D&D 4E The Dispensible 4E

[Neonchameleon]

Since I don't have the same opinion as you, I am misguided or misinterpreting information?

No, I understand PERFECTLY what healing surges are. They are, as you said, a mechanic. In my words, a kludge. They are a gaming fix to a gaming problem that destroys the roleplaying element of the game.

The way I've always read healing surges and that certain fluff supports is that the number of surges you have spent is the measure of damage. I went into more detail on what healing surges are here.

But that doesn't mean they are anything other than a badly explained mechanic.

 

[eamon]

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread; and yet I'm happy to see it hasn't turned into a bash-fest!

All in all, for me the 4e combat mechanics are sound and fun; most issues seem to be unintended consequences from making the combat tactically engaging as a sort of mini-game that ends up overwhelming the rest of roleplaying. So with that in mind...

Things I haven't seen while skimming the thread:

• Too many feats (and many feats lack distinctiveness); Also way too many powers (and almost all are minor variations of an other power). It's an easy fix; don't silo feats and powers unless really really necessary; don't constrain powers to standard shapes+effects.
• Overly abstract rules: abilities and effects generally have no specified in-game interaction with the environment whatsoever. I'd like a few quirky interactions: have those in metal armor be resistant to a lightning bolt; let a whirl of blades explicitly cut and slash nearby objects (even if unintentional). Don't make spells party-friendly. Let the shape of the weapon interact with the target (e.g. chain is good against slashing but not against bludgeoning). Encourage the DM to play with these kind of interactions; and in particular make them matter enough to encourage players to think in-game.
• Too much focus on balance. People want to have fun; not a judicial system. Everyone wants to participate, but similar participation does not require equal combat power and certainly does not require equal complexity. Not everyone wants intellectually stimulating abstract combat nor niftily crafted character builds. A particular example (worst idea ever): that for instance the fighter needs to be "equal" to the wizard. Classes should be meaningfully distinctive allowing the players to participate to a similar level and having everyone matter. (Not an excuse to make straightforward builds push-overs ala 3e).
• Too many ephemeral effects that don't quite matter enough individually. (We track effects with tokens on or under the mini, and sometimes real towers start accumulating). That can be fun; but its detrimental to the campaign because it distracts from the story.
• Published adventures are too obviously "tailored" for an appropriate challenge. Why aren't the thugs from adjacent rooms helping each other? Also, too much railroading: creatively "undermining" the adventure is good. If the PC's manage to set the orc's encampment on fire, maybe they should just win that day without any risk.

 

[Prism]

Our group has been playing 4e weekly since release, after playing all the previous editions. Great edition in some ways, not in others

1. Classes are too similar within their roles. Controllers and Leaders all feel pretty much the same. Try playing a wizard and invoker in the same group. Fluff wise they are different but in actual play you would struggle to tell them apart. Stikers and Defender do have some differences from each other but not enough.


2. Classes feel to similar between roles. This is the fault of the balanced power system. Round 1 the fighter hits for 2w damage and dazes, round 2 the rogue hits for 2w damage and dazes, etc

3. non magical healing. Still don't like it. Let warlords buff allies and grant temp hits. Let divine casters heal. Allow long term and rest based non magical healing at a slower rate

4. Magic items are dull. Why do they need to scale to +6. What was up with +3 as a general high point or even drop pluses altogther

5. Rituals are great. Keep the separation between combat and non combat abilities but make them quicker and cheaper to use

6. Out of turn attacks. Reduce to one type (AoO or interupt) and keep things simple. The paladin or swordmage marks are good simple ways mess with an opponent by reducing their damage or dealing some flat damage to them. Keep dice rolling out of it for those limited times it comes up

There are lot of great things about 4e but thats for another thread

 

[CleverNickName]

Welcome to hit points and D&D! Your critical hit with a sword will not take a fighter down from anything approaching full HP. Calling it a hard poke to the ribs is in game mechanical terms right.

Correction: welcome to hit points and the 4th Edition. Remember back in the Basic Rules Set, hit points were defined simply as:

In the game, when any creature is hit (either monster or character), damage is caused. There is a way of keeping track of damage, called hit points. The number of hit points is the amount of damage that a creature can take before being killed. Hit points can be any number; the more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to kill. We often use an abbreviation for hit points: it is hp.

Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called “misses” - they didn’t actually damage your character.

- Dungeons & Dragons Player's Manual, page 3​

The "soft damage" perspective is a rather new innovation...most of us grew up thinking of damage as defined above. I hope 5E moves back toward the older definitions of hit points and damage. The "soft" definitions do not appeal to me.

 

[talok55]

Going on 4 years and and people's complaints about healing surges show they still don't understand what healing surges are.

Healing surges are NOT self-healing or non-magical healing. They are a pacing and scaling healing mechanic. They give you a scaling value to determine how much you heal from major healing effects, as well as giving you a limitation on how many times per day you can be healed.

They are completely separate from self-healing (the second wind power) or non-magical healing (the warlord class).

Regardless of their purpose, they are still a completely gamist construct that absolutely needs to go along with warlord non-magical healing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Correction: welcome to hit points and the 4th Edition. Remember back in the Basic Rules Set, hit points were defined simply as:

In the game, when any creature is hit (either monster or character), damage is caused. There is a way of keeping track of damage, called hit points. The number of hit points is the amount of damage that a creature can take before being killed. Hit points can be any number; the more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to kill. We often use an abbreviation for hit points: it is hp.

