Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Akrasia]

Well no... but unfortunately yes. :-/

..............no ...........

Horrible, horrible view of the law .... really ...
:\

 

[Felonius]

Who cares? It's an arbitrary definition.

Only if you accept that the printed rules are the revealed word of god straight from his prophets Skip Williams, Monte Cook, etc. This is only better if you accept that the standard definition of what sneak attack and Undead are, and since those definitions are arbitrary, that's an illogical and inane value judgement.

It doesn't matter whether I or you accept these definitions or even agree with them, they are baseline assumptions that need to be taken into a consideration in d20 game design.

No, you're flat out wrong. Regardless of what the in-game justification of sneak attack damage is, sneak attack is a meta-game construct, and what it means is "+xd6 damage under certain conditions" where x is a result of your level/class combintion. Your analogy is also flawed -- Str 4 giving a +2 to hit rolls and damage is a standard feature of the d20 system and is a simple, metagame numerical consequence. Sneak attack on the other hand, is a metagame concept with an in-game justification. You're confusing the metagame concept with the in-game concept, and thinking that both are "rules" when in fact only the metagame concept is a rule; the in-game concept is fluff.

Sneak attack: "+xd6 damage under certain conditions". These conditions are a part of the rule and defined. The conditions are not fluff, but an integral meta-game part of the whole rule called sneak attack. If the conditions are not met, there can be no sneak attack. This a basic d20 assumption.

That's a non sequiter.

Fair enough, that's your opinion and I agree with it on individual gaming group level. Everyone is free to do whatever they want in their game. However, I think it can be a dangerous attitude for *a game designer* to adopt, as it easily leads to unbalanced, conflicting and confusing rules. In the end the rules structure becomes so arbitrary, that the DM can ditch the books and ad hoc everything. What is left becomes one man's storytelling show, where player's have very little input, besides some suggestions on how the story should continue every now and then.

Not really, I'd only have changed the in-game justification of how it works, and the feat is a tool specifically designed to get around some of these rules. What you are constantly forgetting is that this discussion is entirely rules compliant, it focuses on a rule that was introduced by Wizards of the Coast, and is not a "house rule" in the least.

I mentioned this particular ability as an example of what I consider to be bad game design. The fact that it was made by WotC does not make it good game design decision.

Your argument has wandered a bit astray here, and you are essentially saying (whether or not you mean to) that this new feat is inferior because you disagree with the arbitrary in-game justification for the original condition that exists if you don't have the feat. Since that arbitrary in-game justification is, well, arbitrary, your entire discussion of "rules changing" and "house rules" are non sequiters that actually have nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about.

I don't see sneak attack's conditions as arbitrary in-game justification. As I mentioned above, they are a part of the rule called sneak attack.

Please note that we're not talking about how I'm doing anything, we're talking about how Wizards of the Coast did something in relation to this feat. I think it more than a bit ironic that you're holding the original interpretations of both sneak attack and undead up as the New Testament of game design, that absolutely cannot be argued with, yet the feat that you find so offensive comes from the same source.

WotC is not infallible. They are perfectly capable of designing a good rules base to build on, and then breaking it afterwards. Errare humanum est and I sure hope they're human over there.

- F

 

[Desdichado]

Sneak attack: "+xd6 damage under certain conditions". These conditions are a part of the rule and defined. The conditions are not fluff, but an integral meta-game part of the whole rule called sneak attack. If the conditions are not met, there can be no sneak attack. This a basic d20 assumption.

Another basic d20 assumption is that feats can trump normal circumstances and apply a different set of rules to a given situation. And besides, by conditions, I was referring to "loss of dex bonus to AC," not possessed of a "discernable anatomy." That's fluff, and open to interpretation anyway.

Fair enough, that's your opinion and I agree with it on individual gaming group level. Everyone is free to do whatever they want in their game. However, I think it can be a dangerous attitude for *a game designer* to adopt as it easily leads to unbalnced, conflicting and confusing rules. In the end the rules structure becomes so arbitrary, that the DM can ditch the books and ad hoc everything. What is left becomes one man's storytelling show, where player's have very little input, besides some suggestions on how the story should continue every now and then.

It can also easily lead to rules and systems that are more imaginative, better conceived, more simple or more fun. The attitude's only dangerous for bad game designers, and to say that someone with that attitude is de facto a bad game designer (as SKR seems to be implying) strikes me as a Quixote-like fixation on the "purity" of the original conception of the rules that is equally "dangerous".

I mentioned this particular ability as an example of what I consider to be bad game design. The fact that it was made by WotC does not make it good game design decision.

No, but it's the underlying attitude that I'm trying to understand. Why do you think that the basic concepts of sneak attack having to do with discernable anatomy and Undead lacking discernable anatomy trump the basic concept of what a feat can allow you to do?

For that matter, Undead lacking any discernable anatomy is a pretty hoaky and unrealistic design decision. I'd instead call that the instance of bad game design here, not the feat under discussion, which, if anything, attempts to patch a bad design decision.

 

[Staffan]

One side effect that's been noticable in games I've been in is that earlier, wizards used to make (or at least attempt to make) magic items all the time. How else do you get that funky weapon that the fighter prefers to be magical?

They did? When you had to be what, 16th level or so to make permanent items (in order to cast Permanency) and ~10th level (might be 9-12) to make even lowly scrolls or potions? When making magic items lead to loss of CON (I'd lose a handful of XP any day rather than CON)? When you needed to adventure for three years in order to get the components to make a dagger +1?

 

[Incenjucar]

Oh bloody.

1) No designer in D&D's history, not even ol' Gygax, has been infallable.

2) No edition of D&D, nor revision of it, has ever been perfect.

