I hope almost everything is crittable.

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
I know that at least (some) undead are, and I consider that a huge step in the right direction. Really, I've always had trouble buying that even though things like undead and most golems have discernable parts, they couldn't be crit.

Oh really? So hacking off 2 lbs of flesh from their dessicated ribcage is the same as 2 lbs of flesh below the knee? One severely hampers movement, the other doesn't.
I just think they need to make creatures immune to criticals on a case by case basis rather than a type basis, Seriously, can you tell me the vital points on a phasm or a gelatinous cube? I agree that anything with a discernable anatomy should be sneak attackable and personally I think that crits should be possible even on things like phasms, just because we don't know where it is that doesn't mean it isn't possible to hit, maybe some creatures should have a fortification like ability, where only the rare few become immune.
Most corporeal undead, Oozes and plants should be vulnerable to criticals (though not sneak attack). There may be exceptions (vampires should be vulnerable to sneak attack for instance)

Constructs that are simply animate peices of metal, clay, whatever should not be vulnerable to either sneak attack or criticals, though clockwork constructs should be vulnerable to both.

Incorporeal, gaseous creatures or other creatures made up of a single material (such as fire elementals) should have total immunity to crits and sneak.
For the most part, I agree, though I think Iron Golems (as depicted in MM 3.5) should be totally crittable.
I disagree some creatures just dont take damage like others, undead and such no longer have vital organs and dont bleed out. Some undead like vampires though might be vulnerable to some type of crit say a chance for one if you do a called shot to the neck or heart. For normaly uncritable types maybe they should looked at on a case for case base.
For the most part, I agree, though I think Iron Golems (as depicted in MM 3.5) should be totally crittable.

Why? I dont think they should but tell me your logic why you think so.
Most corporeal undead, Oozes and plants should be vulnerable to criticals (though not sneak attack). There may be exceptions (vampires should be vulnerable to sneak attack for instance)

Constructs that are simply animate peices of metal, clay, whatever should not be vulnerable to either sneak attack or criticals, though clockwork constructs should be vulnerable to both.

Incorporeal, gaseous creatures or other creatures made up of a single material (such as fire elementals) should have total immunity to crits and sneak.

I disagree with you on the sneak attacks. I think that pretty much everything needs to be vulnerable to sneak attacks; playtest reports still seem to indicate that a lot (maybe not all anymore but still a lot) of a rogue's combat effectiveness is still derived from sneak attacks. The examples I've read of rogues badassing something indicate that they get a lot of abilities as riders on their SA's, like knocking an opponent prone. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the right hit on a zombie could do extra damage and knock it down.
I disagree some creatures just dont take damage like others, undead and such no longer have vital organs and dont bleed out. Some undead like vampires though might be vulnerable to some type of crit say a chance for one if you do a called shot to the neck or heart. For normaly uncritable types maybe they should looked at on a case for case base.

Called Shots are bad, since that indicates you're not going for vitals on your other strikes. A crit *is* a called shot.

All zombies - and Iron Golems, which are less fluid and more constructed than, say, a clay golem - have legs, thighs, etc, as well as joints - which are by their nature, more vulnerable to attack. You think a machine doesn't have weak points in their superstructure, any engineer will tell you that you're wrong.

Further, blowing away their arm means they can't use it anymore. Blowing away their leg means they can't *move* anymore, or at least not as fast. Sounds like a crit to me.
I disagree with you on the sneak attacks. I think that pretty much everything needs to be vulnerable to sneak attacks; playtest reports still seem to indicate that a lot (maybe not all anymore but still a lot) of a rogue's combat effectiveness is still derived from sneak attacks. The examples I've read of rogues badassing something indicate that they get a lot of abilities as riders on their SA's, like knocking an opponent prone. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the right hit on a zombie could do extra damage and knock it down.

While you're point about rogues being screwed by sneak attack immunes is true, I disagree on your solution. Personally I'd like to see the rogue become more interesting, instead of just being a mindless sneak attack machine, we should give him some martial maneuvers and other abilities.

The rogue's sneak attack actually should be toned down in my opinion, since at high levels it just turns into a matter of either the rogue being near useless or the rogue completely dominating, depending on if the creature is sneak attackable or not. And that's boring. No class' effectiveness should be so reliant on a single ability like the rogue is. Sneak attack really should stop scaling after a while, or maybe just shouldn't scale as much and the rogue should get other abilities to compensate.

