Held and reflex saves

[Celtavian]

re

You know you're belittling rules lawyers here on our home territory, right?

Using the word "can't" in an RPG is not true. RPG's are open-ended and all rules in an RPG are guidelines. Every game designer I have ever read upon from Grandpa D&D Gary Gygax to Monte Cook sees the rules as guidelines. The biggest point I see most of the game designers make is apply the rules consistently, even if you decide to use rule zero.

I offered my interpretation of certain rules and advice on how to apply them. I gave you my reasons, you begin questioning the validity of my reasons.

You started to use words like "can't", a word that does not exist in an RPG. If you had simply said the "rules say" or "according to the rules", you would have received a different response.

I firmly admitted that your exact rules argument was valid. I offered a different way of interpreting the rules. Why? Because there are other ways of applying a basic rule for different situations such as when cleaving.

I am sorry if you do not agree with it. But, I prefer people think about what they are doing. I encourage it in any rules discussions. Think about the rule. Think about what the situation is like and why they chose to apply that rule. Visualize and think about the game. We are not playing a video or board game here, but an RPG.

For example, the "flat-footed" discussion. I encourage players and DM's to think about what occurs when your "flat-footed". Basically, you are unable to react to incoming danger. According to what you posted, it only applies to AC. Is that sensible? No, not really. Magic attacks and energy attacks move at a much faster rate than a swung sword or shot arrow. It is lacking consisency with the spirit of the rule.

If I wish to offer my opinion concerning a rules application based on my experience and interpretation, then I don't see what the big deal is. If you want to debate me, then I am up for that as well.

You offered your interpretation based on a series of rules. I offered mine based on my understanding of what the rule is meant to simulate. They have the option of choosing either interpretation.

Heck, the rules are changing in 3.5 because certain house rules have become so commonplace that they are being incorporated into the new edition. What's wrong with a discussion on how rules should be applied?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: re

You started to use words like "can't", a word that does not exist in an RPG. If you had simply said the "rules say" or "according to the rules", you would have received a different response.

We are in the Rules Forum.

The answer to the question "Can I Ready a Shield as a Free Action if I have the Quick Draw feat?" is "No, you can't."

To add "By the rules" to every statement is redundant.

I am sorry if you do not agree with it. But, I prefer people think about what they are doing. I encourage it in any rules discussions. Think about the rule. Think about what the situation is like and why they chose to apply that rule. Visualize and think about the game.

But it ceases, at some point, to be a rules discussion, and becomes a house rules discussion.

For which we have a forum.

"Flat-footed or held on the other hand should be arbitrated using good old-fashioned common sense, not some exact rules interpretation that does not in any way, shape or form properly simulate the effects of being held or being flat-footed."

That came across, to me, as stating that the rules are wrong and anyone who follows them is a fool.

But you're a fan of applying rules consistently. I see the best way to maintain consistency across multiple campaigns as being following the rules as written.

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Flat-footed or held on the other hand should be arbitrated using good old-fashioned common sense, not some exact rules interpretation that does not in any way, shape or form properly simulate the effects of being held or being flat-footed

My apologies for being arrogant, implying that others lack common sense for not applying a rule a certain way was unncessary.

Still, I hope this game never becomes as some of the game designers have complained, a game of strictly followed rules where rules discussion are dry debates about exact rules interpretations.

This is an RPG. RPG rules should inspire spirited debate.

It is good to have folks like yourself who know the rules well. Some people do like to follow the rules exactly, and I am sure you are a big help to them.

That should never mean folks like me, who like to think about the rules and how they should be applied shouldn't be able to voice our opinion in the rules forum.

The House Rules forum has always seemed like a place to post rules specific to your campaign or gaming group, not necessarily a place to discuss the application of existing game rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

The House Rules forum has always seemed like a place to post rules specific to your campaign or gaming group, not necessarily a place to discuss the application of existing game rules.

But you're not talking about applying existing rules... you're talking about modifying, revising, or ignoring existing rules in favour of something that makes more sense to you...

Doesn't that make it specific to your campaign?

(In the spirit of your own post, please read this not as confrontational, but as a simple question of definition It felt like we were stuck in a tension-loop there for a while )

-Hyp.

 

[Cyraneth]

Re: Re

Imbalanced is not giving a saving throw for Harm.

Didn't this discussion end with harm being compared to slay living? You know, 'cause if harm had a saving throw, it would be weaker than the 1-level lower slay living spell... I mean, slay living kills. Harm only reduces the target to 1d4 hp... Not that big a difference, but still.

- Cyraneth

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Its so easy to come up with any flavor text to descibe any type of action to be a cleave, I don't see any need to limit the mechaincs. A universal flavor text for any weapon, can easily be your incredible training(Cleave feat) allowed you to dispatch your foe with fewer feints (since melee combat is a group of swings, feints, and parries)giving you time to strike a blow against another nearby foe.

So a stirge is attached to your abdomen and another attached someplace else, well the weak strige was felled by the mighty warriors jab, leaving the last stirge open for the cross of his one two combination. And with combat being a series of blows, feints etc. a combinaiton doesn't ahve to be two itterative attacks, it can be one attack aciton, or an attack and a cleave.

Cleave does what he feat says it does, if you want to limit things because of flavor fine, but nothing really needs it since basically anything can be described with flavor text.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Re: Re

Didn't this discussion end with harm being compared to slay living? You know, 'cause if harm had a saving throw, it would be weaker than the 1-level lower slay living spell... I mean, slay living kills. Harm only reduces the target to 1d4 hp... Not that big a difference, but still.

- Cyraneth

There are enough harm threads, lets not bring it any further nto this one, please.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re

There are enough harm threads...

I haven't seen one for a while, actually...

-Hyp.