NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monayuris" data-source="post: 8112019" data-attributes="member: 6859536">I agree that a lot of times rules in the game look better than they play. I find this problem with the above mentioned Keyword approach. I also find this to be the case with universal resolution mechanics. I think these are two areas that are aesthetically pleasing in a theoretical sense but have problems in actual play.Keywording looks good on paper but it fails once you start looking at it too hard. Once you put conditions and game effects into keywords, you 'lock' them into what the keyword covers. If you have a Paralyzed keyword, but you want a creature to have a different effect than that keyword, then you have to override the keyword or stack several keywords. So you end up with Paralyzed -- see Unconcious -- see Incompacitated and so on. This is a common issue with 5e conditions. You have to reference 3 or so different conditions to fully understand an effect on a character. It is just easier to have the full effect of the ability in the description. You can look in one place and know how to adjudicate it.It also creates weird interactions. An example I have experienced was with the Push/ Pull / Slide forced movement rules in 4e. Compare the 4E Turn Undead ability with a Martial Power Shove type ability (I can't remember an exact example). Contextually, one power forces undead to flee from the caster's divine power, the other forces enemies away via direct physical effort.The Push keyword causes both of these powers to behave in the same manner. If you have powers that modify the Push keyword, those powers apply in both cases (even if the context of such powers do not make sense). As an example, I once ruled that if you push a foe into a wall, each square would deal 1d6 damage (I liked the idea of a Push 4 against a wall being a brutal shove). Because of the keyword, it had the undesirable effect of having Undead bash their heads into walls when being turned.With universal resolution mechanics, I find rules systems attempting to shoehorn everything into the mechanic, even if it makes little sense. A great example is the optional Morale rules in the 5E DMG. The rules shoehorn Morale into a standard Wisdom ability check mechanic. But what does that really mean, contextually? The default is that a higher Wisdom creature will more likely remain in battle. But in context, it may be wiser to flee. It may also depend on some other factor, a creature can be wise but cowardly. The mechanic fails to model the situation effectively. Some elements of play are better expressed with different mechanics, mechanics that better model the desired effect. Sometimes you want a linear randomizer, but other times a bell curve makes better sense.</blockquote>

Verification