PDA

View Full Version : Undead, constructs, and critical hits



Dr Berry
10-22-2009, 11:32 AM
So I have heard people talking about how sneak attack now works on constructs and undead. However, I saw nothing in the brief section about sneak attacks that specifies what creatures the ability does or does not work on.

Also, if what I have heard is true and rogues really can sneak attack these kinds of creatures, then what does that mean for critical hits? Can you now get crits on undead, for example?

If anyone has any info, please let me know what page you found it on; I'm still very unfamiliar with the core rulebook.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
10-22-2009, 03:05 PM
I've never allowed sneak attacks and always allowed critical hits/misses against the Undead... Damn any rules to the contrary!

I know, not helpful. I've known so many GM's that prefer their own versions of these rules, all being dependent on their own unique perspectives of the game and it's classes, etc.

To me, it really is about how you define the undead-or nonliving-abilities, and its ability to sense out the living.

wizarddog
10-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Immunity to sneak attack is not determined by type or subtype but description of the creature. Undead are not immune to critical hits or sneak attacks. The sample bestiary did not cover constructs so I don't have that information. Nor does the sneak attack say any limitations. However, some rogue talents require you use them on living targets.

outrider
10-22-2009, 03:52 PM
constructs are no longer immune to crits in pathfinder. Yet more surpises that I am finding.

WhiteTiger
10-23-2009, 08:24 AM
I believe incorporeal undead (Ghosts) will still be immune to crits but corporeal undead like skeletons, zombies, ghouls, Vampires, etc will not be immune to crits but then I think that we'll probably still have to read up on each individual monster.

I think Elementals are now immune to crits.

In regards to constructs, I believe Pathfinder allows for a "chink in the armor" ruling.

Dr Berry
10-23-2009, 09:57 AM
I actually just checked out the SRD and here is what I have discovered thus far. All creatures are subject to sneak attacks and critical hits except:

-oozes
-elementals
-swarms
-incorporeal creatures (unless attacker uses a ghost touch weapon)

So far, these seem to be the only exceptions. I have only given it a cursory overview though, so there may be more.

Dytrrnikl
11-09-2009, 03:36 AM
I do not wish to derail the purpose of this thread, however, I've always been curious as too why so many people wish the sneak attack to work on undead and constructs. As a player I've never had an issue with this, and rogues have been my favorite class since 2E. So, if anyone wouldn't mind providing me their logical perspective on this, it'd be much appreciated. A thought does occur to me, using the perspective that it makes the Rogue useless against TOO MANY monsters is not a valid perspective to my way of thinking. I need more than a 'why can't it do that' point of view.

CEBedford
11-10-2009, 01:53 AM
I do not wish to derail the purpose of this thread, however, I've always been curious as too why so many people wish the sneak attack to work on undead and constructs. As a player I've never had an issue with this, and rogues have been my favorite class since 2E. So, if anyone wouldn't mind providing me their logical perspective on this, it'd be much appreciated. A thought does occur to me, using the perspective that it makes the Rogue useless against TOO MANY monsters is not a valid perspective to my way of thinking. I need more than a 'why can't it do that' point of view.
Well most corporeal undead have a weak spot or vulnerability. Heart for vampires, brain for zombies, etc. Why can't the rogue use those to his advantage?

I recently ran my group through a zombie scenario and the rogue was visibly miffed at how little she was helping. Add to that the fact that she's a Halfling and her weapons mean diddly. She will be happy to hear that her sneak attack can come in handy against my favorite monster subtype.


I actually just checked out the SRD and here is what I have discovered thus far. All creatures are subject to sneak attacks and critical hits except:

-oozes
-elementals
-swarms
-incorporeal creatures (unless attacker uses a ghost touch weapon)

So far, these seem to be the only exceptions. I have only given it a cursory overview though, so there may be more.

Precisely.

harmor
11-27-2009, 04:13 PM
Makes sense to me. If you can reach a vital spot/join/etc. of a creature you should be able to do additional damage if you crit or sneak attack it.

Dr.Dead
11-27-2009, 07:24 PM
If you dont mine me asken what is pathfinder?

wizarddog
11-27-2009, 07:47 PM
If you dont mine me asken what is pathfinder?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

Dr Berry
11-27-2009, 07:51 PM
Pathfinder is a revision of the D&D 3.5 rules by Paizo. It cleans up the system and streamlines it, while avoiding the extreme and (in my opinion) disappointing changes in 4th edition. I have now been playing it for over a month now, and I would definitely recommend it! It increases survivability at low levels, gives each class a benefit at every level, and simplifies some of the complications of 3.5, plus all kinds of other improvements that I am still finding out.

