|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 12:40PM
#221
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
And the ability to heal 300ish+% of one's health happens after combat is over. In combat, a PC reliably has access to 125% of their starting HP without the help of a healer (1 healing surge per fight). Paladins get 3 heals a day, and clerics get two empowered heals per encounter, all of which are limited by the number of healing surges characters have (which means that people can only heal through wounds for so many encounter per day). In my experience, the 1st level DDXP pregen PCs who are main targets for the bad guys (and thus get a lot of healing support) have usually used or had access to at maximum 200% of their starting HP. While this seems a lot, monsters were quite able to deal large amounts of damage reliably, removing large chunks of HP.
For example, in a recent playtest, the PCs ambushed a necromancer, and most of the PCs tried to focus-fire on him. This left one of the skeletons to wander past the fighter and paladin and into the rear ranks, chasing first the warlock, then then cleric, and finally the wizard. In 4 rounds of run-amok-ing, the skeleton dropped the Warlock to half HP, the cleric to negative HP twice (once after being healed by the Paladin), and nicked the wizard.
The particular fight was heavily advantaged towards the PCs, since they had free use of all of their action points and dailies, which they used to burst damage away a couple of the enemies.
So even in a relatively easy fight, a single monster seriously threatened one PC and significantly harassed a couple others. It was clear from my players that they were threatened by the one monster. Fair fights I imagine would be even more threatening, and tough fights (the ones where the PCs are supposed to face death) undoubtedly carry a lot of threat (I'm checking out a decidedly hard fight in the near future, so I'll have more info on that later).
In other words, I think 4e is plenty dangerous for PCs in combat. 4e healing mechanics are trying to allow for more fights per day. I haven't done a lot of testing/tinkering with those endurance rules yet, but they seem to me to succeed at extending the adventuring day without making combat as much of an endurance test.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 2:23PM
#222
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Easy to do all that when you exagerate numbers, especially when we dont have the precise wording of it all yet.
My numbers are not exagerated. A fighter can has 13 healing surges per day, each healing for %25 of max hp.
Simple math tells me that this is %325 (13 x 25). This does not include healing from negative HP and/or using powers to enhance the healing surges (like Healing word).
Perhaps you should review the your numbers if you believe my numbers to be exagerated....
P.S. As for the wording, I am going by the numbers that are in print, and widely available. What are you basing your information on?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 2:35PM
#223
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2004
|
My numbers are not exagerated. A fighter can has 13 healing surges per day, each healing for %25 of max hp.
Simple math tells me that this is %325 (13 x 25). This does not include healing from negative HP and/or using powers to enhance the healing surges (like Healing word).
Perhaps you should review the your numbers if you believe my numbers to be exagerated....
But you also keep flinging around that "27%" number which is if not exaggarated then at least a skewed presentation that we have discussed already (since by that time it's much more likely that the character is dead, and dead is a pretty boring state to be in, much like unconsciousness, only more final)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 3:35PM
#224
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2008
|
You also got the death mechanics wrong. It's not "Bleed out to -50% hit points and die." It's "Bleed out three times and die, OR if you get blasted to -50% hit points then it's an instant kill." IIRC, you also don't stabilize automatically.
What this does is make instant kills harder and make bleeding out a more urgent proposition for the guy at -1 hp. Instead of having at least 9 rounds to lay there and bleed, he could die as quickly as three rounds later: the equivalent of bleeding out at -4 hp.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 4:46PM
#225
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
But you also keep flinging around that "27%" number which is if not exaggarated then at least a skewed presentation that we have discussed already
As I already pointed out, the %27 chance is the characters chance to recover from being in negative HP?
How is that scewed or exaggerated???
If the character is knocked out, and is not healed by anyone else, he has a %27 chance of recovery (in about 5 rounds).
(since by that time it's much more likely that the character is dead,
How would the character be more likely to be dead in that time?
Did you not read the other post, or my previous posts???
and dead is a pretty boring state to be in, much like unconsciousness, only more final)
Duh. But without it, why play? Just load up Guantlet and enter God Mode....
P.S. Besides, how final is it? We already know that level 21+ characters will most likely see death a rotating doorway...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 4:52PM
#226
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
You also got the death mechanics wrong. It's not "Bleed out to -50% hit points and die." It's "Bleed out three times and die, OR if you get blasted to -50% hit points then it's an instant kill." IIRC, you also don't stabilize automatically.
Simply put, not quite true. You can die from losing HP during unconciousness....
Consider the following: Area of Attack spells, attacks toward a downed character, persistant damage (ala Pit fiend fire or Negative HP field), etc.
What this does is make instant kills harder and make bleeding out a more urgent proposition for the guy at -1 hp. Instead of having at least 9 rounds to lay there and bleed, he could die as quickly as three rounds later: the equivalent of bleeding out at -4 hp.
It only seems that way. Statiscally, you have an average of 6 rounds before you die from 3 failed rolls...
All it does is change the timer from -1 hp per turn, to waiting for 2 failed rolls.
Why heal them before then, if they might recover on thier own???
P.S. Under my "Death and Dying: My take and recommendations" thread, I recommend removing the "new" timer (two failed rolls) by having negative 1's count as two failures.
It "removes" the counter, but only changes the chance of death by +/- 5 percent overall...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 02, 2008 - 6:18PM
#227
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
You also got the death mechanics wrong. It's not "Bleed out to -50% hit points and die." It's "Bleed out three times and die, OR if you get blasted to -50% hit points then it's an instant kill." IIRC, you also don't stabilize automatically.
What this does is make instant kills harder and make bleeding out a more urgent proposition for the guy at -1 hp. Instead of having at least 9 rounds to lay there and bleed, he could die as quickly as three rounds later: the equivalent of bleeding out at -4 hp.
Well, that makes me feel a little better about the -50% part.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 03, 2008 - 1:06AM
#228
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
a. Healing surges. An all fighter party can heal themselves for 3-5 times the amount of damage that could kill them (33 HP vs 107 worth of self healing) at FIRST level. This gets really insane at higher levels.
There's nothing unbelievable about this, actually; this won't break people's suspension of disbelief, because you can only ever heal yourself back to full, and your full hit points are not unreasonable.
b. Unlimited magic missles is another example. Magic energy should drain you... Or sleep should also be unlimited (IMO). Doing both is just a mechanical fix.
This is silly. First off, magic is entirely arbitrary, and second, there's no reason inherently to suggest that throwing a magic missle would be harder than swinging a sword.
And second, again, this won't break suspension of disbelief, because there's nothing unbelievable about it - you're throwing magic, sure, but if you are willing to accept that then being able to toss around weak spells like magic missle all day is not at all unreasonable to believe, the same as swinging a sword all day isn't unreasonable to believe.
c. Trip being only usable once per combat
This, too, will not break suspension of disbelief; people accepted ToB classes just fine, by and large. And we don't KNOW that tripping is an encounter power at this point anyway. But again, this won't break many people's suspension of disbelief.
d. Six hours of sleep heals all wounds and restores all healing surges.
I don't think this is going to be a dealbreaker; people often assume as much anyway in 3.x games.
e. Only PCs can be resurrected
Raising the dead is always problematic; worth noting, though, NPCs can be raised as well, just not most of them. Raising the dead usually will rile people's suspension of disbelief, and unless it is an epic quest to raise the dead it will ALWAYS break suspension of disbelief. It doesn't matter HOW many people can be raised from the dead; if any can, it will break suspension of disbelief. They see this as a worthwhile sacrifice.
f. Magic rings won't work with a 10th level character, but (somehow) at 11th level they work fine. Even more interesting is that at 11th level, you cannot use two rings... That cannot happen until 21st level...
Nothing wrong with that. Again, magic is arbitrary, and the idea of not being able to control/use a magical item is a pretty common trope.
2. Wizards seem to have lost a good deal of their spell versitility.
This is a good thing; wizards were hideously broken in 3.x at least in part due to their versatility and ability to superscede all other roles. NO class should be as versatile as a 3.x wizard is.
Had they not fixed this, lots of people would have been ******.
4. I strongly dislike the fact that magic items are "forced" at certain levels. Once you reach that level, it is assumed that you will have that magic item.
Its a fine assumption that as of a certain level you will have X much magic items; its the way it has to work to balance the game.
