Allowing 'Fortification' rules as alternative to 'immune to sneak attacks and crits?

[Security Bear]

Hi.

This is for a D&D 3.5 game.

Recently, I have been pondering whether to introduce 'Fortification rules' as an alternative to certain monsters being completely immune to sneak attacks and criticals, at least where this makes sense (Vampire yes, Fire Elemental probably not...unless the PCs get creative). A Zombie might have 'Light Fortification' (25%).

I am not looking forward to reinventing the wheel, though, so would appreciate it if someone has run into this before. Thanks! :smallsmile:

[mistformsquirrl]

I like the idea myself.

I mean realistically, even a Golem has vital locations to strike - sure they aren't *organs*; but that doesn't mean hitting it in say... the elbow joint for example... going to be the same as hitting it in the torso.

Likewise for undead, it could represent fracturing a bone required for locomotion or attack - like say shattering a kneecap or the spine.

Still, it makes sense such creatures are more resistant to critical hits because they don't have as many vital locations to strike.

All of which is me basically saying "Yeah, good idea, I like it!"

[ericgrau]

Pathfinder lets rogues deal full sneak attack damage to most formerly immune creatures except completely amorphous ones like oozes. It's not a huge upgrade because it still doesn't provide an always-active sneak attack trigger, and even with sneak attack rogues were never the greatest at combat. That's what skills are for.

That said whether you implement full or partial vulnerability or no change depends on how often you use those creatures. In a zombie filled campaign for example rogues are at a disadvantage and could use a little help. In a mostly humanoid campaign not so much. And I've seen a DM use such a system and then want to have an immune creature now and then, so suddenly we were facing an unusual number of oozes. That's a bit hokey and shows that full vulnerability was too much even for his own liking.

IMO go for it however you see fit for your gaming group. 25-100% fortification is probably good. The more unusual monsters you like the lower it should be, but IMO it should be at least 25% for almost everything that used to be immune. If you don't use a lot of those creatures then it should be higher. "Getting creative" is a good idea too. If a rogue carries ice weapons I'd let him sneak attack a fire elemental with only a low fortification.

[Psyren]

I think fortification is a fine idea - even if a zombie or vampire has weak spots (like joints) that can be targeted, it has less of those than a true humanoid would and should be treated as such. And a (well-made) construct would logically have even fewer of those. Plants, with their unconventional anatomy, would have even fewer still.

Amorphous creatures (elementals and oozes) would retain their effective immunity by having 100% fortification.

[awa]

ive run something like this in a heavily home-brewed game it worked well although the parties rogue analog invested in fortification reducing abilities so he rarely has to deal with fortification.

I generally set zombies at 50% things like most golems at 75% and elementals at 125% or higher.

although for undead i allowed head shots increasing their defense in exchange for ignoring their dr and fortification.

[JaronK]

One problem is that it adds more dice rolling. You might consider just having "immune to sneak attacks" just become "resistant" so they do half normal sneak attack dice. Thus, a level 10 Rogue would do 2d6 damage instead of 5d6 damage to a zombie.

JaronK

[Kobold-Bard]

One problem is that it adds more dice rolling. You might consider just having "immune to sneak attacks" just become "resistant" so they do half normal sneak attack dice. Thus, a level 10 Rogue would do 2d6 damage instead of 5d6 damage to a zombie.

JaronK

Would reducing dice rather than damage put Spellthieves at a disadvantage, since they sacrifice dice to fuel their powers?

[Psyren]

One problem is that it adds more dice rolling. You might consider just having "immune to sneak attacks" just become "resistant" so they do half normal sneak attack dice. Thus, a level 10 Rogue would do 2d6 damage instead of 5d6 damage to a zombie.

JaronK

I like this idea - it not only cuts down on rolling, it reduces the frustration from a bad roll negate SA completely while having the same overall effect.


Would reducing dice rather than damage put Spellthieves at a disadvantage, since they sacrifice dice to fuel their powers?

Considering that the default rules would make them completely unable to SA these creatures at all, they should be thankful for whatever they get.

[Security Bear]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!