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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OmegaMan950" data-source="post: 5927354" data-attributes="member: 49115">When the wizard knows why it's because he's either broken the 4th wall or is using a magic system that doesn't incorporate the vancian system.I want to quote this because it shows that in the game we are all willing to suspend disbelief on some mechanics that don't make sense while arguing against the incorporation of others. I too think that hitpoints as are are a poor mechanic, but I'm ok with them in the game at the moment because they don't disadvantage or void any classes.Part of the problem here can be summarized in a post I made in the playtest fighter discussion, I made a list comparing fighter abilities throughout the editions and ended on this paragraph regarding fighters and DM fiat:If the fighter is going to use the terrain/story/whatever to his/her advantage in and outside of combat then they better have a bonus compared to other classes or at least the DM's favour. We judge the expectations of the classes abilities based on the natural laws of the players world, not the characters, and so we say martial characters cannot do this or that because of our biased thoughts and the limits of the 'real world' human body when we should be looking at myths and legends for inspiration. We give the casters a free pass to do as they will because we have no real means to judge what can and can't be done with magic, even though when a player's character casts a spell they are influencing the game world in a way even the DM has to agree to, a Player Fiat in a sense, provided the character meets the requirements of the spell (eg. material and verbal components, has the spell available, etc.). They are essentially bypassing a DM's ruling/judgement that melee characters with their so few options depend on. Not only that, but they can do the same thing a fighter can do ("can I use the barrels as cover?") but can go above and beyond ("The barrels are now covered in a darkness spell")We don't say to the casters "You have been hitting the Elven brandy and pipe weed a bit too much lately, lose some spell slots until you regain your memory" or "you've lost a memorized spell because Zagnor the Maleficant's enchantment has screwed with the imprinted dweomer" even though these possibilities would be accepted by most people based on: our previous experiences with booze/drugs, and an open void of possible metaphysics created by the vancian model. We don't even say spells require memorization times any more even though most of us (through our own experiences) realize that memorizing complex patterns or ideas can take a long long time.Melee classes were given options like bull rush and trip in 3E because as bad as they were (mechanically speaking) it's not unusual for a trained warrior to be skilled in these maneuvers, and it was viewed as an acceptable compromise by a majority of playtesters/designers at the time.If this is the means of play then the fighter PC should be able to say "I swing off the chandelier, knocking my target prone, and showering the nearby bodyguards in glass" without the DM's ruling or interference. No "Mother may I?" style gaming. The DM should then be obligated to put in some form of terrain/device for the fighter to manipulate, and the fighter have a table ready similar to page 42 of the 4E DMG as a quick reference for damage or conditions. This is augmented by levels/feats in the same way casters spells are automatically gained and affected by caster level. It's only fair.</blockquote>

Verification