Disappointed in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

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

If you actually feel that way, more power to you.

From where I sit, you've demonstrated nothing, apart from the fact that if you ignore the rules 4e is a better game.


RC

 

[mmadsen]

From where I sit, you've demonstrated nothing, apart from the fact that if you ignore the rules 4e is a better game.

What rules is he ignoring when he says this?

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.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

That's my point - he's unable to take any action at all! He tries and fails.

I don't think it breaks any rules to say, "I try to get up, but fail" when your PC is unconcious. You don't take any actions and you make a Death Save; that's it. The "trying to get up" part is just colour.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If we want to drag how RAW interracts with narration into this, then:

"Perception: No action required" - PHB, p. 186

So an Unconscious character can still passively perceive things. By literal interpretation of the RAW, they can even passively spot things. I think most would agree this defies common sense. But there is real-world proof that even coma patient's brains respond to sound. So it follows, IMO, by RAW and real world common sense that a character can benefit from hearing a Warlord's Inspiring Word.

As for not liking characters pushing past the pain and continuing to fight, I can understand that. It is no secret that 4E is built around an Action Adventure Fantasy model. If you don't like the Action Adventure genre, then you probably won't enjoy 4E. Everyone has their own taste. Labeling others idea of a fun game as Stupid or Absurd is not helpful in the least.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's my point - he's unable to take any action at all! He tries and fails.

I don't think it breaks any rules to say, "I try to get up, but fail" when your PC is unconcious. You don't take any actions and you make a Death Save; that's it. The "trying to get up" part is just colour.

I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.

After all, 3e had no rules for what happened if you simply chose never to sleep.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So an Unconscious character can still passively perceive things. By literal interpretation of the RAW, they can even passively spot things. I think most would agree this defies common sense. But there is real-world proof that even coma patient's brains respond to sound. So it follows, IMO, by RAW and real world common sense that a character can benefit from hearing a Warlord's Inspiring Word.

If the hit points so gained were temporary, then I would have no problem with this. Indeed, I would probably be willing to champion it with a few modifications.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.

RC

Well, you can't take any Actions. Making a Death Save is not an action, but it can result in your character becoming conscious, so adding narration that an unconscious character is trying to regain consciousness seems to fit what a Death Save is meant to represent.

 

[LostSoul]

I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.

UNCONCIOUS

• You're helpless.
• You take a -5 penalty to all defenses.
• You can't take actions.
• You fall prone, if possible.
• You can't flank an enemy.

HELPLESS

• You grant combat advantage.
• You can be the target of a coup de grace.

When I said,

The Fighter tries to get up, but fails.​

that was just colour. "Color" is the term I use for the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I said,

The Fighter tries to get up, but fails.​

that was just colour. "Color" is the term I use for the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.

IMHO, "colour" shouldn't counter-indicate the rules, for the most part. I tend to view "unconscious" as meaning "unconscious". Though, perhaps, this is a bit of ossification on my part. "Unconscious" and "stunned" mean two different things, to me.

I am really, really unhappy with "You are wounded, but at full hit points" and "You are unwounded, but at 0 hit points" and the points inbetween to be regular occurances at the table.

If one is going to go the "colour usurps rules" route -- and it is not an intrinsically bad route by any means -- OD&D does it better.


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

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).

This argument seems to come up in almost any long-running thread about 4e these days, and I've seen it pulled out several times in reference to posts I've made, despite the fact that I never said 3e was perfect or that problems with it didn't exist (since I rarely posted here during 3e's lifespan). It seems that when people draw on this "you're flip-flopping" argument, it's merely an attempt to paint the opposition as being some kind of followers that can't think for themselves (usually paired with the statement that we only state 3e had problems because the developers say so).