Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4044893" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's me, always a barrel of laughs.Which must make that the least of the responces.Which is a 30% chance of failure that he wouldn't have were we to do away with the touch attack.&nbsp; More importantly, its a chance of failure that we can't really incorporate in the general case into a single d20 die throw.&nbsp;&nbsp; That 30% chance of failure remains the same even if the pixie's grapple check is so low that a -5 modifier to the Ogre's would be completely overwhelmed by the Ogres bonus (ei, that the Ogre would still have a 95% chance of success).The argument you've just made doesn't actually demonstrate that the need for a touch attack is 'wrong'.&nbsp; In fact, words and phrases like 'whether they should be or not' and 'only' imply that the touch attack mechanic doesn't in your opinion go far enough, and not that it should be done away with.&nbsp; And since my thesis was, &quot;If anything, the rules aren't complex enough.&quot;, I can safely reply to that, &quot;Ok.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; That doesn't really say anything, but I'll trust that you will anyway.I believe that is my point.&nbsp; Grappling isn't the 'usual' way.&nbsp; It does something that normal attack resolution in D&amp;D doesn't do - apply a condition to the opponent.&nbsp; And the condition 'grappled' is a particularly complex one because we have in our head some understanding of what it means.&nbsp; Naturally the grapple rules are different than the usual rules, because they are different things we are trying to simulate.The thing I typically note about complaints about the grappling system is that they don't focus on how complex the condition grappled is.&nbsp; They focus on the slightly different resolution mechanic, and ask silly things like, &quot;Why does it have to be this complicated?&quot; while simultaneously asking, &quot;Why doesn't grappling have rules for throws?&quot;&nbsp; That's like asking, &quot;Why is D&amp;D combat so complicated?&quot; and &quot;Why can't I have called shots?&quot;Because, the rules for the rest of the game don't simulate anything that conceptually looks like grappling.And this is a good example because vehicals are conceptually quite similar to creatures?&nbsp;&nbsp; So, what's the vehicular equivalent to a 'pin', under the rules?&nbsp; I would imagine that the nimbleness of your craft modifies your Piloting check - ei its harder for a freighter (other than the Millenium falcon) to initiate a dogfight than a fighter.&nbsp; Which is fine, but in conceptual grappling I have to deal with both nimbleness (can you catch me?) and strength (can you hold me?).&nbsp; This is not a problem with conceptual dogfighting at its most simple level, but I suspect expert dogfighters who actually can conceptualize dogfighting in a non-abstract way _would_ have a problem with the indicated rules.&nbsp; And vehical rules will have to worry about, &quot;Can my X-Wing dogfight a Death Star so that it can't both shoot at me and at the planet?&quot;, they never have to worry about things like, &quot;Can I cast a spell while dogfighting?&quot;, or &quot;Can I pull an item out of my pack while dogfighting?&quot;, to say nothing of, &quot;Can I trip while dogfighting?&nbsp; Sunder? Disarm?&nbsp; Move the dogfight?&nbsp; Throw my opponent?&quot; and so forth.&nbsp; Or to the extent that they do, the rules will rapidly approach the complexity of the grapple rules.&nbsp; For example, multiple opponents dogfighting in an asteroid field, where the combatants are trying to utilize the asteroids as cover, avoid asteroids, and move the dogfight through the field to reach the crashed passenger liner where they wish to attempt to land the craft aboard a platform while still possibly being technically in the dogfight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4044893, member: 4937"] That's me, always a barrel of laughs. Which must make that the least of the responces. Which is a 30% chance of failure that he wouldn't have were we to do away with the touch attack. More importantly, its a chance of failure that we can't really incorporate in the general case into a single d20 die throw. That 30% chance of failure remains the same even if the pixie's grapple check is so low that a -5 modifier to the Ogre's would be completely overwhelmed by the Ogres bonus (ei, that the Ogre would still have a 95% chance of success). The argument you've just made doesn't actually demonstrate that the need for a touch attack is 'wrong'. In fact, words and phrases like 'whether they should be or not' and 'only' imply that the touch attack mechanic doesn't in your opinion go far enough, and not that it should be done away with. And since my thesis was, "If anything, the rules aren't complex enough.", I can safely reply to that, "Ok." That doesn't really say anything, but I'll trust that you will anyway. I believe that is my point. Grappling isn't the 'usual' way. It does something that normal attack resolution in D&D doesn't do - apply a condition to the opponent. And the condition 'grappled' is a particularly complex one because we have in our head some understanding of what it means. Naturally the grapple rules are different than the usual rules, because they are different things we are trying to simulate. The thing I typically note about complaints about the grappling system is that they don't focus on how complex the condition grappled is. They focus on the slightly different resolution mechanic, and ask silly things like, "Why does it have to be this complicated?" while simultaneously asking, "Why doesn't grappling have rules for throws?" That's like asking, "Why is D&D combat so complicated?" and "Why can't I have called shots?" Because, the rules for the rest of the game don't simulate anything that conceptually looks like grappling. And this is a good example because vehicals are conceptually quite similar to creatures? So, what's the vehicular equivalent to a 'pin', under the rules? I would imagine that the nimbleness of your craft modifies your Piloting check - ei its harder for a freighter (other than the Millenium falcon) to initiate a dogfight than a fighter. Which is fine, but in conceptual grappling I have to deal with both nimbleness (can you catch me?) and strength (can you hold me?). This is not a problem with conceptual dogfighting at its most simple level, but I suspect expert dogfighters who actually can conceptualize dogfighting in a non-abstract way _would_ have a problem with the indicated rules. And vehical rules will have to worry about, "Can my X-Wing dogfight a Death Star so that it can't both shoot at me and at the planet?", they never have to worry about things like, "Can I cast a spell while dogfighting?", or "Can I pull an item out of my pack while dogfighting?", to say nothing of, "Can I trip while dogfighting? Sunder? Disarm? Move the dogfight? Throw my opponent?" and so forth. Or to the extent that they do, the rules will rapidly approach the complexity of the grapple rules. For example, multiple opponents dogfighting in an asteroid field, where the combatants are trying to utilize the asteroids as cover, avoid asteroids, and move the dogfight through the field to reach the crashed passenger liner where they wish to attempt to land the craft aboard a platform while still possibly being technically in the dogfight. [/QUOTE]

Verification