and hardest-to-make-sense of parts of 3E was the introduction of the "commoner" class with 20 levels: it just doesn't make sense within any of the rest of the D&D rule set.

 

[hong]

The way I play it (to me, the way that makes the best sense) is to treat normal hits as near-misses, nicks & scrapes, bruises with the flat of the blade or glancing bludgeon-blows, etc. A critical hit means you got a solid hit - one that makes the blood flow, though not vitally. It's the last hit (the one that take you to negatives) that counts as the "critical." THAT's the one that really strikes meat.

In other words, I treat hit points kind of like wound/vitality points.

It might be more accurate to say that you treat VP/WP kind of like hit points.