Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 8126649" data-attributes="member: 59848">[USER=72555]@NotAYakk[/USER] - I honestly think we are at an impasse. It's clear that you are much more simulationist in how you approach the game. And that's great and I wish you well with that! We are coming from different approaches and are not going to see eye to eye. But that is not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to reduce the complexity of a spell that I find problematic. I want to eliminate a player's need to use and access the Monster Manual as a mechanical game resource. And I am ok with a &quot;good enough&quot; model rather than creating new stat blocks or multiple spells to cover all the possibilities that the original Polymorph spell covers.So you may not agree with my presuppositions. You may not accept the problems that I am trying to address with my revised versions of Polymorph, and similar such spells, even exist. But if you can't critique or assess my revisions from that perspective, then I'm not sure any further discussion will be productive. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of simulationist approaches to mechanics, whether mechanics can or should be reskinned, or the degree to which a player should be able to use the Monster Manual as an in-game resource. I believe I've clearly stated the problems I'm trying to address and my design philosophy, and I'm pretty firm in my position.I would certainly welcome any and all feedback. But the MOST helpful feedback would focus on the mechanics I've presented, how they might affect game balance, unintended consequences of my version of the spell, and how my mechanics compare to other 4th level spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 8126649, member: 59848"] [USER=72555]@NotAYakk[/USER] - I honestly think we are at an impasse. It's clear that you are much more simulationist in how you approach the game. And that's great and I wish you well with that! We are coming from different approaches and are not going to see eye to eye. But that is not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to reduce the complexity of a spell that I find problematic. I want to eliminate a player's need to use and access the Monster Manual as a mechanical game resource. And I am ok with a "good enough" model rather than creating new stat blocks or multiple spells to cover all the possibilities that the original Polymorph spell covers. So you may not agree with my presuppositions. You may not accept the problems that I am trying to address with my revised versions of Polymorph, and similar such spells, even exist. But if you can't critique or assess my revisions from that perspective, then I'm not sure any further discussion will be productive. I'm not really interested in debating the merits of simulationist approaches to mechanics, whether mechanics can or should be reskinned, or the degree to which a player should be able to use the Monster Manual as an in-game resource. I believe I've clearly stated the problems I'm trying to address and my design philosophy, and I'm pretty firm in my position. I would certainly welcome any and all feedback. But the MOST helpful feedback would focus on the mechanics I've presented, how they might affect game balance, unintended consequences of my version of the spell, and how my mechanics compare to other 4th level spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification