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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 5631550" data-attributes="member: 40166">Again, bull. There are a lot of rules that are reasonable abstractions of the game world. Rolling a D6, 1-3 heads, 4-6 tails, for a coin flip maps directly to the game world. It doesn't model the aerodynamics (or lack thereof) of the coin--most coins are at least a percent off 50-50, the odds it will land on the edge, the odds that it will come apart in mid-air, etc. But it does provide a playable, close, abstraction of the game world. Then there are rules that aren't reasonable abstractions of the game world. A solo, illiterate (and non-book carrying) barbarian who has spent his recent time (last few levels) alone in the wilderness can gain skills in Knowledge (Religion). There's a difference between the two, one which matches the game world to a certain granularity and one of which doesn't. Now you've got non-specific on the type of interactions. Still, many rules were not written as attempts to abstract some type of interactions. The skill rules in 3E are at best a vague handwave at simulating the learning process; they're there to be gameable. My favorite artificial example of a disassociated mechanic would be something like:Feat: Kill Distant Opponent Requirements: BAB +12A fighter without any ranged weapons may attack creatures up to 60' away with their melee weapons. Note: The fighter does not lose the weapons with this attack.It's not trying to model anything; it's trying to give a specific power to a class without concern about how it works in the game world.So he moves into a position. Marking in D&D 4 doesn't force the character to move into a particular strategic position.</blockquote>

Verification