Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4090313" data-attributes="member: 2067">Sure.If someone says 3e healing was BETTER than 4e healing because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e'd healing isn't believable, either!" is useless.They're okay with 3e's healing. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at healing surges but don't at wands of cure light wounds. If someone says 3e diagonals were BETTER than 4e diagonals because it didn't break their believability, saying "But 3e diagonals didn't make sense either!" is useless.They're okay with 3e's diagonals. They're not with 4e's. The interesting conversation is in the differences between them and why some people break at 1-1-1 but don't at 1-2-1.If someone holds up 3e to be a paragon of realism, then it can be broken down. But saying 3e is more realistic in comparison, which is what most of the critics on this angle are screaming, works.No one is saying that 3e works like the real world.A lot of people are saying that 4e doesn't work as much like any believable world as 3e does.As such, the OP's rant against "realism" is missing the mark.</blockquote>