Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1804315" data-attributes="member: 172">Ah, but just what is a "d20 design basic." I don't see "don't design feats that let you sneak attack undead" as a d20 design basic. Only people with certain sensitivities will have a problem with it. (Cathing up to your reply to my subsequent post here) Sean finds it inconceivable that an undead creature could be sneak attacked, because they don't have vitals that are any more special than anywhere else. And yet... a vampire seems to.For many people, sneak attack is just DAMAGE. Those who think that way will fail to see the problem. Or they may have a more complex justification, like that undead have vital points that aren't necessarily organs, but spots in their physilogy that form the basis to their link to the negative energy plane.Don't get me wrong. There are things that I see as just WRONG WRONG WRONG. Like paying straight up XP for class-like structures of abilities. Arcane prestige classes that give powerful abilities and don't give up spellcasting advancement to pay for it.But yet, some things other people see as bad design I see no problem in. Again with arcane prestige classes, I see no problem with classes that are compelling for the sorcerer to take because they don't lose anything. AFAIAC, the sorcerer is weak enough that it can afford a little strengthening.And I might agree with the designer on some of those points. Other points, like the inherent "bad design" of having weapons that disintigrate while all sorts of other creatures have capabilities that the PCs can never take advantage of, is to me not a problem in the least bit.I can point you to the errata. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But really, I could also point out the inherent bad design of the dichotomy between the way that prices of multiple enchantments are handled between "bonus items" and "non bonus items." (And, of course, the solution is the Artificers Handbook.)I could also point out the fact that imbalance in feats is tolerated.But these are things we live with, in a system that Mearls has described as being a tough car to beat.</blockquote>

Verification