Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6048335" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I don't see why you decided to dissect my post in the way you did but whatever.</p><p></p><p>In the example you gave, which is what I was using and WILL be using in this post, you described a pitcher throwing a ball and attempting to bean the batter. Using this example you then summarize that the batter will attempt to jump out of the way. I will concede that he may or may not be successful but the want for him to do it is not irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>Right, but my example was based on yours. My question remains the same. But let me break it down further.</p><p></p><p>Either the pitcher is TRYING to hit the batter in the head (to bean him as you say) or he isn't. If he IS trying to hit him then the pitcher does not benefit from the batter moving. If he is NOT trying to hit him, then it should be some sort of bluff check in order to get the batter to move. If it is the case where the pitcher IS trying to hit him then the batter being unaware doesn't matter (and in fact HELPs.. as per the current example you are now using). If he the pitcher IS NOT trying to hit the batter but instead trying to get the batter to move then if the batter is unaware (aka failing his perception/spot check) then he should NOT be subject to the attempt.</p><p></p><p>Either way, a simple effect of pitcher makes effect > batter moves is no longer as simple as it seems.</p><p></p><p>Again, why isn't it a bluff check as opposed to an automatic effect?</p><p></p><p>I'm asking for an explanation, to explain something you cannot say 'nope'.</p><p></p><p>Also, the explanation I did get doesn't rely on the example you gave (pitcher and batter) and instead (I assume) talks about some other effect and target (as you mention inanimate objects - which the batter is not).</p><p></p><p>If I was wrong on the assumption that the underlying effect was designed to move someone and deal damage, then I completely understand and I'll move on.</p><p></p><p>However, your response here confuses me. Because the batter is attempting to move out of the way he is getting dealt 1d6 of 16 HP? How.</p><p></p><p>As we already extablished earlier the pitcher should either (a) be trying to hit the batter, or (b) be trying to move him. I don't see where (c) him trying to hit him AND move him happens. I certainly don't get how he expects to hit him but do less damage.</p><p></p><p>For a moment, because we are talking about a batter and a pitcher and not fighters and rogues I'm going to drop the HP = abstraction mechanism. I'm doing this because the example you gave is not abstract, and the example you gave is supposed to apply to the example of (un-free) forced movement.</p><p></p><p>Also once again, you didn't answer the questions I posed about premise 3.</p><p></p><p>Okay, but saying "where the threat comes from" does not explain the following:</p><p></p><p>What EXACT action the target will take. The target (in this case a batter) will attempt to avoid getting hit by the ball. The target won't necessarily jump 10 feet away and end up prone. He MAY jump 5 feet away, he may run towards the dugout, he may drop to his knees and avoid the ball. He may end up prone (but that is another matter) if it hits him or he may end up prone if it is the best way to avoid getting hit by the ball, he may NOT end up prone. Or he may end up failing to avoid the blow entirely and end up hurt. How is the pitcher dictating ANY of this? How is he doing it EVERY SINGLE TIME? If he is able to then somehow (to many of us) he is able to telepathically control the batter so the batter does exactly what the pitcher wants and ends up where the pitcher wants. Damaged to boot.</p><p></p><p>Right, and I'm not arguing if he should react. I'm not. Not even a little. I'm asking why the EFFECT that the pitcher is causing leads to the same outcome for the batter EVERY SINGLE TIME?</p><p></p><p>Again, you seem to be talking about an abstraction but I'm not because I'm talking about the very simple example of pitcher throwing a ball at the batter and attempting to bean him. That is it. If you have to get VERY abstract to answer that, and to force the batter to move, then something has gone wrong.</p><p></p><p>No what? No, I don't understand KM's idea correctly?</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying (and as far as I understood KM isn't either) that there shouldn't be a form of forced movement. I think we are both saying that it shouldn't be entirely dictated by the "pitcher" just because he is the one initiating it. I am saying that if the "pitcher" IS going to dictate the exact terms of how an enemy is going to perform an action, especially if it is repeatable every single time in the exact same way, then it should be a physical thing. Even the ball attempting to bean the batter is a physical attack. He isn't just moving from side to side and thrusting a sword at the batter and assuming the batter WILL move back 2 squares. He isn't automatically forcing the batter to move. Perhaps batter, using this new 'swing a sword' thing has his own weapon and the proficiency to STOP what the pitcher is doing. The forced movement ideas don't elaborate on this. They just hope and assume that the abstraction should be enough for everyone and then say "screw off" if you want a better explanation.