Monte Cook Back to Work

[Seerow]

just remember that not needing a healer or buffer, or caster, doesnt mean EVERYONE should be able to heal, buff, or cast....

that is the problem with 4th thinking everyone becomes a healer.

But everyone in 4th isn't a healer. You're just retarded.

[Xur]

@Seerow: don't repeat my mistake, just stop talking to him. He has even less of a clue about 4E than I do, nothing to say of his bizarre anti-3E rumblings. Maybe he'll just go away instead of eating up valuable space and, more important, poster's energy in like every thread here in IMHO.

Ontopic: now that's the third column in a row where Monte fails to get me hooked. Ok, it was better than the first one, but still... beaten by Mearls at writing interesting (in: interesting to read, entertaining, whatever) columns about some vague D&D stuff? I would never have considered that possibility.

About clerics and healers? To be honest, to me they are an integrate part of D&D and talking them away will leave me kinda alienated towards the result. That's not to say only clerics should excel in healing, or that no one should have options to be a dedicated healer.

Others said it before, what we need is a change in the economy of actions. Healers need something pro-active to do rather than just reacting and putting bandaid on the party.

[rasmuswagner]

As I think others have pointed out, the TF2 Medic is fun to play. Why is that?

*Recognition of contribution. You get "kill assists" when your heal target kills someone (and you're first in line to get the assist)
*Your contribution is more than reactionary. Overhealed teammates win fights they would have lost without your pre-buff.
*Nova - the ubercharge is powerful and dramatic.

[ModelCitizen]

I like the idea of buffers firing off immediate actions to buff allies as they roll. Your fighter rolls an attack and misses. The cleric spends [some resource] and you get +1d6 to your roll like an Eberron action point.

Possible advantages to this:

• The cleric is involved and obviously contributing at the moment that the buff matters.
• After that one roll there's nothing to keep track of. The cleric still contributes even if you're too drunk to remember what buffs you have. No one's going to suddenly remember that they had a +2 last round so their attack actually would have hit so that second troll should be dead which means the rogue never would have blah blah etc.
• It's completely disconnected from actions during the cleric's turn. You can still offer attacks to players who aren't having fun unless they're making attack rolls, but without the retardedness where the cleric heals you by hitting the monster.

[shadzar]

just remember that not needing a healer or buffer, or caster, doesnt mean EVERYONE should be able to heal, buff, or cast....

that is the problem with 4th thinking everyone becomes a healer.

But everyone in 4th isn't a healer. You're just retarded.

can you heal yourself without a potion or magic as a fighter? Yes you can.

congrats your a healer...self-healer, but still a healer.

4th edition is made for people that dont need other party members, and just prefer to play with themselves.

[Psychic Robot]

the fighter in 3e can heal himself and others with healing potions
is he a healer, shadzar?

[hogarth]

I like the idea of buffers firing off immediate actions to buff allies as they roll. Your fighter rolls an attack and misses. The cleric spends [some resource] and you get +1d6 to your roll like an Eberron action point.

I quite like Eberron action points; that sounds like a neat idea.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The implementation of action points as it currently stands is a dumb idea. Action points just get incorporated into whatever Five Moves of Doom routine and turns from what was supposed to be an emergency life-saver technique to something that becomes budgeted and expected. Lame.

If you want action points to mean anything, they'll have to do one of two things:

1.) You have a chance of getting one or more of them if something bad happens to you in combat like getting critical hitted.

2.) While they come at a predictable schedule the effect increases when you use them when you're in a more dire situation. So using an action point in round 4 when you're bloodied has more of an effect than using one in round 1 when you're using it to buff Attacks on the Run or whatever the fuck.

[virgil]

I frequently house-rule action points into my games to be close to Shadowrun's Edge, allowing for the rerolled saving throws and plot-survival against death, rather than enhancing attacks or granting extra actions.

Granted, I don't see much abuse even for the games I ran which had attack-enhancing action points, because of how my players treat them. Even when the points refresh to full at the beginning of the session, have no roll-over, and it's the last fight of the evening, they will hoard them like crazy and refuse to use them.

[hogarth]

The implementation of action points as it currently stands is a dumb idea. Action points just get incorporated into whatever Five Moves of Doom routine and turns from what was supposed to be an emergency life-saver technique to something that becomes budgeted and expected. Lame.

There are many different versions of action points, and not all of them are "supposed to be an emergency life-saver technique". Eberron action points don't fit that bill, as you point out.

[ModelCitizen]

I only brought up action points as an example of the rolling mechanic. Fighter rolls and fails, then cleric uses his buff and adds 1d6 (or whatever), then fighter's roll is recalculated. This would be for cleric buffs which we do want to be budgeted and expected.

[echoVanguard]

I house-ruled action points into my games to be close to Shadowrun's Edge, allowing for the rerolled saving throws and plot-survival against death, rather than enhancing actions or attacks.

This is pretty similar to how Luck Points work in our game. Players accrue Luck Points fairly regularly, and they can be a reward for in-game challenges that don't result in tangible rewards (similar to Shadowrun's Karma in earlier editions). Players can use Luck Points to downgrade an unfavorable combat result by one category (turning a hit into a miss, an incapacitation into a hit, or a death into an incapacitation).

echo

[Swordslinger]

Reducing the need for a party heal bitch/giving everyone some limited form of self healing is all well and good but I really do hate how 4E went about it.

I mean, I generally *like* playing a healing class, but loathe playing one in 4E because that feeling of self importance and satisfaction in knowing I'm the one who kept the party going through a fight just isn't there. In short I feel less like the TF2 Medic/Some All Powerful Master of Life and Death that shoots magic beams of god juice that closes wounds and regrows limbs and more like some sort of useless cheerleader nurse that can't do anything besides giving the PCs pep talks and lots of well wishes to make them feel a little better.

Sounds very contradictory. Obviously reducing the need for a heal bitch is going to reduce your feeling of importance while playing one, regardless of how you do it.

I actually thought 4E did a good job with it from a mechanics standpoint. The cleric healed a lot more efficiently in that he was only burning minor actions. Other characters had to burn minimum two actions to drink a potion, and that was only if they had a hand free. And dude, leaders were awesome, about as awesome as you could get in 4E anyway.

[fectin]

FantasyCraft has error ranges at the bottom of most checks, like theree are critical ranges at the top. One of their Priest abilities is reducing everyone nearby's error ranges. That bottoms out at 1, but something like that might still be worthwhile. You could even flip it around so it negates criticals against allies.

[shadzar]

can you heal yourself without a potion or magic as a fighter? Yes you can.

the fighter in 3e can heal himself and others with healing potions
is he a healer, shadzar?

yes you are illiterate.

[Leper]

can you heal yourself without a potion or magic as a fighter? Yes you can.

the fighter in 3e can heal himself and others with healing potions
is he a healer, shadzar?

yes you are illiterate.

Yeah dude.

See what was totally better was the 3.5 Healing Belt, or even wands or scrolls of heal spells. I mean, sure a fighter could heal with it, but he had to get that shit from a caster, dude.

We had to make it really clear that those useless prick players who are to stupid to pick a real class can't do shit on their own.

I mean having to give up the majority of your turn to recover enough hit points in combat to barely cover one hit from a glorified henchman just ain't enough bitch-slap.

Gotta keep them fighters in their place, yo. 'Scuse me while I go burn an effigy of a cruciform dagger in the yard of this rogue family that moved in down the street. Can't have their kind miscegenatin' with the superior pure caster class.

[shadzar]

the fighter in 3e can heal himself and others with healing potions
is he a healer, shadzar?

yes you are illiterate.

Yeah dude.

See what was totally better was the 3.5

trying to appeal to edition with me and using 3.x is only showing how much you are trolling, because i think ALL WotC editions are shit and garbage...

pre-4th WAS better since it didnt have magical natural healing like 4th does.

[OgreBattle]

Can't have their kind miscegenatin' with the superior pure caster class.

"Mommy, why do the wizards at school call me a Beguiler?"

[Leper]

trying to appeal to edition with me and using 3.x is only showing how much you are trolling, because i think ALL WotC editions are shit and garbage...

That much is clear.

I know you think they're shit and garbage because you obviously have no fucking clue how any of them actually work.

