Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Zarrock God of Evil]

First of all? Why the attitude, I haven't managed to convince you of my position, but I am not questioning your motives, your character, or demeaning your mental abilities?

Smarter? Riiight. Always nice to see mine isn't the biggest ego out there.

I think that by "smarter" Sean means "with less repercussions for the core system". This is a concept well known the world of object-oriented programming, if you make changes closer to the root of a class hierarchy then all objects further away will be affected and the changes will have a more dramatic effect. I don't find his response neither arrogant nor "snotty" and don't think it warrants the response it got.

You must REALLY hate all of those feats that let you use turning attempts for other effects.

That's a different premise, even though I can understand why they may be perceived as similar. In the description of "sneak attack" on p. 50 of the PHB it specifically states that the ability's damage is based around hitting a "vital spot" and that plants, oozes, etc. lack the vital areas to attack. So:

A. Sneak attack = the ability to attack vital spots
B. Oozes, plants, constructs = no vital organs
C. A + B = Sneak attacks can NEVER affect creatures with no vital organs since its the ability to attack vital organs.

Changing the above formulae requires a change in one of the basic assumptions A or B, such as "sneak attack = the ability to attack vital spots OR the ability to deal extra damage to certain creatures". This is the kind of changes Sean is seemingly opposing (and I sympathise with this opposition).

Whereas Turn or Rebuke Undead, a supernatural ability which sneak attack is not, is the ability to "affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unholy symbol)". The basic premise of this supernatural ability can be interpreted as "channeling of the power of his faith".
The feats that let you use your Turn attempts for other effects do not fiddle with the basic mechanics of the Turn or Rebuke Undead ability, but instead just expands on the idea of "channelling the power of faith" and chooses to illustrate each character's max. "faith channelling power" by counting off turning attempts for using this other effects.

I'm sorry, since when did a feat "Change the Definition" of something?

Because the definition of sneak attack you present is not correct according to p. 50 of the PHB and it has nothing to do with overcoming resistance. It's the ability to hit the vital spots of creatures who HAVE vital spots. Therefore changing the feat to allow creatures without vitals to be struck is changing the basic premise of the feat, as I lllustrated above.

Does Weapon Focus change the definition of BAB all the sudden because it doesn't give you more attacks?

This example is just as absurd as the example you are hammering Sean for giving at the end of your post. BAB is clearly defined on p. 22 in the PHB and you will notice the line "Any modifiers on attack rolls apply to all these attacks normally, but bonuses do not grant extra attacks." On page 102 of the PHB, the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat is clearly stated as: "You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." As you can see the Weapon Focus feat is clearly consistent with the core mechanic and does not at all attempt to change the definition of BAB.
Had the feat description said: "You gain a +1 increase to your BAB, but this increase does not grant the character extra attacks," you would have had an example of a feat that changes the definition of BAB just as the sneak attack feat this discussion has been centred around changes the definition of sneak attack.

Or is breaking past DR with the right material 'redefining' things all the sudden?

No. Breaking DR 5/magic with a +1 is in accordance with the core mechanic. Create a creature with DR 5/magic and state that its DR can only be breached by +3 cold iron weapons and you are redefining the core mechanic and heading towards confusion.

Smart. Uh huh. Keep patting yourself on the back there.

The man is presenting a fair argument for why he thinks it's the "smart" solution. I may be blind but I see no back-patting.

Neither is harder always better, of fair. Moot point.

It is you who first presented the argument of "easier" to support your point of view. But you are correct it was and is indeed a moot point.

Ah, yes, the old absurdity defense.

You must have enoyed 2e more than I did, with a new mechanic for every new situation and all. Maybe we should roll a.. hmn.. d8... yeah.. a d8.. +1d4.. yeah, for this new unrogue... and.. adjusted by.. 2/3 strength.. yeah.

Or we could just add a feat to the system that had the desired effect and have more time to play the game.

