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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6298946">I think that depends.  Are you expecting the platform to perform a repetitive action?  Or is the platform movement unpredictable?  If we're talking Mario here and the platforms are simply moving nearer and further in a consistent pattern, I don't consider this to be a reaction.  You are doing the math in your head while your wait, and then jumping.  If we're talking about the lands of chaos where there is no ryhme or reason to the movement, that is definitely reactionary.Sure, and as I mention later, for several of those situations, your life in not in danger while you are attempting to make the action.  And that's the deliniation I attempted to make.  If there is a clear and present danger, then your hand is forced and you are reacting.  If the danger is vague or distant, then you are proacting.They don't really have to be I suppose.  They make sense in my head and I'm the one using them.  As a player at your table, I think there's a potential for me to make an argument based on my current situation as to if I am reacting to proacting.That depends on when you make your jump.  If you are planning your jump to take place at the last minute, it is proactive.  If you are making your jump because you didn't realize the platform was dropping off, that is reacting.  Again, it's a matter of preparation.  When your hand is forced and you cannot take the time to prepare, you are reacting.No, I think that the time you have before collapse certainly makes a difference, as if you have several rounds to make your jump, you have time to prepare, even if the time is limited.  If we were to say that the pillar began to collapse the moment you landed on it, and would fall away the next round, that is a reaction.  If the pillar began to collapse the moment you landed on it, but it took 5 rounds, that can be pro-acted to.I quite like viewing things as situational.  It can keep the same concept fresh by having each instance of it treated differently.  As with the pillar example above.  You can be exploring two different segments of a dungeon, each with collapsing halls and pillars, but because their rate of collapse is different, it makes your treatment of the situation different.  Perhaps because the pillars in Room 2 are sturdier and thus take 5 rounds to collapse, you tie a rope around Bob the Ninja, who jumps quickly across and secures the line so that Joe, Jenny and Jimmy can have something to hang on to, even while they jump from pillar to pillar, reducing the DC of their jump check, and providing security in case one of them falls.The same situation of collapsing halls was now made more pro-active and was resolved completely differently simply because the party had more time to prepare.  I quite like granularity and situationalism.  Otherwise the game becomes repetitious or puts an unrealistic demand on the DM to create wholly unique situations when really, a collapsing tunnel would be pretty common in an old dungeon, cavern, mine, tomb or any other unstable structure.</blockquote>

Verification