Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8191465" data-attributes="member: 18">That doesn't follow.That wasn't why 4E was controversial.I mean, I'm not going to re-litigate 4E in this thread, but aspect was one of the least controversial. I mean, maybe it was on the list of controversial aspects, but it was towards the bottom, and mostly it just consisted of &quot;Why does Fireball gotta suck now?!?&quot;. If it had been the only controversial point with 4E, or one of a few, then I think 4E would have done a lot better.As for verisimilitude and class balance, well, you could go the other way - you could have casters check to see if they successfully cast spells and so on routinely, but then you'd either need to given a lot more spell slots, or make it so they didn't lose a spell slot on a miscast. If you didn't do those you'd be straightforwardly making them less powerful. That's probably fine - historically mid-to high level casters have been perhaps overpowered, even, I'd argue, in 5E, but it's certainly something you'd be doing and it would impact lower levels as well. You'd also need to develop mechanics to simulate this casting - and we'd be on like the fourth or later generation of those mechanics by now, if they hadn't been abandoned.Further the question &quot;verisimilitude to what&quot; arises. D&amp;D isn't simulating something. It's not a simulationist game. It's a highly abstracted game that most embodies gamist principles (in every edition). Sometimes it has some half-arsed simulationist baggage, or makes a nod towards narrativism, but it's not like it's trying to be a specific fantasy setting and spells getting miscast happens all the time in that setting, but for some reason D&amp;D is missing this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8191465, member: 18"] That doesn't follow. That wasn't why 4E was controversial. I mean, I'm not going to re-litigate 4E in this thread, but aspect was one of the least controversial. I mean, maybe it was on the list of controversial aspects, but it was towards the bottom, and mostly it just consisted of "Why does Fireball gotta suck now?!?". If it had been the only controversial point with 4E, or one of a few, then I think 4E would have done a lot better. As for verisimilitude and class balance, well, you could go the other way - you could have casters check to see if they successfully cast spells and so on routinely, but then you'd either need to given a lot more spell slots, or make it so they didn't lose a spell slot on a miscast. If you didn't do those you'd be straightforwardly making them less powerful. That's probably fine - historically mid-to high level casters have been perhaps overpowered, even, I'd argue, in 5E, but it's certainly something you'd be doing and it would impact lower levels as well. You'd also need to develop mechanics to simulate this casting - and we'd be on like the fourth or later generation of those mechanics by now, if they hadn't been abandoned. Further the question "verisimilitude to what" arises. D&D isn't simulating something. It's not a simulationist game. It's a highly abstracted game that most embodies gamist principles (in every edition). Sometimes it has some half-arsed simulationist baggage, or makes a nod towards narrativism, but it's not like it's trying to be a specific fantasy setting and spells getting miscast happens all the time in that setting, but for some reason D&D is missing this. [/QUOTE]

Verification