There are some character sheets posted now (http://ddxp.tumblr.com/), and it looks like a lot of people read the rogue class from a "3E" mindset.
When it says starting hp 12 + con, they mean the actual stat, not the modifier!
In the examples shown, a warlock (which is classified as a Skirmish class in 4E) has 28 hit points at 1st level. The character has a 16 con, so that's 12 + con (Rogues are also Skirmish).
The dwarf fighter listed has 33 hit points, also at first level. He has an 18 con, so that's 15 + con.
The wizard has 20 hit points at first level, with a 10 con (10 + con).
So it will probably be controller is 10, skirmish and leader 12 and defender 15.
In addition, characters get healing surges. The warlock, for example, gets 9 surges per 'day' and heals 1/4 of her hit points (7) on each surge. You can only do this once per encounter though and it takes a standard action to do it. (If you're wondering about how long an encounter is, it says you have to take a 5 minute rest in the game world in order to use another encounter power, regardless of the number of enemies or scenarios you fight in.)
And here's one some of you might not like: when you take an 'extended rest' (6 hours) you get all of your hit points back and get all of your per day abilities back (even if hasn't been 24 hours).
I personally like it, and here's why: it severs what I label 'physical healing' from hit point healing altogether. Someone in the chat said "So if a commoner is mauled by a bear, he can just rest for 6 hours and be all better?" My response is "A commoner can never actually be 'mauled' by a bear in any edition of D&D. Hit points do not break legs, cause scars, or impede functionality in any physical or even mental form. I think it's wrong to apply common sense of physical healing to a mechanic that does not mimic the common sense of phyical injury. When you lose hit points it is purely about the resolve to continue fighting, and does not represent physical wounds that require long term care."
I don't know the rules yet, but here are my first thoughts to make the game grittier: ability score damage. Maybe on crits (or reintroduce confirmed crits), maybe through some type of called shot system (pick an ability score and roll a d6), I'm not sure how much damage but I'm sure it's possible. The point though is that physical wounds that take time to naturally heal should have some impact on your character's performance. What do you think?
Hit points do not break legs, cause scars, or impede functionality in any physical or even mental form. I think it's wrong to apply common sense of physical healing to a mechanic that does not mimic the common sense of phyical injury. When you lose hit points it is purely about the resolve to continue fighting, and does not represent physical wounds that require long term care."
So all this time I've been hacking away at enemies with my sword, I haven't been striking at their limbs, torso or head, trying to wound or kill him, I've actually been hacking away at my opponent's resolve to keep fighting???
The ogre didn't die, it just said "Okay, you win man. My resolve to keep fighting can't take any more abuse. You keep going further into the dungeon, I'm going to go home and lie down for a while."?
No wonder 4E sounds exactly like your kind of game, and exactly like a game I have no desire to play at all.
I don't think that arguement holds water very well. There is no way a 100' fall bruises my ego and not my skull.
Gives a new meaning to pep talk.
Captain: "You their soldier on your feet!"
Private: "But sir, my leg is broken."
Captain: "You soldier, have a sparkeling personality. You are admired by your friends and are the best damn soldier I have ever seen."
Private:"I can walk! My leg is fine!"
Captain: "Now off to war! Again!"
|
I have long since adopted the vitality/wound approach, combined with some house ruled mechanic for fatigue (mostly from the d20 A Game of Thrones book).
Recently I proposed the new healing system from the Book of Experimental Might, slightly "morphed" for a better fit, and tomorrow evening the whole brand new and improved system will receive the field test.
So I pretty much took the "more detail" road, considering the hit point system not accurate enough. The whole stamina+resolve+phisical damage paradox that it implies is not in my personal chords.
As 4E seems to emphasize some of the aforementioned aspects, including healing surges and whatnots, to me it's just another notch in the why won't switch list.
So all this time I've been hacking away at enemies with my sword, I haven't been striking at their limbs, torso or head, trying to wound or kill him, I've actually been hacking away at my opponent's resolve to keep fighting???
The ogre didn't die, it just said "Okay, you win man. My resolve to keep fighting can't take any more abuse. You keep going further into the dungeon, I'm going to go home and lie down for a while."?
Here's a question: when you 'hit' the ogre, had he gotten away would he have had actual wounds from strikes at his limbs, torso and head? How did these wounds actually effect on any of his abilities then how are they actual wounds?
If you remove all of his hit points and put him into negatives then THAT'S when you actually wound him.
There's no middle ground in 3.5 using standard to hit and hit points. You're either up and perfectly fine or down and out. If you can believe that, great, but it breaks my sense of verisimilitude. You can't actually cut off the ogre's hand in 3.5.
Wow that was odd.......
