D&D 4E 4e Heal info in new Confessions article

[baradtgnome]

You know, the more I think about the whole "excitement and drama needs death!" thing, the more convinced I am that it's the threat of death that's exciting, not the actual dying.

That has been my view for many years. I very rarely kill off players. As a matter of fact, I haven't killed one off in many years. However, my players do have a fear of dying. Every two or three encounters at least one character, but usually more ends up close to perishing. Through the other characters herioc resolve, they manage to survive. That is exciting.

I believe if they players are accustomed to perishing and bringing in new characters, the fear and excitement is lessened.

 

[Dalvyn]

Bloodied = Vulnerable. Given what we've seen about 4e, if you're not bloodied, it's extremely unlikely that you can die from a single attack or ability. However, once you're bloodied, one attack could kill you. You've used up enough of the "divine protection" or luck that hp partly represent.

And Second Wind is "I decide that I am suddenly no longer vulnerable" and technically I get back 30% of my hit points (or another amount)? I still cannot grasp/understand/imagine it, I'm afraid.

However, knowing that you're on the verge of death does allow some characters to perform special actions; the "if I'm going down, so are you" idea. Adrenalin does wonderful things.

Yes, that I can see. I can imagine someone who gets some kind of advantages once they are close to death (like some animals - forgot which ones - went raging once they went down under 50% or 20% of their max hp). I can very well see people close to death gaining some adrenalin surge which enable them to attack better, for more damage, perhaps more recklessly.

However, I can't see people suddenly gaining special attacks (like the yuan-ti's option to do a whirlwind attack) if someone else becomes bloodied. That might be a fun/interesting technical rule, but it's not a roleplaying rule in my opinion. And I cannot really see my players accepting it either.

Consider an excerpt from a combat between two fighters and that yuan-ti.
- Fighter A: That last wound made me bloodied. Nevertheless, I walk to the yuan-ti and attack it! I hit for 12 damage.
- DM: Oh, great. Now that you are bloodied and next to the yuan-ti, it can perform a whirlwind attack against the two of you.
- Fighters A and B: Huh? Why? You mean he couldn't do a whirlwind attack before, but now he can just because Fighter A is bloodied and moved next to it?
- DM: Yes, yes, that's it.
- Fighters A and B: But why?
- DM: Erm... because it's a special yuan-ti's power. He... erm... kind of feeds off the fact that you are bloodied to empower his whirlwind attack.
- Fighters A and B: Allllright. Let's go find another DM.

I can very well see the same scene happen if the DM makes a dragon breathe "for free" as an "immediate" action just because it becomes bloodied. Or if the 20 enemy goblins all get a free shot at them because a goblin warlord shouts (in goblin) "Feather me Yon Oaf!".

 

[The Little Raven]

And Second Wind is "I decide that I am suddenly no longer vulnerable" and technically I get back 30% of my hit points (or another amount)? I still cannot grasp/understand/imagine it, I'm afraid.

It's like when Bruce Lee gets hit, wipes the blood from his wound, tastes it, and comes back stronger than ever.

 

[Cadfan]

- DM: Erm... because it's a special yuan-ti's power. He... erm... kind of feeds off the fact that you are bloodied to empower his whirlwind attack.
- Fighters A and B: Allllright. Let's go find another DM.

I assume that the reasoning is that the yuan-ti is overcome with bloodlust, flips out, and carves up some heroes. I rather liked the concept. It makes sense to me that a bestial opponent, smelling blood in the water, might be spurred to greater heights of carnage.

With the dragon, breathing fire needed a timing mechanism. This works as well as anything. Hurt it bad enough, it gets mad and breathes fire on you. Why is this an immediate effect? Because breathing doesn't stop you from clawing and biting at people. Its just one more action amongst many. The easiest way to make it slip in amongst the rest of the dragons actions is to make it immediate.

This is the one that bothers me the least. Its always been bizarre that breathing fire took up an entire round even when the creature doing the fire-breathing is capable of biting, clawing twice, and tail swiping his foes all at once. I'm glad you can now breathe fire AND claw someone. I look forwards to having a dragon pin a hero to the floor, and breathe fire directly in his face.

As for the "feather me yon oaf" ability, the warlord is urging his allies to try harder. There's a reasonable pedigree to this idea in D&D.

 

[HeinorNY]

Consider an excerpt from a combat between two fighters and that yuan-ti.
- Fighter A: That last wound made me bloodied. Nevertheless, I walk to the yuan-ti and attack it! I hit for 12 damage.
- DM: Oh, great. Now that you are bloodied and next to the yuan-ti, it can perform a whirlwind attack against the two of you.
- Fighters A and B: Huh? Why? You mean he couldn't do a whirlwind attack before, but now he can just because Fighter A is bloodied and moved next to it?
- DM: Yes, yes, that's it.
- Fighters A and B: But why?
- DM: Erm... because it's a special yuan-ti's power. He... erm... kind of feeds off the fact that you are bloodied to empower his whirlwind attack.
- Fighters A and B: Allllright. Let's go find another DM.

Same situation:
-Another DM: The yuan-ti smells and sees your blood, entering in a state of animalistic blood-frenzy attacking everyone around him!!!
-Fighters: YAYYYYYYY!!
And the fun goes on and on through the night...

 

[Xethreau]

And Second Wind is "I decide that I am suddenly no longer vulnerable" and technically I get back 30% of my hit points (or another amount)? I still cannot grasp/understand/imagine it, I'm afraid.

HP damage may be the sustaining of wounds, but recovering HP could mean a boost of inspiration, magical healing, or adrenaline kicking in from being physically active. Here are some examples of Second Wind that just come to me:
- The pyromaniac character gets blasted by a fireball, but his lust for fire allows him to ignore his wounds and fight on.
- The ranger has been running around for a few moments, when he suddenly takes a warhammer to the face. He was winded, and just took a serious wound, but his endorphens from running and anger make it seem to him as if he was as good as new.
- He's down, but is he out? The fighter, knocked out, collapeses to the ground. The concerned wizard runs over "Regdar! Regdar, get up!" shouts the elf, shaking him violently. After a moment, the human's breathing becomes normal again, and his eyes open. "Thank the gods for you, Malee..." he says, summoning the strength to stand.
- The paladin takes a sharp stab from the assassin, but only on his grave will he allow the asailent to pass; Inspired, the paladin fights on.

 

[pawsplay]

Even the meek Heal check is not safe from being stuffed with awesomeness and cheese. Super Saiyan First Aid!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Umm, not cinematic? I take it you don'e see many movies then, because in the ones I've seen a LOT of characters die. For example Star Wars (qui-gon), lotr (boromir), etc.

PC death adds excitement and drama; if the pc's are never in danger of dying then combat becomes a meaningless chore.

Have you played any recent Final Fantasy game or MMO like WoW?

Characters drop frequently, but resurrection magic brings them back up. Far from taking away strategy, it actually ADDS tactical depth, because you can play a bit more like a game of chess, making strategic sacrifices of assorted team members in order to win the overall scenario. So it makes sense from a tactical sense.

And cinematically, how many times have we seen a character fall to the ground, seemingly defeated, only to pick himself up and return to the fight? It works quite well as a dramatic device. Heck, it's the basic action-movie template: the guy getting his butt kicked for the first five minutes is the guy who'll eventually win the fight.

Heck, it even works "realistically." Remember, hit points does not equal "health." A character at 1 hp can still fight quite effectively. This isn't because the guy has massive internal bleeding and 17 broken bones but "OMG D&D is unrealistic", but rather because a guy at 1hp still isn't THAT terribly injured. Dropping to zero HP just means you're no longer able to effectively defend yourself. Hell, I'd hit that point with a sprained ankle. So the idea of an adrenaline surge or sheer willpower powering someone through doesn't seem to weird to me.

