Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 5710104" data-attributes="member: 205">A few points.1)&nbsp; 4e combat is easier to narrate &quot;realistically&quot; if you follow this course of action:-Roll monster damage -&gt; Check PC's HP total -&gt; Narrate the attackas opposed to:-Roll monster damage -&gt; narrate attack -&gt; Check PC's HP total.Prior to 4e, I used the latter path, and pretty quickly switched to the former when I learned 4e.&nbsp; The 3.5 table I play at still uses the latter method.2)&nbsp; I think the system assumptions of 3.5 (that magical healing is always available and cheap) allow DMs to play fast and loose with narration, because there's no incentive to maintain any sort of realistic feel to injury.&nbsp; You can describe blows cleaving through armor and breaking ribs, or blood pouring out of multiple axe cuts because that damage is going to disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min, thanks to the cleric and wands.In 4e, it's dangerous to describe someone taking a dagger to the gut because it's very likely that they'll use second wind to &quot;heal.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a D&amp;D genre assumption that an adventurer can still fight with multiple stab wounds, but not that stab wounds will instantly close up with an exertion of true grit.&nbsp; As 4e DMs, we know that full HP but -1 healing surge is a damaged state that can be narrated as a dagger wound.&nbsp; But for many players, full HP = no injuries, full stop.&nbsp; This slaughtering of a sacred cow causes a cognitive dissonance even for people who like other aspects of 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 5710104, member: 205"] A few points. 1) 4e combat is easier to narrate "realistically" if you follow this course of action: -Roll monster damage -> Check PC's HP total -> Narrate the attack as opposed to: -Roll monster damage -> narrate attack -> Check PC's HP total. Prior to 4e, I used the latter path, and pretty quickly switched to the former when I learned 4e. The 3.5 table I play at still uses the latter method. 2) I think the system assumptions of 3.5 (that magical healing is always available and cheap) allow DMs to play fast and loose with narration, because there's no incentive to maintain any sort of realistic feel to injury. You can describe blows cleaving through armor and breaking ribs, or blood pouring out of multiple axe cuts because that damage is going to disappear in the next 6 sec to 2 min, thanks to the cleric and wands. In 4e, it's dangerous to describe someone taking a dagger to the gut because it's very likely that they'll use second wind to "heal." It's a D&D genre assumption that an adventurer can still fight with multiple stab wounds, but not that stab wounds will instantly close up with an exertion of true grit. As 4e DMs, we know that full HP but -1 healing surge is a damaged state that can be narrated as a dagger wound. But for many players, full HP = no injuries, full stop. This slaughtering of a sacred cow causes a cognitive dissonance even for people who like other aspects of 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification