# Disappointed in 4e



## WarlockLord

When Wizards first announced 4e, I was really excited.  I thought it would be really cool.  So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.  When I finally got the books...they were OK.  I have played a campaign for 4 months and we have agreed...3e is better.
Here are, at least, my reasons.

1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters.  Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds.  This leads to an extreme lack of flexibility.  Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?  Wanna play a character who can stand toe to toe with his enemies and fight with two weapons? Want to play a cleric whose deity doesn't shoot Holy Laserz of P3nage? Well, just wait for some more $30 books...  
    In our group, we found ourselves wanting a lot of stuff we had in 3e.  Animal companions, spells other than fire blasts, etc.  The common response I see from the 4e supporters is "Wait for the splatbooks!  WoTC is a business, so they have to make money!" However, I feel compelled to wonder why I should reward a company who has come up with a product that I feel is bad with more money so they can continue making it.

2) The extreme tendency for 'balance' and 'fun'.  The whole "economy of actions" is stupid and annoying.  No summoners, necromancers, et al because it could slow the game down.  Everyone gets the same amount and types of powers for balance.  Some people might ask why magic and physical training work similarly, with the same usage restrictions.  By attempting to balance this, they have created a world that feels fake.  Then, of course, we have the "if anything bad happens to your PCs, it might not be fun," leading to the nerf of status effects.  The fighter's "Paralyzing Strike" might sound like paralysis...until you read it.  It immobilizes the opponent.  This means the opponent can't move...any squares.  They can still attack, cast spells, and stand despite being 'paralyzed'.  Everything lasts for either 6 seconds, or requires a save, which is always a ~55% chance of escaping.  If the most powerful wizard in the world casts sleep on a random peasant, they have a ~55% chance of escaping.  Wow, studying magic sure is worthwhile!

3)The powers.  I thought "Hey, everyone gets cool powers" was a good goal...until I read what our good friends at WoTC came up with.  The ranger powers are all variants of the Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon fighting feats, except renamed and damage altered.  The powers all have fixed damage, which results in redundancy for some classes (You replace your Holy P3nage Lazer with...ANOTHER HOLY P3NAGE LAZER! WOO-HOO! GO YOU!), and really don't feel like powers.  When my friend and I were having a boss fight against a solo monster, I was getting bored because all of my powers did pretty much the same thing (damage) and it was going nowhere.  Which leads us to...

4) The hit point spike.  This is just great.  HP has been inflated, damage reduced, so combats take forever.  Add to this the whole "what is HP" argument, and then you begin wondering the difference between a miss and a hit.
     "That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."

5) The wizard nerf.  Wizards are boring and uninteresting.  While they may have been overpowered in the last edition, stripping all the creative options for "fireball, fireball, fireball," is a game design travesty.  The spellbook sucks.  2 spells a level, and you can't add spells, unless you take a feat, which allows you to add one Xd6 damage attack spell per level.

6) Rituals.  At first, I thought these were great.  I had visions of rituals for animating the dead, binding otherworldly creatures to your service, curses, and calling down thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.  Now?  We have all the utility spells, except they cost money to cast, because apparently all one needs to know what to do with magic is to throw lightning at other people, as those are your powers.  The illusions have been severely limited and moved into rituals, except for that Dragon article, which is "Damage...with ILLUSION!"  Frankly, no thanks.  I want to deceive with spontaneously crafted images, not just some psychic damage fest. 

7) Lack of Verisimilitude.  Some things, frankly, don't make sense.  Such as, how do you make warlock pacts without the ability to summon creatures?  How do you craft figurines of wondrous power?  WotC's answer? "Give us money!"

And those three words sum up 4th edition.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Sithcore!*

Your hate has made you powerful.

-Samir


----------



## Arawn76

Yawn!!

Dull, repetitive and completely lacking in originality.  Well done OP you managed to parrot half a dozen or so subjective opinions.


----------



## WarlockLord

You're welcome


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Keep on the Snarkfell?*



Arawn76 said:


> Dull, repetitive and completely lacking in originality.









Still, he makes some good points.

-S.A.


----------



## ferratus

The limited number of powers I'm sort of with you on.  The 70th time someone does a "sly flourish" it doesn't seem so sly anymore.   For "at-wills" perhaps it would have been better for a more abstract form of combat, rather than two flavoured at-will attacks. 

I'm not really concerned about a lack of necromancers/summoners/animal companions though.  The 3e rules for them really suck, and I'd rather have no rules than rules that suck at getting the job done.  I can come up with crappy rules on the fly.

I am enjoying the new edition I look forward to seeing the rules innovations, but I'll probably be tired of it in about 6-10 years.   Like the first year of 3e, I'm just starting to see the little flaws that might blow up into big problems, but it still seems an improvement over the last edition.

I do predict that the powers and exception based designed will be scaled back a bit for 5e.  One of the problems I'm noticing is that it is very hard to get a comprehensive grasp of all the rules with all the different powers which exist to change the way the basic rules work.


----------



## Halivar

ferratus said:


> The 70th time someone does a "sly flourish" it doesn't seem so sly anymore.   For "at-wills" perhaps it would have been better for a more abstract form of combat, rather than two flavoured at-will attacks.



Every time (ever _single_ time) someone says, "I use my sly flourish" or "I cast eyebite" or "I use hammer and anvil", I always respond, "what does it look like?" It's a codification of one of the most important rules of narrative writing: _show me, don't tell me_. After a while, players get the hint; what I really want, as a DM, is narrative variety. The powers on their sheet are merely conflict resolution mechanics for cinematic storytelling.

In this environment, 4E works and the powers never get stale.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Trial Run Trepidation*



Halivar said:


> In this environment, 4E works and the powers never get stale.



I sincerely hope so. We're starting our (gulp) first 4E campaign soon.

-Samir


----------



## amysrevenge

The Thayan Menace said:


> I sincerely hope so. We're starting our (gulp) first 4E campaign soon.
> 
> -Samir




Worst case for melee types - it shouldn't get much more stale than "full attack".


----------



## Morrus

Arawn76 said:


> Yawn!!
> 
> Dull, repetitive and completely lacking in originality. Well done OP you managed to parrot half a dozen or so subjective opinions.




This is not appropriate behaviour for EN World.  

You are welcome to disagree with the post, and offer your opinions why, in the spirit of a discussion forum.

You are welcome to not participate in the thread if it doesn't interest you.

You are _not_ welcome to malign the poster for his opinions, even you _have_ heard other people express them before.

Folks, please take the above into account before posting.  You don't _have_ to post.


----------



## pawsplay

Not only did I not switch to 4e, but what I've heard from other people playing it and from looking at the new material, I'm becoming less of a fan all the time. A lot of it has to do with issues in the OP, especially verisimillitude and the sameness of characters, both within a class and across classes. I thought 3e already let money do too much; with 4e, the world is like one big catalog.

So I hear you, yeah.


----------



## cougent

The Thayan Menace said:


> Your hate has made you powerful.
> 
> -Samir



I know you are joking, but I wanted to use it as a springboard to say I don't see hatred, I see disappointment in the OP.  He was excited, he looked forward to it, and he has played it; but it just leaves him lacking.

I was not looking forward to it, but I have read the core books, and it just left me lacking also.  I have been told by others to "play it, it is fun" and that may be true and I will probably play it soon, and it may well be LOADS of fun; but that still does not erase the lack of WOW (excitement, not MMO) feeling that I just don't have for it.  Other games are also fun when I play them, but I don't have excitement for them either.  I used to have excitement for the game, this version just does not bring that out.



Morrus said:


> This is not appropriate behaviour for EN World.
> 
> You are welcome to disagree with the post, and offer your opinions why, in the spirit of a discussion forum.
> 
> You are welcome to not participate in the thread if it doesn't interest you.
> 
> You are _not_ welcome to malign the poster for his opinions, even you _have_ heard other people express them before.
> 
> Folks, please take the above into account before posting.  *You don't have to post.*



[Emphasis mine]
I am tempted to sig quote this, it almost needs to appear in every single thread on the site these days!


----------



## LostSoul

WarlockLord said:


> 4) The hit point spike.  This is just great.  HP has been inflated, damage reduced, so combats take forever.  Add to this the whole "what is HP" argument, and then you begin wondering the difference between a miss and a hit.




Combats in my game are almost always 5 rounds.  I keep track on graph paper, and I have all the sheets, so I checked the other day; except the really tough and easy fights, they are almost always 5 rounds.

The difference between a hit and a miss is that you are that much closer to winning.


----------



## Irda Ranger

Morrus said:


> <snip mod words>



Morrus is so badass he doesn't even need Moderator Voice.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

WarlockLord said:


> When Wizards first announced 4e, I was really excited.  I thought it would be really cool.  So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.




While I agree with most of your complaints about 4E, I mostly got held up on this.  Why on earth would you sell all your books without even seeing the new rules system first?  Not only that, but months in advance!  Did you just decide to stop playing entirely till 4E came out?  Or were you afraid the 3E book value would soon plummet?

I know, there's the SRD, not impossible to play with no books.  It still seems rather silly, though.


----------



## Irda Ranger

_Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. _
No where close to what 3E required, with planning for Feats, PrCs, etc.


_Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?_
I don't think you "get" what the Classes "are" in 4E. A Fighter _IS_ a Defender. This is non-optional. Defenders don't do archery. That's what Strikers do. If you want to play a Striker, play a Striker.


_In our group, we found ourselves wanting a lot of stuff we had in 3e._
You mean from the Core 3, or from your 8 years of supplements?


_By attempting to balance this, they have created a world that feels fake. _
I agree it feels fake; but balance isn't the problem. It's how game rules are divorced from any sense of what's actually happening in the game. It's too abstract.

It doesn't help that the power names and fluff can be very much more precise than the actual rules. If the names/fluff were as abstract as the actual power, and you were encouraged to "write your own fluff" every time (rather than be presented with an "official" version) I think you it would actually improve the game. Which is a bit odd, since that's purely a complaint about the presentation of the mechanics, not the mechanics.


_I thought "Hey, everyone gets cool powers" was a good goal...until I read what our good friends at WoTC came up with. _
lol. So true.


_Wizards are boring and uninteresting. _
Only relative to previous editions (when the were often "too good"). I think they're pretty fairly balanced vs. the other 4E classes.

_I had visions of rituals for animating the dead, binding otherworldly creatures to your service, curses, and calling down thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Now? We have all the utility spells, except they cost money to cast, because apparently all one needs to know what to do with magic is to throw lightning at other people, as those are your powers._
I'm not sure what your beef is here. I love Rituals.


_"Give us money!"

And those three words sum up 4th edition._
As opposed to which previous edition? TSR-WotC-Hasbro has been a for-profit firm since the 70s. Do you think the wrote _The Complete Priest's Handbook_ as a pure form of artistic expression?

-----

Your other points I agree with. I'm also not thrilled with 4E. But the above is my take on some of your points which seem "off" to me.


----------



## Stalker0

Irda Ranger said:


> _Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?_
> I don't think you "get" what the Classes "are" in 4E. A Fighter _IS_ a Defender. This is non-optional. Defenders don't do archery. That's what Strikers do. If you want to play a Striker, play a Striker.
> 
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.
> 
> The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.
> 
> There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.


----------



## bagger245

So all archer based guys are rangers, until WOTc publishes a fighter bow and arrow build? Or because fighters are defenders, he will never go near bow and arrows coz he wont be fulfilling his role? 

or maybe wotc will publish a non wilderness ranger to compensate that? shall we talk about rogues and their two daggers in each hand?


----------



## Kishin

So what are we looking at for this one? Over/under 8 pages? Someone get the pool going.



WarlockLord said:


> "Give us money!"
> 
> And those three words sum up 4th edition.




I will never, ever understand why the internet gets so infuriated about the concept of a company striving to make money. I'm not sure what else is to be expected of a business enterprise. It always ends up looking like this:

Penny Arcade! - Arms Aren't Even That Cool


----------



## bagger245

My solution: *Don't treat each editions of D&D as an upgrade.* Find the editions that you are more comfortable with and stick with it. Then get some ideas off other editions and house rule it into your game. 

As for the OP, seems to me that you love 3.5. Stick with it, and don't get influence by what people tell you about other games unless you've played it. I am sorry that you sold off your 3.5 collection. You could try to like 4th ed and wait patiently til it gets convoluted with splats and accessories over 8 years and maybe you will like it at the end.


----------



## Grydan

WarlockLord said:


> Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?




I'm curious, what makes a ranger "inevitably nature-themed"?


----------



## garyh

Grydan said:


> I'm curious, what makes a ranger "inevitably nature-themed"?




Welcome to EN World!

And you raise a very good point.  In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature.  Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer _wouldn't_ want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back.  There.  That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant.  Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.


----------



## ppaladin123

garyh said:


> Welcome to EN World!
> 
> And you raise a very good point.  In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature.  Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer _wouldn't_ want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back.  There.  That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant.  Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.





Actually, I think the 4e ranger is a good example of broken shackles. In 3.5e you were stuck with an animal companion and a spell list along with the two-weapon fighting or archery choice. Now you can build a martial woodsman or non-woodsman....animal companion and divine spell casting optional.


----------



## CleverNickName

Saying "I do not like 4E" is not the same as saying "4E is a bad game."

And, saying "4E is a bad game" is not the same as saying "Nobody should like 4E."


----------



## S'mon

Selling your 3e books before getting the 4e books was not smart.


----------



## delericho

WarlockLord said:


> So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.




This was a mistake. If it's any consolation, though, you should now be able to get ahold of new copies of 3.x books cheap. And, if you refrain from buying back your entire collection, but instead only get the best/most useful books, you may well still end up ahead overall.



> 1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters.  Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds.




After eight years, didn't you find core-rules-only Fighters and Clerics and Wizards had become rather repetitive and dull? Because that's the point we're at now with 4e. The list of options will expand, probably quite fast, but for now it's necessarily limited.

(Whether the core-4e has fewer options than core-3e has been debated at length here before. IMO, it does, although some of those fewer options, notably Fighters, seem rather more satisfying than their predecessors.)

For the rest of your points, I have no comment. My group are yet to actually try playing 4e.


----------



## Nikosandros

Irda Ranger said:


> Do you think the wrote _The Complete Priest's Handbook_ as a pure form of artistic expression?



Well, _Terrible Trouble at Tragidore_ certainly was a Dadaist masterpiece: a veritable manifesto of the rejection of traditional aesthetics...


----------



## Thanee

Irda Ranger said:


> _Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. _
> No where close to what 3E required, with planning for Feats, PrCs, etc.




I think you misunderstood him there... it's not like you have to plot them out in advance, as you surely had to (to some degree, especially when it comes to PrC) with 3E/3.5, but they already come preplotted right out of the box.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

IOW, his complaint is that Core 4Ed truncates choice in comparison to Core 3Ed...which is something that definitely turns me off about that game.


----------



## DaveMage

WarlockLord said:


> 3e is better.





I'm DaveMage, and I approve this message.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Hey man I feel ya, 4e is not any type of game I want to play.

Saleing your 3e stuff sight on seen was unwise though my friend


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> I'm DaveMage, and I approve this message.




So you are the McCain of D&D?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Jack99 said:


> So you are the McCain of D&D?






Such words round here is  an ok to stab you.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I am curious about why you sold your 3rd edition collection. I love 4th edition and have only ever made extensive used out about 4 non core D&D books (out of a fairly extensive collection) but I currently have no intention of selling any of it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Kishin said:


> So what are we looking at for this one? Over/under 8 pages? Someone get the pool going.



Over 8 page and 4 forked threads


----------



## UngainlyTitan

garyh said:


> Welcome to EN World!
> 
> And you raise a very good point.  In 4e, rangers get a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature.  Take Dungeoneering (what adventurer _wouldn't_ want that?), ignore Nature, and don't look back.  There.  That's your nature-free archer / two-weapon combatant.  Especially now that in 4e there are no default animal companions or nature spells for rangers.



Add in thoughness and two weapon defense and that ranger is a pretty effective defender just not as sticky as a fighter.


----------



## wingsandsword

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, his complaint is that Core 4Ed truncates choice in comparison to Core 3Ed...which is something that definitely turns me off about that game.




In the core rules of 3.0, 3.5 and back to the editions of AD&D, we had illusions for trickery, necromancy for creating undead minions, animal companions to accompany Rangers (and sometimes Druids), monks, and the ability of spellcasters to quickly cast spells other than purely combat magic.  4e gets rid of all that, things that had been pretty consistent in the D&D tradition, and promises us we can have it later. . .if we're just willing to keep shelling out for more splatbooks.

One of my big complaints about 4e is how it cuts out so many character options in the name of streamlined, precalculated fun.  

Yes, WotC is a business and they don't make D&D as a charity, but making a whole new edition of D&D with fewer character options in the core and more restrictions on what you can do explicitly so they can sell more splatbooks makes me really not want to get on the splatbook bandwagon again and be happy with my 3.5.  Then again, I'm apparently not the target audience for D&D anymore


----------



## Alzrius

Kishin said:


> I will never, ever understand why the internet gets so infuriated about the concept of a company striving to make money. I'm not sure what else is to be expected of a business enterprise.




The idea here isn't that a company is evil because it's striving to make money; it's that they're deliberately doing less than their best as an economic tactic.

Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.

When people seem to start getting upset is when they see companies deviating from that model, and embracing a different one. This alternate model eschews excellence, instead believing that greater money can be made by providing a flawed/incomplete product or service, because then this virtually guarantees sales of future goods in the name of "fixing" or "completing" the initial item. It's what people have been accusing Microsoft of for years - that they provide an OS that looks nice and performs well...or would if it wasn't bug-riddled and flawed, requiring that you purchase the _next_ OS to get a cleaner, more stable version.

Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.

To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.


----------



## DaveMage

Alzrius said:


> The idea here isn't that a company is evil because it's striving to make money; it's that they're deliberately doing less than their best as an economic tactic.
> 
> Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.
> 
> When people seem to start getting upset is when they see companies deviating from that model, and embracing a different one. This alternate model eschews excellence, instead believing that greater money can be made by providing a flawed/incomplete product or service, because then this virtually guarantees sales of future goods in the name of "fixing" or "completing" the initial item. It's what people have been accusing Microsoft of for years - that they provide an OS that looks nice and performs well...or would if it wasn't bug-riddled and flawed, requiring that you purchase the _next_ OS to get a cleaner, more stable version.
> 
> Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.
> 
> To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.




Exactly.


----------



## DaveMage

Jack99 said:


> So you are the McCain of D&D?




Alas, board rules prevent comment.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Alzrius said:


> To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.




The best way to combat this is to not buy products from said company.  WOTC isn't the only company out there willing to sell you stuff.  If the cream will raise to the top, then another company can replace WOTC as the provider of RPG material.

What won't help is posting on message boards when your angry.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Halivar said:


> Every time (ever _single_ time) someone says, "I use my sly flourish" or "I cast eyebite" or "I use hammer and anvil", I always respond, "what does it look like?" It's a codification of one of the most important rules of narrative writing: _show me, don't tell me_. After a while, players get the hint; what I really want, as a DM, is narrative variety. The powers on their sheet are merely conflict resolution mechanics for cinematic storytelling.
> 
> In this environment, 4E works and the powers never get stale.




If the powers all kind of feel the same and description is used to flavor the particular application why is this any different than applying such narrative skill to the mechanics of " I hit" from previous editions?

_Show me don't tell me  _works great for any edition. I can use this principle with my Basic D&D character and get the same effect. 

When every power becomes " I send my bzzzt at the bad guy for 2d? (flavor) damage" how are we that far beyond "I attack"?


----------



## Ryndal

Not only the best way - but the only way to deal with profit making corporations is to vote with your wallet

Nothing else matters at all. Period.


----------



## Allister

wingsandsword said:


> In the core rules of 3.0, 3.5 and back to the editions of AD&D, we had illusions for trickery, necromancy for creating undead minions, animal companions to accompany Rangers (and sometimes Druids), monks, and the ability of spellcasters to quickly cast spells other than purely combat magic.




Er, this isn't true AT ALL in 1e/2e.

Magic in 1e/2e was VASTLY different than what it became in 3E.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Ryndal said:


> Not only the best way - but the only way to deal with profit making corporations is to vote with your wallet
> 
> Nothing else matters at all. Period.




You sire are right. This I have done I no longer by anything wotc sales. 

And welcome to the boards


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Allister said:


> Er, this isn't true AT ALL in 1e/2e.
> 
> Magic in 1e/2e was VASTLY different than what it became in 3E.





I recall magic being more powerful myself. My 2e PHB laying here seems to say the same thing. You could lose spells easier and it was a whole round to cast pretty much.


----------



## Allister

Hunter In Darkness said:


> I recall magic being more powerful myself. My 2e PHB laying here seems to say the same thing. You could lose spells easier and it was a whole round to cast pretty much.




I siggest you go over the ENTIRE spell chapter and see what I mean when I say, "magic in 3E became too GOOD".

Translating the spells over WITHOUT understanding the subsystem is what unbalanced the 3.x casters. 

re: Necromancy and Illusion
I think they needed to take a hit for the team. IF you added all of those spells you wanted, are you going to cut down the powers of the martial classes?

Why do martial heroes not deserve nice things?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Allister said:


> I siggest you go over the ENTIRE spell chapter and see what I mean when I say, "magic in 3E became too GOOD".
> 
> Translating the spells over WITHOUT understanding the subsystem is what unbalanced the 3.x casters.
> 
> re: Necromancy and Illusion
> I think they needed to take a hit for the team. IF you added all of those spells you wanted, are you going to cut down the powers of the martial classes?
> 
> Why do martial heroes not deserve nice things?




It wasn't spells that did it, it was move and cast that hurt. Also lack of full attack and movement hurt the fighters. They went from running 30 ft and hitting a guy a few times to moveing 5' and  hitting a guy a few times.


Spells did not unbalance, moving while casting did that


----------



## Wormwood

Halivar said:


> In this environment, 4E works and the powers never get stale.



This.

Interesting attack options + a little narration and creativity went a long way toward breaking us from our 20+ year "I hit/I miss" habit.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Alzrius said:


> Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.
> (snip) . . .
> To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.




Alzruis, this was a truly excellent post.  It reminds me of some of the complaints that various consumer advocates have made against GM, Ford, and Chrysler--that they make so much money on maintenance and upkeep at licensed shops that they are motivated to NOT improve their vehicles' overall quality.  This may or may not be true, but it's the same concept as what you were talking about.  Well said.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hunter In Darkness said:


> It wasn't spells that did it, it was move and cast that hurt. Also lack of full attack and movement hurt the fighters. They went from running 30 ft and hitting a guy a few times to moveing 5' and hitting a guy a few times.
> 
> 
> Spells did not unbalance, moving while casting did that




Thats a good point. I will add that "turn" based combat combined with not having to declare casting from a pre-initiative standpoint made combat casting much more reliable. 

Turn based initiative kind of makes combat feel more like a game and less like a battle. Once you know your place in "the order" you can plan out your moves. As a caster you can cast without much fear of disruption. If someone does want to spoil your spell then they have to wait and do nothing else.

Round by round initiative and spell declaration makes the flow of battle more chaotic and less certain. This gives martial types more power and its been missing since 3E was released.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Logos!*



cougent said:


> I know you are joking, but I wanted to use it as a springboard to say I don't see hatred, I see disappointment in the OP.  He was excited, he looked forward to it, and he has played it; but it just leaves him lacking.



Yes, I was joking and I share your opinion on this matter.

BTW ... I also gave the OP some XP, for posting something of substance (although we have seen other posts like it) and being unfairly maligned.

-Samir


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> Alas, board rules prevent comment.




I know


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Sophia!*



MichaelSomething said:


> What won't help is posting on message boards when your angry.



I respectfully disagree. Passion can be good for constructive discourse.

-Samir


----------



## Allister

Hunter In Darkness said:


> It wasn't spells that did it, it was move and cast that hurt. Also lack of full attack and movement hurt the fighters. They went from running 30 ft and hitting a guy a few times to moveing 5' and  hitting a guy a few times.
> 
> 
> Spells did not unbalance, moving while casting did that




It wasn't JUST move and cast.

It was the fact that round by round initative heavily favoured melee.

It was the fact that spellcasters couldn't get around their spell slot limitation.

It was the fact that magic actually became easier to resist as you levelled.

It was the fact that a wizard didn't get his spell automatically.


----------



## Grimstaff

wingsandsword said:


> One of my big complaints about 4e is how it cuts out so many character options in the name of streamlined, precalculated fun.




One of my favorite things about 4E is how it cuts out so many character options in the name of streamlined, precalculated fun.


----------



## Mister Doug

Allister said:


> It wasn't JUST move and cast.
> 
> It was the fact that round by round initative heavily favoured melee.
> 
> It was the fact that spellcasters couldn't get around their spell slot limitation.
> 
> It was the fact that magic actually became easier to resist as you levelled.
> 
> It was the fact that a wizard didn't get his spell automatically.




All true. The changes to 3e systems that increased the number and availability of spells, the reliability of them, the speed and ease of regaining them, the ease of moving and effective action for spellcasters vs. others, and the ease of access to specific and predictable magic items, as well as some of the points above changed a lot about the balance points of magic in ways that were not obvious until play.

The fact that that 4e magic does not work the same way that previous editions did says to me that the designers were at least trying to learn from previous editions. 

Whether it will turn out that they learned the right things or implemented the right solutions will be a matter for history to tell us...


----------



## Mister Doug

wingsandsword;4531154Yes said:


> Well, this assumes that the reason they restricted options is primarily to make more money. It is possible that they took this approach for the purpose of making sure that they created a product that focused on avoiding some of the unintended problems of interactions between elements of a complex set of options in real play -- looking to make a good product with limited options rather than a big product with a lot of problems, hoping that a good, limited product would be tight enough to sell the system to new players.
> 
> Not being an insider to the process, I don't know which is true. I am sure that making money was part of the plan, and actually consider that a good thing. If WotC didn't plan on making money, then I would know for sure that the game was in the hands of people who weren't thinking things through....


----------



## Grimstaff

Alzrius said:


> Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.
> 
> To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.




"non-excellence" to you, perhaps. "A lot of people" is a little harder to prove. Here at EnWorld, at least, 50% or so are playing 4E, and the other 50% are playing something else. 

Some of us also _like_ buying new game stuff - shocking, I know, but yes, some folks actually like to walk into a bookstore or LGS and pick up the latest splat, mod, or monster manual. 

Some of even like to buy 4E books, and wish there was more out there to buy. Personally, I think there is plenty of stuff available in the 4E core books, especially considering 4E is hopeful of bringing new players to the hobby and too many options can be overwhelming. Personal feelings aside, I can find no evidence that our hobby has grown in the last 5 years or so, and this will hopefully change with a "back to basics" approach.

Btw, posting stuff like "we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales" is a good way to invalidate your entire post as some sort of vengeful rant, try sticking to the facts, please!


----------



## Alzrius

Grimstaff said:


> "non-excellence" to you, perhaps. "A lot of people" is a little harder to prove. Here at EnWorld, at least, 50% or so are playing 4E, and the other 50% are playing something else.




"to me perhaps"? You're under the mistaken impression that I was advocating a point in my post. I wasn't, I was explaining why some people keep mentioning the "WotC's only out to make money" argument. I wasn't personally advocating it.



> _Some of us also like buying new game stuff - shocking, I know, but yes, some folks actually like to walk into a bookstore or LGS and pick up the latest splat, mod, or monster manual. _




Are sarcastic little comments like "shocking, I know" really necesary, Grimstaff? It's things like that that make people think that they can't even talk about a position - again, just talk about it without necessarily advocating it - without someone jumping on them for it.



> _Some of even like to buy 4E books, and wish there was more out there to buy. Personally, I think there is plenty of stuff available in the 4E core books, especially considering 4E is hopeful of bringing new players to the hobby and too many options can be overwhelming. Personal feelings aside, I can find no evidence that our hobby has grown in the last 5 years or so, and this will hopefully change with a "back to basics" approach._




That's nice, but it's not what I was talking about. I was just explaining how some people see WotC's actions - whether that's right or not is another issue. How people react to WotC's current business models is quite far outside of what I was talking about.



> _Btw, posting stuff like "we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales" is a good way to invalidate your entire post as some sort of vengeful rant, try sticking to the facts, please!_




I am sticking to the facts, and we were outrightly told that by WotC prior to the Core Rulebooks coming out. Try double-checking your facts, please!


----------



## mmadsen

Irda Ranger said:


> _By attempting to balance this, they have created a world that feels fake. _
> I agree it feels fake; but balance isn't the problem. It's how game rules are divorced from any sense of what's actually happening in the game. It's too abstract.
> 
> It doesn't help that the power names and fluff can be very much more precise than the actual rules. If the names/fluff were as abstract as the actual power, and you were encouraged to "write your own fluff" every time (rather than be presented with an "official" version) I think you it would actually improve the game. Which is a bit odd, since that's purely a complaint about the presentation of the mechanics, not the mechanics.



I'd like to emphasize that the problem is not that the game is too _abstract_; it's that the game is is _concretely_ "wrong" in so many ways.  The various board-game abilities don't make sense outside of a board game.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Sounds like the OP needs to go with Fantasy Hero.

D&D 3rd ed was a great level system hybrd with massive amounts of customization.

Sometimes it worked well. Sometimes it didn't work all all. The CR/ECL system? The latter. The massive amounts of potential utility? The former.

The game is more streamlinned but not for everyone. The OP, like an investor, made a bad decesion based on his own expectations and well, like an investor with a bad tip, was burned.

If he's looking for some 3e books, I have a few I'd be willing to sell 'em including the PHB, MM, and DMG. Chances of me going back to 3.5 are looking very slim.


----------



## Tetsubo

DaveMage said:


> I'm DaveMage, and I approve this message.




That is because you are a wise and learned Mage.

3.5 for the win.


----------



## Korgoth

Alzrius said:


> The idea here isn't that a company is evil because it's striving to make money; it's that they're deliberately doing less than their best as an economic tactic.
> 
> Whether true or not, there's something of an ideal people have about businesses in the marketplace. This ideal is that companies that focus on doing the best that they can in providing a product/service will rise to success, and the money will follow as a natural consequence - in other words, that cream rises to the top.
> 
> When people seem to start getting upset is when they see companies deviating from that model, and embracing a different one. This alternate model eschews excellence, instead believing that greater money can be made by providing a flawed/incomplete product or service, because then this virtually guarantees sales of future goods in the name of "fixing" or "completing" the initial item. It's what people have been accusing Microsoft of for years - that they provide an OS that looks nice and performs well...or would if it wasn't bug-riddled and flawed, requiring that you purchase the _next_ OS to get a cleaner, more stable version.
> 
> Whether true or not, this is how WotC looks to a lot of people right now. There's a strong impression that WotC didn't create the best game they could have with 4E - or rather, that things many people consider to be near-vital were deliberately held back from the Core Rulebooks to boost sales of later splatbooks. After all, we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales. People simply feel that WotC is less concerned with releasing a great game, than they are concerned with releasing a flawed and incomplete game to better guarantee sales.
> 
> To summarize, people get upset when companies embrace the idea of non-excellence as a viable marketing tactic.




This is an excellent point.

I was following 4E with some interest. Not because I expect all of the sudden to convert from old school back to new school gaming, but because I have owned just about every edition of D&D produced and I was interested to understand what they were doing with the game and how it would turn out.

Then there was that fateful line in the podcast about the MM: we're holding back frost giants and some others so that people will want to buy MM2 (paraphrase). And then seeing that basic staples of D&D fantasy like the animate dead spell were removed from the PHB (that spell has been in every edition! it's a classic!).

I don't have a huge amount of money to waste on hobbies. And the money I do have faces stiff competition: not only role playing games, but historical miniatures as well (WW2 and ancient/medieval). And boardgames. So my entertainment budget is precious.

Now, when I look at the various contenders, I see some who are saying "We've made the best darn product possible, because we aim to totally blow your socks off!" And then I see WOTC saying "We made sure not to make our product too good, because we're hoping that you find our core books a good but ultimately inadequate taste and will be compelled to buy future products indefinitely in the hopes of ultimately finding our product line satisfactory." Gee... I wonder who's going to win that contest?


----------



## Dragonwriter

Irda Ranger said:


> _Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. _
> No where close to what 3E required, with planning for Feats, PrCs, etc.




The planning in 3e was so that you had your own customized character that would be different from anyone else's. 4e (I'll be honest, I haven't played it, just read the articles and browsed WotC site) seems to eliminate lots of the choice for each class. What made the fighter special in 3e was his feats. He could use his feat choices to become the master of 1 or 2 weapons. The 4e Fighter (from what I've seen) has only a few options each level. So, while there were definite patterns in how Fighters were built in 3e, 4e seems more like cookie-cutter.



> _Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?_
> I don't think you "get" what the Classes "are" in 4E. A Fighter _IS_ a Defender. This is non-optional. Defenders don't do archery. That's what Strikers do. If you want to play a Striker, play a Striker.




This just points out one of the OP's points. 4e has eradicated lots of the choice of 3e. A 3e fighter could do archery just as well as a ranger. Now, they can't do it at all.



> _Wizards are boring and uninteresting. _
> Only relative to previous editions (when the were often "too good"). I think they're pretty fairly balanced vs. the other 4E classes.




I can understand making wizards more balanced relative to other classes. What I don't understand is taking away so many of their options and releasing them in different books (upon which you'll have to spend more of that super-important thing called "money", a hard thing to come by these days). The 3e wizard was a super-powerhouse. But the 4e wizard is tiresome, having only a handful of options (again, from what I've seen) compared to the 3e wizard.


----------



## JoeGKushner

I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.

Love it.

Please Dragonwrite, do go on.



Dragonwriter said:


> The planning in 3e was so that you had your own customized character that would be different from anyone else's. 4e *(I'll be honest, I haven't played it, just read the articles and browsed WotC site)* seems to eliminate lots of the choice for each class. What made the fighter special in 3e was his feats. He could use his feat choices to become the master of 1 or 2 weapons. The 4e Fighter (from what I've seen) has only a few options each level. So, while there were definite patterns in how Fighters were built in 3e, 4e seems more like cookie-cutter.
> 
> 
> 
> This just points out one of the OP's points. 4e has eradicated lots of the choice of 3e. A 3e fighter could do archery just as well as a ranger. Now, they can't do it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand making wizards more balanced relative to other classes. What I don't understand is taking away so many of their options and releasing them in different books (upon which you'll have to spend more of that super-important thing called "money", a hard thing to come by these days). The 3e wizard was a super-powerhouse. But the 4e wizard is tiresome, having only a handful of options (again, from what I've seen) compared to the 3e wizard.


----------



## xechnao

JoeGKushner said:


> I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.
> 
> Love it.
> 
> Please Dragonwrite, do go on.




If you have ever played D&D or similar -moreso 3ed D&D you do not need that lots of imagination to figure out more or less some things IMO


----------



## AllisterH

Dragonwriter said:


> The planning in 3e was so that you had your own customized character that would be different from anyone else's. 4e (I'll be honest, I haven't played it, just read the articles and browsed WotC site) seems to eliminate lots of the choice for each class. What made the fighter special in 3e was his feats. He could use his feat choices to become the master of 1 or 2 weapons. .




Er, more than anything, the 4E system has allowed the fighter to customize his weapon. 

There is now a valid choice between sword and board versus two handed wielder

There is valid reasons why you might want to use a flail versus a greatsword versus a hammer.

This is the one thing that kind of jumped out at me in your post that 4E does better than any edition (be it 1E or 3E)

re: Why cut out options.
Because options is power. At the tail end of 3E, the Dread Necromancer and the Beguiler were released. Both of these classes were very fun, balanced and interesting classes.

They just suck compared to the core 3E wizard.

My hunch is that WOTC wants to present these options as FULL classes yet not being overshadowed by the core wizard. This means that the core wizard needed the nerf bat taken to it.

Basically, it needed to more resemble the 1e/2e wizard (remember, pre 3E, only specialists got 1 spell per character level of their choice whereas the generalist mage got 1 spell every 2 character levels plus whatever they found. In 1e, in fact, there were illusionist-only spells )


----------



## Quantarum

Selling your 3E books might not have been a bad idea, perhaps you will find the final version of Pathfinder, C&C, True 20 or some other game more to your liking. If not, I'm sure you'll find the books cheap somewhere, hang in there.

-Q.


----------



## Edgewood

JoeGKushner said:


> I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.




I agree what you say here. Now I have never bought 4e,and I have never read it. Anything I know about 4E I have gathered from these and other boards. But I will never deride or praise 4E because I don't know it. I'm not an authority and will not comment on it. My choice for not going with 4E was practical one. I recently moved to a small town that has limited gamer connections and no FLGS.  I had heavily invested in 3.5 and I no longer wish to spend money on yet another edition. I feel fine with my choice.


----------



## Ourph

Grimstaff said:


> Some of us also _like_ buying new game stuff - shocking, I know, but yes, some folks actually like to walk into a bookstore or LGS and pick up the latest splat, mod, or monster manual.



And what really confuses me is that the same people who complain that 4e is just a money-churn where WotC is employing shady marketing to get people to buy an endless stream of books for the current edition... also complain that 3e is now unsupported and they no longer have the option of buying... an endless stream of books for their favorite edition.  

If having the option of buying new books for the RPG you play is such an evil scheme, everyone who's sticking with 3e or an earlier edition should be rejoicing.  They're now immune to the evil, corporate machinations of WotC.


----------



## Mercule

Ryndal said:


> Not only the best way - but the only way to deal with profit making corporations is to vote with your wallet
> 
> Nothing else matters at all. Period.



Quite.  This is why I never, ever buy a Forgotten Realms product.  May the setting die a humiliating death (which it apparently has in 4e).

On topic, I have yet to play a real game of 4e.  I know I dislike 3.5 and knew that before the 4e announcement.  After the first of the year, I'll be giving 4e a try, I think, and then we'll see whether it's that or something else.  I have some concerns, but I'm willing to see how it plays out.

Specifically, I agree with the OP's #2 point.  The "economy of actions" is assinine.  I can see the case for having some restrictions, but the level of restriction that seems to be part and parcel of 4e is just as bad.  Too loose isn't fun because someone dominates, but too tight isn't fun because it completely kills some fundamental concepts and feels artificial.

As I said, I haven't played 4e, yet, but I'm hopeful.  What I see as the risks, though, are:

1) Economy of actions.  See above.

2) No mechanical differentiation between fighters and wizards.  I'm taking on faith that the powers are created to feel different.  But, I can see where a unified powers mechanic and advancement might not have the best feel.  Not a pronouncement, but a concern.

3) Too narrow of power definitions within a class.  I have noticed, reading through the PHB, that many of the fighter powers seem to be a variation on "you hit really hard" with little else in the mechanics.  If this is more than just "reads bad, plays good", then presenting them as powers is meaningless.  They should be scaling class features.  That brings up my #2 again, though.

4) Bland magic items.  The magic items section in the PHB has to be one of the least inspiring sections of any game book I've ever read.  There seem to be a couple of interesting items in the Adventurer's Vault, but mostly more of the same.  I'm one of the people who hated the magic economy in 3e and always ran low-magic in earlier editions, so I was thrilled when they proclaimed less reliance on magic items in 4e.  What I really see is more numerically predictable reliance and formulaic, bland items.  Oh, and a hard economy of actions built in, too.

5) Combat-focused balance.  Combat isn't the sum total of the spotlight.  If I play a rogue, I don't care if I'm not shining in combat -- so long as I'm not completely worthless.  My time to shine is outside combat -- ambushes, sneaking, and the like.

There are some things I'm really looking forward to, though:
1) Depowered wizards.  Yes, you heard me.  I like my swords and sorcery to be heavier on the swords.  I don't have any issue with players who like to play casters, but I don't.  I also don't like set-ups that require casters to be too common.

2) Separation of rituals and "quick" spells.  I always hated having to trade off combat time for general utility.  Plus, it never made sense to me that you couldn't just take all the set-up time you needed for some things like _knock_ to cast it un-hung.  Plus, I see rituals as being the more likely way non-wizards would dip into the arcane arts, anyway.  About the only thing that I'd add would be the option to hang a ritual or two if you thought you'd be needing it quickly.

3) More solid advancement math.  If things scale the way they're advertised, this will be really great.

4) Monster and classes designed with a role in mind.  I like flexibility and the option to break the mold, but for both new/casual players and adventure design, having a baseline concept is pure awesome.

5) Refined skill system.  NWPs in 1e/2e were too coarse.  3e skills were too fine-grained.  While I have a few minor quibbles with the 4e system, I think it looks to be a great improvement.

5a) Skill challenges.  Sure, these would work in 3.5, but they weren't included.  Also, that'd involve playing 3e, which isn't on the table, for me.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Let's see here...


> When Wizards first announced 4e, I was really excited. I thought it would be really cool. So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books. When I finally got the books...they were OK. I have played a campaign for 4 months and we have agreed...3e is better.
> Here are, at least, my reasons.




Man, sorry to hear you sold all your books! On the bright side, there's enough people out there lovin' 4e that I'm sure you can find some of their old 3e books.  And there's Pathfinder, too, which will have it's own books (with some of 3e's more glaring flaws addressed!).



> 1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters. Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds. This leads to an extreme lack of flexibility. Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery? Wanna play a character who can stand toe to toe with his enemies and fight with two weapons? Want to play a cleric whose deity doesn't shoot Holy Laserz of P3nage? Well, just wait for some more $30 books...
> In our group, we found ourselves wanting a lot of stuff we had in 3e. Animal companions, spells other than fire blasts, etc. The common response I see from the 4e supporters is "Wait for the splatbooks! WoTC is a business, so they have to make money!" However, I feel compelled to wonder why I should reward a company who has come up with a product that I feel is bad with more money so they can continue making it.




This is a fairly fair cop, to varying degrees. WotC did give you options and variations, but a lot of those options are eerily similar.

This isn't purely about future book sales, though. It's also about the 4e powers system itself (which requires a LOT of pagecount!), and the philosophy of "no accidental suck!" (which requires you to tightly control your players' options so that they don't accidentally pick the bad ones). 



> 2) The extreme tendency for 'balance' and 'fun'. The whole "economy of actions" is stupid and annoying. No summoners, necromancers, et al because it could slow the game down. Everyone gets the same amount and types of powers for balance. Some people might ask why magic and physical training work similarly, with the same usage restrictions. By attempting to balance this, they have created a world that feels fake. Then, of course, we have the "if anything bad happens to your PCs, it might not be fun," leading to the nerf of status effects. The fighter's "Paralyzing Strike" might sound like paralysis...until you read it. It immobilizes the opponent. This means the opponent can't move...any squares. They can still attack, cast spells, and stand despite being 'paralyzed'. Everything lasts for either 6 seconds, or requires a save, which is always a ~55% chance of escaping. If the most powerful wizard in the world casts sleep on a random peasant, they have a ~55% chance of escaping. Wow, studying magic sure is worthwhile!




I think the Economy of Actions is actually a really big challenge for them, and it warrants the attention paid to it. "Get A Soda O'Clock" should be minimized in the game. 

That said, there are obviously ways to handle animal companions and the like that don't interfere with the Economy (or at least don't interfere too badly). That they decided not to put this in the Core Rules speaks to their other priorities. 

I'll agree more with the fluff/crunch divide, as I've been preaching against that divide (the wrought iron fence made of tigers!) for months now.  



> 3)The powers. I thought "Hey, everyone gets cool powers" was a good goal...until I read what our good friends at WoTC came up with. The ranger powers are all variants of the Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon fighting feats, except renamed and damage altered. The powers all have fixed damage, which results in redundancy for some classes (You replace your Holy P3nage Lazer with...ANOTHER HOLY P3NAGE LAZER! WOO-HOO! GO YOU!), and really don't feel like powers. When my friend and I were having a boss fight against a solo monster, I was getting bored because all of my powers did pretty much the same thing (damage) and it was going nowhere. Which leads us to...




That is, from my perspective, a pretty fair criticism. "Everyone gets cool powers" is an awesome goal, but if all your powers are very similar, it makes it harder to build the character you envision (as opposed to the character WotC envisions). 



> 4) The hit point spike. This is just great. HP has been inflated, damage reduced, so combats take forever. Add to this the whole "what is HP" argument, and then you begin wondering the difference between a miss and a hit.
> "That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."




I think another poster put it best when they said that if HPs are more than physical resilience, why is the only thing that takes HPs away physical damage? 

Heisenberg Points represent too much to effectively model anything. They're just a way of keeping score in 4e. 



> 5) The wizard nerf. Wizards are boring and uninteresting. While they may have been overpowered in the last edition, stripping all the creative options for "fireball, fireball, fireball," is a game design travesty. The spellbook sucks. 2 spells a level, and you can't add spells, unless you take a feat, which allows you to add one Xd6 damage attack spell per level.




I admit, this is another instance of that flavor/rules disconnect. There *are* Rituals, which are more flexible, and can be used in the same way, but stripping them out of the class leads to a lot of people forgetting about it. They shouldn't, though. It's there, and it's ready to eat! Rituals go a long way to addressing this problem!



> 6) Rituals. At first, I thought these were great. I had visions of rituals for animating the dead, binding otherworldly creatures to your service, curses, and calling down thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Now? We have all the utility spells, except they cost money to cast, because apparently all one needs to know what to do with magic is to throw lightning at other people, as those are your powers. The illusions have been severely limited and moved into rituals, except for that Dragon article, which is "Damage...with ILLUSION!" Frankly, no thanks. I want to deceive with spontaneously crafted images, not just some psychic damage fest.




The GP cost isn't the best balancing system, I'd like to see something different. And the inability to "prepare" a ritual, so that you can light it off with a simple word and action at the spur of the moment, is an oversight that will haunt 4e until they rectify it.  



> 7) Lack of Verisimilitude. Some things, frankly, don't make sense. Such as, how do you make warlock pacts without the ability to summon creatures? How do you craft figurines of wondrous power? WotC's answer? "Give us money!"




I'm not so sure it's quite so manipulative, but yes, a philosophy of "Don't think about it! Roll!" is pretty annoying to me, and, apparently, to you and others, too. 



> And those three words sum up 4th edition.




Yeah, that'd be enough to sway me, too. I don't think everything is a problem to the same degree, but yeah, if these irk you, 4e probably isn't the game for you.


----------



## Mercule

JoeGKushner said:


> Sounds like the OP needs to go with Fantasy Hero.



I'm going to give 4e a shot because of the benefits of the published adventures and massive player base.

If that doesn't work out, then I'm either going for Fantasy Hero or Savage Worlds.  I figure Hero won't be any more complex, plus it allows incredible detail for characters and a non-exception based ruleset.  Savage Worlds gets consideration because I'm a busy man and half my group are decidedly non-gearheads when it comes to games -- they really love gaming, but don't want "system mastery".


----------



## Grimstaff

Alzrius said:


> I am sticking to the facts, and we were outrightly told that by WotC prior to the Core Rulebooks coming out. Try double-checking your facts, please!




Easy enough to prove, I suppose - kindly post a link to the official WotC statement that "several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales". If you're referring solely to the flip, joking comment made in a podcast a while back, and assuming this was the official company line, I will have a nice chuckle. 

But if you have an actual statement please let me know.


----------



## Darrin Drader

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Why on earth would you sell all your books without even seeing the new rules system first?




I unfortunately must confess to doing this when 2nd edition came out. I took my PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, and Fiend Folio to the local used book store and sold them all so I could afford the 2nd edition PHB.

Oops. 

In the years since then I have managed to track down most of the books I sold back then, but that one action taught me the importance of holding on to all of my books up until the point where I've read them and come to the conclusion that I'll never have any use for them at all (the most notable exception to that policy was in 1996 when I pawned the Temple of Elemental Evil because I needed the cash).


----------



## Grimstaff

Morrus said:


> This is not appropriate behaviour for EN World.
> 
> You are welcome to disagree with the post, and offer your opinions why, in the spirit of a discussion forum.
> 
> You are welcome to not participate in the thread if it doesn't interest you.
> 
> You are _not_ welcome to malign the poster for his opinions, even you _have_ heard other people express them before.
> 
> Folks, please take the above into account before posting.  You don't _have_ to post.




I thought the "I hate 4E" thread was being discouraged in general, as it inevitably descends into edition war, WotC-bashing, and name-calling.


----------



## Korgoth

Grimstaff said:


> Easy enough to prove, I suppose - kindly post a link to the official WotC statement that "several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales". If you're referring solely to the flip, joking comment made in a podcast a while back, and assuming this was the official company line, I will have a nice chuckle.
> 
> But if you have an actual statement please let me know.




I'm surprised that you're not aware of it.

It is in the D&D Podcast #16. The question is very early: at 1 minute 52 seconds the question is asked regarding the criteria for those monsters which made the cut. In response, it is stated that some monsters were intentionally held back.

If you click on the WOTC D&D main page, you'll find a link in the upper left hand for the podcasts. It is podcast #16. It is pretty long, but you'll only have to listen for a couple minutes to hear this portion.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Darrin Drader said:


> I unfortunately must confess to doing this when 2nd edition came out. I took my PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, and Fiend Folio to the local used book store and sold them all so I could afford the 2nd edition PHB.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> In the years since then I have managed to track down most of the books I sold back then, but that one action taught me the importance of holding on to all of my books up until the point where I've read them and come to the conclusion that I'll never have any use for them at all (the most notable exception to that policy was in 1996 when I pawned the Temple of Elemental Evil because I needed the cash).




It's a common mistake to toss away the old for the new, happens to a lot of people.  I guess I was lucky enough to see firsthand my friends selling off their classic video game consoles for a miniscule fraction of what they cost in order to help pay for the shiny new one.  All too often, they soon lamented that decision, in some cases shelling out much more than they sold the old systems/games for in order to get them back after realizing how valuable they were.  Taught me from a fairly early age never to do that.  I learned it from videogames, but it applies to about any game system, I think.  The games never lose value just cause there's something newer and flashier out there, and nothing beats the feeling of being able to always go back and play whenever you like.

/threadjack


----------



## Mister Doug

Mercule said:
			
		

> Quite. This is why I never, ever buy a Forgotten Realms product. May the setting die a humiliating death (which it apparently has in 4e).
> 
> On topic, I have yet to play a real game of 4e. I know I dislike 3.5 and knew that before the 4e announcement. After the first of the year, I'll be giving 4e a try, I think, and then we'll see whether it's that or something else. I have some concerns, but I'm willing to see how it plays out.
> 
> Specifically, I agree with the OP's #2 point. The "economy of actions" is assinine. I can see the case for having some restrictions, but the level of restriction that seems to be part and parcel of 4e is just as bad. Too loose isn't fun because someone dominates, but too tight isn't fun because it completely kills some fundamental concepts and feels artificial.
> 
> As I said, I haven't played 4e, yet, but I'm hopeful.  What I see as the risks, though, are:
> 
> 1) Economy of actions.  See above.
> 
> 2) No mechanical differentiation between fighters and wizards. I'm taking on faith that the powers are created to feel different. But, I can see where a unified powers mechanic and advancement might not have the best feel. Not a pronouncement, but a concern.
> 
> 3) Too narrow of power definitions within a class. I have noticed, reading through the PHB, that many of the fighter powers seem to be a variation on "you hit really hard" with little else in the mechanics. If this is more than just "reads bad, plays good", then presenting them as powers is meaningless. They should be scaling class features. That brings up my #2 again, though.
> 
> 4) Bland magic items. The magic items section in the PHB has to be one of the least inspiring sections of any game book I've ever read. There seem to be a couple of interesting items in the Adventurer's Vault, but mostly more of the same. I'm one of the people who hated the magic economy in 3e and always ran low-magic in earlier editions, so I was thrilled when they proclaimed less reliance on magic items in 4e. What I really see is more numerically predictable reliance and formulaic, bland items. Oh, and a hard economy of actions built in, too.
> 
> 5) Combat-focused balance. Combat isn't the sum total of the spotlight. If I play a rogue, I don't care if I'm not shining in combat -- so long as I'm not completely worthless. My time to shine is outside combat -- ambushes, sneaking, and the like.




I'd probably quibble with some of your points.

1) Economy of actions is an attempt to fix the huge number of complex actions that became possible in 3e by the interaction of iterative actions, pets, summon spells, followers gained thorugh the leadership feat, etc. Since huge number of actions = huge damage = monster or PC dead before actions occur, can lead to very weird, swingy and (IMHO) unrealistic results wherein the brutal, terrifying enemy is swarmed by attacks by a ginsu fighter and his small army. Besides, this isn't very interesting to play out. This isn't as much of a problem in, say OD&D, which provides few options for actions in a turn because, as EGG pointed out, D&D combat is abstract.

2) Your concern is understandable, but back in OD&D or Holmes, the big differences between low-level charactes were hit points, the armor and magic items the characters could use, and the fact that spellcasters had some access to a few spells, and we could tell them apart. I think there is a reson to believe the philosophy of differentiation by powers is reasonable, though I think the debate over whether it has been successful is also reasonable.

3) See, I just don't see that the powers are all the same. Fighters, for instance, have powers that damage, shift, mark, knock down enemies. Makes sense to me, and reminds me of the development of powers for characters in games like hero system. The potential problem I see is that powers are gained every level, so the incremental power difference between a first level power and the next level power of the same type seems kind of small -- and with so many powers, they have to be pretty specific to have a niche, which seems the most difficult parts of designing and balancing powers rather than having open, flexible powers.

4) Yeah, that is a problem, but seems to me continuation of a problem that had begun to develop in 3e rather than a new problem for 4e....

5) See point above. 

Also, my experience is that unless you run a very role-play heavy game, the only reasonable thing to keep an eye on is power. If one player has fewer roleplay abilities, it's still fairly easy to keep that player in the game. If one player is useless in combat, they can die quickly on accident. This is a real problem. And this is hard for an inexperienced DM to miss until they have dead PCs on hand, and usually PCs feeling like they built a cool character and were punished for it.

If you were marketing a game hoping to bring in new or inexperienced players and DMs, I think a company could do worse than focusing too much on making characters balanced based on combat ability.

Of course, there are other ways to balance PCs, though I am not sure D&D has ever done a good job of actually doing that.


----------



## Delta

JoeGKushner said:


> I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.
> 
> Love it.
> 
> Please Dragonwrite, do go on.




I'm at least as bemused by people who bought all the books prior to doing research to see whether they liked the game or not. That completely perplexes me.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Delta said:


> I'm at least as bemused by people who bought all the books prior to doing research to see whether they liked the game or not. That completely perplexes me.




This is a good point.

It's a shame that such people couldn't find a group and sit in and play a few sessions with friends who already have the books.

My friends and I started 4e not with the core rules, but with the introductory module. A wise investment for anyone who wants to toe dip as a group. I hear that the new introductory boxed set is an even better value.

Another important point is that all the reading in the world does not equal playing. Games Play != Reading.


----------



## Nikosandros

Darrin Drader said:


> In the years since then I have managed to track down most of the books I sold back then, but that one action taught me the importance of holding on to all of my books up until the point where I've read them and come to the conclusion that I'll never have any use for them at all



I've never sold a single RPG item, even those that I'm unlikely to ever use.


----------



## Remathilis

WarlockLord said:


> When Wizards first announced 4e, I was really excited.  I thought it would be really cool.  So, a few months before it came out, I went out and sold all my 3.x books to Half Price Books.  When I finally got the books...they were OK.  I have played a campaign for 4 months and we have agreed...3e is better.




Firstly, you are entitled to your opinion. Barring the stupid move of selling your 3.X materials off (never sell an edition of D&D off until your 2 years into the next; word of advice). 

That said, I kinda agree with you. 4e strikes me as a combination of good ideas and play fixes, I think few if anyone stopped to look and see what the complete package would look like. Subtle nods to nostalgia aside, there are plenty of things that appear to be good fixes in isolation, but when mixed in the whole package come off as blah. 



WarlockLord said:


> 1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters.




This comes from the powers (which I'll address below) and the fact powers are only allowed to do so many things. The classes themselves don't feel cookie cutter compared to each other (a fighter does play different than a wizard, unified mechanic aside) but power/resolution system coupled with (As the OP said) more tightly enforced roles (which is good for character generation, but limiting in play).



WarlockLord said:


> 2) The extreme tendency for 'balance' and 'fun'.  The whole "economy of actions" is stupid and annoying.




Going to disagree with you here: while 4e's economy of actions might be very limited, the laize-faire market of 3e was overwhelming for exactly the reasons you list: summoners, necromancers, animal companions, and other "sidekick" characters. The problem became common at higher-levels that the summoned creatures took as long (if not longer) to resolve than the player who summoned them. This was do the monsters having full-attacks and complicated SLA's in their own right, making each summon a mini-PC, and slowing game down immensely for someone who'se combat round consisted of a.) casting a spell (or more than one with quicken) and resolving b.) having a summon full-attack (2-3 attacks/rd) a foe and c.) resolving any actions your familiar/animal companion/homunculus/mount/whatever might be doing. 

Compared to a non-spellcasters "full attack and go back to sleep" round, spellcaster/summoners were a nightmare. 



WarlockLord said:


> 3)The powers.  I thought "Hey, everyone gets cool powers" was a good goal...until I read what our good friends at WoTC came up with.




Here is the root of my problem. Most of the powers are simply "hit: damage + effect" system. Arcane powers are "damage + negative status ailment", divine powers are "damage + allies get benefit" and martial is "higher damage + maybe an ailment, buff, or move". There is some blur, but there are few powers that don't fit the "damage + something" system. 

I know WotC wanted everyone to feel the rush of attacking (and not wasting rounds solely on buffing or healing) but more effects that didn't fit the "damage + effect" structure would have seemed more...complete. 



WarlockLord said:


> 4) The hit point spike.




While I do not lament first-round "anti-combats" that seemed less than cinematic, the HP spike does lead to slower, drawn out combats that before would have been simple. Good for bigger battles, but after a while, they get repetitive. 



WarlockLord said:


> 5) The wizard nerf.




Wizards needed something of a nerf, they got the whole enchilada. Most of their spells do far too little damage; and the loss of spells in summoning, enchantment, and necromancy makes them feel very "blaster" and not much else. Where are the polymorph effects (not the broken spell polymorph, but the "level 1: turn into an orc" effects?) Where are the "summon skeletal warrior to fight for you for 5 min" effects? Where are the "dominate a foe to take your blows for you like a succubus does" effects? Where are the "make your foes flee from your fearful illusion" effects? 

Oh, right. Arcane power. Or PHB2. Or beyond. 



WarlockLord said:


> 6) Rituals.




I love the concept, but some of those rituals aren't worth the gp. The combination of cost and reduction of power has made many not worth it, and the limited list so far has been less than inspiring. Like the OP, I'd hoped the summons, animations, and other "high cost in XP/GP" spells were here. Sadly, many are just gone (wish/anyspell powers, atonement). 



WarlockLord said:


> 7) Lack of Verisimilitude.  Some things, frankly, don't make sense.




This doesn't bother me anymore like it should. While the 3.X part of my mind asked "well, what ritual DOES a wizard use to make a skeleton or a shield guardian?" I don't mind that knowledge being verboten to players. It stresses a "good vs. evil" theme stronger as the bad-guys have forbidden lore no PC should possess.

(It does make evil PCs, or those who seek that knowledge, come up the poorer. Esp. true of evil divine PCs)

That said, I don't stress out about the existence of minions, or where golems come from. 

-----

If I can add my own "I hate this" to the pile; the treatment of some classic literary monsters has been abysmal. Specifically, I speak of lycanthropes that no longer spread the curse, raksasha's who take damage from swords and spells like any other monster (and don't fear a blessed bolt anymore) and vampires who don't fear the sun (though to be fair, Dracula didn't either) but it could easily extend to the loss of DR/SR as a tool to force specific tactics or special weaknesses. This, of course, was a result of PCs whose powers are limited in nature and it was designed to no longer punish PCs in specific fights (like spellcasters vs. golems or rogues vs. undead) but it does darken the sky when vampires, golems and raksashas are just another bundle of hp and special powers...


----------



## Darrin Drader

Nikosandros said:


> I've never sold a single RPG item, even those that I'm unlikely to ever use.




I rarely do, but there are some that I have deemed were just taking up space, so I found something to do with them. There are certain settings that I just have no interest in, or feel that I could do better with myself, there are some rules supplements where I didn't like the direction the rules went, and other books that looked cool when I bought them but ended up being fairly uninspiring. Some examples of some books I deemed that I could live without: the adventure modules for the Avatar Trilogy, the 3.0 splats, and Sheoloth: City of the Drow. Generally though, I would rather store books than get rid of them completely.


----------



## Imban

JoeGKushner said:


> Another important point is that all the reading in the world does not equal playing. Games Play != Reading.




This totally perplexes me. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I read something in a RPG, thought it was terrible, then ended up liking it... well, I'd still be penniless.

For me, play can bring out *problems* with a text that aren't visible on a casual read, and acts as a much quicker way to gather basic data about a system than theory, but in my experience "reads bad plays good" doesn't exist unless you're bad at reading. The canonical example (in fact, I believe the introduction of that term to the D&D canon) of Mystic Theurge and the common example of Warlock fully bear this out. It's just that saying Warlock "reads bad" doesn't involve accepting blame, while blaming yourself for reading it and crying "*14400 USES PER DAY!!!*" does.

"Reads good plays bad" sure exists, though, and is the main thing I'd be looking for in playtesting.

EDIT: Whoops. It occurred to me after I posted that "reads bad plays good" certainly exists, when the way something is presented is crappy such that it obfuscates the good design underneath. That's not 4e, though, that's mostly old and crappily-written books.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

Remathilis said:


> Wizards needed something of a nerf, they got the whole enchilada. Most of their spells do far too little damage; and the loss of spells in summoning, enchantment, and necromancy makes them feel very "blaster" and not much else. Where are the polymorph effects (not the broken spell polymorph, but the "level 1: turn into an orc" effects?) Where are the "summon skeletal warrior to fight for you for 5 min" effects? Where are the "dominate a foe to take your blows for you like a succubus does" effects? Where are the "make your foes flee from your fearful illusion" effects?



I have to take exception to this. If I drop a Scorching Burst with my 1st level wizard and catch two monsters in the radius, I'm doing potentially 2d6+8 damage, which compares very respectably with a dual bastard-sword ranger Twin Striking. Put three monsters inside the burst, and my damage potential with at-wills blows away any other class. Wizards do plenty of damage, they just don't do it all to one monster.

With regard to your other examples....

1) Want to appear to be an orc? Put on a hood, use Prestidigitation to make a few coloring changes, Ghost Sound to mimic an orc's voice, and then _roll Bluff_. Spells that serve as zero-effort problem solvers are no longer thick on the ground. Some people insist that prior editions provided the clever wizard player with endless opportunities for cunning usage of his spells to overcome challenges. This belief makes little room for the idiot wizard's player, who could also succeed just by using the spells exactly as they were written. Magic should not be the optimal solution to every problem, and 3.x was a particularly grievous offender in making this the case.

2) Want to summon a skeleton to fight for you for five minutes? All right- undead bones erupt from the earth beneath your foes to rend them to pieces, the spectral arms impervious to the flailing of their victims. Just use the power block for Cloud of Daggers and refluff. You don't even have to change the damage type if you apply a little creativity- maybe Scorching Burst is a brief gate to Hell through which you drag the burning spirits of the damned to claw at your enemies. Or you want your servant to move things and manipulate objects for you? Mage Hand is your at-will cantrip.

3) Dominate your foes? That's not what a wizard does. Check in when the psion turns up; I'm sure he'll have something along these lines. Magic goodness has been parceled out now, and just as the psion is not likely to have at-will mini-fireballs to throw around, neither does the wizard get fine-tuned mental control of other people. This is a drastic break from former editions. They gave the wizard "all magic" as his baliwick, and then produced subclasses that could be as good as the wizard in their specialty and inferior in just about every other way. Look at the poor 1e Illusionist- he doesn't even _get_ 8th or 9th level spells.

4) Make your foes flee from your fearful illusion? See above.

I liked wizards a lot in earlier editions, and I tended to play more of them than any other class. In part, this was because martial characters were so enormously tedious in combat. In another part, it was because magical characters were so good outside of combat. Despite this, I have to agree that wizards desperately needed the nerfbat, and I've got no regrets that WotC applied it in 4e. The wizard is, in general, more limited, weaker-powered, and less capable than in 3.x. And this is a Good  Thing to me.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

Imban said:


> For me, play can bring out *problems* with a text that aren't visible on a casual read, and acts as a much quicker way to gather basic data about a system than theory, but in my experience "reads bad plays good" doesn't exist unless you're bad at reading.



I think you are being far too charitable towards human nature in presuming that the default state for reading games is a coolly disinterested observation of the material with a full understanding of all the ramifications of what is said. You don't have to be "bad at reading" to not fully comprehend the consequences of a Push 1 power on grid-based combat with a presumed 5 hostile enemies per fight and 4 other players with their own sets of abilities. If a single person could do it, designers wouldn't need playtesting. They'd just need to not be "bad at reading" their own writing.


----------



## ExploderWizard

CardinalXimenes said:


> 3) Dominate your foes? That's not what a wizard does.




Oh really? Check out the 4E Confusion spell.

The only thing confusing about the spell is why its called confusion. Mental damage and a short duration mind control is what you get. The duration makes it impossible to use the controlled creature for anything useful except...............you guessed it, inflicting more damage.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

ExploderWizard said:


> Oh really? Check out the 4E Confusion spell.
> 
> The only thing confusing about the spell is why its called confusion. Mental damage and a short duration mind control is what you get. The duration makes it impossible to use the controlled creature for anything useful except...............you guessed it, inflicting more damage.



I'm using Dominate in the 3.x sense, and that's simply outside the wizard's baliwick. Confusion is just one of those little-taste-of-it spells that wizards get, just as I expect other wizard types will get splashes of elemental damage shtick.


----------



## DaveMage

Darrin Drader said:


> I unfortunately must confess to doing this when 2nd edition came out. I took my PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, and Fiend Folio to the local used book store and sold them all so I could afford the 2nd edition PHB.







This is the saddest thing you've ever posted!

Tragedy defined!!!!  Good god, man!!!!


----------



## Imban

CardinalXimenes said:


> If a single person could do it, designers wouldn't need playtesting. They'd just need to not be "bad at reading" their own writing.




Playtesting is designed to make sure that rules that read good aren't actually bad, which is very useful but also completely different.

I'd imagine that the Warlock read perfectly good to its designer, after all, and I'd prefer to say that the "14400 spells per day!" people were doing it wrong rather than cop out and say "Well, the Warlock reads bad, but you'll find in practice that it plays good".


----------



## Remathilis

CardinalXimenes said:


> I have to take exception to this. If I drop a Scorching Burst with my 1st level wizard and catch two monsters in the radius, I'm doing potentially 2d6+8 damage, which compares very respectably with a dual bastard-sword ranger Twin Striking. Put three monsters inside the burst, and my damage potential with at-wills blows away any other class. Wizards do plenty of damage, they just don't do it all to one monster.
> 
> With regard to your other examples....




Scorching Burst is a good example of the wizard's new gig; average damage over many foes. That's ok. However, some of their powers are weak compared to what other roles get; fireball, cloudkill, meteor swarm all pale compared to some warlock or cleric powers (in a completely different role, true, but there is no other controller to compare with)



CardinalXimenes said:


> 1) Want to appear to be an orc? Put on a hood, use Prestidigitation to make a few coloring changes, Ghost Sound to mimic an orc's voice, and then _roll Bluff_. Spells that serve as zero-effort problem solvers are no longer thick on the ground. Some people insist that prior editions provided the clever wizard player with endless opportunities for cunning usage of his spells to overcome challenges. This belief makes little room for the idiot wizard's player, who could also succeed just by using the spells exactly as they were written. Magic should not be the optimal solution to every problem, and 3.x was a particularly grievous offender in making this the case.




Orc was a bad example. How bout a troll. Or a gargoyle. Or a giant. Or a dragon. PHB2 delivered a method of creating such powers in 3.5 (one spell, one form, use generic statblock but your own hp) that would have worked just fine in 4e, except those powers aren't there. 



CardinalXimenes said:


> 2) Want to summon a skeleton to fight for you for five minutes? All right- undead bones erupt from the earth beneath your foes to rend them to pieces, the spectral arms impervious to the flailing of their victims. Just use the power block for Cloud of Daggers and refluff. You don't even have to change the damage type if you apply a little creativity- maybe Scorching Burst is a brief gate to Hell through which you drag the burning spirits of the damned to claw at your enemies. Or you want your servant to move things and manipulate objects for you? Mage Hand is your at-will cantrip.




All your doing in turning a "deal X damage and Y effect" power into "deal A damage and B effect". A skeletal warrior summoned might eat up your Economy of Actions, but he can attack, defend, pick up something, provoke OAs, open a door, block passage through a doorway, carry you on his shoulders through a field of burning rock. A re-fluffed cloud of daggers cannot do that. It can attack. That is all. 



CardinalXimenes said:


> 3) Dominate your foes? That's not what a wizard does. Check in when the psion turns up; I'm sure he'll have something along these lines. Magic goodness has been parceled out now, and just as the psion is not likely to have at-will mini-fireballs to throw around, neither does the wizard get fine-tuned mental control of other people. This is a drastic break from former editions. They gave the wizard "all magic" as his baliwick, and then produced subclasses that could be as good as the wizard in their specialty and inferior in just about every other way. Look at the poor 1e Illusionist- he doesn't even _get_ 8th or 9th level spells.




While I agree some of the better toys should be left for psions, beguilers, illusionists, or necromancer separate classes; the wizard's power to bluff or control his foes (for a limited time) is nearly iconic. I don't need loyal minion-making spells, I want "lets turn that guy against his foes for the combat" spells. 



CardinalXimenes said:


> 4) Make your foes flee from your fearful illusion? See above.




This is another "break the X damage + Y effect" system. We used to have spells that made foes flee. Or catch diseases. Or slip and slide of zero friction surfaces, etc. It seemed some spell effects could have been fixed so as not to be the deadly insta-kills they were and yet be viable (check out sleep) but many were just kicked down the road, or worse, removed all together. 



CardinalXimenes said:


> I liked wizards a lot in earlier editions, and I tended to play more of them than any other class. In part, this was because martial characters were so enormously tedious in combat. In another part, it was because magical characters were so good outside of combat. Despite this, I have to agree that wizards desperately needed the nerfbat, and I've got no regrets that WotC applied it in 4e. The wizard is, in general, more limited, weaker-powered, and less capable than in 3.x. And this is a Good  Thing to me.




I agree with you in theory; fighters and martial PCs needed something better than general feats to make them interesting. And wizards needed less "save-or-loose" style magic (be it against death, entrapment, or whatever) but I think they went a bit too far by turning everything into damage + effect and then making the effect a secondary consideration (mostly due to the save system making status ailments mostly inconviences). I wanted the wizard and cleric brought down a peg or two, but they appear to have gone a bit too far...


----------



## dm4hire

CardinalXimenes said:


> I'm using Dominate in the 3.x sense, and that's simply outside the wizard's baliwick. Confusion is just one of those little-taste-of-it spells that wizards get, just as I expect other wizard types will get splashes of elemental damage shtick.




Um, yeah, I remember reading several different stories in my life where the wizard used magic to control someone.  Not to mention a few movies here and there.  Mind control is very much an area of the wizard.

I've played over 20 sessions of 4e within the last two months and though I like it there is still a lot of things I hate about the game; most of which the OP addresses.  I believe WotC dropped the ball in a few areas and agree that they seem to be fixing the game as they go instead of presenting everything in one shot.  I don't remember having certain basic aspects of a character class not being present in a previous core book; I'm looking at fighter two weapon as an example.  WotC's response is that they wanted to give the ranger something to make the class stand out, but the first thing that comes along is...fighter two weapon fighting!!  So much for the ranger standing out.

I believe the skill list was cut to short.  I'd like to see just a few more skills added in to flush out to about 20-25 skills, leaving it at that.  Open up craft and perform then divide thievery into one skill focused on trap/lock aspects and another on sleight of hand.  I know I can do this on my own, but I wouldn't have to if WotC didn't over simplify so much.

I'm looking forward to Pathfinder, as well as Fantasycraft, Dragon Warriors, Warriors & Warlocks, and Anima.


----------



## Nikosandros

Darrin Drader said:


> Generally though, I would rather store books than get rid of them completely.



Storing the huge amount of books that I have is beginning to be problematic, but I have an almost pathological aversion to selling books...


----------



## ExploderWizard

CardinalXimenes said:


> I'm using Dominate in the 3.x sense, and that's simply outside the wizard's baliwick. Confusion is just one of those little-taste-of-it spells that wizards get, just as I expect other wizard types will get splashes of elemental damage shtick.




I think mind control is very much a wizard type thing. My problem with Confusion specifically is that the effects do not in any way produce confusion. The uncertainty of the exact effects over the course of the duration is what made the spell fun.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

dm4hire said:


> Um, yeah, I remember reading several different stories in my life where the wizard used magic to control someone.  Not to mention a few movies here and there.  Mind control is very much an area of the wizard.



What non-game-based fiction has a wizard who both controls people's minds and throws fireballs? I'd venture to say that the wizard who can do every sort of magic is an artifact of D&D and related gaming systems, and not anything that authors naturally gravitate towards writing. The reason for this is simple- if you've got a character who can do anything with magic, then why are they not doing everything with magic? Good authors are smart enough to avoid magical omnicompetence, which is something that not all editions of D&D have been equally adept at avoiding.


----------



## ExploderWizard

CardinalXimenes said:


> What non-game-based fiction has a wizard who both controls people's minds and throws fireballs? I'd venture to say that the wizard who can do every sort of magic is an artifact of D&D and related gaming systems, and not anything that authors naturally gravitate towards writing. The reason for this is simple- if you've got a character who can do anything with magic, then why are they not doing everything with magic? Good authors are smart enough to avoid magical omnicompetence, which is something that not all editions of D&D have been equally adept at avoiding.




I kind of agree on this point. Fighters cant take every feat or specialize in every weapon yet a wizard that can master every type of magic as a "general practioner" is ok. I think specialized wizards as a default is a good idea. It would also solve the "I can do everything " problem and make having multiple arcane casters in a party a much bigger benefit.


----------



## vagabundo

ExploderWizard said:


> I kind of agree on this point. Fighters cant take every feat or specialize in every weapon yet a wizard that can master every type of magic as a "general practioner" is ok. I think specialized wizards as a default is a good idea. It would also solve the "I can do everything " problem and make having multiple arcane casters in a party a much bigger benefit.




The 4e wizard is mostly an Evoker anyway, so it will be interesting to see what the Arcane power book has in the way of classes.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

Allister said:


> It wasn't JUST move and cast.
> 
> It was the fact that round by round initative heavily favoured melee.
> 
> It was the fact that spellcasters couldn't get around their spell slot limitation.
> 
> It was the fact that magic actually became easier to resist as you levelled.
> 
> It was the fact that a wizard didn't get his spell automatically.




You are right and wrong. Spells are not the issue. point 2 and 4 are not the real issues.

Point 1 and 3 well I agree with you there. I dont think caster need nerfed. I think the rules need fixed to allow melee folks movement and attack same round. And it should be a bit harder to overcome spell disruption for caster and a bit better on the saves for non casters.


----------



## Thasmodious

ExploderWizard said:


> I kind of agree on this point. Fighters cant take every feat or specialize in every weapon yet a wizard that can master every type of magic as a "general practioner" is ok. I think specialized wizards as a default is a good idea. It would also solve the "I can do everything " problem and make having multiple arcane casters in a party a much bigger benefit.




I, too, agree with said point.  In 3e, to answer the sorcerer problem, I did away with sorcerer (this was after Complete Arcane came out and gave me the idea) and specialization for wizards.  The Wizard class became always a general practitioner and I divided the sorcerer into specializations like the Warmage, creating houseruled enchanters, necromancers, conjurers, illusionists, etc., all built on the same spontaneous caster frame.  I added class abilities, like the warmage did, and some spell-likes that fit the suite and boosted their power a bit in relation to wizards.  

Then, of course, later supplements took the spontaneous caster in that direction anyway, with the beguiler and his ilk.  

This seems clearly to be the intent in 4e as well.  Wizard has a particular role, and other casters will be more specialized and often in different roles.  Enchanters would be controllers, surely.  Conjurers and necromancers could both be defenders, filling the role with summoned/raised creatures instead of their own bodies.  Abjurers/transmuters could be arcane leaders...  

I guess this direction will depend on what they do with the sorcerer, but I envision a much more elemental but similar evoker quality to the class, maybe with a different role.  If this doesn't get realized in the rules, it wouldn't be hard to create these specializations again for a new edition.  It won't require pouring through hundreds of spells to build lists, either.  Just designing a suite of powers, which wouldn't be too bad.  

Just rambling here, don't mind me.


----------



## Ahwe Yahzhe

*(sigh) Twin strike, hunter's quarry, lethal hunter... (yawn)*



Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, his complaint is that Core 4Ed truncates choice in comparison to Core 3Ed...which is something that definitely turns me off about that game.




I also think I get what the OP was trying to explain- that characters are pretty much written by the rulebooks once you've chosen your race, class and build.  Once you've done that, your powers, defenses, hit points, and skills are all pretty much pre-determined.   Very easy to churn out a character in 5 minutes, but no choice of options if you actually want to create a character "out of build."

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of powers is a great balancing mechanism and all that, it's just that they get predictable very fast.  Before, it was just the fighter saying, "Full attack.  Again."

Now, ALL the players are doing that with characters, just using the terminology appropriate to their chosen class.  It became a running joke with our stabby-build ranger (as opposed to the shooty-build ranger.)  So much so that when another player filled in for him and ran the ranger that night, he quoted the original player verbatim: 
"(Sigh) Twin strike, hunter's quarry, lethal hunter... (yawn.)"

A little bit of custoimzation or choice in character creation beyond race, class, and one of two builds selected would be nice.  Something that probably could have filled all that white space in the PHB.

My solution so far has been trying to get all flavory and sh*t when describing the same attack for the fiftieth time, and a few selective house rules to deal with regenerative healing gone haywire.  Battles run 5-8 rounds at my table, but usually by the end of round 3 the players have figured out that victory is inevitable and just a matter of attrition.  I keep combat encounters under a hour (except really big ones) by using magnetic markers and an initiative Combat Pad and abusing players who haven't written down complete attack and damage bonuses for their powers on their character sheets.  (Badly-designed character sheets are no excuse.)  After a couple of hundred hours DMing 4e, and about half that playing 4e, I'm coming to the conclusion that the OP and the "half-dozen" before him have:  the game has sacrificed flexibility in character creation for the balanced mechanics.

-AY


----------



## billd91

Allister said:


> It wasn't JUST move and cast.
> 
> It was the fact that round by round initative heavily favoured melee.
> 
> It was the fact that spellcasters couldn't get around their spell slot limitation.
> 
> It was the fact that magic actually became easier to resist as you levelled.
> 
> It was the fact that a wizard didn't get his spell automatically.




I think the only factor here of any significance is the second one - getting around slot limitations with easy-to-choose magic items.
Round by round initiative doesn't really favor melee since most spells weren't that hard to get off, particularly the lower level ones with 1-3 segment casting times.
And magic got easier to resist in ALL editions prior to 4e as a character leveled.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Mercule said:


> 2) Separation of rituals and "quick" spells.  I always hated having to trade off combat time for general utility.  Plus, it never made sense to me that you couldn't just take all the set-up time you needed for some things like _knock_ to cast it un-hung.  Plus, I see rituals as being the more likely way non-wizards would dip into the arcane arts, anyway.  About the only thing that I'd add would be the option to hang a ritual or two if you thought you'd be needing it quickly.



That sounds like a really good idea. I like the notion of swapping out a daily for a spell completion of a ritual. It would really work with teleports. You could have an escape teleport available for that quich get away when it all goes wrong. 
I reckon as a DM I would allow that one as is but only the teleports to a predefined location.


----------



## billd91

Ourph said:


> And what really confuses me is that the same people who complain that 4e is just a money-churn where WotC is employing shady marketing to get people to buy an endless stream of books for the current edition... also complain that 3e is now unsupported and they no longer have the option of buying... an endless stream of books for their favorite edition.
> 
> If having the option of buying new books for the RPG you play is such an evil scheme, everyone who's sticking with 3e or an earlier edition should be rejoicing.  They're now immune to the evil, corporate machinations of WotC.




There are two fundamentally different things going on. 
In one case, people are criticizing a business model that relies on intentionally producing an incomplete product, one that will leave consumers feeling they need more to function with it.

In the second case, there's the recognition that lack of ongoing support means the decline of the game. I know people are still playing older editions, but go ahead and try to find players for those on a routine basis if your current gaming group breaks up or you move to a new town. That's not so easy. Depending on where you live, finding people for the _current_ edition may not be that easy either. Whichever version of the game that is current is the one that gets the advertising, the shelf-space, the newly printed (or at least distributed) copies of the rulebooks. The older version is the one that sees copies destroyed via any number of mishaps without the means to replace them.


----------



## Allister

billd91 said:


> I think the only factor here of any significance is the second one - getting around slot limitations with easy-to-choose magic items.
> Round by round initiative doesn't really favor melee since most spells weren't that hard to get off, particularly the lower level ones with 1-3 segment casting times.
> And magic got easier to resist in ALL editions prior to 4e as a character leveled.




Looks at his 3E fighter and his will save and contrasts it with earlier editions?

*Watcha you talking about willis?*

And yes, round by round initiative heavily favours melee especially in 2e.

In 2e for example, a cleric's spell had a CT of 3+spell level and the fact that a spellcaster was encouraged to use the lower level slots and NOT the higher spells AND the fact that you couldn't really count on your place in the initiative order played havoc with spellcasters.

Again, simply saying that it was "ok for the generalist to have access to all spells" _IS_ what caused the problem in the 1st place.

Look at the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler and Warmage. WTC themselves realized that true power is not spontaneous spellcasting but having wide access to all spells.


----------



## dm4hire

CardinalXimenes said:


> What non-game-based fiction has a wizard who both controls people's minds and throws fireballs? I'd venture to say that the wizard who can do every sort of magic is an artifact of D&D and related gaming systems, and not anything that authors naturally gravitate towards writing. The reason for this is simple- if you've got a character who can do anything with magic, then why are they not doing everything with magic? Good authors are smart enough to avoid magical omnicompetence, which is something that not all editions of D&D have been equally adept at avoiding.




Where in my statement do I imply that a wizard does both?  I simply state that I have read books and seen movies where wizards/magic users use mind magic in addition to casting other magic.  Fireball has been one of the rarest spells I have ever came across in other fantasy books and even though Gandalf casts one in the books it was left out of the Lord of the Rings movies.

As for why you never see them combined in literary works I'd say it has more to do with the nature of the magic compared to personality than the lack of ability to do both or avoiding "magical omnicompetence" as you put it.  Someone who casts fireball tends to be a little more destructive in nature and to the point, preferring quick action despite any reservations, than someone who would use magic to enslave a mind; the latter requiring someone willing to let things take their course and be manipulative behind the scenes once they have the control.  Then again some wizards might consider mind control an obscenity because of where they lived or how they were taught.  And lastly there may have never been a presentation within the story to call for mind control powers or fireball to come into play for the wizard.

Which this debate points out the lack of choice within the 4e material or it wouldn't be brought up.


----------



## billd91

Allister said:


> Looks at his 3E fighter and his will save and contrasts it with earlier editions?
> 
> *Watcha you talking about willis?*
> 
> And yes, round by round initiative heavily favours melee especially in 2e.
> 
> In 2e for example, a cleric's spell had a CT of 3+spell level and the fact that a spellcaster was encouraged to use the lower level slots and NOT the higher spells AND the fact that you couldn't really count on your place in the initiative order played havoc with spellcasters.
> 
> Again, simply saying that it was "ok for the generalist to have access to all spells" _IS_ what caused the problem in the 1st place.
> 
> Look at the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler and Warmage. WTC themselves realized that true power is not spontaneous spellcasting but having wide access to all spells.




I think you might be misreading the lesson of the dread necromancer, beguiler, and warmage. I don't assume that WotC felt that access to too many spells was too powerful. Rather, my assumption is that they found that players liked having spontaneous casters. They are quite a bit easier to run.

As far as the saving throws, the big advancement of 3e (yes, I consider it an advancement) is that you no longer end up with a class that dominates the others with respect to saves without really paying for it. Fighter saves in 1e/2e got ridiculously good, no sign of a weakness. Everyone has at least one strong save, and nearly all character classes have at least one weak one.


----------



## LostSoul

mmadsen said:


> I'd like to emphasize that the problem is not that the game is too _abstract_; it's that the game is is _concretely_ "wrong" in so many ways.  The various board-game abilities don't make sense outside of a board game.




Care to support that assertion?


----------



## Rel

Imban said:


> This totally perplexes me. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I read something in a RPG, thought it was terrible, then ended up liking it... well, I'd still be penniless.
> 
> For me, play can bring out *problems* with a text that aren't visible on a casual read, and acts as a much quicker way to gather basic data about a system than theory, but in my experience "reads bad plays good" doesn't exist unless you're bad at reading. The canonical example (in fact, I believe the introduction of that term to the D&D canon) of Mystic Theurge and the common example of Warlock fully bear this out. It's just that saying Warlock "reads bad" doesn't involve accepting blame, while blaming yourself for reading it and crying "*14400 USES PER DAY!!!*" does.
> 
> "Reads good plays bad" sure exists, though, and is the main thing I'd be looking for in playtesting.
> 
> EDIT: Whoops. It occurred to me after I posted that "reads bad plays good" certainly exists, when the way something is presented is crappy such that it obfuscates the good design underneath. That's not 4e, though, that's mostly old and crappily-written books.




I'll have to disagree with you here.  When I first got my 4e PHB I was utterly uninspired.  I'd been, to that point, up and down about the idea of 4e but was trending toward "nah".  My first read through (browse through really - that book simply doesn't lend itself to a "read") and I was about ready to put it on the shelf and not bother with it again.

However, I have a wide streak of efficiency running through me.  I couldn't stand the idea of giving up on a game I hadn't actually played.  My wife and daughter made characters and I ran them through a couple short adventures.  To my surprise I found that the game seemed very similar to 3.x in a large number of ways.  And the ways it didn't felt mostly like improvements.

I'll admit that there are some parts of the game that I'm still not fond of and I'm devising patches for them.  But my opinion of 4e has become much better from playing it than from reading it.


----------



## Allister

billd91 said:


> I think you might be misreading the lesson of the dread necromancer, beguiler, and warmage. I don't assume that WotC felt that access to too many spells was too powerful. Rather, my assumption is that they found that players liked having spontaneous casters. They are quite a bit easier to run.
> 
> As far as the saving throws, the big advancement of 3e (yes, I consider it an advancement) is that you no longer end up with a class that dominates the others with respect to saves without really paying for it. Fighter saves in 1e/2e got ridiculously good, no sign of a weakness. Everyone has at least one strong save, and nearly all character classes have at least one weak one.




I believe you are partly wrong on the 1st point.

The lesson from the spontaneous caster wasn't JUST that spontaneous casters are popular (the sorceror could already mimic the spells of the those classes) but the fact that you can better balance a class by limiting its options.

I consider the spontaneous casters as what the 3E casters should've been to begin with. The game really works better if you get rid of the generalist mage and replace with one of the spontaneous casters.

re: Saves
All classes got better saves in 1e/2e. Nobody had such a weak and obvious gap between their good and bad saves that you could target IMO.


----------



## billd91

Allister said:


> re: Saves
> All classes got better saves in 1e/2e. Nobody had such a weak and obvious gap between their good and bad saves that you could target IMO.




Which meant that strategy was something of a crap shoot. Me - I prefer some elements of strategy. You think he's X or Y? Try to target his weaker saves.


----------



## Vague Jayhawk

I feel the same as the OP on all of his points.  He just articulated our position better than I could.  

Good things came out of my disappointment.  I diversified my gaming palate.  Savage Worlds, Mongoose Traveler and GURPS are getting all of my gaming dollars now.


----------



## Psion

Grimstaff said:


> Btw, posting stuff like "we were told outright that several classic monsters wouldn't be in the MM simply so that they could be included in the MM2 to drive up sales" is a good way to invalidate your entire post as some sort of vengeful rant, try sticking to the facts, please!




Ironic.

They said it in a podcast. Check YOUR facts.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

dm4hire said:


> Where in my statement do I imply that a wizard does both?  I simply state that I have read books and seen movies where wizards/magic users use mind magic in addition to casting other magic.  Fireball has been one of the rarest spells I have ever came across in other fantasy books and even though Gandalf casts one in the books it was left out of the Lord of the Rings movies.



The reason you see things like this is because a character that inevitably wins simply because the author says he can is incredibly dull. Magic is untethered from any non-arbitrary causality, and arbitrary causality can take tension only so far.



> As for why you never see them combined in literary works I'd say it has more to do with the nature of the magic compared to personality than the lack of ability to do both or avoiding "magical omnicompetence" as you put it.



So a literary wizard who fails to demonstrate competence with Magic Type X is actually capable of Type X, he just doesn't feel like using it. Or alternately, he's capable of Type X, but he's never in a situation where Type X would be more useful than what he can already do. I really can't buy this analysis. It requires either a wizard so pigheaded that he'll use a hammer to turn a screw rather than reach for a screwdriver, or else one who miraculously never faces conflict for which his established shtick is not perfectly suited.

4e doesn't let the wizard do a lot of things he used to be able to do. Even with refluffing, some abilities that were bread-and-butter in earlier editions are simply gone- mind control, instant long-range teleportation, cheap scrying, instakill spells, polymorphs, and long-duration buffs, for a few. Some of these may reappear with specialist classes, and some may be gone forever. If none of them come back, I really won't shed any tears. If I want to play a god among men with unstoppable sorcerous powers, I'll reach for Ars Magica, which does a vastly better job of handling a game where Wizards Are Better. The fact that these powers are gone from my D&D is not a bug to me, it's a feature.

I'm sure some people will earnestly insist that they could have been kept if only WotC had been smarter about implementing them. That's nice, but it's possible to insist that a circle could have four sides if only you're smart enough about squaring it. It's the sort of thing that I'll believe when I see it.


----------



## Fifth Element

Psion said:


> Ironic.
> 
> They said it in a podcast. Check YOUR facts.



A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".

"We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.


----------



## Zustiur

WarlockLord said:


> "That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."



QFT
I don't think I'll ever reconcile that problem. You don't know if you've been hit until you determine which type of healing you receive. I don't find that cinematic at all.


----------



## Fifth Element

WarlockLord said:


> "That wizard just shot a fireball at us! Despite the fact that we're in the center of the 10 foot radius - I mean, 2 square cube (because physics apparently dictates that everything manifests as cubes) he somehow completely missed us, leaving us alive! But...Bob, I feel really bad about myself."



Paint anything in the worst possible light and it does appear bad.

Just remember that hit points have represented more than physical wounds since the dawn on D&D. Mr. Gygax himself explained it several times. Although he then went and designed mechanics that didn't reflect it.

To my mind, 4E is the first edition to make the mechanics match the idea, at least to a degree.


----------



## Psion

Fifth Element said:


> A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".
> 
> "We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.




Extremely charitable. Had he merely said that, it would be one thing. To say he's "wrong and should check his facts" leaves little room for less cocksure interpretations.

As for a link... it was a news item and discussion in the 4e forums. I don't have it myself, but I had presumed this podcast, and the general "parse out the core" sales philosophy is espoused, were well known.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT:
This is the podcast in question:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20071005e16

Here are two threads discussing it:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/208878-core-business-models.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/208918-monsters-monsters-monsters-podcast.html

The search engine doesn't seem to turn up the ENWorld news items. 

EDIT 2:

Let me add these terms so next time this question comes up, a search will let me find it:
frost giant frost giants druid parse core marketing evil marketers.
There.


----------



## pawsplay

delericho said:


> TAfter eight years, didn't you find core-rules-only Fighters and Clerics and Wizards had become rather repetitive and dull?




I never have. As a GM, I usually use monsters and NPCs right out of the core books, too, with some cherry picking here and there. As a player, I remain a fan of core bard or fighter/wizard.


----------



## Turjan

Psion said:


> Extremely charitable. Had he merely said that, it would be one thing. To say he's wrong and should check his facts is another.
> 
> As for a link... it was a news item and discussion in the 4e forums. I don't have it myself, but I had presumed this podcast, and the general "parse out the core" sales philosophy is espoused, were well known.



Indeed, they are. I remember them, too.


----------



## pawsplay

A non-D&D spellcaster who is a "general practitioner": the queen in Sleeping Beauty. She curses someone, controls minds, grows and animates thorns, throws fireballs, and turns herself into a dragon (it never helps).


----------



## Allister

pawsplay said:


> A non-D&D spellcaster who is a "general practitioner": the queen in Sleeping Beauty. She curses someone, controls minds, grows and animates thorns, throws fireballs, and turns herself into a dragon (it never helps).




BADGUY

Personally, I'm not adverse to the uber-wizard but I simply prefer if the game tells me upfront, "wizards are uber"


----------



## Fifth Element

Psion said:


> Extremely charitable.



Nothing wrong with that. Many threads would be greatly improved if we just applied a little charity in our interpretations.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## Fifth Element

Allister said:


> Personally, I'm not adverse to the uber-wizard but I simply prefer if the game tells me upfront, "wizards are uber"



Indeed. Ars Magica, for example, makes no pretense about it.

In D&D, you have always been led to believe that one class is as good as any other.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Fifth Element said:


> In D&D, you have always been led to believe that one class is as good as any other.




Well, perhaps this is a minor point, but not _always._ In the 1e PHB, Gygax stated that magic-users might be weak at lower levels, but they were more powerful than any other class at higher levels. He said something similar about monks as far as combat goes. I don't have a 1e PHB handy, so I can't give you page numbers, but it's in there. Balance was a different kettle of fish back then. In some sense (not all senses), it wasn't a big concern, not like it is today.


----------



## Fifth Element

Ycore Rixle said:


> Well, perhaps this is a minor point, but not _always._ In the 1e PHB, Gygax stated that magic-users might be weak at lower levels, but they were more powerful than any other class at higher levels.



Yes, that's true. "Always" was a poor choice of words on my part.

Page 25 of the 1E PHB: "Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak."


----------



## Betote

CardinalXimenes said:


> What non-game-based fiction has a wizard who both controls people's minds and throws fireballs?




Mmmm... Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Song of Fire and Ice, Harry Potter... to name a few


----------



## Irda Ranger

Stalker0 said:


> I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.



Ignore the fluff. Just play the Combat Style for what it is (Archer). Pick different Skills to make your guy the kind of Archer you want him to be. There is nothing else that ties you to being Nature's Champion.




Stalker0 said:


> The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.
> 
> There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.



I know, but the choices are still there - they're just not at the Class stage. You can still choose to be an Archer, but you choose that by playing a Ranger. There really isn't any "Nature baggage" with that choice with appropriate Skill and Feat selection.


----------



## dm4hire

CardinalXimenes said:


> The reason you see things like this is because a character that inevitably wins simply because the author says he can is incredibly dull. Magic is untethered from any non-arbitrary causality, and arbitrary causality can take tension only so far.
> 
> So a literary wizard who fails to demonstrate competence with Magic Type X is actually capable of Type X, he just doesn't feel like using it. Or alternately, he's capable of Type X, but he's never in a situation where Type X would be more useful than what he can already do. I really can't buy this analysis. It requires either a wizard so pigheaded that he'll use a hammer to turn a screw rather than reach for a screwdriver, or else one who miraculously never faces conflict for which his established shtick is not perfectly suited.
> 
> 4e doesn't let the wizard do a lot of things he used to be able to do. Even with refluffing, some abilities that were bread-and-butter in earlier editions are simply gone- mind control, instant long-range teleportation, cheap scrying, instakill spells, polymorphs, and long-duration buffs, for a few. Some of these may reappear with specialist classes, and some may be gone forever. If none of them come back, I really won't shed any tears. If I want to play a god among men with unstoppable sorcerous powers, I'll reach for Ars Magica, which does a vastly better job of handling a game where Wizards Are Better. The fact that these powers are gone from my D&D is not a bug to me, it's a feature.
> 
> I'm sure some people will earnestly insist that they could have been kept if only WotC had been smarter about implementing them. That's nice, but it's possible to insist that a circle could have four sides if only you're smart enough about squaring it. It's the sort of thing that I'll believe when I see it.




He either doesn't feel like it or though capable, didn't learn it for one reason or another maybe even choosing not too.  Anyone is capable of anything, it comes down to personal drive and outside effects within our lives.  Anyone can run for president if they have the desire and motivation and the outside effects of being born in the U.S.A., meet the age requirement, and find supporters to help fund and run their campaign.

My aspect of this debate points out that the potential is still there whether revealed or not.  That potential doesn't exist in 4e, but possibly after the Arcane book.  There was more customization in previous editions for mages or any other class with the limitations being set by the DM and the player the way it should be done, not by the rules themselves.  The exception to the rule were the martial based classes who now get some of that aspect, but the problem as stated is that customization feels like you're using a cookie cutter.  Fighter x is different than y only in how he fights and by the weapon he chooses.  The same can be said for wizards in that damage is still pretty much the same between all forms.  The only real difference as pointed out is fluff or how you describe your character's actions.

As for believability...using powers for several levels and suddenly your character completely forgets them...that's believable???  "You know I swore I had fireball in this spellbook, oh well, guess I'll cast something else.  Let's see..."  I remember a few games hearing a player suddenly say, "I never thought I'd have a reason to use this spell but now I can't wait to try this out."


Betote:  Thanks for your list.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

Betote said:


> Mmmm... Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Song of Fire and Ice, Harry Potter... to name a few



Lord of the Rings? I don't remember Gandalf doing much more than throwing lighted pinecones at goblins and self-rezzing. Grima Wormtongue is clearly bewitching Theoden's head, but neither he nor his boss threw any overt magic around. LotR is notorious for how _little_ D&D style magic ever happens.

Song of Ice and Fire, I'll have to plead ignorance on that one. I can't say I've ever been enticed to read it.

The Elric series... I can't remember Elric throwing around any fireballs, either. He has his pacts with the elemental kings and the lords of chaos, but his magic involves summoning them, and then they do their own particular hoodoo. He has one flavor of magic, and that's about it.

And as for Harry Potter, that's an Ars Magica game crossed with Tom Brown's Schooldays. With almost every consequential character in the book a wizard, I've got no qualms about magic being the go-to solution for everything. If every D&D character were a wizard, I wouldn't mind them being able to do everything with magic, either.


----------



## Ourph

billd91 said:


> In the second case, there's the recognition that lack of ongoing support means the decline of the game. I know people are still playing older editions, but go ahead and try to find players for those on a routine basis if your current gaming group breaks up or you move to a new town. That's not so easy. Depending on where you live, finding people for the _current_ edition may not be that easy either. Whichever version of the game that is current is the one that gets the advertising, the shelf-space, the newly printed (or at least distributed) copies of the rulebooks. The older version is the one that sees copies destroyed via any number of mishaps without the means to replace them.



So what you're saying is that having books on the shelves that people want to buy is good for the players and good for the hobby?

Sounds like spreading the material that people want to buy out among several books is a really good idea that people should be suppporting then.


----------



## Korgoth

Fifth Element said:


> A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".
> 
> "We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.




I must be on more Ignore Lists than I thought.

D&D Podcast #16; question asked at 1 minute 52 seconds, like I said back on page 3.


----------



## Grimstaff

Fifth Element said:


> A charitable way to read Grimstaff's comment is "I don't recall that, please provide a link".
> 
> "We were told in a podcast" is the same as "we were told". You still haven't provided support for the claim. I don't recall it either.




They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy. 

Its hard to be "charitable" when the folks are levellling the same tired, inaccurate dispersions over and over again, but I'll try.


----------



## JeffB

They actually said that they are (were) withholding some of the "classic" critters for future MM's so that we would see future MM's as "core" products..same for PHBs.

Thats pretty much a money grub in my book- i.e. they want us to not look at them as optionals, they will be considered to be necc.


----------



## DaveMage

JeffB said:


> They actually said that they are (were) withholding some of the "classic" critters for future MM's so that we would see future MM's as "core" products..same for PHBs.
> 
> Thats pretty much a money grub in my book- i.e. they want us to not look at them as optionals, they will be considered to be necc.




And that's the issue I have.  (Well, one of them.)

In my opinion, the game went from:

1. Make a good game
2. Maximize profit 

to:

1. Maximize profit
2. Make a good game

Granted, this is an over-simplification, but it's my perception.


----------



## billd91

Ourph said:


> So what you're saying is that having books on the shelves that people want to buy is good for the players and good for the hobby?
> 
> Sounds like spreading the material that people want to buy out among several books is a really good idea that people should be suppporting then.




How about having the core books available sale? Why would you assume it had to be important information spread about several books like with WotC's 4e subscription model?


----------



## Psion

Grimstaff said:


> They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy.




There is nothing joking or flippant in the statement in the podcast.

For those who might not have clicked on the podcast, the statement being analyzed here is (or starts with) the second question. It's about two minutes in.

The question is what criteria were used to determine what monsters made the cut.

The answer given was that certain creatures were saved until later monster manuals so later monsters manuals could be considered "core". He also announced they planned the same thing with respect to player's handbook.

And if designer statements about what criteria they used for the design don't count for you, I don't know what does.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness

I do recall that podcast, at the time I still had an interest in 4e


----------



## Alzrius

Psion is correct.

At 1:52 in the podcast, Dave Noonan asks (this is paraphrased) "What was the criteria for which monsters made the cut into the _Manual_?" to James Wyatt  (head of the writing team for the MM) and Mike Mearls (lead developer for the MM). Below is James Wyatt's and Mike Mearls's response, transcribed by me:



			
				D&D Podcast #16 said:
			
		

> *James Wyatt:* "So, one of the things that I thought a lot about, uh, when I was first putting together the outline for this book, which has grown considerably since then, but, um, it's [a] ... r-really important mindset that I want to try to train people into right away, which is that this is not the Core Monster Manual."
> 
> *Mike Mearls:* "Mhm."
> 
> *James Wyatt:* "We're gonna do some number of Monster Manuals over the life of the edition, and those are the cool-, the Core monsters for the game, just like we're going to do some number of Player's Handbooks that are going to be the Core Player's Handbook rules for the game. So...there are some monsters that I very intentional-, intentionally left out of this book, so that when they appear in Monster Manual 2, that will help communicate 'hey look, this is a Core Monster Manual! You don't have frost giants if you don't have Monster Manual...N!'"




As you can see, this comment is neither flip, nor joking. It is a very serious statement regarding design policy for the Core Rulebooks, and indicates that things WotC knew were popular were being held back for later books intentionally.


----------



## ExploderWizard

I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.

Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.

For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10. 

I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a preview with a smattering of content for 30.

Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.


----------



## Jasperak

ExploderWizard said:


> I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.
> 
> Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.
> 
> For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10.
> 
> I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a prieview with a smattering of content for 30.
> 
> Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.




You know, just like the BXCMI that got me started in the game in the first place.


----------



## Imaro

Wow, the whole "holding things back" plan...IMO, just screams that the designers have no confidence in their ability to sell consumers on original material beyond the core.  I mean, I guess I can see strategically why a company might make that type of decision...Besides the obvious, it also feeds into the whole... "Once you buy 4 more sourcebooks, then you'll like the game" crowd that jumps up whenever someone talks about the game feeling incomplete or missing a class/race/etc. they want to play.

Now where this could backfire, is that people become uninspired and/or unimpressed with the corebooks and decide to cut their losses with a game that feels incomplete, sticking with 3.x or even moving on to systems that offer much more for a better price. 

 I'm leaning in that direction now, after buying the corebooks and playing the game because "You have to play it to really get a feel for it.".  I really am feeling that 4e was a waste, my players (who have played it) are totally cold on giving it another try...and the game doesn't inspire or wow me enough to really fight for it.  I did buy Adventurer's Vault ( IMO, those new weapons really could have been in the PHB)...but I'm thinking that's about it for me and the 4e supplements.  And all that quote does is make me more resolved not to support something I see as a shady decision on their part.

EDIT: I have thought about using the 4e rules for a boardgamish type game to run for my son and nephews, using the suggestion in the DMG for DM'less games...but even if I do eventually use it as such, I don't see myself buying anymore supplements for it in this capacity.


----------



## Cryptos

I'm sure several of these points have been brought up, but I just have to say:



WarlockLord said:


> 1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters.  Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds.  This leads to an extreme lack of flexibility.  Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? *Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery?*  Wanna play a character who can stand toe to toe with his enemies and fight with two weapons? Want to play a cleric whose deity doesn't shoot Holy Laserz of P3nage? Well, just wait for some more $30 books...




No, _our_ definition of "Ranger" _has_ implied nature-based... 4e's definition is actually looser, not more cookie-cutter.  From Ranger, I can make a military archer, a swashbuckler, a berserker, or even a rougish archer like the main character in the Thief series from the Ranger class, as well as the nature-based scout, among other things.  I'd say that until Martial Power comes out, the nature aspect is actually underplayed in 4e and the Ranger class actually implies a couple different styles of fighting for a wide variety of characters rather than implying nature.

It's not so much that the classes are cookie-cutter by design.  You're putting your own cookie-cutter to the dough they provide.  I regularly make 4e Ranger characters for which nature is either not an aspect of the character or it's an afterthought once all other skills I want are taken care of.  With just the core books, I could probably go off right now and make five different flavors of Ranger only half-trying.  With just the core books for 3rd, all of my Rangers would have an animal companion.  So which one is more cookie-cutter?  In 4e, the majority of my Rangers have been ones tied more to civilization, and it really isn't that hard to do.  It's almost the default assumption.  You don't even have to choose Nature as a skill.

And while I _did_ mention a splatbook above, it was in the context of how one could be more nature-oriented, which is the "cookie-cutter" version you state the Ranger has to be.  So, let me get this straight: you're complaining that you can't make an archery fighter in 4e because that would be a Ranger, but in your mind all rangers have to be inevitably nature-themed, and in order to do more you'll have to wait and buy some $30 splatbook, when in reality what we've seen previewed of the $30 splatbook so far are actually are options to _make _the Ranger nature-themed?  It sounds like you're creating your own limitations here.  

It's less that 4e is forcing all warriors to be melee sword-and-board characters and more that you're limiting yourself to one class to find the archetypal warrior.  In 4e, classes are not so much what you do as how you do it.  This does require a bit of a paradigm shift, but in my opinion no flexibility was lost on the part of the game.  The flexibility is lacking on the side of legacy D&D players from older editions. 

The classes aren't quite cookie-cutter, we've just been conditioned by older editions to expect certain things from a class, and apply the cookie cutter to their dough.


----------



## Korgoth

Grimstaff said:


> They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy.
> 
> Its hard to be "charitable" when the folks are levellling the same tired, inaccurate dispersions over and over again, but I'll try.




This is entirely incorrect. You need to listen to Podcast 16; it is quoted by Alzrius above. The relevant portion begins at 1:52.

You really should get your facts straight before hammering on people for being "inaccurate" and not checking their facts.


----------



## der_kluge

ExploderWizard said:


> I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.
> 
> Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.
> 
> For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10.
> 
> I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a prieview with a smattering of content for 30.
> 
> Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.




That would have been a wonderful move, unfortunately, I don't think the Epic level handbook sold very well for 3e, and I suspect they wanted to avoid a repeat of that.


----------



## Fifth Element

Grimstaff said:


> They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy.



No, I agree with Psion on this one. It was not a flippant, joking comment. It seemed quite serious and direct to me.



Grimstaff said:


> Its hard to be "charitable" when the folks are levellling the same tired, inaccurate dispersions over and over again, but I'll try.



In general I agree. But in this case you seem to be in the wrong.


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> Wow, the whole "holding things back" plan...IMO, just screams that the designers have no confidence in their ability to sell consumers on original material beyond the core.



I don't see that at all. The fact is that "core" *always* sells better than "extra", no matter how good that "extra" is. So of course they hope everyone sees the PHB2, MM2 etc. as "core", since they're probably more likely to buy it in that case.


----------



## Jasperak

der_kluge said:


> That would have been a wonderful move, unfortunately, I don't think the Epic level handbook sold very well for 3e, and I suspect they wanted to avoid a repeat of that.




That then begs the question, why saddle us with an incomplete game that extends to high levels when not as many people pay to play those levels? I would surmise that half the book will go unused because of groups not playing to those high levels.


----------



## Dragonblade

There are minor things that irk me with 4e. For example, I agree that the first Monster Manual should have included all the classic monsters and saved the new ones for future monster manuals.

But that said, I find the 4e play experience superior to 3e's play experience. D&D has never been more enjoyable for my group and its a DM's dream.


----------



## Treebore

JoeGKushner said:


> I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.
> 
> Love it.
> 
> Please Dragonwrite, do go on.





The thing is, you haven't really played the whole game unless you have gone to very high levels. So very few people have actually fully played any edition of D&D. 

Anyways, I played 4E for 9 3 hour+ sessions, and I agree with his assessment. 4E has failed to excite/hook me, so I'll never even fully play 4E.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Treebore said:


> The thing is, you haven't really played the whole game unless you have gone to very high levels. So very few people have actually fully played any edition of D&D.
> 
> Anyways, I played 4E for 9 3 hour+ sessions, and I agree with his assessment. 4E has failed to excite/hook me, so I'll never even fully play 4E.




I don't see this as a universal truth. Someone who played in dozens of AD&D campaigns over the course of many years hasn't fully played the game because the highest level attained was 11th or so?

An open ended fantasy game cannot be objectively "fully played" unless said game has a defined end. AD&D for example has no official level cap so it can never be "fully" played at all.


----------



## Oldtimer

Jasperak said:


> You know, just like the BXCMI that got me started in the game in the first place.



Unfortunately WotC are probably well aware that the sales of each of those sets dwindled by almost an order of magnitude for each step. Perfect for the customers, but bad for the producer. Though I wish they had done that, I can see why they're not.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see this as a universal truth. Someone who played in dozens of AD&D campaigns over the course of many years hasn't fully played the game because the highest level attained was 11th or so?
> 
> An open ended fantasy game cannot be objectively "fully played" unless said game has a defined end. AD&D for example has no official level cap so it can never be "fully" played at all.



Agreed. I never played 1E above 8th level or so, but I played 1E weekly for many years (I just had a deadly and stingy DM). I daresay I "played" 1E sufficiently to judge it.


----------



## Psion

Fifth Element said:


> I don't see that at all. The fact is that "core" *always* sells better than "extra", no matter how good that "extra" is. So of course they hope everyone sees the PHB2, MM2 etc. as "core", since they're probably more likely to buy it in that case.




Yep.

Although Alzrius is factually correct, I'm not necessarily towing a hard line here. I do understand why from a marketing standpoint why it's a good idea. But I'm not compelled to like it from a prospective buyers' standpoint, and resent selective/collectors packaging in other markets.

I do think it was a mistake to leave out Bards and Druids in PHBI, I'm told that some folks don't share my demographic exposure there.


----------



## Fifth Element

Psion said:


> I do understand why from a marketing standpoint why it's a good idea. But I'm not compelled to like it from a prospective buyers' standpoint, and resent selective/collectors packaging in other markets.



Indeed. I didn't suggest it was the best idea, or even a good idea. But their intent is pretty clear.


----------



## Treebore

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see this as a universal truth. Someone who played in dozens of AD&D campaigns over the course of many years hasn't fully played the game because the highest level attained was 11th or so?
> 
> An open ended fantasy game cannot be objectively "fully played" unless said game has a defined end. AD&D for example has no official level cap so it can never be "fully" played at all.





Yep. You don't understand a lot of the rules decisions until you see how they do, or do not play well at the higher levels.

Like, one example that stands out in my minds, is everyone talks about how god like mages are at higher levels. I found them to outshine fighters, etc... in games where the DM was afraid to give cool magic items to the other PC's. I found mages very easy to kill at higher levels, especially if a fighter had an item giving them an Anti MAgic Shell. Hitting mages with magical arrows, multiple times, from multiple fighter types, kills them pretty fast too.

So, as I see it, people claim the mage is an all powerful god because his spell list makes him look like one. However, when you actually play the game to those higher levels you figure out strategies that keep the mage pretty easy to kill. Plus, as the Game Master, you see the reason for allowing such things is to keep the mage in balance.

Heck, in 3E, the SR's, resistances, and immunities effectively turn Epic Level mages into buffing machines, because the opponents were immune to fire, acid, sonic, hold, charm, etc...

Which shows how 3E actually needs to tone down on such things at lower levels to make higher level play actually more viable. Which you will never see unless you play into those levels. My two experiences were to the 68th and the 48th levels, and in both games the Wizard class sucked at above 25th level.

So yes, I think it is important to play the game to its highest levels to really get a grasp on how its rules work and hold up across the levels, or don't.


----------



## Treebore

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. I never played 1E above 8th level or so, but I played 1E weekly for many years (I just had a deadly and stingy DM). I daresay I "played" 1E sufficiently to judge it.




I agree you can judge it at the 8th level of play or so. However you cannot accurately judge it from the 18th level perspective. The game is too complex to judge how all of those variables work together without actually playing it with the rules.

So with 4E all I can say is it failed to excite me in the first 3 levels of play. I have no idea how it plays at higher levels, and I may even actually like how it plays at those levels. I just won't find out, because every other edition of D&D, including 3E, got me excited in the first three levels. I don't play RPG's that don't excite me at the beginning. So 4E is out for me.

I will be keeping an eye on it though. They will be expanding the core rules annually, so they may eventually add something that makes it exciting for me.


----------



## Mercule

Mister Doug said:


> 1) Economy of actions is an attempt to fix the huge number of complex actions that became possible in 3e by the interaction of iterative actions, pets, summon spells, followers gained thorugh the leadership feat, etc.



I understand the issue it's trying to fix, but I think 4e went way too far.  It's like trying to fix your pants falling down using a nail gun.  I'd have preferred 4e to just come with a belt.



> 2) Your concern is understandable, but back in OD&D or Holmes, the big differences between low-level charactes were hit points, the armor and magic items the characters could use, and the fact that spellcasters had some access to a few spells, and we could tell them apart. I think there is a reson to believe the philosophy of differentiation by powers is reasonable, though I think the debate over whether it has been successful is also reasonable.



Actually, each class had something of their own subsystem.  Casters had spells, thieves had skills, and fighters were the baseline.  Each type of class had its own way of playing that made it something of a different game for each.  4e is the same game, regardless of which class you're playing.  In some ways, that's really great -- I'm not a fan of system mastery.  In others, it's not so great because it may actually not appeal to as broad of an audience.

It's something I want to see in play.  From the single session of KotS I ran, it still looked like D&D to me, but at least one player (the wizard) disagreed.  Everyone is up for another shot when the 3.5 campaign wraps, so we'll see.  Still, it qualifies as a concern for me.


----------



## Thasmodious

Personally, I find the decision to spread certain "core" things around a series of core books to be pretty sound business strategy and not some evil, soul deadening move of unadulterated greed.  I'd rather spend my $30 on a MM4 that has monsters I've actually heard of and would like to use rather than the disasters IV and V were in 3.5e.  "You mean all I get is obscure, silly monsters and some of the same old monsters but with class levels or templates already applied?  Drow ninjas and Githyanki Blackguards?  That's what you got?"

MM 4 and 5 might go the same way in 4th, but the model is sounder, both from a business standpoint and from a usefulness standpoint.  

I guess its the nature of the online gaming community that so many look at a company that seeks to make money on gaming as some kind of evil act.  It makes some sense, I guess, with how much free stuff floats around the gaming community, and how much gamers like to create resources and share them among other gamers.  But it's still a bit odd to attack a business for being a business.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Thasmodious said:


> Personally, I find the decision to spread certain "core" things around a series of core books to be pretty sound business strategy and not some evil, soul deadening move of unadulterated greed. I'd rather spend my $30 on a MM4 that has monsters I've actually heard of and would like to use rather than the disasters IV and V were in 3.5e. "You mean all I get is obscure, silly monsters and some of the same old monsters but with class levels or templates already applied? Drow ninjas and Githyanki Blackguards? That's what you got?"
> 
> MM 4 and 5 might go the same way in 4th, but the model is sounder, both from a business standpoint and from a usefulness standpoint.
> 
> I guess its the nature of the online gaming community that so many look at a company that seeks to make money on gaming as some kind of evil act. It makes some sense, I guess, with how much free stuff floats around the gaming community, and how much gamers like to create resources and share them among other gamers. But it's still a bit odd to attack a business for being a business.




I see it that way too. Revenue is not an evil word. The problem with the whole deal is that roleplaying games, by thier very nature are not huge profit machines unless the games are changed significantly to enable this. 
The traditional RPG is played by a GM and one or more players. This is not a high profit marketing model. Yes a company can do an ok business with a good product but nothing like the kind of revenue a collectible competitive game brings in. Larger companies are less inclined to waste resources on products with lower profit margins. 

We saw this happen with 3E. More codified rules and marketing to players rather than DM's. This was smart. Why market to one player instead of the majority of players? Of course since the DM gets to decide which products are allowed at the table, the appeal of all the splats are limited. 

4E is trying a different approach. More control was returned to the DM in this design and instead the core of the rules spread out across the life cycle of the game.


----------



## Imaro

Thasmodious said:


> Personally, I find the decision to spread certain "core" things around a series of core books to be pretty sound business strategy and not some evil, soul deadening move of unadulterated greed.  I'd rather spend my $30 on a MM4 that has monsters I've actually heard of and would like to use rather than the disasters IV and V were in 3.5e.  "You mean all I get is obscure, silly monsters and some of the same old monsters but with class levels or templates already applied?  Drow ninjas and Githyanki Blackguards?  That's what you got?"
> 
> MM 4 and 5 might go the same way in 4th, but the model is sounder, both from a business standpoint and from a usefulness standpoint.
> 
> I guess its the nature of the online gaming community that so many look at a company that seeks to make money on gaming as some kind of evil act.  It makes some sense, I guess, with how much free stuff floats around the gaming community, and how much gamers like to create resources and share them among other gamers.  But it's still a bit odd to attack a business for being a business.




Uhm first...it's not your $30 on a MM that has monsters you've actually heard of.  Since your talking about MM4 it's your 34.95*4 or about $140 for your monsters you've heard of...this also totally ignores the fact that you are still getting a bunch of monsters you've never heard of as filler in each book anyway...so how is this "better" for the consumer than getting the monsters he wants in one book and choosing to add the new ones in based on if they appeal to him or not?  Your usefulness argument (for the consumer) fails big time.

Second point is that...I don't think people view "a company that seeks to make money on gaming..." as inherently evil (but using hyperbole to stress your point is great on the internet.).  Instead, like consumers of any product they want the best deal, quality, and value for their money... this is just being smart.  The same way WotC chooses to do what they feel is intheir best interests.  I could see your argument having some validity if posters were claiming we should get the classic monsters for free...but that's not what's being said.  It's not about attacking a business for being a business... it's about voicing your opinions on how they choose to conduct business and the value they bring to you as a consumer.


----------



## RFisher

ExploderWizard said:


> I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.




Yeah. I think this would’ve been a much better idea.



Fifth Element said:


> I don't see that at all. The fact is that "core" *always* sells better than "extra", no matter how good that "extra" is. So of course they hope everyone sees the PHB2, MM2 etc. as "core", since they're probably more likely to buy it in that case.




It’ll be interesting to see.

Of course, it is only natural for the core to sell better. But it isn’t due to perception, it’s due to the fact that people are either going to buy core only or core + supplement. Very few are going to buy only supplement. And one item will always have better sales than two items.

If that makes any sense.

To put it in simplistic terms, I think a lot of us who tend to only buy the core books do so because we only want three books. So, I think this strategy isn’t likely to improve the sales of the additional core books significantly.

As I said, it’ll be interesting to see.



Oldtimer said:


> Unfortunately WotC are probably well aware that the sales of each of those sets dwindled by almost an order of magnitude for each step. Perfect for the customers, but bad for the producer. Though I wish they had done that, I can see why they're not.




Just because you don’t sell as many Companion sets as Basic sets does _not_ mean the Companion set was a failure. It brought them sales they wouldn’t have had if they didn’t produce a Companion set at all.

Would another model have improved overall sales? (A set for each class? (^_^)) Maybe. I suspect it wouldn’t have significantly.


----------



## dm4hire

I have to agree about core vs non-core.  In the past I bought everything, but as I matured and started becoming more discerned I started focusing on specifics till eventually I bought only core and maybe a little extra.  As it stands with 4e, as I said I like it, just have certain problems with it.  In that regard when it was announced I decided I was only going to buy the core books and call it quits there, ending my investment in D&D.  However I changed that decision before the release, having preordered everything through the end of the year, but now that I've played it am looking at going back to that original thought.  I've decided I'm going to finish the initial module run from 1st to 30 and will stop buying modules.  I'll buy Eberron stuff, cause I like the setting, as I did FR, but after that I probably won't buy any more campaign stuff unless they bring back a classic or really impress me with the next one.  This means I'm starting to widdle it down till all I might be buying after next year, depending on how the other non-core books goes, is nothing but the three core books each year (PHBx, DMGx, MMx).  Part of the reason I haven't subscribed to DDI is I see it as WotC trying to force a non-core item on everyone by making the errata and everything else only availabe through it.  It's not a necessity to the game and so I may or may not purchase it as is my right of choice; to each their own as the saying goes.

Part of this decision has been based on economy and the rest on just getting tired of buying books I only use part of the time if at all once they are read.  Which are factors I believe WotC should really take into consideration with the trend they are starting down.


----------



## billd91

RFisher said:


> Just because you don’t sell as many Companion sets as Basic sets does _not_ mean the Companion set was a failure. It brought them sales they wouldn’t have had if they didn’t produce a Companion set at all.




But that doesn't necessarily make it a success either. Did those sales, and the downstream effect of those sales  on the gaming community and long term sales of other product lines, make the investment in time and effort worthwhile?


----------



## Jasperak

This discussion reminds of why I hate my cable provider. I pay something like $55/month for basic digital cable, of which I watch about a dozen or so channels. I have to pay an additional $30/month for Digital Classic to get my Geek channels (SciFi, NatGeo, The Science Channel.) Included in that bundle are such gems as (We, SOAPNet, Sprout, Nicktoons, Toon Disney, 4 MTV channels, Gospel Music Channel, and Jewlery TV among many others.) I have to pay far more for lots of crap than if they just sold me what I want at an appropriate markup (maybe $10 for the Geek package.)

Now WOTC is selling me rules for all levels of play although I will never use half of them, namely levels 15-30, instead of giving more rules for the game I do play. Bundling in what I consider filler material and forcing me to buy more books to get the game I want reminds me of how my cable provider is sticking it to me. Now I understand that many like or expect to like the higher level play. My concern is their sales strategy to get me to buy more than I want to play.

I have absolutely no intention of paying $175 dollars for the three core books, PHB2, and MM2 so I can play a bard that fights against frost giants (granted those frost giants would likely appear in the 11-20 level range and MM2 anyway, I use them as an example of something that I am use to having that I wouldn't now. Since I do not have the MM I could not say how many iconics are not in there that I would expect. How many level 1-5 range monsters are there?) Will I really have to bring five books to the table to run a 3rd level adventure with bards and some other random 3rd-level monsters?

Using a business model that in some ways mimics my cable provider is a losing situation for them, because I can always find a game system that will give me what I want and not make me buy more than I need.


----------



## Thasmodious

Jasperak said:


> Now WOTC is selling me rules for all levels of play although I will never use half of them




By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s.  Those bastards!


----------



## ExploderWizard

Thasmodious said:


> By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s. Those bastards!




I guess the 80's passed you by. We could buy basic and expert sets, game from levels 1-14 and be perfectly content with two slender 64 page rulebooks.


----------



## mmadsen

Jasperak said:


> This discussion reminds of why I hate my cable provider. I pay something like $55/month for basic digital cable, of which I watch about a dozen or so channels. I have to pay an additional $30/month for Digital Classic to get my Geek channels (SciFi, NatGeo, The Science Channel.) Included in that bundle are such gems as (We, SOAPNet, Sprout, Nicktoons, Toon Disney, 4 MTV channels, Gospel Music Channel, and Jewlery TV among many others.) I have to pay far more for lots of crap than if they just sold me what I want at an appropriate markup (maybe $10 for the Geek package.)



That's not true at all, actually.  Television programming has tremendous fixed costs, which they must recoup, but tiny variable costs.  That is, it costs a lot to make shows, but it doesn't cost much to let one more person watch a show.

If they only charged you for your favorite channel, they'd have to charge you much, much more for it.  It's not like its costs a lot less money to only provide you one channel to your taste.


----------



## Jasperak

Thasmodious said:


> By 'now', I assume you mean, since the 70s.  Those bastards!




Nice snark.

Maybe I should have quoted my earlier post where I explained why I like BECMI, of which this and my previous post expounds upon.

As for all those levels that you quoted, most of my games have gone to between 12-15 levels. Therefore I never bought BD&D's Immortals Set, 2e's High-level Campaign Options, nor 3e's Epic-level handbook. I did buy BD&D's Master set but never used them in play.

I don't feel like I missed out on any character options because of not buying those books. With 4e's design I will have fully 1/3 of the class material (levels 21-30) that I have never played with, nor based on past experience will never play with.

With 1e and 2e I could safely say that I have used that vast majority of options within the core rules. With 1e you had to buy Unearthed Arcana to be able to use Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Thief/Acrobats, but I don't think those classes were left out of the PH to make room for more spells, nor force me to buy UA because it was "core" rules.

My problem with WOTC's sales strategy is they want me to buy 5 books to cover the same level of play as 3 books or sets in any other edition did, and give me the same amount of options.


----------



## RefinedBean

[snark]  I, too, am disappointed in 4E.  My dream of playing a Unicorn Bard through the heroic tier (and NO OTHER TIER, by god) are dashed.  Ruined.[/end snark]

Anyway, if a company I enjoy and support (WotC, but it could be anyone else) feels it's the best business sense to stretch things out a bit, I'm fine with that.  So far, the supplements have been equal in quality (in my opinion) to the core three, and that's all I can really ask for.

The only disappointments I've had in 4E so far is the muddled Skill Challenge and Stealth madness goin' on.  Oh, and that one can't let out a bloodcurling roar after killing an enemy with a charge, since they can't take any more actions (not even free ones).


----------



## Jasperak

mmadsen said:


> That's not true at all, actually.  Television programming has tremendous fixed costs, which they must recoup, but tiny variable costs.  That is, it costs a lot to make shows, but it doesn't cost much to let one more person watch a show.
> 
> If they only charged you for your favorite channel, they'd have to charge you much, much more for it.  It's not like its costs a lot less money to only provide you one channel to your taste.




You are absolutely right and why I hate using analogies. I was using that analogy to illustrate my issue with bundling stuff that I want with a whole mess that I don't.

My point is that it would cost WOTC nothing to split their sales strategy by tiers instead of how they are doing it now. For those people that don't care, they will buy all six or nine of the core rulebooks anyway. I on the other hand, instead of buying the three or six that I want, buy none.


----------



## garyh

Jasperak said:


> My problem with WOTC's sales strategy is they want me to buy 5 books to cover the same level of play as 3 books or sets in any other edition did, and give me the same amount of options.




But buying the PHB2 and PHB3 (assuming those are the 4th and 5th books) doesn't give you the "same amount of options" as the core 3 in 3rd.  In third, you had 7 races and 11 classes in PHB1.  If you get PHB1/2/3 in 4th, you'll have 24 races and 24 classes.  Just because the bard wasn't one of those first 8 PHB 1 classes in 4e doesn't mean the other new options in the PHB2 don't exist.


----------



## Jasperak

garyh said:


> But buying the PHB2 and PHB3 (assuming those are the 4th and 5th books) doesn't give you the "same amount of options" as the core 3 in 3rd.  In third, you had 7 races and 11 classes in PHB1.  If you get PHB1/2/3 in 4th, you'll have 24 races and 24 classes.  Just because the bard wasn't one of those first 8 PHB 1 classes in 4e doesn't mean the other new options in the PHB2 don't exist.




The 4th and 5th books would be PHB2 and MM2. If we are talking those books we would get 16 races and 16 classes so you have disputed my "same amount of options" argument. Fair enough. 

Back to my original point, why weren't those options included in PHB1 and those levels set to 10 or so instead of up to level 30?


----------



## garyh

Jasperak said:


> The 4th and 5th books would be PHB2 and MM2. If we are talking those books we would get 16 races and 16 classes so you have disputed my "same amount of options" argument. Fair enough.
> 
> Back to my original point, why weren't those options included in PHB1 and those levels set to 10 or so instead of up to level 30?




Because it's a bad business model.  And if you thought the "4e is incomplete" cries were loud now, imagine if they really did literally only give us 1/3rd of the levels in the first core set.


----------



## ExploderWizard

garyh said:


> Because it's a bad business model. And if you thought the "4e is incomplete" cries were loud now, imagine if they really did literally only give us 1/3rd of the levels in the first core set.




3E proved that including everything seen as "iconic" in the first release was a bad business model. In order to get the sales on follow up core products, certain iconic elements must be rationed throughout the other releases.
This way, you have 3-4 of each type of book as "core" product with elements that are seen as more essential to a greater number of players. 

Its also the perfect set-up for a 5E model based on a thin rulebook, minis and cards. Look- no more lugging around tons of rulebooks! The same people who loved 3E, and now hate it, and currently love the 4E distribution model will be the 1st to say " Yeah!! lets get rid of all those heavy books".

Gotta love planned product life cycles.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> 3E proved that including everything seen as "iconic" in the first release was a bad business model.




How?

Why?

What?

(also where and when, but I'll wait for you to explain those first. )


----------



## benjamin

*Fear and trepidation*

This is soooo interesting!

The guy who is currently DMing our campaign just announced that he will be buying up the 4E books. I had this pang of terror, because I have read so much bad stuff about it... but then I have read heaps of people defending it too...

It seems like there will be no way of actually finding out whether it sux or not other than just playing it.

But then doesn't good Dnd depend on talent, creativity, good role playing, friends, Coke and so many things other than the system...?!?

So maybe if my group is good now... it will continue to be better!?!

I guess I'm about to find out!

Ben

******************************
Want incredibly atmospheric background
soundscapes for your gaming table? 
Go to: www.syrinscape.com 
New version just released!

*Download for free!*
See a program demo, and listen to mp3s
of Syrinscape in action.
******************************


----------



## ExploderWizard

Kamikaze Midget said:


> How?
> 
> Why?
> 
> What?
> 
> (also where and when, but I'll wait for you to explain those first. )




Well, do you think sales of the PHB 2 would have been less, the same, or greater if the Druid, Bard,Barbarian, and Monk were held back and included with it?


----------



## Jasperak

garyh said:


> Because it's a bad business model.  And if you thought the "4e is incomplete" cries were loud now, imagine if they really did literally only give us 1/3rd of the levels in the first core set.




I agree, there would be cries of incomplete either way. 

In my opinion it is a bad game design model. This way leads us straight down the path of rules bloat. The first eight classes are relatively balanced with each other. I don't think it likely that the next eight classes are going to be balanced with the first eight, and absolutely cannot see the next eight classes two years down the line being balanced with the first set. It would have been better to have all classes balanced at each level or tier instead of by book.

If there is a game system out there that has anywhere near the expected production (doubling its initial character options every year) and has remained balanced over the course of years let me know.  No snark intended. I haven't played many other systems.

D&D has shown bloat in every other edition as more books and rules came out. First edition had Unearthed Arcana. Second edition had the Complete Handbook of Elves (most kits > core), Faiths & Avatars, and Player's Options. Third Edition had Tome of Battle. All of these books added new rules and created characters that were more powerful than the core. BECMI did not have this bloat.

I am disappointed because I like the idea of the different tiers. I just think their execution will fail where BECMI succeeded.


----------



## Jasperak

benjamin said:


> This is soooo interesting!
> 
> The guy who is currently DMing our campaign just announced that he will be buying up the 4E books. I had this pang of terror, because I have read so much bad stuff about it... but then I have read heaps of people defending it too...
> 
> It seems like there will be no way of actually finding out whether it sux or not other than just playing it.
> 
> But then doesn't good Dnd depend on talent, creativity, good role playing, friends, Coke and so many things other than the system...?!?
> 
> So maybe if my group is good now... it will continue to be better!?!
> 
> I guess I'm about to find out!
> 
> Ben





Absolutely, part of this discussion is not about whether the game is good or not, but about some of WOTC sales designs. I have played the game and like quite a few parts of it, though there are others that leave me wanting for better days. I have not bought the books but would play if offered.

It really does come down to your group. If you have a good group, then you will probably have a good game regardless of what system you use, or regardless of what a bunch of anonymous people say about it.


----------



## bagger245

The tier system is rather nice. One PHB just for the Heroic tier and you have one year 
to play out levels 1-10 until PHB2 where you are ready for more.. Just like BECMI..


----------



## RefinedBean

So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?


----------



## Jasperak

RefinedBean said:


> So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?




In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?

Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.


----------



## ExploderWizard

RefinedBean said:


> So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?




The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.


----------



## Imaro

RefinedBean said:


> So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?




Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes.  This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races.  I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Well, do you think sales of the PHB 2 would have been less, the same, or greater if the Druid, Bard,Barbarian, and Monk were held back and included with it?




The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."

Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very *good* business model for the eight years the edition was in force for. 

It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).

Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.

There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether. 

Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e. 

3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.


----------



## RefinedBean

Jasperak said:


> In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?
> 
> Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.




I see your point.  But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?

Besides, I just don't see anything wrong with a constantly-expanding core game.  We want this game to get better and more diverse, without the problems that previous additions have fallen into (if you consider them problems, even...that's debatable as well.)


----------



## RefinedBean

ExploderWizard said:


> The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.




This makes sense...however, given 4E's focus on balance and what I've seen so far from released excerpts and what-not, I'm not too worried about power creep or even bloat.

However, it's not like we all haven't been burned by the gaming industry before.


----------



## RefinedBean

Imaro said:


> Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes.  This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races.  I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.




The DMG rules on leveling up/down creatures are quite easy to use and helps alleviate the lack of utility of later supplemental monsters.

And let's be realistic here.  Suppose we implement this idea of having the Heroic Core (or whatever) released first, and then a Paragon Core released after that.

Just as there are people saying "It's not enough, we won't be able to use half the stuff they release" now, there are going to be people saying "My character just won't work with the new Paragon rules, I have to completely change him/her/it," etc.

I just don't see how one is better than the other.  It makes more sense to try and please more people by releasing all levels of play then to pigeonhole people into campaigning at a specific level.

EDIT:  I should learn to multiquote, sorry for taking up all this space.


----------



## Jasperak

RefinedBean said:


> I see your point.  But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?
> 
> Besides, I just don't see anything wrong with a constantly-expanding core game.  We want this game to get better and more diverse, without the problems that previous additions have fallen into (if you consider them problems, even...that's debatable as well.)




I would respond to your first question like this:
1. How many groups will play heroic levels over the next year.
2. How many groups will need rules for paragon levels over the next year.
3. How many groups will need rules for epic levels over the next year.

I think the majority of play will occur in the heroic levels for the first year. I would expect some play to occur in the paragon tier, but I doubt there would be any meaningful numbers of people playing epic levels in the first year. I wish I could remember what WOTC said about how fast groups should gain levels. That may help me understand why they made the choices they did.

If I were building the game, I would have set the default time to gain paragon to match how long it would take for me to come out with paragon rules, in this case one year.

I would want to see the game get better as time goes on but there seems that some are turned off by lack of options in the core rules. Add to that the core rules set the power level that all else must match up with. WOTC has limited themselves to what paragon level and epic levels can do. If they don't keep the rules and powers balanced, then we have the power creep that I expect. Some people are already complaining about how similar all of the class seem (Debatable, but it is the perception that matters for my argument), and we are locked into the power level for everything. WOTC can only reskin powers so much.

Another poster brought up the question how to add new heroic rules when your group in the paragon tier. The next logic question is what good is 1/3 of the PH2 or MM2 when you have already passed the heroic tier.

I am going to be brave and use an MMO analogy. DDO has not been a smashing success although it seems to be holding water for now. The vast majority of the base seems to be maxed out in levels. I think it is MOD 8 that is coming out very shortly, and it is showcasing the New Player Experience. Um, the people that are left don't need that and I haven't seen any advertising to bring new players in. So what good is all of that work. I feel the same way about 4e. Fully 1/3 of the material I wouldn't expect to use within a year and 1/3 of it never.

You can make the case for including a taste of paragon, but epic, I don't think so. I would have much rathered they fill out the lower levels than include rules that I think most wouldn't need for some time. I see that because of their design choice they are stuck with power creep or sameness.


----------



## Jasperak

RefinedBean said:


> Just as there are people saying "It's not enough, we won't be able to use half the stuff they release" now, there are going to be people saying "My character just won't work with the new Paragon rules, I have to completely change him/her/it," etc.




I am not sure I understand how paragon or epic tier rules, powers, or options would invalidate a player's character, especially with the ability to retain powers.



> I just don't see how one is better than the other.  It makes more sense to try and please more people by releasing all levels of play then to pigeonhole people into campaigning at a specific level.




I wouldn't see it as pigeonholing groups into a certain tier. My above post (posted after you wrote this) would expect groups to level at the same pace as the rules become available. Now granted I would be interested to see how fast 4e advancement actually is because in one month of play (~12 hours) my character was only half way to 2nd-level.

I think rolling out the next tiers options and rules when the majority of groups need them would have been superior to what we have now. To directly answer your first question: I think more people would have preferred complete heroic tier rules versus WOTC's current design.


----------



## RefinedBean

Jasperak said:


> To directly answer your first question: I think more people would have preferred complete heroic tier rules versus WOTC's current design.




This might be where we just have a fundamental disagreement with 4E's implementation.  The implementation you (and others) are suggesting sounds interesting.

However, it's my opinion that D&D 4E, from the core three books, is a complete game.  I'm not afraid of power creep, bloat, or worry about trying to implement everything in later books.  What's been given to me is already fantastic, and it'll just get better from there.

The idea that parts of the books are useless at certain levels...well, this is pretty much true for every single D&D book I've ever bought ever forever, and so as a design spec, it really doesn't bother me at all.

I think we just have a difference in opinion on some fundamental issues, and might want to leave it at that?  I doubt we'll make much headway going down this route.


----------



## RFisher

RefinedBean said:


> But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?




Yes. I honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who would continue into the paragon tier. I believe the number of people who play into the paragon tier outnumber the people who would play into the epic tier.

For me, the biggest reason to release by tiers, however, would be that I believe it is easier to develop and playtest more races/classes within a single tier than fewer races/classes through all three tiers. (“Easier” is probably not the best word.)


----------



## dm4hire

I agree splitting the books by tiers would allow more classes to be introduced and better detailed over the coarse of the first three PHBs.

In retrospect from what has been discussed (both here and within the various WotC posts and blogs concerning the division of classes between the books) I believe I now understand the March release for PHBII.  The calculation that the average player will still be within the heroic tier is correct and reinforces the release date.  If more players are in a position to continue beyond level 10 then introduction of new classes seems less attractive.  However if players are still struggling along under level 10 there is more incentive to try new classes, either through starting over or requesting to change classes.  There will be less investment in a lower level character than there will be once someone has started branching out and trying paragon pathes.  If you use LFR as an example it is projected that most characters will at a maximum be level 7.  The preview for the bard and beta test barbarian allow players to reach a reasonable level by March, providinging minimal change when the PHB II finally comes out.  Both results encourage product purchase and ensure a larger profit gain versus waiting till after June when most players will have a fuller investment, leaving mainly completists and fans of specific classes to become the largest market share to buy it after that point.

This logic indicates that PHBIII will have less of a demand as players will have an investment  and therefore less willing to change classes, decreasing the the value of the book.  Where as, if you split the tiers over the three books you would increase the value as players would desire to continue playing their characters beyond a given level.


----------



## Ahglock

JoeGKushner said:


> Sounds like the OP needs to go with Fantasy Hero.




After running 4e for a bit now, I want to go with fantasy hero.  I have a lot of the same issues as the OP and when i play it I get this feeling that says, it is a miniatures game with role playing.

Though the one player who did not want to play is having a blast and says, this is awesome its a miniatures game with role playing.  I'll probably stick with 4e, since the players like it.  I'm not sure if it will last though.  It seems to lack depth to me, everything kind of seems to stay the same just with bigger numbers.


----------



## jdsivyer

Jasperak said:


> I have absolutely no intention of paying $175 dollars for the three core books, PHB2, and MM2 so I can play a bard that fights against frost giants (granted those frost giants would likely appear in the 11-20 level range and MM2 anyway, I use them as an example of something that I am use to having that I wouldn't now. Since I do not have the MM I could not say how many iconics are not in there that I would expect. How many level 1-5 range monsters are there?) Will I really have to bring five books to the table to run a 3rd level adventure with bards and some other random 3rd-level monsters?




And this is one of my main beefs with 4e also.  In previous editions you got all of the iconic races and monsters in the 3 core rulebooks.  To play a decent, fully-fledged D&D game you only needed these 3 books.  But now?  If I want more of the iconic monsters and classes I'll have to purchases MM2 and PHB2...and possibly more, who knows?  From a business point of view, it's a profitable idea, but from a purchaser's point of view it kind of sucks


----------



## jdsivyer

RefinedBean said:


> However, it's not like we all haven't been burned by the gaming industry before.




hahaha!  Soooo true!


----------



## bagger245

If only they made it tier based PHBs.. now we are talking BECMI feel. Include alot of classes
and races of the heroic tier and they would be balanced with each other. Introducing
classes and races later will just introduce power creep on effort to make new classes
attractive then old ones. 
Fot those that complain about being stuck to a certain tier due to the PHB, many gamers were
stuck with the red box but had a blast and played many modules around that range of levels until
they were ready for the Expert box set.
I wanted to invest in 4th ed actually, but learning that I had to but multiple books of PHBs and 
they aren't "optional" like the Complete 3.5, I decided not to. Instead I went to pdfs of older editions.
Call me cheap but the currency exchange from my country is taking a toll on my wallet.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."
> 
> Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very *good* business model for the eight years the edition was in force for.
> 
> It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).
> 
> Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.
> 
> There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether.
> 
> Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e.
> 
> 3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.




The Bad in this case was not bad overall for the game just bad in hindsight for profitability. 

As far as an RPG goes, yes 3E was about as good as one could expect, sales wise. The question becomes, good enough for whom?

A small independent company in the RPG business can be satisfied with the kind of profit that would make a large company like Hasbro see it as something barely worth thier time.

Shareholders don't get excited about a product that simply makes a bit of money, they get excited about products with huge profits that help drive up the stock price. 

