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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1523440" data-attributes="member: 5171">Complexity is a better word than granularity, agreed.You know, it's a segue, but I came up with an in-world rationale for why that worked.  It was a mix of several ideas, including "people build up a tolerance to healing magic, requiring more of it to work for them the more that they get healed, which is why rarely healed peasants only need a little magic, but hardened warrior veterans need a lot" and "healing magic must first penetrate the soul-power of the target, and it requires more to get through on a more powerful person" and "clerics don't actually get more power, they just get better at using the power that they do have" and such.  Utter handwaving, of course...But you're totally right in that there's cinematically unrealistic and then there's... otherly unrealistic.  I was applying the argument often used against abstract hit points ("You're saying I can hit in the head with a greatsword and be fine just because I have hit points!" shouts the guy who doesn't understand the abstract combat system...), but this is really noncinematic.  On the other hand, in the movies, you almost never hear the good guy say "Oh, can't use that one, not proficient, hey, that one's... no, it's not sized properly, what about, well, okay, it's too large for finesse, though."  Cinematically, it ought to be pretty easy and painless to use a weapon, all other things being equal.Not saying that that belongs in every campaign, but I can understand some of the irritation, even if it does result in a titan's folding pocket-knife working perfectly well as a halfling's greatsword, and vice versa.That would be an abstract system, versus a detailed system -- an abstract, realistic system, versus a detailed, unrealistic system (like most RPGs).</blockquote>

Verification