Fighters Jumping on Dragons

[Stubbazubba]

Martial Characters Don't Have Nice Things not because there's somehow a conspiracy to keep the hard-working nonmagical proletariat down, maaaaaan. They don't have nice things because they're supposed to be bound by realism and exist in a universe that's supposed to model ours unless otherwise noted and they're up against characters who have a well-noted list of exceptions.

You're the first person to say that anyone should be bound by realism in this discussion. Kaelik was comparing riding a dragon to riding a horse, so we veered off into why that may or may not be a good comparison, but no one has said that characters should be bound by realism.

that still doesn't change the underlying point that what's plausible to one MC won't be plausible to another.

No one is arguing against this. We're all in agreement here that leaving stunts up to the MC is bad rule design. We're not talking about design. We're talking about your MC judgment call, where you willingly chose to import the "bound by realism" bit when you were not required to do so at all. No one is saying that's somehow against the rules, no one is saying this somehow makes the awful design OK, we're just baffled that given the flexibility to say "Fighters can either have Nice Things or not," you arbitrarily choose not.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you can't imagine a high-level martial character riding a dragon, that is a problem with your imagination more than with any rules.

Yes, I do have a fucking problem imagining it, because 'high-level martial character' doesn't universally mean anything: see the vast majority of games ever published. Even in 3E D&D, where with Power Attack a 10th-level fighter can beat through a stone wall in a reasonable amount of time using only their fists just getting to high level as a martial with no phlebtonium isn't going to start letting you bench-press horses and shit.

If you want a high-level but unpowered martial character to do fantastical things without constantly getting cockblocked by the DM, you need to do one of two things:
A.) Captain Hobo it up through explicit rules instantiations. Of course, as seen with the Stone Wall Power Attack Horse Bench Press Example there are going to be holes in the rules and the DM still might not let you do it. Hell, even when there are explicit rules instantiations DMs do stealth nerfs all the fucking time anyway: see Evasion and Sneak Attack and Hide.
B.) Get some fucking phlebtonium.

Or, and here's a thought, you just don't bound them to 'realism' as an excuse to not allow them to do amazing things.

Benoist wanted to make the claim that fighters can be both realistic and get special treatment. No one here is saying either of those things.

Look, if you don't have a in-universe explanation as to how you're doing a certain thing but you still want it to happen anyway, you are demanding special treatment. Even if you completely abandon the conceit of being a mere preternatural martial, 'Herpa derpa, Charles Atlas Superpowers' does not explain anything but what it has explicitly has been shown to do.

You're the first person to say that anyone should be bound by realism in this discussion.

If we're going into territory that the rules haven't covered and in absence of an in-genre and sufficiently foreshadowed reason, we default to realism. There's no way it can be otherwise -- that road quickly leads into a slippery slope of Baron Munchausen and Daffy Duck.

The best explanation that anyone has given for the dragon-riding is 'I'm a high-levelled martial character!' Excuse me, but, SO WHAT? It's a fucking non-sequitor. Kenshiro is a magical martial artist; does that mean that he gets to summon demons? Toph is an earthbender; does she get to hack computer networks? Do high-levelled martials have super-strength in your setting, like being able to deadlift a car or leap hundreds of feet in the air? Do they ascend into demigods and shit once their martial prowess reaches high enough level? What? At least those explanation gives us something to work with.

[MGuy]

Or, and here's a thought, you just don't bound them to 'realism' as an excuse to not allow them to do amazing things.

Benoist wanted to make the claim that fighters can be both realistic and get special treatment. No one here is saying either of those things.

Look, if you don't have a in-universe explanation as to how you're doing a certain thing but you still want it to happen anyway, you are demanding special treatment. Even if you completely abandon the conceit of being a mere preternatural martial, 'Herpa derpa, Charles Atlas Superpowers' does not explain anything but what it has explicitly has been shown to do.

The in universe explanation can be as simple as motherfuckers can just do X. In Attack on Titan people can whip themselves around in the air with just a few months of training, land from incredible heights without breaking a sweat. No one fucking cares. HP exists. No one fucking cares. It is just something that exists and no one gives a fuck. It happens in action movies, it happens in fantasy stories, it happens in videogames and NO ONE GIVES A FUCK. If you were to write up rules TOMORROW that said you can use skill checks to jump on and ride dragons most sane people would just not give any fucks. They'd nod their heas and understand that high level motherfuckers can just jump onto the backs of and forcefully ride ridiculous shit.

YOU are the ONLY one who is saying that motherfuckers have to be bound by realizarms just like every other grognard in every other discussion does whenever people start talking about allowing people to do amazing things without specifying that it is done supernaturally. That's the "Fighters can't have nice things" argument in a nutshell and you are spewing it straight faced. I don't give a fuck about realism. If I'm willing to not care that people with enough HP can jump off buildings and brush it off like it ain't shit I simply DO NOT CARE if a person of some skill martial or otherwise can do something like jump on a large creatures back. Why you've decided to eagerly jump on this idea I have no idea but right now you're sounding more like the people at theRPGsite who fucking flip their shit if things sound 'too anime' for them.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

What ARE some good phlebotinum-powered, full BAB dragon slayers? Once you've accepted that you can't be Conan, how do you actually get to building your guy that Hulk Jumps at the dragon's blindside and rips out its spine with a zandatsu, without getting hit by the anti-weeaboo nerf stick?

EDIT: It would also be nice to avoid the Elothar / artifact weapon tripe.

[virgil]

Imagine that you have two character powers, one of which is called "Arrow Storm" and is a Martial Power where you shoot a bunch of arrows; while the other is called "Destruction Bolt" and is an Arcane Power where you shoot a blast of mystic force. Let's say that the actual text of those powers is literally exactly the same: they both do an amount of damage to every target in a straight line out to some range. Let's say the range and damage and attack versus defense paradigms are all exactly the same. Game mechanically, no difference - and in a computer game the two powers would be totally interchangeable. But the Destruction Bolt is still better in table top, because it's magic and Arrow Storm isn't.

Let's say you noticed one day that your attack did a fuck tonne of damage and you wanted to get to the other side of the dungeon. So you point your line attack power right at the cave wall and start tunneling. Now the rules don't actually say what happens at this point, and the power descriptions are pretty vague. In the computer game, nothing would happen at all, because the cave wall wasn't programmed to be destructible and that would be the end of that. But in the table top RPG you can point out that stone has a toughness and your attack does enough damage to destroy some amount of the stone, and it's an area attack, so you should jolly well destroy all the stone and have yourself a tunnel going all the way in. And if you were casting Destruction Bolt, that would probably be exactly what happened. While if you were casting Arrow Storm, your damage to the stone would probably just get calculated once and you'd burrow a few inches or feet. Because the fact that Arrow Storm is not "magic" means it defaults to much more restrictive physics when you try to use it in an out-of-the-box way.

But it's not just that "non-magic" powers have a harder time being used for emergent knot-cutting shenanigans, they have a harder time being used for things they explicitly do in their writeup. Consider the historical example of Improved Evasion as opposed to the magical equivalents like Protection from Energy or Fire Shield. In either case, the rules are that to an incoming load of dragon breath, you take half the normal damage if you fail your save and none of the damage if you make your save. As the Wizard with the magical forcefield, that just fucking happens. No discussions or arguments. It says you take less damage, you take less damage and we move on to the next player's turn. But Improved Evasion has potential caveats. If the dragon's breath hit every square in the room, or the Rogue was in the middle of it and the distance to the edge was greater than his movement, the DM might balk. Certainly, long arguments have been had about whether or not Improved Evasion should apply in such a circumstance. You could be in for a long argument about raelizarm and designer intent and square measurment. There is a non-zero chance that the DM will deny your Improved Evasion and make you take unreduced damage. The Abjuration magic is better because it's magic, and the Improved Evasion is worse because it is not.

Doesn't make Lago right, mind you. Punching through a stone wall or bench-pressing a horse isn't high level and building that into your muggles doesn't require any more magic than a what you get out of a training montage. Yes, WSoD gets more difficult as you advance in power level until it becomes unfeasible, but you're not at that point with deadlifting a horse.