I hope 4E tones down the importance of sneak attack to the rogue and makes the rogue more of a 3 dimensional class. We already know they're adding martial maneuvers to the fighter to make him more fun and interesting to play, hopefully the rogue gains the ability to do other stuff and isn't left completely reliant on a foe's weakness to sneak attacks.
The Sneak Attack should not be just damage, I think that was the issue with it earlier. They should knock the enemy down, inflict status conditions, maybe one can be an auto-crit. But not just a flat, rising modifier to damage.
Critical hits don't need to be about vital spots or target areas.

A critical hit can simply be a great hit :D It did a lot of damage. There's no need to complicate it, and having everything being able to take a critical makes everything simpler and better methinks.
While you're point about rogues being screwed by sneak attack immunes is true, I disagree on your solution. Personally I'd like to see the rogue become more interesting, instead of just being a mindless sneak attack machine, we should give him some martial maneuvers and other abilities.

The rogue's sneak attack actually should be toned down in my opinion, since at high levels it just turns into a matter of either the rogue being near useless or the rogue completely dominating, depending on if the creature is sneak attackable or not. And that's boring. No class' effectiveness should be so reliant on a single ability like the rogue is. Sneak attack really should stop scaling after a while, or maybe just shouldn't scale as much and the rogue should get other abilities to compensate.

I hope 4E tones down the importance of sneak attack to the rogue and makes the rogue more of a 3 dimensional class. We already know they're adding martial maneuvers to the fighter to make him more fun and interesting to play, hopefully the rogue gains the ability to do other stuff and isn't left completely reliant on a foe's weakness to sneak attacks.

I agree with you that SA shouldn't be a rogue's only relevant combat ability, and I think the 4E designers will address that. However, from what I've read of playtest reports, SA will still be important. "Weakness" to SA should never be an issue. Making a few corner case creatures that are immune to SA is fine; making large groups that are immune to an important combat effect is unwise.
Critical hits don't need to be about vital spots or target areas.

A critical hit can simply be a great hit :D It did a lot of damage. There's no need to complicate it, and having everything being able to take a critical makes everything simpler and better methinks.

Eh, I can see the argument for not having your average ooze be crittable. But swarms, undead, constructs, aberrations... if you tone down the power of sneak attack, I think a lot more can be construed as vulnerable as long as it's not just a sentient blob (like 3E elementals.)
i think Oozes should still be immune to crits. its always seemed a little weird to me that hacking at an Ooze hurts it at all. though some of my players once, fighting an elder black pudding, did have the brilliant idea to use a spell that did 2 dexterity damage, thus rendering it unable to move and ending the fight rather quickly before it ate them all(which it totally would have in a normal stand up fight).
Just thought you should know. the countdown continues...
I really don't think realism is that important. Making every attack in the game do double damage on a 20 makes the game simpler and easier.

I don't see anything complicated. If we changed the word "critical" to "great", would that help anything? In my opinion not adding all these exceptions makes things simpler and less to think and worry about.
I have a problem with eliminating or nearly eliminating immunity to critical hits. All class abilities should have counters. As A DM, I need the tools to tone down a powergamer in the group who overshadows all the others, or make an encounter highlight a certain PC. Fighters have high DR, mages have high spell resistance and a rougue has immunity to crits. So long as the DM is fair, you should not see more of one type over the others.

IF 4.0 is totaly balanced then ya go ahead and dramatically reduce the number of critters with it. I doubt that this will be the case. I would like to see something like a fortification like defence on some monsters, similar to spell resitance. Critical hit resistance? It could make it a wee bit more balanced.

I do agree though that many undead SHOULD be critable, and maybe some golems. The old smash the skeleton skull or behead the zombie should work.

On a side note, I'm still having trouble with the concept of not needing to roll to confirm a critical in 4.0. Heck I don't like a 20 being an automatic hit either in 3.x. 20 Peasants with heavy picks are statistically very scary in either case. Lets not even discuss 400 untrained peasant archers shooting at something diminutive at max range, stupidly scary.
I have a problem with eliminating or nearly eliminating immunity to critical hits. All class abilities should have counters. As A DM, I need the tools to tone down a powergamer in the group who overshadows all the others, or make an encounter highlight a certain PC. Fighters have high DR, mages have high spell resistance and a rougue has immunity to crits. So long as the DM is fair, you should not see more of one type over the others.

Thing of it is, crit immunity - especially with the 4E concept - would impact just about everyone except for a Controller, conceivably. If they don't make LUDICROUS SNEAK ATTACK DAMAGE ZOMG the focal point of all of the Rogue's combat utility, then there's less need to bother trying to do it anyway - anyone who would be crit based likely would have put a lot of build effort into becoming a crit build.

On a side note, I'm still having trouble with the concept of not needing to roll to confirm a critical in 4.0. Heck I don't like a 20 being an automatic hit either in 3.x. 20 Peasants with heavy picks are statistically very scary in either case. Lets not even discuss 400 untrained peasant archers shooting at something diminutive at max range, stupidly scary.

