Mearls: The core of D&D

[pemerton]

That is a key point right there.

It was easy for magic items to become very ho-hum in prior editions of D&D. But in the end it was 100% up to how the DM ran the game.
Yes, the DEFAULT was ho-hum.

The "math works" of 4E changes things.

I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that all magic items in AD&D were ho-hum. A flametongue wasn't, for example, and clearly is a more interesting item than 4e's flaming weapon.

There are various factors that explain this - for example, besides its inherent variability vs various sorts of opponents (+3 vs trolls, +4 vs undead, and I think +2 vs birds), a flametongue is interesting because it gives the PC a schtick that s/he didn't have before. Whereas 4e PCs get their schticks from other build elements, and items are ancilliary to that.

I personally don't think the "maths" is as big a difference as you suggest. AD&D had its maths too. If PCs don't have +1 weapons, then a good chunk of the Monster Manual isn't going to see as much use as it otherwise might. (Although the maths progression is not as steep. From memory, only Fenris Wolf requires a +4 or better weapon, and I think the gargantua from Oriental Adventures may require +5s. And demi-liches, of course.)

Those tables guarantee placement. They do not guarantee acquisition. There can be a world of difference between the two.

But often there isn't. For example if, as per the advice to GM's in both AD&D and Basic, the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is using the sword+1/wand of magic missiles/whatever, then when the PCs win the fight they may not have much trouble acquiring the loot. (In AD&D, the magic blades will even be evident by the light they shed.)

I've got no objection to the claim that 4e magic items play very differently from AD&D items in all sorts of ways.

But I've played a lot of Basic D&D and AD&D. And in my experience, finding a +1 sword was not, in general, a semi-major event. The first one for a campaign may have given a bit of a thrill, but then that's also true in 4e - my players were excited to get their +1 enhancement bonuses.

Others may have had players who were more easily thrilled in classic D&D, and/or more jaded in AD&D. But I know what my experiences were, and continue to be.

 

[Umbran]

But hold hard, friend. What if it is neither drastic, nor an overstatement, to the speaker?

Then, "It seems to me..." would have been appropriate. I know lots of folks feel that should be implied, and taken as implied, but it generally isn't, and we would do well to recognize that.

but I think that it is statements that try to restrict expression that actually tend to polarize the discussion.

Okay, I think you misunderstand me. This isn't about what you can or cannot feel - this is about the practical matters of communicating to other human beings.

Every communication has an intent, and an expected audience. In phrasing a communication, you should keep those things in mind, and consider if what you are writing (and where, and when) is likely to have the results you want. I don't claim to know all the specific desired intents around here - but a great many of what seem to be the most common ones are demonstrably not served well by stating strong opinions as absolutes on an internet forum dedicated to discussion.

This doesn't mean you can't feel a certain way, or even that you can't express yourself. But, the Spider-Man Rule applies: with power comes responsibility. With the right of self expression comes the burden of doing so with care.

For example: we have blogs here on EN World, and I think they are woefully underused. Blogs and discussion forums have different designs, and different assumptions, and are good for different things. Blogs are, in general, better for just expressing your feelings than discussion board posts. I think if folks turned to the blogs for a lot of material that's often put on the discussion boards, those sections of the site could come alive in a really cool way that works in synergy with the discussion boards.

It is easier to prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed than it is to then reign in the backlash against those opinions once expressed.

Thing is, I'm not actually about keeping people from expressing unpopular opinions. I'm about helping folks find better ways of expressing their opinions, popular or otherwise.

 

[erleni]

I found interesting the system used by the Kult RPG.
You have several types of wounds (but no location), minor wounds, major wounds, mortal wounds (don't remember all the categories by heart).
A certain number of wound of a lesser degree will equal a wound of higher degree and this depends on the creature being hurt. An elephant will require a lot of minor wounds to get the equal of a major wound while a human will need less. Anyway a straight mortal wound to the elephant (say a rifle-shot through its eye) will still kill it.
Some supernatural beings may have to be killed by inflicting more than one mortal wound (they can really stand a lot of punishment).
Whenever you get to a certain wounded status you will get some penalties.

Each different attack may be able to inflict a different type of wounds. So a cat scratching you will inflict a minor wound, a normal sword attack may inflict a major wound (or more than one) and an assassin slitting your throat will inflict a mortal wound (these are just my ideas for a D&D application not actual examples from Kult).

This way you still have something like hit points (as lesser wounds accumulates and can kill a creature if enough), you have different levels with penalties (4ed introduced something similar with the bloodied condition that doesn't inflict penalties but has mechanical effects), but can still simulate deadly attacks (by inflicting higher level wounds straight away).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I disagree Raven.

If you look at healing from rest versus clerical healing, I don't think that explanation flies.

I also don't fully "get" your example there.

So, you don't fully get the argument (which is the only reason you would not "get" the example AFAICT), but you disagree with the conclusion?

Okay.

Suffice it to say that, with the hit point system as written, my "full hit points" can be less healthy than the prizefighters' "10 hit points remaining".

But often there isn't. For example if, as per the advice to GM's in both AD&D and Basic, the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is using the sword+1/wand of magic missiles/whatever, then when the PCs win the fight they may not have much trouble acquiring the loot. (In AD&D, the magic blades will even be evident by the light they shed.)

Well, obviously they won't be able to acquire the potions, scrolls, and wand charges used. And, if they do not pay attention, they may not acquire the command words necessary to using some items anyway. There is also a chance that the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is using a cursed blade. Or a blade with an ego that had other ideas about what you should be doing.

Using the tables results both in potential magic, and potential problems.

But, if it helps, I agree that making every magic sword/dagger glow wasn't a good idea....I houseruled that away, myself. Making magic items easy to locate and identify would, indeed, result in more magic items.

The tables alone, however, do not guarantee this.

Thing is, I'm not actually about keeping people from expressing unpopular opinions. I'm about helping folks find better ways of expressing their opinions, popular or otherwise.

Then I am sure that you can see how your post might have been perceived otherwise, and appreciate my attempts to help you express better what you were hoping to get across.



RC

 

[BryonD]

I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that all magic items in AD&D were ho-hum. A flametongue wasn't, for example, and clearly is a more interesting item than 4e's flaming weapon.

There are various factors that explain this - for example, besides its inherent variability vs various sorts of opponents (+3 vs trolls, +4 vs undead, and I think +2 vs birds), a flametongue is interesting because it gives the PC a schtick that s/he didn't have before. Whereas 4e PCs get their schticks from other build elements, and items are ancilliary to that.

None of that ever seemed to be the point. Of course specifics could, and did, make huge differences. Wasn't that part of my point? But, really this is just a tangent anyway.

I personally don't think the "maths" is as big a difference as you suggest. AD&D had its maths too.

Of course it "had" maths. But a HUGE selling point for 4E was "the math works". Ever system has had tons of math. Only one system put "the math works" as a key tenet of both the fundamental design and also the initial marketing campaign. The devil is in the details and there is a really big devil here.

But I've played a lot of Basic D&D and AD&D. And in my experience, finding a +1 sword was not, in general, a semi-major event. The first one for a campaign may have given a bit of a thrill, but then that's also true in 4e - my players were excited to get their +1 enhancement bonuses.

Others may have had players who were more easily thrilled in classic D&D, and/or more jaded in AD&D.

Agreed, but that does nothing to change the point.

But I know what my experiences were, and continue to be.

I don't doubt it. As I have said before, I believe all prior editions did a much better job of supporting a huge range of play styles. I find 4E to be the most narrow in what works with the grain of the system so to speak. People who love 4E have, by and large, probably always loved that generally approach. And for them prior editions were both good enough, and the best thing going to that point. Because 4E is so focused on that style, those people had a windfall of gaming with 4E. They went from good enough, to awesome. But in being awesome in that niche, it lost the big tent.
I already assumed, I'd even say "knew", that your experiences continue to be the same. But I'm talking about other experiences and that remains unchanged.

Edit: It appears I drifted into responding into quotes replying to RC with thinking they were still to me in mind. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage."[/I]
p.61

"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germain to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful."
p.61.

Quotes are so much more useful in context. Wouldn't you agree?

