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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9176928" data-attributes="member: 8461">Which is an admission that the spell is working as intended, reliably, each time it's used. So in other words, the effect of the spell unto itself is uncompromised even if you've made its activation cumbersome to the point of lacking utility.But still lacks verisimilitude, which is to say, lacks an in-character presentation (at least in terms of clear distinctions, since most characters will recognize someone stronger and more competent than themselves). But as noted, no one is calling for "verisimilitude uber alles" except the idea's detractors when they misrepresent what its proponents want.Leaving aside that "truly broken" is an opinion (twice over, first for "broken" and then for "truly broken"), I think that you're overstating why that is. I find little to suggest that people have reached a certain level and then simply found the game so unengaging that they quit for how unenjoyable it is. Rather, it's a combination of other factors (many of them completely unrelated, such as real-world issues, while others are simply an issue of habituation making anything else seem more fun simply due to novelty).I accept your apology, and appreciate you saying so. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This is an extremely bad-faith take on your part. The article in question is an entirely valid attempt to explain why 4th Edition was so unpalatable to himself and so many other people, and it does a very good job of it. He doesn't ever "dress up" his personal preferences, but instead tries (and largely succeeds) to help articulate something that a lot of people only intuited, nor does he hide that this is a matter of personal opinion.To treat that as an attack on you, your likes, and your preferred game is to profoundly misunderstand what it's about, though it rather sadly explains a lot about the tenor of your posts here. I'd urge you once again to look at what's being said not as an attack, but rather to understand why 4E is being held up as an example of what isn't preferred in this regard.The parsing of 3.X between 3E and 3.5E as compared to 4E is largely a moot point, in that it insists on comparing 3.0 and 3.5's length's separately to 4E's unified whole, which is largely pointless because 4E itself was bifurcated by the Essentials line, which is a truism that's not undone by pointing out that Essentials wasn't a "point-five" edition the way 3.5 was. To quote D&D historian Shannon Appelcline in his overview of <a href="https://drivethrurpg.com/product/156573/player-essentials-heroes-of-the-fallen-lands-4e" target="_blank">Heroes of the Fallen Lands</a>:In that regard, the simpler and less pedantic method is to measure the total length of 3.X's life against that of 4E(ssentials)' life, and that's without taking into account the additional time that the former received under the Pathfinder banner.Leaving aside that stating your opinions as a declarative ("this is false") isn't helpful to a productive conversation, I disagree wit your reasoning here. I don't think that it's axiomatic that people would necessarily see things getting "absurd" if they reached a higher level.Calling it a "proxy" strikes me as disingenuous here, as it again suggests an element of duplicity on the part of people who found fault with that idea. I believe that it's still the case with 5E, just that it's one which people have elected to live with insofar as it's being far less of an issue with regard to its application. Which is to say, it's less of a break in verisimilitude for a fighter to use Second Wind on themselves once per rest (short or long) than it is for the warlord to use their Inspiring Word on other people twice per encounter (i.e shouting other people healed).Now, there's absolutely a discussion to be had as to why it is that a self-affecting power is easier to swallow for a lot of people than a power which affects other characters. But at that point we're veering even further away from verisimilitude, and I'd really like to bring the conversation back around to that.Which is an issue of modeling what's happening when hit points are lost, since the same mechanic is used to present injuries which you can't simply shrug off or ignore. Hence other models such as wound/vitality points. All of which is to say that there's a reason why I originally stated that verisimilitude wasn't an all-encompasing principle back in the OP. However, that caveat seems to have been lost. (All joking aside, I think the issue is that a lot of people didn't want an expansion of an area where verisimilitude had been set aside, and objected on those grounds; the 5E fighter can be called a compromise in that regard.)I don't grant your premise that it did model the real-world effects of fatigue and "non-bonebreaking injuries" better than previous editions; quite the opposite really. Phrasing it this way is simply edition-warring, and no, you can't say that you're simply doing so in regard to edition-warring that was lobbed at you first. There needs to be a circumstance under which we can look at areas where 4E didn't do well without its de4Enders coming in to deny all premises and champion the game as the best edition ever in every imaginable regard. And if you find that hyperbole ridiculous, it mirrors the tenor of your posts here.So how about dialing it down, okay?Which makes one wonder why 4E was so ill-received by so many people to the point that it had to be shelved so quickly if it did so well.If your issue is that people are misrepresenting narrative mechanics, perhaps it would be best to then not turn around and misrepresent verisimilitude in turn.I don't believe that to be the case. While there are certain "definitional" characteristics of particular games that, in the minds of their audience, make those games what they are, that can't just be chalked up to "familiarity" with its not-so-vague implication that the alternatives are superior but people are simply too stuck on what they know to recognize that. There are, in fact, other issues of preference in play, and we should be able to talk about those without people who have different preferences coming in and threadcrapping by saying "your preferences are wrong!"You can, but that doesn't mean you're correct. There's no "justification" going on here; only an attempt to explain something that a lot of people can intuit but have a hard time explaining. And yet, when someone tries, there's always someone who feels attacked by that and so comes in to sabotage the entire thing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />I'm not sure what you think that "soft cap" is that kept wizards to casting fifth-level spells and below, let alone what "problems" are "overwhelming" in that regard.</blockquote>

Verification