Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Dannyalcatraz]

which makes me wonder what's the point?

I feel much the same way, but I can see how 4Ed's minions are, if nothing else, a lot less bookkeeping for the DM.

 

[Starfox]

I strongly disagree. In cinema and literature, fights tend to be drawn out affairs, with characters whittling each other down before finally delivering a telling blow. Mooks, of course, have few hit points, while good guys can always take one or more hits from a mook from anything that could be conceivably survived. Hit points are perfect for simulating that.

I like this. Feng Shui is one of my favorite games.

When you are trying to simulate something, you must decide WHAT you are trying to simulate. Simulating movies is perfectly fine as long as that is what you're trying to do. Too many gamers say they are trying to simulate reality while actually going for a more cinematic feel - this indecision leads to schizophrenic rules where some situations are cinematic, others gritty, and which is which seems arbitrary and random.

 

[Lanefan]

Importantly in terms of 4th edition, the warlord's "Inspiring Word" is a great way of increasing hit points: giving the target a boost in morale that helps them to keep going, to keep blocking attacks and defending themselves and not giving up. However, in terms of healing physical damage or wounds, it makes absolutely no sense and thus why 4e has got the right idea in regards to how to utilize hit points, although it does not separate out physical damage and thus the prime issue still remains. Importantly what this all allows is making sure that more than one specific type of character can increase the longevity of allied combatants in combat. In fact, I would take the warlord concept further to a charismatic fighter boosting the morale of his allies (buffing their hit points) with a killing blow on an important enemy combatant. It is easy to think of other classes similarly finding ways to boost hit points of themselves and others when you think of hit points as they have been basically defined; just minus the physical damage component. Physical damage always requires a healers powers (be it mundane or divine).

This gets too far away from what h.p. should represent, in my view. There's lots of ways to parlay a character ability into a mechanical advantage in combat for someone else (+ to hit, +to damage, + to AC, + to saves, etc.) and thus no need to mess with h.p. - and by extension, no need to mess with the idea that at least in some form they all represent some sort of physical damage, be it fatigue, scratches and bruises, or whatever.

Perhaps we are not so far apart in this regard. I would not want to see such a thing used for wuxia-style running across the ceiling, whacky over-the-top moves and maneuvers. However, what I would like to see is the dynamic of burning the candle at both ends in combat. A combatant may go about defensively conserving their efforts as best as possible, or a combatant could choose to go all out throwing caution to the wind in the pursuit of quickly overwhelming their foes. I'd like to think this could be done while reasonably following the fiction of the combat.

Some sort of berserking ability (big + to hit and damage at cost of a significant AC penalty; only helps with melee) solves this fairly easily. Again, h.p. are left out of it.

--- snipped some hit point discussion, see below ---

However there are magics, be they divine sacrifice of the most supreme degree or the darkest of a black cabal's secrets that can affect a character in this state. The death's door magic that you mention is possible... but is the price paid too high, or is it something that a character can "live" with? There are always ways of achieving things but they perhaps demand a price too high.

That's a way different version of Death's Door than I'm used to.

For the rest, can I point you here Decast Blue Book: Table of Contents and suggest you check out parts 4.9 and 4.10 for a brief write-up on how our hit point system works; it'll save me typing it all out again here. Then, if you've any thoughts or questions, fire away.

Lan-"hit points - can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em"-efan

 

[Doug McCrae]

I strongly disagree. In cinema and literature, fights tend to be drawn out affairs, with characters whittling each other down before finally delivering a telling blow. Mooks, of course, have few hit points, while good guys can always take one or more hits from a mook from anything that could be conceivably survived. Hit points are perfect for simulating that.

