Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seankreynolds" data-source="post: 1808400" data-attributes="member: 3029">True, but some DMs don't have a spine as stiff as yours, and cave in when players wave their new $20 book at them. Some DMs also see it as, "If it's in print, it's fine for my game," not thinking about the campaign-specific environment that created that rules material.Easy: There aren't any undead in the core rules that you can sneak attack. There are spells in the core rules that don't have material components. Clearly there is a precedent for spells not having M components and thus a feat that lets you make other spells like that isn't a problem. However, there is no precedent for sneak attacks affecting undead, and thus a feat that lets you do so is a bigger change to the system than the M-component feat.Which is more balanced: making a class that's balanced for the campaign world, or forcing all members of one class to take a feat to be able to use their primary offensive class ability more than 10% of the time? The latter basically says to rogues, "Your class is going to be weak in this campaign, and to bring it up to parity with other classes you're going to have to spend one of your precious feats to do so."Would you feel the same way if spellcasters had to spend a feat to have their spells affect undead? Or if fighters had to spend a feat to have their melee attacks affect undead?The rogue in an undead-heavy campaign is a weak class. It's not fair or balanced to force them to spend even more character assets (feats) to compensate for a campaign paradigm.... because Sneak Attack is defined as hitting the creature's vital spots. The undead type is defined as "not having vital spots." Thus if you allow sneak attack to harm undead, you're saying that undead DO have vital spots. Thus you're changing the definition of "undead."True, but if "harder" at least obeys the established rules, then it is better than an "easier" rule that breaks those established rules. Not a moot point.Actually, I love d20's nearly-universal mechanics, and it's a D&D design paradigm to not introduce different mechanics when existing mechanics work (i.e., don't write an adventure with a door that you have to roll 2d10 and get less than your Str ... there's already a mechanic for knocking down a door, it's a Strength check, d20 + Str modifier).And there's already an existing mechanic for a weapon property doing extra damage to undead: undead-bane. The bane property is a magical property and its effects only occur in an area where magic works. The ghost strike property is a magical property ... but it works by relying on a game mechanic (sneak attack, which strikes a vital spot) that work whether or not magic works. So what is this property doing? If it uses sneak attack, it has to be relying on the user's ability to target vital spots, otherwise it makes no sense that a high-level rogue does a lot of damage with it, a low-level rogue does a little damage with it, and a fighter of any level doesn't do any extra damage with it.If it targets vital spots, and undead don't have vital spots, then the ghost strike ability must be creating vital spots in the target for the rogue to strike, whether they're actual vital spots or just nexi of energy that can channel the weapon's force better. If it's creating vital spots (whether actual or not), how long do they last?If these vital spots persist for a round or more, then the rogue's allies should also be able to hit these vital spots with their weapons, whether intentionally or accidentally, and thus the allies should have a chance to crit and sneak attack any undead that their rogue buddy has stabbed. In fact, probably any undead their buddy is looking at, as the rogue can only sneak attack creatures that she can see well enough to pick out a vital spot and thus has to be able to discern the target's vitals ahead of time (you can't SA in darkness, when the target has concealment, or when its vitals are out of reach). Now everyone in the combat can sneak attack (and I'm guessing crit) undead.If these vital spots only persist while the rogue is attacking (or even only when the rogue's weapon is stuck into the creature's body), then other characters should be able to take advantage of those vital spots by using a Ready action to strike when the rogue strikes, aiming for those spots at the moment the rogue attacks. Still everyone, not just the rogue with the weapon, is able to sneak attack (and I'm guessing crit) undead.Can you do that with this ghost strike property? We don't know. If the answer is, "No, your allies can't take advantage of this," my question is, "Why? If it's just adding extra damage like bane, why is a rogue so much better at using this weapon, and doing so with something that doesn't make sense (hitting a vital spot in a creature that has no vital spots)?" If the answer is "Yes, your allies can take advantage of this," my question is, "Then what other secret properties and secondary effects of this weapon do we need to know about? Can I crit undead with spells? Can I affect undead with living-only spells, as many living-only spells are barred from affecting undead because they don't have a metabolism?Suddenly you have one little weapon property that's forcing you to come up with a whole bunch of secondary rulings for weird things. Something weird is going on. Is the problem with the secondary rules, or is the problem with the ghost strike weapon property?IMO "something weird is going on" in this case = bad game design. You can't explain this property in a way that makes sense and stands up to analysis without saying "That's magic, we can't understand it," and that's a crap explanation and bad game design.Assuming it was backed up by appropriate prereqs (such as the ability to turn undead, or some other prereq feat that gave you some mystical or supernatural ability to release positive energy or sense negative energy or whatever), yes that would make a difference and be more acceptable.Huh? Words make up the rules, and the rules are what we use to resolve issues in the game. So words are the problem and it's a valid point to discuss them.Sneak attack is a purely mundane physical phenomenon. You could have (and we do have, in at least one modern campaign setting) sneak attack in a game without any magic whatsoever. Its definition is rooted in real-world physics: aim at the vital parts, and if if something doesn't have vital parts, you can't use precision targeting to harm it, whether it's a wall, a statue, a pool of water, or air.Then you add magic. Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because they have a homogenous interior (golems, which are like animated statues; oozes, which are like pools of water; elementals, which are like air or a wall). Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because while their interiors may be divided into different parts, none of those parts are more or less important to the creature's survival, for whatever reason (corporeal undead, which are corpses moved about by magic and negative energy rather than muscle mass and impulses sent by nerves from a brain). Some magical creatures don't have vital spots because not only are they homogenized, they're not even physical (ghosts and shadows, because they're nonphysical incorporeal spirit creatures).It's arguable whether or not you can crit a corporeal undead; clearly cutting off a zombie's legs makes it harder for the zombie to walk and maybe you should be able to crit it or sneak attack it for extra damage because of these "not quite vital but certainly more important than other" spots.But the weapon property (not a feat, mind you, a magical weapon property) that we're talking, ghost strike about specifically affects incorporeal undead only. It targets vital spots in creatures that not only don't have vital spots, they don't have bodies at all. It doesn't explain how you do this, but uses a rule that implies you're targeting vital spots, and means that very skilled rogues are better at this, while champion fighters, high-level sun priests, and epic paladins and are clueless about and simply cannot do, and doesn't address the questions arising from this ambiguity.If it's OK to sneak attack incorporeal undead, it should be OK to sneak attack elementals. Which means you should be able to sneak attack the air, or a fire, or a rock. Which means you should be able to sneak attack a wall or a statue, which means you should be able to sneak attack a golem. And oozes, and thus a puddle of water. Yet elementals, rocks, air, fire, golems, statues, walls, oozes, and puddles are homogenous things; there are no spots any more important in them to aim for to do maximum damage. It doesn't make sense to be able to sneak attack them, any more than it makes sense that you in the real world can open a carton of homogenized whole milk and just pour out the water (without a filter, just using skill), leaving the protein and fat in the carton. Neither makes any sense.And when it makes no sense, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. And that hurts the game.</blockquote>

Verification