PDA

View Full Version : A friend's 4e review



Artanis
2008-07-04, 04:26 PM
On another forum I go to, one of the posters recently DM'd 4e for the first time. I thought it was interesting enough to post here, just to fan the flames contribute further to the ongoing dialog.


Having just run my first D&D 4E game, my initial assessment is yours.
Posted by Ravil

Although I've run D&D 3E for...Jesus, seven years now, this was really my first time as DM since I moved to Ontario a couple of years ago, and I was trying the game out with two friends who had never played any D&D at all. So all of this is from the perspective of how newbies will encounter this whorehopping 4E system.

First thought is that this isn't dumbed-down D&D. Some parts of the system are more streamlined, and certainly the spellcasting classes have had their complexity in part bashed out at the kneecaps. On the other hand, all of the basic "Powers" for every class are now of roughly the same complexity. In my experience with 3E you could always start novices out in the game with just, say, a Fighter whose special powers just involved being able to hit stuff really hard, thus easing them into the game with a character that was extremely straightforward. Now all of the classes have a variety of complex tactical options that require quite a bit of management and keeping track of stuff. So while the most complicated and hardest-to-play classes (the spellcasters, hands-down) have been simplified, all of the others have actually had their complexity increased.

The 4E Rogue, for example, is way more complicated than the 3E, at least at 1st Level. 3E Rogue had, what, Sneak Attack, its skills, and a few passive abilities. Reasonably straightforward. The 4E Rogue's various "Powers" are all actively-employed tactical options, even at 1st Level, that confused the hell out of one of my players (though we got it sorted out into Plain English). The stuff requires more management.

And since it is now structured so that all of the classes advance in the same way (the only difference being which Power "trees" they select from, really, and a few other minor class features), all of the classes have almost exactly the same degree of complexity. Which can be pretty high for those just starting out.

Some people might think this good, some might think it bad. I know Friendly:) was heaping vitriol upon it for being dumbed-down, and I'm not sure I entirely agree on that count.

Wizards of the Coast has finally abandoned all pretexts to the contrary and has blatantly structured 4E around miniatures tactical wargaming. Inevitably, perhaps. A friend of mine works at a gaming store back in Calgary and regularly complains that the various miniatures games fly off the shelves, whereas RPG sales in general have been eroding over the last few years (probably why 4E hit us so fast in the first place).

I don't really begrudge them this, but the game feels a little different now; there seems to be more focus on the tactical combat. I remember having a conversation with DarkLight years ago when he was saying pretty much the exact same thing about 3E: that compared to the old AD&D, the Monster Manual, for example, devoted lots of space to combat statistics and tactics but very little to monster ecology or any of the "fluff." This trend has been exacerbated with 4E. The new Monster Manual contains less fluff than a shorn sheep; maybe a sentence of flavour text now, and then a big block of stats.

The new stats are pretty useful and, I found, handy. If you're running them in a game. If you're trying to, oh, say, build a character, on the other hand, then they're a big old pile of **** waffles. I don't know who designed the official new Character Sheet, but it's laid out in an almost offensively useless way, at least for beginners. My (admittedly total newbie) players were so confused that I ended up just typing up all of their special attacks on a separate sheet for them to reference handily. The Character Sheet was even making my head spin a little, since they don't seem to have provided sufficient room to write down things like your attacks, Power-enhanced or regular.

Maybe it will become increasingly intuitive as we play more, but first impression was that I wanted to club the Character Sheet designer in the face with a sack filled with smashed porcelain shards.

But the monsters/NPC statblocks worked well in combat, and, as I said, I found them to be useful.

The monsters are now structured differently than the player classes, I think, and while I may have missed something in the Dungeon Master's Guide about this, it no longer seems to be as easy to, say, give PC classes to monsters as it was in 3E. 3E's system had a very unified feel to it; though ludicrously complicated sometimes, monsters and PCs worked more or less the same way and were basically interchangeable if you wanted to do some extremely nerdy legwork. I don't think that's the case any more. The PC classes now seem to be structured in an entirely different way from how monsters are structured.

What I think that comes down to is that they've backed away from the core idea of the game being "realistic" or providing an infinite plethora of options, and have instead tried to make it more "fun" and more helpful to run. I think this is probably typified by the inclusion of the Minion, which is a type of monster that has all the normal stats of a monster of its level, but has precisely 1 hit point, so it always goes down in one hit. Totally unrealistic, but extremely useful in times when you want to, say, create the "Stormtrooper" effect where the PCs cut their way through a horde of baddies, but where the baddies can still hurt them. I have already found this to be profoundly useful and have been wondering why I (or anyone else) didn't think of this for 3E. Very cinematic. Probably because the attitude of 3E seems to have been based more upon establishing and creating a unified, "realistic" world.

Now the focus is on creating fun encounters, and the game mechanics have been tweaked for this. The inclusion of at-will, encounter, and daily Powers for each class means that spellcasters aren't completely useless once they've used their big spells for the day. 1st Level characters are no longer a complete joke; they've got more hit points and many more options for things they can do. These are, in my opinion, good things.

Of course, in some instances I think that trying for "fun" has been taken too far, in one case in particular. I really dislike the idea of Healing Surges (which allows your character to partially heal themselves x number of times per day). I know why they put it in, and my players liked it. But not only does it kind of destroy the central usefulness of the Cleric class (whose abilities are now largely reduced to helping others help themselves), it also abandons the suspension of disbelief completely. I know that I probably sound like a hypocrite for praising the idea of Minions while ****ting all over Healing Surges, both of which were designed to make the game feel more like a cinematic adventure, but there you have it, I'm a hypocrite. There's just no reason for characters to be able to heal themselves, especially since this can be done up to and including death's doorstep. Your character can be bloodied, hacked apart limb from limb, and then spend three or four of the day's Healing Surges and be back to new. At least a Cleric's healing powers in previous D&D games were supposed to be, you know, magical. At least they were pretending there was a reason your character was coming back from the brink of death. There's no pretense to that with Healing Surges. You just heal yourself by really wanting to feel better. It dragged my suspension of disbelief into a dark alley and raped it to death for the simple reason that there is no reason attached to why this is happening.

Ultimately I'm in this for the roleplaying rather than the combat; I like telling a good story. If a game system helps me along in this, then I welcome it with open arms. When it starts getting in my way, I start getting irritated. I have mixed feelings about D&D 4E because it seems to have begun disregarding the telling of a story in favour of providing a fun tactical wargaming experience. I think that the combat aspects of the game have been improved from 3E, and that the rules are slicker and shinier. I'll probably keep playing with it now that I've started, since it does correct many of the annoying things about 3E that I disliked (although I have a strong feeling that you have to have played and been pissed off at certain 3E mechanics to fully appreciate 4E's strenghts -- my players didn't really notice any of this, but then they had nothing to compare it to). And maybe I'm just a literary *** who is expecting something out of Dungeons & Dragons that I simply shouldn't be. Maybe hack-and-slash, swords-and-sorcery dungeon crawling is what this game is all about. To be honest, I've never gamed with people who played it that way, but it's possible that I'm in a minority.

Anyway, to wrap up, it's probably as good a game for dungeon-crawling fun as you're going to find. The new emphasis makes it better for this than 3E, I believe. Whether or not these tactical mechanics seriously impede or disrupt the telling of a story, I'm not entirely certain yet. I suspect, though, that if you actually want to do any storytelling with this system it will be despite the 4E mechanics, rather than in concert with them.


On a related note, since the forum in question is "threaded" (as opposed to "flat" like this one is) and the posts are almost all simple NT posts, it wouldn't be that big a deal to stick the resulting thread in spoiler tags if you guys want.

wodan46
2008-07-04, 07:09 PM
The Clerics are actually quite useful. They get the following out of surges:
1. The same character can surge multiple times in combat
2. Spending the surges is done by the Cleric as a minor rather than the Surging PC as a standard.
3. Clerics generally DOUBLE the amount healed by a Surge.
4. Oh, and Clerics can then use their Standard action to beat up opponents on top of the healing.

Saph
2008-07-04, 07:15 PM
Good review. He's made an effort to be fair, and all his comments, good and bad, are pretty accurate.

- Saph

greenknight
2008-07-04, 08:38 PM
1. The same character can surge multiple times in combat.

I suspect the reviewer might have missed the part about only being able to heal once per encounter (unless other stuff is used such as a Cleric's Healing Word). Or possibly it's the out of combat healing the reviewer objects to.

I think the reviewer makes a good point about 4e requiring a lot more suspension of disbelief than previous editions of the game. While I'm ok with 4e on the whole, that's my biggest issue with it too.

Artanis
2008-07-04, 09:33 PM
I suspect the reviewer might have missed the part about only being able to heal once per encounter (unless other stuff is used such as a Cleric's Healing Word).
That was actually part of the resulting discussion on the original forum. The OP wound up somewhat less irritated on that front, but still none too happy about the unrestricted out-of-combat usage.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-04, 10:19 PM
That was actually part of the resulting discussion on the original forum. The OP wound up somewhat less irritated on that front, but still none too happy about the unrestricted out-of-combat usage.

Since 3rd edition parties never used the requisite healing spells between battles? There's more healing than dragging along a 3e cleric at low levels, I suppose, but there's more hit points to be healed, and most folks picked up wands of Cure Light at the first opportunity anyway.

Arbitrarity
2008-07-04, 10:43 PM
True, but the objection is to the ability to "heal" any damage, no matter how major, in about 20 minutes out of combat.

The trick is, of course, that "major" damage isn't really major in 4E. Bloodied is a single, moderate-minor injury, and you really don't take injury until 0'ish hp.

At least, that's the way to think about it for healing surges to make sense. Otherwise, there is indeed some :smallconfused:ing.

The other issue is, that even in the negatives, a character can still get up and back to full health in an hour or so, with a bit of care. And he'll be perfectly fine, no injury.

It's like injuries in 4E are totally transient, and unreal.

IDEA :smallbiggrin:
4E must be the Matrix :smallwink:

Saph
2008-07-05, 05:56 AM
It's like injuries in 4E are totally transient, and unreal.

IDEA :smallbiggrin:
4E must be the Matrix :smallwink:

Neo: "Tank, I need a healing program, 75% damage."
Trinity: "Neo, your insides are on your outside. Are you okay?"
Neo: "Not yet."

That's actually the best way to think of it I've seen on these forums so far. :P

- Saph

Project_Mayhem
2008-07-05, 06:27 AM
a Fighter whose special powers just involved being able to hit stuff really hard

Wait, 3.5 fighters had special powers?

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-05, 08:08 AM
Wait, 3.5 fighters had special powers?

They could take feats. 3.5 fighters had a range of hitting power, ranging from large stick to 4 speed blender.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-05, 09:34 AM
I'm confused that he calls Minions "totally unrealistic". How many times does he think a person can "realistically" have a sword stuck through them without suffering any ill effects?

Morty
2008-07-05, 09:50 AM
I'm confused that he calls Minions "totally unrealistic". How many times does he think a person can "realistically" have a sword stuck through them without suffering any ill effects?

Well, both PCs and monsters do it preety often. Also, I thought that in 4ed HPs are purely abstract? Minions would be realistic if everyone died from one or two hits, but of course then they wouldn't be minions then.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-05, 09:55 AM
Well, both PCs and monsters do it preety often. Also, I thought that in 4ed HPs are purely abstract? Minions would be realistic if everyone died from one or two hits, but of course then they wouldn't be minions then.

Still confused. How does the way the rest of the game rules operate make minions any more or less realistic?

Morty
2008-07-05, 09:58 AM
Still confused. How does the way the rest of the game rules operate make minions any more or less realistic?

Because if one bandit -who by definition isn't as speshul as PCs- can take two blows to the head and still happily try to gut the adventurers while the other one dies when a wimpy wizard hits him with a dagger, something's wrong from the realism and common sense perspective.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-05, 10:03 AM
Because if one bandit -who by definition isn't as speshul as PCs- can take two blows to the head and still happily try to gut the adventurers while the other one dies when a wimpy wizard hits him with a dagger, something's wrong from the realism and common sense perspective.

Again, I've got to ask "in what world is it unrealistic for somebody to die from being stabbed with a dagger?"

Morty
2008-07-05, 10:05 AM
Again, I've got to ask "in what world is it unrealistic for somebody to die from being stabbed with a dagger?"

In a world where other people somehow don't die after being hit with an axe.

Randalor
2008-07-05, 10:28 AM
To be honest though, if the wizard is hitting someone with a dagger in 4th, you're probably doing something wrong anyways. And besides, you could always just think of it as "The fighter/rogue/ranger/ect just taught him how to fight a bit better in combat, so he won't get stabbed in the face when someone gets toe-to-toe with him"

Siosilvar
2008-07-05, 10:41 AM
In a world where other people somehow don't die after being not quite hit with an axe.

Does this solve some problems? HP = dodging + luck + divine grace + cool points.

Morty
2008-07-05, 11:11 AM
Does this solve some problems? HP = dodging + luck + divine grace + cool points.

Then explain to me why your generic human guardsman, goblin warrior or kobold dragonshield have got roughly as much HP as a PC can have? They aren't as cool and special as they are, after all. The obvious answer is, HPs are abstract. But then, why do the minions suddenly drop after one hit?

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 11:26 AM
Generic anything thats not a Minion has Luck, and lots of it. An minion does not. It may be action-movie ish, but it corresponds well with D&D novels, and not necessarily recent ones either. Or other fanatsy novels.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-07-05, 11:32 AM
Then explain to me why your generic human guardsman, goblin warrior or kobold dragonshield have got roughly as much HP as a PC can have? They aren't as cool and special as they are, after all. The obvious answer is, HPs are abstract. But then, why do the minions suddenly drop after one hit?
Because minions are supposed to die. They're redshirts. They're supposed to die, and die easy. Just like minions do in movies.

No, it's not realistic. Personally, I don't care.

Morty
2008-07-05, 11:35 AM
Generic anything thats not a Minion has Luck, and lots of it. An minion does not. It may be action-movie ish, but it corresponds well with D&D novels, and not necessarily recent ones either. Or other fanatsy novels.

Could be, could be. But it's not realistic, which is what the discussion is about.


Because minions are supposed to die. They're redshirts. They're supposed to die, and die easy. Just like minions do in movies.

No, it's not realistic. Personally, I don't care.

So you agree with me, as the entire argument from the start was about minions being realistic or not. And I personally think minions are one of 4ed's worst features, but that's not the point here.

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 11:43 AM
the notion of people being capable of surviving massive damage just by being mor "experienced" is rather less realistic. Hit Dice, Xp, levels have always been something of an abstraction.

4th ed is one of the first editions to do "high level" monsters that go down in one hit, so as to ensure that you can both have an army of monsters for the PCs to hack through, and at the same time, give the members of that army a credible chance of hitting.

Morty
2008-07-05, 11:49 AM
the notion of people being capable of surviving massive damage just by being mor "experienced" is rather less realistic. Hit Dice, Xp, levels have always been something of an abstraction.

Right, and adding monsters who for some reason always go down in one hit while other monsters don't makes it even less realistic.


4th ed is one of the first editions to do "high level" monsters that go down in one hit, so as to ensure that you can both have an army of monsters for the PCs to hack through, and at the same time, give the members of that army a credible chance of hitting.

Which might be benefical for gameplay -although in my opinion it's silly- but is certainly even more unrealistic than a game without minions would be.

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 12:07 PM
in what way is the combination of ridiculously tough, and normal, monsters more unrealistic than all ridiculously tough? At least with the combination, you can explain the tough ones as bodyguards, top-of-the-line warriors, near-elite types.

The weak ones dying to one hit represents that the heroes are just that good. when we watch a movie, with our heroes battlling through a horde without trouble, then coming across decidedly more formidable opposition, that doesn't break suspension of disbelief, we simply say "these guys are really tough"

Morty
2008-07-05, 12:12 PM
in what way is the combination of ridiculously tough, and normal, monsters more unrealistic than all ridiculously tough? At least with the combination, you can explain the tough ones as bodyguards, top-of-the-line warriors, near-elite types.

Because the monsters who have about as much HP as PCs aren't necesarily "ridiculously tough". Many of them are simply soldiers like hobgoblins, orcs, etc.


The weak ones dying to one hit represents that the heroes are just that good. when we watch a movie, with our heroes battlling through a horde without trouble, then coming across decidedly more formidable opposition, that doesn't break suspension of disbelief, we simply say "these guys are really tough"

Doesn't it? When I see heroes fighting through legions of mooks it breaks my suspension of disbelief on a frequent basis.

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 12:12 PM
Or, to sum up: D&D combat is not realistic, will never be realistic, the minions are the first element that is: the notion that some guys will be out of action in one hit. HP it at least partly luck, plot armour. etc. when a guy with lots of HP gets hit, he is getting bruised, battered, like a hero does. When a minion gets hit, his skull is crushed, artery opened, etc. We see action hero survive explosions with scorching, but his comrade dead, because thats what makes sense in an action movie.

Or a comic, or a novel, or other media.

Morty
2008-07-05, 12:15 PM
Or, to sum up: D&D combat is not realistic, will never be realistic, the minions are the first element that is: the notion that some guys will be out of action in one hit. HP it at least partly luck, plot armour. etc. when a guy with lots of HP gets hit, he is getting bruised, battered, like a hero does. When a minion gets hit, his skull is crushed, artery opened, etc. We see action hero survive explosions with scorching, but his comrade dead, because thats what makes sense in an action movie.

Or a comic, or a novel, or other media.

Except it's not only the heroes who get two-digit number of HP. Your generic goblin warrior or human guard does so as well. Which is good: I'd hate D&D to look entirely like action movies.

