Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 3708466" data-attributes="member: 12306">In DnD, if I'm swinging a sword, I don't have to worry about the DM going &quot;oh, I think swords are overrated, greatswords should do d6+str, not 2d6+1.5str&quot;.&nbsp; If someone is shooting a longbow at me, I don't have to worry about the DM going &quot;the english were cool at Agincourt, longbows do 4d6 damage and ignore armor&quot;.Unlike weapon damage and spells, action zones are inherently unstandardized.&nbsp; They are designed by people who think they are cool (why bother, else).&nbsp; They are designed by people who *want* them to work, to be used, and to be effective.&nbsp; This results in their stats being out of whack with their description.I, as a player, do NOT want to have to second guess just how cool the DM thinks something is, so as to know if I should use an action zone.&nbsp; I, as a player, do not want to get penalized for knowing that boiling lead was beyond European ability until very, very recently (and certainly involved enough apparatus to make spilling it virtually impossible).&nbsp; I don't want to get penalized for knowing that to cover a 10' cone .5 inches deep takes about 500 lb of lead.&nbsp; (ok, that last did take some quick calculations, but my first guess was 400lb).&nbsp; I'm not counting the weight of the &quot;vat&quot; in that.I'm aware that I'm inherently criticizing you for your design, and I regret it, but I feel the object lesson at hand is worth it.&nbsp; Most every player knows the rough damage ranges of the weapons in the PHB.&nbsp; They know how effective their armor is.&nbsp; They have *no clue* how effective an action zone will be.&nbsp; Were I a player in your game who got hit by that vat of lead, I'd feel like you &quot;forgot&quot; to mention that the axe wielding guy was *actually* a 20' giant, not a kobold, like all the other guys in the room.&nbsp; That has been my reaction to *every* (only 3 or 5ish, admittedly) action zone I've ever seen written up.&nbsp; Players need accurate descriptions of the world they are interacting with, because thats all the information they get.&nbsp; If a given mechanic cannot be described accurately, it should not be used.&nbsp; If, when you describe an action zone, you detail the mechanics behind it, more power to you, and I withdraw some of my complaints (although I'd expect arguements over what the mechanics realistically should be).-Kraydak</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kraydak, post: 3708466, member: 12306"] In DnD, if I'm swinging a sword, I don't have to worry about the DM going "oh, I think swords are overrated, greatswords should do d6+str, not 2d6+1.5str". If someone is shooting a longbow at me, I don't have to worry about the DM going "the english were cool at Agincourt, longbows do 4d6 damage and ignore armor". Unlike weapon damage and spells, action zones are inherently unstandardized. They are designed by people who think they are cool (why bother, else). They are designed by people who *want* them to work, to be used, and to be effective. This results in their stats being out of whack with their description. I, as a player, do NOT want to have to second guess just how cool the DM thinks something is, so as to know if I should use an action zone. I, as a player, do not want to get penalized for knowing that boiling lead was beyond European ability until very, very recently (and certainly involved enough apparatus to make spilling it virtually impossible). I don't want to get penalized for knowing that to cover a 10' cone .5 inches deep takes about 500 lb of lead. (ok, that last did take some quick calculations, but my first guess was 400lb). I'm not counting the weight of the "vat" in that. I'm aware that I'm inherently criticizing you for your design, and I regret it, but I feel the object lesson at hand is worth it. Most every player knows the rough damage ranges of the weapons in the PHB. They know how effective their armor is. They have *no clue* how effective an action zone will be. Were I a player in your game who got hit by that vat of lead, I'd feel like you "forgot" to mention that the axe wielding guy was *actually* a 20' giant, not a kobold, like all the other guys in the room. That has been my reaction to *every* (only 3 or 5ish, admittedly) action zone I've ever seen written up. Players need accurate descriptions of the world they are interacting with, because thats all the information they get. If a given mechanic cannot be described accurately, it should not be used. If, when you describe an action zone, you detail the mechanics behind it, more power to you, and I withdraw some of my complaints (although I'd expect arguements over what the mechanics realistically should be). -Kraydak [/QUOTE]

Verification