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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6049116" data-attributes="member: 95493">My whatever comment was meant to imply that I didn't care. And I didn't. I found it odd how you decided to dissect my point and I said so, but that was your call and I really don't care (now or then) how you did it.And I would not have had any questions or even find it odd had you decided to chop up my post by premise. Instead you chopped it up by premise and then by subparts so that the premises were disconnected from the underlying comments about them or explaining them. I tried to put all the relevant information about a premise in the same paragraph but you had other ideas and that is fine. It just struck me as odd.Ah, I know you think you did. But I see holes in your statements that were still unresolved, that is how a dialogue is created. For example, I asked many questions in each of my premises in my first reply to this thread, none of which you have answered (adequately or not). I'm not going to repeat them now as I have asked them twice and twice have been ignored so I'll move on and look at the new material you have given me.I hate to disagree but..In baseball, you DON'T intentionally throw a baseball in the attempt to bean the batter. It may happen accidentally or you may attempt to MISS (and "buzz" him) but if you attempted to intentionally bean the batter you would quickly no longer find yourself as the pitcher of a team and possibly even throw out of the league.I mean yes, it might happen that ONCE you may attempt it. But such a case would be rare, and you certainly would not become proficient enough to be able to directly cause the batter to move a certain number of squares or indeed take any other action just because you threw a ball at his head.And once again, the batter MAY end up on the ground or in some way avoiding the ball. Certainly the batter would ATTEMPT to avoid the blow however he could. But either way the pitcher would be TRYING to make the batter move OR to hit him. I don't see how he would be attempting to HIT HIM AND MAKE HIM MOVE.Right, and who is arguing that people would try TO get hit intentionally? Especially to get hit fatally? I would say that if someone is going to do so, and to receive a favourable result that they would have to fight against instinct. I don't know what you are trying to argue, nor what you are arguing against.As I said last post, we seem to be talking about two different things. You are talking about the abstract nature of HPs (something I actually happen to take exception with but something I'm not discussing let alone fighting in this post) and I am discussing (or was) the specific example that YOU GAVE about a pitcher trying to bean a batter.Okay, let me just convert this. My knowledge base is in 3.5 so that is the only basis that I can discuss such things. I understand that it is not a perfect comparison but then again nothing I'm discussing so far relies on 4e mechanics per se.To explain my 'bluff' comment that you seem to disagree with I will unfortunately have to go back to the pitcher-batter example. Please tell me, using this renewed example and my following explanation, where I go wrong as to why it is 'not a bluff'.Example given by you but polished by me:(Part 1 - from your post) "I'm not talking about a buzzing a batter. I'm talking about deliberately beaning him."So if the pitcher is trying to bean the batter. He makes a ranged attack vs the batters (possible touch) AC. That is it. If he hits the AC then the batter is hit with the ball (beaned).(Part 2) If he does not choose to move he is dead (this time talking about an orc and arrow, which I'm ignoring).Right, but in DnD terms he isn't dead. But I'm going to bypass this part because it deals with the abstract nature of HP and not the issue that we are discussing.(Part 3 - in my first reply to you) Me: Okay, so if the batter does not SEE the attack (the ball coming) then he should NOT be able to get out of the way.Seems simple to me. It is vs AC, his defense against the attack is his ability to dodge it. In 3e terms that would be considered his flat-footed. (Or flat-footed touch which is usually AC 10.)(Part 4) If he DOES see the attack then he should attempt to get out of the way, this we have established. However, if he does see the attack and does jump out of the way and DOES SO BECAUSE the pitcher wants him to, how is it not a bluff/feint?If the pitcher WANTS the batter to move, and in this way is dictating his action, how is he not bluffing (or feinting) the batter? If the batter doesn't move then he is getting hit. If the pitcher is TRYING to get the batter to move, then the getting hit would be going against what he wants.This is the main part I'm asking, over and over, about how that works. I say that if he wants to put the batter out of position then that is fine, it is called (in 3e terms) a bluff/feint. It isn't however automatic from making the attack (aka making the feint attempt) and it doesn't directly dictate how far the batter should move (or in what direction). None of this has been answered because you seem to be caught up on the abstract nature of HP and hits back in part 2.