PDA

View Full Version : A House Rule concerning Crits and Sneak Attacks



BRC
2010-03-08, 03:40 PM
Mabye it's just me, but it always bugs me that so many things are immune to Crits and Sneak Attacks. Maybe it's just that my parties tend to have rogues as a major source of damage, but I hate that half the monster manual is essentially immune to their primary class feature. Also, maybe I'm too nice a DM, but it breaks my heart to see a player get excited about a crit, only to tell them that the creature in question is immune to crits.

With that in mind, I'm thinking about using the following houserule.

Creatures with no discernible anatomy (Oozes, swarms, and elementals basically) are immune to crits and sneak attacks.
Plants, Constructs, and Undead are not as succeptable to Crits and Sneak Attacks as normal, but are still vulnerable. Rogues can apply half their sneak attack die against these creatures (essentially everybody gets free Penetrating Strike), and crits against them have their multiplier lowered by 1 (A X2 multiplier becomes x1.5 (So it still has some effect). A x3 becomes x2, and a x4 becomes x3).

Godskook
2010-03-08, 03:55 PM
There's both spells and weapon crystals that get around golems and undead, which are two of the most common types of immune critters.

And then there's the Swift Hunter, who can bypass pretty much every immunity he wants to.

BRC
2010-03-08, 03:59 PM
There's both spells and weapon crystals that get around golems and undead, which are two of the most common types of immune critters.

And then there's the Swift Hunter, who can bypass pretty much every immunity he wants to.
Yes, but I don't like forcing my players to spend money (Esp since my games tend to be fairly low level, when 10000 gold for a greater trudeath crystal is a major thing) or multiclass into casters (Gravestrike and vinestrike are personal spells, only useful for multiclass rogues) to use their class features against two of the more common/cooler creature types.

Under my rule, if they use those crystals/spells, they deal full damage with crits/sneak attacks.

Godskook
2010-03-08, 04:14 PM
UMD is a rogue class skill. 1st level wands aren't expensive(All the spells are 1st level). If you don't like the gp burn, make those wands cheaper due to some economic reason(people donating them to areas in need, etc.)

lsfreak
2010-03-08, 04:17 PM
I agree. I do anything with discernible anatomy that would otherwise be immune takes half the bonus damage instead (2x crit becomes 1.5x, 3x becomes 2x, 4x becomes 2.5x; if we used 4x crits more often i might revise this for the sake of easier math). Both for balance reasons and verisimilitude - it makes no sense that you can't crit a skeleton or golem when there are clear parts that would cause more problems if hit (like their spine).

No anatomy means no crits, including most incorporeals. This ends up as a more case-by-case, but I usually just tell them whether they think they can pick out discernible anatomy or not.

While it has yet to come up, I'd probably rule that fortification armor only provides the half-immunity rather than full, but only costs a +1/+2/+3 instead of +1/+3/+5.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-08, 04:25 PM
So what pathfinder did? :smalltongue: just kidding

BRC
2010-03-08, 04:25 PM
UMD is a rogue class skill. 1st level wands aren't expensive(All the spells are 1st level). If you don't like the gp burn, make those wands cheaper due to some economic reason(people donating them to areas in need, etc.)
Activating a wand is a standard action that provokes AoO's, so even though those spells are Swift actions to cast, it still takes a standard.


Spell Trigger

Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Also, just because it's possible provided you have MiC/SpC, put lots of ranks into UMD, dosn't mean It's a bad idea to houserule in something simple and universal.

NEO|Phyte
2010-03-08, 04:27 PM
Activating a wand is a standard action that provokes AoO's, so even though those spells are Swift actions to cast, it still takes a standard.


Also, just because it's possible provided you have MiC/SpC, put lots of ranks into UMD, dosn't mean It's a bad idea to houserule in something simple and universal.
Pretty sure MiC/Rules Compendium changed wands to matching the casting time of the spell.

lsfreak
2010-03-08, 04:28 PM
Actually, the Rules Compendium changed spell triggers to work at the same action as the spell they were based off (despite the Rules Compendium supposedly not updating anything). Vinestrike and the like are only swift actions, and therefore (unless I'm mistaken) therefore also don't provoke.

I'm still in favor of making crits/sneaks better though.

Felyndiira
2010-03-08, 05:44 PM
I personally consider immunity to crits to be reasonable, since those creatures do not have weak points as humans do. Shoot an elf in the heart and she'll probably die, while hitting a zombie ghost in the heart probably won't faze it.

