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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6862561" data-attributes="member: 42582">This example of a "vow" doesn't generate any sort of mechanical disadvantage or burden on the player. I think that's a sufficient basis for drawing a distinction.I thought we were meant to be into rulings rather than rules!This really just takes us back to the bigger issue: why does combat need detailed rules (eg weapon damage rules, facing rules, reach rules, etc) but talking, climbing etc have a rules framework that occupies not much more than half-a-column of text (the GM settles on certainty or uncertainty, if the latter sets a DC, then a skill check is made). If adjudication of fictional positioning is good enough for the latter, I just don't see why it's an inherent problem for the former.Climbing a cliff can be as complex as fighting an orc - and is unlikely to devolve into violence - yet in D&D it has almost always been resolved via a single die roll. You haven't given any reason why combat demands to be anything but an opposed check. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] addressed MHRP directly (Cortex+).The weight of choice is moved from mechanical minutiae to fiction and framing. Again, I find it odd to have that dismissed as exemplifying a lack of weight in a thread where the OP has repeatedly been lectured about caring too much about mechanics.Agreed. The meaning, in this context, is the dramatic arc around vengeance. The implicit suggestion that that arc is more dramatic if the weapon is a dagger or shortsword rather than a longsword or rapier seems unwarranted to me too.</blockquote>

Verification