I'm damn near convinced that somehow you managed to listen to every grumbly myopic idiotic bitchfest from every grognard who (like you) ever put some half-assed effort into mocking a game he didn't know about and have compiled it into some sort of "Fire & Brimstone Gospel of Gaming" which you seem to spank off to despite having exactly zero practical experience playing any game at all.

pre-4th WAS better since it didnt have magical natural healing like 4th does.

Sure. Because hitpoints are body damage, right? Why? Because it totally says so, and it wouldn't make any sense if they weren't.

Except it doesn't say that... and never has. And won't. And it doesn't make a lick of sense... and never has, and never will.

But I'm trolling, sure. ^_^ If it puts a little zip in your zeppelin, tell yourself that all night long.

[shadzar]

Sure. Because hitpoints are body damage, right? Why? Because it totally says so, and it wouldn't make any sense if they weren't.

Except it doesn't say that... and never has.

another for the illiterate crowd, because i DOES say that HP are damage. IN ALL editions.

learn to read, english would be a good place to start.

oh hey look at the previous page of this thread!!!!!


http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=232542#232542

yeah reading IS fundamental.

[Leper]

You're right, I was still in denial.

Because I'm unable to comprehend how someone can read "X is not Y. It is silly to assume it can only be Y and in no case should anyone assume that it is only Y because there is no plausible way in which it could ever only be Y, ever, ever, ever. It may be partly Y but not wholly Y and that is why we do not refer to it specifically as "Y" when we talk about it... Because, just once more for clarity and because I really like repeating myself, X is in no way shape or form solely comprised of Y."

and take away "X is totally Y all the time because one of the many interpretations of one word he used can sometimes mean Y."

And while every edition (and many other games) have alluded to the fact that hit points can represent physical damage as a small portion of what they represent among many other factors, I am unaware of any (aside from one Vietnam War based game that was utter shit, but insisted it was "real and gritty") that claimed hit points were only ever actual bodily damage, or even that a majority of what they represented was bodily damage.

[shadzar]

you keep using the wrong word. you keep thinking and using "bodily" damage where in the game uses and means "physical".

being from Texas it is understandable that words having more than 4 letters (like: beer, guns, foot, ball, food, cows) confuse you.

[Leper]

you keep using the wrong word. you keep thinking and using "bodily" damage where in the game uses and means "physical".

Oh. So your assertion is that "bodily damage" which would be damage to a physical form (i.e. "body") is not physical, or that "physical damage" to a character (whose sole physical presence is their body) is not bodily?

being from Texas it is understandable that words having more than 4 letters (like: beer, guns, foot, ball, food, cows) confuse you.

Funny story about that... Contrary to popular belief, Texans have a long history of literacy, mainly due to the early settlement practices.

Signs, bills, and written advertisements were placed all over America to let individuals know that a new life was available when the territory was opened up by Spanish Mexico to allow American settlement. Most of them were relatively simple and outlined a few basic requirements necessary--mainly that all you had to do was say you were a good Catholic whether you were or not, (Spain was big on Catholicism, you see) agree not to foment rebellion, and in exchange you could live in Texas. Most of them concluded with something as simple as "this way to Texas."

Anyone smart enough to read showed up.

[shadzar]

you keep using the wrong word. you keep thinking and using "bodily" damage where in the game uses and means "physical".

Oh. So your assertion is that "bodily damage" which would be damage to a physical form (i.e. "body") is not physical, or that "physical damage" to a character (whose sole physical presence is their body) is not bodily?

using the boards prime edition, swords and such inanimate objects have HP. they have no body, but ability to take PHYSICAL damage.

you use of the word "body" is incorrect because you are trying to set a trap. one in which later you will try to claim something about "wounds".

we aren't discussing wounds. this is the latest healing surge thread on ENWorld.

damage is called physical because it comes from a physical attack. again there is NO source of HP loss that comes form anything other than physical damage.

physical indicates along the same lines as discussion of property it would mean "personal tangible property" as opposed to "intellectual property". meaning a physical form. the shape of that form doesnt matter. the fact something is physical means that physical damage is taken when something has come into physical contact as something else.

so when talking about PHYSICAL damage, it means ismply that, damage from coming into contact with something capable of doing damage.

tell me in what case damage is NOT physical as i asked in the earlier post?

due to being a dynamic variable rather than static constant, HIT POINTS, has several meanings.

i explained this in the previous post, but guess i need to do so again.

