Disappointed in 4e

[Shadeydm]

Indeed.

It is not wrongbadfun to prefer either.

There is something....offputting....IMHO, though, about denying that there is a change.


RC

I don't get it either the whole I like the change, but there is no change dichotomy is a curious thing.

 

[mmadsen]

Where does it say that CLW cures only flesh wounds?

I love the way you abbreviate cure light wounds while getting indignant that anyone would think such a spell or potion would only cure flesh wounds. Yes, yes, light wounds and flesh wounds are totally different...

 

[Raven Crowking]

So this is OK in 1e, but not in 4e?

The nature of the 4e game system itself enforces avoiding role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

Put two groups of players after the same prize and facing the same challenges. One group role-plays wounded status, one does not.

In 1e, the group that rps wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does not.

In 4e, the group that does not rp wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does.

It is not wrongbadfun to rp wounding in 4e (obviously), and doing so can cause the players to self-limit themselves from using everything available to their characters, but the game system itself penalizes this self-limitation.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't get it either the whole I like the change, but there is no change dichotomy is a curious thing.

"A dolphin is a mammal, except where being a mammal would hurt my argument, in which case it is a fish."

I love the way you abbreviate cure light wounds while getting indignant that anyone would think such a spell or potion would only cure flesh wounds. Yes, yes, light wounds and flesh wounds are totally different...

Within the context of the spell, they certainly are different, if not totally different. The term "light" refers largely to a number of hit points cured.

Of course, you otherwise ignored the other important point that, if that 5 hp was a vital wound -- something that dropped the fighter -- a CLW would not get him onto his feet in 1e. So there is certainly an element of limitation as to the type of wounds a CLW was intended to heal.

Or are you suggesting that a "gaping hole in my chest" is the type of wound you get while you are still at a positive hit point total?!?


RC

 

[mmadsen]

Within the context of the spell, they certainly are different, if not totally different. The term "light" refers largely to a number of hit points cured.

Yes, that's the problem. What does cure light wounds mean to the characters living in the game world?

 

[Lacyon]

Of course, you otherwise ignored the other important point that, if that 5 hp was a vital wound -- something that dropped the fighter -- a CLW would not get him onto his feet in 1e. So there is certainly an element of limitation as to the type of wounds a CLW was intended to heal.

If this is the paradigm shift that you're talking about, it happened prior to 4E.

EDIT: As for why XP for GP matters, it's the major cause for moving the numbers toward relatively rapid recovery (this shift also happened before 4E). When you get the bulk of your XP from something other than combat, the system can encourage players to avoid combat without being self-defeating. When you get the bulk of your XP by defeating monsters, avoiding combat doesn't make sense (and the game changes to match the new expectations).

Either way, the "hp paradigm" is that hp are numbers on a page and don't really mean anything until you lose them all. That hasn't changed one whit, and the main purpose of the system is to avoid detailing the specifics. In that sense, the paradigm hasn't shifted - only the numbers have changed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, that's the problem. What does cure light wounds mean to the characters living in the game world?

A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds. It is less likely to heal all of your wounds than cure moderate wounds, and even less likely to heal all of your wounds than cure serious wounds.

Of course, how much aid any such spell gives a particular individual is for the gods to decide.....or blind chance, if you believe some sages.


(Aside.....that wasn't difficult at all.)


RC

 

[mmadsen]

A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds.

Which wounds were the severe ones again? You just said, quite indignantly, that cure light wounds doesn't heal flesh wounds, something the characters in the game world might understand, but refers to a number of hit points. What would that mean to the people in the game world?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which wounds were the severe ones again? You just said, quite indignantly, that cure light wounds doesn't heal flesh wounds, something the characters in the game world might understand, but refers to a number of hit points. What would that mean to the people in the game world?

The "most severe of wounds" denotes any wound which drops a character to 0 hp or below.

Really, do you honestly find this difficult?


RC

 

[LostSoul]

So I'm going back and reading that thread.

Most examples are, "Let's narrate something we know won't make sense and complain how 4e doesn't make sense!"

Those examples are like me saying 1e ran like this:

"The troll claw/claw/bites you for 14 damage. The troll warps into an anime rock star, Sailor Moon-style, and blasts you with his wicked axe wailing powers!"

I guess 1e is Sailor Moon, the RPG. Wow! Never realized that.

It's like the example above. How does that show that you must spit out narration like that in 4e?

Here's the thing: Yes, you can describe wounds that will be absurd. You could do this in all previous editions.

Your claim is that you must do this, that the system produces absurd results, full stop.

My claim is that the absurdity depends on the ability of the players.

Here are some examples:

[sblock]Example 1:

4e: Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage. This might be a wound, or it might not be. Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.

Example 1: Let's say it's a fighter with 30 hp who takes 24 damage, which is more consistent with the numbers. Let's say it's two things: a White Dragon critting with his breath (22 dmg) and a couple of kobold dragonshield hits.

White Dragon: I say, "I raise my shield against its freezing breath, and I can feel the cold seeping into my bones, slowing me down."