</p><p></p><p>Also, completely unrelated to this whole thread, and to your post in specific, who says it CAN'T BE or even SHOULDN'T BE one-sword-swing-a-round combat? I've run it that way and I only have a problem when I encounter things that ONLY work in abstraction, such as forced movement. Maybe they should look into that for <em>Next</em> time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6048335, member: 95493"] I don't see why you decided to dissect my post in the way you did but whatever. In the example you gave, which is what I was using and WILL be using in this post, you described a pitcher throwing a ball and attempting to bean the batter. Using this example you then summarize that the batter will attempt to jump out of the way. I will concede that he may or may not be successful but the want for him to do it is not irrelevant. Right, but my example was based on yours. My question remains the same. But let me break it down further. Either the pitcher is TRYING to hit the batter in the head (to bean him as you say) or he isn't. If he IS trying to hit him then the pitcher does not benefit from the batter moving. If he is NOT trying to hit him, then it should be some sort of bluff check in order to get the batter to move. If it is the case where the pitcher IS trying to hit him then the batter being unaware doesn't matter (and in fact HELPs.. as per the current example you are now using). If he the pitcher IS NOT trying to hit the batter but instead trying to get the batter to move then if the batter is unaware (aka failing his perception/spot check) then he should NOT be subject to the attempt. Either way, a simple effect of pitcher makes effect > batter moves is no longer as simple as it seems. Again, why isn't it a bluff check as opposed to an automatic effect? I'm asking for an explanation, to explain something you cannot say 'nope'. Also, the explanation I did get doesn't rely on the example you gave (pitcher and batter) and instead (I assume) talks about some other effect and target (as you mention inanimate objects - which the batter is not). If I was wrong on the assumption that the underlying effect was designed to move someone and deal damage, then I completely understand and I'll move on. However, your response here confuses me. Because the batter is attempting to move out of the way he is getting dealt 1d6 of 16 HP? How. As we already extablished earlier the pitcher should either (a) be trying to hit the batter, or (b) be trying to move him. I don't see where (c) him trying to hit him AND move him happens. I certainly don't get how he expects to hit him but do less damage. For a moment, because we are talking about a batter and a pitcher and not fighters and rogues I'm going to drop the HP = abstraction mechanism. I'm doing this because the example you gave is not abstract, and the example you gave is supposed to apply to the example of (un-free) forced movement. Also once again, you didn't answer the questions I posed about premise 3. Okay, but saying "where the threat comes from" does not explain the following: What EXACT action the target will take. The target (in this case a batter) will attempt to avoid getting hit by the ball. The target won't necessarily jump 10 feet away and end up prone. He MAY jump 5 feet away, he may run towards the dugout, he may drop to his knees and avoid the ball. He may end up prone (but that is another matter) if it hits him or he may end up prone if it is the best way to avoid getting hit by the ball, he may NOT end up prone. Or he may end up failing to avoid the blow entirely and end up hurt. How is the pitcher dictating ANY of this? How is he doing it EVERY SINGLE TIME? If he is able to then somehow (to many of us) he is able to telepathically control the batter so the batter does exactly what the pitcher wants and ends up where the pitcher wants. Damaged to boot. Right, and I'm not arguing if he should react. I'm not. Not even a little. I'm asking why the EFFECT that the pitcher is causing leads to the same outcome for the batter EVERY SINGLE TIME? Again, you seem to be talking about an abstraction but I'm not because I'm talking about the very simple example of pitcher throwing a ball at the batter and attempting to bean him. That is it. If you have to get VERY abstract to answer that, and to force the batter to move, then something has gone wrong. No what? No, I don't understand KM's idea correctly? I'm not saying (and as far as I understood KM isn't either) that there shouldn't be a form of forced movement. I think we are both saying that it shouldn't be entirely dictated by the "pitcher" just because he is the one initiating it. I am saying that if the "pitcher" IS going to dictate the exact terms of how an enemy is going to perform an action, especially if it is repeatable every single time in the exact same way, then it should be a physical thing. Even the ball attempting to bean the batter is a physical attack. He isn't just moving from side to side and thrusting a sword at the batter and assuming the batter WILL move back 2 squares. He isn't automatically forcing the batter to move. Perhaps batter, using this new 'swing a sword' thing has his own weapon and the proficiency to STOP what the pitcher is doing. The forced movement ideas don't elaborate on this. They just hope and assume that the abstraction should be enough for everyone and then say "screw off" if you want a better explanation. Also, completely unrelated to this whole thread, and to your post in specific, who says it CAN'T BE or even SHOULDN'T BE one-sword-swing-a-round combat? I've run it that way and I only have a problem when I encounter things that ONLY work in abstraction, such as forced movement. Maybe they should look into that for [I]Next[/I] time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top