Why doesn't "precision damage" affect Undead?

[VonRichthofen]

As far as I can see, Frank got in the most sensible answer as of yet:

Once upon a time, when the D&D designers decided on basic mechanics of the game, they realized that the 3rd edition incarnation of the thief (named rogue nowadays) would probably grow into something a bit too realiable in combat if it was allowed to make use of its shiny new Sneak Attack ability all day long without exception.

Thus, they had to decide on a few at least half-popular creature types to become immune to critical hits and thus, Sneak Attack.
In making Undead, Elementals, Constructs, Plants & Oozes into un-crittables due to lack of vulnerable anatomy, they followed at least some sort of more or less coherent in-game logics, as far as I can see.

So the discussion on whether they should be crittable or not is rather a discussion of general game balance: Did the designers do it right? From my humble point of view, they did.
(And mark me, Whackos of the Coast do a lot of nonsense - but the basic mechanisms of the game seem to work pretty solid)

 

[hong]

Interestingly, the latest version of incorporeality (MM3/Bo9S) removes the protection against crits/SA.

 

[Darklone]

So the discussion on whether they should be crittable or not is rather a discussion of general game balance: Did the designers do it right? From my humble point of view, they did.
(And mark me, Whackos of the Coast do a lot of nonsense - but the basic mechanisms of the game seem to work pretty solid)

Seconded.

Undead heavy campaigns might call for different rules, but the core game is fine.

 

[Veril]

vs Undead: I added a feat that allowed people to score a critical on a 20 on undead. No matter what you are using 20/*2. You could take the feat multiple times to increase the range by 1 or the damage by 1. Limit 19-20/*3 for 3 feats. The feat was not normally available, unless you had favour from the right religion in my campaign.

For rogues...

If Undead are a "common" enemy in the campaign and you want to be "fair" to rogues. Let the rogue take Knowledge religion as a skill. Limit his number of dice of sneak attack the rogue can do to undead to 1/4 his ranks (not skill) in Knowledge religion. (1st=1D6, 5th=2D6, 9th=3D6, 13th=4D6, 17th=5D6).

I'd then add a feat to let the rogue do Religion/2 (from religion/4) ranks as a dice limit (i.e. full sneak attack vs undead).

That has a cost, but not too hight a one I think.

 

[bigdamnnerd]

Interestingly, though, while it doesn't work against something the ranger doesn't see, it works against something the ranger doesn't recognise.

-Hyp.

I had a DM who required an appropriated Knowledge check before allowing favored enemy damage, unless it was obvious. Didn't work so well for my Magical Beasts, Undead and Evil Outsiders favored enemies, since K(arcana) , K(religion), and K(planes) are all cross class...

 

[nittanytbone]

I struggle with this because I use undead a lot and I just don't want the rogues overly frustrated. In the end, it's all about fun. I wish I could find an elegant rule that made sneak attack at least somewhat applicable.

Simple solution: Tell your players that there will be lots of undead and they might be frustrated if they build a sneak-attacker.

Instead of a pure rogue 3, that player might be happier with a rogue 1/ranger 2 in your game (they still have trapfinding, maxed out search, dual-wielding, and good skill points -- they're just a lot more effective vs. undead). He might also seek out a wand of Gravestrike or aim for one of the PrCs that allow for effectiveness vs. the undead.

If a player insists on playing a pure rogue in an undead heavy game, then he will be less effective and may even die. If you've warned them, let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He might also seek out a wand of Gravestrike...

Useless unless Extended, as I understand it...

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

Undead have weak points, they just don't have vital points. Now, arguably, you should be able to crit skeletons, golems, and doors, by hitting them in just the right spot, but in D&D, the assumption is that it is not practical to do so. A vampire doesn't care if you pierce it in the throat with an arrow the same way a creature who breathes and bleeds does. Now, arguably, vampires should be vulnerable to crits to the heart.

 

[Jesus_marley]

If you really want to add a special rule for critting undead, why not tie it into a special Knowledge: Undead skill check. Maybe DC 10 + CR of target.

Another option would be to allow crits on an undead but only after the character spends 1 or 2 rounds studying the target for a weakness. during this time the character can move but cannot make an attack.

of these two options I prefer the first...

 

[wayne62682]

The short answer is there's no logical reason why, and my guess (and those of some of my friends) is that it was kept that way for simplicity (god forbid all the kiddies have to think at all). Same reason why critical hits don't affect Undead; logically a critical hit should be a powerful strike, but because whoever wrote that section decided arbitrarily to say that a critical was a strike to a vulnerable location, BOOM! it's precluded from affecting Undead/Golems/whatnot because someone chose the wrong wording.

I have played in many games that allowed you to crit/sneak attack Undead and it made the Rogue much more effective in these kinds of games as opposed to being almost totally worthless when push came to shove in combat. I do not see it as unbalancing at all.