Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8605633" data-attributes="member: 7032025">To be fair, although (see below) I 1000% agree with your post, I will defend [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] on this because I think I understand him. He is not saying that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed, just that, in that specific head case, they just need to be adjusted - and this is a basic 5e concept - to the circumstances, and people have been making suggestions right and left, some might be better for some combinations of play styles and circumstances and others better for others, that's all.Exactly my perspective.Both of these cases have been explained before as being mostly supported by the rules with the necessary local rulings for the specific circumstances, without breaking the system at all or saying that there is a fundamental flaw. For example, your point about a readied action is in line with my proposal, with the trigger potentially being &quot;when there I see an opening&quot; or &quot;when the bodyguard is looking the other way&quot; or whatever, as you point out imagination is key there.In a slightly parallel direction is [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] saying that the surprise rules are flawed because, as written, surprise can only be achieved by someone whom noone on the opposing side is aware of, but as I've discussed with him, this is very easily fixed by adding &quot;aware of as an adversary (rather than &quot;as a bystander/neutral&quot;), so the system actually works well with minor rulings.Yep !The problem is that some people really want to find faults in the system, but in the end they mostly end up showing faults in their reasoning and they way they apply the rules. Everyone's view about &quot;realism&quot; are different, but in the end, one of the strength of the 5e rules is that they are flexible enough to support many kinds of fiction. It's only when you forcefully try to introduce many personal constraints that you see inconsistencies, but these are not between 5e and the fiction, they are about those constraints.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8605633, member: 7032025"] To be fair, although (see below) I 1000% agree with your post, I will defend [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] on this because I think I understand him. He is not saying that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed, just that, in that specific head case, they just need to be adjusted - and this is a basic 5e concept - to the circumstances, and people have been making suggestions right and left, some might be better for some combinations of play styles and circumstances and others better for others, that's all. Exactly my perspective. Both of these cases have been explained before as being mostly supported by the rules with the necessary local rulings for the specific circumstances, without breaking the system at all or saying that there is a fundamental flaw. For example, your point about a readied action is in line with my proposal, with the trigger potentially being "when there I see an opening" or "when the bodyguard is looking the other way" or whatever, as you point out imagination is key there. In a slightly parallel direction is [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] saying that the surprise rules are flawed because, as written, surprise can only be achieved by someone whom noone on the opposing side is aware of, but as I've discussed with him, this is very easily fixed by adding "aware of as an adversary (rather than "as a bystander/neutral"), so the system actually works well with minor rulings. Yep ! The problem is that some people really want to find faults in the system, but in the end they mostly end up showing faults in their reasoning and they way they apply the rules. Everyone's view about "realism" are different, but in the end, one of the strength of the 5e rules is that they are flexible enough to support many kinds of fiction. It's only when you forcefully try to introduce many personal constraints that you see inconsistencies, but these are not between 5e and the fiction, they are about those constraints. [/QUOTE]

Verification