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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6994845" data-attributes="member: 42582">You seem to have missed my point.First, in what sense have the A gnolls stopped? I don't think they've stopped at all - they walk up to the aura cautiously (30' move in 6 seconds) then walk through it and attack (30' > 15' move, attack) - they only seem to have stopped because their turn comes to an end.But let's suppose that they have stopped. Why should this help them? In the real world, if you had to cross a dangerous aura, it would seem better to do so quickly: charge through and attack, rather than move cautioiusy through and attack. But my A gnolls, who do the latter, fare better than my B gnolls, who do the former.Note that, in 3E or 4e, my B gnolls would not do any worse than my A gnolls, because they could use the charge action - yet another case of mechanics shaping the fiction.EDIT: I've just read the back-and-forth between you (Hawkeyefan) and   [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]. Hemlock is correct. The fact that one can construct a fiction that fits the mechanics - the B gnolls dash into the aura then stand around for a few seconds getting cut down by sprits while they wonder what to do next - doesn't affect my point, which is that the turn-by-turn resolution is driving the fiction, and is making other fictions - ones which (as Hemlock has said) I prefer and find more plausible - impossible to realise.As I said, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing. Given that, in another thread, you told me that you didn't want the mechanics to dictate the fiction but rather the reverse, I'm a bit surprised that on this point you're so casual about the way that the "stop motion" resolution system dictates the outcome. (Or even the lack of a charge action, for that matter - if such an action existed, then at least some of the gnolls who, in   [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s scenario, suffered two rounds worth of damage, might have suffered only one.)EDIT 2: Just to be clear - you can't envisage the gnolls, 45' from the cleric, thinking to themselves "That aura looks dangerous, so we'll run through it as fast as we can and cut the defiler down!"? That's all that my B gnolls are doing. It's just that, because the completely artificial round break happens to fall before the final resolution of their movement, and the resolution of their attack, they take two lots of damage.If you made the round 12 seconds rather than 6, so that movement rates doubled, then my B gnolls could dash the 45' and attack in the same round, and hence would take the damage only once (just like the A gnolls, who move cautiously up to the aura, then move cautiously through it and attack).I'm a bit puzzled if you really can't see my point - which is that the rules make the suffering of aura damage depend not solely upon an fictional state of affairs but also upon a purely mechanical construct, namely, "starting one's turn". Starting your turn isn't an event that happens in the fiction.</blockquote>

Verification