The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Fenes]

I don't have any problem with self-healing, since I do prefer the Star Wars d20 explanation for hitpoints: You don't get hit for real until the last few blows that take you down (do wound damage). Up until then, you get bruised, nicked, tired from dodging, use up your luck, etc.

That way, I don't see a fighter suddenly close his wounds (half a dozen arrows sticking in his shoulders and thighs, arm and belly slashed open twice) with magic, I see a battered fighter, whose sword arm is slowing down from exhaustion finding the strength to get a second wind.

My suspension of disbelief would be much harder if I did take all those "hits" to mean actual hits from arrows, swords and claws.

 

[Zurai]

The 5D6 isn't that much. But 8D6 (range 45) with a Surge for a single Power Point is pretty nice at 9th level. That's 50%+ of most opponent's hit points for 1 PP. If it is a tough opponent, he can boost this to 16D6 (range 85 for 9 PP and typically a save versus massive damage) which will take out most opponents in a single shot. Even if a BBEG survives such an attack (and a spell casting BBEG probably will not), do you really think he wants to stick around for a second dose?

Very few things at CR9 and above have less than 80-100 hit points. 8d6 only averages to 28 damage. 16d6 averages to 56. Even a level 9 wizard (which is hardly a BBEG to a level 9 party) with 14 con will have 42 hit points on average.

 

[Simon Marks]

I don't have any problem with self-healing, since I do prefer the Star Wars d20 explanation for hitpoints: You don't get hit for real until the last few blows that take you down (do wound damage). Up until then, you get bruised, nicked, tired from dodging, use up your luck, etc.

This has mostly been the true since 1st ed AD&D.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Players Handbook; Page 34:
CHARACTER HIT POINTS

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit point represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to fill four large warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of it points are a symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

[snip specifics implementation rules]

Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body the chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points.

Your character’s class will determine which sort of die you will roll to determine hit points. In some campaigns the referee will keep this total secret, informing the players only that they feel “strong”, “fatigued” or “very weak”, thus indicating waning hit points.

My emphasis.

In my opinion, there is no real debate. 2ed doesn't mention it at all, mind. 1st and 3.x both explicitly call out that HP are abstract and represent Luck, Skill and Magic.

 

[Henry]

Wins the thread. In 3E, a first-level spell is equivalent to a ton of skill points, feats, and class abilities for a non-magic character, and that's OK, because it's MAAAAGIIIIC (said in a Doug Henning voice). I think the concept of the 'martial' power source as something equal in power to the 'arcane' and the 'divine' is a great idea, and I'm looking forward to it quite a bit. If one guy can bend the rules of reality with his mind, and another with his heart, I don't see why a third can't do it with his muscles.

I don't know if it "wins the thread", because I never said I was totally happy with the proliferation of magic items in D&D anyway. If he has to spend a spell to do it, that's one thing: it's one of his vaunted slots for things like magic missile, shield, etc. But if it's on a scroll he just made for 12 gold and a single XP, or if he's got tons of scrolls to make up for his slots spent, then it is a little too much utility magic bang for the buck. There was a time when a wizard would rather french-kiss a mind flayer than try to make a scroll.

But the imbalance's solution, in my opinion, is not just "turn the non-magical guy loose with magic powers that you don't call magic." To me, it looks darned silly and throws the sense of believability out the window.

What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.

 

[TwinBahamut]

What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.

And here we are at the exact same disconnect...

If you looks at things other than D&D, such as myth, legend, and various other kinds of fiction, you do not need magic in order to do amazing things. Things that we consider supernatural would be allowable within the base physics of the world. Many people are just advocating the physics of D&D be changed from being overly slavish to real world physics, and more like mythical physics.

More importantly, the current situation in D&D where magic is required to make fantastic physical feats possible means that the average bookworm wizard is better at fantastic physical feats than a 20th level Fighter. A wizard with no training or physical strength can just cast a single low-level spell on himself and surpass the abilities of the finest athletes in the world In other words, the Wizard is better then the Martial classes at a distinctly Martial ability set. It is nothing but dilution of archetype and enforcement of the supremacy of magic-users of others, and hurts the game.

At this point, though, I think the two groups are just bashing our skulls together with different definitions of "magic" and ideas on how the basic physics of D&D should operate. As a whole though, if people don't need magic to do incredible things in D&D, I will be much happier.

