Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3734974" data-attributes="member: 20239">This has already been addressed upthread, so I'll quote the relevant parts here for clarity, first Treebore said...And I later replied...Treebore's assertion is false because the SIEGE engine provides the method for determining whether a character is able to perform a specific feat-like action, but provides no rules for the actual mechanical effects of success.  The SIEGE engine produces a binary result (success or failure) but Feats aren't a binary mechanic.  Selecting Feats is a binary mechanic (you either have them or you don't) and the SIEGE engine works just fine as a replacement for the process of Feat selection, but it does not replace the more complex function of feats which is detailing the mechanical effects of the binary result.  Saying that the SIEGE mechanic replaces the function of feats is false, because it does not reproduce the entire function of that mechanic, only the simplest portion of it.Can the SIEGE mechanic be used as part of a process to replicate the function of Feats in a C&C game? Absolutely.  But the process of replication requires more than just the SIEGE mechanic, it requires creative input from either the player or the DM to define the mechanical effect of a successful SIEGE check.  That creative input is not inherent to the C&C rules, the fact that the rulebooks give you permission to be creative notwithstanding.Absolutely not, although I can see where you might get that impression from my reply to Treebore.  The point is not that there should be only one correct way to handle the mechanical effects of a specific action, but that if the rules do actually provide that information there will be a common method for handling those mechanical effects.  If two players who claim to be using the SIEGE mechanic as written are employing different mechanical effects, it indicates that the "creative input" I mentioned above is present and underscores that the "mechanical effect" function of Feats isn't replicated by the SIEGE mechanic.Which is exactly my point.  Feats provide a two-fold mechanic in 3e, they allow a player to know whether his character is capable of specific actions (yes or no, a binary result) and they describe the specific mechanical effects of those actions.  The SIEGE mechanic produces a binary result which doesn't include any information about the mechanical effects of success.  How can something be inherently "covered" by a mechanic that you admit provides incomplete information about the subject being "covered"?  "Coverage" implies completeness, yet you specifically acknowledge that the C&C rules aren't complete when it comes to replicating the function of Feats in 3e.First, I'd hardly call the discussion Treebore and I and now you and I are having a "fuss", it's just talk.  Second, I never questioned the veracity of Treebore's position that C&C characters "can perform Feat-like actions" in his game.  The point is that what occurs in his game isn't necessarily representative of something inherent to the C&C rules.  It's merely representative of what you can do using the C&C rules as a base.  PCs in a C&C game do not inherently and universally "have all feats".  They can "have all feats" if that is something that the GM chooses to include in his game and willingly engages in the creative input necessary to provide information the actual C&C rules don't contain.  Most players, I think, would consider that distinction significant (some, perhaps, even moreso than I would).As someone who doesn't particularly like either C&C or 3e I find it strange to be "defending" one side of this debate and am frustrated that the automatic assumption by you and others is that I'm a huge fan of 3e.  I'm not, far from it actually, and you wouldn't have to read many of my previous posts here at ENWorld to get that impression.  To be clear, this was never a discussion about one system being "better" than the other on my part, it's a discussion about the accuracy of certain claims and the reasons behind the opinion that they are either accurate or inaccurate.  As far as I'm concerned it's a value-neutral issue, whether the SIEGE mechanic replicates the function of feats is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the quality of the C&C rules.  So if you want to continue discussing the issue, let's not make any unfounded assumptions about each other's preferences in playstyle or games and stick to the core issues.  Agreed?</blockquote>

Verification