Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4478166" data-attributes="member: 957">It seems to me you are saying that I like soccer, but your version doesn't allow contact with the ball and I'm not willing to &quot;sacrifice&quot; actually touching the ball in order to keep playing.&nbsp; The word sacrifice just doesn't fit.&nbsp; I don't see that as a fair assessment at all.&nbsp; I could turn your buzz words on their head and say that 4E fans are not flexible enough to deal with the reasonable cause and effect to play in a game the works right.&nbsp; But that wiuld be just as unreasonable as your characterization of my position.&nbsp; The bottom line is that we want very different things.It is not a flavor thing.&nbsp; It is a mechanics things.&nbsp; I wasn't describing the flavor, I was making a simple analogy for how it actually works out.&nbsp; It is a mechanics thing, and it works vastly worse at the table.But it doesn't work out the same in the end.&nbsp; And it is a million miles apart on how it works out along the way toward the end.Natural healing has nothing to do with my issue.&nbsp; (I guess it could, but the presumption that the cleric will take care of it I do agree with). I'm frustrated with the very question of why not just build it into the game.&nbsp; I mean, 9 time out of 10 the characters win, so why not just build that into the game?&nbsp; You don't build fighters spontaneously healing their own wounds into the game because fighters do not spontaneously heal wounds.Why not give orcs a 1 in 10 chance of bursting into flame every round?&nbsp; After all, the wizard is going to fireball them eventually.&nbsp; It works out the same in the end.&nbsp; I'm not flexible enough to accept this change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4478166, member: 957"] It seems to me you are saying that I like soccer, but your version doesn't allow contact with the ball and I'm not willing to "sacrifice" actually touching the ball in order to keep playing. The word sacrifice just doesn't fit. I don't see that as a fair assessment at all. I could turn your buzz words on their head and say that 4E fans are not flexible enough to deal with the reasonable cause and effect to play in a game the works right. But that wiuld be just as unreasonable as your characterization of my position. The bottom line is that we want very different things. It is not a flavor thing. It is a mechanics things. I wasn't describing the flavor, I was making a simple analogy for how it actually works out. It is a mechanics thing, and it works vastly worse at the table. But it doesn't work out the same in the end. And it is a million miles apart on how it works out along the way toward the end. Natural healing has nothing to do with my issue. (I guess it could, but the presumption that the cleric will take care of it I do agree with). I'm frustrated with the very question of why not just build it into the game. I mean, 9 time out of 10 the characters win, so why not just build that into the game? You don't build fighters spontaneously healing their own wounds into the game because fighters do not spontaneously heal wounds. Why not give orcs a 1 in 10 chance of bursting into flame every round? After all, the wizard is going to fireball them eventually. It works out the same in the end. I'm not flexible enough to accept this change. [/QUOTE]

Verification