I think I have finally "put my finger on it"

[WayneLigon]

Care to cite where it says the hit point system is abstract and thus I am wrong?

It's been a widely recognized fact for many, many years that the hit point and combat system are very abstract.

First Wizards Article to Turn up on Google]

Hit points are not a universal gauge of concrete, physical toughness. If a soldier and a small tank both have 100 hit points, that doesn't mean the soldier is physically as tough as the tank! Hit points are deliberately abstract so that the same measure of damage can be applied to an inanimate object (such as a wall), an animate object (such as a tank), a massive creature (such as a Krayt dragon), or a high-level character. Consider what hit points mean to each of them:

* The high-level character's durability comes mostly from avoiding attacks, rolling with blows, and so forth. Only a fraction of his survival is based on his physical ability to absorb damage.

* The Krayt dragon's hit points include skill and speed, but a much greater portion comes from its sheer size and bulk. In other words, it's hard to hit something that big in a way that will cause critically injuries.

* The tank's hit points are completely physical in nature, but they aren't determined only by its size and mass. They also account for qualities such as the resiliency of the tank's systems, the volatility of its fuel and payload, the number of redundant and backup systems, and so on.

* The wall's hit points are completely physical and almost entirely determined by simple physical characteristics such as the type of material used to build the wall, the thickness of the wall, and so on.

Over the years, some players have developed a terrible misconception that a character with 100 hit points can be shot almost a dozen times in the chest. Not true! Both a high-level soldier with 100 hit points and a stormtrooper with 10 hit points will be grievously injured and possibly killed by a single blaster wound to the chest. However, the high-level soldier will dodge the first nine shots, and the stormtrooper won't. (If it helps, imagine that a high-level hero has a reserve of "virtual hit points" to offset attacks that would otherwise be lethal. Once he has exhausted his reserve, the blow that finally reduces him to 0 hit points will solidly connect and cause serious physical trauma.)

(Emphasis mine)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pos Rep ++ WayneLigon!

Of course, if you go back to the 1e DMG, this is spelled out very clearly as well.

At least we've gotten clear of the fighter taking "a giant-hurled boulder in the chest without being knocked down and keep swinging like he was at full power".

The question is, is it true that "No matter how you explain hit points, the fact that a fighter past 10th level can leap off a hundred foot cliff, stand up and keep swinging his sword just as easily as he was at max health still stands." true?

More importantly, if true, was it as true in previous editions as in 3.5? And, in either event, is this sort of superheroism a good thing?

RC

 

[Fobok]

And, in either event, is this sort of superheroism a good thing?

It is to me. I've mentioned before, D&D is, to me, a lot like the old Hercules and Xena TV shows. Not at all realistic, but fun action/adventure. Things like that are just part of the theme.

When I'm feeling like something grittier and more realistic, there's many other game systems (some D20) that fit the bill. D&D is, in my opinion, about fantasy adventure.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is to me. I've mentioned before, D&D is, to me, a lot like the old Hercules and Xena TV shows. Not at all realistic, but fun action/adventure. Things like that are just part of the theme.

When I'm feeling like something grittier and more realistic, there's many other game systems (some D20) that fit the bill. D&D is, in my opinion, about fantasy adventure.

There is, I think, a spectrum between wuxia and gritty/realistic. The Hercules TV show is closer to the Wuxia end than Howard or Burroughs, but both those writers were definitely more "fun action/adventure" than gritty/realistic. Conan or Tarzan are supposed to be human beings at the peak of physical perfection, though, rather than superheroes without capes.

(It is interesting to note that both Tarzan and John Carter, two of Burroughs' characters, have been cited by the creators of Superman as being formulative to that character's genesis......)


RC

 

[Rechan]

The question is, is it true that "No matter how you explain hit points, the fact that a fighter past 10th level can leap off a hundred foot cliff, stand up and keep swinging his sword just as easily as he was at max health still stands." true?

I'm sure the immediate response is going to be something like "Humans can and have fallen from high places and survived." Of course. But did they stand up afterwards and slay a giant?

More importantly, if true, was it as true in previous editions as in 3.5? And, in either event, is this sort of superheroism a good thing?

Maybe it's just a stylistic play difference, but I just have trouble reasoning that the 20th fighter is just a Really Good Athlete when he's standing next to the guy who can summon an Elder Elemental, True Ressurect or throw around Miracles and the guy who can stop time and cast spells or can turn into a 20HD monster. Further, it's hard for me to believe that the only thing that seperates a 20th level fighter from a 1st level fighter is that the former has better gear and can attack 5 times.

The system also supports this. To quote Dalamar's example:

Your average 20th level fighter without magic items can currently expect to jump up 9ft or long jump 35ft regularly without even having had to focus on jumping if he has a running start. A Fighter who is focused on jumping (Acrobatic and Skill Focus, throw in Run and 5 ranks in Tumble for a bit of extra) with good Strength (say... 18, reasonable for a 20th level melee fighter without magic items) and he's making 50ft long jumps regularly (total modifier +38 on running jumps). Make that a raging 20th level barbarian instead and he has a good chance of exceeding 60ft on a running long jump.

Allow me to use a literary example. Beowulf fought water monsters all night, and tore Grendel's arm off with his bare hands. And he almost single-handedly took down a dragon. I wouldn't put Conan and Tarzan in the 15+ category, but Beowulf I would.

