Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9617640" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Isn't this strange though?&nbsp; That to attack a particular part of a foe's body or attempt to shove, shield bash, trip, throw sand in someone's eyes, whathaveyou, that the system demands the existence of a &quot;mechanic&quot; to allow it?Now I know some will say, &quot;but that's what Improvise Action is for&quot;, but bear with me- if the DM allows me to, say, slash at an enemy's face when they aren't wearing a close-faced helm, what almost certainly follows is them creating a mechanic for it, ex nihilo, to allow it.&nbsp; It probably won't be pretty, unless they've given this serious thought, but it's just creating a &quot;stab face&quot; button for a warrior to press.There are innumerable actions a warrior could perform in real life combat, to varying degrees of success, but the system demands that a button either exist for them or for the DM to create one.&nbsp; Or worse, they are siloed off into class or subclass abilities (Battlemaster Maneuvers, as an example).I mean, in modern D&amp;D, if I want my archer to have fire arrows, I either need magic or a discussion with the DM, lol.Now, some people will say, &quot;D&amp;D is not a simulation, combat is abstracted, and you can assume many of these things are happening automatically in combat, they are just not being described or called out as such&quot;, which I guess is fine- you could narrate a combat round as a sequence of dirty tricks, gambits, feints, parries, and sidestepping.However, then we have spells, which are powerful buttons, of which hundreds exist (and over the life cycle of D&amp;D, thousands), for just about every conceivable thing one imagines a spellcaster should be able to do.&nbsp; And their only real limit is that they are limited use actions.&nbsp; And there is no abstraction here, we don't say &quot;oh the Wizard does magic and stuff in the course of the combat round&quot;.&nbsp; Instead, each and every thing the Wizard does is a named and fully realized mechanic.&nbsp; Heck, we have some examples from older D&amp;D of the exact actions the Wizard takes to evoke a spell, like spreading both hands in a fan-shape to cast Burning Hands.But for a Fighter?&nbsp; It's special feature, DM permission, or &quot;I swing my sword.&nbsp; Uh, 17, does that hit?&nbsp; Ok, 9 damage.&nbsp; Slashing, if it matters.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9617640, member: 6877472"] Isn't this strange though? That to attack a particular part of a foe's body or attempt to shove, shield bash, trip, throw sand in someone's eyes, whathaveyou, that the system demands the existence of a "mechanic" to allow it? Now I know some will say, "but that's what Improvise Action is for", but bear with me- if the DM allows me to, say, slash at an enemy's face when they aren't wearing a close-faced helm, what almost certainly follows is them creating a mechanic for it, [I]ex nihilo[/I], to allow it. It probably won't be pretty, unless they've given this serious thought, but it's just creating a "stab face" button for a warrior to press. There are innumerable actions a warrior could perform in real life combat, to varying degrees of success, but the system demands that a button either exist for them or for the DM to create one. Or worse, they are siloed off into class or subclass abilities (Battlemaster Maneuvers, as an example). I mean, in modern D&D, if I want my archer to have fire arrows, I either need magic or a discussion with the DM, lol. Now, some people will say, "D&D is not a simulation, combat is abstracted, and you can assume many of these things are happening automatically in combat, they are just not being described or called out as such", which I guess is fine- you could narrate a combat round as a sequence of dirty tricks, gambits, feints, parries, and sidestepping. However, then we have spells, which are powerful buttons, of which hundreds exist (and over the life cycle of D&D, thousands), for just about every conceivable thing one imagines a spellcaster should be able to do. And their only real limit is that they are limited use actions. And there is no abstraction here, we don't say "oh the Wizard does magic and stuff in the course of the combat round". Instead, each and every thing the Wizard does is a named and fully realized mechanic. Heck, we have some examples from older D&D of the exact actions the Wizard takes to evoke a spell, like spreading both hands in a fan-shape to cast Burning Hands. But for a Fighter? It's special feature, DM permission, or "I swing my sword. Uh, 17, does that hit? Ok, 9 damage. Slashing, if it matters." [/QUOTE]

Verification