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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5619251" data-attributes="member: 6679265">Even if any or every 4E spell or power was renamed and/or refluffed to be reconciled with its name or default flavor, then that wouldn't lower enough the level of disassociation for those that care about it. The mechanic in question would still be dis(ass)ociated as long as enough people want or expect mind control magic to be more flexible than a binary 'fight or flight'-or-nothing option. There are many different magic systems between so many fantasy novels and films. I think most people recognize that. Nobody (I hope) freaks out that Harry Potter magic is different than Earthsea magic. The Vancian system was simply an attempt to reconcile or associate the mechanics with the fiction. For those 2 reasons, I think that's why people have been able to internalize (or at least tolerate) the way magic worked in the game for so many years. Not that it was perfect by any means. For one thing, 3E sorcerers were created to appease a surge in expectations that not all magic-users should constantly forget their spells once cast.Expanding on that premise, if you take a thousand PC Rogues over a thousand days of adventuring, then that's a million instances of a rogue never using that power more than once a day. I think it's improbable that in all those million instances, not one single rogue ever had the luck or opportunity or interest to use it more than once. You may say that 4E is not modelling 1 million fictional instances in any one gaming group's subjective fictional world, which is true, but it's only a thought experiment illustrating the disassociation of my expectations from what the rules technically would allow me to experience. Even if there are just a couple dozen instances of a Rogue not using the power more than 1/day, the probability curve outcome is already failing to associate for me. As usual, it's all relative and a question of degree and tolerance.</blockquote>

Verification