also @Miniman: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46201/… << I was reading SevenSidedDie's question and wondering -- why can't you embed a three-dimensional holy symbol into one's shield?

@Shalvenay I'm well known to use the approach, and when people see the colouring pencils out on the table, they know its time for them to draw their new characters :)

well, through one's shield, even...

err, his answer

It just seems to me odd that a holy symbol could be emblazoned on a shield or inlaid into a shield, yet not inlaid/embedded through the shield in a way that it'd be possible to have a nub on the backside that you can simply have between two fingers when you hold the shield normally

that way, you hold the holy symbol and the shield at the same time ;)

Leaky Abstractions.

@Shalvenay Balance

If Clerics got one of the primary benefits of the War Caster feat automatically, it'd be pretty unfair

especially since Clerics are exactly the sort of character who that feat is aimed at

aaah. so -- that line of thinking is equivalent to giving Clerics War Caster by default

Very roughly speaking, it's the same reason most editions of D&D don't support called shots or have HP loss reduce ability before you hit 0: the system is a set of abstractions and at some point you have to say "Yes, logically that would be realistic. But we've gotta draw the line somewhere and this is the place it's drawn here."

@Shalvenay Well, not all of it, it does a couple of other things

yeah?

But yeah, they'd get that feature for free where everyone else has to pay for it

@Shalvenay Gives the ability to cast spells in place of OAs and advantage on checks to maintain concentration

aaaah.

Yeah, there's a lot of "Yes, you should be able to do that--but in this system, that requires expenditure of limited character-design currency."

@BESW Well, there have to be cost/benefit choices to make

And letting people reason or argue their way into features that bypass abstractions everyone else follows, or gain features for free that everyone else has to pay for, is unlikely to make the group happy.

@BESW I may start quoting this on questions that fall into this category

It's a fundamental concept: by choosing a system the group has agreed to work within it. An individual trying to persuade people that the system should be ignored needs to recognise that he's challenging the context everyone's agreed on.

The group may agree that the context should be changed, and that's great!

But if the individual is presenting it as fait accompli that a system challenge is the normal way to go about things, there may be a disconnect in the social contract.

It's kinda like arguing that a Jack of Diamonds beats a Jack of Spades because the JD has a sword and the JS has a baton--when everybody else was playing poker.

"But it's realistic and reasonable!" isn't a sufficient justification, because it's changing the level of abstraction everyone had agreed upon.

@BESW This conflicts with how groups generally choose D&D though.

"Let's play an RPG! That means D&D, and the latest one that has the features we enjoy. Oh, wait, this feature is dumb. Let's ignore that. Wait, so is this other one. What's this bit even mean? Okay, new house rule."

@doppelgreener See below: "there may be a disconnect in the social contract" applies quite often to groups which choose D&D for reasons of ubiquity or tradition.

@BESW: yeah, I agree there

@BESW or there may not be; I'm challenging the idea that people pick a system and also agree to work within it.

@Zachiel No, getting fat is mandatory.

One of our recently-active members describes being a member of a community of gamers which pick up the book, and then proceed to house rule everything.

This individual appeared to regard going by the book as an impediment, and openly remarked that playing that way was toxic to the hobby.

@doppelgreener If they all agree not to work within it, that's an agreement to work in a houseruled system. There is concord and mutual understanding about the rule system.

If some of them think house ruling is the way to go and some don't, then there's a disconnect.

"Pick a system" rarely means exactly "pick a published system."

@doppelgreener -- I have the problem that I will challenge any abstractions given to me as long as I can get something useful out of challenging that abstraction

in a system like FATE -- challenging the abstractions isn't needed because they sit atop what's actually going on, instead of underneath it -- AIUI, in FATE -- you develop the story normally, only invoking FATE's abstractions when you need to

@BESW -- agreed -- D&D for instance has had a long history of optional rules

@Shalvenay So...you're deliberately ignoring the rules in an attempt to gain benefits for your character?

@Miniman: less ignoring and more subverting

that's splitting hairs with semantics :p

...I don't want to know how you'd play Cthulhu Dark, do I?

engineering solutions that fit the text of the rules while subverting their intent

@BESW: why do you ask?

@Shalvenay you'd hate the way I GM, and I'd almost certainly hate having you as a player ;p

One of Cthulhu Dark's immutable rules is: If you fight a monster, you die.

@Phil: I take it you are very strictly RAW?

@Shalvenay If you're talking about things like your recent suggestion of killing an ooze with salt, that's not a solution which fits the text of the rules. That's a solution that ignores the rules completely.

nop

e

@BESW: my solution is to unmonsterify everything :P

not at all

@Phil: why would i hate the way you GM then?

@Miniman: you simply don't get what's going on with that solution

although -- you have sort-of-a-point -- it's a question about whether an individual subcomponent of a living being is in and of itself alive

because I don't like players who approach the rules as an obstacle to get around/find gaps in/subvert. It probably comes from the fact that I largely run Savage Worlds only, and I've got used to the way it provides a framework for adjudicating almost any situations you can think whilst still remaining within the bounds of the basic rules and mechanics

@Shalvenay No, it's not a solution the rules allow for. It's a solution the 'rules' of real life allow for, which you want to use in a system with entirely different rules.

Unless you can point me to the rule where it says "Oozes are instantly killed by salt inside them."

@Miniman: you still don't understand the solution -- you are looking for completely the wrong thing

@BESW isn't it "if you fight a creature"?

Killing an Ooze with Salt? There is nothing that states that an ooze is made up of water which would be absorbed by the salt, or any chemical substance that reacts with salt at all.

@Shalvenay Also, turns out condescendingly ignoring the point I'm making in favour of proclaiming my ignorance with regards to chemistry doesn't make me agree with you.