3) Even if that edition or revision were to ever be perfect for one person in this world, for one style of game they play, it would find flaw by others, and have to be modified.

4) Canon is not automatically correct or perfect or the best. Otherwise diaglo would be very happy because there would be no new editions, ever.

5) The earlier designers are not automatically better than the later designers.

6) Being personally involved in old rules will make you more aware of why they were put in place, but it sure as heck doesn't encourage an objective viewpoint on it. People tend to agree with themselves.

7) THAC0 was, at one point, intended to be the one true way to roll attacks in D&D. To argue sneak attack is correct because it was intended is to argue for THAC0 and every past thing in the game. They were all intended at one point or another.

 

[Remathilis]

Wait, who did SKR sneak attack in his press release and why is he undead?
...

I have to agree with Josh, feats trump almost any assumption about the D&D universe...

A rogue uses his strength to hit with his rapier until 3rd level, when he takes a feat and can use his dex instead.
A fighter can make feint attempts as a standard action until he takes a feat, then he does so as a move action.
A sorcerer needs bat guanno and sulfur to create a ball of magic fire until he takes a feat, then he no longer needs to.
A druid cannot cast spells as a squirrel until he takes a feat, then he can!

All of the above are spelled out clearly in the core rules, but a feat breaks that rule wide open. So why not.

A rogue cannot sneak attack an undead until he takes a feat, then he can.

Sounds rational to me. Balanced? That depends on the Rogue:Undead Ratio in your game...

 

[Felonius]

Another basic d20 assumption is that feats can trump normal circumstances and apply a different set of rules to a given situation. And besides, by conditions, I was referring to "loss of dex bonus to AC," not possessed of a "discernable anatomy." That's fluff, and open to interpretation anyway.

Creatures without discernable anatomy are creatures with immunity to criticals and sneak attack. This is defined in the rules, if not in the class entry for rogues.

It can also easily lead to rules and systems that are more imaginative, better conceived, more simple or more fun. The attitude's only dangerous for bad game designers, and to say that someone with that attitude is de facto a bad game designer (as SKR seems to be implying) strikes me as a Quixote-like fixation on the "purity" of the original conception of the rules that is equally "dangerous".

All *I* am saying is that it can be dangerous, if the designer is not careful with what he modifies before he fully understands why it works the way it does.

No, but it's the underlying attitude that I'm trying to understand. Why do you think that the basic concepts of sneak attack having to do with discernable anatomy and Undead lacking discernable anatomy trump the basic concept of what a feat can allow you to do?

The "offending" rule in Libris Mortis is not a feat. It's a magical weapon ability called Ghost Strike that allows sneak attacking of incorporeal undead only. It offers no further explanation how this is possible, but this was already discussed in depth in the Libris Mortis -thread a while ago.

(As a side note: I personally would propably accept this as a feat, or better yet as a prestige class ability.)

For that matter, Undead lacking any discernable anatomy is a pretty hoaky and unrealistic design decision. I'd instead call that the instance of bad game design here, not the feat under discussion, which, if anything, attempts to patch a bad design decision.

Undead types do include also ghosts and spectres, which I cannot see with any kind of discernable anatomy. At least by the common definition of "anatomy"...

Oh well... I guess we passed the dead horse -phase a few pages ago. It seems I have to live with the fact, that some people just have stronger disbelief suspenders than I.

(Some have frikkin' bungee-ropes, but that's ok too... )

- F

 

[woodelf]

Quote:
However, was I the only one that read the press release about the new company and felt I was told that I was too dumb to recognize a good or bad product when I see them?

Sounds like he's implying more than that...
Quote:
With us you won't find feats that let you shoot three arrows per round at 2nd level, do cold damage to cold-immune creatures, or sneak attack undead.

*cough*WotC*cough*

And, i think he's right, in at least one very specific instance: non-WotC products are held to a higher standard than WotC products. People continue to buy the WotC products in numbers that dwarf anybody else, when there're plenty of non-WotC D20 System products that are just as good or better [on the same topics]. So, yes, customers don't know good from bad, but only to the degree that they're blinded by brand name. Same as most big consumer-goods industries: a company with the right brand name doesn't have to have the best products, they merely have to have good-enough products, 'cause lots of people won't even look to see what else is out there so long as the big name-brand is "good enough". And this is also partly the fault of the publisher (WotC in this case) for taking advantage of the market in this way--they *could* still be striving to put out the best-of-the-best with every release, but if they actually are, they need new staff.

I'm running a D20 System D&D game right now, and i'm not using a single WotC product, not even the D20SRD, 'cause i don't think any of the WotC products are up to snuff--and i can get better from other publishers.

 

[woodelf]

I also think that there's two major camps of d20 purchasers here:
1) The group that allows ONLY WotC products, as if they are a sure measure of quality and balance.
2) The group that degrades WotC products, as if they are a sure measure of low quality and a lack of balance.

Suffice it to say, neither of these is really true.

Just to clarify my POV: i'm neither of these. I'm in the group that expects WotC products, with their bankroll/marketbase, and as originators of the system, to be the creme-de-la-creme of D20 System, and the leading edge of new game design. They are neither; most of their products are "good", a few are "great" and a few are "middling"--but i haven't seen an "awesome!" from them since...Houses of Hermes? Actually, probably not since The Primal Order. When smaller, one-person operations consistently out-perform them in quality of content (if not production values), they're doing something wrong. It is ridiculous to hold all game producers to the exact same standards, regardless of their resources/experience.

 

[woodelf]

This is one of those things where you have to learn to draw a line between your business and your personal life.

Why? It is an artificial distinction to claim that you can conduct your business with no consideration for politics. And, i guess that's all i'll say, since that's probably treading close to a [IMHO, needlessly-]verboten topic.