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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5713486" data-attributes="member: 957">My main purpose is being in the story.It really, truly is.When you advocate skipping that to more expediently get back to killing orcs, you reinforce the "board game" label.   I'm not saying that label is fair, but I am saying this aspect of the game contributes to why some see it that way.  (yes, I reversed the order)I commonly describe wounds that won't just reduce to "oozing puss" if nothing better than bandaging is applied.You seem to be rejecting the possibility that I actual describe some wounds which require actual healing.  Is that the bottom line?Are you saying that no one in any addition of D&D has now or ever described wounds that an evening of bandaging isn't good enough to cover?Because you can either accept that I do (as do others) and that therefore the *new to 4E* expectation that an evenings bandages are the cure for anything and everything is a very valid reason to not choose 4E, or you can proclaim me a liar.(And even that puts a thumb on the scale in favor of surges since an evenings rest is in no way actually required by them)But, seriously, are you saying that I'm lying?  Or would you like to retract your claim that there is no meaningful difference.For the record, I absolutely agree that there were ZERO restrictions on 3E that required you to play the way I do.  If you wanted to run it the way you describe 4E, you could have.  (In all the groups I ever played not one failed to describe real wounds, but that doesn't rule it out.)  But all that says is that 3E supported both styles.  Simply going from rules that supported both to rules that require one is right back to the conclusion: this is a fundamental change from the past.Am I lying about my games?</blockquote>

Verification