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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5806437" data-attributes="member: 2011">I didn't say that I was explaining it to you the 100th time. I said that I was explaining it for the 100th time.Talking about this subject to some people here on the boards is like talking to a child that's running around with their fingers in their ears shouting "LA LA LA LA".Mod Note:  Please see my post below.  ~UmbranPeople are purposely obtuse when it comes to a rational discussion on 4E on some subjects. I'm not saying that you are being purposely obtuse, but the fact remains is that you are bring up minutia and you sound like you are being purposely obtuse with responses like yours here.Case in point of minutia. This has no bearing on the conversation, but you seem to be bringing this lack of percentage breakdown definition up as if it actually means something.This is what I consider a typical logical fallacy. One concept isn't defined, hence, a different concept cannot exist.This is yet another of the "well, he isn't damaged" arguments that don't make sense. These are self defeating. Because we do not have rules of impairment doesn't mean that a child with a dagger couldn't kill such a PC in earlier editions.I'm not quite sure if you can understand my POV on this, but your paragraph here does seem like you are just blowing smoke.People take the "hit points are an abstraction" argument to absurd levels of semantics and illogical conclusions.Sorry, but in earlier versions of the game, there WAS a feeling that a PC was seriously damaged if a cat could come along and kill that PC in a round. Absurd "hit points are an abstraction" arguments to the contrary, 4E feels like monsters are pussies, or alternatively, 4E feels like PCs are 4 color comic superheroes where after a building is dropped on them in one panel, they brush it off in the next.No amount of off the wall "abstraction" arguments change the concept of how many people perceive these healing mechanics. They aren't healing at all (because there is no 4E damage). They are catching one's breath.Not trying to be that way, but it does get frustrating when people appear to purposely go out of their way to come up with the most inane arguments and are not even willing to attempt to comprehend what is actually written.To me, damage is damage. Taking hit points is taking SOME MEASURE of damage in earlier versions. Since PCs can self heal all of the way up by themselves in a few minutes, 4E damage does not seem like damage in any way, shape or form. It seems exactly like STUN in the Champions game system.This is a lack of real damage perception issue for players based on the implementation of the rules. Sorry, but you won't change people's perception with an argument that percentages of damage were never defined, or PCs are not wobbly, hence, they are not damaged. Those are illogical arguments. IMO.From my perspective, 4E is the kinder, gentler, wussier version of D&D combat. It's all good. Nobody really gets hurt.</blockquote>

Verification