In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics

[Yesway Jose]

And likewise, the conclusons in the first one, even with the rigor, are only as good as your ability to define "paying attention to the fiction" in a way that maps back to that label. Otherwise, it comes out that your study was really about "paying attention to the fiction in way X". So you betcha, X sure showed up a lot.

"Paying attention" is an informal extrapolation. The rigorous thing being measured was the 2 part scoring, although ThirdWizard put a crimp in the 2nd one.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's gluptorid (an internal organ which collects, but does not excrete the acid, similar to the human gall bladder) must be completely full to have any substantial range. Imagine a water gun that's nearly empty; how it sort of dribbles until it has a minimum amount of fluid.

So, given that there's an effective minimum and a maximum, how long does it take to reach the minimum point?

How long before the ankheg has enough acid stored make a 5' line? To deliver a bit of acid along with its attacks (maybe, like, 1 point of acid damage on an attack instead of 1d4 points)?

Assuming it doesn't use its acid spit attack, how many successful melee attacks can the ankheg make (each doing 1d4 points of acid damage) before it runs out of acid?

Because the description says it is depleted for 6 hours... not depleted for 3 and then partially depleted for another 3. Not really sure what your point is?

Presumably the idea is that it's refilling the organ that lets it discharge acid gradually over the six hour period, and it will therefore at some point be partly full. That might not be enough to discharge at full effect, but there could be a smaller one.

Exactly.

And what if the ankheg tries to spit again in 5 hours, 58 minutes? At this point it's certainly almost completely full, hmm? Why is there no individual variation in "recharge times"?

My point is that this is something in the rules which, when viewed through the "lens of reality," lacks a good, consistent fictional explanation. We have to "house rule it" to make it make sense. It is different in degree, but not in kind, from many other such things we cheerfully accept in our D&D game.

And yet this is supposed to be an "associated" mechanic.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

In 5 hours and 58 minutes, the sphinter on the causatis has not yet released, so the source of the acid is still holding it while the propellor of acid remains completely empty.

In two more minutes, the sphincter opens and the gluptorid is flooded with acid, ready for action.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But if this is case, why can't the ankheg breathe a 15' foot line after 3 hours?

Here's the thing: if there's an in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or observed for why this is, than it's not dissociated. If there isn't, than it is dissociated.

So, if a GM lets you explore the ankheg by dissecting it and figuring out how quickly it can produce acid, than it's associated. If, however, there's no reason in-game that can be learned, explored, or observed, than it is dissociated.

I think you may have been trying to "get me" but my point was simple (and twisting it won't work in a reasonable conversation): the ankheg has a reason why it cannot use that ability more than once. If there is no such reason for an ability, in-game, than it's dissociative. I'll admit that an ankheg can have its acid spit as a dissociative mechanic if you agree that it fits the bill of dissociative. If you don't agree with that, I'm not sure the point of you trying to "get me".

Again, as far as I can tell, dissociative mechanics are mechanics that must be able to be learned, explored, or otherwise observed from an in-game perspective. So, again if the rogue only get to use his ability 1/day, and if it's just narrative control, than it is dissociative. If there's some in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or otherwise observed, than it isn't dissociative.

But can't we always come up with some sort of game world justification, however wonky and, at best, semi-plausible, in the good old D&D tradition. This would mean that no game mechanics are dissociative.

I think the term marking might be the most egregious because it's just a rules term, it doesn't reference anything in the game world. Combat challenge and divine challenge, the terms for the fighter and paladin's marking abilities are a lot more acceptable as they suggest, and the text below seems to support this, the character shouting a challenge to single combat.

If there is an in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or observed, than I don't think it's dissociative. If the rogue can only get to use his ability 1/day, and if it's just narrative control, than it is dissociative. If there's some in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or otherwise observed, than it isn't dissociative.

What does it mean to "learn" or "explore" how one hides, non-magically, in plain sight? Or how one "evades" an explostion, non-magically, while asleep? I'm not persuaded that we even have a coherent notion of what that would mean.

Yes, the game rules assert that these are non-magical talents that can be learned. It could also assert that heirophant druids have non-magical techniques for squaring the circle. But mere assertion doesn't create the actuality of coherence.

I don't understand your question at all (that is, "What does it mean to "learn" or "explore" how one hides, non-magically, in plain sight?"). This seems so basic to me that I don't know where to start. What does it mean to explore how to apply an arm lock? That's literally the same thing, in my mind. The disconnect you seem to be having there is something I can't explain.