[TheFlatline]

Kaelik, you're being stupid. Stop it. You could 1-hand insta-pin it on a lower check.


If someone's going to make one up a ride rule for hostile opponents, note that you get a -5 for a "very different mount" as griffon vs horse, -5 for checks made bareback, and if the dragon wants to throw you by biting or some shit they can do that on their own damn turn.

One can perhaps argue for the miscellaneous "impossible" modifier of -20 for being an "impossibly different mount", -5 bareback. But I'd save that for acidic puddings and the like, -10 maybe better. The dragon is constantly "bolting" so you need a DC 5 check at -15 (or mid-level riding skill to have any chance).

Then the dragon can just trip/dismount you as an attack, and you can oppose with your ride check at -15 or whatever if that's better (which it isn't). Or it can bite-grapple-swallow if it's big enough, or breathe on you. That's not part of the ride check though.


Like, DC 80-90 is officially for climbing a wall of force, or balancing on water, or fitting through a gap too small for your skull, training an exotic beast in an hour, pickpocket the king in person out of his throne room (and forcibly hide him in plain sight), read minds, ignore all illusion magic, or swim up a waterfall. Those DCs are all completely bullshit-high from the Epic Joke Book, but they'd let me make the dragon my buddy by chatting to it for a round, then a fanatic slave by singing it a quick song. I'm pretty sure staying in the dragon's square for a round is not on that level.

I actually was coming to this point myself. Upper levels of this game have you punching the God of Murder in the face and *winning*.

But riding on the back of a dragon for six seconds is just too much to expect.

[Username17]

The one ability that every character has without having anything written on their character sheet is "thumbs." It's the ability to turn doorknobs, open bottles, place objects into piles and do other shit that normal people can do. It's a really important ability, and it lets you bypass all kinds of obstacles like closed doors and flights of stairs.

But... that's it. That's all you fucking get. If you want to do something that can't be done with "thumbs" you'd better have a fucking ability that lets you do it or you fucking can't do it. If you want to run on a dragon like Legolas, you'd better have an ability called something like "Superhuman Agility" or "Wall Running" or something. Because you sure as fuck aren't doing something like that with thumbs.

High level Fighters really don't have a lot of abilities in any edition of the game. They have some explicit bonuses when hitting things with a sword, but other than that they are still relying on "thumbs" to do most of their problem solving. And while that will in fact solve a lot of problems, it won't solve any high level problems. Because high level problems are fucking defined by being things that you cannot solve with thumbs alone.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The in universe explanation can be as simple as motherfuckers can just do X. In Attack on Titan people can whip themselves around in the air with just a few months of training, land from incredible heights without breaking a sweat. No one fucking cares.

Yeah, they can do that because it's single-author fiction or at least fiction in which everyone can agree upon the rules. If you have exclusive narrative power you can make anything you want happen without having to justify it to anyone.

However, the problems start when you start introducing multiple storytellers. In One Piece, transforming yourself (Life Return) is literally a 'just because' thing introduced in the CP9 arc. But let's get real here: if you were playing a TTRPG based on that setting before the manga established that as a plot point and you wanted to use some narrative points to morph your hulking body into a skinnier, more agile frame how many Maim Masters do you think would actually let you do that with no explanation other than 'my character trained really hard'? Would those STs be tyrannical, martial-hating douchebags for telling you no?

I actually was coming to this point myself. Upper levels of this game have you punching the God of Murder in the face and *winning*.

What a bunch of fucking crap. Accomplishing an impressive feat by 'punching in the face' is so fucking broad that it could mean anything. It could mean awakening your Phoenix blood and combining it with your Bear Warrior training. It could mean transforming into a titan. It could mean stepping into your clockwork golem suit. It could mean channeling the might of the gods. Hell, it could even mean getting blinged out with the best magical crap you could buy to the point where even a commoner could do it. Whatever.

But even in 3E and 4E D&D, you don't just roll up to the God of Murder and win by punching him in the face. You have to have a narratively compelling reason.

And you know what? Even if you invoke Captain Hobo/Charles Atlas to actually punch the God of Murder in the face and win that still doesn't mean that you can use the same power set to, without further phlebtonium, sneak down a well-lit, featureless hallway with two guards looking down it. Again, it's a non-sequitur unless otherwise justified.