Good points. I agree that these are all important features of adventure fiction. But I don't think of hit points as a fiction-simulationist mechanic because:

1) That wasn't the original intention.
2) The mechanic has not been used in this manner, certainly prior to 4e. What I mean by this is that by the core rules PCs have always started at 1st level and thus have too few hit points to resemble fictional protagonists. Admittedly one can get around this by starting the PCs at higher than 1st level, as is the case in the original Dragonlance modules.
3) Hit points don't do the job of fiction-sim sufficiently well -

They are the wrong mechanic to simulate mooks. A simpler rule, such as, “A Mook is always incapacitated when struck by a Hero”, is all that is required. A mook doesn't need a hit points stat at all. And it leaves open the possibility that a hero might deal insufficient damage to take one out in a single blow.

They are the wrong mechanic to simulate protagonists. In adventure fiction, when the protagonist is visibly wounded and struggles on, what is going on there? Is he being whittled down? If he's struck a sufficient number of times will he be taken out? No, imo what's happening is that we need to see our heroes suffer before they can win. Rather than hit points, a Suffering stat would be more appropriate. Suffering would have to reach a certain value before the villain can be defeated.

Protagonists in adventure fiction can certainly be incapacitated but when it happens they are not generally whittled down. It's instant – chloroform, blow to the head, sleep gas, hypnotic lights - and they wake up imprisoned or in a death trap. It's primarily a scene-switching device, though the experience would also add to the hero's Suffering.

They are insufficient, as a mechanic, to simulate villains. You're correct that, in order to simulate adventure fiction, the confrontation with the villain needs to take a significant length of time. But are hit points the right mechanic here? Does the villain just have to be struck a certain number of times until the final blow takes his last few hit points, even if that final blow is a feeble at-will power? That's not how it works imo. The final blow has to be something special, it's not just one more bullet. For example the Terminator in the first film has to be crushed in a hydraulic press.

The great strength of the hit point mechanic, in my view, is not that it simulates anything, but that it is simple and playable. Thus I do not see it as simulationist.

 

[Redbadge]

Does the villain just have to be struck a certain number of times until the final blow takes his last few hit points, even if that final blow is a feeble at-will power?

Just wanted to relay an amusing idea I just had, courtesy of your post. One of my BBEG stat blocks may just include the following line when my players finally confront him:

Immune Poison, Necrotic, Feeble At-will Powers

Lol, thanks.

 

[pawsplay]

Good points. I agree that these are all important features of adventure fiction. But I don't think of hit points as a fiction-simulationist mechanic because:

1) That wasn't the original intention.

1. So?
2. I do not agree.

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
domage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with
respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful. Lest
some purist immediately object, consider the many charts and tables
necessary to handle this sort of detail, and then think about how area
effect spells would work. In like manner, consider all of the nasty things
which face adventurers as the rules stand. Are crippling disabilities and
yet more ways to meet instant death desirable in an open-ended, episodic
game where participants seek to identify with lovingly detailed and
developed player-character personae? Not likely! Certain death is os undesirable
as a give-away compoign. Combat is a common pursuit in the
vast majority of adventures, ond the participants in the campaign deserve
a chance to exercise intelligent.choice during such confrontations. As hit
points dwindle they can opt to break off the encounter and attempt to flee.

2) The mechanic has not been used in this manner, certainly prior to 4e. What I mean by this is that by the core rules PCs have always started at 1st level and thus have too few hit points to resemble fictional protagonists. Admittedly one can get around this by starting the PCs at higher than 1st level, as is the case in the original Dragonlance modules.

They have been used in that manner. 1st level characters have as many hit points as Luke Skywalker, who gets taken out by one Tusken Raider mook in one hit. If you want tougher characters, start them at 2nd or 3rd level, as was suggested for Dark Sun.

3) Hit points don't do the job of fiction-sim sufficiently well -

They are the wrong mechanic to simulate mooks. A simpler rule, such as, “A Mook is always incapacitated when struck by a Hero”, is all that is required. A mook doesn't need a hit points stat at all. And it leaves open the possibility that a hero might deal insufficient damage to take one out in a single blow.

