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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5759923" data-attributes="member: 95493">Okay, first of all, AD&D is what? 30 years old. There have been a number of changes (I would normally say improvements but I doubt we could agree on that term.) since then. Saying ....Isn't really true. It was a lack of consistency (AD&D), then it became more consistent (3e) then it became less again (4e). A change that purposefully went from more information to less - as D'karr's prefers.If you're talking about 4e, they don't. The DM does.Because it isn't the wizard deciding these things, it is the DM. And it is the DM 's choice even when previously they ruled a different way and this time they change their mind.Mortal shell? Not familiar with that term.Why should it? Well should might be a strong term, but it should because from a design standpoint they have to come up with a rule one way or another? Beyond that, as far as I know, there is no strong reason as to why it should behave like a grenade or any other type of explosion.Once again, from a design standpoint, it would have to pick if it deals lethal or non-lethal damage. Neither the player nor the DM should suddenly change their mind without redefining the actual rule involved. In specific however, the reason they have no control over what burns this time vs what burns next time has to do with the nature of the spell, the fact that those objects are in the path and that they should be consistent one way or another. Also because it isn't the players choice, it is the DMs's.Agreed, let us continue.Not that it will, but that it is supposed to - in favour of being consistent, yes. It would certainly suck if I kicked someone in the shin that this time they hurt their leg and next time they spontaneously ignite.Right. Assuming you have plenty of time to do it, and the lock doesn't have a failsafe if you were to fail. Then sure I see no problem in taking 20 to open a lock.This is where you start to lose me. A puzzle box =/= a lock. But depending on circumstance either Open Lock or Disable Device may be appropriate.In fact, if you found a chinese (they would not call it chinese) puzzle box in a (3e) DnD manual then it likely tells you what the DC is and which check should be used. 4e certainly wouldn't.It was in 3e.Are you under the impression locks can't be destroyed in 3e?What we are talking about is that the rule is use open lock to unlock the lock, DC 25 (for example). If you have Open Lock as a skill and roll (or take 20) then fine it is done. If you don't have Open Lock you can still destory it with any number of spells or weapons - probably.What NEITHER rules support is the player "Fonzie Bump"-ing it. BOTH rules assume you have to actually try and unlock/disable the lock before it is opened.And here is the issue with the 4e ruling exactly. Some DM's may allow one effect, other DM's may allow another. Neither ruling is entirely supported by the game outside of "let the DM decide" on page 42. The problem arises when the DM allows the effect to do something one time and then changes it another time. Once again, this is perfectly allowed by the rules and is a major concern about realism and consistency. In 3e, when a fireball does (or doesn't) set paper aflame one time then everyone at the table can expect it do the same thing the next time it comes up. No DM fiat/judgement/ruling/interpretation/argument/opinion/best guess required. Similarly, if it is changed next time, then there is a reason and should be considered to work under those circumstances in the future.This only matters, in either edition, if people at the game are 100% bound by the rules as written in the book. 4e doesn't solve that problem anymore than 3e did except it gave them less explanation on how effects logically occur. I feel it is poor design choice to give me less, especially on magical effects which so distort the usual understanding of cause and effect. Of course 4e opens it up to having more problems in this regard, as all effects are magical effects in 4e. Also, about the emphasis mine; it is a formula for both - as many on both sides have pointed out.</blockquote>

Verification