If there is some non-magical technique in-game that allows you to hide while being observed, than it can be taught (and thus learned by others). It can be explored. It can be observed. The same goes for evasion, though I'd probably see it as dissociative most of the time. If, however, it allowed you to phase your body reactively, without thought, when certain conditions were met, I could see it. I'd be hard pressed to accept it (my 3.5-based game doesn't allow Reflex saves while incapacitated), but at least it's associative.

This is such a simple thing to look at. Whether or not anything can be explored in-game. How one would go about doing that is a little more tricky, depending on what it is, but it's still a very straightforward concept.

Again, as far as I can tell, If there is an in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or observed, than I don't think it's dissociative. If the rogue can only get to use his ability 1/day, and if it's just narrative control, than it is dissociative. If there's some in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or otherwise observed, than it isn't dissociative.

As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

How is, "The mechanics won't let me repeatedly try the same thing over and over and over again" not spamming an attack?

Because, if the complaint is that you can't do something more than once, that's simply not true. There are any number of abilities with similar effects. Heck, my fighter pushes every time he hits a challenged opponent with a opportunity attack. And, he pushes with other attacks as well. In fact, he's a pushing machine.

Granted, I can't push exactly the same way every single round. But, that's a good thing isn't it?

I don't even know where to begin answering you.

The complaint is not that you can't do something more than once. The complaint is not that you can do something more than once.

You are, yet again, misrepresenting the issue (this time on both the 3E and 4E side at once) by blowing it so far out of proportion that it is not recognizable.

As I said, it isn't a question of must spam or may not spam, but rather that the mechanics drive that choice create your damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. And if you are in that scenario do to you own mistakes then you don't get any sympathy for being there.

The entire of question of "is this spamming" misses the point.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Here's the thing: if there's an in-game reason that can be learned, explored, or observed for why this is, than it's not dissociated. If there isn't, than it is dissociated.

So, if a GM lets you explore the ankheg by dissecting it and figuring out how quickly it can produce acid, than it's associated. If, however, there's no reason in-game that can be learned, explored, or observed, than it is dissociated.

And, per the rules of the game, there is no in-game reason for the ankheg's limitation.

You have to add it. And, as demonstrated, the rationales given are pretty thin, and raise at least as many questions as they answer.

Why is this okay for ankhegs, but not other things?

 

[MrGrenadine]

My point is that this is something in the rules which, when viewed through the "lens of reality," lacks a good, consistent fictional explanation. We have to "house rule it" to make it make sense. It is different in degree, but not in kind, from many other such things we cheerfully accept in our D&D game.

And yet this is supposed to be an "associated" mechanic.

Actually, yes, it is associated. And it actually IS consistent.

All that your examples are showing are variations on the RAW, which are interesting, but not better or worse--just different. And houseruleable, if you prefer them. The point is that whether the ankheg acid power can be used again in 6 hours or 5:58 is irrelevant to the fact that in the game world, its a living creature with a consistent ecology that can be discovered, studied, and adapted to. This is as it should be, regardless of what details you alter.

But I fail to see how the ecology of fantastic creatures relates to a humanoid fighter only being able to use a particular sword attack once every 24 hours. The two examples are very different.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[JamesonCourage]

And, per the rules of the game, there is no in-game reason for the ankheg's limitation.

You have to add it. And, as demonstrated, the rationales given are pretty thin, and raise at least as many questions as they answer.

Why is this okay for ankhegs, but not other things?

I'll let MrGrenadine take this one

Actually, yes, it is associated. And it actually IS consistent.

All that your examples are showing are variations on the RAW, which are interesting, but not better or worse--just different. And houseruleable, if you prefer them. The point is that whether the ankheg acid power can be used again in 6 hours or 5:58 is irrelevant to the fact that in the game world, its a living creature with a consistent ecology that can be discovered, studied, and adapted to. This is as it should be, regardless of what details you alter.

But I fail to see how the ecology of fantastic creatures relates to a humanoid fighter only being able to use a particular sword attack once every 24 hours. The two examples are very different.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

But I fail to see how the ecology of fantastic creatures relates to a humanoid fighter only being able to use a particular sword attack once every 24 hours. The two examples are very different.

Maybe human fighters also posess a gluptorid?