Kobolds: I say, "The first one stabs at me, but the lethal blow is turned into a bruise by my mail. Then, out of position, I barely bring up my sword in time to block the other's slash, sending jarring pain down through my arm."

Awesome. 1 down.

Example 2:

"I'm just....a little...out of breath....give me a moment."
"Your arm's off!"
"Trick of the light. Feeling much better now."
"But...it came clean off at the elbow!"
"Only a little bit. Needed to remind myself that I could do it, and that together we could do anything. Now, attack in that way I showed you before...."
"Eh? Says who?"
"I'm a warlord."
"Then where's your soldiers, where's the war? I know how to fight better than you do, you're not going to order me around. Back in your box you...whatever you are."
"A dragonborn."
"Okay....right............wake me up for 5E, please."

I think the problem is that they decided to cut the arm off a guy who is still up and fighting. I blame player skill. This would be the same (except the standard "warlord/dragonborn" rant) in previous editions.

Example 3:

[Our adventuring heroes Pemerton and Herremann gather around the evening campfire to discuss the day's adventuring]

Pemerton: Hard day today Herremann, how are you feeling after that axe to the head?

Herremann: Axe to the head? Is that what it was? I seem OK, I can still cast my spells fine. It must have been a grazing shot then.

Pemerton: Actually it looked pretty bad at the time. Blood sprayed everywhere.

Herremann: Really? Was it that bad? I suppose it must have been as it knocked me clean out.

Pemerton: I reckon you could have been seconds away from death actually.

Herremann: Surely not... I couldn't have been that bad because I'm fine now - just a little bit weary though... near my bedtime actually.

(Yes, I cut the part out about not having long-term injuries. I agree with that; it's not part of D&D.)

This is another example of stupid narration or poor player skill.

Example 4:

What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away. I prefer a game in which action has consequences. It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.

Lance describes the bad wound to the hip. It stays around his whole career; it never goes away. Even after it heals up, the pain still lingers.

Again, compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out. And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound. Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie. He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.

Is this a Schrödinger's Wounding problem, or players deciding to describe things in absurd ways?

Example 5:

(Not really an example, but a good one)

So, whatever happens, don't describe any hit as deadly, until the target is actually dead? So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?

You can describe some wounds as deadly, but I wouldn't if doing so bothered you.

If you go down to a "non-deadly" wound: "You get smacked on the back with the hammer. You see blackness... now do you have the will to get back up?"

Example 6:

Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:

Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
DM: "You can't tell."
Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
DM: He might die without treatment!
Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
DM: Yes, you do!
Player: No, I am a warlord, not a cleric!
DM: The effect is the same!

and so on.

I replied in the thread:

Hey Fenes;

I know that 4e doesn't work for you. That's cool. What I'm arguing is that you don't have to get into the trap of retconning wounds and damage if you don't want to.

Let's look at the sample of play proposed and I'll tell you how I'd deal with it. I'll bold the text I add.

Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
DM: "You can't tell."
Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
DM: He's on the ground, in a deep fog, but he can still hear your words.*
DM: He might die without treatment!
Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
DM: But an Inspiring Word will allow him to stand up, shake his head clear of the cobwebs, and give him the strength to fight on!**

After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?" "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!". Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.

(You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)

Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell. I told you not to engage the enemy!").

* - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there. I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words. His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."

** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances. Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc). This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.

To which Fenes replies:

My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains my suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge.

And I reply:

Ah. In 4e - and this is a genre convention, probably new to this edition - the would would have been fatal because he lacked the will to carry on. Given the will to fight by his Warlord's Inspiring Words, he gets up and deals with it.

You can also describe popping back up from a Death Save in the same way; somewhere, deep down, he found the will to go on. He won the fight with that part of himself that was saying, "Just let go, let it be, rest and be at peace."

I see it's not to your taste, and that's cool.

Example 7:

This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written. Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.

In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious. He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.

If a healing surge lasted through (in effect) a scene, or even (in effect) a story, that would probably be fine.....although it would still need some descriptive changes to avoid Schroedinger's Wounding. It is the day-in, day-out, permanent nature of the mechanic that makes it absurd.

IMHO, of course.

Of course Inigo needs medical attention later. That's what Extended Rests are for. (Yes, they heal up too much too fast; I've never defended that.)

In LotR: the 4e game, Frodo finds the will; his player doesn't describe the wound going away because he wants to play it up. When he gets a chance, he describes Frodo taking an extended rest.

The "day-in, day-out" - by which I assume you mean getting stabbed again and again - is only absurd if you choose to let it be. Player skill and all that.

Example 8:

And there he slept, after eating of what remained of Ska, until the morning sun awakened him with a new sense of strength and well-being.

[The above is the second sleep after killing Ska; Tarzan does not recover overnight. He emerges from the desert, still hurting from his ordeal; rain and food have allowed for some "real" healing, but he is far from recovered.]

Three days the ape-man spent in resting and recuperating, eating fruits and nuts and the smaller animals that were most easily bagged, and upon the fourth he set out to explore the valley and search for the great apes.​

Here I see a successful check in a skill challenge, not an encounter.[/sblock]

There. Examples done. Now please show me where I was forced to do these:

(1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.​