Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6821404" data-attributes="member: 996">It seems to fit several definitions.  But, yes, you can design how magic works in a game system to suit the fact that it is a game.  Or not (or set out to and not do so well...).I do like 3.5, I played 3.0 & 3.5 for their full runs, and still play 3.5 on occasion (in preference to 5e, even - while I happily run 5e, but wouldn't want to run 3.5 again, FWIW).  I just don't see any point in pretending it's something it's not.    And, it does illustrate that a magic system can be wildly overpowered and the game it's in, still quite popular.A matter of degree & time, perhaps.  From 1e to 2e to 3e to 5e has been fairly incremental changes to the magic system.  I had to break up your statement, you were taking two different things I've said out of very different contexts, had to break 'em up to put them back into context.  One was talking about the way hps were presented as far back as 1e (explicitly, probably how they 'always worked'), the other an example of willfully projecting more precision on that system than it even attempts.  Here's another example of doing so:That makes exactly as much sense as insisting that 'Cure Wounds' cure only wounds (which is obviously the literal case), and the eliminates the possibility of all other sorts of damage.  To do that, you first have step outside the level of abstraction at which the system operates.  Exist?</blockquote>