Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Toward a Theory of 6th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7262791" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>HD healing can extend the adventuring day, but in the absence of class balance issues with large amounts of daily resources in the form of spell slots, that's not really a terribly important issue - in-combat healing, OTOH, can be.</p><p> They did come right out and say they 'didn't assume' magic items, and it does show in the way encounter balance can skew when items are included. But, spells are very much assumed, and the absence of support and other capabilities that are primarily or only available through spells is problematic - as is the simple lack of range in concepts & contributions that non-supernatural PC options encompass.</p><p></p><p> There is a difference between an explicit rule, like a keyword, with a jargon meaning in context, and an 'opinion' that is the exact opposite of that explicit rule. The difference being is that the rule is a simple fact about the game in question, and the opinion is a judgement of how desirable that rule is. </p><p>D&D, for instance, has always had explicit rules about magic making at least some casters in D&D 'Vancian,' it has been a common opinion that such is simply not how magic works. The opinion is wrong in the context of D&D, but the opinion that D&D's magic system doesn't model most source material (even Dying Earth, if we get technical & exact about it), is not invalid, just a judgement. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, Oofta could have opined that the superhuman feats of 4e martial characters were, say 'unrealistic.' It's merely calling them 'supernatural' or magical or 'casting spells,' that is false, even with an 'IMHO' fatuously appended.</p><p></p><p>...it's super-human, but not supernatural. Supernatural feats are things done through agencies outside of nature and natural experience. Jumping is a natural agency, the strength & skill of the person doing it, it's not supernatural, in itself, even if it is super-human or unrealistic by the bar set by modern knowledge of physics. Casting a jump spell, OTOH, relates an action (mumbling and breaking insect legs) that, in nature, doesn't cause you to move let alone leap any distance, and an agency not found in nature (magic), to the otherwise natural act of jumping - it's supernatural.</p><p></p><p>Of course, like the supernatural, the super-human can be fantastic (suitable for a fantasy setting), "naive" (suitable for an pre-scientific traditional tale), or unrealistic (not suitable for a accurate simulation of RL, or a hard-science-fiction story). </p><p>So the conflation is understandable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7262791, member: 996"] HD healing can extend the adventuring day, but in the absence of class balance issues with large amounts of daily resources in the form of spell slots, that's not really a terribly important issue - in-combat healing, OTOH, can be. They did come right out and say they 'didn't assume' magic items, and it does show in the way encounter balance can skew when items are included. But, spells are very much assumed, and the absence of support and other capabilities that are primarily or only available through spells is problematic - as is the simple lack of range in concepts & contributions that non-supernatural PC options encompass. There is a difference between an explicit rule, like a keyword, with a jargon meaning in context, and an 'opinion' that is the exact opposite of that explicit rule. The difference being is that the rule is a simple fact about the game in question, and the opinion is a judgement of how desirable that rule is. D&D, for instance, has always had explicit rules about magic making at least some casters in D&D 'Vancian,' it has been a common opinion that such is simply not how magic works. The opinion is wrong in the context of D&D, but the opinion that D&D's magic system doesn't model most source material (even Dying Earth, if we get technical & exact about it), is not invalid, just a judgement. Similarly, Oofta could have opined that the superhuman feats of 4e martial characters were, say 'unrealistic.' It's merely calling them 'supernatural' or magical or 'casting spells,' that is false, even with an 'IMHO' fatuously appended. ...it's super-human, but not supernatural. Supernatural feats are things done through agencies outside of nature and natural experience. Jumping is a natural agency, the strength & skill of the person doing it, it's not supernatural, in itself, even if it is super-human or unrealistic by the bar set by modern knowledge of physics. Casting a jump spell, OTOH, relates an action (mumbling and breaking insect legs) that, in nature, doesn't cause you to move let alone leap any distance, and an agency not found in nature (magic), to the otherwise natural act of jumping - it's supernatural. Of course, like the supernatural, the super-human can be fantastic (suitable for a fantasy setting), "naive" (suitable for an pre-scientific traditional tale), or unrealistic (not suitable for a accurate simulation of RL, or a hard-science-fiction story). So the conflation is understandable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Toward a Theory of 6th Edition
Top