mamba
Legend
settled, no, ended has a chance howeverHow long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?
settled, no, ended has a chance howeverHow long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?
Guess that explains all those undead these settings keep generating...I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that. When you went below 0 you fell unconscious. This was a condition that explicitly only lasted until -9. If you got to -10 you were now dead, but no longer unconscious. The definition of dead was that your soul left your body. No big deal there. Lots of folks don't have a soul. You can't benefit from normal healing. Okay. And you start to decay which gets stinky, but nothing actually says you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious and attack some more.
We all get what dead means, but if you are just following the written definitions...
and I understand that everyone here is speaking for themselves, so adding a ‘for me’ or ‘imo’ or whatever in every other sentence is redundantNo. Because if you had meant to say "for me," then you should have said that, especially when you spend so much time talking about how illogical it is. I'm not a mind-reader. I only know what you write.
good thing I had two more paragraphs that did then…That doesn't answer the question.
then discuss it after the session, or better yet during a session 0.The DM has a great deal of power over the player. If you-as-DM shut down a feature of mine, then you get to feel that logic has prevailed for, what, a few minutes? The rest of the session? Whereas that player learns that you're the type of DM to shut down abilities that you don't like, and for the rest of the time they play with you, they will be wary of how you treat their abilities.
that goes both ways, and it is not even true. If I consider something unlikely I do consider it, if I consider it impossible (or close enough to it) then I do not.And yet you're not even willing to risk a single instance.
When are any debates settled around here?How long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?
You forgot the 1. Might be settled by then.How long till the release of 15.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?
Which I totally agree with. And whybit is important tow write abilities in a way that makes them fun for both sides.The DM has a great deal of power over the player. If you-as-DM shut down a feature of mine, then you get to feel that logic has prevailed for, what, a few minutes? The rest of the session? Whereas that player learns that you're the type of DM to shut down abilities that you don't like, and for the rest of the time they play with you, they will be wary of how you treat their abilities.
Yeah. Liches are just rules lawyers in disguise.I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that. When you went below 0 you fell unconscious. This was a condition that explicitly only lasted until -9. If you got to -10 you were now dead, but no longer unconscious. The definition of dead was that your soul left your body. No big deal there. Lots of folks don't have a soul. You can't benefit from normal healing. Okay. And you start to decay which gets stinky, but nothing actually says you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious and attack some more.
We all get what dead means, but if you are just following the written definitions...
I don't know what you mean by narrative control over the world. So I'm saying if it's established in the fiction absolutely none of the ships are familiar to the sailor in the port at which the party finds themselves, then it would be dysfunctional play on the part of the player of the sailor to disregard that fiction and say anyways they try to secure free passage on the Comox which they know is in port because they served with members of her crew.So if players don't have narrative control over the world it's not a functional game? The DM can never say "No that background feature does not apply here"? Assuming the party is at a port with ships, etc..
Given that the player of the criminal has declared an action to get a message to their contact, and given that the player of the sailor has declared an action to secure free passage aboard a ship for the party, both ought to succeed. I don't care much about the details of the Ravenloft example because those things will vary from table to table.and yet you insist on the Criminal feature working in Ravenloft, which given the feature description is much more unlikely to work than the Sailor feature is on the South Sea…
let’s ignore the sailor here, because that is a completely different case and worded completely differently…Given that the player of the criminal has declared an action to get a message to their contact, and given that the player of the sailor has declared an action to secure free passage aboard a ship for the party, both ought to succeed. I don't care much about the details of the Ravenloft example because those things will vary from table to table.
becomes empty posturingYou're making the erroneous assumption that GMs (and other RPG participants) who make up setting details while they play, rather than at some earlier time, don't care about logic, interconnectivity, and consistency. I can assure you, you are completely wrong about this.