Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6874360" data-attributes="member: 16814">Your not knowing doesn't remove the information imparted with 'heavy cavalry.'  If you mean something specific, it's on you to either make sure that term works for it or that you impart what you mean when you say it.  That's my point -- you cannot become upset because you used words you don't understand when others do know what they mean.You misunderstand -- relying on post hoc reasoning, as you seem to be fond of giving how often you've had to employ it in this thread, is poor reasoning.  Obviously, in any fiction, you'll occasionally miss something and have to go back to explain it.  But you've had to do this for every single scenario you've put forward or chosen to champion (this one's BI's, for instance).  That's a sign of a poorly thought through concept, and it shows in how often you have to retcon or add new fiction to cover your holes.  I'm not saying that you can't ever justify after the fact, just that this should be a last resort, not an assumed starting point.That's the problem, you didn't describe them, and, as described -- forest friendly forces of high potency -- the narrative still doesn't work because the defeat of the enemy relies upon them NOT expecting such forces -- forces you've declared imminently suited for the forest -- to be in the forest.  Your retcon description to save one aspect of the narrative has a result of making other aspects weak or illogical.  Why would a brilliant attack plan be thwarted by a troop placement that makes perfect sense?  You're back to requiring the enemy general to be a moron so your moron can beat him, which, as far as I understand it, isn't the point of the exercise.At some point you should be willing to critically look at your construction and rework it so that it does make sense instead of piling on the retcons.  Especially when your retcons break the narrative as well.  If you say that I'm making an argument that I didn't make, and didn't voice, then, yes, that's the exact definition of putting words in my mouth. I don't have to keep believing it, you keep actually saying it.Covered by   [MENTION=6789021]Yardiff[/MENTION].  There's some room in there, but not as much as you're making out.  5e liberally mixes fluff and mechanics, and the lines are blurry in a number of places.  This isn't 4e, where the mechanics were 100% carved out from the fluff. This is more like 2e and earlier editions, where they're intertwined.  You can divorce them, if you'd like, and I've repeated said that I've no real problem with that and that's I've played that game before and had fun.  My points here have been that you're methods require altering the formula and rules of 5e a bit to accommodate.  Not much, but enough you should be willing to acknowledge that.  This entire thread's worth of argument could have been eliminated by that simple acknowledgement.EDIT:  for the record, I play with houserules.  I don't enforce class fluff -- they're bags of mechanics that have some theme, but a player can create whatever justification for that bag of mechanics she/he wants.  I do enforce race fluff, but I've changed it.  This is because race has meaning in my campaign world while class doesn't have much meaning.  So, I've modified some small things to the RAW.  I use houserules.</blockquote>

Verification