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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dalvyn" data-source="post: 3998841" data-attributes="member: 23138">Hello. It's one of my first posts around, and English is not my native tongue, so please be lenient! But I really wanted to comment on Chris Sims's answer.That is, actually (along with some fluff changes that I consider both unnecessary and disrespectful towards those who bought previous edition books) my main gripe against what I have seen from 4th Edition. In older editions, rules always seemed "natural" to me, in the sense that they would describe imaginary scenes that play in the players' minds. The rules were there just to turn imagination into numerical variables when necessary. For example, I (and I would guess most players) could see that the +2 to damage/-2 to AC modifiers of a charge were there to represent the fact that you are using the velocity of your charge to increase your damage output, while sacrificing some protection. The same could be said for many other rules. Sure, there might have been minor inconsistencies here and there (e.g., damage from a fall), but most were easily avoided by good DMs.Yet, in 4th edition, I see more and more rules that seem to be nothing but abstract rules; that is, rules that do not translate well into the imagination. Examples abound; there are all those related to hit points (I'll keep them for later), but there are also other tricks like monster abilities. I'll just cite three examples here.The first one is from Races & Classes, where we learn that the Warlord has a power that allows all his companions to draw a ranged weapon and shoot an arrow ("Feather me Yon Oaf!"). Huh? How can a warlord or any other character give all his friends the ability to instnatly do things that would normally take them 1 round to do? Time (as in: what you can do each round) is a precious resource in D&D combats, one that is firmly anchored in the "realistic imagination". That is, in that "realistic imagination" world, it takes a given amount of time to draw a bow, and it takes another given amount of time to shoot an arrow. It does not make sense that, suddenly, those actions do not take any time at all?The second example is from the new Miniature rules (it might not be entirely 4th edition, but that's another example), where it is said that the yuan-ti can perform what looks like a whirlwind attack (attack vs all the adjacent opponents) when one of those adjacent opponent is bloodied. Once again ... huh? The cause (one opponent is bloodied) and the consequence (you are able to make a whirlwind attack) do not match. It's yet another example of a rule that fails to translate into that "realistic imagination" world. In other words, it does not make sense, it's inconsistent.The third example is from a playtest report, where we learn that a dragon can immediately breathe as a free action when he gets bloodied. Yet again ... huh? Why does being bloodied suddenly allow the dragon to perform an action for free? Now, there were similar example in the latest 3.5 Monster Manuals, but those actually made sense because the action was a natural consequence of the damage. For example, in MM5, there's a creature that looks like a living blurb of magma encased in rock. Once it reaches 50% of its hit points, the rock case is damage enough that jets of magma are created. That actually is consistent, because it's not a reaction from the monster, but a "physical" reaction.I am sure it is possible to make monsters and combats interesting without having to resort to such unrealistic tricks that do not translate well into the "realistic imagination" world, so I'm quite disappointed that many 4th edition previews have showcased some of them.Regarding hit points now ... It is right that they are defined as more than just "physical integrity" even in the previous editions. Yet, the need to see them as something more than just physical damage has never been as forceful as in 4th Edition.I entirely welcome changes such as Heal allowing people to actually cure hit points, or such as healing spells actually restoring a percentage of someone's hit points rather than a set amount (or a set amount of dice). Those are good changes in my opinion, and they work well towards the objectives that the 4th edition designers seem to have (i.e., removing the need for the cleric's healing).I have a problem with integrating tricks/abstract mechanisms like Second Wind or getting healed because you manage to strike an opponent (or worse, getting healed because one of your friends managed to hit a foe) though. I also have a problem with the cinematic interpretation you suggest, that seems to be that damage later healed by a Second Wind-like ability actually never happened in the first place, but was "cinematically" avoided.Good rules are simple rules that are easy to apply. Rules that are based on interpreting hit points on something much more complex than just physical integrity are thus bad to the game. Making a rule so abstract/unrealistic that many DMs and players have a hard time translating it into their "realistic imagination" world is, in my opinion, worse than presenting them with complex or difficult rules like 3.5 grapple.My problem here is that those abstract hit points rules convey the following message: "Don't bother about what's happening practically, just follow the rules mechanically, add up and substract numbers, and don't worry". That is not really the kind of message I would expect from a roleplaying game, where I'm supposed to play a role. My character is both someone who lives in my "realistic imagination" world and a set of numbers defining it; and I actually think good rules should make it easy for me to match those two aspects rather than set them apart.</blockquote>

Verification