Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

[Bedrockgames]

So, in other words, anyone who does not share your aesthetic preferences can take a hike and just suck it up, so long as your tastes are catered to.

Ahh, I see now. You're not interested in D&D, you want BRG D&D, the one true game.

Never said that. I just said I am not interested in having 4e forced on me and having to completely alter those elements to suit my tastes. It is much easier to have those 4e fixes as optional ad ons than have to take them out.

Please don't try to read my mind Hussar. You have been pressuring me and other posters to embrace 4e forever now. When we say we dont like it, you ask why. When we give a reason, you deconstruct it and try to tell us that really isn't our problem. Ultimatley your solution is what we need is a dose of 4e. This is getting very old.

And BRG doesn't make D&D, it makes gritty modern, horror and historical games

 

[BryonD]

No particular reason. I'm just curious if it's the existence of the rules at all that's the sticking point.

Not for me.

After all, 4e's interpretation of HP is provably closer to the original interpretation of HP than any other editions

That is a rather bizarre claim. Again, I'll point out that I think HP in 4E really are not different than HP in 3E or any other edition. So word for word what you said is just bizarre because it is pretty much meaningless.

But in terms of how surges fit into things, the idea of fighters making their wounds vanish is a very new thing. Do you mean HP or a system with surges?

Me, I'd be happiest of both are presented as equal options with no default, that way groups can choose without bias.

I want a system at least as good as what I have now.
I'd rather a bias toward quality than no bias.

What I don't want is some milk toast consensus that no one likes.

 

[CM]

The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid. His powers that grant people heroic surges of inspiration could have granted temporary hit points instead, which to alot of people would have made much more sense, while relying on his medic skill for out-of-combat recovery.

Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?

We have already established that the term "healing" in D&D means restoring HP. The warlord does not shout wounds closed, he restores HP. If anything, 4e's biggest failure is terminology. Healing Surge, Healer, Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker. These all became loaded terms that rub some people the wrong way. "Healing" is brief and gets the point across. "Restoring," "Invigorating," "Recuperating" don't have the same connotations, but they would only serve to confuse.

Warlord cast as a combat medic would have a very different feel than the 4e warlord. The 4e warlord is frontline melee combatant (in most builds) who leads by example, inspiring, rallying, and sacrificing for the troops. Many of the warlord's healing abilities are interrupts in which the warlord retaliates against a foe which has damaged a companion or throws himself in the path of the attack. Limiting the warlord to proactive "buffing" type heals via temporary HP would hamstring its ability to function as a primary healing (sorry, "HP-restoring") class. It would have a hard time dealing with surprise situations and unexpected critical hits. Limiting the warlord healing to minor wound binding and healing poultices to me is no better. I find that spending an indeterminate fraction of 6 seconds to apply a healing poultice in combat just as ludicrous as shouting wounds closed.

So once again, I'll ask my original question again--Why can't the warlord peacefully coexist in its current form as a primary "HP-restoring" class. DMs who dislike it are completely free to disallow it. Many DMs dislike psionics as genre-breaking and disallow those classes, but they don't feel the need to vociferously reiterate their dislike at every opportunity.

 

[Janaxstrus]

We have already established that the term "healing" in D&D means restoring HP. The warlord does not shout wounds closed, he restores HP. If anything, 4e's biggest failure is terminology. Healing Surge, Healer, Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker. These all became loaded terms that rub some people the wrong way. "Healing" is brief and gets the point across. "Restoring," "Invigorating," "Recuperating" don't have the same connotations, but they would only serve to confuse.

Warlord cast as a combat medic would have a very different feel than the 4e warlord. The 4e warlord is frontline melee combatant (in most builds) who leads by example, inspiring, rallying, and sacrificing for the troops. Many of the warlord's healing abilities are interrupts in which the warlord retaliates against a foe which has damaged a companion or throws himself in the path of the attack. Limiting the warlord to proactive "buffing" type heals via temporary HP would hamstring its ability to function as a primary healing (sorry, "HP-restoring") class. It would have a hard time dealing with surprise situations and unexpected critical hits. Limiting the warlord healing to minor wound binding and healing poultices to me is no better. I find that spending an indeterminate fraction of 6 seconds to apply a healing poultice in combat just as ludicrous as shouting wounds closed.