For sneak attacks, though, there's always the Penetrating Strike alternative class feature. It does take away trap sense (not that much of a problem; a cleric spell can take care of it), but it gives you 1/2 sneak attack damage against anything that would otherwise be immune, constructs and undead included. Pretty nice for a rogue that expects to meet a lot of constructs.

RebelRogue
2010-03-08, 06:14 PM
I personally consider immunity to crits to be reasonable, since those creatures do not have weak points as humans do. Shoot an elf in the heart and she'll probably die, while hitting a zombie ghost in the heart probably won't faze it.
We're talking from a gamist perspective here. Playing a vanilla rogue through a Plant/Elemental/Undead/Construct arc of a campaign is dreadful no matter how much it may add to verisimilitude.

Swordgleam
2010-03-08, 06:25 PM
I don't see why plants, constructs and undead shouldn't take crit damage from a realism perspective. They might not have beating hearts, but most of them still have eyes, don't they? Losing those is going to impair your ability to carry on (one possible interpretation of HP) more than the same strike in another place. Plants don't have eyes, but they do have discernable anatomy - surely there's some part that hurts them more than others.

BRC
2010-03-08, 06:32 PM
Maybe it's unique, but the two campaigns I have DM'd have been Rouge heavy as far as damage went. No fighters or barbarians in either, and no arcane casters to blast things down.

Which means I'd be looking through the MM, and I'd see all these monsters I really wanted to use, but that my party would be useless against because so much of their damage is sneak attacking. And it's not like Undead or Constructs need the crit and SA immunity to be effective. Most of them have DR and loads of hit points, not to mention lots of immunities. Because of this, it's a bigger problem for me than for most people, but it shows up anyway.

Now Plants, Constructs, and Undead arn't covered with nifty arteries waiting to be sliced open, which is why I reduce the damage SA's and Crits deal, but they have anatomies, hitting them some places WILL hurt them more than others.
It's not a matter of magic, if you smash a Skeleton in the spine, it hurts it more than if you hit it in the ribs.

Also, I regularly play Rogues, and whenever undead/constructs/plants show up, I know this will be a fight of me not being able to use my primary method of dealing damage. Sneak Attack already has a balancing factor (Your opponent needs to be flat footed).

For Verisimilitude, it makes sense against Incorporeal/Swarms/Oozes, which are pretty much the exact same stuff everywhere, but against Undead, Plants, and Constructs it dosn't make sense, and it hurts a class.

Felyndiira
2010-03-08, 06:40 PM
We're talking from a gamist perspective here. Playing a vanilla rogue through a Plant/Elemental/Undead/Construct arc of a campaign is dreadful no matter how much it may add to verisimilitude.

You missed the comment about Penetrating Strike =p. I was referring to traditional crits (x2, x3, etc.), not sneak attacks - the latter can be made up by an alternate class feature.

Mastikator
2010-03-08, 06:41 PM
We're talking from a gamist perspective here. Playing a vanilla rogue through a Plant/Elemental/Undead/Construct arc of a campaign is dreadful no matter how much it may add to verisimilitude.

The same could be said about playing a barbarian or ranger or fighter in a heavily social campaign. Or a ranger or druid in a purely urban campaign.

Obviously not all archetypes of characters are going to excel in all types of campaigns, settings and situations.
If you plan on making heavy usage on some ability or skill then it might be helpful to ask the DM "am I going to be able to take advantage of this skill/ability?".
To me, that makes more sense than to simply decide that a zombie is going to die from a stab in the heart just because the rogue is otherwise useless.
Or maybe work out some kind of deal with the DM to let you have a feat that lets you sneak attack a zombie if you make a knowledge (religion) check vs the zombies hit dice +10. Why not? The DM is not your enemy, the rules are not written in the stars.

sofawall
2010-03-08, 06:41 PM
For Verisimilitude, it makes sense against Incorporeal/Swarms/Oozes, which are pretty much the exact same stuff everywhere, but against Undead, Plants, and Constructs it dosn't make sense, and it hurts a class.

I dunno. I can't see hitting a tree in one spot if going to hurt much more than another, and same for most constructs.

Frosty
2010-03-08, 06:47 PM
Just houserule away most of the immunities like Pathfinder does.

BRC
2010-03-08, 06:47 PM
The same could be said about playing a barbarian or ranger or fighter in a heavily social campaign. Or a ranger or druid in a purely urban campaign.

Obviously not all archetypes of characters are going to excel in all types of campaigns, settings and situations.
If you plan on making heavy usage on some ability or skill then it might be helpful to ask the DM "am I going to be able to take advantage of this skill/ability?".
To me, that makes more sense than to simply decide that a zombie is going to die from a stab in the heart just because the rogue is otherwise useless.
Or maybe work out some kind of deal with the DM to let you have a feat that lets you sneak attack a zombie if you make a knowledge (religion) check vs the zombies hit dice +10. Why not? The DM is not your enemy, the rules are not written in the stars.

Except I'm not talking about the DM saying "Okay, this campaign is going to be about fighting an evil necromancer and his army of undead" and you saying "I'm going to play a rogue!".
This is about an unthemed campaign and you playing a Rogue when the DM throws you up against some undead. Everybody else is just as useful against these zombies as they were against those bandits, why must the Rogue be penalized.

Also, concerning constructs, the only ones that it makes sense to be immune to SA's are Golems, which are essentially homogenous blocks. Many constructs are described as being complex devices with lots of moving parts. So unless all those gears and springs are just for show, taking out some of them will hurt it more than taking out others.

Mastikator
2010-03-08, 07:04 PM
And if an enemy wizard casts mass hold monster on the party. Everyone with a poor will save will be penalized.
If an enemy evil cleric casts blasphemy on the party. Everyone who didn't want to play an evil character is penalized.
If an enemy sorcerer drops a fireball on the party. Everyone who doesn't have evasion and good reflex save is going to take damage, and thus be penalized.

To me, it makes sense, from a gamist perspective, that all characters should suck in a few circumstances. And in other circumstances they should rock. Either that or you're a jack of all trades and master of none, you're never useless but you never own the crap out of a situation. A rogue-sneakattacker is a specialist, he specializes in sneakattacking things that can be sneakattacked. And possibly other situations, like any of the millions of skills he gets. Why is it such a blow if he's not great against zombies too? Any non-rogue is going to be useless against a trap (maybe a monk who can jump/evade through it perhaps, probably not though).

If you're in a campaign where you always suck. Read my previous post.

sofawall
2010-03-08, 07:10 PM
This is about an unthemed campaign and you playing a Rogue when the DM throws you up against some undead. Everybody else is just as useful against these zombies as they were against those bandits, why must the Rogue be penalized.

And when negotiating with merchants, the Barbarian is punished. When lifting large rocks, the wizard is punished. When facing Beguilers, anything with a low save is punished. When facing Dragons, anything relying on a non-touch attack is punished.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-08, 07:15 PM
I personally consider immunity to crits to be reasonable

The problem with immunities in general is that it invokes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UselessUsefulSpell) three (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical) tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotCompletelyUseless) at the same time. Its these three tropes that makes Dazing so powerful: The PCs can become immune to it outright, but most enemies in the MMs do not have that ability.


I admit, DnD would be a lot better if we didn't have Save or Dies. But they are a staple. The trick is balancing them out. I like turning SoDs into Channeling spells (like Channeled Lifetheft from either CM or PH2).

JaronK
2010-03-08, 07:20 PM
Actually, the Rules Compendium changed spell triggers to work at the same action as the spell they were based off (despite the Rules Compendium supposedly not updating anything). Vinestrike and the like are only swift actions, and therefore (unless I'm mistaken) therefore also don't provoke.

Annoyingly enough, RC didn't do it as clearly as it should have.

Anyway, there's already an alternate class feature for Rogues that drops Uncanny Dodge for the ability to do half sneak attack damage to things that are normally immune. It's called Penetrating Strike.

Or you could just use Factotums instead of Rogues. Iajuitsu Focus works on everything.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2010-03-08, 08:03 PM
Annoyingly enough, RC didn't do it as clearly as it should have.
Really?
Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. What's not clear about that?

Zaq
2010-03-08, 09:04 PM
A houserule I used a while back is that if you have sneak attack (or similar) and you hit a monster in such a manner that you would normally do sneak attack if that monster were not immune, you do sneak attack, but with d4s instead of d6s. If you beat the monster's AC by 5 or more, you do normal sneak attack damage.

I didn't change crits, but it's no fun for a character to be made totally useless by so many different monsters.

