D&D rules for social interaction? Like, you know, Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight (the new Sense Motive)? They are still in, there are still rules for how high the DC is to persuade the NPC, what the modifiers are, and such. If you are looking for them, they're the same as in the D&D 3.X-rules that you know, with perhaps some slight differences, if at all.

If you mean background-skills like cooking, sailing, baking, pot-making, painting, tumb-swirling, smoking, going to the toilet and such, or profession "skills" like house maid, dishwasher, garbage man or anything similar, then no, these have been taken out, because nobody wasted valuable skill points on them (which were a limited ressource per level). But seeing as none of these are social interaction skills, means that those aren't what you are missing either.

And dude, your skill points AND your maximum skill ranks were entirely dependent on how many hit dices you had in the first place in D&D 3.X, you know that, unless you heavily house-ruled that garbage out in the first place. D&D 4th edition only automatises the skill progression by giving you half-ranks per level, and shortens the skill list by combining some skills into fewer ones (like swimming, climbing and jumping into athletics).
And no, that's not a loss, because only having 3 skill ranks into sense motive (when it's even a class skill for you) when you are level 16 and need to beat a DC of 30 to notice the magically disguised imposter means that you are worthless against such standart challenges, as a very normal and non-awkward example in D&D that happens very often, especially at higher levels, and the DC is nothing out of range. Heck, the very first Disguise Self and/or Alter self spells give you a +10 modifier, and that's with assuming the imposter rolled a 10 on his disguise check, where he got a skill rank of 10 himself. A very weak and sad imposter, maximally level 7, and the mighty level 16 hero can't even see through such low-level vermin. At least you spent points in craft (bread), craft (pottery), profession (seamster) or perform (pipe organ)... No wait, nobody could be that dumb...

D&D 4th edition won't safe D&D, because it didn't need to be saved in the first place. All it's going to do is to continue bringing in more money for Hasbro. And with good chances, the rules might even be functionable and serve the purpose they are meant for.

@Drogos: Assume makes an ass out of u and me. Before you just accept one side of the argument, why not try and verify it? As far as I can tell, social skills are almost exactly as detailed in 4e as they were in 3.5. Everyone who's telling you that the game has erased all the out-of-combat roleplaying and adventuring is not telling the truth. There is some truth to how the various powers are more based on combat, and not that useful outside of it. But that's not universally true, there are still powers that are useful outside of combat. And there is definitely nothing stopping the DM from making non-combat play almost exactly as important and engaging as it was in 3.5.

And I can't disprove it yet, but I don't feel like Frank's evaluation of how Epic works is trustworthy. Sure, it's ok if you're a demigod with a longsword. But I'd imagine that by that point, you'd be loaded down with items that unleash powerful effects, or buff you to amazing levels. Maybe a naked commoner and a naked demigod aren't as different in ability as they should be, but I doubt that the difference will stay the same when they're fully equipped.

Having tried KoSF I can tell you, this does NOT feel even vaguely like heroic fantasy. This feels like a badly done video game.

Healing, completely, from all damage taken, even if you are at 0 hit points, over night, every night, as a standard thing that all adventurers can do, without any type of magical or supernatural intervention at all...

That by itself makes the game seem less like heroic fantasy than like one of the old westerns where even the dead bad guys showed up at the ol' Barn Dance after the last fight was over. Yeeehaw!

And again, there is almost nothing that portrays ANY kind of social interaction. Is this even an RPG at all without a good slice of it being dedicated to social interaction? I'd liken it to the old Super Hero games, but even V&V wasn't this cheesy and even it had room in it for social interaction.


Isshia

Bought adventures rarely portray social interaction anyway, so I'd not go with one as an example for social roleplaying or the lack thereof.

Although it's noteworthy that on ENWorld, there's lots of various players who enjoy the new game.

It's not just the adventure...it's the system itself. There just aren't any provisions in it skill or ability wise that promote RP in any way. They were quite simply left out of the mix. Also, the system is video game-esque, but lacking the picture. On the WotC boards they keep talking about how in movies you never see the effects of healing and no one cares about , but to me Movies are visual pablum, a primarily visual medium where you're spoon fed the scenes without interaction, as merely and only a spectator. That is why healing in movies is, to all intents and purposes, instantaneous.

But Role Play, like literature, is mentally and imaginatively interactive. They can tell you that after the battles the hospitals are full and it weeks to recovery for those who even can recover at all. Indeed this is necessary technique in literature (and RP) to communicate the idea that the fight was a serious one, not some training session.

THAT is what 4th edition combats all feel like: a training session done with padded equipment so that no one really gets hurt enough to need more than a good night's sleep to recover, not like a battle to the death where even survival is unsure even after the battle is done. Many die of their wounds in literature when all is said and done and you need some supernatural (or super science) method of healing to get beyond this swiftly.




Isshia

Nah, in fictional fantasy literature, death of fantasy characters only happens by the whim of the author. In roleplaying games, death of player characters happens because of bad dice rolls. It then only depends on the collaboration between gamemaster and players how to deal with the removal of your game character and what to do afterwards. Also, Hitpoints in D&D were always abstract, and could mean whatever the gaming group decides. How healing functioned could therefore also be completely differently decided by the gaming group.
That's why in D&D 3.X, an 18th level character has 18 times as much hp as a 1st level one. No sane person would and could ever claim that a character with 18 hit dices had 18 times as much blood as a normal commoner.
And, nobody liked playing level 1-3, because these are the levels where your character is instantly dead by a lousy critical hit from your average orc, because your hitpoints are so low. There is one big reason why D&D 4th edition is all about claiming to be able to instantly play in the "sweet spot" (or however it is called), the level range where your character can put up a some hefty fights without being one-hit-defeated by your average monster, and where the player character abilities aren't out-of-whack. Appearently, that "sweet spot" lies around level 6-14, more or less, in D&D 3.X. That's where the absolute majority of people who play D&D 3.whateveredition mentioned to have the most fun.

D&D 3.5 had holes in it, every iteration of D&D was holie ( ) but this abortion is not just about what hit points mean, but the fact that your character can be basically dead, get first aid, no magic involved, sleep 6 hours and be fully healed and ready for rock and roll.

Show me ONE piece of even half way decent literature that does something that idiotic.

They aren't playing "in the sweet spot" at all in this new edition, from the way it is written presently, but rather they are playing in Candyland. I expect "My Little Pony" to be introduced early on and the Care Bears soon thereafter.


Isshia

I think the "fight takes 1,5 rounds, and afterwards, you'll have to true resurrect half the party" high-level 3.5 playstyle is not very "fantasy-literature"-like either. Matter of fact, I don't recall any fantasy literature where it had the cleric healing in the middle of the fight, and bring the "tank" up to full health several times.
Heck, how many fantasy novels have clerics heal wounds regularily in and after a fight? Most of the time I recall a magical healing, it was a special occasion, usually the heroes don't get hurt seriously just to be healed fully 5 minutes afterwards.

Seeing hitpoints as luck, dodge stamina, and experience in turning a blow into a glancing blow, makes the "fully recover after one night of rest" easy to justify. Because it means your PC is not "basically dead" just because he has 1 hitpoint left, it means he is so tired, out of luck, and out of balance to dodge that the next blow will hurt him seriously.

Not that one could not house rule it away anyway, or add some "if you got to negative hitpoints, you require magical healing, or X days of rest to recover" house rule.

Well, I guess they did include rules for it. Sounds a lot better. Still seems far too video gamey for me. I really enjoyed the early levels personally. I like my fantasy gritty. And when I'm being an ass, Larme, you'll know.

Sorry, no. If all that hit points are is stamina, luck and dodging ability then no one would ever, ever get wounded in combat. You'd simply DIE once your stamina, luck and dodging room ran out. That isn't close to either any fantasy literature or to reality even. What you are saying then is that no one EVER gets wounded in combat. Sorry, but just, no.


