-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E 4e Heal info in new Confessions article
- Thread starter Scholar & Brutalman
- Start date
http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
Read this description of a real firefight (FBI Miami Firefight, 11 April 1986). You could practically see some characters using "second wind". Notice also that the ability to continue combat is not necessarily dependant on the severity of the wounds. A determined man, although mortally wounded, can continue combat.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm
Read this description of a real firefight (FBI Miami Firefight, 11 April 1986). You could practically see some characters using "second wind". Notice also that the ability to continue combat is not necessarily dependant on the severity of the wounds. A determined man, although mortally wounded, can continue combat.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Prediction:
Heroic will be the 'low magic' tier. DMs who like to run low magic games will be able to do so in 4e by limiting progression to level 10. The PCs will experience a world much like ours in the sense that none of the fundamentals of the human condition are broken. No coming back from the dead, no flying (cliffs, chasms, pits and river crossings are still a major challenge - very important).
Heroic will be the 'low magic' tier. DMs who like to run low magic games will be able to do so in 4e by limiting progression to level 10. The PCs will experience a world much like ours in the sense that none of the fundamentals of the human condition are broken. No coming back from the dead, no flying (cliffs, chasms, pits and river crossings are still a major challenge - very important).
shilsen
Adventurer
What sort of namby-pamby PCs do you play? A risk of death means there's a chance that the PC may escape the sorrows and horrors of life. Only a DM who's too soft and kind would let PCs die. Dying is for cowards who can't hack it. Living - now that takes some serious heroism!Greg K said:
Lurks-no-More
First Post
You know, the more I think about the whole "excitement and drama needs death!" thing, the more convinced I am that it's the threat of death that's exciting, not the actual dying.
Anyway, anything which makes Healing an useful skill beyond the first few levels is going to be a good thing in my opinion.
Anyway, anything which makes Healing an useful skill beyond the first few levels is going to be a good thing in my opinion.
Stormtalon
First Post
shilsen said:
Ahh, a DM after me own black heart. Truly, the fun isn't in killing PCs -- the fun is in taking them to the brink of death time and time again, until they begin to wonder if they might be better off that way. Still, the occasional gruesome death can go a long ways towards giving the survivors that renewed appreciation for survival.
I usually reserve death for when a player isn't at all satisfied with their character and wants to "retire" them in favor of something more their liking. Still, I wait for the right moment and right situation for a "dramatic exit." Ever see the look on a player's face when a 12-headed hydra tears their outgoing character limb from limb? It's a beautiful thing....
Hello. It's one of my first posts around, and English is not my native tongue, so please be lenient! But I really wanted to comment on Chris Sims's answer.
That is, actually (along with some fluff changes that I consider both unnecessary and disrespectful towards those who bought previous edition books) my main gripe against what I have seen from 4th Edition. In older editions, rules always seemed "natural" to me, in the sense that they would describe imaginary scenes that play in the players' minds. The rules were there just to turn imagination into numerical variables when necessary. For example, I (and I would guess most players) could see that the +2 to damage/-2 to AC modifiers of a charge were there to represent the fact that you are using the velocity of your charge to increase your damage output, while sacrificing some protection. The same could be said for many other rules. Sure, there might have been minor inconsistencies here and there (e.g., damage from a fall), but most were easily avoided by good DMs.
Yet, in 4th edition, I see more and more rules that seem to be nothing but abstract rules; that is, rules that do not translate well into the imagination. Examples abound; there are all those related to hit points (I'll keep them for later), but there are also other tricks like monster abilities. I'll just cite three examples here.
The first one is from Races & Classes, where we learn that the Warlord has a power that allows all his companions to draw a ranged weapon and shoot an arrow ("Feather me Yon Oaf!"). Huh? How can a warlord or any other character give all his friends the ability to instnatly do things that would normally take them 1 round to do? Time (as in: what you can do each round) is a precious resource in D&D combats, one that is firmly anchored in the "realistic imagination". That is, in that "realistic imagination" world, it takes a given amount of time to draw a bow, and it takes another given amount of time to shoot an arrow. It does not make sense that, suddenly, those actions do not take any time at all?