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-03-08, 11:46 PM
Do you customize your game to your group? I'm not suggesting you codle your players but, when I have a group like that they usually end up in cities alot fighting lots of humans with class levels. Not because I'm coddling them but because they get involved in storylines that involve them.

Also there is an ACF to trade trapsense for the ability to deal half SA damage to flanked crit immune enemies it's in ravenloft and I think it's reprinted somewhere else.

Heliomance
2010-03-09, 10:58 AM
Sneak attack on constructs is easy. Aim for the joints/"this bit looks important!"

Hitting a zombie in the heart won't do much, I agree. Hitting a zombie in the brain, though, is usually a very good idea. With skeletons, either the joints or the spine are probably where you should be aiming. Vampires really shouldn't be immune to crits/sneak attack at all. Plants it's harder to make a case for, but you could argue for finding chinks in the bark or what have you.

Zombimode
2010-03-09, 11:25 AM
Sneak attack on constructs is easy. Aim for the joints/"this bit looks important!"

Only if the construct in question is of the "robot"-type. Classic golems are not.

BRC
2010-03-09, 11:51 AM
Only if the construct in question is of the "robot"-type. Classic golems are not.
except that alot of DnD constructs are closer to "Robots" than "Golems".
Warforged, Clockwork Horrors, Automatons, Effigies. All of these are described as being much more than animated blocks of stone.

Zeta Kai
2010-03-09, 12:02 PM
Creatures with no discernible anatomy (Oozes, swarms, and elementals basically) are immune to crits and sneak attacks.
Plants, Constructs, and Undead are not as succeptable to Crits and Sneak Attacks as normal, but are still vulnerable. Rogues can apply half their sneak attack die against these creatures (essentially everybody gets free Penetrating Strike), and crits against them have their multiplier lowered by 1 (A X2 multiplier becomes x1.5 (So it still has some effect). A x3 becomes x2, and a x4 becomes x3).

That's pretty much how I've played it at my table for years. It works like a charm. I think a lot of rogue-heavy games are played like this.

alisbin
2010-03-09, 12:48 PM
i addressed this in my campaign by the following:
treat creatures as normal under the 3.5 rules. HOWEVER, any character may take 20 minutes x targets HD to study a particular race/type corpse normally immune to sneak attacks/critical hits after each encounter with one of that race/type. they may then make a dc 15+targets HD check (d20 +intelligence mod+wisdom mod) to learn how to gain the ability to sneak attack/crit creatures of that race/type. the ability is permanent (short of mindwipes and the like). studying live creatures takes only 10 minutes x targets HD but is generally an evil act since you basically would have to torture them. you can only study 1 race/type per week. if multiple characters study cooperatively they share the best d20 result (but not int and wis mods). i also allow for books on anatomy to be found in some high level libraries which can allow 1 week of study to allow a check.

it adds a bit of bookkeeping but i feel it adds to the realism.

Volkov
2010-03-09, 12:52 PM
Plants have no internal organs, you can stab a tree anywhere, it's not going to change the amount of damage the tree suffers.

lsfreak
2010-03-09, 01:05 PM
Plants have no internal organs, you can stab a tree anywhere, it's not going to change the amount of damage the tree suffers.

But many plant-based enemies aren't trees. Look at a phantom fungus, it has clear parts that are probably more important that others. Granted, this also goes under my rule that if it doesn't have anatomy, it's uncrittable, even if it normally would be.

Also, the tree argument could work just as well on a particularly large dragon. You shouldn't be able to crit it by warrant that no matter what you do, it's a 6-story-tall dragon. And yet, rules-wise, you can crit it fine.

@alisbin:
What about things with obvious weaknesses? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a skeleton's spine is probably pretty crucial to it, and likewise it won't take long to realize that eyes are pretty important for anything with sight. You can even see the rods that simulate tendons on a shield guardian.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-09, 01:09 PM
I personally consider immunity to crits to be reasonable, since those creatures do not have weak points as humans do. Shoot an elf in the heart and she'll probably die, while hitting a zombie ghost in the heart probably won't faze it.

My group uses the house rule of "If you can find a way to justify critically weak spots, you can crit/sneak attack it".

IE...its a zombie. Smash it's face in or cut it's head off.