5. A party of first level adventures has at least a %25 chance of taking on a dragon that is past thier XP level.
What is BAD about this? You SHOULD be able to beat something which is +3 levels on you if you fight intelligently and get lucky. An equal level encounter is supposed to be dangerous, but only deadly if you're really dumb, so having a +3 level encounter be very hard but not unbeatable is reasonable.
a. It seems that I will have to "cheat" (introduce monsters beyond thier XP level, which makes the XP level as meaningless as the CR system of 3e) in order to really "challange" my players...
Not really. An equal level encounter will, in my playtesting, render one character unconcious per encounter assuming you make the monsters fight intelligently.
7. New set of core books evey year simply kills it for me. I will wait and see how the first two or so years of 4e goes.
How is this a problem at all? They're just splatbooks like any other. Do you not understand this?
8. Even more than normal, it seems as if combat is the sole focus of the new D&D system.
Untrue. 4e is exactly as focused on combat as every other edition of D&D has been.
9. At high levels (21st-30th) it seems that death has become a mere speed bump.
I agree that this is stupid, but there is some large group of players who like this.
Because it is not very realistic that you could be fighting 6 minutes ago, but now you do not have a single injury without the aid of healing...
Realism and believability are two completely different things. And, more to the point, it is completely unrealistic that you AREN'T given that despite being down however many HP, you still are at full fighting capacity. It is all abstract anyway, and it is perfectly beliveable.
But it is not very "realistic"...
Because raising the dead is realistic?
No, that is 4e. To my knowledge, only in 4e are magic items level dependant. It is also the only version (that i know of) that assumes you have certain +X magic items at certain levels.
Every edition assumed that, actually. You just weren't paying attention. And IIRC rods in 2nd edition were level dependent, and intelligent items in both second AND third editions were level dependent (as if you were too low level, they'd take over your mind).
Having a martial arts background, as well as being ex-miliatary I can easily confirm that they are easy to attempt, even if hard to perform...
You can't even spell military and you claim to be ex-military? I find that claim somewhat dubious. And if they're hard to perform, then it makes sense you can only pull it off once per combat - you may be trying more, but that one time you use the power was the time you had a good chance of success.
So, lets turn this around. If hit points do NOT represent physical damage, than how can you die from losing them?
Are the characters demoralized to death???
Let's turn this around: if hit points DO represent physical damage, then why don't you take penalties for taking damage? You cannot answer that question.
Hit points are abstract and are not meant to be realistic. Any argument about "realism" and hit points is automatically doomed to failure, because hit points are not meant to be realistic in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 03, 2008 - 5:54AM
#229
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Simply put, not quite true. You can die from losing HP during unconciousness....
Consider the following: Area of Attack spells, attacks toward a downed character, persistant damage (ala Pit fiend fire or Negative HP field), etc.
In other words, an person can burn to death or drown in a bathtub after they loose consciousness. How are you now complaining this is completely unrealistic?
It only seems that way. Statiscally, you have an average of 6 rounds before you die from 3 failed rolls...
All it does is change the timer from -1 hp per turn, to waiting for 2 failed rolls.
Why heal them before then, if they might recover on thier own???
Because they might not.
P.S. Under my "Death and Dying: My take and recommendations" thread, I recommend removing the "new" timer (two failed rolls) by having negative 1's count as two failures.
It "removes" the counter, but only changes the chance of death by +/- 5 percent overall...
how about trying the new mechanic with the actual rules before houseruling it?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Apr 03, 2008 - 5:59AM
#230
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
My numbers are not exagerated. A fighter can has 13 healing surges per day, each healing for %25 of max hp.
Simple math tells me that this is %325 (13 x 25). This does not include healing from negative HP and/or using powers to enhance the healing surges (like Healing word).
Perhaps you should review the your numbers if you believe my numbers to be exagerated....
P.S. As for the wording, I am going by the numbers that are in print, and widely available. What are you basing your information on?
My understanding is that the fighter can use 1 healing surge to heal themself once per encounter and once per periods between encounters all per day. The rest are there to be used by clerics and the like who have powers that use them.
This actually limits healing, as you could easily have a fighter being constantaly topped off with healing after every fight, regardless of the amount of spells, scrolls, wand charges or potions you used. Now you can only heal them so much.
|
|
|