Anyway, while I don't agree with the idea that hitpoints don't represent physical damage the idea of ability damage accompanying physical damage is a neat idea. My only issue is that that would be a tough system to implement since it would involve a lot of having to constantly recalculate modifiers and abilities. How about a system where you have statuses with penalties. For example, at 1/2 htpts you get -1 on all rolls, at 1/3 htpts you get -3 to all rolls, and so on. That might be a little better way of implementing the idea that as you are more heavily wounded it gets harder to fight. However, ability damage on critical strikes is a neat idea. Scarification from cuts (- Cha), brain damage from concussions (- Int), movement penalties because of the limp your fighter gained when his leg was smashed by an ogre. That definitely has some potential. Isn't there something like that in the Critical Hit deck?
edit: another thought came to mind
|
2 points I'd like to make:
1) That sounds like a buttload of HP at 1st level. Not just from a 3E minset, but a 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e mindset. Are the types of opponents that a level 1 party typically faces going to have similar upgrades in HP? Example a 4-person party of level 1 4E characters with 20-30 HP each, comes across a skeleton; how many HP does the skeleton have? I'm hoping for balance sake that it's about 30.
2) The 9 surges a day for a Warlock are at level 1? Is this saying that at level 1, the Warlock has enough healing potential to completely heal himself more than 2 times over? Without help from the party Cleric, potions, wands, or other means?
Just based on this information alone, it looks like it will be much harder for a DM to challenge a party.
-Skeld
|
I don't think that arguement holds water very well. There is no way a 100' fall bruises my ego and not my skull.
Gives a new meaning to pep talk.
Captain: "You their soldier on your feet!"
Private: "But sir, my leg is broken."
Captain: "You soldier, have a sparkeling personality. You are admired by your friends and are the best damn soldier I have ever seen."
Private:"I can walk! My leg is fine!"
Captain: "Now off to war! Again!"
Heh heh. :)
For some reason, I was envisioning Mal & Zoe from Firefly in this scene. Good stuff.
Although I can see Takasi's point as well, if you view hit points that way. It does make sense to say that actual wounds are when you go into negatives, and everything else is fatigue, resolve, what have you. But for 20+ years I've viewed hit points as physical damage, and I have trouble making that mental switch.
If my players are hitting ogres, those ogres are messed the F-up. If the players are getting hit, then they are taking wounds.
The hit point system is abstract, though, so with this system (and in my games since forever), I just stress that, even with hit points back the person is still hurt. There's no game effect, sure, but it doesn't matter. It's not hard to imagine that you keep on trucking. This is heroic fantasy. I'm not going to cross that ugly line into "hit points are ONLY abstract and not physical health" land.
On the practical side, this doesn't make that much a difference. If players get hurt enough they (now, in 3E) go back to town, rest up, and then go back to the dungeon (or wherever). That happens all the time. Now I can see the players pushing on without having to do that.
|
D&D has always been a cinematic system and not a gritty one. This is intentional, but I won't let my argument stand upon my own assertions alone. Let's see what good ol' Gary had to say back in Dragon #24 (ah, that CD rom collection is awesome):
This melee system also hinges on the number of hit points assigned to characters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if a rhino can take a maximum amount of damage equal to eight of nine eight-sided dice, a maximum of 64 or 72 hit points of damage to kill, it is positively absurd to assume that an 8th level fighter with average scores on his or her hit dice and an 18 consititution, thus having 76 hit points, can physically withstand more punishment than a rhino before being killed. Hit points are a combination of actual physical consititution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicated a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a scratch, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home . . .
I am firmly convinced that this system is superior to all others so far concieved and published. It reflects actual combat reasonably, for weaponry, armor (protection and speed and magical factors), skill level, and allows for a limited amount of choice as to attacking or defending. It does not require participants to keep track of more than a minimal amount of information, it is quite fast, and it does not place undue burden upon the Dungeon Master. It allows those involved in combat to opt to retire if they are taking too much damage � although this does not necessarily guarantee that they will succeed...
My favorite part is the assertion "even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a scratch, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal."
That sentence by itself describes D&D HP as cinematic.
At last! The truth!
The definition of what CINEMATIC means to people has changed!
The monsters probably will have more hp. this reminds me of hackmaster.
2 points I'd like to make:
1) That sounds like a buttload of HP at 1st level. Not just from a 3E minset, but a 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e mindset. Are the types of opponents that a level 1 party typically faces going to have similar upgrades in HP? Example a 4-person party of level 1 4E characters with 20-30 HP each, comes across a skeleton; how many HP does the skeleton have? I'm hoping for balance sake that it's about 30.
2) The 9 surges a day for a Warlock are at level 1? Is this saying that at level 1, the Warlock has enough healing potential to completely heal himself more than 2 times over? Without help from the party Cleric, potions, wands, or other means?
Just based on this information alone, it looks like it will be much harder for a DM to challenge a party.
-Skeld
D&D has always been a cinematic system and not a gritty one. This is intentional, but I won't let my argument stand upon my own assertions alone. Let's see what good ol' Gary had to say back in Dragon #24 (ah, that CD rom collection is awesome):
This melee system also hinges on the number of hit points assigned to characters. As I have repeatedly pointed out, if a rhino can take a maximum amount of damage equal to eight of nine eight-sided dice, a maximum of 64 or 72 hit points of damage to kill, it is positively absurd to assume that an 8th level fighter with average scores on his or her hit dice and an 18 consititution, thus having 76 hit points, can physically withstand more punishment than a rhino before being killed. Hit points are a combination of actual physical consititution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicated a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th level fighter indicates a near miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a scratch, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home . . .
