Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4603659" data-attributes="member: 386">It's true in the fact that it's a basic application of the rules.That's good for them.&nbsp; I'm the DM in my own game, though.Yes, I'm comfortable with that.&nbsp; Now maybe I'd give a solo or elite monster a bonus to Defense - equal to their save bonus - but that's because I'm awesome.I would say it falls in the target's square, but this is covered by the player's declaration of intent and/or the DM's narration of effect.I guess we disagree fundamentally on how the game is played.Me:Player declares an intent for his character.DM decides if it's valid.DM decides if it's opposed or not.&nbsp; (I'm including the environment as opposition.)If it's opposed, we have to make a check of some kind.If we are making a check, is it an attack?&nbsp; Then we decide what Defense is targetted.&nbsp; If not, then the DM provides a DC.Roll.If the roll is a success, your intent is achieved.&nbsp; If it was an attack, we figure out how much damage is done.If the roll is a failure, the DM figures out what happens.You:If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, you can't do it.edit: I will also keep it on topic and say that my game does not have the grind described elsewhere.&nbsp; If you want to interpret the rules in such a way that creates &quot;copy-paste&quot; tactics and combat grind, and you don't like copy-paste tactics and combat grind, maybe you should approach the game as I feel it was written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 4603659, member: 386"] It's true in the fact that it's a basic application of the rules. That's good for them. I'm the DM in my own game, though. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Now maybe I'd give a solo or elite monster a bonus to Defense - equal to their save bonus - but that's because I'm awesome. I would say it falls in the target's square, but this is covered by the player's declaration of intent and/or the DM's narration of effect. I guess we disagree fundamentally on how the game is played. Me: Player declares an intent for his character. DM decides if it's valid. DM decides if it's opposed or not. (I'm including the environment as opposition.) If it's opposed, we have to make a check of some kind. If we are making a check, is it an attack? Then we decide what Defense is targetted. If not, then the DM provides a DC. Roll. If the roll is a success, your intent is achieved. If it was an attack, we figure out how much damage is done. If the roll is a failure, the DM figures out what happens. You: If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, you can't do it. edit: I will also keep it on topic and say that my game does not have the grind described elsewhere. If you want to interpret the rules in such a way that creates "copy-paste" tactics and combat grind, and you don't like copy-paste tactics and combat grind, maybe you should approach the game as I feel it was written. [/QUOTE]

Verification