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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4253762" data-attributes="member: 51325">Hmm..that's an interesting point and as a 4E fan, I actually agree with this somewhat.I think this is a good thing since previously the difference is that the rules were designed in how they look ON paper but not HOW they play at the table.I'll give an example. Healing.The rate of Healing in 4E drives many people up the wall. Basically, "ione night of sleep cures all that ails you? Yeah right". The 1E/2E (and even 3Es) rate of natural healing on paper sound less "videogamish/action movie" to many.However, IN PRACTICE, the natural rate of healing of 1E/2E led to two things.1. The fact that you NEEDED a cleric. Without a cleric, you were pretty much boned and unless you DM was sadistic, the DM would always "weaken" the combat in favour of the PCs. With a cleric, you had people saying "ok, we'll rest for today, tomorrow, healbot will just use his slots to heal everyone and then the day after we continue"2. The fact that in 3.x you had people running around with wands of healing and portable holes filled with healing potions. Here's the thing though...Can you name ANY fantasy where you see the characters regularly run around with LITERALLY 50 charge wands of healingSo, the OUTCOME of the rule was that you had people devaluing magic in how often it was needed. That's why I'm somewhat happy with 4e. They actually seemed to realize how people actually use the rules and not how it looks.</blockquote>

Verification