The company has a duty to shareholders to invest in those products that produce the revenue and abandon or change those that don't.

This is why RPG's and large publicly traded companies are a poor mix. 
Do you honestly think that a non-gamer shareholder of Hasbro cares if the spirit of the original D&D is maintained when doing otherwise would drive up the stock price?

Its not evil. Its just business.


----------



## dm4hire

ExploderWizard said:


> This is why RPG's and large publicly traded companies are a poor mix.
> Do you honestly think that a non-gamer shareholder of Hasbro cares if the spirit of the original D&D is maintained when doing otherwise would drive up the stock price?
> 
> Its not evil. Its just business.




I agree with this part whole-heartedly.  I've told friends we should unite everyone like the Harley-Davidson owners did when Japan bought the company and pool our resources and buy D&D away from Hasbro.  We wouldn't see mistakes being made or at least radical changes for the simple purpose of trying to increase the profit margin of the game.  The original OGL was in part designed I've always believed with the intention of making sure that D&D wouldn't die at the hands of a conglomerate giant whether it be Hasbro or not.  It was our luck and good fortune it made it through the legal channels the way it did.  We've already seen how those same legal channels have tightened the reigns going into 4e.

I'm really waiting to see if WotC opens up the GSL on its next revision so that hopefully a third party company can fix some of the downsides we've discussed here.


----------



## Nebulous

I'll have to agree with the OP's dislike of magic.  The more i see our magic users cast the same spells round after round, the more i miss the wonkyness of past editions.

After several months of running 4e i have to say that it is an EXCELLENT miniatures combat game with some roleplaying tacked on.  What it is designed to do it does well, but it is not my favorite version of D&D. 

At this point, i don't think any number of future supplements could possibly make me like it more. It is what it is and would require massive retooling to change it into the ideal game i would want to play. I do like it though, the parts that work well.


----------



## RefinedBean

ExploderWizard said:


> The Bad in this case was not bad overall for the game just bad in hindsight for profitability.
> 
> As far as an RPG goes, yes 3E was about as good as one could expect, sales wise. The question becomes, good enough for whom?
> 
> A small independent company in the RPG business can be satisfied with the kind of profit that would make a large company like Hasbro see it as something barely worth thier time.
> 
> Shareholders don't get excited about a product that simply makes a bit of money, they get excited about products with huge profits that help drive up the stock price.
> 
> The company has a duty to shareholders to invest in those products that produce the revenue and abandon or change those that don't.
> 
> This is why RPG's and large publicly traded companies are a poor mix.
> Do you honestly think that a non-gamer shareholder of Hasbro cares if the spirit of the original D&D is maintained when doing otherwise would drive up the stock price?
> 
> Its not evil. Its just business.




I don't mean this to sound snarky EW, but I think you drastically overestimate how much Hasbro cares or even KNOWS about D&D.  The D&D brand has never been mentioned in any of the quarterly reports I've seen (admittedly few), and what with Hasbro holding the licenses to some insanely profitable ventures, it just seems like they have bigger fish to fry.

If anything, WotC benefits from having a deep-pocketed, hands-off parent company.  They get access to resources they desperately need to stay on top of the gaming medium while given creative liberty with everything they produce.

If Hasbro really wanted D&D to maximize the utility of its brand name, 4E would be about collecting Halflings and Kobolds in little balls, throwing them out into a grassy field, and watching them fight to the death.

Which...which sounds AWESOME, now that I think about it.


----------



## ExploderWizard

RefinedBean said:


> I don't mean this to sound snarky EW, but I think you drastically overestimate how much Hasbro cares or even KNOWS about D&D. The D&D brand has never been mentioned in any of the quarterly reports I've seen (admittedly few), and what with Hasbro holding the licenses to some insanely profitable ventures, it just seems like they have bigger fish to fry.




Thats kind of the point. As long as the numbers don't take a nose dive they could care less what WOTC does with it, or maybe the plan is to grow it into a bigger fish.


----------



## RefinedBean

ExploderWizard said:


> Thats kind of the point. As long as the numbers don't take a nose dive they could care less what WOTC does with it, or maybe the plan is to grow it into a bigger fish.




Ohhh!  Okay.  So WotC's design decisions for 4E were to both maximize profit AND allow them enough creative license to maintain D&D's brand integrity.

I'm completely with you on that.  If Hasbro ever DID decide to nose in on WotC's business, it'd probably be bad news for us all (although it'd be interesting, to say the least).

Still, there's plenty of ways to maintain brand integrity.  4E could still have gone any number of ways, as people have been saying.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> The Bad in this case was not bad overall for the game just bad in hindsight for profitability.




Except 3e was very profitable. And there's no guarantee that 4e's PHBII will be any more profitable.



> As far as an RPG goes, yes 3E was about as good as one could expect, sales wise. The question becomes, good enough for whom?
> 
> A small independent company in the RPG business can be satisfied with the kind of profit that would make a large company like Hasbro see it as something barely worth thier time.




3e made money for Hasbro. D&D has never been one of even WotC's biggest cash cows (Magic, Pokemon, etc.). It hits such a small market segmentthat anything that actually *does* up the profit is still a drop in the bucket, barely noticeable. 



> Shareholders don't get excited about a product that simply makes a bit of money, they get excited about products with huge profits that help drive up the stock price.
> 
> The company has a duty to shareholders to invest in those products that produce the revenue and abandon or change those that don't.




Hasbro shareholders don't get excited about D&D, period. They might've gotten a little excited when they heard that Hasrbo acquired the company who makes those little packs of cards you see in gas stations. Now, they're more concerned with who's making the toys for next Christmas's big blockbuster movies, and this Fall's big children's shows.

Hasbro has much bigger fish to fry.



> This is why RPG's and large publicly traded companies are a poor mix.
> Do you honestly think that a non-gamer shareholder of Hasbro cares if the spirit of the original D&D is maintained when doing otherwise would drive up the stock price?
> 
> Its not evil. Its just business.




No, but they also aren't going to mess with what works very much, if it's not a big deal. Companies are very conservative, in general, and as long as D&D makes money and isn't a liability, the suits have no reason to get very deeply involved. It's not like D&D _matters_ to them, except as a small part of WotC, which is itself a small part of Hasbro. 

This scheme to parse out the core is an effort to keep the edition robust over a long period of time. It seems to be less about shareholders and more about making sure 5e takes a while to get here. 

What do I mean?

I believe one of the reasons 3.5 and 4e came down the pipes was the lagging sales of supplements in general. I believe that WotC rather correctly analyzed the problem on at least one front: after a few years of buying everything the edition has to offer, people just don't need that much more gaming material.

If they keep future releases "essential," (core, or with things that collectors will need), people will still have a perceived need for them and will still buy them. This will delay the need for a 5e, because sales won't lag as badly very soon -- the collectors will be buying things left and right. 

However, there's a solid chance that they overlooked that people who very much appreciated the inclusiveness in 3e might not wait until their game is "complete." The collector's mindset is very binary: all or nothing. If they can't get it all, they don't bother collecting any of it, because partial mastery is unacceptable. This, combined with general consumer impatience and the existence of things like Pathfinder, mean that the "hardcore collector" D&D players that they are relying on to buy the PH#10 may have already bowed out, leaving people who aren't going to care about the PH#10 for the same reason that less people cared about _Dragon Magic_ than cared about _Sword and Fist_. 

This is a gambit. It is not assured to bring them the greater sales and longer edition life that they are gunning for here. They can take this risk because D&D isn't a big deal to Hasbro, and because of crack market research that has been right before. 

You can't assume the inclusive model is less profitable than the parsing model at this point. That's just what WotC is banking on. Let me know in eight years of the PHB8 is selling more copies than _Dragon Magic_ did. THEN you can perhaps claim that parsing out the core was a good idea from a standpoint of _edition sustainability_. But I bet you still won't be able to make the case that it was somehow good for investors, because D&D isn't big enough to be especially good or bad for investors. 

Really, at the moment, with the looming global financial collapse still so fresh in the minds of investors, Hasbro would be happy to secure the rights to _High School Musical 3_ action figures so they're not seen as a risky investment or something, I'm sure. D&D doesn't enter into it at that level.


----------



## mmadsen

mmadsen said:


> If they only charged you for your favorite channel, they'd have to charge you much, much more for it.  It's not like its costs a lot less money to only provide you one channel to your taste.





Jasperak said:


> You are absolutely right and why I hate using analogies. I was using that analogy to illustrate my issue with bundling stuff that I want with a whole mess that I don't.



Jasperak, I think the analogy you used was a good analogy -- TV programming and RPGs are similar in some important ways -- but the proper conclusion is the opposite of the one you expected.

It takes WotC just as much effort (i.e. money) to develop a bard class or frost giant monster manual entry for one gamer or one million gamers.  (Yes, printing those pages isn't free, but printing costs aren't WotC's primary costs.)

But we gamers each value the different classes, monsters, spells, etc. wildly differently.  If they sold the bard entry only to people who wanted to play a bard, they'd have to sell it for a shockingly high price.

By bundling different classes, monsters, spells, etc. together -- ones that any one gamer might love or hate -- they can charge one fairly low price.  

Cutting out eladrin and dragonborn wouldn't reduce the cost of a Players Handbook meaningfully, but putting them in might make a few more sales or increase the price some customers are willing to pay.


Jasperak said:


> My point is that it would cost WOTC nothing to split their sales strategy by tiers instead of how they are doing it now. For those people that don't care, they will buy all six or nine of the core rulebooks anyway. I on the other hand, instead of buying the three or six that I want, buy none.



I wouldn't extrapolate WotC's best strategy from my own personal tastes, and I wouldn't recommend that you do so either.  Different gamers have very different tastes, and WotC's job is not to cater to any particular gamers, but to the vast majority of gamers.

Did they do that well this time?  I'm not sure.  Does leaving the Frost Giant out of the first Monster Manual cost them more sales of MMI than they'll gain in sales of MMII?  Again, I'm not sure.

I agree that it seems odd though, not to include such a "core" monster in MMI.


----------



## garyh

One more thought about the "tiered books" idea...

Even if people don't reach Epic in the first year or two, people LIKE to be able to look and see what their character will be able to do when they reach the top, to plan accordingly, to have a goal.  Sure, level 10 sorta does that, but not the same as level 30.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Not-So Magic User(s)*



Nebulous said:


> I'll have to agree with the OP's dislike of magic.  The more i see our magic users cast the same spells round after round, the more i miss the wonkyness of past editions.



Agreed; wizard versatility has certainly taken a hit in 4E.

IMO, someone should create an arcane version of Repetitive Stress Disorder.

-Samir


----------



## Gallo22

JoeGKushner said:


> I love how people who've never played the game talk about the various merits and flaws.
> 
> Love it.
> 
> Please Dragonwrite, do go on.




It goes both ways Joe.  I remember hords of gamers posting about how great 4E was going to be, before it was ever released...


----------



## Gallo22

Grimstaff said:


> I thought the "I hate 4E" thread was being discouraged in general, as it inevitably descends into edition war, WotC-bashing, and name-calling.




Uh...Grimstaff...the original poster was talking baout his disappointment in 4E, he bought it, tried it, and was disappointed in it.  I would not call this a "I hate 4E" thread.


----------



## Drkfathr1

Making every book "core/essential" isn't going to keep everyone buying, but it'll be interesting to see how well the future PH's, MM's, and DM's Guides sell. 

I wish WoTC would focus on ADVENTURES more than splat books. The could stop spending all their time and energy on designing more rules and actually spend their time and energy on writing good ADVENTURES. Show us that they can use their nifty rules to make good stories/challenges. 

I know that its said that adventure modules don't sell as well as the splat books, but I think Goodman and Necromancer might contradict that idea. (as well as other companies, but those two stand out for me)

Yes, I know they're doing some adventures too now, but I think it would be a better idea to produce multiple modules per month rather than multiple $20-$30 rule books that may never get used in a campaign.

When people I know talk about D&D, they talk about the adventures their characters had, and what they fought, and what BBEG's they had to face. They don't talk about the mechanics of the rule system they used.


----------



## Verys Arkon

One thing I like about WotC's 4e release schedule is that is seems (in theory) the material will be more organized, either in logical supplements or focus campaign books.

*Classes appear in the PH series.*  No longer am I going to find things like Factotum in Dungeonscape.  

*Feats are in the PH series.*  Now I don't have to flip through every book. Lets face it, almost every book in 3.5 had feats and if you wanted to make an informed choice, you had to flip through dozens of books.

*Powers for a source are in one book.*  In 3.5, spells would pop up everywhere.  Its what made Spell Compendium such a good idea, since it collected the scattered material in one place.  In 4e, they are starting with 'Spell Compendium' instead.
*
Limited campaign setting books.*  I like FR well enough, but do I really need all those extra books?  What are the chances my campaign is going to explore more than a few of those areas?  Plus, see the above complaints about scattered material.  I like buying books, but I'm always disappointed when the book-of-the-month is yet anther FR splat.  (vote Dark Sun for 2010!) 

I don't mind having the material spread out over time. It means usefulness of the books will last longer than in 3.x's lifespan.  What I really don't want is having the material spread out all over the place in dozens of books.  How many of you would have bought a Feat Compendium for 3.5?  


If I was playing a 3.5 cleric, how many books would I have to take with me to the game?  I remember reading a WotC blog (forget which one), where the author was describing a focus group where one player pulled book after book out of his bag, and opened them up to the spell sections.  His conclusion was (paraphrased) 'we need to change this'.

I just hope WotC designers and editors stick to this format, and don't try to slip in extra powers and feats here and there (already happened in AV!).  If it does break down, at least we have DDI Compendium to help search, instead of the useless lists in 3.x.  If they need to add extra material immediately, stick it in Dragon magazine until it can be reprinted in the next PH or Power book.


----------



## dm4hire

Verys Arkon said:


> I just hope WotC designers and editors stick to this format, and don't try to slip in extra powers and feats here and there (already happened in AV!).  If it does break down, at least we have DDI Compendium to help search, instead of the useless lists in 3.x.  If they need to add extra material immediately, stick it in Dragon magazine until it can be reprinted in the next PH or Power book.




But they're not, which is part of the downside to 4e.  Already we're going to have the Power related books which will add more for a given power type, i.e. Martial Handbook, Arcane, and Divine being next year.  Then they're releasing exclusive powers with the heroes mini sets they announced.  And then you have what shows up in Dragon.  The compendium is great in collecting everything together in one place, but you still have to pay to access it so you might as well just buy the products to begin with.


----------



## garyh

dm4hire said:


> But they're not, which is part of the downside to 4e.  Already we're going to have the Power related books which will add more for a given power type, i.e. Martial Handbook, Arcane, and Divine being next year.  Then they're releasing exclusive powers with the heroes mini sets they announced.  And then you have what shows up in Dragon.  The compendium is great in collecting everything together in one place, but you still have to pay to access it so you might as well just buy the products to begin with.




One nice thing about the DDI Character Generator, though, is it will pull together all the info you need for your PC from all WotC books and articles, including generating custom power cards.  Once you print that character sheet out, you don't need to look things up in the various books.

Really looking forward to that program...


----------



## dm4hire

Which can be done by a third party program for free.  Or put together with a spread sheet or other database software using the PDFs or old fashion typing.


----------



## RefinedBean

dm4hire said:


> Which can be done by a third party program for free.  Or put together with a spread sheet or other database software using the PDFs or old fashion typing.




Using the PDFs = Illegal, right?  (since the full books haven't been published in PDF form, I thought).

At any rate, pointing out that the competition has done a craptastic job of marketing their 3PP tools, while plenty of people are excited for WotC's upcoming Character Builder, doesn't really place doubt on WotC's ability to keep the 4E system relatively tight and focused.


----------



## Alzrius

RefinedBean said:


> Using the PDFs = Illegal, right?  (since the full books haven't been published in PDF form, I thought).




The full books have been published in PDF form for a while now.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Jasperak said:
			
		

> I would have much rathered they fill out the lower levels than include rules that I think most wouldn't need for some time. I see that because of their design choice they are stuck with power creep or sameness.




I just wanted to say that this line of reasoning is a paragon of practicality. 

In truth, it might have been a better idea to parse out the core by level rather than by variety of content. Anticipation for the Next Tier builds organically, as your characters advance. Given the two-plus-year length of time it takes a reasonably paced party to get through 30 or so levels, they could've milked this all the way up to level 30, and then could have gone back to level 1 and started again!

If you were interested in a sustainable edition, this is what I would do. This would be my "product cycle."

I wouldn't have "core rulebooks," per se. I would instead treat D&D as a game. I would put out the first ten levels, support them, and then put out the next ten levels, and so on, all in one great continuum. Then I would return to the start with a new "game of D&D." Maybe different flavor, maybe a different setting, definitely a rules update, maybe even a variation on the rules, and, of course, advice for integrating these with the previous books. 

I would not put out a game you could complete in three books. I would put out a game that continually recycled itself every three - five years (or so). 

In this continual edition treadmill, you would never be totally complete, but you could easily "take a break," and be assured that whenever you picked up the game again,  you would be close enough to a "new version" to pick it up and chug along. If you found a game you liked, you could stay there forever. Everyone else would be shepherded along at basically the same pace. There would be more options, but each option would be more shallow. If you wanted to add depth to it, well, that's why you have a DM. 

Really, I probably would have been happier with that than this. Sure, people would complain, but if people are going to complain _anyway_, you might as well do something amazing with it.


----------



## Derren

Verys Arkon said:


> I just hope WotC designers and editors stick to this format, and don't try to slip in extra powers and feats here and there (already happened in AV!).  If it does break down, at least we have DDI Compendium to help search, instead of the useless lists in 3.x.  If they need to add extra material immediately, stick it in Dragon magazine until it can be reprinted in the next PH or Power book.




Then you will likely be disappointed. WotC wants to sell as many books as it can get away with and those books have to be filled with content.
And the easiest way to fill a book is with powers, PPs/EDs and feats, especially as 4E is rather light on fluff.


----------



## Zustiur

garyh said:


> Sure, level 10 sorta does that, but not the same as level 30.



If any of my characters ever reaches level 30 outside of computer games like Neverwinter Nights, I'll... 
No, not eat my hat.
I'll ... 

Admit that 4E must be good after-all.


----------



## Mad Hamish

Stalker0 said:


> I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.




What wilderness flavor behind a ranger?
The only flavour a ranger has by the book is they have 1 skill from Nature and The underground knowledge one.

If the underground knowledge one doesn't move you far enough from a wilderness focus then ask the GM to let you swap it out for something else.



Stalker0 said:


> The one nice thing about the 3.5 fighter was that he was pretty flexible. From his core, you could create any kind of fighter guy you wanted, TWF, big sword, sword/shield, archer, polearm specialist, etc.




Yes, and from the PHB you can create a two handed weapon fighter, a sword and board a polearm specialist.
With the next splatbook you'll get an option for a two weapon fighter 
If you want an archer then you make a ranger and play him the way you want



Stalker0 said:


> There are no "generic" classes in 4e. Everyone has a specific niche, which tends to force a certain kind of flavor on each class, and I can see how its problematic.




Except that the idea is more 'what do I want to do' I'll play that class rather than 
"I'll play a fighter, which way do I want to go with it?"


----------



## Jasperak

mmadsen said:


> Jasperak, I think the analogy you used was a good analogy -- TV programming and RPGs are similar in some important ways -- but the proper conclusion is the opposite of the one you expected.
> 
> It takes WotC just as much effort (i.e. money) to develop a bard class or frost giant monster manual entry for one gamer or one million gamers.  (Yes, printing those pages isn't free, but printing costs aren't WotC's primary costs.)
> 
> But we gamers each value the different classes, monsters, spells, etc. wildly differently.  If they sold the bard entry only to people who wanted to play a bard, they'd have to sell it for a shockingly high price.
> 
> By bundling different classes, monsters, spells, etc. together -- ones that any one gamer might love or hate -- they can charge one fairly low price.
> 
> Cutting out eladrin and dragonborn wouldn't reduce the cost of a Players Handbook meaningfully, but putting them in might make a few more sales or increase the price some customers are willing to pay.




To continue with the cable analogy, I feel that their putting in levels that I would not reach until the next book is released (in March?) is like ordering the sports package in April so I can watch baseball but getting the NFL package bundled in. Sure it will be useful in five months but kind of pointless until then.

So by putting in eladrin and dragonborn they may make more sales? Would the next logical conclusion be that the more options they include, the more likely they are to sell more books? If it takes a year to get to use a third of the options, they are better left out until needed. Give me options I can use, not ones I have to wait to use.

Another poster mentioned being able to see the direction their character is going to take. Fair enough, but I wonder if that would be better served by using previews in Dragon.


----------



## RFisher

Jasperak said:


> Another poster mentioned being able to see the direction their character is going to take. Fair enough, but I wonder if that would be better served by using previews in Dragon.




I’d rather my not be able to plan ahead for my first few PCs and feel like the upper tiers got as thorough a playtesting as the lower tier.


----------



## Imp

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In truth, it might have been a better idea to parse out the core by level rather than by variety of content. Anticipation for the Next Tier builds organically, as your characters advance. Given the two-plus-year length of time it takes a reasonably paced party to get through 30 or so levels, they could've milked this all the way up to level 30, and then could have gone back to level 1 and started again!



This is all quite clever, but (putting on the company's shoes) you'd probably want to do a bit of both. Like, add 10 levels and two classes per installment. Because people want to try new things, too. Basically, it's the model CRPGS use for their expansions... because it works.

I dunno exactly how I'd feel about it, as a consumer, but leaving the big dragons for last is a pretty effective carrot.


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think another poster put it best when they said that if HPs are more than physical resilience, why is the only thing that takes HPs away physical damage?



I don't follow this - there are a lot of powers that take away hit points and do not do physical damage (eg Warlock powers like Eyebite, Curse of the Dark Dream, etc; Wizard powers like Maze; the Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage, etc).


----------



## dm4hire

I believe he's referring to the lack of ability score damage spells.  It seems that ability damage or non-physical damage has been reserved primarily for monsters.  Eye Bite does psychic damage which one would think, since it is a mental attack, it would actually go against your Int or Wis.  In past editions players and mobs both pulled from the same non-physical damage pool, per se, for spells causing damage to opponents (with exceptions of coarse).  Primarily though both sides could take a stab at causing ability damage.  HPs tend to be a blank stat for life points now; just about every form of damage actually going toward it if you look at it compared to previous editions.

And even in your example you mention Deathlock Wight, which is a monster, not a PC power.


----------



## bagger245

I think what 3e or 4e lacks are those adventures that become classic. 3e had maybe a few
including adventure paths, but not so memorable unlike B2 or T-14...


----------



## dm4hire

I'll agree with you on that.  There were a few good ones, but nothing major that stand out to the point where if you mention them heads bow in memory, or players wince from mental flashbacks, or even respond with awe in wishing they could have played it with you.  That's part of the market problem I see with WotC and their persistent Hollywood trend of doing sequels to the great ones.  Even a lot of non-module products tend to pay homage to them, i.e. Against the Giants, Demonweb, etc.  I think some of the big ones from 3.x will be Worlds Largest Dungeon, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, and the Undermountain adventure just to name a few.


----------



## mmadsen

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think another poster put it best when they said that if HPs are more than physical resilience, why is the only thing that takes HPs away physical damage?
> 
> Heisenberg Points represent too much to effectively model anything. They're just a way of keeping score in 4e.



I believe you're referring to something I said -- most recently in Did 4E go far enough or too far?: I think 4E's hit points are a good example of something that went either too far or not far enough. "Healing" now has no connection to physical wounds -- but the only things that do "damage" are "hits" with things that should cause physical wounds.

If hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?​I suppose I should have been clearer that _some_ exceptions now exist: 







pemerton said:


> I don't follow this - there are a lot of powers that take away hit points and do not do physical damage (eg Warlock powers like Eyebite, Curse of the Dark Dream, etc; Wizard powers like Maze; the Deathlock Wight's Horrific Visage, etc).



Again though, if hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?

And if a morale-boosting rallying cry from your inspiring leader can "heal" hit points, why doesn't anything and everything that's scary or demoralizing do "damage" to hit points?


----------



## LostSoul

mmadsen said:


> I suppose I should have been clearer that _some_ exceptions now exist: Again though, if hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?




You can.  What do you think keeps you on your feet, fighting against the mental control or the poison?  It's only when you hit 0 HP that you've really succumbed to the effect.



mmadsen said:


> And if a morale-boosting rallying cry from your inspiring leader can "heal" hit points, why doesn't anything and everything that's scary or demoralizing do "damage" to hit points?




You can do this, too.  Page 42 tells you how much damage you can be expected to do with, say, an Intimidate check.


----------



## SpydersWebbing

I don't know about the current debate about HP and such, but I do know there aren't too many HP built into the system. Apparently no one here has considered what a surprise round can do to people in 4th edition. I just got out of a 6th level session where ghouls got the drop on the PC's and dealt out a TOTAL of 50 damage to two of the four PC's. The rest of the fight was a desperate scrambling to keep them alive while the rest of the party had to carry their weight, since the those two characters had only about 10 hp left, and one more hit from the ghouls would have done that easily.

The sheer amount of damage that can come out of 4th edition (if you're a good DM) necessitates higher HP. I'm glad Wizards did what they did there.


----------



## mmadsen

mmadsen said:


> If hit points are an odd amalgam of grit and determination with luck and divine favor, why can't you use them to overcome fear and mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart, etc.?





LostSoul said:


> You can.  What do you think keeps you on your feet, fighting against the mental control or the poison?



I won't profess to be an expert on 4E, so perhaps you can explain to me how hit points help you overcome fear and  mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart.

Hit points can't be used to resist an Intimidate check, can they?  Is there a _cause fear_ spell that fails if it doesn't do enough "damage" to its victim?  A poisoned dart "hits" regardless of hit points, right?  That's purely a question of armor class.


LostSoul said:


> Page 42 tells you how much damage you can be expected to do with, say, an Intimidate check.



Page 42?  Of what book?  The skill listing for Intimidate suggests that a success should cause bloodied opponents to flee or captured prisoners to give up valuable information.  It doesn't suggest damage.


----------



## The Little Raven

mmadsen said:


> Hit points can't be used to resist an Intimidate check, can they?




Yes. Page 42, DMG. You can do an Intimidate-based action that would deal psychic damage to your target. Unless you get reduced to 0 hp by it, your hit points have been used to resist it, since it's intention was to reduce you to ineffectiveness.


----------



## Imaro

The Little Raven said:


> Yes. Page 42, DMG. You can do an Intimidate-based action that would deal psychic damage to your target. Unless you get reduced to 0 hp by it, your hit points have been used to resist it, since it's intention was to reduce you to ineffectiveness.





So...I can intimidate someone to death if I choose to??


----------



## mmadsen

The Little Raven said:


> Yes. Page 42, DMG. You can do an Intimidate-based action that would deal psychic damage to your target. Unless you get reduced to 0 hp by it, your hit points have been used to resist it, since it's intention was to reduce you to ineffectiveness.



From my reading, page 42 of the DMG in no way suggests that an Intimidate check could or should cause psychic damage.  It suggests DCs and damage amounts for things like using acrobatics to knock an ogre into a brazier of burning coals.

And I don't know how you'd explain an attempt to intimidate someone that does not make them scared in any measurable way -- except that they take damage.

But, if that's how you want to run your game... I just wouldn't consider it 4E RAW.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> So...I can intimidate someone to death if I choose to??



More like "if the DM allows it". Players have to ask for stunt uses of a skill like that. However, with the right circumstances, I'd allow a player to Intimidate an NPC to death. I'd described it as a heart attack.


----------



## The Little Raven

Imaro said:


> So...I can intimidate someone to death if I choose to??




Indeed. Real life is full of situations in which people suffer fatal heart attacks due to stress or fear caused by another person, such as during a mugging, assault, or even breaking up with no physical contact being made. In a world where dragons fly and sorcerers cast eldritch rituals, it's much more likely that a hero could have such an effect on others.


----------



## Mallus

mmadsen said:


> From my reading, page 42 of the DMG in no way suggests that an Intimidate check could or should cause psychic damage.  It suggests DCs and damage amounts for things like using acrobatics to knock an ogre into a brazier of burning coals.



The infamous page 42 establishes a relationship between skills and combat powers. I think it's a perfect fair reading to see that as the general cases, with the Acrobatics and Athletics being specific examples.

So you could use a Religion check to create an ad-hoc attack power, 'a blue bolt from Heaven' while on holy ground, or a Knowledge Arcana check to make a magical artifact blow up in the BBEG hands. The only requirement I see is some kind of special circumstance for the character to take advantage of. 

At least, this is how I read it, mainly because it makes 4e more interesting.


----------



## Shazman

I too have been quite disappointed in 4E.  One of my groups tried it for a while, and we really found it to not feel like D&D.  I was ready to give it a fair shake, but the DM decided he couldn't stomach it anymore, so we are moving on to Pathfinder.  To be honest, I am way more excited about playing Pathfinder than I was about playing 4E.


----------



## LostSoul

mmadsen said:


> I won't profess to be an expert on 4E, so perhaps you can explain to me how hit points help you overcome fear and  mental control or to dodge a poisoned dart.
> 
> Hit points can't be used to resist an Intimidate check, can they?  Is there a _cause fear_ spell that fails if it doesn't do enough "damage" to its victim?  A poisoned dart "hits" regardless of hit points, right?  That's purely a question of armor class.




If I am still above 0, I can still do things - like make saving throws.  In the fiction, the wicked ghost might have possessed me, but it's only temporary, because I have the stuff to fight back.

If I go down to 0, I'm not fighting back any longer.  He's using my body as his personal puppet.

Someone can scare me - like the Deathlock? Wight - and I might retreat a bit, but if his attack doesn't bring me down to 0 HP I'm going to act again.  If I do go down to 0 HP, that's when I succumb to the fear.

Or someone might deal some damage with an Intimidate check, and I might do the same thing, but if I'm down to 0 HP I might run away.

Someone might nick me with a poison dart, but if the ongoing poison (save ends) damage doesn't kill me, the HP helped me to resist the poison.




mmadsen said:


> Page 42?  Of what book?  The skill listing for Intimidate suggests that a success should cause bloodied opponents to flee or captured prisoners to give up valuable information.  It doesn't suggest damage.




The DMG.  There's a relationship between skill checks and damage.  The key is that it takes a Standard Action and the DM's okay.


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> So...I can intimidate someone to death if I choose to??




The DM can allow you to do damage with an Intimidate check.

If it brings your target to 0 HP, the DM can rule that he's dead.  I would probably have him run in terror or cower in the corner, begging for mercy.  Any way you describe it, he's not going to fight any more.


----------



## Imaro

LostSoul said:


> The DM can allow you to do damage with an Intimidate check.
> 
> If it brings your target to 0 HP, the DM can rule that he's dead. I would probably have him run in terror or cower in the corner, begging for mercy. Any way you describe it, he's not going to fight any more.





I thought by RAW, the player decides whether he's dead or not... and there's a big difference between not fighting anymore right now...and dying.


----------



## The Little Raven

Imaro said:


> I thought by RAW, the player decides whether he's dead or not...




The RAW also states that the DM is the final adjudicator of all things, so if the DM decides that the player kills or doesn't kill the creature, it overrides the player's narrative control of it.


----------



## Jasperak

Wait a second. We can have a discussion about using a Skill to do damage or even kill someone? 

How is that going to work at an RPGA event?


----------



## LostSoul

Imaro said:


> I thought by RAW, the player decides whether he's dead or not... and there's a big difference between not fighting anymore right now...and dying.




That's right.  You could decide that he's unconcious (which is what you can do by RAW).

Why would you do that, if you have a problem with Intimidate knocking people unconcious?


----------



## RFisher

The Little Raven said:


> Yes. Page 42, DMG. You can do an Intimidate-based action that would deal psychic damage to your target. Unless you get reduced to 0 hp by it, your hit points have been used to resist it, since it's intention was to reduce you to ineffectiveness.




Don’t have the DMG. Don’t want the DMG. This is making me feel like I can’t discuss the system since I only own the PHB. (6_6)



Jasperak said:


> How is that going to work at an RPGA event?




I understand and respect that others feel differently, but that’s the last thing I want a system to be designed for. I suppose that’s pretty much the reason I prefer B/X to 1e these days.

Though I suppose a simple answer might be that this isn’t something RPGA DMs would be allowed to OK.


----------



## Rel

RFisher said:


> Don’t have the DMG. Don’t want the DMG. This is making me feel like I can’t discuss the system since I only own the PHB. (6_6)




For what it's worth, my opinion about 4e improved dramatically when I got the DMG (I started with just the PHB for a few weeks).  I think that the PHB doesn't read worth a crap.  I think that the DMG is the best in years.


----------



## LostSoul

RFisher said:


> Don’t have the DMG. Don’t want the DMG. This is making me feel like I can’t discuss the system since I only own the PHB. (6_6)




The DMG is the book that tells you how to play the game.


----------



## bagger245

Methinks the words: healing, damage, cure, hit points, wounds etc should be revamped.
There is another thread about the bard and some guy mentioning that the bard 
heals you.. That just sounded wrong..


----------



## Zustiur

LostSoul said:


> The DMG is the book that tells you how to play the game.




Funny really. You'd expect the *Play*er's Handbook to tell you how to play.

I'd expect the Dungeon Master's Guide to provide guidance to the dungeon master, maybe including things like... oh I don't know. Magic items?


----------



## vagabundo

bagger245 said:


> Methinks the words: healing, damage, cure, hit points, wounds etc should be revamped.
> There is another thread about the bard and some guy mentioning that the bard
> heals you.. That just sounded wrong..




That would possibly be a slaughtered cow to many methinks.

Although, I'll concede, 4e makes very free and loose with these keywords and many others. 

I think it might be best if people look on them not with their literal meaning but as an 4e mechanic. So 'healing' in this sense means singing a soothing song to increase morale, and as any Bear Grylls fan knows, morale is the key to surviving anything....



Zustiur said:


> Funny really. You'd expect the *Play*er's Handbook to tell you how to play.
> 
> I'd expect the Dungeon Master's Guide to provide guidance to the dungeon master, maybe including things like... oh I don't know. Magic items?




Magic items definatly need to be in the PHB - one of my favourite changes - and you certainly need the DMG is you are going to adujicate a 4e game. These rules are in the DMG becuase they are too powerful for a general all in one mechanic and need to be used on a case by case basis, but they are part of the 4e toolset. 

If you have only the PHB then you only have a third of the game, the DMG and MM are all required to play 4e as you cannot play as just a character in a void.


----------



## Fifth Element

Zustiur said:


> Funny really. You'd expect the *Play*er's Handbook to tell you how to play.



Don't be so literal. DMs play the game too. And D&D by default has a DM at the table, so he needs to know how to be a DM. Pretty simple really. Previous editions' PHBs did no more to explain "how to play" than the 4E PHB.



Zustiur said:


> I'd expect the Dungeon Master's Guide to provide guidance to the dungeon master, maybe including things like... oh I don't know. Magic items?



Why? The only reason I can see that you expect magic items to be in the DMG is because they have been there is previous editions.


----------



## Shazman

LostSoul said:


> The DM can allow you to do damage with an Intimidate check.
> 
> If it brings your target to 0 HP, the DM can rule that he's dead.  I would probably have him run in terror or cower in the corner, begging for mercy.  Any way you describe it, he's not going to fight any more.




I have absolutely no desire to play a game where can do something as silly as cause hp damage with an intimidate check.


----------



## Imaro

Fifth Element said:


> Why? The only reason I can see that you expect magic items to be in the DMG is because they have been there is previous editions.




I do find it just a little ironic, that one of the features in this game is the ability to make a less magic item dependant campaign ( mostly DM's perogative) yet the magic items are in the PHB and it's even suggested that players give the DM a list of items they want (I'm really starting to think it's these little "suggestions" throughout 4e that give many a certain impression, and the authors really should have tried to be more neutral in their steering players and DM's...but that's another thread).  

Personally I think DM's should control the level of magic in their campaigns...and thus the magic items, but I think it just boils down to preference.  But then again, you just asked for a reason why magic items should be in the DMG as opposed to the PHB...Space considerations and campaign control.


----------



## Mallus

Shazman said:


> I have absolutely no desire to play a game where can do something as silly as cause hp damage with an intimidate check.



It's just a morale system. Think back to tabletop wargaming. Sometimes your squad of soldiers stops fighting because they got blown up by mortar fire. Sometimes they stop fighting because the broke ranks and ran.


----------



## Shazman

Mallus said:


> It's just a morale system. Think back to tabletop wargaming. Sometimes your squad of soldiers stops fighting because they got blown up by mortar fire. Sometimes they stop fighting because the broke ranks and ran.




The concept of hit points being all morale is stupid, and I don't think it belongs in D&D.  Does a fireball or dragon's breath weapon damage you because it hurt your feelings or scared you?  Does a sword in the gut hurt your morale only or just plain hurt?  D&D is supposed to be an RPG, not a tabletop wargame.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> It's just a morale system. Think back to tabletop wargaming. Sometimes your squad of soldiers stops fighting because they got blown up by mortar fire. Sometimes they stop fighting because the broke ranks and ran.





Uhm...I think there's a big difference between running away or surendering and dying.  I think once you start letting things like an "intimidation" attack actually take hit points away...well then you've made people killable with skills, and this has pretty far reaching consequences in a campaign (this is also why I hate pg. 42 as the be all end all answer to everything since it's all about damage)...also how does this work for minions??


----------



## Fifth Element

Shazman said:


> The concept of hit points being all morale is stupid, and I don't think it belongs in D&D.  Does a fireball or dragon's breath weapon damage you because it hurt your feelings or scared you?  Does a sword in the gut hurt your morale only or just plain hurt?  D&D is supposed to be an RPG, not a tabletop wargame.



Do we need to pull out the quotes from Mr. Gygax explaining that hit points in D&D do not represent only physical damage? This "stupid" concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning, and I doubt it will go away now.

And please note that some proportion of your hit points do represent physical damage, so you can have it both ways.


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> Personally I think DM's should control the level of magic in their campaigns



I agree, but all the spells are always listed in the PHB, so if you want to restrict wizards, you're out of luck. Why does controlling the level of magic only refer to magic items? And just because the players want a magic item doesn't mean you're obliged to give it to them. The great majority of the time, players I've played with (with any edition) have known what magic items are available in the DMG. Doesn't mean they always got them. It's not like players have no idea how to get their hands on a DMG.



Imaro said:


> ...and thus the magic items, but I think it just boils down to preference.  But then again, you just asked for a reason why magic items should be in the DMG as opposed to the PHB...Space considerations and campaign control.



It does boil down to preference, but I didn't ask for a plausible reason why magic items could be in the DMG. I asked why the other poster _expected they should be in the book_, as if it were a given. There are arguments for either side. The post I was replying to presented it as an obvious truth that magic items belong in the DMG, with no reason given.


----------



## The Little Raven

RFisher said:


> Don’t have the DMG. Don’t want the DMG. This is making me feel like I can’t discuss the system since I only own the PHB. (6_6)




Well, I'm a little surprised that this is new to you, since the game has traditionally divided up the rules between the PHB and the DMG. You can't really accurately discuss 1e, 2e, or 3e without the DMG either, since you're missing half of the equation.


----------



## The Little Raven

bagger245 said:


> There is another thread about the bard and some guy mentioning that the bard
> heals you.. That just sounded wrong..




It sounds wrong that the bard does what it did in 3rd Edition?



> Funny really. You'd expect the Player's Handbook to tell you how to play.




He's not quite right. It's the book that helps you run the game, which is why it contains the rules for the DM adjudicating actions that are not directly covered by the rules. It's needed to play the game in the sense that the DM needs it (since it has the encounter creation stuff, along with all the systems the DM needs to adjudicate a lot of things).


----------



## The Little Raven

Imaro said:


> Uhm...I think there's a big difference between running away or surendering and dying.  I think once you start letting things like an "intimidation" attack actually take hit points away...well then you've made people killable with skills, and this has pretty far reaching consequences in a campaign (this is also why I hate pg. 42 as the be all end all answer to everything since it's all about damage)...also how does this work for minions??




Bronx Mugging Victim Dies of Heart Attack - New York Times

Old man has a fatal heart attack because of a mugging. No violence was done to him. Perfect example of intimidation causing damage.


----------



## Mallus

Shazman said:


> The concept of hit points being all morale is stupid, and I don't think it belongs in D&D.



The concept that hit points are, at least in part, morale is entirely consistent with the way damage has traditionally been represented in D&D. 



> Does a fireball or dragon's breath weapon damage you because it hurt your feelings or scared you?



Both fireballs and dragon's breath reduce a characters ability to keep fighting, which is, ultimately, what hit points are a measure of. 



> Does a sword in the gut hurt your morale only or just plain hurt?



Both, I imagine.



> D&D is supposed to be an RPG, not a tabletop wargame.



While that's true, it doesn't change the fact they similarities exist between RPG combat and wargame combat and that both kinds of game share certain concepts.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> Do we need to pull out the quotes from Mr. Gygax explaining that hit points in D&D do not represent only physical damage? This "stupid" concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning, and I doubt it will go away now.
> 
> And please note that some proportion of your hit points do represent physical damage, so you can have it both ways.




Sgt. Apone: " Ok everybody you heard the man, give em up."
Cpl Crowe: " What are we supposed to use? Harsh Language?"

*Harsh Language: *Intimidate Attack 3
*Encounter-Ridiculous-Psychic*
*Standard Action Ranged *20
*Target: *One creature
*Attack: *Intimidate vs. Will
*Hit: *3d6 + CON modifer ego damage and the target begins to cry (save ends)
*Miss: *Target laughs at you.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> Uhm...I think there's a big difference between running away or surendering and dying.



Of course, but let's not be too literal here. The point is that HP measure a unit's ability to continue fighting during an engagement. Whether that's through physical destruction or collapse of morale isn't relevant.  



> I think once you start letting things like an "intimidation" attack actually take hit points away...well then you've made people killable with skills...



Intimidate can be used to force the surrender of Bloodied opponents. That's part of the skill's description. 



> ... and this has pretty far reaching consequences in a campaign (this is also why I hate pg. 42 as the be all end all answer to everything since it's all about damage)...also how does this work for minions??



Yes it does. I think it comes down to how you feel about those implications. Personally, I find them interesting.

As for minions, depending on the situation, I'd have no problem allowing PC's to use skill checks to cower minions, or even make them die of fright.


----------



## Mallus

ExploderWizard said:


> Sgt. Apone: " Ok everybody you heard the man, give em up."
> Cpl Crowe: " What are we supposed to use? Harsh Language?"
> 
> *Harsh Language: *Intimidate Attack 3
> *Encounter-Ridiculous-Psychic*
> *Standard Action Ranged *20
> *Target: *One creature
> *Attack: *Intimidate vs. Will
> *Hit: *3d6 + CON modifer ego damage and the target begins to cry (save ends)
> *Miss: *Target laughs at you.



Brilliant! 

Of course, if I were running the game, the Aliens would be immune to Harsh Language...


----------



## Lacyon

ExploderWizard said:


> Sgt. Apone: " Ok everybody you heard the man, give em up."
> Cpl Crowe: " What are we supposed to use? Harsh Language?"
> 
> *Harsh Language: *Intimidate Attack 3
> *Encounter-Ridiculous-Psychic*
> *Standard Action Ranged *20
> *Target: *One creature
> *Attack: *Intimidate vs. Will
> *Hit: *3d6 + CON modifer ego damage and the target begins to cry (save ends)
> *Miss: *Target laughs at you.




ExploderWizard, you are welcome at any of my game tables forever


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Mallus said:


> It's just a morale system. Think back to tabletop wargaming. Sometimes your squad of soldiers stops fighting because they got blown up by mortar fire. Sometimes they stop fighting because the broke ranks and ran.




But that's for a unit of soldiers, generally.  The unit breaks, and thus the entire group is out of the battle.  Sure, many still live, but they get scattered and unable to regroup into any size capable of being a threat.  If their side loses, they'll likely die trying to flee as the enemy sends cavalry/whatever to hunt down survivors.  If their side wins, they can't go back; they'll likely get executed for leaving the battle.  Similar to how in 3E, killing a swarm's hp doesn't kill all x thousand of the bugs, it just utterly scatters them.

This concept does not work so well on the individual level D&D deals with, IMO.



The Little Raven said:


> It sounds wrong that the bard does what it did in 3rd Edition?




I was wondering that, too.


----------



## Mallus

StreamOfTheSky said:


> This concept does not work so well on the individual level D&D deals with, IMO.



You seem to be saying that it's impossible to break a unit's morale but not an individual soldier's. How does that work?


----------



## ExploderWizard

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But that's for a unit of soldiers, generally. The unit breaks, and thus the entire group is out of the battle. Sure, many still live, but they get scattered and unable to regroup into any size capable of being a threat. If their side loses, they'll likely die trying to flee as the enemy sends cavalry/whatever to hunt down survivors. If their side wins, they can't go back; they'll likely get executed for leaving the battle. Similar to how in 3E, killing a swarm's hp doesn't kill all x thousand of the bugs, it just utterly scatters them.
> 
> This concept does not work so well on the individual level D&D deals with, IMO.




I agree. Morale works well as a group mechanic. Basic D&D got it right. Check morale for the group if things start heading rapidly towards defeat. At that point the victors can pursue the broken troops or end the engagement holding the field. 

Individuals should decide if surrender or retreat  is a viable option depending on thier intelligence, knowledge of the foe, and other factors. 

The 4E movement rules did make it harder to retreat without getting whacked though.


----------



## The Little Raven

ExploderWizard said:


> The 4E movement rules did make it harder to retreat without getting whacked though.




Eh? One of the complaints I often see about the 1:1 movement is that it allows you to move more easily without being whacked, usually phrased that monsters can move past defender-types easier because movement cost isn't increased by diagonals.


----------



## Benimoto

Jasperak said:


> Wait a second. We can have a discussion about using a Skill to do damage or even kill someone?
> 
> How is that going to work at an RPGA event?




As a pretty regular RPGA DM, I like it any time any of my players wants to do something "out of the box".  RPGA sessions have a natural tendency to be not particularly memorable by default, and a few wacky things happening in a game can change that.  Plus, there's been a big push, especially in 4th edition, for the RPGA modules to be run less "tournament-style" and more customized to the play style of the table.

Plus, if you want to describe an Intimidate check as doing physical damage, just do so.  Say that the target clutches his/her chest and goes pale.  Say that the player coincidentally picked the goblin with a heart condition.  It's been pointed out repeatedly in the thread that stress can cause as much damage as physical violence.  Further, the concept of hit points as only "meat points" is ridiculous and has been since 1st edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard

The Little Raven said:


> Eh? One of the complaints I often see about the 1:1 movement is that it allows you to move more easily without being whacked, usually phrased that monsters can move past defender-types easier because movement cost isn't increased by diagonals.




The diagonals are not the problem. The double move action is the culprit unless errata has been released.

On a double move your 2nd move action must match the first. So If I want to shift out danger before retreating I can then only shift again instead of moving any real distance, so the thing I want to get away from is still right there in my face (2 squares away)


----------



## The Little Raven

ExploderWizard said:


> The diagonals are not the problem. The double move action is the culprit unless errata has been released.
> 
> On a double move your 2nd move action must match the first. So If I want to shift out danger before retreating I can then only shift again instead of moving any real distance, so the thing I want to get away from is still right there in my face (2 squares away)




Um, no.

A double move is two moves of the same type, which is given specific rules to avoid things like "your first move ends you in an illegal square." Double move does not prevent you from taking two entirely separate move actions. There is no errata necessary.


----------



## ExploderWizard

The Little Raven said:


> Um, no.
> 
> A double move is two moves of the same type, which is given specific rules to avoid things like "your first move ends you in an illegal square." Double move does not prevent you from taking two entirely separate move actions. There is no errata necessary.




Two moves of the same type? So if my 1st move is a shift my second move can be something other than a shift?

EDIT: Ok I think I see the difference. You can take two move actions in a round of different types.


----------



## Shazman

Fifth Element said:


> Do we need to pull out the quotes from Mr. Gygax explaining that hit points in D&D do not represent only physical damage? This "stupid" concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning, and I doubt it will go away now.
> 
> And please note that some proportion of your hit points do represent physical damage, so you can have it both ways.





Notice I said hp being ONLY morale is stupid.  I'm okay with morale being a small component of hp, but changing the hp concept to make it be completely about morale is just plain stupid.   Like I said earlier, do attacks hurt your morale or do they just plain hurt?  If the game is all about morale let's just have everyone trade insults and make intimidating displays instead of actually fighting. Let's reduce the most popular RPG to grade school name calling. That's a great way to suck the excitement and drama from the game.  That is not a game I want to be part of.


----------



## LostSoul

Shazman said:


> Notice I said hp being ONLY morale is stupid.  I'm okay with morale being a small component of hp, but changing the hp concept to make it be completely about morale is just plain stupid.   Like I said earlier, do attacks hurt your morale or do they just plain hurt?  If the game is all about morale let's just have everyone trade insults and make intimidating displays instead of actually fighting. Let's reduce the most popular RPG to grade school name calling. That's a great way to suck the excitement and drama from the game.  That is not a game I want to be part of.




Hit points are both hurt and morale - or they can be neither.  They're very nebulous.

If you don't want the game to be reduced to grade school name calling, have your character say more interesting, exciting, drama-laden things.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Shazman said:


> If the game is all about morale let's just have everyone trade insults and make intimidating displays instead of actually fighting. Let's reduce the most popular RPG to grade school name calling.



Beating of shields, high hats and weird musical isntruments were part of warfare as intimidatory effects. Sensible people do not really want to fight, it dangerous.


----------



## ExploderWizard

ardoughter said:


> Beating of shields, high hats and weird musical isntruments were part of warfare as intimidatory effects. Sensible people do not really want to fight, it dangerous.




I'm with you here. All these things should be able to influence morale. I would use it as fear effect rather than hp damage though. They tend to make you run away rather than wear you down. 

Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear. 

Morale is something that just kind of holds or breaks. I don't see it as ablative.


----------



## Phaezen

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm with you here. All these things should be able to influence morale. I would use it as fear effect rather than hp damage though. They tend to make you run away rather than wear you down.
> 
> Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear.
> 
> Morale is something that just kind of holds or breaks. I don't see it as ablative.




Possibly think of hitpoints as a combination between your ability to fight and your will to fight.  In the barbarian example above, I would assume of the target is casually ignoring him, then the Barbarians intimidate is not hitting.  Besides, I would give a skill check like this an effect on the game (hp and effect) that is no more powerful than an at will power, and possibly limit it to once an enounter or until you miss.

Phaezen


----------



## The Little Raven

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm with you here. All these things should be able to influence morale. I would use it as fear effect rather than hp damage though. They tend to make you run away rather than wear you down.




Well, when one's HP is low, one tends to flee from combat if one wants to avoid being killed. Thus, low HP can represent low morale.



> Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear.




If the Barbarian is actually affecting the target, in this case by hit point loss, then the target can't really be ignoring him. If the Barbarian was missing with his Intimidate attack and dealing no damage, then you could justify the opponent ignoring him.



> Morale is something that just kind of holds or breaks. I don't see it as ablative.




Morale is definitely more complex than being binary, but even if it was, it would still resemble D&D hit points, since (until 4e added Bloodied) it was always a matter of on (you have hit points, and thus can fight) or off (you do not have hit points, and thus cannot fight).


----------



## mmadsen

Shazman said:


> If the game is all about morale let's just have everyone trade insults and make intimidating displays instead of actually fighting.



This is what most "combat" throughout history and around the world has been.  I've discussed realistic combat before, where I cited a piece by Grossman on Posturing as a Psychological Weapon: The resistance to killing can be overcome, or at least bypassed, by a variety of techniques. One technique is to cause the enemy to run (often by getting in their flank or rear, which almost always causes a rout), and it is in the subsequent pursuit of a broken or defeated enemy that the vast majority of the killing happens.

    It is widely known that most killing happens after the battle, in the pursuit phase (Clausewitz and Ardant du Picq both commented on this), and this is apparently due to two factors. First, the pursuer doesn't have to look in his victim's eyes, and it appears to be much easier to deny an opponent's humanity if you can stab or shoot them in the back and don't have to look into their eyes when you kill them. Second (and probably much more importantly), in the midbrain, during a pursuit, the opponent has changed from a fellow male engaged in a primitive, simplistic, ritualistic, head-to-head, territorial or mating battle to prey who must to be pursued, pulled down, and killed. Anyone who has ever worked with dogs understands this process: you are generally safe if you face a dog down, and you should always back away from a dog (or almost any animal) in a threatening situation because if you turn around and run you are in great danger of being viciously attacked. The same is true of soldiers in combat.

    Thus one key to the battle is simply to get the enemy to run. The battlefield is truly psychological in nature, and in this realm the individual who puffs himself up the biggest, or makes the loudest noise, is most likely to win. The actual battle is, from one perspective, a process of posturing until one side or another turns and runs, and then the real killing begins. Thus posturing is critical to warfare, and victory can he achieved through superior posturing.

    Bagpipes, bugles, drums, shiny armor, tall hats, chariots, elephants, and cavalry have all been factors in successful posturing (convincing oneself of one's prowess while daunting one's enemy), but, ultimately, gunpowder proved to be the ultimate posturing tool. For example, the long bow was significantly more accurate and had a far greater rate of fire and a much greater accurate range than the muzzle-loading muskets used up to the early part of the American Civil War. Furthermore, the long bow did not need the industrial base (iron and gunpowder) required by muskets, and the training of a long bowman was not really all that difficult.

    Thus, mechanically speaking there are few reasons why there should not have been regiments of long bowmen at Waterloo and the 1st Bull Run cutting vast swaths through the enemy. [Similarly there were highly efficient, air-pressure-powered weapons available as early as the Napoleonic era (similar to modern paintball guns), which had a far higher firing rate than the muskets of that era, but were never used.] But it must be constantly remembered that, to paraphrase Napoleon, in war, psychological factors are three times more important than mechanical factors. The reality is that, on the battlefield, if you are going "doink, doink," no matter how effectively, and the enemy is going "BANG!, BANG!," no matter how ineffectively, ultimately the "doinkers" lose. This phenomenon helps explain the effectiveness of high-noise-producing weapons ranging from Gustavus Adolphus' small, mobile cannons assigned to infantry units to the U.S. Army's M-60 machine gun in Vietnam, which fired large, very loud, 7.62-mm ammunition at a slow rate of fire vs the M-16's smaller (and comparatively much less noisy) 5.56-mm ammunition firing at a rapid rate of fire. (Note that both the machine gun and the cannon are also crew-served weapons, which is a key factor to be addressed shortly.)​


Shazman said:


> Let's reduce the most popular RPG to grade school name calling. That's a great way to suck the excitement and drama from the game.  That is not a game I want to be part of.



A lot of adventure fiction -- from ancient epic poems to 20th-century samurai films -- emphasizes intimidation and posturing, whether via loud bragging or a silent stare-down.  It definitely has its place in a "combat"-oriented game.

That said, I don't think physical injuries and fear should necessarily share the same mechanic.  At the very least, we should stop calling them "hit" points, and we should divorce them from "hitting," if anything intimidating does "damage".


----------



## Frost

bagger245 said:


> My solution: *Don't treat each editions of D&D as an upgrade.* Find the editions that you are more comfortable with and stick with it. Then get some ideas off other editions and house rule it into your game.




This is really the best piece of advice for all of us.  Obviously, the house-ruling from other editions is optional.


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear.




Wouldn't that be like watching a barbarian pounding his axe in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 HP is reached?


----------



## Jasperak

Phaezen said:


> Possibly think of hitpoints as a combination between your ability to fight and your will to fight.




Then I want Charisma bonuses added to hit points and available healing surges.


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> Wouldn't that be like watching a barbarian pounding his axe in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 HP is reached?




Exactly like that.  Thats why I like to think of hp as exhaustion or fatigue rather than being smacked hard. As hp are lost, more energy is lost avoiding a deadly strike. 

Fear/morale effects either work or they don't, although morale can get weaker as surviving troops see more setbacks befall thier unit.


----------



## Andor

LostSoul said:


> Hit points are both hurt and morale - or they can be neither.  They're very nebulous.
> 
> If you don't want the game to be reduced to grade school name calling, have your character say more interesting, exciting, drama-laden things.




Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!


----------



## Jasperak

Andor said:


> Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!




Did I just take 2d6 points of damage or 1d4 points of Wisdom damage?


----------



## Fifth Element

Jasperak said:


> Did I just take 2d6 points of damage or 1d4 points of Wisdom damage?



There's no ability damage in 4E. So the first one, if you're up-to-date.


----------



## Zustiur

vagabundo said:


> Magic items definatly need to be in the PHB - one of my favourite changes - and you certainly need the DMG is you are going to adujicate a 4e game. These rules are in the DMG becuase they are too powerful for a general all in one mechanic and need to be used on a case by case basis, but they are part of the 4e toolset.
> 
> If you have only the PHB then you only have a third of the game, the DMG and MM are all required to play 4e as you cannot play as just a character in a void.



I disagree on both points. Firstly, magic items do not _need_ to be in the PHB, as evidenced by previous editions. Secondly, you do not _need_ the DMG to adjudicate the game, although it certainly helps. This is because it is intended to be a _guide_ to running the game, not a book of game rules.
Roughly, the PHB should include rules. The DMG should be a guide to running the game, and the MM contains lots of monsters you can use in your game if you want to.
If you only have the PHB, you have all you require to play the game. The reason I posted earlier is that someone was implying that players should all have the DMG in order to have all the rules for the game. This is not so. The 'rules' presented in the DMG are not for general use by the players.
The MM is, and always has been entirely optional. You can stick to NPCs in your games, or you can create your own monsters.



Fifth Element said:


> Don't be so literal. DMs play the game too. And D&D by default has a DM at the table, so he needs to know how to be a DM. Pretty simple really. Previous editions' PHBs did no more to explain "how to play" than the 4E PHB.



It was a joke, I was merely pointing out the discrepancy in the title and the content of the books.



> Why? The only reason I can see that you expect magic items to be in the DMG is because they have been there is previous editions.



How about, because it's hard enough keeping munchkin players focussed on the story without giving them hundreds of items to peruse? Or more importantly, because I liked having all the fancy items hidden from player knowledge because it made handing them out so much more special. Or because I'd like that extra space in the PHB used for something more productive (and for preference the DMG would then have been longer).



Imaro said:


> I do find it just a little ironic, that one of the features in this game is the ability to make a less magic item dependant campaign ( mostly DM's perogative) yet the magic items are in the PHB and it's even suggested that players give the DM a list of items they want <snip>But then again, you just asked for a reason why magic items should be in the DMG as opposed to the PHB...Space considerations and campaign control.



Exactly. I prefer to run low-fantasy settings. With magic items being rare, and non-complex. That is, most of them are just straight +X items, and only a few items get handed out that have special abilities tied to them. Putting all that info in the PHB gives players the expectation of finding fancy items, which I have no intention of handing out. But that's okay, because there are so many other reasons for me not to DM in 4E, that it makes no difference any more.


----------



## Shazman

mmadsen said:


> This is what most "combat" throughout history and around the world has been.  I've discussed realistic combat before, where I cited a piece by Grossman on Posturing as a Psychological Weapon: The resistance to killing can be overcome, or at least bypassed, by a variety of techniques. One technique is to cause the enemy to run (often by getting in their flank or rear, which almost always causes a rout), and it is in the subsequent pursuit of a broken or defeated enemy that the vast majority of the killing happens.
> 
> It is widely known that most killing happens after the battle, in the pursuit phase (Clausewitz and Ardant du Picq both commented on this), and this is apparently due to two factors. First, the pursuer doesn't have to look in his victim's eyes, and it appears to be much easier to deny an opponent's humanity if you can stab or shoot them in the back and don't have to look into their eyes when you kill them. Second (and probably much more importantly), in the midbrain, during a pursuit, the opponent has changed from a fellow male engaged in a primitive, simplistic, ritualistic, head-to-head, territorial or mating battle to prey who must to be pursued, pulled down, and killed. Anyone who has ever worked with dogs understands this process: you are generally safe if you face a dog down, and you should always back away from a dog (or almost any animal) in a threatening situation because if you turn around and run you are in great danger of being viciously attacked. The same is true of soldiers in combat.
> 
> Thus one key to the battle is simply to get the enemy to run. The battlefield is truly psychological in nature, and in this realm the individual who puffs himself up the biggest, or makes the loudest noise, is most likely to win. The actual battle is, from one perspective, a process of posturing until one side or another turns and runs, and then the real killing begins. Thus posturing is critical to warfare, and victory can he achieved through superior posturing.
> 
> Bagpipes, bugles, drums, shiny armor, tall hats, chariots, elephants, and cavalry have all been factors in successful posturing (convincing oneself of one's prowess while daunting one's enemy), but, ultimately, gunpowder proved to be the ultimate posturing tool. For example, the long bow was significantly more accurate and had a far greater rate of fire and a much greater accurate range than the muzzle-loading muskets used up to the early part of the American Civil War. Furthermore, the long bow did not need the industrial base (iron and gunpowder) required by muskets, and the training of a long bowman was not really all that difficult.
> 
> Thus, mechanically speaking there are few reasons why there should not have been regiments of long bowmen at Waterloo and the 1st Bull Run cutting vast swaths through the enemy. [Similarly there were highly efficient, air-pressure-powered weapons available as early as the Napoleonic era (similar to modern paintball guns), which had a far higher firing rate than the muskets of that era, but were never used.] But it must be constantly remembered that, to paraphrase Napoleon, in war, psychological factors are three times more important than mechanical factors. The reality is that, on the battlefield, if you are going "doink, doink," no matter how effectively, and the enemy is going "BANG!, BANG!," no matter how ineffectively, ultimately the "doinkers" lose. This phenomenon helps explain the effectiveness of high-noise-producing weapons ranging from Gustavus Adolphus' small, mobile cannons assigned to infantry units to the U.S. Army's M-60 machine gun in Vietnam, which fired large, very loud, 7.62-mm ammunition at a slow rate of fire vs the M-16's smaller (and comparatively much less noisy) 5.56-mm ammunition firing at a rapid rate of fire. (Note that both the machine gun and the cannon are also crew-served weapons, which is a key factor to be addressed shortly.)​A lot of adventure fiction -- from ancient epic poems to 20th-century samurai films -- emphasizes intimidation and posturing, whether via loud bragging or a silent stare-down.  It definitely has its place in a "combat"-oriented game.
> 
> That said, I don't think physical injuries and fear should necessarily share the same mechanic.  At the very least, we should stop calling them "hit" points, and we should divorce them from "hitting," if anything intimidating does "damage".





Would you like to watch an "action" movie that had nothing but insults and posturing in it?  No combat, no action, no dramatic conflict.  I would call that boring.  D&D has always been about combat, not morale and intimidation.  If you fight a dragon, do you drop dead from fright, or because it toasted you with it's breath weapon and ripped you to peices with it's claws?  Like you said , morale should use a different mechanic than physical injury.  Isn't that what a will save (or will defense in 4E) is for? Hurting morale should give some sort of penalty but not cause hp damage.


----------



## Rel

Shazman said:


> Would you like to watch an "action" movie that had nothing but insults and posturing in it?  No combat, no action, no dramatic conflict.  I would call that boring.  D&D has always been about combat, not morale and intimidation.




See I agree with all of this.

And that's why I'm ok with the occassional intimidate or fear attack causing HP damage.  It's because I think that such attacks should be rare and memorable.  If something is going to be rarely used then I see little point in coming up with a separate subsystem for it.


----------



## mmadsen

Shazman said:


> Would you like to watch an "action" movie that had nothing but insults and posturing in it?



_Nothing but_ posturing?  Of course not.  _With a lot of_ posturing?  Sure.  And most action movies do.  It's practically the basis of kung-fu movies, pro wrestling, etc.


Shazman said:


> No combat, no action, no dramatic conflict.



That's quite a straw man you've propped up there.  Lot's of posturing, but no dramatic conflict?


Shazman said:


> D&D has always been about combat, not morale and intimidation.



First, D&D used to consider morale very important, because war games considered morale very important. Second, I think emphasizing morale and intimidation simultaneously makes the game more realistic and more dramatic, so I would consider a re-emphasis an improvement.


Shazman said:


> If you fight a dragon, do you drop dead from fright, or because it toasted you with it's breath weapon and ripped you to peices with it's claws?



I think it's pretty silly to have characters routinely drop dead from fright, but I think it makes perfect sense for henchmen and hirelings to run for the hills the moment they see a dragon.  The PCs, of course, are made of sterner stuff.


Shazman said:


> Like you said , morale should use a different mechanic than physical injury.  Isn't that what a will save (or will defense in 4E) is for? Hurting morale should give some sort of penalty but not cause hp damage.



The question is, should hit points even be tied to physical damage?  Certainly they always have been, but that never made much sense.  One good hit should take almost anyone out of the fight -- and isn't that what getting past AC is supposed to mean?


----------



## Delta

mmadsen said:


> The question is, should hit points even be tied to physical damage?




Wow. Just... wow.


----------



## Fifth Element

Delta said:


> Wow. Just... wow.



So...does that mean you *do* think hit points should be tied to physical damage? Your reply wasn't very informative.


----------



## Shazman

Well if the henchmen flee because their hit points are at 0 from fear of the dragon, they drop dead instead of running for the hills.  The dragon's frightful presence made them flee because they couldn't resist it, not because their hit points dropped to zero.  If hit points are morale, why are in you in a dying state when your hp drop below zero? If a PC wants to cause enemies to surrender or flee or take penalties with an intimidate check, that's fine. An intimidate check causing them to lose hitpoints is ridiculous.  If you want morale to be analogus to hitpoints, it sounds like you want to play a different game than D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element

Shazman said:


> If hit points are morale, why are in you in a dying state when your hp drop below zero?



Because only a *part* of them represent morale. No one is suggesting they're supposed to be 100% morale. But as Mr. Gygax himself explained, some part of hit points is morale. (And some part is physical damage, and combat skill, etc). You're arguing against an assertion that has not been made.



Shazman said:


> If you want morale to be analogus to hitpoints, it sounds like you want to play a different game than D&D.



Hilarious. All previous editions of D&D would like to have a word with you. The parts that explain what hit points represent, specifically.


----------



## Andor

mmadsen said:


> The question is, should hit points even be tied to physical damage?  Certainly they always have been, but that never made much sense.  One good hit should take almost anyone out of the fight -- and isn't that what getting past AC is supposed to mean?




I have a friend who's done a lot of exciting stuff for our Unle Sam. He once told me "The first time I got shot I was convinced I was dying. The fifth or sixth time it just made me mad."

One good shot _in the right place_ will indeed take anyone out. But the human body can absorb amazing amounts of damage and keep operating for a while.


----------



## Imp

In a game where I could theoretically see the faces of all the combatants on the field, I'm happier with keeping morale mostly out of hit points, which is how it's been done previously, simply because I want anything with zero hit points to have sustained a mortal wound. I prefer the game to be sort of precise that way. In a wargame dealing with hundreds or thousands of combatants, the greater abstraction is welcome.

It also makes somewhat more sense to roll armor into hit points than it does morale.

Morale certainly does have a major effect on combat, but I'd rather it be on a different chart.

Nutrition, health, and fatigue also have major effects on combat, but D&D has historically elided those effects almost entirely, for the same reason morale has taken a back seat – it's part of the fantasy that heroes go against evil (or whatever) all out, without the concerns of lesser, normal people getting in the way.


----------



## Delta

Fifth Element said:


> But as Mr. Gygax himself explained, some part of hit points is morale. (And some part is physical damage, and combat skill, etc).




No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.


----------



## Remathilis

Fifth Element said:


> So...does that mean you *do* think hit points should be tied to physical damage? Your reply wasn't very informative.




Silly, don't you know that as you gain levels, your skin gets tougher and more resistant to cuts, burns, and crushing blows? How else can a 200 hp fighter wade into a field of spear-armed kobolds and be able to walk out and jog a marathon?


----------



## Grazzt

Delta said:


> No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.




Yep. I dont recall Gygax using the word morale either. IIRC, the 1e PHB defined HP as physical punishment, skill, luck, and magical factors.


----------



## justanobody

Grazzt said:


> Yep. I dont recall Gygax using the word morale either. IIRC, the 1e PHB defined HP as physical punishment, skill, luck, and magical factors.




Indeed you do "IIRC".

"represent how much damage (actual or potential) a character can take before being killed."

Morale was for henchmen reactions.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm with you here. All these things should be able to influence morale. I would use it as fear effect rather than hp damage though. They tend to make you run away rather than wear you down.
> 
> Using hp damage for this would be like watching a barbarian screaming in the face of his opponent who casually ignores him until 0 hp is reached and he finally faints from the fear.
> 
> Morale is something that just kind of holds or breaks. I don't see it as ablative.



Yes and no, I remember reading quote from a French officer in the Pennsular war, could have been quoted in Chandler's Campaings of Napoleon, then again it could have been anything, I read a lot of that stuff. 
Back to the French Officer, his batallion charged a British regiment while deployed in Column of Divisions (2 company frontage as far as I recall) anyway at 300 yards the men were yelling insults, cheering and in good morale at 150 yards they had fallen silent because the British line had not reacted visiblly to their advance. They were silently in line leaning on their muskets and because the Brits had only 2 ranks in line the French could see through the British line. At 75 yards the Brits shouldered arms and at 40 they fired. The French column broke. 

My point is that by standing there and not reacting for the 125 yards that the French were within musket range and not reacting the Brits were making an intimidate check and the French were leaking morale because this was unprecidended in their experience and were wondering what did these guys know that they did not. By shouldering arms and not firing for another 35 yards, that another intimidate check and then the morale effects for the first volley.

In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.


----------



## billd91

ardoughter said:


> In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.




This just makes me think that there should be an entirely separate mechanic for rating and undermining morale. It may make sense for a unit to have a morale score that gets whittled down, but that score should be separate from determining the resilience of the individuals in the unit, who may well react differently when cornered as individuals and, more importantly, are recoverable after the encounter.

Something like SWSE's condition track would be a better choice for individuals. Start with Good Order as the default, allow one or two statuses above that for special bonuses, and have a few status below. Then you could attack that track with certain powers directly and not have the possibility of a horde of minions killed by an intimidate check.


----------



## Mister Doug

bagger245 said:


> Methinks the words: healing, damage, cure, hit points, wounds etc should be revamped.
> There is another thread about the bard and some guy mentioning that the bard
> heals you.. That just sounded wrong..




The idea of treating hit points, damage, healing etc. being literal in any edition of D&D involves a huge suspension of disbelief. (If I'm a Lord with lots of experience, my experience in combat allows me to be hacked by a greatsword 10 times before I die? Or fall ten stories without dying? That's silly... unless we assume hit points never meant literal wounds beyond first level....)

And bards healing seems wrong? The 1e bard had that included healing, and the 3e bard had healing spellls (and I forget about the 2e bard).


----------



## LostSoul

Shazman said:


> Well if the henchmen flee because their hit points are at 0 from fear of the dragon, they drop dead instead of running for the hills.  The dragon's frightful presence made them flee because they couldn't resist it, not because their hit points dropped to zero.  If hit points are morale, why are in you in a dying state when your hp drop below zero?




Hit points don't have to represent morale, and they are not the only way to represent someone fleeing.

