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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 1805662" data-attributes="member: 9053">Ahh! It seems that the argument becomes, "what genre is D&D trying to emulate? Why D&D of course!" I think what Vigilance is pointing out is that no sneak attack against undead (and constructs, and elementals and outsiders...) is largely a flavor thing. It's also, of course, a power that these creatures have that makes them more fearsome and difficult to defeat. If you're looking for a flavor angle to represent the fact that undead have vital spots, it's out there, and D&D is full of powers designed to get around and overcome other powers. Again, correct, but there are feats that allow you to break the normal rules all the time. It's why they have a "normal" descriptor as a part of the feat block...it tells you what the rule is that you're breaking or changing. I think that shows that we can have a mechanic that breaks this "rule" just like any other. Heck: there are already core classes and prestige classes produced by WotC that can do extra damage to undead creatures, long before this ability. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification