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

[BryonD]

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), decide that they want 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.

I'd say the 4E-style systems "create" the situation where someone ends up saying "I treat at least 1 HP of every wound as meat". (or whatever your exact wording was).

When you create a system where all wounds can just vanish you create these implicit narrative conflicts.

I readily admit that people use HP in a lot of different ways. And some people say some things about 3E (and prior) HP/ healing systems that I don't endorse. But the system doesn't put you in a box where a statement about how much is meat, or the like, comes back to not be true.

If you have HP that are assumed to need some healing over time or some other source of healing (typically magic) then you don't have to care if the HP are meat or abstract because you can consider that they all heal at the same rate.

I've described it before but look at a 5 HP L1 wizard and a 100 HP L9 Fighter both on the receiving end of identical sword hits for 9 points. The wizard is run through, the fighter deflects it with little thought. A lucky roll for CLW by a L1 cleric will bring the run through wizard back to full recovery, but can only heal a scratch on the fighter. But it doesn't matter because the abstract "hero aura" of the L9 fighter that his mass of HP includes lost the same 9 HP as the wizard. So the healing energy goes to the flesh of the wizard, and the same amount goes to the "karma" of the fighter.

This takes a lot of "thinking" and writing to describe in words. But, the thing is, I've been doing it this way since 1E. And I can recall fun debates over the nature of HP, but it never required thinking. The idea that takes several sentences to express is obvious. I never stared at it at all. At least not in play, the HP debates for the fun of the debate were unrelated to at table experience.

It is only when you start saying everything heals for free that you start getting into "staring at it too hard" statements like "1 HP / wound is real" that you then have to turn around and say "except I don't actually do that."

 

[Hussar]

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.

DnD combat is abstract. What does a single attack and damage roll actually represent if the system is abstract? It's ridiculous to think that a tiger will always swing it's paws twice and bite once every six seconds.

So, how many times did that tiger actually hit you when he hits for ten damage? Using the system, prove your answer.

So why would every hit have to represent a single meat point? It's an abstract system from front to back. You could be hit ten times in a combat and not actually been physically impacted ten times or you might have been impacted more than ten times.

Since we cannot actually make that determination using the rules, there is actually nothing supporting your idea that every hit must do physical effects.

 

[Nagol]

DnD combat is abstract. What does a single attack and damage roll actually represent if the system is abstract? It's ridiculous to think that a tiger will always swing it's paws twice and bite once every six seconds.

So, how many times did that tiger actually hit you when he hits for ten damage? Using the system, prove your answer.

So why would every hit have to represent a single meat point? It's an abstract system from front to back. You could be hit ten times in a combat and not actually been physically impacted ten times or you might have been impacted more than ten times.

Since we cannot actually make that determination using the rules, there is actually nothing supporting your idea that every hit must do physical effects.

The primary reason to want a "hit" to contain a meat point is so riders like poison, disease etc. have an plausible vector.

If hp loss is described as "you nimbly dodge the arrow, but the realisation this is now combat washes over you. Take 3 hp." it is hard to visualise how "Oh and roll a saving throw vs. poison please" can be rationalised.

 

[BryonD]

So, how many times did that tiger actually hit you when he hits for ten damage? Using the system, prove your answer.

So why would every hit have to represent a single meat point? It's an abstract system from front to back. You could be hit ten times in a combat and not actually been physically impacted ten times or you might have been impacted more than ten times.

I agree with you. Ruin is the one who said he treated 1 HP from every hit as meat.
My point is that this is a bad thing.
You are agreeing with me and showing problems with the statement that he made.

 

[BryonD]

The primary reason to want a "hit" to contain a meat point is so riders like poison, disease etc. have an plausible vector.

To me, the primary reason is that some sense of recovery/healing creates a much more satisfying narrative experience. I don't need it to be anywhere near realistic. But I strongly desire it to be present in the narrative and reflected in the mechanical model of that narrative.

The poison thing is also true, but this really isn't the main reason to me.

