Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7519242" data-attributes="member: 42582">You might have noticed that the people you are engaging with in this thread are emphasisng non-combat situations. I posted an example of such a situation (reforging a magic warhammer) and you replied to it.In my RPGing experience, it's never been too hard to note effectiveness in a variety of situations - roughly, the bonuses on the sheet for non-combat abilities, the availability of salient fiat abiliites (eg spells or magic item effects, in D&D), etc.Given that you don't play a game where the system provides the best moments, this can only be empricial conjecture. I'm here to tell you it's false.If you're wondering why/how, here's a rough analogue: sporting events can have standout moments even if no one cheats.From this, I infer that you haven't played many RPGs with systems more connected to the fiction than the AD&D or 5e combat resolution systems.Boardgames don't involve playing the fiction, and they don't generate ficiton accept as a possible epiphenomenon. RPGs are different in both respects. If you're not sure how a RPG system can be designed to both take fiction as input and yield fiction as output, then you might want to look at eg any system designed by Vincent Baker or Luke Crane; or Robin Laws' HeroWars/Quest; or any PbtA game; or Fate; etc.And if you think that By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. Because people generally have an idea. You just set the limits (how much you can lift, how far you can jump) and people can extrapolate and fill in the blanks is the same as work out whether or not the action is possible (given considerations of genrre, tier, PC capability from the point of view of the fiction, etc then you might also consider some of those system. What I said is very different from what you said in (at least) two ways: (1) I wasn't talking particularly about martial PCs; and (2) considerations of genre, tier, and PC capability from the pont of view of the fiction has almost nothing in common with setting limits and extrapolating from there.I would have thought the answer to that is obvious - because Elder Scrolls isn't a RPG, and so won't produce a shared fiction and permit engaging the fiction as part of the process of play.If someone thinks that engaging the fiction in play is at odds with engaging the system, that makes me assume that the only system they are familiar with is AD&D-type combat (to hit vs AC, damage deducted from hp), which is a fiction-independent system.In the description of the tiers of play (which is found in both the PHB and the DMG). And in the fiction associated with paragon paths and epic destinies.Those are fine action declarations. AD&D gives me zero advice on how to adjudicate them. 4e gives very clear advice on how to adjudicate them.5e doesn't have a DC-per-level chart. 4e does.It's not. As I've posted multiple times already, the 4e non-combat resolution system is clearly modelled on earlier systems like those found in Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest.I think that 5e is different from 4e in two respects: (1) there is no DC-by-level chart (5e does use levels for combat resolution, but not non-combat); (2) there is no closed-scene resolution system analogous to a skill challenge. In this respect 5e is closer to late 70s/early 80s systems like RQ, RM, etc than late 90s/early 2000s systems like the ones that influenced 4e's skill challenges.Huh? (1) There are minion liches published in the 4e MM.(2) There is no obstacle in 4e to adjudicating the outcome of a skill check, or a skill challenge, as being the "minonisation" of the lich. It's happened in my game on multiple occasions (not with respect to liches, but that's a matter of what's happened to come up, not a matter of principle).The comparison can equally be made to 5e, which doesn't differ in any salient respect as far as statting up a lich, or resolving a combat between a fighter and a lich, is concerned.A fighter might jump - for instance, as per this passage from Tower of the Elephant:A high wall enclosed this garden, and outside the wall was a lower level, likewise enclosed by a wall. No lights shone forth; there seemed to be no windows in the tower - at least not above the level of the inner wall. Only the gems high above sparkled frostily in the starlight. Shrubbery grew thick outside the lower, or outer, wall. The Cimmerian crept close and stood beside the barrier, measuring it with his eyes. It was high, but he could leap and catch the coping with his fingers. Then it would be child's play to swing himself up and over, and he did not doubt that he could pass the inner wall in the same manner. . . . Leaping lightly he grasped the wall and swung himself up to the top with one arm.Other examples: fighters are (notionally) the best at combat, yet it is wizards and not fighters that have a class ability that permits killing a foe without having to go through hp ablation. Wizards have abilities that enable them to issue powerful commands, extract oaths, etc (suggestion, geas, charm person) - there is no reason why fighters, as leaders, couldn't have comparable class abilities. Etc.From Gygax's DMG (pp 9, 21, 81):a person of the nature which this game presupposes, i.e. an adventurer in a world of swords & sorcery . . . it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic . . . The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.Those are just some examples which at least suggest that the designers intended the play of the game to, in some fashin, emulate or be suggestive of sword and sorcery fiction.</blockquote>

Verification