(Part 5) I don't know that I've explicitly discussed this part before but it seems fitting now. If he pitcher DOES want the batter to move and in a specific way/direction/fashion then he needs to apply some physical force (bullrush, trip, etc.) If he doesn't apply a physical force, and yet is able to dictate exactly how far the batter is moving then he must have some form of mind control. Especially since there are MANY different options how the batter could react from an attempted beaning.A followup to the mind control note is: if it is mind control then it is some form of magic. And that some form of magic =/= a warrior, it does = a wizard.Right, which is why there is a mechanic which is coup de grace. All other attacks, which are not coup de grace are therefore different.Sigh, the abstract nature of DnD's HP system. I don't know why this is a sticking point in your argument when it doesn't deal AT ALL in the situation of forced movement that you described. Yes, it does barely relate to the arrow to the temple for the orc, but that wasn't the major example given OR further elaborated upon.Yes, attacks are meant to be deadly. Attacks in DnD rarely are. I think that is a problem but it has no real basis in the discussion we are having so I'm going to drop it, I think you should too unless you tie it in somehow.It wasn't really a premise that time. It was the only two explanations I can see coming from the example of: pitcher throws ball attempting to bean batter. The solution seems fairly binary to me. Either he WANTS to hit him or he DOESN'T. The actual hitting him is really unimportant in the grand scheme, as you said yourself.Didn't you kind of say that baseballs are kind of deadly? Or was it just that they could cause concussions. Either way, it is not a kind thing.Besides, the deadliness isn't really the issue at hand either. The issue was the forced movement. If you want to start another thread on changing HP then two things will happen. First, you won't be the only one because HP is one of the major sticking features for all DnD players for all editions (and for good reason). Second, I'll try and stop by to discuss it with you. And hopefully give the solutions I have found with my own d20 system. I agree that swordblow or arrowshot should be more deadly. The relevent issue is how the pitcher is able to move the batter.Right, but I have given examples of how the pitcher-batter SHOULD be a simple and concrete example, but using the false dichotomy of the forced movement makes it un-so. Why do the game mechanics have to be so abstract when what they are modeling aren't?When you start talking about granular detail you lose me. I really don't follow what your meaning about this is. I really have nothing more to say about these points until I understand what you are saying about them.I can only speak for myself, but; not entirely. I think that there should be an honest to goodness mechanic at work when the fighter (or anyone) tries to force-move someone. I like the examples given after this post about the fighter's threat level. I don't like any mechanic where someone is forced into an action, be that movement or attacking, when it would be disadvantageous for them to do so. I think that a mechanic where they must roll a will save or be forced to engage the heavily-armor-clad individual with the large metal weapon is a poor mechanic. I think it would be equally poor if it were a bluff or feint unless there was more of a roleplay reason behind it. I think that nearly any time the attacker is DIRECTLY stating what the defender will do it is a poor system. The defender (as stated previously) may consider the attacker to be a bigger threat. They may also have a ranged weapon and be able to attack with that on their next action. They may not want to provoke AoO against their current combatant for suddenly leaving. There are many other reasons why, even if the fighter does proverbially open himself up to attack that the defender may choose not to use it. In these ways forced movement just breaks my disbelief. It isn't about internal consistency or anything at that stage. It is about being able to directly force them to do an action; be that pull OR push, and having 100% accuracy and autonomy in dictating how the defender does it.If the fighter is using magic then that is a different kettle of worms but at least then there is an explanation. Not a good one, and I would be dissatisfied with a magical-fighter but at least then it makes sense.I like that post you had a while back about why a fighter (or lack of  certain mechanics) makes a poor warlord. I agreed with it. Because of it, I have nothing more to say here, especially given what I said above.</blockquote>

Verification