D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Umbran]

Remember, the first salvos of the edition war were fired by h4ters...

There have been seven years of people being rude to each other - there has been enough wrongdoing on both sides that who started it is no longer really relevant, and certainly no longer an excuse.

 

[Nagol]

2E had falling to 0 hp by default being death. 3.X on the other hand had IIRC no penalties for falling below 0hp.

The same for 1e. I am referencing the optional rule of death at -10 in both editions.

That second part was cut from 3.0. So why are you blaming 4e?

I not blaming the game systems for anything; I am noting things I dislike. And who said I don't have similar complaints about 3.X?

I am talking specifically about my complaints with 4e. Do I have complaints with 3e? Yep. Are some of the them the same or at least have a similar root as my complaints for 4e? Yep. Were my complaints with 3e as severe overall? Nope.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fine replace the word "trip" with the word "immobilize". I broke out the actual book a found a real daily power for Fighters (Dizzying Blow). Is that better?

Yes - because immobilising is something that is hard to do with a sword. And having it be a real challenge makes sense.

As the player I must consider the rule restrictions at least as much as I consider the situation.

If the two aren't complimentary then I need to find a different system. (One of my complaints against pre-4E D&D).

Athletes pace themselves, sure. But not because they know they'll only get one chance to try X across the day in events that have no knowledge transfer between opponents and rests in-between. Especially since the characters don't actually get tired and remain at full functionality whenever they are conscious. Those considerations are entirely outside the game world.

Again, the considerations are within the game rules, are in the game rules if abstracted in 4e, and should be part of the game world.

Absolutely. Falling below 0 meant serious unforgiving injury. Unaided, the character will die -- you do not stabilise on your own. The rules continue by suggesting cosmetic/maiming injuries if the character falls below -6.

And in 4e unaided if you fall below 0 you will die. Three failed death saves. Your problem?

The same for 1e. I am referencing the optional rule of death at -10 in both editions.

So your problem is optional rules have changed?

I not blaming the game systems for anything; I am noting things I dislike. And who said I don't have similar complaints about 3.X?

I am talking specifically about my complaints with 4e. Do I have complaints with 3e? Yep. Are some of the them the same or at least have a similar root as my complaints for 4e? Yep. Were my complaints with 3e as severe overall? Nope.

So the problem you are pointing out here is that 4E is true to its roots? Right.

 

[Dausuul]

Come on, guys. You may not sympathize with the anti-4E people's stated reasons for disliking the system, but that does not invalidate those reasons or mean they are offered in bad faith. It is certainly possible to point to places where earlier editions did the same things; but 4E did them a bunch more, in more places, and that was a bridge too far for some folks. For my part, I share the dislike of many 4E-isms on a theoretical level, but I found I was mostly able to set aside my objections in practice. The things that ground my gears badly enough to be deal-breakers, I was able to ban or house-rule away. Some folks just felt more strongly about it than I did.

On a side note, I think part of the reason for the problems around hit points was that the 4E team failed to reckon with the contradiction between the Theory of Hit Points and the way they were presented in the game. This was a contradiction that had existed from the very first days of D&D: In the Theory of Hit Points, they were mostly luck and skill and the will of the gods and all that. But all the presentation around hit points pushed "hit points = meat." An attack that cost hit points was described as a "hit" and loss of hit points was "damage." Regaining hit points was "healing" and spells that gave back hit points had names like "Cure Light Wounds" and "Heal." There was a one-to-one correspondence between "things that cost hit points" and "things that cause harm to one's body," and a similar correspondence between "things that give back hit points" and "things that repair bodily harm."

The way previous editions dealt with this contradiction was simple: They didn't make you think about it. At the gaming table, you could treat hit points as meat and everything worked fine... almost. The Theory of Hit Points was a fig leaf. It was there so that when you started to really think about hit points and wonder just how your high-level fighter could absorb so much punishment, you could look at the Theory of Hit Points and have your objections soothed. Then you could go back to the table and keep playing your made-of-iron hero.

(There were a few places where hit points as meat didn't work well. And those were exactly the things people were always griping about and making fancy house rules for. Falling damage was the big one.)

The 4E team made the mistake of putting in mechanics that violated that arrangement, while keeping the terminology that made it necessary in the first place. For my money, the name "healing surge" was one of 4E's major blunders. 5E's hit dice and Second Wind operate on the same principle as healing surges, but they are careful to avoid the word "heal" anywhere in the name or description.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Come on, guys. You may not sympathize with the anti-4E people's stated reasons for disliking the system, but that does not invalidate those reasons or mean they are offered in bad faith.

If I have ever said that all reasons stated for disliking 4e are offered in bad faith I hereby unreservedly apologise. Some, however, are. And many are based on misrepresentations of the system.

On a side note, I think part of the reason for the problems around hit points was that the 4E team failed to reckon with the contradiction between the Theory of Hit Points and the way they were presented in the game.

Presented in most parts of the game. Not all. But there's a reason I've renamed hit points to Stun in my 4E Retroclone.

The way previous editions dealt with this contradiction was simple: They didn't make you think about it.
...
The 4E team made the mistake of putting in mechanics that violated that arrangement, while keeping the terminology that made it necessary in the first place. For my money, the name "healing surge" was one of 4E's major blunders. 5E's hit dice and Second Wind operate on the same principle as healing surges, but they are careful to avoid the word "heal" anywhere in the name or description.

I'd say you are overstating the case. But Healing Surges are badly named, certainly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

(There were a few places where hit points as meat didn't work well. And those were exactly the things people were always griping about and making fancy house rules for. Falling damage was the big one.)

The 4E team made the mistake of putting in mechanics that violated that arrangement, while keeping the terminology that made it necessary in the first place. For my money, the name "healing surge" was one of 4E's major blunders. 5E's hit dice and Second Wind operate on the same principle as healing surges, but they are careful to avoid the word "heal" anywhere in the name or description.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you admit that 4E wasn't the first edition which violated this supposed "arrangement", then you say it did. Then in describing the "mechanics" which were the problem in 4E, you actually point not to mechanics, but to aesthetics - naming. This is precisely what I've been saying. Not that 4E's mechanics were any worse, but it's transparent and straightforward presentation of them put some people's noses out of joint, and because other forms of D&D existed where they had not before, instead of house ruling or whinging until WotC put out more options, they just went and played those.

Aesthetics is absolutely a big deal here, a huge deal.

 

[Nagol]

And in 4e unaided if you fall below 0 you will die. Three failed death saves. Your problem?

If you fall below zero, you may die. If you don't die, then unaided, within a few minutes to 24 hours you are completely fine (depending on how many surges are remaining) -- unlike any other version of the game.

<snip>


So the problem you are pointing out here is that 4E is true to its roots? Right.

And I think I'm done.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you fall below zero, you may die. If you don't die, then unaided, within a few minutes to 24 hours you are completely fine (depending on how many surges are remaining) -- unlike any other version of the game.

I agree that extended rests are too short.

But if you fall below zero you have a near certain chance of death. And you are not completely fine until your healing surges are replaced. Something that either takes an extended rest or very powerful magical healing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There have been seven years of people being rude to each other - there has been enough wrongdoing on both sides that who started it is no longer really relevant, and certainly no longer an excuse.

Does history ever really become irrelevant? Certainly, we should leave the hurt feelings and bitterness of the war behind, but we still need to learn its lessons, or we'll just see some future ed succumb to the same mistakes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd say you are overstating the case. But Healing Surges are badly named, certainly.

Something more general would certainly have been better. 'Heroic' Surge, for instance. IMX, most tables quickly shorten it to just 'surges.'

One benefit of a less specific name would have been leaving the door open to use them for more than just restoring hps or metering temp hps. There are a few examples, like magic items fueled by surges, of alternate uses. Surges could have been used for all sorts of things - fueling powers, granting bonuses like the Heroic Surge finally given to human, enabling 'plot point' type mechanics, etc. As a fixed daily resource, they could have been a strong core mechanic for limited-use abilities of all sorts, allowing more options-mixing, flexibility and customization to be introduced without unduly impacting overall balance (though flexibility /does/ affect balance, of course)