Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6659498" data-attributes="member: 82779">It's a strawman because 4e never removed fiat; if a power works it literally works because the DM allows it to, so says the PHB.&nbsp; It's also an intrinsic element of the old proning an ooze argument.&nbsp; The DM was never obligated to allow the proning of an ooze, again the PHB is my source for that (though essentials certainly gave what I thought was an adequate fluff reason for applying the penalties of being prone to an ooze when it described disruption of an ooze).The argument that 4e put more power in the hands of the players comes as a result of what I call &quot;necessary explanation.&quot;&nbsp; If a DM is going to say no to or onerously adjudicate an action, the DM generally requires little to no explanation in many editions because there is no rule that the DM is departing from.&nbsp; In 4e, if you're going to say no to or negatively modify a power, the presumption is that the DM should be able to justify departing from the rules text for a good, or at least persuasive, reason.Edit: it is possible that strawman is the wrong term.&nbsp; What is the term for an imaginary concept to rail against?&nbsp; Because the notion that fiat was removed is definitely imaginary or illusory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 6659498, member: 82779"] It's a strawman because 4e never removed fiat; if a power works it literally works because the DM allows it to, so says the PHB. It's also an intrinsic element of the old proning an ooze argument. The DM was never obligated to allow the proning of an ooze, again the PHB is my source for that (though essentials certainly gave what I thought was an adequate fluff reason for applying the penalties of being prone to an ooze when it described disruption of an ooze). The argument that 4e put more power in the hands of the players comes as a result of what I call "necessary explanation." If a DM is going to say no to or onerously adjudicate an action, the DM generally requires little to no explanation in many editions because there is no rule that the DM is departing from. In 4e, if you're going to say no to or negatively modify a power, the presumption is that the DM should be able to justify departing from the rules text for a good, or at least persuasive, reason. Edit: it is possible that strawman is the wrong term. What is the term for an imaginary concept to rail against? Because the notion that fiat was removed is definitely imaginary or illusory. [/QUOTE]

Verification