0 HP can mean unconcious.  That's RAW, I guess.  I don't have a problem with 0 HP also meaning - well, anything else that means the guy won't fight any more, at least not for 5 minutes.



Imp said:


> In a game where I could theoretically see the faces of all the combatants off the field, I'm happier with keeping morale mostly out of hit points, which is how it's been done previously, simply because I want anything with zero hit points to have sustained a mortal wound. I prefer the game to be sort of precise that way. In a wargame dealing with hundreds or thousands of combatants, the greater abstraction is welcome.




The cool thing about 4e is that you can go both ways with it.  If you're like me, you can deal damage with the Intimidate check.  If not, you can keep playing like you always have.


----------



## Remathilis

Mister Doug said:


> And bards healing seems wrong? The 1e bard had that included healing, and the 3e bard had healing spellls (and I forget about the 2e bard).




2e bards did not; they had access to ALL wizard spells 1st-6th level (starting at 2nd level and advancing slowly, so that that got 3rd level spells around 7th level and 6th level I think at 15th). Coupled with their caster levels = character level, bards were potent casters and really could sub for a wizard about 3 levels lowers (not bad, considering they rose on the thief XP chart). Add on any weapon choice they wanted, d6 hp, 4 thief skills (pick pockets, hear noise, climb walls, read lang), rogue Thac0, and a 5% chance/level of identifying magic items, 2nd ed bards weren't the weaklings most people placed them as.


----------



## ExploderWizard

ardoughter said:


> Yes and no, I remember reading quote from a French officer in the Pennsular war, could have been quoted in Chandler's Campaings of Napoleon, then again it could have been anything, I read a lot of that stuff.
> Back to the French Officer, his batallion charged a British regiment while deployed in Column of Divisions (2 company frontage as far as I recall) anyway at 300 yards the men were yelling insults, cheering and in good morale at 150 yards they had fallen silent because the British line had not reacted visiblly to their advance. They were silently in line leaning on their muskets and because the Brits had only 2 ranks in line the French could see through the British line. At 75 yards the Brits shouldered arms and at 40 they fired. The French column broke.
> 
> My point is that by standing there and not reacting for the 125 yards that the French were within musket range and not reacting the Brits were making an intimidate check and the French were leaking morale because this was unprecidended in their experience and were wondering what did these guys know that they did not. By shouldering arms and not firing for another 35 yards, that another intimidate check and then the morale effects for the first volley.
> 
> In D&D terms, I doubt I'd allow a regular use of intimidate to knock off hit points but if say a someone did damage equal or greater than a the creatures bloodied value in a single attack and them made an intimidate on the rest of the enemies then I would allow damage from that and if say the damage made a majority of other creatures bloodied then I would have them flee the combat.




Sure the morale situation got slowly worse. In game terms  thats better represented by penalties to defenses from an attack on Will. If the Brits were tossing fireballs as the French adavanced it would be doing HP damage and at the same time morale would begin to fail. 

If HP are used as morale damage then what determines who is wiped out, knocked out, or merely soiling thier breeches. Knockouts from fireballs are silly enough. Fireballs that just make someone sit down and cry makes my wizard want to sit down and eat his own magic missile.


----------



## RFisher

The Little Raven said:


> Well, I'm a little surprised that this is new to you, since the game has traditionally divided up the rules between the PHB and the DMG. You can't really accurately discuss 1e, 2e, or 3e without the DMG either, since you're missing half of the equation.




Well, you see, not wanting to buy the DMG is new to me.

OK, I didn’t buy the 3.5 DMG either, but that’s different. (^_^)

I suspect one could indeed discuss 2e accurately without the DMG. But that’s neither here nor there, really.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

Mallus said:


> You seem to be saying that it's impossible to break a unit's morale but not an individual soldier's. How does that work?




By divorcing morale from hit points?  Like how in 3E, there were levels of fear.  Now granted, it was a little too simplistic, and it'd be nice if there were added rules/modifiers, like a penalty on rolls/saves if injured (the bloodied state of 4E), as well as triggers for morale checks when certain events happen (like an ally getting dropped).  I've been thinking about instituting such thingsi n my games, if only to enforce "fear" on the PCs outside of casting the fear spell.  Of course, this would result in taking some control out of the players' hands and telling them, "that huge ogre just killed 6 soldiers in one round, you're scared."  Such things are always controversial...

Tangent aside, both examples -- bloodied condition causing penalties and seeing allies fall force a morale check -- are _related_ to the hp system, without hp becoming a sort of measure of bravery.  I wouldn't mind something like that in the rules, but I don't like the idea of hp directly reflecting morale.


----------



## mmadsen

Shazman said:


> Well if the henchmen flee because their hit points are at 0 from fear of the dragon, they drop dead instead of running for the hills.  The dragon's frightful presence made them flee because they couldn't resist it, not because their hit points dropped to zero.  If hit points are morale, why are in you in a dying state when your hp drop below zero?



It looks like I need to clarify my point, which is that hit points either went too far -- or didn't go far enough -- in divorcing themselves from physical damage.  They hold an untenable middle ground between representing physical damage and representing luck, divine favor, etc.

If warriors were trees, and great warrior were trees with thick trunks, then hit points would model physical damage nicely.  You chop, chop, chop away, until you chop through, and the tree falls.  But warriors aren't trees.  In real life, physical damage doesn't slowly accrue.  People don't _ablate_.  In real life and in adventure fiction, one hit often takes out a great warrior -- and sometimes dozens of hits _don't_.

I think we all agree that hit points currently represent physical toughness _plus_ all kinds of intangibles -- luck, divine favor, plot protection, what have you.  In fact, hit points seem to represent _primarily_ those intangibles, since we know characters don't double and triple in their physical toughness against sword wounds as they gain experience.

So we have a bit of a paradox in our model.  We act as if hit points are physical toughness, and they should be lost to "damage" from "hits" with attacks that cause injury, but they clearly represent something else entirely.  And now that they can be "healed" by inspiring words and the like, we have to wonder why they can't be lost to "damage" from _un_inspiring words, or _harsh language_.

But the rules still treat them as physical injury, at least when they run out, which leads to silly results if we allow intimidation to cause "damage" -- because scared warriors should flee the field, not keel over disabled or dead.

So some people would recommend splitting hit points into two buckets -- _wounds_ and _vitality_, for instance.

But another way to look at it is to ask why hit points are still associated with physical toughness and wounds at all.  If they really are intangible "can still fight" points, why not use them for anything and everything that keeps you in the fight, not just withstanding physical damage from physical hits? After all, those "hits" doing "damage" may or may not be hits doing damage, if we accept that hit points represent luck, etc.

Why not roll toughness into AC, or split AC into one value for _avoiding_ hits and one for _withstanding_ hits, and let hit points be used to modify die rolls?  If you narrowly dodge a poisoned arrow, that's using up a few points to boost your AC -- via extra effort or divine favor.  Then we'd _know_ you weren't hit.  If you take a hit in a barroom brawl, and spend a few points to stay standing, we _know_ you were hit, but not seriously hurt.  And very little changes mechanically.


----------



## mmadsen

Andor said:


> One good shot _in the right place_ will indeed take anyone out. But the human body can absorb amazing amounts of damage and keep operating for a while.



Indeed.  Read the realistic combat thread for some good examples of that.

But can't we define _overcoming AC_ to mean _landing a good shot in the right place_?  If you didn't have years of D&D experience under your belt, and someone explained what AC was, wouldn't you assume that overcoming AC meant landing a telling blow?  Otherwise, why is armor making you harder to "hit"?


----------



## Hypersmurf

ExploderWizard said:


> If HP are used as morale damage then what determines who is wiped out, knocked out, or merely soiling thier breeches.




The DM.

-Hyp.


----------



## Grazzt

Hypersmurf said:


> The DM.
> 
> -Hyp.




I believe Hyper- has it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Do we need to pull out the quotes from Mr. Gygax explaining that hit points in D&D do not represent only physical damage?




Please find any quote that suggests that hit point damage is not always _at least partially_ physical damage and you will have demonstrated that this stupid concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning.

Otherwise, please stop blaming Gary for 4e's faults.


RC


----------



## CleverNickName

Hypersmurf said:


> The DM.
> 
> -Hyp.



This.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ExploderWizard said:


> Sure the morale situation got slowly worse. In game terms  thats better represented by penalties to defenses from an attack on Will. If the Brits were tossing fireballs as the French adavanced it would be doing HP damage and at the same time morale would begin to fail.



No these French were veteran soldiers, most contential armies would have opened fire at 200 yards, though not usually with Fireballs , though case shot is a good substitute and there were used to that so no extra intimidate check allowed, if I was DM'ing it. 



ExploderWizard said:


> If HP are used as morale damage then what determines who is wiped out, knocked out, or merely soiling thier breeches. Knockouts from fireballs are silly enough. Fireballs that just make someone sit down and cry makes my wizard want to sit down and eat his own magic missile.



As Hypersmurf says above the DM

For that matter, I always have had the opposite problem with fireballs. If you take significant fire damage from a fireball, how are you still able to fight with heavy burns and why don't you die from blood poisioning due to infections of the burns. In every edition I have had to ignore that to make the game work for me. And it has always helped to regard hit points as something not entirely physical.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

mmadsen said:


> snip
> 
> Why not roll toughness into AC, or split AC into one value for _avoiding_ hits and one for _withstanding_ hits, and let hit points be used to modify die rolls?  If you narrowly dodge a poisoned arrow, that's using up a few points to boost your AC -- via extra effort or divine favor.  Then we'd _know_ you weren't hit.  If you take a hit in a barroom brawl, and spend a few points to stay standing, we _know_ you were hit, but not seriously hurt.  And very little changes mechanically.




Not entirely clear what you mean here, but; 
Splitting AC in to 'hard to hit' and 'withstanding hits' is pretty much what WHFRP does, There is no AC as such but each character has a percentile chance to hit and then if successful toughness + armour is subtracted from damage.

On the spend hit points to evade damage, well is that not what we are currently doing?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

billd91 said:


> This just makes me think that there should be an entirely separate mechanic for rating and undermining morale. It may make sense for a unit to have a morale score that gets whittled down, but that score should be separate from determining the resilience of the individuals in the unit, who may well react differently when cornered as individuals and, more importantly, are recoverable after the encounter.
> 
> Something like SWSE's condition track would be a better choice for individuals. Start with Good Order as the default, allow one or two statuses above that for special bonuses, and have a few status below. Then you could attack that track with certain powers directly and not have the possibility of a horde of minions killed by an intimidate check.



I'd agree with you if I was tracking morale in every fight. The example I gave was where some rare event allowed an intimidate check that had to potential to end the fight in that instant. That is the player had done something exceptional in terms of damage or something that would cause the enemy to go 'Oh God, we're all gonna die'


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Please find any quote that suggests that hit point damage is not always _at least partially_ physical damage and you will have demonstrated that this stupid concept has been a part of D&D since the beginning.
> 
> Otherwise, please stop blaming Gary for 4e's faults.



Who's blaming? I'm crediting. I think having hit points representing a variety of things is great - it allows for a goodly amount of abstraction. I don't see it as a fault, and am therefore thankful for Mr. Gygax's interpretation.

I'm not going to type out the passages from page 82 of the 1E DMG (the 1974 edition of D&D does not seem to discuss hit points in any depth at all). But here's the first line from the "Hit Points" section: "_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 then goes on to discuss hit points being more than just physical damage.

You may be right in that the passage _implies_ that any "hit" will always cause at least a tiny bit of physical damage, but it can be jut a scratch. So if you want to be pedantic about it, sure. The phrase "grazes the character" is used. So the physical component of any one hit can be insignificant to the character. 

But of course, I've never argued that hit points do not _at least partly_ represent physical damage.


----------



## Fifth Element

Delta said:


> No, Gygax never, ever used the word "morale" in the context of hit points.



No, that would have been a bad idea given the existence of actual "morale" rules in the system. But he did use terms like skill, luck and experience with similar life-or-death situations. So it is far less of a stretch to include morale in that than to exclude it by arguing that hit points represent only physical damage.

Or are you arguing "yes, hit points do represent some vague things other than physical damage, just not that specific thing!"


----------



## Delta

Fifth Element said:


> No, that would have been a bad idea given the existence of actual "morale" rules in the system. But he did use terms like skill, luck and experience with similar life-or-death situations. So it is far less of a stretch to include morale in that than to exclude it by arguing that hit points represent only physical damage.
> 
> Or are you arguing "yes, hit points do represent some vague things other than physical damage, just not that specific thing!"




You're playing word games. You said for Gygax, "some part of hit points is morale", and that's not true. In AD&D each hit must cause some amount of actual physical harm.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky

ardoughter said:


> For that matter, I always have had the opposite problem with fireballs. If you take significant fire damage from a fireball, how are you still able to fight with heavy burns and why don't you die from blood poisioning due to infections of the burns. In every edition I have had to ignore that to make the game work for me. And it has always helped to regard hit points as something not entirely physical.




Yes, it often bothers me in not just D&D, but many games in general, that characters/units do not become weakened and less dangerous as they become wounded.  That said, D&D is heroic fantasy, so in general, if anything a character is _stronger_ when injured!  Can't really be helped, and I don't particularly want to "help" the problem with houserules.  Mainly for mechanical reasons -- I fear it would make the all to common "tactic" of firing off the bazookas on the first round even more enticing, since it would now not only possibly end the fight but ensure crippling the foe afterwards if the salvo doesn't finish him.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Who's blaming? I'm crediting. I think having hit points representing a variety of things is great - it allows for a goodly amount of abstraction. I don't see it as a fault, and am therefore thankful for Mr. Gygax's interpretation.




Then you are miscrediting.



> I'm not going to type out the passages from page 82 of the 1E DMG (the 1974 edition of D&D does not seem to discuss hit points in any depth at all).




Wise, as because after the bit you did quote, the discussion does not support your contention.

EDIT:  To be clear, Gygaxian hit points -- the hit points of all previous editions -- allow a hit to always represent damage.  Hit point loss is always damage.  However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit.  Thus, 8 hp of damage might be a 1st level character run through with a sword, but is only a nick to a 10th level character.

This is a simple, elegant system that has served the game well until we were given Schroedinger's Wounding in 4e.

RC


----------



## Mallus

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yes, it often bothers me in not just D&D, but many games in general, that characters/units do not become weakened and less dangerous as they become wounded.



And this is why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury.



> That said, D&D is heroic fantasy, so in general, if anything a character is _stronger_ when injured!



This is also why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury, and consider them more as the will to keep fighting. Note that the sentence you wrote also nicely explains how Inspiring Word/healing surges in 4e work.


----------



## justanobody

Mallus said:


> And this is why I don't always think of hit points as physical injury.




That is because people don't want to do the extra simple math to turn HP into only physical injury while playing, and don't want to be weakened by a loss of HP.

10 HP = 100%
8 HP = 80%, so anything relying on STR only gets 80% of the damage dealt, and only has an 80& chance to hit because of the lowered DEX, etc...

I have used it before, and showed real promise for use IF people were willing to do the math, including the DM for monsters.

Crit hits and misses always do full damage for luck. So a crit miss REALLY hurts when you are already weakened and hit yourself by missing your opponent.


----------



## Shazman

Fifth Element said:


> Because only a *part* of them represent morale. No one is suggesting they're supposed to be 100% morale. But as Mr. Gygax himself explained, some part of hit points is morale. (And some part is physical damage, and combat skill, etc). You're arguing against an assertion that has not been made.
> 
> 
> Hilarious. All previous editions of D&D would like to have a word with you. The parts that explain what hit points represent, specifically.




I was responding to the comment that suggested that commoners run from a dragon because fear of it somehow drops their hp to zero instead of them just being frightened of it.  In that case hp would equal 100% morale.  I'm okay with morale being a very small part of hp or tempopary hit points representing increased morale, but it seems like some people want it to be all about morale.  It may be that way in 4E, since it's the only way warlords can "heal" people.  I just don't like it.  The main component of hp has always been and always should be physical damage.  4E can't really decide what hp are.  It has terms like bloodied that suggest all physical damage, and then it has healing surges and "healing" from the non-maigical warlord which suggest it being completely morale. For the sake of versimilatude, I wish they would leave the morale mostly out of the hp equation.  If you want morale to be the  end all and be all of hp, play chainmail of DDM instead of D&D.


----------



## xortam

I think of the Warlord healing other party members like the PT instructor pushing you beyond the boundaries of what you were physically capable of - hence pumping up your HP.


----------



## rjdafoe

Shazman said:


> I was responding to the comment that suggested that commoners run from a dragon because fear of it somehow drops their hp to zero instead of them just being frightened of it. In that case hp would equal 100% morale. I'm okay with morale being a very small part of hp or tempopary hit points representing increased morale, but it seems like some people want it to be all about morale. It may be that way in 4E, since it's the only way warlords can "heal" people. I just don't like it. The main component of hp has always been and always should be physical damage. 4E can't really decide what hp are. It has terms like bloodied that suggest all physical damage, and then it has healing surges and "healing" from the non-maigical warlord which suggest it being completely morale. For the sake of versimilatude, I wish they would leave the morale mostly out of the hp equation. If you want morale to be the end all and be all of hp, play chainmail of DDM instead of D&D.





I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game.  In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome.  I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game".  I felt 3E encouraged the players to game the system.  Now, yes, you can take away stuff and dissallow stuff as well.  But alot of the arguments I read are like the above:

I don't like the way Warlords heal.

Answer: Don't allow them in your game.  Problem solved.

What ever happened to the days where we, as players and DMs made D&D into something that we liked and that we thought worked better for out group?  Are these days, for the most part, gone?  Why must we argue about this stupid term "RAW" then we can all get together and give each other ideas on how to better our game?  RPGs (to me) are not about the rules.  They are about the game played at each table.  The rules guide us.  I have changed a few of the 4th edition rules to better suite our group.  Just as I have in every edition of D&D to date, and just as I will in every edition of D&D that may come out in the future.  This is the job of the D&D DM.  We do not just construct an adventure, but we construct a game, that our players want to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking

xortam said:


> I think of the Warlord healing other party members like the PT instructor pushing you beyond the boundaries of what you were physically capable of - hence pumping up your HP.




So, the Warlord only grants _*temporary*_ hit points, in your game?  


RC


----------



## Mallus

Shazman said:


> 4E can't really decide what hp are.



Hit points in 4e are the same as hit points in every other edition of D&D; a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting. When a character's hit point value is greater than zero, they can.


----------



## Drkfathr1

rjdafoe said:


> I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game.  In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome.  I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game".  I felt 3E encouraged the players to game the system.  Now, yes, you can take away stuff and dissallow stuff as well.  But alot of the arguments I read are like the above:
> 
> I don't like the way Warlords heal.
> 
> Answer: Don't allow them in your game.  Problem solved.
> 
> What ever happened to the days where we, as players and DMs made D&D into something that we liked and that we thought worked better for out group?  Are these days, for the most part, gone?  Why must we argue about this stupid term "RAW" then we can all get together and give each other ideas on how to better our game?  RPGs (to me) are not about the rules.  They are about the game played at each table.  The rules guide us.  I have changed a few of the 4th edition rules to better suite our group.  Just as I have in every edition of D&D to date, and just as I will in every edition of D&D that may come out in the future.  This is the job of the D&D DM.  We do not just construct an adventure, but we construct a game, that our players want to play.




Excellent point. 

I wonder how many people have every played any edition of D&D strictly by RAW? I know I've had house rules at my table since 1E.


----------



## Mallus

justanobody said:


> That is because people don't want to do the extra simple math to turn HP into only physical injury while playing, and don't want to be weakened by a loss of HP.



A realistic injury system would require more than a little more simple math. If competing RPG systems offer any guide, such a system would involve a lot of _charts_.



> 10 HP = 100%
> 8 HP = 80%, so anything relying on STR only gets 80% of the damage dealt, and only has an 80& chance to hit because of the lowered DEX, etc...
> 
> I have used it before, and showed real promise for use IF people were willing to do the math, including the DM for monsters.



Doing more bookkeeping for an equally unrealistic injury modeling system doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


----------



## justanobody

I'm not talking about lost limbs here, but just weakened from depleted state. You won't get a real physical comparison to HP unless you only have about 5-10 HP to take into account what really kills people.

I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical, not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.

It can be done and work is the point. Just the extra work when doing so is left to computers in video games, and not something wanted form a PnP game.


----------



## ExploderWizard

justanobody said:


> I'm not talking about lost limbs here, but just weakened from depleted state. You won't get a real physical comparison to HP unless you only have about 5-10 HP to take into account what really kills people.
> 
> I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical, not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.
> 
> It can be done and work is the point. Just the extra work when doing so is left to computers in video games, and not something wanted form a PnP game.




I think HP and debilitating physical effects are not a good mix. For example in my own project, HP are pretty much class based and not influenced by stats at all. Once HP are gone you have run out of luck/magical protections and are down to your body which is simply CON. If you are out of hp then you are knocked out. If you are out of CON then you are dead.

HP can remain non-physical and injury effects can be added based on the CON damage taken. Healing times for CON damage can also be much longer than HP allowing for both lingering wounds for body damage and quick recovery for HP because they are more like fatigue than injury. 

No negative HP to track either.


----------



## Rel

ExploderWizard said:


> I think HP and debilitating physical effects are not a good mix. For example in my own project, HP are pretty much class based and not influenced by stats at all. Once HP are gone you have run out of luck/magical protections and are down to your body which is simply CON. If you are out of hp then you are knocked out. If you are out of CON then you are dead.
> 
> HP can remain non-physical and injury effects can be added based on the CON damage taken. Healing times for CON damage can also be much longer than HP allowing for both lingering wounds for body damage and quick recovery for HP because they are more like fatigue than injury.
> 
> No negative HP to track either.




That's a pretty neat idea.

Is this just a mod you are working on for 4e or is it part of some kind of total rule system rewrite?


----------



## Mallus

justanobody said:


> I just personally would prefer HP to be only physical...



That's cool.



> ... not all the other namby-pamby feelings crap.



But as others have pointed out, that 'namby-pamby feelings crap' has been an integral part of warfare since the dawn of mankind. 

(and a real warrior is strong enough to accept his feelings...).


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> This is a simple, elegant system that has served the game well until we were given Schroedinger's Wounding in 4e.




Banging this drum again?

Give me an example in 4e where you *need* to "ret-con" the wound.

I recall that was something you couldn't do before.


----------



## Delta

Mallus said:


> Hit points in 4e are the same as hit points in every other edition of D&D; a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting. When a character's hit point value is greater than zero, they can.




Revisionist history.


----------



## justanobody

Mallus said:


> That's cool.
> 
> 
> But as others have pointed out, that 'namby-pamby feelings crap' has been an integral part of warfare since the dawn of mankind.
> 
> (and a real warrior is strong enough to accept his feelings...).




But they don't need to be a function of HP. There is nothing that says a new stat cannot be created to handle those and some things directly target that new stat.

Still sacred cows people are sticking to the bad ones. You can create a fatigue/etc stat and let it get affected by something. Affect the intelligence or constitution...it doesn't have to be solely a function of HP.

Many games make do with a sort of HP that only represents physical injury.

Hit points, not maniac depression points. How many hits can your body take. That is what HP should be.

They redid so much in 4th, why couldn't they create something for non-physical damage. They are going to need it anyway with psionics....


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> I think HP and debilitating physical effects are not a good mix. For example in my own project, HP are pretty much class based and not influenced by stats at all. Once HP are gone you have run out of luck/magical protections and are down to your body which is simply CON. If you are out of hp then you are knocked out. If you are out of CON then you are dead.
> 
> HP can remain non-physical and injury effects can be added based on the CON damage taken. Healing times for CON damage can also be much longer than HP allowing for both lingering wounds for body damage and quick recovery for HP because they are more like fatigue than injury.
> 
> No negative HP to track either.



That's an idea I've thrown around myself a bit over the years. 4E kinda sorta started going in this direction, in that your Con score is added to your hit points at 1st level. You could look at it as your Con being the physical hit points and the class hit points being the non-physical stuff.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Banging this drum again?
> 
> Give me an example in 4e where you *need* to "ret-con" the wound.
> 
> I recall that was something you couldn't do before.




I recall that I did so ad infinitum ad nauseum before, as did several other people, and have no need to do so again.

The drum being "banged again" seems to be "Prove it!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, prove it with another example!"  "Uh, until you supply a fresh example for all my requests, you haven't proved a thing!"

EDIT:  The number of suggested house rules to deal with the Schrödinger's Wounding problem, from many EN World luminaries, would seem strange if said problem didn't exist.  Why, I wouldn't be surprised if I went back and discovered that you offered a fix or two yourself for a problem that you deny exists.  



RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Delta said:


> Revisionist history.



Proof?

I think we've all seen the 1E DMG quotes which spell out that hit points represent more than just physical wounds.


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> But they don't need to be a function of HP. There is nothing that says a new stat cannot be created to handle those and some things directly target that new stat.



No, there is nothing that says that. But given the abstract nature of D&D combat resolution mechanics, it's certainly a legitimate choice.



justanobody said:


> Many games make do with a sort of HP that only represents physical injury.



Maybe you should be playing a different game then?

Sorry, couldn't resist.



justanobody said:


> They redid so much in 4th, why couldn't they create something for non-physical damage. They are going to need it anyway with psionics....



Um, what?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Rel said:


> That's a pretty neat idea.
> 
> Is this just a mod you are working on for 4e or is it part of some kind of total rule system rewrite?




A whole new system from the ground up taking parts I like from every edition and adding my own spin. I hope to have a workable model ready to run by next DC gameday. 

From OD&D: 3 classes, (but with options within those classes)

                 Ability scores without modifiers to hit, damage, AC ,or saves   (at least for the 3-18 level range)

A custom 2-tiered skill system. The detailed version will have task DCs similar to 3E, the simple version lets you chose what a character is most competent at while leaving the resolution method and chances to the DM.

Its a monster project but a lot of fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Proof?
> 
> I think we've all seen the 1E DMG quotes which spell out that hit points represent more than just physical wounds.




Just finish quoting what you began.

From your earlier post, you've recently read the proof you are requesting.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Just finish quoting what you began.
> 
> From your earlier post, you've recently read the proof you are requesting.



I was responding to a claim that this is revisionist history: "_Hit points in 4e_ _are the same as hit points in every other edition of D&D; a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting. When a character's hit point value is greater than zero, they can._"

If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.

Once again, this is not your strawman "Hit points do not represent physical damage in any way, shape or form." This is "There is more to hit points than just physical damage."


----------



## Mallus

Delta said:


> Revisionist history.



Could you point me to an edition of D&D in which hit points were something other than a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting?


----------



## Rel

justanobody said:


> Many games make do with a sort of HP that only represents physical injury.




Agreed.  But it looks to me like D&D isn't one of them.

I just checked through 5 editions of D&D (Basic, 1e, 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  I don't own 2e.) and only Basic referenced Hit Points as purely physical damage.  All other editions indicated that there are other components including some combination of "combat skill, luck, magical forces, the ability to turn a deadly blow into a lesser one, divine favor and resolve".

When I think of D&D combat, I think abstraction.  We know that you don't have to envision a PC only swinging his weapon one time in a 6 second round.  We know that you don't have to envision a PC taking 6 direct hits from a greatsword before falling.  If I'm abstracting anyway, I don't have a problem folding confidence and morale into what Hit Points are supposed to represent.


----------



## mmadsen

ardoughter said:


> Not entirely clear what you mean here, but;
> Splitting AC in to 'hard to hit' and 'withstanding hits' is pretty much what WHFRP does, There is no AC as such but each character has a percentile chance to hit and then if successful toughness + armour is subtracted from damage.
> 
> On the spend hit points to evade damage, well is that not what we are currently doing?



What I was recommending was this:

Split Armor Class into one value for avoiding hits (Defense) and one for withstanding hits (Toughness).  When you attack, you roll a d20, plus any accuracy bonuses, against your opponent's Defense to hit, like Touch AC in 3E.  If you hit, you roll another d20, plus any damage bonuses, against your opponent's Toughness, which includes any armor bonuses, to score a telling blow, which disables him, a bit like the Damage Save in True20.

But important heroes and villains have Hit Points, which they can use to modify those rolls, after the fact.  A giant swings at you and hits by one?  Spend one hit point to dodge it!  Or take the hit and let him roll the d20 plus his massive damage bonus against your Toughness.  Probably better to use your Hit Points to avoid the hit entirely.

Hit Points still play a crucial role, and very little has changed mechanically, but they're not physical toughness.  You have an actual Toughness score for that.  Hit Points become just the intangible part -- luck, magic, divine favor, etc. -- not a mix of tangible and intangible.


----------



## Arnwyn

rjdafoe said:


> I see 4E stepping back to the days of 1E when the DM was in control of the game.  In 3E, as a DM, I felt less in control of the game from a there is a rule for everything syndrome.  I feel like 4E encourages the DM to "take back the game".
> 
> Why must we argue about this stupid term "RAW"



Because there is some number of people who don't like to play "Mother May I?". And that's legitimate for those people. (Not making any edition distinction here, so take a hike, evangelists.)


----------



## mmadsen

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yes, it often bothers me in not just D&D, but many games in general, that characters/units do not become weakened and less dangerous as they become wounded.



The question is, to what degree is a D&D character getting meaningfully wounded as he loses hit points?  Hit points aren't consistent, so we can't really say.

Let me repeat that: *hit points aren't consistent*.

Gygax himself admits that it's preposterous to assume that a high-level fighter is, say, nine times as resilient as a lower-level fighter.  He's only negligibly tougher; those extra hit points come from skill, luck, divine favor, magic, etc.

So almost *90 percent of his hit points are intangible*, and just over 10 percent are tangible toughness.

When he gets hit by a dozen goblin arrows, does he really have a dozen arrows sticking out of him?  If he's wearing armor, that's not unimaginable, but if he's not?

The only thing we really know is that bad things happen, in a hurry, when he loses all his hit points.

But wait; *hit points aren't consistent*.  He requires more healing to recover from those dozen grazes than his squire requires to recover from a life-threatening (4-hp) wound.

We can go back and forth all day, but no explanation stands up to much scrutiny.  The real point is that hit points work out mathematically in play -- there are few _gotchas!_ where someone turns out to be much tougher or more fragile than they looked -- and they're simple.

Moving forward, should something that's 90 percent intangible be so closely tied to physical wounds?  Or should we simply accept that they're primarily intangible?  And maybe even introduce another mechanic for physical wounds?


----------



## Mallus

Arnwyn said:


> Because there is some number of people who don't like to play "Mother May I?".



As an aside, I've always wondered why those people played traditional RPGs (like D&D). At their core, these games are a series of negotiations being the players and DM/GM, a series of "Mother May I's" in which the players states desired actions and the DM/GM describes the results. Sometimes these negotiations are mediated --to varying degrees-- by explicit, stated rules. Other times they aren't.

I think it's probably more accurate to say that people don't like it when Mother says 'no' (because if you're not playing 'Mother May I?', you're playing something more akin to a wargame/boardgame than an RPG).  

</aside>


----------



## mmadsen

Shazman said:


> The main component of hp has always been and always should be physical damage.



The main component of Hit Points has most certainly _not_ always been physical damage.  In fact, for any character past first-level, physical damage has always been a small fraction of Hit Points.

Do you have a reason why the main component of Hit Points _should_ be physical damage?


Shazman said:


> 4E can't really decide what hp are.



Agreed.


----------



## mmadsen

Mallus said:


> A realistic injury system would require more than a little more simple math. If competing RPG systems offer any guide, such a system would involve a lot of _charts_.



A _realistic_ system would not require any more math or charts than the current system.  A _detailed_ system would.


Mallus said:


> Doing more bookkeeping for an equally unrealistic injury modeling system doesn't seem like a good idea to me.



Well said.


justanobody said:


> You won't get a real physical comparison to HP unless you only have about 5-10 HP to take into account what really kills people.



Hit points don't model real-life injuries well at all, because one good blow can kill anyone, but people also survive dozens of stab wounds or gun shots.  Wounds don't accumulate, and people don't ablate.  Two flesh wounds don't add up to a decapitation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> I was responding to a claim that this is revisionist history: "_Hit points in 4e_ _are the same as hit points in every other edition of D&D; a measure of a character's ability to keep fighting. When a character's hit point value is greater than zero, they can._"
> 
> If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.




It is revisionist history to claim that hit points do not now, and have not always, meant, at least in part, "the number of pink elephants owned by the character".  This is true in 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.

If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.


RC


----------



## Mallus

mmadsen said:


> A _realistic_ system would not require any more math or charts than the current system.  A _detailed_ system would.



Right (don't mind me, I was just taking a shot a Rolemaster...). 



> Hit points don't model real-life injuries well at all, because one good blow can kill anyone, but people also survive dozens of stab wounds or gun shots.  Wounds don't accumulate, and people don't ablate.  Two flesh wounds don't add up to a decapitation.



In an odd way, the Damage Save mechanic in M&M --which is meant to model 4-color superheroes-- is more realistic than the ablative HP mechanic found in D&D. Without Impervious defenses, that almost _any_ PC can dropped with a single, lucky shot while a lucky PC can shrug off damage from impressively lethal sources.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Once more, Gygaxian hit points -- the hit points of all previous editions -- allow a hit to always represent damage.  Hit point loss is always damage.  However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit.  Thus, 8 hp of damage might be a 1st level character run through with a sword, but is only a nick to a 10th level character.  

The 10th level character might have intangible qualities that allow him to take less physical damage in the game world than the 1st level character, but those 10 goblin arrows have all been in contact with him, and they have all done him some amount of physical damage.  If they had not, he wouldn't have to make 10 saving throws vs. the poison that was on those arrows.

This is a simple, elegant system that has served the game well until we were given Schroedinger's Wounding in 4e.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> A _realistic_ system would not require any more math or charts than the current system.  A _detailed_ system would.





Very nice distinction.


RC


----------



## Arnwyn

Mallus said:


> As an aside, I've always wondered why those people played traditional RPGs (like D&D). At their core, these games are a series of negotiations being the players and DM/GM, a series of "Mother May I's" in which the players states desired actions and the DM/GM describes the results. Sometimes these negotiations are mediated --to varying degrees-- by explicit, stated rules. Other times they aren't.



Because everyone will have their own line in the sand as to what level of "Mother May I?" is acceptable to them. (Some ENWorlders seem to have a hard time with the concept of _degrees_.)

I'm not sure why you'd think that people who don't like a particular level of "Mother May I" would steer entirely clear of traditional RPGs. Weird.


----------



## justanobody

Rel said:


> Agreed.  But it looks to me like D&D isn't one of them.
> 
> I just checked through 5 editions of D&D (Basic, 1e, 3e, 3.5 and 4e.  I don't own 2e.) and only Basic referenced Hit Points as purely physical damage.




And that is where it all went wrong.


----------



## Mallus

Arnwyn said:


> Because everyone will have their own line in the sand as to what level of "Mother May I?" is acceptable to them.



Oh, of course. But what you wrote was unclear. It read like a general objection to "Mother May I"... which is odd since it's the core transaction in a traditional RPG.  



> I'm not sure why you'd think that people who don't like a particular level of "Mother May I" would steer entirely clear of traditional RPGs.



Now we're talking about a particular level of "MMI"? That's a different story.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Once more, Gygaxian hit points -- the hit points of all previous editions -- allow a hit to always represent damage.  Hit point loss is always damage.  However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit.  Thus, 8 hp of damage might be a 1st level character run through with a sword, but is only a nick to a 10th level character.



Let me reiterate: *hit points are not consistent*.  Your explanation of Gygaxian hit points is one we all more-or-less agree on, I suspect, but it still doesn't make perfect sense.  At the very least, it's not linear.

For instance, is an 8-hp sword wound just a nick to a 10th-level fighter?  Well, maybe the _first_ such 8-hp wound is, but the _last_ one definitely isn't.  The one that drops his hit points below zero is a crippling blow.

So the first attack is much less damaging than the _N_th?  Hmm...

So, if his hit point are 90 percent intangible and 10 percent tangible, but that last hit was close to 100 percent tangible in its effect, how tangible or intangible was the first hit?

And how long should it take to heal from that first nick?


----------



## mmadsen

Mallus said:


> In an odd way, the Damage Save mechanic in M&M --which is meant to model 4-color superheroes-- is more realistic than the ablative HP mechanic found in D&D.



It's an odd little irony that the more realistic Damage Save was introduced for four-color superheroes.


----------



## rjdafoe

Arnwyn said:


> Because there is some number of people who don't like to play "Mother May I?". And that's legitimate for those people. (Not making any edition distinction here, so take a hike, evangelists.)




But my question to this is, when has this notion began that the DM is not in control of the game?  I understand this stuff for tournement, RPGA, Cons, etc.  But at a table of people who know each other?  It is not a question of Mother May I, it is a I am starting up this campaign.  X does not fit in this, so X is not allowed.  Isn't the point of an RPG to customize it to your group?  Yes, this makes it hard to talk about on an internet forum, but this is what brought me into the game.  The creativitly and molding the game to our groups tastes, wether it is fluff, rules, or anything else.


----------



## Shazman

Raven Crowking said:


> So, the Warlord only grants _*temporary*_ hit points, in your game?
> 
> 
> RC




Well, I think it should work that way.  I don't play 4E anymore, so it really doesn't matter.  4E just doesn't feel like the fantasy RPG it's supposed to be.  It works okay as a miniatures skirmish game, but is completely lacking as an RPG.


----------



## Imban

Raven Crowking said:


> It is revisionist history to claim that hit points do not now, and have not always, meant, at least in part, "the number of pink elephants owned by the character".  This is true in 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.
> 
> If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.
> 
> 
> RC




While I'm too lazy to go dig out a link to the post, RPG.net's Old Geezer - someone who is notable for having been in the late Gary Gygax's gaming group - once related that hit points were originally just a measure of how long people could stay in the fight. They'd tried a few other things and found none of them to be as fun as hit points, and since D&D at that point was mostly, to quote Old Geezer, them "making  up that they thought would be fun", well...!

Since then, it's quite possible people - including people developing D&D - have attached a deeper meaning to hit points than was originally present. It's not like copious designers' notes were available in those days, after all.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Let me reiterate: *hit points are not consistent*.  Your explanation of Gygaxian hit points is one we all more-or-less agree on, I suspect, but it still doesn't make perfect sense.  At the very least, it's not linear.




"However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit."

The first 8-hp wound to a 10th level fighter has a different correspondance to his hit point total than does the last.

So the first attack _*is*_ much less damaging than the _N_th.  That is exactly what the system was meant to do.



> So, if his hit point are 90 percent intangible and 10 percent tangible, but that last hit was close to 100 percent tangible in its effect, how tangible or intangible was the first hit?




Both are 100% tangible.  A nick and a sword through the guts are both 100% tangible.



> And how long should it take to heal from that first nick?




The healing rules in 1e do a good job, but not the best possible job, of defining how damage is healed.  I would recommend house ruling 1 hp per day per level, so that that first nick is healed after a night's rest.

Of course, if that first nick were simply morale, it would go away instantly as soon as the fighter rallied.  And, were the 10th level fighter facing 2 goblins, say, it is difficult to envision how he could suffer any morale loss at all.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Shazman said:


> Well, I think it should work that way.  I don't play 4E anymore, so it really doesn't matter.  4E just doesn't feel like the fantasy RPG it's supposed to be.  It works okay as a miniatures skirmish game, but is completely lacking as an RPG.




Then we pretty much agree here.


----------



## Arnwyn

Mallus said:


> Oh, of course. But what you wrote was unclear.



Sorry!



> Now we're talking about a particular level of "MMI"? That's a different story.



It's _always_ () a "particular level". I don't do the whole extremes/black & white thing - _especially_ on a D&D messageboard. (P.S. Woo for acronyms!)



			
				rjdafoe said:
			
		

> But my question to this is, when has this notion began that the DM is not in control of the game?
> .
> Isn't the point of an RPG to customize it to your group?



Never, AFAIC. I find it interesting you're seeing the things you're seeing. I can only shrug at your experiences, as they are alien to me. I totally agree with you that it's the point of an RPG to customize it to your group - and I haven't seen that change in _any_ edition.

But in your own post, you yourself show the value in "RAW".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imban said:


> While I'm too lazy to go dig out a link to the post, RPG.net's Old Geezer - someone who is notable for having been in the late Gary Gygax's gaming group - once related that hit points were originally just a measure of how long people could stay in the fight. They'd tried a few other things and found none of them to be as fun as hit points, and since D&D at that point was mostly, to quote Old Geezer, them "making  up that they thought would be fun", well...!




Really?  Because a friend of my sister's husband's cousin said something else that I'm too lazy to look up.  

I'll settle for what Gary wrote, thank you.  

(It is notable, IMHO, that this argument didn't arise while he was alive to defend himself.   )



> Since then, it's quite possible people - including people developing D&D - have attached a deeper meaning to hit points than was originally present. It's not like copious designers' notes were available in those days, after all.




I would like to point to Exhibit A:  The 1e DMG.  If ever there was a compendium of copious designer's notes, this is it.

I would like to point to Exhibit B:  Gary's contributions to Up on a Soapbox in The Dragon.

I would like to point to Exhibit C:  Gary's contributions to this and other forums.  Much of what Gary has written is collected in a single thread in dragonsfoot, which makes it easier to examine.

Gary left us more copious designer's notes than any designer to follow him.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Because a friend of my sister's husband's cousin said something else that I'm too lazy to look up.
> 
> I'll settle for what Gary wrote, thank you.



You want me to type from page 82 again, don't you? Very well, here's what Mr. Gygax wrote.

_"Why then the increase in hit points [from levelling]? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability to withstand damage...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*."_

Now, later in the passage is the implication that each "hit" does inflict some amount of physical damage, however it may only be a scratch.

Given the number of intangible, non-physical sources of hit points enumerated by Mr. Gygax, I think the contention that morale cannot possibly make up part of hit points is indefensible.

The hit point system is abstract. You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system. Corner cases will seem strange. But the vast majority of the time, the damage caused to a creature will not come from a single source, and the abstract system works well.

I think I see how you interpret the DMG passages to mean that hit points only represents physical damage. But I don't think that interpretation is obvious or a given, considering that the passage discusses the maximum capacity a person would have to withstand actual physical damage, and that "_[t]he balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed_." This spells out in quite plain language that *some* of a character's hit points do not represent the physical capacity to withstand damage.


----------



## Greg K

mmadsen said:


> It's an odd little irony that the more realistic Damage Save was introduced for four-color superheroes.




And, yet it is simple, elegant, and works well for supers and other genres.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> I recall that I did so ad infinitum ad nauseum before, as did several other people, and have no need to do so again.




Okay.

Let's review:

[sblock]This looks like the first point in which you explain your contention:



Raven Crowking said:


> However, in 4e, when you take hit point damage, you cannot immediately tell what that damage represents in-world.  If you receive magical healing later, it might have represented real damage, but if the Warlord chooses to make it so, it might have represented battle fatigue or low morale.  The changes to hit points change them from representing something happening _now_ to something that only happens _later_ and is retroactively "true" in terms of the "in world" story.  You can no longer tell the story as it unfolds.




Here is your first example that you give to back this up:



Raven Crowking said:


> 4e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  This might be a wound, or it might not be.  Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.




Here I challenge that:



LostSoul said:


> That is not true.  I can say that a Fighter gets hit for 2 hp at the start of the day, when he's fresh with all his surges, and describe it as a brutal wound to his gut.
> 
> That wound can stick around as long as I want it to.  If I don't feel like describing the wound magically healing via a second wind, healing surge via a short rest, I don't have to.  In other words, the wound is there if I say it is, and it's not there if I say it's not.
> 
> What the hp mechanics tell me is how much fight someone has left in them.  They don't dictate anything else, and I'm glad for that.  I can use them in whatever way works best in my game, in my world, in my story.




Here you reply:



Raven Crowking said:


> And what it is remains in force until future actions invalidate the "in world" logic of what it once was.  It _was_ a gut wound, because that's what I wanted it to mean at the time, then I had a healing surge, so now it was never a gut wound.




But you never say _why_ I have to ret-con the gut wound; you just say, "it never was."

And here you say:



Raven Crowking said:


> And, therein lies the flaw in your argument.  When your story is divorced from the mechanics, and those mechanics have no objective meaning in the game world, no matter how much in-world logic your story may have that meaning is not derived from the mechanics.  The mechanics simulate nothing outside of the game itself.  You just choose to _pretend_ that they do.




So I say:



LostSoul said:


> The story is not divorced from the mechanics: the hp mechanism helps resolve conflicts.  It tells us when one party can no longer carry on the fight.
> 
> The in-game meaning is objective and it is derived from the mechanics.  We know that the characters involved lose more and more ability to fight as their hp are depleted.  _How_ that depletion occurs is subjective and I have to decide how to describe it in a way that works for me.




To which:



Raven Crowking said:


> Keep telling yourself that.  When 5e or 6e rolls around, and claims to "fix" the quantum wounding problem, we'll see what people think then.




I don't find that point ("Keep telling yourself that") compelling.


Later on, we have another example:



Raven Crowking said:


> Conversely, in 4e, when I take hit point damage, I don't know what it represents at the time I take it.  If I declare it is an actual wound, and I use a healing surge later, I am potentially stuck with either (a) my wound having disappeared without having actually been healed, or (b) claiming to still have a wound that has no game meaning.  If, on the other hand, I declare that it represents no wound, and I have magical healing later, I am potentially stuck with the healing of a wound that doesn't exist.




Now you admit that you don't have to ret-con it (option b).

You respond to an example I post here:



Raven Crowking said:


> What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.  I prefer a game in which action has consequences.  It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.




To which I reply:



LostSoul said:


> The wound only "goes away" if the player (well, DM in 4e) describes it going away.  He doesn't have to.  All we know is that his staying power is reduced.  Any colour that we describe must stay true to that, but that's our only constraint.
> 
> Can you tell me - or give me a hypothetical example - where in play I'd be forced to describe a wound going away?  Or any quantum wounding situation?
> 
> There are consequences to the action - he got hit, he lost hit points, he used a healing surge.  Granted, those consequences go away after an extended rest, but this is D&D we're talking about.
> 
> How does this not count as a consequence?




Unfortunately, you didn't reply or give an example, maybe because you were talking with Hypersmurf.

Later on, I ask:



LostSoul said:


> I've never noticed a single instance of it in my games.
> 
> RC, do you have an example from a game where you ran into this problem?




Which you don't reply to.[/sblock]

I'll ask again: do you have an example where one *must* ret-con wounds away?


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> It is revisionist history to claim that hit points do not now, and have not always, meant, at least in part, "the number of pink elephants owned by the character".  This is true in 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.
> 
> If you can show me a passage that specifies this is incorrect, I'd like to see it.



I can do that, since we have passages specifying what hit points represent, and none of them mention pink elephants.

But they *do* specify that some portion of a character's hit points represent non-physical things such as combat skill and experience and pure luck. See my last post. Which you apparently claim they do not.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> The hit point system is abstract. You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system. Corner cases will seem strange. But the vast majority of the time, the damage caused to a creature will not come from a single source, and the abstract system works well.




That may be, but if my character was ever reduced to 0 hp from *Harsh Language* then it would be time to retire and let heroes made of sterner stuff carry on the fight.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> That may be, but if my character was ever reduced to 0 hp from *Harsh Language* then it would be time to retire and let heroes made of sterner stuff carry on the fight.



The description of the Intimidate skill does not allow it to cause damage. DM fiat is required for that. It can force a bloodied target to surrender, but that's not the same thing as reducing it to 0 hp.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> "However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit."
> 
> The first 8-hp wound to a 10th level fighter has a different correspondance to his hit point total than does the last.



So, by "total" you meant "remaining"?


Raven Crowking said:


> So the first attack _*is*_ much less damaging than the _N_th.  That is exactly what the system was meant to do. [...] Both are 100% tangible.  A nick and a sword through the guts are both 100% tangible.



My point was not that a nick was intangible.  My point was that a sword blow that leaves a nick on a high-level fighter is doing negligible physical damage, equivalent to less than 1-hp damage on a first-level fighter.  After all, he can take a dozen such hits before falling.

Since a high-level fighter's hit points are 90 percent intangible, we would expect attacks to do damage that was on average 90 percent intangible.   (If the damage roll says 5 points, less than 1 point is physical damage.)

But we know that the _last_ attack is going to be more than 10 percent tangible, because it's going to involve a crippling injury, just as if it had struck a lower-level fighter -- so, to average things out, the first attack must be even less than 10 percent tangible.

The point isn't that the physical nick is somehow not a tangible injury.  It's that the five points of damage clearly don't represent five points of physical damage, because that's enough to cripple a healthy man.


Raven Crowking said:


> The healing rules in 1e do a good job, but not the best possible job, of defining how damage is healed.  I would recommend house ruling 1 hp per day per level, so that that first nick is healed after a night's rest.
> 
> Of course, if that first nick were simply morale, it would go away instantly as soon as the fighter rallied.



I'm not sure we can say how quickly intangible factors should "heal" -- because it's not clear what that might mean.

If hit points are a measure of skill, we might look at doubling hit points as halving the amount of physical damage one takes per attack.  So, it's not really that skill gets used up, just that the accounting is easier if we add hit dice, rather than do division with each damage roll.  I don't think that linearity holds, but it would imply healing a constant proportion of hit points across levels.  However long it takes a first-level fighter to heal one hit point, it would take an _N_th-level fighter to heal _N_ hit points.

If hit points represent luck or divine favor, who's to say how they operate?  I can easily see luck points that don't "heal" at all, or that need to be re-earned through heroic feats.

If hit points are a measure of fighting spirit, then they should go up and down with morale, which can shift rapidly.

If hit points represent extra effort, they should return with rest.

And if they're some mix?  Who knows?


----------



## SteveC

So here in 2008 we're still discussing how hit points work. This discussion has been going on for over 30 years, and it's never going to end. Why is that? Because we're really discussing game fluff rather than crunch.

How do hit points work? As long as you have them, you can keep doing stuff. When you run out, you can't until you're healed. It's always been that way.

Once you start discussing the "whys" you're attaching meaning to the system that it's never had, and you start to see logical inconsistencies. Are hit points physical damage? If so, how can a high level fighter take as much damage as an elephant? Are hit points luck? How can a high level fighter die from a poisoned wound that inflicted 1 HP out of his 100? Are hit points drama/screen time? If so, why does your Con determine how much screen-time you get? Those are only a small sample of the hundreds, if not thousands of questions you can raise about the "fluff" of hit points.

Here's the thing: as long as you're debating fluff, you'll never satisfy everyone in 4E or any earlier edition of the rules, because what's acceptable to you won't necessarily be to me, and vice versa.

It's really not that hard, once you stop trying to find some sort of perfect Platonic ideal of what hit points are, because it doesn't exist.

Except in my house rules, of course. 

--Steve


----------



## billd91

Fifth Element said:


> The hit point system is abstract. You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system. Corner cases will seem strange. But the vast majority of the time, the damage caused to a creature will not come from a single source, and the abstract system works well.




I think you'll find that the main problem some of us are having isn't that morale failure shouldn't defeat an opponent, it's that the hit point mechanic doesn't feel like the right mechanic for it. I find it absurd to be able to kill an opponent by making him lose confidence in himself (and being the attacker, it's pretty much my choice whether an attack is lethal or just knocks the creature out at 0 hit points as I'm understanding things). So for us, it's not just the corner cases that seem strange. We may want to be able to get a whole bunch of otherwise healthy opponents to surrender and submit to our will (to bend them to our own nefarious purposes without having to repair them all), and for that a single pool, even an abstract one, does not work well at all.


----------



## Fifth Element

billd91 said:


> We may want to be able to get a whole bunch of otherwise healthy opponents to surrender and submit to our will (to bend them to our own nefarious purposes without having to repair them all), and for that a single pool, even an abstract one, does not work well at all.



And I understand that, and that's fine. I should clarify: I am not interested in debating what hit points "should" be. That's up to each group (or individual) to decide, since it's an abstract system.

I am just responding to specific claims like "_Gary says_ hit points are only physical damage, therefore your morale-as-hit points idea is just silly." Which can be refuted on at least two levels.

If you want hit points to only be physical damage in your game, fill your boots. Just don't claim that that's how it has always been, and it's the only right way to do it. Because that it false.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> You want me to type from page 82 again, don't you? Very well, here's what Mr. Gygax wrote.
> 
> _"Why then the increase in hit points [from levelling]? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability to withstand damage...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*."_




"However, the amount of damage 1 hit point represents is not on an absolute scale, but corresponds instead to the hit point total of the being hit."

You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent.  IOW, why hit points do not scale absolutely.  Mr. Gygax is not saying that hit points themselves represent intangible things, but that the hit point system, while representing tangible damage, scales on the basis of intangibles.

Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world.  The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids _most_ of the blow.  That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles.  It does not, however, make the _*damage itself,*_ intangible.  

The fighter's _hit points themselves_ do not represent intangibles.  That hit points _can increase_ represents some intangible qualities.

To better illustrate, let us say that Mr. Gygax designed a system wherein everyone had 8 hp, but in which every time you took damage you got a roll to avoid taking damage.  The 8 hit points would always mean the same thing, and the roll would represent intangibles.  However, one would then wonder why, if you took no damage, you could be poisoned by a hit.  Such a system would have many of the same problems as 4e's system does.

Instead, Mr. Gygax designed a system in which hit points are not absolute.  The 1st level noob has, say 8 hit points, and the 10th level fighter 80.  In this specific case, every 10 of the 10th level figher's hit points scales to 1 of the noob's (edit:  Scales roughly, I should have said.  The first 10 hp of damage the 10th level fighter takes is far less than 1 hp of the noobs, and the last hit point the 10th level fighter takes is far more than 1 hp of the noob's full total.  This is also true for the noob; until he takes his last hp, his first damage taken scales differently than does the blow that kills him).  Just as the noob's are not intangible, neither are the 10th level fighter's.

Which is why, as you note, Gary makes certain to tell us llater in the passage you quote that each "hit" does inflict some amount of physical damage.

You conflate hit points with the explanation for hit point scaling.  The passage you quoted gives no "intangible, non-physical sources of hit points".  



> You may find it silly that a creature could be defeated by "morale damage" alone, but that is a consequence of an abstract system.




Actually, that doesn't bother me.  I call it "fainting".  

It just has nothing to do with hit points are they were used from OD&D through 3.5e.  



> "_[t]he balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed_." This spells out in quite plain language that *some* of a character's hit points do not represent the physical capacity to withstand damage.




It points out that there is a difference between what damage totals mean for different characters/creatures, based upon their hit point capacity.  It explains scaling of hit points, and should not be taken to mean that hit point damage _*ever*_ occurs without real damage also occurring.  As you also noted that Gary said.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> So, by "total" you meant "remaining"?




Your hit point total is how many hit points you have at any given time.  Your maximum hit points are how many hit points you are capable of having.



> My point was not that a nick was intangible.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since a high-level fighter's hit points are 90 percent intangible




If a nick is not intangible, a high-level fighter's hit points are _*not*_ 90 percent intangible.

Rather, hit points do not scale absolutely.  It is not that the five points of damage clearly don't represent five points of physical damage, because that's enough to cripple a healthy man, but that the five points of damage _do not represent the same amount of damage_ to both characters.

RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> The description of the Intimidate skill does not allow it to cause damage. DM fiat is required for that. It can force a bloodied target to surrender, but that's not the same thing as reducing it to 0 hp.




Keep in mind that morale is a measure of resolve and was never intended for PC's. PC's always get to make thier own decisions about what to do. If morale becomes a part of the HP pool that freedom of choice is being reduced somewhat. Reserving certain types of damage for NPC's only is kind of wonky and not what I want from D&D. 

I don't think a skill check should force someone to do anything in a compulsory manner. A successful intimidation should influence the chance to either flee or surrender depending on the situation but not automatically cause either one.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent.



If you think that's a meaningful distinction, we can see why this discussion is going nowhere. Since hit point increases are included in total hit points, some portion of total hit points reflects what is reflected by hit point increases.



Raven Crowking said:


> Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world. The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids _most_ of the blow.  That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles.  It does not, however, make the _*damage itself,*_ intangible.



I don't see this as a meaningful distinction either. Damage and hit points are two sides of the same coin. Intangibles reduce the effective damage.

But once again, we're going nowhere in a discussion. We're getting into hair-splitting and semantic arguments. All based on interpretation. So I'm out.


----------



## Mallus

Arnwyn said:


> I don't do the whole extremes/black & white thing - _especially_ on a D&D messageboard.



You may be on to something here...


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> Keep in mind that morale is a measure of resolve and was never intended for PC's. PC's always get to make thier own decisions about what to do. If morale becomes a part of the HP pool that freedom of choice is being reduced somewhat. Reserving certain types of damage for NPC's only is kind of wonky and not what I want from D&D.



Well yes, when I use the term "morale" here I mean it in the everyday sense, not in the pre-3E rules-specific sense.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Three feet of steel through the guts of 10th level warrior or first level noob is the same amount of "damage" within the context of the game world.  The 10th level warrior, however, is hit less severely by the same strike that would impale the noob because he avoids _most_ of the blow.  That he can do this is, indeed, the result of intangibles.  It does not, however, make the _*damage itself,*_ intangible.



Can we agree that "damage" can mean, to the characters within the game world, actual physical harm, and, to the players rolling the dice, the numbers involved?

When a high-level fighter takes a 5-hp sword wound, he's nicked.  When a first-level fighter takes a 5-hp sword wound, he's disabled.  In each case, the damage roll was the same, 5 hp, but the physical harm was vastly different.

Very, very little tangible physical harm was done to the high-level fighter.  In fact, we know he could take, say, nine such hits before falling.  But we know that's not because he's nine times as hardy.  He's no more resistant to sword blades than before; he just has luck, divine favor, magic, etc. on his side now.

Something got damaged or used up though, it would appear, since the high-level fighter lost hit points, and that something was largely intangible.

Or, as I suggested earlier, the fighter's skill, luck, etc. allows him to systematically reduce the damage he takes from hits, in which case hit dice are just easier to handle than dividing all damage by his level.


Raven Crowking said:


> To better illustrate, let us say that Mr. Gygax designed a system wherein everyone had 8 hp, but in which every time you took damage you got a roll to avoid taking damage.  The 8 hit points would always mean the same thing, and the roll would represent intangibles.  However, one would then wonder why, if you took no damage, you could be poisoned by a hit.  Such a system would have many of the same problems as 4e's system does.



I don't think that would be a challenge at all.  "No damage" would simply mean a nick or graze that did no _serious_ damage.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> Well yes, when I use the term "morale" here I mean it in the everyday sense, not in the pre-3E rules-specific sense.




Please define morale in the everyday sense. I wasn't using any particular rules regarding morale, just the basic premise that PC's always have a right to choose thier fate regardless of the odds and NPC's may or may not.

If things go bad for the PC's they might opt to run, or surrender if escape looks to be impossible. This is a decision that gets made before HP reach 0. The PC's may just decide to grit thier teeth and fight till the bitter end. If morale is rolled into HP and the DM decides that the PC's surrender at 0, the decision to fight to the last breath has been taken from the PC's.

The biggest game killer of all time for any RPG is the DM trying to tell the PC's what they do.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

mmadsen said:


> What I was recommending was this:
> 
> Split Armor Class into one value for avoiding hits (Defense) and one for withstanding hits (Toughness).  When you attack, you roll a d20, plus any accuracy bonuses, against your opponent's Defense to hit, like Touch AC in 3E.  If you hit, you roll another d20, plus any damage bonuses, against your opponent's Toughness, which includes any armor bonuses, to score a telling blow, which disables him, a bit like the Damage Save in True20.
> 
> But important heroes and villains have Hit Points, which they can use to modify those rolls, after the fact.  A giant swings at you and hits by one?  Spend one hit point to dodge it!  Or take the hit and let him roll the d20 plus his massive damage bonus against your Toughness.  Probably better to use your Hit Points to avoid the hit entirely.
> 
> Hit Points still play a crucial role, and very little has changed mechanically, but they're not physical toughness.  You have an actual Toughness score for that.  Hit Points become just the intangible part -- luck, magic, divine favor, etc. -- not a mix of tangible and intangible.



Interesting variant, but why bother with toughness, whay not spend the hp directly to ward off the initial blow?
To make this work you are completely redoing the system anyway. Also what happens to the blow you cannot ward? Is this where you dig out the old Rolemaster charts and see what falls off 

From my own point of view, I mostly play D&D these days because it is not realistic with respect to combat. I have tried systems that are realistic and you die a lot, ususlly from some lucky shot by a total nobody. Which is, all things considered fairly realistic but not fun.


----------



## mmadsen

ardoughter said:


> Interesting variant, but why bother with toughness, why not spend the hp directly to ward off the initial blow?



If the initial roll to hit succeeds by a wide margin, then it costs many hit points to avoid it entirely.  (This may be because of a high natural roll or high accuracy bonuses.)

Against weak but accurate attacks, one would tend to use hit points to shrug off the damage.  Against wild, powerful attacks, one would tend to use hit points to avoid getting hit entirely.


ardoughter said:


> To make this work you are completely redoing the system anyway.



"Completely" is a bit strong; the mechanical changes are largely superficial.


ardoughter said:


> Also what happens to the blow you cannot ward? Is this where you dig out the old Rolemaster charts and see what falls off



What happens when you run out of hit points?  It's meant to reflect the same thing -- although I am partial to Warhammer-style criticals, rather than "you're dying".


ardoughter said:


> From my own point of view, I mostly play D&D these days because it is not realistic with respect to combat. I have tried systems that are realistic and you die a lot, ususlly from some lucky shot by a total nobody. Which is, all things considered fairly realistic but not fun.



You seem to be commenting on something completely different from what I recommended.  You can keep the "heroic" nature of D&D and hit points without keeping all the logical problems.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> I don't think that would be a challenge at all.  "No damage" would simply mean a nick or graze that did no _serious_ damage.




That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e.  You get it.  Congratulations.  It is only in 4e that this paradgim changes.

I think that understanding what Gary wrote, and what he did, is likewise "no challenge at all" re: hit points.

There is obviously some difference of opinion on that point.  


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e. You get it. Congratulations. It is only in 4e that this paradgim changes.




I'm not convinced that 4E changes the paradigm at all.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> That is exactly what the first hp loss is to a high level fighter, or any hit point loss that doesn't have serious and immediate consequences for a creature, from OD&D to 3.5e.  You get it.



The difference is this:

In the system you described, where you roll to avoid serious injury, you aren't worse for wear when you do in fact avoid serious injury.  You don't lose hit points.  Multiple nicks don't add up to a decapitation.

And, going the other way, a single failed roll can mean a decapitation.

This makes perfect sense.  There's no inconsistency of having to heal from non-wounds, etc.

(You may not like how it plays out, but that's why I suggested using hit points to modify those rolls.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> I'm not convinced that 4E changes the paradigm at all.




(Shrug)

You're entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe, I suppose.

I just wish Gary were still alive to settle the matter.  Do you honestly think _*he*_ would believe that 4e uses the same paradigm?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

mmadsen said:


> If the initial roll to hit succeeds by a wide margin, then it costs many hit points to avoid it entirely.  (This may be because of a high natural roll or high accuracy bonuses.)
> 
> Against weak but accurate attacks, one would tend to use hit points to shrug off the damage.  Against wild, powerful attacks, one would tend to use hit points to avoid getting hit entirely.
> "Completely" is a bit strong; the mechanical changes are largely superficial.
> What happens when you run out of hit points?  It's meant to reflect the same thing -- although I am partial to Warhammer-style criticals, rather than "you're dying".



Have you implemented this? or guestimateing at the moment? and if the former do have the numbers for say a fighter.



mmadsen said:


> You seem to be commenting on something completely different from what I recommended.  You can keep the "heroic" nature of D&D and hit points without keeping all the logical problems.



I was reacting to the realistic combat comment that I may have imagined in one of your posts.  I like D&D partially for the unrealistic and over the top nature of it. Like I said I have tired realistic systems and had fun with them but now I want something different.


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)
> 
> You're entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe, I suppose.
> 
> I just wish Gary were still alive to settle the matter. Do you honestly think _*he*_ would believe that 4e uses the same paradigm?




What gets lost in the discussion is that 5 hp doesn't only mean different things for a 1st-level fighter than it does for a 10th-level fighter, it also means different things for the 10th-level fighter on the first hit than it does for the _same 10th-level fighter_ on the eigth or ninth hit. A fighter doesn't die from 10 nicks on the arm.

4E simply recognizes that you don't actually have to close up and fully heal (either magically or naturally) the nick on your arm in order to restore your fighting ability to the point where you can turn the next hit into a another nick on the arm, instead of 3 feet of steel through the chest.

Is that a radical paradigm shift?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> What gets lost in the discussion is that 5 hp doesn't only mean different things for a 1st-level fighter than it does for a 10th-level fighter, it also means different things for the 10th-level fighter on the first hit than it does for the _same 10th-level fighter_ on the eigth or ninth hit. A fighter doesn't die from 10 nicks on the arm.




I believe I said as much upthread.  This is also true for a 1st level fighter, assuming that the first hit is not sufficient to take him out.



> 4E simply recognizes that you don't actually have to close up and fully heal (either magically or naturally) the nick on your arm in order to restore your fighting ability to the point where you can turn the next hit into a another nick on the arm, instead of 3 feet of steel through the chest.




I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the problems caused by the 4e hit point paradigm, which allows, among other things, for you to go from having that "3 feet of steel through the chest" to "another nick on the arm" because someone spoke some inspirational words, or because you had a good night's sleep.

And that, my friend, is a _*very*_ radical paradigm shift!

But even without this, the idea that the nick on your arm has no effect on your overall ability to keep your opponent from killing you *is* a pretty major shift all by itself.

Indeed, the 4e hit point paradigm reminds me a lot of _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_......If you pay attention, you'll notice that Sir Lancelot intimidates several people to death, his inspirational words make Patsy recover from an arrow to the chest, and the Black Knight, of course, has "had worse".  In 4e, however, these things aren't jokes, but are properties of the game world.  

(Hey...perhaps 4e really is the "Holy Grail" of gaming in at least once sense.)



RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that this is a gross oversimplification of the problems caused by the 4e hit point paradigm, which allows, among other things, for you to go from having that "3 feet of steel through the chest" to "another nick on the arm" because someone spoke some inspirational words, or because you had a good night's sleep.




Or you're merely able to fight and walk again, having been expertly stitched up by your comrades (fortunately, the blade missed your vital organs).

The specifics of hp restoration are now as vague as the specifics of their loss. I suppose that _is_ a paradigm shift.



Raven Crowking said:


> And that, my friend, is a _*very*_ radical paradigm shift!
> 
> But even without this, the idea that the nick on your arm has no effect on your overall ability to keep your opponent from killing you *is* a pretty major shift all by itself.




It _does _have an impact, or nobody would bother shouting all those inspiring words at you.

Lessening or removing that impact need not be the sole province of the physical healing of that particular injury. I'm just not seeing that as a radical shift.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> The specifics of hp restoration are now as vague as the specifics of their loss. I suppose that _is_ a paradigm shift.




Please note that, if the specifics of hp loss were as vague as you think, the specifics of their restoration would have to be as vague as they are now.  



> I'm just not seeing that as a radical shift.




And there are some who do not see how becoming a Flat Earther is a radical paradigm shift.  

EDIT:  IMHO, this "It's just like Gary's D&D" nonsense is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt lend add legitimacy to a paradigm shift that is sorely in need of it.  People who feel confident about the 4e hp paradigm as a worthwhile entity in its own right can call it a new paradigm without having to drag down Gary's work in the process.  Personal opinion.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Scribble

Where in the rules does it indicate X type of hit / X amount of damage equals "3 feet of steel through the chest?"


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT: IMHO, this "It's just like Gary's D&D" nonsense is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt lend add legitimacy to a paradigm shift that is sorely in need of it. People who feel confident about the 4e hp paradigm as a worthwhile entity in its own right can call it a new paradigm without having to drag down Gary's work in the process. Personal opinion. YMMV.




There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting. IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas. People who aren't worried about that can admit that while both systems break down when you try to analyze them too closely, they're based on the same basic principles that resource management and fun gameplay take precedence over rule-defining every type of wound and its specific impact on a character's ability.

Or we can stop slinging the underhanded insults at each other. Personal opinion. YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting.




Damage and healing system both; they are part of the same paradigm.



> IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas.




Sure can be.  Both the Gygaxian hp system and the 4e hit point system are abstractions, and break down at different points for different folks.  They are not, however, the same system.  Nor are they systems based off of the same concept of what hit points represent.

And 4e does, as I have said before, contain many good ideas.  I would go so far as to say that, had the designers of 4e claimed that they read my complaints about 3e and attempted to respond specifically to them, that I would not be surprised.  There is a clear attempt to fix problems that arose from 3e, and they are specific problems that I (among many others) have complained about.

Some of their fixes are spot on.  While I am not a fan of 4e, I have said this before and I will (no doubt) say it again.  Upthread here I have said that I have no problem with Intimidate causing an opponent to go unconscious.  I call it "fainting".

Some of their fixes seem, to me, to exhibit a failure to grasp the cause of the problem in the first place.  Combats being faster?  Not in 4e; try 1e.  Want careful balance?  4e has it in spades; avoid 1e.

It is nice to have different systems that allow for different tastes.  But the attempt to claim that, if you like salsa dancing, all of the dancing that came before was "really" salsa dancing, if only you had known it, is cheap.  And it is revisionist history.

Saying "A is not B" does not imply a lesser value to A or B.  Attempting to revise A into B, as a response to someone pointing out problems with B, devalues both A and B.


RC


----------



## SteveC

Lacyon said:


> There is a great deal about the healing system of 4E that actually is paradigm-shifting. IMHO, fixating on its abstract nature instead of those actual shifts is a sad (and extremely transparent) attempt to delegitimize the new edition to avoid admitting that it might actually contain some worthwhile ideas. People who aren't worried about that can admit that while both systems break down when you try to analyze them too closely, they're based on the same basic principles that resource management and fun gameplay take precedence over rule-defining every type of wound and its specific impact on a character's ability.



I think this is a very insightful comment. Hit Points are an extremely simple concept: they're perhaps the simplest way that a game has to track damage. You're either in the fight or out of it, and the points you have left give you an idea of how well you're doing, as well as being a resource to manage. Everything else is color text. Color text that, like an impressionistic painting, breaks down when you look at it too closely.

The particular type of color text 4E uses allows for a lot of new ways to manage those resources, but in the end it's still the same system as it has always been.

--Steve


----------



## Raven Crowking

SteveC said:


> The particular type of color text 4E uses allows for a lot of new ways to manage those resources, but in the end it's still the same system as it has always been.





Ah, yes, the "It's different......but the same!" argument.  

We defend the new by claiming that, no matter what problems it had that the old does not, the old was the same, and therefore just as bad.

At the same time, we drag down the authors of the new by claiming, no matter what they did better than the old, the old was the same, and therefore the new is just as bad.

Wouldn't it be easier, and more respectful to both, to admit that no matter how much a fish might resemble a dolphin superficially, that they are different animals?


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> Damage and healing system both; they are part of the same paradigm.




The biggest shift in the paradigm is that this isn't true anymore.

EDIT TO ADD:

The major conceit of the 1E system is that the 5 hp that represented a scratch to a 10th-level fighter takes just as much effort to recover from as the 5 hp that represented a near-mortal wounding.

The major conceit of the 4E system is that the 5 hp that represented a scratch to a 10th-level fighter takes just as much effort to recover from as the 5 hp that represented a near-mortal wounding.

Radical shift, I know.


----------



## SteveC

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, yes, the "It's different......but the same!" argument.
> 
> RC



Nope. Let me break it down as simple as I can:

Same crunch.

Different fluff.

You're arguing about fluff.

That's all.

--Steve


----------



## FireLance

The key similarity between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that any hit that does not reduce a character to 0 hit points or less is a non-threatening wound that does not hamper the character's ability to fight.

A high-level character who is low on hit points will look pretty much the same regardless of edition: covered with nicks, scratches and bruises, out of breath, and probably low on luck as well. The process of getting him to that point will also look pretty much the same, regardless of edition: due to skill, luck, and other factors, attacks that would have killed a normal man have been evaded and/or turned into minor injuries. In addition, the next time he gets hit, the same thing will happen regardless of edition: he will sustain a life-threatening wound that will kill him if he is unlucky or if he does not get help.

The first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that the only way to recover hit points quickly pre-4e was to use magic. 4e hit points are more like vitality points in that they can be recovered quickly without magical assistance, e.g. being affected by a warlord's _inspiring word_, spending healing surges during a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. Pre-4e, a character's ability to convert a serious wound into a minor injury can only be regained slowly without the use of magic. In 4e, a character can replenish his skill, luck and the other "intangible" aspects of hit points more quickly without magical assistance. A 4e character who has been brought down to low hit points and then recovers all his hit points after a rest is _still_ covered in nicks, scratches and bruises, but his ability to convert future serious wounds into minor injuries has been regained.

The second key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points happens when a character has been brought to 0 hit points or less. It is actually a subset of the first key difference. Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally. Whatever serious, life-threatening injury he sustained was either healed or converted to a minor, non-threatening wound that does not hamper his ability to fight. If magical healing was not available, bed rest could achieve the same effect, but more slowly. Even so, for 3.5e characters of 10th level or higher, eight hours of rest was all that was necessary for them to go from almost dead (-9 hp) to functioning normally (1 hp or more). And at this point, we are back to the first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points.

So, what happens when a 4e character has been brought to 0 hit points or less and then gets his hit points restored in a non-magical fashion? Somehow, that serious wound that he sustained is no longer life-threatening and no longer hampers his ability to fight. During a fight, this could be explained by a rush of adrenaline or being so inspired by an ally that the character functions normally despite his wounds. After a short or extended rest, it could be explained by treating and binding the character's injuries so that he functions normally despite his wounds. Alternatively, the character could be made of such stern stuff that after a short period of gritting his teeth, he just functions normally despite his wounds. Non-magical healing doesn't make a wound go away. It just allows a character to function normally despite his wounds.

Now, not liking that non-magical healing can allow a character to function normally despite his wounds is a valid complaint, and there are a number of possible sub-systems that can address it, e.g. lingering wounds (using the disease track mechanic), temporary reduction in the number of healing surges per day, temporary limits to the character's maximum hit points, etc.

However, I do believe that 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points handle damage to the character in pretty much the same way. The two key changes that 4e has made to hit points are that the "intangible" aspect of hit points that allow a character to turn a serious wound into a minor injury are recovered more quickly in 4e, and that 4e characters who have not received magical healing are still able to function normally despite their wounds.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> Okay.
> 
> Let's review
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'll ask again: do you have an example where one *must* ret-con wounds away?



LostSoul, that's a heroic effort!


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> I find it absurd to be able to kill an opponent by making him lose confidence in himself (and being the attacker, it's pretty much my choice whether an attack is lethal or just knocks the creature out at 0 hit points as I'm understanding things).



Well, if your PC is the attacker, and uses an Intimidate check to reduce a foe to 0 hp, and you think that it is absurd that such things should be fatal, then presumably (in order to avoid absurdity) you would choose that the foe is knocked out.

Or are you worried that, despite your own sense of absurdity, you won't be able to stop yourself declaring that your PC's harsh words killed his/her foes?


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> You are quoting what hit point increases reflect, now what the hit points themselves represent.



Fifth Element quoted the following passage:

"Why then the increase in hit points [from levelling]? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability to withstand damage...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."

The subject in the second sentence is "these". This is a plural subject. The reference of the pronoun is anaphoric on some plural noun (or noun phrase) in the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence contains one singular noun ("increase") and one plural noun phrase ("hit points"). It therefore seems likely that "these" in the second sentence refers to hit points and not to hit point increases, and thus that the second sentence is to be interpreted as follows:

"Because hit points, as they increase, reflect both . . ."



Raven Crowking said:


> edit:  Scales roughly, I should have said.  The first 10 hp of damage the 10th level fighter takes is far less than 1 hp of the noobs, and the last hit point the 10th level fighter takes is far more than 1 hp of the noob's full total.  This is also true for the noob; until he takes his last hp, his first damage taken scales differently than does the blow that kills him



This edit pretty much concedes the point that hit points are not simply an arithmetically simpler version of a level-divisor rule for damage.

Consider characters A & B, both 1st level Fighters, with 7 and 8 hit points respectively. Both suffer 7 hit points of damage. A is now incapacitated and (prior to 4e) either dead or dying (depending on which set of rules is in play). B has 1 hp left and is physically unimpeded, but is metaphysically in a bad way (as the next hit will be fatal, or nearly so). This example is enough to show that the ingame meaning of "lose 7 hit points" is in no meaningful way proportionate to the number of hit points a character has remaining. It's meaning varies from individual situation to individual situation, depending on whether or not it brings a character to zero hit points. The most that can be said is that, if a character has more than 7 hp remaining, than 7 hp never corresponds to a (near-)fatal wound. But that is not a claim about scaling or proportionality.


----------



## pemerton

FireLance, an excellent post.

One quibble, though:



FireLance said:


> Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally.



In 1st ed AD&D the only magic that could achieve this was the Heal spell, or (in UA) the Death's Door spell. Otherwise the character still needed a week of bedrest.


----------



## FireLance

pemerton said:


> FireLance, an excellent post.



Thanks! 



> One quibble, though:
> 
> In 1st ed AD&D the only magic that could achieve this was the Heal spell, or (in UA) the Death's Door spell. Otherwise the character still needed a week of bedrest.



I guess it shows that it's been a _long_ time since I played 1e.


----------



## rounser

I recall Arneson writing somewhere that the term and concept of "hit points" was borrowed from a naval game.

Therefore, the One True Way to use them is to shout things like "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" on a critical hit, "Conn, sonar!  Crazy Ivan!" on a near miss, and "You sunk my battleship..." on reaching zero.

Hit points, therefore, represent your character's ability to survive conventional naval warfare.  No more, no less.  Any other interpretations are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

FireLance said:


> The key similarity between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that any hit that does not reduce a character to 0 hit points or less is a non-threatening wound that does not hamper the character's ability to fight.
> 
> A high-level character who is low on hit points will look pretty much the same regardless of edition: covered with nicks, scratches and bruises, out of breath, and probably low on luck as well. The process of getting him to that point will also look pretty much the same, regardless of edition: due to skill, luck, and other factors, attacks that would have killed a normal man have been evaded and/or turned into minor injuries. In addition, the next time he gets hit, the same thing will happen regardless of edition: he will sustain a life-threatening wound that will kill him if he is unlucky or if he does not get help.
> 
> The first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points is that the only way to recover hit points quickly pre-4e was to use magic. 4e hit points are more like vitality points in that they can be recovered quickly without magical assistance, e.g. being affected by a warlord's _inspiring word_, spending healing surges during a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. Pre-4e, a character's ability to convert a serious wound into a minor injury can only be regained slowly without the use of magic. In 4e, a character can replenish his skill, luck and the other "intangible" aspects of hit points more quickly without magical assistance. A 4e character who has been brought down to low hit points and then recovers all his hit points after a rest is _still_ covered in nicks, scratches and bruises, but his ability to convert future serious wounds into minor injuries has been regained.
> 
> The second key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points happens when a character has been brought to 0 hit points or less. It is actually a subset of the first key difference. Pre-4e, a character who has been brought to 0 hit points or less was either automatically dead or dying (in 3e, or if you used the dying optional rule pre-3e). If magical healing was available, a dying character that was restored to 1 hp or more continued to function normally. Whatever serious, life-threatening injury he sustained was either healed or converted to a minor, non-threatening wound that does not hamper his ability to fight. If magical healing was not available, bed rest could achieve the same effect, but more slowly. Even so, for 3.5e characters of 10th level or higher, eight hours of rest was all that was necessary for them to go from almost dead (-9 hp) to functioning normally (1 hp or more). And at this point, we are back to the first key difference between 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points.
> 
> So, what happens when a 4e character has been brought to 0 hit points or less and then gets his hit points restored in a non-magical fashion? Somehow, that serious wound that he sustained is no longer life-threatening and no longer hampers his ability to fight. During a fight, this could be explained by a rush of adrenaline or being so inspired by an ally that the character functions normally despite his wounds. After a short or extended rest, it could be explained by treating and binding the character's injuries so that he functions normally despite his wounds. Alternatively, the character could be made of such stern stuff that after a short period of gritting his teeth, he just functions normally despite his wounds. Non-magical healing doesn't make a wound go away. It just allows a character to function normally despite his wounds.
> 
> Now, not liking that non-magical healing can allow a character to function normally despite his wounds is a valid complaint, and there are a number of possible sub-systems that can address it, e.g. lingering wounds (using the disease track mechanic), temporary reduction in the number of healing surges per day, temporary limits to the character's maximum hit points, etc.
> 
> However, I do believe that 4e hit points and pre-4e hit points handle damage to the character in pretty much the same way. The two key changes that 4e has made to hit points are that the "intangible" aspect of hit points that allow a character to turn a serious wound into a minor injury are recovered more quickly in 4e, and that 4e characters who have not received magical healing are still able to function normally despite their wounds.



I agree with most of this, an excellent post in general. However, it is the serious wound I have issues with. A week of bed rest, will allow one to recover from torn muscles and heavy bruising but if you get a couple of inches of steel shoved through you it will take more than a week before you are gadding about dirty dungeons.
That was part of my problem with D&D back in the day. Games like Rolemaster try to solve this with charts and tables but in my experiece they have their problems also.
A serious wound is something that no version of D&D attempts to simulate and most serious wounds would be career ending. 
That is, I suppose, why I am happier with the 4e view of hit points because they are a little more abstract.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

_*Does anyone here*_* seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?*


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> Well, if your PC is the attacker, and uses an Intimidate check to reduce a foe to 0 hp, and you think that it is absurd that such things should be fatal, then presumably (in order to avoid absurdity) you would choose that the foe is knocked out.
> 
> Or are you worried that, despite your own sense of absurdity, you won't be able to stop yourself declaring that your PC's harsh words killed his/her foes?




It would be my choice when _*I*_ used a power like that to make the result non-absurd. But not everyone makes non-absurd choices, including DMs. 

EDIT: But keep in mind the context we're looking at here. When the question came up about how a character reduced to 0 hp via a morale effect should be adjudicated, people were saying that's up to the DM. Really, if I'm not reading things wrong, it's mainly up to whomever the attacker is. Unless the DM is supposed to step in and tell PCs when their own attacks are lethal or not.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:
> 
> _*Does anyone here*_* seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?*




I think he would have agreed about that.

I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:

_*Can you give me an example where one*_* must ret-con a description of a wound?*


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> I think he would have agreed about that.








> I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:
> 
> _*Can you give me an example where one*_* must ret-con a description of a wound?*




You did get a reply earlier.

Of course, the word "must" is loaded.  So far as I know, no one holds a rifle to your head to force you to do so.  If you are comfortable with absurd results, and enjoy _Monty Python & the Holy Grail_ as a game experience, I suppose that retconning the results wouldn't be desireable.

Me, I can only take so many scenes of 

LAUNCELOT: Concorde! Brave, Concorde ... you shall not have died in vain! 

CONCORDE: I'm not quite dead, sir ... 

LAUNCELOT (a little deflated): Oh, well ... er brave Concorde! You shall not have been fatally wounded in vain! 

CONCORDE: I think I could pull through, sir. 

LAUNCELOT: Good Concorde ... stay here and rest awhile. 

He makes to leap off dramatically. 

CONCORDE: I think I'll be all right to come with you, sir. 

LAUNCELOT: I will send help, brave friend, as soon as I have accomplished this most daring, desperate adventure in this genre. 

CONCORDE: Really, I feel fine, sir. 

LAUNCELOT: Farewell, Concorde! 

CONCORDE: It just seems silly ... me lying here. 

SIR LAUNCELOT plunges off into the forest.​
before the game turns me off completely.  YMMV.

In the thread where this was first brought up, many examples were given where, in order to gain non-absurd results, one had to either (1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.

Go back and read that thread again if you want examples; they are still there.


RC


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> In the thread where this was first brought up, many examples were given where, in order to gain non-absurd results, one had to either (1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.
> 
> Go back and read that thread again if you want examples; they are still there.




Okay.  I will!   I'll find the examples in that thread and see if I can't explain them in a way that makes sense.


----------



## justanobody

LostSoul said:


> _*Can you give me an example where one*_* must ret-con a description of a wound?*




What exactly is that asking?


----------



## LostSoul

justanobody said:


> What exactly is that asking?




Raven Crowking claims that you can't describe hit point loss at the time it happens.

I think you can.

I am asking for an example that will prove his point.


----------



## Raven Crowking

justanobody said:


> What exactly is that asking?




In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.

If you attempt to do this in 4e, you have the sudden problem of "mundane" healing closing gaping wounds, in any case where (say) a character is dropped to 0 then "talked back to full".  Even without this, if you say that any given hit point loss represents a wound, but it is then "talked away", you either need to retcon it to a non-wound, disjoin hit points to health completely, or live with the fact that your characters are in a world where someone saying nice things to you can provide actual healing.  Conversely, if you say something is just a morale problem, then it begs the question why magical healing helps.....or why a 10th level fighter is having a morale problem facing a single goblin in the first place.

If wounds are healed magically, they must have been wounds.  If wounds are healed by "talking them away" they must not have been wounds.  You only know whether or not you have taken a wound after you determine how it is healed.  I termed this "Schrödinger's Wounding", after the famous thought experiment with the cat (SchrÃ¶dinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

While the problem becomes very obvious given extreme examples (such as "dying to full through a pep rally"), it is there all of the time, every time damage is taken.

There are those who, in order to defend this "Schrödinger's Wounding", have now begun to claim that it was, in essense, always a feature of the system.  Pre-4e hit point loss, however, always represented actual wounding.  4e hit points do not.  While Fifth Element downplays this in his description of the passage he is quoting, he at least admitted that this is included in the passage Gary wrote.  Not everyone is so honest -- especially not on the InterWeb.

A Gygaxian hit point, individually, does not have a concrete value, and represents both physical damage and the factors that make that damage either minor or major.  Every hit point loss, however, represents some amount of damage.  There is no such thing in the Gygaxian system as a hit point lost that does not track to some measurable physical damage, no matter how insignificant.

The "in-game logic" of healing, rest, etc., depend upon this interpretation of hit points.  Altering this interpretation, as was done in 4e, without understanding it (IMHO, of course) has lead us to Schrödinger's Wounding in a _Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail_ world.

This is one of the biggest problems 4e has, though it is certainly not the only one.  Which is sad, because, as the previous thread uncovered, it would have been relatively simple for the designers to rewrite passages in the rules to eliminate it altogether.  Of course, the GSL prevents 3pp from doing so now.

Still, it is hardly surprising that only one person would say that he seriously thinks that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised.  I'd have enjoyed reading Gary's response had someone tried to float this as his idea while he was still alive.


RC


----------



## justanobody

LostSoul said:


> Raven Crowking claims that you can't describe hit point loss at the time it happens.
> 
> I think you can.
> 
> I am asking for an example that will prove his point.




Because your jaw was broke with the warhammer, and you must wait until it is healed to say what damages were caused?

That darn cat!

I understand that when observing the experiment you risk becoming a part of it, and that 4th edition seems to have a funny way with healing, that I don't like.

I think actual damage may need to be ret-conned with 4th because the funny healing in it.

But since 4th doesn't really have physical wounding, then it seems silly to even try to describe wounds in the first place since a fighter at 0 HP is just sitting in a corner crying with no visible damage, waiting for the cleric to yell "GO! Fighto" to encourage him to get up.

I just don't like he healing system in 4th so don't really want to get into it other than my previous statement that HP should be physical wounds, and something else needs to exist for the psychiatrist of the party to heal.

Cleric to fighter: Tell me about your mother.... <Healing Word>


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.



That's simply not true though, because *hit points are not consistent*.  What kind of injury does a 50-hp fighter take from a 5-hp sword stroke?  Presumably a minor flesh wound.  How long does it take to heal?  A long time.  Or a potion or spell capable of curing "light" wounds.

What does that 50-hp fighter look like when he's down to 6 hp?  Presumably tattered and torn, although with no serious injuries.  What kind of injury does he then take from a 5-hp sword stroke?  Presumably something worse than a minor flesh wound.  How long does it take to heal?  The same long time.  Or a potion or spell capable of curing "light" wounds.

That might not bother you, but it is inconsistent.  Fighters are modeled as tree trunks of varying girths.  Some take more chopping than others to fell.


----------



## LostSoul

justanobody said:


> Because your jaw was broke with the warhammer, and you must wait until it is healed to say what damages were caused?




Yeah, that's what he's saying.

I say that it's okay to say your jaw is broken.  When the Warlord inspires your PC, you say, "Damn it...  Even though I want to collapse from the pain, I grit myself and push on."  At the end of the encounter, you bind your jaw, taking care of the wound, even if you don't need to spend another Healing Surge to bring you up to full HP.

I also think that you will want to avoid descriptions like: "The hammer breaks your jaw!"  "The dagger thunks into your belly!" "The sword cuts deep into your gut!"  But that's more of a question about what your group finds cool.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply not true though, because hit points are not consistent.
Click to expand...




Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining.  No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).

In 4e, subsequent events force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).....or force you to not describe (and hence reduce immersion).  Constantly.

Of course, for some, this isn't a big change in paradigm.   

I suspect that they simply failed to "get" Gygaxian hit points/damage in the first place, if they were getting Schrödinger's Wounding/were unable to describe damage consistently with that system.  

From personal experience, I can say that hundred of players and dozens of DMs of my aquaintance were able to describe wounds consistently within the framework of Gygaxian hit points.


RC


----------



## La Bete

Raven Crowking said:


> In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.




Arroooo?

If you describe any combat result as a specific result ("gut wound, slashed arm", etc.), you open yourself up to absurd results.

For example, if a 50hp fighter is brought down to 1hp, you could describe the blow as a "brutal slash across your chest, opening a bloody gash".

Said fighter could then eliminate his foe. With no penalty to his abilities.
Charging straight on with no rest, said fighter could then lift a portcullis (if he made his check). With no penalty to his abilities.
Said fighter (to paraphrase Hypersmurf) could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes. With no penalty to his abilities.


Hmmm.


I'll certainly concede (and I think most would) that the 4e approach is more abstract that previous editions, but would disagree that it is a completely new paradigm. If you view wounds as being in a quanum state, that is you choosing to do so -certainly not the rules forcing you.

And on semi-related point, what's with the "What would Gary say?". It's more than a little creepy... I don't know about you, but I play with my friends, not Gygax (not, obviously that I could).


----------



## justanobody

Raven Crowking said:


> From personal experience, I can say that hundred of players and dozens of DMs of my aquaintance were able to describe wounds consistently within the framework of Gygaxian hit points.
> 
> 
> RC




I think it is boiling down to the people nowadays going for the....

DM: Fred the fighter was hit for 6 HP worth of damage

vs Gygaxian days of....

DM: Fred almost dodged the orcs axe leaving a gash in his back causing a loss of 6 HP.

Between all the CO boards and all the number crunching D&D has lost the abstractions for legalese and hard core math as the premise of the game. The "game for your imagination" has left the building.


----------



## SteveC

Raven Crowking said:


> I will ask this again, because it got no reply earlier:
> 
> _*Does anyone here*_* seriously think that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised?*




That seriously depends. I met Gary once when I was quite young, and got sat at a table to play D&D with him at Gen Con. I think _that_ Gary would have said: *who cares?* That Gary played pretty fast and loose with the rules in order to have fun.

After everything that happened between him and TSR, I think he would have been too angry to make an accurate comparison.

As years went by I think he would have had less problems with hit points, since the system is fundamentally the same in terms of crunch.

What he likely would have objected to is the Powers system: too complicated and restrictive. Still, there are people around who gamed with Gary on a regular basis, so why not ask them?

--Steve


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining. No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).




Unless the 1st-level Fighter who's taken 5 damage and the 10th-level fighter who's taken 5 damage each recieve a Cure Light Wounds spell.

"Whoa, turns out that gaping hole in my chest was just a flesh wound after all."



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Still, it is hardly surprising that only one person would say that he seriously thinks that Gary would have agreed that the 4e hit point paradigm is not a readical departure from the one he devised. I'd have enjoyed reading Gary's response had someone tried to float this as his idea while he was still alive.




I suspect that if Gary could be bothered to look deeply at the system, he'd conclude that it was just a logical extension of the removal of XP for GP.


----------



## SteveC

Raven Crowking;4543279
From personal experience said:
			
		

> ...and from personal experience I can say the same thing about 4E. The problems you talk about? Never happened to me or my groups. Nor any of the tables I played at or say at D&D Experience or Gen Con. Perhaps you are making some sort of tempest in a teapot, then?
> 
> --Steve


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> (It is notable, IMHO, that this argument didn't arise while he was alive to defend himself.   )
> 
> RC




Which is utter and complete ballocks.  The HP debate has been going on for THIRTY YEARS.  Good grief, talk about revisionist history.  Trying to pretend that it's suddenly NOW that people have differing views of hit points?  Gimme a break.


----------



## Raven Crowking

La Bete said:


> If you describe any combat result as a specific result ("gut wound, slashed arm", etc.), you open yourself up to absurd results.




Not IME.



> For example, if a 50hp fighter is brought down to 1hp, you could describe the blow as a "brutal slash across your chest, opening a bloody gash".
> 
> Said fighter could then eliminate his foe. With no penalty to his abilities.
> Charging straight on with no rest, said fighter could then lift a portcullis (if he made his check). With no penalty to his abilities.
> 
> Said fighter (to paraphrase Hypersmurf) could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes. With no penalty to his abilities.




Not in 1e.

When the fighter completed his combat, rest is automatically assumed.

Moreover, while it is possible that said fighter "could wander the Underdark for days, evading or fighting monstrous foes" IME this never happens when Mr. 50 hp is reduced to 1 hp.  The nature of the game system itself enforces role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

Moreover, in no edition of D&D does the fighter have "no penalty to his abilities" unless the DM decides that this is so.  4e rightly goes back to the idea that DM fiat should overrule absurd results -- this being the reason why the DM can rule that NPCS Intimidated to 0 hps faint rather than drop dead.  

Of course, a game can make it easier or harder to deal with absurd results.  In 4e, for example, you could simply say, "Sorry, that was designated as a wound, a healing surge will not work" and remove much of the absurdity (along, unfortunately, with much of the game balance).  That game balance is tied into absurd results in 4e is unfortunate.  

It was also avoidable.  Previous discussion on this topic brought forth a plethora of ideas that, had they been part of the 4e rules, would have eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) the Schrödinger's Wounding/Monty Pythonism of the edition.



> And on semi-related point, what's with the "What would Gary say?"




IMHO, the opinion of the author of the previous paradigm is the most relevant opinion as to whether or not the new paradigm is the same as the old.


RC


----------



## Shadeydm

I don't know why people are so in denial about this it seems fairly obvious IMO.

If you are comfortable with kind words of encouragment closing wounds then the change that 4E represent probably won't bother you. If your not ok with it then 4E will present challenges to immersion perhaps even enjoyment compared to prior editions. 
Either outcome is perfectly reasonable and a matter of what you like or better yet what you expect from DnD. 
We have warlord in our party and I just have to try really hard not to think about how he provides healing to the group. Additionally I noticed the DM avoids describing hits something which happened regularly in prior editions. Perhaps this also relates to the damage this can cause to the continuity of the game.

It's nothing to feel bad about it, was a design choice in 4E and yes it is a change from the way things were. Its not wrongbadfun but some people might find it changed the game in ways they didn't expect or don't like.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> Unless the 1st-level Fighter who's taken 5 damage and the 10th-level fighter who's taken 5 damage each recieve a Cure Light Wounds spell.
> 
> "Whoa, turns out that gaping hole in my chest was just a flesh wound after all."




Where does it say that CLW cures only flesh wounds?

Moreover, if the wound is severe enough to drop the fighter, a CLW simply will not get the fighter up and around in 1e.



> I suspect that if Gary could be bothered to look deeply at the system, he'd conclude that it was just a logical extension of the removal of XP for GP.




??????

What does this have to do with XP for GP?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Shadeydm said:


> It's nothing to feel bad about it, was a design choice in 4E and yes it is a change from the way things were. Its not wrongbadfun but some people might find it changed the game in ways they didn't expect or don't like.




Indeed.

It is not wrongbadfun to prefer either.

There is something....offputting....IMHO, though, about _*denying that there is a change*_.


RC


----------



## La Bete

Raven Crowking said:


> The nature of the game system itself enforces role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.




So this is OK in 1e, but not in 4e?


----------



## Shadeydm

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed.
> 
> It is not wrongbadfun to prefer either.
> 
> There is something....offputting....IMHO, though, about _*denying that there is a change*_.
> 
> 
> RC




I don't get it either the whole I like the change, but there is no change dichotomy is a curious thing.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Where does it say that CLW cures only flesh wounds?



I love the way you abbreviate _cure light wounds_ while getting indignant that anyone would think such a spell or potion would only cure _flesh_ wounds.  Yes, yes, _light_ wounds and _flesh_ wounds are _totally_ different...


----------



## Raven Crowking

La Bete said:


> So this is OK in 1e, but not in 4e?




The nature of the 4e game system itself enforces _*avoiding*_ role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

Put two groups of players after the same prize and facing the same challenges.   One group role-plays wounded status, one does not.

In 1e, the group that rps wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does not.

In 4e, the group that does not rp wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does.

It is not wrongbadfun to rp wounding in 4e (obviously), and doing so can cause the players to self-limit themselves from using everything available to their characters, but the _*game system itself penalizes this self-limitation*_.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Shadeydm said:


> I don't get it either the whole I like the change, but there is no change dichotomy is a curious thing.




"A dolphin is a mammal, except where being a mammal would hurt my argument, in which case it is a fish."  



mmadsen said:


> I love the way you abbreviate _cure light wounds_ while getting indignant that anyone would think such a spell or potion would only cure _flesh_ wounds.  Yes, yes, _light_ wounds and _flesh_ wounds are _totally_ different...




Within the context of the spell, they certainly are different, if not totally different.  The term "light" refers largely to a number of hit points cured.  

Of course, you otherwise ignored the other important point that, if that 5 hp was a vital wound -- something that dropped the fighter -- a CLW would not get him onto his feet in 1e.  So there is certainly an element of limitation as to the type of wounds a CLW was intended to heal.

Or are you suggesting that a "gaping hole in my chest" is the type of wound you get while you are still at a positive hit point total?!?  


RC


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Within the context of the spell, they certainly are different, if not totally different.  The term "light" refers largely to a number of hit points cured.



Yes, that's the problem.  What does _cure light wounds_ mean to the characters living in the game world?


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, you otherwise ignored the other important point that, if that 5 hp was a vital wound -- something that dropped the fighter -- a CLW would not get him onto his feet in 1e. So there is certainly an element of limitation as to the type of wounds a CLW was intended to heal.




If this is the paradigm shift that you're talking about, it happened prior to 4E.

EDIT: As for why XP for GP matters, it's the major cause for moving the numbers toward relatively rapid recovery (this shift also happened before 4E). When you get the bulk of your XP from something other than combat, the system can encourage players to avoid combat without being self-defeating. When you get the bulk of your XP by defeating monsters, avoiding combat doesn't make sense (and the game changes to match the new expectations).

Either way, the "hp paradigm" is that hp are numbers on a page and don't _really_ mean anything until you lose them all. That hasn't changed one whit, and the main purpose of the system is to avoid detailing the specifics. In that sense, the paradigm hasn't shifted - only the numbers have changed.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Yes, that's the problem.  What does _cure light wounds_ mean to the characters living in the game world?




A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds.  It is less likely to heal all of your wounds than _cure moderate wounds_, and even less likely to heal all of your wounds than _cure serious wounds_.

Of course, how much aid any such spell gives a particular individual is for the gods to decide.....or blind chance, if you believe some sages.


(Aside.....that wasn't difficult at all.)


RC


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds.



Which wounds were the severe ones again?  You just said, quite indignantly, that _cure light wounds_ doesn't heal _flesh_ wounds, something the characters in the game world might understand, but refers to a number of hit points.  What would that mean to the people in the game world?


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Which wounds were the severe ones again?  You just said, quite indignantly, that _cure light wounds_ doesn't heal _flesh_ wounds, something the characters in the game world might understand, but refers to a number of hit points.  What would that mean to the people in the game world?




The "most severe of wounds" denotes any wound which drops a character to 0 hp or below.

Really, do you honestly find this difficult?


RC


----------



## LostSoul

So I'm going back and reading that thread.

Most examples are, "Let's narrate something we _know_ won't make sense and complain how 4e doesn't make sense!"

Those examples are like me saying 1e ran like this:

"The troll claw/claw/bites you for 14 damage.  The troll warps into an anime rock star, Sailor Moon-style, and blasts you with his wicked axe wailing powers!"

I guess 1e is Sailor Moon, the RPG.  Wow!  Never realized that. 

It's like the example above.  How does that show that you _must_ spit out narration like that in 4e?

Here's the thing: Yes, you can describe wounds that will be absurd.  You could do this in all previous editions.  

Your claim is that you _must_ do this, that the system produces absurd results, full stop.

My claim is that the absurdity _depends on the ability of the players._

Here are some examples:

[sblock]Example 1:



Raven Crowking said:


> 4e:  Fighter with 10 hp takes 8 hp damage.  This might be a wound, or it might not be.  Neither the player nor the DM knows if it is a wound at the time it is taken because, within context of the in-world story, if the fighter recieves magical healing later it was a wound, but a second wind means that it was not.




Example 1:  Let's say it's a fighter with 30 hp who takes 24 damage, which is more consistent with the numbers.  Let's say it's two things: a White Dragon critting with his breath (22 dmg) and a couple of kobold dragonshield hits.

White Dragon: I say, "I raise my shield against its freezing breath, and I can feel the cold seeping into my bones, slowing me down."

Kobolds: I say, "The first one stabs at me, but the lethal blow is turned into a bruise by my mail.  Then, out of position, I barely bring up my sword in time to block the other's slash, sending jarring pain down through my arm."

Awesome.  1 down.

Example 2:



rounser said:


> "I'm just....a little...out of breath....give me a moment."
> "Your arm's off!"
> "Trick of the light.  Feeling much better now."
> "But...it came clean off at the elbow!"
> "Only a little bit.  Needed to remind myself that I could do it, and that together we could do anything.  Now, attack in that way I showed you before...."
> "Eh?  Says who?"
> "I'm a warlord."
> "Then where's your soldiers, where's the war?  I know how to fight better than you do, you're not going to order me around.  Back in your box you...whatever you are."
> "A dragonborn."
> "Okay....right............wake me up for 5E, please."




I think the problem is that they decided to cut the arm off a guy who is still up and fighting.  I blame player skill.  This would be the same (except the standard "warlord/dragonborn" rant) in previous editions.

Example 3:



Herremann the Wise said:


> [_*Our adventuring heroes Pemerton and Herremann gather around the evening campfire to discuss the day's adventuring*_]
> 
> *Pemerton*: Hard day today Herremann, how are you feeling after that axe to the head?
> 
> *Herremann*: Axe to the head? Is that what it was? I seem OK, I can still cast my spells fine. It must have been a grazing shot then.
> 
> *Pemerton*: Actually it looked pretty bad at the time. Blood sprayed everywhere.
> 
> *Herremann*: Really? Was it that bad? I suppose it must have been as it knocked me clean out.
> 
> *Pemerton*: I reckon you could have been seconds away from death actually.
> 
> *Herremann*: Surely not... I couldn't have been that bad because I'm fine now - just a little bit weary though... near my bedtime actually.




(Yes, I cut the part out about not having long-term injuries.  I agree with that; it's not part of D&D.)

This is another example of stupid narration or poor player skill.

Example 4:



Raven Crowking said:


> What I am not okay with is Lance taking a hit, declaring it a major wound, then getting a second wind and the wound goes away.  I prefer a game in which action has consequences.  It is the way in which we deal with those consequences, to me, which is the most interesting aspect of play.




Lance describes the bad wound to the hip.  It stays around his whole career; it never goes away.  Even after it heals up, the pain still lingers.



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, compound this with the sheer absurdity of Inigo being able to put his hand over his wound and soldier on, not once, but repeatedly, day in and day out. And, unlike in The Princess Bride, there is never a cost for that wound. Unlike in Die Hard, he never is taken to the hospital at the end of the movie. He just goes to the next dungeon, fresh as a daisy, ready to do it all over again.




Is this a Schrödinger's Wounding problem, or players deciding to describe things in absurd ways?

Example 5:

(Not really an example, but a good one)



Fenes said:


> So, whatever happens, don't describe any hit as deadly, until the target is actually dead? So, a blow that knocks a character into the negative won't be described as serious, up and until the charater dies, since he could recover and be as good as new thanks to a healing surge before that?




You can describe some wounds as deadly, but I wouldn't if doing so bothered you.

If you go down to a "non-deadly" wound: "You get smacked on the back with the hammer.  You see blackness... now do you have the will to get back up?"

Example 6:



Fenes said:


> Because, after 10 years, I have some notion of how my players react, and I know how I react. I can already hear the dialogue:
> 
> Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
> DM: "You can't tell."
> Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
> DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
> Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
> DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
> Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
> DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
> Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
> DM: He might die without treatment!
> Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
> DM: Yes, you do!
> Player: No, I am a warlord, not a cleric!
> DM: The effect is the same!
> 
> and so on.




I replied in the thread:



LostSoul said:


> Hey Fenes;
> 
> I know that 4e doesn't work for you.  That's cool.  What I'm arguing is that you don't have to get into the trap of retconning wounds and damage if you don't want to.
> 
> Let's look at the sample of play proposed and I'll tell you how I'd deal with it.  I'll bold the text I add.
> 
> 
> 
> Fenes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Player: "X is down? What do his wounds look like? bleeding, or just knocked out? If the later, I keep attacking the enemies, he'll get up on his own."
> DM: "You can't tell."
> Player: "I am next to him, and the enemy is wielding a waraxe. So, X just got hit "somewhere, somehow", no clues about his wounds? No blood fountain?"
> DM: "You have to spend an action to check."
> Player: "I just want to know if he's bleeding much, or has obvious wounds."
> DM: "He's bleeding from a gash on his head."
> Player: "Ah, then it's either not really serious, or too serious to do anything without magic. I'll kill the enemy, then we'll wake X up - or bury him."
> DM: You're a warlord, you could heal him.
> Player: He's unconscious, he can't hear my encouraging words, and if such words would be enough to raise him he'll be fine anyway.
> *DM: He's on the ground, in a deep fog, but he can still hear your words.**
> DM: He might die without treatment!
> Player: I am no cleric, I don't do healing magic.
> *DM: But an Inspiring Word will allow him to stand up, shake his head clear of the cobwebs, and give him the strength to fight on!***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the fight, X still has a big gash on his head; if he has any healing surges left, he can describe binding the wound (while the Warlord claps him on the back for some extra motivation), and a quick word or two: "How you feeling, X?"  "Well, my head feels like Bane's been using it as target practice, but not as bad as after you make your Hellfell Shadowspawn chili!".  Or if he doesn't have any healing surges left, and there's no other healing available, he might describe binding the wound and struggling on, weak and exhausted but ready to fight.
> 
> (You could even describe the wound in the same way in both cases, even if he's just down 4 healing surges and at full hp: dazed, weak, exhausted, but willing to carry on.)
> 
> Either way, the wound doesn't disappear, which might be important later on in the game (NPC: <points at the soiled bandage> "You look like you've been through hell.  I told you not to engage the enemy!").
> 
> * - The Unconcious condition means a few things, but going deaf isn't one of them, so we're cool there.  I could describe the PC going down and out, but I probably wouldn't do that often if there was a Warlord in the party; and even if I did, I'd say something like "Somewhere, deep in the blackness, a part of X hears your words.  His vision clears, your voice guiding him back to conciousness."
> 
> ** - Warlords are a new addition to the D&D world/genre, so you have to make allowances.  Words are important in 4e and can sap the fight out of someone (psychic damage) and they can give someone the will to fight on (Inspiring Word, etc).  This might not be to everyone's taste, but it's a part of the 4e world.
Click to expand...



To which Fenes replies:



Fenes said:


> My point was that if healing surges work then he wasn't in danger of dieing, so his wound could not have been that serious, so there was no need to attend him. If he was in danger of dieing, and needed immediate first aid, then it strains _my _suspension of disbelief that he'll be up and fighting after he got his healing surge.




And I reply: 



LostSoul said:


> Ah.  In 4e - and this is a genre convention, probably new to this edition - the would would have been fatal _because he lacked the will to carry on._  Given the will to fight by his Warlord's Inspiring Words, he gets up and deals with it.
> 
> You can also describe popping back up from a Death Save in the same way; somewhere, deep down, he found the will to go on.  He won the fight with that part of himself that was saying, "Just let go, let it be, rest and be at peace."
> 
> I see it's not to your taste, and that's cool.




Example 7:



Raven Crowking said:


> This is an example of how, given a bit more thought, the 4e rule books could have been better written.  Of course, finding the will to go on usually doesn't knit wounds; Inigo still needs medical attention later.
> 
> In LotR, in the fight in Balin's Tomb, Frodo is injured and knocked unconscious.  He finds the will to move on, but is noted to be injured later, and then rests in Lothlorien for an extended period of time.
> 
> If a healing surge lasted through (in effect) a scene, or even (in effect) a story, that would probably be fine.....although it would still need some descriptive changes to avoid Schroedinger's Wounding.  It is the day-in, day-out, permanent nature of the mechanic that makes it absurd.
> 
> IMHO, of course.




Of course Inigo needs medical attention later.  That's what Extended Rests are for.  (Yes, they heal up too much too fast; I've never defended that.)

In LotR: the 4e game, Frodo finds the will; his player doesn't describe the wound going away because he wants to play it up.  When he gets a chance, he describes Frodo taking an extended rest.

The "day-in, day-out" - by which I assume you mean getting stabbed again and again - is only absurd if you choose to let it be.  Player skill and all that.

Example 8:



Raven Crowking said:


> And there he slept, after eating of what remained of Ska, until the morning sun awakened him with a new sense of strength and well-being.
> 
> [The above is the second sleep after killing Ska; Tarzan does not recover overnight.  He emerges from the desert, still hurting from his ordeal; rain and food have allowed for some "real" healing, but he is far from recovered.]
> 
> Three days the ape-man spent in resting and recuperating, eating fruits and nuts and the smaller animals that were most easily bagged, and upon the fourth he set out to explore the valley and search for the great apes.​




Here I see a successful check in a skill challenge, not an encounter.[/sblock]

There.  Examples done.  Now please show me where I was forced to do these:

(1) avoid all narrative description of the results of combat, (2) retcon the narrative description of the results of combat, or (3) re-write the 4e rules pertaining to damage and healing.​


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Most examples are, "Let's narrate something we _know_ won't make sense and complain how 4e doesn't make sense!"
> 
> Those examples are like me saying 1e ran like this:
> 
> "The troll claw/claw/bites you for 14 damage.  The troll warps into an anime rock star, Sailor Moon-style, and blasts you with his wicked axe wailing powers!"
> 
> I guess 1e is Sailor Moon, the RPG.  Wow!  Never realized that.





Please link to the example(s) you refer to here.


RC


----------



## Lackhand

Raven Crowking said:


> The "most severe of wounds" denotes any wound which drops a character to 0 hp or below.
> 
> Really, do you honestly find this difficult?
> 
> 
> RC




Only in proportion to the amount that 4e hp are a departure from this model. That is to say "not much" and "not much".

_edit, expanding, so as to provide something useful:_
Firstly, it's beginning to annoy me that people conflate Healing Surges with Second Winds. Healing surges are quite reasonable -- "the maximum amount which a body may knit wounds, ignore pain and blood-loss, and soldier on through adversity -- over the course of one day". I don't think anyone actually objects to those.

What people (seemingly, at least to me) object to is the concept of the Inspiring Word and the Second Wind.

They're actually different things!


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Please link to the example(s) you refer to here.




Example 1  Why would you say, "I'm just fine now" if you took the axe to the face and it was bad news unless you want an absurd game?

Example 2  Why would you describe daggers hitting and hurting you badly, day-in, day-out, unless you want an absurd game?

Example 3 Why would you describe your PC - who's missing an arm - as being okay, unless you want an absurd game?


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> The "most severe of wounds" denotes any wound which drops a character to 0 hp or below.
> 
> Really, do you honestly find this difficult?



Yes, I'm finding this conversation quite difficult, RC, because you're systematically avoiding answering the questions I'm asking.

You scoffed at the notion that a _cure light wounds_ spell would heal _flesh_ wounds and said that _light_ refers to a number of hit points.  *What does cure light wounds mean to the characters in the game world?*


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Example 1  Why would you say, "I'm just fine now" if you took the axe to the face and it was bad news unless you want an absurd game?




It is difficult to come up with examples of why something leads to absurd results without the example leading to an absurd result.  It is all too easy to come up with examples of 4e's hp/healing paradigm leading to absurd results.

The nature of the 4e game system itself enforces avoiding role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.

Put two groups of players after the same prize and facing the same challenges. One group role-plays wounded status, one does not.

In 1e, the group that rps wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does not.

In 4e, the group that does not rp wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does.

It is not wrongbadfun to rp wounding in 4e (obviously), and doing so can cause the players to self-limit themselves from using everything available to their characters, but the game system itself penalizes this self-limitation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Yes, I'm finding this conversation quite difficult, RC, because you're systematically avoiding answering the questions I'm asking.
> 
> You scoffed at the notion that a _cure light wounds_ spell would heal _flesh_ wounds and said that _light_ refers to a number of hit points.  *What does cure light wounds mean to the characters in the game world?*




You apparently missed my response, despite responding to it:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds. It is less likely to heal all of your wounds than cure moderate wounds, and even less likely to heal all of your wounds than cure serious wounds.
> 
> Of course, how much aid any such spell gives a particular individual is for the gods to decide.....or blind chance, if you believe some sages.




You then had me define what "the most severe of wounds" meant.  In game terms, dropping to 0 hp or less.  In the game world, any wound that would take a character out of a combat, rendering him unconscious and/or dying.

So much for systematic avoidance........ 

Of course, if you really do think that coming up with such a response is difficult.....   Well, let's just say that I doubt very much that you really have such a difficulty using hit points in the 1e paradigm.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lackhand said:


> What people (seemingly, at least to me) object to is the concept of the Inspiring Word and the Second Wind.
> 
> They're actually different things!




That's a fair call.  

I would agree that falling damage as a subsystem can lead to absurd results, and if you wish to say that the fault in 4e is not in the hp paradigm, but in the Inspiring Word and the Second Wind subsystems, I'm fine with that.........so long as you engage in episodic play only.  The minute campaign play enters the picture, the idea that a good night's rest heals all wounds.......meh.

"Every hp lost represents some level of physical damage" and "Any hp lost represents anything you want it to represent" is still a major paradigm shift, IMHO, and that is my core argument in this thread (despite being lead into asides).


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> "Every hp lost represents some level of physical damage" and "Any hp lost represents anything you want it to represent" is still a major paradigm shift, IMHO, and that is my core argument in this thread (despite being lead into asides).




That shift hasn't happened outside of some players and DMs deciding to make it so for their own games.

(The shift that _has _happened is that every hp _restored_ needn't represent the physical healing of some injury.)


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> It is difficult to come up with examples of why something leads to absurd results without the example leading to an absurd result.  It is all too easy to come up with examples of 4e's hp/healing paradigm leading to absurd results.




So 1e is anime, leading to Sailor Moon-style attacks?

What I am looking for is validation of your retcon claim.  I'm not the one trying to prove the point - you are.  If you can come up with an example that is absurd - and _must_ be absurd, due to the mechanics - then let's hear it.

Otherwise, I don't want to hear about the retconning stuff.



Raven Crowking said:


> The nature of the 4e game system itself enforces avoiding role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.
> 
> Put two groups of players after the same prize and facing the same challenges. One group role-plays wounded status, one does not.
> 
> In 1e, the group that rps wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does not.
> 
> In 4e, the group that does not rp wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does.
> 
> It is not wrongbadfun to rp wounding in 4e (obviously), and doing so can cause the players to self-limit themselves from using everything available to their characters, but the game system itself penalizes this self-limitation.




That's quite the claim.  Why do you think that?

Let's say that the PCs are in Thunderspire Labyrinth.  They just destroyed a Temple of Torog (the King that Crawls) and are trying to find their way back, alive, with as many rescued prisoners as possible.

The challenges: wandering monsters and high-risk, high-reward lairs.

How does 4e give a serious advantage to _not_ roleplaying injuries?


----------



## Lackhand

Raven Crowking said:


> That's a fair call.
> 
> I would agree that falling damage as a subsystem can lead to absurd results, and if you wish to say that the fault in 4e is not in the hp paradigm, but in the Inspiring Word and the Second Wind subsystems, I'm fine with that.........so long as you engage in episodic play only.  The minute campaign play enters the picture, the idea that a good night's rest heals all wounds.......meh.
> 
> "Every hp lost represents some level of physical damage" and "Any hp lost represents anything you want it to represent" is still a major paradigm shift, IMHO, and that is my core argument in this thread (despite being lead into asides).
> 
> 
> RC




I think there's still a disconnect here. I'm with you that a good night's rest shouldn't heal all wounds -- but that's still a third issue beside the Healing Surge thing. Consider the following worlds:

1) As in 1e, you have your total X HP and precisely 0 healing surges. You cannot benefit from Healing Word, Inspiring Word, or Second Wind; however, the 2nd level Cleric Utility can still restore hit points. Certain rare elixirs can also restore hit points, but consume a daily use of a magic item.

That's a 4e gloss on the 1e system. It doesn't mention normal hit point recovery, only magical healing -- we'd need some sort of rule for recovering hit points in the absence of magical healing -- it could be all (which I'd object to, but there's no reason for it not to be from a game mechanic perspective -- the issue is orthogonal to how 'in game' healing is done!) or it could be 1 hp per day or week or month -- or something in between.

Hit points represent... well, something. What they represent is determined by the out of combat way in which they're healed, since magic is magic and tells us nothing. I'd argue that if they come back overnight, they're morale (but why can't nonmagic restore them?!) and if they come back at the rate of 1/month, they're meat points, though severities of wounds correspond to the proportion of hit points of the target that they consume, not the total damage. You still probably shouldn't be describing accidental dismemberment too casually -- limbs just can't get lopped off in D&D because hit points get in the way of that.

2) As in 4e, you have your total X HP and some relatively small number of healing surges -- between 5 and 15. You can second wind, you can benefit from a few kind words from someone who knows how to motivate, the whole schlemiel.

You can get brought down to 0 hp -- you can even die from it! -- but the round before you die, a few kind words can patch you up and get you back into the fight. If the body is under sufficient duress, not even those words will help -- pure divine magic must be used, or perhaps nothing will work.

This is not in and of itself ridiculous: adventurers have 3 near death experiences before breakfast, and it does not astound me that they'd be able to rally, quickly, from the brink of death and be back to their ornery hellfire-spitting ways.

What I think is flatly ridiculous is the "all better the next morning" system. That's disjoint from second winds et al: even with full hit points, it would not disturb me overmuch so long as healing surges were limited. They're not in core, though, so what follows is houserule:

My suggestion is to have surges be restored at the rate of 1 per night, or 2 per night in the care of a healer or bed rest, or 4 per full day of bed-rest or light (nonadventuring!) activity in the care of a healer.

It's still too quick, but there's usually a cleric or medic in the party on whom we can rely to handwave the speedy recovery.


----------



## Serin_Marst

Or more to the point, how is it more advantageous to role play serious injuries in 1e?

I fail to see how declairing that my character's leg is broken and I've been reduced to a limp when I've been reduced to my last hp will garner a significant advantage over not doing so.

Re: Cure Light Wounds
The problem with they way you're defining it, RC, is that a single wound can reduce a 1st level character to 0 hp, but a single CLW can also restore him/her to full health.  As much as you'd loathe to admit it, the scaling healing of the healing surge mechanic probably does better mirror what you term "Gygaxian hp" than the healing mechanics of the previous editions.  With surges, you can call a light wound 25% of your hp, regardless of level.

(Ignoring the sticking points of Second Wind and Warlords for the moment) How would you feel about a house rule to the effect of once you have been reduced to 0 surges, you regain surges at a rate of, say, one per week until you have recovered to full hp?


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Otherwise, I don't want to hear about the retconning stuff.





Then I suggest that you put me on Ignore.


RC


----------



## mmadsen

RC, you claimed that whatever wound or injury was caused by a hit could easily be described (in-game), based on how much damage was rolled (meta-game) compared to how many hit points the victim still had remaining, and you'd never have to recant:


Raven Crowking said:


> Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining.  No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).



Lacyon pointed out that this is not true at all, because a 5-hp sword stroke causes very, very different wounds (in-game) to a 1st-level fighter with, say, 6 hp than to a 10th-level fighter with dozen of hit points -- but they both heal up with the same amount of magical healing -- or mundane healing, for that matter: 







Lacyon said:


> Unless the 1st-level Fighter who's taken 5 damage and the 10th-level fighter who's taken 5 damage each recieve a Cure Light Wounds spell.
> 
> "Whoa, turns out that gaping hole in my chest was just a flesh wound after all."



Or do you assert that the wounds the 1st- and 10th-level fighters received were both inconsequential flesh wounds?  I don't think you do, or this rebuke would make no sense: 


Raven Crowking said:


> Where does it say that CLW cures only flesh wounds?



I think most people agree with your basic outlook on hit points, RC, that, say, the first 5-hp sword stroke to a 50-hp fighter is just a scratch, what one might call a _light wound_.  I think most people also agree that the _last_ 5-hp sword stroke, the one that takes the once-mighty fighter down below 0 hp is a _serious wound_.

What's ambiguous, I suppose, it what happens in between.  If each and every wound is a tiny scratch, it makes no sense for them to add up to a serious, life-threatening injury.  If each wound is a little bit worse than the previous wounds, which seems reasonable, then the first 5-hp wound should be light, and maybe the next few too, but after that they should be moderate, and so on.  And for the poor 1st-level guy, they should go straight to moderate or serious wounds -- but that's not how the game works.


mmadsen said:


> I love the way you abbreviate _cure light wounds_ while getting indignant that anyone would think such a spell or potion would only cure _flesh_ wounds.  Yes, yes, _light_ wounds and _flesh_ wounds are _totally_ different...





Raven Crowking said:


> Within the context of the spell, they certainly are different, if not totally different.  The term "light" refers largely to a number of hit points cured.





mmadsen said:


> Yes, that's the problem.  What does _cure light wounds_ mean to the characters living in the game world?





Raven Crowking said:


> A spell that is able to heal some wounds magically, but is not able to fully recover the most severe of wounds.





mmadsen said:


> Which wounds were the severe ones again?  You just said, quite indignantly, that _cure light wounds_ doesn't heal _flesh_ wounds, something the characters in the game world might understand, but refers to a number of hit points.  What would that mean to the people in the game world?





Raven Crowking said:


> The "most severe of wounds" denotes any wound which drops a character to 0 hp or below.



So, is every wound that doesn't drop a character to 0 hp or below just a nick or a scratch?  If so, how and why is that character closer to death and in need of healing?

Or is each wound more and more severe as the character gets closer and closer to 0 hp?  That seems to be what you're saying, but that clearly implies that _5 hp_ means a tiny wound some times and a serious -- pardon, not-quite-serious -- wound other times.  Each of which takes the same amount of mundane or magical healing.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Then I suggest that you put me on Ignore.




I'm not going to do that.  For starters, I want to hear why it's not advisable to roleplay wounds in 4e!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lackhand said:


> I think there's still a disconnect here. I'm with you that a good night's rest shouldn't heal all wounds -- but that's still a third issue beside the Healing Surge thing. Consider the following worlds:




I am out of XP to give for the day, or I would have given you some for responding with more than "nuh uh".  



> 1) As in 1e, you have your total X HP and precisely 0 healing surges. You cannot benefit from Healing Word, Inspiring Word, or Second Wind; however, the 2nd level Cleric Utility can still restore hit points. Certain rare elixirs can also restore hit points, but consume a daily use of a magic item.




I don't think that many people have a problem with magical healing per se.  The idea that magic can knit wounds isn't a real problem.  (That healing potions are tied to healing surges in 4e is weird, though.)



> That's a 4e gloss on the 1e system. It doesn't mention normal hit point recovery, only magical healing -- we'd need some sort of rule for recovering hit points in the absence of magical healing -- it could be all (which I'd object to, but there's no reason for it not to be from a game mechanic perspective -- the issue is orthogonal to how 'in game' healing is done!) or it could be 1 hp per day or week or month -- or something in between.




1e does have a mechanic for healing without magic.  It just takes time.



> Hit points represent... well, something. What they represent is determined by the out of combat way in which they're healed, since magic is magic and tells us nothing. I'd argue that if they come back overnight, they're morale (but why can't nonmagic restore them?!) and if they come back at the rate of 1/month, they're meat points, though severities of wounds correspond to the proportion of hit points of the target that they consume, not the total damage.




This is the Schrödinger's Wounding problem described earlier.  How hit points are healed represent what they mean; any description prior to healing may result in retconning or absurdity.



> You still probably shouldn't be describing accidental dismemberment too casually






There we agree.

I don't think that there should be rules for this sort of thing (except for how it affects the character's stats); it should be a narrative event.  In the most common of instances, it should be a narrative event that _*affects NPCs*_, very often in the distant past (i.e., the innkeeper has one eye, or the pirate captain is missing a leg).



> 2) As in 4e, you have your total X HP and some relatively small number of healing surges -- between 5 and 15. You can second wind, you can benefit from a few kind words from someone who knows how to motivate, the whole schlemiel.




Again, no problem with this as an idea.  RCFG has "shaking it off" and a second wind mechanic that grants temporary hit points.  



> You can get brought down to 0 hp -- you can even die from it! -- but the round before you die, a few kind words can patch you up and get you back into the fight. If the body is under sufficient duress, not even those words will help -- pure divine magic must be used, or perhaps nothing will work.




Sorry, but my "_Monty Python & the Holy Grail_" meter just went off.  

In RCFG, a fighter with the second wind ability, who is knocked to 0 hit points, can use that ability as a reaction, to _stay in the fight_.  Being knocked unconscious and rallying 6 seconds later, IMHO, is a bit too much for a regular game occurance.



> This is not in and of itself ridiculous: adventurers have 3 near death experiences before breakfast, and it does not astound me that they'd be able to rally, quickly, from the brink of death and be back to their ornery hellfire-spitting ways.




We differ here.  IMHO, successful adventurerers do not have three near-death experiences before breakfast....certainly not the sort of near death experiences that involve bleeding on a battlefield while dead loved ones exhort them to "come to the light".  



> What I think is flatly ridiculous is the "all better the next morning" system.




I think that this can work in episodic play, where each adventure is a discrete story, as opposed to part of an ongoing sandbox narrative.  If the DM takes choice away from the players, he can narrate that they have to heal up over several months once the adventure is done.

(This does completely disjoint hp from wounds, but is not wholly dissimilar to 1e's method of handling things.)

It is only where the PCs have the choice to simply keep going, day after day, with never a rest, that absurdity well and truly sets in.

IMHO, of course.



> My suggestion is to have surges be restored at the rate of 1 per night, or 2 per night in the care of a healer or bed rest, or 4 per full day of bed-rest or light (nonadventuring!) activity in the care of a healer.
> 
> It's still too quick, but there's usually a cleric or medic in the party on whom we can rely to handwave the speedy recovery.




Again, as I said earlier, it is fairly easy to come up with a better system for handling these problems than the one appearing in the 4e PHB.  I fully agree that one can _*houserule*_ 4e into a better game!  It would be nice, though, if the GSL allowed the publication of said houserules, so that they could be referenced across the board.


RC


----------



## justanobody

LostSoul said:


> I'm not going to do that.  For starters, I want to hear why it's not advisable to roleplay wounds in 4e!




DM: The fighter just got a gapping wound on his sword arm from the orc's slash.
Fighter: I use my Second Wind and heal.....1/2 the damage.
Class X: My effect triggers when the orc attacked healing him for the remaining damage
DM: NVM what I just said....

There. The damage was ret-conned. Why waste the time describing it or roleplaying it?

Would something have been done differently had the wound not be on his sword arm?

Does the roleplayed wound that no longer exists have any impact on the story now?

With everyone healing themselves and each other, it only wastes time during combat to try to spell out what a wound may be since it will be "erased" as long as healing surges and the powers exist that can be used.

It will only matter and impact the story of the game when all those are exhausted.

OH! But even then, you can just sleep off your arm hanging by a few nerves with an extended rest and you're fully healed the next morning.

When you only healed a single HP per day worth of rest, it meant something more than now where a nap or pep-talk heals all wounds.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> RC, you claimed that whatever wound or injury was caused by a hit could easily be described (in-game), based on how much damage was rolled (meta-game) compared to how many hit points the victim still had remaining, and you'd never have to recant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-4e, any damage can be described given the circumstances under which it occurs, the amount of damage taken, and the number of hit points remaining. No subsequent events in the game will force you to alter your initial description (or discover you've entered Monty Python land if you do not).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lacyon pointed out that this is not true at all, because a 5-hp sword stroke causes very, very different wounds (in-game) to a 1st-level fighter with, say, 6 hp than to a 10th-level fighter with dozen of hit points -- but they both heal up with the same amount of magical healing -- or mundane healing, for that matter
Click to expand...



Which doesn't actually force one to recant any description of damage, assuming that the description actually took into account how much damage was rolled compared to how many hit points the victim still had remaining.

Let's start calling our 1st level fighter Bob and our 10th level fighter Gary for ease of discussion.  Bob has 10 hit points and Gary has 80.

Both Bob and Gary get in a fight with some goblins.  Both take 5 hp damage in single attacks.

The DM says, "Bob, the goblin slashes at you, and manages to cut your arm.  You take 5 points of damage.  The goblin's sword is begining to look a bit more deadly to you!  Meanwhile, Gary, you also take 5 points of damage, a blow that the goblin thought would be solid, but that you easily turn into a slight graze."

Now Pete the Cleric casts two Cure Light Wounds, getting a result of 5 on each roll.

The DM says "Bob, Pete casts his spell and the cut in your arm heals by magic.  Flexing your hand, you discover that the pain is gone.  Gary, you have hardly been wounded, and it seems as though your scratch isn't worth the use of a spell, but it is also gone."

Or, if Pete rolled 5 for Bob and 4 for Gary:

The DM says "Bob, Pete casts his spell and the cut in your arm heals by magic.  Flexing your hand, you discover that the pain is gone.  Gary, you have hardly been wounded, and it seems as though your scratch isn't worth the use of a spell, and apparently Pete's god agrees, for the wound is not entirely gone."

Or, if Pete rolled 4 for Bob and 5 for Gary:

The DM says "Bob, Pete casts his spell and the cut in your arm knits, leaving only a weal.  Flexing your hand, you discover that the pain is not entirely gone.  Gary, you have hardly been wounded, and it seems as though your scratch isn't worth the use of a spell, and it is entirely gone."

Now, let's stop here so that you can tell me how it is "not true at all" that I can easily describe a hit, based on how much damage was rolled compared to how many hit points the victim still had remaining, without having to recant because of a _cure light wounds_ spell or two?


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> Which doesn't actually force one to recant any description of damage, assuming that the description actually took into account how much damage was rolled compared to how many hit points the victim still had remaining.
> 
> Let's start calling our 1st level fighter Bob and our 10th level fighter Gary for ease of discussion. Bob has 10 hit points and Gary has 80.
> 
> Both Bob and Gary get in a fight with some goblins. Both take 5 hp damage in single attacks.
> 
> The DM says, "Bob, the goblin slashes at you, and manages to cut your arm. You take 5 points of damage. The goblin's sword is begining to look a bit more deadly to you! Meanwhile, Gary, you also take 5 points of damage, a blow that the goblin thought would be solid, but that you easily turn into a slight graze."




Now Bob and Gary go to rest. It takes Bob 5 days to heal his relatively important cut on the arm, and the same 5 days for Gary to heal his relatively minor graze. (Or they both heal in 2-1/2 days of bed rest, or whatever).

Bob is at a different place on the Python Continuum in 1E than he would be in 4E, but that doesn't change that he is on said continuum in either game. Only the numbers have changed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Stalker0 said:


> I think that's exactly his beef with the system. If I play an archery, I take on the baggage of being a ranger and the wilderness flavor behind it.




What, exactly, do you mean?  The only wilderness flavour to the ranger lies in his class skills, which are easily remedied, and a few of his utility powers.  He has no animal companion, he has no druid-ish spells, he doesn't even get Track automatically.  The ranger could be called "the skirmisher" without changing much of anything.  

I was actually going to use the quick-fix monk they posted in the character conversion articles.  If you're not familiar with it, it's the TWF ranger with "ranger" scratched out and "monk" written in, and a couple minor modifications to make it more monk-like (unarmed attacks, no armour, etc.).

If the ranger were positively dripping with woodsy flavour, this wouldn't be possible.  But the ranger's powers can summarized like this:

Ranger Power
Effect: Shoot a target or targets with an arrow or arrows, or hit them with two weapons.  Maybe you can choose to use the power for melee or ranged, or maybe the power only allows one type of attack.  Throw some secondary effect on to the shooting or hitting, as appropriate.

The ranger is two classes: an archer, and a mobile striker with none of the sneakiness of the rogue.  It can also blend those roles, and if you really want to you can act like he's Robin Hood or Aragorn while you're at it.  But the latter is by no means required.


----------



## LostSoul

justanobody said:


> DM: The fighter just got a gapping wound on his sword arm from the orc's slash.
> Fighter: I use my Second Wind and heal.....1/2 the damage.
> Class X: My effect triggers when the orc attacked healing him for the remaining damage
> DM: NVM what I just said....




How about...

DM: The wound heals slightly from Class X's magical healing, and your Second Wind lets you ignore the pain, but your wound is still there.

Or if it's a Warlord:

DM: Your Second Wind lets you ignore the pain, and the Warlord's words stir your heart.  Your wound is still there.



justanobody said:


> OH! But even then, you can just sleep off your arm hanging by a few nerves with an extended rest and you're fully healed the next morning.




Yeah, I'm not too fond of that either.


----------



## mmadsen

Lonely Tylenol said:


> The ranger could be called "the skirmisher" without changing much of anything.



In some ways, I think the Ranger should have been called the Skirmisher or Light Infantry, and the Fighter should have been called Heavy Infantry.  Those names aren't so catchy, but they convey the roles without any baggage from previous editions.


----------



## justanobody

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, I'm not too fond of that either.




That is the bit that ties together the entire healing system and one of its biggest flaws that overshadows all else and makes it all look silly rather than just a bit over the top.

One of the reason I can't get behind any of the healing in 4th.

I have never, and will never use a Second Wind because I don't want to play a character that does that. I don't even keep track of my healing surges. I would rather my character die than mess with that crap.

If I want to play a healer, I will whip out a cleric.

It just isn't the way I see healing in D&D to belong and makes the powers like you mention seem silly when you have to ret-con the wound.

Sure it happened and you altered it. That was retconning the wound too quickly to even mention it.

If the heal comes form the fighter himself, then it is really funny where no magic can explain the wound being removed.

DM: You got another slash on your leg.
Fighter: I use Second Wind and heal....(More damage than the last attack caused)
DM: You notice the slash was only a leaf stuck to you as it floats away.

I mean bring back mending and bandages at least to make it look like there was a real wound until you go to sleep and turn into Naruto while dreaming.

*Naruto Uzamaki has great stamina and healing that from even the worst wounds to a point of near death he heals within a day or two. Slower than a 4th edition PC.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Yeah, I'm not too fond of that either.




I guess your wound isn't "still there", then, is it?  

Make the game episodic, only allow for sleeping between "episodes", and your system works perfectly well with 4e as written.

It is not 4e as written, however.

RC


----------



## hewligan

Yes, I too was "Disappointed in 4e". I sold my books.

Oh, this thread is not about that any more is it? It is instead a few people running around in circles ignoring each other on the general theme of ... (drum roll) ... healing.


----------



## justanobody

hewligan said:


> Yes, I too was "Disappointed in 4e". I sold my books.
> 
> Oh, this thread is not about that any more is it? It is instead a few people running around in circles ignoring each other on the general theme of ... (drum roll) ... healing.




Cyclops: Not everyone heals as quick as you Logan.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> The nature of the 4e game system itself enforces avoiding role-playing of wounded status on the player in order to achieve success.
> 
> Put two groups of players after the same prize and facing the same challenges. One group role-plays wounded status, one does not.
> 
> In 1e, the group that rps wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does not.
> 
> In 4e, the group that does not rp wounding has a serious advantage over the one that does.
> 
> It is not wrongbadfun to rp wounding in 4e (obviously), and doing so can cause the players to self-limit themselves from using everything available to their characters, but the game system itself penalizes this self-limitation.




There is no such thing as Wounded (capital W meaning game rule status) in any version of D&D. There is Dead, Unconscious, or Conscious. Role-Playing wounded (small w referring to the general term) is the only way a wound exists in any edition. The status you attribute to being Wounded may not mesh with others. In fact, you mention that once Bruce Willis in Die Hard meets his objective he goes to the hospital to heal up. Once my players met their objective in Keep on the Shadowfell they rested to recover from their wounds. Could they have gone off to the next dungeon the next day? Yes, if the story called for it. But Die Hard 2 could have started with Bruce Willis being loaded into the ambulance. Someone runs up to tell him that his daughter was kidnapped by the real villain behind the scenes. If Die Hard were a 1E game, he would have to push on in a weakened state, probably putting his daughter in jeopardy when he can't fight the fight as long the next day or waiting to heal and losing his daughter for sure. In 4E he pushes himself up stiffly while the paramedics try to talk some sense into him. He pushes them away saying, "I've gotta save Sara!" You would still roleplay that he is hurt and struggling to continue, even at full hit points! Hit points have never equaled wounds to me. And wounds have never had a game effect in D&D. Other systems I've played that do have game effects for wounds have been fun, but PCs in them seem to suffer the death-spiral effect. Once you start getting hurt, it is harder to avoid getting hurt more.

It isn't badwrongfun to play a grittier game where hit points are hard to come by. Neither is 4E badwrongfun to emulate the action movies that many people love and adore, now matter how cheesy the dialogue gets at times.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

justanobody said:


> If the heal comes form the fighter himself, then it is really funny where no magic can explain the wound being removed.
> 
> DM: You got another slash on your leg.
> Fighter: I use Second Wind and heal....(More damage than the last attack caused)
> DM: You notice the slash was only a leaf stuck to you as it floats away.




In any edition of D&D, your narrative is what caused the leg wound, not the rules. So what is the penalty for having a leg wound? There isn't one. So you can use narrative to describe 4E healing the same way:

DM: You got another slash on your leg.
Fighter: I use Second Wind to push through the pain and keep fighting....
[After a short rest]
Fighter: I catch my breath and bandage my wounded leg. (Uses healing surges to get back to full hit points.)
[Two in-game days later, walking back into town.]
Fighter: I limp to the inn. I want to soak my wounded leg and scrub the road-grit out of it.

The examples are only absurd if you deliberately try to make them absurd. I'm not breaking the rules by roleplaying that my fighter has a leg wound. I'm also not breaking the rules by playing the wound without in-game penalties. D&D has never had a core rule that simulated a wound and its long or short-term effects.


----------



## justanobody

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In any edition of D&D, your narrative is what caused the leg wound, not the rules. So what is the penalty for having a leg wound?




Vorpal sword?

Sword of Sharpness?

I don't recall the actual penalties for harmed limbs, but recall it somewhere. I mean you got vorpal weapons that could be used against you, there is going to have to be something unless the cleric has sewing NWP or something.

What is the penalty for being on fire? But you can still attack without one when engulfed in flames, it even adds to your damage!

Silliness overrules common sense as always of course.


----------



## Lacyon

justanobody said:


> Vorpal sword?




The vorpal sword bypassed HP entirely, and so says nothing about the HP system except that it sucks for modeling specific injuries.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> When the question came up about how a character reduced to 0 hp via a morale effect should be adjudicated, people were saying that's up to the DM. Really, if I'm not reading things wrong, it's mainly up to whomever the attacker is.



I agree. Many posters appear to have a default assumption that narration rights rest primarily with the GM, but in 4e it is made fairly clear by the rulebooks (eg power rules in the PHB, skill challenge rules in the PHB and DMG, and James Wyatt's sidebar in the DMG about his son narrating the existence of a trap) that a lot of narration rights rest with the players.


----------



## pemerton

ardoughter said:


> However, it is the serious wound I have issues with. A week of bed rest, will allow one to recover from torn muscles and heavy bruising but if you get a couple of inches of steel shoved through you it will take more than a week before you are gadding about dirty dungeons.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That is, I suppose, why I am happier with the 4e view of hit points because they are a little more abstract.



In all cases, I think the solution must be to refrain from narrating injuries as "inches of steel shoved deepd into vital areas". As Lost Soul points out in another heroic post, it is important to avoid narration that produces absurd results (and this is as true in AD&D as it is in 4e).



Raven Crowking said:


> In all previous editions of D&D, the nature of hit points and healing was such that one could describe a wound when the damage was rolled by comparing the damage done to the amount of hit points the character had remaining.
> 
> If you attempt to do this in 4e, you have the sudden problem of "mundane" healing closing gaping wounds, in any case where (say) a character is dropped to 0 then "talked back to full".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If wounds are healed magically, they must have been wounds.  If wounds are healed by "talking them away" they must not have been wounds.



The obvious solutions here are not to narrate absurdities. This solution has two elements: not narrating non-fatal wounds as fatal (the rules for HeroWars/Quest have a good discussion of this); and not narrating recovery of fighting capacity as healing, but rather as the regaining of will/grit/determination.



			
				Shadeydm;4543364If you are comfortable with kind words of encouragment closing wounds then the change that 4E represent probably won't bother you.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> The point is that it is not necessary to close the wound in order to keep fighting. D&D has always assumed that it is possible to keep fighting despite one's wounds (because it has never implemented penalties to physical action as a consequence of hit point loss). Thus, when a Warlord offers "kind words of encouragement", the player should explain how his/her PC regains the will to fight _despite_ the fact that s/he remains wounded.
> 
> Is this the same as AD&D? There is one difference I can see: in AD&D I think it is assumed that the recovery of hit points correlates to the healing of injury (though as Mmadsen and Lacyon have pointed out upthread, this is all very confused by the names of the spells, and the fact that exactly the same magic as will heal a 10th level character from 85 to 90 hp - a trivial wound - can also heal a 1st level character from 1 to 6 hp - a much more considerable wound). In 4e, however, the recovery of hit points correlates not to the healing of injuries but rather to the recovery of the capacity to fight, which may or may not involve the healing of injury.
> 
> EDIT: I see that Lacyon made the same point as I make in my last paragraph a page or two upthread.


----------



## der_kluge

*sigh*

Leave it to a bunch of D&D geeks to turn a perfectly awesome 4e-bashing thread into a debate about the abstraction of hit points.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

justanobody said:


> Vorpal sword?
> 
> Sword of Sharpness?
> 
> I don't recall the actual penalties for harmed limbs, but recall it somewhere. I mean you got vorpal weapons that could be used against you, there is going to have to be something unless the cleric has sewing NWP or something.
> 
> What is the penalty for being on fire? But you can still attack without one when engulfed in flames, it even adds to your damage!
> 
> Silliness overrules common sense as always of course.




Thanks for providing examples of Wounds != Hit Points. Both of the swords mentioned bypass hit points. Loss of your head (usually) kills you. Loss of a limb means you can't use that limb.

The penalty for being on fire is that you take continuous damage. There are Wounding weapons in 3E that cause either Con damage or continuous hit point loss. But there is nothing in the base combat rules that causes a Wound with associated penalties. Wounds beyond these corner cases are narrated by the DM and/or Player.

One person's Common Sense = Another's Silliness. Twenty-five years of gaming has proven that to me time and time again.


----------



## Alzrius

Having just read over the last few pages of this thread, I think Raven Crowking is making an excellent point. 

I personally found this a very difficult topic to discuss, because it required explaining some assumptions about the interaction of fluff with crunch that I'd always taken as a given up until now. Looking back over this thread, that seems to be the case for several people, as there's a lot of difficulty and misunderstanding in explaining how to concretely represent the abstract nature of hit points and damage.

The point that RC seems to be making is that in pre-4e models, hit points represent physical health - ergo, a character that lost hit points was taking physical damage. How bad that damage was overall is based around what I call the "damage percentage," that the wound's severity is equal to the percentage of the hit point loss it deals versus the character's total hit points.

For example, Character A with 6 hit points total that takes 6 hit points of damage from a single attack has just taken 100% damage percentage - he has been killed/is dying from a single attack. Inversely, Character B with 60 hit points who takes 6 hit points damage has suffered 10% damage percentage - he's taken a wound roughly one-tenth as great as it would take to kill a person.

Now, why the latter character took less damage percentage than the former character, despite both having taken the same amount of hit point damage, is where the fluff interacts with the crunch. The DM describes the latter as being a relatively minor wound, such as a deep but non-fatal cut, whereas the former is a mortal blow, such as having been skewered through the heart. 

By itself, this system seems to work, however, as was noted, magical healing throws a monkey wrench in things. Why is it that a _cure light wounds_ that restores 6 hit points can restore Character A from his dying state (assuming 0 hit points is dying, rather than dead) to perfect health, but - if Character B were to be reduced to 0 hit points - only bring Character B back up to 10% of his total health?

The problem here is that the fluff interpretation of the crunch is much narrower for healing than for damage. Damage can be described all sorts of different ways, which is why 6 hit points of damage believably be called a skewering, or a relatively minor cut. Healing, however, presents itself as a constant in terms of its effects, especially when it's magical - healing isn't different things to different people; if it can bring one person from dying to being fine, why not another person?

The solution to this, which I believe is what RC was talking about, is to tweak the description of precisely how magical healing works. The idea here is that the healing energy (the hit points the spell grants) primarily go towards whatever wound pushed the character over 100% damage percentage, and only after that start to heal other wounds.

So how would that work from a fluff point of view? Let's look back at Characters A and B.

Character A had 6 hit points, and then lost all 6 in one blow - a fluff perspective would be that he suffered an immediately lethal wound, such as being stabbed through the heart. A _cure light wounds_ that restores all 6 is then expending all of its energy piecing his heart back together (as well as the muscle and skin around it, etc.) basically undoing that most lethal of wounds. The spell expends all of its energy doing that, with none left over for other wounds...but since Character A has no other wounds, he's now exactly as he was prior to having been stabbed.

Character B, on the other hand, had 60 hit points, but is now down to 0. Maybe he lost them all at once from a single severe wound, such as suffering a red dragon's breath weapon that inflicted 60 hit points of damage and fried him to a crisp, or maybe he lost them piecemeal, such as from multiple sword slashes, the last one of which stabbed him through the heart just like Character A. When Character B receives the _cure light wounds_ for 6 hit points back, the spell is doing the same thing...it's healing the worst wounds first. If it was the sword slashes, then it's healed the one that pierced his heart; if it was the red dragon's breath, then it healed the part of the fire damage that killed him (e.g. the flames' damage to his organs, rather than to his skin). Either way, for Character B the magic worked the same way that it did for Character A; it used all of its energy healing his most deadly wounds first - at that point, the spell is expended, and his other wounds still remain.

That's how hit points worked back in pre-4e games (for most people, at least).

This changed in 4e because, as someone else said, 4e doesn't use hit points to measure physical vitality anymore. Now it uses them to measure combat effectiveness. This is a problem because it discards the "damage percentage" paradigm of fluff. Now hit point loss can be either physical damage, or it can be loss of morale, or anything else that effectively causes a person to be a less adequate combatant, until at 0 hit points they are unable to continue fighting, whether they're dead, demoralized, or something else.

The reason this doesn't work very well is because now, hit point _loss_ has no inherent fluff to it, but _regaining_ hit points does. A spell that restores hit points is healing physical damage; a healing surge restoring hit points is the character raising their morale. This means that the DM can describe hit point loss as physical, and the PC can then receive a morale-boosting healing surge to restore hit points, or vice versa, which makes no sense from a fluff perspective.

As Kamikaze Midget once said, there's now a wrought-iron fence made of tigers between the fluff and the crunch of the game that wasn't there before, and trying to get around that fence to merge the fluff and the crunch back together isn't fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Exactly so, with the caveats that (1) the CLW wouldn't put our 6hp fighter back into the trim in 1e....he'd still need bed rest and (2) the 10% loss of hit points could mean something far less than 10% of a wound that would kill someone.  The higher your hp total, the less any damage means; this is a geometric rather than an arithmatic progression.  


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Alzrius said:


> The reason this doesn't work very well is because now, hit point _loss_ has no inherent fluff to it, but _regaining_ hit points does. A spell that restores hit points is healing physical damage; a healing surge restoring hit points is the character raising their morale. This means that the DM can describe hit point loss as physical, and the PC can then receive a morale-boosting healing surge to restore hit points, or vice versa, which makes no sense from a fluff perspective.
> 
> As Kamikaze Midget once said, there's now a wrought-iron fence made of tigers between the fluff and the crunch of the game that wasn't there before, and trying to get around that fence to merge the fluff and the crunch back together isn't fun.




I think you are ignoring some valid examples on the other side of the argument. Hit point loss in 4E can have the same fluff it had in previous editions. What has changed is the way characters are able to regain hit points. The interaction between damage and healing makes perfect sense to me and I've given examples of how it works for me.

And thanks for declaring that using one's imagination to merge fluff and crunch as badwrongfun. The real trick is that since the first days of D&D players had to reconcile the gap between the fluff and the crunch. People in this thread have pointed out the glaring inconsistencies that we have come to take for granted over the history of the game. 4E added new crunch and those of us playing the game have to find new ways to mesh fluff and crunch. Just because there are new "wrought iron fences" between fluff and crunch doesn't mean that there weren't before.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And thanks for declaring that using one's imagination to merge fluff and crunch as badwrongfun.





Gods of the Interweb forbid that anyone can point out a problem without being accused, by those who don't experience or who ignore the problem, of calling the thing with the problem badwrongfun.

1e has a falling damage problem.

That doesn't make 1e wrongbadfun.


RC


----------



## pemerton

Alzrius said:


> The point that RC seems to be making is that in pre-4e models, hit points represent physical health - ergo, a character that lost hit points was taking physical damage. How bad that damage was overall is based around what I call the "damage percentage," that the wound's severity is equal to the percentage of the hit point loss it deals versus the character's total hit points.
> 
> For example, Character A with 6 hit points total that takes 6 hit points of damage from a single attack has just taken 100% damage percentage - he has been killed/is dying from a single attack. Inversely, Character B with 60 hit points who takes 6 hit points damage has suffered 10% damage percentage - he's taken a wound roughly one-tenth as great as it would take to kill a person.
> 
> Now, why the latter character took less damage percentage than the former character, despite both having taken the same amount of hit point damage, is where the fluff interacts with the crunch. The DM describes the latter as being a relatively minor wound, such as a deep but non-fatal cut, whereas the former is a mortal blow, such as having been skewered through the heart.



The problem with the above is that Character B was killed by being skewered through the heart, the same as Character A. In the narration, the earlier damage did not contribute to Character B's death except indirectly, by making him less able to dodge the killing blow.

So why, given that both suffered the same (near-)fatal wound, is it so much harder to heal Character B to full health than Character A - requiring either a lot more time, or a lot more magic? Your narration of damage implies that it is not a cumulation of nicks and grazes that kills B, but rather that these wear him down so that eventually he dies the same death as A. But the healing system strongly suggests that B did die through attrition, and thus that healing B just requires restoring more "meat" than is required to restore A.



Alzrius said:


> Damage can be described all sorts of different ways, which is why 6 hit points of damage believably be called a skewering, or a relatively minor cut. Healing, however, presents itself as a constant in terms of its effects, especially when it's magical - healing isn't different things to different people; if it can bring one person from dying to being fine, why not another person?
> 
> The solution to this, which I believe is what RC was talking about, is to tweak the description of precisely how magical healing works. The idea here is that the healing energy (the hit points the spell grants) primarily go towards whatever wound pushed the character over 100% damage percentage, and only after that start to heal other wounds.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When Character B receives the _cure light wounds_ for 6 hit points back, the spell is doing the same thing...it's healing the worst wounds first. If it was the sword slashes, then it's healed the one that pierced his heart; if it was the red dragon's breath, then it healed the part of the fire damage that killed him (e.g. the flames' damage to his organs, rather than to his skin). Either way, for Character B the magic worked the same way that it did for Character A; it used all of its energy healing his most deadly wounds first - at that point, the spell is expended, and his other wounds still remain.



This makes no sense to me. Cure Light Wounds heals a (near-)fatal wound, but healing all of Character B's nicks and grazes requires Cure Critical Wounds? At best, the spells are badly misnamed. At worst, your model for hit points has broken down.

And the problem arises with natural healing, also. Consider Characters A and B after they take 5 hp and 15 hp of damage respectively. Character A is badly injured - any blow will kill him. Character B has suffered only some minor wounds. Yet Character A will heal to full strength in less than a week, while Character B will require more than a fortnight to heal. That makes no sense to me, unless we assume that hit points are measuring something other than "meat" - eg some spiritual prowess or luck that Character B takes time to regain.

Of course, you could change the natural healing rules to be more like 3E. But that is hardly a defence of the consistency of the AD&D hit point mechanics under your interpretation of them.



Alzrius said:


> 4e doesn't use hit points to measure physical vitality anymore. Now it uses them to measure combat effectiveness.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The reason this doesn't work very well is because now, hit point _loss_ has no inherent fluff to it, but _regaining_ hit points does. A spell that restores hit points is healing physical damage; a healing surge restoring hit points is the character raising their morale.



Why do you say that magical healing in 4e is healing physical damage? If the damage taken is all psychic damage, for example, or is all the untyped damage inflicted by the Dread Wraith's hideous gaze, than the healing spell is presumably raising morale also.



Alzrius said:


> This means that the DM can describe hit point loss as physical, and the PC can then receive a morale-boosting healing surge to restore hit points, or vice versa, which makes no sense from a fluff perspective.



Only if the GM or the player are playing poorly.



Alzrius said:


> As Kamikaze Midget once said, there's now a wrought-iron fence made of tigers between the fluff and the crunch of the game that wasn't there before, and trying to get around that fence to merge the fluff and the crunch back together isn't fun.



I didn't understand this when KM said it, and I still don't.

Look, if 4e's mechanics were novel, and no one had ever RPGed with them before, then I could understand all this angst. But 4e's mechanics are old hat. They have existed for years in games like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, etc. These are not obscure games written by non-entities. These are major games written by the likes of Greg Stafford and Robin Laws, and they are full of discussions of how to narrate things like 4e hit point loss and healing in such a way as to avoid contradiction or the need to retcon. LostSoul in his posts has also given numerous examples and explanations.

If you narrate an injury as physical, and then when a warlord heals you you don't know what to say without retconning, that is your problem as a player. As LostSoul and I have posted, the narration here is quite easy: "Despite my wound I grit my teeth and go on."

And if you narrate an injury as a severed limb or something of that sort, which you think can't be teeth-gritted through, then you are no worse off than you ever were in D&D, because no Cure X Wounds or Heal spell has ever been able to heal a severed limb - it has always required Regeneration (in 3E this also seems to be required for the healing of ruined organs - like a heart pierced by a sword, presumably). So if you as a GM were in the habit of inflicting non-healable wounds on your PCs when playing AD&D -  not something supported by the damage mechanics - then I'm sure you can go ahead and do the same in 4e.


----------



## Alzrius

pemerton said:


> The problem with the above is that Character B was killed by being skewered through the heart, the same as Character A. In the narration, the earlier damage did not contribute to Character B's death except indirectly, by making him less able to dodge the killing blow.
> 
> So why, given that both suffered the same (near-)fatal wound, is it so much harder to heal Character B to full health than Character A - requiring either a lot more time, or a lot more magic?




Because Character B has more wounds (or a much more severe single wound) than character A does. Assuming both were killed by sword blows, consider the number of hits each took. Character A died from one hit through the heart; Character B died of that also, but suffered a number of other wounds in addition.

Healing magic, under the fluff interpretation I proposed, is going to heal the worst (fluff) damage first. The CLW's mechanics is to bring both characters back above 0 hp - the fluff is that this totally heals Character A's one and only wound, whereas it heals the same wound on Character B...still leaving him with a myriad number of other wounds, which will require more time or magic to heal.



> _Your narration of damage implies that it is not a cumulation of nicks and grazes that kills B, but rather that these wear him down so that eventually he dies the same death as A. But the healing system strongly suggests that B did die through attrition, and thus that healing B just requires restoring more "meat" than is required to restore A._




That the healing system suggests that is your interpretation of the fluff, though. I'll grant you that hit points for vitality do seem ablative, but the fluff is easily able to override the mild suggestion that the mechanics make in this case. There's no disconnect from suggesting that Characters A and B died of the same wound, with Character B being worn down to that point. The fluff I wrote for how healing works solves the problem you mentioned.



> _This makes no sense to me. Cure Light Wounds heals a (near-)fatal wound, but healing all of Character B's nicks and grazes requires Cure Critical Wounds? At best, the spells are badly misnamed. At worst, your model for hit points has broken down._




I'd say it's the former, but really it's not even that. Simply put, the spells aren't misnamed - that's just a misconception based on what the names sound like. Saying that a _cure light wounds_ spell only cures "light wounds," as opposed to more serious ones, is silly. 

The thing to keep in mind is that a CLW heals _only_ the non-fatal wound, but nothing else. Had a _cure critical wounds_ been applied instead, it would have healed the near-fatal wound first, just like the CLW, but then would have kept going and healed the lesser wounds as well. The idea is that all healing magic starts with the worst wounds (those that brought the character to 0 hp and below) and works backwards from there.



> _And the problem arises with natural healing, also. Consider Characters A and B after they take 5 hp and 15 hp of damage respectively. Character A is badly injured - any blow will kill him. Character B has suffered only some minor wounds. Yet Character A will heal to full strength in less than a week, while Character B will require more than a fortnight to heal. That makes no sense to me, unless we assume that hit points are measuring something other than "meat" - eg some spiritual prowess or luck that Character B takes time to regain.
> 
> Of course, you could change the natural healing rules to be more like 3E. But that is hardly a defence of the consistency of the AD&D hit point mechanics under your interpretation of them._




It really seems like you negated your own point, here. The 3.5e natural healing mechanic solves this problem quite neatly. Higher-level characters heal more damage, which scales almost perfectly with the fact that they have more hit points in the first place. Problem solved.



> _Why do you say that magical healing in 4e is healing physical damage? If the damage taken is all psychic damage, for example, or is all the untyped damage inflicted by the Dread Wraith's hideous gaze, than the healing spell is presumably raising morale also._




Maybe it's just me, but that seems needlessly complex. So healing magic can heal not just physical wounds, but also raise a person's morale? Healing spells can make somebody feel more heartened if they've been intimidated? 

I'm not saying a fluff justification isn't possible; I'm just saying that it's not very good.



> _Only if the GM or the player are playing poorly._




I'll grant you that a creative interpretation can probably fix almost any mechanics, but as I said, this seems to be needlessly difficult. I can understand "gritting your teeth and getting through it" for a Healing Surge to restore hit points that were previously narrated as a ruptured lung...but that's not temporary in the way that that'd work - the character has just _permanently_ ignored what was described as a serious wound through sheer willpower.



> _I didn't understand this when KM said it, and I still don't.
> 
> Look, if 4e's mechanics were novel, and no one had ever RPGed with them before, then I could understand all this angst. But 4e's mechanics are old hat. They have existed for years in games like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, etc. These are not obscure games written by non-entities. These are major games written by the likes of Greg Stafford and Robin Laws, and they are full of discussions of how to narrate things like 4e hit point loss and healing in such a way as to avoid contradiction or the need to retcon. LostSoul in his posts has also given numerous examples and explanations._




I'll admit that I don't play those games, and that I mostly skimmed over the last few pages of posts, but I think the central point remains. The new system of mingling the crunch and fluff of hit points is lopsided, and more difficult than it needs to be, at least compared to previous additions.



> _If you narrate an injury as physical, and then when a warlord heals you you don't know what to say without retconning, that is your problem as a player. As LostSoul and I have posted, the narration here is quite easy: "Despite my wound I grit my teeth and go on."_




See above. This isn't the character forcing themselves forward for a few minutes; it's them no longer being troubled ever again by a serious wound.



> _And if you narrate an injury as a severed limb or something of that sort, which you think can't be teeth-gritted through, then you are no worse off than you ever were in D&D, because no Cure X Wounds or Heal spell has ever been able to heal a severed limb - it has always required Regeneration (in 3E this also seems to be required for the healing of ruined organs - like a heart pierced by a sword, presumably). So if you as a GM were in the habit of inflicting non-healable wounds on your PCs when playing AD&D -  not something supported by the damage mechanics - then I'm sure you can go ahead and do the same in 4e._




This is a separate, albeit related, issue - the gamist vs. simulationist approach of hit points isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the mechanics of hit points versus how the fluff works with said mechanics. They're similar, but fundamentally different, which is why the _regenerate_ spell has been virtually useless in every edition of the game.


----------



## pemerton

Alzrrius, first, a thank-you for the considered reply.



Alzrius said:


> Because Character B has more wounds (or a much more severe single wound) than character A does.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it heals the same wound on Character B...still leaving him with a myriad number of other wounds, which will require more time or magic to heal.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The fluff I wrote for how healing works solves the problem you mentioned.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The idea is that all healing magic starts with the worst wounds (those that brought the character to 0 hp and below) and works backwards from there.



I still think that this idea suggests that the spells are misnamed - it should be "cure one wound", "cure several wounds", "cure many wounds" etc. - but otherwise I sort-of see where you're going here. Though I think it odd that it is easier for magic to heal one (near-)fatal wound than to heal two minor cuts or grazes.

It is also odd that 1st level characters never suffer minor cuts or grazes - they are always either uninjured or badly injured by a single wound, and thus always healable to max by a CLW - wherease high level characters are plagued by minor cuts and grazes which require powerful magic or many low-level spells to heal. This oddness makes me prefer a non-full-physical reading of hit points in AD&D - ie to agree with what Fifth Element and others were saying upthread that what the high-level character is recovering from is not just minor physical damage but also the ablation of luck, mystical protection etc.



Alzrius said:


> It really seems like you negated your own point, here. The 3.5e natural healing mechanic solves this problem quite neatly. Higher-level characters heal more damage, which scales almost perfectly with the fact that they have more hit points in the first place. Problem solved.



My point was that it is no defence of AD&D that 3E solves the problem. This in fact seems to be an admission that AD&D does not have a consistent hit-point system on your interpretation.



Alzrius said:


> Maybe it's just me, but that seems needlessly complex. So healing magic can heal not just physical wounds, but also raise a person's morale? Healing spells can make somebody feel more heartened if they've been intimidated?



Well, one person's complexity is another person's suite of options. I'm someone for whom 4e is the first version of D&D I'm interested in playing since 1990 (and the coming of 2nd ed AD&D) precisely because it has adopted a more narratively flexible approach to damage and healing (and in other parts of the game as well).

When I compare 4e to 3E I see a game that has reduced the complexity of character build, while shifting the complexity into play and narration. I like that.

(And if I want to play a game in which all damage is physical, and a hit point taken or healed realy is a hit point and nothing either more or less, I always have RQ, RM or HARP! I'm one of many who was attracted to RM initially because of the way it handled combat and healing.)

I'm not saying a fluff justification isn't possible; I'm just saying that it's not very good.



Alzrius said:


> I can understand "gritting your teeth and getting through it" for a Healing Surge to restore hit points that were previously narrated as a ruptured lung...but that's not temporary in the way that that'd work - the character has just _permanently_ ignored what was described as a serious wound through sheer willpower.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This isn't the character forcing themselves forward for a few minutes; it's them no longer being troubled ever again by a serious wound.



Well, there are two different mechanics in play here - the short rest, and the extended rest.

In previous threads on this topic I have suggested that those who don't like the extended rest recovery mechanics should adopt the following option: narrate all short rests, and all within-episode extended rests as teeth-gritting, and then make sure that sufficient time passes between episodes to satisfy their desire for verisimilitudinous healing. (1st ed AD&D requires the same solution, by the way, if we are not to be confronted by the radically non-verisimilitudinous fact that the most serious non-fatal injury can be recovevered in as little as a fortnight or so by a low hit-point character - something I know from experience to be utterly unreaslistic.)

An alternative, that works equally well for 4e and AD&D, is to just be a bit less grim-and-gritty. (That is, embrace the genre assumptions of this sort of high fantasy.) Assume that, after a few encouraging words from the warlord and patches from the first aid kit, that the wound is stitched/set, that determination makes it possible to keep going, and that healing is taking place over time.

Such a wound can even be brought back into the game - the GM can narrate the next hit against the character as "Favouring your injured leg, you mis-step and the goblin catches you with its spear."



Alzrius said:


> the _regenerate_ spell has been virtually useless in every edition of the game.



Now on this we're agreed.


----------



## Delta

pemerton said:


> I still think that this idea suggests that the spells are misnamed - it should be "cure one wound", "cure several wounds", "cure many wounds" etc. - but otherwise I sort-of see where you're going here.




That's actually a very elegant solution to come out of this thread.


----------



## dm4hire

I agree and was thinking how by switching 4e over to a wound system like True20 would fix some of the problems discussed here.

Healing surges seem to fit more with a wound system than with hit points.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> There is no such thing as Wounded (capital W meaning game rule status) in any version of D&D. There is Dead, Unconscious, or Conscious. Role-Playing wounded (small w referring to the general term) is the only way a wound exists in any edition. The status you attribute to being Wounded may not mesh with others. In fact, you mention that once Bruce Willis in Die Hard meets his objective he goes to the hospital to heal up. Once my players met their objective in Keep on the Shadowfell they rested to recover from their wounds. Could they have gone off to the next dungeon the next day? Yes, if the story called for it. But Die Hard 2 could have started with Bruce Willis being loaded into the ambulance. Someone runs up to tell him that his daughter was kidnapped by the real villain behind the scenes. If Die Hard were a 1E game, he would have to push on in a weakened state, probably putting his daughter in jeopardy when he can't fight the fight as long the next day or waiting to heal and losing his daughter for sure. In 4E he pushes himself up stiffly while the paramedics try to talk some sense into him. He pushes them away saying, "I've gotta save Sara!" You would still roleplay that he is hurt and struggling to continue, even at full hit points! Hit points have never equaled wounds to me. And wounds have never had a game effect in D&D. Other systems I've played that do have game effects for wounds have been fun, but PCs in them seem to suffer the death-spiral effect. Once you start getting hurt, it is harder to avoid getting hurt more.
> 
> It isn't badwrongfun to play a grittier game where hit points are hard to come by. Neither is 4E badwrongfun to emulate the action movies that many people love and adore, now matter how cheesy the dialogue gets at times.



This, 100% agree. Anything you can recover from with sufficient rest is not a life threatening injury IMO. In all version of D&D you can get hit points back with sufficient values of rest.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

I find it humourous that this thread has devolved into an argument based on the flawed presumption that any version of D&D ever handled "wounds" well.


----------



## Squizzle

I've been checking in with this thread every time it grew a new page between 12 and its current 17, and at least since then, it's been focusing on the exact same discussion of hit points, abstraction, and healing surges, as if the resolution of this debate (which is championed on one side by Raven Crowking, and on the other by everyone else) determines the fate of D&D for all eternity.

The discussion goes like this:

RC: Literal!
Anyone else: Abstract!
RC: But if literal!
A1e: So not, abstract!
RC: I literal!
A1e: Most abstract!
RC: Book literal!
A1e: Book abstract!
RC: Literal!
A1e: Abstract!

Reiterate in various forms _ad nauseum_.


----------



## rounser

> I find it humourous that this thread has devolved into an argument based on the flawed presumption that any version of D&D ever handled "wounds" well.



You would have a point if it were somehow a black and white thing.  Just because it's a shade of grey doesn't make it a non-issue.  If 4E handles wounds more badly than prior editions, then to some people, that may well be an issue.  (It doesn't to me.  I can't get past the core implied setting as a dealbreaker.)

I note a recurring theme of 4E's defenders reverting to this idea of an on/off switch in order to deny there's a problem with their game, rather than a sliding scale, as if the degree of something doesn't matter.  Somewhat Stupid and Completely Stupid are on the same scale, and both a form of Stupid, but no-one denies that the difference between the two matters (except maybe for those with agendas, arguing a point, perhaps.)  

Somewhat Stupid might be able to be handwaved and ignored easily, whilst Completely Stupid might stick out like a sore thumb, and cause suspension of disbelief to fail.  It may not be a problem for you (it isn't for me), but denying it's existence because it's always been a bit abstract is neither useful nor intellectually honest, IMO.


----------



## Hussar

Rounser said:
			
		

> Somewhat Stupid might be able to be handwaved and ignored easily, whilst Completely Stupid might stick out like a sore thumb, and cause suspension of disbelief to fail. It may not be a problem for you (it isn't for me), but denying it's existence because it's always been a bit abstract is neither useful nor intellectually honest, IMO.




See, it's the characterization that it was a "bit abstract" that people are taking issue with.  It's always been abstract for many of us.  And I say us because there are a number of posters in this thread alone who think that hit points are an abstraction and have very little to do with any sort of real world correlation.

The fact that in ANY edition, I can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away makes hit points pretty abstract to me.  Or, just to reverse it, the fact that I can actually KILL an elephant with darts (might take me a while, but it can be done) rather than just pissing it off that makes it pretty abstract.  A "bit abstract" is GURPS.  Rolemaster.  James Bond the RPG.  Just to name a few.

D&D hit points, for me in any case, have never even remotely been anywhere in the same room as "realism" or even "simulation".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Squizzle said:


> I've been checking in with this thread every time it grew a new page between 12 and its current 17, and at least since then, it's been focusing on the exact same discussion of hit points, abstraction, and healing surges, as if the resolution of this debate (which is championed on one side by Raven Crowking, and on the other by everyone else) determines the fate of D&D for all eternity.




Clearly, while you have been checking in, you have not been reading.  No one is saying hit points are literal.

But thank you for your ad hominem attack.  The thread wouldn't be the same without it.


RC


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> D&D hit points, for me in any case, have never even remotely been anywhere in the same room as "realism" or even "simulation".



I find this boolean "never even been in the same room" position boggling.  And I can think of countless discussions about it being very abstract over the years, but this absolutism is new and, to me, is nothing but a great shining case of revisionism to cover an issue that can't be adequately resolved in more reasonable terms.

I have always thought that 3E (and prior editions) was highly abstract when it came to damage.  It very much is so.  It is an acceptable sacrifice.  But just because you put the fuzzy term "abstract" on one thing and the same fuzzy term on another thing does not mean that those two things are equal.  There is a ton of room for shades of gray.

Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

BryonD said:
			
		

> Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.




Or another observer is incapable of understanding they really, truly are no different.

Quid pro quo, Joe. Quid pro quo.

WP


----------



## justanobody

Hussar said:


> The fact that in ANY edition, I can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away makes hit points pretty abstract to me.




There once was a system to handle your being stepped on by the elephant. System shock killed you if you took enough damage from a single "source".

This went to represent just how there was a real physical connection and not entirely abstract to hit points.


----------



## Rel

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> There is no such thing as Wounded (capital W meaning game rule status) in any version of D&D.




There is in mine. 

Folks who are involved in the current debate:  If you've reached a point of frustration then agree to disagree, call it a good debate and go your separate ways.  If you still have points to make then I advise you make them with respect.

Folks who are not involved in the current debate:  Your drive-by insults are not needed or appreciated.  If you have something substantive to contribute, please do.  If not then stay out.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.




Of course the rules for damage and healing are different in each edition (except maybe 1E->2E), I haven't really seen anyone arguing that they are the same.

What I am arguing is that the abstraction of 4E damage and healing is not "More Stupid" than the merely "Stupid" abstraction of damage and healing in previous editions (which I do see people arguing). IMO, the abstraction of damage and healing is different than previous editions, not better, not worse. 

I am also arguing that there are ways to still easily narrate damage and healing without retconning it or producing rediculous results. Are they the same way you could narrate them in previous editions? Depends on your narration style. Is it "harder?" Only if you work against the system. The same difficulty you would have in previous editions if your narration style included severing limbs every time someone took what you considered to be massive damage.


----------



## LostSoul

Alzrius said:


> I'll grant you that a creative interpretation can probably fix almost any mechanics, but as I said, this seems to be needlessly difficult. I can understand "gritting your teeth and getting through it" for a Healing Surge to restore hit points that were previously narrated as a ruptured lung...but that's not temporary in the way that that'd work - the character has just _permanently_ ignored what was described as a serious wound through sheer willpower.




It's more difficult, I think, but that difficulty works for me.  It allows the player (or DM) to more easily address a theme in play.

I'd say that the wound isn't permanently ignored until the Extended Rest comes into play.  Until then, you're down a Healing Surge (down some Resources) and up a punctured lung (added some Positioning).  Those have an effect on play, and it's not just that your PC is less effective in combat.

Let's say that you have that punctured lung.  Then you come to an underground stream and get Pushed in.  The DM decides to penalize your Athletics checks because you can't draw in enough air.  But maybe he penalizes the Doomspore's attack by the same amount for the same reason.

Colour and Mechanics come together!



Alzrius said:


> See above. This isn't the character forcing themselves forward for a few minutes; it's them no longer being troubled ever again by a serious wound.




Until the Extended Rest, sure; maybe even after that (depending on how you're handling the Positioning).


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> There once was a system to handle your being stepped on by the elephant. System shock killed you if you took enough damage from a single "source".
> 
> This went to represent just how there was a real physical connection and not entirely abstract to hit points.



Not quite.


			
				1E PHB p.12 said:
			
		

> System Shock Survival stated the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), polymorph any object, polymorph others.



System shock only applies to specific magical effects. Not trampling elephants. 2E also has system shock, and it means the same thing.

Now, _massive damage_ was introduced to the core rules in 2E IIRC, and was carried on in 3E. This may be what you're referring to.


----------



## Raven Crowking

It should be noted that there is no edition of D&D (including 4th) in which you "can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away".  If an elephant makes a stamping attack, and it doesn't kill you, then you didn't get stepped on.  This is analogous to "if a swordsman makes a stabbing attack, and it doesn't kill you, you didn't get skewered through the liver".


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Of course the rules for damage and healing are different in each edition (except maybe 1E->2E), I haven't really seen anyone arguing that they are the same.





Really?  Because the whole reason I became embroiled in this mess was the claim that they are the same.  If no one here now believes they are the same, I would be happy to call it a day.  


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

BryonD said:


> There is a ton of room for shades of gray.
> 
> Frankly, if someone says they are no different then the simple explanation is not that they are in fact the same but simply that the observer in question is not capable of perceiving the distinction.



You're right, there is a *ton* of room for shades of grey. But I don't think anyone is arguing the specific application of abstraction in 4E is "no different" than in previous editions. Just that the concept of abstract hit points and what they can and cannot represent is not sufficiently different from previous editions to be called different in any meaningful way - it all falls within that tons of room for shades of grey.

Yes, the mechanics have changed. They have moved along that spectrum of grey. But the concepts are really no different, just implemented in a different way.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Because the whole reason I became embroiled in this mess was the claim that they are the same.  If no one here now believes they are the same, I would be happy to call it a day.



Mr. Basterd was talking about the specific rules (the mechanics) of each edition in his post, not the conceptual aspects of hit points, which you are debating.


----------



## justanobody

Fifth Element said:


> Not quite.
> 
> System shock only applies to specific magical effects. Not trampling elephants. 2E also has system shock, and it means the same thing.
> 
> Now, _massive damage_ was introduced to the core rules in 2E IIRC, and was carried on in 3E. This may be what you're referring to.






> *System Shock* states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical aging, etc. *It can also be used to see if the character retains consciousness in particularly difficult situations.* For example, an evil wizard polymorphs his dim-witted hireling into a crow. The hireling, whose Constitution score is 13, has an 85% chance to survive the change. Assuming he survives, he must successfully roll for system shock again when he is changed back to his original form or else he will die.
> 
> Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.




The example may only be for a magical instance, but I clearly recall it written somewhere that if you take 50 damage you rolled for system shock and if you failed you died, even form being at full health.

Either way same principle, where HP represents a REAL connection to physical damage. It is a shock to the system afterall.


----------



## Zustiur

I hesitate to add more fuel to this fire but...

My understanding is that hit points up until 4e have never included moral. Moral usually by-passed HP. Fear spells affected moral, but caused no change in HP. Many monsters had moral checks depending on how many of their fellows had been killed, but their own individual HP didn't affect their moral.

To find that moral is now included is disconcerting. I agree with those who argue that damage has always included SOME physical injury in the past.

The idea that natural healing takes longer the more heroic you are has always been a problem with DnD, but I've been able to ignore it as it didn't stick out enough to make me worry about it. Going from dying to okay, via magic, always fit the picture for me. The concept that 'light wounds' means 'few wounds' and 'critical wounds' means 'lots and lots of wounds' is one that I've understood for a very long time.

What I can't get a grip on is this (and this is where the ret-conning thing comes in):

Character A gets knocked down to say -12 HP from a series of sword blows. This character has a bloodied value of 15 so is effectively 3 HP away from dead. However, the character is also dying, and takes death saves each round. Two turns later the character has failed two saves, and is also 1 HP away from dead. This character is clearly mortally wounded. One more failed save, or one more lost hit point equals death.

But somehow, despite being mortally wounded, and unconscious, someone saying 'get up you sissy' from 25 feet away allows this character to get up and fight as if he'd never been close to death.

So explain how the character is now okay to keep fighting, a mere 6 seconds after being on death's door, without the aid of magic? All of the 'damage' was from a physical source, the character was effectively in a coma, but Mr Inspiration over there said a few words and now Character A has never been close to death to begin with? The same problem applies without the warlord. The player gets lucky and rolls a 20 on his next turn... so the character who was bleeding to death is now awake and physically able, despite having been comatose and a ragged breath away from dying moments earlier.

Can someone explain how this works without ret-conning the near death experience? I just don't get it. Maybe someone can give me a comparable real-world situation where someone is on death's door, and moments later is completely okay without any medical intervention. I just can't explain being that close to death without it being a (near-) mortal wound. 
Okay, there are heart attacks and similar - but you don't recover from them instantly and return to full physical activity a few seconds later.

This is what we mean by mentioning Schroedinger. Either the character is about to die, or he's just feeling a bit down and needs encouragement. But we won't know which until - 
a) he gets told to get up
b) he dies.
His current state is in question, and cannot be accurately described. Is he okay or not? We can't tell until the next round takes place. 

In 3.0, even with magical healing, getting up from a dying state left you unable to participate in the current fight. Now just a few words of encouragement, to a character who is labeled as unconscious and dying is enough to return them to full fighting power. (I quote 3.0 because I'm not sure if the same rule remains in 3.5, having played it so little).


And the secondary issue:
Character B has been fighting all day, and has used up all her healing surges. the party cleric who prays to a god of healing can do no more for her. The party warlord can do no more for her. But the lowly level 1 paladin who prays to someone absurd like Zehir (god of assassins) CAN heal her because that healing uses the paladin's surges, not Character B's surges.
WTF?
Okay, I get that the paladin is selfless etc, that's cool. But the idea that a cleric can do less healing than a paladin in this sort of situation astounds me. The cleric can go on healing people all day, just not this person. Yet the paladin can heal this person. The clerics/god's magic works for everyone except Character B. I admit this is a corner case, it's just something that makes no sense to me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Because the whole reason I became embroiled in this mess was the claim that they are the same.  If no one here now believes they are the same, I would be happy to call it a day.
> 
> 
> RC




Just like nobody here is taking hit points too literally? 

You skipped my main point in your attempt at humor.

Claims that 4E damage and healing is "absurd" (quoth the Raven) is really ignoring the fact that the alleged absurdity never existed. Prior versions of D&D had their own abstractions that DMs and Players used a fitting narrative to explain. The rules didn't explain how a high level fighter fell off a 200' cliff, got stepped on by an elephant, skewered by arrows from a legion of archers and survived. We had to narrate how he was able to keep on fighting and how he came to be healed. 4E has added new ways to be hurt and new ways to be healed. Do the rules explain how a character deals with all this? No. We still have to narrate it. In any edition of D&D, narration that contradicts the way the rules work will seem like a failuire in the rules. It is really a failure in your narration.

And I ask only out of curiosity, if the elephant didn't step on you when you took that damage that didn't kill you, then why did you take damage in the first place?

Anticipating your answer, the follow-up is then: Can't the same be said for narration in 4E?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Just like nobody here is taking hit points too literally?




Again, hit points are now and have always been an abstraction.

What is changed is that, while in previous editions, they were an abstraction of how much damage the character can take, in 4e they are an abstraction of an abstraction.  And that, IMHO, is a paradigm shift.

Moreover, I didn't claim that "4E damage and healing is "absurd"" -- I claimed that the 4e damage and healing paradigm consistently and frequently gives rise to absurd situations in the narrative unless

(1)  One chooses not to describe any damage until it has been healed,
(2)  One retcons the narrative, or
(3)  One simply chooses to close one's eyes to the absurdity (which does not actually make it go away; though it might make it go away _for you_).



> The rules didn't explain how a high level fighter fell off a 200' cliff, got stepped on by an elephant, skewered by arrows from a legion of archers and survived.




1e has a serious problem with falling damage that leads to absurd results.

1e is, however, very clear that non-fatal hit point loss meant that fighter _*didn't *_get stepped on by an elephant, and _*didn't*_ get skewered by arrows from a legion of archers if he survived.



> And I ask only out of curiosity, if the elephant didn't step on you when you took that damage that didn't kill you, then why did you take damage in the first place?
> 
> Anticipating your answer, the follow-up is then: Can't the same be said for narration in 4E?




The elephant tried to step on you, but you rolled out of the way before his foot came down fully.  He still caught you with it, though, and it hurt, causing some bodily injury.

Follow-Up:  As soon as you know how the hit points are healed, you can narrate how the damage was taken, if you wish to both keep your eyes open and avoid absurd results.  At the time the damage was taken?  Not so much.


RC


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> It should be noted that there is no edition of D&D (including 4th) in which you "can be stepped on by an elephant and walk away".  If an elephant makes a stamping attack, and it doesn't kill you, then you didn't get stepped on.



The elephant did not step on you, yet you must heal from this injury?  This is not at all consistent with your previous statements.

It _is_ consistent with the notion of hit points as largely intangible luck, divine favor, etc.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Zustiur said:


> To find that moral is now included is disconcerting. I agree with those who argue that damage has always included SOME physical injury in the past.




My first point of disagreement. Damage has not always included physical injury. RC's example of not being stepped on by an elephant unless the trampling attack killed you is a good example of no physical injury, but still losing hit points. It the physical exertion to avoid the harm or loss of luck or what-have-you to explain this loss of hit points in any edition.



Zustiur said:


> What I can't get a grip on is this (and this is where the ret-conning thing comes in):
> 
> Character A gets knocked down to say -12 HP from a series of sword blows. This character has a bloodied value of 15 so is effectively 3 HP away from dead. However, the character is also dying, and takes death saves each round. Two turns later the character has failed two saves, and is also 1 HP away from dead. This character is clearly mortally wounded. One more failed save, or one more lost hit point equals death.




Again, I would say it normally only takes one solid sword blow to take someone down. So every "hit" in the series of sword blows except for the one that took the character down is actually a *near hit* that the charater exerted himself to deflect, dodge, whatever. The hit that took him down I would describe as being a *potentially fatal* wound of whatever sort fits for narration's sake.



Zustiur said:


> But somehow, despite being mortally wounded, and unconscious, someone saying 'get up you sissy' from 25 feet away allows this character to get up and fight as if he'd never been close to death.




If you want people in your game to yell absurd things like "get up you sissy" that's your perogative. I would envision something more like near-death scenes from some of my favorite action movies. People in movies die because they lose the will to live. Stirring dialogues from their friends to "not go towards the light" or "are you just gonna give up and let these scum ravage our homeland?!" or whatever fits the situation are what allows them to shake the haze of death and push themselves up of the ground to continue the fight.



Zustiur said:


> So explain how the character is now okay to keep fighting, a mere 6 seconds after being on death's door, without the aid of magic? All of the 'damage' was from a physical source, the character was effectively in a coma, but Mr Inspiration over there said a few words and now Character A has never been close to death to begin with? The same problem applies without the warlord. The player gets lucky and rolls a 20 on his next turn... so the character who was bleeding to death is now awake and physically able, despite having been comatose and a ragged breath away from dying moments earlier.




I personally have always had a problem with the Unconscious status from day 1 of OD&D. Where are all the death monologues? Can't, because if you're Dying, you are also Unconscious. So, I treat Dying as "unable to act." You can't perform any conherent actions, but you certainly aren't comatose. You are hovering on death's door with the real world getting hazier as each moment passes.



Zustiur said:


> Can someone explain how this works without ret-conning the near death experience? I just don't get it. Maybe someone can give me a comparable real-world situation where someone is on death's door, and moments later is completely okay without any medical intervention. I just can't explain being that close to death without it being a (near-) mortal wound.
> Okay, there are heart attacks and similar - but you don't recover from them instantly and return to full physical activity a few seconds later.






Zustiur said:


> This is what we mean by mentioning Schroedinger. Either the character is about to die, or he's just feeling a bit down and needs encouragement. But we won't know which until -
> a) he gets told to get up
> b) he dies.
> His current state is in question, and cannot be accurately described. Is he okay or not? We can't tell until the next round takes place.




No. He has a mortal wound. The only thing you are waiting to find out is whether:
a) he does what any good action hero does and pushes through the pain to keep fighting
b) he dies

When he has time to rest he bandages his wounds and deals with the pain until he's fully healed. Is this painful wound described in the rules? No. Because there never has been a Wound Rule in core D&D.



Zustiur said:


> In 3.0, even with magical healing, getting up from a dying state left you unable to participate in the current fight. Now just a few words of encouragement, to a character who is labeled as unconscious and dying is enough to return them to full fighting power. (I quote 3.0 because I'm not sure if the same rule remains in 3.5, having played it so little).




Not true. In 3.0, if healed from -9 hit points to 1 or more hit points with magical healing, your character could stand up on his turn and keep fighting.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> The elephant tried to step on you, but you rolled out of the way before his foot came down fully.  He still caught you with it, though, and it hurt, causing some bodily injury.



...and it takes you precisely the same amount of time to recover from this lesser injury as it would someone who took a larger proportion of hit point damage from the same attack.

So tougher people take longer to heal from lesser injuries. That sounds pretty absurd to me.

So while the 1E hit points rules may not be absurd, they consistently lead to absurd results. If you think about them in certain ways.


----------



## LostSoul

Zustiur said:


> Character A gets knocked down to say -12 HP from a series of sword blows. This character has a bloodied value of 15 so is effectively 3 HP away from dead. However, the character is also dying, and takes death saves each round. Two turns later the character has failed two saves, and is also 1 HP away from dead. This character is clearly mortally wounded. One more failed save, or one more lost hit point equals death.
> 
> But somehow, despite being mortally wounded, and unconscious, someone saying 'get up you sissy' from 25 feet away allows this character to get up and fight as if he'd never been close to death.
> 
> So explain how the character is now okay to keep fighting, a mere 6 seconds after being on death's door, without the aid of magic? All of the 'damage' was from a physical source, the character was effectively in a coma, but Mr Inspiration over there said a few words and now Character A has never been close to death to begin with? The same problem applies without the warlord. The player gets lucky and rolls a 20 on his next turn... so the character who was bleeding to death is now awake and physically able, despite having been comatose and a ragged breath away from dying moments earlier.
> 
> Can someone explain how this works without ret-conning the near death experience? I just don't get it. Maybe someone can give me a comparable real-world situation where someone is on death's door, and moments later is completely okay without any medical intervention. I just can't explain being that close to death without it being a (near-) mortal wound.
> Okay, there are heart attacks and similar - but you don't recover from them instantly and return to full physical activity a few seconds later.




I'll give it a shot.  One thing to remember is that you just have to explain it so that it's cool for your group, so one person's "wicked awesome" is another person's "lame".

The PC come across a Kruthik lair and engage in battle.  The Fighter charges up to the Adult and they begin trading blows.  Finally, one claw slips past the Fighter's guard and smacks him in the face, tearing his cheek open.

He falls, seeing stars.  His muscles won't work, up is down, everything's a blur.  (-12 HP, fails death save.)

As he lies on the ground, the Kruthik keeps tearing and gnashing at his armour.  It's bound to hit something vital if this keeps up.  (Takes two damage, -14 HP.)

The Fighter tries to get up, but he can't.  (Fails death save.)

Luckily the Wizard Thunderwaves the Kruthik Adult away just as it was about to slash open the Fighter's neck.

"You're not going to do much good on the ground like that!" the Warlord yells, and the words make it through to the Fighter.  Inspired, the Fighter clears his head through a gargantuan effort of will.  (Inspiring Word.)

He rises, tastes the blood from his ripped cheek, and takes a minute to gather his breath.  (Second Wind.)


Now let's say you got yourself into trouble with the first attack's narration, the one that brought him to -12 HP:

The PC come across a Kruthik lair and engage in battle.  The Fighter charges up to the Adult and they begin trading blows.  Finally, one claw slips past the Fighter's guard and slashes his throat.  (-12 HP.)

The Fighter falls, unconcious, bleeding out.  (Fails death save.)

As he lies on the ground, the Kruthik keeps tearing and gnashing at his armour.  It's bound to rip open another gash and the Fighter will die from blood loss.  (Takes two damage, -14 HP.)

Luckily the Wizard Thunderwaves the Kruthik Adult away just as it was about to slash open the Fighter's neck.

The Fighter sees a light in the darkness, and standing in it is the Raven Queen, calling for him, a blade in one hand and the golden strand of Fate in the other.  The Fighter turns away, and sees the face of the Warlord.  He remembers the Warlord's courage and he turns his back on the Raven Queen, who stays her hand.

The Fighter's eyes flip open.  (Inspiring Word.)   The Fighter is bleeding bad, but his will carries him on, and he won't go down until the Raven Queen cuts the strand of his fate.


----------



## Shazman

Zustiur, many share your thougts.  A lot of us don't like these kind of ridiculous overly gamist elements in the game.  The explanation is that there is no explanation.  It doesn't make any sense at all.  It ruins suspension of disbelief, but apparently the designers thought it was more fun and balanced so that's the way it is.  I don't want D&D to be a completely realist combat simulation because it would be far to complex and deadly to play for very long, but it should have enough realistic elements so I can at least buy into it.  Having a cleric or paladin heal someone on death's door with divine magic makes sense to me and works for the game.  Having someone on death's door jump up and continue fighting because the warlord tells him to "Shake it off!" doesn't make sense, and is downright silly.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, I didn't claim that "4E damage and healing is "absurd"" -- I claimed that the 4e damage and healing paradigm consistently and frequently gives rise to absurd situations in the narrative unless
> 
> (1)  One chooses not to describe any damage until it has been healed,
> (2)  One retcons the narrative, or
> (3)  One simply chooses to close one's eyes to the absurdity (which does not actually make it go away; though it might make it go away _for you_).




(1) I can still describe the *potentially fatal* hit (i.e. the one that drops you to a Dying state) based on what kind of attack caused it. I don't want to describe any other hits as more than light wounds, because as you have pointed out a hit isn't necessarily a hit unless it's potentially fatal.
(2) I don't have to retcon anything. I just have to describe the type of healing the character is benefitting from. If it is a Warlord or natural 20, I describe those as perservering through the pain of the wound and getting back up to fight. If it is magical healing, it heals the wound immediately.
(3) If one chooses to close one's eyes to a new type of "healing" by holding on to the literal meaning of the word healing, they will encounter difficulty in describing the effects of it in 4E.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> The elephant did not step on you, yet you must heal from this injury?  This is not at all consistent with your previous statements.




Sure is.  Do you accept that a sword can physically harm you without successfully skewering you?  I sure do.  I've experienced it.  Do you accept that an elephant that tries to step on you can physically harm you without _actually succeeding in stepping on you_?  Thankfully, I've not experienced that, but I can certainly believe it.

The amount of physical damage done by an attack, IRL, is not an on/off, all-or-nothing switch.  A person or creature can fail to skewer/gouge/rip your arm off and still do a heck of a lot of real damage.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My first point of disagreement. Damage has not always included physical injury. RC's example of not being stepped on by an elephant unless the trampling attack killed you is a good example of no physical injury, but still losing hit points.




See above.  And see the 1e DMG.

Can I fail to step on you, but still catch you with my heel and cause you physical harm?  Or you me?  Or an elephant either of us with its toes?

Have you ever seen video footage of animals attacking people?  There are many, many cases where the animal fails to gore, step on, what-have-you, but still manages to cause injury.

When I was in high school in rural Wisconsin, I had a classmate who got pulled into a hay baler.  His dad managed to shut it off before it did any lasting harm -- he wasn't skewered -- but he had a nasty cut along the side of his head near his eye, a wound in his thigh (a few inches north, and it would have been far worse), etc.  The machine failed to skewer him fatally; it certainly did not fail to injure him.

Even if "it normally only takes one solid sword blow to take someone down", that does not translate a hit that fails to take someone down into a "near hit"; it translates it into a hit that is not "one solid blow".  Having received a number of hits that cause damage, but are not "one solid blow" over the years, I can safely say that they still cause physical damage.

To non-Kryptonians, anyway.  



Fifth Element said:


> ...and it takes you precisely the same amount of time to recover from this lesser injury as it would someone who took a larger proportion of hit point damage from the same attack.
> 
> So tougher people take longer to heal from lesser injuries. That sounds pretty absurd to me.




Again, this is a misunderstanding of what hit points are in 1e.

In 1e it is possible to be damaged without that damage expending a hit point.  For instance, a wizard with 1 hp doesn't sit on a tack and die from it.  Some damage is simply "below the margin" of substantial damage.

Which means that Gary, our 80 hp fighter, and Bob, our 10 hp fighter, might still have some signs of injury when at full hit points.  These injuries are just too insignificant to count.

With me so far?

Part of what gives Gary 80 hit points to Bob's 10 is that Gary is simply a better fighter.  When he is in top shape, he can really parry and thrust, and he can dodge major injuries (turning them into minor injuries) like nobody's business.  _*No matter how much Bob rests up, he is *_*never in as good a condition as Gary is.*  When Bob is at full, and Gary is at half, Gary is still in better shape than Bob.  

The difference is that, some of the damage that is inconsequential to Bob is inconsequential because Bob isn't the finely balanced fighting machine that Gary is.  When a little injury throws Gary off his game, his game is still very much better than Bob's is.  Bob ignores that injury _*because he isn't good enough for that injury to matter*_.

To use a modern example, if I wrestle Hulk Hogan, no minor cut I have is really going to affect my chances of escaping the punishment coming my way.  I am effectively at "full hit points" because my hit points suck.  And no minor cut Hulk Hogan has is going to affect him either, because even with the cut he outclasses me considerably.  Although Hulk Hogan isn't at full hit points, in this case, he is still very much better than I am, even if I am at full hit points.

However, if Hulk Hogan were wrestling someone of equal strength, skill, and talent, that minor cut might well be important.  That injury _matters_ to Hulk Hogan -- where it doesn't matter to me -- because Hulk Hogan doesn't suck, whereas I do.

In 1e, you can have injury without hit point loss, but no hit point loss without injury.  Hit point loss always represents injury; not all injury is represented by hit point loss.

(This is the same in 3e, btw, where some injury is represented by ability score loss, for example.)


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> I claimed that the 4e damage and healing paradigm consistently and frequently gives rise to absurd situations in the narrative unless
> 
> (1)  One chooses not to describe any damage until it has been healed,
> (2)  One retcons the narrative, or
> (3)  One simply chooses to close one's eyes to the absurdity (which does not actually make it go away; though it might make it go away _for you_).



Or (4) the DM narrates the damage as the character _perceives_ it, and as it _appears_ to others, at the moment.

"Grabthar was pierced in the chest, it hurts like the dickens, there's a lot of blood, take 20 points of damage".

Whether that blow pierced a lung or nicked an artery doesn't need to be resolved immediately. Injured people frequently do not know the actual extent and severity of their injuries until some time has passed --particularly when their blood is up, as in professional sporting events or lethal combat. 

There, problem solved. No retconning needed. 

Also, on the subject of absurdities... it's with a wry smile I realize that every campaign I've played in narrated damage _wrong_. Wounds were always described as severe --absurdly severe, even-- based on the damage total rolled, not on how close the character was to zero HP. Every single campaign I've played, or run, featured absurd damage narration. Even in the more serious ones combat frequently sounded like an Itchy and Scratchy routine, a celebration of cartoon-level hyper-violence...

... now I can't be alone in this, can I?


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> No matter how much Bob rests up, he is never in as good a condition as Gary is.



Yes, obviously. You see this if you look at hit points bottom-up, and see that Gary's hit points far exceed Bob's.

But from a different perspective (top-down), you see that Bob recovers from being nearly dead in the same amount of time Gary takes to recover from a scratch.

This is what I mean by a difference of interpretation. I think it's valid for you to look at whether your character is "fully healed", i.e., at maximum fighting capacity. And from that perspective you get an absurd result because this wound that you narrated legitimately as a scratch takes several full days of rest to go away.

My point (which you seem to have skipped over) is, an abstract system like this is going to lead absurd results at times. You're looking at the 1E system in a way that leads to a relatively small number of absurd results. But you're looking at the 4E system in a way that leads to a relatively large number of absurd results.

4E has an advantage in the resting-to-full-strength arena, since the hit points you regain are based on healing surges, which scale with your maximum hit points. (I believe they overdid it with the overnight rest healing everything, but that's just a matter of degree.) So if you choose to look at the time it takes to heal wounds in this way, 1E is far more absurd than 4E.

Notice I said if you *choose to look at it that way*. If you choose to look at 4E's system in a way that maximizes absurd results, you're going to find a lot of absurd results. But that's your choice. Don't assume it's hardwired into the system, because it isn't. I can find all kinds of absurd results in 1E, if I choose to see them that way.

So your constant "you're looking at 1E hit points wrong" assertions really hurt your cause, because the same charges could be leveled at you with respect to 4E. We're looking at them differently than you, but to deny that there are different ways to look at them is folly.


----------



## Fifth Element

Mallus said:


> ... now I can't be alone in this, can I?



No, you're not alone. In my experience the severity of the wound narrated correlates with the amount of damage relative to maximum hit points. We've been doing it wrong for years, apparently.


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure is.  Do you accept that a sword can physically harm you without successfully skewering you?  I sure do.  I've experienced it.  Do you accept that an elephant that tries to step on you can physically harm you without _actually succeeding in stepping on you_?  Thankfully, I've not experienced that, but I can certainly believe it.



I do not disagree with _every single thing_ you're saying, RC, so repeating back to me that parts I agree with does not address the parts where we disagree.

If you have enough remaining hit points that the elephant's "hit" with it trample attack does not kill you, sure, that means you avoided getting squished.  But why does it take so long to heal up from something that didn't really hurt you in the first place?

If we can step back for a moment, many of these problems can be addressed by changing how _healing_ works.  (Other problems with hit points can't.)  For instance, if magical and mundane healing didn't restore a set number of hit points, but a percentage of total/max hit points, we could conclude that a 50-hp fighter with a 5-hp nick was in similar shape to a 10-hp fighter with a 1-hp nick.

That would still leave the problem of why 10 nicks should add up to a skewering though.  If we want wounds to get progressively worse, we should think geometrically, something we hinted at earlier.  So _cure light wounds_ might _double_ remaining hit points.  Coming back from one hit point to 10, or from 5 to 50, would take just over three such "units" of healing, while coming back from one to 50 would take almost six.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> To use a modern example, if I wrestle Hulk Hogan




You brought him up, so I'd like to point out that the Hulkster used his Second Wind when the going got rough for him (cue wagging finger) and often benefitted from the Mouth of the South's Inspiring Word to get up when other wrestlers of his stature would have been three-counted (zero hit points).

Wrestling may be one of the guiltier pleasures as far as action-adventure goes, but it isn't that far behind the action 4E is trying to emulate. 

4E isn't for everybody. Fans of grittier action will not enjoy the speed of healing for heroes. But to label 4E's model of damage and healing as Absurd, Stupid, etc. (all words leveled against it in this thread) is telling others they are having badwrongfun. Even if you try to cover yourself by saying "the rules aren't Stupid/Absurd, they just lead to Stupid/Absurd results."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

pemerton said:


> An alternative, that works equally well for 4e and AD&D, is to just be a bit less grim-and-gritty. (That is, embrace the genre assumptions of this sort of high fantasy.) Assume that, after a few encouraging words from the warlord and patches from the first aid kit, that the wound is stitched/set, that determination makes it possible to keep going, and that healing is taking place over time.
> 
> Such a wound can even be brought back into the game - the GM can narrate the next hit against the character as "Favouring your injured leg, you mis-step and the goblin catches you with its spear."
> 
> Now on this we're agreed.




This is basically the way I narrate 4e damage.  The characters in my game are becoming progressively more bruised, cut up, acid-burned, scorched, and frostbitten as they proceed through the dungeon.  However, the damage is not reflected by hit points, which indicate only your continued ability to act.  The damage is reflected by healing surges, which deplete over time as wounds accumulate.  Granted, an extended rest restores these, so there are no six-week bed rest sessions or broken limbs, but I haven't really been interested in that sort of thing since 1e.  Once 3.x made healing potions and wands rather affordable, every group I've played with has started each day with full hit points.

I take waking up with a full tank of gas each morning to be a conceit of the genre.  Not that I don't describe burns, cuts, and injuries as turning into bruises and scars over time.  Adventurers in my games tend to look like they've been run over by trucks several times by about level 10.  The wizard in my current campaign has a particular talent for getting acid in his face.  This has come up when he tries to engage NPCs in conversation and they notice that he has the complexion of a burlap bag of beans.  Fortunately for him, he has a decent Intimidate skill, so it works to his advantage.


----------



## billd91

mmadsen said:


> If you have enough remaining hit points that the elephant's "hit" with it trample attack does not kill you, sure, that means you avoided getting squished.  But why does it take so long to heal up from something that didn't really hurt you in the first place?




Now, it seems to me that people are _deliberately_ trying to misinterpret people to make points in their arguments. 

Thanks to the abstraction of hit points and D&D combat, if the trampling elephant failed to kill you, it probably means you didn't get directly stepped on in any lethal way. That doesn't mean it couldn't have broken your foot, bruised a couple of ribs as you dodged the foot and got slammed by the elephant's knee, or any number of comparatively minor physical traumas compared to actually being killed. Plenty of things that would still all be reflected as physicals damage and could still be expected to heal with some time or magic. There's no question you got hurt by the elephant... it did damage that takes time to heal.

4e changes that and some of us aren't really on board with it even if the previous system had its quirks. 4e's changes _can_ interfere with what we feel is going on in the long term story outside of the space contained within a single encounter. 4e's compressed healing, internalized within the character rather than by drawing on outside resources or relying on substantial time, is a change to the pacing and feel of a story being told of the campaign compared to previous editions of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> Now, it seems to me that people are _deliberately_ trying to misinterpret people to make points in their arguments.





*Now?*

I was shocked to learn that arguing pre-4e hp always correlated to some actual damage was somehow arguing that said correlation was not an abstraction.


RC


----------



## mmadsen

billd91 said:


> There's no question you got hurt by the elephant... it did damage that takes time to heal.



It takes the same amount of time to heal from a 10-hp elephant trampling, whether you started with 11 hit points or 50, even though the first is, say, a crushed thigh, and the second is some scrapes and bruises from jumping out of the way.

That is the point being made.  Hit points heal at the same rate, despite the fact that they represent very different levels of injury -- across individuals with different numbers of total/max hit points, and within an individual, depending on the number of hit points remaining.


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> It takes the same amount of time to heal from a 10-hp elephant trampling, whether you started with 11 hit points or 50, even though the first is, say, a crushed thigh, and the second is some scrapes and bruises from jumping out of the way.
> 
> That is the point being made.  Hit points heal at the same rate, despite the fact that they represent very different levels of injury -- across individuals with different numbers of total/max hit points, and within an individual, depending on the number of hit points remaining.




Keep in mind that 1 hp for one creature =/= 1 hp for another.  Even 1 hp for the same creature =/= 1 hp for that same creature, depending upon hp total at the time.

When all hp are healed, there is no significant injury remaining.....but what is "significant" is variable based on total hit points possible.  So, Bob, who was never very good at dodging blows, is not significantly impared by his unhealed wounds....he just isn't good enough for them to matter.  Gary, on the other hand, might be somewhat impaired _even though he is less wounded than Bob_.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You brought him up, so I'd like to point out that the Hulkster used his Second Wind when the going got rough for him (cue wagging finger) and often benefitted from the Mouth of the South's Inspiring Word to get up when other wrestlers of his stature would have been three-counted (zero hit points).




Ah.....but I was talking about Hulk Hogan _*really*_ engaged in combat, not engaged in a coreographed combat simulation.  

I actually think that "Second Wind" and "Inspiring Word" are not _*bad ideas*_.  RCFG has a "second wind" mechanic, after all, and a "shake it off" mechanic that blurs the distinction between "temporary" and "real" hit points.  I just think that they are not _*well realized*_ in 4e.  They could be; lots of folks on EN World have suggested fixes that help these abilities considerably, IMHO.



> But to label 4E's model of damage and healing as Absurd, Stupid, etc. (all words leveled against it in this thread) is telling others they are having badwrongfun. Even if you try to cover yourself by saying "the rules aren't Stupid/Absurd, they just lead to Stupid/Absurd results."




Nah.  Enjoying/not being bothered by absurd results isn't wrongbadfun.

I was never bothered by the absurd results of 1e's falling damage rules.  That doesn't make my enjoying 1e at the time wrongbadfun, nor does it make the falling damage results a whit less absurd.

BTW, though, as I am working on RCFG's definition of hit points, I have found this thread enormously useful in terms of refining that definition.......and I owe everyone here thanks for that.

Thanks.


RC


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the house cat kills wizard. Housecats can make leathal attacks in D&D, at least in older editions. I have not looked up the stats for a housecat in 4th ED. Hmm, no 4th edition cats.

The point I am making is that the problems Raven Crowking and others have with 4th Edition, I and other I suspect had all along with previous editions of D&D and 4th edition has moved closer to what I have always viewed hit points as. 

One thing that this thread has made me realise is that in the event of a partial TPK, it is valid for me to narrate the 'dead' party members as having survived, albeit with injuries that stop them from futher adventuring and may be they are embittered at being abandoned by their  comrades and out for revenge.

Hmm, must add that to the plot file.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

double post


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> Keep in mind that 1 hp for one creature =/= 1 hp for another.  Even 1 hp for the same creature =/= 1 hp for that same creature, depending upon hp total at the time.



Why do you keep repeating back to me what I just said?


----------



## Raven Crowking

mmadsen said:


> Why do you keep repeating back to me what I just said?




Because you seem to forget it by the time you reach your next paragraph?  

A is not B, but this example makes the whole thing totally ludicrous because A is B!

If you accept that hit points do not always represent the same amount of injury, there is no problem whatsoever in rationally adjudicating hit point recovery.


RC


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> If you accept that hit points do not always represent the same amount of injury, there is no problem whatsoever in rationally adjudicating hit point recovery.



That's exactly why hit-point recovery makes no sense.  You have it upside-down.  The first hit point represents a mere scratch on a superhero or a flesh wounds on an ordinary soldier, while the last hit point represents a serious injury on either of them.  Why do all those very different injuries heal at the same rate?

Because *hit points are inconsistent*.  We can devise ways to make them more consistent -- I mentioned a few earlier -- but they aren't consistent under _any_ version of D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element

mmadsen said:


> Because *hit points are inconsistent*.  We can devise ways to make them more consistent -- I mentioned a few earlier -- but they aren't consistent under _any_ version of D&D.



If I might make a prediction: "Yes they are, you're just looking at them wrong. Except in 4E."


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> When all hp are healed, there is no significant injury remaining.....but what is "significant" is variable based on total hit points possible. So, Bob, who was never very good at dodging blows, is not significantly impared by his unhealed wounds....he just isn't good enough for them to matter. Gary, on the other hand, might be somewhat impaired _even though he is less wounded than Bob_.




That sounds astonishingly like 4E, except that in 4E we allow even Gary the Mighty to be unimpaired by his unhealed wounds, should the situation call for it.

(Again with the "this is not where the paradigm has shifted".)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah.....but I was talking about Hulk Hogan _*really*_ engaged in combat, not engaged in a coreographed combat simulation.




While I was continuing along the Die Hard vein. A real version of Die Hard would be one short movie from the hero's POV.



Raven Crowking said:


> I actually think that "Second Wind" and "Inspiring Word" are not _*bad ideas*_.  RCFG has a "second wind" mechanic, after all, and a "shake it off" mechanic that blurs the distinction between "temporary" and "real" hit points.  I just think that they are not _*well realized*_ in 4e.  They could be; lots of folks on EN World have suggested fixes that help these abilities considerably, IMHO.




I'd honestly be interested in seeing how these mechanics could be better realized. New ideas are always welcome at my table.


----------



## billd91

mmadsen said:


> It takes the same amount of time to heal from a 10-hp elephant trampling, whether you started with 11 hit points or 50, even though the first is, say, a crushed thigh, and the second is some scrapes and bruises from jumping out of the way.
> 
> That is the point being made.  Hit points heal at the same rate, despite the fact that they represent very different levels of injury -- across individuals with different numbers of total/max hit points, and within an individual, depending on the number of hit points remaining.




In 1st and 2nd edition, you'd be right. But that's where 3e made an improvement on the model. A 10 hp elephant trampling is healed in a single day by a 10th level fighter, but in 10 days by a 1st level fighter.


----------



## cwhs01

Raven Crowking said:


> If you accept that hit points do not always represent the same amount of injury, there is no problem whatsoever in rationally adjudicating hit point recovery.




But there is a problem with hit points representing even small injuries as they should be expected to have an effect on the characters abilities. Realistically you don't need to have more than a few small wounds to be even sligtly less able to concentrate on fighting (or spellcasting, skilluse etc.). 

I find this notion absurd, and only really solved by either 1)ignoring the problem, 2)assuming that characters are badass enough to ignore pain and even serious wounds (until they stop breathing), or 3)assuming that HP doesn't really represent wounds as much as luck, chutzpah, mojo etc.
A combination of the above has worked for me, as a solution for all editions of dnd sofar.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> That sounds astonishingly like 4E, except that in 4E we allow even Gary the Mighty to be unimpaired by his unhealed wounds, should the situation call for it.




Both 1e & 4e allow for damage that is not represented by hit points.

1e does not allow for _*major*_ damage that is not represented by hit points, except in the specific case that a character brought to 0 needs bed rest (or major healing magic) to recover.  When hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it has a very real game effect. 

In 4e, you could say that this is (to an extent) reversed.  If you want, you could claim that when hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it just has no effect.

If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.

If I learned one thing from my Sense of Wonder threads re: 3e, it is that the same folks who said "No way, no how does what you're saying make sense" are the biggest proponents of "We needed 4e to fix the problems that didn't exist no way, no how when 3e was the big thing" now.  Of course, those people are also the first to deny that they shifted their perspective.  

So, I'm going to drop this until 5e comes along, unless someone has something new to add to the discussion.


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> Both 1e & 4e allow for damage that is not represented by hit points.
> 
> 1e does not allow for _*major*_ damage that is not represented by hit points, except in the specific case that a character brought to 0 needs bed rest (or major healing magic) to recover. When hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it has a very real game effect.
> 
> In 4e, you could say that this is (to an extent) reversed. If you want, you could claim that when hit points are fully recovered, the wound is still there -- it just has no effect.
> 
> If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.




You can't convince me that this particular shift happened in 4E, because 3E doesn't require bed rest for that "major" damage either.

You'll also have difficulty convincing me that this shift has much to do (directly) with hp, because, as you note, the hp can be recovered well before the "major" damage, which has to be tracked and recovered from separately (and anyone attempting to kill you still presumably has to whittle away your HP to do so, even though you barely have the strength to crawl).

It's a system tangential to HP, designed specifically to allow a character to not-die when hp run out. 4E has a markedly different not-die mechanic, _but the hp themselves are all still the same_.

The actual, real, radical paradigm shifts in 4E hp are linked to the concept of healing surges:
1) There's a cap on the number of times per day a character can be healed...
1a) ...except for certain rare effects (mostly Cleric daily powers) can bypass this limit.
2) Healing is proportional to the maximum potential of the character being restored...
2a) ...except for healing potions which heal a fixed number independent of a character's potential (making them a sort of wildcard)



Raven Crowking said:


> If I learned one thing from my Sense of Wonder threads re: 3e, it is that the same folks who said "No way, no how does what you're saying make sense" are the biggest proponents of "We needed 4e to fix the problems that didn't exist no way, no how when 3e was the big thing" now. Of course, those people are also the first to deny that they shifted their perspective.




I've seen plenty of "When 3E came out I thought [X] was awesome, but I've changed my mind". I've started to see some of that for 4E as well. This says little about the nature of the systems, and some about the individuals involved.

So it's hard to see who you're referring to when you tell me that some people who said X now say Y and deny saying X. It's also hard to tell how that relates to the current conversation.

(Again with the maybe these little jabs in your post are being counterproductive).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> You can't convince me that this particular shift happened in 4E





If this doesn't seem like a shift to you (shrug) I very much doubt that anything could convince you otherwise.

So, I'm going to drop this until 5e comes along, unless someone has something new to add to the discussion.

