Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4827757" data-attributes="member: 80487">Yes, I bet (without looking it up) that MM still defined the target as a "creature". I knew that the 4E DMG offers guidelines for object properties.The point is what's different: the mass of martial powers, including the "dailies" that are the thread's subject, and the extensive combat rules with which they interact.What was done in the dagger-throwing case is commonly done for all sorts of situations arising in old D&D. The notion that no consideration applies unless there's a specific rule for it is what led to 3E and 4E ... and the problem at hand, which is inherent in the solution to the formerly perceived problem of too few rules.Powers and other elements are now effectively prescriptive; too much of the whole point of purchasing the rule books rests on that foundation. They could have been designed from a situation-modeling perspective, as most RPGs of similar complexity have been. Instead, the choice was for complex abstraction.If it works for us, it works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. I would rather get on with playing with something that suits me than grapple with something that does not. I'm not going to go off with a line about how "You must love RuneQuest!" I'm not going to go through contortions to try to depict it as "just like 4E", or any such nonsense. Nor would I buy such tripe about Rolemaster or Barbarians of Lemuria.</blockquote>