Disappointed in 4e

[ExploderWizard]

Well yes, when I use the term "morale" here I mean it in the everyday sense, not in the pre-3E rules-specific sense.

Please define morale in the everyday sense. I wasn't using any particular rules regarding morale, just the basic premise that PC's always have a right to choose thier fate regardless of the odds and NPC's may or may not.

If things go bad for the PC's they might opt to run, or surrender if escape looks to be impossible. This is a decision that gets made before HP reach 0. The PC's may just decide to grit thier teeth and fight till the bitter end. If morale is rolled into HP and the DM decides that the PC's surrender at 0, the decision to fight to the last breath has been taken from the PC's.

The biggest game killer of all time for any RPG is the DM trying to tell the PC's what they do.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What I was recommending was this:

Split Armor Class into one value for avoiding hits (Defense) and one for withstanding hits (Toughness). When you attack, you roll a d20, plus any accuracy bonuses, against your opponent's Defense to hit, like Touch AC in 3E. If you hit, you roll another d20, plus any damage bonuses, against your opponent's Toughness, which includes any armor bonuses, to score a telling blow, which disables him, a bit like the Damage Save in True20.

But important heroes and villains have Hit Points, which they can use to modify those rolls, after the fact. A giant swings at you and hits by one? Spend one hit point to dodge it! Or take the hit and let him roll the d20 plus his massive damage bonus against your Toughness. Probably better to use your Hit Points to avoid the hit entirely.

Hit Points still play a crucial role, and very little has changed mechanically, but they're not physical toughness. You have an actual Toughness score for that. Hit Points become just the intangible part -- luck, magic, divine favor, etc. -- not a mix of tangible and intangible.

Interesting variant, but why bother with toughness, whay not spend the hp directly to ward off the initial blow?
To make this work you are completely redoing the system anyway. Also what happens to the blow you cannot ward? Is this where you dig out the old Rolemaster charts and see what falls off

From my own point of view, I mostly play D&D these days because it is not realistic with respect to combat. I have tried systems that are realistic and you die a lot, ususlly from some lucky shot by a total nobody. Which is, all things considered fairly realistic but not fun.

 

[mmadsen]

Interesting variant, but why bother with toughness, why not spend the hp directly to ward off the initial blow?

If the initial roll to hit succeeds by a wide margin, then it costs many hit points to avoid it entirely. (This may be because of a high natural roll or high accuracy bonuses.)

Against weak but accurate attacks, one would tend to use hit points to shrug off the damage. Against wild, powerful attacks, one would tend to use hit points to avoid getting hit entirely.

To make this work you are completely redoing the system anyway.

"Completely" is a bit strong; the mechanical changes are largely superficial.

Also what happens to the blow you cannot ward? Is this where you dig out the old Rolemaster charts and see what falls off

What happens when you run out of hit points? It's meant to reflect the same thing -- although I am partial to Warhammer-style criticals, rather than "you're dying".

From my own point of view, I mostly play D&D these days because it is not realistic with respect to combat. I have tried systems that are realistic and you die a lot, ususlly from some lucky shot by a total nobody. Which is, all things considered fairly realistic but not fun.

You seem to be commenting on something completely different from what I recommended. You can keep the "heroic" nature of D&D and hit points without keeping all the logical problems.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think that would be a challenge at all. "No damage" would simply mean a nick or graze that did no serious damage.

That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e. You get it. Congratulations. It is only in 4e that this paradgim changes.

I think that understanding what Gary wrote, and what he did, is likewise "no challenge at all" re: hit points.

There is obviously some difference of opinion on that point.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e. You get it. Congratulations. It is only in 4e that this paradgim changes.

I'm not convinced that 4E changes the paradigm at all.

 

[mmadsen]

That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e. You get it.

The difference is this:

In the system you described, where you roll to avoid serious injury, you aren't worse for wear when you do in fact avoid serious injury. You don't lose hit points. Multiple nicks don't add up to a decapitation.

And, going the other way, a single failed roll can mean a decapitation.

This makes perfect sense. There's no inconsistency of having to heal from non-wounds, etc.

(You may not like how it plays out, but that's why I suggested using hit points to modify those rolls.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not convinced that 4E changes the paradigm at all.

(Shrug)

You're entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe, I suppose.

I just wish Gary were still alive to settle the matter. Do you honestly think he would believe that 4e uses the same paradigm?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If the initial roll to hit succeeds by a wide margin, then it costs many hit points to avoid it entirely. (This may be because of a high natural roll or high accuracy bonuses.)

Against weak but accurate attacks, one would tend to use hit points to shrug off the damage. Against wild, powerful attacks, one would tend to use hit points to avoid getting hit entirely.
"Completely" is a bit strong; the mechanical changes are largely superficial.
What happens when you run out of hit points? It's meant to reflect the same thing -- although I am partial to Warhammer-style criticals, rather than "you're dying".

Have you implemented this? or guestimateing at the moment? and if the former do have the numbers for say a fighter.

You seem to be commenting on something completely different from what I recommended. You can keep the "heroic" nature of D&D and hit points without keeping all the logical problems.

I was reacting to the realistic combat comment that I may have imagined in one of your posts. I like D&D partially for the unrealistic and over the top nature of it. Like I said I have tired realistic systems and had fun with them but now I want something different.

 

[Lacyon]

(Shrug)

You're entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe, I suppose.

I just wish Gary were still alive to settle the matter. Do you honestly think he would believe that 4e uses the same paradigm?

What gets lost in the discussion is that 5 hp doesn't only mean different things for a 1st-level fighter than it does for a 10th-level fighter, it also means different things for the 10th-level fighter on the first hit than it does for the same 10th-level fighter on the eigth or ninth hit. A fighter doesn't die from 10 nicks on the arm.

4E simply recognizes that you don't actually have to close up and fully heal (either magically or naturally) the nick on your arm in order to restore your fighting ability to the point where you can turn the next hit into a another nick on the arm, instead of 3 feet of steel through the chest.

Is that a radical paradigm shift?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What gets lost in the discussion is that 5 hp doesn't only mean different things for a 1st-level fighter than it does for a 10th-level fighter, it also means different things for the 10th-level fighter on the first hit than it does for the same 10th-level fighter on the eigth or ninth hit. A fighter doesn't die from 10 nicks on the arm.

I believe I said as much upthread. This is also true for a 1st level fighter, assuming that the first hit is not sufficient to take him out.

4E simply recognizes that you don't actually have to close up and fully heal (either magically or naturally) the nick on your arm in order to restore your fighting ability to the point where you can turn the next hit into a another nick on the arm, instead of 3 feet of steel through the chest.

I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the problems caused by the 4e hit point paradigm, which allows, among other things, for you to go from having that "3 feet of steel through the chest" to "another nick on the arm" because someone spoke some inspirational words, or because you had a good night's sleep.

And that, my friend, is a very radical paradigm shift!

But even without this, the idea that the nick on your arm has no effect on your overall ability to keep your opponent from killing you is a pretty major shift all by itself.

Indeed, the 4e hit point paradigm reminds me a lot of Monty Python and the Holy Grail......If you pay attention, you'll notice that Sir Lancelot intimidates several people to death, his inspirational words make Patsy recover from an arrow to the chest, and the Black Knight, of course, has "had worse". In 4e, however, these things aren't jokes, but are properties of the game world.

(Hey...perhaps 4e really is the "Holy Grail" of gaming in at least once sense.)



RC