Flat Healing Without Using a Surge--Infinite Daily HP?

[mattdm]

It's just as much a credible threat as, say, a minion in a regular encounter, which is always assumed to be a credible threat or else lots of things wouldn't work.

They're minions because they're credible threats for the encounter, not credible threats because they're minions. That is, the game isn't about setting up a clockwork world which the characters crash around in. Instead, set up a story (which may indeed involve a big-picture world), and use the tools given to show the parts the players interact with.

I don't think this is hard at all for beginner DMs. If they players start to go nutso, you can tell them: that doesn't work, because, geez, quit that, the game won't be fun if you treat it like an excercise in technical rules lawyering. And there's the "credible threat" paragraph to back that up.

 

[Rystil Arden]

hey're minions because they're credible threats for the encounter, not credible threats because they're minions. That is, the game isn't about setting up a clockwork world which the characters crash around in. Instead, set up a story (which may indeed involve a big-picture world), and use the tools given to show the parts the players interact with.

You say set up a story, I say railroading. It works for some people, and, ironically, I have no problem playing that kind of game, but when GMing, that's not my style. I create a world full of NPCs, plots, and agendas and then let the PCs interact as they see fit, biting whatever hooks they choose and doing as they please. I am quickly bored by anything else. And my skills, desires, interests, and talents lie in that direction. Granted, 4e is not so conducive to it--it's one of the reasons I'll be playing both editions for a long time to come (both have strong advantages in some areas and crippling weaknesses in others).

That said, the same line of thought does not hold true for one-shots, and 4e is pretty much the king of one-shots among D&D Editions as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ydars]

I agree with you that 4E looks a simple game on the surface, but in fact is HUGELY more ambigiously written than say 3.5E.

This is mainly because half of the powers are hard to explain in terms of what they represent in the real-world, as are many of the concepts they build on e.g. HP. So the DM has a harder time arguing with this sort of gamist logic. However, it is pure meta-gaming and I would not allow it purely for that reason.

The power you mention is divine; if a paladin in my game tried it, he would lose ALL his powers for several weeks because this represents evil; i.e. ending the lives of living beings purely for his benefit.

Surely the renewing smite power has to represent the effect of an agent of good raising morale in a beleagured party by hammering a real threat; not a sordid smashing of helpless monsters for a video-game style effect?

 

[Rystil Arden]

I agree with you that 4E looks a simple game on the surface, but in fact is HUGELY more ambigiously written than say 3.5E.

This is mainly because half of the powers are hard to explain in terms of what they represent in the real-world, as are many of the concepts they build on e.g. HP. So the DM has a harder time arguing with this sort of gamist logic. However, it is pure meta-gaming and I would not allow it purely for that reason.

The power you mention is divine; if a paladin in my game tried it, he would lose ALL his powers for several weeks because this represents evil; i.e. ending the lives of living beings purely for his benefit.

Surely the renewing smite power has to represent the effect of an agent of good raising morale in a beleagured party by hammering a real threat; not a sordid smashing of helpless monsters for a video-game style effect?

You can strike for nonlethal damage though. And you can be an Unaligned Paladin of an Unaligned deity in the PH, and the section on Paladins seems to imply that you can't lose your powers or fall, even if you go on a murderous killing spree (it says you "are a Paladin forevermore"), but other Paladins and Clerics of your god might come after you if you keep doing weird things. Also, Raven Queen Paladins would absolutely kill currently-helpless-but-still-credible-threat monsters to heal her allies. In fact, that's her Channel Divinity power (though it uses a surge).

It's an interesting and insightful thought you have in general, though. I agree--it's because 4e sort of just hoped that a streamlined and simple system would allow them to write out powers and abilities in a very brief space without trouble, and often it did. In 3.5, you'd get a long description that would deal with side cases, but the sacrifice is that now you have to read through a long description.

 

[WayneLigon]

If a certain monster is a significant threat, then it's a significant threat, yes? Nothing stops you from KOing the same monster (particularly a minion) that is actually a significant threat many times.

