On what basis -- other than your well-known disdain for 4e -- are you basing the idea that WotC didn't do a good job on analyzing the math?
Proposed Damage / Healing System
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
On what basis -- other than your well-known disdain for 4e -- are you basing the idea that WotC didn't do a good job on analyzing the math?
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Being a 4e fan, I can answer this. The general perception is that the expertise feats were introduced to balance a widening gap between attack bonus and monster defenses. I'll also add that hit points are too darn high.
EDIT: actually reading the original post carefully, I don't think that's what KD was referring to. I don't know of math goofs surrounding 4e healing.
Last edited:
How about NADs?
A PC can have a NAD defense of 13 at level one (which isn't great, but isn't lousy either, 60% chance to get hit by same level foe) and because only 2 ability scores can be raised, has a 35 at level 30 (95% chance to get hit). Even with the original defense feats, that's still a 85% chance to get hit, but still a 90% or 95% against higher level foes. And yes, a player could boost that NAD a little with two level ability score increases (woo hoo, my chance to get hit dropped from 95% to 90%), but then a different NAD gets worse.
Sorry, but the entire ability score add system only allows 2 defenses out of 3 to increase at best, so it's flawed. It's still flawed today, forcing players of high level PCs to either eat the (usually multiple) feat tax, or realize that their PC is extremely vulnerable to one specific defense. The sheer size of the PHB2 NAD correction feats (combined with the fact that some of the feats stack) illustrate the magnitude of the problem.
And another aspect of the entire ability score design design flaw is that a player is doubly hosed if he wants to raise Str and Con (or Wis and Cha, or Int and Dex) on his PC. Two defenses get hosed.
Or, how about the masterwork changes on heavy armor? An obvious original math error.
Weak monster damage that had to get boosted? Combat grindiness (which was eventually corrected via Expertise and the bigger, better, badder aspect of splat book inflation) was a major problem for players the first year plus. We don't talk about grindiness too much now, but we talked about it all of the time 2 and 3 years ago.
Note: I consider Expertise to only be a minor flaw because there are other game elements that can make up for it. Some of these other flaws didn't have other core elements to help fix them.
The fact that WotC didn't fix this before release means that they probably didn't check out the math at all levels. Anyone who programs for a living knows that one has to carefully design a system and then test it out real well. 4E wasn't well designed at its fundamental combat core, nor was it well tested beyond heroic levels. The gaming community tested it out and it got bandaid-ed, mostly with feats, after the fact.
Sorry, but the core part of combat can be calculated mathematically at all levels without special PC or monster abilities added in and then adjustments can be made because of special abilities to get the desired balance with regard to number of rounds of combat, how lethal the game is, etc. I have an x% chance to hit for y average damage, so a given monster dies in z rounds. Ditto for the monster attacking my PC. Ditto for different classes and different monsters. All of that math can be done and any major issues corrected before the game is ever released.
WotC fixed "PC to hit", "PC damage" (via new class abilities, feats, powers, and items), "PC defenses", and "monster damage" over the last few years. They fixed skill challenge math twice IIRC.
Oh, so nothing to do with healing. I thought you were talking about the topic at hand, but it's just generalized 4e-bashing. Gotcha. Carry on as you always do!
Admin here. A better way to phrase this would have been "But aren't we talking about healing?"
I've already spoken with KarinsDad about not edition warring, so I'll be blunt. Personal attacks and passive aggressive snarkiness is not something we want. You see a specific problem? Report the thread. But making an attack on someone when their post was reasoned, factual, and not fostering edition wars is in no way okay. If you don't like someone's posts, put them on ignore or learn to skip over them, but don't try and start fights. If this is the least bit unclear, feel free to PM me. -- Piratecat
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty good system from the OP. Perhaps a little complicated though. Why not just have 0 HP stagger you so you cant act for a round and then every shot after that does full damage directly to CON or STR?
Gets rid of negative HP madness. Makes lasting wounds grittier, and has simple math.
Maybe let HP heal 1 pt per round outside of combat while they are getting a breather. Like going to your corner between rounds in MMA.
And make actual ability damage heal much more slowly. Maybe 1 pt a day and limit the amount that magical healing can zap it up. Let magic do it but maybe only ad a point or two a day.
You could even make some things like barehands or the monster equivalent do non-lethal damage and knock you out at 0 CON instead of killing you. So that a character can really get beat to hell in a bar fight, maybe crack some ribs, break an arm etc but not worry about dying from a lucky punch in that same fight.
Gets rid of negative HP madness. Makes lasting wounds grittier, and has simple math.
Maybe let HP heal 1 pt per round outside of combat while they are getting a breather. Like going to your corner between rounds in MMA.
And make actual ability damage heal much more slowly. Maybe 1 pt a day and limit the amount that magical healing can zap it up. Let magic do it but maybe only ad a point or two a day.
You could even make some things like barehands or the monster equivalent do non-lethal damage and knock you out at 0 CON instead of killing you. So that a character can really get beat to hell in a bar fight, maybe crack some ribs, break an arm etc but not worry about dying from a lucky punch in that same fight.
Your system avoids the issue that the original system here was trying to address: PCs are not damaged until they actually go unconscious. It reinforces an implausible model of although the PC is hit over and over and over again, the PC isn't damaged at all. Suddenly, the PC is seriously damaged.
Your system then penalizes that PC while the PC is unconscious/staggered and not throughout the day where the player can do something about it.
The original system here allows the player to react to damage more plausibly over time. For example, if the PC gets hurt bad in encounter #1, then the player can have the PC drink a potion, or get healed by a Cleric, or move to the back of the party where s/he is better protected. The player can react to the "my PC is hurt" situation. Once the game only injures PCs that are unconscious (or at zero and staggered, or whatever), the player of that PC cannot do anything about it because unconscious (or staggered) PCs do not get actions. I think players would enjoy a game where their PC could do something about injuries over one where the player cannot.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
I really like a hit point / wound system for some games (such as Spycraft), although not for D&D. The concept of "hp loss is all a near miss; wound damage is actual points" really felt nice for a modern game. But for me, hit points are one of those sacred cows I don't want mucked with too much.
I too would prefer a system where wound points didn't exist, I just don't see how to compromise between the 4E model of no portion of hit points is damage until the PC dies with the earlier model of at least some of the hit points is physical damage without segregating physical damage from non-physical damage.
It's like in computer programming. If you have 3 states, you cannot use a boolean to model it. Here, it's using one game mechanic to model two similar but different things. It cannot represent both at the same time without some other set of mechanics being introduced to help do that. It doesn't have to be wound points, but it has to be something.
RangerWickett
Legend
My basic preference is:
HP keeps you conscious.
When you hit 0, make a save each turn or die.
And if you're using the "grim wounds" module, when you hit 0, roll a save or suffer a wound. Crits might also cause wounds.
HP keeps you conscious.
When you hit 0, make a save each turn or die.
And if you're using the "grim wounds" module, when you hit 0, roll a save or suffer a wound. Crits might also cause wounds.
But using two booleans for only three states is wasteful! You could fit a fourth state for free.
Somewhat more seriously, I think it is much easier to start with the assumption that hit point loss takes time to heal. Then you can add a very simple optional rule on top for those who want it to heal quickly: it could even be just an encounter level conversion table that assumes full hp for each encounter. The group can choose a number of healing surges (or whatever they want to call them) if they want a limit on encounters/day.
Similar Threads
