Mearls: The core of D&D

[pemerton]

magic items have lost their sense of wonder in 4E, being essentially an extended version of a players powers

I don't think that swords +1 had a lot of wonder in classic D&D either.

Except saving throws are rendered virtually meaningless in 4E, relegated to a simple die roll to avoid ongoing damage.

Saving throws in 4e apply to a lot of things besides ongoing damage - including dying. And in my experience, they are not meaningless.

Which is not to say that they are the same as saving throws in Basic or AD&D. With the odd exception (like 3.5 Hold spells, or the classic Charm Person) I think saving throw based durations are a new thing with 4e.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'm amused that he includes mechanics that don't show up in D&D until 25+ years after it was first published as "core". I'm also amused that the list includes mechanics which aren't present in 4E.

Which means, if you take that list at face value, Mearls and the WotC designers believe that 3E is the only version of D&D which feels like you're playing D&D.

(I know Mearls says exactly the opposite of that. But apparently he didn't read his own list.)

 

[Bluenose]

Healing surges and warlords make a formerly passable abstraction (hit points) which mapped to natural healing and magical healing, quite Ripley's Believe It Or Not because they've been abstracted further into the realms of the ridiculous by regaining them through being yelled at, schroedinger's damage, and other arbitrariness simply because they're a game design convenience.

Except for a lot of people they weren't a passable abstraction. You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant. Why? And, if you start explaining that they are good at avoiding most of the damage from a blow, how come these injuries require more time/megical healing to restore them? Either the injuries are severe and require healing, or they're minor and they require more.

 

[Lanefan]

Except for a lot of people they weren't a passable abstraction. You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant. Why? And, if you start explaining that they are good at avoiding most of the damage from a blow, how come these injuries require more time/megical healing to restore them? Either the injuries are severe and require healing, or they're minor and they require more.

It's an implied body point-fatigue point system all rolled up into one.

The elephant has lots of body points and maybe a very few fatigues.

The common human has a few body points and maybe a few fatigues.

The high-level adventuring human has a few body points and loads of fatigues.

And fatigue points are - or should be - easier to recover than body points.

But the system as written doesn't look at any of it that closely. It just lumps 'em all into "hit points" and moves on, leaving us to figure out the narrative and-or reality behind it should we want to be so bothered.

Lanefan

 

[Bluenose]

It's an implied body point-fatigue point system all rolled up into one.

The elephant has lots of body points and maybe a very few fatigues.

The common human has a few body points and maybe a few fatigues.

The high-level adventuring human has a few body points and loads of fatigues.

And fatigue points are - or should be - easier to recover than body points.

But the system as written doesn't look at any of it that closely. It just lumps 'em all into "hit points" and moves on, leaving us to figure out the narrative and-or reality behind it should we want to be so bothered.

Lanefan

I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.

 

[rounser]

I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.

Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing. 4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I don't think that swords +1 had a lot of wonder in classic D&D either.

They actually did. Even as late as second edition, due to magical items not being guaranteed, finding even a +1 dagger or a quiver with a dozen +1 arrows was a semi-major event.

 

[Bluenose]

Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing. 4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.

And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.

Such as surviving atmospheric reentry naked.

 

[pemerton]

They actually did. Even as late as second edition, due to magical items not being guaranteed, finding even a +1 dagger or a quiver with a dozen +1 arrows was a semi-major event.

Not in my games. For an AD&D fighter, a dagger +1 is useful only for fighting shadows, gargoyles and the like - it has worse damage than a longsword, and also in a game that uses weapon vs armour adjustments, it's has worse to-hit numbers in many cases.

And in any event the treasure type tables in the MM or Basic/Expert guaranteed a reasonable number of items across a reasonable range of weapons, scrolls, potions, miscellaneous etc, and the magic item tables in the DMG delivered a reasonable supply of +1 arrows and +1 swords. (Although in 1st ed AD&D there weren't any +1 daggers, only +1, +2 vs size S. They were in Basic, and were introduced into AD&D on the expanded tables in UA.) And the NPC party tables in Appendix C also guaranteed a good supply of items.

Finding a less common item like a flametongue or a dwarven thrower was a semi-major event, or even a major one, although many of the published modules supplied these things fairly reliably.

Things may have been different for those who didn't use those tables in their games.