Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6260451" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with this. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and I, on a thread last year (? or thereabouts) observed that in 4e in particular this change in the function of hit points makes quite a difference to how the GM can narrate improvised consequences in terms of hit point loss.I think the lethality at 1st level could still be pretty high - I remember killing off lots of 1st level Basic PCs - though AD&amp;D was more generous with its -10 back door.But I think the &quot;strategic not tactical&quot; issue is more about the availability of healing than the severity of damage. In Basic, for intance, a 1st level cleric doesn't even have a cure spell: s/he is a slightly weak fighter who can turn undead.I didn't read the post that way, though maybe I just missed some subtext.I haven't played enough 3E to comment, but I don't find 4e &quot;easier&quot;. But it is different. I strongly prefer it, myself. There are the change in the dynamics of hit points for improvised consequences: for instance, at 1st level I could throw in 1d6 or 1d10 of psychic backlash damage for a failed skill check to identify some magical effect and it works to convey stakes and flavour without making the character have to cower at the rear during the next combat. And there's also the fact that I find combat with significant swings - PCs being pushed to the edge but then roused by the inspiration of their friends - more dramatic both at the story/thematic level, and also at the practical/tactical level. AD&amp;D doesn't tend to deliver that same experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6260451, member: 42582"] I agree with this. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and I, on a thread last year (? or thereabouts) observed that in 4e in particular this change in the function of hit points makes quite a difference to how the GM can narrate improvised consequences in terms of hit point loss. I think the lethality at 1st level could still be pretty high - I remember killing off lots of 1st level Basic PCs - though AD&D was more generous with its -10 back door. But I think the "strategic not tactical" issue is more about the availability of healing than the severity of damage. In Basic, for intance, a 1st level cleric doesn't even have a cure spell: s/he is a slightly weak fighter who can turn undead. I didn't read the post that way, though maybe I just missed some subtext. I haven't played enough 3E to comment, but I don't find 4e "easier". But it is different. I strongly prefer it, myself. There are the change in the dynamics of hit points for improvised consequences: for instance, at 1st level I could throw in 1d6 or 1d10 of psychic backlash damage for a failed skill check to identify some magical effect and it works to convey stakes and flavour without making the character have to cower at the rear during the next combat. And there's also the fact that I find combat with significant swings - PCs being pushed to the edge but then roused by the inspiration of their friends - more dramatic both at the story/thematic level, and also at the practical/tactical level. AD&D doesn't tend to deliver that same experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification