10-13-2019, 11:28 AM | #51 | |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
*way back it might have been 3 dice at -4 adjDX? |
|
10-13-2019, 12:00 PM | #52 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
As MikMod and I have discussed before, in the context of an archer, I think most people would agree that in the real world an archer will usually know whether his target is dodging or not. In the case of dodging thrown weapons, and defending against melee attacks I agree it's not as clear who would know what. I don't think many would relish having separate rules for dodging as compared to defending, but more power to them if so, it seems logical to me. Quote:
SJ intention. I haven't a clue, and I'm not sure who does. Logic. Well, as I say my view is "Attacker knows status" is clearly more logical in the case of archers/dodge. In the case of melee/defend I'm willing to say less logical, if forced(!) Clean/fast. This seems to be the main fear I am detecting. I've played a few times as "Attacker does not know status" and usually as "Attacker knows status". There's been nothing in it in my experience. To explain that further would be a separate post I think. |
||
10-13-2019, 08:30 PM | #53 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
And around we go, where the wheel stops nobody knows :)
I mentioned in an earlier thread on the Dodge/Defend Debate but not here yet: My group circumvented any questions where Defend is concerned by throwing that option away, replacing it with our own house ruled Parry option. Parry, unlike Defend, could only be chosen after the attacker's successful roll to hit was completed. And as the dice had been rolled, there was never a question about taking the attack back. From then forward, we never had to explain the differences between Dodge and Defend to new players that joined us.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
10-13-2019, 10:06 PM | #54 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
Status to me would imply people who can't change their actions. Your wording would not be in sync with the way the rules are worded. I think we can leave it as we disagree on almost everything about this. I could try to explain relative to your latest post, but I'd mainly just be repeating a position I've explained multiple times above. |
|
10-13-2019, 10:38 PM | #55 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Late to the discussion on this. Surely if I attack Hobgoblin A and he chooses to Defend then he's doing so in response to my action. In other words, I've already started to act. I can't then choose not to perform this action because I don't like what the target is doing in response.
|
10-13-2019, 11:28 PM | #56 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
I'm wondering if it would just be simpler to make Defending and Dodging specifically part of the movement portion of a turn. This would avoid these sort of arguments and make everything completely clear.
|
10-14-2019, 03:28 AM | #57 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
Dodging is already worded that way, as an action taken while moving. You cannot really move without picking an option, and there is no option that just says "move" without an action attached to it. And during the interval between moving and your chance to act, you don't get to change anything. Defend may not be as explicitly worded, but we're all pretty sure the mechanics of it were always intended to be the same as Dodge. They are two sides of the same coin.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
10-14-2019, 06:57 AM | #58 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
To create the loop, you have to assume both that declaring your intent is not yet "acting" (possibly reasonable, though there doesn't seem to be a later demarcation point), and also that the possibly defending figure is reacting to that intent, even though you haven't "acted" (very odd at best). Make weird assumptions about language and you get weird results. That's projecting Murphy into the rules, not finding him there. |
|
10-14-2019, 12:18 PM | #59 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
Quote:
No, because it causes even worse (in my opinion) situations where people are unable to do anything appropriate for a whole turn, and gamey exploits of moving second, etc. |
|
10-14-2019, 12:26 PM | #60 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Schrödinger's Hobgoblin infinite loop
It works well as is, provided you understand how the core principles of the rules should apply and you don't insist on having your cake (acting first) and eating it too (making your foe commit to a later action now).
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|