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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 4100417" data-attributes="member: 17077">The most common way I've seen them described is basically a heroic surge of willpower, shrugging off injury. It's like characters in alot of movies that get shot or badly wounded and all seems lost but then, through great resolve, they get up and fight almost as if they were never injured.Though it does beg the question, why would anyone seek out the help of a cleric or submit to the will of the gods when they have the innate power to heal themselves?I totally agree with you here. It's ridiculous. I've always hated level requirements to use items because it is such an artificial limitation. That was one respect that D&D was better than of all the video games, IMO. If they didn't want 1st-9th level characters to have the rings they made because they are too powerful, why didn't they make some lower level, weaker rings? Not only that, it takes alot of power away from the DM. Nobody would ever have expected to get a 200,000 gp ring at 5th level. But if the DM wanted to, he could give one to the players, for whatever reason. If the DM thought an item was too powerful for the players, he could simply not present them with the opportunity to get it. But now, it seems like they're trying to "DM-proof" the game by strictly regulating what gear is appropriate for what levels. I don't like this at all.I think this was simply to speed things up, since players would always have the cleric expend every last spell to heal them up 100% before resting anyway. But you're right, it is certainly not believable or dramatic. But I guess being injured for weeks after getting bitten by a kobold isn't fun. With all the magic flying around, healing has always been rather trivial in D&D anyway.I agree, it would be nice. And this is probably why there are so many people complaining about the verisimilitude and such of 4th edition. Really, it isn't as much the fact that the rules bend believability, heck every edition of D&D had rules that did that. But at least in the past, there was at least some effort made to justify the mechanics with explanations that the characters could use in-game to explain them. There wasn't as much of a need for a fundamental disconnect between what the players are doing mechanically and what they would be experiencing in role-playing. If there's one thing that bothers alot of people about 4th edition, it's that this concern was thrown to the wind.</blockquote>

Verification