I am firmly convinced that this system is superior to all others so far concieved and published. It reflects actual combat reasonably, for weaponry, armor (protection and speed and magical factors), skill level, and allows for a limited amount of choice as to attacking or defending. It does not require participants to keep track of more than a minimal amount of information, it is quite fast, and it does not place undue burden upon the Dungeon Master. It allows those involved in combat to opt to...
2 points I'd like to make:
1) That sounds like a buttload of HP at 1st level. Not just from a 3E minset, but a 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e mindset. Are the types of opponents that a level 1 party typically faces going to have similar upgrades in HP? Example a 4-person party of level 1 4E characters with 20-30 HP each, comes across a skeleton; how many HP does the skeleton have? I'm hoping for balance sake that it's about 30.
2) The 9 surges a day for a Warlock are at level 1? Is this saying that at level 1, the Warlock has enough healing potential to completely heal himself more than 2 times over? Without help from the party Cleric, potions, wands, or other means?
Just based on this information alone, it looks like it will be much harder for a DM to challenge a party.
-Skeld
I'm guessing healing surges are a mechanic to keep the party going. In other words its part and parcel of an attempt to reduce the 5 minute work day effect of the current edition which seems to be a major design goal. Its also likely an attempt to make combat take longer in terms of how many rounds a battle actually takes (currently 3-5 rounds or between 18 and 30 seconds). This gives players (and likely some monsters) a reason to stop for 6 seconds every so often and increases the number of rounds in a fight. Hmm...this should have some other interesting effects, if combat takes, on average, more rounds before its done then presumably spell casters and creatures with various special abilities are more likely to be able to use more of their abilities in a given combat. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
If my players are hitting ogres, those ogres are messed the F-up. If the players are getting hit, then they are taking wounds.
The hit point system is abstract, though, so with this system (and in my games since forever), I just stress that, even with hit points back the person is still hurt. There's no game effect, sure, but it doesn't matter. It's not hard to imagine that you keep on trucking. This is heroic fantasy. I'm not going to cross that ugly line into "hit points are ONLY abstract and not physical health" land.
I run it the same way, hps are abstract but people are getting beaten up nonetheless, its just that their tough enough to keep on going. I suspect I'll be able to more or less proceed under the same assumption in 4th, admittedly their is a large dose of Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series in this assumption...healing surge = I pick all the glass out of my feet so know I can sprint and jump off buildings again.
Not looking at the more philosphical ramifications of the whole hit point issue (it 2:15 in england and my head hurts) I kind of liked the whole rest system of 3e.
I know it soujnds stupid but I liked the idea that if you got completely battered in a fight (negative hp) that to recover the damage naturally would take more than one night. Depending on the character maybe over a week. I thought it added a nice element of realism even if it did slow the speed of the game. The only problem was that because of the 1hp per class level per day the wizard and sorcerrer would recover from a sound beating much quicker than the fighter just because he had fewer hp in the first place.
|
Contributor
|
My assumption (and I may be wrong) is that the reason you can heal in 6 hours is that it isn't natural healing. Every class now has healing powers. In six hours, you can use enough power to heal yourself, and then rest long enough to get back your used powers. One of the old D&D computer games had a "rest until healed" option that would cast and rememorize all of your healing spells and time would go by until it was done. They've just shortened the duration.
And nothing says that that six hours can't be interrupted with an encounter. Actually, that often happened in the computer game I was thinking of too. Why do you need more than six hours to have a random encounter? And if the PCs get interrupted, they aren't rested right?
I don't see anything here that prevents recreating the same type of "We want to rest, but it's not safe" scenario that you can in the current edition.
I've been running 3E games since they came out. Never in any of that time have I ever seen a party rely on a night's rest to heal- it might help a little, but virtually all the healing done in any of the 3E games I've run have relied on magic for healing (particularly wands of cure light wounds). So all this is kind of a moot point.
Not looking at the more philosphical ramifications of the whole hit point issue (it 2:15 in england and my head hurts) I kind of liked the whole rest system of 3e.
I know it soujnds stupid but I liked the idea that if you got completely battered in a fight (negative hp) that to recover the damage naturally would take more than one night. Depending on the character maybe over a week. I thought it added a nice element of realism even if it did slow the speed of the game. The only problem was that because of the 1hp per class level per day the wizard and sorcerrer would recover from a sound beating much quicker than the fighter just because he had fewer hp in the first place.
Not looking at the more philosphical ramifications of the whole hit point issue (it 2:15 in england and my head hurts) I kind of liked the whole rest system of 3e.
