I guess I can see it that was as well. It's funny, because I used that exact quote from the 3e PHB in, oh, around 2001 to show someone that HP were abstract, and not just a bucket of meat.
As far as I can tell, HP is very abstract with the 3.5 interpretation, in that all you know is that you got hit, and that you tried to make it not as bad as it could have been. It's always hitting meat in 3.5, but maybe not very badly.
If you are ok seeing HP in that way, then that's fine, if it works for you. But, I think that you start running into some very interesting (and immersion rending) problems.
I agree, which is why I have put forth the proposal of two HP pools: physical and "other" (where "other can be tailor made from group to group).
For example: How come a level-0 commoner can only take 1 sword hit, but the level 15 fighter can take several?
Well, this isn't a problem of 3.5's, actually (though it does have problems). How can that happen? Well, the 15th level Fighter is legendary at turning blows into less serious blows. That gash that takes does the level 1 Commoner? The 15th level Fighter is fast enough to make it a mere graze on his forehead; it broke his skin, but didn't slow him down.
If you put me (level 0 commoner) side by side with a Navy SEAL (say, level 15 fighter?) and shot us both, we would likely have the same fate. But according to "bucket of meat" HP, that Navy SEAL should be able to take a dozen or more shots before falling. That's just one of the problems.
Navy SEAL = nowhere
near level 15 Fighter. Also, a coup de grace is a coup de grace... with bullet damage, you're likely both dead. It's more like, put both you and a Navy SEAL in a combat situation, and see who lasts longer under the same conditions. He wins most of the time.
Interesting idea. I'm sure there's a few people that would like that, but I know it wouldn't be for me, lol. I'm one of the masochists that used to raid Plane of Fear in Everquest, before all the corpse summoners and resurrection bots...
If you're not sure what I'm talking about, let's just say there was a very real possibility of losing your corpse (and all of your gear) and having it disappear with all your gear if you wiped and couldn't get another raid up there to rescue. Almost happened once. I had to skip classes that day or risk missing a chance at getting back to my corpse. Was a bad day I never wanted to repeat, lol.
Oh yeah, I'm sure they servers would be pretty empty, with those few players
who made it to higher level just ganking all the little guys for laughs. It'd be terrible. I'm not saying it's good for the public at large, I'm just commenting on my play style in general.
Understandable. I think the way we used to balance encounters was that lower level combat tended to not be as draining. But at higher levels, all bets were off. That was my experience through about a dozen different groups I've played with in my 20 years.
I like lower level D&D play just because it seems to fit the stories I like better. You can get taken out by being overwhelmed by mundane forces, but you can still be a badass at times. If I ever run 3.5 again (outside of going back to one particular campaign), it'll be E6. I might play in one at some point, but I probably won't.
Again, interesting. But it's similar to what I do. The players, whether they know it or not call the shots. Though, I have the opposite problem. If I give them more RP style encounters, or non-combat encounters...they will turn them into combat encounters, heh.
It really depends on the party that my players are playing as. In the past, they've been all about combat, killing demons left and right. This time, they're taking their time, being cautious, and trying to expand their territory as warlords.
I think there's a general misunderstanding of healing surges. The name tends to evoke the idea that a player can heal themselves. And, to an extent, that's true. In combat, every player gets a second wind. This can be used as a standard action (meaning, you can basically only move this turn), once per encounter, that allows you to use a healing surge. A healing surge heals 25% of your HP (rounded down). In general, this is the only way a player can use a healing surge in combat. Abilities and healing potions do not heal directly, they allow the use of healing surges (in most cases, there are exceptions). A potion of healing allows a character to burn a healing surge in exchange for 10hp. A cleric can use healing word (twice per encounter) to allow a character to use a healing surge. A cleric can also choose Cure XXXX Wounds that heals back HP without a healing surge, but it's a daily spell, and the cleric would have had to take it in place of another daily. So in essense, a healing surge is a limitation on the amount of healing a player can receive in a day (after an extended rest, or 8 hours, they get all healing surges back). I think of it more like endurance. When you're out of surges, you're exhausted, and you need to rest. You simply cannot continue.
Yeah, that'd strike me as really wrong or immersion breaking. If someone is out of healing surges, why can't you magically heal them? If they're currently bloodied, why can they use a standard to heal wounds permanently? I can see the "Diehard" thing, maybe, with the bloodied incident, but it's still turning a potentially serious wound into a less serious wound via retconning, to many groups (you'd have to have a GM that's careful not to make any bloodied wound too serious to avoid it). And that would hurt my immersion.
However, if healing simply doesn't work anymore for some reason, that'd strike me as wrong. No matter how many healers we bring it, we can only heal him if we have the correct encounter power that heals "X" without using a surge? What do the other healing spells represent, then?
Most people are mostly ok (with some exceptions, not going into them here, as they've been discussed on this thread already) with that mechanic. What gets a lot of people is that between combats, during a short rest (5 minute break) a character can use as many surges as they want to heal themself up. So now, they're ready for the next fight, with no downtime. Anyway, that's how the mechanic works, basically, so if that's what you thought, then you understand. If not, well, now you do.
It was very informative, thank you. Please don't think I'm challenging you. The questions above were rhetorical, to inform you of my objections based on the very useful information you provided me. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this issue a little more clearly.
Ahh, ok. Makes more sense now.
Yeah, not as bad as you might have thought!
I understand where you're coming from now. In context of D&D in general, it doesn't make much sense. But in the game you've created, well, that's the game you and your group want to play, and more power to you.
Yes, D&D has always had the characters been a cut above most people. Most people are level 0's, or level 1 Commoners, or the like. So, I'm not saying that my game would work for D&D, and I don't want D&D to look like my game. However, I want D&D to support the amount of narrative range my game has available. Anything less, and I'll just play my game, where more stories can be told.
That's the grittyness you enjoy. For me, balance is a pretty important factor in the game.
Oh, me too. I took three things into account when making my game: realism (which is mainly where grittiness kicked in), fantasy (which really offsets realism), and balance (nothing underpowered or overpowered). These were the big three. And, I think I achieved that. But, that dash of grittiness is ever-present, but people are very balanced at the same hit die, in my opinion. I've had playtesting occur for about two years as the system's been refined, and the system settled a couple months ago, when we ran out of problems to fix.
In my eyes, a generic, one size fits all system would be fairly boring. Even if your game supports the way my group wants to play, I'd rather play 4e since it will excell at what we want. Whereas in your system, it might be possible, but it's more of a jack of all trades, master of none. BUT, the benefit is, of course, being able to do whatever you want, and have the system support that. 4e supports a lot of options, but many things are pretty non-negotiable.
Well, my game excels at combat if everyone invests in combat. My game excels at a diplomatic, court-focused game, if people invest in diplomatic, court-focused skills. My game excels at craftsmanship if people invest in craftsmanship. The only real thing you need total acceptance on if you want a very focused game is for player buy-in. If you want a combat-focused game, make sure everyone heavily invests in combat. Otherwise, you get a battlemage, a pyromancer, a sword and board two-weapon fighter, a dirty-fighting and backstabbing thief, a hulking barbarian with a massive axe, and a scholar. And in your game, since it's combat focused, the scholar will die. Mind you, he'll be really good at his duties, but he'll die in a combat-focused game.
Now, I know I say "my game excels at" but that's just taste. It doesn't support minis as well (though you could easily use them), nor does it support forced movement as well (though you could build a character that does so). So, 4e probably is better at what you want than my game would be.
However, my game was built for player options and a wide narrative range. Teleporting long distances permanently drains resources. Don't want it? Houserule: now it doesn't. It's quick, it's simple, it eliminates the problem. Your world just opened up to fit your narrative. I'd rather have built-in restrictions that are easy to lift off than no restrictions but a smaller narrative range.
Now, if there's restrictions, how can it support more narratives? Well, when teleporting long distances becomes commonplace for a party, then you wind up losing any sort of story where overt build-up is possible. You can't hear of the orcs to the far north building up an army without the PCs teleporting in and stopping it early. And, if the PCs aren't high enough levels, why not the NPCs? However, if you remove that option, then the game supports more narratives, in my opinion. And, you can choose to always strip away the restriction if on teleporting if you want to, or plane-hopping, or permanently enchanting people or items, or whatever.
Just my philosophy on it. I'd rather have to learn one system that supports a wide narrative range than learn a bunch of systems that allow different stories. But, that's preference, and I understand when people disagree. And I'm cool with that. I hope 5e focuses on narrative range, and if they follow the "dials" approach, maybe they will. I don't know if I like the idea of dials, but I don't know the implementation yet, so I can't say. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
I can see that. Again, my thoughts follow the more heroic, cinematic feel. Whereas in your system, the journey is what's important, in 4e, the destination seems to be where it's at.
Definitely the journey for us. Although you can definitely get a cinematic feel, if you want it. You can have a player take out 10 guys in 10 seconds in my game. You just need a big enough level gap, and a character pretty focused on fighting. Same thing with taking wounds and still going, or casting spells when you shouldn't be able to. Or getting mortally wounded and giving advice to the party on where to go to save the life of the character with a skull fracture, even though you're bleeding out and most people would be unconscious (happened in my game).
I still have my reservations with Monte on the team, but what I've seen so far, he has some pretty good ideas, and I know i'll be following his L&L column. I have a feeling that column will give a good prediction of what to expect with 5e.
Hopefully. I'd like to see the wheels turn from week to week, similar to what we got with Mearls. It's very interesting, even if I don't like the end goal (not that I mind this one). I once watched a bunch of videos on youtube by a guy named John Wick. Really grates on my style of game, but his thought process was interesting.
I never understood the hate between the so-called grognards and the 4e fanboys. We're all gamers, but we all have our own preferences and opinions. I can't tell you that the way you play is wrong, because that's how you like to play. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter, at all. Have fun at your game today. Looking forward to my next!
We did have fun, thanks. Same goes to you! As always, play what you like
