D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nagol]

No. Your character is doing things all the time that are purely reactive, not based in decisions at all. Decisions are often too slow; sometimes you just react. If you do that in some situations, you'll do that in others. And perhaps regret it later.



Fifteen feet is within the distance at which police officers assume a man with a knife can reach them before they can fire twice- yes, it has been tested. Make your choice whether to fire or not now. You might not get two openings.

Even if I may not be a rational being with free will, I can roleplay one, thak you very much.

 

[Bluenose]

Even if I may not be a rational being with free will, I can roleplay one, thak you very much.

An axe coming towards your face is not the time for rational thought. It's a time for reacting without thinking, because thinking takes time and you haven't got it.

I mean, if you seriously want to play the character who is so incredibly rational and always thinks before they act, you can. And I imagine you'll get all sorts of benefits when it comes to situations where you can think about what you should do, so there'll be no rushing the guy with the sword when you can reload your crossbow and shoot them. Equally, you will be thinking every time you should be reacting, and you'll never take advantage of those opportunities to attack someone who drops their guard momentarily, and you'll be incredibly vulnerable to people attacking you, and you'll be slower to act than anyone else, and your chance to avoid a fireball will be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course you'd like to tell me that you want your character to get rational thought and free will every time it's to your character's advantage, and reaction without thought when that's the better choice.

 

[D'karr]

An axe coming towards your face is not the time for rational thought. It's a time for reacting without thinking, because thinking takes time and you haven't got it.

I mean, if you seriously want to play the character who is so incredibly rational and always thinks before they act, you can. And I imagine you'll get all sorts of benefits when it comes to situations where you can think about what you should do, so there'll be no rushing the guy with the sword when you can reload your crossbow and shoot them. Equally, you will be thinking every time you should be reacting, and you'll never take advantage of those opportunities to attack someone who drops their guard momentarily, and you'll be incredibly vulnerable to people attacking you, and you'll be slower to act than anyone else, and your chance to avoid a fireball will be dramatically reduced.

I agree with this.

Unless of course you'd like to tell me that you want your character to get rational thought and free will every time it's to your character's advantage, and reaction without thought when that's the better choice.

The game already abstracts this in a manner. Passive defenses, saves, etc., are all abstractions to "model" the reactive manner of certain actions. AC is reactive, the monster targets your AC with an attack, and it's assumed that AC abstracts you dodging, weaving, etc. A Will Defense, or a Will Save do the same thing for effects that have an opportunity to "fool" you. The same goes on for Fort, and Reflex.

If the Character or the Monster get "hit", not in the literal sense, they are affected by whatever effect the attack imposes. It can be damage, it can be fear, it can be moving away, or closer to the attacker.

 

[technoextreme]

Even if I may not be a rational being with free will, I can roleplay one, thak you very much.

Are you telling me your character is never motivated by spite, revenge, anger, or emotion?

 

[D'karr]

Are you telling me your character is never motivated by spite, revenge, anger, or emotion?

He's playing a Vulcan.

 

[Nagol]

An axe coming towards your face is not the time for rational thought. It's a time for reacting without thinking, because thinking takes time and you haven't got it.

I mean, if you seriously want to play the character who is so incredibly rational and always thinks before they act, you can. And I imagine you'll get all sorts of benefits when it comes to situations where you can think about what you should do, so there'll be no rushing the guy with the sword when you can reload your crossbow and shoot them. Equally, you will be thinking every time you should be reacting, and you'll never take advantage of those opportunities to attack someone who drops their guard momentarily, and you'll be incredibly vulnerable to people attacking you, and you'll be slower to act than anyone else, and your chance to avoid a fireball will be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course you'd like to tell me that you want your character to get rational thought and free will every time it's to your character's advantage, and reaction without thought when that's the better choice.

We weren't discussing imminent personal harm; we were discussing someone with the power to move you from a location that acts as a target for the character and make you understand it was your choice to move.

There may be imminent danger. There may be rational reasons to move and there may not be. There should be a single player in charge of that detemination. A second player shouldn't have the ability to override your choices for your character without your consent or presenting an external effect on the character that dissoves your control.

Perhaps I am standing here precisely so I get run over by a Dire boar because the alternative (letting someone else take the hit is too repugnant?) Perhaps I am standing here because I disbelieve in the Dire Boar and want to prove its an illusion -- or that I'm wrong.

Unless you want the DM to take complete control of all characters once combat begins, becuase well, really there isn't time for anyone to think simply react and the DM might as well adjudicate alll those reactions and counter-reactions himself.

 

[Nagol]

Are you telling me your character is never motivated by spite, revenge, anger, or emotion?

No. I am telling you that I as the player don't want to surrender control of my character's motivations and actions to other players without consent. Arguments that my haracter needs to move because that guy over there is so good at yelling at you to move that it's an automatic reflex leave me cold.

 

[Nagol]

He's playing a Vulcan.

Well the ears are the same anyway.

 

[technoextreme]

No. I am telling you that I as the player don't want to surrender control of my character's motivations and actions to other players without consent. Arguments that my haracter needs to move because that guy over there is so good at yelling at you to move that it's an automatic reflex leave me cold.

Ahhh yes a strawmen. We aren't arguing that you are getting way to upset that maybe just maybe your character isn't a rational actor so that your argument about wanting to have everything be thought out on your end is kind of dumb.
PS:
I also forgot about this but RAW its not even a problem. It does come up from time to time but I forgot you can ignore or just plain not get yourself involved with allies riders.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fifteen feet is within the distance at which police officers assume a man with a knife can reach them before they can fire twice- yes, it has been tested. Make your choice whether to fire or not now. You might not get two openings.

For the record, this is twenty one feet.

To quote from my own blog (mostly because it keeps the links handy):

Mythbusters gave the gun vs knife battle to the knife in 16ft (and I think the gunman would take more damage in all three runs). Tueller’s Drill says 21ft before the knife is a clear threat (see also). And even with gun already in hand most trained American police officers couldn’t hit a target twice in ten yards. Actual incidents bear this out (trigger warning: non-simulated violence). That last link involved four armed and trained policemen with guns already in hand against one man with a knife.​