The second example is from the new Miniature rules (it might not be entirely 4th edition, but that's another example), where it is said that the yuan-ti can perform what looks like a whirlwind attack (attack vs all the adjacent opponents) when one of those adjacent opponent is bloodied. Once again ... huh? The cause (one opponent is bloodied) and the consequence (you are able to make a whirlwind attack) do not match. It's yet another example of a rule that fails to translate into that "realistic imagination" world. In other words, it does not make sense, it's inconsistent.
The third example is from a playtest report, where we learn that a dragon can immediately breathe as a free action when he gets bloodied. Yet again ... huh? Why does being bloodied suddenly allow the dragon to perform an action for free? Now, there were similar example in the latest 3.5 Monster Manuals, but those actually made sense because the action was a natural consequence of the damage. For example, in MM5, there's a creature that looks like a living blurb of magma encased in rock. Once it reaches 50% of its hit points, the rock case is damage enough that jets of magma are created. That actually is consistent, because it's not a reaction from the monster, but a "physical" reaction.
I am sure it is possible to make monsters and combats interesting without having to resort to such unrealistic tricks that do not translate well into the "realistic imagination" world, so I'm quite disappointed that many 4th edition previews have showcased some of them.
Regarding hit points now ... It is right that they are defined as more than just "physical integrity" even in the previous editions. Yet, the need to see them as something more than just physical damage has never been as forceful as in 4th Edition.
I entirely welcome changes such as Heal allowing people to actually cure hit points, or such as healing spells actually restoring a percentage of someone's hit points rather than a set amount (or a set amount of dice). Those are good changes in my opinion, and they work well towards the objectives that the 4th edition designers seem to have (i.e., removing the need for the cleric's healing).
I have a problem with integrating tricks/abstract mechanisms like Second Wind or getting healed because you manage to strike an opponent (or worse, getting healed because one of your friends managed to hit a foe) though. I also have a problem with the cinematic interpretation you suggest, that seems to be that damage later healed by a Second Wind-like ability actually never happened in the first place, but was "cinematically" avoided.
Good rules are simple rules that are easy to apply. Rules that are based on interpreting hit points on something much more complex than just physical integrity are thus bad to the game. Making a rule so abstract/unrealistic that many DMs and players have a hard time translating it into their "realistic imagination" world is, in my opinion, worse than presenting them with complex or difficult rules like 3.5 grapple.
My problem here is that those abstract hit points rules convey the following message: "Don't bother about what's happening practically, just follow the rules mechanically, add up and substract numbers, and don't worry". That is not really the kind of message I would expect from a roleplaying game, where I'm supposed to play a role. My character is both someone who lives in my "realistic imagination" world and a set of numbers defining it; and I actually think good rules should make it easy for me to match those two aspects rather than set them apart.
Chris Sims said:
That is, actually (along with some fluff changes that I consider both unnecessary and disrespectful towards those who bought previous edition books) my main gripe against what I have seen from 4th Edition. In older editions, rules always seemed "natural" to me, in the sense that they would describe imaginary scenes that play in the players' minds. The rules were there just to turn imagination into numerical variables when necessary. For example, I (and I would guess most players) could see that the +2 to damage/-2 to AC modifiers of a charge were there to represent the fact that you are using the velocity of your charge to increase your damage output, while sacrificing some protection. The same could be said for many other rules. Sure, there might have been minor inconsistencies here and there (e.g., damage from a fall), but most were easily avoided by good DMs.
Yet, in 4th edition, I see more and more rules that seem to be nothing but abstract rules; that is, rules that do not translate well into the imagination. Examples abound; there are all those related to hit points (I'll keep them for later), but there are also other tricks like monster abilities. I'll just cite three examples here.
