Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Point me to the rule please:
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="Hriston" data-source="post: 6673952" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>I don't think a distinction between crunch and fluff is particularly helpful as there is no clear line of demarcation in this "rules as guidelines" edition. The way I like to look at it is that the terms <strong>hostile</strong> and <strong>friendly</strong> used here are the same designations defined in the DMG under <strong>Starting Attitude</strong>. </p><p></p><p>Two things are apparent from the DMG. First, it is up to the DM to determine what a creature's Starting Attitude is, so a player can't really change their character's attitude from friendly to hostile by simple declaration. Attitude in a character is revealed through actions. A hostile creature seeks to hinder the PC's goals, so if a character attempts to thwart another character's action, or is actually attempting to harm the other character, then that character should be considered hostile by the DM. The same is true if the character is trying to help another character. That character is friendly. Where this might be confusing is that the game is written with the assumption that adventuring parties are comprised of characters that are friendly to each other. This makes sense because the party is assumed to share a common goal that they are helping each other to achieve. However, this is not necessarily a static condition.</p><p></p><p>That's because the second thing to take away about attitudes is that they can change throughout an encounter, sometimes temporarily. The game assumes that everyone on one side of a conflict is friendly with each other, and that they are hostile to the other side. But what happens when a character chooses to attack a fellow party member? The character's stated goal is to harm the other character, so the character is hostile by definition. The character being attacked now seeks to prevent the first character from achieving that goal, so it is now likewise hostile simply because the assumption is that a character will defend itself. This shift in attitude occurs before the blow actually lands, so the attack is possible.</p><p></p><p>If, by contrast, the character's intent was to aid the other party member by buffing with a spell, then they obviously remain friendly to one another, and such an action could neither be considered an attack nor an opportunity attack.</p><p></p><p>So, I think you're correct in not viewing this type of language as restrictive. But I think its more helpful when interpreting the rules to view these instances as defining certain <em>actions</em> as typical of a hostile creature, rather than to simply disregard the language as "not crunch".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 6673952, member: 6787503"] I don't think a distinction between crunch and fluff is particularly helpful as there is no clear line of demarcation in this "rules as guidelines" edition. The way I like to look at it is that the terms [B]hostile[/B] and [B]friendly[/B] used here are the same designations defined in the DMG under [B]Starting Attitude[/B]. Two things are apparent from the DMG. First, it is up to the DM to determine what a creature's Starting Attitude is, so a player can't really change their character's attitude from friendly to hostile by simple declaration. Attitude in a character is revealed through actions. A hostile creature seeks to hinder the PC's goals, so if a character attempts to thwart another character's action, or is actually attempting to harm the other character, then that character should be considered hostile by the DM. The same is true if the character is trying to help another character. That character is friendly. Where this might be confusing is that the game is written with the assumption that adventuring parties are comprised of characters that are friendly to each other. This makes sense because the party is assumed to share a common goal that they are helping each other to achieve. However, this is not necessarily a static condition. That's because the second thing to take away about attitudes is that they can change throughout an encounter, sometimes temporarily. The game assumes that everyone on one side of a conflict is friendly with each other, and that they are hostile to the other side. But what happens when a character chooses to attack a fellow party member? The character's stated goal is to harm the other character, so the character is hostile by definition. The character being attacked now seeks to prevent the first character from achieving that goal, so it is now likewise hostile simply because the assumption is that a character will defend itself. This shift in attitude occurs before the blow actually lands, so the attack is possible. If, by contrast, the character's intent was to aid the other party member by buffing with a spell, then they obviously remain friendly to one another, and such an action could neither be considered an attack nor an opportunity attack. So, I think you're correct in not viewing this type of language as restrictive. But I think its more helpful when interpreting the rules to view these instances as defining certain [I]actions[/I] as typical of a hostile creature, rather than to simply disregard the language as "not crunch". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Point me to the rule please:
Top