Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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

Because you want the stat bonus.
Because another feat has an odd numbered requirement.
Because I want a feat to be easier to qualify for to compensate for some other weakness.
Because I want pretty much anyone to be able to qualify for it they want to take it.
Because it smooths over differences in power levels within a party that rolls their stats.

I think there are far better design decisions in D20 that justify their status as sacred cows than this one.

 

[Gez]

The stat bonus does not come at 11. Raising from 10 to 11 is useless unless there is a feat that requires 11, or you intend to raise it to 12 next time.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The stat bonus does not come at 11. Raising from 10 to 11 is useless unless there is a feat that requires 11, or you intend to raise it to 12 next time.

That's what I meant

 

[francisca]

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 probably implied in your list, but I think #4 should be post-fixed with "in context of the rules and setting?" Great checklist!

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.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I could see an undead-hunting PrC that gets the Undead Backstab feat as part of it's feature set. Such a PrC could be a nice fit in a setting where fighting undead and necros is a central theme.

 

[seankreynolds]

Illegitimis non carborundum, Sean.

Thanks, August Moderator.

So, to answer my question, you will be doing "why and wherefore" type sidebars in your products, I take it?

Yes.

[/QUOTE]And finally, what quarter can we expect the first product, and does it have a name and theme yet? (Past New Argonauts, that is?)[/QUOTE]

The New Argonauts is due Oct 31, and addresses issues relevant to a low-magic game. Blood and Moon (and FYI I'll probably end up changing that title just so it doesn't confuse people re: RPGobjects products) is due Feb 2005 and addresses issues relevant to templates on PCs.

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.

Actually, this kind of questions is part of what I want to address with my books.

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.

As Frostmarrow pointed out, the every-four-levels ability score increase means that odd stats are significant; if feats had even-stat prereqs, there is NO incentive for characters to apply ability score bonuses to even stats because doing so (1) doesn't change your ability score modifier and (2) doesn't prevent you from taking certain feats. It's one of the things that Jonathan pointed out when I was writing our "how to design a feat" article for Dragon right after 3E was published. So yes, there is a good reason why you shouldn't have odd-stat-bonus items (though the inherent bonuses from tomes and manuals is a weird exception, probably because they work more like the level-based bonuses).

Because I want pretty much anyone to be able to qualify for it they want to take it.

Then why not just remove the stat prereq altogether? From the "How to Design a Feat" article: Prerequisites: The fewer prerequisites, the better, because a feat is more fun if more people are playing with it. Similarly, it is better to have a trait be a valuable addition to a feat than required to use a feat. A feat with a Strength 15+ requirement is less fun that one without a Strength requirement, even though someone with a higher Strength might benefit more. It’s fun to have a Dex 8 character able to select Lightning Reflexes and justify the saving throw bonus as being so clumsy that the character often falls out of harm’s way (sometimes called the “Jar-Jar effect”). Note that if you have an ability score as a prerequisite, it should always be an odd number to encourage characters to develop their scores beyond the even-numbered “break points” where the modifier changes.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Sorry, but this post isn't too kick Sean's ass (Which I hope doesn't count as a hijack)

but without giving too much away Sean; can you elaborate on what The New Argonauts will be like (low magic stuff tends to pique my interest)?

 

[Soul]

I'd be really interested in that as well. (as to The New Argonauts).

 

[BryonD]

It is actually pretty common for me to disagree with Sean's starting assumptions and/or his conclusions.

But I'm certain that the gaming industry would be notably better off if more people would take a lesson from him in thinking things through.

There is nothing bad about difference of opinion.
But "Ready, Fire, Aim" design doesn't help anything.

So best of luck and here is hoping that it helps.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It's pretty obvious to anyone that's read the rules *why* the odd-even rule exists. I was trying to point out situations when it need not be inviolable, and to refute its status as some sacred cow of good design. A good design would provide some tangible benefit to the character every time the player expended a limited resource, in this case, stat increases.

There are 100+ feats in the SRD; around 25 have a stat requirement (and almost half of them are the 'Improved XYZ' feats later in a chain). A character wth a base Dex of 12 needs to expend 20% of his stat increases to qualify for 'Dodge'. A character with a Dex of 13 needs to expend no stat increases to qualify for the entire 'Dodge' chain, or he can expend the same 20% of his stat increases and get +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 to Reflex saves, +1 to AC, +1 to every base Dex skill, etc. Is it good design that a 13 is that much better than a 12? In a point-buy system at least the player can plan accordingly. If he has to roll his stats, the guy that rolls a 12 might be disproportionally shafted.

Anyway, the point is not to start some long drawn-out discussion of any particular rule (or at least, not in this thread). The point is that there are very few design decisions that are good/bad black/white, especially in D&D where so much of what the rules are meant to adjudicate varies wildly from table to table. A product that provide tools to help DM's handle that variation are more prized (to me) than ones that seek some Holy Grail of design purity.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

(...shortened...)
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'.

I don't agree with this attitude Incenjucar for many reasons:

1. First - what's reasonable? I see nothing unreasonable about Sean K Reynolds motivations. Is reasonable agreeing with the majority? Is it agreeing to compromise even if it means giving up principles that you know for a fact to be correct? If that's the case I would rather revert my faith to this quote:

"Reasonable men try to adapt themselves to their environment. Unreasonable men try to adapt the environment to them. Thus all progress is the work of unreasonable men."

Simplified, I digress, but there's nothing wrong about being unreasonable if you have good cause to be so. Agreeing for the sake of it agreeing is NOT constructive but rather the opposite.

2. Sean wants people to be aware of the premises behind the work that they are reading/writing/evalueting/considering to purchase etc. That's a good thing. Collier, a recognised critical realist, once said:

"a good part of the answer to the question "why philosophy" is that the alternative to philosophy is not no philosophy, but bad philosophy. The "unphilosophical person" has an unconscious philosophy, which they apply in their practice - whether of science or politics or daily life."

This argument can easily be said to apply to the philosophy behind the d20 core mechanics, and all Sean seems to want is for people to become increasingly aware of this philosophy so they can evaluate the material from this perspective. If you dislike the basic philosophy, then you won't be offended by products that stray from it or fail to acknowledge it, but at least you'll be aware that the product is not in accordance with the original premise of the d20 core mechanics. What you think of that is then up to you.

3. Thirdly, every person is biased. The illusion of personal neutrality is slowly loosing its foothold even inside the most conservative scientific disciplines. Relativism, constructivism, subjectivism, anti-positivism, and critical realism are all growing schools of thought, as is research such as action research, ethnography, etc., and ALL accept that the observer and "the observed" cannot be separated but are an inseparable whole.

Validity, reliability, and other such measures of "correctness" are no longer only dependent on "proposed neutrality" but rather the ability to correctly transmit your personal bias to the reader. Only by explicitly stating your "bias" (composed of preunderstanding, perspective, personal philosophy and other things), do you allow people to fairly judge your opinions and your work. Sean is doing just that and has done it from the start, and I greatly respect that attitude. Bias has nothing to do with usefulness as long as it is not hidden because you should then be fully aware of the presuppositions of the work you evaluate. You may disagree with these presuppositions - that's your right - but it does in no way influence the validity of the material.

Sorry for the long-windedness.

-Zarrock