Sean actually shows a great deal of restraint and patience in explaining his points which one visit to his boards on www.seankreynolds.com should prove, should you desire to check it out. I understand that he may feel the need to use "exaggeration to improve understanding" as we say here in Denmark at times. But maybe I'm just being overly empathic.

And Sean is not proposing creating a new mechanic for each new situation, he's suggesting that you don't fiddle with the core mechanics but rather build UPON THEM just like it is done in object-oriented design and programming (where this approach has eradicated an incredible amount of redundancy, and maintanence, while increasing internal consistancy). The above argument helps your case as little as Sean's "absurdity defense" IMHO.

Lastly, you could simply create a feat or feat chain based around hurting undeads etc. and allow rogues in your campaign to substitute sneak attack for this/these feat(s), and thus get a quick and easy result that suits your tastes and does not compromise the definition of sneak attack in the proces.
Surely this should leave you time to play the game.

-Zarrock

 

[philreed]

I will pipe in on this one. I detest all the feats that allow Clerics to use turning in other capacities. Why? It's called power creep. It is also a blatant pandering towards whingey players.

Personally, I love the feats that allow turning to be used to power special abilities. These feats open the game up, allowing characters to do new things and making the game more interesting. That villainous cleric becomes a lot more dangerous when you don't know his exact abilities.

 

[Soul]

So, what if the Feat says, after years of studying differant fighting techniques used against Undead, you have discovered vital spots no one else was previously aware of. You now can use sneak attack damage against Undead.

That satisifies all claims and in my opinion is quite viable. Instead of changing any assumptions you are adding flavor to support an idea, just as sneak attack has the flavor of "striking vitals causes extra damage" supports the idea that sneak attack grants additional damage. You can do this sort of thing all day, the feat instead could say you have learned to channel your faith into positive energy when making sneak attacks against Undead, you can now use your sneak attack damage against Undead. Does this really destroy balance to the game? Also, in someways balance is somewhat overrated, it can drain the fun out of a game imo. However, I'd like to be clear I'm not bashing Sean or anyone else, I just believe you can pretty much say whatever you want to justify anything. As long as you or your players are comfortable with it, I don't believe it violates anything. The game belongs to the individuals who play not the designers (atleast as far as paper RGPs go).

 

[Scribble]

And Sean is not proposing creating a new mechanic for each new situation, he's suggesting that you don't fiddle with the core mechanics but rather build UPON THEM just like it is done in object-oriented design and programming (where this approach has eradicated an incredible amount of redundancy, and maintanence, while increasing internal consistancy).

My only issue with this is that if this was never done in the first place we'd all still have level adjustments for demi humans, and dialgo would be a very happy man.

My question is this. Please show me how exactly this will hurt a game.
I understand how on paper you can show that the semantics will not allow for it, but someone please provide an example of how this will harm the game or make a campaign no longer playable. IE give me an example how durring the course of play this will create a problem.

Sneak attack is the ability to deal extra damage by hitting a vital area on the opponents body. Undead have no vital areas and are therefore imune to sneak attack.

Fair enough.

Would it make a difference if the feat said, through supernatural means you can now use your sneak attack against undead? If so, then really the only problems here are words. And really, it's numbers that are used to resolve issues within the game. Not words.

To me, the problem feats and abilities are caused by faulty numbers.
When a feat causes problems with the numbers then it's bad.

I will pipe in on this one. I detest all the feats that allow Clerics to use turning in other capacities. Why? It's called power creep. It is also a blatant pandering towards whingey players.

Hrmm power creep? You don't choose a new feat every session. You don't get as many feats as you want. You get one every three levels. As Sean I believe, pointed out they are a limited resource. As your character goes up in level so to does his power. Should a cleric choose a power that allows him to use turning for something else, he's not gaining power with no repercussions. He's choosing to augment one ability at the expense of another. (IE he could have chosen say, improved initiative, or weapon focus...)