Hit Points represents a range: often 0~X. this ranges facors in luck and such so that there is a reason to why the number gets larger as you increase in skill/class/etc levels.

this was explained in the 1e DMG.

Hit Points represent an amount. this amount is either in the form of current, maximum, and change (delta for math geeks).

maximum shows X in the range.
current shows where your position from the extremities of the range is.
change, shows the damage taken.

HP is always looking for a user response to tell if the state has changed. this state changes under 3 conditions.

maximum increase: this is when your range gets bigger. it is VERY infrequent that the range would get smaller, but with level drains it is possible.

you are healed: this moves your current HP closer to the maximum range depending on the type of healing, but may NEVER exceed that maximum range.

damage: this is when you move your current hit points farther away form the maximum range.

this is HOW they are used. what you THINK they represent means little, if you do not understand their use within the system.

are you gaining maximum when HP is lost? no.
are you healing when HP is lost? no.
are you taking damage when HP is lost? yes.

damage through physical contact with an object that is beyond your threshold to prevent damage is what causes HP loss.

tell me something other than physical damage that causes HP loss?

[Leper]

using the boards prime edition, swords and such inanimate objects have HP. they have no body, but ability to take PHYSICAL damage.

Sure. One could argue that in most cases of damage applied to inanimate objects or even to NPCs/monsters that HP does indeed represent physical damage.

That would be primarily because we are not planning to spend many, many, many hours telling a story about a sword, or an orc grunt, or a table, or a door. They are "disposable" objects in a world interacting with what are (hopefully) non-disposable characters. It makes little sense to give such disposable things "plot armor" unless it helps our narrative for them to die or be destroyed in some single, spectacular fashion. One could of course apply such things to every fight or interaction, and nothing is stopping you. I generally save it for PCs, or NPCs that are either somewhat important or who I wish to convey a sense of particular toughness to. My players have had fights where no one ever was described as genuinely harming the "big bad" until someone got in the last fatal shot--which was made possible only by a whole group of characters finally overwhelming them to the point that they just could no longer effectively guard themself against an incoming blow.

you use of the word "body" is incorrect because you are trying to set a trap. one in which later you will try to claim something about "wounds".

"Wounds" would be bodily damage, by definition, so I see no real reason to bring them up as if they are separate. Perhaps if you spend less time trying to figure out my "motives" and more time actually thinking about what you're arguing about.

we aren't discussing wounds. this is the latest healing surge thread on ENWorld.

Huh? I didn't realize we were on ENWorld right now.

damage is called physical because it comes from a physical attack. again there is NO source of HP loss that comes form anything other than physical damage.

[*]psychic attacks--I'm hackin' ur brain to make you think I'm killing you.
[*]energy attacks--one can easily postulate that all energy is not physical, although many forms can indeed effect physical matter.
[*]time attacks--temporal progression/regression is not a purely physical phenomena, although it certainly can be described as having physical effects on the individual.
[*]fate attacks--rare, although usually pretty powerful. "Congrats, we just snipped your thread in the Loom."
[*]luck attacks--also somewhat rare, but I've seen more than a few systems do this.
[*]spiritual attacks--utterly nonphysical by definition.

Do I need to list some more, or will that be sufficient?

physical indicates along the same lines as discussion of property it would mean "personal tangible property" as opposed to "intellectual property". meaning a physical form. the shape of that form doesnt matter. the fact something is physical means that physical damage is taken when something has come into physical contact as something else.

Again, all your arguments amount to is "we can say that HP can very easily be considered to be physical damage in some situations." It is not definitive. The fact that authors have gone out of their way for a very long time to say that it is most certainly not definitive, and the mechanics and descriptions involved have likewise made it clear that it is not definitive seems to only compound this.

I am now genuinely confused by how you could have honestly arrived at this conclusion, much less persisted in it.

so when talking about PHYSICAL damage, it means ismply that, damage from coming into contact with something capable of doing damage.

Yes, things that are physical damage may have come from physical contact. This does not mean all damage is physical, or even that all physical damage results from a physical attack.

tell me in what case damage is NOT physical as i asked in the earlier post?

Sure.

