Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[wilrich]

I've only been sporadically following this thread, and if someone may have made this point explicitly already, but anyway . . .

Regarding sneak attacking undead and constructs:

If sneak attack represents the ability to hit a "vital spot," then constructs and undead should -- except in very rare cases -- be subject to sneak attack, because D&D lacks a system to account for specific injuries and uses on hit points for a broad abstraction of them. I'll explain . . .

Presumably most constructs and undead move and act using the same general biomechanical principles as a humanoid (zombies and golems walk, meaning their "legs" bend at the "knee" and they lift their legs through movement at the "hip" and "knee" joints, etc. etc. -- zombies or golems do not "wheel" or "float" along the ground ramrod straight -- they walk.) If someone cuts off the left leg of a zombie or golem below its "knee," that zombie or golem's ability to move will be hampered, despite the fact that it is undead or a construct -- it needs the lower portion of its leg to properly move itself. Given the hinderance a legless zombie or golem would suffer, that zombie or golem is going to be a less effective combatant that a zombie or golem with both legs intact. Although it is true that, given the lack of bleeding, etc. a zombie or golem is going to be better off than a human who has just had one of their lower legs cut off, but, a zombie or golem will still be hampered by the biomechanical difficulties caused by missing a portion of a limb. The same argument could be advanced for cutting off a constucts arm at the shoulder or a zombie's arm below the elbow, etc. etc.


So, undead and constructs do, in fact, have vital spots. Given that there is no system in D&D to account for the specific injuries and effects discussed above, and that hit points represent an abstraction of all of those types of specific injuries, there is a reasonable "flavor" basis to make them susecptible to sneak attacks (the rogue cuts the zombie's arm off, or messes up the "workings" of a golems knee -- imagine the difference between shooting a bullet into the door of a car versus shooting out one its tires.) Granted, given the lack of shock, bleeding, etc. that undead and constructs will not suffer, their vital areas are perhaps less vital than a humans, but I don't think it is completely uncomprehensible from a realism standpoint to, for example, create a feat which allows a rogue to sneak attackd constructs or undead, or to (without a feat) let a rogue use half of his regular sneak attack damage when attacking such creatures.

 

[wilrich]

Well, I see Soul beat me to the same general idea and expressed it more eloquently. Anyway . . .

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

That is my point.

I think this is the real point of contention. Many people don't care about fundamental game design as long as the game's fun. And sometimes, that fundamental game design is something that should be altered depending upon what type of result is desired.

To each their own as long as everyone's having fun.

joe b.

 

[eyebeams]

Enh. There's nothing wrong with a feat allowing you to sneak attack undead, provided the right narrative trash is wedded to it. And narrative trash -- not "logic" -- is the justification for the way undead work, because none of us has ever seen a real zombie or what-have-you. Here are a few justifications:

1) The rogue learns a secret ki technique that allows him to charge his weapon attacks with internal energy in a way that attacks normally untouchable vital spots but can't be distracted by being in direct combat with the creature.

2) The rogue learns to break bones and rend flesh with focused strikes, like a karateka breaking wood, but can't be distracted by being in direct combat with the creature.

3) The rogue learns the way an undead creature moves so that, as long as it can't reflexively guard against the rogue by sensing it, its natural movement carries it right into the rogue's weapon.

Blah, blah, blah.

All in all, it's a bunch of bollocks -- but class abilities are a bunch of bollocks. Me, I prefer to let the player decide exactly what "style" a sneak attack takes. Maybe a given rogue could actually be a great warrior, but is only confident when he can surprise the enemy. maybe the rogue is hitting vital organs when sneak attacking a normal guy. Maybe a rogue just gets to load her arm and really whale on someone who can't tell it's coming. Who knows? Who cares? If one guy playing a rogue narrates his sneak attack by saying, "Since he can't tell I'm coming, I raise my weapon and swing all out!" does saying "That's actually Power Attack" make me a good DM?

No. It makes me a jerk.

As long as play balance is still there, folks should be free to narrate their class abilities as they see fit, as long as that narration doesn't try to get anything for free. Logic? Enh. That's something I apply post hoc.

I think that the above is a really *really* important DMing principle, because D&D's feats and applying "logic" can lead to bad play for a particular reason: Players and DMs get the idea that they can *only* describe actions that are implied by their feat set. A fighter player feels he can't say "I pull back for a mighty swing!" without Power Attack, for instance. Let this happen, and combat degenerates into the hated "I hit him with my sword." No fun for anybody. Feats and class abilities should never keep players from describing something cool that can be contained by what's on the sheet.

