Why are things immune to crits?

[Scion]

Yes, gaining exp is only defined for pc's. However, that does not mean that only pc's gain levels, it only means that the dm gets to decide the hows and whens.

At which point the dm has to ask himself what makes sense for his world. Do hundreds of 1st level guys running around with only a couple of people actually have any levels make sense? Not in any sense that I've seen. All of the modules I've seen for 3rd edition seem to assume that only people with a few levels of experience even matter. The rest are cannon fodder. But they genereally arent well defined, and are actually lower in number than they should be according to the dmg.

Crazy first level peons.. unless all of their ints are 4 or less they should be able to gain something out of the world. Or at least one would hope.

20 levels of commoner is a bit odd, but if it is all you've ever wanted to do, and you have made yourself the best commoner in the land that is ok I suppose. I would think in any normal campaign though he would've picked up a few levels of warrior and/or expert along the way. Perhaps even a pc class. An uncommon commoner if you will

 

[dark2112]

Mkay, I got sidetracked from a link someone sent me, and decided to de-lurk upon reading this wonderful thread. There've been some good points, some bad points, and some random insanity, so I figured this would be a good place for me. I've always wondered something about the critical hit system - why is it biased against certain classes? My reasoning for that question? Here goes!

Weapon specialization - take a good look at this feat. They've never really been descriptive of what it really does. I mean, yes, it gives +2 damage with a chosen weapon. Why? Not because it's sharper, or because it's magic, or anything like that. No, it's because the fighter has trained and learned special tricks while using this weapon. What kind of tricks could a fighter learn with a sword that would enable him or her to do more damage? Well, I'm glad you asked. WotC never really specifies in either version of the PHB, but I've come up for something. Get this: they learn how to do extra damage by hitting weaker spots! Fancy that. Think about it for a moment. ....

Ok, so, seems to make sense to me. You train for years learning how to use your weapon to inflict more damage on opponents by exploiting the blade to inflict more damage by either placing your blows more precicely (ie - vital spots, weak/stress points, etc), or by say, twisting the blade when you've run the guy through, tapping things in a series of rapid blows to stress it more rather than a single solid strike, or some such. Essentially, that +2 damage is coming from your victim having some sort of weakness you can exploit with your weapon.

So, now to my point. It's not "why are constructs immune to critical hits and sneak attack", although I could say a few things on that particular topic which haven't been said yet. No, my point is something different. Why aren't constructs ALSO immune to weapon specialization damage?

This also applies to rangers, although I seem to recall reading something long ago that said that they were in fact immune to the damage bonus provided by the Favored Enemy feature, and everyone I've played with has ruled the same way. Nothing seems to indicate that the ranger should lose the damage bonus, yet they acquire it by 'extensive study of the chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combatting' them.

So what's the deal? Why rule out sneak attack (which many have said comes at least partly from a rogue's understanding of vital striking points) and not extra damage from these other abilities? If you're allowing these other forms, does that not imply that these creatures do in fact have at least some weakness, thus meaning that they are in fact susceptable to attacks doing critical damage, if not a 'critical hit'?

 

[Hypersmurf]

This also applies to rangers, although I seem to recall reading something long ago that said that they were in fact immune to the damage bonus provided by the Favored Enemy feature, and everyone I've played with has ruled the same way. Nothing seems to indicate that the ranger should lose the damage bonus, yet they acquire it by 'extensive study of the chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combatting' them.

In 3E, they could not gain the damage bonus against foes immune to critical hits.

In 3.5, that restriction was removed, as was the 30 foot limit.

-Hyp.

 

[Geoff Watson]

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.

One of the designers (I can't remember who) said that 20 levels for commoners was just for completeness. The other classes go up to level 20, so why not extend the table?

Geoff.

 

[Silverglass]

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.

Now that is just patently untrue now. In the D&D rules you get xp for defeating a challenge, not killing things.

A challenge can be a trap, a monster, a puzzle or a difficult social situation. Plus a DM can give adhoc rewards for good ideas, roleplay etc etc.