[*]Morale is wholly non-physical, although it can be linked with physical factors like nutrition, rest, comfort, etc. as well as current medical conditions. HP can easily be described as a loss of composure or will, wherein there is little or no injury until the individual reaches 0 and is driven to surrender out of fear and relatively minor pain.
[*]Loss of balance, while physically measurable in nature, is most certainly not "physical damage" in a sense of being genuine destruction of a physical system, although it can of course be one of the results of such. Also note that this requires no actual contact--feinting to put someone off guard, etc. HP can easily be described as a loss of balance or poise, wherein your character is never physically wounded until they reach 0 HP, wherein they are dealt a fatal or debilitating blow because they are unable to properly defend against it.
[*]Consciousness is not a physical state. In fantasy worlds such may not even require a physical form, as we generally assume it does in the Real World™. Again, reaching 0 HP may be described as a loss of consciousness from factors wholly unrelated to anything having to do with the physical. As you derisively suggested, it may well be mental trauma brought on by a plethora of effects.

Again, these are just a few such examples, and there are many more. Whether I type 3 or 30 doesn't matter, because either you're going to get the idea or you're not and no further listing on my part will genuinely convince you if you're going to refuse to participate in an actual exchange of ideas.

due to being a dynamic variable rather than static constant, HIT POINTS, has several meanings.

Yes it does. I'm not sure why you seem so stuck on one of them.

i explained this in the previous post, but guess i need to do so again.

Hit Points represents a range: often 0~X. this ranges facors in luck and such so that there is a reason to why the number gets larger as you increase in skill/class/etc levels.

this was explained in the 1e DMG.

Earlier than that, actually, but not a lot of folks have the older stuff.

Hit Points represent an amount. this amount is either in the form of current, maximum, and change (delta for math geeks).

maximum shows X in the range.
current shows where your position from the extremities of the range is.
change, shows the damage taken.

Where "damage" is defined as "loss of the abstract total number of hit points" as opposed to "physical damage."

HP is always looking for a user response to tell if the state has changed. this state changes under 3 conditions.

maximum increase: this is when your range gets bigger. it is VERY infrequent that the range would get smaller, but with level drains it is possible.

I really don't miss those. There are far better ways to impress horror into a game than "punishment from the RNG is SCARY!"

you are healed: this moves your current HP closer to the maximum range depending on the type of healing, but may NEVER exceed that maximum range.

Sure, although "healing" is likewise a broad, catch-all term for a great number of things that may not actually be genuine physical damage. It's a handy point of reference, and people's refusal to think for themselves has lead to the modern notion that "losing HP can only mean I got hurt!"

damage: this is when you move your current hit points farther away form the maximum range.

You did leave out things like "pool padding" for temporary hit points, which is a temporary increase that is not technically healing, damage or permanent increase, but that's okay.

this is HOW they are used. what you THINK they represent means little, if you do not understand their use within the system.

You skipped (at least) one, and I'm too tired to bother to go looking for more. Apparently, I'm a bit more familiar with how they work than you are at the moment.

are you gaining maximum when HP is lost? no.
are you healing when HP is lost? no.
are you taking damage when HP is lost? yes.

You are taking "damage to your HP pool" which is to say that you wind up with a sum total less than what you started with, but you have yet to show why or how "HP damage" must always equal physical damage.

damage through physical contact with an object that is beyond your threshold to prevent damage is what causes HP loss.

Except that you are not bound to assume all HP loss comes from physical contact, and in many cases it certainly will not come from physical contact. Frankly we could even view them as some sort of measure of "quantum placement."

ex: Orc swings his axe at character, character dodges, but his new physical placement (despite not being physically struck) further increases the likelihood of his death through the more opportune wave collapses that will follow because of that decision. The short version being that, because he stepped left rather than right, further instances that occur within the fight are more likely to lead to an outcome in which the character dies from a single fatal blow or even a collection of other blows down the line. Had he chosen to dodge in the "most correct way" or the orc's blow been not quite so close as to force a bad decision, there would have been no change (or possibly even an increase*) in his chances for survival.

Rather than taking the time to teach ourselves and our players all about theoretical quantum mechanics and then do exceedingly ludicrous amounts of calculations, we just mark it down as "-10HPs" and move on.

*and things like this are where we get "I hit the enemy and someone gains HP" from.