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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 6674627" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>I actually would not agree with that representation of our positions. For me this comes down to what I would call game <em>logic</em>. I do enjoy looking at the game as a game. That's primarily the type of discussion I get into on this forum. I'm not particularly concerned with game balance, however. Unless I'm tinkering with the rules, I don't feel that I need to worry about preserving balance since I assume the designers have done a decent job on that front. That isn't why I wouldn't count striking an ally that doesn't defend him or herself as an attack. The reason why it isn't an attack is that the target is not defending itself. Obviously to me, you don't get the benefit of your AC if you are willingly accepting the blow. Why would an attack roll be required to hit?</p><p></p><p>I don't think this is inconsistent with my understanding of Warcaster in the slightest. Being able to cast Polymorph on your willing friend is hardly indicative of that friend's vulnerability. To the contrary, you are helping your friend to be less vulnerable to drowning. Resisting the spell, however, I would see as a hostile act, which is why you could cast Polymorph on an enemy using Warcaster, but not on a friend. How is this inconsistent? The two actions are resolved in similar ways, under my reading, depending on whether the target is friendly or hostile. Strike or cast Polymorph on a friend? No die roll required. Strike or cast Polymorph on an enemy? An attack roll or saving throw is made. Seems very consistent to me.</p><p></p><p>I actually think of myself as a simulationist. At least I enjoy a certain amount of simulationism. I think maybe we enjoy simulating different things. I like mechanics that simulate a fiction that has a certain consistency, and, at least for me, the DM, predictability. This is very much a type of newtonian physics that I am interested in having in my games. I accept that such mechanics are an abstraction from reality, so I don't concern myself with simulating reality. That would necessitate a complete redesign of the system in my opinion, and wouldn't result in a better more playable game. So I'm perfectly happy to let the rules as written be the game physics. Understanding the rules lets me know how the fictional world that I am simulating in my game actually works. If part of the rules, a feat or something, creates an exception that appears to break the physical laws that the main body of the rules seems to create, then I accept that as how the fictional world actually works. To draw an example from comic books, Superman's ability to fly seems to break the physical law of gravity to anyone who doesn't understand how it really works. Part of the fiction of Superman's world, however is that someone with his molecular composition actually can fly, there's no magic involved. That's, in a less dramatic way, how I see feats like Warcaster. They allow you to do things that no one else can do, but there are limitations because they still exist within the physics of the game. The limitation on the Warcaster feat is that it can only be used against enemies, which is consistent with opportunity attacks only working against enemies, as well as attacks only working against enemies. There is some circularity to this, I admit, because I believe that if you attack someone and they defend themselves then they are your enemy, but I think I've explained that position well enough already.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 6674627, member: 6787503"] I actually would not agree with that representation of our positions. For me this comes down to what I would call game [I]logic[/I]. I do enjoy looking at the game as a game. That's primarily the type of discussion I get into on this forum. I'm not particularly concerned with game balance, however. Unless I'm tinkering with the rules, I don't feel that I need to worry about preserving balance since I assume the designers have done a decent job on that front. That isn't why I wouldn't count striking an ally that doesn't defend him or herself as an attack. The reason why it isn't an attack is that the target is not defending itself. Obviously to me, you don't get the benefit of your AC if you are willingly accepting the blow. Why would an attack roll be required to hit? I don't think this is inconsistent with my understanding of Warcaster in the slightest. Being able to cast Polymorph on your willing friend is hardly indicative of that friend's vulnerability. To the contrary, you are helping your friend to be less vulnerable to drowning. Resisting the spell, however, I would see as a hostile act, which is why you could cast Polymorph on an enemy using Warcaster, but not on a friend. How is this inconsistent? The two actions are resolved in similar ways, under my reading, depending on whether the target is friendly or hostile. Strike or cast Polymorph on a friend? No die roll required. Strike or cast Polymorph on an enemy? An attack roll or saving throw is made. Seems very consistent to me. I actually think of myself as a simulationist. At least I enjoy a certain amount of simulationism. I think maybe we enjoy simulating different things. I like mechanics that simulate a fiction that has a certain consistency, and, at least for me, the DM, predictability. This is very much a type of newtonian physics that I am interested in having in my games. I accept that such mechanics are an abstraction from reality, so I don't concern myself with simulating reality. That would necessitate a complete redesign of the system in my opinion, and wouldn't result in a better more playable game. So I'm perfectly happy to let the rules as written be the game physics. Understanding the rules lets me know how the fictional world that I am simulating in my game actually works. If part of the rules, a feat or something, creates an exception that appears to break the physical laws that the main body of the rules seems to create, then I accept that as how the fictional world actually works. To draw an example from comic books, Superman's ability to fly seems to break the physical law of gravity to anyone who doesn't understand how it really works. Part of the fiction of Superman's world, however is that someone with his molecular composition actually can fly, there's no magic involved. That's, in a less dramatic way, how I see feats like Warcaster. They allow you to do things that no one else can do, but there are limitations because they still exist within the physics of the game. The limitation on the Warcaster feat is that it can only be used against enemies, which is consistent with opportunity attacks only working against enemies, as well as attacks only working against enemies. There is some circularity to this, I admit, because I believe that if you attack someone and they defend themselves then they are your enemy, but I think I've explained that position well enough already. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Point me to the rule please:
Top