 

[rkanodia]

I don't know if it "wins the thread", because I never said I was totally happy with the proliferation of magic items in D&D anyway. If he has to spend a spell to do it, that's one thing: it's one of his vaunted slots for things like magic missile, shield, etc. But if it's on a scroll he just made for 12 gold and a single XP, or if he's got tons of scrolls to make up for his slots spent, then it is a little too much utility magic bang for the buck. There was a time when a wizard would rather french-kiss a mind flayer than try to make a scroll.

Magic item frequency is kind of a separate issue, though I see your point. But I disagree that it's 'OK' from a balance perspective if he has to spend a spell to do it. Sure, at low level, that would represent a significant investment on his part. But then again, when that fighter spent 12 skill points and 2 feats on non-combat abilities, isn't THAT quite a significant investment on his part also? Those skill points and feats will still be a significant investment when both characters reach 20th level. The first-level spell slot? Not so much.

But the imbalance's solution, in my opinion, is not just "turn the non-magical guy loose with magic powers that you don't call magic." To me, it looks darned silly and throws the sense of believability out the window.

I think this really is a matter of aesthetics. I personally think that it's 'darned silly' that my fighter can win a bare-knuckle fight with an elephant, and yet requires a rope to jump a 10' wall.

What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.

I agree with you that this is a significant departure from the previous editions. I guess I just don't see D&D as being 'the real world, plus magic'. In my view of a fantasy world, fantastic things happen all the time, and whether they were 'magic' or not doesn't really matter. At this point, though I think the thread has gone downhill enough, and it's clear that nobody (myself included) is going to find their own subjective sense of aesthetics changed by a forum post, so I'm pretty much done with it. I hope you find a way to make 4E a little more comfortable

 

[Doug McCrae]

A wizard with no training or physical strength can just cast a single low-level spell on himself and surpass the abilities of the finest athletes in the world In other words, the Wizard is better then the Martial classes at a distinctly Martial ability set. It is nothing but dilution of archetype and enforcement of the supremacy of magic-users of others, and hurts the game.

Yeah. It works provided the PCs are down a dungeon having 12 encounters a day, with the wizard only doing something in about 4 of them. That's the environment the classes 'evolved' to fit back in 1974. The whole thing breaks as soon as they leave that environment.

 

[Arkhandus]

Right. D&D is made to resemble stuff in mythology to some extent, and D&D heroes should be akin to mythological heroes at the very least.

Sure, Hercules was a half-god, but almost every mythological hero was superhuman in some way, if they were even human at all to begin with.

A D&D Fighter should match Hercules' strength when he reaches a sufficient level, even if he was just an ordinary human to begin with; while Hercules may've been that strong at 1st-level because he has the Half-God Template or somesuch thing, a D&D Fighter should be able to fight Hercules mano-a-mano and win if the Fighter's just been training hard and fighting hard for a long enough time, while Hercules went into retirement and spent the past decade or two just boozing and shmoozing.

Fighters in D&D should be able to match or exceed mythological heroes like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Cuchulain (sp?), Sigurd the Volsung, Beowulf, and their ilk. Of course they'll need to work their way up to it, but they shouldn't need magic or divine birthright to do it.

'Course, I'm in the camp that says a 1st-level Fighter should just be a talented rookie (while a 1st-level Warrior is an untalented rookie), and shouldn't be all superhuman-heroic-like yet. But he should be looking like Captain America when he's 5th or 10th level, and lookin' like Hercules when he's 11th or 15th level or so, and movin' on up from there as he continues to train himself in martial prowess and feats of physical strength, stamina, and speed.

 

[Henry]

At this point, though I think the thread has gone downhill enough, and it's clear that nobody (myself included) is going to find their own subjective sense of aesthetics changed by a forum post, so I'm pretty much done with it. I hope you find a way to make 4E a little more comfortable

I agree, it's just two different ways of looking at the level of heroics expected of D&D, and the time for an impasse has come. but I'll find a way to be comfortable, even if it means leaving a game I've followed for 25 years as my primary means of "D&Ding."

Wulf Ratbane, you getting those ideas for Grim Tales 2 ruminating in your head?

 

[Henry]

Right. D&D is made to resemble stuff in mythology to some extent, and D&D heroes should be akin to mythological heroes at the very least.

Sure, Hercules was a half-god, but almost every mythological hero was superhuman in some way, if they were even human at all to begin with.

That's one I've always differed with, because D&D was originally not developed with hercules et. al. in mind so much as Conan, Elric, and his generation (the pulp fantasy heroes and villains). It's cool too, but that all D&D PCs should be superhuman at the very least is one I disagree with for reasons of play style.