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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9481933" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Eh. In this particular case, I'd have to say no, given prior precedent.That said, what you point out is definitely part of the conversation. So allow me to extrapolate a little.First, you have the initial issue- once a rule governs how something is done, that necessarily means that you cannot do that thing without the rule.So this is easiest to think of in terms of the way it applies to a specific ability- such as the thief debate. Giving a specific character an ability means that other characters without that enumerated ability cannot do it.But it also applies more generally; once you codify rules for spellcasting, it is the case that anyone without access to those rules cannot use magic. This should seem obvious, but if (for example) a Champions says "I cast fireball" that will likely be met with the same reaction as the Wizard who says, "I use action surge." Now, from that point, you can then get to the second tier of possible proposed solutions. For example, the "great thief debate" is ameliorated in 5e because while, for example, stealth is a skill, any character can be "stealthy" without the skill- they just don't have a proficiency bonus. ... and if a skill doesn't cover an issue, you can just make it an ability check (or allow for the closest and most relevant skill to apply). Which solves the issue of characters being unable to do things by virtue of not having the appropriate skill, but creates it own complication- because of bounded accuracy and ability scores and proficiency bonuses being low until high levels, you often end up with characters that are unskilled in something being better at a task than those who are skilled at it. Which is weird and often seems contrary to the fiction- and has become the source of numerous threads here complaining about just that.But put another way, to the extent that the rules specifically allow the general use absent the specific ability (such as with skills) a person would observe both that this is covered by the rules (Gygaxian space) and also that this tends to create mismatched between the rules and the fiction.Which brings us to the next third tier issue- the more that a system uses rules to cover interactions with the fiction, the more that interactions with the fiction cannot be done outside of the rules. This might seem a little abstract, but think of D&D and combat. The rules for D&D in combat cover so much that many tables find it anathema to make any decisions regarding combat (or choices for characters) that aren't expressed by rules. To put it more plainly- when was the last time you saw a character in 5e use the "Improvising an Action" choice in 5e during combat? That's the catch-all RAW way to do anything "not covered by the actions in this chapter{.}" But ... in combat, can you improvise an action that is similar to a Battlemaster's Maneuvers? If it is similar to dodge, shove, or other similar rules (such as the specified rules for jumping on your opponent in Tasha's) can you improvise that, or do you have to use the express rule? Finally, if you have seen someone improvise an action, has this ever compared to the choices they could make with the defined rule, or does the choice of improvising necessarily lead to the GM limiting the power/efficacy?This is a recurrent issue with all rules, and all rulesets; whether it's RPGs, or the original Kriegsspiel debate, or the whole "loose principles or specific language" that always recurs in multiple fields. And as I've repeatedly stressed, there is no right answer or even a correct balance to this. but understanding why the debate recurs is what is important - and why people stake out different positions.</blockquote>

Verification