April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Crazy Jerome]

See, the thing is, you can very, very easily shift 4e's healing system to match other editions. I've lost the link to @Crazy Jerome 's post where he makes a fantastic system for doing it, but, it's really not that difficult to adapt without forcing DM's to make any changes to their game world.

You can adapt 4E to 3E easily. It's actually a bit harder to do it for AD&D or BECMI, though I could probably match those if I put my mind to it. It's been so long since I've played either, I'd miss something though. Anyway, there are several ways to do this to have 4E healing emulate 3E, but the common denominator is that tie the number of surges not to the character but the outside resource--the CLW spell, a wand, a potion, etc. Then simply regulate those resources similar to how you would in 3E. (Naturally, the numbers are a bit different, since using a surge will do more than a typical 3E CLW wand charge.)

Depending upon how pure you want this solution, you can then decide whether or not to keep second wind, maybe change warlord "healing" to some temp hit point mechanic to compensate, etc. The pure solution would be to simply throw the warlord out and/or replace all of his healing options with something else, and have no healing but from rest, clerical-type magic, and items that do the same--e.g. healing potions. For a moderately pure version that keeps some of the nice fixes from 4E, do that, but keep second wind, and do not allow magic items in a lower tier to affect characters of a higher tier--i.e. no heroic potion will do much for a paragon tier character.

But as I said at the first, as long as you sever the tie between character and surge, then repace it with surges from resources, you are most of the way to some form of 3E healing.

 

[Lanefan]

OK. Different from me. I don't have much 3E experience, but in B/X and AD&D my experience was the same as that which [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] posted recently in one of these hp/healing threads: clerical healing, potions etc were deployed after the fighting, not during it. (I think in part this is because doing those things in a battle was tricky - clerical spells in AD&D have long casting times, and so can easily be interrupted. It was also suggested by the example of play in Moldvay Basic - fight first, heal later.)

Yep; and I'm now wondering when that standard changed - when healing during combat became the normal expectation rather than the uncommon exception.

What's interesting about 4e - at least as it plays at my table - is that there is a mix of action types for healing abilities and powers. Second wind is standard, but minor for dwarves; most leader healing powers are minor, but some are standard, or are riders on standard action attacks; etc.

Then, these abilities are distributed over the PCs - second wind requires an action from the character, or from another character using Heal; different PCs have different healing powers (in my game, the ranger-cleric has several, as does the paladin, and the wizard has one "aura of charm" type power that grants temp hp to all allies).

And these abilities have different resource costs: encounter, daily, daily item (in the unerrata-ed rules, a PC can only use a limited number of daily item powers per day), etc.

Which means that the tactical considerations become more intricate, and the potential story contexts richer (different variations on last-minute recovery, heroic efforts, trading off helping your teammates vs pressing the attack, etc).

Which is all fine, I suppose; as long as one doesn't care about classes maintaining what once were their niches. Consider this:

The broad-brush class niches used to be:

Fighters kill
Thieves sneak
Magic-users blast
Clerics heal

Now, they seem to be something like:

Fighters defend
Thieves kill
Wizards blast
Clerics - well, they do whatever they can

No wonder nobody likes to play 'em any more.

Lan-"that said, there's still a place for the odd very rare and highly expensive magic item that gives healing to non-Clerics"-efan

 

[pemerton]

The Bo9S has the Devoted Spirit discipline which is free only for the Crusader, but the Bo9S gives pretty free access to the maneuver system for any character by paying with feats. There is a series of strikes that grant healing in that school, and also a stance I think. You can see the whole maneuver list for free here courtesy of WotC.

This is where my above-mentioned ignorance of ToB comes into play! Thanks for the link. The stance seems to be "Aura of Triumph".

The crusader class also has an interesting damage mechanic built into it where incoming damage up to a certain amount (basically 5 per 4 levels) went into a pool and didn't actually hit you until the end of your turn, and in the mean time it gave you bonuses to hit and damage. "Go on, hit me."

Cool.

The closest I've seen to this sort of "Go on, hit me" in my 4e game is the dwarf fighter deliberately staying bloodied so that he is able, if necessary, to use the Bloodied Retribution attack (his biggest damage single-target strike) that he has access to via his dwarven thrower artefact.

Question: are there many 3E players who don't like 4e but don't object to ToB?

 

[pemerton]

The broad-brush class niches used to be:

Fighters kill
Thieves sneak
Magic-users blast
Clerics heal

Now, they seem to be something like:

Fighters defend
Thieves kill
Wizards blast
Clerics - well, they do whatever they can

I agree that the game has changed, but I think your account of the 4e roles is a bit narrow.