[MGuy]

The in universe explanation can be as simple as motherfuckers can just do X. In Attack on Titan people can whip themselves around in the air with just a few months of training, land from incredible heights without breaking a sweat. No one fucking cares.

Yeah, they can do that because it's single-author fiction or at least fiction in which everyone can agree upon the rules. If you have exclusive narrative power you can make anything you want happen without having to justify it to anyone.

However, the problems start when you start introducing multiple storytellers. In One Piece, transforming yourself (Life Return) is literally a 'just because' thing introduced in the CP9 arc. But let's get real here: if you were playing a TTRPG based on that setting before the manga established that as a plot point and you wanted to use some narrative points to morph your hulking body into a skinnier, more agile frame how many Maim Masters do you think would actually let you do that with no explanation other than 'my character trained really hard'? Would those STs be tyrannical, martial-hating douchebags for telling you no?

So... shit like having HP, being able to jump progressively higher without actually getting any stronger, a man who is actually physically weak being able to out wrestle a bear (without magic) who is much stronger by virtue of being high level alone, are all things that don't bother you in the least BUT BUT BUT jumping on a large creature's back, something that is so fucking common in fiction that it is just 'done' all the time (often times in those just in time moments) is just TOOOOOO fucking much and should only be capable in single author fiction?

What exactly makes it so that you're ok with all that other shit, which is very specifically not magical, but for some reason jumping onto a creature's back hurts your entire butt?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What exactly makes it so that you're ok with all that other shit, which is very specifically not magical, but for some reason jumping onto a creature's back hurts your entire butt?

Maybe I should be asking you the same thing but from the other direction. Why won't you let someone with Improved Evasion hide themselves as an immediate action? Why won't you let someone with a high Concentration skill periodically make checks to break out of mind control? Why won't you let a core rules-only character with a high perception and appraise skill get a numerically accurate bonus of someone's hit points, level, and BAB?

If your explanation for doing something outside the bounds of realism is 'just because' you're only guaranteed to get what's explicitly instantiated. It has to be that way, because anything else leads down the road of Daffy Duck.

[MGuy]

What exactly makes it so that you're ok with all that other shit, which is very specifically not magical, but for some reason jumping onto a creature's back hurts your entire butt?

Maybe I should be asking you the same thing but from the other direction. Why won't you let someone with Improved Evasion hide themselves as an immediate action? Why won't you let someone with a high Concentration skill periodically make checks to break out of mind control? Why won't you let a core rules-only character with a high perception and appraise skill get a numerically accurate bonus of someone's hit points, level, and BAB?

If your explanation for doing something outside the bounds of realism is 'just because' you're only guaranteed to get what's explicitly instantiated. It has to be that way, because anything else leads down the road of Daffy Duck.

So your explanation for why this thing has you so butt hurt is what? Your 'reverse' question doesn't answer dick. How 'bout you answer my question?

[virgil]

What exactly makes it so that you're ok with all that other shit, which is very specifically not magical, but for some reason jumping onto a creature's back hurts your entire butt?

Maybe I should be asking you the same thing but from the other direction. Why won't you let someone with Improved Evasion hide themselves as an immediate action? Why won't you let someone with a high Concentration skill periodically make checks to break out of mind control? Why won't you let a core rules-only character with a high perception and appraise skill get a numerically accurate bonus of someone's hit points, level, and BAB?

MGuy ninja'd my response. So I'm going to include something else; I do know DMs besides myself that let players use skills to appraise their opponent's HP & BAB, and half the reason DM's don't let Diplomacy equal Dominate is because of balance rather than realism (the other half is fighters not getting nice things).

[Stubbazubba]

Oh, come on. No, the reason you allow action movie shenanigans and don't default to realism (which is a bad idea always, every single time) is because you're playing a game. Even in a freeform game with virtually no rules but MC judgment, when the MC decides to use realizarm as a standard to categorically prevent one player of the game from doing anything interesting, that's a bad judgment call. You should not be using that standard in a game where you are fighting a dragon at all. Both for setting reasons (clearly this dragon's very physiology violates realism, as does all the magic around, so action movie tropes actually fit better than realism), but because you're playing a game with other people and should at least attempt to use what discretion you have to make it work for everyone.

Any other use of your discretion, no matter how much you doll it up with "narrative justification" crap which makes absolutely no sense, is all just you finding an excuse to punch the Fighter player in the dick because you don't like the character concept.

Certainly, there are some high level encounters where action movie tropes still aren't enough to keep up. Hopping onto a dragon and staying on for more than 6 seconds is not one of them.

[TheFlatline]

I actually was coming to this point myself. Upper levels of this game have you punching the God of Murder in the face and *winning*.

What a bunch of fucking crap. Accomplishing an impressive feat by 'punching in the face' is so fucking broad that it could mean anything. It could mean awakening your Phoenix blood and combining it with your Bear Warrior training. It could mean transforming into a titan. It could mean stepping into your clockwork golem suit. It could mean channeling the might of the gods. Hell, it could even mean getting blinged out with the best magical crap you could buy to the point where even a commoner could do it. Whatever.

But even in 3E and 4E D&D, you don't just roll up to the God of Murder and win by punching him in the face. You have to have a narratively compelling reason.

And you know what? Even if you invoke Captain Hobo/Charles Atlas to actually punch the God of Murder in the face and win that still doesn't mean that you can use the same power set to, without further phlebtonium, sneak down a well-lit, featureless hallway with two guards looking down it. Again, it's a non-sequitur unless otherwise justified.

I'm glad we got into Aspie levels of taking me literally. That's always a fun game to play.

I was wrong however- you stab Tiamat in the face and win in Scales of War. But Tiamat is considered a god so the idea that killing deities is within your power range at high levels but some things like bronco-riding dragons is something that is just flat out of reach for anyone in your party is kind of silly.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Your 'reverse' question doesn't answer dick. How 'bout you answer my question?

The point of my question was to show you that the premise behind your rabbinical questioning was based on special pleading. If you're going to let a PC cling to and fight/ride a dragon because they have a lot of HP and levels and BAB, what's your excuse for not letting a PC hide in plain sight as an immediate action because they have improved evasion? What's your excuse for not letting a PC with a high concentration skill get extra saving throws because of long-lasing mind-affecting affects?

You're headed down a bottomless well of madness if you argue that DMs should generically allow PCs to infer new abilities through 'just because' old abilities because such extrapolation seems 'plausible'. Not just because DMs have a differing idea of what's plausible but because there are infinitely many special exceptions or extrapolations you could come up with.

So I'm going to include something else; I do know DMs besides myself that let players use skills to appraise their opponent's HP & BAB, and half the reason DM's don't let Diplomacy equal Dominate is because of balance rather than realism (the other half is fighters not getting nice things).

Okay, but that's not every DM. If a DM says that unless we're using Oriental Adventure or Sword and Fist rules you can't use skills to appraise the exact value of someone's HP and BAB scores, does that make them a tyrannical douche?

[TheFlatline]

Certainly, there are some high level encounters where action movie tropes still aren't enough to keep up. Hopping onto a dragon and staying on for more than 6 seconds is not one of them.

This guy was like what, a 2/2 fighter wizard?

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm glad we got into Aspie levels of taking me literally. That's always a fun game to play.

I'm glad that you decided to use a variant of 'autistic' to get in your snide remark. PsychicRobot was always my favorite poster.

But seriously, you used a fucking equivocation as part of your argument and then got snippy when I outlined why it was an equivocation? What the hell, man?

[Stubbazubba]

The point of my question was to show you that the premise behind your rabbinical questioning was based on special pleading. If you're going to let a PC cling to and fight/ride a dragon because they have a lot of HP and levels and BAB, what's your excuse for not letting a PC hide in plain sight as an immediate action because they have improved evasion? What's your excuse for not letting a PC with a high concentration skill get extra saving throws because of long-lasing mind-affecting affects?

