|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 9:48AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I appreciate the comments here about the whack-a-mole effect that could result.
Actually, 'whack-a-mole' refers to the normal 4e style of play. Your house rule reduces that, since downed PC's are more likely to stay down.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 10:18AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
I appreciate the comments here about the whack-a-mole effect that could result.
Actually, 'whack-a-mole' refers to the normal 4e style of play. Your house rule reduces that, since downed PC's are more likely to stay down.
I disagree, while yes in normal play you are more likely to stand up shortly after going into the negatives you will still be there with at least 1/4th of your max hit points(often more with the various leader bonuses to healing) which depending on your class should be more than a single attack would do(assuming you don't take measures to prevent getting hit as I find most will do after they go down).
Where as this house rule means that you will always come back with less health leading to it being easier to fall back down. Now you could say that means that you should just let the character lay there until you are in a better position to heal him, but that is unlikely to happen for several reasons. Such as it is almost always better to have more allies up to complete objectives even if they are likely to go down again, as well as the fact that players don't like to spend their turn rolling a death save.
Meaning that players will usually advocate getting their character up regardless of the fact that they are more likely to fall back down, which is likely to lead to playing 'whack-a-mole' with said character.
Spoiler:
Show
I still get bewildered by the idea of Good races and Bad races. I mean, D&D presents a world where there are literally dozens of sentient humanoid races. And then there's a line drawn down the middle, and some races, such as elves, dragonborn and humans, to name but a few, are put on one side and called Good Guys. And with that they are People. They have Rights. And on the other side go a bunch of other races, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and so on. These are called Bad Guys, and as such, they are not People. It is considered ok by many players to track them down and slaughter them. It shatters my suspension of disbelief to see someone who calls their character a hero, a noble sort of person who tries their damnedest to right wrongs and fight evil, making sure that those goblin women and children don't get away, because, you know, they're goblins.
They're not just stupid beasts. They have societies, culture and language. They have goals, and motivations. I can believe that someone would kill a drow or an orc at first sight, because they probably were up to something. But don't try to tell me that that was a Good act and that you did it because you are a Good Person.
When I'm considering what to do with a group of "bad" humanoids, and I come up with an idea, I mentally replace whatever the "bad guy" of the week is with humans. If it isn't ok to do it to a human, I won't do it to any sentient race.
My Views on the Alignment System: Spoiler:
Show
Killing something because it might be evil = evil
Killing something because it might do something evil = evil
Killing something because it is planning to do something evil = neutral
Killing something because has done something evil = neutral
Killing something because it is doing evil = good
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 10:36AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Actually, 'whack-a-mole' refers to the normal 4e style of play. Your house rule reduces that, since downed PC's are more likely to stay down.
I disagree
I'm assuming that you disagree with the second sentence (the first sentence didn't seem up for contention, since I was the only one using the term 'whack-a-mole', and I was merely clarifying the context I was using it in).
Downed PC's constantly popping back up seems to occur frequently in 4e. Some of the reasons:
- Any healing will bring a character conscious
- Resource-wise, it is optimal for PC's to be at minimal HP.
- In previous editions, players often waited to bring a downed PC fully conscious, since they knew she wouldn't last long (and was more vulnerable to being killed by a big hit). And if they did bring her conscious, she would get out of the way so as not to attract those big hits.
players will usually advocate getting their character up regardless of the fact that they are more likely to fall back down
That occurs a lot in normal 4e. However, without the 'heal from zero' incentive, players have more reason not to allow a PC to go down in the first place.
Also, without the heal from zero rule, players have every reason to get out of harm's way after returning from unconsciousness. I personally like that.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:04AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
Actually, 'whack-a-mole' refers to the normal 4e style of play. Your house rule reduces that, since downed PC's are more likely to stay down.
I disagree
I'm assuming that you disagree with the second sentence (the first sentence didn't seem up for contention, since I was the only one using the term 'whack-a-mole', and I was merely clarifying the context I was using it in).
Downed PC's constantly popping back up seems to occur frequently in 4e. Some of the reasons:
- Any healing will bring a character conscious
- Resource-wise, it is optimal for PC's to be at minimal HP.
- In previous editions, players often waited to bring a downed PC fully conscious, since they knew she wouldn't last long (and was more vulnerable to being killed by a big hit). And if they did bring her conscious, she would get out of the way so as not to attract those big hits.
players will usually advocate getting their character up regardless of the fact that they are more likely to fall back down
That occurs a lot in normal 4e. However, without the 'heal from zero' incentive, players have more reason not to allow a PC to go down in the first place.
Also, without the heal from zero rule, players have every reason to get out of harm's way after returning from unconsciousness. I personally like that.
I still think that players would rather have their character up and about rather than on the floor regardless of whether or not they would fall back down again. Even with out things like the chance to kill the monster before they take down the pc or the chance to get away form the monster players would not want to spend their turn unconscious if anyone can help it.
If that is the case then the normal rules would have less whack a mole. And I doubt that it is a 4e only mentality, since for the most part it seems like good strategy(minus some cases that I'm sure either of us could come up with).
Spoiler:
Show
I still get bewildered by the idea of Good races and Bad races. I mean, D&D presents a world where there are literally dozens of sentient humanoid races. And then there's a line drawn down the middle, and some races, such as elves, dragonborn and humans, to name but a few, are put on one side and called Good Guys. And with that they are People. They have Rights. And on the other side go a bunch of other races, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and so on. These are called Bad Guys, and as such, they are not People. It is considered ok by many players to track them down and slaughter them. It shatters my suspension of disbelief to see someone who calls their character a hero, a noble sort of person who tries their damnedest to right wrongs and fight evil, making sure that those goblin women and children don't get away, because, you know, they're goblins.
They're not just stupid beasts. They have societies, culture and language. They have goals, and motivations. I can believe that someone would kill a drow or an orc at first sight, because they probably were up to something. But don't try to tell me that that was a Good act and that you did it because you are a Good Person.
When I'm considering what to do with a group of "bad" humanoids, and I come up with an idea, I mentally replace whatever the "bad guy" of the week is with humans. If it isn't ok to do it to a human, I won't do it to any sentient race.
My Views on the Alignment System: Spoiler:
Show
Killing something because it might be evil = evil
Killing something because it might do something evil = evil
Killing something because it is planning to do something evil = neutral
Killing something because has done something evil = neutral
Killing something because it is doing evil = good
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:05AM
#55
|
|
|
I think it would be helpful to remember that when you lose hit points, it does not necessarily mean you were wounded or gashed open or anything similar.
Hit points are an abstraction. They are a way of measuring your ability to continue to fight.
This is plainly demonstrated in 4e where a character, at the end of a battle, could have 3 hit points left. Then he takes a short rest, and voila, full hit points.
If dropping to 3hp was the equivalent of having a dozen wounds and cracked ribs, a 5 minute rest to cure it is just silly.
No, those 3hp meant that the character was nearly exhausted and barely able to continue fighting, like after an extended sprint, but not a marathon. But after a full 5 minutes of just resting, he is refreshed and ready to continue.
This is similar to say, a hockey player who goes on for a 40-60 second shift. After that 40 seconds, most players are given a chance to rest. In D&D terms, those 40 seconds would be 5 rounds.
From a strictly mechanical point of view, the game is balanced around having players heal up from zero. If you change that, you need to allow them to do more healing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:21AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I still think that players would rather have their character up and about rather than on the floor
Certainly. But that doesn't change that removing 'heal from zero' means:
1) Players have more incentive to use their healing before going unconscious
2) It will often be harder to become conscious
3) The other players have have less incentive bring a downed player conscious (as opposed to ensuring say, they themselves don't become unconscious).