Your fighter starts with 8 hp (hit points) and still has all 8, since the goblin never hit you. He may have hit your armor or shield, but never got through your protection, so these attacks are still called “misses” - they didn’t actually damage your character.

- Dungeons & Dragons Player's Manual, page 3
​

The "soft damage" perspective is a rather new innovation...most of us grew up thinking of damage as defined above. I hope 5E moves back toward the older definitions of hit points and damage. The "soft" definitions do not appeal to me.

Correction: Welcome to hit points and AD&D

Originally Posted by AD&D DMG, p.82
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! 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 the individual 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).
​

You might have grown up with it. But that definition of hit points has been out of favour for more than thirty years precisely because of the point about a level 3 fighter being able to take a crit from an orc with an axe.

Regardless of their purpose, they are still a completely gamist construct that absolutely needs to go along with warlord non-magical healing.

I've already linked how they aren't a gamist construct earlier in the thread. Link repeated below.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/291256-hit-points-healing-surges-101-a.html

 

[CleverNickName]

You might have grown up with it. But that definition of hit points has been out of favour for more than thirty years precisely because of the point about a level 3 fighter being able to take a crit from an orc with an axe.

Out of favor to some, yes, but not to everyone. I'd wager that plenty of us still prefer the "out of favor" version.

Whether it is "Gamist" or not, I'm always going to prefer the BECM hit point definition. So as long as I can continue to use it and hand-wave away all of the fluffy "hurt but not really hurt" stuff, I won't have a problem with 5E.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Correction: Welcome to hit points and AD&D

Originally Posted by AD&D DMG, p.82
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! 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 the individual 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).
​

You might have grown up with it. But that definition of hit points has been out of favour for more than thirty

Not for me and mine, we have always looked at HP as a combination of many things (stamina, hardiness, luck, force of will, tenacity etc, etc).

If a character with 3 HP gets attacked with a dagger for 4 damage, that would be a gut-shot or something similar, but if a character with 45 HP gets attacked with a dagger for 4 damage, that probably didn't even draw blood.

At least that's how we roll with HP.

 

[nightwalker450]

Things I could do without... (As a player/GM for weekly encounters, and with a home game every other week)

Enhancement Bonuses - Magic Items should be cool, not required.

Square Burst/Blasts - I was fine with the 1-2-1 movement for diagonals, more than I am with round towers being square... My home group uses Hex to get rid of these.

Wish Lists - Great Ideas, but I'd rather magic items go back to being magical... Just make sure that there's no items that will break the game in half once they appear.

Backgrounds - Themes were much better, and background can be replaced by just getting rid of class skill lists. The main use of them (outside of min-max) was to get skills that weren't on your class list.

Lower Accuracy - For a tactical game, you get most of your oomph out of the side effects than the damage. Missing so often means that you don't get to do the tactical side. I'm find with missing if all I was doing is damage, (I might have rolled horrible anyways). Not to mention for an abstract game, where hit points are fatigue etc... you should "hit" a lot more often than you miss.

Passive being 10 - Makes it pretty ridiculous, I'd prefer passive insight/perception to be closer to 5... That way skilled people see things, but it still makes sense to roll it (once in a while).

Mixed Attributes for Attack - I think 4e went too far with allowing multiple stats to make melee attacks (going so far as to make feat), Str, Int, Dex, Con, Cha... Did Wis make it as a default for a class?.. Either way at this point it should be obvious that a stat shouldn't be used for attack. Give each class a melee rating (BAB, without stat being used at all) to use instead of a stat for attack. Fighter = 4, Rogue/Cleric = 3, Wizard = 1... This way we just can determine how melee awesome they are by that, instead of arbitrarily throwing stats everywhere.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Out of favor to some, yes, but not to everyone. I'd wager that plenty of us still prefer the "out of favor" version.

Whether it is "Gamist" or not, I'm always going to prefer the BECM hit point definition. So as long as I can continue to use it and hand-wave away all of the fluffy "hurt but not really hurt" stuff, I won't have a problem with 5E.

Oh, I have no problems with this. It is, however, not an innovation of 4e. BECMI went one way, AD&D the other. As long as you're prepared to accept that your mileage may vary and that non-physical damage has been the RAW default for the AD&D stream of D&D then I see no problem. But blaming things on 4e when the issue is you prefer the BECMI justification of hit points to the AD&D one is unwarranted.

Now blaming 4e for making visible the BECMI/AD&D disagreement is possibly an interesting argument. But it's a case of 4e drawing attention to something that has been in major D&D rulebooks for decades.

Not for me and mine, we have always looked at HP as a combination of many things (stamina, hardiness, luck, force of will, tenacity etc, etc).

If a character with 3 HP gets attacked with a dagger for 4 damage, that would be a gut-shot or something similar, but if a character with 45 HP gets attacked with a dagger for 4 damage, that probably didn't even draw blood.

At least that's how we roll with HP.

Which is the AD&D and the 4E way And if you're counting force of will and luck, I don't see why it can't be restored non-magically. (Actually I have no idea how to restore luck).