Why are things immune to crits?

[Caliban]

Snipped a bunch of big words that really doesn't impress any of us.
[/b][/quote]

The problem, of course, is that, under this definition, Crits. rely on 'vital areas', which apparently means "vital organs" or "points of weakness".

There's the trick: for anyone who has been outside, it's clear that plants very much do have "points of weakness" and, for botanists or woodsmen, it's well known that plants have "vital organs".

Wrong. Name one vital organ for a plant that you can target with a single attack. Plants have dispersed vascular systems, and no centralized internal organs. There is no central heart, no central lung system, no brain.

Perhaps, I could interest you, by suggesting even further that stone, too, has points of weakness? Wouldn't that mean something?

No, it wouldn't. Regular stone may have a fracture point, but that's not something that's going to come up with an animated statue. There's no way to identify it, and if it's magically animated, then the stone is already moving in ways that should shatter it - without taking damage. In D&D animated rock doesn't have fracture points.

Now if you want to have robots or machines that can take crits, that's understandable. Create a trait called "Complex Device" and that items with this trait can be critted, because they are actually composed of many smaller machines, some of which are vital to the overall operation of the machine.

 

[hong]

A marvelously clever rejoinder. You take your incomprehension and banalise it, reverse the rhetorical direction: now it's my fault that you don't understand what I'm saying. And you appeal to the sympathies of your audience: you ask them to recognise me as embodying a stereotype, while at the same time reminding them that you came to the playground first.

Yes. Well-played. But let me try to demystify the statement that's got you in a tizzy.

Hong found it expedient to play on my use of the word 'loggerheads'. His paronomastic hypocorism: 'log-boy'. You can see the cleverness here, no need to explain that.

Where it really gets complicated is in the relationship to the initial issue. You see; I'd previously made it clear that I don't understand the reasoning behind the Plant type's immunity to Critical Hits. Now, I left that point behind, in order to explore the implications of what the SRD says about Crits. (not much, by the way; if you want to check it out for yourself, I believe that there are links at the top of the D&D Rules Forum page).

Nonetheless, this vegetative question remained on my mind, not least because of the definition of Critical Hits in the rulebooks, which you rather snidely reminded us of.

That's one for you, there: good point.

The problem, of course, is that, under this definition, Crits. rely on 'vital areas', which apparently means "vital organs" or "points of weakness".

There's the trick: for anyone who has been outside, it's clear that plants very much do have "points of weakness" and, for botanists or woodsmen, it's well known that plants have "vital organs".

You can see how this would bug me, right? Thus, I barked at Hong a little, hoping he would deign to reply to the rules issue at hand.

To this time, no luck.

None with you, either.

Perhaps, I could interest you, by suggesting even further that stone, too, has points of weakness? Wouldn't that mean something?

Here's hoping.

That's the longest euphemism for masturbation I've ever seen.

 

[Will]

I like the way GURPS handles hit locations (though I dislike other bits intensely).

If I were to borrow GURPS, which doesn't even require much shift in numbers, things that 'don't take crits' would not have the brains/vital organ specials, but still would suffer from things like 'my leg's broken' and so forth.

Yes, a golem can have trouble walking with a leg wound, much like a human, but it's not leaking toxins into it's blood like a pierced liver would.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That's the longest euphemism for masturbation I've ever seen.

Heh.

 

[jessemock]

Snipped a bunch of big words that really doesn't impress any of us.
[/b]

Of course, you meant "don't".

Wrong. Name one vital organ for a plant that you can target with a single attack. Plants have dispersed vascular systems, and no centralized internal organs. There is no central heart, no central lung system, no brain.

Vital organ or point of weakness: the trunk. Whenever I attack a tree, I do so at the trunk, not only the most vital point of the plant, but also, conveniently, the one easiest for me to strike.

Also, if you have time to wait for it to die, the bark. Not only vital, but it tends to come off rather easily.

No, it wouldn't. Regular stone may have a fracture point, but that's not something that's going to come up with an animated statue. There's no way to identify it, and if it's magically animated, then the stone is already moving in ways that should shatter it - without taking damage. In D&D animated rock doesn't have fracture points.

There's no need to identify it: the critical hit system doesn't identify the vital spot that it strikes; it just assumes there was one and that the lucky roll meant the character was lucky enough to hit it.

I understand that in D&D animated rock doesn't have fracture points. What I'm asking is whether it should.

I understand that you can respond to this, by saying, "no; it shouldn't," but I'm sort of looking for more than 'fiat' on this one.

Now if you want to have robots or machines that can take crits, that's understandable. Create a trait called "Complex Device" and that items with this trait can be critted, because they are actually composed of many smaller machines, some of which are vital to the overall operation of the machine.

Why smaller machines? Why not just parts? Parts that are vital.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The critical ratings for weapons were designed with breathing and bleeding victims in mind. Slashing weapons most easily get a lucky hit but get only a modest boost in damage. Piercing weapons get a huge boost on a lucky hit but do not strike deep very often. Bludgeoning weapons do mostly superficial wounds so have the weakest/least common criticals of the three.