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 12:40 PM
you can use goblin or human minions for large scale situations, and non-minions whenever the situation demands that the monsters not go down easily.

Somebody once suggested "Schrodingers Minion" that the DM choose whether target is minion or normal depending on the needs of the story. That might be taking things a bit too far. Like "Rogue sneaks up on unalert guard and stabs him" with two possibilities in hthe hands of the DM.

Guard keels over.
Guard yells with pain and other guards come running.

This should not be overdone since it might be a bit railroad-ish.

Gwain
2008-07-05, 12:46 PM
you can use goblin or human minions for large scale situations, and non-minions whenever the situation demands that the monsters not go down easily.

Somebody once suggested "Schrodingers Minion" that the DM choose whether target is minion or normal depending on the needs of the story. That might be taking things a bit too far. Like "Rogue sneaks up on unalert guard and stabs him" with two possibilities in hthe hands of the DM.

Guard keels over.
Guard yells with pain and other guards come running.

This should not be overdone since it might be a bit railroad-ish.

That's pretty much all about DM's tastes.
I'll pretty much never use Minions as Guards, because that isn't their role, their role is to be, specifically, cannon fodder.

Of course there are always excemptions, mine being a lvl 10 party sneaking into a kobold camp, that would call for Minions all the way (A minion should be used to improve the gaming experience, not to be a nuisance/easy source of Xps), I (as a DM) don't want to get bogged down for 10 minutes in an encounter that would be totally marginal to the plot.

Starsinger
2008-07-05, 12:49 PM
That's pretty much all about DM's tastes.
I'll pretty much never use Minions as Guards, because that isn't their role, their role is to be, specifically, cannon fodder.

Of course there are always excemptions, mine being a lvl 10 party sneaking into a kobold camp, that would call for Minions all the way (A minion should be used to improve the gaming experience, not to be a nuisance/easy source of Xps), I (as a DM) don't want to get bogged down for 10 minutes in an encounter that would be totally marginal to the plot.

See, now you're trying to mix sense with m0rt's perception of minion rules.

Arbitrarity
2008-07-05, 12:56 PM
I think of minions as having 'different' representations of hp. Regular characters, and non-minions, are very lucky, and that is reflected in their health. They can "dodge" and get lucky, represented by HP and their defenses. Minion versions of the same creatures have much, MUCH higher defenses, similarly reflecting that "luck/dodge", but in a different way. Any hit on a minion essentially cuts through their "luck" and wipes them out.

A wizard using a dagger gets something like +19 to hit at level 30. Maybe +2 at level 1. Minions at level 1 are such feeble creatures anyways, and the wizard has to get very, very lucky to land a solid hit with the dagger on high level minions.

Spiryt
2008-07-05, 01:06 PM
To me this whole fuzz about minions is pointless. Some poeple will use them, beacuse they like the idea. If others don't like the idea - don't.

Does minions make sense - compared to other parts of system? No

Like hamishspence noticed, they exist to make "movie like" adventures possible. Or just make massive battles shorter.


See, now you're trying to mix sense with m0rt's perception of minion rules.

"What you are thinking is LOL so NOOB and am so PRO" is always an great argument.

Gwain
2008-07-05, 01:14 PM
To me this whole fuzz about minions is pointless. Some poeple will use them, beacuse they like the idea. If others don't like the idea - don't.

Does minions make sense - compared to other parts of system? No

Like hamishspence noticed, they exist to make "movie like" adventures possible. Or just make massive battles shorter.



"What you are thinking is LOL so NOOB and am so PRO" is always an great argument.

I'm the only one having regretted the players to be in a pitch battle where you just tought :"I'll just let them kill some orcs before going to the Clanleader... oh damn guys! move up killing that stuff!"

Tho, i agree, some people will use minions, some don't. I don't see any problem in both approaches.

JaxGaret
2008-07-05, 10:22 PM
Not everyone is going to like the Minion mechanic, and some people are going to really like it. There's an easy solution - just sub in more Minions if your group likes them, or sub them out if you don't. It's your call as the DM.

If you do want to use Minions, here are a couple of tips:

1) Use the [reasonably] lowest level Minions that you can; anywhere from 5 levels lower than the PCs up to the same level as the PCs is IMO the best use of Minions, as it helps in attempting to avoid some issues with the Minion mechanic (I never said it was perfect!).

2) Mix in the Minions with the other enemies, at least on occasion; not making the Minions obviously any different from other enemies makes for more exciting battles.

3) Don't overuse Minions (just like the opposite extreme, don't overuse Solos). Sure, cutting through swaths of Minions can be fun, but not in every fight.

4) Make your Minions' deaths fun! :smallsmile:

Happy gaming

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-06, 02:05 AM
To be honest, I didn't like this review. Not necessarily because of what it said, but it's structure was poorly presented.

Most of this is anecdotal (my friends were confused by the character sheet), and a great deal of it is speculative (WotC changed this to a miniatures wargame because it was financially beneficial).
Also, his critiqure regarding the preference of roleplaying doesn't really offer significant examples detailing why he feels this feature has been limited, only the general claim that he felt it was less.

It reads well as a report of his impressions, but I don't find it helpful as a review of the system.

Morty
2008-07-06, 05:06 AM
*sigh* Why is that always when there's a discussion about minions it goes completely astray? It started with an argument wheter minions are realistic or not -which doesn't have anything to do with them being a good rule or not- and ended up as a generic: "are minions stupid or not" debate that has been done hundreds of times with the same, admitedly logical "use minions if you like them, but you don't have to" result mixed with some typical "lol ur so stupid" comments. It could be avoided if people actually read what other people are posting instead of going "shut up, minions are cool even though the discussion isn't about it", but I guess it's too much of an effort.

hamishspence
2008-07-06, 05:39 AM
Realism is a goal difficult to achieve.

Are there circumstances where the same effect (being stabbed or shot) has different results? Yes. Some people get killed instantly, some don't. Representing this by hit dice alone leads to the result of NPCs who have never fought in their lives being able to take massive poundings because they are the best baker in the kingdom, represented by being 20th level.

Or, in 4th ed, the best diplomat in the kingdom.

With minion rules, you can actually have NPCs that are both brilliant at what they do: diplomacy, healing, etc, and still fragile, they way a real person might be.

Morty
2008-07-06, 05:44 AM
Realism is a goal difficult to achieve.

Are there circumstances where the same effect (being stabbed or shot) has different results? Yes. Some people get killed instantly, some don't. Representing this by hit dice alone leads to the result of NPCs who have never fought in their lives being able to take massive poundings because they are the best baker in the kingdom, represented by being 20th level.

Or, in 4th ed, the best diplomat in the kingdom.

With minion rules, you can actually have NPCs that are both brilliant at what they do: diplomacy, healing, etc, and still fragile, they way a real person might be.

Indeed, that is one realistic use for minions. Of course, civilians would have to be level 1st minions. However, in other circumstances minions can't be called realistic: how can a 7 feet high ogre die from one hit? In a realistic system, there's a possibility for everyone to die in a single good hit. Minions always die from a single hit while other people can survive several. Therefore, minions aren't realistic. And before anyone comes screaming: this doesn't mean they're a bad rule(they are anyway, but from different reasons).

FoE
2008-07-06, 06:37 AM
However, in other circumstances minions can't be called realistic: how can a 7 feet high ogre die from one hit?

It makes sense when the person dealing said blow has advanced so far in fighting skill, be it with weapons or with magic, that they're now going toe-to-toe with adult dragons, ancient giants, powerful demons and abominations.

A minion is just a monster that no longer presents a credible threat to a PC on its own, but can still deal damage or possibly overwhelm a PC in greater numbers. This makes as much sense at the higher levels as it does the lower ones.

In any case, flip that around: how "realistic" is it for any PC to be able to defeat virtually any monster, outside of the low-level ones? Is it "realistic" to expect a little human with a sword to take down a dragon the size of a castle?

Morty
2008-07-06, 08:56 AM
It makes sense when the person dealing said blow has advanced so far in fighting skill, be it with weapons or with magic, that they're now going toe-to-toe with adult dragons, ancient giants, powerful demons and abominations.

Unless the person hitting said Ogre Thugh isn't as experienced as you say, as even low-level character can off a level 11 minion in one hit. And I know what people are going to say: that for low-level character shouldn't encounter higher-level minions. And that's true, but it's not realistic. There's also this thing about a seemingly identical ogre being able to withstand several good hits.


In any case, flip that around: how "realistic" is it for any PC to be able to defeat virtually any monster, outside of the low-level ones? Is it "realistic" to expect a little human with a sword to take down a dragon the size of a castle?

It's not, but noone ever claimed that. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. The entire question is whether minions are or aren't realistic, because Dan Hemmens claimed they are, which I can't agree with. They're as unrealistic as the rest of D&D system regardless the edition. They're also a rubbish mechanic, but that's not the subject here.

Starsinger
2008-07-06, 09:18 AM
Unless the person hitting said Ogre Thugh isn't as experienced as you say, as even low-level character can off a level 11 minion in one hit. And I know what people are going to say: that for low-level character shouldn't encounter higher-level minions. And that's true, but it's not realistic. There's also this thing about a seemingly identical ogre being able to withstand several good hits.

See, that's all well and good. You're assuming that the level 11 ogre thug over there, the one who is a minion, is always a minion. The thing is, Minion is an abstraction in regard to the PCs. If, say you stat out every square foot of middle earth and put a level 11 ogre in one spot, if a level 2 party goes there, it is not a level 11 ogre minion, it's a level 11 ogre. If a level 20 party goes there, it is not a level 11 ogre, it's a level 11 ogre minion. So no, a low-level character won't off a level 11 minion in one hit, unless the DM put low-level characters against level 11 minions, to do otherwise is, honestly bad DMing*.

As an aside, killing low level minions isn't exactly the fast track to XP people claim it is either. Said level 11 ogre thug is worth 150 XP. A regular level 3 monster is worth 150 XP, and you have a much better chance to hit a level 3 monster.

*: In certain circumstances such as "The giant skeleton falls apart if you hit its weak spot" or "Man the balista against the invading devils!" then it's fair for lower level characters to attack higher level minions.

Morty
2008-07-06, 09:21 AM
Minion is an abstraction in regard to the PCs.

Which preety much means minions aren't realistic, doesn't it? Which is sort of the entire point of this needlessly long discussion.

Starsinger
2008-07-06, 09:25 AM
Which preety much means minions aren't realistic, doesn't it? Which is sort of the entire point of this needlessly long discussion.

You're right, buttercups, minions aren't realistic, they're cinematic.

Spiryt
2008-07-06, 09:27 AM
You're right, buttercups, minions aren't realistic, they're cinematic.

Allelujah. You are both Masters of the Obvious, guys.

Morty
2008-07-06, 09:28 AM
You're right, buttercups, minions aren't realistic, they're cinematic.

And in case you haven't noticed, it all started when Dan Hemmens claimed that minions aren't unrealistic and I refused to agree with it. So I guess you agree with me after all.

The Boyce
2008-07-06, 09:52 AM
Minions can be completely realistic, it's all a matter of description.

That level 11 ogre? Sure he can die in one hit, because he got shot through the eye with an arrow!

Grommen
2008-07-06, 09:56 AM
So how is this any different from my 3ed fighters (whom most clam useless), from turning a Marilith demon into hamburger in one round? She was for sure not a minion but she might as well had 1 hip point for all the fighting she did. One round and out. Fighter with big ole two-hander and a bucket load of mussels 1 / CR17 demon 0

I then gave another one a bucket load of magic items, jacking up the AC, Hit Points, and To hit bonus.

That Marilith made it two rounds :) Bucket of mussels 2 / CR17 Demon jacked up 0

I also created what I called a "Horde". It is just a group of low level monsters that fight as one big nasty horde. I just raised up their To Hit bonus, AC, and Hit points, and the size so that they take up a little more footprint on a gaming table. Gives the affect of hacking through a mass of Orks (Like in a movie) but still makes them tuffer.

And by the way, this is not the first game system to have "Minions". Before everyone had a "D20" game AEG printed "Seven Seas". It is a D10 system, and at the core of the game mechanics is the "Brute" or something like that. Pretty much just a bunch of thugs that would get the snot beat out of them by the good guys, but grouped together to be a force to threaten the good guys.

I long ago suspended belief that we were playing a "realistic" game. I used to think it needed to be real. However when you jump from a flying ship, plummet to the earth, land in a heap, dust off, and then charge the dragon to fight him... We have just crossed into the land of the Super Hero.

Besides why would you want to play a hero for years, to have him die by a Kobald who got a lucky shot?

Morty
2008-07-06, 10:02 AM
So how is this any different from my 3ed fighters (whom most clam useless), from turning a Marilith demon into hamburger in one round? She was for sure not a minion but she might as well had 1 hip point for all the fighting she did. One round and out. Fighter with big ole two-hander and a bucket load of mussels 1 / CR17 demon 0

I then gave another one a bucket load of magic items, jacking up the AC, Hit Points, and To hit bonus.

That Marilith made it two rounds :) Bucket of mussels 2 / CR17 Demon jacked up 0

I also created what I called a "Horde". It is just a group of low level monsters that fight as one big nasty horde. I just raised up their To Hit bonus, AC, and Hit points, and the size so that they take up a little more footprint on a gaming table. Gives the affect of hacking through a mass of Orks (Like in a movie) but still makes them tuffer.

And by the way, this is not the first game system to have "Minions". Before everyone had a "D20" game AEG printed "Seven Seas". It is a D10 system, and at the core of the game mechanics is the "Brute" or something like that. Pretty much just a bunch of thugs that would get the snot beat out of them by the good guys, but grouped together to be a force to threaten the good guys.

I long ago suspended belief that we were playing a "realistic" game. I used to think it needed to be real. However when you jump from a flying ship, plummet to the earth, land in a heap, dust off, and then charge the dragon to fight him... We have just crossed into the land of the Super Hero.

Besides why would you want to play a hero for years, to have him die by a Kobald who got a lucky shot?

You too are missing the point. It's not about wheter the lack of realism is a good thing or a bad thing. The entire discussion was started because Dan Hemmens claimed that minions aren't unrealistic, which I can't agree with. So why are people trying to argue with me and the article's author about something entirely different?
And for the record, I do belive minions are stupid and I don't want my games to resemble movies. But arguing about it is as pointless as "potato soup or tomato soup" debate.

SmartAlec
2008-07-06, 10:12 AM
Dan Hemmens claimed that minions aren't unrealistic, which I can't agree with.
And for the record, I do belive minions are stupid and I don't want my games to resemble movies.

No more unrealistic than any of it. In fact, you might claim the minions are more realistic than the PCs, or any other creature with multiple hit points.

Out of curiosity, what do you want your games to resemble? The 'hero cutting down villainous mooks' thing isn't just confined to movies.

Morty
2008-07-06, 10:16 AM
No more unrealistic than any of it. In fact, you might claim the minions are more realistic than the PCs, or any other creature with multiple hit points.

True. However, "no more unrealistic than the rest of D&D" is still preety unrealistic. I didn't read the article too closely, so the author might have put too much emphasis on the minions when it comes to the lack of realism.


Out of curiosity, what do you want your games to resemble? The 'hero cutting down villainous mooks' thing isn't just confined to movies.

I want my games to be fun, and I don't care overmuch what do they resemble. However, when a game looks too movie-like I have less fun. And I despise "hero cutting through mooks" trope wherever it appears unless.

JaxGaret
2008-07-06, 11:29 AM
Whether or not someone has 1 HP or 100 HP has no bearing on realism in and of itself.

You're taking a generic critique of the HP system itself, and applying it specifically to Minions. That's not a critique of the Minion mechanic, that's a critique of the HP mechanic.

Morty
2008-07-06, 11:32 AM
Whether or not someone has 1 HP or 100 HP has no bearing on realism in and of itself.

You're taking a generic critique of the HP system itself, and applying it specifically to Minions. That's not a critique of the Minion mechanic, that's a critique of the HP mechanic.

Minions are a part of unrealistic HP system of 4ed, and therefore are unrealistic themselves. And where do you get the whole "critique" part? My dislike for minions has nothing to do with realism. Why do people see criticizing 4ed where there isn't any?:smallconfused:

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-06, 11:35 AM
Whether or not someone has 1 HP or 100 HP has no bearing on realism in and of itself.

You're taking a generic critique of the HP system itself, and applying it specifically to Minions. That's not a critique of the Minion mechanic, that's a critique of the HP mechanic.

What he said.

Artanis
2008-07-06, 11:49 AM
I think you're missing the point of the "is not a minion at lower levels" arguement.

Look at 3e's swarms. At level 1, an individual creature can be a decent foe (with the most infamous example being a Cat vs. Commoner). After you gain a few levels, that creature is no longer a threat...but the higher-CR swarm of them is. Every hit is taking down several of the individuals in the swarm. Those creatures that were a threat in the past are now cloven through by the PCs as though they had...well...1hp each, tops.

Minions are the same way. A CR 1 Bat encounter would be 10 creatures, but a CR 2 Bat Swarm is five thousand. Likewise that level 11 Ogre Minion that keeps getting mentioned is a Minion at level 11, but is a full-fledged, more-than-1hp foe at, say, level 3.



Now, you may also hate swarms for the exact same reasons, but if that's the case, you could at least say as much :smallwink:

Morty
2008-07-06, 11:55 AM
I think you're missing the point of the "is not a minion at lower levels" arguement.

Look at 3e's swarms. At level 1, an individual creature can be a decent foe (with the most infamous example being a Cat vs. Commoner). After you gain a few levels, that creature is no longer a threat...but the higher-CR swarm of them is. Every hit is taking down several of the individuals in the swarm. Those creatures that were a threat in the past are now cloven through by the PCs as though they had...well...1hp each, tops.

Minions are the same way. A CR 1 Bat encounter would be 10 creatures, but a CR 2 Bat Swarm is five thousand. Likewise that level 11 Ogre Minion that keeps getting mentioned is a Minion at level 11, but is a full-fledged, more-than-1hp foe at, say, level 3.

Would a level 3 brute get offed by a single basic strike from a level 11 very often? I don't think so. So it's still unrealistic.


Now, you may also hate swarms for the exact same reasons, but if that's the case, you could at least say as much :smallwink:

I do belive I said why I think minions are stupid clearly enough.

Artanis
2008-07-06, 11:56 AM
I do belive I said why I think minions are stupid clearly enough.
I must've missed it. I tend to miss things a lot :smallfrown:

Spiryt
2008-07-06, 11:59 AM
Look at 3e's swarms. At level 1, an individual creature can be a decent foe (with the most infamous example being a Cat vs. Commoner). After you gain a few levels, that creature is no longer a threat...but the higher-CR swarm of them is. Every hit is taking down several of the individuals in the swarm.



I don't think that this is very good analogy. In fact swarms are something complitely different, and are as realistic as it's possible in D&D. Swarm is, well, a swarm of creatures who won't make sense alone, and which generally form swarms.

You don't have singular orc that is threat only on 1-2 levels and then swarm of orcs treated as one creature.

Just look at the swarm rules - those are by definition tiny or smaller creatures. And they are immune to weapon damage so no, players don't cleave trough them.


Those creatures that were a threat in the past are now cloven through by the PCs as though they had...well...1hp each, tops.

Were did you see bat's or wasp being any threat, singualary ?

Morty
2008-07-06, 12:01 PM
I must've missed it. I tend to miss things a lot


And for the record, I do belive minions are stupid and I don't want my games to resemble movies.

As a response to the claims that minions are supposed to be cinematic, I think it's clear enough. If it's not, I clarify that I don't like minions because they introduce one of the worst cinematic and literary cliches, that is hero cleaving his way through a horde of redshirts into a RPG game.

Artanis
2008-07-06, 12:02 PM
Were did you see bat's or wasp being any threat.
http://www.d20srd.org
Bats are listed as a CR 1/10 encounter. The CR calculator on the site lists ten foes of CR 1/10 each as an overall encounter CR 1.

So ten bats make a CR1 encounter with a total combined 10hp. Five thousand bats make a CR2 encounter with a total combined 13hp.




Edit: Ninja'd

As a response to the claims that minions are supposed to be cinematic, I think it's clear enough. If it's not, I clarify that I don't like minions because they introduce one of the worst cinematic and literary cliches, that is hero cleaving his way through a horde of redshirts into a RPG game.
Gotcha

Spiryt
2008-07-06, 12:05 PM
http://www.d20srd.org
Bats are listed as a CR 1/10 encounter. The CR calculator on the site lists ten foes of CR 1/10 each as an overall encounter CR 1.

So ten bats make a CR1 encounter with a total combined 10hp. Five thousand bats make a CR2 encounter with a total combined 13hp.


See, bats don't have attack. So no matter how many of them you ecounter, they're no threat. Even if they have CR of 52.

Besides, if there are 5 000 of them they definetly become a swarm.

darkzucchini
2008-07-06, 01:35 PM
This argument over minions really comes down to cinematic vs. realistic. When I think of minions I think of the Battle of Helmsdeep from the recent Lord of the Rings movies. Now I love the movies and the battle is pretty cool, but whenever I see it I can't help but say to myself, "Damn, those old peasants are really good shots". I think hardly any of the attacking orcs were hit anywhere but in the eyes or the throat, and while that certainly looks cool in a movie, it doesn't cut it for me when I play D&D.

It awesome in D&D when I crit with my bow and deal 12 damage to the charging goblin, dropping it in one hit. Its not so cool when I can drop most of my opponents in one hit, that just isn't nearly as rewarding, thats clearing out mooks and feels more like a chore than a battle.

Critical hits, of course, start being less and less powerful as characters level up, which I find unfortunate and is probably one of the main reasons that I prefer low level games.

Artanis
2008-07-06, 01:42 PM
See, bats don't have attack. So no matter how many of them you ecounter, they're no threat. Even if they have CR of 52.

Besides, if there are 5 000 of them they definetly become a swarm.
Yeah, it's a bad example, but it's the best illustration I could come up with :smallfrown:. The point was to show another way of looking at a mass of easily-butchered enemies that aren't encountered as a mass when fought at lower levels.

tbarrie
2008-07-06, 06:57 PM
So how is this any different from my 3ed fighters (whom most clam useless), from turning a Marilith demon into hamburger in one round? She was for sure not a minion but she might as well had 1 hip point for all the fighting she did. One round and out. Fighter with big ole two-hander and a bucket load of mussels 1 / CR17 demon 0


...did the Marilith in question have a nasty allergy to shellfish or something?

Starbuck_II
2008-07-06, 08:33 PM
...did the Marilith in question have a nasty allergy to shellfish or something?

Good one.
She may have been Hebrew. Their old law said that you can't let Shellfish touch you/eat them or you get impure.
Guess, she shoulda listened.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-06, 08:43 PM
Good one.
She may have been Hebrew. Their old law said that you can't let Shellfish touch you/eat them or you get impure.
Guess, she shoulda listened.
The "old law" still does say that, and is still followed by many.

shadow_archmagi
2008-07-06, 08:57 PM
...did the Marilith in question have a nasty allergy to shellfish or something?

Great Cleave+Lots Weak Enemys=Killing lots of clams

Great Cleave+???+Lots Weak Enemys (like clams)=Getting one free attack per clam for 30 attacks in a round.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-06, 10:34 PM
Great Cleave+Lots Weak Enemys=Killing lots of clams

Great Cleave+???+Lots Weak Enemys (like clams)=Getting one free attack per clam for 30 attacks in a round.

Whirlwind attack. A free attack against each one, you kill em on everything but a one, and each one generates a great cleave.

horseboy
2008-07-06, 10:40 PM
I'm confused that he calls Minions "totally unrealistic". How many times does he think a person can "realistically" have a sword stuck through them without suffering any ill effects?Can't help you there. If I shove 3' of steel into someone's chest in a game and they don't die something's wrong. Of course, given my system preferences.... :smallamused: Rolemaster FTW

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-06, 11:10 PM
I was wondering when Cleave, Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack would come up.

Look, realism and hit points don't mix. Really, they don't.

If you want a superb, realistic system, look no further than Harnmaster : http://www.kelestia.com/

You basically get near physically modelling of combat down to crushing/piercing/slashing damage etc. of about 50 different hit locations, and a truly realistic analogy to a medieval fantasy world. Combat is brutal, and the aftermath doubly so... fighting with orcs (Keep on the Borderlands style) becomes a truly terrifying prospect... imagine sustaining a cut from a tetanus laded broadsword, and dodging gangrene and septecimia effects as the festering wound takes two weeks to heal with the herbs and poultices the local wise woman has prescribed take random effect... then your character (an illiterate sheepherder roped into the militia to fight off the roaming orcs with a spear or pitchfork) walks with a limp for the rest of the campaign. I have actually played Harnmaster with a dedicated bunch and can tell you that the rewards of such a gritty, realistic, low fantasy system can be awesome... it is, in terms of detail, the "Oblivion" to the "WOW" of most PnP games. Very immersive.

But if you want a high fantasy, spell slinging, swashbuckling campaign, bring on the hit points, I say. Remember, it would be up to your DM to implement pack attacks of minions, why not just use more able bodied and challenging foes?

Of more concern to me are the "healing surges" in 4th Edition, which as the reviewer said, kinda ruins the role of a cleric (IMHO) and would seriously turn the whole thing into more of a metagaming power ("My character feels like he should heal himself, so it happens, because my stat card says it should")... how would you roleplay it? At least magical healing comes from a source, whereas "I heal because the game says I can" kind of ruins the atmosphere, I think.

My two cents worth...

Eclipse
2008-07-06, 11:11 PM
I think the main issue here is people are looking at the idea of realism differently.

Taken individually, minions are realistic in the sense that they die when they are stabbed, shot, immolated, etc.

However, they are not realistic in the sense that they are not consistent with other creatures and people inhabiting the world of D&D.

That said, I think minions are a good idea if used well, like most things in rpgs. They aren't always appropriate, and whether or not they should be used will depend on the kind of campaign being run, as well as what is currently happening in the game. When used to create a cinematic feel as intended, they will likely prove to be quite valuable. As mentioned before, they're also a great way to gloss over more minor encounters, such as a guard you expect will have his throat slit by a rogue as the party infiltrates an enemy encampment and you don't want to run a pitched battle for something minor like this.

In the end, it's up to the GM to decide if minions are appropriate for his game or not. I've already used minions prior to 4th edition being released in campaigns I've run. We always called them mooks or red shirts.


Edit: I got so caught up in the minion debate, I forgot about good old healing surges. No, healing surges are not realistic at all. But outside combat, you can still only use a healing surge once every five minutes, the length of a short rest. And in combat, you can use only one second wind without aid from a healer allowing you to use more, not counting when you are dying.

Now, healing to full in 20 minutes is still unrealistic, but so is epic high fantasy. I'm not worried about realism, I'm worried about fun first, and consistency second. Realism takes a back seat to these concerns.

As for fun, healing surges help immensely. I played clerics often in 3rd edition. I liked playing a decent fighter who could also cast spells. I didn't like "wasting" my turns on healing the party when it felt like it wasn't doing much. Now anyone can heal up without the aid of the cleric, leaving them to do more fun things, like cast offensive and buff spells and wade into battle. Because healing surges help make the game more fun for the cleric, and don't adversely effect it for anyone else, aside from people looking for realism, I'm all for it. If you're looking for realism, you aren't looking for D&D anyway. As for roleplaying the use of healing surges, you rest for a time, from 5 to 20 minutes based on how many surges you need to use, and feel better, though you may still have some superficial wounds and that bedraggled, dragged through the mud look, and some bloodstains to boot.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-06, 11:35 PM
... I think being able to completely heal oneself back to optimum within 20 minutes without the use of any kind of magic or external assistance is a miracle slightly short of Messiahdom but certainly in the superhero range...

"Dungeons and Dragons and Dudes in Spandex"...

Certainly regen. Without some form of in-game/plot justification though, it does ruin the immersion somewhat...

"How come you are back to normal after that fight with the Beholder? You got pasted!"
"[peers at character sheet] 'Cos it says I can."
".... oh!"

[Sense of epic adventure, fading...]

JaxGaret
2008-07-06, 11:58 PM
Minions are a part of unrealistic HP system of 4ed, and therefore are unrealistic themselves.

You missed the point of what I said.


And where do you get the whole "critique" part? My dislike for minions has nothing to do with realism. Why do people see criticizing 4ed where there isn't any?:smallconfused:

Did I say anything about 4e in my last post? No.

I was talking about the Minion mechanic and the HP mechanic specifically, neither of which are unique to 4e.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 01:00 AM
However, they are not realistic in the sense that they are not consistent with other creatures and people inhabiting the world of D&D.
I don't think realism enters in here. HP really aren't a measure of someone's health or endurance in a biological sense...minions aren't meant to be goblins tottering on the brink of death who die if they trip on the way to their room.

HP is, to put it bluntly, a measure plot armor. They only measure a figures staying power as it relates to combat with enemies.

I don't see HP existing outside of the metagame.

Swordguy
2008-07-07, 01:39 AM
I don't think realism enters in here. HP really aren't a measure of someone's health or endurance in a biological sense...minions aren't meant to be goblins tottering on the brink of death who die if they trip on the way to their room.

HP is, to put it bluntly, a measure plot armor. They only measure a figures staying power as it relates to combat with enemies.

I don't see HP existing outside of the metagame.

I'm stealing that description. It's perfect. Well played.

Eclipse
2008-07-07, 02:25 AM
I don't think realism enters in here. HP really aren't a measure of someone's health or endurance in a biological sense...minions aren't meant to be goblins tottering on the brink of death who die if they trip on the way to their room.

HP is, to put it bluntly, a measure plot armor. They only measure a figures staying power as it relates to combat with enemies.

I don't see HP existing outside of the metagame.

I understand hp is an abstraction, and your way of looking at it is perfectly valid. What I was trying to point out is that people are looking at the lack of consistency and calling it a lack of realism, and people are getting hung up on this point.

The lack of consistency comes when you have, for example, two burly level 11 orcs, and one is a minion. One has a lot of staying power whereas the other one doesn't, despite having the same stats in every other way.

Personally, this doesn't bother me at all, as minions are supposed to be a tool for improving the game, and will do so if used in appropriate situations.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-07, 04:12 AM
OK : I totally agree on the minion's aspect... and I seem to even recall something in 1st or 2nd edition with sweep attacks on creatures with less than 1 Hit Dice, so adventurers could merrily slaughter kobolds and goblins in their thousands without breaking a sweat. I agree that minions are a fun way of converting other creatures to this tradition, and making combat seem more voluminous and cinematic without breaking a sweat. No argument.

However, what I agree with the original review about, is there doesn't seem to be a rationale behind the whole healing surges thing...

Of course I understand that hit points are an abstraction, and represent many things such as luck, chutzpah, fate points, etc : but they ALSO represent the physical capacity to sustain damage... why else would a hardened fighter or barbarian receive more hit points than a weedy wizard? The fact that a character can "will it" and recover entirely from near death at 1 Hit Point (as surely some level of physical damage would have been sustained) once a day, without reference to any external magic, or healing, puts the healing surge system into the board game category... "my playing card says I can *shrugs* : guess its like having another life in a video game"... THAT is damaging to the actual role playing of that character without some justification. The previous version of being able to recover from near mortal damage was magic... the divine magic of healing. The current justification of being able to do it seems to be "the mechanics let me."

The system should complement the immersion of the player into the character, not tap the player on the shoulder and constantly remind him that its a gaming system. Rather than pretending to be the epic hero on an adventure, the player would more be worried about points management... "used your surge yet?"

I haven't received my 4e set in Australia yet, its still coming via sea-mail on pre-order, so I haven't had a chance to check yet, but I would be interested in running a house version without that feature... maybe just double clerics magic points or something...

Anyway, thanks

Morty
2008-07-07, 05:12 AM
You missed the point of what I said.

In what sense, exactly?


Did I say anything about 4e in my last post? No.

I was talking about the Minion mechanic and the HP mechanic specifically, neither of which are unique to 4e.

Alright then, why do you see a critique of HP system and minion system where there isn't any? Unrealistic =/= bad.

Tormsskull
2008-07-07, 07:22 AM
First of all, Mort wins. Some of you are trying to disprove things that he never even said. Minions are unrealistic. (<- That's a period)

I also dislike the healing surges. I ran a group new to 4e last week and the one thing I noticed was how easy the encounters were. The dwarf fighter being able to use a healing surge as a minor action every encounter basically means they have 1/4 more HP than they really do.

I'm starting up a new campaign on Saturday so I will get to see how healing surges work in the long run.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-07, 08:27 AM
"How come you are back to normal after that fight with the Beholder? You got pasted!"
"[peers at character sheet] 'Cos it says I can."
".... oh!"

[Sense of epic adventure, fading...]

Except, you only know that he's "back to normal" in the first place because it says on he character sheet that he is. In fact, you only know that he got "pasted" because it says on his character sheet that he did.

What I always find totally breaks immersion is conversations like this:

"I got totally pasted in that fight with the beholder! Can you heal me?"
"Sure, where are you hurt and how bad is it?"
"Umm ... well ... I've sort of got these nonspecific injuries which make me extremely vulnerable to being knocked out, but don't actually impede my mobility or actions in any way. I'm not feeling any physical pain, or losing any blood. I'm certainly at no risk of infection. I've got no bones broken, because somehow the sword blows that reduced me to my current state of near-incapacity did so without actually breaking my skin, let alone causing me any kind of serious injury. Should I be called upon to run a marathon or swim a river, my injuries would present me with no difficulties whatsoever. But never the less it is extremely important that you perform upon me your most potent of healing magics, or else the next time I am hit with an arrow, instead of its bouncing harmlessly off of my body, it will pierce my throat and kill me."

nagora
2008-07-07, 09:21 AM
Except, you only know that he's "back to normal" in the first place because it says on he character sheet that he is. In fact, you only know that he got "pasted" because it says on his character sheet that he did.

What I always find totally breaks immersion is conversations like this:

"I got totally pasted in that fight with the beholder! Can you heal me?"
"Sure, where are you hurt and how bad is it?"
"Umm ... well ... I've sort of got these nonspecific injuries which make me extremely vulnerable to being knocked out, but don't actually impede my mobility or actions in any way. I'm not feeling any physical pain, or losing any blood. I'm certainly at no risk of infection. I've got no bones broken, because somehow the sword blows that reduced me to my current state of near-incapacity did so without actually breaking my skin, let alone causing me any kind of serious injury. Should I be called upon to run a marathon or swim a river, my injuries would present me with no difficulties whatsoever. But never the less it is extremely important that you perform upon me your most potent of healing magics, or else the next time I am hit with an arrow, instead of its bouncing harmlessly off of my body, it will pierce my throat and kill me."
Oh no! You broke my bull**** detector! :smallfurious:

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-07, 09:39 AM
Therefore, minions aren't realistic. And before anyone comes screaming: this doesn't mean they're a bad rule(they are anyway, but from different reasons).

