The Gaming Den

Boolean wrote:Actually I'm pretty sure refusing t hit foes who are down is rational in 4E since you can't do enough damage to kill them and all the damage you've done will be automatically negated by the first heal.

Winning the HP attrition war means hitting those who are up.

I don't think so. Your average level one PC will have a bloodied value of 13 or so. If the monsters have a decent chance of winning, they will be at least a level four encounter, so you're looking at something like a Human Beserker (16 + 1d12 on a crit) or a Warforged Soldier (12 on a crit). Additionally, you get a total of +9 to hit a helpless PC in melee: +5 for unconscious, +2 for prone, and +2 for combat advantage. It might be different at higher levels, though.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
It's not even the getting up for no reason which is something that you've got to worry about. That only happens on natural 20.

Yeah, I know, I was aiming for comedic hyperbole alluding to the fact that someone's very likely to activate a power that triggers a healing surge in the downed PC: hence no apparent reason from the point of view of the aggressors. My bad, subtlety fail.

@Boolean; CdG's are "Any attack you care to use auto-crits" and take no more actions than such an attack normally would so although it's not a *sure* bet to attack someone who's down (because you have to get them to "negative bloodied" to kill them properly dead), if you kept a couple of mobs in reserve to do exactly that it wouldn't be a stupid idea at all. Yup, it's situational, but it's absolutely a tactic I would want to have in my pocket as a smart evil being.

MartinHarper wrote: I don't think so. Your average level one PC will have a bloodied value of 13 or so. If the monsters have a decent chance of winning, they will be at least a level four encounter, so you're looking at something like a Human Beserker (16 + 1d12 on a crit) or a Warforged Soldier (12 on a crit). Additionally, you get a total of +9 to hit a helpless PC in melee: +5 for unconscious, +2 for prone, and +2 for combat advantage. It might be different at higher levels, though.

Yeah it is.

At low levels its not bad, but the damage system really breaks down at higher levels. Because your HP go up by about 5 points each level and monster damage only rises by maybe 1 point.

So it's going to take a lot more hits to a bloodied PC to kill him. And regardless of how down you are in hp, you always heal from 0.

Fucking heal from zero, worst rule ever.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:At low levels its not bad, but the damage system really breaks down at higher levels. Because your HP go up by about 5 points each level and monster damage only rises by maybe 1 point.

Just running the numbers for my own satisfaction:
Level 22 fighter: 144hp -> 72 bloodied.
Dragonborn Champion (level 26 soldier) does 49 damage
Swordwing (level 25 soldier) does ~28 damage

Probably still worth it, especially if team monster has any area of effect damage to throw around.

So it's going to take a lot more hits to a bloodied PC to kill him. And regardless of how down you are in hp, you always heal from 0.

Fucking heal from zero, worst rule ever.

RC, it's not FUN to have someone heal you and leave you unconscious.

Psychic Robot wrote:RC, it's not FUN to have someone heal you and leave you unconscious.

OTOH if you are going to have people jumping up in a fight they need to have HP. If you're an active threat with only 1hp you're far more likely to be dead dead after the next enemy attack. So it makes sense to do it that way if for some reason you wanted people getting up after a mid fight KO. Thats a separate bad idea though.

That's one thing I like about Rocket Launcher Tag - if you go down you usually don't miss too much since fights are so short.

Draco_Argentum wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:RC, it's not FUN to have someone heal you and leave you unconscious.

OTOH if you are going to have people jumping up in a fight they need to have HP. If you're an active threat with only 1hp you're far more likely to be dead dead after the next enemy attack. So it makes sense to do it that way if for some reason you wanted people getting up after a mid fight KO. Thats a separate bad idea though.

Personally - and I'm very aware that this is strictly a matter of personal taste - I'd far rather a situation in which a character who is taken down is out of that fight; their comrades having to worry about defending the now-helpless hero. Yeah, from time to time that is going to suck for the person whose character has been KO'd but it keeps in play the notion that getting reduced to 0hp is a Really Bad Thing.

Fuchs wrote:That's one thing I like about Rocket Launcher Tag - if you go down you usually don't miss too much since fights are so short.

You know, Rocket Launcher Tag fights are much shorter in rounds than Padded Sumo, but what about in real time? In 4E you can actually just tell a bot to use your abilities in descending order of power until it runs out, and then flip a coin (because no one cares) and spam one of your (what, two?) at-wills ad infinitum. Not a huge amount of thought involved there. I just played a game of 3.5, and every single turn involved extensive consideration, especially among the casters, who would consider many spells in their extensive arsenal and the best possible ways to employ them. So even though it's ridiculous in terms of people beating each other with sticks for a ton of rounds, I'm not sure how the real time stacks up.

Gelare wrote:

Fuchs wrote:That's one thing I like about Rocket Launcher Tag - if you go down you usually don't miss too much since fights are so short.

You know, Rocket Launcher Tag fights are much shorter in rounds than Padded Sumo, but what about in real time? In 4E you can actually just tell a bot to use your abilities in descending order of power until it runs out, and then flip a coin (because no one cares) and spam one of your (what, two?) at-wills ad infinitum. Not a huge amount of thought involved there. I just played a game of 3.5, and every single turn involved extensive consideration, especially among the casters, who would consider many spells in their extensive arsenal and the best possible ways to employ them. So even though it's ridiculous in terms of people beating each other with sticks for a ton of rounds, I'm not sure how the real time stacks up.

Mostly, it ends up being long anyways because you have to look up things every time to avoid being confused by the Evil Eyes and the very bland and similar writing in general. Also, to track pointless trivial bullshit. So basically, it's artificial length.

Gelare wrote:

Fuchs wrote:That's one thing I like about Rocket Launcher Tag - if you go down you usually don't miss too much since fights are so short.

You know, Rocket Launcher Tag fights are much shorter in rounds than Padded Sumo, but what about in real time? In 4E you can actually just tell a bot to use your abilities in descending order of power until it runs out, and then flip a coin (because no one cares) and spam one of your (what, two?) at-wills ad infinitum. Not a huge amount of thought involved there. I just played a game of 3.5, and every single turn involved extensive consideration, especially among the casters, who would consider many spells in their extensive arsenal and the best possible ways to employ them. So even though it's ridiculous in terms of people beating each other with sticks for a ton of rounds, I'm not sure how the real time stacks up.

You say that like it's a point in favor of 4E. If I can call out my actions from the couch, I'm going to.

I don't think he is. Favoring 3.5 yes, but he's not favoring 4.0.

Gelare wrote:So even though it's ridiculous in terms of people beating each other with sticks for a ton of rounds...

I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but how long should a fight actually last in game time, if folks are just beating each other with various flavours of sticks? 10 rounds is still nominally one minute, which doesn't seem ridiculous to me. But then, I've not stabbed many people, so maybe it is.

MartinHarper wrote:

Gelare wrote:So even though it's ridiculous in terms of people beating each other with sticks for a ton of rounds...

I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but how long should a fight actually last in game time, if folks are just beating each other with various flavours of sticks? 10 rounds is still nominally one minute, which doesn't seem ridiculous to me. But then, I've not stabbed many people, so maybe it is.

If you're being attacked seriously, and both you and your opponent are surviving a full minute, something's wrong. I could see it if it was a fist fight on the street, then it'd make sense for no one to be KOed or worse. But that's not really a serious fight. Similarly, it makes sense for more skilled unarmed combats to hold up that long, in part because they aren't going all out and in part because they built up stamina and evasion as well when they go boxing or whatever.

But a martial artist actually trying to kill, or someone with a weapon, or magic? 10 rounds (1 minute) is about double to triple the length expected.

And from an OOC standpoint, anything over 3 rounds usually devolves into boring move spam, even if you would not, otherwise go on auto attack mode. In some systems (D&D) it's also a very strong sign a TPK is imminent as well.

Selecting the same option over and over on a video game menu is one thing. Actually having to play it out slowly = less patience.

Roy wrote:From an OOC standpoint, anything over 3 rounds usually devolves into boring move spam

Well, the length of a round can be adjusted, so that's a valid but different point.

MartinHarper wrote:

Roy wrote:From an OOC standpoint, anything over 3 rounds usually devolves into boring move spam

Well, the length of a round can be adjusted, so that's a valid but different point.