@Dorian -- the original solution was using a spell to convert the chloride already existing inside the ooze (name me a living thing that isn't replete with the stuff) into hypochlorite, which then proceeds to do as hypochlorite does and oxidize the ooze from the inside out

@doppelgreener I'm interested by your use of the product-identification tag on that question. I'd never thought of a character class as a product before

@Shalvenay Which is completely outside the scope of the system.

@Miniman -- which makes appealing to RAW to do anything about it useless.

technically you can kill an ooze with salt. you just need to gather an awful lot of salt, compact it into a very large brick, and drop it on the ooze.

While it's a nice and creative idea, were I the GMing that situation I would make you make an appropriate knowledge check (or several), and then I'd tell you that it's rather unlikely to work at all, but I wouldn't stop you from trying it.

@doppelgreener That was my other suggestion.

I'm willing to accept a missed knowledge check or the spell misfiring/fizzling :p it's a downright weird application

That it would take a very large amount of salt.

@Shalvenay You're ignoring the rules of the system in favour of rules which you know in real life.

@Miniman: it boils down to "is an individual chemical or subcomponent of a living creature still alive?"

Plus, it's a very unusual application of the spell as you said @Shalvenay, there's a good chance that your caster being inexperienced with such an application won't be able to make the required Spellcraft check to make it work in an unusual manner.

@Shalvenay No, it doesn't. You're still ignoring the rules completely in favour of real-world chemistry which you've arbitrarily decided still works within the system.

@Miniman Also, there's nothing saying his character doesn't know in character that salt dissolves slugs, and that slugs are comparable to oozes in their mind somehow.

If both salt and slugs exist in the world, it stands to reason that it would be relatively common knowledge for adults of any species.

@Dorian -- heck, they could have seen an ooze attracted to a salt-lick :p

@Shalvenay Unlikely. Oozes aren't that smart.

arbitrarily trying to apply real-world science to a rpg rules system often ends really badly :)

@Dorian I'm not saying this solution couldn't kill oozes, just that it falls under the category of ignoring the abstractions in the rules.

@Miniman It's not ignoring abstractions, it's challenging them. Which I wholeheartedly endorse.

If there is an abstraction then it gives room for experimentation.

@Dorian -- chemotaxis is something that is within the realm of bacteria

And most prepared casters love experimentation.

so it's definitely something an ooze can do

I think this comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion of playing styles - different strokes for different folks and all that :)

but I need to bail for now

indeed @Phil

Casters. Always. Experiment.

It's in their very nature.

(well, mostly wizards and casters similar to wizards but yeah)

That's not even vaguely the point.

That. Is. A. Massive. Generalisation. That. Ignores. System. Specific. Issues

Shalvenay wants to bypass the rules in order to insta-kill an enemy with a spell that isn't meant to be able to insta-kill enemies.

Actually, that is the point. The thing he was attempting was an experiment involving an unusual application.

Admittedly, I likely wouldn't allow it to work upon first attempt in combat without previous study, but there's nothing wrong with experimentation.

By this logic, a fighter could say "None of this hit points crap, I aimed for his heart, he's dead now."

If you're ignoring the abstractions, you're ignoring the rules.

That's a called shot, and in some cases that would actually work (massive damage rules and the like)

And it's not ignoring.

Ignoring abstractions doesn't allow for challenging or testing them.

@Miniman -- and you are reading in an instant kill that isn't there

@Dorian I think the line would be crossed if the player made the assumption that it should work. The reason I tend to dislike the kind of playstyle being advocated with that approach is that from experience it tends to lead to a lot of disagreements at the table

That is what Shalvenay is saying.

I'd rule it as 1d4 fire damage over N rounds

but I know other GMs that would be fine with it

I'd rule it as Acid, energy resistance not applicable.

@Shalvenay That would be balanced, but it's still going outside the scope of the rules in order to create an effect that doesn't exist within the system.

Fire could work, but I'd be more inclined to lean towards non-resistable Acid.

Shalvenay wants to bypass the rules in order to insta-kill damage an enemy with a spell that isn't meant to be able to insta-kill damage enemies.

And again, the first time it happened I'd likely make them make a Spellcraft check to see if it works.

@Miniman And I've seen people kill enemies with Create Wall and Summon Water. How is that any different?

@Dorian It isn't, and I'm not saying I wouldn't allow it in my game, but I think it's important to recognise what is being done here.

One of my players recently filled a cave with smoke in order to choke some enemies. It was cool and creative, and I allowed it.

But it was still ignoring the rules in favour of real-world logic.

@Miniman Wrong. It's using the rules.

Creatures need to breathe

There are rules for that.

If there's nothing in the rules saying it doesn't work, and there's nothing in the rules saying it does work, then it comes down to determining an effect, determining how skilled the character is in this particular application, determining whether they succeed in the attempt.

@Dorian Yes, there are. But they say that you can't breathe underwater, not that you can't breathe if the air is full of smoke.

Where do you think 90% of the rules came from in the first place?

@Dorian If there's nothing in the rules saying it doesn't work, and there's nothing in the rules saying it does work, then it's outside the scope of the rules.

@Miniman Which is the GM's call.

@Dorian Yep, exactly.

So why is there such a debate on this?

Shalvenay wants to do something not covered by the rules and figure out whether or not it works. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I think I'm done with this convo anyways. I can't expand on my points any further without senseless repetition.

← 102 messages moved from RPG General Chat

← 30 messages moved from RPG General Chat

@Miniman -- I'm glad you established that you aren't saying "no this isn't allowed" just "this is outside RAW" btw -- that was my main point of confusion

@Shalvenay Yeah, it's not about what's allowed, or even making value judgements - just recognising what you're actually doing