Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5869938" data-attributes="member: 42582">4e has such keywords. The Wight power Horrid Visage, for example, has the fear keyword and pushes all targets in a blast. It is very clear that this "pushing" is the targets in question falling back from fear when confronted by the undead's horrid visage.Come and Get It, by having no keyword, leaves it open to the player to always generate forced movement regardless of the immunities of the targets his/her PC is confronting. Having no keyword is a power-up.I'm not seeing the problem. One group uses hit points. Another uses V/W. Another uses RQ (integrated hp and crit mechanics). Another uses Rolemaster (crit mechanics, with a secondary hit point mechanic that plays a very different role from D&D hp). Another uses Burning Wheel (crit mechanic with no hp).What's wrong with that?As to the ability of hit points in 4e to handle the situations you describe - how does a warlord "heal" a character who has taken damage from falling? By urging the character to continue despite his/her injuries. How does a warlord "heal" an unconscious character? There are at least two versions of this: one is that the character has an inspiring dream in which the warlord figures (think Aragorn dreamin of Arwen after he falls over the cliff in the LotR movie); another is that the unconcsious character is roused from unconsicousness by a faint sound, and through barely-open eyes sees someone yelling words of concern/encouragement/command at him/her (think of the scene out of any number of movies about military heroism).For those who don't want to run this sort of game, use hit points as meat, or V/W, or whatever. I've got nothing against those options. But I won't agree that 4e hit points can't work. And I also won't agree that it has no advantages - Burning Wheel, for example, has a very nice wounds system, and a very nice morale system, and a very nice system for pushing on despite wounds, but has no mechanic for drawing on your morale in order to push on despite wounds. So BW can do something 4e can't - gritty feel - but 4e can do something BW can't - morale being used to push on despite wounds.It seems to me that you "refluffing", here, is changing the mechanics - in particular, immunity to fear now provides immunity to marking, whereas in the core rules this is not so.But anyway, marking isn't a problem in my view, for the reasons Hussar gives:I don't know if I agree that a fighter mark is always metagame - in some contexts it can easily be seen as  having some ingame manifestation - but I agree that it has a strong metagame component. It is a metagame technique whereby the player says to the GM, "If you dont' attack my PC with those monsters, I will hose them, by taking extra attacks and by burdening them with unluck tokens on that attack."When you say "always better" I assume you mean "always better for your preferred playstyle". I can tell you it's not always better per se, because at the moment at least I am enjoying my 4e campaign more than I enjoyed my previous RM campaign (and I can tell you, I enjoyed that campaign a lot!), and that is because 4e is better than RM at giving what I want from my game, and that part of that is precisely the "fortune in the middle" mechanics of 4e, which leave GMs and players to (as you put it) "make stuff up".</blockquote>

Verification