NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4781866" data-attributes="member: 22779">It seems to me, throughout this thread, that there are those who want to have it both ways.  For example, when I talked about hitting something, Kask told me that earlier editions of D&D had a specific meaning of "to hit" that was different from what is commonly understood.  In earlier editions, a "hit" is defined as an attack that does damage.  This is most certainly not how hit is defined commonly though.  If I hit a tennis ball, I do no damage to it, or if I hit a steel wall with my hand, I do no damage to it (although I might hurt my hand <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=":)" /> ) yet, I am, in fact hitting it.Yet, apparently, putting on heavy armor makes me harder to hit.  Now, I totally agree that D&D has a specific definition of "hit" that is different than common usage.  100% agree.  Yet, for some reason, when 4e has a specific definition that differs from common usage, that's a bad thing and leads to completely unbelievable situations that cannot possibly be justified in any other way than with "magic".Or, going back to being stronger makes me more accurate.  A barbarian (3rd edition) flies into a rage to the point where he loses a great deal of control, cannot concentrate, cannot perform complicated tasks, yet he is more accurate than the character who aims carefully and lines up the shot.  This is an example where the rules of the game giving implications of the game world (what I called rules=physics although Imaro disagrees) making implications that are pretty much ludicrous.  Being stronger should not make me hit more often.  Yet, for some reason, the big, slow brute hits far more often than the skinny, weaker, but definitely faster, guy.  But, again, when apparently we cannot apply the same blinders to 4e that we do to earlier editions because, that's just not believable.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />Or, take the example of the hippogriff.  Imaro says that the hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but because of its monster type.  It's a magical beast, therefore it can fly.  This brings up two points.  First, can any magical beast fly?  If there is something about being a magical beast that allows flight, I sure missed it in the rules.  Imaro has clearly added something in here that isn't in the rules, but, again, we're not allowed to do that in 4e.But, secondly, if we are allowed to justify a creature's abilities solely on its metagame type, then why can't fighters do stuff that ordinary people can't?  If a hippogriff can fly, not through magic, but solely because of its type, then why can't fighters pull people out of position, not out of magic, but solely because of the character's class?  Type and Class are both metagame constructs that have no in game parallels.  So, why is it ok to justify a hippogriff's flight with its type, but, not a fighter's abilities with its class?Like I said, people want to have it both ways.Hang on a sec.  You're now claiming that all high level PC's in older editions are now magical in nature, regardless of class?If that's true, then what the heck are you bitching about with 4e?  If you consider all classes to be magical in nature in all editions of D&D, the only difference being the level at which you go from mundane to magical, then, what's your beef with 4e?  Why does it bother you that you have explicit exploits for martial characters, when you already have every class being magical in nature in every other edition?</blockquote>

Verification