April 3rd, Rule of 3

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry to chime in again:

I don´t know who is "we". But the 4e model to recover from wounds is actually quite nice in play. Really nice to be honest.
But I agree, that there should be some wound systems that allows hp only to be recovered over time or via magical healing. I believe the 4e system has the potential built in. Bloodied, dying and failed death saves could leave you with lasting wounds.

 

[Viking Bastard]

But I agree, that there should be some wound systems that can be recovered only over time or via magical healing. I believe the 4e syste has the potential built in. Bloodied, dying and failed death saves could leave you with lasting wounds.

Personally, I'd just throw a Condition at it.

 

[Guest 85555]

Sorry to cime in again:

I don´t know who is "we". But the 4e model to recover from wounds is actually quite nic in play. Really nice to be honest.
But I agree, that there should be some wound systems that can be recovered only over time or via magical healing. I believe the 4e syste has the potential built in. Bloodied, dying and failed death saves could leave you with lasting wounds.

I don't dispute that 4e is well designed for what it does. There is also nothing wrong with preferring the 4E approach (some of my best friends are 4E avengers). It is just important to keep in mind it isn't everyone's cup of tea. I like the simplicity of the classic HP and healing system, and it allows me to have the level of realism I want for D&D (my preference for other games and genres is very different). The 4E approach added too much for my tastes (jst in terms of straight mechanics, not talking about realism here), created a pacing and style that doesn't work for me, and produced a number of believability issues given my style of play. So it just isn't for me.

 

[n00bdragon]

This is the worst 14 page topic I've ever seen. There's no discussion. It's just two camps stating their points over and over again as if the other side merely doesn't understand them.

No.

Both sides understand one another and they do not like what they see.

One camp wants non-magical people to be normal human beings subject to the limits that normal humans are subject to and vulnerable to the threats of physical injury (or something resembling them) that we can dream up in our mind.

The other throws realism to the wind and desires fantasy action heroes who may not cast spells like a wizard might but are still fueled by some nondescript magical power or narrative device that elevates them above mere mortals into something more resembling a super hero.

These two character types cannot coexist in the same game. The super heroes will either break the mood for the "realistic" medieval adventurers or the derpy Sword Guy will ruin the fun of the superheroes by not contributing to the game in a relevant mechanical way or straight up holding them back.

What gets my undies in a twist is the claim that one style or the other is not D&D. Make no mistake, I believe many of you in this topic are playing D&D wrong in a stupid way that I hate and I would never game at your table, but I'm not about to argue that you're not playing D&D. You're playing a version of it I don't prefer and that I wish WotC would abandon as the old shame. But even more than that I would rather they pick one or the other and actually try to do a good job of it. If they try to please both sides they'll no doubt succeed in unifying the players of all editions... in hating 5E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

not sure about that. There may be two or three modules. One with and one without surges.

 

[Sunseeker]

But even more than that I would rather they pick one or the other and actually try to do a good job of it. If they try to please both sides they'll no doubt succeed in unifying the players of all editions... in hating 5E.

I don't believe throwing out one group or the other is going to be the solution here. I really get the feeling that the majority of people who come on this board are probably the more extreme of the folks who want things their way. There is room for compromise on this issue, and I believe the vast majority of players will suck it up when it comes to it not being perfect.

The guys who come over here just after their Pathfinder game and make statements saying 5e needs to be objectively better than Pathfinder in order for them to get on board, they're the outliers. I'd wager most people here would be willing to play a good game in any edition, in any system for that matter.

The idea that there is some sort of dichotomy and that we can only have "The Fighting Man" or Conan is just silly. There's a middle ground here, Wizards knows it, everyone here knows it(regardless of if they admit to it), and I'm certain Wizards is working hard to make the normies feel cool without feeling like super-powered heroes, but still impart that heroic vibe.

 

[BryonD]

I don't believe throwing out one group or the other is going to be the solution here. I really get the feeling that the majority of people who come on this board are probably the more extreme of the folks who want things their way. There is room for compromise on this issue, and I believe the vast majority of players will suck it up when it comes to it not being perfect.