I view that possibility as a plus. It's boring if absoutely every mook goes down in one hit. That is why I particularly like the "standard character" rules in Fantasy Craft. While your suggested rule is simpler, it isn't much simpler, and it's less versatile. Should a 1st level wizard with Strength 8 really be able to take out an ogre mook in one punch? Hence, few hit points is better than 1 hit point, in my view.

They are the wrong mechanic to simulate protagonists. In adventure fiction, when the protagonist is visibly wounded and struggles on, what is going on there? Is he being whittled down? If he's struck a sufficient number of times will he be taken out? No, imo what's happening is that we need to see our heroes suffer before they can win. Rather than hit points, a Suffering stat would be more appropriate. Suffering would have to reach a certain value before the villain can be defeated.

Why is it the wrong stat? Hit Points is a suffering stat. Notice how battered and bloodied protagonists fight as well, if not better, than they do when unwounded. The hero is being whittled down. Qui Gon got whittled down. Boromir, whittled down. Luke Skywalker, whittled twice.

Protagonists in adventure fiction can certainly be incapacitated but when it happens they are not generally whittled down. It's instant – chloroform, blow to the head, sleep gas, hypnotic lights - and they wake up imprisoned or in a death trap. It's primarily a scene-switching device, though the experience would also add to the hero's Suffering.

Counterpoints: Hal Jordan in the latest Green Lantern movie, Robocop, Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back, Tony Stark in Iron Man, ... and so forth. The sudden ambush thing ALSO happens, but primarily, when action heroes get knocked out, it's because they were outmatched in Act I and ran out of hit points, or because they were making a heroic sacrifice. What you are saying is really more true for noir heroes and other investigator types.

They are insufficient, as a mechanic, to simulate villains. You're correct that, in order to simulate adventure fiction, the confrontation with the villain needs to take a significant length of time. But are hit points the right mechanic here? Does the villain just have to be struck a certain number of times until the final blow takes his last few hit points, even if that final blow is a feeble at-will power?

Yes.

That's not how it works imo. The final blow has to be something special, it's not just one more bullet. For example the Terminator in the first film has to be crushed in a hydraulic press.

That's not normal.

In the final fight in Return of the Jedi, Luke beats up Vader by whaling on him. as I consider that the definative cinematic fight scence, it trumps all other examples including and perhaps especially Terminator films. Termintor films have their own set of tropes, including a huge overlap with Arnold cliches.

The great strength of the hit point mechanic, in my view, is not that it simulates anything, but that it is simple and playable. Thus I do not see it as simulationist.

It's simple, playable, and simulationist. There are things that are more simulationist, I suppose, but they would have to be tailored to a particular simulation. Hit points are simple, playable, and portable. You can use them for just about any type of game. You can use them for anything from gritty dime novels to planet-destroying kung fu anime, simply by adjusting the number of hit points relative to attacks.

If you wanted to institute a Hydraulic Press meter for defeating villains, not only are you going far afield ... simulation ususally means simulating potentialities, not outcomes... but you are running into the Drama-Simulation Convergence. A game that perfectly simulates a dramatic final boss fight is actually a Narrativist game.

A simulation game would set up the possibility of such a fight, but would not dicate the outcomes. Naturally, you can stack the odds; the odds are stacked in the source material, after all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm pretty sure the minion rules in 4e are intended to simulate the source material for D&D, such as Legolas and Gimli at the Battle for Helms Deep.

I agree; although I wonder how well those rules actually do this.

[blather]You can assume that those orcs are 1 HD creatures, and give fighters extra attacks based on their level (as 1e does), or you can make them minions (as 4e does), but I am not certain that either option is necessarily best.

Orcs are certainly less dangerous (in terms of their attacks), when their chances of hitting are tied directly to their single Hit Die, ala 1e. OTOH, that 1 HD gives them some chance to survive single attacks, including some area effects.

