Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7181622" data-attributes="member: 6802951">No. As I pointed out in post 6 of this thread.&nbsp;But I am able to understand that a group might have decided to use such a &quot;mechanics first&quot; method of resolution and rule for convenience's sake that actions are considered instantaneous. - Just because I don't agree with that view, it doesn't mean no one does.And, as I stated in the post you're quoting, Hemlock's opinions of how that situation should be resolved do make sense if his table is making the above base assumption.&nbsp;Thank you.&nbsp;We'll know when Hemlock posts to confirm or deny whether I've understood his viewpoint.&nbsp;My bad for not realising what a completely literal interpretation of that would mean. If it helps, replace &quot;instantaneous&quot; with &quot;a discrete period of time, measurable, but that the table accepts is too short to realistically react to&quot;.If my wording still seems a little fuzzy, take the example of the scene with Han Solo and Greedo in the cantina already mentioned to help visualise the phrase. You're correct that Han's shot couldn't be considered instantaneous: blasters aren't speed-of-light weapons. (And as you point out, even an action at light speed wouldn't technically be instantaneous.)But between the noise of Han's blaster firing and Greedo getting hit, there wasn't really time to react.&nbsp;In yours or my opinion, yes. If someone regards flicking a finger and saying &quot;Zot!&quot; as enough to cast a normal spell I daresay that is faster than drawing and firing a revolver.&nbsp; - as well as being harder to react to if it occurs mid-sentence in a conversation rather than when facing off against another gunfighter at high noon.&nbsp;The way he conceptualises spellcasting, and the way he resolves spellcasting as an action in the games mechanics may not be identical.&nbsp;My own view of the world in this situation was laid out on the first page, and I still think its pretty consistent.&nbsp;I think that it is quite possible that I haven't fully understood Hemlock's actual view. I was just giving a best-guess and pointing out that people can have logically-consistent opinions that differ. - Generally due to different base assumptions.Also trying to defuse a possible argument that had the potential to derail the rest of the thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 7181622, member: 6802951"] No. As I pointed out in post 6 of this thread. But I [I]am [/I]able to understand that a group might have decided to use such a "mechanics first" method of resolution and rule for convenience's sake that actions are considered instantaneous. - Just because I don't agree with that view, it doesn't mean no one does. And, as I stated in the post you're quoting, Hemlock's opinions of how that situation should be resolved [I]do [/I]make sense if his table is making the above base assumption. Thank you. We'll know when Hemlock posts to confirm or deny whether I've understood his viewpoint. My bad for not realising what a completely literal interpretation of that would mean. If it helps, replace "instantaneous" with "a discrete period of time, measurable, but that the table accepts is too short to realistically react to". If my wording still seems a little fuzzy, take the example of the scene with Han Solo and Greedo in the cantina already mentioned to help visualise the phrase. You're correct that Han's shot couldn't be considered instantaneous: blasters aren't speed-of-light weapons. (And as you point out, even an action at light speed wouldn't technically be instantaneous.) But between the noise of Han's blaster firing and Greedo getting hit, there wasn't really time to react. In yours or my opinion, yes. If someone regards flicking a finger and saying "Zot!" as enough to cast a normal spell I daresay that is faster than drawing and firing a revolver. - as well as being harder to react to if it occurs mid-sentence in a conversation rather than when facing off against another gunfighter at high noon. The way he conceptualises spellcasting, and the way he resolves spellcasting as an action in the games mechanics may not be identical. My [I]own [/I]view of the world in this situation was laid out on the first page, and I still think its pretty consistent. I think that it is quite possible that I haven't fully understood Hemlock's actual view. I was just giving a best-guess and pointing out that people can have logically-consistent opinions that differ. - Generally due to different base assumptions. Also trying to defuse a possible argument that had the potential to derail the rest of the thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification