In the heat of battle, is hit point loss a wound?

[nightspaladin]

This whole conversation is a good example of how why something like Vitality and Wounds should be an option in all editions. If you have a definitive view of luck versus real damage, a system like that breaks down the option to it's purest level. It allows fast healing for continued play(something that 4e did well) without breaking the verisimilitude of taking real injury and having consequences for getting hurt (something 4e was horrible at).

Also a system like that allows you to deal with stuff like slitting throats and critical hits, without having to bleed through rounds of you slashing the fighters throat over and over again to get through his "luck/endurance shield".

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you and I have very different ideas on this. OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D had PCs start out as pretty much regular people.

Regular people in all the editions you cite were 0th level. The wizard never has been a regular person; he could cast spells (well, a spell per day) - far out of the reach of any regular person ever. A fighter didn't even need to roll to kill a regular person. And even the fighter was explicitely a "Veteran".

If I want a game where the PCs look more like regular people I'll reach for 3.X or 4e. 3.X gives a lot of people class levels. And 4e, sure the PCs can cut the shopkeeper (level 1 minion) or the human thug with a club (level 2 minion brute) down without breaking a sweat - but ordinary trained town guard (level 3 soldiers) are going to give first level PCs serious headaches.

And that's exactly what I mean when I say I have a different playstyle than you. In my games, while the PCs are the center of the gaming session, and their actions have an impact on the world, they are far from the center of the world.

There are a few entirely different reasons for hating the Time of Troubles than because it wasn't centered around the PCs, but that's a whole other topic.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mercutio01]

Regular people in all the editions you cite were 0th level. The wizard never has been a regular person; he could cast spells (well, a spell per day) - far out of the reach of any regular person ever. A fighter didn't even need to roll to kill a regular person. And even the fighter was explicitely a "Veteran".

The differences between a 0th level commoner and a 1st level fighter or rogue or cleric was fairly minimal.

If I want a game where the PCs look more like regular people I'll reach for 3.X or 4e. 3.X gives a lot of people class levels. And 4e, sure the PCs can cut the shopkeeper (level 1 minion) or the human thug with a club (level 2 minion brute) down without breaking a sweat - but ordinary trained town guard (level 3 soldiers) are going to give first level PCs serious headaches.

You're comparing apples and oranges. By definition, a trained town guard is not ordinary, especially not one that has an elite array and in 3E would have 3 class levels. Of course a level 3 character is going to be stronger than a level 1 character. That said, you're really arguing against Hussar here, whose point was the PCs are special and better than the regular common NPC. I simply noted that characters in other games started out as pretty much regular people, particularly in those editions that used the default 3d6 in order character creation system. The average level 1 character in 2E and earlier could be one-shot killed by the average person wielding a deadly weapon. I think that is fantastic. That's where I want to start. I don't want to start with a character who can step on puny farmers or streetsweepers without fear of dying, and for those times when I do, I'll start bounced up a few levels, say level 3 or 4.

 

[Campbell]

You're comparing apples and oranges. By definition, a trained town guard is not ordinary, especially not one that has an elite array and in 3E would have 3 class levels. Of course a level 3 character is going to be stronger than a level 1 character. That said, you're really arguing against Hussar here, whose point was the PCs are special and better than the regular common NPC. I simply noted that characters in other games started out as pretty much regular people, particularly in those editions that used the default 3d6 in order character creation system. The average level 1 character in 2E and earlier could be one-shot killed by the average person wielding a deadly weapon. I think that is fantastic. That's where I want to start. I don't want to start with a character who can step on puny farmers or streetsweepers without fear of dying, and for those times when I do, I'll start bounced up a few levels, say level 3 or 4.

It's a pretty severe mistake to equate monster level in 4e with class levels. 5 standard monsters of the PCs' level make up a standard encounter. That town guard is explicitly not the equal of a 3rd level fighter. If alone that fighter should be able to take on 3-4 town guards in the course of a day. Not to mention that 4e is based on a different scale. In AD&D a 10th level fighter is routinely staring giants down and leads his own private army. In 4e a troll is still a credible threat.

 

[Mercutio01]

It's a pretty severe mistake to equate monster level in 4e with class levels. 5 standard monsters of the PCs' level make up a standard encounter. That town guard is explicitly not the equal of a 3rd level fighter. If alone that fighter should be able to take on 3-4 town guards in the course of a day. Not to mention that 4e is based on a different scale. In AD&D a 10th level fighter is routinely staring giants down and leads his own private army. In 4e a troll is still a credible threat.

I wasn't just using his monster level to equate class levels. I was looking at his hit points AC, elite array, and his attacks and damage. He's clearly way better than a 1st level fighter in 4E, so even if he's not the equivalent of a third level, he's still implicitly better than 1st, which is what my real argument was, if you'd bothered to read that part.

