Immunity to Crits, What's it Worth?

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't mind the Fortification property granting immunity to crits, but I don't like that it negates precision damage. So if I house ruled that Fortification only negates actual crits, what would it be worth--a +1 bonus for 50% immunity and another +1 bonus for 100% immunity? Or maybe just +1 for total immunity?

[Person_Man]

Why?

That sorta seems like making up rules for the sake of making up rules. Is there a specific Rogue PC or something similar that you feel is being nerfed? Wouldn't it just be easier to change the types of enemies in your encounters, rather then changing the rules?

[Yakk]

Because changing rules is perfectly ok.

Only 100% fort blocks precision damage, right? So the price of sub-100% fort shouldn't change.

[Hyfigh]

It sounds to me like allowing Rogues to use the Penetrating Strike ACF instead of nerfing fortified armor would be better. The Rogue still gets to deal half his sneak attack dice against immunes, but is nerfed enough to make the enchantment at least worth something.

[Dausuul]

Because changing rules is perfectly ok.

Only 100% fort blocks precision damage, right? So the price of sub-100% fort shouldn't change.

No, the fort chance applies equally to crits and precision damage.

I'd say it should be +1 for light, +2 for moderate, +3 for heavy if it applies only to crits. Crit immunity is one of those things that rarely comes up, but when it does, it's really good to have.

I like this idea. It kind of bugs me that it's so easy to get immunity to sneak attack in D&D. Sneak attack is what rogues do in combat; you should have to work fairly hard to negate it. Wizards very seldom meet magic-immune foes (mostly just the occasional golem), and fighters very seldom meet weapon-immune foes (a swarm now and then), but rogues meet sneak-attack-immune foes all the damn time.

[Tequila Sunrise]

It sounds to me like allowing Rogues to use the Penetrating Strike ACF instead of nerfing fortified armor would be better. The Rogue still gets to deal half his sneak attack dice against immunes, but is nerfed enough to make the enchantment at least worth something.

What's ACF? Penetrating Strike sounds like it could be a nice solution, but I'm not familiar with it.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I like this idea. It kind of bugs me that it's so easy to get immunity to sneak attack in D&D. Sneak attack is what rogues do in combat; you should have to work fairly hard to negate it. Wizards very seldom meet magic-immune foes (mostly just the occasional golem), and fighters very seldom meet weapon-immune foes (a swarm now and then), but rogues meet sneak-attack-immune foes all the damn time.

My thoughts exactly.

[Fax Celestis]

What's ACF? Penetrating Strike sounds like it could be a nice solution, but I'm not familiar with it.

Alternate Class Feature. It's in Dungeonscape.

[tyckspoon]

What's ACF?

Alternate class feature. This particular one was printed in Dungeonscape, I think, and trades out the rogue's Trap Sense progression.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I definately like the penetrating strike solution, especially since it works on anything crit-immune. Thank you, Hyfigh!

(Trapfinding and Trapsense is the only thing that a rogue has to give up to get it? Pretty sweet, especially since trapfinding doesn't exist in my games.)

[EndgamerAzari]

Rogues only lose trapsense as a result of Penetrating Strike, which isn't bad since it's kinda 'meh' anyway. Losing trapfinding would, in most cases, negate the purpose of the rogue (not like artificer, factotum, beguiler, and every base class in Complete Adventurer doesn't already ).

[Nowhere Girl]

Alternate class feature. This particular one was printed in Dungeonscape, I think, and trades out the rogue's Trap Sense progression.

You mean that nearly useless bonus to Reflex saves versus traps?

Good trade.

[Jannex]

I like this idea. It kind of bugs me that it's so easy to get immunity to sneak attack in D&D. Sneak attack is what rogues do in combat; you should have to work fairly hard to negate it. Wizards very seldom meet magic-immune foes (mostly just the occasional golem), and fighters very seldom meet weapon-immune foes (a swarm now and then), but rogues meet sneak-attack-immune foes all the damn time.

Thirded.

I wish I'd known about the Penetrating Strike alternate class feature when I first rolled up my current rogue (especially given the prevalence of undead and aberrations in the current campaign)... Then again, it's a new DM and I would probably have been reluctant to inundate him with special requests anyway...

[Laesin]

Immunity to crits is worth Dolce Flabulum Adamus when compared to Immunity to sneak attack which is almost beyond price IMO. I think the two effects should be separate with +1, +2 and +3 for crits and +1, +3 and +5 for sneak attack. If you want both you pay for both.