In my game:

*the dwarf polearm fighter-cleric exercises close-range battlefield control - basically, nothing can get past him, and once he's in melee with an enemy it is almost impossible for them to escape; he also has one or two healing abilities, and is the only PC with Heal skill trained;

*the paladin defends, in the sense of taking on the biggest foe(s) and soaking up damage and dishing it out (through various bits and pieces he has become the third-highest damage dealer in the party, after the two strikers); he also does quite a bit of healing, and is the party diplomat;

*the archer-ranger shoots things, only very rarely gets into melee, and heals; he also has one or two "cleric calls down the divine radiance of the god" attacks; he is the stealthiest PC, the scout, the guide etc;

*the sorcerer is the biggest damage dealer hands down, with a host of bursts, blasts and the like; he is very mobile in combat, but spends quite a bit of time in melee (using close attacks); he is fairly stealthy (as a drow he brings his own darkness) and very bluff-y (the trickster of the group); he is also the only PC trained in Thievery (via monk multi-class - besides Thievery it also gives him a 1x/enc flurry of blows - he sucks his enemies in via his Cyclone Vortex, then beats them all up with his ninja skills!);

*the wizard is the lowest damage dealer in the party, but has some big control effects (a Bigby's Hand, Wall of Fire, Twist of Space (1x/enc teleport enemies), Thunderwave (at will push enemies); overall the weakest PC in combat, but the party ritualist and scholar.​

If I compare this to B/X or AD&D, the paladin feels like a fighter/cleric or a paladin, the wizard feels like a diviner/sage with some combat ability also, the sorcerer feels like a blasting wizard (but perhaps a bit blastier than is easy to achieve in those systems, I think) with a bit of thief multi-class, and the ranger feels like an archery specialist ranger from UA, but without the followers or MU spells (and not much like a classic ranger/cleric, because his only cleric-y features are the healing and a little bit of radiant damage).

The fighter is the only one that I feel really couldn't be pulled off in that system, because there is nothing in classic D&D that models the combination of forced movement and lockdown that he brings to the table.

 

[Andor]

But as I said at the first, as long as you sever the tie between character and surge, then repace it with surges from resources, you are most of the way to some form of 3E healing.

Why cut the surge from the character? 3e already has the Reserve Point option. Why not bump it up to about the 4e value and then say that all healing draws from your own pool. Run of out reserve points and (most) healis don't work. Then hand out second winds. Now you have the distributed healing, after fight rest healing, and the daily throttle.

 

[Andor]

Question: are there many 3E players who don't like 4e but don't object to ToB?

I don't know, but it would be an interesting poll. I'd guess yes. Most people I know love ToB, I've heard fewer praise 4e.

Basically ToB (along with Star Wars Saga) was the test bed for a lot of the 4e ideas. But they weren't quite as radical, didn't lock everyone into the AEDU economy, and didn't chuck fluff out the airlock so (from what I can tell) they were much more widely accepted.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't know, but it would be an interesting poll. I'd guess yes. Most people I know love ToB, I've heard fewer praise 4e.

Basically ToB (along with Star Wars Saga) was the test bed for a lot of the 4e ideas. But they weren't quite as radical, didn't lock everyone into the AEDU economy, and didn't chuck fluff out the airlock so (from what I can tell) they were much more widely accepted.

When star wars saga came out I very strongly disliked it personally, but about half of my group did seem to like it.

 

[pemerton]

didn't chuck fluff out the airlock

That's a bit provocative! I'm one of those who thinks 4e has the best and most coherent fiction of any version of D&D - and that it makes that fiction relevant to the positioning of the PCs in the game as well as any other version of D&D does. Although I would say that what counts as salient fiction has changed a bit - from my point of view, it's less minutiae, more myth & history.

EDIT: In the recent MM poll on the WotC site, I voted the 4e MM as my favourite D&D monster book. The idea that it doesn't give you the story elements you need to run monsters has, as far as I'm concerned, no basis in reality. (Obviously I know that others feel differently, but to be honest I'm not sure that all of them have actually read the entries closely and extracted the fiction from them - including the significant amounts of fiction that are encoded in the mechanics.)

 

[Andor]

That's a bit provocative!

EDIT: In the recent MM poll on the WotC site, I voted the 4e MM as my favourite D&D monster book. The idea that it doesn't give you the story elements you need to run monsters has, as far as I'm concerned, no basis in reality.

I was talking specifically about actions, not monsters, races, settings or any other bits of fluff in 4e. I thought that would have been clear from the topic of discussion. None of the fluff in 4e is bad, except for the AEDU actions where the fluff is (IMHO) marginal and occasionally completely impenetrable. Come and Get it, etc.

Every martial action in the game has what amounts to the same fluff "You hit him with a weapon" but wildly different effects for damage, movement, status infliction, etc, etc. A lot of it seems ... pretty arbitrary to me.

This is only a problem for Martial characters, but it's a pretty big problem. But that comment was not intended as a stab at 4e's writing in general, nor was it meant provocatively. It was only commentary on the relationship between the exploratory mechanics of late 3e/SWSE and their evolution into 4e. I might have skipped the aside, but it seemed relevant somehow.

 

[Balesir]

None of the fluff in 4e is bad, except for the AEDU actions where the fluff is (IMHO) marginal and occasionally completely impenetrable. Come and Get it, etc.

Every martial action in the game has what amounts to the same fluff "You hit him with a weapon" but wildly different effects for damage, movement, status infliction, etc, etc. A lot of it seems ... pretty arbitrary to me.

This relates, I think, to a discussion I've been having on the WotC boards.

I think there is a fundamental divide around the point, actually - although my own preferences relate specifically to the type of game I seek from D&D, as opposed to the type of game I seek from certain other RPGs. I agree that 4e approaches powers by giving a clear, specific definition of what the power does, and a vague guideline concerning what the power looks like. I love this - I much, much prefer it to the general approach in earlier editions, which had a tendency to be the exact opposite: to give clear, precise definition of what the power (spell, feat, whatever) looked like, but only vague guidelines concerning its mechanical effects in the game.