You can't compare an explicitly more powerful creature to an explicitly lower powered creature and point to it as a fact that the lower powered creature is thus less powerful than a normal human. That's what I meant by comparing apples to oranges. You need to compare the actual average human in 4E (which I suppose would be the "rabble") to the actual average 1st level PC. Then do the same thing for previous editions. The chance of the rabble killing a PC are so slim as to be completely non-existent, not to mention their ability scores and special abilities (or lack thereof). That wasn't true in OD&D, BD&D, AD&D or 2E. There is very little to distinguish a 1st level character from a 0th level character, either in ability scores, special abilities, or combat skills. Or, and here's where it applies to this thread in particular, hit points.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a pretty severe mistake to equate monster level in 4e with class levels. 5 standard monsters of the PCs' level make up a standard encounter. That town guard is explicitly not the equal of a 3rd level fighter. If alone that fighter should be able to take on 3-4 town guards in the course of a day.

A town guard is not a monster (well, in most towns anyway); and thus in theory should be treated just like a PC in terms of mechanics. She's a 3rd-level fighter? Great!

4e for whatever reason made PCs their own special breed of creature; partly, I think, built on a design assumption that the PCs would be the only adventurers in the setting (one of the ideas behind the whole PoL thing, if memory serves). Well, unfortunately, in most settings that just ain't the case; there *are* other adventurers out there, and non-adventurers - such as our erstwhile town guard - can gain class levels in ways other than adventuring.*

* - this is something that dearly needs a solid mechanical basis - how non-adventuring types such as the research wizard, the temple cleric, etc., gain their class levels.

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

A town guard is not a monster (well, in most towns anyway); and thus in theory should be treated just like a PC in terms of mechanics. She's a 3rd-level fighter? Great!

4e for whatever reason made PCs their own special breed of creature; partly, I think, built on a design assumption that the PCs would be the only adventurers in the setting (one of the ideas behind the whole PoL thing, if memory serves). Well, unfortunately, in most settings that just ain't the case; there *are* other adventurers out there, and non-adventurers - such as our erstwhile town guard - can gain class levels in ways other than adventuring.*

* - this is something that dearly needs a solid mechanical basis - how non-adventuring types such as the research wizard, the temple cleric, etc., gain their class levels.

Lanefan

It's not about assuming that PCs are the only capable folks around. It's about realizing that the mechanical needs of PCs and NPCs are very different. PCs are an ever present feature of the fiction and need to be modeled on a long term basis and since they are controlled by one person you can get more in depth with them. The needs of NPCs are different in the fiction. They interface with the fiction of the game only briefly and are controlled by a player (the DM) who must juggle a multitude of characters all at once.

Of course this all comes down to what you see as the needs of a game when it comes to rules. When NPC A faces down NPC B in a situation off stage do you roll dice? I sure don't. If you notice when I talk about gaming I never refer to some 'game world'. I always refer to the game's fiction because to me that's what gaming is about - generating shared fiction that no one person would anticipate. I see characters and setting as extremely fluid. They exist only in the minds of the participants and serve to suit the whims of those involved in the game. 4e is a game that embraces this view.

Note: I'm not entirely opposed to attempting sand box play or process simulation although I think D&D is a game not particularly suited to the task because the resulting simulation is nothing like anything found in fiction or history. I also think abstract mechanics like AD&D saving throws, armor that can be completely overcome with combat skill, and mixed metaphor of hp don't jive well with process simulation.

If it tells you anything about the way I approach gaming even when I want to go sandboxy I reach for a system that is middle of the road between process simulation and more narrative play. I love Legend/MRQ but probably wouldn't touch classic RuneQuest with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Hussar]

The differences between a 0th level commoner and a 1st level fighter or rogue or cleric was fairly minimal.
/snip

Wait, are you kidding me?

A 1st level fighter has three to four TIMES more HP than the commoner (6+Con - which he can have up to +4, a feat no commoner can ever match), has saving throws better than the commoner, can use all armor and several weapons, AND can gain xp. A very, very important distinction. That commoner in AD&D will ALWAYS be 2 hp, no matter what.

Clerics had spells. Thieves had thief abilities, again, feats which no commoner can ever match.

I also notice that you ignored the other classes - rangers start out possibly with TEN TIMES more HP than a commoner (2d8+con). Monks are in a class all on their own.

And, besides that, by third level, the PC's are essentially super human. Even if they only start "a little" above Joe Average, by the end of a fairly short period of play, they're no longer Joe Average.