Perfectly fine from a verisimulitude standpoint, and hasn't been overpowered from a gamist standpoint.

alisbin
2010-03-09, 01:12 PM
yeah i know some crit immune creatures DO have rather obvious weaknesses, but i argue that they may not be what you think or are just harder to pull off since the creature is more resistant. yeah, trying to break a zombies spine is certainly a crit type of thing, but since they are way tougher then they should be i rule it takes a bit more understanding to pull off. or alternatively sometimes i'll rule that a particular enemy needs special made items to sneak attack or crit with, which is fun cause it adds side quests.
my system isn't perfect and i often tweak it if a player comes up with a good idea i didn't have, but its my basic system which has worked pretty well so far.

Lapak
2010-03-09, 01:13 PM
Plants have no internal organs, you can stab a tree anywhere, it's not going to change the amount of damage the tree suffers.Hmm. That's not actually entirely true. Hacking away major roots would cause more harm to a tree than a few cuts at random points in the trunk; an axe stroke that might only chip out a chunk of the main body might sever a limb; even living trees can have knots of dead tissue that shatter more readily than living wood. I can see a skilled lumberjack being quite adept at dealing precision damage to tree monsters! :smallwink:

Person_Man
2010-03-09, 02:07 PM
My group has a houserule called Backstab (which is what Sneak Attack was called in a previous edition). If you Flank an enemy, you get Sneak Attack damage. The only things that are immune are enemies that are immune to Flanking - which is only a handful of enemies and those with Improved Uncanny Dodge unless you have four more rogue levels. You can choose if you want regular Sneak Attack or Backstab upon character creation, and it counts for all classes/PrC which provide Sneak Attack for the rest of your career.

I love verisimilitude, but sometimes you just need to put it aside in order for the game to be fun.

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 03:03 PM
We use the same houserule as the OP. Half SA dice versus anything with an anatomy, and 1 less on the crit multiplier.

There is still a good and bad spot to hit a machine to disable it.

hiryuu
2010-03-09, 03:18 PM
But many plant-based enemies aren't trees. Look at a phantom fungus, it has clear parts that are probably more important that others. Granted, this also goes under my rule that if it doesn't have anatomy, it's uncrittable, even if it normally would be.

Agreed. Chopping at tentacles, joint locations, sensory locations, and primary locomotive regions should be just as effective as a normal sneak attack.


Also, the tree argument could work just as well on a particularly large dragon. You shouldn't be able to crit it by warrant that no matter what you do, it's a 6-story-tall dragon. And yet, rules-wise, you can crit it fine.

http://www.sportspodiatry.co.uk/images/images/anatom7.jpg

Any one of those (especially the Dorsalis pedis) equals a boat ton of pain and loads of blood loss.

Don't forget that dragons often have these on the ground, too.

http://www.eorthopod.com/images/ContentImages/hand/hand_anatomy/hand_anatomy_arteries01a.jpg

"Remember, Otholis Blackwhisper, it's down the road, not across the street!"

And if it's going to be biting party members, it has to put its face next to where everyone's sharp bits are.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-09, 05:03 PM
@Hiryuu: Why the hell is a Dragon on the ground? They can fly!

BRC
2010-03-09, 05:06 PM
@Hiryuu: Why the hell is a Dragon on the ground? They can fly!
Because the smart adventurers can fly too/cut their wings/put in a really low ceiling/ only fight agoraphobic dragons.

hiryuu
2010-03-09, 05:06 PM
@Hiryuu: Why the hell is a Dragon on the ground? They can fly!

To be honest, I'm not afraid of dragons because they get a boatload of melee attacks. I'm afraid of dragons because they can drop invisibly into the middle of your party, cast a silent wail of the banshee, drop a horrid wilting, then disintegrate whoever's left standing. Typically in the surprise round.

JaronK
2010-03-09, 05:08 PM
Really? What's not clear about that?

The fact that it's restating half the DMG rule without making it clear that it's removing the other half.

The DMG says the same thing, but the adds a second part that says that if the spell takes less than a standard action to cast, the item takes a standard action to use.

So, considering the RC doesn't actually cover every rule, is it just rewriting the first part of that rule and not mentioning the second, or is it overwriting the whole thing? And that's what's not clear. Also, not everyone has the RC. It's annoying. Clarifications to the rules should have been free online so everyone would have them! We bought the books already, after all.

JaronK

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-09, 05:13 PM
Because the smart adventurers can fly too/cut their wings/put in a really low ceiling/ only fight agoraphobic dragons.

The rule of thumb for Spellcasters also applies to Dragons: If you are in melee with one, someone is doing something wrong!