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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5746316" data-attributes="member: 4892">Now I'm confused. The article linked to is a 4E article, any 5E involved is pure speculation. And the OP did not ask the question in regard to any edition.You asked a bunch of questions, then reminded me that you didn't like my answers. If you already knew the answers, why'd you ask the questions? And my purpose was to answer in context of your comments. The +1 per 2 levels may very well be gamist, but I do see valid ways to describe it in a simulationist manner. It depends on what you are trying to simulate and what you believe can model that reality. Some of us are OK with it simulating behind-the-scenes magic, it could also be the "get better at your adventuring job" explanation. The +1 per 2 levels could just as easily be used as a way to simulate overall general aptitude when one is repeatedly confronted with a certain set of tasks. Just because it is outside your range of acceptability doesn't make it non-simulationist.That was basically my point. One "side" insists that they won't come back, but it almost seems as if they forgot that some of us left 3E and yet others skipped it entirely. I get that people want things to match what they want, but stating that you won't come back until they do ignores the fact that others might leave if you change it back. So why don't we do it both ways? Because I believe the game would get bogged down in trying to appeal to everyone when, as you said, we know it can't.</blockquote>

Verification