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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5623874" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Nope, not what I meant at all. I meant it exactly as I said it. You can disagree without argument. I tend to think of that as a method of constructively discussing something. It feels, to me, that in some of your posts, that you're arguing, rather than discussing. I'll assume that we're pretending it's not dissociated in this discussion.Evasion.The rogue learned the technique.The technique, once learned, allows the subject to phase out when certain conditions are met (such as area attacks).It does not require conscious thought.It's an ability that is not magical in nature that breaks the natural laws of the world. Most laymen within the setting might indeed think it's magic. It, however, is not technically magic. It is a fantastical ability within a fantasy setting. Do you at least grasp the concept being presented? If you do, I'll expand on it more if you have questions. If you don't, I do not think I can put it any more plainly.  If the evasion ability is not explained within the setting yet still allows for the mechanic to be utilized, it's dissociated. Magic in D&D means something magical. It does not mean supernatural, as the term is normally used. If, in 4e, prone does not mean prone in the traditional sense, then those terms would have something in common.It depends on the technique in question. If it's only against area attacks, it could not then be used to move through walls (unless the wall was making an area attack). It cannot be used consciously.If you're trying to make me defend a dissociative mechanic, then let's talk about barbarian rages. Of course, I'll say that they're dissociated unless they're given fluff in-game that notes otherwise. As, as far as I can tell, that's the definition of what's dissociative and what isn't.If 4e's answer is that its mechanics are metagame, than they are indeed dissociative. If 3e does not have reasonable in-game explanations, than those mechanics are dissociative. Why you think I'm attacking 4e, or even defending 3e, is beyond me.Some people in this thread have said they don't believe in dissociative mechanics. I think that's obviously false. Now, people are saying, "other editions have them too!" That's obviously true. It seems as if 4e embraced them, while other editions merely used them. It rubbed some people the wrong way. Your mileage varied.I don't get why you're trying to make me defend any particular mechanic. I have no problem admitting that mechanics are dissociated pre-4e. As I told Hussar when he brought up this same thing, I never said that there aren't dissociated mechanics in 3e, much less in other editions. I'm even of the opinion that all abilities, even dailies, can become associated if they're explained in-game, though I expressed a problem this presents to some people.I'm pretty sure that's been covered. Again, this seems overly argumentative. I have very little interest in argument. If you'd like to discuss the topic, I'd find that interesting.As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification