Why are things immune to crits?

[ruleslawyer]

Prove it.

The proof is in the pudding:

1. Attackers can take feats and use weapons that have a greater probability of success in critting;

2. Creatures with few or no vital organs are immune to crits.

That's BOTH, by definition.

Ok. But a tree does survive getting hacked in half? This is what you're saying?

No, this isn't what I'm saying, and you know it. There's no reason for you to be purposely obtuse.

This is exactly not what I'm saying. I am not saying that it is possible to target areas on a tree's trunk that are more vulnerable than other areas on the tree's trunk.

This is called hitting and damaging the tree. As Marius pointed out, it's actually hitting and damaging an OBJECT. The ability to whack the trunk harder and more precisely is represented by Power Attack, higher BAB, and higher damage bonuses. If you're not targeting the "more vulnerable" 60%, then you're not doing real damage at all.

But I'm tired of beating the dead horse. You want to stand there pointing at it and talking about the fact that it has no more vital organs or points than a tree or rock, fine.

I'm saying that the tree's trunk is a vital area and that damage to a tree's trunk is more important than damage to its branches.

And here you prove the point made by, well, everyone else posting on this topic. A tree's trunk is a "vital area" just like my torso is a vital area. A hit to my torso isn't automatically a crit; a hit to my LIVER might be. A tree has no critical subsystem on its torso that is equivalent to, say, a liver, so no crit. If you hit a tree BRANCH, it's like hitting my finger or my ponytail; a hit that does NO damage or minimal damage. You're drawing the line at the wrong place. It's not that hit to branch = regular hit and hit to trunk = crit. It's hit to branch = miss or minimal damage and hit to trunk = hit.

A critical hit is nothing but a high damage roll.

Again, by definition, INCORRECT. A critical hit is a special event that involves exceptionally high damage, but is designed specifically to represent a hit to a vital area; not merely the "more vital" 60% of a creature, but its EXCEPTIONALLY vital areas. A roll of 8 on a d8 for longsword damage is a high damage roll; a crit is something different.

There is no such thing as 'incapacitating damage'.

Don't quote out of context. The point was that these two kinds of damage aren't the same, not to define "incapacitating damage."

No; they simply aren't. They simply don't scream and bleed all over the place. But just because they're less dramatic, doesn't mean they're less dead or less wounded.

Um, yes they are. Being able to be "dead" (i.e., reduced to 0 or fewer hit points) is NOT the same as having vital organs. Trees CAN be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points; they do NOT have targetable vital organs. You're trying to incorrectly conflate two things. Stop it.

And finally:

True; it is, however, a single point of weakness that extends for about 60% of the tree's height on average.

Thanks for disproving your own already tenuous proposition. If it's a "single point of weakness," then it cannot extend for about 60% of the tree's height. That's like saying that my heart occupies 60% of my body. A critical hit is NOT merely a hit that happens NOT to target the less vulnerable 40% of a creature's body; it's a hit that targets the most vulnerable few percent. Something that doesn't have a particularly vulnerable few percent isn't vulnerable to critical hits.

 

[Scion]

Now I'm going to eat this apple without worrying how much damage my bite attack is doing to it or how many hit points it has left.

I dont really want to get involved on either side of this discussion, but this line has to go in your sig or someones at least..lol

 

[jessemock]

The proof is in the pudding:

1. Attackers can take feats and use weapons that have a greater probability of success in critting;

The feats obviously demonstrate that no knowledge of anatomy is involved on the attacker's part: it is not the case that I know anatomy better when I attack with the punch dagger for which I have the Improved Crit. feat, than when I attack with a plain ole dagger, for which I don't.

Knowledge of anatomy is meaningless. Mindless creatures may cause critical hits; they have no knowledge of anatomy.

If you hit a tree BRANCH, it's like hitting my finger or my ponytail; a hit that does NO damage or minimal damage.

Incorrect: I have no idea what I'm hitting when I hit. If I hit, I cause damage. If by chance I hit someplace special, then I cause extra damage. The branches of a tree are someplace not-so-special, but still pretty good. The stem of a plant is someplace special.

The better analogy to your ponytail would be the leaves.

It's hit to branch = miss or minimal damage and hit to trunk = hit.

I must have missed that in the plant definition. Could you point it out to me?

What you're offering here has no value except as a rationalization for the rule that's in question. You're not justifying the rule; you're trying to envision what the consequences of it would be, if it were valid.

I'm asking: is it valid?

Again, by definition, INCORRECT. A critical hit is a special event that involves exceptionally high damage, but it is not merely a high damage roll. A roll of 8 on a d8 for longsword damage is a high damage roll; a crit is something different.
Don't quote out of context. The point was that these two kinds of damage aren't the same, not to define "incapacitating damage."

I'm not. A critical hit doesn't mean anything except for an increase in damage. It has no other effects.

