NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4314463" data-attributes="member: 47776">Ah.  For me, those two concepts are pretty much identical, barring specific special-case and special-purpose exceptions.Well, since we're defining terms; a rule is something that produces consistent results.  A rule that requires the DM to constantly use his discretion is a bad rule, and should either be replaced with something that more closely approximates the goals of the group.So, a group that has an existing, perfect shared understand about when it is and is not appropriate to use certain abilities does not need the Credible Threat rule.  Likewise, a group that has a shared understanding of when to RP out interactions and when to say "I try to convince the guard to let us in without invitations due to the urgency of our quest.  What's the Diplomacy DC?" can operate just fine with the 3.5 Diplomacy system.  But when there is no such understanding (say, when someone from the the side that calls itself the side of sanity, sweetness, the light of reason, and the glorious Future ahead and the side that's actually correct game together), the rules are insufficent to resolve the dispute.  The 3.5E Diplomacy rules are therefore bad rules, despite the fact that they can be used quite applicably by a group with the correct shared understanding; I make the same claim about the Credible Threat rule.Moreover, I claim that in situations where the existing rules are not sufficient to resolve such situations, the proper response is not another rule that still fails to do so.OK.  So, we're looking at a literal reading of the rules, right?  That does mean that a party-on-single-minion fight triggers abilities, because there are plenty of core examples of abilities working on single minions (after other minions have been whittled down).I'm quite fine with that.  If we're enforcing the rules, then engineering a situation in which a minion presents a credible threat of HP loss means you can kill the minion and gain the benefit.If we care about thematics, then we have questions about helpless peasants and alternate animal sacrifices, but we don't care about thematics.  Why can we cast Terror on a Wall of Stone? Because the rules say so, just like you said.I have a problem when people try to claim that the rules say something they don't.  The rules are trying to say "Don't apply cleverness to the encounter paradigm; the rules aren't set up to support encounters outside of the defined encounter setups, and doing so means you're going out of spec and may experience wonky results."  They are not actually saying this. They are instead saying not much at all, given the fact that you can use the tools given by the game world to apply cleverness and turn monsters into credible threats and in so doing go outside the defined encounter setup.And if you view the books as "Here are a list of suggestions for how to run your game." that's fine.  If you start with the assumption that mismatched expectations between player's interpretation of what's in the books and GM's desired way to run the world, then you're golden.  But since there is obviously not consensus as to the cool and expected way for certain abilities to work, I question the argument that the rules as written are sufficient generally.My common sense tells me that this is a rather strained argumentum ad populum.  My common sense also tells me that when side A asserts that something is common sense, side B disagrees, cites a reasonable example contradicting the thing, and A falls back on claiming that it's common sense despite being common neither to situations in general nor across the parties in the debates, side A needs to reexamine their definition of common sense.My common sense also says that cutting out the majority of the text of someone's post while replying is a sign of weakness in one's argument.  This is backed up by the aforementioned popular fallacy.But if you'd like to actually explain why it isn't common-sensical to expect two identical giant rats in two identical slayage situations to grant two identical bonuses when slain, feel free.  I'm perfectly comfortable with "The dark forces with which you have made a pact will only grant you your boon when you defeat a credible threat to your person."  I'm less comfortable with "Yes, this exact same scenario came up last room of the dungeon, with you telling the party not to kill the last dire rat in the group so you could Curse and Boon it, but you can't this time because I wanted you to face that dire rat in that combat but not in this one."My common sense tells me there will not be an explanation forthcoming of the uncomfortable example that does not violate common sense.And that's actually fine.  "Yes, that would work, and it's a logical thing for a character to try, but the game isn't designed for characters to optimize effort on that level, so please don't or it won't be as fun." is a fine explanation.</blockquote>

Verification