 

[pemerton]

Unless you've been using the exact opposite interpretation ever since 1e of course. Where HP damage is actual physical injury and HP gain is direct physical healing. Otherwise the various conditions would've been modeled via HP damge rather than modifiers to abilities and restrictions on action.

Gary Gygax expressly denied the physicalist interpretation of hit points in the 1st ed DMG, and explained how most hit points for a high level character represent energy, skill, luck and divine grace - not brute toughness.

Of course, the oddity of all the different ways D&D has of modelling impedences to action -
hit points, penalties, stat loss, etc, is just one of its curious features.

Likewise the ways it has of modelling resistance to damage - DEX (adds to AC), CON (adds to hit points), Barbarian DR (subtracts from damage rolls), etc.

It will be interesting to see if 4e finds a way of making all this more coherent.

 

[pemerton]

There is a difference between victory that is automatic, and a victory that is assured if you play smart. You still have to do something to survive.
Failure even though you did all you could might be realisitic, but is it something I want to experience in a game?

QFT. 4e looks to be recognising the strengths of 3E - including its capacity to support skilled rules-mastery play through its intricate action resolution systems - and getting rid of all the other aspects of play that interfere with this - such as the arbitrary (relative to the priorities of the players, be these thematic, butt-kicking or whatever) limitations on PC actions that Vancian magic imposes.

Your problem seems to be one of perception and trying to define abstract rules systems in concrete “this is how it looks in the world” terms. That can be difficult, and it always has been with the abstract nature of D&D hit points. With 4e, hit points and healing surges combine abstractly to define the resilience of your character. Like others have said, if you use a healing surge, it’s more like you weren’t hurt as badly as it seemed or you shook off the damage in a heroic manner. If you don’t manage to, you were hurt or at least left in a vulnerable position when it comes to the harm further hits deal. It might be a little hard to imagine in a narrative sense, but that’s not unlike D&D through the ages in any case. It certainly feels cinematic in play—more so if players use it as a roleplaying cue. It also gives each PC some control over his or her condition during combat, forcing no one PC to be the healer. That is, no one has to use all his or her actions to facilitate the fun of others by casting healing spells or using healing skills/abilities. Sure, that good cleric is still a healer, but he’s also a punisher of evildoers!

This post really highlights (for me) the degree of attention to design, and the sort of play it facilitates, that the WoTC staff are giving 4e.

Killed by random damage-roll resulting from resolute application of (pseudo-)simulationist mechanics = non-heroic. If you want this sort of game, play RQ or RM, where the sense of heroism comes from somewhere other than the combat rules.

Getting to one's feet, after taking a blow from Orcus that would cripple any lesser mortal, because of the desperate plea of one's Wizard companion for help, or the rallying cry of the Warlord leader = heroic in my book, for the sort of play that D&D is all about.

Assuming that was a serious question, I want my character's life at risk. If there is no risk of death, there is nothing heroic about the character and I would find the game boring.

I think that this outlook is confusing the player and the PC in an unhelpful way. Of course, in the gameworld, the PC is taking risks which could result in death - s/he is fighting, jumping chasms, etc. The question is whether, in the real world the game is most fun when the player has a random chance of missing out on the next hour or ten of play as his/her only vehicle for participation - the PC - is suddenly killed off. There is nothing heroic about playing a game where a bad roll can make you lose - its just a way to ruin a Sunday afternoon.

I very rarely kill off players. As a matter of fact, I haven't killed one off in many years. However, my players do have a fear of dying.

Now that would really ruin a Sunday afternoon! Luckily for my players, its against the law in Australia for a GM to kill people.

Every two or three encounters at least one character, but usually more ends up close to perishing. Through the other characters herioc resolve, they manage to survive. That is exciting.

This is closer to my experience. The excitement in play is a combination of two things: having to use the rules cleverly in order to overcome the challenge; and the in-game meaning of all that rules-talk. The sense of heroism comes from the latter, and in a close combat that will certainly include (as part of the in-game flavour) the threat of death.