Being able to be "dead" (i.e., reduced to 0 or fewer hit points) is NOT the same as having vital organs. Trees CAN be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points; they do NOT have targetable vital organs. You're trying to incorrectly conflate two things. Stop it.

Targetable vital organs is, once again, not the question, and actually has nothing to with critical hits.

There are no targetable vital organs in D&D, except in certain very specific cases, of which critical hits are not one. A critical hit comes from luck, not from targeting.

Anyhow, as you've said, it shouldn't count as much if I hit the branches as it does if I hit the trunk. But you are incorrect in suggesting that any damage to the branches is meaningless. An attack against one of its branches hurts a tree; an attack against its trunk hurts it more.

Thanks for disproving your own already tenuous proposition. If it's a "single point of weakness," then it cannot extend for about 60% of the tree's height. That's like saying that my heart occupies 60% of my body.

No; it's like saying that a humanoid body has vital areas all over it, which it does.

A critical hit is NOT merely a hit that happens NOT to target the less vulnerable 40% of a creature's body; it's a hit that targets the most vulnerable few percent. Something that doesn't have a particularly vulnerable few percent isn't vulnerable to critical hits.

Yes; actually, it can and does. I can kill a tree by cutting off all of its branches or by stripping off its bark or by poisoning it or by digging up its roots and hacking them off or by one mighty blow to its trunk or by several good shots to its trunk.

It's not my fault that the trunk is so huge and so vulnerable, but neither is it my fault that a helpless humanoid is so vulnerable. The automatic critical hit that I get from a coup de grace against a helpless humanoid perfectly parallels the relative ease with which I cut down an immobile tree.

I think that, if I'm fighting, say, an animated tree, and it's attacking me with its branches and whatnot, then I'll be lucky to get in there and take a good whack at the trunk. Why, I bet I would only be able to do it, oh, 5% of the time.

Can you think of a good way to represent that lucky shot at a tree's vital area?

I can.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I must have missed that in the plant definition. Could you point it out to me?

Obtuseness again, eh?

Targetable vital organs is, once again, not the question, and actually has nothing to with critical hits.

Yes they do.

Humanoids, magical beasts, outsiders, etc.: Vital organs.
Same types: Vulnerable to critical hits.

Constructs, oozes, plants, undead: No vital organs, or non-functional vital organs.
Same types: Immune to critical hits.

QED.

There are no targetable vital organs in D&D, except in certain very specific cases, of which critical hits are not one. A critical hit comes from luck, not from targeting.

Yeah. You're lucky enough to land a blow on a vital subsystem.

Anyhow, as you've said, it shouldn't count as much if I hit the branches as it does if I hit the trunk. But you are incorrect in suggesting that any damage to the branches is meaningless. An attack against one of its branches hurts a tree; an attack against its trunk hurts it more.

Right. You do MORE damage if you hit the trunk; it's called a higher damage roll. You want to specifically target the trunk, it's called Power Attack.

No; it's like saying that a humanoid body has vital areas all over it, which it does.

No, it's not, because a tree's trunk is not made up of vital subsystems; it's one reasonably homogeneous object. False logic will get you nowehere.

Yes; actually, it can and does. I can kill a tree by cutting off all of its branches or by stripping off its bark or by poisoning it or by digging up its roots and hacking them off or by one mighty blow to its trunk or by several good shots to its trunk.

Yup. A lot of really minor-damage hits or a couple of major-damage hits. That's an issue of how good a fighter you are, and the critical hit mechanics are irrelevant to that discussion. I can whack a sword in half with one blow if I'm a good enough fighter, or I have to keep banging away and hope I can sunder it after a number of blows if I'm not. Nothing to do with crits.

I think that, if I'm fighting, say, an animated tree, and it's attacking me with its branches and whatnot, then I'll be lucky to get in there and take a good whack at the trunk. Why, I bet I would only be able to do it, oh, 5% of the time.

And you'd be able to do that more often with a rapier (crit range 18-20) than with an axe (crit range 20)?

Can you think of a good way to represent that lucky shot at a tree's vital area?

I can.

Yeah. It's called doing damage. Some hits do more, others do less. Doesn't change the fact that crits are based on the idea of a discernible anatomy consisting of discernible vital spots and that immunity to crits is enjoyed by all things that don't have those. Your hits to the trunk are no better than my hits to a human opponent's torso. What you can't do is skewer a tree through the kidney 5% of the time. Why? It doesn't have one.

That's it for me. You can post on your own here for now.

 

[jessemock]

You want to specifically target the trunk, it's called Power Attack.

Power Attack is precisely the opposite of a targeted attack; it is, in fact, a less targeted attack.

The reason that you want to call it a targeted attack is because you cannot separate talking about the justification for a rule from interpretations of a rule.

You've decided that, when attacking a plant, a high-damage hit means that one has struck the stem or trunk of the plant. Argal, Power Attack, which causes more damage at the expense of accuracy, seems, under your bizarre logic, to amount to a targeted attack against the stem or trunk of a plant.

That's a way of interpreting the rules.

Unfortunately, the interpretation of the rule is not what's in question.

The rule is. Does it make sense? That's the topic.

No, it's not, because a tree's trunk is not made up of vital subsystems; it's one reasonably homogeneous object.

Not so much of a botanist or outdoorsman, eh?

And you'd be able to do that more often with a rapier (crit range 18-20) than with an axe (crit range 20)?

Now there's a reasonable point! God, what to do?! Perhaps go back about two hundred posts to see that I proposed allowing plants immunity to critical hits from (get ready) piercing and bludgeoning weapons, but not (this is the best part) from slashing ones!

What a perfectly rational solution! Elegant! Simple! Neat! Somewhat more in accord with our friends in the vegetable kingdom!

Should we talk about stone now?

That's it for me. You can post on your own here for now.

Oh, right.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Argal, Power Attack...

Argal?

-Hyp.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Not much of a polite conversation, eh?

For those still hung up on the tree thing, I advise, again, treating ordinary plants (including trees) as not creatures, but objects. In fact I'd argue that the rules imply, if not state somewhere, that you *should* do this. You'll then be able to take advantage of the rule that permits double-damage hits and hardness penetration from "especially successful" attacks against objects (including ordinary plants). Like, say, axe blows. Congratulations: *every* axe hit against a tree can be a critical hit!

EDIT: Ah, here it is.

Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities, above) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Not much of a polite conversation, eh?

I'm sorry about that, for my part. However, refusing to acknowledge valid rules philosophy arguments from those who were playtesters and as such really should know best (Caliban, for instance) and then insulting those playtesters is not really a good start to a rules debate.

Good solution, Marius! I like.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I dont really want to get involved on either side of this discussion, but this line has to go in your sig or someones at least..lol

Thanks.

I'm sorry about that, for my part. However, refusing to acknowledge valid rules philosophy arguments from those who were playtesters and as such really should know best (Caliban, for instance) and then insulting those playtesters is not really a good start to a rules debate.

Well, it's kind of amusing to me, because I'm not really emotionally involved -- emotional involvement in a rules debate is generally a bad thing. There are good points being made here, and I don't want to see the thread shut down. [EDIT] Because I'm perfectly capable of killing it all by myself! Ha Ha! [/EDIT] But I think it's important to remember, and point out often, that the D&D rules are *NOT* a perfect simulation of real life and real life is *NOT* a good place to test (even as a thought experiment) the D&D rules. The most common logical trap I see on these boards is when people try to mix the two.

Good solution, Marius! I like.

Thanks.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Interesting. Doing a quick back-calculation from 3.0 sources, it seems like this would be better placed at around a 3rd level spell. Perhaps:
Fortification, Light (25%) -- 1st level spell
Fortification, Moderate (75%) -- 2nd level spell
Fortification, Heavy (100%) -- 3rd level spell

I don't like this for three reasons:

1) I don't think armor of fortification is balanced to begin with. It single-handedly nerfs a rogue, regardless of said rogue's level.


2) If we go ahead and assume that Fortification is balanced, a 5th level caster cannot buy Armor of Heavy Fortification, as it would cost 36,000 gp. By the treasure chart in the DMG, someone could not buy that armor until at least level 10 (and only if that is the only magic item that character has. Level 12-13 is far more likely.)

So you can see why I think having a 3rd level cleric who can cast this spell is a little silly.

I don't think reverse engineering magic items is necessarily balanced. Kinda like 3.0 rhino hide.


3) I don't think clerics should have every possible spell WotC can think of: Stat increasers, true seeing, righteous might, divine power, greater magic weapon, spell resistance, shield of faith, the resistance spells from SS, blindsight from SS, not including flame strike, dispel magic, healing spells, gating spells and death spells.

A rogue gets sneak attack and some lousy skill points. This spell nerfs half of that. What am I gonna do, bluff the clerics to death?

When the heck are they going to give rogues more special abilities, instead of useless ones like defensive roll and crippling strike? Bleh...
.
.
.
I don't think a spell should universally counter the main ability of another class unless the spell can be countered in some way. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to defeat this spell: surprise the cleric before they cast it, and dispel magic.

The former is generally impossible, as my rogue would then be surrounded by lots of other angry bad guys (nor do I think one sneak attack would slay a cleric.)

And too bad my rogue isn't going to be learning dispel magic any time soon.
.
.
.
.
That said, I like the idea of giving creatures who are currently immune to criticals an additional AC bonus against the threat roll.

With sneak attack, either a threat roll would have to be added for each sneak attack, or a rogue can only sneak attack one of these creatures on a critical hit.

At least then it would stop the sillyness of a 20th level rogue being confounded by 4 skeletons, or one 3rd level cleric.