Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4111633" data-attributes="member: 51942">I agree completely with the basic concept, but I don't take it quite as far.&nbsp; A Dire shark has a discernable anatomy; but a dire shark using Swallow Whole is a special case with explicit special rules which state how you can damage and escape from it.&nbsp; Merely because a dire shark has a discernable anatomy by default does not necessarily imply that its gullet does.I think, ideally, that that guarantee should hold.&nbsp; Ideally, rules would follow a strict hierarchy and all exceptions would be explicit.&nbsp; Unfortunately, I don't feel that the D&amp;D 3.5 rules truly work very well when used in that fashion.&nbsp; There is no real hierarchy in the first place, and it's not clear what's an exception, nor to what extent exceptions hold.&nbsp; What's an (improvement) effect for the purposes of a monk's unarmed strike?The more rules and the more inferences you need to make, the less sense the results makes.&nbsp; From a simulationist perspective it's as if each rule is an error-introducing abstraction and after a certain amount of abstractions the total error is so great that you simply can't conclude much of anything worthwhile.Therefore, while I agree that a creature has a discernible anatomy unless stated otherwise, I don't think that a creature's gullet is a creature in and of itself. I don't think that if you can only hit a creature's gullet, and can only see a creature's gullet, that you can really speak of attacking a creature with a discernible anatomy in the normal sense since the rogue simply doesn't have the choice what to attack once swallowed.&nbsp; He can't much benefit from knowing a shark's exterior weaknesses while in the gullet.&nbsp; The rules are silent about his interior.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4111633, member: 51942"] I agree completely with the basic concept, but I don't take it quite as far. A Dire shark has a discernable anatomy; but a dire shark using Swallow Whole is a special case with explicit special rules which state how you can damage and escape from it. Merely because a dire shark has a discernable anatomy by default does not necessarily imply that its gullet does. I think, ideally, that that guarantee [i]should[/i] hold. Ideally, rules would follow a strict hierarchy and all exceptions would be explicit. Unfortunately, I don't feel that the D&D 3.5 rules truly work very well when used in that fashion. There is no real hierarchy in the first place, and it's not clear what's an exception, nor to what extent exceptions hold. What's an (improvement) effect for the purposes of a monk's unarmed strike? The more rules and the more inferences you need to make, the less sense the results makes. From a simulationist perspective it's as if each rule is an error-introducing abstraction and after a certain amount of abstractions the total error is so great that you simply can't conclude much of anything worthwhile. Therefore, while I agree that a creature has a discernible anatomy unless stated otherwise, I don't think that a creature's gullet is a creature in and of itself. I don't think that if you can only hit a creature's gullet, and can only see a creature's gullet, that you can really speak of attacking a creature with a discernible anatomy in the normal sense since the rogue simply doesn't have the choice what to attack once swallowed. He can't much benefit from knowing a shark's exterior weaknesses while in the gullet. The rules are silent about his interior. [/QUOTE]

Verification