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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4792596" data-attributes="member: 2011">If you really want to go down this path, I'll discuss it.I think 4E screwed up a lot of things because they put simpler game mechanics before game flavor and fun. The most obvious of these is that spells do not have significant durations. They totally dropped the concept of protection spells. They totally dropped the concept of summoning. They totally dropped the concept of autonomous allies like henchmen and animal companions.Sure, they put a tiny bit of lip service on these, but some of the new mechanics are pretty bad.In fact, we just added a house rule to our game for the Ranger's animal companion because it felt like a moveable terrain feature in the game instead of a creature. It was totally boring and felt more like an appendage of the PC instead of a friend and ally of the PC. I suspect that Familiars will feel the same, but we do not have them yet.So yes, they killed some sacred cows and ended up screwing some things up in the process. There were some really good reasons that some of the early game mechanics were the way they were and WotC basically ignored that in the name of simplicity. Sometimes, it worked well in 4E. Other times, it did not.You and I often disagree on things like house rules, but it's not that I think you do not see elements of the game system that are problematic. You do. You are really good at that. I just find your solutions to be "too grandiose". You tend to kill the fly with a sledgehammer. Once you have a design idea, you tend to not see the flaws in it, just the good in it.Like some of the WotC ideas in 4E, I don't think your design ideas are well thought out. You see the big picture, but tend to not see the small important details. Just like many of the features in 4E. IMO.I cannot help it if you ignore what I write. I said that the idea to make the useage of Second Wind more desirable by players was fine, your implementations were not. I am not dismissing your ideas out of hand, I just find the implementations too powerful.I did not find Lord Tirian's suggestion too powerful, but instead useful for your originally stated goal. His solution adds a game element that is both not powerful and something that players would really enjoy. Yours is too powerful and not very exciting or original. Boost healing. Ok. Ho hum.Your implementations result in significantly increased healing capability. The game system is non-challenging enough without significantly boosting party healing. IMO. You are free to disagree and play whatever house rules in your game you like.Second Wind should not even be in the game system in the first place. It's not a plausible flavor element, it's totally a game mechanic wrapped in an artificial flavor element. It's a nonsensical "go to the well" ability. "Oh look, I can heal myself". Yeah, I've heard all of the lame justifications of how it makes sense from a "pick yourself up" POV. I'm not impressed with those rationales.In our game, it really is a "pick yourself up" ability because we have wound points which do not heal up when the player wants them to. But in the core rules, the PC is not really hurt until he is dead because there are so many ways to instantly heal up even without magic, especially out of combat.So yeah, it's not a sacred cow that magical healing should be greater than second wind BS healing, it's that it outright makes more logical sense that magic works better. If the designers would have made it the opposite way around, I think there would have been a small uproar over it.Just because you can think of an idea does not make it a good idea, no matter how excited you get over it. This seems to be something you appear to have in common with WotC, especially in their splat books.</blockquote>

Verification