How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

Don't do that. You are not good at inferring and got that "inference" completely wrong. It didn't exist. Just respond to what I say and nothing more and you will be fine. You've invented fiction no less than a dozen times in your responses to me in this thread, attributing your fictions to me each and every time. Stop it.

I can only go off what you post, Max.

It reads like a moderator giving a clear yet subtle warning that his patience is running out for the nature of the discourse violating the rules.
If you think he crossed the line, either PM him or hit report on the offending post. The software lets all the mods for that area know.

As the target of the comment, I didn’t really see it as a threat. I think it was intended that way, but without red text, I’m simply going to view it as I would a post from anyone else. I didn’t bother responding because my point had already been made and no further response seemed necessary.

 

[pemerton]

It also seems to me that it's not unusual for minor games to use different jargon to say the same thing or a very similar thing.

Do you say this based on your extensive study of the relevant rules texts?

 

[pemerton]

So we can talk about D&D specifically, but any other RPG we have to translate into D&Disms.

I think you have now correctly inferred the rules of TTRPG General Club!

 

[Maxperson]

I can only go off what you post, Max.

And yet you don't. You choose to invent fictions instead. Go ONLY by what I write as you are incredibly bad at inferring anything.

 

[pemerton]

that's still deceptive statistics. It's still ignoring the key variables: class, level, and AC.

How did this post ignore those variables?

The to-hit tables are on p 74 of the DMG. A 0-level guard needs an 11 to hit AC 10, and a 20 to hit AC 1. Whether they need an ordinary 20 or a natural 20 to hit AC 0 is a decision the GM has to make about the interpretation of the combat table, as explained on p 82 under the heading "Progression on the Combat Tables".

What if they are fighting a knight who wears plate mail, carries a shield, and has a DEX of 15? Assuming that both the fighter and the guard have STR 16 (and so no bonus to hit), the fighter hits on a 19 or 20, the guard on a 20. That is twice the chance to hit!

You'll notice that the posts refers to both the AC and the actual armour in question, and to the respective to hit chances out of 20. The posts use the pronoun "they", which is not ambiguous in a conversation about a 1st level fighter compared to a 0-level guard.

You are making assertions about deception which are simply false. It would be polite to retract.

 

[pemerton]

You're "twice as good" by the way is completely false. At best you can say he's twice as good at hitting AC 1. That's it.

Which is exactly the case I'm talking about. I never asserted that the 1st level fighter is twice as good in general. I pointed out that they are 20% better against AC 5, and 10% better against AC 10.

And I pointed this out in the very posts that you are replying to. Did you not read them?

 

[Maxperson]

Which is exactly the case I'm talking about. I never asserted that the 1st level fighter is twice as good in general. I pointed out that they are 20% better against AC 5, and 10% better against AC 10.

And I pointed this out in the very posts that you are replying to. Did you not read them?

Still none of that puts the fighter "head and shoulders" above the guard. Slightly better is not head and shoulders above.

And it's still tricky use of numbers. At no point is the fighter hitting more than 5% more often. He's +1 better the whole way down, excepting AC 0 where he is tied. +1 better is very minor.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Still none of that puts the fighter "head and shoulders" above the guard. Slightly better is not head and shoulders above.

I find these uses of natural language to be the same!

 

[pemerton]

Still none of that puts the fighter "head and shoulders" above the guard. Slightly better is not head and shoulders above.

I take it that "head and shoulders" is a technical terms I'm just not familiar with. Perhaps you should explain your use?

 

[Maxperson]

I take it that "head and shoulders" is a technical terms I'm just not familiar with. Perhaps you should explain your use?

Here.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/head-and-shoulders#:~:text=If%20you%20say%20that%20someone,a%20lot%20better%20than%20them.

Little =/= a lot.