You're shifting goal posts. This has nothing to do with rules. You said in a freeform game with no rules, you would punch VAH players in the dick when they tried to do something that violated your sense of realizarm. Then you said in a game with rules, they would have to tie you to a chair and force feed you the rules to make you allow it. You're just expressing animus at the character concept at this point, and a willingness to use all the discretion you have to hamstring anyone playing a character you don't like, regardless of what the rules indicate.

Okay, but that's not every DM.

Are those DMs wrong, though?

If a DM says that unless we're using Oriental Adventure or Sword and Fist rules you can't use skills to appraise the exact value of someone's HP and BAB scores, does that make them a tyrannical douche?

Again, you're talking about games with rules now. The answer is no, unless he decides that rule only applies when the Fighter asks instead of the Cleric. Then he's you, and he's a douche.

[Lago PARANOIA]

No, the reason you allow action movie shenanigans and don't default to realism (which is a bad idea always, every single time) is because you're playing a game.

Before I even get to the rest of your post, I would just like to say that making an appeal to genre, especially a genre as bullshit as action movies, is a terrible first resort for MTP. I'd rather use it over nothing if I don't have rules or realism available, but it's an extremely weak argument. Action movies aren't as nonsensical as a Warner Bros. cartoon, but they pull stupid illogical shit all of the time without being consistent with other action movies for no other reason than 'just because'. Back before TvTropes became a cesspit, they made grade sport in showing how internally contradictory a lot of the genre tropes were.

They only seem plausible because enough people have seen them to be familiar with the tropes. And even then, that kind of reasoning only goes so far. And let's get real here: how would you like it if a DM ruled that your attack roll missed or that a non-phlebtonium'd BBEG survived a month without water by making an appeal to genre?

Even in a freeform game with virtually no rules but MC judgment, when the MC decides to use realizarm as a standard to categorically prevent one player of the game from doing anything interesting, that's a bad judgment call.

Why is it a bad judgment call? That's an appeal to pity, bro. If someone rolls up to the table with a character that does suboptimal tactics like spending multiple rounds refocusing or dual-wielding with two non-light weapons, am I now obligated to sneak in some extra damage for them?

Yes, it sucks that a game can offer characters that are by design crippled in the MTP phase of the game unless they get a greater-than-average amount of DM Pity. That's why we should get rid of such classes.

[virgil]

What about answering the more legitimate issue? You're arguing that we shouldn't have rules for climbing a dragon because that's Captain Hobo territory. That's stupid.

Yes, magic > mundane in the vague areas of the rules. Yes, supporting mundane fighters becomes too onerous on WSoD past a certain point. However, riding a damn dragon is not past that point, and people are justified calling you out on that. Or are you saying that one shouldn't support the mundane at any level for any RPG?

[Lago PARANOIA]

You're shifting goal posts. This has nothing to do with rules. You said in a freeform game with no rules, you would punch VAH players in the dick when they tried to do something that violated your sense of realizarm.

If they don't have a narrative explanation like 'I have frost giant blood' or 'I am a firebender' and they don't have a rules cite, why the fuck shouldn't I? Would you let a time-displaced Merlin hack into a bank's security system? Would you let Captain Kirk initiate a Vulcan mind-meld?

Then you said in a game with rules, they would have to tie you to a chair and force feed you the rules to make you allow it.

No, I said in a game with rules I would shut the fuck up and allow them to do it if they pointed to a specific rule that would let them do it. If they presented me a plan that relied me as the DM to sign off on it as a special exception and didn't have a plausible* course of action why it should work, I wouldn't let it work. In the context of VAHs doing shit like jumping on dragons, people have given me these arguments:

[*] Something something high-level martial. I have a number on my character sheet, so why don't you make it work?
[*] You gave me special exceptions for these discrete and non-overlapping instances, so why won't you let me Voltron these special exceptions for another discrete and non-overlapping instance?
[*] It's totally in-genre for this thing to happen, why won't you allow it?
[*] Dude, non-martials really suck! And you're being a jerk by not allowing them special exception rules!

