Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4134916" data-attributes="member: 7635">See, there's a flip side to the "no rule to cover X", and that is "X can't be done". To whit.There is no rule in D&D for striking at a spellcaster's throat to prevent him from speaking/casting (and possibly breathing). Option 1: The DM can devise a called-shot method of resolving this particular technique. The DM must weigh the benefits and hindrances of such a technique, so that is no so weak/difficult to be ineffective* or so good as to be matter of course.Option 2: Since there is no rule for it, it cannot be done. Hp is abstract, so no blow can strike and silence a spellcasting foe. For every DM who would attempt to create option 1, there is another who will assume option 2. This puts the game in an odd place; do you cater to the "Make rules up as they come" DMs or the "No rule, no action" DMs? 1e/2e catered to the first crowd, 3e/4e caters to the latter. For DMs who grew up on Option 1, the complexity of feats, combat actions (bull rush, etc), and martial techniques seem unnecessary and stifling. To those in the latter, they are welcomed additions to the game by providing more official (and therefore easy to resolve) actions to the game.* unless of course, the DM WANTS it to be ineffective, which is really no better than option 2. It just creates the illusion of PCs being able to do anything, not PCs who can actually DO anything.</blockquote>