Now, would this undead-choppy feat be balanced? It really depends on how undead heavy the game is. This sort of thing is really a lot like the mounted combat feats. In a game where 90% of the action takes place in tiny dungeon corridors, those feats are a ripoff. In a game with next to no undead, shost strike is also a ripoff. Oddly, in a game with lots and lots of undead,you lose a precious feat, but you can also whack undead for a nice amount of damage that even the party fighter with improved crit envies you for. That crit immunity is across the board, and not just a rogue-nerfer, and when everyone (except for clerics) is nerfed, getting that feat is most assuredly not a further insult.

What would concern me is games where undead make an occasional appearance. Then, the rogue blew a feat on a one-trick pony (so to speak), but is this much different then Mounted feat guy in the dungeon? I don't know.

 

[James Heard]

At least everyone knows where Sean is trying to go though, which is a heads up compared to a lot of other companies. If you don't agree with the premise then no one's twisting anyone's arm about anything. Certainly, there's a fairly long list of designers and companies I don't even think about spending money on for the most part - the good part about Sean's stance on mechanics is that you know that they're going to be mostly kosher with the basic premises of the 3.0 rules, like it or not. That might not be your selling point, but it's probably someone's selling point.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

I think this is the real point of contention. Many people don't care about fundamental game design as long as the game's fun. And sometimes, that fundamental game design is something that should be altered depending upon what type of result is desired.

To each their own as long as everyone's having fun.

joe b.

If rules get confusing and discussion breaks up around uncertainties in the rules system, the game will be less fun. Bad rules do not necessarily "ruin the fun" but they certainly do not support it either. IMO, a good rule is a rule that is not felt during gameplay, that is clearly understood and explicated, and that is not up to debate etc. This seems to be the view Sean is advocating and previous posts on this thread have already shown several ways in which you can easily create the desired effect (extra damage to undead, non-useless rogues in a non-standard undead-heavy campaign) with minimum fuss. How is that impeding the fun? You can uphold the fundamental rules AND have fun? Why would you not want to do that? I'd like to see some examples of fundamental changes that have to be made in order for you to enjoy your game or create the particular flavour you are looking for, and that you see no way to pull off without changing the definitions inside the core rules.

(...varying posts...]

Several of the latest posters have equalled vital spots to either "losing limbs" (since this is the only example that can justify the argument for "extra damage" to corporeal undead) or "negative energy spots" (a concept that I think Sean has dismantled quite effectively already - it opens up a can of worms and could warrant a new accessory all of its own). This definition is "entirely your own", there's nothing in the core books that supports the claim that vital spots include "limbs" and "negative energy spots", quite on the contrary actually. The standard sneak attack does extra damage but it does NOT hinder movement (which should surely be the result of an attack to your lowers limbs) nor does it impair your fighting skills: you don't lose the ability to two-weapon fight because you've been sneak attack, so the attack is probably not aimed at your arms, you don't go blind, deaf, or suffer concussion, so clearly you are not being hit in the head.

That's leaves only one logical conclusion:

- The "vitals" that sneak attacks refer to are completely abstract and thus sneak attacks against undead cannot be allowed since they don't have vitals. The extra damage cannot be justified as "chopping away important bodyparts" since the core system does not support this possibility.
- The vitals refer to internal organs such as the heart, liver, intestines, etc., that are critical to the survival of organic beings but are either not part of or not essential for undead, constructs, etc.

I admit that this should probably be spelled out somewhere in Core Books if it is indeed the truth (and I believe logic supports it, since nothing in the core rules addresses "limbloss").

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.

You are changing the point slightly here. Sean is not telling you how to modify you games at home, he wants professional designers to be more aware of the basic principles of the mechanics and not make unfounded changes to the basic definitions of the core rules. There's a big difference. Professionals should meet a certain standard, the integrity of the d20 System and the way it is generally perceived especially in terms of quality depend on it.

If the rules put out in the various supplements fiddled so much with the core system that I would have to spend hours of "homework" refitting it to my "core" campaign, then the license starts to lose its main value: portability and shared understanding of the common ruleset.

Or a bit more drastically, if the rules presented in various supplements cause endless debate, confusion or other annoyances, does the supplement not lose value? Will I loose faith in parts of the d20 industry? All of it? In the longterm? Sure the market should "automatically" punish this in a perfect world. But as Sean said, not all gamers have the necessary time to gain the comprehension of the core rules necessary to evaluate the material. How much slagging off of the D20 system is not based on false assumptions about the rules? If I want to insert a cheap shot, many cr*p products sell well in the real world even though their quality is clearly inferior to their competitors. The reason? Hmm - price, promotion, customer ignorance, branding, etc. and any combination of these factors. But shouldn't we all want "quality" above else in the d20 industry?

