NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9100570" data-attributes="member: 82106">Eh, I don't think it is really 'one more' exactly. You have two games, neither of which is particularly all that realistic, 3.5e and 4e. The 'ooze' in either one is fairly unrealistic, baseline (if it was more realistic I doubt it could even exist, but short of that its still pretty gamist). Now you say one game is 'less unrealistic' because it doesn't allow the application of certain attack bonuses vs oozes under certain conditions. I mean, taken in isolation you kinda make a point, but in context its a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of thing. Maybe 4e's ooze is MORE realistic! I don't even think we can make such a determination, or that it has any real meaning to start with.And again, as I said up thread, I see nothing in 4e which claims that fiction is not to be taken into consideration. I see 100's of plain obvious examples of how it IS taken into consideration, and meant to be. Overwhelmingly fiction matters, and if you were to say use 'Trip Up' with a polearm against an ooze, don't you think the GM will narrate something that can plausibly be emulated using the prone condition without straining anyone's disbelief any more than usual? IIRC I narrated the prone ochre jelly as someone stabbed it in a vital part of its body and it momentarily lost its ability to move, etc. I mean, I could change that to some other condition instead, but are you telling me the game is a good enough simulation of reality that you can honestly state that 'dazed' or 'grants combat advantage' or whatever is objectively 'better'??? I don't think you can make that argument convincingly. So, yeah, I reject the entire "it's more gamist" line of argument on the face of it.</blockquote>

Verification