Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5780695" data-attributes="member: 6685059">All PCs soak up an unrealistic amount of damage -- if you fluff hp as physical stamina equal to that of 4 horses. Any demand that standard Fighters be magical or divine in order to suspend disbelief would then apply to all/most classes (or any PCs with a double digit hp). I understand that some rpgs do have setting-based fluff to justify heroic abilities, but D&amp;D requires a certain suspension of disbelief and consensus on what hit points means. For example, if you don't &quot;get&quot; why Conan survived so many over-the-top battles, you're not going to &quot;get&quot; why D&amp;D heroes survive so many over-the-top battles, and probably wouldn't be playing D&amp;D in a &quot;realistic&quot;/immersive way (or will prefer a gritty low-level lethal variant). So I don't see that as a choice between a divine Fighter and a divine Warlord or nothing.Yes, I get that, I was putting out feelers to see how much room there was for compromise on a difficult contentious issue. Ironically, I have the opposite problem -- that the 4E warlord, as written, ceases to be a warlord unless he's divine or has some other compelling cinematic and (very important) cohesive process/cause-and-effect justifying what exactly is happening beneath the combat abstractions. Hopefully to belabor the obvious, I wasn't trying to force my vision on anyone -- I was just trying to see if there was a fluff-based way to bridge the divide, is all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LurkAway, post: 5780695, member: 6685059"] All PCs soak up an unrealistic amount of damage -- if you fluff hp as physical stamina equal to that of 4 horses. Any demand that standard Fighters be magical or divine in order to suspend disbelief would then apply to all/most classes (or any PCs with a double digit hp). I understand that some rpgs do have setting-based fluff to justify heroic abilities, but D&D requires a certain suspension of disbelief and consensus on what hit points means. For example, if you don't "get" why Conan survived so many over-the-top battles, you're not going to "get" why D&D heroes survive so many over-the-top battles, and probably wouldn't be playing D&D in a "realistic"/immersive way (or will prefer a gritty low-level lethal variant). So I don't see that as a choice between a divine Fighter and a divine Warlord or nothing. Yes, I get that, I was putting out feelers to see how much room there was for compromise on a difficult contentious issue. Ironically, I have the opposite problem -- that the 4E warlord, as written, ceases to be a warlord unless he's divine or has some other compelling cinematic and (very important) cohesive process/cause-and-effect justifying what exactly is happening beneath the combat abstractions. Hopefully to belabor the obvious, I wasn't trying to force my vision on anyone -- I was just trying to see if there was a fluff-based way to bridge the divide, is all. [/QUOTE]

Verification