Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7483930" data-attributes="member: 20564">D&amp;D mechanically focuses on high fantasy and the tropes of it.&nbsp; A hero fights dragons, can take multiple critical great axe attacks and still fight, falls off a 50' cliff and continues to fight.&nbsp; Picking 5e over a system that prioritizes realism shows that the default position should be that realism is good, but not at the cost of heroics.So the question isn't &quot;is it realistic&quot;, it's &quot;is this net enhancing play?&quot;, with more weight given to heroics then realism.Here's what I see as common cases:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Characters outnumbered by weaker foes:&nbsp; Flanking more use to monsters.&nbsp; Weak monsters overwhelming heroes - adds realism at the cost of heroics, so because of our weightings, this is bad.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Characters and monsters even in terms of numbers and strength:&nbsp; Neutral</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Characters outnumber strong foes:&nbsp; 5e already has a problem with solo creatures being too easy to defeat, so this doesn't enhance play.&nbsp; This is orthogonal to realism, instead it would be exasperating a flaw in the system.&nbsp; So also bad.</li>
</ul>This is only looking at the generic.&nbsp; Any given table could have&nbsp; different priorities and value realism more.&nbsp; Something like this would&nbsp; therefore be good as a variant rule as opposed to a base rule.&nbsp; Variant and house rules are encouraged, to allow each table to tailor the general experience to one that fits them better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7483930, member: 20564"] D&D mechanically focuses on high fantasy and the tropes of it. A hero fights dragons, can take multiple critical great axe attacks and still fight, falls off a 50' cliff and continues to fight. Picking 5e over a system that prioritizes realism shows that the default position should be that realism is good, but not at the cost of heroics. So the question isn't "is it realistic", it's "is this net enhancing play?", with more weight given to heroics then realism. Here's what I see as common cases: [LIST] [*][B]Characters outnumbered by weaker foes:[/B] Flanking more use to monsters. Weak monsters overwhelming heroes - adds realism at the cost of heroics, so because of our weightings, this is bad. [*][B]Characters and monsters even in terms of numbers and strength:[/B] Neutral [*][B]Characters outnumber strong foes:[/B] 5e already has a problem with solo creatures being too easy to defeat, so this doesn't enhance play. This is orthogonal to realism, instead it would be exasperating a flaw in the system. So also bad. [/LIST] This is only looking at the generic. Any given table could have different priorities and value realism more. Something like this would therefore be good as a variant rule as opposed to a base rule. Variant and house rules are encouraged, to allow each table to tailor the general experience to one that fits them better. [/QUOTE]

Verification