Point is the you should be able to pretty much do anything you want INSIDE the boundaries of the d20 system, so there's no excuse for going the other route. To me its a cop-out. There may be benign reasons for the errors mentioned and I sympathise with that but the basic design philosophy of a d20 company should at least be based around correspondance with the core mechanics and definitions.

In the few cases were this has been deemed insufficient publishers have gone OGL but even these supplements often show a great deal of harmony with the existing "core" and inside this license pretty much EVERY kind of flavour, genre, etc. has been presented. It can be done. It may take a bit more work. But that's what we should expect from professionals - everywhere. If I change the basic premises of a systems development methodology that I use for no better reason than "it makes it easier for me" or "I never quite got around to OO-modelling so I've changed the definition and notation of objects" and confusion arises among the project participants and programmers because of it, I'll face the music from above (and I'm not talking angel choirs here). My solution might have been "creative" and it may have sought the "flavour" I was looking for, but maybe what I should have done was to seek a better understanding of OO-modelling AND THEN found a way to integrate these basics into my personal practice in manner that is consistent and unambiguous.

This is the standard I would expect of myself and its the standard I expect from any professional in any industry and thus I can only sympathise with Sean's efforts.

-Zarrock


-Zarrock

 

[Incenjucar]

I think Soul and the rest are making more than adequate arguments, so I won't fuel the flames with my cranky demeanor with a full reply.

I will, for the sake of constructive criticism, offer some suggestions. I feel that they would be good ideas, but I'll let Sean decide if they're the 'smart' ones.

1) Seriously consider what you're -actually- trying to do with your company. Are you trying to help people play more enjoyable games -in a certain manner/of a certain default style-, or more enjoyable games -in general-. Both are perfectly good options. One's more focused, and perhaps easier to do, the latter is more universally useful, but requires more effort.

2) Do the press release over again. Do it in a nice, pleasant, non-confrontational, non-irritated, non-creeped-out mood. Do it with the thought that you want at least as many positive posts as negative ones. Yes, any publicity is good publicity, and people -will- buy things if their emotions are spiked in your defense, but the long term is, I think, more your concern.

3) Try to drop a little of the yes/no stuff. Gray areas are harder to deal with, perhaps, but a large number of players like gray areas. Now, if your style is, full force, the yes/no stuff, fine. But you should probably warn people ahead of time who might be expecting a more objective view.

That said, I have no issue with you as a designer. While I'm not one to check, I'm sure I've loved a great deal that is owed to your work. But please, do remember, there are, in fact, reasons beyond just the financial for revisions: This game will never be perfect. Argument from four-year-old sacred cow is not valid.

 

[jgbrowning]

If rules get confusing and discussion breaks up around uncertainties in the rules system, the game will be less fun. Bad rules do not necessarily "ruin the fun" but they certainly do not support it either. IMO, a good rule is a rule that is not felt during gameplay, that is clearly understood and explicated, and that is not up to debate etc. This seems to be the view Sean is advocating and previous posts on this thread have already shown several ways in which you can easily create the desired effect (extra damage to undead, non-useless rogues in a non-standard undead-heavy campaign) with minimum fuss. How is that impeding the fun? You can uphold the fundamental rules AND have fun? Why would you not want to do that? I'd like to see some examples of fundamental changes that have to be made in order for you to enjoy your game or create the particular flavour you are looking for, and that you see no way to pull off without changing the definitions inside the core rules.

Well sneak attacking undead is one. You can't do it without changing the core rules. You can't grapple incorporeal creatures, falling damage is utterly silly.. the list is endless.

This isn't to say that you can't have these things happen, just to say that in order for them to happen (like a cleric throwing a fireball) you have to change fundamental design rules. You can even have these things happen in a manner which is more consistant with the core rules, and generally, that's the best way to go in order to minimize any potential unseen conflicts.

There's nothing important in the design rules except when measured against the result the rule has according to "fun." Ie. A good rule that results in less fun isn't a good rule (ie something like a more realistic falling damage system), while a bad rule that results in more fun isn't a bad rule (the fact that you can cut yourself out of a giant monster and it "magically" seal up and the next person swallowed has to do the same). This is true regardless of how "mechanically correct" the rule is. They're two separate things.

Also, I don't mean to imply that using more consistant-with-core-rules rules is ruining the fun. Not in the least. They're what I prefer. But more than that, I want rules that adjudicate what I want to happen regardless of what other rules may say, as long as what I want to happen isn't detrimental to the fun had by all.

Which is why the rules are really aways secondary to a good DM, good players, and a desire by all for fun to be had by all.

joe b.

