Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6677238" data-attributes="member: 996">He's right, doubly so in the case of 5e checks, since most of the mechanics are not sufficient, in themselves, to complete resolution without DM rulings, let alone lead to some narrative consequence without the DM and/or players exerting their imaginations.&nbsp; &nbsp;Two small problems with that comparison:1) I'm not aware of any precedent for actually doing that sort of thing in D&amp;D. Obviously, the DM can do whatever he wants, but that, alone, removes it from the sort of determinism you seem to be championing.2) No real armor, and no armor stated or implied in D&amp;D (even the Invulnerable Coat or Arnd in 1e, though literally impenetrable, didn't cover the wearer completely), has the quality that it can't be bypassed in the manner you two seem to be discussing.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Nothing in an imaginary world is, 'already' or otherwise, so it's a moot point.&nbsp; Specifically in 5e, the player would declare his action - trying to find a way to 'bypass' armor (and, what, ignore that part of the target's AC for his next attack?) - and the DM would decide how to resolve it (for instance: &quot;just roll to hit, everyone's always trying to bypass armor&quot; or &quot;You fail&quot;).&nbsp; &quot;Decide how to resolve it&quot; might include deciding whether the armor the enemy in question is wearing is better than the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd or not (but I kinda doubt it).&nbsp;He's right, in an absolute sense, as there is nothing to 'discover' about things that don't exist.&nbsp; More reasonably, it's up to the DM whether to decide any given quality in advance, at the moment it becomes relevant, or leave it to a die roll.&nbsp; You're right in the sense that the DM can give a player the illusion of 'discovering' something with a 'successful check': even though all he's discovering is what the DM made up, the player can't know whether he made it up well in advance or on the fly or left it to chance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6677238, member: 996"] He's right, doubly so in the case of 5e checks, since most of the mechanics are not sufficient, in themselves, to complete resolution without DM rulings, let alone lead to some narrative consequence without the DM and/or players exerting their imaginations. Two small problems with that comparison: 1) I'm not aware of any precedent for actually doing that sort of thing in D&D. Obviously, the DM can do whatever he wants, but that, alone, removes it from the sort of determinism you seem to be championing. 2) No real armor, and no armor stated or implied in D&D (even the Invulnerable Coat or Arnd in 1e, though literally impenetrable, didn't cover the wearer completely), has the quality that it can't be bypassed in the manner you two seem to be discussing. Nothing in an imaginary world [i]is[/i], 'already' or otherwise, so it's a moot point. Specifically in 5e, the player would declare his action - trying to find a way to 'bypass' armor (and, what, ignore that part of the target's AC for his next attack?) - and the DM would decide how to resolve it (for instance: "just roll to hit, everyone's always trying to bypass armor" or "You fail"). "Decide how to resolve it" might include deciding whether the armor the enemy in question is wearing is better than the Invulnerable Coat of Arnd or not (but I kinda doubt it). He's right, in an absolute sense, as there is nothing to 'discover' about things that don't exist. More reasonably, it's up to the DM whether to decide any given quality in advance, at the moment it becomes relevant, or leave it to a die roll. You're right in the sense that the DM can give a player the illusion of 'discovering' something with a 'successful check': even though all he's discovering is what the DM made up, the player can't know whether he made it up well in advance or on the fly or left it to chance. [/QUOTE]

Verification