Disappointed in 4e

[Lacyon]

I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the problems caused by the 4e hit point paradigm, which allows, among other things, for you to go from having that "3 feet of steel through the chest" to "another nick on the arm" because someone spoke some inspirational words, or because you had a good night's sleep.

Or you're merely able to fight and walk again, having been expertly stitched up by your comrades (fortunately, the blade missed your vital organs).

The specifics of hp restoration are now as vague as the specifics of their loss. I suppose that is a paradigm shift.

And that, my friend, is a very radical paradigm shift!

But even without this, the idea that the nick on your arm has no effect on your overall ability to keep your opponent from killing you is a pretty major shift all by itself.

It does have an impact, or nobody would bother shouting all those inspiring words at you.

Lessening or removing that impact need not be the sole province of the physical healing of that particular injury. I'm just not seeing that as a radical shift.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The specifics of hp restoration are now as vague as the specifics of their loss. I suppose that is a paradigm shift.

Please note that, if the specifics of hp loss were as vague as you think, the specifics of their restoration would have to be as vague as they are now.

I'm just not seeing that as a radical shift.

And there are some who do not see how becoming a Flat Earther is a radical paradigm shift.

EDIT: IMHO, this "It's just like Gary's D&D" nonsense is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt lend add legitimacy to a paradigm shift that is sorely in need of it. People who feel confident about the 4e hp paradigm as a worthwhile entity in its own right can call it a new paradigm without having to drag down Gary's work in the process. Personal opinion. YMMV.



RC

 

[Scribble]

Where in the rules does it indicate X type of hit / X amount of damage equals "3 feet of steel through the chest?"

 

[Lacyon]

EDIT: IMHO, this "It's just like Gary's D&D" nonsense is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt lend add legitimacy to a paradigm shift that is sorely in need of it. People who feel confident about the 4e hp paradigm as a worthwhile entity in its own right can call it a new paradigm without having to drag down Gary's work in the process. Personal opinion. YMMV.

There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting. IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas. People who aren't worried about that can admit that while both systems break down when you try to analyze them too closely, they're based on the same basic principles that resource management and fun gameplay take precedence over rule-defining every type of wound and its specific impact on a character's ability.

Or we can stop slinging the underhanded insults at each other. Personal opinion. YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting.

Damage and healing system both; they are part of the same paradigm.

IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas.

Sure can be. Both the Gygaxian hp system and the 4e hit point system are abstractions, and break down at different points for different folks. They are not, however, the same system. Nor are they systems based off of the same concept of what hit points represent.

And 4e does, as I have said before, contain many good ideas. I would go so far as to say that, had the designers of 4e claimed that they read my complaints about 3e and attempted to respond specifically to them, that I would not be surprised. There is a clear attempt to fix problems that arose from 3e, and they are specific problems that I (among many others) have complained about.

Some of their fixes are spot on. While I am not a fan of 4e, I have said this before and I will (no doubt) say it again. Upthread here I have said that I have no problem with Intimidate causing an opponent to go unconscious. I call it "fainting".

Some of their fixes seem, to me, to exhibit a failure to grasp the cause of the problem in the first place. Combats being faster? Not in 4e; try 1e. Want careful balance? 4e has it in spades; avoid 1e.

It is nice to have different systems that allow for different tastes. But the attempt to claim that, if you like salsa dancing, all of the dancing that came before was "really" salsa dancing, if only you had known it, is cheap. And it is revisionist history.

Saying "A is not B" does not imply a lesser value to A or B. Attempting to revise A into B, as a response to someone pointing out problems with B, devalues both A and B.


RC

 

[SteveC]

There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting. IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas. People who aren't worried about that can admit that while both systems break down when you try to analyze them too closely, they're based on the same basic principles that resource management and fun gameplay take precedence over rule-defining every type of wound and its specific impact on a character's ability.

I think this is a very insightful comment. Hit Points are an extremely simple concept: they're perhaps the simplest way that a game has to track damage. You're either in the fight or out of it, and the points you have left give you an idea of how well you're doing, as well as being a resource to manage. Everything else is color text. Color text that, like an impressionistic painting, breaks down when you look at it too closely.

The particular type of color text 4E uses allows for a lot of new ways to manage those resources, but in the end it's still the same system as it has always been.

--Steve

 

[Raven Crowking]

The particular type of color text 4E uses allows for a lot of new ways to manage those resources, but in the end it's still the same system as it has always been.

Ah, yes, the "It's different......but the same!" argument.

We defend the new by claiming that, no matter what problems it had that the old does not, the old was the same, and therefore just as bad.

At the same time, we drag down the authors of the new by claiming, no matter what they did better than the old, the old was the same, and therefore the new is just as bad.

Wouldn't it be easier, and more respectful to both, to admit that no matter how much a fish might resemble a dolphin superficially, that they are different animals?


RC

 

[Lacyon]

Damage and healing system both; they are part of the same paradigm.

The biggest shift in the paradigm is that this isn't true anymore.

EDIT TO ADD:

The major conceit of the 1E system is that the 5 hp that represented a scratch to a 10th-level fighter takes just as much effort to recover from as the 5 hp that represented a near-mortal wounding.

The major conceit of the 4E system is that the 5 hp that represented a scratch to a 10th-level fighter takes just as much effort to recover from as the 5 hp that represented a near-mortal wounding.

Radical shift, I know.

 

[SteveC]

Ah, yes, the "It's different......but the same!" argument.

RC

Nope. Let me break it down as simple as I can:

Same crunch.

Different fluff.

You're arguing about fluff.

That's all.

--Steve

 

[FireLance]

The key similarity between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that any hit that does not reduce a character to 0 hit points or less is a non-threatening wound that does not hamper the character's ability to fight.

A high-level character who is low on hit points will look pretty much the same regardless of edition: covered with nicks, scratches and bruises, out of breath, and probably low on luck as well. The process of getting him to that point will also look pretty much the same, regardless of edition: due to skill, luck, and other factors, attacks that would have killed a normal man have been evaded and/or turned into minor injuries. In addition, the next time he gets hit, the same thing will happen regardless of edition: he will sustain a life-threatening wound that will kill him if he is unlucky or if he does not get help.

The first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that the only way to recover hit points quickly pre-4e was to use magic. 4e hit points are more like vitality points in that they can be recovered quickly without magical assistance, e.g. being affected by a warlord's inspiring word, spending healing surges during a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. Pre-4e, a character's ability to convert a serious wound into a minor injury can only be regained slowly without the use of magic. In 4e, a character can replenish his skill, luck and the other "intangible" aspects of hit points more quickly without magical assistance. A 4e character who has been brought down to low hit points and then recovers all his hit points after a rest is still covered in nicks, scratches and bruises, but his ability to convert future serious wounds into minor injuries has been regained.

The second key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points happens when a character has been brought to 0 hit points or less. It is actually a subset of the first key difference. Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally. Whatever serious, life-threatening injury he sustained was either healed or converted to a minor, non-threatening wound that does not hamper his ability to fight. If magical healing was not available, bed rest could achieve the same effect, but more slowly. Even so, for 3.5e characters of 10th level or higher, eight hours of rest was all that was necessary for them to go from almost dead (-9 hp) to functioning normally (1 hp or more). And at this point, we are back to the first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points.

So, what happens when a 4e character has been brought to 0 hit points or less and then gets his hit points restored in a non-magical fashion? Somehow, that serious wound that he sustained is no longer life-threatening and no longer hampers his ability to fight. During a fight, this could be explained by a rush of adrenaline or being so inspired by an ally that the character functions normally despite his wounds. After a short or extended rest, it could be explained by treating and binding the character's injuries so that he functions normally despite his wounds. Alternatively, the character could be made of such stern stuff that after a short period of gritting his teeth, he just functions normally despite his wounds. Non-magical healing doesn't make a wound go away. It just allows a character to function normally despite his wounds.

Now, not liking that non-magical healing can allow a character to function normally despite his wounds is a valid complaint, and there are a number of possible sub-systems that can address it, e.g. lingering wounds (using the disease track mechanic), temporary reduction in the number of healing surges per day, temporary limits to the character's maximum hit points, etc.

However, I do believe that 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points handle damage to the character in pretty much the same way. The two key changes that 4e has made to hit points are that the "intangible" aspect of hit points that allow a character to turn a serious wound into a minor injury are recovered more quickly in 4e, and that 4e characters who have not received magical healing are still able to function normally despite their wounds.