Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZSutherland" data-source="post: 3118785" data-attributes="member: 7638">I would suggest sneak-attack is somewhat DM dependant, since so many creatures (including all undead) are immune to its effects.  I disagree with Olgar that Bardic Knowledge isn't DM dependant.  Yes, it's proactive in that the player can call for a check at any time, but the knowledge available to gain is so dependant on how well-prepared the DM is that it can often be useless.  As Varianor pointed out, Gather Info and all the Knowledge skills also fall under the same category.  Many a time some player has asked for a Knowledge: X check or Bardic Knowledge check, made a good roll, and I've had to just make something up on the fly.I don't think DM-dependant abilities (a.k.a. mother-may-I abilities) are inherently bad design, but they do require a more competent DM than more straightforward abilities, like Power Attack or curative spells, to meet their full potential.  There's nothing wrong with the occassional encounter where the rogue doesn't get to use sneak attack, but an undead heavy campaign gimps a rogue pretty badly in combat.  A competent DM will communicate up-front that the campaign is going to be loaded with undead encounters, and will make sure to place plenty of traps or social encounters for the rogue to handle so he gets his moment in the sun.  Likewise, the player of a ranger should sit-down with the DM and decide on Favored Enemies together so that the player's choice falls in line with the DM's vision for the campaign.  That said, I don't think they make for good design, particularly either, which is how the question was phrased.  The undead-heavy campaign is actually a reflection on a personal experience.  In my first 3E game, shortly after release, the DM and other players asked me to play a rogue, so we could handle traps.  During the entire course of the campaign, we never encountered a single trap but most encounters were with undead, and I felt useless.  It wasn't that the DM was a jerk, he just wasn't experienced enough with the system to know any better.  As such, I think DM-dependant abilities should be minimized where possible just to take the requirement of experience off novice DMs.I don't really count Turn Undead since there are so many feat options for using it in other ways, such as Divine Might.  I would like to see similar feats and/or class options for other classes.  For example, you might allow the ranger to substitute Favored Enemy for Favored Terrain.  Admittedly, it's still DM-dependant, but there are considerably fewer terrain types than there are creature types.  You might also let the rogue substitute Sneak Attack for Precise Attack, which would allow him to deal +1 damage for every SA die he would normally have, but it works against all creature types.The abilities that bother me more are the ones that look relatively generic and just fail to work out that way, like Animal Companion.  It's a great ability, in theory, but how exactly do you get that Tyrannosaur down into the dungeon, and what do the locals think when you show up to buy supplies with a 20' tall carniverous lizard in tow?</blockquote>

Verification