Disappointed in 4e

[LostSoul]

IMHO, "colour" shouldn't counter-indicate the rules, for the most part. I tend to view "unconscious" as meaning "unconscious". Though, perhaps, this is a bit of ossification on my part. "Unconscious" and "stunned" mean two different things, to me.

The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".

I am really, really unhappy with "You are wounded, but at full hit points" and "You are unwounded, but at 0 hit points" and the points inbetween to be regular occurances at the table.

If one is going to go the "colour usurps rules" route -- and it is not an intrinsically bad route by any means -- OD&D does it better.

Colour does not usurp rules. Let me rephrase my definition:

Colour: the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene. ​

It does not change aspects of resolution. Can you take a Standard Action (an aspect of resolution) when Unconcious because "colour usurps rules"? No, because a Standard Action is not colour. Can you take a Free Action to say something? No, same reason.

Can you describe your injury? Yes. That's colour.

 

[Fifth Element]

I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.

Is this a reveal that you are discussing 4E rules when you're not actually sure what the 4E rules say?

4E rules are quite specific in what you can and cannot do when unconscious, as LostSoul posted above.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".

When that book comes out, let me know.


RC

 

[Scribble]

If you wanted to track "big" injuries probably a loss of a healing surge or more would fit right with the rules... it's what happens when you face other environmental dangers.

Ohhh you could probably also top it off with disease effects like gangrene or blood poisoning...

 

[Hypersmurf]

When that book comes out, let me know.

In 3.5, you can Cleave with a punching dagger, you can use Deflect Arrows to save yourself from a javelin, and you can only take move actions when a swarm of bats make you Nauseated.

The names don't restrict the mechanics. Cleave doesn't require you to hack things in half; Deflect Arrows works on things that aren't arrows; and you can be Nauseated without necessarily being nauseated.

In 4E, it's the same... the Sleep spell doesn't use the rules for sleeping, for example. But while the Sleep spell grants the Unconscious condition, I have no issue with saying that the victim falls asleep... but the underlying mechanics are Unconscious (Save Ends), not the mechanics for a sleeping creature.

Similarly, as long as the rules for the Unconscious condition are observed, I could use them for someone who is paralyzed, or who is too weak to move, or who is actually comatose.

'Comatose' is not a requirement of the Unconscious condition. It's a possible cinematic explanation of the mechanics of the condition, but it's not the only one.

Just like arrows are one thing that the Deflect Arrows feat can deflect in 3.5, but they're not the only one.

-Hyp.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is this a reveal that you are discussing 4E rules when you're not actually sure what the 4E rules say?

4E rules are quite specific in what you can and cannot do when unconscious, as LostSoul posted above.

I come out of older editions, where the word "unconscious" was more important than the specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.....where often, in fact, there were no specifics of what the condition meant in game terms. So, to this day, when I see "unconscious" I don't read it as "Condition 6".

In fact, I would go so far as to say that I prefer a game system where the specifics of the condition are less codified overall, but the descriptor has real meaning. Rather than have to look up what it means in Xe to be unconscious, I prefer a game in where the rules for being unconscious seldom if ever need to be looked up because they flow directly from the state of being unconscious.

I look at the 4e game condition, and I say, "Yup, that flows directly from the state of being unconscious.....therefore the term unconscious must mean (drum roll) unconscious." And the fighter who tries to get up isn't unconscious.

And, I get that for a lot of folks on this board "Close your eyes to the terminology and just fly with the results" is a valid way to play. Cool. Good on you. I have....shall we say.....some difficulty with being "bloodied" but not bloodied, wounded but not wounded, unconscious but not unconscious, dead but not dead (unless in the case of being undead), etc.

I mean, really, what's to prevent me from taking LostSoul's example and changing it to "The fighter gets up, dances a little jig around the room, stubs his toes, and falls over where he was before. He seems to be winking at the elf."? If the conditions have no meaning than game constructs that limit actions in game.....if they have no meaning within the game narrative itself......then the rules cease to have any value in terms of narrating the game.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In 3.5, you can Cleave with a punching dagger, you can use Deflect Arrows to save yourself from a javelin, and you can only take move actions when a swarm of bats make you Nauseated.

The names don't restrict the mechanics. Cleave doesn't require you to hack things in half; Deflect Arrows works on things that aren't arrows; and you can be Nauseated without necessarily being nauseated.

This is, of course, correct....but then 3.x takes great pains to define things outside of their conventional meaning, and I have heard complaints about the term "nauseated" used to describe what happens in a swarm.

EDIT: In some EN World threads, I have seen re-writes of 4e rules that either change the rule to match the title, or change the title to match the rule, and I honestly find this to be a much, much better fit.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I come out of older editions, where the word "unconscious" was more important than the specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.....where often, in fact, there were no specifics of what the condition meant in game terms. So, to this day, when I see "unconscious" I don't read it as "Condition 6".

I don't think you answered my question, which is "Are you arguing about the 4E rules when you have a limited knowledge of 4E rules?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".



Colour does not usurp rules. Let me rephrase my definition:

Colour: the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.
​

It does not change aspects of resolution. Can you take a Standard Action (an aspect of resolution) when Unconcious because "colour usurps rules"? No, because a Standard Action is not colour. Can you take a Free Action to say something? No, same reason.

Can you describe your injury? Yes. That's colour.

My big question on this thing is what about awareness? Speaking is a free action but listening and seeing are not. If the guy is trying to get up, but failing then he is aware of what is going on around him when a truly unconcious person would not. Sensory input is worth more than color.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think you answered my question, which is "Are you arguing about the 4E rules when you have a limited knowledge of 4E rules?"

Beyond a doubt, my knowledge of the 4e rules is limited in comparison to my knowledge of the 3e rules. It is certainly limited in comparison to what my knowledge of the 1e rules was when I regularly ran that game.

I think the question you are trying to ask is, "Do you have any direct knowledge of the 4e rules?" and the answer to that question is "Yes, but it is certainly not perfect knowledge.". I cannot honestly say "I have never played 4E. Please bear that in mind before assuming that I'm some 4E fanboy." so, it is certainly as much knowledge as some others engaged in the same discussion.



RC