The first one is from Races & Classes, where we learn that the Warlord has a power that allows all his companions to draw a ranged weapon and shoot an arrow ("Feather me Yon Oaf!"). Huh? How can a warlord or any other character give all his friends the ability to instnatly do things that would normally take them 1 round to do? Time (as in: what you can do each round) is a precious resource in D&D combats, one that is firmly anchored in the "realistic imagination". That is, in that "realistic imagination" world, it takes a given amount of time to draw a bow, and it takes another given amount of time to shoot an arrow. It does not make sense that, suddenly, those actions do not take any time at all?
The second example is from the new Miniature rules (it might not be entirely 4th edition, but that's another example), where it is said that the yuan-ti can perform what looks like a whirlwind attack (attack vs all the adjacent opponents) when one of those adjacent opponent is bloodied. Once again ... huh? The cause (one opponent is bloodied) and the consequence (you are able to make a whirlwind attack) do not match. It's yet another example of a rule that fails to translate into that "realistic imagination" world. In other words, it does not make sense, it's inconsistent.
The third example is from a playtest report, where we learn that a dragon can immediately breathe as a free action when he gets bloodied. Yet again ... huh? Why does being bloodied suddenly allow the dragon to perform an action for free? Now, there were similar example in the latest 3.5 Monster Manuals, but those actually made sense because the action was a natural consequence of the damage. For example, in MM5, there's a creature that looks like a living blurb of magma encased in rock. Once it reaches 50% of its hit points, the rock case is damage enough that jets of magma are created. That actually is consistent, because it's not a reaction from the monster, but a "physical" reaction.
I am sure it is possible to make monsters and combats interesting without having to resort to such unrealistic tricks that do not translate well into the "realistic imagination" world, so I'm quite disappointed that many 4th edition previews have showcased some of them.
Chris Sims said:
Regarding hit points now ... It is right that they are defined as more than just "physical integrity" even in the previous editions. Yet, the need to see them as something more than just physical damage has never been as forceful as in 4th Edition.
I entirely welcome changes such as Heal allowing people to actually cure hit points, or such as healing spells actually restoring a percentage of someone's hit points rather than a set amount (or a set amount of dice). Those are good changes in my opinion, and they work well towards the objectives that the 4th edition designers seem to have (i.e., removing the need for the cleric's healing).
I have a problem with integrating tricks/abstract mechanisms like Second Wind or getting healed because you manage to strike an opponent (or worse, getting healed because one of your friends managed to hit a foe) though. I also have a problem with the cinematic interpretation you suggest, that seems to be that damage later healed by a Second Wind-like ability actually never happened in the first place, but was "cinematically" avoided.
Good rules are simple rules that are easy to apply. Rules that are based on interpreting hit points on something much more complex than just physical integrity are thus bad to the game. Making a rule so abstract/unrealistic that many DMs and players have a hard time translating it into their "realistic imagination" world is, in my opinion, worse than presenting them with complex or difficult rules like 3.5 grapple.
My problem here is that those abstract hit points rules convey the following message: "Don't bother about what's happening practically, just follow the rules mechanically, add up and substract numbers, and don't worry". That is not really the kind of message I would expect from a roleplaying game, where I'm supposed to play a role. My character is both someone who lives in my "realistic imagination" world and a set of numbers defining it; and I actually think good rules should make it easy for me to match those two aspects rather than set them apart.
Last edited:
Darkwolf71
First Post
No, my 'problem' is that I don't like the idea of self-contained healing abilities in all characters. It makes little sense in a conscious character and becomes down-right silly in one that is at neg HP and 'unconscious'.Khur said:
In all honesty, FireLance and others had convinced me that it may not be so bad. Now after reading your post, I'm pretty much back to thinking it's cheese.
frankthedm
First Post
Sometimes cheese can be gouda...Darkwolf71 said:In all honesty, FireLance and others had convinced me that it may not be so bad. Now after reading your post, I'm pretty much back to thinking it's cheese.
Darkwolf71
First Post
Cheesus, that was bad.frankthedm said:
Similar Threads
