|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:45AM
#1741
|
|
|
Well, the virtual reality thing is just a convoluted way of pointing out that a core tenet of many transhuman philosophies is that if simulation is possible simulation is so likely as to be almost certain -- i.e. assuming that our universe *could* be just a "simulation" running on someone else's computer, it's much more likely that it is a simulation than that our universe happens to be the one true "real" one (and therefore no simulated universe, including ours, is privileged over any other).
It's airy-fairy stuff, but it basically comes down to saying that all imaginary worlds probably exist out there somewhere in some form -- because "out there" is probably much bigger than we know -- and "real" is a point of view and all that good stuff.
As for the gunpowder thing, whatever. The ancient Chinese didn't make it out of bat guano. But yes, fine, fireball is probably a *less* ludicrous set of components than some others I could name. (Scrying is just horrible, with the implied action of making a little battery using a lemon and using it to power a TV set.)
In any case, sure, symbolism is symbolism. Some symbolism is cool and other symbolism is idiotic. D&D's material components aren't much better than Xanth's basing magic on really bad English puns submitted to Piers Anthony by postcard.
As far as somehow defending material components on the grounds that "magic is symbolic", this ignores the rather salient point that magic isn't real and doesn't work. Arguing over how magic "should" work is not an argument about realism. Magic is, by definition, not realistic. Arguing over how magic should work is an argument about aesthetics. And D&D's material components are, aesthetically, awful.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:56AM
#1742
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:56AM
#1743
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2001
|
TheCobra:Of course, I don't believe 4e necessarily intends for characters reknit sinews and repair organs with healing surges. The flavor's ambiguous, more so than in 3.x D&D. For comic book slugfests, the new system would work perfectly. I still dislike it for combat with sharp weapons, but it's probably an improvement over what came before.
The actual manifestation of HP loss is abstract and ambiguous enough that it probably accounts for that about as well as it accounts for anything. Perception is once again at fault. In your reality, blunt force trauma is somehow less serious, easier to heal from than clean skin breaks for some reason.
As long as they both don't involve any serious injury of whatever kind, and infection isn't modeled, I don't see any reason for why an incision, puncture, hacking wound or laceration is all that harder to heal than a serious hematoma. In fact, the lacerations involved with extreme blunt force trauma tends to be extremely messy with torn and jagged edges and the like - that takes longer to heal than a clean edge that you can appose relatively easily, especially when the cut happens to coincide with natural lines of apposition.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:14AM
#1744
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2004
|
In your reality, blunt force trauma is somehow less serious, easier to heal from than clean skin breaks for some reason.[/quote]
No, what I said was that 4e hit points would be decent for modeling a superhero slugfest. (I love superhero slugfests, by the way.) How does this suggest my views on reality? I'll bite, though. Unarmed combat doesn't inflict severe wounds as quickly or as easily as armed combat. That's why humans developed weapons in the first place.
Experienced fighters can take punch after punch with little effect. You see this in various martial arts competitions. A duel with sharp rapiers would look quite different. Bracing or training yourself survive thrusts becomes a losing proposition. While a single hit won't necessarily kill you, the risk's too great. You have to be more careful than when your opponent only wields hands and feet.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:20PM
#1745
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2001
|
A duel with solid kamagong fighting sticks wouldn't be all that much less deadly. All it takes is a single solid whack to the head and you could be dead. We're not talking here about armed or unarmed combat. We're talking about sharp weapons and nonsharp weapons. Why would you specifically dislike it for combat with sharp weapons, but not for combat with blunt weapons?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:18PM
#1746
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2004
|
I said sharp weapons to distinguish from the superhero slugfest. Comics combat resembles real unarmed fighting more than anything else. (It's not realistic, of course. It has its own odd conventions.)
While I think you're underestimating a blade's advantage, I agree clubs and staves cause dangerous wounds. Blunt weapons have great effect against bones and such. But a thrust from an unsharpened stick isn't likely to kill. Rapier points slide into flesh effortlessly.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 4:04PM
#1747
|
|
|
I agree with the first sentence but not the second. Not fully, at least. Some of D&D material components are fine. There's no silly joke in animate dead's black onyx. Giving dark stone symbolic power of life and death works for me. Few of the components involving precious materials bother me. Ascribing supernatural power to gems has a long history.
The gems aren't so bad. The gems being nebulously and handwavily "consumed" by magic starts to create absurdities. (How many onyxes and diamonds and rubies must you be mining every year to feed the magic industry? What happens when they start to run out? OMG magic resource crisis...)
What I was referring to was more the set of material components that are clearly jokes or sly references (well, "sly" references), of which there are still way too many.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:22PM
#1748
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2008
|
The gems aren't so bad. The gems being nebulously and handwavily "consumed" by magic starts to create absurdities. (How many onyxes and diamonds and rubies must you be mining every year to feed the magic industry? What happens when they start to run out? OMG magic resource crisis...)
What I was referring to was more the set of material components that are clearly jokes or sly references (well, "sly" references), of which there are still way too many.
It was also kinda absurd that a low level spell like stoneskin (level 4) required 250 gp of diamond dust while Bigby's Crushing Hand (level 9) required...the shell of an egg.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:23PM
#1749
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
Yeah... Gygax was... corny at times.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 19, 2008 - 8:58PM
#1750
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
But I love me some super beds that cure all damage and heal my AIDS that the harpies gave me D: Back to realism here... This is a matter of opinion here, but sometimes, the books are merely guidelines XD lol! You can always have house rules! You can use old rules or edit the current ones to your liking. It's always been up to you  I'm going to assume that you're the DM cuz if you were actually a player, I would wonder why you wouldn't like something like this? Who wants their character lying in bed rest recovering from his wounds for a few weeks. I wanna loot and steal from people now! (rogue) I'm guessing that it's a speed-up to gameplay.
|
|
|
