Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6307210" data-attributes="member: 18">PF is the one where they added detailed rules for fighting on stairs. It isn't the one which simplified things <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think the 3.XE skill system and Feats can be argued both ways, but let's be real - Monte Cook specifically stated that he had made Feats into a game system involving system mastery, with intentional bad Feats and so on. That isn't a game striving for realism, in combat, or out.Absolutely not. Attacks and HP are abstractions of what really happened - what really happened is a tired elven ranger finally spotted a fat rabbit and shot him with his bow. The attack roll and HP are abstractions of the &quot;reality&quot; that only apply &quot;onscreen&quot;. They are not intended to be the physics of the D&amp;D world - again, the designers of 3E would agree with me on this, and I believe Cook has said as much.That's a problem you have, though, not a problem with the rules. You've decided, arbitrarily, that Skill Checks cannot result in dead things, and that it is cheating if they do. You have then insisted that this is RAI - which it most certainly is not. Nor is it RAW. Survival can't bag a dragon not because it can't kill things, but because it's about Survival, not hunting and killing a *specific* animal, and it can only result in dead things that would naturally be the product of hunting.EDIT - If there was already a dead dragon in the area (for some campaign-specific reason), I would most certainly allow a Survival check (and an easy one at that) to locate it (likely it'd be pulling in raptors and corvids for dozens of miles), and hey, there might be edible meat there, if it hadn't been dead long and assuming dragons aren't poisonous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6307210, member: 18"] PF is the one where they added detailed rules for fighting on stairs. It isn't the one which simplified things :) I think the 3.XE skill system and Feats can be argued both ways, but let's be real - Monte Cook specifically stated that he had made Feats into a game system involving system mastery, with intentional bad Feats and so on. That isn't a game striving for realism, in combat, or out. Absolutely not. Attacks and HP are abstractions of what really happened - what really happened is a tired elven ranger finally spotted a fat rabbit and shot him with his bow. The attack roll and HP are abstractions of the "reality" that only apply "onscreen". They are not intended to be the physics of the D&D world - again, the designers of 3E would agree with me on this, and I believe Cook has said as much. That's a problem you have, though, not a problem with the rules. You've decided, arbitrarily, that Skill Checks cannot result in dead things, and that it is cheating if they do. You have then insisted that this is RAI - which it most certainly is not. Nor is it RAW. Survival can't bag a dragon not because it can't kill things, but because it's about Survival, not hunting and killing a *specific* animal, and it can only result in dead things that would naturally be the product of hunting. EDIT - If there was already a dead dragon in the area (for some campaign-specific reason), I would most certainly allow a Survival check (and an easy one at that) to locate it (likely it'd be pulling in raptors and corvids for dozens of miles), and hey, there might be edible meat there, if it hadn't been dead long and assuming dragons aren't poisonous. [/QUOTE]

Verification