Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8675277" data-attributes="member: 16814">The game says that the 120' dragon fits in a 20'x20' square.&nbsp; I dunno what to tell you, that's what the game says.&nbsp; If you think it's poor GMing to use what the game says, I'd say you really need to send a letter to WotC about this.&nbsp; In the meantime, maybe don't tell other people they're bad GMs because they don't do it like you do?Um, no, and we can all scroll back up and see where mammoths entered the discussion.&nbsp; And yes, Reign of Fire is MORE REALISTIC than D&amp;D fighters going toe-to-toe with dragons.&nbsp; At what point does this claim that it's very, kinda or even sort realistic?&nbsp; It's MORE realistic that the silliness that D&amp;D does.&nbsp; As in, Duck Tales is MORE realistic than, say, Road Runner.&quot;A bit.&quot;&nbsp; You said, specifically, overhangs &quot;a bit.&quot;&nbsp; Your image now is 50% overhang.&nbsp; As in, the Dragon in your image is more than 60' long but fits in a 40' space.&nbsp; I wouldn't classify that as &quot;a bit.&quot;&nbsp; I dunno, doesn't really make much sense because you're only that big in the instant you attack, and that size has no other meaning.&nbsp; I can't ready an attack outside my reach for you to attack from yours, for instance.&nbsp; That extra size exists only to enable the reach mechanic, and not to describe the fiction.&nbsp; The fiction you're using to describe how reach works is post-hoc -- it comes after you see the rules and need to find a way to rationalize them.I didn't start the argument that dragons are just fine simulation.&nbsp; I started with they are not.&nbsp; You've argued the point.&nbsp; If you didn't mean to argue that point, what are we doing?Can you point out the specific misinterpretations?&nbsp; That way I can be sure to avoid those, as asked, instead of having to guess what it is you mean.&nbsp; I've taken the time to lay out the sequence twice, so it should be fairly easy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8675277, member: 16814"] The game says that the 120' dragon fits in a 20'x20' square. I dunno what to tell you, that's what the game says. If you think it's poor GMing to use what the game says, I'd say you really need to send a letter to WotC about this. In the meantime, maybe don't tell other people they're bad GMs because they don't do it like you do? Um, no, and we can all scroll back up and see where mammoths entered the discussion. And yes, Reign of Fire is MORE REALISTIC than D&D fighters going toe-to-toe with dragons. At what point does this claim that it's very, kinda or even sort realistic? It's MORE realistic that the silliness that D&D does. As in, Duck Tales is MORE realistic than, say, Road Runner. "A bit." You said, specifically, overhangs "a bit." Your image now is 50% overhang. As in, the Dragon in your image is more than 60' long but fits in a 40' space. I wouldn't classify that as "a bit." I dunno, doesn't really make much sense because you're only that big in the instant you attack, and that size has no other meaning. I can't ready an attack outside my reach for you to attack from yours, for instance. That extra size exists only to enable the reach mechanic, and not to describe the fiction. The fiction you're using to describe how reach works is post-hoc -- it comes after you see the rules and need to find a way to rationalize them. I didn't start the argument that dragons are just fine simulation. I started with they are not. You've argued the point. If you didn't mean to argue that point, what are we doing? Can you point out the specific misinterpretations? That way I can be sure to avoid those, as asked, instead of having to guess what it is you mean. I've taken the time to lay out the sequence twice, so it should be fairly easy. [/QUOTE]

Verification