Even so, I don't think that invalidates the rest of the point. After all, a page and a half isn't the entire combat chapter, spells chapter, and monster manual that are using terminology contrary to that sentiment.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 4E Discussion about a Primer on 4e terminology
- Thread starter drothgery
- Start date
Even so, I don't think that invalidates the rest of the point. After all, a page and a half isn't the entire combat chapter, spells chapter, and monster manual that are using terminology contrary to that sentiment.
But non-abstract hit points that increase simply by going up in level make absolutely no sense especially since that makes healing spells and potions less effective on higher-level characters.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
I think the party role should be determined by the actions of the character/player - WHATEVER the characters actual abilities - and not attempted to be dictated so heavy-handedly by the game rules.
The most significant difficulty I see you run into is with the healer. As long as healing abilities are class restricted, you're going to run into class-role linkage. You can't be in a healer role if you got no healer powers.
I think the lesson to be learned here is that pretty much ALL terminology in all facets of the game in all editions of the game are just as likely to be completely stupid than technically accurate.
I mean come on... we track damage by 'hit points'. But that is in no way correct, is it? Hit points imply that it counts the number of times you are hit... not that each hit might cause multiple point loss. So if you have 59 hit points... technically it means you should be able to be HIT 59 times. The name should have been 'damage points' if you wanted to get "correct" about it.
And 'Armor Class'? What does that mean? There's no 'class' in anything to do with what the number means. Being -3 was not a 'class'. It was an 'armor stat' or 'armor number'. This is especially true considering the whole game was built around players having a 'class' which denoted their 'job'. So you'd have the 'fighter class', the 'magic-user class', the 'elf class'... and the 'armor class'? Nope. Bad terminology there too.
But do you know why those game terms have not only survived, but are also universally accepted? BECAUSE THE NAMES DIDN'T ACTUALLY MATTER WAY BACK WHEN. WE JUST ACCEPTED THE TERMS AS WHAT THEY WERE. 'GAME TERMINOLOGY'. Which never needs to be 100% grammatically correct.
I mean come on... we track damage by 'hit points'. But that is in no way correct, is it? Hit points imply that it counts the number of times you are hit... not that each hit might cause multiple point loss. So if you have 59 hit points... technically it means you should be able to be HIT 59 times. The name should have been 'damage points' if you wanted to get "correct" about it.
And 'Armor Class'? What does that mean? There's no 'class' in anything to do with what the number means. Being -3 was not a 'class'. It was an 'armor stat' or 'armor number'. This is especially true considering the whole game was built around players having a 'class' which denoted their 'job'. So you'd have the 'fighter class', the 'magic-user class', the 'elf class'... and the 'armor class'? Nope. Bad terminology there too.
But do you know why those game terms have not only survived, but are also universally accepted? BECAUSE THE NAMES DIDN'T ACTUALLY MATTER WAY BACK WHEN. WE JUST ACCEPTED THE TERMS AS WHAT THEY WERE. 'GAME TERMINOLOGY'. Which never needs to be 100% grammatically correct.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
This thread is to hold discussions brought up in the terminology thread. If it gets heated, people will get banned or the thread locked. Treat each other with respect, OK?
Thanks
Thanks
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Well one of the few changes made with 4E that I ultimately found favor with regards healing. I utterly despise their terminology of "surges" (and strictly healing surges at that) but I think it is possible to better implement that basic concept.
Mostly it hinges on the idea across all edtions that hit points don't represent only physical damage. It can be fatigue, skill, protection of deities, and any number of other things. HEALING implies repair of physical damage but I see no reason why fighters can't rapidly recover fatigue, why clerics can't grant "the favors of X", magic users convert mana to healing, monks ignoring pain, paladins of course lay on hands, and then everyone can still use potions, salves, Elven waybread, mom's special soup, or the processed sap of the wallawalla tree, etc.
If you spread the ability to RECOVER hitpoints through a variety of means over all the classes instead of saddling one or two classes with exclusive healing ability then you have taken huge steps towards freeing the "healer" class to do something vastly more interesting and dynamic. The expected "support" class can be more than just a hit point battery or buff-bot. Those are deplorably narrow concepts of what can be done. It is quite possible for a support character to lend support by working IN CONJUNCTION with other classes or improving what they do through active participation rather than passively providing buffs and then standing around watching the others do the doing.
Then, anyone you want to actually label as a "healer" can be given much more interesting curative abilities to prevent or alleviate special conditions or types of damage.
The idea of hp as abstract resource breaks down in several situations in 3e. Unconscious and helpless characters, falling damage, healing etc.
I'd actually like hp to move more towards being a measure of the characters' actual health. That would also mean they (and thus damage) wouldn't increase by level.
I'd actually like hp to move more towards being a measure of the characters' actual health. That would also mean they (and thus damage) wouldn't increase by level.
Rune
Once A Fool
In my experience, the ability to help your teammates better do what they do is a crucial component of leadership. In fact, it pretty much defines it.
And in 4e, that's exactly what the Leader role does.
TrippyHippy
Hero
In my view, the only way an abstract rule like Hit Points work at all, is if you don't keep drawing attention to them in a game. The advantage you get with HP is sheer simplicity - so that you tend to forget about them in a game. They become abstract by default. However, if you start introducing concepts such as Warlord's healing through inspiration, healing surges and the like - you actually decrease the abstract nature of them by drawing attention to them.
The same thing goes with all these 4th edition terms - you wouldn't end up with pages and pages of semantic debates about Roles, if you didn't have them in the first place. As much as anything else, they will always provoke argument - so how useful are they really?
The same thing goes with all these 4th edition terms - you wouldn't end up with pages and pages of semantic debates about Roles, if you didn't have them in the first place. As much as anything else, they will always provoke argument - so how useful are they really?