 

[seankreynolds]

For one thing, I think that anyone who thinks that they can just "use" any feat or option from any book without the DM's approval is mistaken. The DM has the final say on what is or is not going to harm the campaign.

True, but some DMs don't have a spine as stiff as yours, and cave in when players wave their new $20 book at them. Some DMs also see it as, "If it's in print, it's fine for my game," not thinking about the campaign-specific environment that created that rules material.

For another, I don't really see how "Taking this feat allows you to overcome the rule that states sneak attack cannot be used on undead" Is any different then "Taking this feat allows you to overcome the rule that states you cannot cast spells without a material spell component"

Easy: There aren't any undead in the core rules that you can sneak attack. There are spells in the core rules that don't have material components. Clearly there is a precedent for spells not having M components and thus a feat that lets you make other spells like that isn't a problem. However, there is no precedent for sneak attacks affecting undead, and thus a feat that lets you do so is a bigger change to the system than the M-component feat.

Next, creating a whole new class seems a bit unbalanced to me. Now, not only do you have the ability to sneak attack undead, but you also gain that free feat slot that would have been used up by the undead feat...

Which is more balanced: making a class that's balanced for the campaign world, or forcing all members of one class to take a feat to be able to use their primary offensive class ability more than 10% of the time? The latter basically says to rogues, "Your class is going to be weak in this campaign, and to bring it up to parity with other classes you're going to have to spend one of your precious feats to do so."

Would you feel the same way if spellcasters had to spend a feat to have their spells affect undead? Or if fighters had to spend a feat to have their melee attacks affect undead?

The rogue in an undead-heavy campaign is a weak class. It's not fair or balanced to force them to spend even more character assets (feats) to compensate for a campaign paradigm.

I'm sorry, when did a feat "Change the Definition" of something? Does Weapon Focus change the definition of BAB all the sudden because it doesn't give you more attacks? Last I checked, Sneak attack was more or less "Cause extra damage to an opponent that is denied their Dodge and Dex".

... because Sneak Attack is defined as hitting the creature's vital spots. The undead type is defined as "not having vital spots." Thus if you allow sneak attack to harm undead, you're saying that undead DO have vital spots. Thus you're changing the definition of "undead."

Neither is harder always better, of fair. Moot point.

True, but if "harder" at least obeys the established rules, then it is better than an "easier" rule that breaks those established rules. Not a moot point.

You must have enoyed 2e more than I did, with a new mechanic for every new situation and all. Maybe we should roll a.. hmn.. d8... yeah.. a d8.. +1d4.. yeah, for this new unrogue... and.. adjusted by.. 2/3 strength.. yeah. Or we could just add a feat to the system that had the desired effect and have more time to play the game.

Actually, I love d20's nearly-universal mechanics, and it's a D&D design paradigm to not introduce different mechanics when existing mechanics work (i.e., don't write an adventure with a door that you have to roll 2d10 and get less than your Str ... there's already a mechanic for knocking down a door, it's a Strength check, d20 + Str modifier).

And there's already an existing mechanic for a weapon property doing extra damage to undead: undead-bane. The bane property is a magical property and its effects only occur in an area where magic works. The ghost strike property is a magical property ... but it works by relying on a game mechanic (sneak attack, which strikes a vital spot) that work whether or not magic works. So what is this property doing? If it uses sneak attack, it has to be relying on the user's ability to target vital spots, otherwise it makes no sense that a high-level rogue does a lot of damage with it, a low-level rogue does a little damage with it, and a fighter of any level doesn't do any extra damage with it.

If it targets vital spots, and undead don't have vital spots, then the ghost strike ability must be creating vital spots in the target for the rogue to strike, whether they're actual vital spots or just nexi of energy that can channel the weapon's force better. If it's creating vital spots (whether actual or not), how long do they last?

