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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zarrock God of Evil" data-source="post: 1808112" data-attributes="member: 2025">First of all? Why the attitude, I haven't managed to convince you of my position, but I am not questioning your motives, your character, or demeaning your mental abilities?I think that by "smarter" Sean means "with less repercussions for the core system". This is a concept well known the world of object-oriented programming, if you make changes closer to the root of a class hierarchy then all objects further away will be affected and the changes will have a more dramatic effect. I don't find his response neither arrogant nor "snotty" and don't think it warrants the response it got. That's a different premise, even though I can understand why they may be perceived as similar. In the description of "sneak attack" on p. 50 of the PHB it specifically states that the ability's damage is based around hitting a "vital spot" and that plants, oozes, etc. lack the vital areas to attack. So:A. Sneak attack = the ability to attack vital spotsB. Oozes, plants, constructs = no vital organsC. A + B = Sneak attacks can NEVER affect creatures with no vital organs since its the ability to attack vital organs.Changing the above formulae requires a change in one of the basic assumptions A or B, such as "sneak attack = the ability to attack vital spots OR the ability to deal extra damage to certain creatures". This is the kind of changes Sean is seemingly opposing (and I sympathise with this opposition).Whereas Turn or Rebuke Undead, a supernatural ability which sneak attack is not, is the ability to "affect undead creatures by channeling the power of his faith through his holy (or unholy symbol)". The basic premise of this supernatural ability can be interpreted as "channeling of the power of his faith". The feats that let you use your Turn attempts for other effects do not fiddle with the basic mechanics of the Turn or Rebuke Undead ability, but instead just expands on the idea of "channelling the power of faith" and chooses to illustrate each character's max. "faith channelling power" by counting off turning attempts for using this other effects. Because the definition of sneak attack you present is not correct according to p. 50 of the PHB and it has nothing to do with overcoming resistance. It's the ability to hit the vital spots of creatures who HAVE vital spots. Therefore changing the feat to allow creatures without vitals to be struck is changing the basic premise of the feat, as I lllustrated above.  This example is just as absurd as the example you are hammering Sean for giving at the end of your post. BAB is clearly defined on p. 22 in the PHB and you will notice the line "Any modifiers on attack rolls apply to all these attacks normally, but bonuses do not grant extra attacks." On page 102 of the PHB, the benefit of the Weapon Focus feat is clearly stated as: "You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." As you can see the Weapon Focus feat is clearly consistent with the core mechanic and does not at all attempt to change the definition of BAB.Had the feat description said: "You gain a +1 increase to your BAB, but this increase does not grant the character extra attacks," you would have had an example of a feat that changes the definition of BAB just as the sneak attack feat this discussion has been centred around changes the definition of sneak attack. No. Breaking DR 5/magic with a +1 is in accordance with the core mechanic. Create a creature with DR 5/magic and state that its DR can only be breached by +3 cold iron weapons and you are redefining the core mechanic and heading towards confusion. The man is presenting a fair argument for why he thinks it's the "smart" solution. I may be blind but I see no back-patting.It is you who first presented the argument of "easier" to support your point of view. But you are correct it was and is indeed a moot point. Sean actually shows a great deal of restraint and patience in explaining his points which one visit to his boards on <a href="http://www.seankreynolds.com" target="_blank">www.seankreynolds.com</a> should prove, should you desire to check it out. I understand that he may feel the need to use "exaggeration to improve understanding" as we say here in Denmark at times. But maybe I'm just being overly empathic. And Sean is not proposing creating a new mechanic for each new situation, he's suggesting that you don't fiddle with the core mechanics but rather build UPON THEM just like it is done in object-oriented design and programming (where this approach has eradicated an incredible amount of redundancy, and maintanence, while increasing internal consistancy). The above argument helps your case as little as Sean's "absurdity defense" IMHO.Lastly, you could simply create a feat or feat chain based around hurting undeads etc. and allow rogues in your campaign to substitute sneak attack for this/these feat(s), and thus get a quick and easy result that suits your tastes and does not compromise the definition of sneak attack in the proces. Surely  this should leave you time to play the game.-Zarrock</blockquote>

Verification