What you describe above is not 3.5 D&D. As completely lame as the system was, you didn't EVER have to even have a Cleric along. Nor did you need to have healing devices, scrolls, or potions along. You COULD, but they weren't necessary...and even in the High Fantasy environment where the parties Cleric does pray for healing, or someone else uses magic directly to heal (like Aragorn and before that Elrond in LotR) atleast it's magical and thus the whole thing allows for some degree of verisimilitude. Sometimes the Cleric died. Sometimes you got caught without magic (in prison, simply ran out, whatever), in a well run game you had to rely FAR MORE on your wits than on the Cleric anyway, as HE (or she) had to answer to their source for their actions in IT'S name. Nor was healing magic grown on bushes. It was rare and precious and hoarded for the time it was needed. Only in the bad video game versions of D&D did you blithely run from one encounter to the next and rely on the Cleric or healing magics to keep you out of trouble.

This idiotic nonsense of complete healing after a nights sleep is LIGHT YEARS less compatible to heroic fantasy than one in which, atleast, if you do get wounded, it takes time OR MAGIC, to heal you up.



Isshia

Uh... did you ever play high-level 3.5? With all the death effects, and save or die powers and spells? No cleric = party kill, unless you heavly modify the game.

Also, in heroic fantasy - like Conan, f.e. - there's usually no description of healing, unless it's plot-specific. But Conan doesn't get hurt every fight, and then has to rest for X days or get magical healing.

In most novels I recall, the heroes do not get seriously hurt in every fight, just a few nitches and scratches, if any, or some concussion. That's what hit points simulate pretty well.

Also, not to rain on any parade, but if we're talking realism, then people tended to die in battle, or from wounds (infection and all). You didn't regularily get wounded to the point of requiring medical assistance, and then survive.

I'd say D&D is very much compatible to heroic fantasy - in the way that the PCs are heroes, with all the plot toys and immunities that entails. Heroes don't hover on the brink of death after every fight, spending weeks to recover. They do that once or twice at most, in the other cases they die heroically or the damage they may have taken is brushed over.

Oh boy, I don't think you will be able to explain what hitpoints are to a mind that does not want to understand it, Fuchs.

Yes, I did...and no, there was no Cleric in the party, and no, there was no high fatality rate and no, there were no real modifications to the game in place. What WAS in place were talented Players who used their heads, thought ahead, planned and didn't simply just rush from encounter to encounter mindlessly and hoping for the best. In fact one of the things that was universally disliked about high levels is that you almost had to go out of your way to be stupid to really be in danger.



Ahh, what? Conan was CONSTANTLY described as being cut up, running around with bandages left right and sideways, speaking with a slur through smashed lips, limping on, flopping exhausted to catch a few hours sleep and then, even with his nearly superhuman physiology, being sore, stiff and still limping on the next day.

And THIS was supposed to be roughly the toughest human being in existence. You might want to reread Howard a bit.

OFTEN in fantasy novels the hero is cut to shreds, struggles on and is carried to the healers and spends time recovering..and usually while doing so he's making contacts, doing their non-combat oriented courtiering, becoming embroiled in romantic sub plots and the like.



The problem is that in D&D you could NEVER get touched and continue on. There would never be Conan, cursing his enemy through smashed lips, a bandage tied about his upper leg, dripping blood, limping on and generally being heroic. He'd never have the chance to get hit, because if he did, he'd be dead.

Also, who wants realism? No one in their right mind wants realism screwing up their heroic fantasy. They DO want verisimilitude though. My allusion to reality is simply that even in reality, you can get hurt and still fight on...and you won't be at top form when you do so.

D&D, even up to 3.5, could at least ape heroic fantasy. But where there are no consequences, there is no heroism, and in 4th edition the consequences have been removed. Now no matter how stupidly you act, if you survive at all, your perfectly ok the next morning, never a limp, never a bloody consequence in sight.

That may be fantasy, but it most certainly is NOT heroic.



Isshia

Nothing prevents you from assuming that there are cosmetic after effects, like a slur from speaking through smashed lips, or bandages. That doesn't really change the fact that Conan cut a swath through enemies anyway, succumbing when he ran out of hp.

Also, if you never had a high fatality rate in 3.5, then your GM pulled punches. Facing a high-level wizard or cleric would, if either was played to the hilt, result in a number of dead PCs if the caster gets to act. And with the amount of protection and detection spells that caster supposedly has, he should get to act. And after a Mordenkainen's Disjunction, just about every party is ripe for a slew of SoDs.
The B.A.D.D. files alone gave enough tips how to make the most of an enemy with SA, like the Dragon or other advanced monsters.

