Disappointed in 4e

[justanobody]

From personal experience, I can say that hundred of players and dozens of DMs of my aquaintance were able to describe wounds consistently within the framework of Gygaxian hit points.


RC

I think it is boiling down to the people nowadays going for the....

DM: Fred the fighter was hit for 6 HP worth of damage

vs Gygaxian days of....

DM: Fred almost dodged the orcs axe leaving a gash in his back causing a loss of 6 HP.

Between all the CO boards and all the number crunching D&D has lost the abstractions for legalese and hard core math as the premise of the game. The "game for your imagination" has left the building.

 

[SteveC]

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

Does anyone here seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?

That seriously depends. I met Gary once when I was quite young, and got sat at a table to play D&D with him at Gen Con. I think _that_ Gary would have said: who cares? That Gary played pretty fast and loose with the rules in order to have fun.

After everything that happened between him and TSR, I think he would have been too angry to make an accurate comparison.

As years went by I think he would have had less problems with hit points, since the system is fundamentally the same in terms of crunch.

What he likely would have objected to is the Powers system: too complicated and restrictive. Still, there are people around who gamed with Gary on a regular basis, so why not ask them?

--Steve

 

[Lacyon]

Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining. No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).

Unless the 1st-level Fighter who's taken 5 damage and the 10th-level fighter who's taken 5 damage each recieve a Cure Light Wounds spell.

"Whoa, turns out that gaping hole in my chest was just a flesh wound after all."

Still, it is hardly surprising that only one person would say that he seriously thinks that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised. I'd have enjoyed reading Gary's response had someone tried to float this as his idea while he was still alive.

I suspect that if Gary could be bothered to look deeply at the system, he'd conclude that it was just a logical extension of the removal of XP for GP.

 

[SteveC]

...and from personal experience I can say the same thing about 4E. The problems you talk about? Never happened to me or my groups. Nor any of the tables I played at or say at D&D Experience or Gen Con. Perhaps you are making some sort of tempest in a teapot, then?

--Steve

 

[Hussar]

(It is notable, IMHO, that this argument didn't arise while he was alive to defend himself. )

RC

Which is utter and complete ballocks. The HP debate has been going on for THIRTY YEARS. Good grief, talk about revisionist history. Trying to pretend that it's suddenly NOW that people have differing views of hit points? Gimme a break.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you describe any combat result as a specific result ("gut wound, slashed arm", etc.), you open yourself up to absurd results.

Not IME.

For example, if a 50hp fighter is brought down to 1hp, you could describe the blow as a "brutal slash across your chest, opening a bloody gash".

Said fighter could then eliminate his foe. With no penalty to his abilities.
Charging straight on with no rest, said fighter could then lift a portcullis (if he made his check). With no penalty to his abilities.

Said fighter (to paraphrase Hypersmurf) could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes. With no penalty to his abilities.

Not in 1e.

When the fighter completed his combat, rest is automatically assumed.

Moreover, while it is possible that said fighter "could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes" IME this never happens when Mr. 50 hp is reduced to 1 hp. The nature of the game system itself enforces role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

Moreover, in no edition of D&D does the fighter have "no penalty to his abilities" unless the DM decides that this is so. 4e rightly goes back to the idea that DM fiat should overrule absurd results -- this being the reason why the DM can rule that NPCS Intimidated to 0 hps faint rather than drop dead.

Of course, a game can make it easier or harder to deal with absurd results. In 4e, for example, you could simply say, "Sorry, that was designated as a wound, a healing surge will not work" and remove much of the absurdity (along, unfortunately, with much of the game balance). That game balance is tied into absurd results in 4e is unfortunate.

It was also avoidable. Previous discussion on this topic brought forth a plethora of ideas that, had they been part of the 4e rules, would have eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) the Schrödinger's Wounding/Monty Pythonism of the edition.

And on semi-related point, what's with the "What would Gary say?"

IMHO, the opinion of the author of the previous paradigm is the most relevant opinion as to whether or not the new paradigm is the same as the old.


RC

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't know why people are so in denial about this it seems fairly obvious IMO.

If you are comfortable with kind words of encouragment closing wounds then the change that 4E represent probably won't bother you. If your not ok with it then 4E will present challenges to immersion perhaps even enjoyment compared to prior editions.
Either outcome is perfectly reasonable and a matter of what you like or better yet what you expect from DnD.
We have warlord in our party and I just have to try really hard not to think about how he provides healing to the group. Additionally I noticed the DM avoids describing hits something which happened regularly in prior editions. Perhaps this also relates to the damage this can cause to the continuity of the game.

It's nothing to feel bad about it, was a design choice in 4E and yes it is a change from the way things were. Its not wrongbadfun but some people might find it changed the game in ways they didn't expect or don't like.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unless the 1st-level Fighter who's taken 5 damage and the 10th-level fighter who's taken 5 damage each recieve a Cure Light Wounds spell.

"Whoa, turns out that gaping hole in my chest was just a flesh wound after all."

Where does it say that CLW cures only flesh wounds?

Moreover, if the wound is severe enough to drop the fighter, a CLW simply will not get the fighter up and around in 1e.

I suspect that if Gary could be bothered to look deeply at the system, he'd conclude that it was just a logical extension of the removal of XP for GP.

??????

What does this have to do with XP for GP?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's nothing to feel bad about it, was a design choice in 4E and yes it is a change from the way things were. Its not wrongbadfun but some people might find it changed the game in ways they didn't expect or don't like.

Indeed.

It is not wrongbadfun to prefer either.

There is something....offputting....IMHO, though, about denying that there is a change.


RC

 

[La Bete]

The nature of the game system itself enforces role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

So this is OK in 1e, but not in 4e?