My take.

[Celebrim]

Do you mean to say that it's more "believable" in some way that hit points become larger as you rise in level because someone can eventually take the physical damage of 10 or more killing blows with a longsword and not die? And then you wait overnight, rather than 6 hours, so that your priest can heal you?

The fact that you can recover hit points faster makes it seem MORE believable to me. This implies that hit points are NOT the physical meat that you're made out of increasing its density over time, but your ability to survive additional attacks in every sense. In other words, if hit points are both physical condition AND combat readiness, then recovering them makes sense. If it's just that you get the ability to take a billion hits with a sword and not die, then that's hardly increasing the game's "believability," IMO. Quite the opposite.

In other words, has someone who's take 95 out of 100 hit points damage REALLY been cut in half 12 or 13 times, yet somehow kept fighting? Or are they just so battered, exhausted, and generally beaten up that they aren't going to be able to deflect or avoid that final, wounding strike which they could have parried with ease earlier? I prefer the second, and being able to recover your hit points underlines the fact that they aren't cuts in your basic meat. After 6 hours, you should be fighting fit again if you haven't received more than scratches and bruises.

This whole rant could have been avoided had you simply read the 1st edition DMG when the justification for hit points was laid out. Hit points have always been both your ability to sustain physical damage and other intangible factors. However, the outcome of that assumption is not what you think it is.

Moreover, I think you miss the point. The problem isn't that hit points are abstract, since everyone knows that they always have been. Hardly anyone that cares to play D&D is worried about abstract wounds. If they were, they would move to a system that uses hit locations and/or actual injuries of some form rather than having hit points. The root of the complaint is that in 4E they are 100% abstract rather than being merely 60% or 80% or whatever. It's not merely that injuries are abstract. It's that in 4E, there is no such thing as a non-lethal injury at all - abstract or otherwise. Per the mechanics, all wounds are either superficial or else lethal. I think that is what people are objecting to.

 

[outsider]

But design a campaign world with 4E? It seems kinda ridiculous. All the sudden the venerable gentlemen in my campaign world with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 18 Chr are all Cohen the Barbarian

How many people are there like this in your world, really? I've never read anything about Cohen the Barbarian, but we've seen nothing to indicate that those stats would give any sort of physical offensive capability. About all we know is that these guys would have a good will save(totally reasonable), and a good reflex save(a bit odd, yes).

intelligence is only really useful if you are a librarian

Or if you want a good reflex save and intelligence is more appropriate to your character than dexterity. Also, just because we haven't yet seen any other globally useful advantages to int, it doesn't mean there aren't any.

six hours rest cures all evils

Does six hours rest remove all negative effects, or does it just cure hitpoint damage? I'm curious about this, as I've been busy with work, and the "6 hour cures all" thing is something I've heard of, but haven't had time to research yet.

every trained fighter is a supernatural force

What is supernatural about:
You hit one enemy, then cleave into another
With each mighty swing you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back
You strike at one foe and let your momentum carry you into a second strike against a second foe
or
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow?

and children can reasonably allowed to play with sharp objects because it takes overwhelming force to do more damage to someone than can be healed in 5 minutes. Sure, I can ignore that by just saying that none of the rules apply to anyone who isn't a PC, but then welcome to the world of unlimited DM fiat.

Is it DM fiat if the book explicity tells you that some specific rules are meant to be applied to pcs only?

And contrary to some claims, DM fiat is just a headache even for the DM. It's alot less work having some rules to help you make decisions.

Agreed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or if you want a good reflex save and intelligence is more appropriate to your character than dexterity. Also, just because we haven't yet seen any other globally useful advantages to int, it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Relying on the old "people will just nerf themselves happily " argument is pretty weak. Because we all know it's not true. Most people will either not nerf themselves, or nerf themselves and be permanently low-level-annoyed about it. That we've seen no advantages to Int does indeed not necessarily mean there aren't any. It just means the odds that there are any are staggeringly low.

Does six hours rest remove all negative effects, or does it just cure hitpoint damage? I'm curious about this, as I've been busy with work, and the "6 hour cures all" thing is something I've heard of, but haven't had time to research yet.

We've seen 0 negative effects that last beyond combat (except by depleting resources, which you could argue is that). I mean, not a single one (unless you call outright death a "negative effect"), and as 6 hours regens every single "resource" you have exception Action Points (which it sets to 1), then yeah, actually that is a perfect cure. I like it, some loathe it, but it's certainly the case. I do find the lack of long-term negative effects somewhat concerning.

What is supernatural about:
You hit one enemy, then cleave into another
With each mighty swing you bring your shield to bear and use it to push your enemy back
You strike at one foe and let your momentum carry you into a second strike against a second foe
or
You shatter armor and bone with a ringing blow?

What's the non-supernatural explanation for hitting an Iron Golem once, then when it's moved into another room, you're still applying a -2 to all it's attacks? What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?

Is it DM fiat if the book explicity tells you that some specific rules are meant to be applied to pcs only?

Indeed not, but it can make a game unplayable as anything but a combat game. Whether this is true of 4E remains to be seen, imho.

 

[helium3]

What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?

Because if they didn't it would be broken?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because if they didn't it would be broken?

That's exactly my point. It's blatant game-rules-comes-first-ism, the kind the damages suspension of disbelief for a lot of people (not everyone, to be double-ly clear).

My thinking is that if you have to have an ability in the game, it needs a rational in-game explanation, or it shouldn't be in the game. Obviously that's not a philosophy at play here.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

This has been an interesting read.

