Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5309741" data-attributes="member: 71571">If my character has powers that say 'walk through walls' then I bloody well -can- and -do- expect him to walk through walls.  If my character sheet says 'This guy can do such and such a thing' then it is fair to expect such and such a thing to occur whenever I use that power.If we're talking about a fighter who is an expert at grabbing being able to attempt grabs at swarms, then yes, he is capable of doing so.  Felgar doesn't want to play in your game tho.  Felgar can't be heroic in your game because you apply arbitrary and non-sensible restrictions on him just because they violate your sense of literalism.</blockquote>And that is fair; provided you have equally logical and consistant restrictions for character classes that don't rely on the martial power source.   So... your logic says I can't grapple a swarm, but that same logic says I can't sweep bugs?  That's something I -can- damn well do in the real world.  Take broom.  Sweep bugs.It's not hard.Here's the inconsistancy... you're saying that logically, because the rules say you can't do one thing, something else can't be used to explain some other completely unrelated thing.Either you apply the rules and use them (grab works on swarms) or you go for descriptions that adequately describe what is happening (the above example works to grab swarms).Your stance is that grabs don't work simply because you don't want them to, and nothing more.  It's arbitrary, and has no actual basis in the fiction OR the game rules. Nothing single target makes sense.  We're talking about a swarm here.  The very fact you're dealing with a swarm means that you have to abandon all precepts of one-on-one combat.1)  Using a queen to immobilize or control a swarm of bees is realistic.  See a picture of a man wearing a beard made of bees.  It's not only realistic, it's a goddamn real hobby.Ergo, adapting that technique imagintively to a combat situation is MORE than kosher.  2)  Killing the queen is a perfectly legitimate way of defeating a swarm.  That is a perfectly valid way to describe the defeat of a swarm creature.  It doesn't even have to be the queen.  Those swarms probably have some sort of alpha dominant critters, so if you incapacitate/control the alphas, then the betas and omegas run in terror.3)  Using sweeping to keep a swarm's outliers from escaping the square the swarm is in is not the same as using sweeping to move a swarb 100 feet across the room.  There is a large difference in scale.To demonstrate the principle, take a handful of cravel.  Now take a btoom.  Sweep the gravel.  SUCCESS!  That's keeping outliers from escaping the swarm.  Next, take a large 6-foot tall pile of gravel.  Try to sweep that pile away.  FAIL!  That's because that sort of technique doesn't work to move a large scale of gravel.But, let's say someone disturbs that pile, and some of it falls to the side.  Try to sweep the parts back into the pile.  SUCCESS!  That's because of the scale involved.Swarms, by the way, are not immune to restrains or immobilizes.  That's not the same thing as forced movement.It honestly depends on the milieu of fantasy, to be honest.  I don't expect something based on George R R Martin to have that sort of capability.  I also don't expect swarms of insects with a hive mind and singular intellegence either.  However, if it's based on myth and lore, or high fantasy, or wuxia, I would be disappointed if my cunning sneak rogue didn't have the ability to whirl up a dust cloud to describe his concealment powers.  That sort of thing is -exactly- what one expects in those genres.  Bullocks.  It makes as much sense as any other rules abstraction necessary to account for the 'swarms are single creatures' rule in the first place.  Grabbing makes no less sense than any other thing that you're explicitly allowed to do to a swarm.Obviously it doesn't make sense to use the same technique on a swarm of bees as it does... say... a terrasque.  But let's reduce that logic to its bare components:I am using technique A to describe when I use effect B on creature C.Technique A works to describe effect B on creature C.There exists a creature D that Technique A does not work on, therefore thereforeTechnique A does not make sense as a description of effect B.That is your logic, broken down into its components.  Now... let's use the same argument form and other valid premises:I am using the technique 'Stab him in the belly' to describe when I use the effect 'melee attack' on 'The Baron of Blades.''Stab him in the belly' works to describe 'melee attack' used on 'Baron of Blades.'There exists a creature 'Swarm of Bees' that 'Stab him in the belly' work on.Therefore'Stabbing in the belly' does not make sense as a description of 'Melee attacks'....however stabbing someone in the belly is a perfectly legitimate way to describe a melee attack.  Therefore, the argument form does not hold, and therefore it is an invalid argument.The point is... the moment you're dealing with a swarm, the most basic effects, such as a normal melee basic attack, require some form of comprimise in order for them to work in terms of the fiction of the game.  If you can't accept that you can grab a swarm, then you can't attack a swarm either with non-area/close effects by the same logic.Your 'this doesn't make sense' is a legitimate concern, but how you apply it is arbitrary at best.  It has nothing to do with what makes sense, it has to do with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that swarms require allowances at its most basic level.  Grabs are no exception to that... and if you can make allowances for stabbing to mean something different for a swarm, then you have no reason not to give the same consideration for grabbing.No, by allowing the grabbing of swarm, I -allow- consistancy, by giving those who apply physical techniques the same amount of fantasy and heroism as those who rely on magical stuff.And the game is designed with that allowance intended.I chose both.  You've chosen -neither-.That's the difference here.[/QUOTE]

Verification