Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6350824" data-attributes="member: 6698278"><p>I guess I would need some examples. I think I do tend to not give inacurrate and corrupt information. If I do perceive though that the player is attempting something based on false knowledge the player has but is plainly obvious to the character, I as DM might just add information to what I originally said prior to the player completing his action. Obviously the goal in all cases is to be clear and that goes for all parties because lack of clarity is disruptive.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't describe the hit point damage prior to consulting the hit point totals. The hit point totals of the target are fixed. It's not the same as a player using the knowledge to change his action. Let's suppose I swing my two handed sword and do 5 damage and the creature has a DR of 5. I would describe that as the sword bouncing off the intended target or in some cases being turned aside. The reason is that DR is not a thought process it is an intrinsic part of the target. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe the former parry rule is far less troublesome for me. It is a stance and I think stances make sense. You are fighting in a more defensive posture or a more aggressive posture. I don't buy that you can know the damage before it actually occurs. A sword thrust could nick an artery or it couldn't. If you are a 12 hit point fighter then an attack that kills you could do so because it nicked an artery. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think so. I don't even like for reactions to be based upon getting hit if the reaction is something that could prevent the hit. Obviously I have no problem with a nearby cleric using a reaction to heal someone who is wounded because that reaction can occur after the attack and damage. In fact it would almost have to do so to make sense.</p><p></p><p>So not all reactions are bad. Just those that undo whatever it is you are reacting to and make it as if it had never happened.</p><p></p><p>So for example, if a barbarian got an extra rage for going below 50% hit points, that would be okay. He took the damage and he is not undoing it.</p><p></p><p>I realize some of you are incredulous at my thought processes and in some cases that leads to mockery. Note I said some. And so far here it's not been at all bad. I've got it hard in other places though. I can only attribute my preferences to something in my mental makeup. They make total sense to me. It is I believe one of the reasons people people rejected many parts of 4e. </p><p></p><p>Also when I say I know what I dislike, I do not use a game system like 4e as my example. I use something specific like dissociative mechanics. 4e had many good features. The bad features just made it not worth it for me. I got no problem with defenses instead of saves. I got no problem with encounter/daily powers on magic using characters. I wouldn't put them on every class but they are fine as one way for some classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6350824, member: 6698278"] I guess I would need some examples. I think I do tend to not give inacurrate and corrupt information. If I do perceive though that the player is attempting something based on false knowledge the player has but is plainly obvious to the character, I as DM might just add information to what I originally said prior to the player completing his action. Obviously the goal in all cases is to be clear and that goes for all parties because lack of clarity is disruptive. I don't describe the hit point damage prior to consulting the hit point totals. The hit point totals of the target are fixed. It's not the same as a player using the knowledge to change his action. Let's suppose I swing my two handed sword and do 5 damage and the creature has a DR of 5. I would describe that as the sword bouncing off the intended target or in some cases being turned aside. The reason is that DR is not a thought process it is an intrinsic part of the target. I believe the former parry rule is far less troublesome for me. It is a stance and I think stances make sense. You are fighting in a more defensive posture or a more aggressive posture. I don't buy that you can know the damage before it actually occurs. A sword thrust could nick an artery or it couldn't. If you are a 12 hit point fighter then an attack that kills you could do so because it nicked an artery. I don't think so. I don't even like for reactions to be based upon getting hit if the reaction is something that could prevent the hit. Obviously I have no problem with a nearby cleric using a reaction to heal someone who is wounded because that reaction can occur after the attack and damage. In fact it would almost have to do so to make sense. So not all reactions are bad. Just those that undo whatever it is you are reacting to and make it as if it had never happened. So for example, if a barbarian got an extra rage for going below 50% hit points, that would be okay. He took the damage and he is not undoing it. I realize some of you are incredulous at my thought processes and in some cases that leads to mockery. Note I said some. And so far here it's not been at all bad. I've got it hard in other places though. I can only attribute my preferences to something in my mental makeup. They make total sense to me. It is I believe one of the reasons people people rejected many parts of 4e. Also when I say I know what I dislike, I do not use a game system like 4e as my example. I use something specific like dissociative mechanics. 4e had many good features. The bad features just made it not worth it for me. I got no problem with defenses instead of saves. I got no problem with encounter/daily powers on magic using characters. I wouldn't put them on every class but they are fine as one way for some classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top