It sounds like you're trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

It's a per-encounter power - if you knock out a monster and then wait for it to wake up and knock it out again.. I'd say that's still the same encounter. I would also say that if you can do that more than once, the monster stops being a 'credible threat' to you once you beat it down to 1 hp and can whack it unconscious with a backhand slap.

Unarmed unarmored prisoners released for bloodsport are also obviously not credible threats. If you are 10th and your opponent is a armed and armored fighter.. but he's only 1st level ... he's ceased to be a credible threat to you.

Also, the 'many small ambuscades' thing probably doesn't work. You need to have at least five minutes of uninterrupted quiet rest to recharge an encounter power. I don't see that nessesarily happening very often in dependendable sequence.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It sounds like you're trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

It's a per-encounter power - if you knock out a monster and then wait for it to wake up and knock it out again.. I'd say that's still the same encounter. I would also say that if you can do that more than once, the monster stops being a 'credible threat' to you once you beat it down to 1 hp and can whack it unconscious with a backhand slap.

Unarmed unarmored prisoners released for bloodsport are also obviously not credible threats. If you are 10th and your opponent is a armed and armored fighter.. but he's only 1st level ... he's ceased to be a credible threat to you.

Also, the 'many small ambuscades' thing probably doesn't work. You need to have at least five minutes of uninterrupted quiet rest to recharge an encounter power. I don't see that nessesarily happening very often in dependendable sequence.

By that logic, many of the light earlier encounters where the PCs don't expect to use dailies are not credible threats. After all, they're not really going to defeat the PCs, right?

Also, per encounter abilities are explicitly stated to last 5 minutes or take 5 minutes to recharge.

 

[Ydars]

Rystil; I don't think we really disagree and your point about simplifing the codified rules actually making the game more complicated is well founded.

IMHO; WoTC should have added this statement to the PHB and DMG as follows; if any action taken by any character displays knowledge of or seeks to take advantage of game meta-concepts that only a player of a game would know, that action shall be deemed meta-gaming and shall be voided for that reason.

 

[Nail]

I've yet to play thru 4e. (We'll be starting KotS soon.) Read the books tho'....

IMO, all the DM really needs is the "meaningful threat" clause on p. 40 of the DMG to contain PCs that want infinite healing....or infinite whatever else that requires an attack. (3e's whirlwind attack and AoOs pops into mind....) The "meanignful threat" clause really is enough. After all, it's the DM that determines what monsters are where, etc.

Rystil, I'm a bit confused. How might it go down in your prefered campaign world where the PCs get infinite healing from something that's not a meaningful threat? I don't understand the story problem you're having.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rystil; I don't think we really disagree and your point about simplifing the codified rules actually making the game more complicated is well founded.

IMHO; WoTC should have added this statement to the PHB and DMG as follows; if any action taken by any character displays knowledge of or seeks to take advantage of game meta-concepts that only a player of a game would know, that action shall be deemed meta-gaming and shall be voided for that reason.

Interestingly, WotC has actually narrowed the definition of metagaming in 4e by stating that characters in the world have full knowledge of the exact rules text of all powers and effects being used against them, so now in 4e, metagaming requires an additional level of thinking--you're supposed to think in game-mechanic terms, but now you shouldn't think in terms that go beyond game-mechanics and into adventure design (things like "It can't be too tough--the GM put it into the adventure for us after all" or "Okay, there's 20 of these same guys. They absolutely must be minions or else they wouldn't have made the encounter this way").

This still allows various things that would be metagaming in 3.5 as standard fare.

 

[Nail]

IMHO; WoTC should have added this statement to the PHB and DMG as follows; if any action taken by any character displays knowledge of or seeks to take advantage of game meta-concepts that only a player of a game would know, that action shall be deemed meta-gaming and shall be voided for that reason.

!!!

If - within the game - my Pal attacks someone, and then gets healed, I'd expect him to "get" that hitting someone heals!

There's nothing "metagamy" about that.......


.....and I think you'll find that practically all supposed "metagamy" actions actually turn out not to be metagamy at all.