Dr.Dead
11-28-2009, 12:53 AM
Pathfinder is a revision of the D&D 3.5 rules by Paizo. It cleans up the system and streamlines it, while avoiding the extreme and (in my opinion) disappointing changes in 4th edition. I have now been playing it for over a month now, and I would definitely recommend it! It increases survivability at low levels, gives each class a benefit at every level, and simplifies some of the complications of 3.5, plus all kinds of other improvements that I am still finding out.I'll look into it but I don't really change from the original 3.5 books but if it gets rid of some of the confusion I'll use it as a base read up some of the stuff and use it in the 3.5.

And I could not agree more about 4th ed (IT SUCKS BAD) in my opinion.

harmor
11-28-2009, 02:33 AM
You don't get rid of your 3.5 books...heck we still run 3.5 modules and everything. What Pathfinder does is clean up the rules. Think of D&D 3.7 is basically what they did using the Open Gaming License.

You can read the SRD for Pathfinder here and you'll see that its nearly identical to 3.5 with just improvements.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Allard
09-19-2010, 10:55 AM
And also you sneak on all attacks that round not just the first one of the round, which is why TwF is now a good way for a rogue to good, but on the down side ranged sneak attacks are a lot harder to pull off

Guardian
10-05-2010, 12:59 AM
Sneak Attack against Constructs really doesn't make sense. I'm happy for my rogue players now, because when fighting such creatures they'll be that much more effective.

Against undead, I can see why it should be allowed.

I'm just glad that the Ranger's favored enemy bonus now applies to these creatures as well. Makes taking Favored Enemy (Undead) worth it now.

DMMike
10-05-2010, 01:52 AM
Dr. Berry - while I'm no fan of the Pathfinder rules (but I love the art), I'd recommend making a house rule that makes the most sense to you. Sneak Attack is a special ability that deals extra damage. The spirit of the rule is that by being stealthy, the rogue (and anyone else with sneak attack) can inflict more damage, or be more likely to cause death with an attack.

So make your own call, but to me, that rules out elementals, undead, constructs, etc., since you can't cause the death of one of these things. They're not living. How would stealth enhance damage against one of these creatures? They'd have to have a weak spot to exploit. One thing sneak attack does NOT imply, is that the rogue gains more strength or weapon sharpness by using Sneak Attack. So go ahead and Sneak Attack the clay golem; but unless you're actually hitting it harder (or more magically), you can't really do extra damage to this sort of thing.

Off-topic: Pathfinder does more than clean up the rules. It puts kid-gloves on them. Now, if that's what the market wanted (Forry seems to agree), so be it. But you can't make me like it!

Sascha
10-05-2010, 11:34 AM
[...]I'd recommend making a house rule that makes the most sense to you. [...] So make your own call[...]
This. More than anything else, this. Own the game, and if that means changing the rules, so be it.


Off-topic: Pathfinder does more than clean up the rules. It puts kid-gloves on them. Now, if that's what the market wanted (Forry seems to agree), so be it. But you can't make me like it!
Yeah ... Just a wee bit condescending, no? You don't have to like or play new editions, true, but you don't have to imply that those who do are, or need to be, treated delicately. Style differences are not objective measures of player character. (Also, it adds so very little to the actual discussion.)

Brainfreeze
01-02-2011, 10:59 AM
Off-topic: Pathfinder does more than clean up the rules. It puts kid-gloves on them. Now, if that's what the market wanted (Forry seems to agree), so be it. But you can't make me like it!


I wouldn’t say that, more that it removed ALOT of the exploits built into 3.0/3.5 and helps to balance the melee classes against the horribly overpowered full caster classes. While there are still significant power differences they are not as blatant until the higher levels.

rabkala
01-03-2011, 10:27 PM
Agreed! Full caster classes have always been more powerful than fighting classes as they move toward higher levels. After tenth level in every edition, the fighter is left in the dust. Pathfinder (and 4e to an extent) try to address this problem.

I do have a hard time with constructs being susceptible to crits and sneaks, unless you are destroying limbs and such. I definitely see corporeal undead as susceptible.

Just blame :canada: