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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6292761" data-attributes="member: 87792">You mean that Healing Surges are designed  to be a finite resource and this is woven into 4e.  Healing surges are,  contrary to your assertions, designed and intended to allow attrition  as you yourself admit here.  You claim it's a cyclical argument.  What  you actually mean here is that it is true.  And because it is true  claims otherwise are strictly and unequivocally false.  Now please stop  making false statements.Because very few daily powers allow you to recover hit points?  And because healing surges are never reduced by a hard fight?  And because there are a lot of non-daily powers that grant surgeless healing?In fact let's actually check your maths on "4e PCs very seldom have access to less healing because of a hard fight."We  can fairly easily define a hard fight in 4e as one in which many PCs  take more than their base hit points worth of damage.  Or to put it  another way one for which they have to spend four healing surges to  recover back to full hit points.  And this happens fairly frequently in  my experience (normally for one or two PCs).So.  If we're saying  that a specific PC has spent four healing surges, which classes is this  likely to hurt?  (Other than the Vampire, of course...)  If we assume  that most people have a Con-mod of +1 then any class with 6+con mod  healing surges that goes down in the course of a fight uses over half  their healing surges for the single fight.   First most of the  controllers (other than druids, bladesingers, and possibly seekers which  have 7 and are all pretty unpopular IME).  Second, most of the strikers  and especially most of the popular ones - rangers, rogues, warlocks,  sorcerors have 6+con mod.  So in a hard fight these classes commonly  spend more than half their surges recovering.So no, you  aren't right even if you think attrition doesn't mount up from fight to  fight.  There are plenty of classes that can spend more than half their  surges on one tough fight - and you can readily go over four surges  spent for one fight if you are taking focus fire.I straight up disagree that 4e has more gamist logic rather than simply being a better gamist game.You are strictly wrong here.  The combination of the two is a reflection of your health - and a much better reflection of overall health than hit points.This comes from the same assessment that the result of entering a combat  on 1hp is the same as entering on 1000 hp if you don't get hit.And here I'd argue that D&D 2E has very D&D specific  stories that are associated with it.  Ones that take into account  things like Vancian Magic and hit points that appear in almost no other  form of fiction anywhere (Vancian Magic doesn't even resemble the works  of Jack Vance).  2e also is very different from 1e.  4e's stories are  different from 2e's - but whereas 2e is suitable for D&D stories 4e  is suitable for general action/adventure stories.  Yes, unlearning was a  problem for you and I'm not surprised.  But once more I think that it's  the change that's the difference, not that 4e is less flexible.It's saying that you are  presenting things as necessary consequences of the system rather than  consequences of how the system meshes with your personal DMing style.In  the comment I was replying to you straight up say "healing surges, as  currently presented, prevent attrition".  They do not prevent  attrition.  They make attrition less obvious.  The two are not  the same and one single counter-example where they have not prevented  attrition shows that they don't necessarily prevent attrition.  I am  such a counterexample.I'll take strawmen for 10.  Including me here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"Just  shifted tactics".  Right.  Your innocuous little statement here  explodes your entire thesis.  If you need to shift tactics because of  attrition then attrition is a very real thing that you are taking account of.   You have experienced attrition in the game.  You have taken in  character mitigating actions.  You've changed tactics because people  were no longer in a shape to take what would be their best tactics.  You  pull them off the front lines.  What more do you want?  The change to be due to a risk of death?  You did that.The  result of attrition is that people do things differently than if there  wasn't attrition.  In 4e you do things differently due to attrition.   You make sure the targets are differently protected.  Any further claims  you can possibly make that it doesn't exist should just be referred  back to your own statement here.How is this relevant?Actually,  no.  That doesn't say what you think it does.  Explicit monster rules  were changed to do that.  The white dragon for one thing breathes  frost.  The assassin's size changes.  The assassin's defences change.   The White Dragon as written is in no sense a cyborg assassin and you need to change actual rules text to make it such.Doesn't mean that it hasn't changed.  Merely that the direct mechanical effect is the same.  Until people start responding to what they are actually doing which is approximated by numbers.I've only ever run Keep on the Borderlands in D&D Next.  It was a pretty terrible experience, especially with those rats.Would you kindly stop accusing people of masturbation.And people have the right to make accusations about themselves and not be rude that they don't about others.</blockquote>

Verification