4) Players have more incentive to get out of harm's way when low on HP.
From a strictly mechanical point of view, the game is balanced around having players heal up from zero. If you change that, you need to allow them to do more healing.
Agreed. Unless (as mentioned) the game as balanced is too easy for your group.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:37PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
1) Players have more incentive to use their healing before going unconscious
2) It will often be harder to become conscious
3) The other players have have less incentive bring a downed player conscious (as opposed to ensuring say, they themselves don't become unconscious).
4) Players have more incentive to get out of harm's way when low on HP.
1, 3, and 4 are aspects of 4e that have always bugged me.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 12:48PM
#58
|
|
|
I interpreted the "whack-a-mole" description to mean they were getting healed to a low positive amount and then knocked back out due to the low HP. Either way it hasn't been a problem yet. More playtesting will be required to draw a real conclusion but I am encouraged with the results thus far  As a side note, I'm perplexed by all the comments about HP being an abstraction. I don't understand that interpretation. If you view HP as "stamina" and "luck" and not health, why does heavy armor reduce your probability of taking "stamina" damage or "luck" damage? When combat is going on, you "hit" or you "miss" with an attack and damge and effects occur. If you're hit, and you're poisoned...how do you reconcile that the poisoned dagger didn't actually just stab the hero? It winded him and somehow he was exposed to the poison? It seems like a broken metaphor and an unnecessary obfuscation of the combat to me. My $0.02.
mvincent nailed it. Those are the effects I was really looking for. I want players scared and watching their health. I want healers timing their heals to maximize their effectiveness. Feeling nearly invulnerable doesn't make one feel heroic. It makes you feel like a bored monster cuisanart.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 1:02PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I interpreted the "whack-a-mole" description to mean they were getting healed to a low positive amount and then knocked back out due to the low HP.
Right. That's why I felt the need to clarify my usage: "whack-a-mole" has always been a 4e problem for me.
I'm perplexed by all the comments about HP being an abstraction.
PHB p.293: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."
If you view HP as "stamina" and "luck" and not health...
It can be all three.
why does heavy armor reduce your probability of taking "stamina" damage or "luck" damage?
Someone it heavy armor likely won't need to dodge as much, and doesn't need to be as lucky.
how do you reconcile that the poisoned dagger didn't actually just stab the hero?
Abstractly: the hero was lightly scratched (causing some minor burning from the poison), whereas a non-heroic combatant probably would've had that dagger plunged into their gut. (not that I'm a fan of HP abstraction... just explaining the paradigm).
From the 3.5e PHB p.145, if desired: "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power."
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 1:08PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
As a side note, I'm perplexed by all the comments about HP being an abstraction. I don't understand that interpretation. If you view HP as "stamina" and "luck" and not health, why does heavy armor reduce your probability of taking "stamina" damage or "luck" damage?
One must come up with their own interpretation, but the one I use is that the person with a better armor class is simply not as "stressed" by attacks against whatever armor class represents.
When combat is going on, you "hit" or you "miss" with an attack and damge and effects occur. If you're hit, and you're poisoned...how do you reconcile that the poisoned dagger didn't actually just stab the hero? It winded him and somehow he was exposed to the poison?
Poison and the like are slightly more difficult to reconcile, I'll admit. I'm personally fine with imagining a character noticing the poison and being more stressed (at least temporarily) by the prospect of being hit. Hardier characters, or resistant characters, are less likely to be stressed, and suffer such stress for shorter amounts of time.
It seems like a broken metaphor and an unnecessary obfuscation of the combat to me.
It's only worth thinking about as a way to relax about what the rules seem to be representing. I figured it out for myself once, and I don't really think about it much in combat, except when someone else thinks that something silly is being represented.
People jump through even worse hoops to make the "HP loss means physical damage" metaphor work. It would help if Wizards of the Coast understood the abstraction (and 4th Edition took strides in that direction), but it keeps getting bogged down by people who don't get it.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
