Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8694773" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, you can quote me some rule that says you can't ignore your fear and attack anyways? Sure, you'll have disadvantage because of the physiological signs of fear, but no real-life person can ignore those either. You can't just be startled by something and decide "Nah, I'm not going to have a fight or flight response to this, brain, no adrenaline please." So, I don't see a meaningful difference.  Here's an interesting question as well, let's say something like a Banshee floats through the wall parallel to the parties path, with their horrifying visage, and floats out of sight into the wall on the others side. Like a spooky ghost cat crossing their path. The character is frightened. Do they have disadvantage on anything? No, because the Banshee isn't in line of sight. Can the character move deeper into the structure? I'd say yes, because while they cannot move closer to the source of their fear, their fear is off to the left, and the path goes forward. They aren't moving closer to the creature, so they can continue just fine. At this point, they are frightened... but ignoring it and moving on. So, I think you seem to be confused. Because Phobias, extreme fears that are the most prominent exampe similar to the frightened condition, can't just be ignored. A person cannot just decide to ignore their phobia. Just go watch a Dr. Phil episode where he terrorizes some poor person with a phobia under the guise of "helping" them. These sort of physiological responses can't be ignored. But, if the source of the fear isn't in sight, then the player can also just ignore the effects of the condition. Therefore... this seems to map pretty well to real-life situations that I am using. This is something we could have discussed ages ago if I didn't have to keep repeating my argument til people understood it. Personally, I'd remove this idea of it being bravery, because like I've said, this harms the narrative of the game. Instead I'd call it something like "unshakeable" and say they cannot have disadvantage on attacks or skills due to the frightened condition. It isn't full immunity, because the movement restriction is still in place, but it removes the biggest teeth from the frightened condition. And now it is all about how they respond to fear, and that can be used for interesting world-building. Where do warlocks come from? Why is it Paladin's can heal with a touch of their hand? Why does a Medusa's gaze turn you to stone? Why can Minotaurs always navigate a labyrinth? Why do hydra's grow new heads unless they are burned by fire? Why do Genie's offer wishes? Why does bardic magic work by playing an instrument? I find it so disingenuous to continually get told that stories from literature don't matter in DnD, that the only thing that matters are the mechanics. You don't really believe that. You can't believe that and be able to truthfully answer the above questions. Heck, halflings only exist because of a novel. So, no, I think it does matter to pull up DnD literature, and point to what it says halfling luck is like, then point to the game and say "this is nothing like that" and discuss how this is a potential problem. Because the narrative does matter. That's why you will never find a demon immune to radiant damage, because it would break the narrative of what those things mean, even though mechanically, radiant damage is no different from lightning damage. I don't think we should continue defining halflings by being lucky, because I think if we actually made the narrative match the game, they wouldn't be, and if we made the game match the narrative, it would be detrimental for the game. It can still be a trope for them, if people want to keep the lore, but if we change the ability and remove luck from their abilities, I think it would make for a better way forward for the game. Because without mechanical weight, it becomes a question of "are they really?", while right now, there is no question. He doesn't care for the stories halflings can tell. He prefers changelings and elves and he even played an old human paladin once. Calling him short-sighted because he is preferencing the stories he wants over the mechanics seems a bit rude to me.</blockquote>

Verification