Please mention some of those novels where a hero often gets cut to shreds, and not just once or twice during a novel or triology. How often does Aragorn require healing help? Gimli? Legolas? I don't recall them requiring long weeks to recover, or much magic, after every fight. We've got Frodo getting hurt, which is a plot point.

Which is my point: Heroic fantasy doesn't have the heroes limp from every fight. It has a few scenes where wounds are treated (which could be best translated to the scenes in D&D where one PC is raised), but the rest of the time the damage is glossed over - or fatal. But you rarely read about heroes spending all their time wounded, recovering, or crippled.

I have trouble imagining a D&D 3.0 or 3.5 game without a single cleric in the party, and a GM that knows what they're doing, adding up to anything but a high fatality rate.

Let's not argue what every fantasy book ever written reads like and how much everyone ever gets hurt. That is a red herring argument, and it is also impossible to prove or agree on. HP are abstract. When you lose HP and don't start bleeding to death, it means you haven't yet been seriously injured. You really haven't been run through by a sword until you're dying, cuz ya know, that's a deadly wound. If you're still walking around without any penalty, it must be because you've only taken glancing blows and stunning hits rather than anything that actually breaks bones of makes you bleed.

Regardless, I thought we established that 4e has just about the same social interaction rules that 3.5 had. Why are people continuing to insist that there are no such rules?

Because they would lose an important argument?

*lol* You think well of yourself don't you kiddo? I understand hit points completely. I was quite probably DMing D&D before you were born and for me this is the fifth (or sixth if you count 3.0 and 3.5 separately) iteration of it. Can you say the same?

Hit points are not simply, as they put it on page 33 of the 4E DMG "Hit Points are how much damage you can take.", they are also a representation of many other factors as well. But they do INCLUDE how much damage you can take. It says so directly (and exclusively for their definition of it in 4e) in the DMG.

Too, it's not just cosmetic damage taken in heroic fantasy novels. Conan's limping is talked about as slowing him down. He gets tired (low hit points) and finally gets overwhelmed by his foes...then takes time, again, even though he is an ULTIMATE exemplar of sturdiness and durability, to heal. All of the effects of damage are paid attention to, if you pay attention yourself. Conan isn't portrayed as being top fit when he's injured.

Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli and the rest get in to three extended fights entirely before the great battles and they do mention time spent to get everyone up and going afterwards and after the worst of these battles, in Moria, they manage to stagger in to Lorien where, yep they spend an extended time healing up before going on. Gandalph even "lingered in those timeless halls where the days bring healing, not decay" and so forth. Why do you assume that everyone WAS top fit after the fights? They never say either way, except on a few occasions where they do talk about it taking extended amounts of time to heal up and rest. Same with RE Howard and Conan. Same with the Belgariad, same with soooo many others, even in the D&D novels.

It is in 4E that these things become impossible to portray within the rules set as it stands.

Finally, Critias, if you can't imagine such a situation then you can't imagine a smart group of Players.


Isshia

You can easily add a house rule that once you go into negative hitpoints you need X days to recover, or magical healing. You can also easily consider a rule that says that once you go "bloodied" you need some rest.

You also can easily portray those effects within the rules, by simply assuming that in the abstract rules system, the effects (limping, slowing down, tiring) are either not enough to alter the abstracted stats, or taken care of by the spending of encounter and daily powers (spent your second wind? Now you're getting tired when low on hp since you won't be able to use it again until you rest).

Of course, within the rules, you can also rest longer than needed after a big fight - nothing says you can't spend more time resting.

Portraying such things therefore is easy in D&D.

The rules exist...but the tone and tenor of the game is so changed that they become far less important than they were in 3.x and they were already under stressed back then.

The arena of social interaction, in this supposed role playing game, has been de-emphasized to the point that it becomes laughable. What feats were there that emphasized social interactions compared to what feats now exist to emphasize them? How about powers that did and powers that do? And have you read through Diplomacy? It rates less attention now than Swim checks, which is a subset of the Athletics skill, not even a skill itself, rates.


Isshia

You're up against a level 20 wizard, with time stop, teleport, scry, improved invisibility, Mordenkainen's disjunction as well as some quickened hold person scrolls, and numerous minions to serve as an advance warning system and to CdG held enemies.

Or simply a maxed Wizard/Archmage specialising on driving Save DCs up, with a number of quickened Dispel magic (to take care of protection spells) and Save or Die spells.

How exactly did D&D rule social encounters so much better in 2E? NWPs were optional back then.

The fact that it would have to be house ruled in though is the entire point. As it sits, it's ridiculous. And the total healing again, even if you aren't brought in to the negatives and thus are facing death directly, is STILL a problem.

The 3.5 system for all of it's other faults, was much more heroic fantasy in this respect than 4th is. Without the "healing battery" around if you are injured, you can still go on, but those pesky and now vanished consequences state that sooner or later, to do so is foolish.

You wear down over time if you don't take the time to rest and recover. Yep, horror of horrors, you have to think about what might happen if you go on. Verisimilitude here we come. As things sit, that goes out the window.

IF you fix the system. Otherwise it is impossible. And again, where is the heroism with out the consequences of acting heroic?


Isshia

Read what you yourself quoted. 3.xE was being discussed, not 2E.

Isshia

*lol* Yeah, that should happen atleast weekly. Super Arch mages are a dime a dozen after all, so much so that they can specialize in driving saves up. Yeah, there's top flight RPing alright.

Soooo, because in the ultra top levels the opponents can be dangerous, the PCs can't be? If the DM drops this guy on them totally out of the blue this is smart DMing how? And if they know such a bozo is in the weeds after them for X reason and they don't prepare appropriately the problem is where?

A level 20 archmage is a CR appropriate opponent for a high-level party according to the rules. What exactly do you consider an appropriate foe for a 16+ level party?

Also, if you thinka dding a simple house rule is a bad thing, how did you ever manage D&D? Or Shadowrun?

Mega high level parties, like the 16+ range, get that kind of thing and worse, regularly, and still, because the DM, me, isn't a moron, they don't get such beings just sprung on them out of the blue. I know you ignored that in my last post, but thought it warranted repeating. If they did know such a being was gunning for them and didn't take appropriate measures, they would deserve what they got. And you know, having a Cleric wouldn't matter a tick in such a situation, since a smart guy, like a Uber Mega Arch Mage, is going to smash him FIRST!

I house ruled all the time...but when you have to change the basis of how a system works, and house ruling this would have just that effect, I'm experienced enough to know what WILL happen to other parts of the system. Nothing in D&D stands alone. This would be like making all healing in shadowrun instantaneous. It would have relatively the same effect on game balance. You savvy game balance yes?

16+ is not "mega high level". Also, it's not the archmage gunning for them, it's them gunning for the archmage. You said you had smart players, how did they handle all the high-level foes a high-level party battles? All the casters, especially. What appropriate measures do they take?

Adding rest times is not changing the system. It just means you'll have more time between encounters. You can even have this without changing any rules if you, as the DM, simply pace the party with fewer encounters.

I want to say there was an encounter reactions table that took one's Charisma into account when interacting with NPCs. I believe it also took into account the PC's approach, so it could be used in the midst of role-playing, and the role-playing had some bearing on the outcome. I believe it was in the Encounter section of the DMG, which would put it around page 100.

I am such a nerd.

Yes. And that was about the social rules. 3E added all the social skills, and gave examples how to use them. As far as I know, that did not change, they even expanded on it with the skill challenge system (although that's hearsay, I still haven't gotten the books).

You say I can't imagine smart players, I say you can't imagine a competent and challenging GM. One of us has the rulebooks on his side, and it ain't you. Simple fact: adequate healing and protective magics are assumed to be included in any party, when CRs are figured and adventures are written. If your group is getting by without that kind of healing, especially in a standard game world and in fights where the NPCs are being run by a tactically competent GM, something is wrong. Maybe your game is houseruled all to hell and back, maybe your GM is pulling punches, maybe your GM is even just amazingly unlucky when it comes time to roll hit and damage dice -- but something is out of wack.

16+ isn't mega high level? Wait a tick. What is then? Epic? That bastardized optional splatbook system that was so spectacularly broken that it was held in almost universal contempt over on the WotC boards themselves?

High level casters? In a variety of different ways. One was infiltration. Another was using social pressures to get groups of others involved as well, which sometimes back fired, but being pro-active at least caused the Arch mage to respond and so on and so forth and scooby dooby doo. Force your opponent out of his layered defenses by finding out what he needs that isn't in it and denying him access to it. Use your mind and imagine and force the opponent to react.

The big advantage that PCs (or the heroes in stories always have) over their opponents is that normally THEY are the active ones, and if you are smart and careful when you are active you force your opponent to do things differently than he would have wanted. Making your opponent react to you steals the initiative from him, this is elementary tactical basics and it's an all but built in advantage to being the hero (PC) in a story.

Critias, the same assumption includes the idiotic "kick the door in and use the Cleric as a before, during and after healing battery" as being the typical range of tactical brilliance involved. If it goes beyond that it becomes the assumptions that are out of whack... as assumptions usually are.


Isshia

As assholish as the "trade your D&D books in for Exalted" campaign was, it's the subject matter of this thread that makes me think that doing so would have been in everyone's best interests.

I still like D&D, don't get me wrong, but y'all are reminding me why I almost never play it.

Mega-high level in D&D 3.x is indeed epic level. And edition changes always bring with it some doom-sayer who condemn the newest thing, some uber-enthusiasts who glorify the edition-to-come as the newest savior, and then there are those who just take a look to see if it's good for them or it isn't, without any attachment to any older edition.
D&D 3.x and D&D 4.x are both viable systems who still emphasize combat (the main schtick of D&D).
Don't forget, D&D 3.x advertised that it would return the game to the dungeon, and that, it did manage to suceed. It still has rules for social stuff.
D&D 4.x has in addition clearer rules for what everybody has to do in combat, and still maintains the rules for social stuff.
You still roll a D20, add your modifier from whatever social skill you have and situational boni granted by the gm, compare it to the DC, and then you and the gamemaster play out the consequences, as suggested by the book, if at all.

Meh, in the end, everything is going to be damned to hell by some few. Most still remember heated discussions about D&D 3.0 appearently turning the game into a simple hack-fest without any roleplaying, compared to the glorious AD&D 2nd edition. Now, there is some "nerd-rage" about D&D 4.0 making the game only a hack-fest without any roleplaying, compared to the glorious 3.5. That will be the same for D&D 5.0, which will be compared to holy D&D 4.9. And when D&D 6th edition will come out, the world will be blasted by Skynet and his machines to exterminate mankind...

Ohh, the tone and tenor are off. Well excuse me, I thought I had a legitimate argument, but you've gone and leveled it with your very substantive criticism.

Seriously, that's a ridiculous criticism. The book doesn't pay the exact right amount of attention, that's your problem with the social rules? The social aspect follows the same deal as the entire 4e system: it's designed for playability, not simulation. The DM decides if your diplomacy roll is "easy" or "hard," and assigns a number between 1 and ~30 to represent that. You're like the people who complain because Arsenal doesn't tell us how many people can fit into a 4 door sedan, or how much groceries I can fit in the trunk. Simulation is futile, dice can't simulate a real world. All that simulationist rules do is add time, remove playability, reduce fun, and make the game less accessible to newbies. You're going to have to have something better for us than "the rules are simple, easy to use, and not weighted down by tons of text requiring us to parse out every detail of a social situation."

In 3.5 an 11th level NPC mage can seriously bind an efferti, force it to grant him 3 wishes, use those to bind yet more efeerti and then spiral off into crazy town. A 11th level druid can cast multiple walls of thorns which are functionally walls of impenetrable bullshit to split the party into teams of 1, then turn into a dire bear and rip the level 9 fighters face right off. Even if you know that you're going to face the druid you are still going to get pwnted.

Incidently, the level 17 mage has both scrying and the capability to fortell the future, and can know that the PCs have been asked by the king to go kill him before the king has even asked. So he'll just appear as the messenger is heading to your castle to tell you that the king wants to see you, and then set you on fire.

Also, there are monsters at CR 6 than can stunlock a party of level 7 guys/instantly kill them.

Seriously double digit level games are insanely deadly.

Savvy "role playing game"? The idea of social interaction is CENTRAL to "role playing".

