The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Imaro]

I don't understand this.

In 1st ed AD&D hp damage is not lasting enough for an eye to be lost, because hp heal at 1/day, and the typical pirate has 1d6 hit points -meaning that the typical pilot heals from "on his last legs" to "all better now" in less than a week of bed rest.

If you want an AD&D pirate to have an eye patch, you have to add a narrative layer over the top of the mechanics of the combat system. The same is true in 4e, except (as I pointed out) it options for the mechanical consequences of reducing a monster/NPC to 0 ph make this task easier - all the player has to do, when dropping a foe to 0 hp, is declare "I slash across his face, blinding him as he falls unconscious".

Wait... what? Where is the option to permanently blind a character in one eye at zero hit points in 4e? I'm not arguing with your main point, just with the whole... "pretending something happened that is not covered by the rules is easier in 4e..." example you gave...

 

[Dice4Hire]

So have I got the function of surges understood or not? If not then tell me how it is NOT possible to calculate the total HP expendable by a character per day.

Not really. You are looking at it too simplistically. Most healing powers can add an extra amount of hit points, as can feats, items and such. The actual amount of damage a character can take is quite variable. So the hit point are variable.

Add in surgeless healing and it gets even crazier.

Add in the number of encounters per day and it changes even mroe drastically.

But why is this even an issue. With clerics healing characters pre 4E, their total hit points per day are just as mysterious. It is impossible to compare. Totally different systems

 

[Abraxas]

From the SRD:

Originally Posted by d20 SRD
Thieves’ Tools This kit contains the tools you need to use the Disable Device and Open Lock skills. Without these tools, you must improvise tools, and you take a -2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device and Open Lock checks

You cannot open a lock in 3e without thieves tools. A spoon does not count as thieves tools AFAIK.

Call it an improvised tool, take a -2 penalty and call it good. The penalty becomes less and less an inconvenience as you level because lock DCs were static.

In 4E you get a +2 bonus for using thieves tools - so effectively you have a -2 penalty for using your spoon then also.

This seems to be an example of letting a particular reading of the rules get in the way of fun game play.

 

[shadzar]

I don't understand this.

In 1st ed AD&D hp damage is not lasting enough for an eye to be lost, because hp heal at 1/day, and the typical pirate has 1d6 hit points -meaning that the typical pilot heals from "on his last legs" to "all better now" in less than a week of bed rest.

If you want an AD&D pirate to have an eye patch, you have to add a narrative layer over the top of the mechanics of the combat system. The same is true in 4e, except (as I pointed out) it options for the mechanical consequences of reducing a monster/NPC to 0 ph make this task easier - all the player has to do, when dropping a foe to 0 hp, is declare "I slash across his face, blinding him as he falls unconscious".

AD&D had the advantage to ADDING things that would cause the los of an eye, wherein 4th and its daily healing routine does not let for those things to be possible without stringing the healing mechanics.

Infections while healing, no antibiotics, etc. None of those matter to 4th sicne all such non-magical hinderances are removed the next day.

Incorrect.

Healing Surges are used for a lot of things outside of pure damage.

For starters, different healing effects cure you for different amounts. While your healing surge has a set number, the healing effects add to that. Just using a second wind gives you your healing surge. A cleric using a healing spell gives you that and more. A shaman using their healing spell might give you a different amount. And some classes like the Artificer can move healing surges from one person to another.

That's just for healing. Certain effects that drain life can also expend healing surges. In the 4e game I'm in now, my psion has a staff which can drain the life from my allies and give me power points in return - two power points (one encounter power) for draining one healing surge.

Failing a skill challenge or going through harsh environment or other situations also drain healing surges. Dark Sun especially notes this.

Lastly, and this is important, healing surges cannot be healed. With HP, it's infinite, so long as you have healing. Wand of Lesser Vigor or a Wand of Cure Wounds means you will literally never run out of HP unless you die. HP in previous editions is entirely binary - you either have it or you don't. HP in 3.x is even more binary - you either lose all of it in a fight, or you most likely gain all of it back.

Once again, you very clearly have little to no experience with the mechanic you are discussing. As I said before - when I talk about 3e, I do so with years of experience on dealing with the issues. When so many people talk about 4e, it's with something they heard about that was in a book they think.

The number of surges a PC has is a rough guide to the maximum number of hit points that PC can loose in a day. It is only a rough guide because there are a range of mechanics that permit healing in addition to, or in stead of, surge expenditure (eg the bonus to Inspiring/Healing Word, a paladin's Lay on Hands etc).

The number of surges is an even roughter guide to the actual number of hp a PC can lose in a day - because a PC who loses current hp, plus half max hp, is dead regardless of surges remaining. Likewise, a PC who failes 3 death saves is dead, regardless of surges remaining.

Like I said upthread, the function of surges is to introduce a dynamic into combat whereby PCs can be on the ropes in a given combat, yet still win, and be in a position to fight more combats in which they also will find themselves on the ropes. This, in turn, introduces further tactical dynamics into each combat, because when the PCs are on the ropes the tactical options are much richer than simply "hit harder" (because of the movement rules, the action economy, etc).

