Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5510560" data-attributes="member: 11300">I think my example may have been a little specific here to highlight one of the annoyances I have with it. It is very easy to come up with a counter-argument to my example and I think I have been caught trying to present a mathematical model to explain what I have experienced in-game. For better or worse, I find this facet of play the least satisfying and the first thing I would change if I could. And if I was to say one of my favourite 4e things it would definitely be rituals. If the ritual concept was applied back to 3e, then I think you could go a fair way to fixing most of the problems that people had with magic. I am surprised that WotC have not pushed this barrow more than they have. Perhaps I have presented myself as more conservative than what I am, but yes most certainly I would include James Bond and John McClain into the "mundane mix".  Nobody in our group has touched essentials yet. I have had a DDI account from day dot so my knowledge of essentials is only fair while my play experience is zero. I have not had a reason to bother investing in essentials.Agreed with both, neither of which I like. I would prefer that hit points be split into two: hit points which are easily spent and restored; and physical damage which is more serious and heals slowly (but is protected by the layer of hit points above it representing skill, capacity to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, luck, divinity etc.) This separation would solve almost all issues with damage, healing condition effects and so on from my simulationist point of view.Again while this was a major speedbump when we started, it has now become a noted blip that is quickly forced out of the mind. And I think here you have helped me articulate the primary difference in simulationist play to 4e play and that is the black box effect highlighted by Mike Mearls. 4e worries about the end result. A simulationist worries about the result and in particular the process that achieved that result. When the process is awry; simulationists like me get on our high horses and start whinging and shaking our heads and feeling this curious itch between our choulders. For others, they must wonder why the hell we bother. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Obviously not! I was merely trying to highlight that (particularly in 3e where magical effects were generally more powerful than "mundane" effects) that a round of spellcasting should be more exhausting for the caster than a round of combat is for the fighter if one wanted to attempt to restore some measure of play balance between the two. In other words, over 6 rounds of combat, the fighter gets 6 major attacks of differing flavours in while the wizard might get 2 major effects mixed in with a few lesser ones but where the sum total of each is comparable. Do you understand where I'm coming from here (remember I play 4e, 3e and Pathfinder so I'm generally always on the lookout how to cross-pollinate good ideas from one system into the others). I can understand these justifications and appreciate that they round the edges off the problem but for me, there is still a big bump in the middle. As I said, my preference is a little more attention to the details and process rather than the broadly painted end result. Because the character's stats are meant to represent what that character can do. I think this is one of those situations where our philosophy of play differs. Chalk it up to another area where to quote the thread title 4e takes the simulation away and focuses on satisfying other issues.I'm not quite as sure but I understand the direction you're coming from here and will look into this on the basis of your good advice. And thank you overall for the time and effort responding.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification