Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1813722" data-attributes="member: 2205">Another basic d20 assumption is that feats can trump normal circumstances and apply a different set of rules to a given situation.&nbsp; And besides, by conditions, I was referring to &quot;loss of dex bonus to AC,&quot; not possessed of a &quot;discernable anatomy.&quot;&nbsp; That's fluff, and open to interpretation anyway.It can also easily lead to rules and systems that are more imaginative, better conceived, more simple or more fun.&nbsp; The attitude's only dangerous for bad game designers, and to say that someone with that attitude is de facto a bad game designer (as SKR seems to be implying) strikes me as a Quixote-like fixation on the &quot;purity&quot; of the original conception of the rules that is equally &quot;dangerous&quot;.No, but it's the underlying attitude that I'm trying to understand.&nbsp; Why do you think that the basic concepts of sneak attack having to do with discernable anatomy and Undead lacking discernable anatomy trump the basic concept of what a feat can allow you to do?For that matter, Undead lacking any discernable anatomy is a pretty hoaky and unrealistic design decision.&nbsp; I'd instead call that the instance of bad game design here, not the feat under discussion, which, if anything, attempts to patch a bad design decision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 1813722, member: 2205"] Another basic d20 assumption is that feats can trump normal circumstances and apply a different set of rules to a given situation. And besides, by conditions, I was referring to "loss of dex bonus to AC," not possessed of a "discernable anatomy." [i]That's[/i] fluff, and open to interpretation anyway. It can also easily lead to rules and systems that are more imaginative, better conceived, more simple or more fun. The attitude's only dangerous for bad game designers, and to say that someone with that attitude is [i]de facto[/i] a bad game designer (as SKR seems to be implying) strikes me as a Quixote-like fixation on the "purity" of the original conception of the rules that is equally "dangerous". No, but it's the underlying attitude that I'm trying to understand. Why do you think that the basic concepts of sneak attack having to do with discernable anatomy and Undead lacking discernable anatomy trump the basic concept of what a feat can allow you to do? For that matter, Undead lacking any discernable anatomy is a pretty hoaky and unrealistic design decision. I'd instead call [i]that[/i] the instance of bad game design here, not the feat under discussion, which, if anything, attempts to patch a bad design decision. [/QUOTE]

Verification