I know it soujnds stupid but I liked the idea that if you got completely battered in a fight (negative hp) that to recover the damage naturally would take more than one night. Depending on the character maybe over a week. I thought it added a nice element of realism even if it did slow the speed of the game. The only problem was that because of the 1hp per class level per day the wizard and sorcerrer would recover from a sound beating much quicker than the fighter just because he had fewer hp in the first place.
This has never come up at my table. Instead the PCs retreat and the next day the cleric heals everyone back to full. Then they go back to bed and wait for the cleric to get all his spells back. After that its back to the adventure.
So all this time I've been hacking away at enemies with my sword, I haven't been striking at their limbs, torso or head, trying to wound or kill him, I've actually been hacking away at my opponent's resolve to keep fighting???The ogre didn't die, it just said "Okay, you win man. My resolve to keep fighting can't take any more abuse. You keep going further into the dungeon, I'm going to go home and lie down for a while."?
No wonder 4E sounds exactly like your kind of game, and exactly like a game I have no desire to play at all.
In fairness Sean, it has to be a mixture of both real damage AND some intangibles. An equally absurd example can be made of the existing system.
"Having driven off a half a tribe of Goblins, I now find myself capable of being stabbed 1.75 times more often! Whoohoo! Someday as my adventuring career continues, I'll take a blow that once would have cleaved my physical form in two and only worry about a minor Concentration Check! Being disemboweled is no threat to me!"
And as Christian Johnson quoted Gygax, this has pretty much always been the case through the years.
I've been adding constitution score to first level hit points for years. Darn 4th edition to heck for stealing my thunder. :-)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
My assumption (and I may be wrong) is that the reason you can heal in 6 hours is that it isn't natural healing. Every class now has healing powers.
So, our characters are all mutants now, like Wolverine? Not sure I like this at all. This is D&D, not Mutants and Masterminds...
So, our characters are all mutants now, like Wolverine? Not sure I like this at all. This is D&D, not Mutants and Masterminds...
Only if hit points are only defined as the amount of physical trauma that your flesh can withstand before the body shuts down and you die.
But that has never been the case. Not in any edition, not in Basic, not in 1st, and not in 3.5.
It really can't be true. Life experience doesn't make have tougher bones, sinews, and better muscle tissue. Life experience doesn't give you extra blood, allowing more of yours to be spilled.
The entire coup de grace mechanic was invented because 1st edition had some holes in it that patently made no sense. Take a high level character sentenced to be executed, does the Executioneer have to wail in his neck 7 to 10 times, hoping to hit, to chop through 50 to 100 hit points before his head just falls off? That, my friend, was 1st Edition.
Christian Johnson quotes Gygax in this vew thread, where Gary explains this basic fact of life with an illustration of the rhino versus a human being.
Hit points have always been representative of BOTH raw physical traits like health and endurance, and an array of unspecificed intangibles like personal fortitude, combat experience, and luck.
To point at personal fortitude alone and say "that's it?" is still not looking at the big picture.
A fundamental confusion about DnD, stemming all the way from 1st edition, is that some specific variables are not the sole factor in a particular trait.
Example: The ability to 'not get hit' is reflected in BOTH AC and hit points. A 12th level fighter isn't just able to withstand hundreds of more wounds than 1st level fighter.
It really can't be true. Life experience doesn't make have tougher bones, sinews, and better muscle tissue. Life experience doesn't give you extra blood, allowing more of yours to be spilled.
Actually, why not? It's certainly simple enough to see things that way, and there is nothing that really contradicts this point of view. In a world of magic, it can be that life experience (or, more precisely, overcoming obstacles and fighting monsters) makes you physically tougher.
This point of view has the big advantage of being simple and I would even guess that it's more or less how many players intuitively considered hit points in all previous editions. Since divine healing or extended rest times were the only way to heal damage, it was quite natural to consider hit points as simply a measure of your physical integrity. And, even though hit points were defined as "more than just that", next to nothing in the rules themselves contradicted the simple view "hit points = physical integrity".
4E takes a big step away from that, and makes it impossible to keep this simple interpretation by adding new methods to regain hit points. And that makes for a major change that is not easy to overcome for many players used to the previous editions.
|
|
Since divine healing or extended rest times were the only way to heal damage, it was quite natural to consider hit points as simply a measure of your physical integrity. And, even though hit points were defined as "more than just that", next to nothing in the rules themselves contradicted the simple view "hit points = physical integrity".
Even the "official" novels support this view...
And I think that such a simple definition of HP is a cool thing.The loss of HP is just physical damage (and maybe exhaustion) and that is something every new player understands on the spot.
Sure, sooner or later the question is raised why slaying monsters and looting adds to the characters "life-force", but in the beginning it doesn't really matter.
4E takes a big step away from that, and makes it impossible to keep this simple interpretation by adding new methods to regain hit points. And that makes for a major change that is not easy to overcome for many players used to the previous editions.
And not really understandable to newbies as well I'd think.
But on the other hand, they might find it easier to just accept it than experienced players.But why do HP need to be raised to an obscure, metaphysical level just to add some "cool" new mechanics to the game?
This is a notion I can't really understand, especially from the "the simpler the better"-pov...
Healing Surges are a once per fight thing and, apparently, clerics' and warlords' healing tends to use them up also. So, sans a healer type, you can get 1/4 of your hp back during the fight and another 1/4 back during the 'short rest' before moving on. At least, until you've had enough fights to use up all your surges.
Yep I noticed that too. Also the paladins lay on hands uses 2 healing surges 1 for the character he is healing and 1 for himself.
Healing Surges are a lot more tasteful if you consider them a surrogate for potions.
That said, I think the 'removing damage from HP' thing is stupid.
|
|
This came up in another thread too. HP have always been abstract. You can do as much at 110HP as you can at 1 HP. Oh, you can be "cinematic" about the character bleeding all over the floor and all but in reality they're able to perform the same functions all the way down to 0 HP when they suddenly keel over. <shrug>
If you don't like HP being abstract, then you use a Vitality/Wound system with some sort of condition track. There are plenty around.
I've used both systems. And I'm sure that someone (either WotC or a third party) will come up with a wound/vitality system or some such for 4E PDQ.
It's a *game*. Use whatever system you feel simulates the "feel" that you're going for with *your* game and stop yelling at each other about it already. Sheesh. :-)
-Pete
Healing Surges are a once per fight thing and, apparently, clerics' and warlords' healing tends to use them up also. So, sans a healer type, you can get 1/4 of your hp back during the fight and another 1/4 back during the 'short rest' before moving on. At least, until you've had enough fights to use up all your surges.Yep I noticed that too. Also the paladins lay on hands uses 2 healing surges 1 for the character he is healing and 1 for himself.
Actually, I read it in a different way:
- You can use Second Wind (on your own) to trigger a healing surge once per encounter.
- Paladins can use Lay on Hands to trigger an healing surge on someone else; in that case, the paladin "pays" the healing surge, not the target (which only gets the beneficial effect).
- During a short rest, you can use up as many healing surges as you want, to possibly bring you back up to full hit points (if you have enough healing surges left).
Watching people flail about looking for reasons to hate 4e is amusing. Gary Gygax explained this exact concept of hit points in the 1st edition DMG and it hasn't changed one bit.
It's a *game*. Use whatever system you feel simulates the "feel" that you're going for with *your* game and stop yelling at each other about it already. Sheesh. :-)
Speaking only for me ... I'm not looking into ways to hate 4E, though obviously I can't convince you otherwise. And I find it useful to discuss what I percieve as problems in 4E because some other people's take on those rules might help me "understand"/"accept" them.
It's generally much more efficient to just ignore a thread you do not find useful than posting "This thread is useless". :)
And I'm sure that someone (either WotC or a third party) will come up with a wound/vitality system or some such for 4E PDQ.
I wonder if that will be possible/allowed. From what I read in that live blog about the comments made on the GSL, it looks like WotC is expecting third parties to design adventures, settings, monsters, (powers too ?), but not really alternative/complementary rule systems. I do hope it will be possible, but they didn't mention it.
Actually, why not?
This is a situation where you're asking why couldn't it be true, when the answer is because "it's not." At least it’s formally not true. You make a great point down below about accepted interpretations.
I understand that isn't a very satisfactory answer however. I'm not trying to be cute, and be assured I'm talking to you with an aim towards mutual respect.
It's certainly simple enough to see things that way, and there is nothing that really contradicts this point of view. In a world of magic, it can be that life experience (or, more precisely, overcoming obstacles and fighting monsters) makes you physically tougher.
It is a simple concept I agree, and for that reason alone I grant you that can be attractive in it's elegance.
But you're falling back upon, "it's a world of magic where anything can happen." I won't condemn that, but I will recognize the statement for what it is. In a world of magic not much rationale is required.
And to head off a potential counter-point, I don't think Gygax's interpretation was all that much superior when held up to absolute simulationism. But! It makes the effort to go a little bit farther in having things make sense.
This point of view has the big advantage of being simple and I would even guess that it's more or less how many players intuitively considered hit points in all previous editions.
I don't disagree friend. I believe it is how the majority of people have interpreted it over the years. It is advantageous to explaining to newbies and people who just want to have fun that "hit points are life points."
I think the point you're missing, in a world of magic and simple concepts how can anyone with this point of view then turn to 4th edition and say "that doesn't make sense" or "that is really too simple."
Granted, you specifically didn't make those statements (unless I overlooked an earlier post). I'm not trying to sell you something you're not prepared to accept, but your position on hit points really doesn't do much to cast a negative light on how 4th edition is trying to handle it.
Since divine healing or extended rest times were the only way to heal damage, it was quite natural to consider hit points as simply a measure of your physical integrity. And, even though hit points were defined as "more than just that", next to nothing in the rules themselves contradicted the simple view "hit points = physical integrity".
Oh you make a bloody brilliant point, I readily concede. That's an excellent case for your position.
