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="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9216652" data-attributes="member: 5142">Sure, but it's not like it's required for me to do so in my initial post, particularly given the form of a forum as a place of back and forth discussion. You could have asked how it applied. Instead, you insisted that it didn't and simply directed me to a Wikipedia page on the subject as if that was an argument. That choice to skip over that was poor form. You're right that I didn't acknowledge these other posters and the arguments that they were making until my prior post, but, yes, I did think that the prior few pages of back-and-forth with you and these other posters was fairly apparent because others were already pointing out what appears to me and others as a double-standard. I don't know why you expect that I am obligated to summarize others or acknowledge everyone else's contributions when this is not a requirement or expectation that you seem to place on others. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> Except that's not really a double-standard. That's just saying that some game mechanic can represent multiple things in the fiction. The spell mechanic says that it restores a given amount of HP, and we are told elsewhere that the HP mechanic represents a mix of things in the fiction. There may be tension between those elements, but it's applied consistently. The game is consistent about that fact from its beginning. The fact that the spell is called Cure Wounds is a pretty moot point in the larger picture. If I was alone on this matter, I think that it would be safe to say that I have "badly" misunderstood what's being said here, but that doesn't seem to be the case, as others seem to be corraborating this understanding of your position and the double-standard that you seem to have regarding partial damage on saves and damage on a miss. When you are willing to overlook partial damage on a save, which has a long history in D&D, but get in an uproar about damage on a miss, which people like yourself complained about in regards to 4e, then what is "alien to D&D" does seem to be quite germane because it seems that legacy damage-on-a-miss is okay and internally consistent simulationism but 4e damage-on-a-miss is bad and internally inconsistent simulationism.</blockquote>

Verification