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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Incenjucar" data-source="post: 1806625" data-attributes="member: 6182">I agree that it's good to know why something is:  However, I feel the response to that understanding should be "How could I change it and still make things work", not "No touchie".The feel is important, certainly (and again, this is RPGA-style gaming, since a huge number of gamers out their modify like mad, hence why there's enough 3rd party purchasing for Sean to even MAKE such a company concept), but there are aspects of that feel that aren't such sacred cows.  How does "Some thieves can sneak attack undead if trained for it, most can't" destroy the feel of the game? Is "rogues run when they see zombies" really that integral to D&D?Yes, Sean has insider information (Basically the 'how to' info I've been watching WotC avoid producing).  He knows the 'point buy' of how things work better than we do.  However, since he was part of that, he might also be less able to seperate himself from the notion that it's not a perfect set of rules.  House rules exist for a reason.  So far, that which he has called wrong are merely different and potentially repercussive.  So was 3.5.  So is UA (or AU, for that matter).Trying to define d20 and so forth is for other threads (On the WotC boards, it becomes this massive and pointless argument with absolutely no way to prove anyone's point).  May as well ask diaglo what D&D is.The core mechanic is "roll a d20 to determine success versus this DC, based on these modifiers, and these conditions".  Everything else is an extension of that.  As someone mentioned, does being able to turn elementals or outsiders or animal instead of undead break the game so much worse than being able to sneak attack undead?What does a rogue do with their sneak attack if you're in a setting where undead are 90% of the foes you face?  Should the DM say "Sorry, sucks to be you, trap-boy", rather than provide the feat option?  Further, your mention of using core mechanics is fairly off, since you're suggesting NOT using the core sneak attack rules with a single modification.  Wouldn't it be much easier if you just used a pre-existing mechanic, instead of inventing a new one?Also, since when is flavor before mechanics a bad way to go?As for the opinion thing:  Opinions are fine, as SUPPLIMENTS to facts.Opinions without context are, again, the otyugh's favorite part of the body.Gulguthra bait really doesn't entice me, personally.Now, if he gives a nice, clean, objective look at things, and then adds a margin that says he prefers method A to method B, that's fine and dandy, and at least shows he can focus on what's useful to people who don't think he's the God of Gaming on Toast.Again, "House Rules:  How to tell if they'll work in your game or not" sure as heck beats "House Rules:  Don't use these ones."</blockquote>

Verification