Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5303684" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'd posrep Mr Myth some more for being able to phrase my concerns better than I can, but, gotta spread around, etc.RC - Mr. Myth is nailing EXACTLY what my arguments were.  To a "T".  The problem is, you're changing which edition we're talking about, in the middle of conversations and it makes it really hard to keep up.Just pulling out this one specific quote, which is the crux of the issue for me:Your argument is that it is much more likely that a creature's footprint should be readily apparent.  "Very, very often not so" = "Most of the time" at least as I understand the phrase.So, your argument boils down to, "An adventuring party should very often have the opportunity to know exactly what they are facing before they face it".  That if the game world is consistent then the party will be able to learn what they will face in advence.To me, this is utter ballocks.  "Rust Monsters eat doorknobs" only works if you actually have doornobs and metal hinges in a dungeon.  It also presumes that all adventures happen in traditioin D&D style dungeons.  What's wrong with stone doors?  Or no doors at all as in natural caverns?But, as I said, it's virtually imposible to hit the target that moves so fast. In the course of a single post you go from 1e to 3e:What game are you talking about?  At one time, you talk about the medusa stoning everything she sees, but, in 3e, medusa's can control their gaze - so why are they stoning everything?  If we go back to 1e, then encounter range doesn't matter because over 30 feet, the party cannot tell that the creature is a medusa - convenient when the creature's gaze attack reaches 30 feet.You want to discuss specific editions?  Fine.  But, playing mix and match edition so that you can counter any point brought up is pointless.I look at it like this:Yes, you are right that creatures may have a "footprint".  Where the disagreement comes is that you presume that that footprint is discoverable by the party.  That, in order for a setting to be consistant, it must be detectable.  I disagree.  There are any number of ways you can hide the footprint of a creature.To me, a creature which has a significant chance of instantly killing a PC is a poorly designed creature.  1hit die creatures don't do d100 points of damage on a hit for a reason.  Yes, there is a chance that the great axe wielding orc can do massive damage.  That's true.  That's also why 3.5 dumped the great axe for a falchion.  But, please, I've already tried to distance myself from this thread once.  I just felt that since you continuously bring up my name, I had to make a few points of clarification.  Leave me out of things here.  You obviously don't agree with what I'm saying, and that's fine.  I disagree with you as well.But disagreeing does not equal not understanding.  I understand what you're saying, and obviously there are a few other people who understand what you're saying as well.  I just disagree with you.  The only way your limitation of SoD works, is if the footprint is detectable EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Because if it's not, then it becomes a surprise encounter, and SoD typically just means die for at least one character.  THAT'S why I disagree with you.  Your system will not work unless it happens every single time.  When a SoD encounter occurs that the party was not prepared for, the math is too loaded against the party.I've asked this in this thread numerous times, and no one seems to be willing to take it up, so I'll ask it one more time.  Is a 1 hit die creature that does your current hit points plus 11 in damage every hit a well designed creature?  Why or why not?</blockquote>

Verification