Some people have tried to argue on actual realism grounds, which is at least something I can respect. but Kaelik has that taken care of. No one has really come up with a good reply to this despite your pathetic attempts:

A dragon flies 3-9 times faster than a horse runs. A Dragon can turn upside down while flying in the air. A dragon is intelligent and can take advantage of both that and flight to do things that would throw people that horses can't. The dragon is significantly stronger than a horse. When people ride bucking Bronco's they often have saddles, and even when they don't, they grip with their legs in a way that is impossible on a giant as fucking dragon. There is no reason to think Dragons can't buck as well as horses and that is stupid to even say. Dragons can probably reach back and bite your fucking arm off while you are on them. Even if Dragons can't buck at all, the shear fact of their ability to fly means they can apply significantly more acceleration changes than a horse.

There are so many reasons it would obviously be more difficult that I am fucking confused as fuck how even the dumbest forced dragon riding advocate could not see multiple of them.

I mean for fucks sake, a Dragon's back is basically a ceiling if they turn upside down, since they are so big you can't actually reach around them to grip anything. Do you think you deserve a chance to successfully cling to ceilings without being fucking spiderman just because you are a commoner 5?

Everyone has pretty much ignored him and/or started whining on fairness/genre grounds.

You'll forgive me for not finding those arguments particularly compelling.

*And that's the crux of the argument. What's plausible to one person might not be plausible to another person.

[MGuy]

Your 'reverse' question doesn't answer dick. How 'bout you answer my question?

The point of my question was to show you that the premise behind your rabbinical questioning was based on special pleading. If you're going to let a PC cling to and fight/ride a dragon because they have a lot of HP and levels and BAB, what's your excuse for not letting a PC hide in plain sight as an immediate action because they have improved evasion? What's your excuse for not letting a PC with a high concentration skill get extra saving throws because of long-lasing mind-affecting affects?

You're headed down a bottomless well of madness if you argue that DMs should generically allow PCs to infer new abilities through 'just because' old abilities because such extrapolation seems 'plausible'. Not just because DMs have a differing idea of what's plausible but because there are infinitely many special exceptions or extrapolations you could come up with.

So a combination of slippery slope and the 'terror' that creating rules for specific interactions means that people are going to argue with GMs about how they should be able to use specific abilities that they have to acquire that have specific outcomes will be used for something else? How does that make sense to you? Your slippery slope fear mongering aside what the fuck does creating rules for common interactions such as forcefully clinging onto shit equate to using defined abilities to do things they don't do? Like where are you finding the connection between those two obviously different things?

[Lago PARANOIA]

So a combination of slippery slope and the 'terror' that creating rules for specific interactions means that people are going to argue with GMs about how they should be able to use specific abilities that they have to acquire that have specific outcomes will be used for something else? How does that make sense to you?

If the base, pre-instantiated mechanics is a 'just because' and you build off of that, then the extrapolated course of action is also a 'just because'.

But the danger of using 'just because' to justify new actions is that it doesn't exclude anything. Anything can be justified in-story with 'just because'. Firebending won't by itself allow you to turn into a hulking dragon, but 'just because' can.

Your slippery slope fear mongering aside what the fuck does creating rules for common interactions such as forcefully clinging onto shit

There is a difference between instantiation and extrapolation. I don't need an narrative explanation as to how I can survive a 500-foot fall with my full 150 hp, even though hp is a total 'just because' explanation in D&D. It's written in the rules, I can do that, no questions asked. If someone explicitly wrote a rule for attaching to and fighting bigger-than-me creatures, then that's the end of that.

[Stubbazubba]

Action movies aren't as nonsensical as a Warner Bros. cartoon, but they pull stupid illogical shit all of the time without being consistent with other action movies for no other reason than 'just because'. Back before TvTropes became a cesspit, they made grade sport in showing how internally contradictory a lot of the genre tropes were.

They only seem plausible because enough people have seen them to be familiar with the tropes. And even then, that kind of reasoning only goes so far.

I am yet to hear an argument why action movie tropes shouldn't apply to staying on a dragon. That is something pretty much any action movie featuring dragons would agree on is a possible thing. Edge cases of what works in some action movies versus another is totally irrelevant to all the cases where action movie tropes are predictable. As you said yourself, people are pretty familiar with how things work in movies, by and large and that is because they operate similarly, by and large. And you have no argument other than "we should abandon all of that because there are edge cases where source material disagrees." If that's the case, then we should abandon realism because there are edge cases where no one at the table is likely to know the realistic answer. In fact, the latter are far more numerous than the former.

