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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4878025" data-attributes="member: 64066">You know, I think I'm just tired of even trying to justify this.  Many of the people who are bugged by these things are obviously just finding things to nitpick about, even though they were fine with 3rd editions and other absurd things.So what if a hero can heal up in a night's rest?  Sure that's not realistic, but neither is "getting beaten to a pulp" and then being "completely healed" from a few days bed rest either.  Both of them are a big departure to the reality of significant injuries, but I never heard anyone complain, "how could I expect my hero to be as good as new with just a week of bed rest!?  He was mauled by a dragon, not sick in bed with the flu."Face it, they are both unrealistic.Does it really bother you that heroes can recover from 0 HP to full in one night of rest in 4E?  Really?Does it not bother you that in 3E that a commoner and many wizards could recover from 0 hp to full in 1 day's rest under "long term care" of someone with the heal skill?Does it not bother you that in 3E that these same wizards with no CON bonus and commoners heal faster under long term care than the hearty high CON fighters and barbarians?After starting at 0 hit points and using only natural healing, that level 1 commoner with 3 hit points, and that level 10 Wizard with 30 hit points can both recover to full health in 3 days, but a level 10 Barbarian with 90 hit points is going to take 9 days to get back to full!Oh the resilience of farmers and wizards!For myself, between the two unrealistic methods of healing, I'd prefer the one that takes less micromanagement and less "ok we rest a day... cast cure light wounds 3 times... rest another day... cast cure light wound 3 more times... rest a day and get my spells back".  That's just about my preferences, yours may vary.In fact, when you are talking about fantasy adventurers shooting fireballs, stopping time, killing dragons, it should be accepted as a fact that there are going to be things that just aren't realistic.  All RPGs depart from reality,  and frankly, that's often what makes them fun.I am not going to say 4E is better than 3E, but it's better at the style of play that *I* prefer.  I want something that plays fairly quick, has easy to resolve actions, and is open-ended enough that I don't feel like I have to be hindered by mechanics in order to provide the narrative that I want.  I *prefer* rules light.  In fact, if I wasn't playing D&D 4E, I'd probably play something like Spirit of the Century instead.It doesn't have to be better at suiting your needs.  If it doesn't suit your needs, then modify it or go back to 3E, but I'm tired of the comments about how stupid the game is or how we are just deceiving ourselves into liking it and buying into WotC propaganda, and the comments of *some* that fall into gray areas of trolling.  That's not reasonable discussion or even critiquing, that's just being an anti-fanboy.</blockquote>

Verification