If these vital spots persist for a round or more, then the rogue's allies should also be able to hit these vital spots with their weapons, whether intentionally or accidentally, and thus the allies should have a chance to crit and sneak attack any undead that their rogue buddy has stabbed. In fact, probably any undead their buddy is looking at, as the rogue can only sneak attack creatures that she can see well enough to pick out a vital spot and thus has to be able to discern the target's vitals ahead of time (you can't SA in darkness, when the target has concealment, or when its vitals are out of reach). Now everyone in the combat can sneak attack (and I'm guessing crit) undead.

If these vital spots only persist while the rogue is attacking (or even only when the rogue's weapon is stuck into the creature's body), then other characters should be able to take advantage of those vital spots by using a Ready action to strike when the rogue strikes, aiming for those spots at the moment the rogue attacks. Still everyone, not just the rogue with the weapon, is able to sneak attack (and I'm guessing crit) undead.

Can you do that with this ghost strike property? We don't know. If the answer is, "No, your allies can't take advantage of this," my question is, "Why? If it's just adding extra damage like bane, why is a rogue so much better at using this weapon, and doing so with something that doesn't make sense (hitting a vital spot in a creature that has no vital spots)?" If the answer is "Yes, your allies can take advantage of this," my question is, "Then what other secret properties and secondary effects of this weapon do we need to know about? Can I crit undead with spells? Can I affect undead with living-only spells, as many living-only spells are barred from affecting undead because they don't have a metabolism?

Suddenly you have one little weapon property that's forcing you to come up with a whole bunch of secondary rulings for weird things. Something weird is going on. Is the problem with the secondary rules, or is the problem with the ghost strike weapon property?

IMO "something weird is going on" in this case = bad game design. You can't explain this property in a way that makes sense and stands up to analysis without saying "That's magic, we can't understand it," and that's a crap explanation and bad game design.

Would it make a difference if the feat said, through supernatural means you can now use your sneak attack against undead?

Assuming it was backed up by appropriate prereqs (such as the ability to turn undead, or some other prereq feat that gave you some mystical or supernatural ability to release positive energy or sense negative energy or whatever), yes that would make a difference and be more acceptable.

If so, then really the only problems here are words. And really, it's numbers that are used to resolve issues within the game. Not words.

Huh? Words make up the rules, and the rules are what we use to resolve issues in the game. So words are the problem and it's a valid point to discuss them.

Sneak attack is a purely mundane physical phenomenon. You could have (and we do have, in at least one modern campaign setting) sneak attack in a game without any magic whatsoever. Its definition is rooted in real-world physics: aim at the vital parts, and if if something doesn't have vital parts, you can't use precision targeting to harm it, whether it's a wall, a statue, a pool of water, or air.

Then you add magic. Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because they have a homogenous interior (golems, which are like animated statues; oozes, which are like pools of water; elementals, which are like air or a wall). Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because while their interiors may be divided into different parts, none of those parts are more or less important to the creature's survival, for whatever reason (corporeal undead, which are corpses moved about by magic and negative energy rather than muscle mass and impulses sent by nerves from a brain). Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because not only are they homogenized, they're not even physical (ghosts and shadows, because they're nonphysical incorporeal spirit creatures).

It's arguable whether or not you can crit a corporeal undead; clearly cutting off a zombie's legs makes it harder for the zombie to walk and maybe you should be able to crit it or sneak attack it for extra damage because of these "not quite vital but certainly more important than other" spots.

But the weapon property (not a feat, mind you, a magical weapon property) that we're talking, ghost strike about specifically affects incorporeal undead only. It targets vital spots in creatures that not only don't have vital spots, they don't have bodies at all. It doesn't explain how you do this, but uses a rule that implies you're targeting vital spots, and means that very skilled rogues are better at this, while champion fighters, high-level sun priests, and epic paladins and are clueless about and simply cannot do, and doesn't address the questions arising from this ambiguity.

If it's OK to sneak attack incorporeal undead, it should be OK to sneak attack elementals. Which means you should be able to sneak attack the air, or a fire, or a rock. Which means you should be able to sneak attack a wall or a statue, which means you should be able to sneak attack a golem. And oozes, and thus a puddle of water. Yet elementals, rocks, air, fire, golems, statues, walls, oozes, and puddles are homogenous things; there are no spots any more important in them to aim for to do maximum damage. It doesn't make sense to be able to sneak attack them, any more than it makes sense that you in the real world can open a carton of homogenized whole milk and just pour out the water (without a filter, just using skill), leaving the protein and fat in the carton. Neither makes any sense.

And when it makes no sense, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. And that hurts the game.

 

[Soul]

Well, there is one minor quible. It could be said that the grain of wood or rock is a vital area, when enough preasure is applied against the grain that it'll break. Someone could strike a block of wood all day and only end up harming their hand, but someone trained like a martial artist, could do it with ease and not only that break several stacked on top of one another. Now, perhaps my understanding is off, but my prinicipal I believe is sound. I think the reason for now allowing sneak attacks on constructs, undead, etc.. comes down to 'game balance' and what the designers believed to be balanced, not necesarily rooted in the realm of possibilities. Not even mentioning the fact, that most D&D worlds are centered around the fantastic and we are asked to stretch our concepts of whats possible and believable to fit in insane physics, or odd logic, unatural phenomenon, etc... I think there are probably better examples of bad game design than sneak attacking undead, but most of it boil down in the end to the personal preference of the end user, its not the same as bad game design in say video games where unless they provide some 'mod' support the end user is stuck with the results of the designers, in paper rpgs things can be changed at whim. However, I can concede to agree with the notion not all DMs have a strong spine and allow things they only regret later, I think the idea should be to educate them what is right for there game, not what is right for D&D or any game period.

 

[VirgilCaine]

It would seem that SKR's new company has very different goals from most; while some attempt to satisfy their customers and make a profit, his seems to be put his competitors out of business.

By doing the former very well, you do the latter...don't you? Do something so well that other companies can't compete?

 

[seankreynolds]

Well, there is one minor quible. It could be said that the grain of wood or rock is a vital area, when enough preasure is applied against the grain that it'll break.

Is that what a rogue studies, how to attack wood and rocks?

Are those vital spots in wood and rock enough to merit a high-level rogue doing an extra +9d6 damage on top of the normal 1d6 for a short sword? Or is the variable damage in the normal 1d6 of a short sword enough to represent the variable "vital-ness" of the grain in wood or rock?

Are the "vital spots" in wood or rock significant enoug (compared to the vital spots in a living creature) to justify this unproportional damage, as much as striking a living creature's heart can kill it with minimal damage to surrounding tissue?

In other words, don't we already have a mechanic for the reasonably variable effect of a weapon on a target? (i.e., die rolls for damage)

Someone could strike a block of wood all day and only end up harming their hand, but someone trained like a martial artist, could do it with ease and not only that break several stacked on top of one another.

Don't we have a mechanic for that already? (i.e., objects are immune to nonlethal damage, but a trained martial artist doesn't do nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes)

I think the reason for now allowing sneak attacks on constructs, undead, etc.. comes down to 'game balance' and what the designers believed to be balanced, not necesarily rooted in the realm of possibilities.

Nope, it was based on logic. There is plenty of stuff done for game balance, but "undead can't be critted or sneak attacked because they have no vital spots" is based on logic, not game balance.

...the end user is stuck with the results of the designers, in paper rpgs things can be changed at whim.

You shouldn't change fundamental game concepts on a whim. If you make a change to a fundamental game concept, you had better well think about what other parts of the game it affects.

I think the idea should be to educate them what is right for there game, not what is right for D&D or any game period.

That is my point.

