Disappointed in 4e

[Delta]

I still think that this idea suggests that the spells are misnamed - it should be "cure one wound", "cure several wounds", "cure many wounds" etc. - but otherwise I sort-of see where you're going here.

That's actually a very elegant solution to come out of this thread.

 

[dm4hire]

I agree and was thinking how by switching 4e over to a wound system like True20 would fix some of the problems discussed here.

Healing surges seem to fit more with a wound system than with hit points.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There is no such thing as Wounded (capital W meaning game rule status) in any version of D&D. There is Dead, Unconscious, or Conscious. Role-Playing wounded (small w referring to the general term) is the only way a wound exists in any edition. The status you attribute to being Wounded may not mesh with others. In fact, you mention that once Bruce Willis in Die Hard meets his objective he goes to the hospital to heal up. Once my players met their objective in Keep on the Shadowfell they rested to recover from their wounds. Could they have gone off to the next dungeon the next day? Yes, if the story called for it. But Die Hard 2 could have started with Bruce Willis being loaded into the ambulance. Someone runs up to tell him that his daughter was kidnapped by the real villain behind the scenes. If Die Hard were a 1E game, he would have to push on in a weakened state, probably putting his daughter in jeopardy when he can't fight the fight as long the next day or waiting to heal and losing his daughter for sure. In 4E he pushes himself up stiffly while the paramedics try to talk some sense into him. He pushes them away saying, "I've gotta save Sara!" You would still roleplay that he is hurt and struggling to continue, even at full hit points! Hit points have never equaled wounds to me. And wounds have never had a game effect in D&D. Other systems I've played that do have game effects for wounds have been fun, but PCs in them seem to suffer the death-spiral effect. Once you start getting hurt, it is harder to avoid getting hurt more.

It isn't badwrongfun to play a grittier game where hit points are hard to come by. Neither is 4E badwrongfun to emulate the action movies that many people love and adore, now matter how cheesy the dialogue gets at times.

This, 100% agree. Anything you can recover from with sufficient rest is not a life threatening injury IMO. In all version of D&D you can get hit points back with sufficient values of rest.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I find it humourous that this thread has devolved into an argument based on the flawed presumption that any version of D&D ever handled "wounds" well.

 

[Squizzle]

I've been checking in with this thread every time it grew a new page between 12 and its current 17, and at least since then, it's been focusing on the exact same discussion of hit points, abstraction, and healing surges, as if the resolution of this debate (which is championed on one side by Raven Crowking, and on the other by everyone else) determines the fate of D&D for all eternity.

The discussion goes like this:

RC: Literal!
Anyone else: Abstract!
RC: But if literal!
A1e: So not, abstract!
RC: I literal!
A1e: Most abstract!
RC: Book literal!
A1e: Book abstract!
RC: Literal!
A1e: Abstract!

Reiterate in various forms ad nauseum.

 

[rounser]

I find it humourous that this thread has devolved into an argument based on the flawed presumption that any version of D&D ever handled "wounds" well.

You would have a point if it were somehow a black and white thing. Just because it's a shade of grey doesn't make it a non-issue. If 4E handles wounds more badly than prior editions, then to some people, that may well be an issue. (It doesn't to me. I can't get past the core implied setting as a dealbreaker.)

I note a recurring theme of 4E's defenders reverting to this idea of an on/off switch in order to deny there's a problem with their game, rather than a sliding scale, as if the degree of something doesn't matter. Somewhat Stupid and Completely Stupid are on the same scale, and both a form of Stupid, but no-one denies that the difference between the two matters (except maybe for those with agendas, arguing a point, perhaps.)

Somewhat Stupid might be able to be handwaved and ignored easily, whilst Completely Stupid might stick out like a sore thumb, and cause suspension of disbelief to fail. It may not be a problem for you (it isn't for me), but denying it's existence because it's always been a bit abstract is neither useful nor intellectually honest, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

Somewhat Stupid might be able to be handwaved and ignored easily, whilst Completely Stupid might stick out like a sore thumb, and cause suspension of disbelief to fail. It may not be a problem for you (it isn't for me), but denying it's existence because it's always been a bit abstract is neither useful nor intellectually honest, IMO.

See, it's the characterization that it was a "bit abstract" that people are taking issue with. It's always been abstract for many of us. And I say us because there are a number of posters in this thread alone who think that hit points are an abstraction and have very little to do with any sort of real world correlation.

The fact that in ANY edition, I can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away makes hit points pretty abstract to me. Or, just to reverse it, the fact that I can actually KILL an elephant with darts (might take me a while, but it can be done) rather than just pissing it off that makes it pretty abstract. A "bit abstract" is GURPS. Rolemaster. James Bond the RPG. Just to name a few.

D&D hit points, for me in any case, have never even remotely been anywhere in the same room as "realism" or even "simulation".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've been checking in with this thread every time it grew a new page between 12 and its current 17, and at least since then, it's been focusing on the exact same discussion of hit points, abstraction, and healing surges, as if the resolution of this debate (which is championed on one side by Raven Crowking, and on the other by everyone else) determines the fate of D&D for all eternity.

Clearly, while you have been checking in, you have not been reading. No one is saying hit points are literal.

But thank you for your ad hominem attack. The thread wouldn't be the same without it.


RC

 

[BryonD]

D&D hit points, for me in any case, have never even remotely been anywhere in the same room as "realism" or even "simulation".

I find this boolean "never even been in the same room" position boggling. And I can think of countless discussions about it being very abstract over the years, but this absolutism is new and, to me, is nothing but a great shining case of revisionism to cover an issue that can't be adequately resolved in more reasonable terms.

I have always thought that 3E (and prior editions) was highly abstract when it came to damage. It very much is so. It is an acceptable sacrifice. But just because you put the fuzzy term "abstract" on one thing and the same fuzzy term on another thing does not mean that those two things are equal. There is a ton of room for shades of gray.

Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.

Or another observer is incapable of understanding they really, truly are no different.

Quid pro quo, Joe. Quid pro quo.

WP