But that's problem in debating this with you. Neither perspective on hit points is particularly great. Not mine, and certainly not yours either. Both have their merits and strengths, both have their flaws.
Take a 1st level fighter naked and without weapons and put him in a room. Put a 10th level fighter, also naked and without weapons, and put him in another room. For the sake of establishing a control group, let's say that neither use any feats or do much other than defend themselves in a basic manner. How come it takes so much longer to kill the 10th level fighter? After all, they have the same armor class. In theory neither test subject should be significantly different than the other.. And yet one will die much quicker than other other.
Under your proposition, "it's a world of magic."
In my proposition, I have a logical answer, but I don't have much to say in regards to healing (other than to join you in saying "it's a world of magic!")
But okay.. we agree to disagree, but can you really throw stones at 4th edition? That too, exists in a world of magic.
4E takes a big step away from that, and makes it impossible to keep this simple interpretation by adding new methods to regain hit points. And that makes for a major change that is not easy to overcome for many players used to the previous editions.
Perhaps.
I don't think you give them enough credit though. They have to believe in the reasons behind the change.. and ultimately that is WOTC's job and not mine.
Peace.
Even the "official" novels support this view...
Dalvyn does make a great point! :)
But the "offical" novel argument doesn't really apply to anything. At the risk of generalizing, many actors and actresses who do sci fi films don't actually understand or even like Sci Fi. Not trying to be smug, but a novelist has a different goal and agenda than a game designer.
And I think that such a simple definition of HP is a cool thing.
The loss of HP is just physical damage (and maybe exhaustion) and that is something every new player understands on the spot.
Sure, sooner or later the question is raised why slaying monsters and looting adds to the characters "life-force", but in the beginning it doesn't really matter.
Oh no, I don't say it's wrong to keep things simple. And making the game accessible to new people is a worthwhile goal.
Even still, there's not enough substance here to then turn around and throw stones at 4th edition. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
And not really understandable to newbies as well I'd think. But on the other hand, they might find it easier to just accept it than experienced players.
But why do HP need to be raised to an obscure, metaphysical level just to add some "cool" new mechanics to the game?
This is a notion I can't really understand, especially from the "the simpler the better"-pov...
Well, it's part and parcel with this entire paradigm shift that they're doing with many rules.. particularly with his cinegraphic approach. Some of the old concepts just don't translate.
In many respects 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions all operating under what you might consider the same core 'operating system'.
4th edition is the first big step away from that. I don't say it's good for just that reason, but it's different. You use the phrase 'add some "cool" new mechanics to the game' like they tampered with hit points just to add a few new tricks.
What if they added so much new stuff that they had to build the whole thing up from the ground level? It's difficult to see with only the Primer, but there could be an entire network of mechanics that now start to inter-relate in new ways.
Hi Watcher! And thanks for you very thoughtful and though-stimulating answers.
I think the point you're missing, in a world of magic and simple concepts how can anyone with this point of view then turn to 4th edition and say "that doesn't make sense" or "that is really too simple."
Actually, you can have any "world of magic" that you want. That is, you can set the rules of your world as you want. A world that works like real world with magic and with "combat/life experience makes your skin thicker, your flesh more resistant, and your body more resistant to burning and other kinds of damage" can very well be imagined. What I mean here is that you can have a "world of magic" with a strict and limited set of "magical"/non-real rules: you do not have to accept everything and anything in your "world of magic".
With that in mind, I think it's understandable that some people (I admit I have been one of them) would turn and say that 4th edition healing rules are silly and do not make sense.
But you have a point in noting that the "world with magic" I described above is neither more (nor less) valid than the "world with magic" where 4th edition rules "work". That's actually a very good point.
I will just add, to support my current point of view, that the "world with magic" I described above is the intuitive world that many players used for previous editions (most often without explicitly defining it). So, in that sense, it's a "better world with magic" than most other "worlds with magic". :)
I am actually currently struggling to understand and accept 4th edition. I would actually love to be able to accept 4E rules as something natural and to go along with 'progress', but there are several aspects of 4th edition that I have a hard time integrating in my "world of magic". Hit points is first or second amongst those aspects.
And when I feel that I'm about to accept that "Ok, hit points are more than just physical integrity, it's also part morale, part combativity, and several other things" and thus that "You can regain hit points by taking a breather, refocusing, or by being encouraged by a warlord". Then I get stumped again when I encounter powers like "each time you crit your opponent, your allies regain X hit points" that are restricted to a few classes, or questions like "If it's just about reboosting your allies' morale, why can only warlords do it? Why can't my charismatic fighter give an inspiring speech and "heal" his allies?"
If you (or other posters) have any answer to those questions, I'd appreciate to read them. Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
|
|
In many respects 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions all operating under what you might consider the same core 'operating system'.
4th edition is the first big step away from that. I don't say it's good for just that reason, but it's different. You use the phrase 'add some "cool" new mechanics to the game' like they tampered with hit points just to add a few new tricks.
What if they added so much new...
Wow, Watcher, your reply made me think in a totally new direction and I'm thankful for it!
I have to admit that, while not really being in the anti 4E camp, I always read the news on 4E with mixed feelings.Like with many, many people here, this is for reasons mentioned a thousand times (too early for something new, nothing really wrong with 3.5, too much invested in 3.5 gaming books etc. - you get the picture).
I always had the feeling that all these changes are made for the sake of changing (and selling) without a dire need for an overhaul like back in the days of 2nd.
And you were right, I first thought all the changes in terms of HP were just done to include some flashy healing mechanics.
But your comparsion with the OS got me thinking and now I realize, that this edition will really be something entirely new.
It doesnt add like 2nd did or doesn't "just" fix the mess of 2nd and polishs it up like 3.0 did.
It does something new without a need to evolve; it is more like Unearthed Arcana without the brakes of 3.5 in.
Wow...
And maybe you're right and they just had to define HP in a new way because they added so much new stuff!
Now I realize that I viewed all the upcoming changes from a traditional point of view (which might make sense because I'm playing D&D since 25 years) and with the assumption that it has to evolve the existing rules within known boundaries.
And this is just wrong.
It is something totally new and it should, at least, have a chance.
And you need to tear down the walls of tradition and former editions to create something really new.
This doesn't mean that I'm now off to the pro 4E camp (it seems way too early to make such a descision), but I'll see upcoming news in a different light and I'm thankful for these insights.
I'll no longer be afraid or outraged when I see significant changes and the slayings of holy cows because it'll give birth to something different, something new.
I don't know yet if this will be better, if it will be fun and if it will feel like D&D but from now on (at least for me) it's getting interesting...
Thanks, Watcher.
(...and please forgive my broken english. It is not my mother language and the phrasing might seem a little odd here and there, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.)
And when I feel that I'm about to accept that "Ok, hit points are more than just physical integrity, it's also part morale, part combativity, and several other things" and thus that "You can regain hit points by taking a breather, refocusing, or by being encouraged by a warlord". Then I get stumped again when I encounter powers like "each time you crit your opponent, your allies regain X hit points" that are restricted to a few classes, or questions like "If it's just about reboosting your allies' morale, why can only warlords do it? Why can't my charismatic fighter give an inspiring speech and "heal" his allies?"
I dont mean this as a dodge, but those are good points.
I suppose the very act of critting someone is a morale and confidence boost that is felt through the whole party. I know it goes around my table in real life; in a tough fight, when the fighter crits the rest of the players cheer. It's a bit of a rallying point.
But as far as restrictions as to who can do it and who can't, or why a charismatic fighter can't restore hs allies... All good questions.
It is my hope that there are good answers. If not, then I'm prepared to concede the point. It's just too soon to tell.
(...and please forgive my broken english. It is not my mother language and the phrasing might seem a little odd here and there, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.)
I just wanted to let you know that you did just fine. Better actually. Everything was clear to me.
It is my hope that there are good answers.
I actually would be very pleased if there are.
From where I stand, 4E combat actually looks very tempting (because it seems to be more tactical, with random elements like initiative playing a less important part in combats that extend over a larger number of rounds) and well, I like the combat parts of my games to be tactic-heavy, the interaction parts to be roleplay-heavy, the puzzle parts to be thought-intensive, and so on.
Anyway, we'll see. Thanks again for your answer!
Absinth,
Your English is fine. :)
I'm glad you found some value in my words. I'm not totally Pro-4th Edition either.
Other posters have made the comment, "If it is so unlike the DnD that I'm familiar with, why did they use the DnD brand name?" And that is a worthwhile observation. I think it is certainly inspired by the previous editions, but I'm willing to concede that it's done to sell more books.
I guess I have to ask myself, does that prevent it from being a good game? At this point, I don't know.
But I think a cow only becomes sacred when we decide it is.
Anyway, I enjoyed your post. :) Thanks for sharing.
|
|
I guess I have to ask myself, does that prevent it from being a good game? At this point, I don't know.
I have been really thinking about this new edition a lot lately and trying to read the rules with an open mind. I think I have finally decided what I think about it.
The game looks to be a good game. The designers have put a lot of thought into it. I probably will enjoy the game when I play it. But...
They should have changed the name. Even if they had called it Extreme Dungeons and Dragons, I would be better with it. They want us to view it as the logical step up from 3e but it is not. Its a step sideways, not a step forward.
I get the feeling its going to be about plowing through dungeons and monsters, one room after the other. Kind of like a game of Hero Quest, only with more and better options.
I will buy the books, but I really get the feeling that the 3.x system is going to be my prefered ruleset for a campaign and 4e might be better for a quick one night session. I've always prefered campaigns.
I have been really thinking about this new edition a lot lately and trying to read the rules with an open mind. I think I have finally decided what I think about it.
The game looks to be a good game. The designers have put a lot of thought into it. I probably will enjoy the game when I play it. But...
They should have changed the name. Even if they had called it Extreme Dungeons and Dragons, I would be better with it. They want us to view it as the logical step up from 3e but it is not. Its a step sideways, not a step forward.
It really is a step sidewise.
For myself, I don't know if the name bothers me as much, other than it is to sell more product. I do see that it is inspired by previous editions, but I can understand that you'd have liked a different product identification.
Not changing the name sort of suggests that the old game is gone and has been replaced by this one. Whereas, really 3.5 can endure while this version can continue on a different path. That's not WOTC and Hasbro are likely to want, because that's less revenue.
I get the feeling its going to be about plowing through dungeons and monsters, one room after the other. Kind of like a game of Hero Quest, only with more and better options.
I'd like to see that addressed myself. That is, I'd like to see how role-playing is encouraged, and how non-action support systems are handled.. like ordinary skill checks and crafting.
A combat system with a role-playing game attached is not what I had in mind. But.. it's too early to tell just yet.
I will buy the books, but I really get the feeling that the 3.x system is going to be my prefered ruleset for a campaign and 4e might be better for a quick one night session. I've always prefered campaigns.
We will see... But I basically agree with that you've said here.
I'd love more data though..
What I don't understand is the HP 'glut' at 1st level. I thought they (the designers) did not like the 3E 'glut' of skill points (x4) at first level. So, why isn't the HP progression even?
If you get 32 HP at first level why don't you get another 32 HP the next level and every level after that?
|
|
I run it the same way, hps are abstract but people are getting beaten up nonetheless, its just that their tough enough to keep on going. I suspect I'll be able to more or less proceed under the same assumption in 4th, admittedly their is a large dose of Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series in this assumption...healing surge = I pick all the glass out of my feet so know I can sprint and jump off buildings again.If my players are hitting ogres, those ogres are messed the F-up. If the players are getting hit, then they are taking wounds.
The hit point system is abstract, though, so with this system (and in my games since forever), I just stress that, even with hit points back the person is still hurt. There's no game effect, sure, but it doesn't matter. It's not hard to imagine that you keep on trucking. This is heroic fantasy. I'm not going to cross that ugly line into "hit points are ONLY abstract and not physical health" land.
Bruce Wills' feet, were "fixed" by a surge of healing.
He took time out to make a heal check and remove the glass (read: caltrops) and regained his normal move.You have the same result but one is more "realistic" and less fantasy.
I prefer a touch of realism in my fantasy.
Realism is fine up to a point. After that, all you have is dead characters after a few fights.
Exactly! Realism doesn't translate all that well into the D&D combat system. If it did, many of your characters would die of infection. Historically, most medieval soldiers died of their wounds days and weeks (heck, even years in some cases) after being wounded. Before the modernization of medicine and discovery of anti-biotics war was....well....deadly.
I'll stick with the new 4E HP system and like it.
I don't think the rules modifications are intended to make the game such that you are just plowing through monster after monster and dungeon after dungeon at all. I think the new mechanics are too help with story pacing. Think of your favourite fantasy stories. Imagine the climax of the typical story where the hero is trying to foil the villain's plan or rescue the princess or what have you. Usually, the hero is able to get through the minions and to the villain to foil said villain without having to retreat several times because he was so beat down by the minions that he nearly died, and was forced to run away to rest and heal. Likewise in dnd you want to weaken the heroes and give them some tough fights as they work their way towards your adventure's climax, but you don't necessarily want them to have to run away to recover resources after every fight. This doesn't tend to be a huge problem in higher level 3E games (they have other problems), but in low level adventures it can be an issue. The increased hp at first level, and the healing surges all help to alleviate some of this.
Personally, it does seem a little odd that wounded character could go from being nearly dead to fully healed with a night's rest. Even in dnd, that is a bit ridiculous, unless some kind of magic is involved. In 3E games this tends to be solved by parties carrying around wands of cure light wounds, which though not effective in combat are the best bang for your buck to help heal between fights.
I like that healing surges free up the cleric, but I'm not sure if I agree with the ammount that 4E PCs will receive, and as mentioned above, I don't like the idea of being able to fully recover after a night's rest.
I guess I have to ask myself, does that prevent it from being a good game? At this point, I don't know.I have been really thinking about this new edition a lot lately and trying to read the rules with an open mind. I think I have finally decided what I think about it.
The game looks to be a good game. The designers have put a lot of thought into it. I probably will enjoy the game when I play it. But...
They should have changed the name. Even if they had called it Extreme Dungeons and Dragons, I would be better with it. They want us to view it as the logical step up from 3e but it is not. Its a step sideways, not a step forward.
I get the feeling its going to be about plowing through dungeons and monsters, one room after the other. Kind of like a game of Hero Quest, only with more and better options.
I will buy the books, but I really get the feeling that the 3.x system is going to be my prefered ruleset for a campaign and 4e might be better for a quick one night session. I've always prefered campaigns.
I always saw hit points as a mix of physical and intangible - it's been in every iteration of them that I've read, going back to Basic and 2E. I'm just stunned that it wasn't more widely recognised. 4E hasn't changed anything in that regard - still the same definition.