The least interesting aspect of healing surges is that they all come back after an extended rest. If you changed this in your game - and you've just posted that you like to houserule D&D - perhaps to 1 HS recovered per rest - it would have almost no impact on the way 4e combats play out. It would have an effect on adventure pacing, but presumably this an effect you and your players would be wanting to experience, if you adopted such a rule.

I believe that LostSoul is using a rule something like the above in his 4e sandbox.

Not really. You are looking at it too simplistically. Most healing powers can add an extra amount of hit points, as can feats, items and such. The actual amount of damage a character can take is quite variable. So the hit point are variable.

Add in surgeless healing and it gets even crazier.

Add in the number of encounters per day and it changes even mroe drastically.

But why is this even an issue. With clerics healing characters pre 4E, their total hit points per day are just as mysterious. It is impossible to compare. Totally different systems

Character X has:
100 maximum HP
5 healing surges

100/4=25*5=125+100=225 HP

Looks real easy to me no matter how simple I make it, it is cut and dry that healing surges CAN be converted directly to HP without interferring with healing, and when you run out you jsut run out.

The fact surges hinder other parts of the system and powers and "bloodied" condition or whatever are NOT my problem, as that is a problem with the system trying to mix mechanics.

You CAN convert surges to direct HP and do without surges, you just have to also cut out all the other things surges brought with them. Therefore it gives a finite HP outside of magic and such just like previous editions.

The point of contention is still with the natural healing as discussed in the previous reply.

You lose narrative control due to the mechanic of healing as a result of the "new day" syndrome. There are just some thing that won't work without corrupting the suspension of disbelief and pulling you out of the game and pushing you into the metagame and having to work around the metagame in order to make the narrative work.

Again this was an intended change, but a change that does shift focus and ability from one aspect of the game to another. Call it simulationism vs gamist, roleplaying vs combat oriented, roleplaying vs rollplaying, whatever you want to call those foci, it shifts.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

-snip-

Did you read a single word of what was typed?

Everything you just stated was refuted in what you just quoted.

 

[shadzar]

Did you read a single word of what was typed?

Everything you just stated was refuted in what you just quoted.

Yes I did read it and in what I wrote disagreed with it. More to the point I didn't care about it as it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Whatever happens in the course of the day to "heal as you go", and whatever magic is used means nothing to the point of what happens when those are exhausted and "natural" healing takes place. That which occurs during an "extended rest". During that extended rest you cannot perform such activities as surges since you were asleep and unable to perform any actions. So surges are moot to what I am talking about.

If HP cannot be extended to a single number with surges due to other reason, then the healing mechanism only further proves my point of how it strains the suspension of disbelief in its ability to tell certain narratives.

 

[Hussar]

Uhm, are you sure that's what that passage says. My understanding of it is that it says without thieve's tools you have to use improvised thieve's tools... so technically you can use items (such as the spoon if your DM agrees) as improvised thieve's tools with a -2 penalty. Or am I mistaken?

Call it an improvised tool, take a -2 penalty and call it good. The penalty becomes less and less an inconvenience as you level because lock DCs were static.

In 4E you get a +2 bonus for using thieves tools - so effectively you have a -2 penalty for using your spoon then also.

This seems to be an example of letting a particular reading of the rules get in the way of fun game play.

Went back and reread the PHB since the SRD quote isn't clear.

Under the Open Locks skill you cannot open a lock without a tool. You MUST have at least a basic tool for opening a lock in order to use the skill (page 76 (I think) of the 3.5 PHB and p74 (again I think) of the 3.0 PHB) ((Don't have the books in front of me again)). So, I'm not sure how this is a "particular reading" of the rules. The rules are pretty clear. If your thief is locked in a dungeon and stripped naked, he cannot use open locks on the door in 3e.

In other words, sure, I can ignore the rules and say that my spoon is an "improvised tool" and use it, but, that's exactly what I'm doing - ignoring the rules. Not that I can't do that. Of course I can. But, in 4e, I don't have to - the rules actually accept my choice without forcing me to do an end run around the mechanics.

--------

I think the problem comes with this discussion in that people focus on the 4e PHB and not the DMG. If you take the 4e DMG out of the picture, then, I totally agree, 4e is an overly complicated combat engine. The 4e PHB does a very poor job of presenting a game that is more than just an endless series of fights.

OTOH, the 4e DMG does a very, very good job of telling a new DM how to run a fun game. It might not be Shakespeare or the greatest game ever, but it will be a fun, solid game. And that's what you want from a guide to dungeon mastering, IMO. A lot of the issues that people bring up - endless streams of fights, no non-combat mechanics, etc are a result of looking at the PHB.

Totally understandable. Fumetti has a point here. A new player is going to look at the 4e PHB and probably think the game is nothing but combat. While the skills are presented in the 4e PHB, the idea of skill challenges waits in the DMG. Page 42 is in the DMG, so how is a player supposed to know that he can swing from the chandelier and kick the ogre into the fire pit?