I don't think it's unreasonable to accept that after a certain point, the fighter, and nay all high level characters, are beyond the pale. That's what legendary heroes (Achilles, etc) become - beyond mere men.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As to why I fear I am not going to be happy with 4E.

Finger number one: Despite the apparent emphsis on "party roles" when I try to figure out how they are going to do this, based on the admittedly shaky/sketchy info, it sounds to me like they are moving away, but by no means abandoning, the importance of "the party".

"Why?", I guess your asking. Well, to me, a party needs each other. You need the mage to counter the mages or clerics of your opponents. You need the Cleric to counter the clerics or mages of your opponents and to help your party quickly recover for the next battle. You need the fighter types to keep people off of the spellcasters while they cast their spells to bring down the enemy, and if the opportunity arises, interfere with enemy spellcasters trying to do the same to your group. Thieves are needed to safely travel through highhly secured and well guarded locations.

Really, you have never "needed" one of the four basic classes. However, if you did, the incredibly broken multiclass system of 1st edition allowed you to fill the "roles" much easier than any other edition. For the paltry cost of being a level behind, you could slap some cleric spells on that fighter. Of course, that assumed you'd want to water down your levels with fighter levels to begin with. A second cleric was almost always a better choice. Thieves in particular just sucked as you leveled, with magic overcoming more and more obstacles and your combat contribution approaching zilch.

So in 4E I am concerned their attempts to "equalize the classes" will go so far that the importance of the group will almost dissappear. Hopefully these WOTC game designers are brilliant enough to achieve "class equality" without sacrificing "the party" too much.

Given that they have come right out and said they want the roles to be recognizable and important, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.

 

[AllisterH]

I think the real problem is that we're expected to actually game at mid to high levels.

Seriously, people mention Howard, Leiber et al, but of the "D&D influences", did anyone of them star a magician?

I stand by my belief that I've held since 2E when I ran a one-shot campaign where everybody started at level 15. Gygax should NEVER have allowed magic to be in the hands of players in the form of the wizard/cleric.

I love both Iron Heroes and Conan d20 (Conan d20 is GREAT IMHO, best implementation of Conan EVER) and both of these systems work where magic is truly only in the hands of the opposition.

 

[DItheringFool]

Finger number 3, and my biggest over all problem. 4E is sounding less and less like what D&D fantasy is to me. The way it is sounding to me I already have 4E. Its called "Exalted" or "Big Eyes Small Mouth". So if 4E is indeed moving towards the flavor and feel of these types of fantasy then it is definitely moving beyond me. I play D&D for a specific flavor with specific "tropes"; I think is how it is referred to.

Yes, I am sure I could ignore, or house rule, what ruins 4E for me, but why bother? Why buy another system that I would have to ignore a significant portion of to get the kind of game I want? Especially since I already own them?

I'm with you.

As I've posted elsewhere, imagine Tolkien's Middle earth. Now throw in a ton of tieflings flinging warlock invocations right and left.

It has a differnt feel than the D&D I grew up with. And there are other games that already do that...

So yeah, Treebore, I'm with ya.

 

[SteveC]

No, sorry.

Way to lump the originator with his imitators/pastichers.

RE Howard is, imo, a great writer.

The others you listed were guys trying to recapture or live off his magic.

And I'm happy to see Howard finally being TREATED like an actual, honest to god, good writer.

Only his Conan stories, without pastiches mixed in? In the order he wrote them (as opposed to someone else's "chronilogical reordering")?

His Kull, Solomane Kane and Cthulhu stories being reprinted?

His Boxing stories being reprinted?!?!?

And he did all this by age 30, which is when most writers actually start to mature in their craft, and people are still reading him 70 some-odd years later.

Huh, sounds like a great writer to me.

It pains me to have to disagree with this, but I have to. Before I do that, I have to say that I am a fan of Howard's writing (less so, the person) and I would never attempt to argue personal taste with anyone.

The official RE Howard website compares him to Edgar Allan Poe, Lovecraft and Dashiell Hammett, and I can hardly see the comparison. The fact that you have books in print doesn't make you a great writer 70 years after your death these days, I'm afraid.

More to the point, Howard isn't someone that very many high school and college aged nerds are reading these days. Writing D&D based on Howard just doesn't make sense for today's audience.

Again, I like Howard's books, but great literature he ain't. There are examples of great literature involved in the history of D&D: The Chanson De Roland, Malory, Tennyson, and yes, Tolkien as well.

The most important part of all of this is that those "great works" don't make the quirky parts of D&D that it seems like everyone wants to emulate and keep.

In case there's any doubt: this is all MHO, and YMMV.

--Steve

 

[Treebore]

Really, you have never "needed" one of the four basic classes. However, if you did, the incredibly broken multiclass system of 1st edition allowed you to fill the "roles" much easier than any other edition. For the paltry cost of being a level behind, you could slap some cleric spells on that fighter. Of course, that assumed you'd want to water down your levels with fighter levels to begin with. A second cleric was almost always a better choice. Thieves in particular just sucked as you leveled, with magic overcoming more and more obstacles and your combat contribution approaching zilch.



Given that they have come right out and said they want the roles to be recognizable and important, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.

I think it is pretty obvious I have reached no "conclusions", I have only achieved a state of anxiety about the unknown. When clear concise elaboration arrives, then I'll make my conclusions.