I could imagine allowing criticals for constructs, oozes, undead, etc. but you should use a completely different set of crit ranges and multipliers. That seems like quite a hassle.

Within the context of D&D rules, it seems something like a Favored Enemy feat would be the way to go. There is also the Supernatural Blow feat from MotW to consider.

 

[jessemock]

The critical ratings for weapons were designed with breathing and bleeding victims in mind.

I can't help but to agree with you, as I made this point earlier.

I could imagine allowing criticals for constructs, oozes, undead, etc. but you should use a completely different set of crit ranges and multipliers. That seems like quite a hassle.

I don't know. Why not say that plants are immune to crits from piercing and bludgeoning weapons, but not from slashing?

Similarly, why not say that stone creatures have immunity from piercing and slashing weapons, but not bludgeoning?

Neither of these rules involves too much work.

A few questions may arise, however.

Why wouldn't a heavy pick be as effective as or more effective than a mace against stone? True; a pick has been adapted from a mining tool to a weapon, but...

This also brings to mind the question: why would a pick be as effective as a spear underwater?

Within the context of D&D rules, it seems something like a Favored Enemy feat would be the way to go. There is also the Supernatural Blow feat from MotW to consider.

That's an interesting point: because I'm a woodcutter, I know which cracks in a log are best to aggravate; a stone mason has the same advantage with his medium. I could see the rationale for a critical feat that improves the damage multiplier.

But what I'm really asking here is not simply for a house rule or what-have-you; I'm asking: what am I missing?

Is there any real, pressing need for the immunity from crits that plants enjoy? Stone? Undead, possibly?

 

[barsoomcore]

Saying that, for example, trees have a vital spot (namely, the trunk) is rather different from saying that a human being has a vital spot (say, the throat or the kidney).

A blow to a tree's trunk (at least a tree above a certain size) is almost certainly not going to kill the tree outright. Even cutting a tree down doesn't actually kill it -- the tree's still alive for days afterwards.

Whereas a blow to a man's throat can kill him instantly -- take him right out of the fight, right now. Which is modelled in D&D by sneak attack damage.

I can take an axe to a treant's trunk, I can even cut right through it, and that treant isn't going to just up and die on me right then and there. Ergo, I don't get sneak attack damage.

 

[Caliban]

Of course, you meant "don't".

Naw if I'd meant "don't", I would have said "don't". Like I said, that stuff doesn't impress any of us.

Trying to correct grammer just to be snarky doesn't win you any points around here. It just makes you look like a twit.

Vital organ or point of weakness: the trunk. Whenever I attack a tree, I do so at the trunk, not only the most vital point of the plant, but also, conveniently, the one easiest for me to strike.

Ah, so every attack should be a critical hit. Brilliant.

No particular part of the trunk is more vital than any other. So you don't do any extra damage by hitting it in one part of the trunk as opposed to the other. Thus, hitting the trunk is just normal hit point damage, not critical damage.

Also, if you have time to wait for it to die, the bark. Not only vital, but it tends to come off rather easily.

See above.

I understand that you can respond to this, by saying, "no; it shouldn't," but I'm sort of looking for more than 'fiat' on this one.

Why should magically animated rock be vulnerable to critical hits? Other than you wanting it be vulnerable?

Why smaller machines? Why not just parts? Parts that are vital.

What parts does a golem have that are vital? You can lop it's head off, it doesn't care. You can lop a limb off, it keeps on coming. You can blow a gaping whole in it's chest, it's not even slowed down.

A car on the other hand would be what I call a "complex device" - you take out the the fuel line, the black box, or any of a dozen other components, and the car might stop working or show a degraded performance.

 

[Bismark]

To answer the question of 'why can't they be criticalled', I'm not sure it's something you can answer in terms of real world logic or rules. My best answer is, 'it's too complicated'. Plus, it doesn't fit in with the concept of hit points. Sneak attack doesn't entirely either, but it does scale in damage along with hit points, so it makes more sense.

Hit points are an abstract. I don't know offhand exactly how the book describes them, I will admit. I also admit that this is just interpretation on my part, and not rule or fiat. In the games I play in, losing hit points doesn't always represent being hit, to us. It can represent fatigue, or a blow that would have hit you, or just a finite amount of heroic luck. Maybe when Rambo is running from a helicopter blazing machineguns at him that just leave twin trails in the dirt, he's really losing hitpoints.

The reason I say this is that it is hard to imagine a 20th level fighter taking dozens of arrows doing 5 or 6 damage, and not falling, no matter how tough or experienced he is. To keep some sense of consistency and reality in our games, we assume that for whatever reason, a lot of those arrows are just plain missing him when they wouldn't miss a lower level fighter.

I guess my end point is that no one description or explanation of hit points will work and make sense in real life/world terms. Whether you view this as a flaw in the system, or a nice simplification of what would otherwise create dozens of more rules, is just a matter of personal choice.