The 4e DMG does a fantastic job of giving DM's the tools to run a game. It really does. I do put it as the best DMG D&D's ever had - it beats out the AD&D 1e DMG in my mind because of organization. If the 1e DMG was written as clearly as the 4e DMG, it truly would be the greatest DMG ever. But I digress.

The 4e PHB, OTOH, does not do a fantastic job of giving players tools for interacting with the world. It presumes that players know how to role play and will automatically do it without any prompting from the books. I think this is a serious flaw in the 4e PHB. The 4e PHB needs about ten or fifteen more pages spread throughout the book telling players how to engage the game without simply hacking everything in sight. Something like the Designer sidebars in the 4e DMG, only geared for players.

And the WOTC modules have not helped matters at all. They are hack fests. Again, unfortunate since it presents the game in such a limited light. Then again, 1e survived having lots of the same kind of modules, so, maybe it's okay at the end of the day.

But, after all is said and done, I think the big issue is that people plant their flags in particular books and sections of the rules and argue from that position. Fumetti and Shazar are not wrong in their criticisms. Not really. It's just that they are basing their opinions on sections that others like Pemerton or Prof C generally don't worry about so much. And Prof C and others are not wrong either. Just arguing from a different hill so to speak.

Does that make sense? ((And sorry to call people out like that, not intending that as a shot))

 

[Hussar]

You lose narrative control due to the mechanic of healing as a result of the "new day" syndrome. There are just some thing that won't work without corrupting the suspension of disbelief and pulling you out of the game and pushing you into the metagame and having to work around the metagame in order to make the narrative work.

I think this gets to the last point I was making.

For some, there is no loss of narrative control because it almost never came up in any version of the game. For some, natural healing was never part of the narrative - you just had the cleric heal all wounds.

For others, narrative pacing was controlled by limiting (I assume) access to healing magic. Basic/Expert D&D, for example, makes magical healing VERY difficult - no bonus spells due to Wisdom (a major thing in AD&D) and no spells until 2nd level for clerics. AD&D, OTOH, mostly made this go away, because even if you couldn't heal everything by the next day, you most likely could the day after that. At worst, you generally lost 1 day.

Although, to be fair, if you went below 0 hit points, the penalties were far more severe - 1 week of bed rest per point under zero IIRC, something like that.

Of course, my arguement would be that you've just traded one sort of pacing for another. The DM or the group isn't deciding how much time passes, the rules are. The amount of time you must rest is dictated by the rules. The only real difference is that one set of rules forces more time to pass.

But, by 2e, which didn't have the resting after 0 hit points rule (I think - I could be wrong there) and certainly by 3e which I know didn't have those rules, at worst you lost 24 hours before the party was at full strength again. And, in 3e, it might not even be that long.

But, I'm curious how narrative control is given to the DM due to natural healing rules. In what way does the DM gain any control under the older systems?

 

[Abraxas]

Went back and reread the PHB since the SRD quote isn't clear.

Under the Open Locks skill you cannot open a lock without a tool. You MUST have at least a basic tool for opening a lock in order to use the skill (page 76 (I think) of the 3.5 PHB and p74 (again I think) of the 3.0 PHB) ((Don't have the books in front of me again)). So, I'm not sure how this is a "particular reading" of the rules. The rules are pretty clear. If your thief is locked in a dungeon and stripped naked, he cannot use open locks on the door in 3e.

In other words, sure, I can ignore the rules and say that my spoon is an "improvised tool" and use it, but, that's exactly what I'm doing - ignoring the rules. Not that I can't do that. Of course I can. But, in 4e, I don't have to - the rules actually accept my choice without forcing me to do an end run around the mechanics.

You're not ignoring the rule - it's the DM's call whether or not your "magic spoon" could be used as an improvised tool. The 4E rule set doesn't say you don't need thieves tools - it just says if you have thieves tools you get a bonus. The fact that your DM plays along and lets your insane rogue open a lock by tapping it with his "magic spoon" could just as well have been done in 3.xE. Seriously, your DM is being awfully lenient - he could have just as easily said it doesn't work and your rogue would have to explain why Kord decide not to help "this time" whenever he tried it.

 

[Hussar]

You're not ignoring the rule - it's the DM's call whether or not your "magic spoon" could be used as an improvised tool. The 4E rule set doesn't say you don't need thieves tools - it just says if you have thieves tools you get a bonus. The fact that your DM plays along and lets your insane rogue open a lock by tapping it with his "magic spoon" could just as well have been done in 3.xE. Seriously, your DM is being awfully lenient - he could have just as easily said it doesn't work and your rogue would have to explain why Kord decide not to help "this time" whenever he tried it.

Do the 4e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?

Do the 3e rules require that I have thieves tools to open a lock?

Unless I'm sticking the spoon into the lock, it's not an improvised tool under even the most lenient interpretation of the rules. A 3e rogue simply cannot, under the rules, do a Fonzerelli bump on the lock and have it spring open. A 4e character can. That's the difference.