Doesn't matter what the length of the round is. If you have to choose actions more than 3 times, it's likely to devolve into move spam. Though a long round would lead to wtfing due to time issues. Kinda like how D&D pre 3rd edition used one round - one minute. Apparently it takes you a full minute to move 90 feet or whatever and swing your sword once. Or just swing the sword once. You can even do it two or three times much later. If you don't get DNSed long before then. Getting say... 10 attacks in 6 seconds instead is more what I'd expect from some super blade master.

Roy's quite right, here. First, I didn't mean to imply that I think 4E's mind-numbingly dull list of nearly identical and interchangeable powers is a good thing (I don't), but also, what's important isn't so much how long the combats last in in-game time, but how many actions you have to go through. If you have enough options at your disposal that you can be doing actually interesting things every round for ten rounds, there's nothing wrong with combat going that long. But 4E doesn't have that. 4E doesn't have close to that. 3E maybe has almost that once per day in a party full of high-level primary spellcasters on a good day, but really, no, and if there's an actual fighting man in the party it's totally hopeless. Combat in my 3.5 games usually lasts three to five rounds, and I'm cool with that.

Gelare wrote:Roy's quite right, here. First, I didn't mean to imply that I think 4E's mind-numbingly dull list of nearly identical and interchangeable powers is a good thing (I don't), but also, what's important isn't so much how long the combats last in in-game time, but how many actions you have to go through. If you have enough options at your disposal that you can be doing actually interesting things every round for ten rounds, there's nothing wrong with combat going that long. But 4E doesn't have that. 4E doesn't have close to that. 3E maybe has almost that once per day in a party full of high-level primary spellcasters on a good day, but really, no, and if there's an actual fighting man in the party it's totally hopeless. Combat in my 3.5 games usually lasts three to five rounds, and I'm cool with that.

Except for perhaps a much higher level primary spellcaster having used most of their slots on defensive stuff I have to wonder how the combat even goes to ten rounds. Actually, even then I have to wonder, because it means they have so many ways to slaughter you, and you can't really hurt them. I've only seen this if time spent hiding in walls counts. Though, amusingly as soon as someone turned off the Spell Turning and Chain Dispelled him, he quickly lost most of his 4 lives to auto attacks off True Seeing. Doing like 100 damage and 2 negative levels a hit has its perks. So basically it was one big puzzle encounter.

Amra wrote: Personally - and I'm very aware that this is strictly a matter of personal taste - I'd far rather a situation in which a character who is taken down is out of that fight; their comrades having to worry about defending the now-helpless hero. Yeah, from time to time that is going to suck for the person whose character has been KO'd but it keeps in play the notion that getting reduced to 0hp is a Really Bad Thing.

Yeah. Problem with 4E is that getting down to 0 doens't even mean anything. Its a move action to stand up. That's it.

Draco_Argentum wrote:OTOH if you are going to have people jumping up in a fight they need to have HP. If you're an active threat with only 1hp you're far more likely to be dead dead after the next enemy attack. So it makes sense to do it that way if for some reason you wanted people getting up after a mid fight KO. Thats a separate bad idea though.

What you say is true, but remember:

1. 4e has scaling "death HP," which I think is one of the genuine improvements of the system. (Note to self: mention that in that one thread.)

2. 4e monsters do "piddly shit" damage, as Roy so eloquently put it.

Even if you're at 1 HP, you're not going to get one-shotted.

It's actually 'flail for piddly shit', used to refer to the attack sequence of anything not dangerous enough to actually care about. Monks are the prime example, mostly because lots of low accuracy attacks best represent flailing.

Amra wrote:Personally - and I'm very aware that this is strictly a matter of personal taste - I'd far rather a situation in which a character who is taken down is out of that fight; their comrades having to worry about defending the now-helpless hero. Yeah, from time to time that is going to suck for the person whose character has been KO'd but it keeps in play the notion that getting reduced to 0hp is a Really Bad Thing.

It also means that CDGing a downed character is discouraged. This is really handy if you want the characters to actually survive.

No, CdG'ing a downed person is only encouraged, since someone can bring them back up to 0 hit points again if they activate a healing surge.

The game still uses a system of Gangbang, but at least there's a good chance that you'll get help before you're killed off for serious. It's an improvement, but only a modest one.

Yeah, the DMG explicitly encourages the DM not to CDG a player

I thought CDG in 4e sucked, though--you do maximized damage, which is pretty much nothing, anyway. Because having an auto-kill = badwrongfun. So you can't shoot anyone in the head in 4e because.