Sean Reynolds' new company press release

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Hello,

Who cares what they intended? [SNIP]I don't need SKR, or anyone else, telling me that doing so is "wrong" or "less smart" because I don't see how the original intent is so sacred that I can't have a different set of assumptions that work just fine.

This is a lot like saying, “All driving laws are arbitrary, so I’ll just make up my own –which are by definition just as arbitrary and therefore equally valid. Thus I can rightfully expect to do quite well with my new laws on the road. Now watch me drive down the wrong side of the road and not cause any accidents.”

Not bloody likely.

J. Grenemyer

 

[Felonius]

1. The original designers intended that sneak attack effect "vital organs" and the like.

1. 
   Not only intended. They *defined* sneak attack to be excactly that.
   
   

   The original designers intended that undead don't have vital organs.

   Yes.
   
   

   As a logical implication of points 1 and 2, Undead are immune to sneak attack.

   Correct.
   
   

   SKR says here on this thread, that it's "better" to honor those original intentions and not change those "fundamentals of d20" if modifying sneak attack vs. undead.

   He's right, it is better.
   
   

   Regardless of the original intent, all sneak attack really is is more damage dice.

   No. The damage dice are the effect of a sneak attack. Sneak attack is sneak attack as defined in the rules. There is no "intent" to take into account or ignore any more than there is "intent" behind the statement that "Strength 14 gives +2 to hit rolls and damage."
   
   

   The definitions of what sneak attack and undead are is arbitrary, not fundamental.

   Only if you think that all rules are arbitrary.
   
   

   I can come up with an equally arbitrary set of definitions on how sneak attack and undead work that are completely compatible with the rules, but not with the designers' "original intent."

   Of course, but we're not discussing what you *can* do.
   
   

   If I do, then a feat that allows sneak attack to affect undead is not fundamentall wrong, as SKR says.

   Correct.
   
   

   If I do, why is it incumbant on me as a designer to go into lengthy asides of why such a feat would work?

   Because you are creating more than a house rule to impose on your players.
   
   You have changed the way how a rule works. This particular rule has an effect on how a large number of other rules work. You need to explain this, so a DM using your product can predict how his game will change and can better judge if he wants to use your change (buy your product) or not.
   
   

   I don't need SKR, or anyone else, telling me that doing so is "wrong" or "less smart" because I don't see how the original intent is so sacred that I can't have a different set of assumptions that work just fine.

Please note that no one is trying to tell what to do or say that it's wrong to do something different. However, It's *how* you do it, which can be valued.

- F

 

[Psion]

No, they aren't straight-up XP, in that there are other costs besides XP. But they do cost XP for ...why again?

Heh... you sound like one of those "magic items shouldn't cost XP" crowd sort of people. You'll have to answer that for yourself. Your getting the chocolate of your disquitide in the peanut butter of mine.

My point is that GP is the regulating factor in item creation. Creating items rarely costs you more than a level. It doesn't appear to me that, given this, they in any way turn the clock back to 1e/2e multiclassing. I look at a magic item, I don't ask myself "what justifies this not being a class again?" like prestige races or FFG Path book fighting/magic schools.

And why are item creation not class-like structures?

I thought that was pretty obvious. Each item is distinct, and in most cases, there is no stucture controlling what ability you get when.

In prior editions they were; any magic-user/wizard could attempt to create magic items, and often did.

Did you play the same prior editions that I did that required permanent con loss? And in which you couldn't make feats until about 12th level, which was usually the point at which the game's weaknesses were making a new campaign sound like a good idea?

In my 1e/2e games, unless the DM explicitly made it easier than the rules described, PC wizards NEVER created items. Ever.

(I find this stance rather odd. I've heard quite a bit of bellyaching over people who think that magic item creation is too easy now.)

 

[Psion]

No. The damage dice are the effect of a sneak attack. Sneak attack is sneak attack as defined in the rules. There is no "intent" to take into account or ignore any more than there is "intent" behind the statement that "Strength 14 gives +2 to hit rolls and damage."

Consider these items:
1) Weapon finesse feat
2) Mighty composite bows
3) A +2 weapon

Nobody tells me that weapon finesse is wrong because strength, by definition, is the modifying attribute for melee to-hit rolls.

Nobody tells me that mighty composite bows are wrong because they allow you to use your strength to modify damage of a missile weapon, which by definition don't use strength modifiers

Nobody tells me it's wrong that something other than a 14 strength can grant me a +2 bonus to hit and damage.

Yet, all of these are fundamentally similar in spirit to the idea that sneak attack should NEVER be modified or used in ways that the basic design of the game didn't intend.

 

[Felonius]

Nobody tells me that weapon finesse is wrong because strength, by definition, is the modifying attribute for melee to-hit rolls.

Nobody tells me that mighty composite bows are wrong because they allow you to use your strength to modify damage of a missile weapon, which by definition don't use strength modifiers

Nobody tells me it's wrong that something other than a 14 strength can grant me a +2 bonus to hit and damage.

Yet, all of these are fundamentally similar in spirit to the idea that sneak attack should NEVER be modified or used in ways that the basic design of the game didn't intend.

All of those examples include a plausible explanation why this particular rule modification works.

Finesse works with light and "finessable" weapons also defined by a rule with an explanation. There's a reason why you don't see a feat called "improved finesse", which lets you use your dex mod with heavy weapons like a two-handed maul.

Mighty bows explain why they work and have comparable equivalents in the real world.

A magic weapon has a magical enhancement bonus. (read the whole post before going: "a-HA!" )

I say yet again:
NO-ONE is stating that "sneak attack should NEVER be modified or used in ways that the basic design of the game didn't intend".

It is *how* you design/explain your modifaction, which makes the difference.

My argument is, that if you just say "this feat/ability/whatever allows you to sneak attack undead" without any further explanation of why this is so, you are contradicting the definition of the sneak attack. This change has far reaching effects to the rest of the system and without a logical explanation, you open a door for many other dubious rules modifications.

"Because it's magic" might be sufficient explanation sometimes (like with the magic weapon exaple above), but a good designer notices when it's not.

- F

 

[Desdichado]

This is a lot like saying, “All driving laws are arbitrary, so I’ll just make up my own –which are by definition just as arbitrary and therefore equally valid. Thus I can rightfully expect to do quite well with my new laws on the road. Now watch me drive down the wrong side of the road and not cause any accidents.”

Not bloody likely.

No. Actually, it's nothing like saying that. While it is correct that which side of the road you drive on is arbitrary, the reason we all follow that rule is because it's a safety issue. If you don't, you have accidents.

This is an arbitrary decision of a minor issue of a roleplaying game. If I change it, there will be no accidents. I can rightfully expect to do quite well with my new laws on in the game, because it is just a game.

And for that matter, this isn't a "house rule" issue, this feat appeared in print from Wizards of the Coast. It is "official."

 

[Scribble]

This is a lot like saying, “All driving laws are arbitrary, so I’ll just make up my own –which are by definition just as arbitrary and therefore equally valid.

Well for one thing, all laws ARE arbitrary with a good enough lawyer.

And another, this is a damn game man... Not a multiton possible death machine.

It is *how* you design/explain your modifaction, which makes the difference.

I think this leaves you open for a WHOLE heck of a lot of problems man. It's easy for a creative person to invent a "plausible" reason for something to exist.

If I can come up with a plausible reason for my 1st level character to do +50 damage a round should that be allowed?

The possible game breaking effects of a feat/class/rule are found in the numbers, as I said before in an earlier post.

 

[Desdichado]

Not only intended. They *defined* sneak attack to be excactly that.

Who cares? It's an arbitrary definition.

He's right, it is better.

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.

No. The damage dice are the effect of a sneak attack. Sneak attack is sneak attack as defined in the rules. There is no "intent" to take into account or ignore any more than there is "intent" behind the statement that "Strength 14 gives +2 to hit rolls and damage."

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.

Only if you think that all rules are arbitrary.

That's a non sequiter.

Because you are creating more than a house rule to impose on your players.

You have changed the way how a rule works. This particular rule has an effect on how a large number of other rules work. You need to explain this, so a DM using your product can predict how his game will change and can better judge if he wants to use your change (buy your product) or not.

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. 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.

Please note that no one is trying to tell what to do or say that it's wrong to do something different. However, It's *how* you do it, which can be valued.

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.

Again, arbitrary.

 

[Akrasia]

Well for one thing, all laws ARE arbitrary with a good enough lawyer.
...

Ummm ... NO. No, no, no, no ....................................

Seriously, NO!

 

[Scribble]

Ummm ... NO. No, no, no, no ....................................

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