Turning a blow into a less serious one implies a certain amount of activity to me, not passive forces like luck or fate (unless you can consciously affect those). However, I see how you can draw that interpretation, even if I wouldn't assume that to be the case. I still don't think that's what it means, but I wouldn't argue against it if you were GMing for me
I guess I can see it that was as well. It's funny, because I used that exact quote from the 3e PHB in, oh, around 2001 to show someone that HP were abstract, and not just a bucket of meat. If you are ok seeing HP in that way, then that's fine, if it works for you. But, I think that you start running into some very interesting (and immersion rending) problems. For example: How come a level-0 commoner can only take 1 sword hit, but the level 15 fighter can take several? If you put me (level 0 commoner) side by side with a Navy SEAL (say, level 15 fighter?) and shot us both, we would likely have the same fate. But according to "bucket of meat" HP, that Navy SEAL should be able to take a dozen or more shots before falling. That's just one of the problems.
You know what's funny? Years ago, when I used to play WoW, I used to advocate for a "hardcore" server, where if you died, you had until the mandatory release time to be res'd or that's it, you start over from scratch. I thought it'd be cool. Even in WoW, I wanted permanent death as an option (as in mandatory, but only on one or two servers, which you get to pick). Even in Diablo II (which I didn't play much of), I only ever played on hardcore in the campaign mode. I think I made it through two acts before I got kind of tired of my barbarian and played other games.
But, yeah, different play styles. No right or wrong answer to that
Interesting idea. I'm sure there's a few people that would like that, but I know it wouldn't be for me, lol. I'm one of the masochists that used to raid Plane of Fear in Everquest, before all the corpse summoners and resurrection bots...
If you're not sure what I'm talking about, let's just say there was a very real possibility of losing your corpse (and all of your gear) and having it disappear with all your gear if you wiped and couldn't get another raid up there to rescue. Almost happened once. I had to skip classes that day or risk missing a chance at getting back to my corpse. Was a bad day I never wanted to repeat, lol.
And the group I ran never went through dungeons or played modules, so they weren't as necessary (though they'd certainly have been useful at times). I've played through a dungeon-like environment or two, but it was low levels (1-3), so they didn't come up (750 gp is a lot to a first level character... way out of his price range).
Understandable. I think the way we used to balance encounters was that lower level combat tended to not be as draining. But at higher levels, all bets were off. That was my experience through about a dozen different groups I've played with in my 20 years.
Well, the amount of combat is basically set by the players. They've tried to avoid fights where possible. The two fights have been instigated by me, when bandits have attacked the PCs when traveling along the road (traveling by yourself means that a group of 4-6 bandits might like their odds when they have ranged weapons and are on the mountainside, waiting for people to pass by). The players could definitely start more fights than they have (they've almost been in, I don't know, probably six fights so far), but they keep letting the negotiator talk people down (that's their preferred plan, but combat was always, "and in case he fails, we jump him...").
Again, interesting. But it's similar to what I do. The players, whether they know it or not call the shots. Though, I have the opposite problem. If I give them more RP style encounters, or non-combat encounters...they will turn them into combat encounters, heh.
I think so, too. I think they'd have to shift healing surges away from the main healing mechanic (heals don't "activate" healing surges in other PCs anymore, but heal raw damage, even if it's 25% instead of a number). Leaving healing surges as the main mechanic for healing puts arbitrary hard caps on the amount of external healing one could receive in a day, which will still rub people the wrong way.
I also might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how healing works in 4e. And if so, ignore this
I think there's a general misunderstanding of healing surges. The name tends to evoke the idea that a player can heal themselves. And, to an extent, that's true. In combat, every player gets a second wind. This can be used as a standard action (meaning, you can basically only move this turn), once per encounter, that allows you to use a healing surge. A healing surge heals 25% of your HP (rounded down). In general, this is the only way a player can use a healing surge in combat. Abilities and healing potions do not heal directly, they allow the use of healing surges (in most cases, there are exceptions). A potion of healing allows a character to burn a healing surge in exchange for 10hp. A cleric can use healing word (twice per encounter) to allow a character to use a healing surge. A cleric can also choose Cure XXXX Wounds that heals back HP without a healing surge, but it's a daily spell, and the cleric would have had to take it in place of another daily. So in essense, a healing surge is a limitation on the amount of healing a player can receive in a day (after an extended rest, or 8 hours, they get all healing surges back). I think of it more like endurance. When you're out of surges, you're exhausted, and you need to rest. You simply cannot continue.
Most people are mostly ok (with some exceptions, not going into them here, as they've been discussed on this thread already) with that mechanic. What gets a lot of people is that between combats, during a short rest (5 minute break) a character can use as many surges as they want to heal themself up. So now, they're ready for the next fight, with no downtime. Anyway, that's how the mechanic works, basically, so if that's what you thought, then you understand. If not, well, now you do.
Well, in my game, when you level up, you don't automatically increase in anything (save free skill points, or a feat or stat hop). And, since it's a point buy system, you can dump all of your points into being an amazing butcher if you want to. You can have a 20th hit die scholar with 3 hit points, or a 5th hit die warrior with 50 hit points. So, I put the baseline at 4th hit die to set a certain level of proficiency within professions, not combat (though soldiers might average 4th or 5th level in combat proficiency).
Ahh, ok. Makes more sense now.
These are also settled adults, which means they aren't new or green. If you pick a fight with them at hit die 1, you will probably lose. As you should, in my mind. If you want to be heroic, start at a higher hit die. I wanted a system that could support a "farmboy to hero" story just as well as a "we're naturally the biggest, baddest guys around with little training" in my game. You can have a grizzled, trained warrior captain with decades of training in tactics and real life wars under his belt, and you can have a farm kid who gets dragged into the adventuring life, and becomes a hero.
In my ideal version of D&D, it should support different narrative ranges. I know that starting at 8th hit die means you miss out on a chunk of the game, but it's preferable to me than not being able to play a "zero to hero" type game, even if I wanted to. Give me the option for either, and let the group decide what to play.
I understand where you're coming from now. In context of D&D in general, it doesn't make much sense. But in the game you've created, well, that's the game you and your group want to play, and more power to you.
But, like you said, it's preference. I see the real downsides to doing it my way (you lose out on the early hit die, thus you might have a shorter long term game). But the upsides more than make up for it to me.
That's the grittyness you enjoy. For me, balance is a pretty important factor in the game.
But, it's just preference in what we want in a system. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that you'd rather have a specialized game this resonates with most of your wants, then a general game that adapts to different styles. Many people prefer the "I'd rather all games be specialized, so I can pick a game that is tailored to my wants, and that specializes in the things I desire, rather than doing it halfheartedly." I understand that mindset, but since D&D has such a broad base, I'd rather have it appeal to as many different styles as possible (which is a goal that might, ironically, lose it some gamers).
In my eyes, a generic, one size fits all system would be fairly boring. Even if your game supports the way my group wants to play, I'd rather play 4e since it will excell at what we want. Whereas in your system, it might be possible, but it's more of a jack of all trades, master of none. BUT, the benefit is, of course, being able to do whatever you want, and have the system support that. 4e supports a lot of options, but many things are pretty non-negotiable.
Nope, not what I had in mind at all. In my game, it's basically all mundane travel unless you have a powerful magician (Passage specialist... basically teleportation magic), and even then, it costs him permanent resources (consumes a bit if his soul, by permanently reducing his Charisma, which you need an 18 or higher to cast spells at all). This makes it very, very rare. I'm not proposing this for D&D, since it's way too radical. I was just stating my preference of overland or boat travel most of the time, since it lets the world evolve. At high levels, with teleportation magic common, it's hard to have an army even begin to form without high level PCs (or even NPCs!) show up and nip it in the bud early. And that kills narratives, in my mind. Making teleportation rare but possible leaves narratives open, so it's my preference.
I can see that. Again, my thoughts follow the more heroic, cinematic feel. Whereas in your system, the journey is what's important, in 4e, the destination seems to be where it's at.
Yep. I really liked his take on magic items (it's basically what I did for my RPG). I hope he keeps up quality thoughts on the articles. And, just like Mr. Mearls said, "this is something Monte showed me that I liked," I hope we see Mr. Cook say, "this is something I was talking to Mike about. What do you guys think?"
I still have my reservations with Monte on the team, but what I've seen so far, he has some pretty good ideas, and I know i'll be following his L&L column. I have a feeling that column will give a good prediction of what to expect with 5e.
Yeah. It's nice to be able to converse and say, "play style difference, but that's cool" and not have the conversation dry up right away. I do find it interesting and informative. I hope others caught in our conversation do as well! As always, play what you like
I never understood the hate between the so-called grognards and the 4e fanboys. We're all gamers, but we all have our own preferences and opinions. I can't tell you that the way you play is wrong, because that's how you like to play. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter, at all. Have fun at your game today. Looking forward to my next!