Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4107007" data-attributes="member: 30678">But they don't, because some beings are created and operate explicitly under the core rules, while some use a &quot;hybrid&quot; system which also involves freely defined &quot;unique&quot; abilities. It's not just about using a dífferent framework. Let's say that a PC wants to use some equipment tied to monster abilities -- how would you rule that? Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique &quot;attack&quot; ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition? That is definitely a case of one &quot;category&quot; of beings trying to use a mechanical ability that operates a bit differently from how their abilities work.You're correct -- I should have clarified that I indeed meant a phenomenon that is likely to appear in the game. I did not mean, however, that the rules should cover *everything* -- I meant that you, as DM, should be able to mechanically define and &quot;stat&quot; anything that appears in the game. If this guy's body turns to water, how does it mechanically work and is it from the arcane or divine power source? Does it register as magical? Could it be a ritual, if any of the PCs want to create a spell to emulate the ability?My reference to free-form storytelling was meant in the sense that if you don't use a consistent and logical rules set, it might be more fair and easier on everyone to play without the rules. IMO a gamist system that relies heavily on exception-based mechanics only because it's more &quot;cool&quot; would work better as a narrativist system. To me it just feels awkward that 4E relies a lot on case-by-case DM adjudication and improvisation -- especially as the core of the game is very &quot;crunchy&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primal, post: 4107007, member: 30678"] But they don't, because some beings are created and operate explicitly under the core rules, while some use a "hybrid" system which also involves freely defined "unique" abilities. It's not just about using a dífferent framework. Let's say that a PC wants to use some equipment tied to monster abilities -- how would you rule that? Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique "attack" ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition? That is definitely a case of one "category" of beings trying to use a mechanical ability that operates a bit differently from how their abilities work. You're correct -- I should have clarified that I indeed meant a phenomenon that is likely to appear in the game. I did not mean, however, that the rules should cover *everything* -- I meant that you, as DM, should be able to mechanically define and "stat" anything that appears in the game. If this guy's body turns to water, how does it mechanically work and is it from the arcane or divine power source? Does it register as magical? Could it be a ritual, if any of the PCs want to create a spell to emulate the ability? My reference to free-form storytelling was meant in the sense that if you don't use a consistent and logical rules set, it might be more fair and easier on everyone to play without the rules. IMO a gamist system that relies heavily on exception-based mechanics only because it's more "cool" would work better as a narrativist system. To me it just feels awkward that 4E relies a lot on case-by-case DM adjudication and improvisation -- especially as the core of the game is very "crunchy". [/QUOTE]

Verification