Disappointed in 4e

[rjdafoe]

I was responding to the comment that suggested that commoners run from a dragon because fear of it somehow drops their hp to zero instead of them just being frightened of it. In that case hp would equal 100% morale. I'm okay with morale being a very small part of hp or tempopary hit points representing increased morale, but it seems like some people want it to be all about morale. It may be that way in 4E, since it's the only way warlords can "heal" people. I just don't like it. The main component of hp has always been and always should be physical damage. 4E can't really decide what hp are. It has terms like bloodied that suggest all physical damage, and then it has healing surges and "healing" from the non-maigical warlord which suggest it being completely morale. For the sake of versimilatude, I wish they would leave the morale mostly out of the hp equation. If you want morale to be the end all and be all of hp, play chainmail of DDM instead of D&D.

I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game. In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome. I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game". I felt 3E encouraged the players to game the system. Now, yes, you can take away stuff and dissallow stuff as well. But alot of the arguments I read are like the above:

I don't like the way Warlords heal.

Answer: Don't allow them in your game. Problem solved.

What ever happened to the days where we, as players and DMs made D&D into something that we liked and that we thought worked better for out group? Are these days, for the most part, gone? Why must we argue about this stupid term "RAW" then we can all get together and give each other ideas on how to better our game? RPGs (to me) are not about the rules. They are about the game played at each table. The rules guide us. I have changed a few of the 4th edition rules to better suite our group. Just as I have in every edition of D&D to date, and just as I will in every edition of D&D that may come out in the future. This is the job of the D&D DM. We do not just construct an adventure, but we construct a game, that our players want to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think of the Warlord healing other party members like the PT instructor pushing you beyond the boundaries of what you were physically capable of - hence pumping up your HP.

So, the Warlord only grants temporary hit points, in your game?


RC

 

[Mallus]

4E can't really decide what hp are.

Hit points in 4e are the same as hit points in every other edition of D&D; a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting. When a character's hit point value is greater than zero, they can.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game. In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome. I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game". I felt 3E encouraged the players to game the system. Now, yes, you can take away stuff and dissallow stuff as well. But alot of the arguments I read are like the above:

I don't like the way Warlords heal.

Answer: Don't allow them in your game. Problem solved.

What ever happened to the days where we, as players and DMs made D&D into something that we liked and that we thought worked better for out group? Are these days, for the most part, gone? Why must we argue about this stupid term "RAW" then we can all get together and give each other ideas on how to better our game? RPGs (to me) are not about the rules. They are about the game played at each table. The rules guide us. I have changed a few of the 4th edition rules to better suite our group. Just as I have in every edition of D&D to date, and just as I will in every edition of D&D that may come out in the future. This is the job of the D&D DM. We do not just construct an adventure, but we construct a game, that our players want to play.

Excellent point.

I wonder how many people have every played any edition of D&D strictly by RAW? I know I've had house rules at my table since 1E.

 

[Mallus]

That is because people don't want to do the extra simple math to turn HP into only physical injury while playing, and don't want to be weakened by a loss of HP.

A realistic injury system would require more than a little more simple math. If competing RPG systems offer any guide, such a system would involve a lot of charts.

10 HP = 100%
8 HP = 80%, so anything relying on STR only gets 80% of the damage dealt, and only has an 80& chance to hit because of the lowered DEX, etc...

I have used it before, and showed real promise for use IF people were willing to do the math, including the DM for monsters.

Doing more bookkeeping for an equally unrealistic injury modeling system doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[justanobody]

I'm not talking about lost limbs here, but just weakened from depleted state. You won't get a real physical comparison to HP unless you only have about 5-10 HP to take into account what really kills people.

I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical, not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.

It can be done and work is the point. Just the extra work when doing so is left to computers in video games, and not something wanted form a PnP game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not talking about lost limbs here, but just weakened from depleted state. You won't get a real physical comparison to HP unless you only have about 5-10 HP to take into account what really kills people.

I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical, not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.

It can be done and work is the point. Just the extra work when doing so is left to computers in video games, and not something wanted form a PnP game.

I think HP and debilitating physical effects are not a good mix. For example in my own project, HP are pretty much class based and not influenced by stats at all. Once HP are gone you have run out of luck/magical protections and are down to your body which is simply CON. If you are out of hp then you are knocked out. If you are out of CON then you are dead.

HP can remain non-physical and injury effects can be added based on the CON damage taken. Healing times for CON damage can also be much longer than HP allowing for both lingering wounds for body damage and quick recovery for HP because they are more like fatigue than injury.

No negative HP to track either.

 

[Rel]

I think HP and debilitating physical effects are not a good mix. For example in my own project, HP are pretty much class based and not influenced by stats at all. Once HP are gone you have run out of luck/magical protections and are down to your body which is simply CON. If you are out of hp then you are knocked out. If you are out of CON then you are dead.

HP can remain non-physical and injury effects can be added based on the CON damage taken. Healing times for CON damage can also be much longer than HP allowing for both lingering wounds for body damage and quick recovery for HP because they are more like fatigue than injury.

No negative HP to track either.

That's a pretty neat idea.

Is this just a mod you are working on for 4e or is it part of some kind of total rule system rewrite?

 

[Mallus]

I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical...

That's cool.

... not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.

But as others have pointed out, that 'namby-pamby feelings crap' has been an integral part of warfare since the dawn of mankind.

(and a real warrior is strong enough to accept his feelings...).

 

[LostSoul]

This is a simple, elegant system that has served the game well until we were given Schroedinger's Wounding in 4e.

Banging this drum again?

Give me an example in 4e where you need to "ret-con" the wound.

I recall that was something you couldn't do before.