(And it might just as well be me who has shifted my perspective about 4e by that point.....but if I do, you can be sure that I will own up to it.   )

EDIT:  AFAICT, there is not a post on the last two pages that cannot be answered with a cut & paste from previous responses, so there isn't a lot of added value in simply doing so.  At this point, it is better to just agree to disagree IMHO (although, admitedly, I am not always good at following my own advice!  ).

EDIT to the EDIT:  Please note that I am not saying "there is not a post on the last two pages that cannot be answered with a cut & paste from previous responses" from one side, but not the other, either.  It cuts both ways.  


In any event, there are lots of other things to talk about given the thread title.  



RC


----------



## JoeGKushner




----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Joe, you have the best signature in this forum.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> I claimed that the 4e damage and healing paradigm consistently and frequently gives rise to absurd situations in the narrative unless
> 
> (1)  One chooses not to describe any damage until it has been healed,
> (2)  One retcons the narrative, or
> (3)  One simply chooses to close one's eyes to the absurdity (which does not actually make it go away; though it might make it go away _for you_).



Or one can describe damage before it is healed, and then describe healing not as the physical recovery of an injury, but as the psychological recovery of the capacity to fight.

RC, you have never actually explained why you think that this is inadequate narration.



LostSoul said:


> I'll give it a shot.
> 
> <snip great stuff>



Another terrific post. I'm a bit dissapointed that I (who already agree with you) seem to be the only one paying attention to your posts, as they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.



Zustiur said:


> What I can't get a grip on is this (and this is where the ret-conning thing comes in):
> 
> Character A gets knocked down to say -12 HP from a series of sword blows. This character has a bloodied value of 15 so is effectively 3 HP away from dead. However, the character is also dying, and takes death saves each round. Two turns later the character has failed two saves, and is also 1 HP away from dead. This character is clearly mortally wounded. One more failed save, or one more lost hit point equals death.
> 
> But somehow, despite being mortally wounded, and unconscious, someone saying 'get up you sissy' from 25 feet away allows this character to get up and fight as if he'd never been close to death.
> 
> So explain how the character is now okay to keep fighting, a mere 6 seconds after being on death's door, without the aid of magic? All of the 'damage' was from a physical source, the character was effectively in a coma, but Mr Inspiration over there said a few words and now Character A has never been close to death to begin with? The same problem applies without the warlord. The player gets lucky and rolls a 20 on his next turn... so the character who was bleeding to death is now awake and physically able, despite having been comatose and a ragged breath away from dying moments earlier.



Two options. Be more careful how you narrate the original injury (as per Lost Soul's first exmple narration). Or be more ambitious in how you narrate the recovery of the will to fight (as per Lost Soul's second example narration)



Zustiur said:


> Okay, I get that the paladin is selfless etc, that's cool. But the idea that a cleric can do less healing than a paladin in this sort of situation astounds me. The cleric can go on healing people all day, just not this person. Yet the paladin can heal this person. The clerics/god's magic works for everyone except Character B. I admit this is a corner case, it's just something that makes no sense to me.



If you don't like a game in which one class (the paladin) is better able to perform selfless healing than another class (the cleric) then this particular aspect of 4e may not be for you. But this is not an objection to the 4e damage and healing mechanics per se. It is a quibble over a genre/flavour thing.


----------



## rounser

> they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.



Except for everything about the "warlord" and how he operates wrt "healing", an absurd character class IMO.


----------



## vagabundo

pemerton said:


> Another terrific post. I'm a bit dissapointed that I (who already agree with you) seem to be the only one paying attention to your posts, as they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.




I agree, but I'm on your side of this debate. 4e HPs, healing and the warlord make *more* sense to me that the 3e system.

And the narration from lost soul is seriously cool.


----------



## Zustiur

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My first point of disagreement. Damage has not always included physical injury.



I think we'll just agree to disagree here.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If you want people in your game to yell absurd things like "get up you sissy" that's your perogative.



What they say is irrelevant. The point is the character is unconscious and should not be able to respond to words.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, I treat Dying as "unable to act." You can't perform any conherent actions, but you certainly aren't comatose.



So you get around the RAW by ignoring it. That doesn't solve my problem.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No. He has a mortal wound. The only thing you are waiting to find out is whether:
> a) he does what any good action hero does and pushes through the pain to keep fighting
> b) he dies



This is an excellent point... You've made me realize where my issue stems from. My narratives don't include heroes who push through the pain. Mortal wounds are mortal, and cannot be ignored, you either get magical healing or spend a long time getting natural healing. You do not just get up the next round as if you'd never been hurt, but this is my imposed 'rule', much like how you ignored being unconscious earlier.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Not true. In 3.0, if healed from -9 hit points to 1 or more hit points with magical healing, your character could stand up on his turn and keep fighting.



Hmm, you're right. Well answer me this. Where the hell did I get that rule from? I know I read it somewhere.



LostSoul said:


> The Fighter tries to get up, but he can't.  (Fails death save.)



No he doesn't. He's unconscious and therefore unable to take any action at all. We were discussing how the RAW interacts with the story. You're ignoring the RAW here. Also, the monster has probably moved on, else the character would have been coup de grace'd and there'd be nothing further to discuss.



LostSoul said:


> The Fighter sees a light in the darkness, and standing in it is the Raven Queen, calling for him, a blade in one hand and the golden strand of Fate in the other.  The Fighter turns away, and sees the face of the Warlord.  He remembers the Warlord's courage and he turns his back on the Raven Queen, who stays her hand.
> 
> The Fighter's eyes flip open.  (Inspiring Word.)   The Fighter is bleeding bad, but his will carries him on, and he won't go down until the Raven Queen cuts the strand of his fate.



This works. This I can understand. It fits in the the rules and the story without either suffering. Thank you.



pemerton said:


> Two options. Be more careful how you narrate the original injury (as per Lost Soul's first exmple narration). *Or be more ambitious in how you narrate the recovery of the will to fight (as per Lost Soul's second example narration)*



Emphasis mine. This is where my problem is. I'll do my best...



			
				pemberton said:
			
		

> If you don't like a game in which one class (the paladin) is better able to perform selfless healing than another class (the cleric) then this particular aspect of 4e may not be for you. But this is not an objection to the 4e damage and healing mechanics per se. It is a quibble over a genre/flavour thing.



I've already established that 4E is not the game for me. However, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it for the game that I am still playing in.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> they actually demonstrate that no absurdity need be countenanced in narrating damage and healing in 4e.





If you actually feel that way, more power to you.

From where I sit, you've demonstrated nothing, apart from the fact that _if you ignore the rules_ 4e is a better game.


RC


----------



## mmadsen

Raven Crowking said:


> From where I sit, you've demonstrated nothing, apart from the fact that _if you ignore the rules_ 4e is a better game.



What rules is he ignoring when he says _this_?


pemerton said:


> Or one can describe damage before it is healed, and then describe healing not as the physical recovery of an injury, but as the psychological recovery of the capacity to fight.
> 
> RC, you have never actually explained why you think that this is inadequate narration.


----------



## LostSoul

Zustiur said:


> No he doesn't. He's unconscious and therefore unable to take any action at all. We were discussing how the RAW interacts with the story. You're ignoring the RAW here. Also, the monster has probably moved on, else the character would have been coup de grace'd and there'd be nothing further to discuss.




That's my point - he's unable to take any action at all!  He tries and fails. 

I don't think it breaks any rules to say, "I try to get up, but fail" when your PC is unconcious.  You don't take any actions and you make a Death Save; that's it.  The "trying to get up" part is just colour.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

If we want to drag how RAW interracts with narration into this, then:

"*Perception:* No action required" - PHB, p. 186

So an Unconscious character can still passively perceive things. By literal interpretation of the RAW, they can even passively spot things. I think most would agree this defies common sense. But there is real-world proof that even coma patient's brains respond to sound. So it follows, IMO, by RAW and real world common sense that a character can benefit from hearing a Warlord's Inspiring Word.

As for not liking characters pushing past the pain and continuing to fight, I can understand that. It is no secret that 4E is built around an Action Adventure Fantasy model. If you don't like the Action Adventure genre, then you probably won't enjoy 4E. Everyone has their own taste. Labeling others idea of a fun game as Stupid or Absurd is not helpful in the least.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> That's my point - he's unable to take any action at all!  He tries and fails.
> 
> I don't think it breaks any rules to say, "I try to get up, but fail" when your PC is unconcious.  You don't take any actions and you make a Death Save; that's it.  The "trying to get up" part is just colour.




I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.

After all, 3e had no rules for what happened if you simply chose never to sleep.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So an Unconscious character can still passively perceive things. By literal interpretation of the RAW, they can even passively spot things. I think most would agree this defies common sense. But there is real-world proof that even coma patient's brains respond to sound. So it follows, IMO, by RAW and real world common sense that a character can benefit from hearing a Warlord's Inspiring Word.





If the hit points so gained were temporary, then I would have no problem with this.  Indeed, I would probably be willing to champion it with a few modifications.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.
> 
> RC




Well, you can't take any Actions. Making a Death Save is not an action, but it can result in your character becoming conscious, so adding narration that an unconscious character is trying to regain consciousness seems to fit what a Death Save is meant to represent.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.




*UNCONCIOUS*

You're helpless.
You take a -5 penalty to all defenses.
You can't take actions.
You fall prone, if possible.
You can't flank an enemy.

*HELPLESS*

You grant combat advantage.
You can be the target of a coup de grace.

When I said,

The Fighter tries to get up, but fails.​
that was just colour.  "Color" is the term I use for the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> When I said,
> 
> The Fighter tries to get up, but fails.​
> that was just colour.  "Color" is the term I use for the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene.




IMHO, "colour" shouldn't counter-indicate the rules, for the most part.  I tend to view "unconscious" as meaning "unconscious".  Though, perhaps, this is a bit of ossification on my part.  "Unconscious" and "stunned" mean two different things, to me.

I am really, really unhappy with "You are wounded, but at full hit points" and "You are unwounded, but at 0 hit points" and the points inbetween to be regular occurances at the table.

If one is going to go the "colour usurps rules" route -- and it is not an intrinsically bad route by any means -- OD&D does it better.


RC


----------



## The Little Raven

Lacyon said:


> So it's hard to see who you're referring to when you tell me that some people who said X now say Y and deny saying X. It's also hard to tell how that relates to the current conversation.
> 
> (Again with the maybe these little jabs in your post are being counterproductive).




This argument seems to come up in almost any long-running thread about 4e these days, and I've seen it pulled out several times in reference to posts I've made, despite the fact that I never said 3e was perfect or that problems with it didn't exist (since I rarely posted here during 3e's lifespan). It seems that when people draw on this "you're flip-flopping" argument, it's merely an attempt to paint the opposition as being some kind of followers that can't think for themselves (usually paired with the statement that we only state 3e had problems because the developers say so).


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, "colour" shouldn't counter-indicate the rules, for the most part.  I tend to view "unconscious" as meaning "unconscious".  Though, perhaps, this is a bit of ossification on my part.  "Unconscious" and "stunned" mean two different things, to me.




The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".



Raven Crowking said:


> I am really, really unhappy with "You are wounded, but at full hit points" and "You are unwounded, but at 0 hit points" and the points inbetween to be regular occurances at the table.
> 
> If one is going to go the "colour usurps rules" route -- and it is not an intrinsically bad route by any means -- OD&D does it better.




Colour does not usurp rules.  Let me rephrase my definition:

*Colour: the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene. *​
It does not change aspects of resolution.  Can you take a Standard Action (an aspect of resolution) when Unconcious because "colour usurps rules"?  No, because a Standard Action is not colour.  Can you take a Free Action to say something?  No, same reason.

Can you describe your injury?  Yes.  That's colour.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> I suppose it is quite possible that 4e has no rules for what you can, or cannot, do when unconscious.



Is this a reveal that you are discussing 4E rules when you're not actually sure what the 4E rules say?

4E rules are quite specific in what you can and cannot do when unconscious, as LostSoul posted above.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".





When that book comes out, let me know.


RC


----------



## Scribble

If you wanted to track "big" injuries probably a loss of a healing surge or more would fit right with the rules... it's what happens when you face other environmental dangers.

Ohhh you could probably also top it off with disease effects like gangrene or blood poisoning...


----------



## Hypersmurf

Raven Crowking said:


> When that book comes out, let me know.




In 3.5, you can Cleave with a punching dagger, you can use Deflect Arrows to save yourself from a javelin, and you can only take move actions when a swarm of bats make you Nauseated.

The names don't restrict the mechanics.  Cleave doesn't require you to hack things in half; Deflect Arrows works on things that aren't arrows; and you can be Nauseated without necessarily being nauseated.

In 4E, it's the same... the Sleep spell doesn't use the rules for sleeping, for example.  But while the Sleep spell grants the Unconscious condition, I have no issue with saying that the victim falls asleep... but the underlying mechanics are Unconscious (Save Ends), not the mechanics for a sleeping creature.

Similarly, as long as the rules for the Unconscious condition are observed, I could use them for someone who is paralyzed, or who is too weak to move, or who is actually comatose.

'Comatose' is not a _requirement_ of the Unconscious condition.  It's a possible cinematic explanation of the mechanics of the condition, but it's not the only one.

Just like arrows are one thing that the Deflect Arrows feat can deflect in 3.5, but they're not the only one.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Is this a reveal that you are discussing 4E rules when you're not actually sure what the 4E rules say?
> 
> 4E rules are quite specific in what you can and cannot do when unconscious, as LostSoul posted above.




I come out of older editions, where the word "unconscious" was more important than the specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.....where often, in fact, there were no specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.  So, to this day, when I see "unconscious" I don't read it as "Condition 6".

In fact, I would go so far as to say that I prefer a game system where the specifics of the condition are less codified overall, but the descriptor has real meaning.  Rather than have to look up what it means in Xe to be unconscious, I prefer a game in where the rules for being unconscious seldom if ever need to be looked up because they flow directly from the state of being unconscious.

I look at the 4e game condition, and I say, "Yup, that flows directly from the state of being unconscious.....therefore the term _unconscious_ must mean (drum roll) _unconscious_."  And the fighter who tries to get up _isn't_ unconscious.

And, I get that for a lot of folks on this board "Close your eyes to the terminology and just fly with the results" is a valid way to play.  Cool.  Good on you.  I have....shall we say.....some difficulty with being "bloodied" but not bloodied, wounded but not wounded, unconscious but not unconscious, dead but not dead (unless in the case of being undead), etc.

I mean, really, what's to prevent me from taking LostSoul's example and changing it to "The fighter gets up, dances a little jig around the room, stubs his toes, and falls over where he was before.  He seems to be winking at the elf."?  If the conditions have no meaning than game constructs that limit actions in game.....if they have no meaning _*within the game narrative itself*_......then the rules cease to have any value in terms of narrating the game.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hypersmurf said:


> In 3.5, you can Cleave with a punching dagger, you can use Deflect Arrows to save yourself from a javelin, and you can only take move actions when a swarm of bats make you Nauseated.
> 
> The names don't restrict the mechanics.  Cleave doesn't require you to hack things in half; Deflect Arrows works on things that aren't arrows; and you can be Nauseated without necessarily being nauseated.




This is, of course, correct....but then 3.x takes great pains to define things outside of their conventional meaning, and I _have_ heard complaints about the term "nauseated" used to describe what happens in a swarm.

EDIT:  In some EN World threads, I have seen re-writes of 4e rules that either change the rule to match the title, or change the title to match the rule, and I honestly find this to be a much, much better fit.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> I come out of older editions, where the word "unconscious" was more important than the specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.....where often, in fact, there were no specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.  So, to this day, when I see "unconscious" I don't read it as "Condition 6".



I don't think you answered my question, which is "Are you arguing about the 4E rules when you have a limited knowledge of 4E rules?"


----------



## ExploderWizard

LostSoul said:


> The term "Unconcious" could have been replaced with "Trouble (Big)" or "Condition 6".
> 
> 
> 
> Colour does not usurp rules. Let me rephrase my definition:
> *Colour: the imagined details that do not change aspects of action or resolution in the imagined scene. *​It does not change aspects of resolution. Can you take a Standard Action (an aspect of resolution) when Unconcious because "colour usurps rules"? No, because a Standard Action is not colour. Can you take a Free Action to say something? No, same reason.
> 
> Can you describe your injury? Yes. That's colour.




My big question on this thing is what about awareness? Speaking is a free action but listening and seeing are not. If the guy is trying to get up, but failing then he is aware of what is going on around him when a truly unconcious person would not. Sensory input is worth more than color.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think you answered my question, which is "Are you arguing about the 4E rules when you have a limited knowledge of 4E rules?"




Beyond a doubt, my knowledge of the 4e rules is limited in comparison to my knowledge of the 3e rules.  It is certainly limited in comparison to what my knowledge of the 1e rules was when I regularly ran that game.

I think the question you are _*trying*_ to ask is, "Do you have _*any*_ direct knowledge of the 4e rules?" and the answer to that question is "Yes, but it is certainly not perfect knowledge.".  I cannot honestly say "I have never played 4E. Please bear that in mind before assuming that I'm some 4E fanboy." so, it is certainly as much knowledge as some others engaged in the same discussion.  



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

ExploderWizard said:


> My big question on this thing is what about awareness? Speaking is a free action but listening and seeing are not. If the guy is trying to get up, but failing then he is aware of what is going on around him when a truly unconcious person would not. Sensory input is worth more than color.




Without the book to reference here, I cannot be certain that you are correct.  If I understand LostSoul, he is saying that the game term "unconscious" doesn't mean "unconscious", isn't an attempt to simulate unconsciousness in game terms, and should have no additional baggage other than whatever is listed under the game effects of that condition.

I personally care for this, but he may well be right in terms of the rules themselves.....and in some ways, this may be more in keeping with Old School gaming than certainly my first glance made it seem.

EDIT:  Please be aware that the above is just giving proper credit where I think credit goes.  It is not saying that 4e is praiseworthy.  No need to fear the end of the world yet.  


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> I think the question you are _*trying*_ to ask is, "Do you have _*any*_ direct knowledge of the 4e rules?" and the answer to that question is "Yes, but it is certainly not perfect knowledge."



No, I'm just trying to understand why you seem unable to understand some arguments coming from the 4E fan side. I thought perhaps your lack of knowledge about the rules could be a contributing factor.



Raven Crowking said:


> I cannot honestly say "I have never played 4E. Please bear that in mind before assuming that I'm some 4E fanboy." so, it is certainly as much knowledge as some others engaged in the same discussion.



Who are you referring to? I hope it's not me, since (for instance) I know very well that the effects of the Unconscious condition are in 4E. I may not have played the game, but I have learned the rules quite well in my preparations to run it, which should be within the next month.

Sadly, there is a good reason I put that in my sig. In my "h8er of invalid arguments" mode, I have been frequently referred to as a 4E fanboy. I had to explain it several times, and I got tired of it and finally put it in my sig. Of course, I've had to explain it several times since then anyway. Take from that what you may.


----------



## justanobody

Raven Crowking said:


> This is, of course, correct....but then 3.x takes great pains to define things outside of their conventional meaning, and I _have_ heard complaints about the term "nauseated" used to describe what happens in a swarm.
> 
> EDIT:  In some EN World threads, I have seen re-writes of 4e rules that either change the rule to match the title, or change the title to match the rule, and I honestly find this to be a much, much better fit.
> 
> 
> RC




Yeah it makes more sense when words are used consistently.

Bloodied but there is no blood or bleeding. 

Were the rules edited for content and to run in the time allotted and to fit this screen?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> No, I'm just trying to understand why you seem unable to understand some arguments coming from the 4E fan side. I thought perhaps your lack of knowledge about the rules could be a contributing factor.




It's possible.

Both reading the PHB and playing (not DMing) were experiences I found (very) off-putting.  When I began work on my restructured game (RCFG), I intentionally distanced myself from 4e because RCFG is OGL-compliant, and I don't want any suggestion of non-OGL material to creep in.

Certainly, I haven't invested time or effort in 4e the way I have invested in every other edition since Holmes Basic.



> Sadly, there is a good reason I put that in my sig. In my "h8er of invalid arguments" mode, I have been frequently referred to as a 4E fanboy. I had to explain it several times, and I got tired of it and finally put it in my sig. Of course, I've had to explain it several times since then anyway. Take from that what you may.




Internet reader bias.

"If _*I*_ wrote that, it would mean........."

Probably unavoidable.


RC


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, really, what's to prevent me from taking LostSoul's example and changing it to "The fighter gets up, dances a little jig around the room, stubs his toes, and falls over where he was before.  He seems to be winking at the elf."?



Because that would be silly.  Which would be all right if you were going for a silly theme, but for standard fantasy adventure it's kind of out of genre.

Try this for a not-silly narrative of the same effect: There's a game on the Playstation 3 that had a demo I played in a store back when they released the system.  It's a boxing game, and as you are pummelled by your opponent your vision starts to haze over, and redness seeps in from the edges, until finally you get a kind of tunnel vision that looks not unlike what happens in a migraine.  I don't know how accurate this is as a representation of blunt trauma to the head, but it works for me as a decent depiction of why you're having trouble blocking and punching.

When you get hit enough times, you go down, and the ref starts to count.  The visuals are blurry and indistinct, and the audio sounds like you're underwater.  Getting back up feels like a real struggle, and when you do, you shake off some of the blurriness.  Eventually, you don't get up at all, unless you win (which is extremely unlikely).  I kind of imagine that instead of hearing the ref counting, and thereby being motivated to stand, a 4e character might hear the warlord shouting something extremely motivating and uplifting, that causes the character to choke it down, grit his teeth, and stand, perhaps almost automatically, as soldiers are said to do when they hear orders (whatever fits with the character).  He shakes off some of the noise and fire in his head, and keeps fighting.  

In other words, he was reduced to 0 HP, became unconscious, and then received an inspiring word.  He was unconscious, which in this case meant that he was unable to act, face down, barely able to open his eyes, and his head was swimming with pain and blood pressure.  He was just barely capable of hearing the warlord screaming at him to "move, damn it!  Move!" before he slipped away completely.

This explanation of "unconscious" sounds just fine to me.  I could also point out that I'm no stranger to unconsciousness, having gone through a period of fainting spells when I was a teenager.  During these spells, I would be barely able to perceive what was going on around me, in a manner not unlike being awakened by someone talking to you while you're asleep.  At first, you perceive the sound, but aren't exactly aware of it.  Then you become aware of it, and then you remember that you've been hearing it for some time now.  At this point, you've put together a thought coherent enough to rouse your brain into activity, and you wake up.  Again, if the sound of talking is actually the warlord's practised banter helping you to find your way back to consciousness, it seems to fit both the rules and the descriptor just fine.


----------



## Raven Crowking

You know, I've been thinking about the boxing analogy for some time now, and I can see your point, but it just doesn't do it for me.

Of course, this assumes that your opponent isn't just trying to pummel you into submission.  If you're just punch-drunk, stupid him for using the flat of his blade when he could have used the sharp parts.

And there are better mechanics, IMHO, for dealing with being stunned or losing morale.

This is, in my mind, is important:  bit by bit, explaining 4e mechanics in terms of verisimilitude might be fine and dandy.  But as those bits add up, what emerges has more in keeping with _Monty Python & The Holy Grail_ than any Conan story REH ever wrote.

Each little bit of "You can explain X this way" lead up to a whole lot of explaining.... because the rules aren't written so that they flow logically from the conditions (one presumes) are being represented.  And these aren't corner cases; they are potentially every single combat.

The fighter is loggy, and tries to get up, but can't.  He is moments away from dying from his wounds.  Then Rob gives him an Inspiring Word and he leaps to his feet.  The wounds are still there, but the hit points get "talked back", and Rob never has to give a second thought to those wounds again.........

If the game is emulating a series of short, short stories, where events take place between play sessions, the DM can narrate that, no, Rob's wound did reopen and the pill Miracle Max gave Wesley did wear off.....Just not "on camera".

And that's fine.

In a sandbox game, that doesn't work, because the players (not the DM) decide when to rest and when to go, and the game rules need to give them a clear reason to rest.

(And, IMHO, the players get to narrate what their characters do or attempt to do within the confines of the game rules.  The game rules themselves should offer some estoppal on "that would be silly".  IMHO, the word "unconscious" in the rules _*is*_ that estoppal....and it's being that estoppal is the reason that what the rules are meant to represent should not simply be ignored.)


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> In a sandbox game, that doesn't work, because the players (not the DM) decide when to rest and when to go, and the game rules need to give them a clear reason to rest.




I suppose you mean _long-term_ rest here?

(Since we're being picky about terminology and precise definitions).


----------



## Phaezen

Lacyon said:


> I suppose you mean _long-term_ rest here?
> 
> (Since we're being picky about terminology and precise definitions).




*cough*

Pedant *Extended Rest* /Pedant



Phaezen


----------



## Lacyon

Phaezen said:


> *cough*
> 
> Pedant *Extended Rest* /Pedant
> 
> 
> 
> Phaezen




I think RC means something longer term than that. Otherwise his point makes no sense. (And I don't think his point makes no sense).


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> The fighter is loggy, and tries to get up, but can't.  He is moments away from dying from his wounds.  Then Rob gives him an Inspiring Word and he leaps to his feet.  The wounds are still there, but the hit points get "talked back", and Rob never has to give a second thought to those wounds again........




But you're ignoring that fact that Rob also just lost a healing surge, and possibly lost a death save. If he's not giving either of those a second thought then he's in for a rude suprise. Once he has no more of those left no amount of "talking" will get him back on his feet. He be dead.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lacyon said:


> I suppose you mean _long-term_ rest here?
> 
> (Since we're being picky about terminology and precise definitions).




A long enough rest to actually heal the wound, yes.


----------



## Phaezen

Lacyon said:


> I think RC means something longer term than that. Otherwise his point makes no sense. (And I don't think his point makes no sense).




Fair enough.

I can see where some people like the concept of characters resting for long period between adventures.  But that should be part of the story.  And, too be fair, besides from possibly 1st Ed no edition of D&D has had rules for needing long term rest to recover from wounds.  A short search on the boards will find numerous houserule suggestions for adding long term injury effects into the game.  One of the first thierd party products includes a fairly decent system for ling term injuries.  

Yes, these are not part of the core system, but I seriously doubt anyone can claim they have never houserulled any edition of D&D to suit thier playing style, especially if they wanted long term wound effects in the game.

Edit:
It has further occured to me that any wound of sufficient realism to put a character out of action for the long term would most likely have to include some kind of lingering after effect after it has healed up as well.  If you consider a top flight sportsman getting injured, they often require 3 to 9 months to recover, with modern medical care and physiotherapy.  You are also most likely looking at another month or so to get back to optimal fitness, recover skills that have gotten rusty and so forth.  There are also a large number of injuries which you cannot recover fully from and will affect you for the rest of your life.  And if you want to say that magic can heal this kind of injuries, then magic can get a severely hurt fighter up off the ground and fighting fit in minutes, so don't even go there.  If you want long term injuries, then magic cannot cure them and there should be long term effects.

Phaezen


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> But you're ignoring that fact that Rob also just lost a healing surge, and possibly lost a death save. If he's not giving either of those a second thought then he's in for a rude suprise. Once he has no more of those left no amount of "talking" will get him back on his feet. He be dead.




OK, granted that I was being _a smidgeon_ glib, but please tell me for the record how long Rob must rest to remove those last traces of a deadly injury, assuming no recourse to magical healing?

Next morning, right as rain?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Phaezen said:


> I can see where some people like the concept of characters resting for long period between adventures.  But that should be part of the story.




I am absolutely against the DM telling the players what their characters do.  Therefore, the game system must provide reasonable incentive for rest.



> And, too be fair, besides from possibly 1st Ed no edition of D&D has had rules for needing long term rest to recover from wounds.




Assume a 3rd level character with an average Con and 20 hit points.  A blow knocks you to 0 hit points.

In order to regain your full health, without magic, how long must you rest

A)  in 1e?

B)  in 2e?

C)  in 3e?  3 hp per day, 6 hp per day with bed rest, 12 hp per day with bed rest and extended care by a healer.  A minimum of 2 days, an average of 4 days, and a maximum of 7 days.

D)  in 4e?

Do you notice any dramatic changes in these numbers?


RC


EDIT:  Hypertext SRD:  What Hit Points Represent

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.


----------



## Phaezen

Raven Crowking said:


> I am absolutely against the DM telling the players what their characters do.  Therefore, the game system must provide reasonable incentive for rest.




Who said anything about the DM telling the players what thier characters are doing?  An adventure ends, they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures, possibly get some training, do some research, start a guild, what the characters get up to in the down time is up to the players really.  



Raven Crowking said:


> Assume a 3rd level character with an average Con and 20 hit points.  A blow knocks you to 0 hit points.
> 
> In order to regain your full health, how long must you rest
> 
> A)  in 1e?
> 
> B)  in 2e?
> 
> C)  in 3e?
> 
> D)  in 4e?
> 
> Do you notice any dramatic changes in these numbers?
> 
> RC



In all cases is depends on acess to a cleric really.  
Never played 1e, for 2e as I recall (this was 8 years ago) with no cleric 1 hp a day, so 20 days.
In 3e noticable faster (6 or 7 days or as little as 4 with bedrest and long term care assuming no cleric)  4e - an extended rest.  
In all, except possibly 1st Ed, assuming access to a cleric of 3rd level, over night and you will be as right as rain the following day.  So I would say a point both ways really.

Phaezen


----------



## Raven Crowking

Phaezen said:


> Who said anything about the DM telling the players what thier characters are doing?  An adventure ends, they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures, possibly get some training, do some research, start a guild, what the characters get up to in the down time is up to the players really.




Who decides "they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures"?  Why do they not just plunder the next tomb?



> In all cases is depends on acess to a cleric really.




A meant through mundane (non-magical) means, and have editited the question to reflect that.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, granted that I was being _a smidgeon_ glib, but please tell me for the record how long Rob must rest to remove those last traces of a deadly injury, assuming no recourse to magical healing?
> 
> Next morning, right as rain?
> 
> RC




Cool, so you've sucessfully convinced me that you dislike how quickly people heal in 4e? 

There's no problem with how the system works, you just dislike how fast it does it.

That's fine- as I've said before, who am I to tell you what to like? But the speed at which someone heals has nothing to do with the system forcing you to imagine injuries stitching back up because of someone talking to you, or injuries being "retconned" or ignored in an absurd montey python style way.

In fact I think the system is a great one because it's so open to being messed with, and added onto. 

Dislike how quickly people heal physical injury? Add a rule saying HS come back more slowly.

Want an injury to be persistant? take away a healing surge...  You can even stack a disease like effect on top of it.

Man you could easily do the frodo gets stabbed scene and then make it part of the campaign. 

Frodo gets stabbed, and the stab gives him a "disease" that slowly saps away his healing surges, knockes him unconcious, and slowly takes out his HP to boot. (ouch!)

Player is out but still gets to roll dice. Rolling dice is fun! 

Then when he's back int he game give him a penalty... Hell you could even make the stab wound kind of like an intelligent item/ artifact for soem real fun...

Isn't all this creative energy you've been spending trying to convince everyone the system is broken (without even using it) better spent creating new ideas and new fun things?


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> A long enough rest to actually heal the wound, yes.




Once, not so very long ago, I would have agreed with you. I still do actually agree with you if you remove the "to heal the wound" part. I like the idea of some rules encouragement for the PCs to periodically take breaks from long adventuring (if only to slow level advancement relative to game-world time). Particularly for sandbox play.

I prefer, however, that the rules not make it wound-related. Such things tend to be a bad fit for D&D in general - even in AD&D you never needed more than two nights rest unless someone had dropped below zero hp (assuming sufficient clerical output) - and 4E in particular (cleric can use _healing words_ twice every five minutes, so we only have trouble when there are no clerics). If, for some reason, the PCs can't find any magic to assist them in healing their injuries, _and_ there's no other reason for them to take some time off, I don't see it as particularly valuable to add a "so you have to wait another week before you go back into the dungeon" clause at any _particular_ point, just to deal with the odd case.

A better answer, IMO, is to make preparation for the next expedition meaningful and, to some extent, time-consuming. Enchanting magic items, creating scrolls and potions, and the like are ways that 4E encourages some of this (and I find that players aren't likely to complain if you extend the amount of time these things take, so long as they don't feel like they're being punished). Then the wounds heal themselves over the natural downtime (possibly leaving nasty scars), and the game moves on.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Phaezen said:


> It has further occured to me that any wound of sufficient realism to put a character out of action for the long term would most likely have to include some kind of lingering after effect after it has healed up as well.  If you consider a top flight sportsman getting injured, they often require 3 to 9 months to recover, with modern medical care and physiotherapy.  You are also most likely looking at another month or so to get back to optimal fitness, recover skills that have gotten rusty and so forth.  There are also a large number of injuries which you cannot recover fully from and will affect you for the rest of your life.



And here we are coming at this thing from the other side.  I, and many of us, have been handwaving the realities of injury and recovery since I first picked up the Basic set.  There's realism, and then there's Sim Chirurgeon.



> And if you want to say that magic can heal this kind of injuries, then magic can get a severely hurt fighter up off the ground and fighting fit in minutes, so don't even go there.  If you want long term injuries, then magic cannot cure them and there should be long term effects.




Right.  We can either ignore the realities of human physiology, or we can hang a lampshade on them.  Take your pick.

But we've always been doing this to a greater or lesser extent.  Back in Basic, you had X HP and if you had >0 HP you were alive and if you had 0 HP you were dead.  No injuries to speak of, and you healed up between adventures by saying "you rest for a while until your HP come back wounds heal."  In 3e, it's the same thing with the addition of the 0 to -10 range.  For a while there in AD&D there were some rules for getting maimed, but they were mostly gone by 3rd ed.  Realism interacts poorly with playability, and so there's always been a pendulum swinging between two ends of the scale: accurate depiction of realistic injury vs. treating hit points as *points* so you can get on with it.

One's favourite position on this gradient will probably determine which era they like their rules to come from, but I do remember that we started with an extremely abstract system, went somewhere in the direction of injury simulation, and we're now coming back to abstractions.

Now, I do like a bit of injury in my abstract representation of injury, which is why I wrote the would point system linked in my sig.  But I designed it specifically to matter a lot at low levels, where I like characters to be a bit gritty, and less at high levels, where I like characters to be heroic.  4e is more heroic than my ideal, and I'm planning to have a nice long glance at Ari's injury system in Advanced Player's Guide when I get a chance, to see if I like it.


----------



## Phaezen

Raven Crowking said:


> Who decides "they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures"?  Why do they not just plunder the next tomb?
> 
> RC




The players mostly, makes for some nice roleplaying and character development opportunities.  

Why should the system force you to take down time of you are not so inclined, especialy if it because the dice rolled against you? Is that not just as bad as the DM railroading you?  

What if one character ends up needing extended down time to recover while the party is on a time critical quest?  Being forced by the system to sit on the sidelines and watching everyone else having fun is not fun.

Phaezen


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, granted that I was being _a smidgeon_ glib, but please tell me for the record how long Rob must rest to remove those last traces of a deadly injury, assuming no recourse to magical healing?
> 
> Next morning, right as rain?
> 
> RC




Speaking as someone who has played every edition, and who still has a soft spot for long-term injury recovery, I don't see anything wrong with just saying that Rob's previously punctured chest cavity has been slapped together with mud, twine, and Dutch courage, making him functional again.  The wound won't slow him down for the next few hours, and he'll heal it up off-camera between adventures.

These days, I just can't stand anymore to do something like have a calendar on my table and track how long it takes for someone's ribs to stop being cracked.  I'll put up with some hand-waving so that we can get back to saving the world, romancing the NPCs, and generally being heroes.  I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.


----------



## Lacyon

Lonely Tylenol said:


> I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.




Ouch!


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Raven Crowking said:


> I am absolutely against the DM telling the players what their characters do.  Therefore, the game system must provide reasonable incentive for rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Assume a 3rd level character with an average Con and 20 hit points.  A blow knocks you to 0 hit points.
> 
> In order to regain your full health, without magic, how long must you rest
> 
> A)  in 1e?
> 
> B)  in 2e?
> 
> C)  in 3e?  3 hp per day, 6 hp per day with bed rest, 12 hp per day with bed rest and extended care by a healer.  A minimum of 2 days, an average of 4 days, and a maximum of 7 days.
> 
> D)  in 4e?
> 
> Do you notice any dramatic changes in these numbers?
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Hypertext SRD:  What Hit Points Represent
> 
> Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.




Any number longer than 2 or 3 days or so would imply to me that you suffered a sever wound and if so, in the absence of magical healing, there should be a chance of infection in the wound with greater changes depending on location and if that hit point loss was due to fire based attacks, frankly you should die. 

That very problem, drove me away from D&D many years ago and I searched for 'realisitc' combat. Ultimately I realiased that realism is too dangerous and spoils the story. The PC's need some plot protection to get anywhere and treating hit points as something abstract let me have a more fun game. I see your point, but I would like to know do you see mine?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Who decides "they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures"?  Why do they not just plunder the next tomb?




Who decides how easy it is to find the "next tomb?" Who decides how often trouble comes to Sunnydale? The players? Not in the games I've been in. That's up to the DM. And if there is no easily locatable "next tomb" or yet another earth-shaking event of the week, then the characters don't have much meaningful choice other than taking some down-time.


----------



## Lacyon

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Who decides how easy it is to find the "next tomb?" Who decides how often trouble comes to Sunnydale? The players? Not in the games I've been in. That's up to the DM. And if there is no easily locatable "next tomb" or yet another earth-shaking event of the week, then the characters don't have much meaningful choice other than taking some down-time.




In most cases, I agree with you.

However, in this particular point, RC is referencing sandbox-style play, quite possibly making an unverbalized connection to the ongoing Megadungeon Sandbox thread where I have seen him poke his head.

Once you've been to the Megadungeon, you don't ordinarily need to wait for the DM to tell you you're allowed to go back. You just go back into the entrance and make your way where you want to go.

So within that context, I think he's right that it's important (or at least useful) to have periodic, rules-encouraged downtime (even if it's not strictly rules-enforced). Even if it's just a rule the DM made up himself.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

justanobody said:


> Yeah it makes more sense when words are used consistently.
> 
> Bloodied but there is no blood or bleeding.
> 
> Were the rules edited for content and to run in the time allotted and to fit this screen?




RP Games need Game Terms. They always been there, but sometimes the game term blurred with the general definition of the word. Starting with 3E the designers tried to codify Game Terms. Since then I don't assume a Game Term equals the general definition. This is what I meant earlier about people taking things too literally. Bloodied is a good example of a Game Term that does not always mean the same thing as the general definition of bloodied. This opens up that other Game Terms might not mean what the general definition means.

Re: Unconscious (the Game Term):

"My fighter stands up, dances a jig and [rolls death save - fails] collaspes back to the ground." - This certainly doesn't follow RAW. Standing is a Move Action. Does it grossly violate the Unconscious condition? Not grossly. But it seems only appropriate to a humor-themed campaign.

"My fighter, in his haze of blood claws at the walls trying to fight of the pull of death [rolls death save - fails] but collapses in a heap." - Follows RAW? Sure, he didn't *actually* stand up. He took no actions, only rolled his death save. This scene seems appropriate to me for an action adventure campaign.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Lacyon said:


> However, in this particular point, RC is referencing sandbox-style play, quite possibly making an unverbalized connection to the ongoing Megadungeon




Well, if you're going to overlook the unrealistic nature of most Megadungeons, why start worrying about the realism of hit points. 

I like Megadungeons. The last 3.5 campaign we were playing was World's Largest Dungeon. The amount of time the party was forced to huddle in a room hiding from wandering monsters and taking cover from frequent earthquakes got rediculous. If I wanted more realism, they should have died due to a lack of fresh water while they were waiting days to heal their wounds.

I look forward to completing WLD in 4E some day. I think the ease of the party's recovery will make the campaign more fun for us.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Cool, so you've sucessfully convinced me that you dislike how quickly people heal in 4e?
> 
> There's no problem with how the system works, you just dislike how fast it does it.




Please note, explainations of why I feel 4e seems like Monty Python are just that:  explainations of why I feel that way.

My entry to this discussion is based solely on the contention that hit points in 4e represent something different than they do in the Gygaxian paradigm.

IMHO, they are not the same.  Which is better for you is up to you.



> Isn't all this creative energy you've been spending trying to convince everyone the system is broken (without even using it) better spent creating new ideas and new fun things?




I've used it, albeit not extensively.

OTOH, check out RCFG in the "RPG Design" portion of my website for "creating new ideas and new fun things".  Then you can point out the absurd results my rules lead to!  


RC


----------



## Andor

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Speaking as someone who has played every edition, and who still has a soft spot for long-term injury recovery, I don't see anything wrong with just saying that Rob's previously punctured chest cavity has been slapped together with mud, twine, and Dutch courage, making him functional again.  The wound won't slow him down for the next few hours, and he'll heal it up off-camera between adventures.
> 
> These days, I just can't stand anymore to do something like have a calendar on my table and track how long it takes for someone's ribs to stop being cracked.




I used to play with some guys who had a homebrewed system. They tracked age, and did a lot with it. Frex if two charaters were travelling overland and one had a horse and one didn't, they would get there at the same time, but the one without the horse would age twice as much. Similarly if you rested after a fight everyone would be healed at the same time. But the guy with the sucking chest wound would age the 9 months that would probably take to heal. 

I was ... not a huge fan of this 'feature' of the system.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Please note, explainations of why I feel 4e seems like Monty Python are just that:  explainations of why I feel that way.
> 
> My entry to this discussion is based solely on the contention that hit points in 4e represent something different than they do in the Gygaxian paradigm.
> 
> IMHO, they are not the same.  Which is better for you is up to you.




It's an extension of the conceptbased on something that was already there. 

The rules have always maintained that HPs are not a direct representation of physical injury. 4e simply expands on this idea by adding ways to heal other then magic. It also speeds up the full healing process.

No paradigm change, just an added rule that you aparently dislike.

The game still abstracts both, and in a way that does not involve "retconning" or "shroedingers HPs" as you've indicated before.

You take damage, you heal that damage. No need to say it retcons or anything similar because you're still injured. You've lost a healing surge. you're just pushing on through that injury and back on your feet for a bit.

Yep, after an extended rest you're back up to full power. It fits nicely with the movie style injury, where even when they're bad, they heal astonishingly quickly.

I can see that if you want long heal times (by default) then it might not be to your tastes, but I'd be willing to guess WoTCs research showed most people don't, so they sped it up. They could have easily made full recovery longer and still used the exact same HP system.

the system, hwoever, does not lead to absurd narration instances, unless you ignore elements of the system in order to force it to.

Thats true of all editions. 



> OTOH, check out RCFG in the "RPG Design" portion of my website for "creating new ideas and new fun things".  Then you can point out the absurd results my rules lead to!




You can make any rule lead to absurdity if you start out with the intention of doing so. Imagination is funny like that.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Annoying image macro removed by Rel


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Scribble said:


> ...Yep, after an extended rest you're back up to full power. It fits nicely with the movie style injury, where even when they're bad, they heal astonishingly quickly.
> 
> I can see that if you want long heal times (by default) then it might not be to your tastes, but I'd be willing to guess WoTCs research showed most people don't, so they sped it up. They could have easily made full recovery longer and still used the exact same HP system.
> 
> the system, hwoever, does not lead to absurd narration instances, unless you ignore elements of the system in order to force it to



It really comes down to suspension of disbelief. If you're playing cinematically, then this won't be a distraction. For some though, this circumstance is absolutely horrid! To each their own - agree to disagree and all that. RC, this argument is just going to keep happening like it did on the other thread. That's why I kept out of this one, I said all I needed to on the previous one.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Thats true of all editions.



Correct. D&D (IMO) has never fixed the prime issue with hit points. I started a thread yesterday with my "solution" to hit points. You may find it clever or silly - I don't think there will ever be a mechanic that keeps everyone happy.

Funnily enough, I think they have made a step forwards (and backwards at the same time) with 4E. Narratively speaking, there is abstract freedom in how 4E interprets hit points and that is something I've come to see as a really good thing (my mind was changed on this in the mechanics vs flavor thread). It is just when you try to contemplate the physical damage involved that you start to muddy the waters. In 4E you never take a serious enough injury that you are not back to your best the next day - unless of course you die from it, then the next day's kind of a bummer. Ari has come up with a good fix for this I think in his Advanced Players Guide.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> You can make any rule lead to absurdity if you start out with the intention of doing so. Imagination is funny like that.



I disagree to a point. Sometimes the absurdity in a rule is easier to find than not. Perhaps that is more the issue than whether an absurdity exists (or not) - at least in breaking a players suspension of disbelief.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, granted that I was being _a smidgeon_ glib, but please tell me for the record how long Rob must rest to remove those last traces of a deadly injury, assuming no recourse to magical healing?
> 
> Next morning, right as rain?



This is just a matter of degree though. If the 4E rules stated that you regained 1/4 of your hp per day, would that be better? That way, it would take 4 days of rest to recover your hp. That's probably closer to "reality".

But look at it from the opposite end. Take a 100-hp fighter who takes a 10-hp wound. This is clearly a minor wound, a mere scratch. For each of 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E, how long does it take him to recover from this very minor wound, assuming no access to healing magic? I think 4E wins over 1E in the "reality" department in this case. In 1E it would be over a week before the fighter was back in top fighting shape. Why so long for such a tough bugger to recover from a mere scratch?

It's all in how you choose to look at it.


----------



## Shadeydm

Fifth Element said:


> Take a 100-hp fighter who takes a 10-hp wound. This is clearly a minor wound, a mere scratch. For each of 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E, how long does it take him to recover from this very minor wound, assuming no access to healing magic? I think 4E wins over 1E in the "reality" department in this case. In 1E it would be over a week before the fighter was back in top fighting shape. Why so long for such a tough bugger to recover from a mere scratch?
> 
> It's all in how you choose to look at it.




Clearly to who, it seems to me that you are making assumptions about the narrative. What you are describing as a mere scratch I might have described as a spear through the thigh. So why couldn't it take a week to fully recover from that without magical healing?


----------



## mmadsen

Shadeydm said:


> Clearly to who, it seems to me that you are making assumptions about the narrative. What you are describing as a mere scratch I might have described as a spear through the thigh.



A 100-hp fighter takes a 10-hp wound, and you'd describe that as _a spear through the thigh_?  So, with one spear through each arm and each leg he'd still be well above half his hit points?  And unfazed.

Wow.


----------



## FireLance

mmadsen said:


> A 100-hp fighter takes a 10-hp wound, and you'd describe that as _a spear through the thigh_?  So, with one spear through each arm and each leg he'd still be well above half his hit points?  And unfazed.



Yes. He's actually throwing his support behind the idea that characters can grit their teeth and fight on despite severe physical injuries, as long as they have sufficient reserves of luck, morale and resolve. Just like in 4e.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Hypertext SRD:  What Hit Points Represent
> 
> Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.




While creative quoting to prove a point does seem to be all the rage these days, it's interesting that RC ignores the line RIGHT ABOVE the one he quoted:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Injury and Death
> 
> Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.
> 
> Loss Of Hit Points
> 
> The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.
> 
> What Hit Points Represent
> 
> Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.




So, yes, right in the SRD it states that your hit points measure how hard you are to kill.  They do go on and say more.  Some tangible, and some not tangible.  If you are terrified  (by say being intimidated) how does that not affet your ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one?


----------



## Fifth Element

Shadeydm said:


> Clearly to who, it seems to me that you are making assumptions about the narrative. What you are describing as a mere scratch I might have described as a spear through the thigh. So why couldn't it take a week to fully recover from that without magical healing?



Previously in this hit point discussion (over various threads), such a wound (the first few hps lost from a large hp total) was described as being minor. So I was bringing it forward from previous discussion.

Regardless of how it's described narratively, it is a minor wound because it causes no significant change in your fighting ability.


----------



## Fifth Element

FireLance said:


> Yes. He's actually throwing his support behind the idea that characters can grit their teeth and fight on despite severe physical injuries, as long as they have sufficient reserves of luck, morale and resolve. Just like in 4e.



Yes, that's fair enough.


----------



## Hussar

Fifth Element said:


> Previously in this hit point discussion (over various threads), such a wound (the first few hps lost from a large hp total) was described as being minor. So I was bringing it forward from previous discussion.
> 
> Regardless of how it's described narratively, it is a minor wound because it causes no significant change in your fighting ability.




Given the way hit points work, ALL wounds, other than the one that brings you below zero are minor and easily ignored.  Trying to narrate a "spear through the thigh" for any wound other than one that brings you below zero is mismatching the narration to the actual events in the game.

Now, a spear through the thigh could easily be a wound that brings you to death's door.  Sure, lying on the ground bleeding out because of a massive wound is fitting the narrative to the event.

But, if I have 100 hit points, and take 99 points of damage (and make my massive death save) that wound is just a scratch because it in no way affects me or my performance.


----------



## Fifth Element

Hussar said:


> But, if I have 100 hit points, and take 99 points of damage (and make my massive death save) that wound is just a scratch because it in no way affects me or my performance.



"Fighting ability" was not the best term to use. Your fighting ability is reduced, in the sense that you have fewer hit points and it takes less damage to make you stop fighting.

I didn't mean that you are any less effective at attacking or what have you, just that your staying power is reduced. Going from 100 to 90 hit points is a minor reduction in staying power. Going from 100 to 1 is a major reduction.


----------



## Hussar

Sure, but, that only applies if I'm actually hit again.   So, while I have less staying power in a fight (which is what HP represent) I am not in any way otherwise impaired.  I can jump just as far, run just as fast and perform any other action just as well.

There's a huge disconnect if 90 points of damage is anything other than a superficial wound because I should be taking penalties for doing so.

I've argued all the way along that HP are simply an abstraction and, as such, don't represent anything in the game world.  At least not anything quantifiable.  If it does, you get bizarre instances like in an old Dragonmirth comic where you have a firing line of archers lined up on Grogek the Barbarian who is tied to a tree with dozens of arrows sticking out of him.  The head guy says, "Keep firing, he's still got 43 hit points left."

To me, that's vastly more jarring than thinking that someone can shrug off superficial wounds.  Sure, the one that put you down looked bad, but, unless you actually die, it isn't that bad.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> From where I sit, you've demonstrated nothing, apart from the fact that _if you ignore the rules_ 4e is a better game.



I don't quite follow. What rule are you suggesting I am ignoring in order to improve the play of 4e?



Raven Crowking said:


> I am really, really unhappy with "You are wounded, but at full hit points" and "You are unwounded, but at 0 hit points" and the points inbetween to be regular occurances at the table.



OK. If you won't say such things, then you may have trouble using 4e's healing and damaging system without retconning. But no part of the 4e rules forbid one saying such things. Indeed, the rules appear to presuppose that one will, from time to time, say such things, precisely at the point at which the rules (on page 293 of the PHB) tell us that hit points "represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation." This definition of hit points practically entails that a PC can be at 0 hit points yet unwounded (because her resolve has failed her for some other reason) or that she can be at full hit points yet wounded (because despite her wounds she is undaunted).



Raven Crowking said:


> If the conditions have no meaning than game constructs that limit actions in game.....if they have no meaning _*within the game narrative itself*_......then the rules cease to have any value in terms of narrating the game.



This is a non-sequitur. By limiting actions in game the rules set parameters for the narration of the game. But you are correct to infer that they do not dictate that narration. That is the whole point of fortune-in-the-middle action resolution.



Raven Crowking said:


> what's to prevent me from taking LostSoul's example and changing it to "The fighter gets up, dances a little jig around the room, stubs his toes, and falls over where he was before.  He seems to be winking at the elf."?



Well, if that's how you want to narrate your PC's heroic adventures, go to town! Presumably, though, what will stop you is that it's silly.



Raven Crowking said:


> The game rules themselves should offer some estoppal on "that would be silly".  IMHO, the word "unconscious" in the rules _*is*_ that estoppal....and it's being that estoppal is the reason that what the rules are meant to represent should not simply be ignored.)



Part of the point of a game like 4e is that what counts as silly narration or stirring narration at any given table is not part of the game rules, but rather is up for grabs at each gaming table - in this respect 4e is different from some (perhaps more traditional?) RPGs, and more closely resembles other (mostly indie?) RPGs.



Raven Crowking said:


> This is, in my mind, is important:  bit by bit, explaining 4e mechanics in terms of verisimilitude might be fine and dandy.  But as those bits add up, what emerges has more in keeping with _Monty Python & The Holy Grail_ than any Conan story REH ever wrote.
> 
> Each little bit of "You can explain X this way" lead up to a whole lot of explaining.... because the rules aren't written so that they flow logically from the conditions (one presumes) are being represented.  And these aren't corner cases; they are potentially every single combat.



The key is to vary the narration so as to keep it (relatively) fresh and engaging rather than silly and repetitive. This requires player skill. This is one of the player skills that 4e rewards. If the game rules already purported to dicate the narration, and tell us what is silly and what not, then this player skill would have no scope to flourish.

It appears that you like sandbox RPGing. I think that you would agree that it would be a flaw in sandbox design for a campaign description to predetermine for the players where their PCs should go. Part of the point of sandbox RPGing is for these choices to be made as part of play, and for the question of whether they turn out to be good or bad choices to similarly be answered during the course of play. Well, think of 4e as supporting "sandbox narration". It would be a flaw in this sort of design for the rules to predetermine for the players where the narration should go. Part of the point of play is for choices about to narration to be made during the course of play, and for the merits or demerits of those choices (did I succeed in being stirring, or did I just make an idiot of myself?) to emerge in the course of play.

Turning to the issue of extended rests:



Raven Crowking said:


> In a sandbox game, that doesn't work, because the players (not the DM) decide when to rest and when to go, and the game rules need to give them a clear reason to rest.





Raven Crowking said:


> I am absolutely against the DM telling the players what their characters do.  Therefore, the game system must provide reasonable incentive for rest.





Raven Crowking said:


> Who decides "they return to thier home town for a month or so to recuperate from thier adventures"?  Why do they not just plunder the next tomb?



You seem to be ignoring a further possibility, namely, that if the players think it is non-verisimilitudinous for their PCs not to require rest, they can have their PCs rest (just as in 3E many players have their PCs sleep despite the absence of mechanics for it).

If players won't have their PCs do something unless the rules require it, and then complain that the game is suffering from a lack of verisimilitude, I think they have only themselves to blame.



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, "colour" shouldn't counter-indicate the rules, for the most part.



Who is saying that it should? The only poster in this thread whose come close to suggesting it is you, in the following passages:



Raven Crowking said:


> If one is going to go the "colour usurps rules" route -- and it is not an intrinsically bad route by any means -- OD&D does it better.





Raven Crowking said:


> I come out of older editions, where the word "unconscious" was more important than the specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.....where often, in fact, there were no specifics of what the condition meant in game terms.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> It's an extension of the conceptbased on something that was already there.
> 
> The rules have always maintained that HPs are not a direct representation of physical injury.




There is a huge honking leap between "not a direct representation of physical injury" and "not a direct representation of morale".

AFAICT, the rules for damage and healing only remain all-consistant, all the time, if you assume that hit points represent morale, you die of a heart attack if your morale fails badly enough, and that physical injury is merely descriptive gloss.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> This is just a matter of degree though. If the 4E rules stated that you regained 1/4 of your hp per day, would that be better?





Yes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> You seem to be ignoring a further possibility, namely, that if the players think it is non-verisimilitudinous for their PCs not to require rest, they can have their PCs rest (just as in 3E many players have their PCs sleep despite the absence of mechanics for it).




(1)  I have played this game with, literally, hundreds of different people.  I think that the further possibility I am ignoring is likely to come up more than once.  I think so due to experience.  It is my experience that, in the sandbox, lost time is lost opportunity, and there must be an offset to not just heading out the next day or players will almost universally do so.

(2)  While 3E contained no rules for what would happen if you did not sleep, at least the spell recovery system/healing system made it sensible for PCs to do so.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  I have played this game with, literally, hundreds of different people.  I think that the further possibility I am ignoring is likely to come up more than once.  I think so due to experience.  It is my experience that, in the sandbox, lost time is lost opportunity, and there must be an offset to not just heading out the next day or players will almost universally do so.




Well then you have played with hundreds of players that do not share your vision of How the Game Should Be. They may think it fun and heroic for their characters to push on. They may see lost time as lost opportunity because you created that sense as DM. Who are you to tell those hundreds of players that your way is right and they are having badwrongfun for wanting their characters to keep going?

I think you've provided your own anecdotal evidence to support why 4E healing took the path it did.


----------



## LostSoul

ExploderWizard said:


> My big question on this thing is what about awareness? Speaking is a free action but listening and seeing are not. If the guy is trying to get up, but failing then he is aware of what is going on around him when a truly unconcious person would not. Sensory input is worth more than color.




"He falls, seeing stars. His muscles won't work, up is down, everything's a blur."

I was thinking that his head was in a daze, unable to really hear or see anything (beyond the Warlord's words - hearing that is just colour).  I focused on the vision part because I knew there was a Warlord in the party, and I didn't want it to sound absurd.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a huge honking leap between "not a direct representation of physical injury" and "not a direct representation of morale".
> 
> AFAICT, the rules for damage and healing only remain all-consistant, all the time, if you assume that hit points represent morale, you die of a heart attack if your morale fails badly enough, and that physical injury is merely descriptive gloss.
> 
> 
> RC




Looking at this though, how do you propose to make the concept of hit points jive with the fact that you certainly CAN die of fear in D&D?  After save or die effects totally bypass all hit points.  I can have full hit points and be dead at the same time.  How is it, if hit points are the thing that keeps me alive, that I can die even though I have not lost a single hit point?

And this does not require magic either.  Poisons, diseases, all those effects that bypass hit points.  If hit points measure my physical health, then how can I be dead with more than -10 hit points?


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, really, what's to prevent me from taking LostSoul's example and changing it to "The fighter gets up, dances a little jig around the room, stubs his toes, and falls over where he was before.  He seems to be winking at the elf."?




1. Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
2. Dancing around the room is also a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
3. Dropping Prone is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
4. Winking at the elf is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.



Raven Crowking said:


> If the conditions have no meaning than game constructs that limit actions in game.....if they have no meaning _*within the game narrative itself*_......then the rules cease to have any value in terms of narrating the game.




They do; you can't narrate how you killed the goblin without engaging the resolution mechanics.  

(Well... you could, if it was just colour and there was no conflict there - the goblin is bound and not fighting back and there's no time pressure, or you're level 30 and the goblin is a level 1 minion and the DM fiats his death.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well then you have played with hundreds of players that do not share your vision of How the Game Should Be.




On the contrary, I have played with hundreds of players who are quite happy that the game includes reasons for not pushing on, because it is not "fun and heroic for their characters to push on" after a certain point.  It robs the game of verisimilitude.  _*But it is the smart thing to do within the game structure if the game gives you no reasons not to.*_

I have, IOW, played with hundreds of players who don't want a game that makes smart play run counter to fun play.

Because, while I certainly did cause them to "see lost time as lost opportunity", I was not telling "those hundreds of players that your way is right and they are having badwrongfun for wanting their characters to keep going" because we were playing a game system that kept us on the same page.

And sometimes they would push on regardless, because they viewed it as "worth it" in terms of risk/reward ratio.  Sometimes they were right.  Sometimes it proved deadly.  But that tension between risk and reward, making the decision to push on or to wait until you are stronger, has been an integral part of the D&D experience since Day One.

As a player, I've had the same experience.  I enjoy meaningful decisions.  The more meaningful, the better.  The more I have to balance the potential costs versus the potential gains, the better.  The more complex the campaign world, the more complex my options, the better.  

And this enjoyment is not as universal as the player "playing the game" and going on as long as possible (IME).  It is, however, about 80% true for the people that I have gamed with.

It is also my experience that about 90% of the players who initially dislike complex option/challenge games (including the need to rest) strongly prefer that game once they get into the swing of it.

YMMV, obviously, depending upon the type of game you run.  I have certainly seen "complex option" games that sucked.  



> I think you've provided your own anecdotal evidence to support why 4E healing took the path it did.




If so, I hope you accept that it is also why I think it was the wrong path.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> 1. Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
> 2. Dancing around the room is also a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
> 3. Dropping Prone is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.
> 4. Winking at the elf is a Free Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious.




Well if it is "just colour and there was no conflict there" why can't I?

If you argue that "Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious." then how can you also argue that _*trying*_ to get up from Prone is not an action, so that's okay, even though you're Unconcious.  Or is something only an action when you succeed?

If it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter tries to get up and fails -- because it is just colour and has no game effect -- then it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter gets up, dances a jig, and then falls where he started, and lies there blinking at the elf, so long as it is just colour and has no game effect.

Right?

Also, out of curiosity, I am having trouble finding where it says winking at the elf is a free action.  Can you point out that page to me?  It seems to me that trying to get up is more of an action than winking......?  


RC


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action.  Furthermore, getting up, dancing around the room, and then falling back to your original location would require actions, and is therefore proscribed by the rules.  The narrative concerning what happens as the fighter lies there making death saves is indeed flexible, but it is overruled by the constraints imposed by the rules.  Perhaps he could effect a saucy wink without needing a free action; although that would, again, violate the genre limitations that one might impose on the narrative--unless, as I said, you are intending to run a silly game.  In that case, mazel tov!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lonely Tylenol said:


> It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action.




Bob is allowed one action per turn.

BOB:  I hit the orc with my sword.

DM:  Roll a d20!

BOB:  A "1".  I miss.

DM:  That's OK.  Failure to hit an orc is not an action.  You can try again.

BOB:  WTF?!?

Later on, Bob is knocked prone by an ogre.  The ogre is standing over Bob, ready to knock him flat if he tries to get up.  The DM has decided that Bob needs to make a Reflex save to successfully stand.

BOB:  I try to stand up.

DM:  The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise.  Roll a Reflex save.

BOB:  A "2".  Dang.

DM:  Don't worry.  Standing up from prone is a move action.  It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action.  You can try again.

BOB:  WTF?!?!?!




RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes.



Okay...would you care to address the rest of my post? The part about the absurd result of a mighty warrior in 1E taking a week to fully recover from a scratch?


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Well if it is "just colour and there was no conflict there" why can't I?



If your goal is to make the game stupid, you certainly can. It's your right as a thinking individual . 



> Or is something only an action when you succeed?



Smart narration of mechanical results is smart. 



> If it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter tries to get up and fails -- because it is just colour and has no game effect -- then it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter gets up, dances a jig, and then falls where he started, and lies there blinking at the elf, so long as it is just colour and has no game effect.



See above.

Look, it's everyone's job at the table to maintain verisimilitude in the game. The sad fact is that DM --hell, the rules themselves-- can't do it alone. This necessitates a willingness to translate the game mechanics/results into a sensible narrative. 

You can describe the processes of any RPG system in an absurd manner if you're hell bent on doing so. The question is "why would you want to?"


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Bob is allowed one action per turn.
> 
> BOB:  I hit the orc with my sword.
> 
> DM:  Roll a d20!
> 
> BOB:  A "1".  I miss.
> 
> DM:  That's OK.  Failure to hit an orc is not an action.  You can try again.
> 
> BOB:  WTF?!?



Invalid argument. The action is not "hitting an orc". The action is "attacking an orc". Bob attacked the orc. He therefore performed an action.



Raven Crowking said:


> BOB:  I try to stand up.
> 
> DM:  The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise.  Roll a Reflex save.
> 
> BOB:  A "2".  Dang.
> 
> DM: Don't worry. Standing up from prone is a move action. It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action. You can try again.
> 
> BOB:  WTF?!?!?!



The rules cover this one by having the ogre's push-down occur immediately after the standing-up. So there's a move action to stand up, and then an attack by the ogre to push him back down.

Notice how in your example you say "the ogre attempt to push you down". So the ogre is clearly using an action in response to Bob's action.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Or is something only an action when you succeed?



In some sense, yes. But remember that in combat, attacking is the action, not hitting. So if you mean "succeed" in an attack in the sense that you are able to make an attack (regardless of whether it hits or not), yes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Okay...would you care to address the rest of my post? The part about the absurd result of a mighty warrior in 1E taking a week to fully recover from a scratch?




I think I've already mentioned that, if it could be answered by a cut & paste from earlier in the discussion, I'm not doing the cut & paste.



Mallus said:


> If your goal is to make the game stupid, you certainly can. It's your right as a thinking individual .




This begs for a response of "Well, if WotC can make the game stupid, why can't I?"    Except, unfortunately, I don't honestly think it would be a fair comment.  



> You can describe the processes of any RPG system in an absurd manner if you're hell bent on doing so. The question is "why would you want to?"




There are certainly players who, faced with rules that continually bring up contents that they have to fight to make non-absurd, will make them ever-more-blatantly-absurd as a means of dealing with their disappointment in the game system.



Fifth Element said:


> Invalid argument. The action is not "hitting an orc". The action is "attacking an orc". Bob attacked the orc. He therefore performed an action.




Exactly.  The action isn't the success; the action is the attempt.

Just as "attempting to rise" is the action, and "rising/not rising" is a statement as to the success (or lack thereof) of the action.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Exactly.  The action isn't the success; the action is the attempt.
> 
> Just as "attempting to rise" is the action, and "rising/not rising" is a statement as to the success (or lack thereof) of the action.



These two situations use different mechanics to resolve them. If you are able to stand up, you stand up. The ogre might then attempt to push you down, but you don't need to roll a die to see if you stand.

In the "unconscious" situation, you cannot even "attempt" to stand in this sense, because doing so would result in you standing up, which you are not allowed to do. So in this case, the "attempt" described is merely colour, and has nothing to do with the mechanics.

So your problem is you're conflating two different meanings of "attempt" here. One ties directly into game mechanics, the other is only for colour. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Or is something only an action when you succeed?




In the example that was given, standing up is not a matter of success or failure. Since the character is Unconscious, he cannot stand up. So saying that he is trying to stand up does not violate RAW, because we know that he can't. Even if he rolls a natural 20 on his death save he can't stand up until his *next* turn when he is no longer Unconscious. This is a case of describing a known failure as an attempt that automatically fails. He doesn't actually stand up and isn't asking for an action that will allow him to stand up, so it's just flavor.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> I think I've already mentioned that, if it could be answered by a cut & paste from earlier in the discussion, I'm not doing the cut & paste.



I don't think you have addressed it, as I've been waiting for a response.

I think you tried to address it, again by looking at the hit points bottom-up. Something like "Gary still has way more hit points than Bob, so this wound means very little." But you haven't explained why it's not valid to ask the question "why does my 10th-level fighter take so long to fully recover from a scratch?"

Because if you ask that question, you expose an absurdity in the 1E hit point/healing system. From different perspectives, you get different degrees of absurdity. So if you choose to look at a system in a way to maximize absurdity, you'll see a lot of absurdity.


----------



## Rel

JoeGKushner said:


>




Hey, Joe, that's the second snarky macro you've posted in this thread since I warned people about being civil.  How about you knock it off.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> On the contrary, I have played with hundreds of players who are quite happy that the game includes reasons for not pushing on, because it is not "fun and heroic for their characters to push on" after a certain point.  It robs the game of verisimilitude.  _*But it is the smart thing to do within the game structure if the game gives you no reasons not to.*_




And I play with people who have their characters think and act like real people. After saving the village they take time to relax, recuperate, bask in the glory of the grateful villagers, visit their families, serve their temples, conduct research, maintain their weapons, and train - even though the rules do not require them to do any of this. They may take a break as long as year depending on when their research turns up a new wondrous place to plunder that interests them or they receive a call for aid from people in trouble. The world is not in a constant state of impending doom and there aren't lost crypts littering the countryside like Walgreens drugstores.


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> On the contrary, I have played with hundreds of players who are quite happy that the game includes reasons for not pushing on, because it is not "fun and heroic for their characters to push on" after a certain point. It robs the game of verisimilitude. _*But it is the smart thing to do within the game structure if the game gives you no reasons not to.*_




I think if you were being perfectly honest, you'd acknowledge that it's not so much the smart thing to do as one option.

Unless of course you can show me where players get penalized for not pushing on.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Word!*






​


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Well if it is "just colour and there was no conflict there" why can't I?




Because there is conflict?

The PC is dying.  There's a fight going on.  That smells like conflict to me.



Raven Crowking said:


> If you argue that "Getting up from Prone is a Move Action, and you can't take any actions; you're Unconcious." then how can you also argue that _*trying*_ to get up from Prone is not an action, so that's okay, even though you're Unconcious.  Or is something only an action when you succeed?




"Trying to get up", in this case, has no impact on resolution.  It's colour.

"Trying to get up", when it _does_ impact resolution, is not colour.  Then we use the resolution mechanics to see what happens.



Raven Crowking said:


> If it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter tries to get up and fails -- because it is just colour and has no game effect -- then it is not breaking the rules to say that the fighter gets up, dances a jig, and then falls where he started, and lies there blinking at the elf, so long as it is just colour and has no game effect.




Yeah, except that there's conflict:  can you get up again or not?  can you avoid being eaten by the Kuthrik?

If there was no conflict - if you were not dying and there was no giant insect monster from the underdark trying to eat you - then I'm sure you could get up, dance a jig, and wink at the elf.



Raven Crowking said:


> Bob is allowed one action per turn.
> 
> BOB:  I hit the orc with my sword.
> 
> DM:  Roll a d20!
> 
> BOB:  A "1".  I miss.
> 
> DM:  That's OK.  Failure to hit an orc is not an action.  You can try again.
> 
> BOB:  WTF?!?




Remember how colour is that which does not impact resolution?  This example is not just colour.  His failure and the number of actions he gets is part of resolution.



Raven Crowking said:


> Later on, Bob is knocked prone by an ogre.  The ogre is standing over Bob, ready to knock him flat if he tries to get up.  The DM has decided that Bob needs to make a Reflex save to successfully stand.
> 
> BOB:  I try to stand up.
> 
> DM:  The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise.  Roll a Reflex save.
> 
> BOB:  A "2".  Dang.
> 
> DM:  Don't worry.  Standing up from prone is a move action.  It seems quite clear to me that if standing from prone is a move action, then failing to stand from prone is not a move action.  You can try again.
> 
> BOB:  WTF?!?!?!




Once again, this is not colour.  You are engaging the resolution mechanics.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Raven Crowking said:


> Failure to hit an orc is not an action.  You can try again.



Attacking an orc is an action.  Failure to attack an orc is not an action.



> DM:  The ogre attempts to push you down as you rise.  Roll a Reflex save.
> 
> BOB:  A "2".  Dang.



Oh, I see.  You're equivocating on "failure".

Here:


			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> fail⋅ure
> –noun
> 1. 	an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
> 2. 	nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
> 3. _etc._



I intended #2 in the text you quoted, and you're reading me as intending #1.  Nonperformance, then.  Bob attempts to perform the "standing from prone" action, which uses his move action.  The ogre prevents him from doing so (apparently using some sort of immediate interrupt power).  Bob remains prone.  Had Bob been unconscious, he would not have been able to use his move action to attempt to perform the "standing from prone" action, would not have triggered the ogre's power, and the ogre would still have an immediate action left that round.  

