Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobo777" data-source="post: 6006898" data-attributes="member: 6694877">Associated mechanics are often more work mechacinally at the table. If they are rationale or physics-based, then very often you need to compare traits of two or more things, and bring in more rules. The 3E rogue's Sneak Attack, and how it would work depending on traits of the target, is a simple example of this.Dissociated mechanics are often more work descriptively at the table. The descriptions are loose, and may need interpretation to maintain the fiction. Proning a gelatinous cube is a simple example of this, but for some people this kind of issue starts with martial characters having Encounter or Daily powers at all.With dissociated mechanics it's possible, for expedient play, to lose a description or two (this reminds me of the &quot;Shut up and calculate!&quot; philosophy in quantum mechanics BTW). In practice I see this a lot. In a lot of ways in 4E, this is already in the 4E monster blocks. The blocks being short and simple is a big win, hence I think this is why you are seeing it in being re-used in 5E.With associated mechanics, it's possible, for expedient play, to drop or forget a complicated rules interaction. In practice, I didn't see this happening much in 3E games, and definitely not in monster design. A 3E monster block makes cross-references to feat chains and spells which need looking up. 3E monsters are more complex and difficult to run in my experience than 4E ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobo777, post: 6006898, member: 6694877"] Associated mechanics are often more work [I]mechacinally[/I] at the table. If they are rationale or physics-based, then very often you need to compare traits of two or more things, and bring in more rules. The 3E rogue's Sneak Attack, and how it would work depending on traits of the target, is a simple example of this. Dissociated mechanics are often more work [I]descriptively[/I] at the table. The descriptions are loose, and may need interpretation to maintain the fiction. Proning a gelatinous cube is a simple example of this, but for some people this kind of issue starts with martial characters having Encounter or Daily powers at all. With dissociated mechanics it's possible, for expedient play, to lose a description or two (this reminds me of the "Shut up and calculate!" philosophy in quantum mechanics BTW). In practice I see this a lot. In a lot of ways in 4E, this is already in the 4E monster blocks. The blocks being short and simple is a big win, hence I think this is why you are seeing it in being re-used in 5E. With associated mechanics, it's possible, for expedient play, to drop or forget a complicated rules interaction. In practice, I didn't see this happening much in 3E games, and definitely not in monster design. A 3E monster block makes cross-references to feat chains and spells which need looking up. 3E monsters are more complex and difficult to run in my experience than 4E ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification