D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[Neonchameleon]

Movies don't attempt to depict any sort of real world. They run on plot, and everyone knows it. There's no reason to drag a tabletop RPG down to their level, unless you're ready to abandon everything that makes it worth playing.

AD&D does not attempt to depict any sort of real world. It runs on pure gamism and almost everyone knows it. And if you want realism in your RPGs then I suggest you tell that to Gygax, because he's explicitly on record as saying “As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to ‘realism’ to justify its existence. D&D exists as a game because thousands of people enjoy playing it. As its rules were specifically designed to make it fun and enjoyable.”

His view on the mere quest for realism was "Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial."

AD&D explicitly makes no claims to realism. I have never said it should - simply that 4e is more realistic than AD&D. Your assertions both that AD&D is realistic and that this somehow elevates D&D from being a very good game are things Gygax strenuously disagreed with.

Tell that to Gygax, because he's on the record as explicitly disagreeing with that assertion.

He's welcome to do so. Just as J. K. Rowling is welcome to say whatever she likes about the Harry Potter books. When it comes to what is intended Rowling is an authority - but when it comes to what is actually there the books are the authority.

Generally at level 1, in such a state that a direct hit from any real weapon will kill them. You have not provided a counter-example.

First you have moved goalposts. Your claim was low level. Which I did provide a counter-example to. Second I opened this tangent with a counter-example. A first level fighter who rolled 9 or 10 on their hit points is capable of taking the hardest hit possible in combat from an orc with an axe and still being standing. This applies entirely independently of the armour they are wearing.

Also leather armour does not cover the face in most depictions. Remember we're talking about maximum damage - and that armour has an all or nothing effect. You take exactly the same amount of damage regardless of how much armour you are wearing under AD&D rules - you are just less likely to take that damage if you are wearing armour.

And once again, even leather armor is significantly better than nothing. If leather armor wasn't capable of turning a lethal blow into a non-lethal one, then people wouldn't wear it.

And once again leather armour will not turn a hit in the face by an orc with an axe into a non-lethal blow. Under AD&D rules leather armour occasionally does absorb a blow, turning it aside.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Every edition has mentioned that wizards use magic. Every edition with monks as a core class has mentioned that they use ki. There's never been an instance in a core book where they fail to mention that an unarmored class has inherent supernatural abilities.

Every edition has mentioned that wizards use spells. However, I've never seen mention of any inherent ability for wizards to protect themselves with magic in lieu of casting spells.

While no examples spring readily to mind, I do believe that there have been unarmored, non-supernatural character options throughout the editions. Although I admit I don't recall exactly what.

And what about characters who are resting, and therefore have removed their armor? That is hardly an uncommon scenario. This is the third time I've asked and, unless I overlooked it, I've yet to see a response to this scenario.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

AD&D does not attempt to depict any sort of real world. It runs on pure gamism and almost everyone knows it.

If your argument is that salvaging the game is hopeless, then you are being blinded by your pre-conceived beliefs. There's no point in even debating it. Suffice it to say, not everyone buys into that premise; or else 4E wouldn't have failed as badly as it did.

A first level fighter who rolled 9 or 10 on their hit points is capable of taking the hardest hit possible in combat from an orc with an axe and still being standing. This applies entirely independently of the armour they are wearing.

That's a bit of an extreme corner-case scenario. If the rules don't work perfectly in a small number of edge cases, then that's entirely still within tolerance for any model.

Also leather armour does not cover the face in most depictions.

Hits to the face are not part of the model. We simply do not have that level of detail. If you want to associate maximum damage with a hit to the face, then that's entirely on you.

 

[jmartkdr2]

While no examples spring readily to mind, I do believe that there have been unarmored, non-supernatural character options throughout the editions. Although I admit I don't recall exactly what.

Barbarians - who've been around at least since 1e.

Sometimes this toughness is represented with more hit points, though, so I'm not sure if that helps anyone's thesis here.

 

[billd91]

AD&D does not attempt to depict any sort of real world. It runs on pure gamism and almost everyone knows it. And if you want realism in your RPGs then I suggest you tell that to Gygax, because he's explicitly on record as saying “As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to ‘realism’ to justify its existence. D&D exists as a game because thousands of people enjoy playing it. As its rules were specifically designed to make it fun and enjoyable.”

His view on the mere quest for realism was "Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial."

AD&D explicitly makes no claims to realism. I have never said it should - simply that 4e is more realistic than AD&D. Your assertions both that AD&D is realistic and that this somehow elevates D&D from being a very good game are things Gygax strenuously disagreed with.

This is not really true. There isn't a lot of rigorous realism and gamist adaptations of reality abound to make the game playable, but there are bones thrown all over the place to a sense of reality-based verisimilitude that have, at times, clashed quite hard against gamist concerns. Consider the weapon vs armor type matrices in 1e AD&D. If Gygax said that improving the game via a quest for realism was the work of scoundrels yet included that table as well, then we have an interesting contradiction, don't we?
The answer is it's neither entirely in one camp or the other and making the claim that it is either is incorrect.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Barbarians - who've been around at least since 1e.

Sometimes this toughness is represented with more hit points, though, so I'm not sure if that helps anyone's thesis here.

I thought they had some benefit to wearing lighter armor, but could nonetheless wear armor. I could be misremembering though. I feel like if it wasn't the barbarian class itself, it was something along those lines (berserker kit maybe).

More HP in lieu of armor (without supernatural justification) would support the idea that hit points are not intended to have any direct correlation to the wearing of armor.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Every edition has mentioned that wizards use spells. However, I've never seen mention of any inherent ability for wizards to protect themselves with magic in lieu of casting spells.

I really wish I could find the quote, but Gygax said a lot on the topic. Most of which contradicted himself in various places. Please take my word for it that he said in writing, on at least one occasion, that high numbers of HP at least partially reflect the fighter's ever-improving magical armors and defensive enchantments from the mage.

While no examples spring readily to mind, I do believe that there have been unarmored, non-supernatural character options throughout the editions. Although I admit I don't recall exactly what.

Nothing that I know of, but support for that theory is only meant to cover core classes during the era of Gygax. If later editions failed to support that premise, then that's kind of the point of this whole tangent. Later editions did fail to support earlier premises.

And what about characters who are resting, and therefore have removed their armor? That is hardly an uncommon scenario. This is the third time I've asked and, unless I overlooked it, I've yet to see a response to this scenario.

There's at least one reference in AD&D to an attack against a sleeping target being an automatic kill, bypassing hit points entirely. Another place has you reference the assassination table (even if you aren't an assassin). Like I said, there are enough inconsistencies that you could argue both ways. Which puts it at odds with later editions, where you really can't argue for anything like a reasonable (non-gamist) interpretation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If your argument is that salvaging the game is hopeless, then you are being blinded by your pre-conceived beliefs. There's no point in even debating it. Suffice it to say, not everyone buys into that premise; or else 4E wouldn't have failed as badly as it did.

My argument is nothing needs salvaging. AD&D is a game. It succeeded as a game. It succeeded as a game in the face of more realistic games because it concentrated on the game and merely threw very faint nods towards realism. Any even vaguely realistic game has death spiral mechanics where the more injured you are the more hurt you are and the more that gets in the way of your ability to do things.

AD&D does not - because it puts the game first and vague nods to reality only where they don't interfere with the game. It's more fun to not have the first blow make things inevitable. It's more fun when characters don't go down to a single hit, especially when you're dungeon crawling.

That's a bit of an extreme corner-case scenario. If the rules don't work perfectly in a small number of edge cases, then that's entirely still within tolerance for any model.

1 in 5 characters at first level of the most popular class in the game is not an edge case as far as first level characters go. But far from not working perfectly the rules are working as intended for a game where you can literally level up to being a superhero. It's a fine game - just not one that bears any resemblance to reality.

The only possible way this is an edge case is if first level is an edge case. In which case the edge case isn't that a person can tank the maximum damage an orc can throw out - it's that they can't at first level. That AD&D is intended to be a game intended to be about superheroes. And that first level is the exception.

Hits to the face are not part of the model. We simply do not have that level of detail. If you want to associate maximum damage with a hit to the face, then that's entirely on you.

On the other hand we know exactly how much damage a hit to an unarmoured person does - the same amount as a hit to an armoured person. We know what the theoretical limit of damage is.

This is not really true. There isn't a lot of rigorous realism and gamist adaptations of reality abound to make the game playable, but there are bones thrown all over the place to a sense of reality-based verisimilitude that have, at times, clashed quite hard against gamist concerns. Consider the weapon vs armor type matrices in 1e AD&D. If Gygax said that improving the game via a quest for realism was the work of scoundrels yet included that table as well, then we have an interesting contradiction, don't we?

And here we get into my big problem with AD&D 1e - that it is a shameless cash grab. AD&D's sole purpose as a game was to screw Arneson out of the royalties for Dungeons and Dragons. No this isn't an interesting contradiction - it is Gygax being honest.

And adding sub-systems that require players to think ahead and mix things up can improve some games whether or not they are realistic.

The answer is it's neither entirely in one camp or the other and making the claim that it is either is incorrect.

It's mysterious how your example of "reality based concerns" vanished.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There's at least one reference in AD&D to an attack against a sleeping target being an automatic kill, bypassing hit points entirely. Another place has you reference the assassination table (even if you aren't an assassin). Like I said, there are enough inconsistencies that you could argue both ways. Which puts it at odds with later editions, where you really can't argue for anything like a reasonable (non-gamist) interpretation.

I wasn't referring to a sleeping target. I was referring to the more common scenario where the party is attacked while resting. The only party member who is armored is the one on watch. The rest were sleeping and therefore are not wearing armor. Everyone typically participates in the encounter, yet characters who are without their armor nonetheless have the full benefit of their HP. This is not an uncommon scenario regardless of edition. (Based on the stories I've heard, I get the impression that Gygax was more than willing to ambush parties while they were resting.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I wasn't referring to a sleeping target. I was referring to the more common scenario where the party is attacked while resting. The only party member who is armored is the one on watch. The rest were sleeping and therefore are not wearing armor. Everyone typically participates in the encounter, yet characters who are without their armor nonetheless have the full benefit of their HP. This is not an uncommon scenario regardless of edition. (Based on the stories I've heard, I get the impression that Gygax was more than willing to ambush parties while they were resting.)

If that sort of thing comes up often enough, then I can understand why Gygax's explanation might be unsatisfactory. Honestly, I doubt he believed half of the rationalizations he came up with. It's pretty clear that making a coherent model wasn't exactly his highest priority.

That doesn't mean that making sense of his work was futile, though. Over the decades, a significant portion of the player-base figured out how to run basically the same rules he'd put forth, with just enough house rulings to cover those areas that weren't addressed directly, such that we could actually take it seriously. Slow healing was one of the lynchpins in that operation, though. Without that, the whole thing falls apart.