Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2281085" data-attributes="member: 32164">One other comment, earlier, when discussing the ELMer FuDD problem, Wulf, you said: &quot;a handwave is a handwave after all.&quot;Sorry to say this, but I disagree. And allow me to explain.D&amp;D gives high-level characters a number of &quot;story&quot; powers. Their intention is to enable certain kinds of storytelling. You give characters teleport because you want them to be able to bounce across leagues of distance in an eyeblink so that they can have far-flung adventures. From what Mearls calls &quot;story&quot; (and others call fluff), this makes good sense. But from the standpoint of what Mearls calls &quot;rules&quot; (and others call crunch), teleport is a highly problematic ability. Yet, it's codified in the D&amp;D game's &quot;rules.&quot; You can eliminate it, but you're messing with rules if you do that. Moreover, that &quot;story-based&quot; ability has rules/tactical consequences. Like, for example, the &quot;high level party teleports home whenever their hit points run low&quot; problem. However, if you leave the &quot;crossing vast distances&quot; ability (a &quot;story&quot; problem) to &quot;story&quot; solutions, then you can &quot;handwave&quot; it (the &quot;this Griffin is willing to take you there&quot; solution) much more consistently and with much less effect on the &quot;rules-balance&quot; of the game.If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to &quot;rules&quot; problems but leaving the &quot;story&quot; solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these &quot;tactically&quot; through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or&nbsp; (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind. But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 2281085, member: 32164"] One other comment, earlier, when discussing the ELMer FuDD problem, Wulf, you said: "a handwave is a handwave after all." Sorry to say this, but I disagree. And allow me to explain. D&D gives high-level characters a number of "story" powers. Their intention is to enable certain kinds of storytelling. You give characters teleport because you want them to be able to bounce across leagues of distance in an eyeblink so that they can have far-flung adventures. From what Mearls calls "story" (and others call fluff), this makes good sense. But from the standpoint of what Mearls calls "rules" (and others call crunch), teleport is a highly problematic ability. Yet, it's codified in the D&D game's "rules." You can eliminate it, but you're messing with rules if you do that. Moreover, that "story-based" ability has rules/tactical consequences. Like, for example, the "high level party teleports home whenever their hit points run low" problem. However, if you leave the "crossing vast distances" ability (a "story" problem) to "story" solutions, then you can "handwave" it (the "this Griffin is willing to take you there" solution) much more consistently and with much less effect on the "rules-balance" of the game. If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to "rules" problems but leaving the "story" solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these "tactically" through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind. But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one. [/QUOTE]

Verification