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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5891332" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wow, El Mahdi, you really, really don't want to let that go do you?  Have I posted using lots of exclamation points?  Have I been using multicolored scary text to make my point more dramatic?  Have I, in any way, used language like "stupid" or "idiotic"?Yeah, didn't think so.  So, you can keep banging this drum and trying to make this into something it's not, but, my basic point has always been the same.As I've repeatedly stated, if all you want is falling damage rules, then no problems.  Hey, go for it.  Really.  It's perfectly fine by me.  I have not the slightest, teensiest, tiniest quibble with it.  Is that clear enough?  Let me state it as plainly as I can.If all you want is falling damage rules, then I one hundred percent support you and back you all the way.On the other hand, many people in this thread have talked about making much more sweeping changes, such as allowing the rules to make low level threats credible against high level characters.  This is a broad sweeping change that will affect every single aspect of the game.  Under these rules, an adventure like Keep on the Borderlands would be a credible threat to a 15th level party since many of the caves include encounters with dozens of opponents.  That is a very large change to the game.Such a large change would require a great deal of space in the books to explain.  This is not something you could do in a paragraph, or even a page.  This is something that will take up a lot of space.  Now, I could be mistaken and someone could come up with simple mechanics that can be fitted into a page or so.  That's true, and, if so, I would withdraw my concerns.So, that's why I talk about it gumming up the game.  If the core rules have to expend significant page count on a module that is only geared for a selection of players, I'd rather it was in its own book.  I would make the same argument for specific setting mechanics as well.  I wouldn't want to see Faerun take up 20 pages of the DMG, for example.  Now, there is an ideological issue here as well.  I find it somewhat hard to comprehend why people would find X perfectly acceptable while finding Y unacceptable, when, to me, they are pretty much the same.  So, I discuss it.  Not dismiss it.  Not call it stupid or ridiculous.  I do so to try to drill down why they find X believable and Y not.  And mostly I do it because I'm a huge, honking nerd.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />But, it's getting rather tiresome El Mahdi, when you continue to drag in other conversations into this one, simply to try to prove something that isn't even being discussed.  If I started calling JamesonCourage an idiot for believing what he does, then you'd have a point.  I disagree with JC, and that's fine.  But, I certainly don't think he's foolish or ridiculous for holding to his sense of disbelief.  I just think he's quite obviously wrong.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  (The preceeding sentence is a joke, in case that wasn't obvious)</blockquote>

Verification