Ah, I think we've finally hit the nail on the head. And I'm going to kind of combine a few things here: I think the problem isn't that minions are unrealistic, I think the problem is that characters are unrealistic. (People seem to be talking from the viewpoint that every hit is a blow from a weapon to your character's body, something I disagree with, but we'll run with it.) M0rt is right, and the unrealistic thing is that everyone cannot die in one hit, which is not the case in real life. You could slash an ogre's brains out just as easily as a person's, so long as you can reach his head. So the actual place where it requires people to look at realism (and good or bad rules) is whether or not they agree with a system where characters and monsters cannot be brought low in a single hit. Personally, I like such a system. My players rarely have fun when they die, especially when they die from a SoS (or worse, a triple 20, which I had has an auto-kill houserule for awhile, until I had to fudge twice in a year to keep a goblin and then a basilisk from outright killing the same PC), so I am willing to accept such a system.

And I accept hp abstraction as a natural part of that system, leading very easily into the realism of minions. Minions only become unrealistic when you are thinking of the "system." In the game world, minions represent those fellows who just happened to be unlucky enough to get downed in one blow. They don't even have to be mooks really, just another Joe. Maybe that ogre got his head too low trying to swing his club at you, and you put out his eye (and frontal lobe). The fact that you know he only had 1 hp (which is an abstraction) only bears on your immersion (people who don't like it will be pulled out, people who like it will be sucked in), and has nothing to do with the realism of the game. Does that make any sense?

@OP: I actually liked that as a review, because aside from a few random conjectures, he made it quite clear it was his opinion (which is true of any review, no question). It was honest and straightforward. I think this minion brawl should be taken over to the "What's Wrong With 4e" thread though! :smalltongue:

Eclipse
2008-07-07, 09:56 AM
Ok, I want to try this again with the healing surges.

First off, the mechanics are there, so before saying it can't be roleplayed well, that it's willing yourself better, and so on, let's try a different, easier to swallow explanation.

Kyrrith, an assassin (read: class rogue) just hired by the local guild is out on his first mission. He's after a political target, the local duke, who if left alive will bring war to the small region he has dominion over. Kyrrith's guild wishes to prevent this, and Kyrrith is sent to do the job to prove himself. If he fails, a more experienced assassin will come in to finish the job.

Our would-be hero, however, fails a stealth check outside the duke's chambers, bangs into a table causing cutlery to fall to the floor with a loud clang, and hightails it out as the guards come running. He takes multiple arrows through the back, but makes it out barely alive, bleeding from multiple wounds and with 3 hp left.

Kyrrith makes his way to a nearby cave. Lacking supplies, he improvises. He pulls out a flask of spirits and takes a draw for fortitude. Since his enemies used barbed arrows, he pushes them the rest of the way through, grimacing in pain. He then tears off his shirt to make it into bandages. He pours some spirits on his wounds to disinfect them, then uses his torn shirt to bandage his wounds. Feeling worn out from the ordeal, he rests a few more minutes and takes another swig from the bottle. Finally, after all of that, he begins to feel a bit better and is restored to full hit points. And about 20 minutes has passed. Edit: This is the use of four healing surges.

He's still bandaged up, and still has some cuts and bruises and looks beat up. But he's ready to go again if he has to, and those cuts and bruises are no longer serious enough to effect his next fight.

Yes, this is incredibly cinematic, and not realistic. D&D isn't realistic. It's about heroes saving town, the world, the universe, etc. But this is a perfectly legitimate way to roleplay healing surges if you want something beyond the mechanics say it works. You do have to take a short rest every time you use a healing surge outside of battle, and that represents recovery time. It's safe to assume an adventurer uses basic first aid, even if it's mostly cinematic, during this recovery time.

Prophaniti
2008-07-07, 09:59 AM
Finally bothered to read this review, and I have to say, it's one of the best, most honest and least biased reviews I've read so far. He doesn't sugar coat it, like the guy from 'A well-written review on 3.x vs 4e' which was only well-written from an academic english standpoint. He's brutally honest about the parts he doesn't like, which is nice to see. I agree with most of his sentiments from my experience with the system so far (my friend who bought it finally convinced us to try it), although not all of them (I don't like minions, for example). Good review.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-07, 10:06 AM
First of all : Tormskull, please let us know how you proceed with your incombat surges over a period of time, I would like to know if it is a good idea to implement them in the campaign I start, or, if it may be easier to outlaw them up front than getting the player's hooked on them, and then having to replace them with something else...

Secondly, Eclipse, however cinematic, I just can't accept some of what you say... in the circumstances you have listed some form of "Heal/First Aid" skill be an acceptable replacement... however I don't really accept "by the amazing power of narrative you are healed"... by skill, sure! Magic... yup! Hell, even by mutant power would be preferrable than "just because you are heroic you can get all your life points back." I think that in its current form, it amounts to a bonus life, video game style, which reduces my feeling of immersion... does anyone feel the same way?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, guys, I think I understand a little better now...

Eclipse
2008-07-07, 11:39 AM
Secondly, Eclipse, however cinematic, I just can't accept some of what you say... in the circumstances you have listed some form of "Heal/First Aid" skill be an acceptable replacement... however I don't really accept "by the amazing power of narrative you are healed"... by skill, sure! Magic... yup! Hell, even by mutant power would be preferrable than "just because you are heroic you can get all your life points back." I think that in its current form, it amounts to a bonus life, video game style, which reduces my feeling of immersion... does anyone feel the same way?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, guys, I think I understand a little better now...

It's not the power of narrative. It's an ability the character has called healing surge. How each character uses said class feature depends on the class and style of the character and player. The explanation I gave was to show that you can have an explanation for what happens without magic. There are many other ways it could be explained as well. It requires rest to use. What happens during said rest is how to explain what actions the character took in game to justify a healing surge being used, aside from saying I will myself to be better.

A fighter, rogue, or warlord uses battlefield first aid. A cleric prays to his god. A wizard uses alchemical herbs to create a poultice. A warlock calls upon the beings he created a pact with. These are all possible explanations for how a given character uses that rest time to heal up, thus using a healing surge. Use the flavor of the character to come up with an explanation that works. Healing surge is an ability, it just doesn't specify what is done to cause the character to feel better. That's left to the players, and there are plenty of viable explanations a good roleplayer can come up with to make it work.

Tormsskull
2008-07-07, 11:51 AM
Healing surge is an ability, it just doesn't specify what is done to cause the character to feel better. That's left to the players, and there are plenty of viable explanations a good roleplayer can come up with to make it work.

And that is exactly what the problem is. Some of us have a hard time thinking of these things when they don't make sense. Sure, I could see that a warlock's pact with dark forces allow him to heal his wounds when he has a chance to concentrate. I could totally dig that.

Now a rogue who bandages himself up? No way, not the same at all. First, if we assume that the rogue is bandaging himself up (Heavy Netherweave no doubt), what happens when that same rogue is beaten to a pulp, stripped of all of his belongings, and then tossed in jail. The character can STILL use a healing surge, so immediately immersion is broke.

As potentially silly as it sounds, it almost makes more sense to say every player character has god blood in them, which allows them to heal themself. Or maybe every character is descended from Draenai (sp?, the WOW race that has a racial healing ability).

I think healing surges (particularly out of combat healing surges) are one of the biggest flaws in 4e so far.

One sort of houserule I am thinking of is making healing surges in combat grant temporary hit points that vanish at the end of combat. These would represent adrenaline or a character's will to live, perserverance, etc. Once combat ends, they lose the temporary HP, and if they are negative HP they would be placed at 1 HP instead.

Outside of combat, clerics could use their healing abilities (and since they are magical, the healing grants actual HP not temp), though I am not sure about the warlord. I think I'd have to respin the warlord as sort of a holy warrior (though that edges on the paladin's territory), or something else that includes magic.

But, as I mentioned before, it is too early for me to tell if healing surges bite the big one or if they just take some getting used too.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 12:04 PM
To me, a healing surge, is a second wind (not to be confused with Second Wind, which also mimics a second wind, but more significantly)
Your character is hurt, but he pushes forth with renewed vitality; pulls a Determinator. This is a way in which 4e could be called more "anime" (which to people like me who enjoy anime and see it everywhere in modern fantasy, isn't a problem)

It's not meant to be an actual healing of wounds, just a push of internal force which allows you to endure the wounds you have better.

Prophaniti
2008-07-07, 12:39 PM
Secondly, Eclipse, however cinematic, I just can't accept some of what you say... in the circumstances you have listed some form of "Heal/First Aid" skill be an acceptable replacement... however I don't really accept "by the amazing power of narrative you are healed"... by skill, sure! Magic... yup! Hell, even by mutant power would be preferrable than "just because you are heroic you can get all your life points back." I think that in its current form, it amounts to a bonus life, video game style, which reduces my feeling of immersion... does anyone feel the same way?

I feel the same way. Healing Surges, indeed any kind of healing, needs some kind of justification besides 'your just that heroic' for me, no matter how much of an abstraction HP is supposed to be. I know if I'm ever asked to DM 4E (I wouldn't do so voluntarily), I would sharply limit Healing Surges.

RukiTanuki
2008-07-07, 05:22 PM
I've had no problem with Healing Surges, but this is based on two aspects of my playstyle:

* I have no problem having a player use healing surges, then saying "you're beaten, you're bloodied, you're cut, you're limping, and you feel like crud, but you think you can keep fighting." I'm specifically visualizing John McClane in Die Hard as I say this. I have players who run with this: if I say the PC feels like crud and it makes sense that they do, my players play along. (Then again, I have a PC who searched for shampoo, of their own accord, because their hair was gross...)

* If "running them through" would be unrealistic because they can use a healing surge, I don't describe the attack as "running them through".

I guess, in summary, I describe HP as the PC's ability to keep fighting ("plot armor" is probably a cynical way of describing it), and as weapons clash against armor and split-second reflexes cause characters to instinctively dodge out of the way, the PCs get tired, bruised, and more likely to make those little mistakes where they genuinely get hurt. Rests and healing surges give them a chance to rest up, clear their head, grit their teeth, and try to push on.

nagora
2008-07-07, 05:45 PM
One sort of houserule I am thinking of is making healing surges in combat grant temporary hit points that vanish at the end of combat. These would represent adrenaline or a character's will to live, perserverance, etc. Once combat ends, they lose the temporary HP, and if they are negative HP they would be placed at 1 HP instead.
You could try limiting the effect of a healing surge to restoring the character's hit points to where they were before the current/most recent combat where they were injured. I would be stricter than that, personally, but since I'm never going to play 4e it hardly matters.

Of course, all their injuries are taken away by the healing-fairy during their evening nap, so it's all a bit "re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" as regards any attempt to make a believable world. :smallyuk:

Starsinger
2008-07-07, 05:48 PM
Of course, all their injuries are taken away by the healing-fairy during their evening nap, so it's all a bit "re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" as regards any attempt to make a believable world. :smallyuk:

You may have your believable world. I'll have a fun one where I don't have to have my character lay in town and coma for a month and a half to recover 3 hp.

nagora
2008-07-07, 05:59 PM
You may have your believable world. I'll have a fun one where I don't have to have my character lay in town and coma for a month and a half to recover 3 hp.
Why bother having hp at all? Or dice? Or NPCs? Why not have the DM just hand you a list of the treasure that fell out of your cosy dreams while your hit points were being inexplicably healed?

While we're at it, perhaps all the monsters could have 1hp and fall down dead as soon as your character clicks their fingers. I mean, who want's to bother with all that tedious messing about with challenges or coping with injury?

Good grief! I've just realised: characters still have to eat and drink in 4e! What a ridiculous and unwarranted intrusion of arbitrary "believability" into the nice fluffy no-sharp-corners gameworld! I hope that sort of thing is sorted out in 5e.

Starsinger
2008-07-07, 08:02 PM
You may explain to me what beyond realism that adds to the game. Realism for the sake of realism is not particularly high on my list of things to look for in an RPG. So if you can't come up with any other benefit to month long comas to recover a few HP, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disregard your high and mighty "Back in my day" point of view wherein you had to roll your d20s up hill both ways and count backwards starting from 0 to see if you hit something.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-07, 08:37 PM
I guess, in summary, I describe HP as the PC's ability to keep fighting ("plot armor" is probably a cynical way of describing it), and as weapons clash against armor and split-second reflexes cause characters to instinctively dodge out of the way, the PCs get tired, bruised, and more likely to make those little mistakes where they genuinely get hurt. Rests and healing surges give them a chance to rest up, clear their head, grit their teeth, and try to push on.

Fair enough. "Internal Fortitude" maybe? Anyway, I will have to see how they go...

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-07, 09:02 PM
Why bother having hp at all? Or dice? Or NPCs? Why not have the DM just hand you a list of the treasure that fell out of your cosy dreams while your hit points were being inexplicably healed?

While we're at it, perhaps all the monsters could have 1hp and fall down dead as soon as your character clicks their fingers. I mean, who want's to bother with all that tedious messing about with challenges or coping with injury?

Good grief! I've just realised: characters still have to eat and drink in 4e! What a ridiculous and unwarranted intrusion of arbitrary "believability" into the nice fluffy no-sharp-corners gameworld! I hope that sort of thing is sorted out in 5e.

That is obviously not what the situation is.

You find healing surges difficult to believe because you haven't made an effort to fit a believable explanation into the setting.
If you describe as the magical healing fairy, it'll sound ridiculous.

If you say that magic is caused by space raccoons who dance in the candy forest in the sky than that's ridiculous.


The problem is that you are acting as though every factor in the rules is part of the realism of the setting.

If a minion orc and a soldier orc are both hit by a sword, that doesn't mean both were stabbed in the heart and the soldier orc miraculously survived. It means that, if a minion is hit, than it is hit somewhere that is a mortal injury, whereas if a soldier is hit it's a glancing wound that doesn't take him down.

If someone spends a healing surge, that means that they push through the pain and gain a bonus to their vitality, which is entirely reasonable.


There is a metagame that is separate from the 'realism' of the game world. That is why the game world works, why you don't have to make a save every ten minutes or else stop the game because your character has to go to the bathroom in the middle of combat.

Rules exist to allow you to simulate a game within a reasonable degree of realism, flavor is given in a general fashion, sometimes more specific based on the rules.

Having a rigid in-system flavor where every action is part of a strict, demandingly consistent process is not only unrealistically disruptive of game design, but stifles flavor by denying players the ability to reflavor without breaking the 'consistency' of the system.

Thrawn183
2008-07-07, 10:18 PM
As far as internal consistancy, its the minions that make the most sense. You stab them, they die. Its the PC's that are ungodly freaks of nature. (Or just get really really lucky all over the place)

Gotta say though, with healing surges I just don't have PC's suffer too serious of injuries until they are truly down and out. A PC at 1 hp is pretty banged up, but clearly (by the rules) is fully capable of continuing the fight. If you think of him as having 1% of his blood supply remaining, no hp system will ever make sense.

And lastly, stats are there so that the PC's have a way of interracting with the world around them. The DM already gets to arbitrarily decide how the world interracts with itself. 1 HP means that PC's kill them in one solid blow, it means determines absolutely nothing about how those creatures interract with other non-PC creatures (ie. a level 20 minion will probably not be taken down by some random dudes with crossbows just because he only has 1 hp, though even that could be understandable on occaision if you just have it be some incredibly powerful guy that catches a bolt in the eye).

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-07, 10:27 PM
I will admit to being biased and liking healing surges. But I don't think they need to take more than a minimal amount of realism away, which I think Starsinger talked about admirably. And Dan_Hemmens already covered hp abstraction in 3e (I'm not saying it's worse, just the same).

But I will reuse the assassin example from earlier to explain how healing surges work in the realm of hp abstraction (sorry forgot assassin's name):
Will bumps into a table, alerting the guards. They come running. He exchanges blows with the first one, swords ringing off each other, and Will gets a minor scrape across the chest as he dodges aside. As the guard's sword crashes into his, jarring his arm and shoulder, Will decides to flee from him and the oncoming guards. He turns to run, but is caught by the broadside of the guard's blade and slammed against the wall. This doesn't slow him down too much, so Will runs off, barely avoiding a few arrows until one pierces his shoulder. Will yells in pain, but makes it away to the aforementioned cave.

He is mostly just sore, but that arrow is a problem, so he pushes it out and bandages it. Hopefully he can get to a medic or something to heal that later. He spends a few minutes massaging his sword arm and legs, then stands up, shakes himself off, and heads back to the guild to report his failure, favoring his left arm if he can. He is especially wary of guards now, as he knows he is not at full capacity. He is still tired and worn out from the last fight afterall.
Explanation:
Here, we can see where exactly Will gets bloodied, in addition to other things (there is even a push in there). The large majority of damage that the magical healing fairy is taking care of is just the general aches and pains of surviving a melee combat. Yes, it involves some semblance of the "healing skill," but most people know how to wrap cloth around their bodies, and that you should do it if you are bleeding.

The key is that he is not tip-top shape and hunky dory. In a system that assumes about 4 encounters per day, you can assume you will be relatively low on healing surges by the 4th. You are giving up a tangible portion of your character's ability to withstand the fatigue inherent in even short combats, leading him ever closer to making the one misstep that leads to his death blow.

And you can flavor the surges however you want. People were okay with Barbarian damage reduction, which was not supposed to be super resistant skin so much as the ability to merely shrug off blows that would kill lesser men. Your fighter's healing surges can represent this. Your wizard's are odd alchemical poultices that take time to apply. Your cleric's are long-winded prayers to their gods that involve careful meditation.