The guys who come over here just after their Pathfinder game and make statements saying 5e needs to be objectively better than Pathfinder in order for them to get on board, they're the outliers. I'd wager most people here would be willing to play a good game in any edition, in any system for that matter.

The idea that there is some sort of dichotomy and that we can only have "The Fighting Man" or Conan is just silly. There's a middle ground here, Wizards knows it, everyone here knows it(regardless of if they admit to it), and I'm certain Wizards is working hard to make the normies feel cool without feeling like super-powered heroes, but still impart that heroic vibe.

If this was true then the "vast majority" would be playing 4E now and 5E conversations would still be a few years out.


Your comment regarding willingness "to play a good game in any edition" is quite true. It is also quite pointless. Because the fact that it is true does nothing to mitigate the equal reality of: and given a choice they will choose to play that "good" game in the best system they have available.

In the end you are simply claiming that people will ignore quality when it come to their own personal preferences. That is silly.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry to cime in again:

I don´t know who is "we". But the 4e model to recover from wounds is actually quite nic in play. Really nice to be honest.
But I agree, that there should be some wound systems that can be recovered only over time or via magical healing. I believe the 4e syste has the potential built in. Bloodied, dying and failed death saves could leave you with lasting wounds.

I disagree with you in strong terms about the 4E healing system "as-is" being anywhere in the ballpark of nice.

But I think you have a great thought for fixing it. If there were *common* ways for wound to be flagged as "harm" and those HP could not be recovered through surges then that has potential to be really cool.
I'd add some of the damage from crits to the list and I'm sure some other things if I thought about it.

But what you would do would be to create a wound / vitality system, but your entire HP pool could be either wound or vitality HP on a case by case basis. Surges still work as presented in 4E, but only for qualifying damage.

 

[Sunseeker]

If this was true then the "vast majority" would be playing 4E now and 5E conversations would still be a few years out.

I disagree, and I'm not sure how you got this our of my post. The "vast majority" play multiple systems, within and without the D&D brand. I'd wager that even amongst it's strongest oppoenents, the number of people who have NEVER EVER EVER NEVER played 4e are small.

Your comment regarding willingness "to play a good game in any edition" is quite true. It is also quite pointless. Because the fact that it is true does nothing to mitigate the equal reality of: and given a choice they will choose to play that "good" game in the best system they have available.

In the end you are simply claiming that people will ignore quality when it come to their own personal preferences. That is silly.

That choice is not always available. There are a finite number of people willing to run games, sometimes you have to suck it up and play an edition you aren't the biggest fan of if you want to play at all. And the "quality" of a game is less dependent upon the system and much more dependent upon the players and the DM. I'll play almost anything with my friends, because I want to play a game with my friends, which is why I'm in a 3e game right now even though 4e is my preference.

There are a lot of factors that go in to what someone is willing to play. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who would outrightly turn down playing with their friends/family over a specific edition are few.

You're right at the end though. People will ignore perceived "quality" if there are other more powerful personal preferences.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree with you in strong terms about the 4E healing system "as-is" being anywhere in the ballpark of nice.

But I think you have a great thought for fixing it. If there were *common* ways for wound to be flagged as "harm" and those HP could not be recovered through surges then that has potential to be really cool.
I'd add some of the damage from crits to the list and I'm sure some other things if I thought about it.

But what you would do would be to create a wound / vitality system, but your entire HP pool could be either wound or vitality HP on a case by case basis. Surges still work as presented in 4E, but only for qualifying damage.

I am always open for good ideas. And I am willing to try them out and look how it works in play. 4e hp do work very well in play, as long as you don´t think too hard about them.

Better than 3.x hp to be honest, where i had to houserule cure spells...

I really could imagine simple hp systems, that try to be a little bit realistic, and don´t make the game a math exercise... (although i have an exam in math, i am not willing to do too much math in my free time)