With 5e here, what will 4e be remembered for?

[Bawylie]

It's not "Theatre of the Mind" when the measurements are laid out in inches. Or fictional feet. Really anything precise like that. 1 inch = 10 ft. 1 square = 5 ft. All of that is concrete - it requires a tableau - which may be in your mind. But that's no different, functionally, than maps w/minis.

Where precise distances, measurements, & positioning are required, you are playing on a grid.

 

[pemerton]

Not true. In previous editions to 3E there wasn’t a need for miniatures or any other visual/tactile representation.

I agree you never needed miniatures. You needed maps. (As a GM, I use to mark the PCs' location on the map using pencil - or sometimes just rely on memory.)

4e doesn't literally need minis - at my table we generally use tokens, for instance, and I have also run encounters where the position of combatants is marked using pen, or where I have simply tracked range bands with no need to track precise location (because diagonal movement is treated as linear, so range bands are sufficient). Examples of the latter have included archery duels on plains, and closing with a small boat along a canal (where all that mattered was either distance from the boat, or being on the boat).

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's not "Theatre of the Mind" when the measurements are laid out in inches. Or fictional feet. Really anything precise like that. 1 inch = 10 ft. 1 square = 5 ft. All of that is concrete - it requires a tableau - which may be in your mind. But that's no different, functionally, than maps w/minis.

Where precise distances, measurements, & positioning are required, you are playing on a grid.

Not necessarily. A GM can describe something being 80 yards away, say, when a player is shooting a bow and then adjusting the chances to hit based upon it’s range. That’s all in the mind. It doesn’t require some sort of grid. You could suggest that it’s a lot easier to manage things with maps, grids and miniatures and maybe more fun that way - and I’m not knocking the idea at all - but it’s not something that would cause the system (pre-3E, at least) to break down as such if you were to forego them.

 

[The Black Ranger]

What I believe 4th edition will be remembered for:

1: The removal of a lot of long time game designers.
2: Trying to tell gamers what they want.
3: Total destruction of the Forgotten Realms.
4: Boring combat that became a massive "grind fest".
5: The same people over and over again who would defend 4th edition with any straw they could grasp.
6: Gleemax (shutters).
7: Rented access to materials (DDI).
8: Wizards of the Coast deleting most negative threads on their website if they began to reach a sufficiant page count.
9: Healing Surges.
10: Lots and lots of "WTF followed by head scratching" moments.
11: Pushing, sliding, and pulling.
12: Nonmagical powers of domination "Come and get it".
13: Largest edition war in history.
14: Wizards of the Coast proving they are an inapt company.
15: The worst adventures ever.
16: The removal of PDFs because the fear of pirating.
17: etc etc etc...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A lot of MMOs do. It comes from having defined similar roles for combat. Many MMOs have settled on the holy trinity (as it is called) Tank, Striker, Healer. A few have tried adding other roles -- buffer, debuffer, damage soak, etc. But almost everyone has the main three.

Tank, DPS (earlier "Damage Dealer", then "Damage", then just DPS), Healer. Striker is a strictly D&D term.

And it's not really a matter of "adding other roles" - on the contrary, there were more roles in earlier MMOs (fr'ex "CC" i.e. Crowd Control being there until TBC-era WoW), but most post-WoW MMOs stick with the WoW-based "Holy Trinity" (WoW got it from EQ, but it wasn't a trinity then).

Also, roles were an emergent property of EQ, not designed in intentionally, but that's a long discussion.

 

[BryonD]

The problem with temporary hit points as a core healing mechanic for a class is two-fold:

1) It is less tactically engaging than "filling HP buckets" and therefore not very mentally rewarding from a "playing a game" perspective. There are very few to no decision-points. It is always optimal to proactively apply temporary hit points immediately so unforeseen, potentially lethal, burst damage is mitigated. There is no opportunity cost of choice and there is no extrapolating several "moves" into the future to maximize your group's capacity for survival. Just press the temp HP buttan and do whatever else it is you do. Healing is tactically engaging (thus rewarding) because there is opportunity cost of choice and you're faced with multiple, critical decision-points throughout the course of a conflict. Temp HP subverts that paradigm entirely.

