Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7393410" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, well, my feeling is that these things tend to become focal points for arguments, because of course its a big deal if I take 10d6 damage or not! GMs tend to fall into camps. There's the 'hard ass' who rules with a bloody hand, the 'soft heart' who usually rules so that the PC lives, and the 'mechanist' who adds some die rolls and modifiers and may take 5 minutes to deal with one fireball.Which is exactly when 4e says this, outside of combat there are no such rules. I'd note that many PCs can move THROUGH a square, and in some cases its possible to occupy the same space too, though its not common. I mean, sure, I can see a point that says "a halfling with a dagger and a wizard with a wand could probably stand back to back in a square". I've just seen so few, if any, situations where it MATTERED if it was one square or two that I find the whole thing academic. I'm highly into the 'what works in practice' camp. Meh, I don't terribly mind looking some things up, but AD&D is a PITA! I mean, with 4e I barely HAVE to look anything up, and WotC designed the presentation so it would fit nicely into an online database which I didn't have to write! Frankly, D&D has one nice feature that has pretty consistently been true, its an easy game to reference. 5e TBH I find a bit of an exception here, its rules are not well organized. No, actually. I mean, I want it done in a way that is consistent with the way the game is intended to work. I'm fairly gamist and I enjoy exercising the workings of the game. Do I want to have to enforce rules on exactly how many arrows the orc fired before I got pigstuck? Nope, not really. If I invent some tactic that leverages "he's going to run out of arrows eventually" of course I want that to be feasible, but it can work on a check that represents how good I am at making such a plan, for example.Right, this is the 'player test of skill' aspect of the original classic dungeon crawl, which is a very necessary part of that type of play (and when I say 'dungeon crawl' it can also encompass other similar kinds of exploration/looting situations, like hex crawls, certain kinds of intrigue, etc.). I think when it is projected beyond that, then it becomes an impediment. This is part of what is problematic with 2e. Now, I don't mind surprising players, but I'm OK with them having knowledge that PCs don't. If they are playing to see what the PCs will do, then they're going to play in character, and it may be advantageous for them to know certain things in order to do that.I just don't see the value of a decision in which there's no real substance. I mean, again, this is an artifact of the 'explore the dungeon maze' paradigm, where the PCs may well choose left simply because it gives them a chance to fill in a part of the map and search for a suspected secret room or something. Anyway, at least there will be map consequences that may eventually matter down the road. In a narrative focus on characters its color.LOL! Which edition did that? I think it lasts 1 segment in 1e, making it kind of a weak 7th level spell, actually. However, it has several interesting characteristics. The main one being it affects an AREA not a target, so there are no saves. Questioner of All Things used to memorize it as a fairly stock ploy to deal with nasty high level save problems. Usually you can get some advantage out of it. Overall a weak spell in that edition.hehe, well, I could be a pessimist! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I mean, I did make a price chart. It was mostly just me fooling around though. I don't really intend to use it in a game, and its fairly arbitrary. However, it would work. Honestly the 1e chart is not terrible.</blockquote>

Verification