So once again, I'll ask my original question again--Why can't the warlord peacefully coexist in its current form as a primary "HP-restoring" class. DMs who dislike it are completely free to disallow it. Many DMs dislike psionics as genre-breaking and disallow those classes, but they don't feel the need to vociferously reiterate their dislike at every opportunity.

Psionics aren't core in 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition. They were add-ons.

I have no issues with non-magical healers being add-ons, I don't care for them in the core game.

 

[BryonD]

The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid. His powers that grant people heroic surges of inspiration could have granted temporary hit points instead, which to alot of people would have made much more sense, while relying on his medic skill for out-of-combat recovery.

Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?

I think you are completely wrong here.

And, just to specifically address the last point, the idea that HP in pre-4E D&D represent a combination of both actual wounds and abstracts is widely accepted and endorsed in writing in a lot of places. And yet healing spells can restore those HP regardless. In D&D you can without question have "healing" absent injury. That is not the issue here.

 

[BryonD]

Psionics aren't core in 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition. They were add-ons.

I have no issues with non-magical healers being add-ons, I don't care for them in the core game.

Wrong.

Go grab a 1E PH. Psionics are right there.

 

[billd91]

So, in other words, anyone who does not share your aesthetic preferences can take a hike and just suck it up, so long as your tastes are catered to.

Ahh, I see now. You're not interested in D&D, you want BRG D&D, the one true game.

Let's be real, that's what everybody wants. We all want a D&D that works for our own preferences. So do you and you know it. Everybody else's preferences are secondary to us. WotC's job is to figure out how best to serve as many of us as possible and, in doing so, serve themselves with a sustainable product and revenue.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Wrong.

Go grab a 1E PH. Psionics are right there.

I stand corrected, there were only core in 1e. They were an add-on in Basic/OD&D, 2, 3 and 3.5 and 4

HOWEVER, they were not a class in 1e, simply an (optional) chance that someone could develop the wild talents.

 

[CM]

Seeing as how the terms "leader" and "healer" have entirely unwanted connotations and implications, I declare henceforth that all classes which can serve in a primary HP-restoring capacity, whether that ability is gained through invigorating and inspiring allies, stitching wounds via arcane magic, regenerating flesh through primal magic, or channeling divine might, be known not as healers or leaders, but rather as "Freshmakers."

Freshmakers shall carry in their possession at all times a paper-wrapped stick of chewable mints, and shall upon expenditure of any HP-restoring power, gesture towards the subject of such with said stick of candies in the form of a "thumbs-up" and grin knowingly.

I am certain that this move will immediately calm the great majority of tensions and assist in the settling of many disputes regarding the verisimilitude of HP restoration.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think you are completely wrong here.

And, just to specifically address the last point, the idea that HP in pre-4E D&D represent a combination of both actual wounds and abstracts is widely accepted and endorsed in writing in a lot of places.

I discussed the unbelievability of HP going all the way back to the original edition of the game in my first post. I've never liked the abstraction or multiplicative scaling of HP, ever, in any edition. The idea of the frail 1st level wizard that can be slain by a house cat and the 20th level fighter that can survive being submerged in lava has always bothered me, not only because its unbelievable but also because I think it's bad game design, as I pointed out with the acid flask example. 4e may have embraced the mentality that "HP are more than just wounds" to a degree never seen before, but it's one that has been a part of the game from the very beginning, and one I've never, ever liked.

With the new edition of the game, I hope they take a different approach. I'm not saying that they should get rid of HP. But I do want them to drastically cut back on how much HP and damage scale by level. If they do that, then things like acid flasks will remain somewhat effective weapons throughout the game, and HP will be much more believable as a portrayal of one's ability to endure injuries, so that we don't need to resort to using silly excuses to rationalize them.