Condition track - wishful thinking, rumor or confirmed?

[HelloChristian]

D&D is about being able to hack through foes with a dozen arrows stuck if your chest.

I don't want a mechanic that penalizes PCs for low hit points. When I want that, I play GURPS.

 

[Oldtimer]

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is about whether we think that the Condition Track (as in SWSE Condition Track) will be present in 4e. Discussion about penalties for having low hit points seems to be an entirely different thread.

Or am I mistaken in this?

 

[KarinsDad]

D&D is about being able to hack through foes with a dozen arrows stuck if your chest.

So, we should get rid of energy drain and poison and disease and entangle and prone and flank and a lot of other penalties in the game for not being "up to par"?

 

[KarinsDad]

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is about whether we think that the Condition Track (as in SWSE Condition Track) will be present in 4e. Discussion about penalties for having low hit points seems to be an entirely different thread.

Or am I mistaken in this?

You are mistaken.

The OP invited "not up to par" discussion with:

I welcome any additional steps between "I'm fully functional" and "I'm knocked out and dying"

The discussion is about additional steps between being totally up and being totally down. A conditional track might just be such a step, but it is not the only possible one.

 

[HelloChristian]

So, we should get rid of energy drain and poison and disease and entangle and prone and flank and a lot of other penalties in the game for not being "up to par"?

I didn't say that. I said that I do not want a system that penalizes character for low hit points.

There's a difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't say that. I said that I do not want a system that penalizes character for low hit points.

The amount of plausibility in a game system is dependent on the rules. Being at one hit point and fighting at full effectiveness every single time is just as plausible as flying without magic or wings.

The game designers add in rules like flank and poison and hit points and a lot of other rules that penalize creatures to model reality to some extent so that people can relate to and comprehend what is going on.

But, these are just the set of rules a given set of designers add.


A spell caster cannot cast a spell if he is distracted and fails a Concentration check, but a Fighter bleeding out of a dozen orifices from a dozen arrows and not being distracted or hindered in any way is nonsensical. It just happens to be the rules the designers picked to allow players to suspend disbelief and get into the game. It doesn't mean these rules do a good job of it.

Attacks of Opportunity are nonsensical. The ability to attack someone "behind you" with a longspear instantaneously when he drops his guard for a split second, even though you are surrounded by foes and are concentrating on the guy in front of you (and pointing your spear that way) does not make real logical sense. But, it is the game mechanic chosen by the designers to handle a different scenario: the King's guards cannot stop the Assassins from getting past them and attacking the King without Readied actions in a circular initiative system without AoOs. AoOs are there solely to support the flow of the initiative system, they are not there because they make real sense. In fact, they are totally game mechanic driven.


The point is that rules are rules. They are not any more or any less DND because the rules never existed in the past. Designers come up with new DND rules all of the time. The important thing is whether the rules work together, not whether any given rule exists or not.

If the designers come up with a nice comprehensive set of rules for 4E that includes one as a penalty for hit point damage, that's ok. As long as the rules work well together.

 

[Oldtimer]

You are mistaken.

The OP invited "not up to par" discussion with:



The discussion is about additional steps between being totally up and being totally down. A conditional track might just be such a step, but it is not the only possible one.

Then I'll leave this discussion, because it's completely left my area of interest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We've heard that certain abilities become available when you're Bloodied, so it's possible that that's the reason that's the only condition we've heard of so far.

*sniff*sniff*

Ladies and Gentlemen, I smell a LIMIT BREAK style system!

Very useful for my FFZ machinations, very useful indeed...

FFZ uses a system where every time you are brought close to death (in FFZ, it's usually 10% of your maximum hp) you are put in a Wounded status, and you gain a Limit Point. These LP are spent to activate major-mojo room-clearing kabooms, with more LP yeilding bigger powers at higher levels. These are basically "per-session" powers, rather than "per day" or "per encounter."

 

[pemerton]

Rolemaster has such a system and there are thousands of people who have fun playing RM as well.

<cut to later post>

The important thing is whether the rules work together, not whether any given rule exists or not.

I am a long-time GM of Rolemaster. It is true that wound penalties in that system can lead to a death spiral, but there are other aspects of the RM mechanics which mitigate against this.

In RM combat, each combatant has to split their melee bonus between attack and parry, and (in D&D terms) parry not only adds to AC but also acts as damage reduction. A character who suffers wound penalties can either reduce his/her parry - thus maintaining the same offence but running the risk of greater wounds - or reduce his/her attack - thus maintaining the same level of defence but reducing damage output and thus increasing the duration of the combat. Neither option will lead to a death spiral if the PC overall has the advantage - and thus (in the first case) can finish off their foe in the next round, or (in the second case) can still win with a reduced OB. Even against a stronger foe, the second option will not lead to a death sprial if the PC can maintain their defence until an ally is able to join in the fight.

In any case, the interest of these situations to the players arises because of the decisions about allocation of attack vs parry that must be made, and perhaps changed from round to round, even against foes who are overall weaker than the PCs.

 

[KarinsDad]

I am a long-time GM of Rolemaster. It is true that wound penalties in that system can lead to a death spiral, but there are other aspects of the RM mechanics which mitigate against this.

Precisely.

However, there have been some indications that this type of allocation of offense versus defense (except for the damage reduction portion) might happen with 4E as well.