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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5802999" data-attributes="member: 1465">I see three options (here the example is Sneak Attack, but it can be applied to mostly any resistance or immunity):a) tie resistance to Sneak Attack to creature type [the 3e core method]Pro is simplicity, you just know that "all undead are immune to SA" which is very easy to remember, and doesn't need to be reprinted every time in a MM.Con is that when an ability carries over to everything which has that "type" including PC/NPC using spells or earning class abilities that grant such type, you may have a lot of baggage to carry over and remember, and it may generate nonsense cases. Example fomr 3.0 SRD: "Elementals have no clear front or back and are therefore not subject to critical hits or flanking." WTF? There are pretty many creatures of the Elemental type that do have a front and back... in this case I want to point out that it is the immunity to flanking here that makes no sense to apply.b) tie resistance to Sneak Attack to another ability/feature [your suggestion]Pro is that it that probably you can avoid more nonsense cases.Con is that it sounds more complicated to keep track of if you allow more than one feature to tie into SA, and IMHO it also makes monster design more difficult. You may also get some new extra nonsense cases as a by-product.c) make resistance to Sneak Attack specific for each creature, untied to everything elsePro is that there are no nonsense cases.Con is that you have to rewrite the ability into each MM entry.---Personally I think the best solution would be a) + c), i.e. let creature Type dictate a series of abilities (when they are believed to be really iconic and thus very frequent), but then include the magic word usually, and then feel free to make some creatures an exception.Also, put a line in the DMG/MM saying that a DM can decide to modify/remove some monster abilities of these kinds if the group finds it more "realistic".</blockquote>

Verification