400 Untrained Peasant Archers shooting something at max range, regardless of size, are rather likely to hit the target at least once, honestly. I'd find it improbable if they *couldn't.* Serious stormtrooper effect. HP takes care of the severity of such a blow.
Thing of it is, crit immunity - especially with the 4E concept - would impact just about everyone except for a Controller, conceivably. If they don't make LUDICROUS SNEAK ATTACK DAMAGE ZOMG the focal point of all of the Rogue's combat utility, then there's less need to bother trying to do it anyway - anyone who would be crit based likely would have put a lot of build effort into becoming a crit build.

I guess we will have to wait and see what the focus for the rogue is, and if magic criticals will be impacted by immunity to critical hits. In 3.x rolling a 1 on a save, had the same effect no matter if you were undead or not, so crit immunity may again be only against physical dmg.


400 Untrained Peasant Archers shooting something at max range, regardless of size, are rather likely to hit the target at least once, honestly. I'd find it improbable if they *couldn't.* Serious stormtrooper effect. HP takes care of the severity of such a blow.

In 3.x with confirms, 400 archers with insane penalties to hit aiming at a fly 1000ft away, would statistically roll 19 hits and 1 critical hit (20 followed by 20). So would do 19d8+3d8, or 22d8=99dmg.

In a system without crit confirmation rolls, but only X2 dmg on a crit. You'd have 20 criticals for 40d8, or 180dmg. Which should mean that 400 peasant archers could take down pretty much anything without insane DR, no matter what its AC is. Any village will be safe from dragons, if you have 30.4K gp to spend on long bows and arrows.

Both the above senarios are rediculous mechanics abuse, but show the affect on game play. A no crit confirm roll will hurt players more, as they will have more dice rolled against them, than by them.

I've never found the second roll to slow down game play that much, it added alot of suspense which is good. Lets see if this will really hurt.....
In a system without crit confirmation rolls, but only X2 dmg on a crit. You'd have 20 criticals for 40d8, or 180dmg. Which should mean that 400 peasant archers could take down pretty much anything without insane DR, no matter what its AC is. Any village will be safe from dragons, if you have 30.4K gp to spend on long bows and arrows.

Dragons of Young Adult and older have DR 5/magic (which is not a lot or uncommon), most villages don't have that much to spend, and just as 3.5E had 'swarm' rules, I wouldn't be surprised if the 4E mook rules don't give mooks the same ability to heroically crit.

Even assuming all of that was false, all but the youngest of dragons can take 180 damage, and then they can fire their breath weapon once, massacre half of the peasants, stomp out a quarter of the remainder, and watch as the survivors run like hell.
Dragons of Young Adult and older have DR 5/magic (which is not a lot or uncommon), most villages don't have that much to spend, and just as 3.5E had 'swarm' rules, I wouldn't be surprised if the 4E mook rules don't give mooks the same ability to heroically crit.

Even assuming all of that was false, all but the youngest of dragons can take 180 damage, and then they can fire their breath weapon once, massacre half of the peasants, stomp out a quarter of the remainder, and watch as the survivors run like hell.

Lack of a confirmation roll is mathematically wrong. Doesn't matter if it's dragons or goblins, it skews it toward the attacker's benefit.

A roll plus confirmation roll is mathematically the same as rolling an extra check every time you hit, just to see if you crit. The 3E way gets rid of that extra roll 90% of the time. It's not a big deal, people.
Lack of a confirmation roll is mathematically wrong. Doesn't matter if it's dragons or goblins, it skews it toward the attacker's benefit.

A roll plus confirmation roll is mathematically the same as rolling an extra check every time you hit, just to see if you crit. The 3E way gets rid of that extra roll 90% of the time. It's not a big deal, people.

*shrug*

I'm honestly pretty neutral on the confirmation roll part as long as more things can be critted. I don't really mind an attacker's bias as long as the rest of the system deals accordingly.
I'll think that immunity to critical hits should be changed, not removed or made rare.

The issue is that it is a binary operation, it is either immune or not. This is different than DR, spell resistance, ect. Giving monsters a defence range might be better.

Something simiar to fortification might work, but that would mean that a 1st lv rogue and a 20th one would have the same odds. It probably should scale with level.

It could be done like how uncanny dodge is, but again this makes it binary.

Another roll against a fort or refelx defence might be the way to go, but might have other consequences, like how do you make a Ooze be immune to crits, but have a low defence otherwise.

A roll against a crit resistance AC/defence might be the best way to go. It would scale with level, not be binary and would allow moster designers to control how likely a crit/sneak attack would be.