Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Raven Crowking]

Heal and Hurt (from Book of Nine Swords): the Crusader could heal someone near him whenever he hit someone else; normally not for much, and some manuevers only worked 1/combat. At 1st level, you could expect him to heal 2 hp every time he hit a foe, and 1/combat to heal 1d6+1. This looks like it will make it into 4e in some form.

Wasn't there a blog bit about being able to heal while still attacking?

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Does your DM always allow you to choose the method of your death?

No.

That said, my DM hates it as much as I do (if not more) when months and months worth of character story arcs, history and plothooks gets gacked by a single die roll.

WHat I didn't say very well is this: If I am going to lose out on the above mentioned story and hooks I want to make the bad guys work for their kill. Getting spllattered from being hit by giant a few times may not make for much of story to tell later but it's a heck of a lot better than 'I died and didn't even get to participate in the fight'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That said, my DM hates it as much as I do (if not more) when months and months worth of character story arcs, history and plothooks gets gacked by a single die roll.

I hate that, too, as a DM, but I recognize that the chance of death/real loss is what defines and makes valuable survival/real gain. As a player, I don't mind so much.

RC

 

[Cadfan]

And heaven knows that a chance of death or real loss is ONLY possible in a game system with single-die-roll deaths.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

2.) I was really bummed when I first opened my 3.0 PHB to find that the magic/spell system was basically a cut&paste of the antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic system from previous editions.

I'm serious, go read your 1st edition PHB and you'll see.

Thanks god it is finally evolving.

It was certainly very close. Speaking as a man who ended playing 2e with a 1/2 elf cleric 12/m-u 12, and having to take 23 hours, 10 minutes to memorize and pray for my full allotment of spells - yes, I could easily spend half as much time adventuring as I could getting ready to adventure - the flat "1 hour's prep time" was a huge step forward.

I mean, the moon landing of 4e makes it look like they hopped a country ditch, but still. It was progress.

 

[shilsen]

I hate that, too, as a DM, but I recognize that the chance of death/real loss is what defines and makes valuable survival/real gain. As a player, I don't mind so much.

RC

As a DM, I realize that death and real loss can exist separately and in D&D are sometimes even antithetical to each other. And I personally don't kill PCs in my game because I don't want to be that easy on them. Even though the players sometimes tell me it would be kinder on my part if I did. Unfortunately for them, I'm not kind or soft enough to comply.

As a player, I find save-or-die really boring and unexciting, as I do death in general in the game.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I personally don't kill PCs in my game because I don't want to be that easy on them.

My DM has a favorite saying about DMing and PCs:
Death means the PC stops suffering.



My DM wants to continue to bring on the pain...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Wasn't there a blog bit about being able to heal while still attacking?

Yes, it referenced how the leader's powers operate through their actions. Most likely similar to how crusader strike, martial spirit, etc operates from Tome of Battle. It helps free the cleric from the complete nursemaid role that made it unattractive to many people. As a result, maybe they wont have to make the class overpowered to lure someone into playing it heh.

 

[D.Shaffer]

it is limiting and restrictive and suggests that the designers know not just what makes a better mechanic, but what makes a better adventure, better milieu and better game (in the at the table sense) than the player/DM.

...All right, I have to speak up on this one...

If you DONT think that the game designers know what makes a better mechanic, a better adventure, etc...what are you doing BUYING an RPG rather then making and playing your own?

In any case, arguing that the inclusion of a rule or an effect should be included in 4th ed just because it was in a previous edition seems a bit iffy. The 1st ed DMG had rules for POWER ARMOR and GATLING guns in it. By your logic, it's a legacy rule and should be included as excluding it is 'Limiting an option'.

 

[Henry]

In any case, arguing that the inclusion of a rule or an effect should be included in 4th ed just because it was in a previous edition seems a bit legacy. The 1st ed DMG had rules for POWER ARMOR and GATLING guns in it. By your logic, it's a legacy rule and should be included as excluding it is 'Limiting an option'.

There's an important part to that argument, though, that I noted above: If a sizeable portion of existing gamers want it in there (say, one third to one-half) then personally I think it should be in there as an option, or at least available (some kind of web enhancement, part of Dragon, etc.) rather than just kill it off totally. Otherwise, you alienate some of your customer base by giving them something they don't want.

Personally, I am concerned that the game is swinging too far away from the element of chance, to the point where it's not as fun. For me, if all there is is whittling down the opposition's hit points as a means to stop them, it's kind of boring, tactically. Next thing, hold person's doing DEX damage to a minimum of 1, strong poisons are doing 1d4 CON per hit, and the rules for helplessness are removed because it's no fun for PCs to get caught sleeping and whacked in the middle of the night...

Is it honestly as fun when the only way to stop an enemy is to do stacks of d6's of damage to him? That's the part that remains to be convinced on.