Disappointed in 4e

[Fifth Element]

Go back up to our discussion of 1e hp, and your viewpoint of what healing represents.

You asked why your viewpoint wasn't valid.

You've just answered it.

If you say so, I guess.

Not sure how dancing a jig while unable to take any actions relates to an interpretation of healing, but there you go.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you say so, I guess.

Not sure how dancing a jig while unable to take any actions relates to an interpretation of healing, but there you go.

Choosing to describe/envision something in a way that intentionally makes it ridiculous/goes against the spirit of the game is always going to bring about ridiculous results.

If you choose to describe healing in 1e in a ridiculous way that goes against the spirit of the game, you will end up with ridiculous results.

Healing overnight by natural means is ridiculous, IMHO, but not in any way against the spirit of 4e.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Please assume that I have Cut & Pasted my response, and feel free to respond to that. I do not feel that your objection answers my premise.

As long as you are asking others to C&P, how about cutting and pasting my last post? My new premise is to agree with Fifth Element that your lack of D&D rules knowledge may be causing your problem in understanding our arguments.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Choosing to describe/envision something in a way that intentionally makes it ridiculous/goes against the spirit of the game is always going to bring about ridiculous results.

If you choose to describe healing in 1e in a ridiculous way that goes against the spirit of the game, you will end up with ridiculous results.

Just as if you misrepresent hit points in 4E you will end up with ridiculous results.

Healing overnight by natural means is ridiculous, IMHO, but not in any way against the spirit of 4e.

Healing grievous wounds overnight might seem ridiculous to many people. Myself included. But assigning damage as grievous wounds goes against the spirit of 4E.

Healing Hit points measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic.

No mention of physical injury other that punisment or glancing blows, neither of which lend themselves to being "gaping chest wounds."

Also, they specifically mention regaining hit points through heroic resolve.

After rereading this section of the PHB I would describe any hit as a glancing blow, a punishing hit (but not wounding) or a miss that winds you when you have to exert the effort to dodge it. A hit that drops a character to Dying status I would describe as one punishing blow too many that causes the character to go down. Will he die of internal bleeding or will he pull through and get back up? The Death Save mechanic will answer that. And an attack that outright kills the PC? That is a hit that I will describe as a fatal wound.

 

[LostSoul]

So we agree?

That I wasn't breaking any rules? Yes.

Wrongbadfun?

Well personally I think the jig-winking bit of narration in response to a failed Death Save is stupid, but if our hypothetical group likes it, I guess there's no problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As long as you are asking others to C&P, how about cutting and pasting my last post? My new premise is to agree with Fifth Element that your lack of D&D rules knowledge may be causing your problem in understanding our arguments.

Insert C & P about ad hominem here.

Just as if you misrepresent hit points in 4E you will end up with ridiculous results.

Insert C & P about content here.

Well personally I think the jig-winking bit of narration in response to a failed Death Save is stupid, but if our hypothetical group likes it, I guess there's no problem.

You, Sir, win.

Like a great, annoying, repetitve circle we end where we begin. I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous, but if your group likes it, I guess there's no problem, either.

I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

1) Insert C & P about ad hominem here.

2) I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.

1) You have stated repeatedly that we are making the problem go away by ignoring the rules. But you have repeatedly shown that you don't know the actual rules very well. We have provided evidence that using the rules as written we can explain 4E hit points and healing in a way that fits the intent and spirit of the 4E rules. No ad hominem attack here.

2) With the evidence presented about the game definition of hit points in previous editions, I have come to agree that the presentation of hit points in 4E has changed. I won't argue that and haven't been for a while. I will say that this hit point debate has been going on since I first started playing over 25 years ago and 4E decided to choose the view on what hit points represent that matches what every person I have gamed with over time. Edition choices are often made based on how the majority of players are playing the game. Was that the case in 4E? Only the designers know how they made the decision to go the route they did. It's understandable how one may not like the 4E paradigm if they were attached heavily to the other side of the debate.

 

[pemerton]

Not a presupposition in this particular case, though it you want to feel it is, you can answer whatever strawman you like.

Would you care to elaborate? Eg are you presupposing that "smart play" is always the same thing in D&D, if not in all RPGs. Or are you flat-out asserting it rather than presupposing it? Or are you denying it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Would you care to elaborate? Eg are you presupposing that "smart play" is always the same thing in D&D, if not in all RPGs. Or are you flat-out asserting it rather than presupposing it? Or are you denying it?

I am supposing that "smart play" is always defined by the terms of the game, and that those terms may be different for different games.


RC

 

[vagabundo]

I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.

How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."

I still <3 u HPs...