Is this a cinematic class ability? Yes. Indeed it is. But so is a jump skill with 20 ranks or a fighter swinging his sword 4 times in a round. But I think I have flavored it sufficiently well above so as to be at least as realistic as fighting a basilisk, and much more so than the prancing raccoon faeries of the magic moon.
And from a DMs perspective, I can have a series of long fights leading to the boss room, and still have the boss fight as epic as I want because the players are at full hp (but NOT full resources) The cleric won't be able to heal them as much, and some of them may be out of surges entirely. They have to hope that they get the boss before he gets them. Make sense?

(I love these threads! :smalltongue:)

nagora
2008-07-08, 04:03 AM
You may explain to me what beyond realism that adds to the game
Dramatic tension and a sense of achievement in situations where the characters are away from a safe base for protracted periods. "A six-hour doze and suddenly everything's healed up" is childishly simplistic and robs the game of any sense of realism. And, by realism I mean "something which gives the impression that my character is real and not just a 1-dimensional list of numbers on a piece of paper".

People don't just get 100% better overnight after being brought to within an inch of their lives, not even in action movies or any other genre other than Tex Avery cartoons.

Spiryt
2008-07-08, 05:15 AM
Dramatic tension and a sense of achievement in situations where the characters are away from a safe base for protracted periods. "A six-hour doze and suddenly everything's healed up" is childishly simplistic and robs the game of any sense of realism. And, by realism I mean "something which gives the impression that my character is real and not just a 1-dimensional list of numbers on a piece of paper".

People don't just get 100% better overnight after being brought to within an inch of their lives, not even in action movies or any other genre other than Tex Avery cartoons.


Nicely said.
Nobody probably wants corns from walking to long, effect of rain on your precious sword, et cetera realism, at least not in D&D. But healing a wound from a spear in 6 hours... :smallyuk:

Personally I liked it in 3.5. People healed risiculously fast (especially with good healer) from the point of any "realism", but it was just OK for game. Healing from wounds take some time. Of course Clerics spoil it a bit, but that's another story.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-08, 05:50 AM
"A six-hour doze and suddenly everything's healed up" is childishly simplistic and robs the game of any sense of realism.

While you make a good point here, I don't know why it is "childishly simplistic." It is a game mechanic that many people accept in many games so as to increase their gaming experience overall. In some games, you need only stab yourself with a medicine needle or have a cleric touch you and you are healed. I understand you were talking about realism. But if one wants to play heroic fantasy, then sleeping and regaining your hp is not as unrealistic as Santa Claus being the main bad guy or something (that is either childish or devilishly adult). And Spiryt makes a good point that wounds should take at least some time to heal. I wasn't aware of the sleeping = full hit points thing. That being said, at first read I typed this up, and I think it still applies:

Anyone played those video games where sleeping for a night only heals part of your wounds? (see pretty much every DnD computer game) So you just sit around a campfire and keep sleeping, hoping you don't get attacked while you do so? I sure do. And why were those wounds healing, rather than becoming infected and ruining my characters' day?! I remember people doing that in 3e as well, at times when I wanted action to be happening, but they weren't about to do it. "Well, you should have had the action happen anyway." Easier said than done when you just want to play a game, and you have a full-time job (or classes and a part-time), because their putzing around derails your next adventure. Suddenly, monster positions change, order changes, etc. etc. Or it all stays the same. In the latter case, my immersion is derailed. In 3e?! Never. Yes, it happens when everyone laughs at someone else's pizza fart as well.

"But now you can't have time based encounters?" Remember in LotR when Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn had to run for something like 3 days straight to get to the Orcs and their halfling captives? They didn't get to sleep. If they had, say, 'daily powers' or 'hit points,' then they would probably be pretty low on that stuff were they to have met with encounters in the meantime. That's right, make it even more intense, by not letting your players sleep at all.

I admit that resting a full night and healing all your hps is wonky, but a scant few systems have come up with anything close to a realistic situation on that front. In real life, most of the time, if you were wounded severely in medieval combat, you were probably going to die. Incompetent doctors, infection, or just plain lack of an ability to find your missing arm will most likely lead to your inevitable and grisly demise.

So, you know, have a good night's sleep everyone, and enjoy those hps, which are not a quantifier of how much blood is or is not currently flowing from your body!
If you don't want to read that whole thing, then the most important part in this discussion is that time rarely heals a spear wound that is not otherwise treated. Most likely, if you have been impaled by a spear, you will bleed to death or the wound will be infected.

Sleeping and regaining Hp doesn't pull me out of the game because I don't equate HP directly to bloody wounds my character has sustained. It represents that to some extent, but it is also his general fortitude, his fatigue, and various other things. So in the end, I accept a full night's sleep being a full heal as easily as I accept the fact that the greatsword wounds did not seriously damage my ability to use my arms or legs.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 05:53 AM
Having a rigid in-system flavor where every action is part of a strict, demandingly consistent process is not only unrealistically disruptive of game design, but stifles flavor by denying players the ability to reflavor without breaking the 'consistency' of the system.

To me such a rigid system would provide a consistent basis for RP. When I read "Magic Missile" I have come to equate that with "Wizard taps into source of Arcane power, formulizes the raw energy there into a projectile spell, and then fires it at a target".

While the way Magic Missile may look can depend on the Wizard casting the spell, it is always the same otherwise.

Now, if every class could cast Magic Missile, it would really break immersion for me, because while I might be able to see a cleric calling on their deity which provides them with such a spell, I can't for the life of me see a class that uses the Martial power source as being able to do the same.

And that is essentially what healing surges have done. They have taken what was a very limited capability in the history of D&D that has traditionally been relegated to requiring magic, and made it mundane.

I will be the first to admit that if you play hack n slash D&D that healing surges provide no problem at all. In fact, the whole 4e model has been hailed as a great system for tactical war gamming.

But if you play it as a role playing game, with a story, and characters that have depth, healing surges can very easily break the immersion.

Dausuul
2008-07-08, 08:50 AM
But if you play it as a role playing game, with a story, and characters that have depth, healing surges can very easily break the immersion.

Only if you insist on viewing hit points as a measure of raw physical toughness and healing surges as actually "healing" the character. (I think a large part of this argument stems from WotC's idiotic decision to call them "healing surges" instead of "heroic surges" or something similar.)

The reason 4E has everybody heal up to full after an extended rest is simple; like many elements of 4E, it's an abstraction of something that happens anyway. In 3.X, the PCs almost always heal up to full hit points with a night's rest - the cleric converts all remaining spells to cure and/or gives everybody a few taps with the wand of cure light wounds. And if one night isn't enough, two nights always are. Long-term injury doesn't really exist in 3.X; the system only pretends it does.

As it happens, 4E does have a mechanic for long-term afflictions - the disease system, which IMO is much better designed than the 3.X disease rules. If you really want long-term wounds in 4E, it would be child's play to adapt the disease mechanics.

nagora
2008-07-08, 09:08 AM
If you don't want to read that whole thing, then the most important part in this discussion is that time rarely heals a spear wound that is not otherwise treated. Most likely, if you have been impaled by a spear, you will bleed to death or the wound will be infected.

I absolutely agree. The issue here is really "what are we simulating?" Obviously, it's not real life as we know it. D&D however, has historically been about simulating heroic fantasy, whether books and stories or movies. And Die Hard has to be the best "this is what hit points are" example of all time!

But the problem I had with 3e, and which is getting worse with 4e, is that what is being simulated is other games. Yes, there are plenty of 2nd rate computer games where you can heal by going to bed or mark enemies in order to save the programmer a lot of effort in developing AI routines. But I don't want to play them. And if I did, I would play them!

Surges, done carefully, are okay. I've houseruled a form of healing surge in my 1e games for 30 years. We called it "first aid" - amazing how much damage a stupid name can have on people's acceptance of something - and it allowed 1d4 hp back after combat, limited to not raising you above where you were at the start of combat. So, the concept of surges is not the issue, and the concept of hit points is not the issue. The problem is that applying them with no consideration of what their implied effects on the gameworld are has led to a bland video-game feel to the rules which is a turn-off for anyone who is interested in roleplaying characters from anything other than a video game.


In 3.X, the PCs almost always heal up to full hit points with a night's rest - the cleric converts all remaining spells to cure and/or gives everybody a few taps with the wand of cure light wounds. And if one night isn't enough, two nights always are. Long-term injury doesn't really exist in 3.X; the system only pretends it does.
This is a tiresome argument that gets wheeled out here quite a lot. The point is that the party in this case has to actually make sure that it can heal every night. It takes some effort and planning and losing the cleric is a serious blow to a party who plans everything on the assumption that there is going to be a cleric. Especially in the wilderness, miles from anywhere.

Now, there is no need to bother even with that level of planning. The game has become shallower at a strategic level.

It's not much different from arguing that, since careful parties always bring light sources, it's perfectly reasonable to say that, in 4e, all races can see as well in the dark as if they had continual light spells cast on their foreheads. Or that, since no one has ever had a party starve to death, characters will no longer need to eat. There's no practical difference from earlier editions, right? :smalleek:

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 09:36 AM
Only if you insist on viewing hit points as a measure of raw physical toughness and healing surges as actually "healing" the character. (I think a large part of this argument stems from WotC's idiotic decision to call them "healing surges" instead of "heroic surges" or something similar.)


I disagree. I would say if you view HP as representative of raw physical toughness AT ALL, it becomes a problem. Personally I've always thought of HP as a combination of ability to dodge attacks, luck, and raw physical toughness. Under that assumption, when you are at 1 HP, I think it logically follows that you are very bad off physically.



The reason 4E has everybody heal up to full after an extended rest is simple; like many elements of 4E, it's an abstraction of something that happens anyway. In 3.X, the PCs almost always heal up to full hit points with a night's rest - the cleric converts all remaining spells to cure and/or gives everybody a few taps with the wand of cure light wounds. And if one night isn't enough, two nights always are. Long-term injury doesn't really exist in 3.X; the system only pretends it does.


We are just coming at this from a different angle. You are looking at it from a mechanical standpoint. While it may make good sense, or be more fun, or be less boring, or what have you for the characters to very easily be able to return to full health/resources, it doesn't make good story sense (at least, it doesn't IMO).

I'm not going to say 3.x was perfect (it is my least favorite edition so far), but using core only, and low level, if your party's cleric was out of healing spells, you could be in for a very rough time.

In 4e, you could be at 1 HP, no cleric or magical healing in sight, bar yourself inside of a closet for 5 minutes and jump out good as new. That simply defies logic to me, and breaks immersion very easily.

Prophaniti
2008-07-08, 09:57 AM
Good grief! I've just realised: characters still have to eat and drink in 4e! What a ridiculous and unwarranted intrusion of arbitrary "believability" into the nice fluffy no-sharp-corners gameworld! I hope that sort of thing is sorted out in 5e.

Nagora, you're my new hero. That's hilarious.

Also, I do recall the 4e manual including physical toughness in the list of the things amalgamated into HP... Someone quote it if I'm wrong, it is possible...

Therefore, at least part of the representation of HP is indeed physical, and how much actual injury your character has sustained. Now, the only way HP can make realistic sense (if you care for that sort of thing) with this into account is if the physical portion is only your last 1-10% of HP. Meaning you have view it just like a system with a sharply limited Wounds stat (like GURPS or DH), but with hundreds of extra 'plot armor' hp tagged on at the end, because we don't want the players to feel bad, and getting your character killed ruins the game (apparently).

So, yeah, HP really doesn't make sense from a realistic standpoint no matter how you slice it. Narratively, sure, dramatically, sure. But definitely not realistically. So, of course, it inevitably comes back to which you prefer. A system that feels realistic and helps you immerse yourself in the fantasy world, or a system that feels more 'heroic' (IMO meaning 'easy' or 'god mode', but not meant derogatorily), and makes you feel like a character in a novel. I certainly understand both desires, though I find myself, most often, firmly in the first camp.

Indon
2008-07-08, 10:25 AM
Only if you insist on viewing hit points as a measure of raw physical toughness and healing surges as actually "healing" the character. (I think a large part of this argument stems from WotC's idiotic decision to call them "healing surges" instead of "heroic surges" or something similar.)

Also, the Bloodied mechanic.

shuntsu
2008-07-08, 11:19 AM
A lot of people miss the game reason for having minions.

Minions can be very high level and have very debilitating offense, but only have 1 hp.

This means that minions are there to pose a transient but serious threat, something that wasn't represented well in previous DnD. Minions can and will chew up your HP just as fast as other creatures their level. They just won't be around very long.

This is useful for creating a variety of situations that are fun to play, including fights against significant baddies that have a series of annoying henchmen that simply slow you down or get in your way, rather than turn into full-fledged fights on their own.

It also simplifies and speeds up encounters that you wish to include that may have a large number of combatants. It's fun to be able to toss 4 more monsters in an encounter and have it not really bog things down too much.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 11:33 AM
This is a tiresome argument that gets wheeled out here quite a lot. The point is that the party in this case has to actually make sure that it can heal every night. It takes some effort and planning and losing the cleric is a serious blow to a party who plans everything on the assumption that there is going to be a cleric. Especially in the wilderness, miles from anywhere. You're really for trapped in the wilderness thing. With y'know the prevalence of teleports and other spells to get around such unpleasantness. But, there's always taking away the full recover after rest in the wild if you choose. You're not above house ruling.


Now, there is no need to bother even with that level of planning. The game has become shallower at a strategic level. The shift on strategic planning has changed. You no longer plan on what happens after combat. The emphasis is now on surviving combat.


Or that, since no one has ever had a party starve to death, characters will no longer need to eat. There's no practical difference from earlier editions, right? :smalleek:
Are you honestly going to tell me, you've made sure your players eat when it was of no consequence? And by no consequence I mean, if you're not stranded in the wilderness, at which point food becomes a plot point. Are you like the jerktastic DM who informed his players that they were taking damage (without ever saying from where) because they never said "Oh hey! I'm eating" and thus they began taking starving damage until, if I remember right, they died?

Prophaniti
2008-07-08, 12:00 PM
A lot of people miss the game reason for having minions. I don't think anyone's missing the game reason behind minions. The problem some of us have is when a thing is done purely for in-game (as opposed to in-universe) reasons. That's called meta-gaming, and the system or DM is just as capable of it as the players. Minions and Healing Surges are great game mechanics, but they have no in-universe justification. They're there purely to make it more fun, within it's context as a game.

Problem is, I don't play D&D just to play a game. I've got hundreds (likely thousands, but I don't like to think about it) of dollars worth of games, from board-games to consoles to my computer, to satisfy that desire. I play D&D to be immersed in a fantasy, to experience a make-believe life of a make-believe person and to, just for a moment, be completely absorbed by that reality instead of this one. Rules made purely for metagaming reasons destroy that immersion for me, and I might as well go play a computer game. Minions and Healing Surges have no place in the kind of D&D I want to play.

Dausuul
2008-07-08, 12:28 PM
I would say if you view HP as representative of raw physical toughness AT ALL...

I don't. Taking a wound leads to loss of hit points, and healing a wound leads to recovering hit points, but you can lose all your hit points without ever being physically injured (e.g., psychic damage), and you can recover all of your hit points without healing at all (e.g., a warlord's Inspiring Word).

I will concede that the fluff text for hit points does not fit well with the way hit points actually work in-game. Of course, 4E is just following a long-established D&D tradition in that regard, since the fluff text for hit points has never fit well with the way hit points work in-game. WotC sucks at fluff text, always has.


This is a tiresome argument that gets wheeled out here quite a lot. The point is that the party in this case has to actually make sure that it can heal every night. It takes some effort and planning and losing the cleric is a serious blow to a party who plans everything on the assumption that there is going to be a cleric. Especially in the wilderness, miles from anywhere.

Now, there is no need to bother even with that level of planning. The game has become shallower at a strategic level.

I'm sorry, but "buy a wand of cure light wounds" does not qualify as strategic planning as far as I'm concerned. That falls under the heading of "jump through this hoop." It's something that any halfway sane party should do as a matter of course before setting out into danger.

I would like 4E to contain a system for serious long-term injuries, but such injuries should be fairly rare events, like disease. And 4E is no better or worse than previous editions here.

nagora
2008-07-08, 12:51 PM
I'm sorry, but "buy a wand of cure light wounds" does not qualify as strategic planning as far as I'm concerned.
How many charges on that? Where did it come from? Why would any decent DM allow magic items to be bought in a shop? Did it survive the fireball/dragon's breath? etc.

I can see that the logical end point of such bad DMing/design is what you have in 4e, but that's not really saying much about the quality of the result, really.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 01:01 PM
How many charges on that? Where did it come from? Why would any decent DM allow magic items to be bought in a shop? Did it survive the fireball/dragon's breath? etc.

Is it really bad DMing to assume that the church of Ilmater seeking to raise money to further their charitable works, sells wands of cure light wounds to adventurers as well as the usual bottles of holy water? I rather think it's good DMing actually. I mean, churches in real life pass the collection plate, have bake sales, host car washes, and other things in order to raise money. Why should fictitious churches in D&D be different other than to deprive players of magical healing?

nagora
2008-07-08, 01:05 PM
You're really for trapped in the wilderness thing.
Or, you know, just on a long journey. It happens sometimes that characters don't just wake up in front of the dungeon/mission. Crazy stuff, eh?


With y'know the prevalence of teleports and other spells to get around such unpleasantness.
Well, what level is that at? What's the chance of malfunction? What about when you're on another plane?


But, there's always taking away the full recover after rest in the wild if you choose. You're not above house ruling.
Yes, I can "rule 0" out all the mistakes the designers made.


The shift on strategic planning has changed. You no longer plan on what happens after combat. The emphasis is now on surviving combat.
That's right: 4e doesn't DO long term. It has reduced its aims to combat and nothing but combat.


Are you honestly going to tell me, you've made sure your players eat when it was of no consequence? And by no consequence I mean, if you're not stranded in the wilderness, at which point food becomes a plot point.
If characters get separated from food for a long time then I do make it an issue. And if they walk out the door for a four week journey through mountains without planning for food, then they're idiots and deserve it.


Are you like the jerktastic DM who informed his players that they were taking damage (without ever saying from where) because they never said "Oh hey! I'm eating" and thus they began taking starving damage until, if I remember right, they died?
Are you like the jerktastic player who, when asked what they had brought to eat as the group settled in to camp, said "the PHB doesn't say anything about eating so my character doesn't need food"? What sort of player doesn't remember to bring food on a long journey?

nagora
2008-07-08, 01:10 PM
Is it really bad DMing to assume that the church of Ilmater seeking to raise money to further their charitable works, sells wands of cure light wounds to adventurers as well as the usual bottles of holy water? I rather think it's good DMing actually. I mean, churches in real life pass the collection plate, have bake sales, host car washes, and other things in order to raise money. Why should fictitious churches in D&D be different other than to deprive players of magical healing?
Because of exacly the issue here. Why adventure if you can just go to the shops? It cheapens the value of magic items and undermines the long-term interest in the game.

I assume that all the characters in question give a 10% tithe to the church of Ilmater and attend services and so forth regularly? I mean, obviously you wouldn't have placed such a church simply in order for it to be a two-dimentional plot device for the purpose of giving the PCs loads of unwarrented help instead of actually having to be heroic, would you?

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 01:12 PM
What sort of player doesn't remember to bring food on a long journey?

What sort of player, or what sort of character? If it's character, it's a stupid one. If it's a player, it's one who probably isn't interested in the fine minutiae and logistics of travel and assumes his character takes care of it 'off-screen'.

Ulzgoroth
2008-07-08, 01:15 PM
Because of exacly the issue here. Why adventure if you can just go to the shops? It cheapens the value of magic items and undermines the long-term interest in the game.

I assume that all the characters in question give a 10% tithe to the church of Ilmater and attend services and so forth regularly? I mean, obviously you wouldn't have placed such a church simply in order for it to be a two-dimentional plot device for the purpose of giving the PCs loads of unwarrented help instead of actually having to be heroic, would you?
Because maybe you can come up with a reason to adventure other than to find magic items?

I mean, just a possibility...

And, um, wow. Why would you assume:
-That the characters have to be deeply involved in something for it to be important?
-That being allowed to spend your gold on things is help, let alone 'unwarranted' help?
-That having access to magical items is inherently unheroic?


Also, I wholly applaud the immersion point. I haven't read any 4e books, but everything I've heard, from either side, seems to add up to 'they don't care about immersion'. Which convinces me it's not worth spending the reading time, let alone putting down money.

Starsinger
2008-07-08, 01:20 PM
I assume that all the characters in question give a 10% tithe to the church of Ilmater and attend services and so forth regularly? I mean, obviously you wouldn't have placed such a church simply in order for it to be a two-dimentional plot device for the purpose of giving the PCs loads of unwarrented help instead of actually having to be heroic, would you?

Or the church of Ilmater is there because you're playing in Forgotten Realms and they have churches of Ilmater. Or you put the church in to add flavor the world. I mean, if the PCs aren't members of the church, isn't not putting churches in just making the world as PC-Centric as certain people keep saying it is?

Beyond that, Ilmater seeks to keep people from suffering, therefore, selling wands of cure light wounds is perfectly in character for the church of Ilmater. And thus we're back to good DMing.

Thrawn183
2008-07-08, 01:28 PM
Supply and demand. So long as there is anybody who wants to buy a wand of cure light wounds, someone is going to make it and sell it to them.
So long as there are two people left alive in the world, someone is going to want somebody dead.

Regardless, apparently every DM I've ever had is inept because they let us spend our WBL on... exactly what it was meant to be spent on.

I have never, not even once, woken up in 3.5 with less than full hp (not counting night attacks/assassination attempts of course). Period. I've had some problems with level drain, ability drain and such at low levels but even that becomes a minor inconvenience at the end of a fight at higher levels. The point? In third edition, which was wildly successful in comparison to previous editions, wounds essentially disappeared by the next day. 4th just takes the tedious process out of it and says it happens. Just like every edition takes the tedious process out of eating and says you just do it automatically.

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 01:36 PM
Also, I wholly applaud the immersion point. I haven't read any 4e books, but everything I've heard, from either side, seems to add up to 'they don't care about immersion'. Which convinces me it's not worth spending the reading time, let alone putting down money.

To be fair, there are probably just as many posts made by people whose 'immersion' was helped by 4th Ed's streamlined approach as there are posts made by people who weren't. Every game system has details that jar and snag if you think about them hard enough.

Justin_Bacon
2008-07-08, 01:46 PM
You may have your believable world. I'll have a fun one where I don't have to have my character lay in town and coma for a month and a half to recover 3 hp.

Well, that'll certainly get you back on your feet quickly so that you can go back to beating the crap out of all those nasty ol' strawmen.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-08, 01:49 PM
Also, I wholly applaud the immersion point. I haven't read any 4e books, but everything I've heard, from either side, seems to add up to 'they don't care about immersion'. Which convinces me it's not worth spending the reading time, let alone putting down money.

I don't get this. I've been plenty immersed, role-playing my character and caring whether he lives or dies, as well as thinking what he would do.

Ulzgoroth
2008-07-08, 01:50 PM
To be fair, there are probably just as many posts made by people whose 'immersion' was helped by 4th Ed's streamlined approach as there are posts made by people who weren't. Every game system has details that jar and snag if you think about them hard enough.
I haven't seen them, then. If I did, I probably would feel obliged to mock them for finding this laundry-list of metagame mechanics and design conducive to immersion.

I'm pretty sure the only thing approaching what you say that I've noticed is 'I don't care what the mechanically-governed part of the game is, the world is defined by vague, rule-free play. Thus less rules about the world are better for immersion.' And if what you like is play-without-rules, why do you play a game with rules at all? :smallannoyed:


I don't get this. I've been plenty immersed, role-playing my character and caring whether he lives or dies, as well as thinking what he would do.
I'm fairly sure that we are using non-compatible definitions of immersion. Look up to Prophanti's post to see what I'm referring to.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-08, 01:52 PM
I haven't seen them, then. If I did, I probably would feel obliged to mock them for finding this laundry-list of metagame mechanics and design conducive to immersion.


And I would in turn mock you for finding "I do X, now what do I roll for that?" immersive.

EDIT: and regarding the post you referenced in your edit,
I play D&D to be immersed in a fantasy, to experience a make-believe life of a make-believe person and to, just for a moment, be completely absorbed by that reality instead of this one. Rules made purely for metagaming reasons destroy that immersion for me, and I might as well go play a computer game. Minions and Healing Surges have no place in the kind of D&D I want to play.
(bolding mine) I do the same. However, in contrast to "metagaming" rules, rules where there don't need to be any destroy that immersion for me. In contrast, in a heroic fantasy world with magic I have no issue with just plowing over mooks instead of rolling for how badly I eviscerated them, and finding reserves of strength to resist grevious wounds.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 02:02 PM
I don't. Taking a wound leads to loss of hit points, and healing a wound leads to recovering hit points, but you can lose all your hit points without ever being physically injured (e.g., psychic damage), and you can recover all of your hit points without healing at all (e.g., a warlord's Inspiring Word).


It will come to no suprise that outside of combat I also dislike the Warlord's healing ability.



I will concede that the fluff text for hit points does not fit well with the way hit points actually work in-game.


But doesn't "actually" work mean the way we have to make them work for the mechanics to make sense at all? I'd prefer the mechanics served the fluff, not the other way around.



I would like 4E to contain a system for serious long-term injuries, but such injuries should be fairly rare events, like disease. And 4E is no better or worse than previous editions here.

I would too, but I would prefer it was more of a common thing. One of my greatest memories in OD&D was the long-drawn out fights where you knew that even if you won, you were going to have to rest a long time to recover.

I think it would be kind of cool if they released an "old school" or "hardcore" rules supplement to 4e. Then they could introduce a lot of fluff/mechanics that don't fit in with the current idea of 4e.

Ulzgoroth
2008-07-08, 02:12 PM
And I would in turn mock you for finding "I do X, now what do I roll for that?" immersive.

Well, the alternative is "I do X...now how do I figure out if it worked, or what it did?"

Maybe because I don't consider 'it does what you think it ought to do' to be a game mechanic, ever. And 'it does whatever the DM ***pulls' is even worse.

That is, I can explain my position. Care to explain yours?
(After seeing your edit)

Ok, you kind of have. Well...what makes mooks mooks? They're apparently given a special mechanical place in the world to be allowed to die like flies when, if they weren't declared mooks, they would be vastly more survivable. If you were just not bothering to roll damage because the only question was how many pieces your enemy flew into, I'd agree (I'd do it anyway, but not bothering makes sense.). But these baddies are specially made to be abnormally fragile, yes?

And fighting through grevious wounds is one thing. Making them vanish entirely for your convenience is something else, and apparently is what the game supports (if you infer any such wounds to have been inflicted in the first place).

Maybe it's just that I find no possibility of immersion in a setting where 'red shirts' are a reality.

As for rules where there don't need to be any...I assume that nearly any activity could be important. That's really all. If, to invoke the classic bad example, you're a great baker, I need to know exactly how great because you might, someday, want to do something where that matters. Thus, rules need to be everywhere.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-08, 02:16 PM
Dramatic tension and a sense of achievement in situations where the characters are away from a safe base for protracted periods. "A six-hour doze and suddenly everything's healed up" is childishly simplistic and robs the game of any sense of realism. And, by realism I mean "something which gives the impression that my character is real and not just a 1-dimensional list of numbers on a piece of paper".

I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by conflating these two, distinct issues.

You can't object to Healing Surges on the grounds of realism while still playing D&D. Seriously, you can't. D&D Hit Points (and hit points in general) operate on an "Okay/Okay/Okay/Dead" assumption. Either you have Hit Points remaining, in which case you are effectively uninjured (you can still act and fight at full effectiveness) or you are unconscious.

You can object to Healing Surges on the grounds that they reduce the quantity of resource management required in the game, but that's a strictly gameplay issue, not a question of realism.


People don't just get 100% better overnight after being brought to within an inch of their lives, not even in action movies or any other genre other than Tex Avery cartoons.

People don't get 1% better overnight. A person with a real injury from a real weapon is not only going to be incapable of fighting any kind of battle at all, they're going to be at real risk of dying of an infection, possibly whether you get them to a hospital or not.

If a character is capable of acting and fighting without their injuries causing them any serious problems whatsoever, then they clearly can't be that badly hurt, and it therefore clearly makes sense for them to be on full hit points.

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 02:33 PM
I haven't seen them, then. If I did, I probably would feel obliged to mock them for finding this laundry-list of metagame mechanics and design conducive to immersion.

The more you try to govern the game by consistency and rigid systems, the more you will have to try to govern the game so. Thus, when you come up against something that contradicts something previous, the system tends to break.

Now, 3rd Ed tried to be immersive in that way by being as consistent, and it's debatable as to whether it worked. There were certain flaws. Whenever 3rd Ed tried to say, "Check me out, I'm realistic" there was always something that you could pick up on and say, "Well, what about this?"

Now, 4th Ed doesn't try, you're right. "I'm not realistic at all!" And there's two ways you can reply to that - either "Cool, let's play" or "Well, you should be!". (Edit: I guess there is a third reply, "So?" but I'll put the unconcerned stance aside for now.) Now, the first bunch of folks would be those who were either there to play a fun game or to get into the story, the history of the world and the personality of the character or enjoy the spectacle of the world, the heroism etc etc. For those folks, 4th Ed is great, the minutiae usually just got in the way of the 'immersion'. Having to bother about the little things jolts you out of the grand spectacle and reminds you you're playing a game.

The second bunch of folks, though, are those whose minds trip over details, or those who are interested in playing the life rather than the story, or those concerned with the everyday challenges as well as the grand ones. For these folks, the rules are part and parcel of play. It's not the complexity or the frequency of the rules that jolts them out of the immersion, it's when there is inconstancy or the metagame shows itself.

One group is not better than the other. That's a given. But there is a problem, for the second group: there will always be inconsistencies, and there will always be a metagame in the background. 3rd Ed gave it a go of being 'immersive' in that way, but didn't quite make it, in the opinions of many. When faced with the dilemma of becoming more detail-oriented, 4th Ed went the other way instead. Some see this as a good thing, some see this as a good marketing decision, some see this as a sell-out. Either way, a lot of the complaints over 4th Edition come from trying to play it the same way as 3rd Ed, trying to play it as the game it's not. For those whose gaming styles and tastes have been shaped by 3rd Ed, or for those for whom detail and logistics were always attractive, this is going to be rough. For those who can get over that mental hurdle, they might find playing 4th Ed is actually kind of liberating, and no less 'immersive' for that.

Ulzgoroth
2008-07-08, 02:46 PM
The second bunch of folks, though, are those whose minds trip over details, or those who are interested in playing the life rather than the story, or those concerned with the everyday challenges as well as the grand ones. For these folks, the rules are part and parcel of play. It's not the complexity or the frequency of the rules that jolts them out of the immersion, it's when there is inconstancy or the metagame shows itself.

One group is not better than the other. That's a given. But there is a problem, for the second group: there will always be inconsistencies, and there will always be a metagame in the background. 3rd Ed gave it a go of being 'immersive' in that way, but didn't quite make it, in the opinions of many. When faced with the dilemma of becoming more detail-oriented, 4th Ed went the other way instead. Some see this as a good thing, some see this as a good marketing decision, some see this as a sell-out. Either way, a lot of the complaints over 4th Edition come from trying to play it the same way as 3rd Ed, trying to play it as the game it's not. For those whose gaming styles and tastes have been shaped by 3rd Ed, or for those for whom detail and logistics were always attractive, this is going to be rough. For those who can get over that mental hurdle, they might find playing 4th Ed is actually kind of liberating, and no less 'immersive' for that.
I agree with your basic concepts. I'm in your second group, I know it, and I can't help but think the first group are insane. I recognize that they exist, but their goals are incomprehensible to me. (I also theorize that they really ought to be happier playing something entirely different from D&D. There are so many games miles ahead of 4th ed. in the direction they seem to want...)

I think you've got a bit of bias showing, though. It's not a mental hurdle to get over unless you're tangled in the details and don't want to be.

I hadn't thought of D&D4 in that light before. I think you've illuminated a lot, actually.

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 03:06 PM
It's not a mental hurdle to get over unless you're tangled in the details and don't want to be.

Oh, not saying that being steeped in the fine detail is bad (You're right, though, I probably have leanings towards the first group). I'm also not saying that everyone is firmly on one extreme or the other. Just that if you play 4th Ed you're going to face the challenge of playing a game that doesn't really have much of that kind of intricacy. Having said that, it's been said (at length) that complexity does not equal depth, and you might find an aspect of the game that does appeal to a part of you.

Jayabalard
2008-07-08, 03:45 PM
You can't object to Healing Surges on the grounds of realism while still playing D&D. Seriously, you can't. Yes you can... there have been dozens of people on these forums alone that have made those objections.

Shrugging off wounds is cinematic for sure, but many people feel that being able to shrug something off as a minor wound without it affecting your ability to fight is not as unrealistic as "I'm not wounded at all anymore" unless you're using some sort of magic (or ultratech) to get to act as the wound reset button...


If a character is capable of acting and fighting without their injuries causing them any serious problems whatsoever, then they clearly can't be that badly hurt, and it therefore clearly makes sense for them to be on full hit points.Arguments that depends on the word clearly to try and forstall anyone's disagreements are generally flawed... especially when someone start putting emphasis on clearly by using italics/bold/underline/caps/etc.


People don't get 1% better overnight.That depends on the injury. Many injuries can be completely healed in 100 days or less, so for those, you would get 1% better overnight.




Supply and demand. So long as there is anybody who wants to buy a wand of cure light wounds, someone is going to make it and sell it to them.This is oversimplified by quite a bit; you also assume that creation is simple and cheap enough and that the demand is enough to make it worth someone's inventory space until they sell it.




I'm fairly sure that we are using non-compatible definitions of immersion. Look up to Prophanti's post to see what I'm referring to.That seems pretty condescending; you can't even be bothered to discuss the differences in what you're talking about?




It will come to no suprise that outside of combat I also dislike the Warlord's healing ability.Nope, no suprise. I'd guess that you're fairly strongly into the "magical things should be magical and non-magical things should be realistic" genre.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-08, 04:02 PM
Yes you can... there have been dozens of people on these forums alone that have made those objections.

And they've made no sense when set against the background of a HP based combat system. Healing Surges are just extra Hit Points. If it makes sense to have 20, it makes sense to have 25.


Shrugging off wounds is cinematic for sure, but many people feel that being able to shrug something off as a minor wound without it affecting your ability to fight is not as unrealistic as "I'm not wounded at all anymore" unless you're using some sort of magic (or ultratech) to get to act as the wound reset button...

But you're talking about the exact same thing, just with different game mechanics backing it up.

A 45HP Fighter takes a 12HP sword wound, it's "just a scratch" and doesn't affect his ability to fight. He takes another couple of hits, and gets whittled down to 5HP. He's still only lightly wounded, his injuries still don't slow him down at all. It's all just scratches, shallow cuts and light bruises which don't affect his ability to fight, and won't cause him any harm in the long term.

I simply don't understand how somebody can accept that but not accept the character's HP total resetting overnight. He's still covered in those cuts and bruises, but since they manifestly do not slow him down why should he be at anything less than full HP?


Arguments that depends on the word clearly to try and forstall anyone's disagreements are generally flawed... especially when someone start putting emphasis on clearly by using italics/bold/underline/caps/etc.

I wasn't using it to forestall disagreements so much as provoke them. My aim was to emphasize the fact that Healing Surges are no more difficult to accept than HP in general.


That depends on the injury. Many injuries can be completely healed in 100 days or less, so for those, you would get 1% better overnight.

Very few serious injuries heal naturally and completely in hostile conditions with no medical attention. Minor cuts and scratches will, but you can't break your leg, run around as if nothing's wrong for a month, and then have it set with no problems at all.

Ulzgoroth
2008-07-08, 04:19 PM
That seems pretty condescending; you can't even be bothered to discuss the differences in what you're talking about?
It's actually not condescending (though I'm sorry if it was taken as such), it's just trying to be efficient. What I wanted to say was already written, and restating tends to lead to confusion (and to putting words in other people's mouths). I suppose I should have quoted, that was laziness on my part.

I think SmartAlec's posts have adequately dealt with the topic (albeit from the wrong side:smallwink:), so I don't have much to say about it anymore.

nagora
2008-07-08, 04:24 PM
In third edition, which was wildly successful in comparison to previous editions
If by "wildly successful in comparison" you mean, sold less and has fewer players (according to WotC), then yes, 3e was much more successful than 1e, just in a negative way.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-08, 04:37 PM
Because of exacly the issue here. Why adventure if you can just go to the shops? It cheapens the value of magic items and undermines the long-term interest in the game.

I assume that all the characters in question give a 10% tithe to the church of Ilmater and attend services and so forth regularly? I mean, obviously you wouldn't have placed such a church simply in order for it to be a two-dimentional plot device for the purpose of giving the PCs loads of unwarrented help instead of actually having to be heroic, would you?
Magic item shops being regularly available has been a long term assumption of Greyhawk, Eberron, Planescape, Faerun, and most other 3.5 campaign settings.

That's why the DMG has a wealth by level for characters above 1st level, the difficulty levels expect magic items, and magic items are listed as having a market price.

Frankly, I'd prefer it was different as well, but don't criticize people for bad DMing because people use the system as it's intended to.

You are putting a ridiculous, condescending, obnoxiously sarcastic spin on every flavor decision that doesn't meet your own standards, and then using that spin to justify your own criticisms.

Yakk
2008-07-08, 04:53 PM
If by "wildly successful in comparison" you mean, sold less and has fewer players (according to WotC), then yes, 3e was much more successful than 1e, just in a negative way.

[citation please]!

Dausuul
2008-07-08, 06:00 PM
This is oversimplified by quite a bit; you also assume that creation is simple and cheap enough and that the demand is enough to make it worth someone's inventory space until they sell it.

Well, under 3E rules, the profit margin is 50%. It takes one day to make it and the creation can be done by any 1st-level cleric or druid with the Craft Wand feat. And the item is one which can heal any wound; seems like there ought to be a pretty hefty demand for that.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 06:03 PM
Well, under 3E rules, the profit margin is 50%. It takes one day to make it and the creation can be done by any 1st-level cleric or druid with the Craft Wand feat.

The Craft Wand Feat has a prerequisite of Caster Level 5.

Dausuul
2008-07-08, 09:47 PM
The Craft Wand Feat has a prerequisite of Caster Level 5.

Fair enough. Still, not exactly the sort of thing you need an archpriest for.

Indon
2008-07-08, 10:30 PM
A 45HP Fighter takes a 12HP sword wound, it's "just a scratch" and doesn't affect his ability to fight. He takes another couple of hits, and gets whittled down to 5HP. He's still only lightly wounded, his injuries still don't slow him down at all. It's all just scratches, shallow cuts and light bruises which don't affect his ability to fight, and won't cause him any harm in the long term.

I simply don't understand how somebody can accept that but not accept the character's HP total resetting overnight. He's still covered in those cuts and bruises, but since they manifestly do not slow him down why should he be at anything less than full HP?
One can easily flavor that as being very beaten up, honestly near death and running on adrenaline.

Assuming that our Fighter friend survives, and is level 5, I do believe he can recover in 4 days (given rest and sufficient bandages (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=228)). This rate of healing is about comparable to what you might see in an anime, which is pretty blatantly fictional, but not quite so disregarding of the severity of wounds. Plus, it allows for someone near death to actually be injured.

Meanwhile, for the gap between literally dying and fully healthy to be a six-hour rest, takes what is already a pretty silly system and makes it even more ridiculous. To say that both systems are silly is definitely something I think a lot of people would agree with. To say that one is not sillier than the other, though? Not so much.

A couple easy ways 4'th edition could have fixed that? They could have removed dying when out of HP entirely - just replaced it with unconsciousness (which would have had its' own distinct problems associated with it, but I digress), and also seriously reflavored the "bloodying" mechanic, which pretty directly implies that you're being beaten up when you lose significant amounts of HP. Both of these mechanics are in direct conflict with full recovery of health in 6 hours (but not necessarily in conflict with a healing surge, though it may have been flavored better in this respect if it were temp HP).

Also, 3'rd edition selling less than the original D&D? Can't say I believe that.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-08, 10:35 PM
I hadn't thought of D&D4 in that light before. I think you've illuminated a lot, actually.

Yup. There seems to be two distinct camps here : the ones who wanna play the game and get totally into character, with the mechanics of the universe providing a logical and consistent justification for their actions (such as a reasonable level of causality, even in "epic" combat situations), and those who would rather skim over the details in the quest for more and more fantastical situations...

I was thinking about this last night, and really think that I must fit into the first camp.

In my imagination, D&D has always come from a baseline of Western European medieval society (and then, later on, other societies), augmented with all of your Hawkmoon/Elric/Conan widescreen baroque fantasy as the rough and tumble of the adventure. However, I am aware that there are some people from which do not imagine such a historical/realistic baseline, and they view it more as a kind of fantasy anime epic, so the idea of using "powers" without reference to any system of realism/causality totally reasonable.

Neither of these groups are "correct", any more than red is better than blue.

When you imagine your character, do you imagine your character as a real, living, breathing, skin-wearing thing? Or do you imagine it as a fantasy drawing or cartoon? That is the essential difference I seem to be gleaning from this debate... its not actually about minions or healing surges, its about whether or not you try to play an actual character in an actual world for actual experience, or the representation/minature of that character on the game board for points...

I am one of those who wants to play pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons because no simulation of the experience (computer, board game, LARP, or otherwise) has achieved the feat of actually "pretending that you are in a world other than this one" better. I want to think like my creation, or create a believable world where the characters think/breathe/sweat like theirs... when the rule system stops you from doing that by removing the risk, or revealing the stats for what they are (meaningless abstractions that don't actually matter because they're just make believe anyway) then you are damaging my experience, and those players who I am taking with me.

On the up side, I have finally received my pre-order version of 4e in the mail and am happily curled on the couch having a read right now. It looks beautiful! If I decide to implement any house rules to correct/assist the experience, I will try and let you know.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-08, 11:21 PM
Trying to bridge the gap in the argument.

I am inclined to agree that there is a spectrum of ways to approach the game, between the extremes you mentioned. I'm curious what you think of the books.

I wish that 3e hadn't been spoiled for me by constant encounters with Timmys. It kind of ruined complex rule systems for me, because now I see every rule as something to be broken. DM interaction is implicit in P&P games (and THAT'S what makes the difference between them and computer games in my opinion, not how many rules it has), and I see replacement of rules by guidelines (where suitable for what I consider important) as cutting down on places where a strong-willed rules-lawyer can own the game in spite of the DM.

It doesn't have to be the case, there's plenty of cases where people haven't abused the rules, but when I meet another gamer and he talks about how his character is awesome because his class/class/class/class/class combo and magical spiked chain slaughtered a blahblahblah instantly, it makes me cringe. And yes that's an actual example I encountered in person, not a strawman, I just can't recall the exact details.

SmartAlec
2008-07-08, 11:34 PM
However, I am aware that there are some people from which do not imagine such a historical/realistic baseline, and they view it more as a kind of fantasy anime epic, so the idea of using "powers" without reference to any system of realism/causality totally reasonable.

Bit harsh, speaking as one of these supposed fantasy anime fans who actually isn't. There are plenty of action fans and fantasy-epic lovers who nevertheless can produce some very intriguing and thoughtful characters within the context of a world, and I'd like to include myself among them. I would rather think of the two 'extremes' as people who say "This is realistic enough to play in" and people who say "This is not realistic enough to live in".

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 12:06 AM
I would rather think of the two 'extremes' as people who say "This is realistic enough to play in" and people who say "This is not realistic enough to live in".

Fair call. I just think it comes down to a fundamental difference in the way we imagine things.

I like fantasy anime too. However, for RPG purposes like to have something I can imagine "being." I find it hard to imagine being a cartoon character (although I have dressed as a cartoon character, and after a few drinks, I am sure I have acted like a cartoon character on occasion, although more Warner Brothers than Miyazake). I like systems where the mechanics complement and empower your imagination, rather than intrude, and remind you it is just your imagination. For me, that's no fun.

So far, I actually like the new product... although I was sad to see Neutral and Chaotic bite the dust... endless hours of bickering about alignment definitions in forums and games magically disappear, as does the whole Moorcock Law vs Chaos thing. However, do you want to know the cool thing? If I wanna put Neutral and Chaotic back in, I can... :smallbiggrin: Don't forget, with the whole minion thing, we don't actually have to use them... and I'm sure with such clever people out there, we can work out something with the healing surges. *hugs*

BTW just saw the thread "Making [4e] grittier" which offers some house rules suggestions for healing surges/hit points adjustments. Didn't I just say that you were a clever lot?

Fhaolan
2008-07-09, 12:18 AM
Also, 3'rd edition selling less than the original D&D? Can't say I believe that.

Difficult to tell, really. I have vague memories of Gygax himself posting to a forum saying something along those lines, but TSR/Wizards/Hasbro doesn't make a habit out of posting actual sales figures.

And then you have to try to make sense of those figures. 2nd edition sold a lot of individual units, but had an exceptionally large catalog, so the sales per publication was very low. Comparing overall 2nd edition sales figures to overall 3rd edition sales figures would probably be unfair. You'd need to pick a specific core book, like the PHB, and compare that way across editions.

It would be very interesting to see those figures, but I doubt they'll ever be released to the public. Mainly because it wouldn't surprise me to find out that TSR 'lost' their version of those figures when they were sold to Five Rings by Williams, which was in the process of being bought out by WotC at the exact same time. Lots of confusion there.

JaxGaret
2008-07-09, 12:40 AM
In what sense, exactly?

In the sense that a) you are claiming that what you are stating about HP is factual, when it is an opinion

and b) your following statement that Minions are part of the HP mechanic, and so because you think the HP mechanic is unrealistic therefore Minions are unrealistic, all of which is based on your opinion that the HP mechanic is unrealistic.

IMO the Minion mechanic is unrealistic, yes, but not because they have 1 HP. It doesn't matter if a monster has 1 HP or 100 HP, that is the point that you are missing. The Minion mechanic is unrealistic (IMO) because of the exception-based part of it that states that Minions that are the subject of attacks that normally deal damage on a miss do not take that damage.

But that has nothing to do with HP.


Alright then, why do you see a critique of HP system and minion system where there isn't any? Unrealistic =/= bad.

Because you repeatedly end your statements in this thread with what amounts to "Why does everyone keep on misinterpreting me to say that I think that the Minion mechanic being unrealistic means that it is bad? Insert "factual" evidence for the Minion mechanic being unrealistic here [which really is opinion for why you think the HP mechanic is unrealistic], and then I'll finish it all off by repeating that I don't like the Minion mechanic, when all I really said is that I don't like the HP mechanic, since I didn't actually say anything specific about Minions".

To sum up, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I am not going to argue with you about it, but stating opinions as facts just doesn't fly.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 12:49 AM
Hmmm... my last two cents on the minion thing, wouldn't you be peeved if you were an evil mastermind and the 50 troops you had hired, fed, housed and trained for months lasted as long in combat as butter does in a microwave?

I would be introducing a "Detect Cannon Fodder" spell into my Human (Monster?) Resources Department's hiring section, that's for sure. :smallcool:

If I were running the huge dungeon, I'd replace the lot of them with traps and someone to maintain the traps : less overheads on food, huge bullies to keep 'em in line, etc. etc.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-09, 02:39 AM
Hmmm... my last two cents on the minion thing, wouldn't you be peeved if you were an evil mastermind and the 50 troops you had hired, fed, housed and trained for months lasted as long in combat as butter does in a microwave?


As the Evil Mastermind, you may be genre blind. In this case this is the time you shout "why must I be surrounded by these incompetent fools!" as the heroes kick your door down.

Otherwise you're genre savvy, and you knew only Imperial Stormtroopers could be so precise. In this case you realize that if evil winning was easy, somebody would have done it by now, but you're skilled enough to overcome the odds. As the heroes kick your door down you grin, "ah, just as I expected, you disposed of my troops with ease. But can you dispose of THIS?" and unleash your real plan. Unlike old-system underlevelled mooks, minions have a chance of hitting, and so have used some of the heroes' resources as they were slaughtered.

Prophaniti
2008-07-09, 05:24 PM
As the Evil Mastermind, you may be genre blind. In this case this is the time you shout "why must I be surrounded by these incompetent fools!" as the heroes kick your door down.

Otherwise you're genre savvy, and you knew only Imperial Stormtroopers could be so precise. In this case you realize that if evil winning was easy, somebody would have done it by now, but you're skilled enough to overcome the odds. As the heroes kick your door down you grin, "ah, just as I expected, you disposed of my troops with ease. But can you dispose of THIS?" and unleash your real plan. Unlike old-system underlevelled mooks, minions have a chance of hitting, and so have used some of the heroes' resources as they were slaughtered.
See, I prefer to at least attempt to avoid both tropes altogether, have my villians feel like three-dimensional characters and not like the villians from the last movie I saw. My villians don't hire 'minions', they hire guards and mercenaries, or animate magical or undead ones if that's more to their liking. They don't (except for the really insane/stupid/egotistical ones) do a plot exposition right when the party bursts into the room. Having them behave like movie/comic book villians makes the game feel like a movie/comic book. I prefer my games to take place in a world that at least tries to feel believable and real. The villian is not a 'genre', nor is he in a 'genre', he lives in an actual, functioning world, only it just happens to be one that exists only in my, and I hope my player's, heads.

Have fun playing your movie. :smallsmile: (only slightly sarcastic, if that's the way you like it, enjoy)

The New Bruceski
2008-07-09, 05:29 PM
See, I prefer to at least attempt to avoid both tropes altogether, have my villians feel like three-dimensional characters and not like the villians from the last movie I saw. My villians don't hire 'minions', they hire guards and mercenaries, or animate magical or undead ones if that's more to their liking. They don't (except for the really insane/stupid/egotistical ones) do a plot exposition right when the party bursts into the room. Having them behave like movie/comic book villians makes the game feel like a movie/comic book. I prefer my games to take place in a world that at least tries to feel believable and real. The villian is not a 'genre', nor is he in a 'genre', he lives in an actual, functioning world, only it just happens to be one that exists only in my, and I hope my player's, heads.

Have fun playing your movie. :smallsmile: (only slightly sarcastic, if that's the way you like it, enjoy)

If your villain doesn't hire minions, why were the heroes fighting them? You don't need a "detect redshirt" spell, you just spend your funds on tough guards instead of going for numbers. If you're looking for guys who can take the heroes on legitimately, and you end up with mooks, fire Human Resources. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

Prophaniti
2008-07-09, 05:39 PM
Well, I was going for more of a 'sarcastically point out how silly the minion rule is' kind of think, while explaining why I don't like my games to have that kind of cliche villian, except when we're doing a silly campaign.

You know, it's been a while since we've done that, maybe it's time again. I'm thinking 4e would be the perfect one to use, too, especially if we leave all the in-manual flavor unmodified, and use things like minions to the point of ridiculousness... A plan forms, and their doom is sealed! *milks the giant cow*

nagora
2008-07-09, 05:41 PM
[citation please]!
I'm about to go to bed, but the figures are on the net, at least for player numbers. Both TSR and WotC have done surveys and it seems that there were about a million more 1e players at its peak than 3e, just before 3.5 (or maybe just after). Sales figures are a subject of rumour as regards WotC. Although I did notice that Hasbro's 2007 report predicted great things for upcoming new editions of Trivial Pursuit and Cranium, but nothing at all about 4e D&D, which may or may not suggest something about the value of the line to them.

Now, I have to say that 3e is doing pretty damn well when you consider the rise of the Internet and the massive increase in console ownership and power. That's stiff competition. Plus, cinema is back in fashion too. Is there even the possibility for an RPG to sell as well as 1e AD&D no matter how good today? I personally doubt it. Certainly, I don't think 4e is going to be the break-through that causes Nintendo or Sony to wonder if they should get out of the games market!

Starsinger
2008-07-09, 05:49 PM
Certainly, I don't think 4e is going to be the break-through that causes Nintendo or Sony to wonder if they should get out of the games market!

I wasn't particularly aware that Nintendo and Sony were competing with 4e...