 

[Hammerhead]

If there's one thing Buffy the Vampire Slayer has taught me, it's that undead have vital spots. And hamstringing a zombie should screw it up pretty bad as well. I find it perfectly logical that undead can't be sneak attacked...by normal rogues. But one who has undergone special training, studied them...he might find the negative-energy vital spots and exploit them. That's what the feat is for.

In addition, to quote Psion's wondeful gaming philosophy, "The rules should serve the game, not vice-vera," it can really suck to play a Rogue in the undead-heavy adventure. You can just pretty much stick your hands in your pockets and whistle "Dixie" while the Cleric blows them back to the underworld. Even an enchanter has other cool spells to fall back on; the Rogue is often stuck plinking away with a shortbow for 1d6+1 points of damage or so.

Furthermore, I view a high level Rogue, perfectly trained in the destruction of objects and constructs, to strike a piece of stone with one precise dagger strike and cause the entire thing to crumble to pieces. Let's face it, a 17th level Rogue is VERY high level; it's as reasonable as a high level warrior devastating a squad of surrounding soldiers in less than 6 seconds with the use of Great Cleave, for example.

VirgilCaine: No, not necessarily. Strong performance in your company can even help a competitor's comapny make more money as well. Not everything is a win-lose situation. You may often increase your market share at the expense of the competition's though.

 

[Soul]

Whos logic? Sorry, I just don't agree on a lot of those points. That must mean that I'm wrong. I think thats over generalizing, and you don't have to study rocks or wood very long to figure out there are ways to utilize stress points to cause fractures, etc.. There is a world of difference between striking a rock with a hammer, and putting a chisel against the rock, and striking it. Thats my opinion, I have worked in the video game industry for 4 years now, and I see way too much effort on the part of paper RPG designers trying to emulate certain aspects of video game design. Balance is a much larger factor in that environment because its closed end design, its very difficult based on software and hardware limitations, not to mention time constraints to allow changes to the core of the game on the end user. If things arn't balanced and the game becomes too hard or easy, there is no way to correct this. Except perhaps patching and repatching the game ad naseum. The biggest benifit of paper RPGs is that you don't have that issue, and balance is relative to the group playing the game, and you don't even have to play it the way the designers intended. Matter of fact most games encourage you to make it your own. If someone makes a house rule like sorcerors bonus spells count for both spells per day and spells known, I don't think this is 'wrong' its just not 'right' for everyone.

My point wasn't whether vita spots in inanimate objects are equal to those of living organisms, I think that is a hard to guage. However, if HP of Constructs and Undead covers how much physical punishment they can take before they can no longer be animated by 'magical' means then criticals and sneak attacks seem fair to me (even though I personaly don't use this house rule). Who says a mighty blow (critical) won't whittle away larger chunks from either Constructs or Undead? Why not? Whose logic? If their Hit Points don't represent physical punishment what do they respresent? How do you even 'kill' a Construct or Unead? Seriously now, if we are to believe its logical that you can't get lucky blows against Undead or Constructs, that do more damage than regular blows, yet variable damage from weapons meaning greater or lower damage per strike makes sense? Sounds to me that if thats the case, every hit to these creatures should only cause a static amount of damage. If I hit a stone golem for 10 points of damage, then someone else hits it for 20 what represents this difference? He knocked more rock from it? I really fail to understand the difference. I'm sure someone here will be glad to point out I'm thinking in extremes or some such, aparently I'm failing to see some logic. It seems odd to me that that internal organs seem to be the only things considered vital. Couldn't a chink in someones armor also be considered a vital area, as its unprotected and more sensitive to damage? Why couldn't a crack then be considered the same, I don't believe this to be a stretch of logic. Vital doesn't have to mean the same thing for Constructs and Undead as living creatures. Vital could just mean anything neccessary for their continued existence, and if to kill them you throw as much physical punishment on them as possible, then every peice of their body is just as 'vital' as any peice of a humans or so on. Am I really stretching 'logic' and the imgination that much? Or perhaps I'm just over tired.