Playability vs simulationism? BS. The "playability" that exists now in 4th edition D&D is only as a (bad) video game simulation.

What you are talking about in the main body of your little diatribe is NOT simulationism, if by that you are searching for the term verisimilitude, and not simply aping the terms used by the designers at WotC, it's realism. No, no dice run game can ever be realistic...but no one in their right mind wants realism. What IS sought is verisimilitude, which is "depicting realism (as in art or literature)". See the little (as in art or literature) part there? In a Role Playing game Verisimilitude stresses granting the appearance of realism so that you can more easily "get into character" and actually "role play" instead of "roll play".

The idiotic numbers crunching games are usually the ones that are less accessible to newbies, because verisimilitude makes the base conceptus closer to what the person actually knows and thus easier to deal with. D&D 4th edition is simply D&D SEVERELY dumbed down, and at the same time removed from the genre it flagshipped for so long.

Don't you get it yet? The length of the Diplomacy description isn't a central issue at all. It's merely endemic of the direction the game is headed. The real PROBLEM is the idiotic "heal everything over night after a short sleep" mind set that even most video games have abandoned.
Or is it that you do get it, but had to ignore it and sound off on something so minor and tangential because it was the only thing that could be attacked, and then only if you ignored the fact that it was minor and tangential?

Too, this is a very odd conceit to run in to on a board dedicated to a game that centers mainly around verisimilitude and social interaction... it bloody well better, as it's so utterly friggin' deadly if you don't think on your feet your career will be VERY short as a Shadowrunner.



Isshia

Only in a game where the DM is playing in video game mode and the Players are morons.

Bind an efreet to grant wishes to get more efreet to do the same and so on and so forth? And why are the PCs simply not doing the same? Quite simply because the DM stupid enough to do or allow either couldn't find his own arse with detailed instructions and the help of friends. He's missed the entire point of RPing.

The ONLY time you get such out of control power spirals is when the DM isn't worth a powdered blow to hell. Can you screw the rules system as a DM (or a Player...if the DM is damned well dumb enough to let it happen) ? Of course you can. But that is a result of screwing the system, not playing it. Pun Pun is not cool or l33t or pwning anyone if the DM and Players aren't brain dead.



Isshia

So, your only problem is that you're incapable or unwilling to accept that D&D has always said hitpoints are an abstract way to model combat? Okay, no biggie.
And all this fuss just about because somebody can't accept it that D&D never was realistic in combat simulation in the first place...

Nicely done on ignoring everything from the second sentence of my post onwards.

Either way, you are certainly free to dispute the point and say "oh no-one in my group uses any of the 10 million things that make D&D super lethal" (Seriously, a sorcerer with the sleep spell is a serious threat to the party) but the game is tremendously lethal.

Two level 1 sorcerers can probably TPK a level 1 party of humans (assuming three classes with good will saves and 1 with high wis and 1 with low wis and a guy with no will save) a significant proportion of the time.

I think Cantankerous is simply stuck on defining "heroic fantasy" as "grim and gritty, Bruce Willis in Die Hard" style.

But, if Cantankerous' players never minmaxed in the older editions, and stayed away from power races, then they can easily refrain from minmaxing healing times, especially if the DM doesn't force them to fight daily.

The rest can easily accept that hit points are abstract, and represent not actual damage absorbtion, but dodging, mitigating, and pure luck. The 4E rules clearly state that, (Caveat: So I heard) when they state that the last blow, the one that takes someone in the negatives, defines if someone is dead, or knocked unconscious. (50 hp target gets whittled down to 3 with physical and stun damage. If it now takes 4 damage from a sword, it's dead, if it takes 4 stun damage from a punch it's k.o., not dead.

Otherwise you run into troubles of verisimilitude much earlier, when your ranger turns an enemy into a pincussion. At 1d8 per arrow, a mid-level fighter could be running around with a dozen arrows sticking out of him - something that would ruin my suspension of disbelief much more than a party recovering from exhaustion after a fight fully in one night of rest.

Also, in most heroic fantasy I read, people don't take dozens of wounds until they fall, they usually take a serious wound that takes them out, and nicks and smaller cuts if any before. Abstract hitpoints represent that well, and avoid the "I am 10th level, Now I can take 10 swords to the gut whereas before I died from one" problem.