And let's get real here: how would you like it if a DM ruled that your attack roll missed or that a non-phlebtonium'd BBEG survived a month without water by making an appeal to genre?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RULES

Yes, a DM overriding the rules to serve whatever trope would be a bad call (unless it was clearly explained beforehand, yadda yadda). This is not what you said you would do, and this is not remotely near to the situation we are describing.

Even in a freeform game with virtually no rules but MC judgment, when the MC decides to use realizarm as a standard to categorically prevent one player of the game from doing anything interesting, that's a bad judgment call.

Why is it a bad judgment call? That's an appeal to pity, bro. If someone rolls up to the table with a character that does suboptimal tactics like spending multiple rounds refocusing or dual-wielding with two non-light weapons, am I now obligated to sneak in some extra damage for them?

Go back and read the part you quoted about this being a freeform game with nothing but MC judgment. You keep trying to change this to ignoring actual rules and replacing it with pity. That's not the same thing.

Yes, it sucks that a game can offer characters that are by design crippled in the MTP phase of the game unless they get a greater-than-average amount of DM Pity. That's why we should get rid of such classes.

Again, you are trying to change this conversation into something it is not. If you, as the DM, allow someone to play a VAH in your game, it is incumbent upon you to give that person the same benefit of the doubt in MTP that you would give any other player, because a character's effectiveness should not hinge upon the random, unpredictable prejudices of the individual DM. Not more benefit of the doubt to make up for rules deficiencies, and not fudging numbers and negating the rules to do so, but the same benefit of the doubt where the rules are silent, which you have stated you are unwilling to do because you don't like VAH characters. But you apparently allowed the character in your game in the first place, just to shut out that player anytime they step outside the unequivocal meaning of the rules. Yes, that is douchey. Yes, you should not be allowing that character at your table. Letting them play and then rubbing your dick all over their face every time they try to do something is, in fact, being a douche.

For precisely the same reasons, as a designer, if you are going to have VAHs in your game, it is incumbent on you to make them actually competitive with all the other character options. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be presenting those options to the player. If you do anyway, you're a douche.

If you don't like VAHs, don't allow them, or don't include them in your game. That is a non-douchey, totally defensible option. Doing what you are talking about and just making sure to pull out a pistol and shoot the VAH's player in the hand every time he tries to do something that the rules give virtually zero guidance on until he learns to not play VAHs is, yes, douchey.

[MGuy]

So a combination of slippery slope and the 'terror' that creating rules for specific interactions means that people are going to argue with GMs about how they should be able to use specific abilities that they have to acquire that have specific outcomes will be used for something else? How does that make sense to you?

If the base, pre-instantiated mechanics is a 'just because' and you build off of that, then the extrapolated course of action is also a 'just because'.

But the danger of using 'just because' to justify new actions is that it doesn't exclude anything. Anything can be justified in-story with 'just because'. Firebending won't by itself allow you to turn into a hulking dragon, but 'just because' can.

Your slippery slope fear mongering aside what the fuck does creating rules for common interactions such as forcefully clinging onto shit

There is a difference between instantiation and extrapolation. I don't need an narrative explanation as to how I can survive a 500-foot fall with my full 150 hp, even though hp is a total 'just because' explanation in D&D. It's written in the rules, I can do that, no questions asked. If someone explicitly wrote a rule for attaching to and fighting bigger-than-me creatures, then that's the end of that.

LAGO are you high? There are CLEAR reasons why you would want to have rules for interactions as common in the source material as jumping on a large creature's back. This isn't just a thing I pulled out of my ass this is something that people want to have in their game and think is cool. I'm not even sure at this point if you do realize my entire point is that you write a rule that says you can do X. You've been ranting on and on about how you can't let people do X because it's bad that it isn't magic. Then when I ask you why you are upset with another 'unrealistic yet mundane' thing you say 'it's ok because there's a rule for it'. The fuck?!