Lots of people are saying there will be less RP in 4E - based on how many games that the person making their claim has played of 4E? Because those who have played seem to be reporting more fun and more RP. I certainly see nothing about 4E that will lead my players to do less RP, in fact I'm thinking of pursuing a group for the purpose of getting more RP done because I think 4E will be better for it.

Mostly I think lots of people are over obsessing about the terms used - I played through most of 3.X without using the battlemat, nothing I see in the 4E character sheets shown or the Rogue rules previewed suggests that I will not be able to do the same in 4E. They do suggest that like in 3.X it will be easier in 4E if I do use the battlemat though.

I think the 4E rules are going to be the best DnD ruleset to date for making a high action adventure game - which is great because that's the reason I play DnD for the High Fantasy Sword and Sorcery stuff.

In other words for me the reasons I see people saying "I'm not changing" seem to be the reasons my players are anxious to change. I guess time will tell how many people don't change.

 

[helium3]

That's exactly my point. It's blatant game-rules-comes-first-ism, the kind the damages suspension of disbelief for a lot of people (not everyone, to be double-ly clear).

My thinking is that if you have to have an ability in the game, it needs a rational in-game explanation, or it shouldn't be in the game. Obviously that's not a philosophy at play here.

Right. See, this is why I keep saying that I think it's a good thing that D&D stops trying to be all things for multiple play styles.

Some people care. Some people don't. Some care but don't care enough.

By being more solidly in one camp over another, it frees the people that care to seriously consider finding a different game to play.

I just think that's a good thing. I'm tired of D&D as a "Big Tent."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just think that's a good thing. I'm tired of D&D as a "Big Tent."

Fair enough, at least I understand that opinion. I just think this sort of thing isn't actually likely to grow D&D's base, and it irks me personally because I like so much about 4E, but I can also see scads more I'll have to alter or house-rule or find alternate rules for than in previous editions, and honestly I hate doing that. It's not fun for me.

And no-one will ever suggest a game that would be more suitable for what I want, it seems they always dodge the question. Oh well. I sure as hell can't go back to 3E after seeing the fruits of 4E. I can't go back to Spellbot 3000 after seeing Harry Dresden Wizard.

 

[outsider]

Relying on the old "people will just nerf themselves happily " argument is pretty weak. Because we all know it's not true. Most people will either not nerf themselves, or nerf themselves and be permanently low-level-annoyed about it. That we've seen no advantages to Int does indeed not necessarily mean there aren't any. It just means the odds that there are any are staggeringly low.

You are assuming that Dex is mechanically superior to Int in 4e. What does Dex add to in 3e? Reflex save, AC, missile attack bonus, initiative, and some skills. Int now adds to Reflex and some say it adds to AC as well. To hit bonuses are typically derived from your class's prime attributes in 4e. That leaves initiative as it's only advantage over Int, as I'm sure some skills will be modified by Int. Are we even sure that Dex still affects inititative at this point? Do we know that Int didn't get any sort of bonus to replace the bonus skills it lost from 3e?

We've seen 0 negative effects that last beyond combat (except by depleting resources, which you could argue is that). I mean, not a single one (unless you call outright death a "negative effect"), and as 6 hours regens every single "resource" you have exception Action Points (which it sets to 1), then yeah, actually that is a perfect cure. I like it, some loathe it, but it's certainly the case. I do find the lack of long-term negative effects somewhat concerning.

Agreed. I don't mind a full hp recover in 6 hours, as I don't think hp is a terribly good mechanic to represent long term injury. I'd find it a little odd myself if there's no long term(but not incurable) negative effects in the game. Wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me though.

What's the non-supernatural explanation for hitting an Iron Golem once, then when it's moved into another room, you're still applying a -2 to all it's attacks?

Do we know that breaking line of effect doesn't break a mark as well?

What's the non-supernatural explanation for marks overwriting each other?

That would depend on the mark, I think. A fighter's mark may be a "distraction" type power. He's doing something to draw the monster's attention. If somebody else marks it, then presumably the monster starts paying attention to the new marking guy, rather than the original, thus negating the original's bonus.

Indeed not, but it can make a game unplayable as anything but a combat game. Whether this is true of 4E remains to be seen, imho.

D&D has -always- been a combat game. If combat isn't a primary focus of your game, why are you using the D&D rules? You can do more with D&D than combat of course. It just seems a little odd to use D&D if you don't intend to get into alot of combat. Also, if you don't use combat in the game, why exactly does it matter that pcs have combat advantages over npcs?

 

[The Little Raven]

And no-one will ever suggest a game that would be more suitable for what I want, it seems they always dodge the question.

Make your own.

Before you think this is just a snide remark, let me explain. In the late 1990s, I became dissatisfied with both of the major games I was play: Vampire and D&D. D&D's system left me cold, while I didn't always like the real-world modern setting of Vampire. So, I did what any other amateur game designer who is frustrated with his options would do: I merged them. Using Vampire's system (along with bits stolen from other WoD games), I built myself a fantasy heartbreaker for me to run with my friends... and it worked beautifully. In fact, it worked so well, that when I brought one of the players from those games into my current group, he asked me when we were going to play PoD (the acronym for the game) again. I was more comfortable running my own homebrew, cobbled-together fantasy game than I have been running any other game system.

Sometimes, when you can't find a path you want to follow, you have to blaze your own.