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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1813444" data-attributes="member: 2205">Who cares?  It's an arbitrary definition.Only if you accept that the printed rules are the revealed word of god straight from his prophets Skip Williams, Monte Cook, etc.  This is only better if you accept that the standard definition of what sneak attack and Undead are, and since those definitions are arbitrary, that's an illogical and inane value judgement.No, you're flat out wrong.  Regardless of what the in-game justification of sneak attack damage is, sneak attack is a meta-game construct, and what it means is "+xd6 damage under certain conditions" where x is a result of your level/class combintion.  Your analogy is also flawed -- Str 4 giving a +2 to hit rolls and damage is a standard feature of the d20 system and is a simple, metagame numerical consequence.  Sneak attack on the other hand, is a metagame concept with an in-game justification.  You're confusing the metagame concept with the in-game concept, and thinking that both are "rules" when in fact only the metagame concept is a rule; the in-game concept is fluff.That's a non sequiter.  Not really, I'd only have changed the in-game justification of how it works, and the feat is a tool specifically designed to get around some of these rules.  What you are constantly forgetting is that this discussion is entirely rules compliant, it focuses on a rule that was introduced by Wizards of the Coast, and is not a "house rule" in the least.  Your argument has wandered a bit astray here, and you are essentially saying (whether or not you mean to) that this new feat is inferior because you disagree with the arbitrary in-game justification for the original condition that exists if you don't have the feat.  Since that arbitrary in-game justification is, well, arbitrary, your entire discussion of "rules changing" and "house rules" are non sequiters that actually have nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about.Please note that we're not talking about how I'm doing anything, we're talking about how Wizards of the Coast did something in relation to this feat.  I think it more than a bit ironic that you're holding the original interpretations of both sneak attack and undead up as the New Testament of game design, that absolutely cannot be argued with, yet the feat that you find so offensive comes from the same source.Again, arbitrary.</blockquote>

Verification