D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[SSquirrel]

Frankly, it's time to abandon the GNS terminology. (Heck, in the thread that the original poster pointed to, the designers don't use simulation in the same way that the standard GNS definitions lay out. I suspect because the GNS framework and everything that grows out of it has little to do with how they work.)

I never thought the GNS terminology was good for anything. The people who spend too much time focusing on the GNS angle seem to miss the overall picture. You're playing a game w/friends and it's supposed to be fun.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

True, our (incorrect) common usage of the word does point to this, but take a look at a dictionary definition:

to stain or smear with blood...to cause to bleed, as by a blow ..

But your point is well taken...

I think too, that by having it open to both terms, it can then be used in a variety of ways. Normal combat where your just being worn down would go along with the more common-bloodied where they have gotten themselves into a position where their bashed and bruised, slower to strike, etc.

However, it can also be used when say a critical brings you to bloodied, which be something like. "The sword swipe across your brow continues to smear your eyes with blood, hindering your sight. A thunderous roar in your ears from the blow of the follow up with the pommel is disorienting and irritating."

Both work, but in different manners for different situations/game-styles.

 

[Raduin711]

Then the game designers shouldn't have called a condition 'bloodied', or morale recovery 'healing surge'.

Well, what if everything before bloodied consists of morale, bumps, bruises, scrapes, and physical exhaustion, and bloodied means that you have actually gotten to the point where injury has taken place? Like the action movie hero with cuts in his cheek, bruises, he's been knocked down a couple times, and then when he's bloodied the dramatic strike has come in... a sword in the ribcage, or something of that nature.

 

[KarinsDad]

That is simply one definition of Bloodied not the only one. Think about in common speech, we use the term bloodied in a variety of ways, such as "*such and such* presidental hopeful came out of last-nights debate bloodied but still determined" I highly doubt there was a fight at the debate.

Except that the common usage of the word is "get your butt handed to you". In a debate, sure that can mean not actual blood.

But, not with swords and claws. It's pretty obvious that the term when talking about battle is about (at least some level of) actual damage.

It's not character morale damage in that context.

When taken in context, one should not use a usage of the word that has a totally different context. When debating, that's called Equivocation and is considered a logical fallacy.

The words "damage", "healing", and "bloodied" when referenced to combat mean at least some level of physical damage. We are discussing combat here, not Presidential debate.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I wholeheartedly support the idea that a bloodied character is wounded. However, I also support the idea that characters with full HPs and a full complement of healing surges are not completely healed.

In my game, my PCs will feel stiff and sore the day after a fight. I won't be assigning penalties (well, not always ), but I will be playing up the story aspect of the aftermath of the fights, just like we've seen in movies like Die Hard or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I may even punish characters who do not seek to tend their wounds after a battle or seek out special healing after particularly nasty fights.

However, for me, this is story outside of combat mechanics. I want my PCs to be heroic characters who can shrug off their hurts in order to do incredible feats of fantasy combat.

And, yes, that means that every combat, I expect the fighter to be doing a "brutal strike". I only expect to specially reward the player in question with extra damage once per in-game day for that "brutal strike", but I encourage players to make every time the fighter does a lot of damage, with or without the named power, somewhat similar in description.

 

[Noinarap]

I still don't see the connection. I could grok a vampiric warlock who gets extra HP or an overall power boost from his kill (i've seen this in movies). Why the dark masters would specifically allow him to move 3 squares every time he does someone in is beyond me (and wow, them fairies got really nasty)

It's possible to phrase these things in a way that is more hostile to the ideas. Replace "move 3 squares" with "deal 1d6 extra damage with his next eldritch blast" or "heal 3 hit points" or "gain a +2 power bonus to AC until the end of his next turn" and it all sounds distastefully mechanical. Perhaps the fey pact allows him to use the dead soul to tear a hole in the fabric of the world and step through the feywild as the eladrin do. Ultimately, I suppose we will continue to be stalled by our predispositions to accept/reject these things =\

Same for the cleric. Unless he worships some twisted war god, i don't see how "I smite yon foul creature" specifically induces "wish y'all a speedy recovery"

Do note that the HP granting ability is temporary HP, not actual healing. Again, I see it as the god charging the recipient with vigor to keep fighting. See above though.

They just make the list longer. I felt that each previous edition at least tried to make it shorter.

I think this edition will also make some things more believable. First level adventurers will not die to a single hit. No one will live and die by spiked chain exploits. Seasoned adventurers will have some basic proficiency in all adventuring skills.

WotC giveth and WotC taketh away =)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't see any paradigm shift. 4e is an improved version of 3e. It has the same core mechanics. There's a slight change of emphasis towards gamism and away from sim. As the designers said 3e was the sim side of the centre and 4e is the towards the gamist side. But they are still both in the centre compared to the set of all rpgs.

 

[Cadfan]

We're all used to the things in 3e that weren't realistic, because most of them were things that have never been realistic. Now some of those things are fixed. Other, new unrealistic things are present, but I don't think there are more overall. And I think that the choice of which unrealistic things are present and which aren't is based on better reasoning about which ones improve the game and which don't.

 

[hong]

Honestly, people have been able to grok an attack roll < AC as still hitting the target for 30 years. Bloodied not actually having to involve blood should be easy.

(Although what I actually did in the last session is not worry about describing each individual hit, and then play up how the bloodied hit leaves the guy coughing up blood, or wiping away blood with the back of his hand, and getting even angrier as a result. How you frame it in the context of the surrounding combat is all that matters.)

 

[robertliguori]

Well, what if everything before bloodied consists of morale, bumps, bruises, scrapes, and physical exhaustion, and bloodied means that you have actually gotten to the point where injury has taken place? Like the action movie hero with cuts in his cheek, bruises, he's been knocked down a couple times, and then when he's bloodied the dramatic strike has come in... a sword in the ribcage, or something of that nature.

That would be interesting. You have two stacks of hit points, one based on morale, and one based on actual resistance to injury. You can regain the first, but not the second. This would mean that you couldn't use healing surges to get above the bloodied condition.

Huh. I kind of like that.