Disappointed in 4e

[cwhs01]

If you accept that hit points do not always represent the same amount of injury, there is no problem whatsoever in rationally adjudicating hit point recovery.

But there is a problem with hit points representing even small injuries as they should be expected to have an effect on the characters abilities. Realistically you don't need to have more than a few small wounds to be even sligtly less able to concentrate on fighting (or spellcasting, skilluse etc.).

I find this notion absurd, and only really solved by either 1)ignoring the problem, 2)assuming that characters are badass enough to ignore pain and even serious wounds (until they stop breathing), or 3)assuming that HP doesn't really represent wounds as much as luck, chutzpah, mojo etc.
A combination of the above has worked for me, as a solution for all editions of dnd sofar.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That sounds astonishingly like 4E, except that in 4E we allow even Gary the Mighty to be unimpaired by his unhealed wounds, should the situation call for it.

Both 1e & 4e allow for damage that is not represented by hit points.

1e does not allow for major damage that is not represented by hit points, except in the specific case that a character brought to 0 needs bed rest (or major healing magic) to recover. When hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it has a very real game effect.

In 4e, you could say that this is (to an extent) reversed. If you want, you could claim that when hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it just has no effect.

If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.

If I learned one thing from my Sense of Wonder threads re: 3e, it is that the same folks who said "No way, no how does what you're saying make sense" are the biggest proponents of "We needed 4e to fix the problems that didn't exist no way, no how when 3e was the big thing" now. Of course, those people are also the first to deny that they shifted their perspective.

So, I'm going to drop this until 5e comes along, unless someone has something new to add to the discussion.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

Both 1e & 4e allow for damage that is not represented by hit points.

1e does not allow for major damage that is not represented by hit points, except in the specific case that a character brought to 0 needs bed rest (or major healing magic) to recover. When hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it has a very real game effect.

In 4e, you could say that this is (to an extent) reversed. If you want, you could claim that when hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it just has no effect.

If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.

You can't convince me that this particular shift happened in 4E, because 3E doesn't require bed rest for that "major" damage either.

You'll also have difficulty convincing me that this shift has much to do (directly) with hp, because, as you note, the hp can be recovered well before the "major" damage, which has to be tracked and recovered from separately (and anyone attempting to kill you still presumably has to whittle away your HP to do so, even though you barely have the strength to crawl).

It's a system tangential to HP, designed specifically to allow a character to not-die when hp run out. 4E has a markedly different not-die mechanic, but the hp themselves are all still the same.

The actual, real, radical paradigm shifts in 4E hp are linked to the concept of healing surges:
1) There's a cap on the number of times per day a character can be healed...
1a) ...except for certain rare effects (mostly Cleric daily powers) can bypass this limit.
2) Healing is proportional to the maximum potential of the character being restored...
2a) ...except for healing potions which heal a fixed number independent of a character's potential (making them a sort of wildcard)

If I learned one thing from my Sense of Wonder threads re: 3e, it is that the same folks who said "No way, no how does what you're saying make sense" are the biggest proponents of "We needed 4e to fix the problems that didn't exist no way, no how when 3e was the big thing" now. Of course, those people are also the first to deny that they shifted their perspective.

I've seen plenty of "When 3E came out I thought [X] was awesome, but I've changed my mind". I've started to see some of that for 4E as well. This says little about the nature of the systems, and some about the individuals involved.

So it's hard to see who you're referring to when you tell me that some people who said X now say Y and deny saying X. It's also hard to tell how that relates to the current conversation.

(Again with the maybe these little jabs in your post are being counterproductive).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You can't convince me that this particular shift happened in 4E

If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.

So, I'm going to drop this until 5e comes along, unless someone has something new to add to the discussion.

(And it might just as well be me who has shifted my perspective about 4e by that point.....but if I do, you can be sure that I will own up to it. )

EDIT: AFAICT, there is not a post on the last two pages that cannot be answered with a cut & paste from previous responses, so there isn't a lot of added value in simply doing so. At this point, it is better to just agree to disagree IMHO (although, admitedly, I am not always good at following my own advice! ).

EDIT to the EDIT: Please note that I am not saying "there is not a post on the last two pages that cannot be answered with a cut & paste from previous responses" from one side, but not the other, either. It cuts both ways.


In any event, there are lots of other things to talk about given the thread title.



RC

 

[JoeGKushner]

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Joe, you have the best signature in this forum.

 

[pemerton]

I claimed that the 4e damage and healing paradigm consistently and frequently gives rise to absurd situations in the narrative unless

(1) One chooses not to describe any damage until it has been healed,
(2) One retcons the narrative, or
(3) One simply chooses to close one's eyes to the absurdity (which does not actually make it go away; though it might make it go away for you).

Or one can describe damage before it is healed, and then describe healing not as the physical recovery of an injury, but as the psychological recovery of the capacity to fight.

RC, you have never actually explained why you think that this is inadequate narration.

I'll give it a shot.

<snip great stuff>

Another terrific post. I'm a bit dissapointed that I (who already agree with you) seem to be the only one paying attention to your posts, as they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.

What I can't get a grip on is this (and this is where the ret-conning thing comes in):

Character A gets knocked down to say -12 HP from a series of sword blows. This character has a bloodied value of 15 so is effectively 3 HP away from dead. However, the character is also dying, and takes death saves each round. Two turns later the character has failed two saves, and is also 1 HP away from dead. This character is clearly mortally wounded. One more failed save, or one more lost hit point equals death.

But somehow, despite being mortally wounded, and unconscious, someone saying 'get up you sissy' from 25 feet away allows this character to get up and fight as if he'd never been close to death.

So explain how the character is now okay to keep fighting, a mere 6 seconds after being on death's door, without the aid of magic? All of the 'damage' was from a physical source, the character was effectively in a coma, but Mr Inspiration over there said a few words and now Character A has never been close to death to begin with? The same problem applies without the warlord. The player gets lucky and rolls a 20 on his next turn... so the character who was bleeding to death is now awake and physically able, despite having been comatose and a ragged breath away from dying moments earlier.

Two options. Be more careful how you narrate the original injury (as per Lost Soul's first exmple narration). Or be more ambitious in how you narrate the recovery of the will to fight (as per Lost Soul's second example narration)

Okay, I get that the paladin is selfless etc, that's cool. But the idea that a cleric can do less healing than a paladin in this sort of situation astounds me. The cleric can go on healing people all day, just not this person. Yet the paladin can heal this person. The clerics/god's magic works for everyone except Character B. I admit this is a corner case, it's just something that makes no sense to me.

If you don't like a game in which one class (the paladin) is better able to perform selfless healing than another class (the cleric) then this particular aspect of 4e may not be for you. But this is not an objection to the 4e damage and healing mechanics per se. It is a quibble over a genre/flavour thing.

 

[rounser]

they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.

Except for everything about the "warlord" and how he operates wrt "healing", an absurd character class IMO.

 

[vagabundo]

Another terrific post. I'm a bit dissapointed that I (who already agree with you) seem to be the only one paying attention to your posts, as they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.

I agree, but I'm on your side of this debate. 4e HPs, healing and the warlord make more sense to me that the 3e system.

And the narration from lost soul is seriously cool.

 

[Zustiur]

My first point of disagreement. Damage has not always included physical injury.

I think we'll just agree to disagree here.

If you want people in your game to yell absurd things like "get up you sissy" that's your perogative.

What they say is irrelevant. The point is the character is unconscious and should not be able to respond to words.

So, I treat Dying as "unable to act." You can't perform any conherent actions, but you certainly aren't comatose.

So you get around the RAW by ignoring it. That doesn't solve my problem.

No. He has a mortal wound. The only thing you are waiting to find out is whether:
a) he does what any good action hero does and pushes through the pain to keep fighting
b) he dies

This is an excellent point... You've made me realize where my issue stems from. My narratives don't include heroes who push through the pain. Mortal wounds are mortal, and cannot be ignored, you either get magical healing or spend a long time getting natural healing. You do not just get up the next round as if you'd never been hurt, but this is my imposed 'rule', much like how you ignored being unconscious earlier.

Not true. In 3.0, if healed from -9 hit points to 1 or more hit points with magical healing, your character could stand up on his turn and keep fighting.

Hmm, you're right. Well answer me this. Where the hell did I get that rule from? I know I read it somewhere.

The Fighter tries to get up, but he can't. (Fails death save.)

No he doesn't. He's unconscious and therefore unable to take any action at all. We were discussing how the RAW interacts with the story. You're ignoring the RAW here. Also, the monster has probably moved on, else the character would have been coup de grace'd and there'd be nothing further to discuss.

The Fighter sees a light in the darkness, and standing in it is the Raven Queen, calling for him, a blade in one hand and the golden strand of Fate in the other. The Fighter turns away, and sees the face of the Warlord. He remembers the Warlord's courage and he turns his back on the Raven Queen, who stays her hand.

The Fighter's eyes flip open. (Inspiring Word.) The Fighter is bleeding bad, but his will carries him on, and he won't go down until the Raven Queen cuts the strand of his fate.

This works. This I can understand. It fits in the the rules and the story without either suffering. Thank you.

Two options. Be more careful how you narrate the original injury (as per Lost Soul's first exmple narration). Or be more ambitious in how you narrate the recovery of the will to fight (as per Lost Soul's second example narration)

Emphasis mine. This is where my problem is. I'll do my best...

If you don't like a game in which one class (the paladin) is better able to perform selfless healing than another class (the cleric) then this particular aspect of 4e may not be for you. But this is not an objection to the 4e damage and healing mechanics per se. It is a quibble over a genre/flavour thing.

I've already established that 4E is not the game for me. However, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it for the game that I am still playing in.