Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kngdavid01 Sep 05, 2004 22:50:43	Seriously. Read the combat chapter where it discusses what hitpoints are, what they represent, and the rationale behind them. Characters become tougher over time, but not only do they gain an increased resilience to pain, an experienced warrior will learn ways to 'roll-with-punches' and to make wounds less severe. As the Player's Handbook says, a 10th level fighter that has lost 30 hitpoints is less hurt than a 5th level fighter, or a 10th level wizard that has suffered that same amount. And then, we have Cure Light Wounds, Cure moderate, etc. But by using static numbers, just one dice roll plus a bonus for the cleric's level turns into a paradox: When a character gains a level, from 1st to 2nd, he learns how to avoid damage more successfully; therefore the same amount of hitpoint damage would result in less real wounds. And yet, Cure Light Wounds will be less effective because it restores a static point value when the character is actually less hurt than he would be at a lower level. If a fighter is not as wounded from a potential blow, then any healing of his wounds should be *more* effective, because there are fewer real wounds. Any attempt to role-play this effect becomes irrational and inconsistent if one were attempting to describe the healing. So....what's the answer? Having hitpoints does add a grandiose quality to the games, and the d20 system depends on the hitpoint system existing as it is, rather than reworking hitpoints, the answer I feel, is to change to function of Cure, and Inflict spells. A satisfactory resolution, I think, is to simply add not only the cleric's caster level to the dice roll, but add in a bonus equal to the total hitdice of the recipient. If a 5th level cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on a 7th level fighter, then the fighter recovers 1d8+5+7 hitpoints, accounting for the 7th level fighter's ability to sustain more battle damage. Restoring the same wound is more useful to the 7th level fighter than one of lower level, because at a higher level, the same attack is less damaging. Perhaps this is not the most accurate accomodation imaginable, but accounting for increasing skill at avoidance creates internal consistency. And simply adding another layer of bonuses is easy. Some might worry that this overpowers the spell, but remember that enemies have the same ability. Evil clerics and their allies can benefit from the spell just as much as the players. Furthermore, inflict spells would also be enhanced, because the ability to Inflict a Light Wound would cause much the same effect on a 20th level fighter as a 1st level one. Moreover, it is generally more difficult to harm a 20th level character, but if you did inflict the same proportional harm, that light wound would accomplish the same amount as much more powerful attacks. For DM's worried about overpowered cure spells, encounters should be altered to include more enemies with Inflict effects.
#2 Degobah Sep 09, 2004 21:07:53	Yes I agree from a theoretical standpoint you're right. I doubt its something many care about enough to bother with, mind you. That's not to say I agree with the proposed fix, though. Adding +caster level +character level obviously increases the power of the spells somewhat. I think the best solution would be to just drop the healing bonus from caster level completely, and use (+target's character level) instead, with no cap. That would mean little change in the actual amount of healing in practical terms (since the party cleric/healer will usually have a caster level roughly equal to the character levels of the party) and still allow for "realism". It'd have the added bonus of helping the poor multiclass clerics since it would make caster level less critical in making a viable healer. Also note that while a more powerful cleric should be able to help more- but they can already do that in game terms simply by pulling out a Cure Moderate Wounds instead of a Cure Light. Adding the caster level to it just ices the cake.
#3 darth_singe Sep 10, 2004 1:39:47	I totally see your point. That is part of the reason I switched over to the VP/WP system from Unearthed Arcana. The only thing I changed in my campaign with the healing spells is that they restore lost Wounds first, then vitality (normally certain healing spells cure both VP and WP at the same time, while others heal WP first).
#4 zombiegleemax Sep 10, 2004 21:59:58	How about : Cure Light Wounds heals as if the recipient had 1 day of rest? Cure Moderate Wounds heals as if the recipient had 2 days of rest? Cure Serious Wounds heals as if the recipient had 3 days of rest? ~Darkhound
#5 zombiegleemax Sep 13, 2004 12:27:01	Here is what HPs really represent--an unrealistic way to keep track of injury that keeps the game fun and easy. In reality, when you are hurt, there are three possibilities: a) it is minor and you can battle on, perhaps it is wise to visit the medic afterwards. b) it is nasty, your combat efficiency gets severely hampered, if you survive the combat there is a chance the surgeon may restore you to your old self, with or without the effected limb. c) You lay dead or unconscious on the battlefield. Which of these three happen is hardly effected by skill (level) but more by luck. Sure, a veteran soldier will not expose himself as often and dodge better then a green soldier, but when the veteran gets hit, he can't do anything except hope the damage is not that bad. They don't teach you to squeeze those ribs together so that the arrow won't get through the opening between them to hit vital organs at any fighter school. Forget about what the PHB says about HP, it's a pathetic way to make an unrealistic game-mechanic credible. Accept that it is a way so your character can survive a well aimed arrow so every game-session doesn't has to start with yet another create character session. The same with spin-off mechanics such as cure- and inflict spells. They're totally unrealistic (both from the fact you wrote and from the fact that they are spells. D&D is, as any other RPG, a balance between realism, balance, playability (an single fired arrow shouldn't take an hour to resolve) and fun (A character whose average time to live in combat reflects the realistic figure is no fun for the player). D&D does a good job at it. Making it more realistic can easily mean that balance, playability or fun suffers. This can also be fixed with more house-rules witch can result in a cascading quantity of them. As an old poster, by the name of Arcturic, on these boards once posted: "I removed everything unrealistic from D&D, I call it two guys hitting each other with sticks in the backyard".
#6 krichaiushii Sep 14, 2004 21:10:40	Another method might be to eliminate the dice rolling portion entirely, using either a set number plus caster level or a flat percentage (of full health hit points). Cure light wounds might be 5%, moderate wounds 10%, serious 15%, and critical 20% of full health life points. This has the effect of letting the cure spells better meet the expectations that their names imply. Now that I have written it out, the percentage bit sounds like a worthwhile house rule - at least until tested.
#7 zombiegleemax Sep 14, 2004 21:29:14	Ok... so cure spells are broken... and you want to IMPROVE them? I gotta say one thing - I've heard this argument before. Well not this EXACT argument, it is still under the 'D&D is not realistic' category. D&D is a game. Did anyone complain in FF8 where the gunblade is an impossibility that, if ever actually built, would shatter the blade like glass once it shot? That was a game just like this. In short, D&D doesn’t make sense, and it never will. If D&D made sense, everyone would have Longswords, Crossbows, and Daggers. Full plate would give WAY more than +8 AC. It might not be real, but it IS balanced. And to top it off - D&D isn't realistic. But then again, neither is magic. Are you going to ban all magic from your game because it’s not real?
#8 zombiegleemax Sep 15, 2004 13:35:37	By doing cure spells by the way that you suggest you are upping the power of the spell based on who receives and not who casts the spell. I noted that in the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5 they lowered the power of cure spells because they were just too powerful. The new level that they have them on is about mathematically correct for the hit point total and the level of the character casting them. To be honest I would rather spend my time fighting a battle then having the to cast cure and inflict wounds over and over. Battles are better fought with different spells and by sword than by two spells alone.
#9 Crwth Sep 16, 2004 16:40:27	One of my group pointed this out: While that does help represent the advanced character's growth in combat, the proposed system allows a fighter and wizard of the same level to receive the same bonus, which overall benefits the wizard *more* than it does the fighter, which doesn't seem right. How about this? What if it was done based on a class's save progression, or BAB progression: Your weakest save bonus, or your BAB is your bonus? That more accurately represents both the class and the level of the character (and also accounts for multiclass). So the 10th level fighter (using BAB), would still get +10, but the 10th level wizard would get +5 (I believe -- no PHB in front of me), and a multiclass fig5/wiz5 would get +7 or so. --Crwth
#10 r-man Sep 19, 2004 5:27:11	Or change the Cure spells to make them heal an amount equal to a % of the healed characters full hp total, i.e. Cure lw 10%, Cure Mw 20%, Cure Sw30%, Cure Cw 40%.
#11 sgthulka Sep 19, 2004 9:51:18	As you correctly point out, hit points are more than a mere measure of blood. They are a measure of luck, divine favor, grit, confidence, and fatigue. If a Paladin and a Blackguard are fighting, and the dice indicate that the Blackguard struck the Paladin for 20% of his total damage, in cinematic or "real" terms that blow may never have drawn blood nor even have penetrated the Paladin's defenses. It's quite likely it's a blow that glanced off the Paladin's shield. How, then, did it cause damage? Because it's a blow that *almost* penetrated the Paladin's defenses. The Paladin didn't expect the Blackguard's blow to be so powerful, to be so quick, or to come from that direction. Any lesser hero would have been felled by the blow, and only thanks to the Paladin's divine favor was he able to move his shield in time to deflect it. The Paladin's confidence can't help but be shaken by the blow: suddenly he's not so sure if he can defeat the Blackguard. Or perhaps the strength of the blow caused the Paladin to stagger backwards (but still within his current five-foot space), or perhaps the unanticipated direction of the blow puts the Paladin at a tactical disadvantage, or forces the Paladin to re-think his combat plans. Unfortunately, justifying hit points in this way requires the DM and Players to constantly come up with very imaginitive ways to describe combat, and I admit it's difficult (especially when it comes to falling damage), but it's not impossible. Now to get to your very valid point about cure spells. Let's say our Paladin finally vanquishes the Blackguard, but by the time he does he's lost 70% of his hit points. This can be a combination of physical wounding, mental wounding, and fatigue. Here are "cinematic" examples of each: Physical Wounding: The most obvious real-world counterpart. The Paladin has severe bruising under his mail and on his shield armor as a result of constantly deflecting the Blackguard's powerful blows. As a character grows more powerful, he gains the "grit" required to fight through the pain. In the film Fellowship of the Ring, Borimir is struck in the chest repeatedly by Orc arrows. Yet he continues to fight, redeeming himself as a hero. Mental Wounding: The Paladin has lost his confidence during the battle, feels his God has forsaken him, feels he is fighting for a lost cause, feels he unworthy of meeting the heroic challenge, or is overcome by emotion that clouds his combat sensibilities. I point to the recent movie "Hero" as an example of this type of wounding. When the "Hero" first fights Snow (I believe that was her name, the female assassin) he has driven a wedge between her and her lover. He describes in narration how her emotional anguish prevented her from focusing on the battle and made her easier to defeat. This explanation made sense to everyone in the theater, why shouldn't it make sense at a D&D table? Fatigue: As the Paladin fights the Blackguard, swinging his heavy sword and shield to deflect the blows, he grows fatigued. As he grows tired, his limbs are less able to react. If he continues to push forward into a new combat without adequate rest and refreshment, he will be a less able combatant than he was prior to meeting the Blackguard. Now, onto your very valid point regarding the Cure spells and their apparent inconsistency. Let's say the Paladin in question has a first-level Cleric cohort. And let's say that prior to the battle, the Blackguard villainously attacked the 1st-Level Aristocrat Princess the Paladin was protecting, reducing her to negative hit points. The Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on the Princess, bringing her to positive hit points. Now the Princess, being a 1st-level NPC class, has neither the great divine favor, great luck, great morale, true grit, or strength of spirit to overcome the fatigue and mental challenges of combat. So her wound most likely represented 100% of actual physical wounding. The Cleric's heal spell likely healed her 100% of her full (limited) fighting capacity. Now that same Cleric casts his second Cure Light Wounds spell on the Paladin. That cures the Paladins physical wounds, but does nothing to his combat fatigue, his confidence, and his emotions. For the Paladin, it could be that only 10% of his hit points represent actual physical damage, and the rest is an odd concoction of mental and emotional and divine energies. Cure Light Wounds does nothing to revive these other kinds of hit points. Now let's assume that the Paladin is traveling with a heroic Cleric as powerful as himself. The heroic Cleric casts Cure Serious Wounds on the Princess. It heals the Princess to full, but in exactly the same way as Cure Light Wounds did. This is because Cure Serious Wounds heals much more than mere physical damage, but the only damage the Princess had taken was Physical. So most of Cure Serious Wounds' healing power is irrelevant or wasted. When the same Cleric casts it on the Paladin, however, it has a much greater effect. The Paladin is not only healed of his physical damage, he is re-assured by the words of the Cleric, or the energy of the healing spell. As the spell works its divine magic, the Paladin realizes he is not forsaken by the Gods, he realizes that his quest is important, he realizes that even if he is vanquished in future combat it will be for the greater good, and he is able to regain his fighting focus. Unfortunately, with the abstract hit point system, every potential scenario requires a different explanation or justification. The above is just one possible explanation for a specific scenario. But I hope it illustrates the point that the cure spells and hit point system aren't *inherently* at odds with each other. That all being said, the hit point system is essentially left over from D&D 1st Edition, and is the simplest, if not the most intuitive, way to handle combat and wounding. Many other systems make an attempt to separate physical wounding damage (slashing/piercing), physical stunning damage (bludgeoning), and fatigue (endurance). Others, still, use much more realistic and modern medical science to determine the effect of each and every wound, doing away with hit points all together and instead describing the effect of each blow (such as limited movement, loss of blood, loss of consciousness, etc.)
#12 karaban Sep 19, 2004 18:20:58	I was thinking the same thing the other day while reading the description of hit points to which you refer. The thing is that it works both ways. Suppose a 1st level fighter has 10 HP and a 20th level fighter has 100 HP (avg 5 HP / level). Then a 1 hit point wound on the 1st level fighter would be equivalent to a 10 HP wound on a 20th level fighter. A cure light wounds by a 1st level Cleric would cure 1d8 + 1 (or 2 - 9). The same spell cast by a 20th level Cleric would cure 1d8 + 5 (or 6 - 13). Assuming that characters will have Clerics around that are at a similar level to themselves, we can conclude that the 1st level cleric's CLW spell has greater effect on peers than the 20th level cleric's CLW. Your proposal would result in a 1st level cleric curing 1d8+1+1 (3-10) on a 1st level fighter and 1d8+1+20 (22-29) on a 20th level fighter. That would make CLW a very powerful spell for 20th level cleric: 1d8+5+20 (26 - 35) on a 20th level fighter. A 20th level cleric with a good or healing domain could prepare 6 of those! That seems unbalanced to me. An alternative would be to change the spell to cure a percentage of damage based on the caster's level. For instance, a CLW could cure 10% + caster level (max + 5), CMW 20% + caster level (max + 10), CSW 30% + caster level (max + 15), and CCW 40% + caster level (max + 20). In this way a 1st level cleric's CLW would cure 11% (or 1 hp) on a 1st level fighter and a 20th level cleric's CLW would cure 15% (or 15 hp) on a 20th level fighter. This seems more in keeping with the PHB description of hit points but it has a flaw. Here is where the problem would come in, currently a 1st level cleric is able to, with some luck, fully cure, or very nearly so, his 1st level companions. However, the 3rd level cleric can do slightly less for his 3rd level companions with his CMW (2d8 + 3 or 5 - 11). And the progression goes pretty much the same up to 9th level where they start to gain the Cure Mass spells. A Cure Critical Wounds from a 20th level cleric would cure 4d8 + 20, or 24 - 52 with an average around 38. My conclusion: None of these alternatives are flawless. Each favors either the powerful or the lower level characters. But considering that it is the lower level characters that probably have less resources available to them I would err on the side of giving them the edge.
#13 Degobah Sep 19, 2004 19:04:09	From an abstract, "consistency of assumptions" viewpoint the rules are flawed. However, I think the simplest fix would be to change spells like Cure Light Wounds to d8+character level of the recipient, and ignore the cleric's level completely, and Heal/Harm would do 10 damage per victim's character level (max 150, save for 1/2 damage as usual). A powerful cleric can then cure more by using a stronger spell (Cure Moderate instead of Cure Light). This wouldn't have as much of an unbalancing factor as your proposed solution (in a PCs party, the clerics level will roughly equal the PCs level), and would even help out the underpowered multiclass clerics a little.
#14 theodorik Sep 22, 2004 14:56:44	Healing is extremely ridiculous in this game because it has to be. If healing were more difficult, or slower, like it is in a few other game systems, damage becomes much more of threat to not only the character's life, but the story itself. Great plotlines can be brought to a screeching halt after 1 failed saving throw if that character can't be healed to full health fast enough. Dungeon crawls would be long and tedious if you had to wait a week to heal up a rogue after one failed saving throw vs a trap. Instead, D&D lets you heal up in 6 seconds, and you're as good as new. Several times a day you are brought back from the brink of death, only to be patched up by the hit point battery that is the divine spellcaster. Want to have a character (NPC) give a last request to the players before he dies? No... wait, too late ... the cleric already healed him... (or resurrected for that matter). That NPC is as good as new. I have considered, as a DM, to completely remove these spells from the game because they are, I agree, completely broken. Stories and drama both fall victim to them, and I've had enough. The problem is it completely unbalances the game as arcane spellcasters become far more deadly (their damage cannot be easily healed and the damage can be applied from a relatively safe distance). side note: Heal and Harm are fine, they can be used much less often because of the level requirement and thus by fewer characters and NPCs. The other 'fix' i have considered is to just have characters die using a new mechanic. Instead of dying at -10 hit points, the character dies when their Constitution goes to 0. After -10 hit points, the character's body begins to break down and die. Depending on the situation (how they were brought to -10) the DM can add flavor to the event as their constitution slowly (or quickly) drops to 0. Damage done to the body in this way cannot be healed by any spell except the following, miracle, resurrection, true resurrection, limited wish, or wish. [the resurrection spell, rather than bringing them back, prevents death.] To help prevent instant kills, damage that brings the characters' constitution below 1 is ignored. Drama and cinematic flavor is great for this case, don't let a character go without a dying curse or a confession of love. For example, a human fighter and his adventuring party come across a Frost Giant who begins to wail on his armor. After a while, the fighter's defenses fold and he is brought from 15 hit points to -13 after a critical hit. His constitution drops by 3 (permanent, restoration spells do not work) to counter balance his drop in hit points. The player records his drop from 16 con to 13. The character is knocked unconscious by the blow of the frost giants giant club and flies 15ft away hitting a wall and slumping. The cleric runs over and casts cure moderate wounds, discovering the damage is too severe for his magic to repair. The fighter is brought to 10 hit points (2d8+10) but the damage has been done. Because the wound did not sever any limbs the DM rules that the fighter will lose 1 point of constitution every hour (permanent) unless the proper spell can be cast on him. He is lucky, the cleric has done enough so that he can be transported without further injury, but he will drop in and out of consciousness until.... Had the wound come from a sword he may have lost his arm and may lose 1 point of constitution every round until the proper spell is cast. It is up to the DM how long it takes, based on the attack that brought him down and the ability of the party to prevent a permanent death. He is rushed back to town and taken to the temple for which the cleric works. His superior is willing to prevent his death as a payment for his valor and honor, and for saving the cleric's life many adventures ago. The temple leader casts a resurrection spell and his constitution is returned to it's former glory, all the permanent damage is removed (normally a dead character has a constitution of 0, so when they are brought back, it returns to what it was at the time of death, in this case it is 16, even though he never was returned in 3 hours (and had 10 constitution when it was cast). So let those clerics heal up all those scrapes and bruises... that's fine, but when it comes down to it, no simple cure light wounds is going to take a character from the brink of death to full hit points (think a level 1 commoner with 4 hit points and 10 con)... it will wake them up, but they are still going to die (if they took 14 hit point damage or more). One last comment is that with this new mechanic, abilities like Regenerate and Fast Healing can (DM choice) heal dying damage to constitution. Once the creature is brought to 0 Con they are considered dead, regardless of Regenerate or similar abilities. theo
#15 kngdavid01 Sep 28, 2004 10:02:01	Well yes, that is a good point. But the fault is not with my proposal; that would be true under the normal healing rules as well. As it stands now, wizards would benefit from healing spells more than fighters; that's not my fault, nor was it my intention to correct that discrepancy. It *could* be done, but you'd need some new, complicated chart to add, which might be ponderous. If healing from Cure Wounds was based on B.A.B., or some Base save, then it would penalize people who were at in-between levels were they didn't get a bonus. A 2nd level wizard would get the same points back as a 3rd level wizard, yet at 3rd level, the wizard is slightly tougher, and better able to sustain harm; therefore he's less hurt from the same attack. But the Cure Wound rules, as they are, make healing less effective as you go up levels; this is madness. Healing *must* be more effective if a person is actually less hurt, and the combat description says that higher level characters are less hurt from the same quantity of damage. Just add +1 healing points for every hitdice of the spells recipient. No, it's not the most precise simulation imaginable, but it's simple, consistent, and makes this very needed, very crucial spell more balanced.
#16 kngdavid01 Sep 28, 2004 18:18:52	One of my group pointed this out: While that does help represent the advanced character's growth in combat, the proposed system allows a fighter and wizard of the same level to receive the same bonus, which overall benefits the wizard *more* than it does the fighter, which doesn't seem right. Yes, that is technically true, but the system as it works now would benefit a wizard more, who has fewer hitpoints yet gains the same number of points as a fighter would. That's not my fault, and not the problem I'm trying to solve; it would be the same with this fix or without it. There should be a component to the hitpoints restored that reflects the hitdice of the recipient; it only makes sense according to the description. It matters because this is probably the most used spell in the game. (Cure and higher types.) We could replace the caster level bonus with the recipient’s hitdice, but that would indeed benefit 'dabbler' clerics. I have no principled argument against that, except that the current trend is to reward characters that invest many levels in a class, rather than those that pick and choose, which is why they changed the bard's song ability to increase according to the bards' class.
#17 finarin_panjoro Oct 01, 2004 11:49:28	I don't really see this as a big problem because I'm cool with the whole abstraction of combat philosophy. However if I were to offer a fix it would be to simply change the spells so that rather than healing 1d8+caster level they heal the recipients hit die +caster level. So a cure light wounds cast by a cleric 2 would heal a fighter 1d10+2, but a wizard 1d4+2. While this doesn't address the fact that high level characters receive less healing from low level spells I don't see that to be a real problem. High level characters take less damage from high level spells as well and from weapons and traps and everything else. So it balances out. If you need a rationale, just assume that the players are gaining a "tolerance" for healing magic. As they use more of it the spells are less effective. So as they get higher level more powerful magic is needed to provide the same percentage of healing.
#18 taltamir Oct 01, 2004 18:19:46	SgtHulka, your argument actually supports the notion of a percentile healing spell. "For the Paladin, it could be that only 10% of his hit points represent actual physical damage, and the rest is an odd concoction of mental and emotional and divine energies. Cure Light Wounds does nothing to revive these other kinds of hit points." Cure spells are CONJURATION. The cleric conjures divine energy and infuses the recipient with it. He doesn't need any knowledge of anatomy and the like, this kind of curing would actually be an arcane spell. To take your example, the paladin in question is then treated by the cleric, as he feels the presence of his god coursing through his body and closing his wounds his confidence returns etc. Also, it does help with the fatigue, if you recall all the cure spells heal an equal amount of nonlethal (fatigue anyone?) and lethal damage.
#19 Degobah Oct 02, 2004 8:13:59	The proposed system allows a fighter and wizard of the same level to receive the same bonus, which overall benefits the wizard *more* than it does the fighter, which doesn't seem right It still makes sense to me, actually. The 10th level fighter getting a Cure Moderate would get 2d8+10 and so would the 10th level wizard, and the wizard heals proportionally more, but that makes sense because fighters are tougher than wizards. Both have learned something about rolling with damage but the fighter can withstand a lot more actual damage than the wizard, regardless of level, thanks to his larger Hit Die. They need more cure spells than the wizard to get back to full health, but only because the wizard that had taken that much real damage would be dead. As for "its only a fantasy game and we don't need any more realism": if extra realism doesn't cost you anything in their speed or complexity, I say take it. If no one had ever tried to improve the system we'd all still be playing 1E with evil clerics who had to use maces because Vecna or Erythnul wouldn't allow them to shed blood, Neutral Good as a language, 1% of the population randomly developing nigh-godlike psionic powers, and demihumans who couldn't go past 6th level.
#20 shaftiel Oct 06, 2004 23:52:56	SgtHulka, your argument actually supports the notion of a percentile healing spell... Oh, I see it the opposite way - SgtHulka's example is precisely why I like the current healing system. What's harder, to repair a broken arm or to restore a broken spirit? If a large % of a high-level rogues HP represent "luck," then wouldn't it be awfully hard to refill this "luck pool"? If the paladin's HP come from "divine favor," how hard is it to restore that favor? The way I see it, only the first 2-3 HP of most people come from actual physical resistance to injury. Some of the rest come from skill and willpower. But at some point luck, divine favor, karma, destiny, whatever kick in. I don't care how rugged or skilled he is; the only way a high-level paladin can wade through lava for a round (which, with enough HP, he can) is because his god is looking out for him. And once he burns through his "divine favor" points, ie hit points, it's going to take a lot more than a 1st level cleric to get them back for him. -Shaftiel
#21 taltamir Oct 08, 2004 18:10:58	Don’t forget, D&D is inherently "broken" in the making sense department, D&D is designed for an easy, quick, and fair to all participants way of having an RPG session. The things within don’t make sense, in any other game magic is either totally useless, or completely dominates the game, in D&D you have a carefully crafted balance that is done by a variety of rules, every single item, every single spell, was individually crafted. And any pattern within is completely coincidental. If you want a game that makes sense, I strongly recommend you try GURPS. But as for D&D, it just cannot be done.