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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9176889" data-attributes="member: 87792">The effect of the spell is in response to an attack that has just hit. It does not have a meaningfull effect because the entire point of the spell is that it is a reaction.And yet it is clear, consistent, and foundational to D&D. Most games don't go above level 10 - which means that most people do not experience where the game is truly broken. I also believe that one reason most games don't go above level 10 is because the game is breaking by that point.I'm sorry. Did you link something other than The Alexandrian's notorious piece of edition warring? In which he tried to dress up his personal preferences as something more general? If you did I apologise and should have checked the link.You mean that 3.0 lasted half the length of its successor and the both massively overhauled and deliberately incompatible game that supplanted it in 3.5 lasted less time. While I'm almost certain that 4e was more profitable.3.X wasn't one edition. And both 3.5 and 4e ended when they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for player-facing things to publish. Of course how long 3.0 would have lasted if the suits hadn't mandated a new edition even when 3.0 was launched is an interesting question. That Paizo were able to run their Adventure Paths as an Ideal Homes magazine thing was admittedly impressive.But it's nowhere near as clear cut as you are claiming.Again, this is false. My position here is that most games peter out by level 10 which is about when the problems cease to be ignorable. This doesn't mean that this is the cause of all games petering out by then (scheduling is far bigger), merely that it is a cause and the main reason that people don't see how absurd things get. They don't play to that high level.First things first non-magical "spike" recovery of hit points in 5e absolutely is a very common thing; the fighter has it - and they are the most popular class in the game and one of the very few non-magical classes. And I don't recall seeing anyone complain about it after about 2014. Which leads to the question as to whether it was really a problem in 4e or whether it was a proxy - or whether it was only a problem because people had been educated by older editions that they shouldn't have it and what you call versimilitude I call a simple consequence of familiarity.And if hit points map to a real thing at all we have real world examples of recovery of hit points in short periods of time without magic. Look at any boxing match. If a boxer is knocked for a three count, unable to stand, that's them running out of hit points. But they do stand back up, take a second wind,  and they almost all come back stronger after a three minute short rest between rounds unless there's no gas at all left in the tank (i.e. they've run out of healing surges)There is no magic here. Boxing in the real world looks much more like 4e combat with its combined healing surge/hit point model than it does the untiring attack spamming robots of earlier D&D editions who never want to stop for a few minutes to catch their breath.But yes, I accept that 4e modelling the real world effects of fatigue and non-bonebreaking injuries much better than previous editions did lead to problems for people who wanted video game style consequence-free health bars where almost all recovery is magic rather than something more realistic and nuanced. But this is a big part of why I am saying the problem was familiarity. And this is a clear and unambiguous case of versimilitude being something that comes from familiarity with the model being used (and the explanations given which were too sparse in 4e) rather than from how it actually compared to reality. And this of course is one of the other problems muggles have in (pre-4e) D&D. Not only are they not capable of going above and beyond what a realistic person can do - they can't normally do things like recovering by catching their breath that normal people can.Such as what they are or even if they are a category. Because most modern narrative games I have played simply do not have the features that most posters I've seen on ENWorld claim to be features of narrative games. And the features I consider narrative games to have don't fit what people criticising them make. (The obvious example here being meta-currency being more like a design stage than it is like a game style).As long as we accept that the biggest factor causing people to associate a system is familiarity. The second biggest is personal preference. Any sort of modelling of reality comes way further down the list.I can however say "your justification is wrong and you are trying to dress up personal preference as some sort of principle".They were however soft-capped to fifth level spells. Which is about as high as you can go before the problems get overwhelming. And they had the drawback of being incredibly squishy (making being on the front lines high risk) because AC mattered much more before bounded accuracy and you had far fewer hp.</blockquote>

Verification