Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seankreynolds" data-source="post: 1808762" data-attributes="member: 3029">Is that what a rogue studies, how to attack wood and rocks?Are those vital spots in wood and rock enough to merit a high-level rogue doing an extra +9d6 damage on top of the normal 1d6 for a short sword? Or is the variable damage in the normal 1d6 of a short sword enough to represent the variable "vital-ness" of the grain in wood or rock?Are the "vital spots" in wood or rock significant enoug (compared to the vital spots in a living creature) to justify this unproportional damage, as much as striking a living creature's heart can kill it with minimal damage to surrounding tissue?In other words, don't we already have a mechanic for the reasonably variable effect of a weapon on a target? (i.e., die rolls for damage)Don't we have a mechanic for that already? (i.e., objects are immune to nonlethal damage, but a trained martial artist doesn't do nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes)Nope, it was based on logic. There is plenty of stuff done for game balance, but "undead can't be critted or sneak attacked because they have no vital spots" is based on logic, not game balance.You shouldn't change fundamental game concepts on a whim. If you make a change to a fundamental game concept, you had better well think about what other parts of the game it affects.That is my point.</blockquote>