Also from page 9:

"ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted."

"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain!"
p.82
-Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG

"Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage -- as indicated by constitution bonuses -- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns individuals of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points. Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no more than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character. The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed. Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level. Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned. Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm -- the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points."

PC hit points never were the same as physical damage, but luck, morale, arcane and divine protection, combat skill, sixth sense etc.

But always some physical damage, as putting those quotes back into context shows. "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm".....but it does some amount of physical harm!

In fact I'd posit the opposite than you: that "such nonsense" was always inherent in the D&D combat system and that it was an oversight on part of early D&D to have omitted methods of HP recovery other than "wound closing".

This is the problem of looking at a small amount of data related to a complex proposition -- it skews your results. Gygax is quite clear -- there are factors that affect how much a strike harms you, but a strike always harms you to some degree. Hit points are a combination of both those factors and actual ability to absorb damage. But even the least amount of damage, on the highest level fighter, causes physical damage.

TSR-D&D actually has another mechanic to deal with morale factors. It is called, not surprisingly, "Morale".


RC

 

[mmadsen]

It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work. I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use without a hit point component.

Why is his suggestion of (what amounts to) a critical-hit table for wounds unwieldy without hit points? How do hit points make a look-up table easier to use?

I seem to recall a claim that nothing happens in the stories that could be best described by hit point attrition. In fact, Conan frequently suffers minor wounds that do not slow him down -- exactly what hit points model.

How are hit points the one and only way to model someone getting bruised and bloodied without being disabled? He made his save vs. monster claws repeatedly and was merely scratched.

Hit points do model what happens in a REH extremely well.

But they don't. They don't model any of the non-mooks who die from one arrow, spear thrust, or sword stroke, they don't model Conan being knocked out, etc.

Are there times when combat involves some back and forth before someone's dispatched? Sure, but hit points aren't the only way to do that.

Do we know that Conan isn't going to be killed outright by some mook? Sure, and that's a case for why Conan, not everyone tough, should have some plot-protection points.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why is his suggestion of (what amounts to) a critical-hit table for wounds unwieldy without hit points? How do hit points make a look-up table easier to use?

Go back and read his post.

I explained why SE-only systems do not work; he said his SE system works because he uses hit points.

How are hit points the one and only way to model someone getting bruised and bloodied without being disabled? He made his save vs. monster claws repeatedly and was merely scratched.

Go back and read my posts.

None of my arguments stem from "the one and only way" -- this is a straw man of the first order. The problems with SE-only systems is not that they cannot model combat, but they are cumbersome, have many of the same problems people attribute to hp systems, and remove contextual choices from players.

Hit points are king -- in tabletop and computer gaming -- not because they were first, but because they are best. Computer games can handle to cumbersome nature of SE-only systems extremely well. Most choose to use hit points as well in order to increase the contextual choices available to players.

"Context -> Choice -> Consequence" (which leads back into a new, changed, context) is the heart of gaming. IMHO and IME.

"There are other ways" is a non-starter. "There are other, better, ways" would make an argument. But, like the gentleman from Missouri says, you would have to show me. I've heard a lot of people claim such an animal exists, but every time I've paid my dime, it's always included hit points in a thin disguise......or something worse than a system which includes hit points.

I'll readily agree that an exception is theoretically possible. I know of no instance that demonstrates that such an exception actually exists. When I learn otherwise, I'll be happy to defend (and probably adopt) that system. Because hit points are best today, it doesn't follow that they will remain king forever.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hit points are king -- in tabletop and computer gaming -- not because they were first, but because they are best.

Were Winston Churchill a gamer, he might have said it thusly:
"Hit points are the worst form of damage tracking in RPGs...except for all those others that have been tried."

 

[TarionzCousin]

To analogize: the concrete foundation in the ground isn't what makes your house your home, but it is required for the building to stand. And while it does not completely determine the nature of the building, it does have some impact on what is done in and with the rest of the structure.

But what if I live in a van...?

I would say that polyhedral damage dice is part of the D&D experience. It wouldn't feel like D&D to me without those d4 daggers and d8 swords.

d12 Greatswords for the win!