Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Frostmarrow]

But the deal here is there would be consequences in how the game operates. Since HP increase with level too, combats would take forever.

Unless of course damage increase by the same amount.

Having a supernatural sneak attack is an OPTION, a rule that, if it is appropriate, can serve my game.

By all means. I just hope it won't become 'official'.

 

[SteveC]

But a D&D zombie is not harmed more by a bullet to brain than in torso so it's pretty much irrelevant how movie-zombies die. If you want zombies to be vulnerable to brain-mushing attacks you need to write a new creature called Romero-Zombie or something.

Ahh! It seems that the argument becomes, "what genre is D&D trying to emulate? Why D&D of course!" I think what Vigilance is pointing out is that no sneak attack against undead (and constructs, and elementals and outsiders...) is largely a flavor thing. It's also, of course, a power that these creatures have that makes them more fearsome and difficult to defeat.

If you're looking for a flavor angle to represent the fact that undead have vital spots, it's out there, and D&D is full of powers designed to get around and overcome other powers.

Yes, these are properties like holy and undead bane, or DR-piercing materials. Sneak attack is different.

Again, correct, but there are feats that allow you to break the normal rules all the time. It's why they have a "normal" descriptor as a part of the feat block...it tells you what the rule is that you're breaking or changing.

I think that shows that we can have a mechanic that breaks this "rule" just like any other. Heck: there are already core classes and prestige classes produced by WotC that can do extra damage to undead creatures, long before this ability.

When you're changing a rule or introducing a new option, I think you need to use these tests:

1. Is it fun?
2. Does it break the willing suspension of disbelief that you're trying to establish in the game?
3. Does it fit the genre?
4. Is it balanced?
5. Does it break so many of the existing rules that it makes other parts of the game conflict with 1-4.

I don't see how having a feat available that lets a rogue sneak attack an undead creature (or, for that matter an elemental or a construct or an outsider) fails any of these criteria. I see how it potentially could be unbalanced, but with proper prerequisites it certainly could be.

 

[Thanee]

Maybe I don't know what bad game design is (according to Mr SKR he's obviously the only person able to), but I know a bad press release when I see one!

I can make my own house rules, thank you very much!

*shakes head*

That guy must have some serious issues!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psion]

Unless of course damage increase by the same amount.

I think I roll enough dice (I lie: too many) and juggle enough numbers in high level combats.

 

[Psion]

Again, correct, but there are feats that allow you to break the normal rules all the time. It's why they have a "normal" descriptor as a part of the feat block...it tells you what the rule is that you're breaking or changing.

Precisely.

Deciding that certain things are "immune" to being modified without a compelling reason is... baffling and non-helpful.

(Reminds me of a review someone posted stating unequivocally that there should never be an ability that allows a large character to make a 10 foot step. Not that "a 10 foot step would create balance problem", but a 10' step "should never be".)

When you're changing a rule or introducing a new option, I think you need to use these tests:

1. Is it fun?
2. Does it break the willing suspension of disbelief that you're trying to establish in the game?
3. Does it fit the genre?
4. Is it balanced?
5. Does it break so many of the existing rules that it makes other parts of the game conflict with 1-4.

Nice list, though I would point out that many parts of this list are highly subjective and situation sensitive.

 

[Aaron2]

There's a LOT going on behind the scenes in the d20 rules, and many people don't care enough to learn all (or even any) of that. I know what I do because I was there when they were working on 3E D&D, I participated in discussions and argued points with Jonathan Tweet, whose desk was right next to mine.

This isn't a question of people "caring" enough to learn. Much of the basis of the d20 rules has never been written down. The peeps have to resort to attempting to reverse engineer or to divine what is implied or inferred, lest they be called ignorant.

"Feat X is bad because of design descision B that is implied by rule Z."

Is there a design basis that results in Sneak Attacks v Undead being a bad idea? If so, how the F are we supposed to know it?! My guess would be that the creature's CR as based on certain immunities. But that's only a guess, which is the best I can do.


Aaron

 

[drothgery]

[sneak attacks and undead are an optional rule that works for some games]

By all means. I just hope it won't become 'official'.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of sneak attacking a zombie (which can't be done normally) a lot more plausible than sneak attacking a dragon (which can be done normally). The real problem is that as written, sneak attack works on everything with a few exceptions, so there are already a lot of weird monsters that can be sneak attacked (because they're living and have a discernable anatomy).

 

[Aaron2]

Nice list, though I would point out that many parts of this list are highly subjective and situation sensitive.

I would add...

Is new rule more trouble than the problem it was supposed to fix?


Aaron

 

[devilish]

This isn't a question of people "caring" enough to learn. Much of the basis of the d20 rules has never been written down. The peeps have to resort to attempting to reverse engineer or to divine what is implied or inferred, lest they be called ignorant.

"Feat X is bad because of design descision B that is implied by rule Z."

Is there a design basis that results in Sneak Attacks v Undead being a bad idea? If so, how the F are we supposed to know it?! My guess would be that the creature's CR as based on certain immunities. But that's only a guess, which is the best I can do.

Excellent point! Sometimes I think that if we knew *why* the rules
were in place (outside of those rules where WOTC said so), then
we could make better decisions about whether to include feats
or not.

If, f'rinstace, we knew how many "points" in character construction
sneak attack cost, or why undead aren't included, we could
decide "Ok, I'll include the Ghost Touch Feat to allow the thief
to sneak attack undead because my campaign is undead-heavy,
but I'll remove/forbid/adjust the Dodge ability and add in a disadvantage/
taint/etc....because Ghost Touch is 10 points, Dodge is 7, etc...."

Yeah, it's a lot of numbers and pre-work and crap but you only
would have to do it once -- _if_ it was appropriate for your
campaign. Otherwise, just go vanilla.

And please, no "Well, Dave, if you don't like it, go to GURPS, etc."
I love the game, but like a hacker, would love to tweak once in a while.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Please don't ascribe cruel motives to what I've said; that's not my motivation at all. Honestly, I want people to be able to pick good game products and know why they perceive them to be good; that helps gamers, helps games, and helps game companies by removing competitions for valuable shelf space.

The more I thought about it, the more I was pretty sure I was reading too much into things. Sorry for rattling a hornet's nest when you were already having a crappy day.