[Yakk]

Good point -- I missed that line! :)

I'd say then:
+1: 50% immunity to crits
+2: 75% immunity to crits
+3: Full immunity to crits

[SquireJames]

I think sneak attack immunity should be converted to a number like Spell Resistance, so rogues can gripe about it only part of the time (kinda like Wizards and Spell Resistance).

Then there can be several tiers of crit or sneak attack immunity (they may or may not be de-coupled). A construct might indeed have vital parts, but they're harder to find since they don't follow the same "rules" as living creatures. So a d20+ level check vs DC 12+ CR might not be out of line. Perhaps an ooze truly has few weak points, so they get Sneak Resistance of 16+ CR. Rogues can take Penetration feats to add to that roll. Of course, then Fortification can grant a Sneak Resistance, and so on...

I'd add something like this only if rogues were a big part of the campaign, and the extra dice roll won't annoy people. Telling someone their main class feature will work only 30% of the time against certain monsters is better than telling them it will work 0% while the rest of the party is unimpeded.

Of course, golems are why fighters are still in the game at high level...

[Talic]

Look at the description of what the armor does. It deflects weapons to less vital areas. That would apply equally to shots landing in vitals by luck and by skilled placement. That's why it applies to precision based damage as well.

Remember, if the party is using magic, so can you. Antimagic fields, rust monster oil, Targeted Dispel Magics, all can suffice to take care of that ability.

[OneWinged4ngel]

It kind of bugs me that it's so easy to get immunity to sneak attack in D&D.

Likewise, I find this quite annoying. It falls back to the Gygaxian legacy of screwing over PCs. Much like the idea of Vermin somehow being immune to mind-affecting effects. Speaking of which, you ever see the creative explanations they came up with for that on the gaming den? I thought that was a rather entertaining read.

Wizards very seldom meet magic-immune foes (mostly just the occasional golem)

The thing is, a magic-immune foe isn't actually immune to a wizard's magical capabilities. He simply gets infinite SR. That basically covers things that directly affect him that allows for SR, and nothing else. That still leaves a huge, huge chunk of magic that is quite effective against golems.

and fighters very seldom meet weapon-immune foes (a swarm now and then), but rogues meet sneak-attack-immune foes all the damn time.

Indeed they do. And, by one reading of the rules, even the few things that are designed to be something of a fix to this (like Golemstrike wands) don't actually work because those wands take a standard action to use.

In just about every kind of media, be it video games, movies, or whatever, we know that constructs are actually supposed to be dealt precision damage in many cases. There's often that special gear or that magic gem that binds the animating spirit that the hero will strike. Likewise, we also know that Vampires have a discernable anatomy and are supposed to die from being run through the heart, and yet the rules for undead deny such a possibility. Even zombies often go down from being brained in a great deal of media. Indeed, the rules for undead even deny the use of mind-affecting effects on intelligent undead for no particular reason except that WotC couldn't actually agree on what exactly made someone undead.

Really, I feel the creature types in general are just plain screwy in a few cases. But back to the original point... it's just plain annoying for someone to have to get their abilities completely shut down by entire categories of foes without much of a way to counter that. It is pretty easily conceivable that one might take a feat (or even a rogue special ability option or something) with a prerequisite of a few ranks of Knowledge (whatever) that allows them to sneak attack creatures of whatever type. For example, with a decent investment in Knowledge: Religion (or whatever you feel is appropriate for stuff about undead) then the rogue can pinpoint the nexuses of negative energy that bind an undead to the world, or brain a zombie, or impale a vampire, or whatever. Bam, suddenly you can make a Rogue who's a seasoned vampire hunter who gets the drop on the creatures and strikes them through the heart with practiced expertise.

In fact, I may just write up something like that. For a rogue special ability, I'd probably say it'd be all the creature types, so long as you can make a Knowledge: whatever check to properly identify it (and thus know its unusual weak points), or alternatively if you are informed of it by an ally ("Hey, wizard, what's this thing?" "Well, it's a Masiginean golem, crafted by the ancient people of Skyrin to guard their vast..." "I don't need a history lesson old man! Just tell me what I need to stab to kill it!"). For a feat, I might be more inclined to make it allow you to fight a particular type of creature.

___

However, on the issue of fortification applying to only a certain type of precision damage (critical hits)... that just breaks suspension of disbelief for me. If you must change it to not create immunity to sneak attacks, perhaps you instead make it into RESISTANCE to sneak attacks. If a Rogue makes some sort of check or otherwise has enough skill, he can penetrate even the greatest armor fortifications. This also helps to establish how badass your high level rogue's precision really is ("My defense is perfect! I wear the invincible mail of St. Draek of Ardor! No mundane dagger may find my heart, as the gods provide me with -- Hrrk...!" "Not perfect enough, it seems.") as opposed to just the idea that you hit them in the kidneys harder than you did two levels ago.

Of course, golems are why fighters are still in the game at high level...

Dude, it's not hard for the wizard to kill a golem, unless the wizard is too stupid to think of something other than shooting it with scorching ray. The immunity of a golem ONLY prevents direct attacks which are subject to SR. That still leaves you a heap of options.

[TheOOB]

Immunity to precision damage is the primary benefit of being immune to crits. Crits are nice, but due to their random nature very few builds focus on them. Precision damage on the other hand is something many builds rely on, and it's usually a fairly sure thing (sneak attack builds usually have ways of making sure they sneak attack more often then not).

[Telok]

Please note that Fortification does not apply to precision damage. It applies to sneak attack damage. D&D being what it is today this makes a difference.

From the SRD:

When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.

[UserClone]

It is pretty easily conceivable that one might take a feat (or even a rogue special ability option or something) with a prerequisite of a few ranks of Knowledge (whatever) that allows them to sneak attack creatures of whatever type.

Actually, someone did. In the OGL book Ultimate Feats, there is a feat called Analyze Unliving. It allows you to choose a creature type from the following list: Construct, Elemental, Ooze, Plant, or Undead. You can sneak attack monsters of the chosen type, but the d6s become d4s. I think it's a perfect solution to an ugly problem. I would further houserule that you could take this feat in place of one of your Rogue special abilites. The prereqs are Sneak Attack +1d6, Dex 13+, Wis 13+. You can take the feat multiple times, choosing a new creature type each time.

Jannex, you mentioned that your DM throws Abberations at you frequently; why is that a problem? Abberations are not all explicitly immune to Sneak Attacks.

[UserClone]

Please note that Fortification does not apply to precision damage. It applies to sneak attack damage. D&D being what it is today this makes a difference.

From the SRD:

And which precision damage does it not prevent? Sudden Strike? As SS counts as SA for purposes of entering a PrC which requires SA, it's not a stretch to say that RAI, fortification prevents SS, too. Is there another source of precision damage you had in mind?

[Clementx]

Is there another source of precision damage you had in mind?

Favored Enemy is pretty much the only other one, but considering it has almost nothing else to do with sneak attack, it does seem a bit silly.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Favored enemy bonuses aren't precision damage, even though you'd think they would be.

By a strict reading of RAW Fort only prevents SA damage but I'd call it common sense to rule that non-core precision damage is affected too.

In any case I've decided to offer the player of any precision damage dealing character the opportunity to deal half precision damage to any foe normally immune in exchange for Trap Sense or some equally minor class feature, rather than mess with Fort.

[UserClone]

Actually, yeah, I forgot about Favored Enemy, which is precision damage, as I am positive I read in Masters of the Wild, which is why that book suggests Undead and Construct as the worst FEs to choose.

[I_Got_This_Name]

Actually, yeah, I forgot about Favored Enemy, which is precision damage, as I am positive I read in Masters of the Wild, which is why that book suggests Undead and Construct as the worst FEs to choose.

In 3.0, yes. In 3.5, they realized it was silly to give you a damage bonus against all undead that are vulnerable to crits for taking FE: Undead and changed it so that it works even on crit-immune enemies.

[Draz74]

Actually, yeah, I forgot about Favored Enemy, which is precision damage, as I am positive I read in Masters of the Wild, which is why that book suggests Undead and Construct as the worst FEs to choose.

Masters of the Wild is 3.0. If the book does indeed say that, it's been outmoded by newer rulings.

I've read specifically (in the FAQ?) that Favored Enemy is not precision damage. It always works.

Precision damage includes Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, Skirmish, and the Swashbuckler's bonus damage due to his Intelligence bonus. Note the lack of mention of Favored Enemy in the excerpt from Rules Compendium under the Damage Types link. (It doesn't mention the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike here either, but I think that ability says explicitly that it counts as precision damage. Favored Enemy has no such stipulation.)

[TheOOB]

A swashbucklers attack isn't precision damage, while sneak attack and crit immune people are immune to insightful strike, the ability works on all attacks in a volly attack, unlike a sneak attack while only applies to the first attack.

[Draz74]

A swashbucklers attack isn't precision damage, while sneak attack and crit immune people are immune to insightful strike, the ability works on all attacks in a volly attack, unlike a sneak attack while only applies to the first attack.

"Volley attack" meaning like Manyshot or multiple rays of a Scorching Ray? That might be a significant distinction if you can tell me an example of a "volley attack" in melee. Insightful Strike only works on finesse-able attacks, which means melee attacks.