So every single NPC in the world has the opportunity, within the rules, to gain xp because they face challenges - the pair of Shepherds who drive a wolf away from the flock have overcome a challenge and gain xp. The Yoeman who manages to carve a farmstead out of the wilderness has overcome a challenge and deserves xp.

The main point is that these "life challenges" are almost invariable very low CR, and its a set one so the NPC will not gain experience quickly and will reach a level when they cannot gain xp beacuse surviving these challenges is too easy.

If the general challenges of a year as a Carpenter in a civilised city are CR 1/3 (which could be covered by a single attempted mugging or a bar fight) then the Carpenter gets 100xp a year, after 10 years he becomes a 2nd level expert, at the age of about 45 he becomes 3rd level and at the age of 75 he reaches 4th.

As an elven carpenter he could make it up to 7th level Expert over a few centuries, with progression coming slower and slower. But under the 3rd Ed rules he will then have reached the point where overcoming those day to day challenges no longer gets him any experience because they are too easy (i.e. when a CR 1/3 encounter no longer gives xp).

A realistic settlement will have the younger adults as 1st, the middle aged adults 2nd and 3rd and the old who have survived 3rd-4th. YMMV depending on the location and risk involved in living in the settlement.

 

[jessemock]

What kind of tricks could a fighter learn with a sword that would enable him or her to do more damage? Well, I'm glad you asked. WotC never really specifies in either version of the PHB, but I've come up for something. Get this: they learn how to do extra damage by hitting weaker spots! Fancy that. Think about it for a moment. ....

Ok, so, seems to make sense to me. You train for years learning how to use your weapon to inflict more damage on opponents by exploiting the blade to inflict more damage by either placing your blows more precicely (ie - vital spots, weak/stress points, etc), or by say, twisting the blade when you've run the guy through, tapping things in a series of rapid blows to stress it more rather than a single solid strike, or some such. Essentially, that +2 damage is coming from your victim having some sort of weakness you can exploit with your weapon.

Except that all creatures are susceptible to whatever technique you've developed with your Weapon Specialization, whether immune to Criticals or not. That's some technique!


But suppose that this does have something to do with vital areas (though it affects creatures who supposedly don't have them): don't you find it odd that you know how to do this with only one weapon at a time?

And that whatever techniques you've developed particular to your weapon affect all creatures equally, despite the fact that you may know nothing about their anatomies?

I mean that you're interpreting Weapon Specialization to have the same process as Improved Critical, which is fine so far as it goes, but it continues with the same implications for the critical hit system, i.e. the attacker doesn't need to know anything about anatomy to cause a critical hit (or even to improve his ability to do so), yet susceptibility to critical hits is determined entirely by the particulars of a creature's anatomy.

 

[dcollins]

One of the designers (I can't remember who) said that 20 levels for commoners was just for completeness.

I know, and I disagree. It would be more consistent for commoners to be simply unclassed humanoids, and add any levels in relevant classes that are picked up later.

Now that is just patently untrue now. In the D&D rules you get xp for defeating a challenge, not killing things. A challenge can be a trap, a monster, a puzzle or a difficult social situation. Plus a DM can give adhoc rewards for good ideas, roleplay etc etc.

My 3.0 DMG is pretty clear about emphasizing defeating "monsters and traps" as the key issues when awarding XP. Sneaking past a monster is said to be "trickier", and up to the DM to "make such judgements". Puzzles, social situations, good ideas, and roleplay, are all in the "Variant: Story Awards" section, not part of the core rules.

A realistic settlement will have the younger adults as 1st, the middle aged adults 2nd and 3rd and the old who have survived 3rd-4th.

What you're saying directly contradicts the sample settlement calculations on 3.0 DMG p. 140.

 

[dark2112]

Except that all creatures are susceptible to whatever technique you've developed with your Weapon Specialization, whether immune to Criticals or not. That's some technique!

That was my point. Where does this extra damage actually come from? If from exploiting some sort of knowledge/weakness, why deny criticals/sneak attack/etc., since those also inherently exploit some kind of weakness? I can't seem to see any game balance reason to do so, honestly.

i.e. the attacker doesn't need to know anything about anatomy to cause a critical hit (or even to improve his ability to do so), yet susceptibility to critical hits is determined entirely by the particulars of a creature's anatomy.