It sounds more and more like Cantakerous simply doesn't play D&D anything like the way the rest of us -- the D&D developers included -- do. I get the feeling he's starting to realize that, also, which is why he's getting so much more hostile in his last few posts. Realizing you're not as right as you thought tends to make folks defensive.

Hit points are and have always been an abstraction...but PART of that abstraction has always been, and remains, the actual ability to absorb damage.


There are certainly different ways to play D&D... but when you drain away the thing that makes heroic fantasy heroic, you've changed the system into another genre.

According to the 4th edition DMG, pg:33 The designers seem to agree that at least a part of what Hit Points represent IS damage related. This isn't my attitude. It is what THEY said. And, there is a state at half hit points called "Bloodied". This is not difficult people. Perhaps the reason I was getting a touch annoyed because the snipers were ignoring the reality of it, so that they could support THEIR (untenable) positions.

The designers stated this in black and white in the primary rule book,

You aren't getting winded, you aren't being missed repeatedly until that ONE final blow. You ARE being damaged... somewhat at least.

Nor, even in older editions, did you have to have eight arrows sticking out of you when you were "hit" eight times. Likely none will stick in unless you are very low on hit points indeed. They are glancing off your armor, or, if you are unarmored but with protective magics, are being turned aside by that, or with no protective magics and no armor, you are getting grazed... There are easy rationales IF you think.

Perhaps the snipers here should avail themselves of some information as to what they are actually talking about before they start sniping, or getting on their high horse, or expressing their superiority in understanding. THIS is what the developers say: DMG, pg:33


Or you can simply ignore what THEY are saying and go on about abstractions of abstractions and how you aren't hit until the final swing that brings you in to the negatives.



Isshia

And what exactly is "damage" in this context? Is it defined as "wounds"?

Now, with the above diatribe let out,

Tghe problem with this new system is that since you ARE being damaged by blows, maybe even right from the first one at low levels, and there IS the "bloodied" state at half hit points, it becomes obvious that over night healing of every smidgeon of DAMAGE shows quite clearly that these guys have given up ANY attempt at verisimilitude... this is no longer about role playing. This is WoW on the table top, nothing more, as they are cashing in on THAT cash cow.


Isshia

pardon me...my first response was uncalled for...I responded without flippancy below.


Isshia

Yes, it's wounds. DMG, pg 27.

They state it pretty clearly that the proper way to define damage taken is as wounds.


Isshia

Actually, the idea of playing a role is central to "role playing".


Small wounds. It's not the same as wounds, gaping wounds, or mortal wounds.

This is so beautiful.

"Small wounds" - a paper cut qualifies as a small wound, for example, but wouldn't rate a dmg box in SR4.

EN World has a thread on this:
How Do You Plan To Interpret Hit Points, Healing Surges and Damage?

Personally, it makes sense to me to see hit poits as stamina-like vitality. As I said, it would hurt verisimilitude far worse for me if I actually had a character get hit with each arrow that does 1d8 dmg, but the character would not die. And from what I read, just about everyone said that 4E still sees hit points as turning a blow into a fatal blow, or narrowly evading, but tiring out.

Honestly, the game is supposed to be heroic and larger than life anyway. That means that your character gets shot by an arrow and looks at it, goes "oh, I guess I forgot to dodge", breaks off the larger part of the arrow, then cuts down a minion or three.

Speaking of minions, just think of the minion system that is being brought in with the changing of the guard. It's ridiculous compared to the way enemies have been handled up to this point! An enemy that is like all others of its level in every way, only it has 1 HP? Ha! The very thought of that is just ludicrous in the environment. It does make epic-scale battles possible at lower levels, however, and seems more true-to-life in that one hit CAN kill. Unless we're talking about Rasputin, there are no bosses in real life, only these "minions." And the player-characters should be no different. Also, last time I checked, at no point in history were there goblins, dragons, magic, and an abundance of kamas in a Western environment. There are in myths, which are, by their very nature, larger than life, however.

When I look at the system I don't look at one that is going for verisimilitude, I look instead at one that is going for a heroic, no, mythic story and gameplay. Just roll with it and enjoy it, man.