Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrecan" data-source="post: 5618404" data-attributes="member: 64825">yes, there is.&nbsp; Page 45 pf the PHB gives the in-game reason.&nbsp; he just doesn't accept it, just as other people don't accept the in-game reason given for hit points.Exactly, and if you don't like the explanation for martial dailies, they are disassociated to you.&nbsp; If someone else thinks Vancian magic is nonsensical, then the daily use of a fireball is disassociated to them.The problem isn't that the mechanics are abstract, but that any given abstraction is unacceptable to that individual.&nbsp; That's why TheAlexandrian's argument is ultimately circular.&nbsp; He can accept some mechanics and rejects others, labeling them &quot;disassociated&quot;.&nbsp;Of course not, because you agree with his conclusion.I think they are the same thing.&nbsp; I use the terms interchangeably.&nbsp; Since I think they're the same thing I disagree.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;I think the question is meaningless.&nbsp; &quot;Dislike&quot; is an emotional word.&nbsp; Aesthetics are neither &quot;valid&quot; not &quot;invalid&quot;.&nbsp; You don't like 4e.&nbsp; got it.&nbsp; There's not going to be&nbsp; a valid or invalid reason for it.&nbsp; It's just going to be a preference.&nbsp;That's a circular argument.&nbsp; Of course 4e's disassociated mechanics are a 4e thing.&nbsp; And since you've defined &quot;disassociated&quot; as mechanics you think haven't been justified in-game, it's also a circular argument.&nbsp; i don't think 4e's mechanics are unjustified, so i reject your premise that 4e has more disassociated mechanics (under your definition) than prior games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wrecan, post: 5618404, member: 64825"] yes, there is. Page 45 pf the PHB gives the in-game reason. he just doesn't accept it, just as other people don't accept the in-game reason given for hit points. Exactly, and if you don't like the explanation for martial dailies, they are disassociated to you. If someone else thinks Vancian magic is nonsensical, then the daily use of a fireball is disassociated to them. The problem isn't that the mechanics are abstract, but that any given abstraction is unacceptable to that individual. That's why TheAlexandrian's argument is ultimately circular. He can accept some mechanics and rejects others, labeling them "disassociated". Of course not, because you agree with his conclusion. I think they are the same thing. I use the terms interchangeably. Since I think they're the same thing I disagree. I think the question is meaningless. "Dislike" is an emotional word. Aesthetics are neither "valid" not "invalid". You don't like 4e. got it. There's not going to be a valid or invalid reason for it. It's just going to be a preference. That's a circular argument. Of course 4e's disassociated mechanics are a 4e thing. And since you've defined "disassociated" as mechanics you think haven't been justified in-game, it's also a circular argument. i don't think 4e's mechanics are unjustified, so i reject your premise that 4e has more disassociated mechanics (under your definition) than prior games. [/QUOTE]

Verification