Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[ExploderWizard]

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.
The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

I hereby pass thee the torch of eternal struggle. Best of luck

 

[Lacyon]

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.

They've worked pretty well so far.

The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

I tend to think of this as generally flawed play rather than flawed mechanics (especially in light of the Intimidate skill description in 4E).

If you want to capture someone, do it. If the target resists, and you're willing to use force to stop them, you have to chew through their HP until they either run out or stop resisting. Many DMs and players forget that the second is an option.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.
The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

And the designers of 4E disagree with you. Shortcuts came up as a problem enough that the designers of 4E decided to steer far away from them.
Shortcuts are hard to balance and always have been. Its an ON/OFF effect that is more like PONG (did I hit the dot or did it get past me?) than others are claiming of hit point ablatement.

 

[Darkthorne]

Lacyon,
Thank you for your response. I think this is the best "conversion" I have seen for the class. While mechanics do not always equal concept they do have a hand in influencing it. One of my more memorable characters in 3.5 was a Dragon Disciple and it was nice to watch him evolve into something much more than what he started out as. Also none of his original stats or character concept was built to take advantage of his stat improvements they just made him a bit better overall.

 

[Lacyon]

Lacyon,
Thank you for your response. I think this is the best "conversion" I have seen for the class. While mechanics do not always equal concept they do have a hand in influencing it. One of my more memorable characters in 3.5 was a Dragon Disciple and it was nice to watch him evolve into something much more than what he started out as. Also none of his original stats or character concept was built to take advantage of his stat improvements they just made him a bit better overall.

Hey - really glad I could help!

 

[Cadfan]

If you inferred that I meant he could use his Skills (capital S) to cause damage then I understand your comment. I meant skills (small s) as a more generic term. Powers that do damage should have their damage linked to the effect of the power. So a Power that taunts a foe and does damage should probably attribute the damage to the stress that the magical mind manipulation has caused. Maybe you're already saying that, but others here seem to be seperating the two into a taunt effect plus a "magic missile" which is not the intent of such a power IMO.

No, I just mean...

There are powers in 4e that are like, "Through totally non magical methods, intimidate the crap out of your opponent. He loses hit points and a thematic effect occurs." But they are incredibly rare. I can think of one. Its a warlord paragon path power, "Control the Field," from the Knight Commander pp.

Usually it reads more like, "Cast a spell which magically assaults your opponent's mind and intimidates the crap out of him. He loses hit points and a thematic effect occurs." Or, "Through totally non magical methods, stab your opponent in the chest while bellowing in his face, intimidating the crap out of him. He loses hit points and a thematic effect occurs."

People keep acting like the former example is the way 4e works. With the exception of like one power, its not. You can play the game for years using existing material and never come across a power that deals hit point damage by means of an effect which explicitly knocks down your hit points by demoralizing you without also burning your mind or hitting you with a hammer.

There's a larger point here that I'm not going to completely go into- basically, I like the idea of battle representing an attrition of stamina rather than "meat points," but it seems to me that any attack that deals hit point damage has to be one which, at least hypothetically, could actually injure in some way, whether it be magical or psychic or physical. I guess I see a difference between "hit point loss can represent loss of stamina or drive rather than physical injury" and "here's a power that causes only a loss of morale, and does hit point damage."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ablating hit points isn't always the best answer for character survival. Maybe I don't want to just whale on something to be able to capture it.
The way I see it, that's been a long-term deficiency in non-lethal attacking for multiple editions, ablating hit points down until you finally knock somebody out. There really should be shortcuts.

The problem is - once you introduce these "shortcuts" - why not always use them? Of course, with spells the solution is simple - because we don't have them that often. But it's not really a solution - if you know the easiest and safest way is using the shortcut, you will ensure that you will have the shortcut available if there is nothing else stopping you. And you're right back into creating stuff like the 15 minute adventuring day and all that. If you have a option that is clearly more powerful then all the others, it's stupid to not use them if you have them, and its a good strategy to keep these shortcuts.

I can totally see a way where 4E could have gone a more "pre 4E" way - Imagine all daily powers dealing level [W] or level d6 damage, and some even save or die. And we would be right back to all the problems 4E wants to avoid.

No, this solution just doesn't work. Bypassing hit points in 4E is still possible - those damage + effect powers give you an effect even without taking away all hit poins. But the effect is short lived. If you want to escape a fight, daze your enemy and run away. If you want to bring down an enemy fast, focus your fire, and use powers that make it harder or impossible for him to hurt you (or easier for you to hit him.) But don't expect a magical bullet to solve your problems.

 

[Mallus]

If you want to bring down an enemy fast, focus your fire, and use powers that make it harder or impossible for him to hurt you (or easier for you to hit him.) But don't expect a magical bullet to solve your problems.

Right. The short-lived status effects are intended to foster teamwork. They're the antithesis of small parcel of 'win tokens' given to certain classes in previous editions.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I look at things this way.

Comparing 4E core to 3E core, 3E's buffet style multiclassing and three additional classes offered more choice in character concept...

...problem is, that 90% of what was theoretically possible sucked, and some of the suck included entire classes like Monk and (limited to Core) Fighter.

In 4E, you technically have less choices, but aside from bad stat allocation the choices you do have work.

I would venture that 4E Core has more distinct valid choices than 3E Core.

 

[Remathilis]

I look at things this way.

Comparing 4E core to 3E core, 3E's buffet style multiclassing and three additional classes offered more choice in character concept...

...problem is, that 90% of what was theoretically possible sucked, and some of the suck included entire classes like Monk and (limited to Core) Fighter.

In 4E, you technically have less choices, but aside from bad stat allocation the choices you do have work.

I would venture that 4E Core has more distinct valid choices than 3E Core.

Wouldn't the win-win be FIX the broken problems in such a way as to allow those 90% to become viable, rather the cut them out completely?

Can't we have flexibility AND validity?