I find that odd, as well. Which is why I assume that when you learn more about inflicting criticals, you're also incorporating new bits of knowledge about anatomy as well. Criticals, in my view, are partly knowledge, and partly luck. The knowledge is incorporated in things like improved critical and sneak attack, to my way of thinking, and the luck is merely the roll of the die.

I, personally, would find it quite a pain to devote skillpoints to learning the anatomy of all the creatures I wished to improve my criticals on, so that is why I've always disliked requiring a skill to inflict criticals on unusual creatures (as mentioned with the androids above), as it opens the door to require it for many more. ("Ok, so as a human coming from an isolated community, you've never actually seen an elf before, and have no ranks in Anatomy: Elf, thus you aren't certain where to hit..." I mean, they are humanoid, but does that really mean they have kidneys? Or that they're necesserily near the lower end of the torso?)

Also, the argument that things like golems have no weak points - well, I beg to differ. (Ok, I couldn't keep my trap shut, sorry ) The torso is made out of several feet of (assuming a stone golem) stone. Perhaps it's all magically hardened so it isn't weaker, but following a humanoid shape, the torso tapers down to a narrower point at the waist, followed by more taper for each individual leg. Simple math will indicate that less stone = easier to break, even if it is magically hardened. Unless the magic somehow pools in it's limbs, thus making those harder than the center (which could also be viewed as some sort of weakness, technically), severing the legs of a golem would be easier than hacking the torso apart, and once those legs were gone, it would still fight, but it would be easier to beat. Since DnD doesn't overtly deal with severed limbs, nor does it apply penalties for fighting with less than full hp, it could easily be explained by applying critical hits in place of limb loss, as a kind of measure to show how you've limited it's combat effectiveness. Instead of worrying about how much penalty a golem with one leg actually has to fight and move, it could simply be covered by saying "Your brutal hit does some nasty damage, it doesn't look like the golem will be able to take much more of your onslaught", or some such.

Of course, if you like the idea that somehow, certain categories of things are invincible to lucky shots, that's fine by me. It's also fine by me if you think everything, no matter what it is, is fallable in some way, and anyone with enough skill and luck can eventually find that weakness and exploit it. After all, in a world where even the very gods who created everything are fallable... *shrugs*

As one final note, DnD does use a called shot system, which in fact caused the death of nearly an entire party. It's called a hydra, and since everyone knew DnD didn't do called shots (having recently gotten that adjustment from the Palladium system out of their heads), no one ever thought to target the heads of these hydra. Especially when I completely forgot about that, and threw them up against a lernian hydra (back in 3.0, I see they've since removed that 'invincible body' type, which is nice). They kept thinking they were using weapons that weren't surpassing it's DR for the longest time, the poor players. At least they got well rewarded for not simply looking up the hydra and using player knowledge For a system that repeatedly stresses that you can't take a called shot, to throw in monsters that require you to specifically hit certain parts of them is quite unfair.

 

[dcollins]

Also, the argument that things like golems have no weak points... the torso tapers down to a narrower point at the waist, followed by more taper for each individual leg. Simple math will indicate that less stone = easier to break, even if it is magically hardened.

That's precisely identical for humanoids. They too have narrow bones which can realistically be broken, but do not count as "vital organs". In D&D that's simulated by rolling high on your normal damage die, not by a critical hit.

As one final note, DnD does use a called shot system, which in fact caused the death of nearly an entire party. It's called a hydra...

One monster does not make a "system".

 

[Will]

I find it interesting that trees and other amorphous beings can be severely damaged and grow back.

You can cut down a tree, and have new growth come up out of the stump. You can do some severe gross damage and have a tree survive... unless it gets sick.

That, to me, speaks of a massive gulf between the functioning of plants and animals. And giant slime molds/oozes are even moreso.

Most complex animals (beyond some worms and such) are centralized to a great degree. There are bits that are a lot like an off switch. If you damage these specific bits... well, the rest of the flesh is fine, but the creature is dead.

This goes beyond noting that the animate statue has narrow bits at the bottom.