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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6049165" data-attributes="member: 50304">That's simply untrue. There are plenty of times where a pitcher deliberately throws at a batter in major leagues. Sometimes you get fined. Sometimes you provoke a brawl. On rare occasion you send a guy to the hospital. Depending on the amount of aggression or malice involved in the act the technique varies. Tangent Baseball Explanation:[sblock]Throwing at the head is generally the most dangerous and harmful technique. About the best way it can be done is throwing righty-on-lefty or lefty-on-righty, set up with one or more pitches down and away from the batter, drawing him closer over the plate. Then you throw a high, fast, inside cut fastball the breaks inside.If you just want to "buzz" him you don't throw the cut-fastball so when the batter leans or staggers back out of the way the ball doesn't continue to ride in and hit him.If you just want to retaliate because of a hit batter but not risk any serious injury to the victim you aim their lower back or buttocks. It hurts and qualifies as a "message pitch," but that's about it.[/sblock]The trick with a bean-ball is it doesn't have to hit. It's purpose is to either hurt the batter or make him eat dirt avoiding the injury. Either outcome is acceptable. It's a malicious intimidation technique that may or may not cause physical injury and using it shows a cavalier disregard for the safety of the batter.But in terms of scope, it's a single instance of attempted battery without using a deadly weapon.It doesn't have the same effect as a warrior's standard action in a deadly fight because it's a not the same scope. The severity of the threat (injury vs. fatality) and the amount of time involved (.5 seconds vs. 6 seconds) are completely different scales.The direction, however, is almost entirely dictated by the nature of the pitch. Do it right and 99.9% of the time the batter falls backward and to the ground - because that is the instinctive and technically optimal trained response to the perceived threat. Throw behind the batter and he'll dive across the plate.That's because you've constructed a false dichotomy where none actually exists. The bean-ball is an attempt to hit, endanger, move, and intimidate the batter all at once. The mechanism is solely the attempt to hit the batter, but the other purposes of the attack remain. Hitting is variable. Intimidation is subjective. Endangerment and movement are both givens.Non-suicidal responses to certain attempts on your life can be narrowed down quickly by the nature and technique of an attack.The false dichotomy between an attempt to hit someone and attempt to force them to move is really the sticking point.Actually, since the batter is stuck in the batter's box until about .4 seconds before the ball makes impact it's really not going to model well as an attack against AC, or even touch AC. Basically, the batter makes a Reflex save. On a successful save he falls back about 6 inches and falls prone. On a failed save he falls back about 6 inches and takes damage based on how badly he failed his save. On a natural 1 he takes a critical hit to the skull and may suffer a concussion or be maimed.In D&D terms he doesn't have that option. D&D mechanics assume participants in combat are deliberately trying to keep alive and are reasonably capable of doing so. Otherwise they get like 1HP or the helpless condition to denote their lack of survival ability.Because there's no deception? It's a deliberate attack with two perfectly acceptable outcomes - both of which involve the batter moving. The danger zone created is entirely real. But this is more of that false dichotomy problem with your reasoning that's already been identified.For the limited scope of baseball, there aren't many practical variations.Yes, yes. Anything forced or assumed is mind-control. Magicians good, Grogs bad, or it's not "realistic" enough. I think I've heard this before.Coup de Grace is mentioned because it is a mechanic that describes what happens when someone is attacked without being able or willing to defend themselves effectively.D&D assumes combatants always choose to jump out over the way of the on-coming bus (and are thusly "forced" without any mind-control, just a valid behavioral assumption) if the alternative is being run over and killed instantly. Sometimes it's 6 seconds of swings from an axe instead of a bus.And yes, a single axe blow to the head can kill any human being instantly. Some editions of D&D do not model this because it does not make for a fun game. Instead it's just eaten up in the abstraction of combat.Yes, because combat metrics are necessary abstracted to provide for the scope of the game.Just like the meta-physical mechanics of spell-casting are largely abstracted.The whole idea that you have dozens of different ways to respond to a baseball, arrow, or axe swinging in towards your head is true, but largely irrelevant because that level of granularity in combat is not something any edition of D&D has adopted.At best we see something like Parry - an out of turn reaction that reduced damage from a "hit and move" attack and if it is successful enough (reduced the damage to 0) the attack becomes a miss and the movement does not happen. I suppose there's also the readied action option in general, something like, "If he comes within 10 feet of me I run away so he can't attack me."The idea that there must be a mechanic that includes "or anyone" is just more of the "all Grogs use the same mechanics (physics) because they aren't magical" thinking that I can't abide in my D&D.See, with attacks, anyway, I'm perfectly fine with a "cake or death" situation where the game automatically assumes you'll pick "cake."I actually agree with that. I'd rather see an imposed penalty efffect until the target actually submits to engaging. I also think the Kender Taunt and the Gnomish Ingenuity mechanics from Dragonlance are silly. However, I accept the literary quirks of the setting if I have a mind to play in it. I'm perfectly fine with the defender getting into a "cake or death" situation if an attack hits. He already tried to have it his own way and failed.Again, it's not 100% accurate since you have to roll to hit. Secondly, it's only autonomous in the abstracted layer of combat mechanics because a less-autonomous implementation digs down into a level of minutia D&D doesn't deal in (IE - "granularity").Would it make a real difference to you if the effect said, "Hit: The victim must choose to either immediate move 5' away from you and suffer you attack damage or suffer a coup de grace. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks." ?- Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification