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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6061865" data-attributes="member: 48965">Wait what?? You're original assertion was that no PC could kill a normal monster with one attack... that was wrong, I'm not sure what point you are making now with this post,I haven't mentioned versimilitude at all... I disputed a statement you made and gave examples of why your statement was false.Ok, let me get this straight, are you claimng that hit points as conceived of in D&D were designed as a pacing constraint for narration. That's a pretty big claim, anything to back that up. I'm going to say I disagree, and though I don't know for sure, I would say... if anything hit points were part of the mechanic to determine level of challenge for PC's... not the pacing of narrative. I think the fact that your earlier combat assertion was wrong... and it's a more powerful monster, not any monster that can't be killed in one attack speaks to this inference. I'd be curious to know where, that was why I asked.See posts like this make me assume you're drawing on rules and examples outside of 4e to fill in the gaps. I asked where this was disussed and you gave me your own example and assumptions as opposed to what is in the book.Yet again, no matter how brilliant my idea to circumvent the obstacles in the skill challenge the DM will still only let the party succeed if they get X successes before Y failures... nothing I narrate or do mechanically will change that in the skill challenge... there aren't any rules in D&D 4e for creating the SC organically from the actiuons of the PC's as opposed to the pre-determined challenge and complexity level that has been set.Please don't do that I never claimed you and others who enjoy skill challenges have misunderstood them. I have tended to see a pattern where those who enjoy SC's in 4e either tend to do their own thing with them, as opposed to what's in the bok or they bring alot of experience from narratiive games and, IMO, fill in the gaps of 4e's SC rules with said knowledge. If anything I think that experience with games like HQ, MHR, etc. gives them a better understanding of what exactly 4e is trying to accomplish with SC's. I have not been discussing 4e as a whole, so again don't mis-represent my point with hyperbole. I spoke to one reason I disliked SC's as a mechanic specifically in 4e. The rules you have pointed out as I having misunderstoood... are not relevant and don't address my major gripe with SC's... telling me that the narrativbe flows from the skill used does not address that no matter what that narrative is or how I choose to use a skill... it is a pre-determined number of successes or failures as opposed to an organic number of successes or failures based on the actual actions taken by the PC's. This is what makes it boring for me and my group, we don't feel like we are truely affecting anything mechanically and the narrative isn't being generated because it logically flows but because the DM is trying to keep it up to meet this artificial requirement of "pacing". If you enjoy the pre-determinedc X successes before Y failures set up... fine, but please don't pretend that you've addressed my complaint when you haven't.</blockquote>

Verification