I once ran a battle in 3e where the PCs defended a ruined rath (ringfort) they had camped in from an army of goblins. The group averaged 3rd level, but, by using good tactics and choke points, they were able to hold off wave after wave of goblins until near dawn, when the creatures fled. This worked very similarly to the source material, and didn't require minion rules. OTOH, a goblin is very close to a minion anyway.[/blather]

 

[mmadsen]

In cinema and literature, fights tend to be drawn out affairs, with characters whittling each other down before finally delivering a telling blow.

As I've said before, hit points are terrible for emulating action and adventure stories.

They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc.​

None of those one-shot victims were mooks.

As some kind of luck points, they make perfect sense for the heroes of the story though. They just don't make sense as a universal measure of toughness, since tough men and beasts can be killed by a single well-placed shot -- especially a single well-placed shot from our heroes.​

Now, in real life, real fights tend to be over in seconds, although the loser may not die, and if they die, may take several minutes or even hours to do it. If you want to simulate something like that, take something like GURPS and turn the dial to "WWII-PTSD version."

Realistic combat isn't necessarily grim so much as unpredictable. Sometimes the first shot is through the heart or through the brain stem; other times a dozen rapier thrusts through the torso somehow manage to miss anything vital.

The real difference between an elite warrior and a mook isn't physical durability, of course, but morale -- and, to a lesser extent, skill.

 

[pawsplay]

As I've said before, hit points are terrible for emulating action and adventure stories.

They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc.​

None of those one-shot victims were mooks.

As some kind of luck points, they make perfect sense for the heroes of the story though. They just don't make sense as a universal measure of toughness, since tough men and beasts can be killed by a single well-placed shot -- especially a single well-placed shot from our heroes.​

LOTR isn't an "Action and adventure" genre. It's literary high fantasy.

Further, none of those examples refute what I am saying. We don't know what kind of critical hit tables the GM was using, or what kind of Action Point mechanics. Further, you can perfectly simulate the death of Smaug by simply assuming he only has 15 hit points. So, he's not a mook. There's no rule that says hit points have to be used in the way they are used in D&D 4e.

People complained about the 3e beholder having too few hit points. While, I think it was a good thing. If you can stick a sword in that nasty thing, you deserve to win.

Realistic combat isn't necessarily grim so much as unpredictable. Sometimes the first shot is through the heart or through the brain stem; other times a dozen rapier thrusts through the torso somehow manage to miss anything vital.

The real difference between an elite warrior and a mook isn't physical durability, of course, but morale -- and, to a lesser extent, skill.

I'm well aware. Hence the wide variability I mentioned above.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I've said before, hit points are terrible for emulating action and adventure stories.

They're certainly terrible for emulating Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings stories, in which Bard kills Smaug with a single arrow, Legolas kills a fell beast in the night with a single arrow, the Witch King of Angmar dies from one stab from a lowly hobbit and a follow-up by Eowyn, etc.​

Lets just take a look at the Smaug example in D&D terms, shall we?

Prior to Bard killing him with that one arrow (which was a special arrow within the context of both Middle Earth and the story), Smaug is whittled down by countless arrows which, while described as failing to penetrate his armour, in D&D terms are doing hit point damage that fails to do lasting harm.

In 4e, where hit points include things that can be healed or damaged by a pep talk or an insult, this is even more true. Smaug endures many rounds of combat before being slain, and there is attrition (in the D&D hit point sense) in each of those rounds.

What D&D does not do well, OTOH, is model the one gap in Smaug's armour that leads straight to his heart.

Likewise, the Witch-King of Angmar is not fresh -- he is returning from a battle of wills with Gandalf. He is not stabbed merely by a lowly hobbit -- he is stabbed with a blade crafted to defeat him from long ago, and recovered from the barrow mounds by Tom Bombadil. He is defeated as much by prophesy as by prowess, for Eowyn is meant to be there, and meant to deliver the killing stroke.

This is also something that D&D doesn't do well, at all.


RC