Dausuul
2008-07-09, 06:12 PM
If your villain doesn't hire minions, why were the heroes fighting them? You don't need a "detect redshirt" spell, you just spend your funds on tough guards instead of going for numbers. If you're looking for guys who can take the heroes on legitimately, and you end up with mooks, fire Human Resources. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

Even if you can get four minions for the price of one non-minion? It's not like minions are worthless in combat. They're more than just battlefield decoration; minions can and do kill PCs. I very nearly had a TPK two weeks ago when I decided at the last minute to toss some extra minions into a fight.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 08:23 PM
Even if you can get four minions for the price of one non-minion?

Hell yes! For starters, those minions eat just as much food as a regular troopers, so these glass jaw wonders that stretch my dark supply chain to breaking point every time they go and cark it at the mere mention of combat are ruining my economy.

Lets face it, adventurers are homicidal housebreakers with the kind of imperialistic sense of rightness that rivals the Western powers in Asia in the 19th Century. There is the same sense of planting the flag for what's good n' proper as destiny calls, don't'cha know, the looting the hell out the place. The "bad guys" are defending their turf from invasion, looting and pillaging from the magic power wielding (technologically superior) PC's... and as GM, I plan on following a strict policy of "sonno joi!"

My "dark forces"/masterminds would be working from a cash economy to defend the realm, not an XP economy. So unless the hit point effective troopers eat four times as much food, take four times as much pay, or four times as much management (usually the same "sergeant" will be sufficient to drive them into some kind of fanatical fervour... at the point of a crossbow), then hell yes I would be feeling raw when they go down at the wave of a sword.

Stupid PC's rallying around the call of "good" and "civilisation." Give me a wave of effective troopers, and we will expunge them from our homelands... :smallcool:

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-09, 08:57 PM
Hell yes! For starters, those minions eat just as much food as a regular troopers, so these glass jaw wonders that stretch my dark supply chain to breaking point every time they go and cark it at the mere mention of combat are ruining my economy.This is exactly the way people shouldn't be looking at minions. People in your world don't know there are hit points, or how many you have. It's not as though if you tap a minion he dies.
The only difference between minions and non-minions is how a PCs actions are interpreted in dealing with them; it's not a seperate career or species.


Lets face it, adventurers are homicidal housebreakers with the kind of imperialistic sense of rightness that rivals the Western powers in Asia in the 19th Century. There is the same sense of planting the flag for what's good n' proper as destiny calls, don't'cha know, the looting the hell out the place. The "bad guys" are defending their turf from invasion, looting and pillaging from the magic power wielding (technologically superior) PC's... and as GM, I plan on following a strict policy of "sonno joi!" The webcomic stereotype that everyone has confused with the truth is that.


My "dark forces"/masterminds would be working from a cash economy to defend the realm, not an XP economy. So unless the hit point effective troopers eat four times as much food, take four times as much pay, or four times as much management (usually the same "sergeant" will be sufficient to drive them into some kind of fanatical fervour... at the point of a crossbow), then hell yes I would be feeling raw when they go down at the wave of a sword.Big Bads don't hire minions knowing that they'll survive one hit, or knowing that he gets four for every one non-minion. These rules are for the benefit of DMs being able to adjudicate combat with large numbers of mooks.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 09:42 PM
*sigh* : I think someone had a sense of humour bypass... to quote the man :


Well, I was going for more of a 'sarcastically point out how silly the minion rule is' kind of think

Let me make this explicit for you.

Minions are cinematic gold. As is the Star Wars Stormtrooper Academy for Blind and Incontinent (recently upgraded from incompetent) Marksmanship. The major difference from the aforementioned whitesuited clones is that the minions CAN actually hit the PCs, and do real damage. As a DM, would I use them? Possibly, as low level mooks have been use for countless aeons beforehand. Check B2 : Keep on the Borderlands for a room fulla goblins armed with shortbows, one of the nastiest encounters you can think of at 1st or 2nd level. All of them have about 1 to 3 hit points, but will turn you into a porcupine quicker'n'you can blink. Come to think of it, it could've been a room fulla 1st Level Magic Users... :smallbiggrin:

Minions now extend this "do adult damage while taking a child's beating" to BIG monsters, which is interesting tactically. Would I use them? I am not sure. Again, it comes back to that whole "suspension of disbelief/immersion" thing we were previously talking about. If it fits your worldview/imagination, then go for it.

However my point is [was] that as an evil employer of the Shadowy variety, and since we are in a magical world where you can cast all manner of spells (including one to Restore Capacity to Sustain Damage Which May or May Not Be Physical (Hit Points)), you can bet I would be equipping my lieutenant's with a Detect Capacity to Sustain Damage Which May or May Not Be Physical spell to ensure I would be getting value for money : because in the GAME WORLD ECONOMY, the cost of employing someone competent is the same as employing a Mook. And if my HR section didn't use it, you would be firing them into the sun.

Hit Points = Hard Dollars for Henchmen. Please, can you see the humour in this? At all? No?

Indon
2008-07-09, 09:47 PM
Hit Points = Hard Dollars for Henchmen. Please, can you see the humour in this? At all? No?

Ah, you forget training! Training takes valuable time and gold (and facilities that you have to get an imp to dig out).

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 10:03 PM
Ah, you forget training! Training takes valuable time and gold (and facilities that you have to get an imp to dig out).

Unless they spring pre-trained from the womb, ready to be equipped (another cost) i.e. Lord of the Rings. Come to think of it, I didn't see a lot of farmland around Mordor to grow food for all those millions of orcs. Maybe Sauron had the "Pocket Dimension of Abundant Prarieland" magic item, and a small army of caterers.

That's why smart employers, uh, I meant dark overlords, opt for the Undead... turn your troops' hunger into an asset... braaaaiiiiinsssss :smallbiggrin:

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-09, 10:19 PM
Unless they spring pre-trained from the womb, ready to be equipped (another cost) i.e. Lord of the Rings. Come to think of it, I didn't see a lot of farmland around Mordor to grow food for all those millions of orcs. Maybe Sauron had the "Pocket Dimension of Abundant Prarieland" magic item, and a small army of caterers.

That's why smart employers, uh, I meant dark overlords, opt for the Undead... turn your troops' hunger into an asset... braaaaiiiiinsssss :smallbiggrin:
Orcs weren't fed. Since they were farmed underground, if they starved they just farmed more.

That's why they were so excited about meat.

Phil Lucky Cat
2008-07-09, 10:30 PM
I wonder if they ate the Mooks first?

HidaTsuzua
2008-07-09, 10:40 PM
Unless they spring pre-trained from the womb, ready to be equipped (another cost) i.e. Lord of the Rings. Come to think of it, I didn't see a lot of farmland around Mordor to grow food for all those millions of orcs. Maybe Sauron had the "Pocket Dimension of Abundant Prarieland" magic item, and a small army of caterers.

That's why smart employers, uh, I meant dark overlords, opt for the Undead... turn your troops' hunger into an asset... braaaaiiiiinsssss :smallbiggrin:

Tolkien actually deals with that issue in Lord of the Rings. Mordor actually has quite fertile fields further inland. It's just Frodo and Sam were wandering around the "dark and blasted" lands around Mt. Doom than the "rich volcanic soil" farmland further east.

As for minions, I've always viewed it more that becoming a minion is more of a "I'm a 1/6HD goblin! I have to fight the adventurers somehow!" deal. So it's more of a desperation tactic. Become a threat but allow yourself to get killed easily. A level 5 orge is a big deal to level 2 PCs and thus is a normal monster. Against level 12 PCs, he's nothing and goes minion to actually matter. What this means is that you want to hire the highest level monsters you can, but that's always been the case so nothing new there.

Minions also can be dangerous. Sure they can be taken down, but you have to hit (it's not a guarantee) and even small attacks add up. The 20 ranged minion swarm is going to take someone out at 1st level and could easily lead to a TPK.

However, minions are ultimately a kludge due to scaling problems in (A)D&D. It's better than the "a whole bunch of monsters that don't matter are still a worthwhile challenge" mindset of 3rd edition, but has a ton of issues. They still become less and less worthwhile as levels increase since PCs get larger AEs that aren't just for minion slaying (all the wizard Deal some Damage and Effect abilities for example).

nagora
2008-07-10, 03:36 AM
I wasn't particularly aware that Nintendo and Sony were competing with 4e...
Where have you been for the last 10 years? They're probably the biggest competitors WotC have, along with Microsoft.

Indon
2008-07-10, 07:36 AM
Where have you been for the last 10 years? They're probably the biggest competitors WotC have, along with Microsoft.

This would require for there to be some degree of exclusivity in product selection between these supposed competitors.

And I imagine most of us have console systems in addition to our tabletop gaming collections.

Nintendo and Microsoft no more compete with WotC than, say, a restaurant does (because it takes time to eat that I could spend tabletop gaming).

Jayabalard
2008-07-10, 09:05 AM
This would require for there to be some degree of exclusivity in product selection between these supposed competitors.The exclusivity is in $. Most people have a limit of some sort when it comes to spending money on entertainment so many people do make a choice of some sort when it comes to spending.

nagora
2008-07-10, 09:21 AM
The exclusivity is in $. Most people have a limit of some sort when it comes to spending money on entertainment so many people do many a choice of some sort when it comes to spending.
Correction: dollars and time. The latter is the cause of the drive towards "casual gaming" that doesn't take hundreds of hours of play to reach "name level", for example.

In addition, Hasbro is of the impression that gamers stay gamers for less of their lives today, compared to the past. This might be because the games they produce no longer appeal to more mature minds, but that's not something they seem to have considered.

Regardless of why, Hasbro's market research has apparently suggested to them that there is less and less time in which to sell to children and teens (who are their target market). Time spent on video gaming is time not spent on PnP roleplaying.

Indon
2008-07-10, 09:21 AM
The exclusivity is in $. Most people have a limit of some sort when it comes to spending money on entertainment so many people do many a choice of some sort when it comes to spending.

This view puts not only Nintendo and Wizards in the same industry, but also companies like Time Warner, Universal Studios, Marvel Comics, and countless other distinct, well, actual industries.

I question if this approach to the marketplace has any value whatsoever - you may as well say that Wal-Mart competes with Yacht companies because some people spend money on food at Sam's Club when they could be trolling the seas instead on their own private boat.

Jayabalard
2008-07-10, 09:30 AM
Time = money, so just $ is sufficient :smallbiggrin:


This view puts not only Nintendo and Wizards in the same industry, but also companies like Time Warner, Universal Studios, Marvel Comics, and countless other distinct, well, actual industries.
companies operate in multiple industries. All of those companies also operate in the entertainment industry. They all sell neat, pre-packaged entertainment.


I question if this approach to the marketplace has any value whatsoever - you may as well say that Wal-Mart competes with Yacht companies because some people spend money on food at Sam's Club when they could be trolling the seas instead on their own private boat.So, do you really believe that anyone makes the choice between buying a yacht or buying food at wal-mart? I mean, you might actually be able to make a case if you were going to argue "buy a yacht" vs "buy food at the whole foods store" but wal-mart?

You're comparing apples to oranges. People do make a choice "buy madden 09" and "buy 4e D&D" . Anyone who is in the entertainment industry is competing with everyone else in the entertainment industry trying to get yor $.

nagora
2008-07-10, 10:21 AM
This view puts not only Nintendo and Wizards in the same industry, but also companies like Time Warner, Universal Studios, Marvel Comics, and countless other distinct, well, actual industries.
Yep. They're all competing for the same market resources: lesuire time and dollars (and mostly the same demographics: teenagers with money to spend and more time to fill than adults). Just as rail and buses are competing against each other and not just airlines against other airlines and bus companies against other bus companies.

People have limited spare time and limited budgets for things to fill that time. Movies, DVDs and Television compete with books and video games as well as traditional games and RPGs. By and large, TV has won the lion's share of that market with the others left to pick up the crumbs compared to the situation before the second world war. Of the remaining time, people looking for social activities have a major choice between computer consoles which allow multi-play (and mass multi-play too) and games, both RPGs and traditional (including sports). I can't see why you would think it odd that these would be regarded as being in competition.

Spare time and spare money, that's what you have and they want.

Indon
2008-07-10, 10:58 AM
Then clearly, 3'rd edition must be selling more than 1'st edition, because of the proliferation of fast food sales decreasing the time-cash competition levels!

nagora
2008-07-10, 11:02 AM
Then clearly, 3'rd edition must be selling more than 1'st edition, because of the proliferation of fast food sales decreasing the time-cash competition levels!
I just want to get this straight: you're saying that "entertainment" is not a marketplace in which companies compete?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-10, 12:30 PM
I just want to get this straight: you're saying that "entertainment" is not a marketplace in which companies compete?

I think what he's saying is that there comes a point at which it becomes meaningless to consider two different forms of "entertainment" to be in direct competition with each other. Wizards of the Coast is not "competing" with the Royal Shakespeare Company in any meaningful sense.

nagora
2008-07-10, 02:38 PM
I think what he's saying is that there comes a point at which it becomes meaningless to consider two different forms of "entertainment" to be in direct competition with each other. Wizards of the Coast is not "competing" with the Royal Shakespeare Company in any meaningful sense.
That's a demographic issue: if the RSC was aiming at what Hasbro calls "tweens and teens" then they would be in competition for money at least. If plays went on for 40+hrs, then they'd be competing with WotC for time too.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-10, 05:52 PM
That's a demographic issue: if the RSC was aiming at what Hasbro calls "tweens and teens" then they would be in competition for money at least. If plays went on for 40+hrs, then they'd be competing with WotC for time too.
Of course, you didn't just say they were competing, you said they were their biggest competition and specifically gave them as reasons why sales in RPGs would decrease between 1e and 3e, a supposition for which you've yet to offer and actual evidence, claiming a decrease in players (which may or may not have decreased overall sales), and noting 'rumors'.
I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but I don't see what the relevance of this whole economic discussion is without any actual facts or figures to relate them to.

Indon
2008-07-10, 07:32 PM
That's a demographic issue: if the RSC was aiming at what Hasbro calls "tweens and teens" then they would be in competition for money at least. If plays went on for 40+hrs, then they'd be competing with WotC for time too.

My absurd example meets your demographic requirement, as well as all other factors of your argument.

My point, in fact, is that you are 'zooming too far out' - you're looking at the issue with such a broad perspective that you have no hope of ever isolating a specific causal relationship, due to the proliferation of other factors also occuring on the same scope. Thus, you can make no valid conclusions.

JaxGaret
2008-07-10, 08:14 PM
I don't agree, Indon. I think that, in general, a person only has so much time to budget for leisure activities, and each company that sells leisure products is competing for a slice of that pie.

I'm not saying that you don't have a point - it is on the brink of being 'zooming too far out' - but I think that what nagora is stating has merit.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-10, 09:31 PM
Or, you know, just on a long journey. It happens sometimes that characters don't just wake up in front of the dungeon/mission. Crazy stuff, eh?

I actually like healing surges as a 4e mechanic for solving this problem. You use the skill challenge rules, requiring endurance as one of the checks. When the players fail an endurance check, they all lose a healing surge permanently until the challenge is over. So they still fight at full capacity, but just don't have the ability to recover and spring into second winded action anymore.

Not only is this mechanic mentioned in the DMG, it is one of the specific examples given for Skill Challenges.

People still have resources that can be used and abused. The DM just has to find clever ways to use them. I too never found it very difficult to obtain CLW wands. If there were no magic shops or temples with level 5 clerics around, then it was quite easy for a player of that level to pick up the feat and get them at half the price. But the simple fact is that rolling a city randomly in the DMG would probably come up with at least a few level 5 clerics about, who (as they were not adventurers) would probably spend time blessing items for their god (especially if it was a god of mercy or healing). Realistically (in a world of magic), a temple of a good god would love making and selling CLW wands because these would probably save more lives than any other method of training available to the clerics.

JaxGaret
2008-07-10, 10:00 PM
What sort of player doesn't remember to bring food on a long journey?

Not those that come to gaming sessions loaded to the brim with the iconic Dew & Cheetos, that's for sure.

Or did you mean what sort of character doesn't remember to bring food on a long journey? :smallwink:

nagora
2008-07-11, 02:31 AM
Not those that come to gaming sessions loaded to the brim with the iconic Dew & Cheetos, that's for sure.

Or did you mean what sort of character doesn't remember to bring food on a long journey? :smallwink:

I chose the word carefully. Forgetting to list food as an item that is being taken shows a lack of sympathy with your character. No character would forget food (more than once anyway), so a player who forgets it has probably fallen out of their role. Which is a bad sign in a role-playing game.


I actually like healing surges as a 4e mechanic for solving this problem. You use the skill challenge rules, requiring endurance as one of the checks. When the players fail an endurance check, they all lose a healing surge permanently until the challenge is over.
I'm not exactly sure how this fits in with food; are you saying that the challenge is over when they next get food?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-11, 05:12 AM
I chose the word carefully. Forgetting to list food as an item that is being taken shows a lack of sympathy with your character. No character would forget food (more than once anyway), so a player who forgets it has probably fallen out of their role. Which is a bad sign in a role-playing game.

No character would forget to leave the house without getting dressed either, but I tend not to say "my character gets dressed" every time my character leaves his house.

Point being, for a lot of people "bringing enough food" is such a no-brainer that you just assume your character is taking care of it. This of course depends very much on the sort of game you're running - if you're particularly big on Wilderness Exploration, you probably want to track these things more seriously, but if you're running a city-based game that focuses on a Thieves' Guild, you simply don't need to worry about how many Trail Rations you're carrying.