 

[Incenjucar]

...Okay, I just have to say this about the bloody sneak attack thing:

Sneak Attack is, in and of itself, a rule breaker. It's basically a semi-exclusive feat that cannot be purchased, but comes free with certain classes. This is sort of what class abilities and feats -do- much of the time (that or modify normal rolls).

Last time I checked, a fighter can't sneak attack a human for squat unless they've taken some other classes.

The immunity to sneak attacks is akin to being immune to various combat feats, like being immune to the damage from Power Attack.

Now, you could quite easily say that the actual Ghost Touch feat goes too far, too easily, fine. That's a balance issue. In many sorts of games, it doesn
t work, fine. Same goes for a heck of a lot of the game, including the core.

The rogue, in fact, has quite a few abilities in the core that are exceptions to the rules. One more of this nature won't break them in every game they occur in.

Now, if, since Sean has the design background that none of us do, rogues were specifically balanced to be out of luck when it was time for paladins and clerics to shine, and this is his actual concern (doesn't seem to be though), then, being a talanted designer, he should be able to explain when the issue would come up, and in which games to avoid it. He could say, perhaps, "If there are clerics and/or paladins in your game, and you intend for the players to be able to play them, I advise you avoid letting rogues pick up this ability", fine. I can agree with that as useful advice, whether or not I agreed with it in and of itself. But so far, I haven't seen that. Perhaps the actual product will differ from the perception I'm getting here. Who knows, maybe, by sheer chance, I'll end up agreeing with most of his ideas and buying the products. But so far, there's been no valid arguments against the ability decrying that Sean is using as the examples of what to expect in his material.

And I'm veering back to that topic again, so I'll shut up for a bit.

 

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by seankreynolds
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.

Undead is a monster, there ARE monsters that you can sneak attack. Undead have a descriptor called "undead" that says no sneak attack. Some spells have a descriptor called Material components that says you need components. Eschew Components removes that descriptor. Whatever this new undead feat is called, removes the undead decriptor for th purpose of sneak attack.

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.

Yes, words do make up the game, but they are used to put the numbers in more "human friendly" terms. D&D is two parts. Words describe actions and the scene. The numbers and statistics are what we use to adjudicate the events that take place.

If you look at a character sheet you have words and numbers. The words simply keep the numbers staight in our heads, and help us imagine something more then just a list of numbers. When you get into a fight with something, really all you're doing is compairing your numbers to it's numbers and seeing who in the end has the biggest set of numbers. If you wanted to call Strength Mixleplix, it would still serve the same function. It adds or subtracts a number from your total number generating ability.

In my eyes, if a feat throws those numbers out of whack somehow, it's a bigger problem then if it defies a word. It's easy to change words to compensate. But if the number's go out of line then it' starts to mess things up. Because in the end without the numbers and only words, combat would boil down to: "Bang you're dead!" "No I'm not!"

So yes, being able to harm undead with a sneak attack MAY BE a problem, but I need to see why numbers wise. I need to see if and how it will harm the numbers.

This is not to say that I think the words are pointless. I'm one of the people who kind of misses the days that books had a bit more fluff. I would rather see the designer take the time to mold the words to flow with those already written. But if he doesn't that doesn't mean the mechanic is bad, or unusable.
The average gamer has an easier time molding the words to fit his imagination. The average gamer can more readily wrap a description around a mechanic so that it does not strecth his believability. It's in generating a working numers system where the average gamer has the most problems.

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.

That is my point.

Completly agree with this. I simply disagree on what the basis of the descision should be apparently? At least in this case.

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.

This is true, but I must admit I'm human (or pass well enough for one at least), and have allowed things in my game that I later regreted, but as a DM one of my jobs is to recognise problems and come to a solution. For me this usually means talking to the player and fixing it. I think rather then having a stiff spine, I just have a good group of friends/players. They'd rather play the game then try to cheat and "beat" it. If that makes sense? (also I wishhhhh most new books were still 20 bux. haha)

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.

This is true. There are two ways I go on this. If they're happy with their game despite this, then more power to them. This is where I completely agree with Psion's statement.

If they aren't then yes they need to work to fix the problems.

I believe I said this before, but I like what you're doing Sean, I think it's a great idea, and yes more people DO need to think about what they're doing in a game. I just currently dissagree with your reasoning behind this certain mechanic.

But hey, I'm just one guy, so don't let me stop you! I look forward to seeing the outcome.

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."

Eh, you got me there I didn't realise it was an undead centric world. In that case, yes a new class would make more sense.

BUT, don't we also run into the problem of the "if it's in this book it must be ok!" DM's who will take them out of that undead campaign?