Disappointed in 4e

[billd91]

How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."

I still <3 u HPs...

How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."

For different reasons?

Sure.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...

It's fundamentally the same way. Only the slider on the scale has changed.

 

[vagabundo]

How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...

Originally I did have something about the difference, but edited it out: keep it simple.

But I agree, some of the HP sliders have moved in 4e, but I think they move in every edition.

For different reasons?

Sure.


RC

Every edition has had it HP contradictions, they are not constant across editions. I haven't found 4e jarring in this regard.

I mean, in any edition, if it is one extended rest or seven days rest you are not going to be recovering from a direct smack of a mace or a fall off a cliff. Your talking sprains, flesh wounds, grazes, black eyes, bruises.

I've always imagined that DND heroes often look like the walking wounded, it just never impacts on their combat ability. Unless they have a few months of downtime, they limp around, have bandaged legs, arms and heads and a black eye. Adventuring is a rough trade.

4e heroes, bandage themselves up, work out the kinks, have a good nights kip and then back at it. I can see the contradictions, but it doesnt strain my imagination too much.

 

[pemerton]

I am supposing that "smart play" is always defined by the terms of the game, and that those terms may be different for different games.

Well, "smart play" in a narrativist game is generating thematically satisfying play. So 4e players who are offended by quick healing, but won't have their PCs rest longer than the mechanically mandated extended rest, and who then get offended by the lack of verisimilitude, are not engaging in smart play, and have only themselves to blame.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I wish I'd taken the time to read this thread earlier, as I could have interjected something interesting - now it seems far too late.

Oh well, here's the short version anyway:

For those concerned with Schrodinger's Wounding (which, funnily enough is something that no-one at my games table has even thought of, as far as I know), please consider that you may be linking too events together that don't need to be. What I'm saying is, that by insisting that "the wound is gone" when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word, or indeed when a Cleric uses Healing Word, you are causing a problem where none exists. There is no reason for the wound to be gone if you don't want it to - after all, the player is down a Healing Surge in each of the following cases (unless A Paladin Did It). Therefore, they have expended their personal resources, which can be reflected and narrated at the table as a lingering wound.

1) Character takes hp damage. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
2) Character receives clerical, divine healing. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
or
3) Character receives Warlord Inspired Word healing. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
or
4) Character uses Second Wind. See above.

The narration of the injury & the healing are not specified anywhere in the rules. They are something that comes up entirely in the minds of the DM and the players, THEREFORE, if you choose to insist that a wound 'disappears' no matter what sort of healing is used, you are ignoring a key part of the rules.

As regards healing overnight, I understand that it's not for everyone, I completely see why, but I personally don't have a problem with it because I have quite a strong sense of a game when I play D&D. Those looking towards a more simulational bent disagree, but I'm not interested in that discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, "smart play" in a narrativist game is generating thematically satisfying play. So 4e players who are offended by quick healing, but won't have their PCs rest longer than the mechanically mandated extended rest, and who then get offended by the lack of verisimilitude, are not engaging in smart play, and have only themselves to blame.

"Smart play" in any game is play that is rewarded by the game system itself. You mistake "fun play" (in the narrativist sense) for "smart play". When I say that "smart play" and "fun play" should not oppose each other, I mean that a good game intended to be played in a narrativist manner should reward thematically satisfying play, and avoid rewarding behaviours that do not lead to thematically satisfying play.

By this standard, 4e is not a good game for narrativist play, although it has nods in that direction.


RC

 

[Zustiur]

It's not, really. That's why we haven't been focusing on that. The winking definitely does not affect resolution and has no potential to. So yes, the winking is colour just as much as the attempting to get up.

Oh really? So if the party has a pre-planned strategy, that relies on the character winking, is it still not affecting resolution? Either winking is a [free] action, or it is not. Its status as an action should not alter based on external circumstances. Either the character can wink, (regardless of impact on resolution) or he can't. You claim that anything that can have an impact on resolution, such as giving some pre-determined signal, is an action. Then winking is an action. If you're unconscious you are not allowed to take actions.

Just like if you're paralyzed by any other means. Let's take the obvious example - petrified. The rules for petrified include 'you have been turned to stone. You can't take actions'. Would you rule that a petrified character can attempt to stand, or wink at someone? I wouldn't! It's the same rule at heart (take no actions), so why would you treat it any differently?

Yes, that's technically correct. However, since it doesn't affect resolution and has not potential to, I see no harm in allowing it. Unlike dancing a jig. Which is why we were discussing the jig.

Dancing a jig, as it was first described, had no impact either. It was silly, yes, but it was only stated to make a point. The choice of jig was a bad one for the course of the discussion, but the point stands. Essentially the question is 'where do you draw the line?'
Evidently you draw it where it can have an effect on resolution. But I argue that is a double standard because what can or can't have an affect on resolution is entirely circumstantial.

Taking the earlier example of the ogre hitting a character when he stands up: If there is no monster within reach, and the character immediately falls prone again, then by your logic, there was no impact on resolution, and therefore standing up then falling over is entirely acceptable, and is not an action. By extension, standing up, dancing an ironic jig, and then falling over, does not affect the outcome of the battle, and can be done.

Finally, take this to it's logical extreme. 4E does not include 'dead' as a status (for obvious reasons), but if it did what would it look like? I suggest something like this

• You can't take actions
• You can't receive healing
• You can be brought back to life by a raise dead ritual

Would you rule that a dead character can wink because it has no affect on resolution?

 

[dnddays]

The weary 4e players encounter yet more orcs and lift their swords in exasperation...

Orcs? Again?

Just as a point of reference, how long did we 3e players argue with these guys about 2e/3e before we finally assimilated them? I don't remember . . .

The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons | gamegrene.com

 

[mmadsen]

Would you rule that a dead character can wink because it has no affect on resolution?

I would certainly allow a rules-dead character to be described as in a coma or mortally wounded and twitching, murmuring, etc.