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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6214509" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Before I go on, Tovec. I just want to point out that I'm arguing from a "D&D as a whole" perspective, not against 3e in particular. I don't think 3e defines the "baseline" for what D&D, nor is the SRD any sort of final word.Devout forgites may not agree with my use of the term there, but I think in a very broad sense it holds. In earlier editions than 3e, combat rounds were much longer (1 minute). The idea that a "hit" at the level of "d20 + modifiers" was representative of a singular (or near-singular) event in the fiction (i.e. a sword swing or combo) is relatively new to the game. (Although my memory is a bit hazy...I think some people played 2e with shorter rounds.)Previous to 3e, there isn't such a thing as a "heal check" (by default). That whole little diagnostic phase basically doesn't exist, or if it does, it basically gets the DM to respond to "How does she look?" with "A Cure Light will do it." (It might be dressed up a little bit, but, IME, it always comes down to that or a number: "She's down 8.")  In the same way that in-fiction "hit" and at-table "hit" aren't equivalent, at-table "Critical Wounds" are meaningless wrt in-fiction "critical wounds" (Which is also a real live English-language term.) This is so much a part of the mannerisms of early-edition play that I have never witnessed a D&D group that doesn't just handwave the whole problem away. That is, they solve the narrative problem by simply not narrating it at all. The fact that there is no defined "Critical wound" in mechanical terms is part of the problem! It's impossible know who actually has such wounds. Some people who require the treatment labeled for "Critical Wounds" in the at-table sense are objectively not critically wounded in the in-fiction sense, and people who require "Critical" care in-fiction don't require care labeled "critical" at-table. The spell names are not an abstraction of some generic healing power, they must exist in-fiction and the cleric must know them in-fiction. The Cleric, in most editions of the game, must have access to the metagame or at-table mechanical information, or else his choices in for at-table resource management level. On the other hand, making sensible choices at the table level means making nonsensical decisions in-fiction. Thus the Cleric is torn between being true-to-fiction or true-to-table. The fact that those choices are an important part of the resource management end of playing a Cleric only serves to exacerbate the problem for folks on my end of the spectrum.In any case, the next couple of paragraphs may make this whole part of the discussion moot!I'll agree there. Damage on a miss may make sense in some way...but it doesn't say "relentless" to me.Horse meat has been eaten by humans since before civilization! <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=":)" />I agree with your sentiment, but since they plan on keeping the other sacred horse meat in the burger....I just don't see the point in getting upset about there being some meat from a new brown horse in my good ole-fashioned black horse burger. I mean, I'd love to see 5e bust out in a whole new direction, but I don't think its gonna happen. I'm personally not sure that the new toppings and seasoning are gonna help any. (Although, it seems to have some in my current playgroup very excited, so I'll probably end up playing it.)</blockquote>

Verification