Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6094706" data-attributes="member: 42582">In 4e, this is achieved via the minions monster type.In 4e, this is achieved via combination of healing surges - hit point reserves that require actions to unlock - and encounter and daily powers - output spikes that require attention to resource management to use effectively, and that straddle a whole range of output metrics: damage, conditions, buffs, moves, action economy advantages, etc.That's the advantage of doing it via powers rather than just hero points: you can increase the sophistication of the range of options without having to perfectly balance every option across every other one, because the power system puts a natural brake on spamming. (Psionics is different in this respect, and is a known source of issues in 4e.)In 4e, this is achived via minion, standard, elite and solo monster types.Seriously, the version of D&D with "bennies" and "hero points" to support cinematic action has been designed and is currently on sale!I agree with your other post that this could have a bit of an AD&D vibe. I'm not sure the pacing is great from the cinematic point of view, though, because there's no crisis followed by resolution - it's just a straight line of escalation.On it's own, no. But as part of a suite of features - player resources, action resolution mecahnics etc, that mean that combat brings the pressure up to the players and requires them to make active choices in order to respond and survive? In my view, yes. (It's "step on up" but strongly mediated through the PC archetype, thus satisfying other RPG sensibilities too. For me, that's part of the cleverness of 4e's design, and something that would be lost if you just went to AD&D or 3E plus hero points.)Says who?In post 99 upthread I said that "the reason why D&Dnext has assymetric classes and a lack of mechanical enforcement of the adventuring day is obvious: it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e."You queried this in post 118, describing it as "a massive assumption. . . backed up with absolutely no evidence". In post 125 I replied that "the decision [stated in the tweets] not to include martial healing, in conjunction with a range of other information (like the way fighters and rogues are designed), counts as at least some evidence in favour of my contention". That is, the abandonment of martial healing is evidence of a desire, on the part of the D&Dnext designers, to avoid overtly metagame mechanics.I don't care whether or not the tweets are evidence of anti-4e bias. I'm not even sure what that would mean - Mearls was a designer of many parts of 4e, after all! My point remains the one I made in post 99: there is ample evidence, the tweets just being the latest, that the designers of D&Dnext do not want overt metagame mechanics in the game. This is particularly so in the case of healing, as is shown by (what I regard as) the absurd figleaf of "healers' kits", which (in my view) completely destroys verismilitude in the pursuit of process simulation.Not at all, for reasons discussed at length in one of the other healing/warlord threads: damage mitigation can't bring people back from the brink, is proactive rather than reactive (which risks waste) and lacks the "inspiration" motif.</blockquote>

Verification