2) Reactive healing, assuming it is sufficient to the task, is better because you are always in a position to respond to true urgency (not just proactively attempting to mitigate forecasted urgency - which may never come to pass), typically due to spike damage, wherever it might be. Filling HP buckets as they're depleted ensures you're never in a situation where you've deployed precious resources as a contingency to protect against burst damage that may never come. Its more efficient and it stacks so you're always ready.

More fun. More function.

I think both of you are missing the point that the THP comment was one thing and the question about not healing those last 10 HP was another.
I'll note that your comments are 100% about tactics and mechanics and completely omit any consideration of narrative.
You talk to me about games with no narrative expectations and you will get different answers from me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think both of you are missing the point that the THP comment was one thing and the question about not healing those last 10 HP was another.

I'll note that your comments are 100% about tactics and mechanics and completely omit any consideration of narrative.

You are wrong to think that, and wrong to assert my comments are purely about that (if that you is intended to singular, you may want to watch your grammar).

As I said in my post, the "last 10HP" thing is fiddly as hell. That's not just a mechanical assessment. You seem to think it has some immense narrative value that makes it worth tracking. I don't think it does. I think it's the sort of tiny issue that certain eccentrics (I mean that in a nice way) might focus on, but that will never come up in 98% of groups. I think it hurts the narrative more to burden the game with dozens of fiddly little rules (which IME often take focus off the narrative), so my instinct is to avoid them. If I was playing with such an eccentric, and he was polite, I might track it (or, rather, he could), but never otherwise.

 

[Nagol]

Tank, DPS (earlier "Damage Dealer", then "Damage", then just DPS), Healer. Striker is a strictly D&D term.

And it's not really a matter of "adding other roles" - on the contrary, there were more roles in earlier MMOs (fr'ex "CC" i.e. Crowd Control being there until TBC-era WoW), but most post-WoW MMOs stick with the WoW-based "Holy Trinity" (WoW got it from EQ, but it wasn't a trinity then).

Also, roles were an emergent property of EQ, not designed in intentionally, but that's a long discussion.

I knew I was getting one wrong! The roles reflect the ablative/attrition nature of most "tough" combat in MMOs. They were an emergent property of early MMOs, sure but they've been adopted as a desigphilosophy pretty heavily and even by the player bases of MMOs that tried to eschew it. The reason other roles haven't really caught on is that no other capabilities provided to characters have managed to be more effective for success than hit point and target management. Some MMOs (like The Secret World) have designed some of the boss fights such that there are different operational roles like "spotter" or "collector" which don't rely on hit point management, but in the end these large set piece battles require incoming damage to be directed and negated and outgoing damage to be sufficiently large so the other side drops before the human team does.

 

[BryonD]

You are wrong to think that, and wrong to assert my comments are purely about that (if that you is intended to singular, you may want to watch your grammar).

As I said in my post, the "last 10HP" thing is fiddly as hell. That's not just a mechanical assessment. You seem to think it has some immense narrative value that makes it worth tracking. I don't think it does. I think it's the sort of tiny issue that certain eccentrics (I mean that in a nice way) might focus on, but that will never come up in 98% of groups. I think it hurts the narrative more to burden the game with dozens of fiddly little rules (which IME often take focus off the narrative), so my instinct is to avoid them. If I was playing with such an eccentric, and he was polite, I might track it (or, rather, he could), but never otherwise.

Ok

You specifically said you treated at least 1 HP from each hit as real meat.
I was wondering if you really meant it.

Edit: I agree it is quite fiddly an "eccentric" to track that level. It is why I asked. I certainly see no merit to it. But, I avoid healing systems that create this situation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ok

You specifically said you treated at least 1 HP from each hit as real meat.
I was wondering if you really meant it.

Edit: I agree it is quite fiddly an "eccentric" to track that level. It is why I asked. I certainly see no merit to it. But, I avoid healing systems that create this situation.

I do indeed mean it - but that doesn't mean I track it independently, solely for the purpose of Warlord heals (I don't have a Warlord in any of my 4E groups so that'd be particularly bizarre). It's something that it's easy to assume is dealt with by bandaging and so-on in downtime/short rests/long rests, because it's such a minor component.

No healing system I'm aware of in any game "creates" this situation, so that must be easy to avoid! Unfortunately certain people (not systems, people), feel the need, consciously or unconsciously, to complicate game X or Y, and pretty much any game's injury/damage system is open to some kind of question if stared at hard enough.