Disappointed in 4e

[justanobody]

The fact that in ANY edition, I can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away makes hit points pretty abstract to me.

There once was a system to handle your being stepped on by the elephant. System shock killed you if you took enough damage from a single "source".

This went to represent just how there was a real physical connection and not entirely abstract to hit points.

 

[Rel]

There is no such thing as Wounded (capital W meaning game rule status) in any version of D&D.

There is in mine.

Folks who are involved in the current debate: If you've reached a point of frustration then agree to disagree, call it a good debate and go your separate ways. If you still have points to make then I advise you make them with respect.

Folks who are not involved in the current debate: Your drive-by insults are not needed or appreciated. If you have something substantive to contribute, please do. If not then stay out.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.

Of course the rules for damage and healing are different in each edition (except maybe 1E->2E), I haven't really seen anyone arguing that they are the same.

What I am arguing is that the abstraction of 4E damage and healing is not "More Stupid" than the merely "Stupid" abstraction of damage and healing in previous editions (which I do see people arguing). IMO, the abstraction of damage and healing is different than previous editions, not better, not worse.

I am also arguing that there are ways to still easily narrate damage and healing without retconning it or producing rediculous results. Are they the same way you could narrate them in previous editions? Depends on your narration style. Is it "harder?" Only if you work against the system. The same difficulty you would have in previous editions if your narration style included severing limbs every time someone took what you considered to be massive damage.

 

[LostSoul]

I'll grant you that a creative interpretation can probably fix almost any mechanics, but as I said, this seems to be needlessly difficult. I can understand "gritting your teeth and getting through it" for a Healing Surge to restore hit points that were previously narrated as a ruptured lung...but that's not temporary in the way that that'd work - the character has just permanently ignored what was described as a serious wound through sheer willpower.

It's more difficult, I think, but that difficulty works for me. It allows the player (or DM) to more easily address a theme in play.

I'd say that the wound isn't permanently ignored until the Extended Rest comes into play. Until then, you're down a Healing Surge (down some Resources) and up a punctured lung (added some Positioning). Those have an effect on play, and it's not just that your PC is less effective in combat.

Let's say that you have that punctured lung. Then you come to an underground stream and get Pushed in. The DM decides to penalize your Athletics checks because you can't draw in enough air. But maybe he penalizes the Doomspore's attack by the same amount for the same reason.

Colour and Mechanics come together!

See above. This isn't the character forcing themselves forward for a few minutes; it's them no longer being troubled ever again by a serious wound.

Until the Extended Rest, sure; maybe even after that (depending on how you're handling the Positioning).

 

[Fifth Element]

There once was a system to handle your being stepped on by the elephant. System shock killed you if you took enough damage from a single "source".

This went to represent just how there was a real physical connection and not entirely abstract to hit points.

Not quite.

System Shock Survival stated the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), polymorph any object, polymorph others.

System shock only applies to specific magical effects. Not trampling elephants. 2E also has system shock, and it means the same thing.

Now, massive damage was introduced to the core rules in 2E IIRC, and was carried on in 3E. This may be what you're referring to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It should be noted that there is no edition of D&D (including 4th) in which you "can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away". If an elephant makes a stamping attack, and it doesn't kill you, then you didn't get stepped on. This is analogous to "if a swordsman makes a stabbing attack, and it doesn't kill you, you didn't get skewered through the liver".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course the rules for damage and healing are different in each edition (except maybe 1E->2E), I haven't really seen anyone arguing that they are the same.

Really? Because the whole reason I became embroiled in this mess was the claim that they are the same. If no one here now believes they are the same, I would be happy to call it a day.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

There is a ton of room for shades of gray.

Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.

You're right, there is a ton of room for shades of grey. But I don't think anyone is arguing the specific application of abstraction in 4E is "no different" than in previous editions. Just that the concept of abstract hit points and what they can and cannot represent is not sufficiently different from previous editions to be called different in any meaningful way - it all falls within that tons of room for shades of grey.

Yes, the mechanics have changed. They have moved along that spectrum of grey. But the concepts are really no different, just implemented in a different way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Really? Because the whole reason I became embroiled in this mess was the claim that they are the same. If no one here now believes they are the same, I would be happy to call it a day.

Mr. Basterd was talking about the specific rules (the mechanics) of each edition in his post, not the conceptual aspects of hit points, which you are debating.

 

[justanobody]

Not quite.

System shock only applies to specific magical effects. Not trampling elephants. 2E also has system shock, and it means the same thing.

Now, massive damage was introduced to the core rules in 2E IIRC, and was carried on in 3E. This may be what you're referring to.

System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical aging, etc. It can also be used to see if the character retains consciousness in particularly difficult situations. For example, an evil wizard polymorphs his dim-witted hireling into a crow. The hireling, whose Constitution score is 13, has an 85% chance to survive the change. Assuming he survives, he must successfully roll for system shock again when he is changed back to his original form or else he will die.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

The example may only be for a magical instance, but I clearly recall it written somewhere that if you take 50 damage you rolled for system shock and if you failed you died, even form being at full health.

Either way same principle, where HP represents a REAL connection to physical damage. It is a shock to the system afterall.