Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6292472" data-attributes="member: 27160">You repeat and repeat this refrain: healing surges do not give any long term attrition; they are "only there" to allow characters to "fully heal" before each fight - in fact, they "prevent attrition"...Where are you getting this from? What version of "4E" have you been playing that this is true? Did you miss the bit in the rules that makes it clear that, if a creature has no healing surges left, they do not heal when they try to (unless they can get some "magical" surgeless healing). And, if they get reduced to zero hit points with no surges, they are very likely to die - much more likely than if they have surges that can be called upon.The reason surges are different from Second Wind simply as an encounter power is that you can run out of healing surges. It's fundamental to the system. Why are you ignoring/denying it?Surges, just like hit points, only matter when you run out of them. It sounds like you consider this an impossible thing that never happens; that is far from my experience. Can you tell us why you think this?Another theme of your posts - again untrue. The "mook fights" in 4E can cost healing surges. Which is essentially exactly the same function they had in earlier editions - to run down total hit points. They also might cause action points to be used up - the "milestone" (at which extra APs are gained) happens only when encounters equivalent (roughly) to two at-level encounters have been completed. So, no, APs would not "build up" through multiple below-level fights; it would take about four encounters at L-3 to reach a milestone.If the only purpose of Healing Surges was to facilitate in-combat healing, then you're right. But Healing Surges fulfill many design purposes in 4E, which is why they are designed the way they are.Ah, the old saw that "combat isn't roleplaying, roleplaying is the talky-stuff". Look, play your game with as much or as little "talky-stuff" as you like - when I play RPGs there is shedloads of roleplaying going on in combat. Characters talk in combat, for a start, and when things get "sticky" is when real character shows through, not when gassing in a bar.Let me get this straight - I have to have plenty of "talking stuff" and have it all "tell a story" or I'm not roleplaying but I am, contrary to any appearances, "just playing a miniature combat game"? I'm pretty sure that's hogwash.Stories will arise as a result of the action in play - sure. That applies to any human activity, because that's the way human brains are wired. But that doesn't really say anything about roleplaying games, or place any restrictions at all on the activities that give rise to the stories. I can go to the WC (bathroom) and tell a story about it. Actually, my character could go to the WC and I could tell a story about it. I'm not sure that has anything to do with it being "roleplaying", though.Saying that "to play an RPG you have to tell a story", therefore, I assume to mean something more. I assume that it means that you have to play in order to tell a specific story. I don't accept that that is at all necessary in order to be playing a roleplaying game.I'm pretty sure that, if you read what   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] actually said, he was saying that in 4E the flavour text does impact upon the mechanics of play, not doesn't.You might not have personally trotted out these tired old arguments before, but throngs have, before you. You might profit from reading the myriad threads that spawned from their strident ruminations.If suspension of disbelief is such a big deal, use the wound system I outlined above. It would do almost as well for the style of play you seem to seek - D&D but with gritty realism added in a few key spots. At the very least, it shows that hit points are not actually "necessary".Actually, I doubt very much that you could. If the first encounter was nearly fatal, the second would be downright murderous. Doing this on any sustained basis would lead to TPK after TPK. Seriously: if the party leaves the first encounter with just a few hit points each (and presumably several spells used), and then have another tough encounter, what would their chances be?The only alteration I can think of that I would need to make to run most older edition modules in 4E would be to change or limit extended rests. I have already used some restrictions on extended rests in my home game, and it's really easy to do so. Other than that, it should work fine.I assume that these are simply your opinion, not implying that you have the capability to read the minds of the developers and know that these "facts" are indisputably true?Right here:This was in a post written in reply to you; did you not read it? If you didn't, that might explain why it seems so hard to communicate with you.</blockquote>

Verification