Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5509489" data-attributes="member: 11300">But no matter how injured my character is, as long as they are not dead, they can by mundane means fully recover to fighting trim within a day. This is a big kick in the pants for a simulationist style of play. However, hit points in D&D have always been weird. A way of dealing with this (from a simulationist's point of view) is to separate the hit points (representing the capacity to avoid or turn damage, divine influence, luck etc.) and physical damage. Hit points are restored quickly while physical damage is healed at a much slower/normal rate. 4e is designed more for fun than representing the "ickiness" of damage and infection - and this is most certainly not a bad thing.Yes I would, and as I say, this is the biggest simulationist gripe for me. In 4e the "puny" wizard "recovers" from being poisoned at a rate equal to or better than the "tough" barbarian 69% of the time! This is completely and utterly at odds with the mental picture I have of fantasy and the various tropes we include in a typical campaign. I accept this as part of streamlining the game but it still bothers me and would be the first thing ejected when creating a new edition.Not always true. A major trope of fantasy fiction is the physical effect of casting powerful magic. This is a very easy limiting factor to introduce. The other factor that can be addressed is the high rate of spellcasting compared to more mundane attack forms. If the rate at which a spellcaster can blast out a fireball is scaled back a little, then martial classes do not end up being penalized, particularly if those martial classes are empowered to get more out of their attacks than hp damage.Which is fine if you want a "mysteriously" powered non-mundane fighter. And I can certainly jive with such variants from a Primal perspective (even though chi in my fantasy game still illicits that rice in the haggis issue I personally have). I still would want such restrictions explained more fully than encounter/daily - although my simulationist issue here is most definitely related to the mechanics of such things.Why is that silly. For me, this is the very important aspect of separating the magical from the mundane. If even the non-magical characters can do magical things, then not only does it dramatically downgrade the mystery-level for me, it completely loses it.Some things that get the half-level increase such as perception are generally well deserved as a character increases in ability and level (although an exception to this is easily enough crafted). I think it was KarinsDad on a different thread that highlighted the importance of this "adventuring experience" be hard-coded into the rules and how 3e's skill points failed to do this. Initiative is another area where the half-level bonus is suited and well earned compared to 3e initiative. However, why is my puny wizard getting significantly stronger as he increases in level? Why is my dumb-fighter getting so much more intelligent? Why are they getting better at skills they have likely never used? 3e does not give enough weight to this adventuring experience while 4e values and applies it too loosely. I would prefer a happy elegant medium between the two.For me, the creation of a skill challenge is a case of going through and carefully examining the effect of different skills in different parts of the challenge. However, rather than presenting it obviously in terms of success and failure, I think I prefer a more organically-presented approach where the situation itself determines outcomes rather than the meta-gamey nature of calculating successes and failures. Fantastic as a guide but in the end, I think the rules just help you focus more fully on the situation than what you otherwise might have in previous editions. I am happy that many people here do enjoy their skill challenges and in so doing come up with some fantastic story elements for their game (a deserved shout-out to Pemerton in this regard).I really disagree with this. There are a lot of mundane ways that a fighter can affect the battlefield that are powerful and effective. 4e opened the door here for some really good stuff but there are some examples that go a little too far for my "simulationist sensibilities". For me if you have ever read David Gemmell's books and characters such as Druss the Legend, then you have the perfect blueprint for high level mundane fighters. It is possible and it can be done. Again, if you could mix the best of 3e/4e on this, I think you would really have something good. It is not the size of the numbers that bothers me or the bookkeeping (which as you can imagine is an important and intrinsic part of the game for me - I produce 14-20 page character sheets for my player's in my 3e game). It is the exponential difference between +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 and +6 items that bothers me. It is unimaginative, differentiates far too much in terms of coin and hearkens back to the previous point of relative mathematics versus absolute. It fails to make any quasi-realistic economic sense - something D&D has never been good at but gets a huge fail on in 4e. I suppose the designers thought. "well we're not doing and have never done a good job at economics in D&D; so let's just forget about it completely and just focus on relative value to a party of level x. Not my preference is all.Anyway, my point in all of this is to give some insight into a simulationist's perspective and to attempt to answer the thread title - something which seemed to get sidetracked on the "craft [basketweaving]" mode of discussion that has little if anything to do with a simulationism. In the end, they are just my preferences and certainly not a true or correct way to play the game. If you are having fun playing, then you must be doing it right. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification