Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Sunderstone]

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

I thought it was pretty straightforward and with common sense. Undead vital areas arent as usefull as a living creatures. Sneak attacking an Undead's heart will not affect the undead as it would a living thing.


As for someone mentioning Sean being an angry person, I disagree. I emailed Sean on 2 occasions through the years with rules questions, recently about his savage progressions (specifically gradual racial classes like the svifneblin)article. He gave me a very friendly reply a few hours later and clarified it nicely for me.

 

[Mercule]

The problem, Sean, is that you're making it very clear that you're going to give a biased view of things...

The more bias you have, the less useful you'll be. Bias is only good for keeping the audience who already agrees with you. Being reasonable is what gets you 'converts'.

Not true. I don't see this as a problem at all. Sean has a bias. Honestly, so does every other game developer. Some have significant mechanic biases (like Sean). Others have significant style biases (just the existence of a genre-specific game, like D&D is evidence of this, but there are variations within that).

Sean isn't creating bias. He's admitting it. He's backing up his rules with "Why did I do this?" sidebars, too.

He's also not targeting the "casual" player, apparently. He's targeting people who look at the rules and think about the theory behind the game. There are a fair amount of people who don't just want a rule, they want to know what the designer was thinking -- sometimes, they'd just be happy to know what the designer was smoking.

Most of those players have said, at one time or another, "That isn't good design. It's unbalanced/non-sequitor/etc." I know I have. Sean's piqued my interest with his pledge to focus on sound rules. If he delivers -- and I agree with his theories -- I suspect he'll get a steady flow of cash from me. If not, then I still wish him the best because I can respect someone with an opinion.

 

[Felonius]

A quick side note:
I find it funny that in a thread discussing game design philosophy everyone are concentrating on one example. Of course it's even funnier because I'm guilty as well...

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.

True, but my argument was also that if you take D&D sneak attack *as is*, without any genre considerations, it's impossible to use it agains things that are immune to it.

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.

Sure, but not this particular rule. Again, I'm not saying it cannot be done, but I'm arguing that the weapon ability Ghost Strike is an incorrect way to introduce it into a game. Obviously many people disagree... :/

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.

But breaking this particular rule in this particular way can open a can of worms. Can I have a weapon ability that allows me to sneak attack constructs? Can I then sneak attack animated objects as well? How about in-animated? Why not?

(Now I got this image of a rogue ambushing a wall and sneak attacking a 10' hole in it... with a rapier.... argh! )

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.

And extra damage is all fine and well. Enabling the sneak attack is the problem.

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.

This is a very good list. Thank you for sharing. (saves the list)

(BTW, in my opinion, sneak attacking undead as a weapon ability breaks points 2,4 and 5. )

- F

 

[Scribble]

To me, the best litmus test can be found in the DMG where it talks about creating a new spell.

It says if an ability is so great that after being created no one can imagine being without it, then it's overpowered.

Now that's not the only one, but probably my final check on an ability.

 

[Felonius]

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

But there are d20 design practices that are (or should be) "immune" to modification in a sense that if you change them your game mechanics become "bad".

Easiest example of this being even stat modifiers and uneven stat requirements. You still see these two "rules of design" broken every now and then.

- F

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Other than to satisfy my own intellectual curiousity, or as ammunition in some endless debate here, I really don't care *why* a designer did something. I care about whether or not it fits in my campaign, does it offer cool RP opportunities, etc.

I'd much rather have Wulf's 'skull system' that provides me with tweaks that the designer has thought about and tested than some rant about this or that pet peeve. 'Why I did this' doesn't make my game any better; 'This is how you can safely customize it' does.

 

[Aaron2]

I'd much rather have Wulf's 'skull system' that provides me with tweaks that the designer has thought about and tested than some rant about this or that pet peeve. 'Why I did this' doesn't make my game any better; 'This is how you can safely customize it' does.

I agree. Sometime being too conservative can be bad*. Just take Ghostwalk; that could have been a great book. I guess somebody upstairs decided that it violated too many of these mythical "design descisions" so they neutered it by isolating it in its own gameworld.


Aaron

*Wow. I never thought I'd ever say that. Maybe "too cautious" is better.

 

[SteveC]

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.

Well of course they are, because it's my list .

Seriously, I think there are some objective criteria for good game design, but you always have to start with 1-3, which are all subjective. I think a good game designer has a sense for what is fun and in genre that a lot of people agree with. Now to really be a good designer he or she has to know and understand how the rules work, but unless you have a grasp of both sides you won't ultimately be successful.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

But there are d20 design practices that are (or should be) "immune" to modification in a sense that if you change them your game mechanics become "bad".

Easiest example of this being even stat modifiers and uneven stat requirements. You still see these two "rules of design" broken every now and then.

- F

So, a feat that required a stat of 10 (in other words, no penalty) would be game-breakingly bad?

The 'even bonus, odd requirement' rule is really only important (imo) if you are using a point-buy system, as a means of keeping every character from being 10,12,14,12,14,16 or some such. In a game where you roll your stats, it can turn almost punitive as some poor slob rolls all evens and the other rolls a bunch of odds.

 

[Frostmarrow]

So, a feat that required a stat of 10 (in other words, no penalty) would be game-breakingly bad?

The 'even bonus, odd requirement' rule is really only important (imo) if you are using a point-buy system, as a means of keeping every character from being 10,12,14,12,14,16 or some such. In a game where you roll your stats, it can turn almost punitive as some poor slob rolls all evens and the other rolls a bunch of odds.

Yup. 11 would be better. Why else would you bother raising even stats?

Oh you edited. Still, if it works with point buy it still works with rolled characters but not the other way around. If you roll the dice things are still fair. Maybe it's more lucky to get odds but so is getting more 18s.