I’ve written about dissociated mechanics before. But it’s notable that WotC’s designers began unleashing these immersion-shattering monstrosities before the release of 4th Edition. The latter days of 3rd Edition are riddled with them, as well.
For example, I was trolling my way through Monster Manual V this afternoon when I came across the gadacro demon. These creepy little customers “relish their victims’ eyes, preferably plucked from the skull of a victim that sill lives”.
A little demonic creature that plucks the eyes from your head sounds pretty horrifying. Just the type of thing that can really instill a true sense of demonic terror in the hearts of your players. So I took a peek at the mechanics they’d given us for modeling this…
Eyethief (Ex): A gadacro can forgo its sneak attack damage or extra damage on a confirmed critical hit to instead blind its opponent for 5 rounds. A creature that has been blinded in this way cannot be affected again until it has recovered from the current effect. Creatures that lack eyes are immune.
Yup. They’ll steal the eyes right out of your head and then, 30 seconds later, your eyes will miraculously regenerate and you’ll be just fine.
Wait… what?
A mechanic that allows for the true theft of an eye needs to be carefully balanced because it can be so devastating, but this ain’t the way to do it.
Here’s a better way, one that’s actually associated with the game world:
Eyethief (Su): When scoring a critical hit, a gadacro can be choose to forego all damage from the attack and instead attempt to pluck out the eye of its opponent. The victim may make an immediate Fortitude save (DC 10, based on Strength). If the save is successful, the gadacro’s attempt has failed.
If the save is failed, the gadacro has seized the eye. The eye is immediately damaged, imposing a -2 penalty on Spot checks and ranged attacks. If all of a victim’s eyes are damaged in this way, the victim is blinded. (This damage is permanent, but can be repaired with a remove blindness spell.)
If the gadacro suffers any damage or if the victim succeeds on an opposed grapple check before the gadacro’s next turn, the gadacro’s attempt comes to an end.
However, if the gadacro is undisturbed, on its next turn it can attempt to complete the theft of the eye as a full action. The victim must make another Fortitude save (DC 10). If the save is successful, the gadacro’s attempt has failed.
If the save is failed, the gadacro has plucked out the character’s eye. (The damage to the eye can no longer be repaired with a remove blindness spell. It requires regeneration or a similar ability to correct.)
It should be noted that there’s nothing mechanically wrong with the ability as presented in the rulebook. The only problem is that the mechanics are, in no way, a faithful represenation of what they’re supposed to be representing. A demon that can mystically steal the power of sight from your eyes is otherworldy, strange, and evocative.
(Although I’d probably be tempted to go one step further and allow the demon to actually see through the sightless eyes of its victim. Such a demon would feast on its experiential theft.)
ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Justin Alexander
I think there’s some toma-toe toma-toh here.
From perspective one, the flavor text isn’t accurately describing the mechanics.
From perspective two, the mechanics aren’t accurately modeling the flavor text.
I find the distinction almost irrelevant. However you look at it, the mechanic is dissociated. You either need to fix the mechanic to match the fluff; or fix the fluff to match the mechanic.
More positively, I think creativity in game design can come from either direction: You can either create interesting fluff and then figure out how to model it mechanically. Or you can create an interesting mechanic and then figure out the fluff to go with it.
But no matter which direction you approach the problem from, you have to complete the circle.
Friday, March 27, 2009, 3:16:03 PM
Scott W.
Gadacro demons typically wear a necklace of plucked eyeballs, and “crave the flesh of the living… specifically, they relish their victim’s eyes, preferably plucked from the skull of a victim that still lives.”
That’s about half of the monster’s flavor text. Considering the wicked talons and all, I suspect that it is, in fact, the mechanics’ fault.
Friday, March 27, 2009, 4:19:43 AM
“John Lee”
Or, well, maybe the ability isn’t actually stealing an eye? I don’t have MM5 handy, so I can’t check, but to me that sounds like a physiological effect (i.e. poison of some sort, as evidenced by the (ex) tag). Not at all like literal eye-stealing. If the monster entry says otherwise, that might be the flavor text’s fault rather than the mechanics’ fault.
Friday, January 30, 2009, 4:50:48 PM