Could you perhaps not read my posts in the most ridiculous fashion you can come up with?  That's certainly a good way to not see any sense in what I'm writing, but it's also a very poor way to conduct a conversation.  Of course, it appears to me that the entire problem here is that you're attempting to construe not just my posts, but the 4e rules, in the most ridiculous fashion you can come up with, rather than doing what most of us are doing, and creating our narratives in a way that make sense, rather than trying to demonstrate that the rules are silly because we can contrive silly interpretations of them.  It does not bother me if it is merely possible for bizarre explanations to be created for the results of the game mechanics.  It would bother me if it were necessary, but it is not.  That it is possible is a point rendered moot when a group of players sits down to a table and decides that unconscious people should not be allowed to tap dance.

I think that perhaps we have indeed gone as far as we're going to with this, considering that you're now simply trying to make fun of things I have posted without giving them a considerate read.


----------



## La Bete

Lonely Tylenol said:


> That it is possible is a point rendered moot when a group of players sits down to a table and decides that unconscious people should not be allowed to tap dance.




Are you saying that this is an 'issue' that is only seen online, not actually in a game?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

La Bete said:


> Are you saying that this is an 'issue' that is only seen online, not actually in a game?




Why, just the other day I got into an argument with my players over whether a quadriplegic gibbon should be able to brachiate.

Kidding...


----------



## Hypersmurf

LostSoul said:


> "Trying to get up", in this case, has no impact on resolution.  It's colour.
> 
> "Trying to get up", when it _does_ impact resolution, is not colour.  Then we use the resolution mechanics to see what happens.




Right.  In the Powers Subsystem thread, I quoted the example from the fight just finished, where Assem used Twin Strike to drop a pineapple on the raptor's head with a thrown chakram.  The mechanics we used?  Attack roll vs the raptor's AC, damage as per the chakram.  If his attack roll hit the raptor's AC, we assumed that the pineapple was severed from the tree, fell, and hit the raptor.

Now, if instead, he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree in order to impress the natives with his pineapple-dropping ability, the mechanic I'd use might be an Intimidate check vs the natives' Will save.  If he beats their Will save, he hits the pineapple.

If he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree because you were all starving to death, the mechanic I'd use might be a Nature check against a fixed DC (15 if he's just trying to feed himself, 25 if he's trying to feed all of you).  If he makes the check, pineapples rain from the sky as the chakram severs stems.  If he fails, it turns out the stems are tougher than that, or the pineapples are too tricky to hit.

And if he was just chopping down pineapples as colourful punctuation during a scene of slogging through jungle?  No check required.  Assem's a badass, so we can assume he can hit a pineapple.

Does it offend my 3E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Some, yeah... although I'd note that even in 3E, the Take 10 mechanic means that the colourful punctuation might be immediately successful, while the pressure situation of impressing the natives might require a roll.

Does it offend my 4E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Not in the slightest.

-Hyp.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Hypersmurf said:


> Right.  In the Powers Subsystem thread, I quoted the example from the fight just finished, where Assem used Twin Strike to drop a pineapple on the raptor's head with a thrown chakram.  The mechanics we used?  Attack roll vs the raptor's AC, damage as per the chakram.  If his attack roll hit the raptor's AC, we assumed that the pineapple was severed from the tree, fell, and hit the raptor.
> 
> Now, if instead, he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree in order to impress the natives with his pineapple-dropping ability, the mechanic I'd use might be an Intimidate check vs the natives' Will save.  If he beats their Will save, he hits the pineapple.
> 
> If he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree because you were all starving to death, the mechanic I'd use might be a Nature check against a fixed DC (15 if he's just trying to feed himself, 25 if he's trying to feed all of you).  If he makes the check, pineapples rain from the sky as the chakram severs stems.  If he fails, it turns out the stems are tougher than that, or the pineapples are too tricky to hit.
> 
> And if he was just chopping down pineapples as colourful punctuation during a scene of slogging through jungle?  No check required.  Assem's a badass, so we can assume he can hit a pineapple.
> 
> Does it offend my 3E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Some, yeah... although I'd note that even in 3E, the Take 10 mechanic means that the colourful punctuation might be immediately successful, while the pressure situation of impressing the natives might require a roll.
> 
> Does it offend my 4E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Not in the slightest.
> 
> -Hyp.




Psst.  Pineapples don't grow on trees.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Psst.  Pineapples don't grow on trees.




Yeah, in the combat, it was actually a giant spiky durian pod, but I couldn't be bothered typing all that out every time 

-Hyp.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hypersmurf said:


> Right.  In the Powers Subsystem thread, I quoted the example from the fight just finished, where Assem used Twin Strike to drop a pineapple on the raptor's head with a thrown chakram.  The mechanics we used?  Attack roll vs the raptor's AC, damage as per the chakram.  If his attack roll hit the raptor's AC, we assumed that the pineapple was severed from the tree, fell, and hit the raptor.
> 
> Now, if instead, he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree in order to impress the natives with his pineapple-dropping ability, the mechanic I'd use might be an Intimidate check vs the natives' Will save.  If he beats their Will save, he hits the pineapple.
> 
> If he was throwing his chakram to drop a pineapple from the tree because you were all starving to death, the mechanic I'd use might be a Nature check against a fixed DC (15 if he's just trying to feed himself, 25 if he's trying to feed all of you).  If he makes the check, pineapples rain from the sky as the chakram severs stems.  If he fails, it turns out the stems are tougher than that, or the pineapples are too tricky to hit.
> 
> And if he was just chopping down pineapples as colourful punctuation during a scene of slogging through jungle?  No check required.  Assem's a badass, so we can assume he can hit a pineapple.
> 
> Does it offend my 3E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Some, yeah... although I'd note that even in 3E, the Take 10 mechanic means that the colourful punctuation might be immediately successful, while the pressure situation of impressing the natives might require a roll.
> 
> Does it offend my 4E sensibilities that the mechanical resolution for the identical action changes, depending on the reason the action is being attempted?  Not in the slightest.
> 
> -Hyp.




Well, there is some messiness if the effects are combined.

"I'd like to show off to the natives by throwing my Chakram to knock a coconut out of the tree and have it fall and hit the Raptor on the head."

And, there is somewhat of a difference re: Knocking the same coconut out of a tree so to have food and avoid starving.  The nature check is more representative of finding the coconut, not so much knocking it out of the tree.  A Nature check subsumes the details of finding and obtaining food.  Now, if a special tool were required, say, a Chakham to knock coconuts out of trees, or a shovel to dig up roots, then having two checks makes sense (or, granting a circumstance bonus or penalty, as appropriate).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Hypersmurf said:


> Yeah, in the combat, it was actually a giant spiky durian pod, but I couldn't be bothered typing all that out every time
> 
> -Hyp.




I see.  I probably would have decided that was more of a ranged burst attack, given the smell of those things.


----------



## Hypersmurf

tomBitonti said:


> Well, there is some messiness if the effects are combined.
> 
> "I'd like to show off to the natives by throwing my Chakram to knock a coconut out of the tree and have it fall and hit the Raptor on the head."




Sure.  If it came up, I'd probably do something like resolve it as per the attack on the Raptor, and if the attack is successful, it will grant a Cool Bonus to the next social skill roll he makes with regard to the natives.  



> And, there is somewhat of a difference re: Knocking the same coconut out of a tree so to have food and avoid starving.  The nature check is more representative of finding the coconut, not so much knocking it out of the tree.  A Nature check subsumes the details of finding and obtaining food.




On a successful Nature check, the task of [finding and obtaining food] was achieved.  On a failed Nature check, the task of [finding and obtaining food] was not achieved.

-Hyp.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> These two situations use different mechanics to resolve them. If you are able to stand up, you stand up. The ogre might then attempt to push you down, but you don't need to roll a die to see if you stand.




We are playing in two different paradigms.

IMHO, "I do X" _*always*_ means "I _attempt to_ do X".  You don't automatically stand, and then the ogre attempts to push you down any more than you automatically hit.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think you have addressed it, as I've been waiting for a response.





Since I've addressed this specifically during this discussion, in this thread or the other, I'll not do so again.

(Unless I go to the effort to diagram the argument.....which will be Cut & Paste.)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Attacking an orc is an action.  Failure to attack an orc is not an action.




Trying to stand up is an action.  Failure to try to stand up is not an action.

Oh, I see.  You're equivocating on _*both*_ "try" _*and*_ "failure".

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> "Trying to get up", in this case, has no impact on resolution.  It's colour.
> 
> "Trying to get up", when it _does_ impact resolution, is not colour.  Then we use the resolution mechanics to see what happens.




You're conflating two arguments.

(1)  If "trying to get up" is colour if it doesn't impact resolution, so is dancing a jig and winking at the elf.

(2)  If dancing a jig and winking at the elf doesn't impact resolution, but is still a rules violation, because the character is attempting an action -- whether it succeeds or not, whether it impacts resolution or not -- then so is trying to get up.

What I am saying is "One way or the other.  You can't have it both ways."

(Which, AFAICT, you've agreed with, although you think the jig-winking is silly.)


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  If "trying to get up" is colour if it doesn't impact resolution, so is dancing a jig and winking at the elf.



No, it isn't. "*Trying* to get up and dance a jig" would be equivalent, but you would fail at that by the rules, just as you would fail at just getting up. So it's colour, just like trying to get up.



Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  If dancing a jig and winking at the elf doesn't impact resolution, but is still a rules violation, because the character is attempting an action -- whether it succeeds or not, whether it impacts resolution or not -- then so is trying to get up.



The equivalent of "dancing a jig" is not "trying to get up" in the way we're using the phrase here. The equivalent of "dancing a jig" is "getting up". Which the rules do not allow.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Since I've addressed this specifically during this discussion, in this thread or the other, I'll not do so again.



You haven't addressed my specific question as far as I can tell.

Why isn't this a valid perspective: "Why does it take my burly 10th-level fighter a full week to return to full fighting potential, when he only took a scratch in battle?"


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> You haven't addressed my specific question as far as I can tell.




Tell you what, if I go back through this thread and the other and cut & paste three answers to your question (not necessarily to the specific wording -- no "sorry, I said burly fighter, and you're response didn't designate burly") what value is there in it for me?

I have been there & done that more than once.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> No, it isn't. "*Trying* to get up and dance a jig" would be equivalent, but you would fail at that by the rules, just as you would fail at just getting up. So it's colour, just like trying to get up.





Does it impact resolution?  LostSoul's criteria are very specific.

Does it impact resolution?

If Yes, then it is not colour.

If No, then it is colour.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Does it impact resolution?  LostSoul's criteria are very specific.



Okay, how does it impact resolution?


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> You're conflating two arguments.
> 
> (1)  If "trying to get up" is colour if it doesn't impact resolution, so is dancing a jig and winking at the elf.
> 
> (2)  If dancing a jig and winking at the elf doesn't impact resolution, but is still a rules violation, because the character is attempting an action -- whether it succeeds or not, whether it impacts resolution or not -- then so is trying to get up.
> 
> What I am saying is "One way or the other.  You can't have it both ways."
> 
> (Which, AFAICT, you've agreed with, although you think the jig-winking is silly.)




You're reading "I try to get up" as Intent when it's not part of the resolution.  It's just adding some description to the situation, i.e. Colour.  

Initiation in this situation is "It's my turn this round," Intent is "I don't want to die," Execution is "I'm making the Death Save", and the Effect is whatever the die comes up on the Death Save (failure).

Anyways.  Jig-winking is not colour because it impacts resolution.

edit:  Your turn would look like this:
Initiation: My init comes up.
Intent: I want to get up, dance a jig, and wink at the elf.
Execution: You can't take actions while Unconcious.
Effect: You fail your Death Save.

"Trying to get up", if that was your Intent, would look the same way.  

But it's not, it's just colour.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Tell you what, if I go back through this thread and the other and cut & paste three answers to your question (not necessarily to the specific wording -- no "sorry, I said burly fighter, and you're response didn't designate burly") what value is there in it for me?



I think you're misreading me. I'm not asking "how do you make sense of this in 1E?" You can easily make sense of it by looking at it a certain way.

What I'm asking is, why is looking at it another particular way not valid? The perspective addressed in my question seems like a perfectly valid way of looking at things to me.

As I have said, my ultimate point is that you are choosing to look at 4E in a way that results in a large number of absurdities, while choosing to look at 1E in a way that results in a small number.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> There are certainly players who, faced with rules that continually bring up contents that they have to fight to make non-absurd, will make them ever-more-blatantly-absurd as a means of dealing with their disappointment in the game system.





Raven Crowking said:


> I have, IOW, played with hundreds of players who don't want a game that makes smart play run counter to fun play.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As a player, I've had the same experience.  I enjoy meaningful decisions.  The more meaningful, the better.



So what your saying is that if players want to prioritise what you call "smart play" (a certain sort of Gygaxian/Pulsepherian gamism) over narratively-oriented play of the sort that the 4e-types on this thread are articulating - to the extent that they will push the game into absurdity to make their prioritis clear - then 4e is not the best game system. That is not news. We worked it out in a 30-page thread before 4e was actually released.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> What I'm asking is, why is looking at it another particular way not valid? The perspective addressed in my question seems like a perfectly valid way of looking at things to me.




That's already answered, too.



pemerton said:


> So what your saying is that if players want to prioritise what you call "smart play" (a certain sort of Gygaxian/Pulsepherian gamism) over narratively-oriented play of the sort that the 4e-types on this thread are articulating - to the extent that they will push the game into absurdity to make their prioritis clear - then 4e is not the best game system.




No, what I am saying is that the hit point paradigm changed.

In further discussion of what the various hit point paradigms are, it did indeed come up that 4e isn't well suited for some types of play.  BUT....I am saying that all games have "smart play" element built into them, whether intended or not.  A well designed game harmonizes the "smart play" elements with the "intended play" elements, so that when you are doing the smart thing you are also doing the intended thing, and vice versa.

I am also saying that continued day to day activity while never taking any damage that prevents (or strongly counterindicates) continued day to day actiity, was intentionally written into the 4e system's "smart play" because the good folks at WotC thought, although the result might quickly become absurd, it was "more fun".

IOW, I am suggesting that, if good design harmonizes smart and intended play, and if 4e is good design, then the absurd features are intentional.  Not intentional because they are absurd, but intentional because the designers thought them more fun _despite_ being absurd (or simply didn't stop to consider the absurd rammifications of the rules they were writing).

There is nothing "invalid" in playing that way, if you enjoy it.  There is nothing "invalid" in not playing that way while using that ruleset.

But, for me at least, there is as much work involved -- every combat -- in making the 4e rules "make sense" within the context of the game world as some of you have expended trying to make the 1e hp rules not make sense.

I don't mind having to work to make things not make sense.  I simply don't do that work.  I do mind having to work, continually, every combat, for the rules to make sense within the game world.  That is, simply put, not fun.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> You're reading "I try to get up" as Intent when it's not part of the resolution.  It's just adding some description to the situation, i.e. Colour.




Mega honking double standard.

Getting up, dancing a jig, falling into the same spot, and winking at the elf is not part of the resolution.  No dice are rolled.  It impacts nothing.  It has no game effect.  It's just adding some descripton to the situation, i.e., Colour.  

Initiation in this situation is "It's my turn this round," Intent is "I don't want to die," Execution is "I'm making the Death Save", and the Effect is whatever the die comes up on the Death Save (failure).

How does jig-winking impact resolution?

Or is Colour defined by you as simply Colour you like the flavour of?


RC


----------



## Lacyon

Raven Crowking said:


> I am also saying that continued day to day activity while never taking any damage that prevents (or strongly counterindicates) continued day to day actiity, was intentionally written into the 4e system's "smart play" because the good folks at WotC thought, although the result might quickly become absurd, it was "more fun".




Except that it's been written into _every_ D&D system I'm aware of except 1E's _optional rules_ for not dying when you hit zero hp.

The only difference in 4E is that banning clerics isn't sufficient to erase it from the system.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Mega honking double standard.
> 
> Getting up, dancing a jig, falling into the same spot, and winking at the elf is not part of the resolution.  No dice are rolled.  It impacts nothing.  It has no game effect.  It's just adding some descripton to the situation, i.e., Colour.




Movement in D&D Combat Encounters impacts resolution.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Movement in D&D Combat Encounters impacts resolution.




Really?

What does it resolve, in this case, that trying to claw your way up the wall does not?  How does it impact the rules, or the game mechanics?

Again, this is nothing more than a double standard.  You can have it one way, or you can have it the other.  You cannot have it both.


RC


----------



## Delta

Lacyon said:


> Except that it's been written into _every_ D&D system I'm aware of except 1E's _optional rules_ for not dying when you hit zero hp.




1E rules weren't optional. Hitting zero hp in 1E made you unconscious and dying, that was core rules. What was optional was possibly extending the "start unconscious" range down to maybe -3.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Really?
> 
> What does it resolve, in this case, that trying to claw your way up the wall does not? How does it impact the rules, or the game mechanics?
> 
> Again, this is nothing more than a double standard. You can have it one way, or you can have it the other. You cannot have it both.




  Are you...being serious? Like, you really, really, don't see the difference between the two examples? Really? Wow. 

  Is your hangup the use of the word "unconcious", perhaps? I mean, would you see a problem with a player whose character is immoblized tossing out some flavor text about trying to move, unsuccessfully?


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> How does jig-winking impact resolution?
> 
> Or is Colour defined by you as simply Colour you like the flavour of?



You're being ridiculous. If the character were not "unconscious", dancing a jig would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot dance a jig.

If you let him dance a jig, the player would be right to ask "well if I can dance a jig, why can't I run across the room to get the heck out of here?"

The jig-dancing itself would not impact resolution. Allowing an unconscious character to take an action (which would be required in order to actually dance the jig) could very well impact resolution.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> That's already answered, too.



If you spent as much time answering it now as you have telling me it's already been answered, maybe I could stop asking.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> You're being ridiculous. If the character were not "unconscious", dancing a jig would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot dance a jig.




Likewise, ithe character were not "unconscious", trying to get up would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot try to get up.



> If you let him dance a jig, the player would be right to ask "well if I can dance a jig, why can't I run across the room to get the heck out of here?"




Because that would impact resolution.  Remember, that was what LostSoul said:  If it doesn't impact resolution, it's colour.  After all, if the DM lets the character start clawing his way up the wall, only to fall back, why won't he let him claw his way partly out of the room, or into the Pool of Healing?

If allowing an unconscious character to take an action (which would be required in order to actually dance the jig) could very well impact resolution, then so could allowing the unconscious character to try to claw his way up the wall.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> If you spent as much time answering it now as you have telling me it's already been answered, maybe I could stop asking.




Hmmm.

My point is that I have already spent time answering it, and it has done no good.  Therefore, I reason that if I did so again, you might not ask again right now, but when the conversation continued on a bit, I would very likely find myself in the same position of recursive discussion.


RC


----------



## Mad Mac

> If allowing an unconscious character to take an action (which would be required in order to actually dance the jig) could very well impact resolution, then so could allowing the unconscious character to try to claw his way up the wall.




  Failing to take an action is not the same as taking an action. Besides which, a dying character in 4th edition has a chance every single round, however small, of clawing his way back to his feet with no outside assistance. Is it wrong that the player narrates his character trying to do exactly what he's trying to do (roll a natural 20) every round until he either succeeds or dies?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mad Mac said:


> Failing to take an action is not the same as taking an action.




Attempting to take an action is what the player announces; success or failure is determined through game mechanics or DM Fiat.

That said, either colour is "anything that doesn't impact resolution" or it is not.  If it is, and if jig-winking doesn't impact resolution, then jig-winking is perfetly fine colour.  Maybe not to your taste, but not everything is wrongbadfun because you don't like it.

Conversely, if colour is not "anything that doesn't impact resolution", an unconscious character cannot attempt to take any action; he's unconscious.  The roll he gets isn't him "attempting" anything.

One way or the other.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise, ithe character were not "unconscious", trying to get up would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot try to get up.



You're still conflating two meanings of "try" here. If my character were not unconscious, and I said "I try to stand up", the DM would say "What do you mean? You either stand up or you don't."

Why? Because in mechanical terms, "try" has no meaning with respect to standing up. If you able to do it and declare it as your action, you do it. There may be subsequent repercussions, but you do it.

If you unable to do it, then you can't do it even if you declare you are doing it. "Try" has no mechanical meaning here. It can therefore only be colour.



Raven Crowking said:


> Because that would impact resolution.  Remember, that was what LostSoul said:  If it doesn't impact resolution, it's colour.



Fine, you win. LostSoul's criteria needs to be modified or rephrased.

Actually, maybe not. If an enemy has a readied action "I attack if he gets up", then the jig-dancing does impact resolution. The creature gets an immediate reaction to the jig-dancing. This clearly impacts resolution of the encounter.



Raven Crowking said:


> If allowing an unconscious character to take an action (which would be required in order to actually dance the jig) could very well impact resolution, then so could allowing the unconscious character to try to claw his way up the wall.



Again, "try" has no meaning in game terms in this case. So it can only be colour.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Attempting to take an action is what the player announces; success or failure is determined through game mechanics or DM Fiat.



Yes, and the game mechanics for standing up from prone are: if you are able to stand up and you announce your are standing up, you stand up. So "try" has no meaning here. You either do or you don't. There is no try.



Raven Crowking said:


> Conversely, if colour is not "anything that doesn't impact resolution", an unconscious character cannot attempt to take any action; he's unconscious.  The roll he gets isn't him "attempting" anything.



The term "action" has a defined meaning in the rules. Rolling a death save is not an "action" in game terms.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> You're still conflating two meanings of "try" here. If my character were not unconscious, and I said "I try to stand up", the DM would say "What do you mean? You either stand up or you don't."




Really?  Because, IME, the DM would either say, "You stand up" or "The ogre tries to whack you down before you can stand up; make a Reflex save" or something of that nature.

Why? Because in mechanical terms, merely because you attempt to stand up doesn't mean that you are able to do it.  Try always has meaning with respect to standing up, or anything else, even if that meaning isn't often necessarily used.  If you declare it as your action, and you able to do it, you do it.  There may be subsequent repercussions, or things that prevent you from standing (sliding floor, trying to stand up on slippery tilty ice, an ogre trying to prevent you from standing), so you may not do it.

"I X" _*always*_ means "I try to X" because you _*never*_ know for certain that a die roll, or an outright failure to succeed, isn't in the offing.

If you unable to do it, then you can't do it even if you declare you are doing it.  Your declaration of what you are doing, in fact, has no mechanical meaning except that it denotes that you try.



> Fine, you win. LostSoul's criteria needs to be modified or rephrased.




Really?



> Actually, maybe not.




Really?



> If an enemy has a readied action "I attack if he gets up", then the jig-dancing does impact resolution. The creature gets an immediate reaction to the jig-dancing. This clearly impacts resolution of the encounter.




Well, LostSoul's initial "colour" had the fighter start to claw his way up the wall, and then collapse, so I guess that wasn't colour either.  The creature gets an immediate reaction to the wall-clawing-upward.  And I guess, then, "4e can be a good game if you violate the rules" is back on.


RC


----------



## Hypersmurf

Delta said:


> 1E rules weren't optional. Hitting zero hp in 1E made you unconscious and dying, that was core rules. What was optional was possibly extending the "start unconscious" range down to maybe -3.




I know we didn't play this one as written in 1E (surprise! a 1e game with an unintentional house rule!  ), so I'm not sure I have it right...

Assuming we're not extending the threshold...

A 1e character has 6 hit points.
If he's hit for 7 damage, he's dead.
If he's hit for 6 damage, he's dying - unconscious and losing 1 hitpoint per round, and will die at -10.

Is that how it works as written?  The -10 is only death _if_ you hit the threshold on the way (0 exactly, by default), otherwise you die as soon as you go negative?

-Hyp.


----------



## cwhs01

Raven Crowking said:


> One way or the other.




Or you may be presenting us with a false dichotomy.


----------



## Raven Crowking

cwhs01 said:


> Or you may be presenting us with a false dichotomy.




Nope.

If colour is anything that doesn't impact resolution, and both X and Y don't impact resolution, then both X and Y are colour, regardless of whether or not you like X or Y.


RC


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?
> 
> What does it resolve, in this case, that trying to claw your way up the wall does not?  How does it impact the rules, or the game mechanics?




Movement is part of Effectiveness, not Positioning.  In other words, it's a strict game mechanical thing - mechanics tell you how fast you can move and what happens when you move to places.

Movement could trigger OAs.  It could trigger Readied Actions.  It could trigger Immediate Actions.  It could trigger an attack.  It could add modifiers to attack rolls.

Movement impacts resolution.  It's important in D&D.

Movement is not colour in combat encounters.  It may be in skill challenges, depending on the situation.

Whereas the description of what's going on when you're making your Death Save - in this case, a failed Death Save meaning you try to get up, but fail - is colour.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, LostSoul's initial "colour" had the fighter start to claw his way up the wall, and then collapse, so I guess that wasn't colour either.  The creature gets an immediate reaction to the wall-clawing-upward.  And I guess, then, "4e can be a good game if you violate the rules" is back on.




No, I didn't say anything about "wall-clawing-upward":



LostSoul said:


> The PC come across a Kruthik lair and engage in battle.  The Fighter charges up to the Adult and they begin trading blows.  Finally, one claw slips past the Fighter's guard and smacks him in the face, tearing his cheek open.
> 
> He falls, seeing stars.  His muscles won't work, up is down, everything's a blur.  (-12 HP, fails death save.)
> 
> As he lies on the ground, the Kruthik keeps tearing and gnashing at his armour.  It's bound to hit something vital if this keeps up.  (Takes two damage, -14 HP.)
> 
> *The Fighter tries to get up, but he can't.  (Fails death save.)*
> 
> Luckily the Wizard Thunderwaves the Kruthik Adult away just as it was about to slash open the Fighter's neck.
> 
> "You're not going to do much good on the ground like that!" the Warlord yells, and the words make it through to the Fighter.  Inspired, the Fighter clears his head through a gargantuan effort of will.  (Inspiring Word.)
> 
> He rises, tastes the blood from his ripped cheek, and takes a minute to gather his breath.  (Second Wind.)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Because, IME, the DM would either say, "You stand up" or "The ogre tries to whack you down before you can stand up; make a Reflex save" or something of that nature.




Only if the DM has a house rule that says a character must make a Reflex save to stand up if an Ogre is standing over him.



Raven Crowking said:


> Why? Because in mechanical terms, merely because you attempt to stand up doesn't mean that you are able to do it.




As long as you have a move action, you can stand up. That is true in 3E and 4E. The act of standing up could cause a AO in 3E, require a save if the ground you are standing on is slippery, or trigger a readied action from said Ogre to attack you. None of these occur unless you are able to stand up. When you are unconscious you have no actions, thus you can't stand up. Saying your character is trying to do something that is auto-fail does not impact resolution, because we know what the outcome will be - you can't stand up. So whether the DM says you can try or you can't try, the resolution is exactly the same - you can't stand, you do not trigger an AO, you don't have to make a save, and the Ogre cannot trigger his readied attack. With the "say yes" guideline of the 4E DMG, there is no reason to tell the player he cannot describe his death save as an attempt to stand because the resolution of the yes or no is exactly the same.

The difference between a yes and a no to get up and dancing a jig is different. The winking part, who cares? My grandfather laid in oain under heavy sedation dying in the hospital. He hadn't moved for a week. He sat bolt upright, looked around the room worriedly, saw that my grandmother wasn't in the room, then laid down smiling and died on the spot. Too bad he was Unconscious and didn't have any action or Perception of what was going on around him. (Sorry for the downer, but it is a true story, and actually is a feel-good rememberance story for my family. It seemed to us he wanted to be sure my grandmother didn't have to watch him die, so he could finally let go.)



Raven Crowking said:


> "I X" _*always*_ means "I try to X" because you _*never*_ know for certain that a die roll, or an outright failure to succeed, isn't in the offing.




Not always in game terms. There are some actions that are auto-successes and auto-failures. Standing when Unconscious is auto-fail, so trying to stand does no harm because you know your character will fail.



Raven Crowking said:


> If you unable to do it, then you can't do it even if you declare you are doing it.  Your declaration of what you are doing, in fact, has no mechanical meaning except that it denotes that you try.




Right. Trying to stand when you can't has no mechanical meaning. That's why we are calling it color.




Raven Crowking said:


> Really?
> 
> Really?




Really really. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Well, LostSoul's initial "colour" had the fighter start to claw his way up the wall, and then collapse, so I guess that wasn't colour either.  The creature gets an immediate reaction to the wall-clawing-upward.  And I guess, then, "4e can be a good game if you violate the rules" is back on.




No, it doesn't. The creature would only get the immediate action if the character actually stood up. But since he can't stand when Unconscious, he didn't actually stand, thus no readied action would be triggered.

The only 4E rules violation is you trying to impose a "Reflex Save" (which doesn't even exist) on a character trying to stand up just because an Ogre is standing over him. You can't claim rules violations when you're just making up stuff that feels right to you and claim it as RAW. This isn't even 3E RAW. 3E RAW would require the Ogre to ready a trip attack or make a trip attack as its AO when the character stands up. Neither is triggered by RAW unless the character actually stands up.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Because, IME, the DM would either say, "You stand up" or "The ogre tries to whack you down before you can stand up; make a Reflex save" or something of that nature.



You don't see the mechanical difference there? The ogre does not smack you back down when you _intend_ to get off the floor, or _wish_ you could get off the floor, or in the case when you roll a death save. He smacks you when you get off the floor, or when you start to get off the floor. When you use a move action to get off the floor. If it's an immediate interrupt, the ogre smacks you before you are able to finish getting off the floor. If it's an immediate reaction, the ogre smacks you after you have finished getting up.

If the ogre succeeds in smacking you back down, you have still used your move action. Without you using an action, the attack is not triggered.

If you wanted to get up but could not, the ogre would not smack you. The DM might say "You try to rise but you have no strength and remain on the ground", because according to the rules you are not allowed to stand up.

The ogre's action would not be triggered unless you were able to get up, in game terms.



Raven Crowking said:


> Really?
> 
> Really?



Yes, really, or else I wouldn't have written it.



Raven Crowking said:


> Well, LostSoul's initial "colour" had the fighter start to claw his way up the wall, and then collapse, so I guess that wasn't colour either.  The creature gets an immediate reaction to the wall-clawing-upward.  And I guess, then, "4e can be a good game if you violate the rules" is back on.



The starting to claw up the wall, and then collapsing, is pure flavour. It's a way to describe what's happening. He's not actually using a move action to stand up, and _that_ it what would trigger the reaction. If you do not use an action in game terms, then there is nothing that triggers the reaction.

Actually dancing a jig requires actually getting up, which requires an actual move action to accomplish.

This is what I mean about your possibly weak knowledge of 4E rules interfering with your understanding of the discussion. You claim that something that uses a move action (getting up and dancing, which would actually be two move actions, one to get up and one to dance) is exactly the same as something that does not use a move action (describing your death save as attempting to get up but failing).


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Nope.
> 
> If colour is anything that doesn't impact resolution, and both X and Y don't impact resolution, then both X and Y are colour, regardless of whether or not you like X or Y.



Sure. But you colour example *does* impact resolution. It requires actions that can trigger attacks. So by your own definition, it is not colour, and therefore not the same thing.


----------



## wolfen fenrison

I'd say my biggest dissapointment in 4E is that it plays (and reads) like a table top MMORPG, they seem less like rule books and more like walk throughs.  The fighter is favorite class from 3E and I am dismayed at how the 4E fighter has been reduced to just HP/AC tank.

I remember an arguement w/ my uncle who plays lots of video game rpgs.  He loved playing fighters, but didn't understand why a wizard or rogue could out "DPS" (a term that should have no place in D&D anyways) a fighter (is his opinoin the fighter should be the king of combat damage out put).  So I put it this way "A spellcaster can only deal massive amounts of damage a few times a day, after that he is just a smart commoner w/ a stick.  Rouges can only sneak attack when they catch them by surprise or are flanking, the later puts them right in harms way, and some creature types are immune to sneak attacks (plants, oozes, elementals, undead), and then there are abilities like improved uncanny dodge.  Fighters with magic weapons, damage improving feats, are (w/ few exceptions) consistant with their damage out put.  When the party comes up against a vampire and the wizard runs out of spells, the cleric is busy keeping everyone alive, the fighter is usualy the one puting him into the ground.  Now he it seems in any given situation he is a shield of meat that hits back.

The Fighter thing is just a glaring example, others include delaying classes and monsters from the core books just to sell future books.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> Attempting to take an action is what the player announces; success or failure is determined through game mechanics or DM Fiat.



You seem to be presupposing here that the game mechanics do not make player announcement sufficient for success of action resolution.



Raven Crowking said:


> I am saying that all games have "smart play" element built into them, whether intended or not.



You seem to be presupposing here that what counts as "smart play" is the same in all RPGs (or at least all versions of D&D).

Both presuppositions are contentious. Some 4e mechanics do permit player announcement to be sufficient for success. And smart play in 4e is not the same as in 1st ed AD&D. In particular, in the former game it is sometimes "smart play" for a player to have his/her PC do things that are not necessarily smart from the PC's point of view - the game mechanics are designed to sometimes reward what is, from the point of view of the PC, rashness or excessive flamboyance. The same sort of thinking underlies the hit point mechanics.

And I still reiterate - if you are playing an RPG, and there is no mechanical reason not to do certain things to maintain verisimilitude, and you as a player choose not to, and then you are irritated by the lack of verisimilitude - well, you have no one but yourself to blame.

But it can be made verisimilitudinous in any event: if you absolutely won't refrain from pushing on to the next tomb because the mechanics don't _require_ your PC to rest, then in the gameworld your PC is such a driven tomb-looter that no amount of physical debilitation slows him/her down. Presumably your PC is also the sort of sociopath who won't take a break on the weekend to have lunch with friends and family, because there is no game-mechanical advantage to doing that either. I'm not sure I want to play that PC, but I can see that it has a place in the gameworld of D&D.

Now I have no objection to an RPG that does _permit_ these sorts of activities to generate mechanical advantages (eg HeroWars might allow me to get a benefit from a Relationship keyword if I have lunch with friends and family, or to get a benefit from resting to heal if I have a Physical keyword like "works best after rest") - but, to reiterate, if you _won't_ rest unless the mechanics mandate it then you are roleplaying someone with a personality disorder.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> Movement impacts resolution.  It's important in D&D.




Movement only impacts resolution where it.....impacts resolution.  If the DM or player add jig-winking as colour, chosing full well not to act on it as colour, then it is colour.

Right?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> You seem to be presupposing here that what counts as "smart play" is the same in all RPGs (or at least all versions of D&D).




Not a presupposition in this particular case, though it you want to feel it is, you can answer whatever strawman you like.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Movement only impacts resolution where it.....impacts resolution.



No, it always impacts resolution, because it takes actions to move. Using your action to jig means you can't use it for something else, and that affects how an encounter is resolved.

That's why the "trying to get up" colour doesn't affect anything. You don't have an action to use, so it doesn't matter what you say you're doing. You won't be actually doing anything.

But jigging takes actions. Three, come to think of it. A move action to get up, another move action to jig, and a free action to drop prone again.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> No, it always impacts resolution, because it takes actions to move. Using your action to jig means you can't use it for something else, and that affects how an encounter is resolved.
> 
> That's why the "trying to get up" colour doesn't affect anything. You don't have an action to use, so it doesn't matter what you say you're doing. You won't be actually doing anything.
> 
> But jigging takes actions. Three, come to think of it. A move action to get up, another move action to jig, and a free action to drop prone again.




Please assume the C & P, and feel free to respond.  

RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Please assume the C & P, and feel free to respond.



You're going to have to explain that one.


----------



## Zustiur

Fifth Element said:


> You're being ridiculous. If the character were not "unconscious", dancing a jig would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot dance a jig.
> 
> If you let him dance a jig, the player would be right to ask "well if I can dance a jig, why can't I run across the room to get the heck out of here?"
> 
> The jig-dancing itself would not impact resolution. Allowing an unconscious character to take an action (which would be required in order to actually dance the jig) could very well impact resolution.




Paraphrased:
You're being ridiculous. If the character were not "unconscious", trying to get up would be an action, per the rules. Again per the rules, unconscious characters cannot take actions. So he cannot try to get up.

Forget the jig part if you like. Focus on the winking at the elf bit.
How is winking at the elf more of an action than trying to get up? 
Both are actions, or neither are actions.

Note the following
An unconscious character cannot take an _actions_.
Most small movements, such as speaking, winking and dropping a weapon are free _actions_. Attempting to stand is a move _action_. Therefore you cannot do any such thing according to the rules.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> Movement only impacts resolution where it.....impacts resolution.  If the DM or player add jig-winking as colour, chosing full well not to act on it as colour, then it is colour.
> 
> Right?




Let's go over how the game is played.

1.  We start in setup mode.  

The game is in setup mode when you're telling the players what they need to know about the adventure and they're gearing up for the first encounter of the gaming session.​
DMG, page 20.

2.  We figure out what mode we are in.

Exploration Mode: 

In exploration mode, the characters move through the adventure setting, making decisions about their course of and perhaps searching for traps, treasure, or clues.

1. Describe the environment.

...

2. Listen.  Once you're done describe the area, the players tell you what their characters want to do. ... Your job here is to listen to what the players want to do and identify how to resolve their actions.

3. Narrate the results of the character's actions. ... A character's actions can also lead right into an encounter.​
DMG, page 20.

Encounter:

The rules of the game are most important in encounters.  The rules are all about determining whether you succeed or fail at the tasks you attempt - and thus whether you successfully complete the encounter.​
DMG, page 21.

So: In the situation that's causing us so much trouble, we're in a combat encounter.  At the moment, the Kuthrik wants to eat our poor, worked-over Fighter's face.  He has smashed the Fighter down.

At the moment, we're using the combat encounter rules to determine what happens in the game world.  There are a whole bunch of things that impact resolution of this encounter; one of them is movement.  

It's not acceptable to add colour that is movement, just as it's not acceptable to add colour that's killing other characters.  You have to engage the resolution mechanics to do that.

So, yeah, you're right: movement only impacts resolution when it impacts resolution.  Since we are in a combat encounter, it impacts resolution.  The players (including the DM) can't act as if it were colour, because it's not.


----------



## fanboy2000

*No one's going to read a post this long....*

Has anyone here had sleep paralysis? (I’m actually going somewhere with this. Whether or not I want to go there is a different matter….)

I have. For anyone unfamiliar with it, sleep paralysis is when a person wakes-up but can’t move. The mechanism that allows conscious movement hasn’t turned back on yet. When I get, It can take me a little while (a few seconds that seem a lot longer given that I just woke-up) to do something like twitch my fingers. 

I don’t consider trying to twitch my fingers an action. The definition of sleep paralysis is that I can’t take any actions, I’m paralyzed. 

My point is that our bodies do a lot of things without conscious input. (Unconscious actions.) But those actions can take conscious input if we so wish. I good example is breathing. People breath continuously, if all is going well, but rarely is any conscious control exerted over the process. Of course, people can exert conscious control over their breathing. They can breath deeply, shallowly, quickly, slowly, and sigh. (This is not a closed list.) My point is that breathing, something we can exert control over, isn’t typically considered an action. If Link tells Mario that Luigi is just standing around doing nothing, Mario doesn't assume that Luigi has stopped breathing. Nor is any voluntary breathing movement ruled out by the statement.

Our bodies spend a lot energy keeping us alive without any conscious input. Out hearts beat, our lungs breath, and out white blood cells fight off infections without input.  In game, this concept applies to “actions” (for want of a better word) that don’t count as actions. 3.5 codified this concept with the sentence “The melee combat rules assume that combatants are actively avoiding attacks.” The 3.5 PHB goes on to explain: “[e]ven if a character’s miniature figure is just standing there on the battle grid, you can be sure that if some orc with a falchion attacks the character, she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide.” [pg 137] It’s possible that assumption has changed in 4e, but I doubt it.

This seems to say to me that the game assumes certain things aren’t actions in need of separate mechanical resolution, they’re subsumed in other actions. Dodging and weaving is covered by the attack mechanic, for instance. 

When a person has been severely wounded, it makes sense that the body would take steps to heal itself and, if it knows it is in imminent danger, to get-up and fight off the threat. When a person is unconscious, no conscious thought can be put it the process. (The way a boxer might put conscious thought into getting up after a heavy blow.) But, if the person regains consciousness, then thought can be put into the process of recovery and defense. The conscious thought would accelerate the recovery of the body to the point where it can fend off danger. 

It seems possible that a person, trained in inspiring people, can 1) make an unconscious person conscious, and 2) cause that person to start pumping adrenaline so as to get up and fight. 

That said, a more rules oriented approach is necessary.

Actions in combat

The 4e PHB has a table of actions in on pg 289. At the bottom of that table is a category called “No action.” There is only one thing in that category, delay. (3.5 had this category as well.) Are there other things in this category that aren’t on the list? Possibly, the 4e PHB alludes to this on 286 when it tells the reader to use the list as a guideline for actions not covered in the rules. But does this list cover “actions” that are in the rules, but are not assigned an action category? I would hope so. 

The 4e PHB says flatly that when a character’s hit points go from negative to positive for any reason that person goes from unconscious to conscious. Now, it makes sense that a person’s body is busy try to sort the situation out itself, that’s what the death save is about. It also makes sense that outside influences and accelerate this process and revive a person from unconsciousness. That’s what doctors do. This idea of the body working automatically, even with outside or conscious prodding, leads me to conclude that going from unconscious to conscious in 4e is probably “no action.” 

When a PC is down to negative hit points, the PC’s body takes unconscious steps to repair itself and fight off any imminent danger. Any thoughts a PC may have regarding this while unconscious (or some primal attempt to fight back regardless of the state of the body) are “no actions” by the rules. (Sense the rules systems refers to PCs doing something without classifying the actions bolsters this conclusion for me. If it was another kind of action like an interrupt, then the game effects would be slightly different and probably warrant closer scrutiny.)

When another PC, who is playing a leader who’s training specifically includes ways to keep others fighting effectively, uses words to “heal” the other PC, I would characterize the actions as follows: 

Healing Word Itself: Minor Action (says so right in the power)
Target PC going from conscious to unconscious: No action (for reasons stated above)
Target PC spending a healing surge: No action (the spending of healing surge in 4e seems to always be subsumed in another action.)
Getting up from prone: Move action taken on the target PC’s next turn.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> You're going to have to explain that one.




Please assume that I have Cut & Pasted my response, and feel free to respond to that.  I do not feel that your objection answers my premise.

Of course, your response, very likely, could be Cut & Pasted from your previous posts, so I am more than happy to assume that we've each provided an infinite number of Cut & Paste posts and agree to disagree.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> So, yeah, you're right: movement only impacts resolution when it impacts resolution.  Since we are in a combat encounter, it impacts resolution.  The players (including the DM) can't act as if it were colour, because it's not.




Now, since we are in book-quoting mode, are you sure that I can't find a counter-quote that tells me that the DM can do that if he wants to?

Movement _may_ affect resolution, but movement only impacts resolution where the DM and players say it does.  Well, even more literally, where the DM says it does.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

fanboy2000 said:


> Has anyone here had sleep paralysis? (I’m actually going somewhere with this. Whether or not I want to go there is a different matter….)




Twice, and it creeped me out both times.  If you have it more often, you have my sympathy.

However, sleep paralysis occurs when your mind is conscious, even though you cannot move.  It doesn't speak, IMHO, to LostSoul's "The rules that say you're unconscious can be ignored if it doesn't impact resolution, but the rules that say you can't act cannot be ignored even if they don't impact resolution, unless I happen to like the outcome" definition of colour.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Zustiur said:


> Forget the jig part if you like. Focus on the winking at the elf bit.
> How is winking at the elf more of an action than trying to get up?
> Both are actions, or neither are actions.



It's not, really. That's why we haven't been focusing on that. The winking definitely does not affect resolution and has no potential to. So yes, the winking is colour just as much as the attempting to get up.



Zustiur said:


> Most small movements, such as speaking, winking and dropping a weapon are free _actions_. Attempting to stand is a move _action_. Therefore you cannot do any such thing according to the rules.



Yes, that's technically correct. However, since it doesn't affect resolution and has not potential to, I see no harm in allowing it. Unlike dancing a jig. Which is why we were discussing the jig.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Please assume that I have Cut & Pasted my response, and feel free to respond to that.  I do not feel that your objection answers my premise.



There are at least three posters who clearly do not feel you have adequately addressed their points. The reason we keep bringing up the same points is because you have failed to defend your position sufficiently to convince us that it is a valid viewpoint. From my perspective you have simply avoided addressing certain arguments, repeatedly.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> There are at least three posters who clearly do not feel you have adequately addressed their points. The reason we keep bringing up the same points is because you have failed to defend your position sufficiently to convince us that it is a valid viewpoint. From my perspective you have simply avoided addressing certain arguments, repeatedly.




(1)  I am sure that it is always true that there will be posters who do not feel that their points are adequately addressed.  I fact, I would go so far as to say that this is a primary means of "winning" arguments on the InterWeb.

(2) However, in this case, AFAICT, this is not because I "have simply avoided addressing certain arguments, repeatedly, but because their points are objections which fail to successfully object.

Example:

(A)  Anything that does not impact resolution is colour.

(A.1) Therefore, trying to get up is colour.

(B) If anything that does not impact resolution is colour, and X does not impact resolution, then it is also colour.

(B.1) But X _could_ impact resolution.

(B.1.a) Trying to get up could also impact resolution.  

(B.1.b) Colour is defined as that which does not impact resolution, not that which has no potential to impact resolution.

(B.1.c) The set consisting of "that which has no potential to impact resolution" is an extremely small, and perhaps an empty, set.​
(3) Any "objection" which is a recursive to the above is not worth replying to again.  It is of no more value for you to continue saying "But X _could_ impact resolution" than it is for me to continually list B.1.a-c.

(4) Therefore, any objection which is of any value must acknowledge the validity of the response to the objection, as shown above, and raise a new objection, or must demonstrate conclusively that the responses to the objection are in error, thus requiring new responses.

This hasn't been done.  All we are doing is recursively asking and answering the same thing over and over again.  And, ultimately, if you are not convinced that mine is a valid viewpoint is of questionable value.  And, to be equally honest, it is of questionable value for you to convince me.  Neither one of us relies on the other for validity (I hope!).


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> (A)  Anything that does not impact resolution is colour.
> 
> (A.1) Therefore, trying to get up is colour.
> 
> (B) If anything that does not impact resolution is colour, and X does not impact resolution, then it is also colour.
> 
> (B.1) But X _could_ impact resolution.
> 
> (B.1.a) Trying to get up could also impact resolution.



(1) Simply change (A) to read "Anything that _has no possibility of impacting_ resolution is colour", and go from there. Problem solved.

And B.1.a still ignores the point that you are trying to use the term "try" to discuss mechanics. Actions are what matter for mechanics. You either use your action or you do not, there is no try. If you use your move action to get up, even if you are knocked back down, you have still used your move action.


----------



## Lacyon

Delta said:


> 1E rules weren't optional. Hitting zero hp in 1E made you unconscious and dying, that was core rules. What was optional was possibly extending the "start unconscious" range down to maybe -3.






Hypersmurf said:


> I know we didn't play this one as written in 1E (surprise! a 1e game with an unintentional house rule!  ), so I'm not sure I have it right...
> 
> Assuming we're not extending the threshold...
> 
> A 1e character has 6 hit points.
> If he's hit for 7 damage, he's dead.
> If he's hit for 6 damage, he's dying - unconscious and losing 1 hitpoint per round, and will die at -10.
> 
> Is that how it works as written? The -10 is only death _if_ you hit the threshold on the way (0 exactly, by default), otherwise you die as soon as you go negative?
> 
> -Hyp.




Assuming for the moment that Hypersmurf's got this right (since I haven't seen any other response to it and can't currently check for myself).

I retract my earlier statement. Replace it with:

Except for the case where a 1E character was brought to exactly 0 hp in combat, it has been "smart play"* in every version of D&D to continue seeking out dangerous things with no more than a day or so of rest. The only place where 4E stands out in this regard is that it's true even when clerical magic is unavailable.

* It's actually not been very smart, in most of the campaigns I've played, for reasons that have nothing to do with hp.


----------



## Fifth Element

Lacyon said:


> Assuming for the moment that Hypersmurf's got this right (since I haven't seen any other response to it and can't currently check for myself).






			
				1E DMG said:
			
		

> When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies.



So yes, it appears he's right. You only get to go to -10 if you went to exactly 0 first (or optionally, -1, -2 or -3). If you go from 1 to -4 in a single blow, you're just dead.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> (1) Simply change (A) to read "Anything that _has no possibility of impacting_ resolution is colour", and go from there. Problem solved.
> 
> See, here is where I cut & paste:
> 
> (B.1.c) The set consisting of "that which has no potential to impact resolution" is an extremely small, and perhaps an empty, set.​
> And Crom knows that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either use your action or you do not, there is no try. If you use your move action to get up, even if you are knocked back down, you have still used your move action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has been answered more than once.
> 
> A:  You either use your action or you do not, there is no try. If you use your move action to get up, even if you are knocked back down, you have still used your move action.
> 
> A.1:  If an action must be successfully completed to be considered an action
> 
> A.1.a:  The world has no actions which are attempted, but not successfully completed, or
> 
> A.1.b:  The world has actions which are attempted, but not successfully completed, but which are not considered actions.​
> The problems with this viewpoint are so obvious and pervasive that I have no interest in running or playing in a game where either A.1.a or A.1.b are true.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> One might then say that an action is used either (1) when the action is initiated or (2) when the action is resolved.
> 
> 1.  Getting up is an action.
> 
> 2.  Getting up is initiated with the decision to get up.
> 
> 3.  Getting up is resolved when you either succeed in getting up or you do not.​
> Either way, in LostSoul's colour, a decision is made (fighter attempts to get up) and a resolution is determined (he fails).
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## fanboy2000

Raven Crowking said:


> Twice, and it creeped me out both times.  If you have it more often, you have my sympathy.



It doesn't creep me out for some reason. I don't know why.



> However, sleep paralysis occurs when your mind is conscious, even though you cannot move.  It doesn't speak, IMHO, to LostSoul's "The rules that say you're unconscious can be ignored if it doesn't impact resolution, but the rules that say you can't act cannot be ignored even if they don't impact resolution, unless I happen to like the outcome" definition of colour.



My point has noting to do with impacting resolution. PCs are assumed to do lots of things that impact the resolution of things like combat, but those things aren't called actions in game terms. For example, a PC can think and make decision without taking an action. A PC can look at a situation and decide that, rather than going at the first possible opportunity, he or she can wait until after someone else does. This decision isn't considered an action under the rules. Delay is labeled no action on both page 288 and 289 of the 4e PHB. 

Common sense tells me that delaying impacts combat. If it didn't, no one would chose to do it.

I think that struggling with unconsciousness isn't an action, it's no action under the game rules. Like breathing, struggling with unconsciousness is just something a person does automatically. 

3.5 had the same concept. The 3.5 PHB defined delay as not an action. The 3.5 rules compendium expanded the number of things that aren't actions.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> One might then say that an action is used either (1) when the action is initiated or (2) when the action is resolved.
> 
> 1.  Getting up is an action.
> 
> 2.  Getting up is initiated with the decision to get up.
> 
> 3.  Getting up is resolved when you either succeed in getting up or you do not.​
> Either way, in LostSoul's colour, a decision is made (fighter attempts to get up) and a resolution is determined (he fails).




Well...


1. Getting up is an action.

2. Resolution is Initated when your turn comes up in combat.

3. Getting up is an invalid Intent when you're Unconcious (barring some powers, I think).

4. What can our Intent be while Unconcious?  Only to not die.

5. Moving closer to death or not is resolved with the Death Save.  We roll, and Exceute the resolution.

6. We look at the result of the die roll.  What's the Effect?  Failed.  How do we narrate that failure?  "The Fighter tries to get up, but can't."​
This is different from actually having the Intent of getting up, which might be resolved in a different way.  Move action to get up, trigger the Ogre's Immediate Reaction, fail.

I guess you could describe the Effect as jig-winking, but really, that's just stupid.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> The problems with this viewpoint are so obvious and pervasive that I have no interest in running or playing in a game where either A.1.a or A.1.b are true.



Once again, I think you're using "in-world" definitions of "actions" when we're actually discussing the "game mechanics" definition.



Raven Crowking said:


> One might then say that an action is used either (1) when the action is initiated or (2) when the action is resolved.



I think, given the presence of immediate interrupt actions, we need to go with (1), since an intended action might never be resolved due to changing circumstances created by an immediate interrupt. You can "lose" you action, but the action is still used.



Raven Crowking said:


> 1.  Getting up is an action.
> 
> 2.  Getting up is initiated with the decision to get up.
> 
> 3.  Getting up is resolved when you either succeed in getting up or you do not.​




​This doesn't work in mechanical terms. For starters, you need to wait for your turn in the initiative order. Simply deciding what you want to do does not initiate an action. I suppose you could argue that you can only validly decide on what to do when it's your turn, but of course that's wrong too due to immediate actions.

And in game terms, what you can decide to do is often restricted. In this case, you cannot decide to get up, because it's not an option. You cannot take that action.

In fact, the character has no decisions to make. He has only one thing to do, and that's roll a death save. And that's not optional.

Describing it colourfully is a different matter.

And by colourfully, I don't mean ridiculously in a way that does not fit the intent or the spirit of the rules.


Raven Crowking said:


> Either way, in LostSoul's colour, a decision is made (fighter attempts to get up) and a resolution is determined (he fails).


This doesn't fit with (1) above. Again, we're using the game mechanics definition of action here, since we're discussing game mechanics. The fighter never initiates an action, because he cannot get up, per the rules. The action is not initiated, so there is no action.

Describing it colourfully is a different matter.

And by colourfully, I don't mean ridiculously in a way that does not fit the intent or the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking

LostSoul said:


> I guess you could describe the Effect as jig-winking




So we agree?



> but really, that's just stupid.




Wrongbadfun?


RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Wrongbadfun?



Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law for invoking badwrongfun?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> And by colourfully, I don't mean ridiculously in a way that does not fit the intent or the spirit of the rules.





Go back up to our discussion of 1e hp, and your viewpoint of what healing represents.  

You asked why your viewpoint wasn't valid.

You've just answered it.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law for invoking badwrongfun?




If there is, there ought to be one for invoking "That's stupid!"

They are, after all, the flip sides of each other.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> If there is, there ought to be one for invoking "That's stupid!"
> 
> They are, after all, the flip sides of each other.



Not necessarily. But often.

Where there are two diametrically opposed viewpoints, the truth does not necessarily lie somewhere in the middle. It often does, but not necessarily.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Go back up to our discussion of 1e hp, and your viewpoint of what healing represents.
> 
> You asked why your viewpoint wasn't valid.
> 
> You've just answered it.



If you say so, I guess.

Not sure how dancing a jig while unable to take any actions relates to an interpretation of healing, but there you go.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Fifth Element said:


> If you say so, I guess.
> 
> Not sure how dancing a jig while unable to take any actions relates to an interpretation of healing, but there you go.




Choosing to describe/envision something in a way that intentionally makes it ridiculous/goes against the spirit of the game is always going to bring about ridiculous results.

If you choose to describe healing in 1e in a ridiculous way that goes against the spirit of the game, you will end up with ridiculous results.

Healing overnight by natural means is ridiculous, IMHO, but not in any way against the spirit of 4e.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Please assume that I have Cut & Pasted my response, and feel free to respond to that.  I do not feel that your objection answers my premise.




As long as you are asking others to C&P, how about cutting and pasting my last post? My new premise is to agree with Fifth Element that your lack of D&D rules knowledge may be causing your problem in understanding our arguments.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Choosing to describe/envision something in a way that intentionally makes it ridiculous/goes against the spirit of the game is always going to bring about ridiculous results.
> 
> If you choose to describe healing in 1e in a ridiculous way that goes against the spirit of the game, you will end up with ridiculous results.




Just as if you misrepresent hit points in 4E you will end up with ridiculous results.



Raven Crowking said:


> Healing overnight by natural means is ridiculous, IMHO, but not in any way against the spirit of 4e.




Healing grievous wounds overnight might seem ridiculous to many people. Myself included. But assigning damage as grievous wounds goes against the spirit of 4E.



			
				Player's Handbook p. 293 said:
			
		

> *Healing* Hit points measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
> 
> You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic.




No mention of physical injury other that punisment or glancing blows, neither of which lend themselves to being "gaping chest wounds."

Also, they specifically mention regaining hit points through heroic resolve.

After rereading this section of the PHB I would describe any hit as a glancing blow, a punishing hit (but not wounding) or a miss that winds you when you have to exert the effort to dodge it. A hit that drops a character to Dying status I would describe as one punishing blow too many that causes the character to go down. Will he die of internal bleeding or will he pull through and get back up? The Death Save mechanic will answer that. And an attack that outright kills the PC? _That_ is a hit that I will describe as a fatal wound.


----------



## LostSoul

Raven Crowking said:


> So we agree?




That I wasn't breaking any rules?  Yes. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Wrongbadfun?




Well personally I think the jig-winking bit of narration in response to a failed Death Save is stupid, but if our hypothetical group likes it, I guess there's no problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> As long as you are asking others to C&P, how about cutting and pasting my last post? My new premise is to agree with Fifth Element that your lack of D&D rules knowledge may be causing your problem in understanding our arguments.




Insert C & P about ad hominem here.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Just as if you misrepresent hit points in 4E you will end up with ridiculous results.




Insert C & P about content here.



LostSoul said:


> Well personally I think the jig-winking bit of narration in response to a failed Death Save is stupid, but if our hypothetical group likes it, I guess there's no problem.




You, Sir, win.

Like a great, annoying, repetitve circle we end where we begin.  I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous, but if your group likes it, I guess there's no problem, either.

I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.  


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> 1) Insert C & P about ad hominem here.
> 
> 2) I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.




1) You have stated repeatedly that we are making the problem go away by ignoring the rules. But you have repeatedly shown that you don't know the actual rules very well. We have provided evidence that using the rules as written we can explain 4E hit points and healing in a way that fits the intent and spirit of the 4E rules. No ad hominem attack here.

2) With the evidence presented about the game definition of hit points in previous editions, I have come to agree that the presentation of hit points in 4E has changed. I won't argue that and haven't been for a while. I will say that this hit point debate has been going on since I first started playing over 25 years ago and 4E decided to choose the view on what hit points represent that matches what every person I have gamed with over time. Edition choices are often made based on how the majority of players are playing the game. Was that the case in 4E? Only the designers know how they made the decision to go the route they did. It's understandable how one may not like the 4E paradigm if they were attached heavily to the other side of the debate.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> Not a presupposition in this particular case, though it you want to feel it is, you can answer whatever strawman you like.



Would you care to elaborate? Eg are you presupposing that "smart play" is always the same thing in D&D, if not in all RPGs. Or are you flat-out asserting it rather than presupposing it? Or are you denying it?


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> Would you care to elaborate? Eg are you presupposing that "smart play" is always the same thing in D&D, if not in all RPGs. Or are you flat-out asserting it rather than presupposing it? Or are you denying it?




I am supposing that "smart play" is always defined by the terms of the game, and that those terms may be different for different games.


RC


----------



## vagabundo

Raven Crowking said:


> I, do, however, object to "but it's the same as it's always been!" as an answer to "I think the 4e hit point/healing paradigm is ridiculous"......And if I were a fan of 4e, I would object to this because I would be happy with the difference.




How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."

I still <3 u HPs...


----------



## billd91

vagabundo said:


> How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."
> 
> I still <3 u HPs...




How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...


----------



## Raven Crowking

vagabundo said:


> How about: "HPs and healing are as ridiculous as they have always been."





For different reasons?

Sure.


RC


----------



## Lacyon

billd91 said:


> How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
> By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...




It's fundamentally the same way. Only the slider on the scale has changed.


----------



## vagabundo

billd91 said:


> How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
> By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...




Originally I did have something about the difference, but edited it out: keep it simple.

But I agree, some of the HP sliders have moved in 4e, but I think they move in every edition.



Raven Crowking said:


> For different reasons?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> RC




Every edition has had it HP contradictions, they are not constant across editions. I haven't found 4e jarring in this regard. 

I mean, in any edition, if it is one extended rest or seven days rest you are not going to be recovering from a direct smack of a mace or a fall off a cliff. Your talking sprains, flesh wounds, grazes, black eyes, bruises. 

I've always imagined that DND heroes often look like the walking wounded, it just never impacts on their combat ability. Unless they have a few months of downtime, they limp around, have bandaged legs, arms and heads and a black eye. Adventuring is a rough trade. 

4e heroes, bandage themselves up, work out the kinks, have a good nights kip and then back at it. I can see the contradictions, but it doesnt strain my imagination too much.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> I am supposing that "smart play" is always defined by the terms of the game, and that those terms may be different for different games.



Well, "smart play" in a narrativist game is generating thematically satisfying play. So 4e players who are offended by quick healing, but won't have their PCs rest longer than the mechanically mandated extended rest, and who then get offended by the lack of verisimilitude, are not engaging in smart play, and have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

I wish I'd taken the time to read this thread earlier, as I could have interjected something interesting - now it seems far too late.

Oh well, here's the short version anyway:

For those concerned with Schrodinger's Wounding (which, funnily enough is something that no-one at my games table has even thought of, as far as I know), please consider that you may be linking too events together that don't need to be. What I'm saying is, that by insisting that "the wound is gone" when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word, or indeed when a Cleric uses Healing Word, you are causing a problem where none exists. There is no reason for the wound to be gone if you don't want it to - after all, the player is down a Healing Surge in each of the following cases (unless A Paladin Did It). Therefore, they have expended their personal resources, which can be reflected and narrated at the table as a lingering wound.

1) Character takes hp damage. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
2) Character receives clerical, divine healing. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
or
3) Character receives Warlord Inspired Word healing. This can be narrated however the DM/Player agree.
or
4) Character uses Second Wind. See above.

The narration of the injury & the healing are not specified anywhere in the rules. They are something that comes up entirely in the minds of the DM and the players, THEREFORE, if you choose to insist that a wound 'disappears' no matter what sort of healing is used, you are ignoring a key part of the rules.

As regards healing overnight, I understand that it's not for everyone, I completely see why, but I personally don't have a problem with it because I have quite a strong sense of a game when I play D&D. Those looking towards a more simulational bent disagree, but I'm not interested in that discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> Well, "smart play" in a narrativist game is generating thematically satisfying play. So 4e players who are offended by quick healing, but won't have their PCs rest longer than the mechanically mandated extended rest, and who then get offended by the lack of verisimilitude, are not engaging in smart play, and have only themselves to blame.




"Smart play" in any game is play that is rewarded by the game system itself.  You mistake "fun play" (in the narrativist sense) for "smart play".  When I say that "smart play" and "fun play" should not oppose each other, I mean that a good game intended to be played in a narrativist manner should reward thematically satisfying play, and avoid rewarding behaviours that do not lead to thematically satisfying play.

By this standard, 4e is not a good game for narrativist play, although it has nods in that direction.


RC


----------



## Zustiur

Fifth Element said:


> It's not, really. That's why we haven't been focusing on that. The winking definitely does not affect resolution and has no potential to. So yes, the winking is colour just as much as the attempting to get up.



Oh really? So if the party has a pre-planned strategy, that relies on the character winking, is it still not affecting resolution? Either winking is a [free] action, or it is not. Its status as an action should not alter based on external circumstances. Either the character can wink, (regardless of impact on resolution) or he can't. You claim that anything that _can_ have an impact on resolution, such as giving some pre-determined signal, is an action. Then winking is an action. If you're unconscious you are not allowed to take actions.

Just like if you're paralyzed by any other means. Let's take the obvious example - petrified. The rules for petrified include 'you have been turned to stone. You can't take actions'. Would you rule that a petrified character can attempt to stand, or wink at someone? I wouldn't! It's the same rule at heart (take no actions), so why would you treat it any differently?



Fifth Element said:


> Yes, that's technically correct. However, since it doesn't affect resolution and has not potential to, I see no harm in allowing it. Unlike dancing a jig. Which is why we were discussing the jig.



Dancing a jig, as it was first described, had no impact either. It was silly, yes, but it was only stated to make a point. The choice of jig was a bad one for the course of the discussion, but the point stands. Essentially the question is 'where do you draw the line?'
Evidently you draw it where it can have an effect on resolution. But I argue that is a double standard because what can or can't have an affect on resolution is entirely circumstantial.

Taking the earlier example of the ogre hitting a character when he stands up: If there is no monster within reach, and the character immediately falls prone again, then by your logic, there was no impact on resolution, and therefore standing up then falling over is entirely acceptable, and is not an action. By extension, standing up, dancing an ironic jig, and then falling over, does not affect the outcome of the battle, and can be done.

Finally, take this to it's logical extreme. 4E does not include 'dead' as a status (for obvious reasons), but if it did what would it look like? I suggest something like this


You can't take actions
You can't receive healing
You can be brought back to life by a raise dead ritual

Would you rule that a dead character can wink because it has no affect on resolution?


----------



## dnddays

*The weary 4e players encounter yet more orcs and lift their swords in exasperation...*

Orcs? _Again?

_Just as a point of reference, how long did we 3e players argue with these guys about 2e/3e before we finally assimilated them?  I don't remember . . .

The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons | gamegrene.com


----------



## mmadsen

Zustiur said:


> Would you rule that a dead character can wink because it has no affect on resolution?



I would certainly allow a rules-dead character to be described as _in a coma_ or _mortally wounded_ and twitching, murmuring, etc.


----------



## pemerton

Zustiur said:


> Either winking is a [free] action, or it is not. Its status as an action should not alter based on external circumstances.



This is actually up for grabs - as LostSoul acknowledged in his concession to Raven Crowking.



Zustiur said:


> Finally, take this to it's logical extreme. 4E does not include 'dead' as a status (for obvious reasons), but if it did what would it look like? I suggest something like this
> 
> 
> You can't take actions
> You can't receive healing
> You can be brought back to life by a raise dead ritual
> 
> Would you rule that a dead character can wink because it has no affect on resolution?



Plenty of people have suggested that a number of narrative possibilities are consistent with the mechanics of Dead as a status (and thus of Raise Dead as a ritual).


----------



## Fifth Element

Zustiur said:


> Oh really? So if the party has a pre-planned strategy, that relies on the character winking, is it still not affecting resolution?



Yeah. I've since moved on to the "Every edition of D&D is awesome" thread, so I'm not going to bother.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> "Smart play" in any game is play that is rewarded by the game system itself.  You mistake "fun play" (in the narrativist sense) for "smart play".  When I say that "smart play" and "fun play" should not oppose each other, I mean that a good game intended to be played in a narrativist manner should reward thematically satisfying play, and avoid rewarding behaviours that do not lead to thematically satisfying play.
> 
> By this standard, 4e is not a good game for narrativist play, although it has nods in that direction.



By "reward" do you mean "reward mechanics" within the game?

The mechanics of 4e reward completing quests (XP, treasure) and encounters (milestones, XP, treasure). Acquisition of rewards from encounters is on a diminishing returns basis, however, as many will cost resources that have to be renewed (most combat encounters, some skill challenges).

I don't see why this reward structure is at odds with thematically satisfying play (for an appropriate range of themes - I don't think that 4e is ever going to give you _The Human Factor_, but it might give you _Hero_). Combat encounters bring theme into play (what is combat role + power source, after all, but a short hand way of identifying the thematic orientation of a PC?), as do skill challenges. Quests, both GM-designed and player-designed, presumably likewise will be based around thematically interesting material.

The game won't reward unthematically satisfying play _provided that_ the GM and players introduce thematically satisfying encounters and quests. As I've often said, I think this means that 4e is not well-suited to sandbox play (but as I've equally often said, it is a mistake to think that is therefore GM-driven - there can be player-driven but non-sandbox play, which 4e permits primarily via player-introduced quests, and secondarily via the character build rules and the skill challenge rules).

The principal lack of thematic flexibility in the 4e reward mechanics is their focus on the party rather than the individual (which extends to the rules for new-PC introduction) - this puts some sort of limit on the capacity of the mechanics to support exploration of intraparty conflict, I think, although the DMG hints at such conflict with its idea of conflicting minor quests for different PCs - I'm not sure whether this should be seen as a tension in the rules system, or rather if the XP rules should be seen as simply a buffer against the otherwise potentially disrupting effects of conflicting quests.

To be honest I don't see the reward mechanic in 4e as radically different from HeroWars. It's quite different from The Dying Earth, to take another example, but in that game the whole approach to rewards is quite a bit more metagamey.

The reward mechanics are very different from 1st ed AD&D, though, to pick one contrasting example - no XP for gold (which means no pre-determined "quest" orientation of the sort that that rule leads to), no penalties for changing alignment (which means no pre-determined thematic resolution of the sort that that rule leads to).

Why do you think that 4e is at odds with the reward of thematically satisfying play?


----------



## Emeraldwind

*Thoughts on 4e*

Obviously there are some far more  experienced and  articulate thoughts on this subject, but here is my take. 

I never played D&D. Odd as it sounds I did always collect D&D manuals and other rpg books. My friends all played 3E, and consequently always attempted to get me involved. Several times I made the attempt, but the heaps and heaps of rules, the manuals, the wheel barrow of "red-tape" involved simply made it unattractive to me. 

Now it is important to note that I may in fact be WoTC's target consumer. The guy that played MMORPG's and the what not not, but simply couldnt be bothered to learn what (to an uninformed observer ) seemed like something far more trouble than it could be worth. 

I picked up the 4E  core's for the purpose of continuing my rpg collection. After reading them I was really interested. Maybe I was burned out on WoW, maybe it just seemed interesting. For whatever reason I ended up putting a group together and running KoTS. 

The entire group really responded well. The only issue being that some of the  3E guys felt 4E had been dumbed down, and apparently this was the reason someone like me would find it interesting. After talking with a few other 3E fans in my local store, I found that the general idea was that because 4e was a simpler system ( and again I am not educated enough on 3e to make a reasonable determination on the validiity of this) it was somehow less enjoyable. Moreover that it is a spoonfed version of D&D designed for nimrods who could have never understood the complexity and or have enjoyed 3E. This type of elitist resistance to change isnt uncommon and I certainly didnt take it personally- I just wonder how much of such a perception actually affects people view of 4E


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The only issue being that some of the 3E guys felt 4E had been dumbed down, and apparently this was the reason someone like me would find it interesting. After talking with a few other 3E fans in my local store, I found that the general idea was that because 4e was a simpler system ( and again I am not educated enough on 3e to make a reasonable determination on the validiity of this) it was somehow less enjoyable. Moreover that it is a spoonfed version of D&D designed for nimrods who could have never understood the complexity and or have enjoyed 3E. This type of elitist resistance to change isnt uncommon and I certainly didnt take it personally- I just wonder how much of such a perception actually affects people view of 4E



In some cases, complexity in a rule system can be good..._if _it helps you achieve your desired goals as a DM or player.  A simple ruleset can be quite good, assuming the same caveat.

OTOH, mastery of complex rulesets as some kind of "badge of honor" always baffled me.  This isn't the military, this isn't rocket science, its just a game.

I wouldn't denigrate your enjoyment of the system because of your background or anything- again, that seems elitist and exclusionary to me.

All of that said, for me 4Ed just "simply" doesn't do what I like.  I also don't think its actually significantly simpler than 3.X- its complexity is just less obvious.


----------



## Psion

billd91 said:


> How about a better one: They're still ridiculous, but in a different way.
> By saying they're as ridiculous as they've always been, you're not really implying a change. And there has been a change...




By my estimation:
Then: a little _odd_, perhaps
Now: Ridiculous


----------

