Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8675219" data-attributes="member: 7025508">No. You simply have intentionally describe thing in nonsensical manner. I don't know why, the game certainly doesn't demand this. "This 120 foot long dragon occupies this 20 foot square" is a thing that a person can say. It however is not a thing that can be visualised, because it is logically impossible. Personally I wouldn't consider making things intentionally unvisualisable good GMing practice.No mate. The mammoth example was brought up because you thought that it would be more realistic for giant lizards to be able to bring down the modern world full of tanks and supersonic jetfighters than a group of late medieval people killing said giant lizard. This of course is blatantly laughable. It was never claimed that dragons are as easy to kill than mammoths, merely an example that it is possible for humans to kill animals far larger than themselves even using simple sticks. One would expect renaissance tech help quite a bit, and of course with modern tech it is not worth even contemplating. This again is not what happened. I had mentioned before the t-rex size was examined that I'd expect dragon extremities overhanging their square. So I was using a consistent model the whole time.How do you think the reach works? The dragon can attack a foe 15 feet away without leaving its square, because it's neck and tail can reach that far away. Like I have said several times, I'm fine with pretty broad strokes simulation. Just some basic sensemakery is fine. And yeah, I'd prefer 5e to have a tad more of it. But I don't think what is gained by being intentionally obtuse and interpreting things that actually make sense in nonsensical manner.You have several time misinterpreted what has been said and when, in order to attack some strawman version of my arguments. Call it what you want, but stop doing it.</blockquote>

Verification