 

[Manbearcat]

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 was speaking generally about why it was objectionable. I'm pretty sure you (and others) hold that you desire inspiration/moralizing being solely relagated to granting Temp HP and never touch "filling HP buckets." That is why I posted that.

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.

You're begging the question here in the same way that people impose a premise of "HP as meat" or "Forced Movement as Martial Mind Control" and then extrapolate from there as if their audience fundamentally accept either of those premises. I don't. And I don't accept their extrapolations.

Beyond that, narrative expectations can be derivative of mechanics or they can be slightly decoupled or wholly decoupled. Depending upon the system's expectation of how prescriptive and rigid the coupling of mechanic:descriptor is, you can derive a lesser or greater variety of narrative outcomes. You prefer a narrower (or a fully bound 1:1 coupling) band of outcomes per mechanic. I prefer a much broader band of potential outcomes. That doesn't mean that I "omit any consideration of narrative."

Further, you may or may not care about it so much (I'm not sure). But gamist concerns are important when you're...playing a game, whether it be a TTRPG or a contact sport. Competitive parity/balance, comparable scope/breadth/dynamism in decision-points, and minimizing handling time/mental overhead when resolving are extremly important considerations. They can be looked at in a vaccuum and evaluated. Failure to do so is probably going to earn you a whole lot of unintended 2nd and 3rd order effects that erode or outright break the gameplay experience.

 

[BryonD]

Further, you may or may not care about it so much (I'm not sure). But gamist concerns are important when you're...playing a game, whether it be a TTRPG or a contact sport.

I agree completely.
Again, I readily acknowledge that there is a group of people who love the way the 4E HP system works.

My point is that there are things that approach does well and things that approach does poorly.
It is completely legitimate to be concerned with the things that it does poorly.

One of the things 4E will be remembered for is telling a lot of people that their concerns over this (and many other things) didn't count.

None of that contradicts the value the game brought to people with different perspectives. It is just a shame that 4E didn't reach out to a larger audience.

 

[thewok]

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).

I first heard of the Holy Trinity in EQ. It was tank, healer and support. Specifically, the Holy Trinity was Warrior, Cleric and Shaman. Out of a six-man group, those were they ultimate three classes with which to start. The warrior and cleric for obvious reasons, and the shaman for hastes and slows. Then, the other three roles could be all DPS, or you could add a bard or ranger for pulling or an enchanter for CC on huge groups.

That was the original Holy Trinity. It wasn't meant to be the only roles in the game so much as the basis of the ultimate or most optimal groups.

If it were me, I'd remove "DPS" as part of the Trinity and put support back in its rightful place. Then, I'd make damage purely a function of fulfilling your main role in combat.

 

[Nagol]

I first heard of the Holy Trinity in EQ. It was tank, healer and support. Specifically, the Holy Trinity was Warrior, Cleric and Shaman. Out of a six-man group, those were they ultimate three classes with which to start. The warrior and cleric for obvious reasons, and the shaman for hastes and slows. Then, the other three roles could be all DPS, or you could add a bard or ranger for pulling or an enchanter for CC on huge groups.

That was the original Holy Trinity. It wasn't meant to be the only roles in the game so much as the basis of the ultimate or most optimal groups.

If it were me, I'd remove "DPS" as part of the Trinity and put support back in its rightful place. Then, I'd make damage purely a function of fulfilling your main role in combat.

Support was yanked because both the designers and the player bases did not like the effect of mes-locks, stun-locks and the like. Games kept reducing the effectiveness of combat control powers until they became nice-to-have as opposed absolutely essential.

If it were up to me, I'd increase the range of possible situations so not everything revolves around target and hp control. My solution can be infinitely more difficult though especially since the player base are now trained to expect it.

 

[Minigiant]

"That's it?" - Many D&D fans.

People forget WHY 4e was the way it was.

2e and 3e expanded the fan base a lot. But many were disappointed by what D&D offered.

They expected long dragon fights, fancy trap, political matches, dynamic encounters, mage duels, and epic clashes.

So when the internet age hit full swing all you saw was complaining.

4e will be remembered as an attempt to quell this. The first full attempt via mechanics.