Considering that we only play 1st level for a handful of sessions, what's your point? If a campaign lasts 1 year, we'll say 50 sessions, and goes from 1st to 6th level, the PC's probably hit 3rd by session 10, and spend 40 sessions from 3rd to 6th (considering the doubling of xp per level, that's probably about right).

So, if 80+% of the time, PC's are super-human, capable of feats no "average person" could EVER match, what's the point of continuously pointing to the fact that they spend a very short amount of time, STILL better than normal humans?

In other words, who cares? Most play is not at 1st level. Most play is 2nd or 3rd level and higher.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not about assuming that PCs are the only capable folks around. It's about realizing that the mechanical needs of PCs and NPCs are very different. PCs are an ever present feature of the fiction and need to be modeled on a long term basis and since they are controlled by one person you can get more in depth with them. The needs of NPCs are different in the fiction. They interface with the fiction of the game only briefly and are controlled by a player (the DM) who must juggle a multitude of characters all at once.

All true; but when they do interface with the fiction/game/PCs they need to be consistently modelled as if the PCs are just a part of their world...assuming, of course, that such is the case and you're not running a Vikings-in-the-Sahara type of game...so the whole thing is and remains believable.

I'm not saying one needs to stat up every person the PCs are ever going to meet, but I am saying that if the case arises that you do need to stat 'em up they follow the same guidelines as PCs.

I think D&D is a game not particularly suited to the task because the resulting simulation is nothing like anything found in fiction or history.

This is, in fact, why it is wonderful; and is better suited to the task than anything else: because the result *is* nothing like what one might find anywhere else.

I also think abstract mechanics like AD&D saving throws, armor that can be completely overcome with combat skill, and mixed metaphor of hp don't jive well with process simulation.

Quick rule of thumb: use reality until something gets in the way. Some saving throws, along with mostly-undefinable h.p., certainly break reality; as does almost all magic...and that's fine, as those things just become part of the game world's reality and life goes on.

Considering that we only play 1st level for a handful of sessions, what's your point? If a campaign lasts 1 year, we'll say 50 sessions, and goes from 1st to 6th level, the PC's probably hit 3rd by session 10, and spend 40 sessions from 3rd to 6th (considering the doubling of xp per level, that's probably about right).

Speak for yourself.

So, if 80+% of the time, PC's are super-human, capable of feats no "average person" could EVER match, what's the point of continuously pointing to the fact that they spend a very short amount of time, STILL better than normal humans?

In other words, who cares? Most play is not at 1st level. Most play is 2nd or 3rd level and higher.

While it's true most of the game is played at higher than 1st level, it can still take time to get there. My background - as you can probably see by my .sig - is not with 1-year campaigns.

And yes, PCs by and large are a cut above the commons; and once they get some levels under 'em I'm cool with that. Where it falls down for me is when there's such a big gap between commoner and 1st. 1e solved this by introducing the idea of 0th level as a bridge. 3e tried to solve it by allowing levels in - among other things - commoner; interesting idea but a bit of a nightmare for bookkeeping. 4e ignored it, and made the gap bigger as well.

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

I wasn't just using his monster level to equate class levels. I was looking at his hit points AC, elite array, and his attacks and damage. He's clearly way better than a 1st level fighter in 4E, so even if he's not the equivalent of a third level, he's still implicitly better than 1st, which is what my real argument was, if you'd bothered to read that part.

And a 1st level fighter in AD&D is way better than a 0th level character - and in 3.X a first level fighter is way better than a 1st level commoner.

The chance of the rabble killing a PC are so slim as to be completely non-existent, not to mention their ability scores and special abilities (or lack thereof).

You'd be talking about the 0th level NPC here? Who dies automatically if he doesn't win initiative? And who dies again automatically if he doesn't one-shot the armoured fighter?

OK, so the rabble might be a match for the wizard - but the fighter can automatically kill 1/round.

A town guard is not a monster (well, in most towns anyway); and thus in theory should be treated just like a PC in terms of mechanics. She's a 3rd-level fighter? Great!

4e for whatever reason made PCs their own special breed of creature;

As far as I can tell it was only 3.X that made PCs anything else. AD&D had the majority of the population (including kings) being 0th level. It also had certain extremely useful NPCs like the Sage who were explicitely different from PCs but pretty powerful.

[quoet]partly, I think, built on a design assumption that the PCs would be the only adventurers in the setting[/quote]

Mostly built on the idea that as DM I don't need the whole pile of information that goes into a PC's character sheet. Or the hassle of designing a PC for an expendible encounter. 3e took things extremely far one way, 4e possibly overcompensated.

* - this is something that dearly needs a solid mechanical basis - how non-adventuring types such as the research wizard, the temple cleric, etc., gain their class levels.

Where you say 'clearly' and 'solid mechanical basis', I think you mean 'light dusting of fluff'.