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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 4069566" data-attributes="member: 2642">I can see why you would, from a physics perspective, have problems with pressureless fireballs, but I see nothing non-Euclidean about them. They violate no tenet of basic geometry. (Clarification: I am referring here to your 5d6 vs 15d6 point. The "no circles" bit seems like a strawman - it's just how the game approximates a circle, and it's as close as it can be given that the rules just aren't that fine-grained. Or rather, the 3.x version of it was.)And I don't think this is mere semantic bickering on my part. It tracks a difference that I, at least, find very significant in this context - namely, the difference between physical impossiblility and logical impossibility.If someone can't swallow a certain amount of physically impossible stuff, I have to ask why that person is playing D&D in the first place. Pretty much anything involving magic should give him/her problems, and I'm not sure why pressureless fireballs are any worse than the very idea of casting spells in the first place.Logical impossibility, on the other hand, I have a much harder time swallowing, or even understanding. Certainly it renders any kind of character immersion impossible, assuming I don't want to play a madman. If it's there at all, it had better be subtle, not come up often, and be a consequence of something of clear value. Even if I accept the arguments in the first post that this rule meets the third criterion, it still fails the first two miserably. This rule smacks me in the face with logical impossibility, and I'd much rather count 1-2-1-2 (not strictly accurate either but much closer) than deal with that. (It helps that I find doing so simple and intuitive, and seem to be good at teaching it to others.)I feel the same way about this rule that Hong apparently felt about Celebrim's equation (and, for all that I'm on the same overall side as C, rightly so).</blockquote>

Verification