Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5359878" data-attributes="member: 8835">I see valid points from both sides of this &quot;golems vs. sneak attack&quot; debate.I think Danny is arguing in support of the RAW.&nbsp; Basically choosing an interpretation that doesn't require changing the RAW.&nbsp; That's something I advocate, as to do otherwise could lead to a ton of rules changing (which is what this thread is about).The opposing argument, that despite this magic, there are key structural points that would logically be better targets of attack than others has validity.Take a skeleton.&nbsp; the ribs protect a good portion of the spine.&nbsp; But not all of it.&nbsp; Take out the lower section of the spine, and you'll have cleaved it in two.&nbsp; 2 half-skeletons is not as dangerous as 1 full skeleton.&nbsp; It moves slower, and its reach is diminished.&nbsp; At most the bottom half can kick you, and the bottom half will spend most of its time dragging itself around.&nbsp; Similar would be true for golems, though they are made of sterner stuff.However, the rules don't really support this point.&nbsp; There's no real hit locations in D&amp;D.&nbsp; You can't aim for a specific body part.&nbsp; So you can't target the spine on a skeleton.&nbsp; At best, Sneak Attack was intended to emulate that, by implying you generically aim for something vital.It appears that animating magic lets an object move and bend and stick together where normally it could not.&nbsp; This is effectively how it bypasses &quot;realism&quot;.&nbsp; Thus skeletons bones stick together and bend, long after connective tissues have vanished or stiffened.&nbsp; Golems get to move and bend where their joints symbolically would have been.the fact that you can swing your long sword and actually do damage (and not track damage to your weapon) is already a concession that the animated creature has some structural integrity issues.&nbsp; Basically, you get a chance of snapping off a limb or some such with each blow,&nbsp; effectively by whittling the HP down.I suppose a GM could then houserule that a sneak attack is a fancier version of this.&nbsp; If the impact to game play is minimal, then what's the harm?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5359878, member: 8835"] I see valid points from both sides of this "golems vs. sneak attack" debate. I think Danny is arguing in support of the RAW. Basically choosing an interpretation that doesn't require changing the RAW. That's something I advocate, as to do otherwise could lead to a ton of rules changing (which is what this thread is about). The opposing argument, that despite this magic, there are key structural points that would logically be better targets of attack than others has validity. Take a skeleton. the ribs protect a good portion of the spine. But not all of it. Take out the lower section of the spine, and you'll have cleaved it in two. 2 half-skeletons is not as dangerous as 1 full skeleton. It moves slower, and its reach is diminished. At most the bottom half can kick you, and the bottom half will spend most of its time dragging itself around. Similar would be true for golems, though they are made of sterner stuff. However, the rules don't really support this point. There's no real hit locations in D&D. You can't aim for a specific body part. So you can't target the spine on a skeleton. At best, Sneak Attack was intended to emulate that, by implying you generically aim for something vital. It appears that animating magic lets an object move and bend and stick together where normally it could not. This is effectively how it bypasses "realism". Thus skeletons bones stick together and bend, long after connective tissues have vanished or stiffened. Golems get to move and bend where their joints symbolically would have been. the fact that you can swing your long sword and actually do damage (and not track damage to your weapon) is already a concession that the animated creature has some structural integrity issues. Basically, you get a chance of snapping off a limb or some such with each blow, effectively by whittling the HP down. I suppose a GM could then houserule that a sneak attack is a fancier version of this. If the impact to game play is minimal, then what's the harm? [/QUOTE]

Verification