Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[ardoughter]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.

In Doom, your health is expressed as a percentage... and there's a little picture of your face at the bottom of the screen. At 100%, you look fine. At 50%, you show some a bloodied nose. At 20%, there's more blood, and one eye is blackened and swollen. (Numbers are vague and approximate!)

If you pick up a health pack and go from 20% to 50%, some blood disappears, and your eye unblackens and unswells. When you go from 50%, to 20%, to 50% again, your cinematic representation is identical before and after the -30, +30 sequence. If 30% damage meant "More blood, black eye", then 30% healing means "Heal the eye, wipe some blood".

If you treat 4E hit points the same way - "I said that when he lost 6 hit points, that was a shallow slice along his ribs, and when he lost 12 hit points, it was a club to his face that broke his nose" - then healing must reverse the cinematic effects of damage. When you heal him 12 hit points, his nose becomes unbroken. When you heal him another six, the gash along his ribs disappears.

And this is where Quantum Wounding appears.

But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur. If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort? Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.

It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.

So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.

-Hyp.

I would like to add that the expended healing surges repersent the original cut, brakes and nicks that are still there but not bothering you that much.

Would it help to consider healing surges returning at a rate per day that all returned after a nights rest.

[Kishin]

Originally Posted by Delta

And utterly convincing that 4E is not a game I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I literally flinched when I read that.

I like how you offered no further elucidation here as to why you thumbed your nose and harrumphed at someone taking a vagary and being creative with it.

The view from your pedestal must be pretty nice indeed.

Originally Posted by Cadfan

If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day. Magic healing happens continuously."

Which is fine and all, but I don't think its compatible with "low fantasy."

QFT. It isn't. At all. If it were low fantasy, you'd be relying on heal checks and bedrest.

[GlaziusF]

Originally Posted by Dragonblade

What it means is that the nature of the original hitpoint damage (i.e. actual wounds vs. fatigue vs. morale) sustained by a character cannot be determined until those hitpoints are recovered by a character. It is the source of the hitpoint recovery that determines the original nature of the damage sustained.

For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.

Therefore if the DM had described that damage as wound damage when it occured, the DM would be proven wrong if the PC is then healed by an ability such as Inspiring Word.

Aaaand your theory collapses, because all a player has to do is not describe damage as wound damage if an inspiring word couldn't motivate him, a la the paladin of Juste, to heal physical wounds.

Can you fall unconscious without deep physical wounds? Fifty million gut punches say "yes".

There's nothing in the game that necessitates describing damage as physical wounds beyond the ability of your character to tend to in the six seconds it takes to pop a second wind and get above bloodied.

[CleverNickName]

Originally Posted by Charwoman Gene

Your post advocates a

( ) gamist ( ) simulationist ( ) cinematic (*) narrativist

approach to understanding hit points. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.

(snip)

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it will satisfy everyone
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

This was awesome. 1 XP for you!

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Dragonblade

...quantum....

I just saw Quantum of Solace and Bond definitely had Second Wind, Healing Surges (which he used between encounters), as well as encounters, dailies and at-wills.

Originally Posted by Dragonblade

For example, if a character suffers damage in combat, and then is healed by the Warlord's Inspiring Word ability, then the damage in question was fatigue or morale damage. Not wound damage, since words of encouragement cannot heal physical wounds.

Bond seemed to use his own driving desire to make Vesper's death mean something (as well as avenge her), similar to the way a Warlord would shout encouragement to another PC. He also seemed to heal from physical wounds during this time as well.

Now, I know that it is a movie, and we aren't talking about cinematic vs. realism here, but that movie is an example of how 4e's hit points system can work. Without suffering an aneurysm to justify it.

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Kishin

QFT. It isn't. At all. If it were low fantasy, you'd be relying on heal checks and bedrest.

For some low fantasy means that everything operates by real world physics unless magic is involved. By that standard a wand of CLW is perfectly acceptable, but a horse running all day is not. Others think low fantasy means there is almost no magic as if it were medieval europe, but cinematic action is just fine. (Never mind that in medieval europe priests held rituals to stop the advance of a glacier, hundreds were burned for witchcraft and some were succesfully prosecuted for being werewolves...)

By definition 1 any wuxia movie counts as high fantasy even if not one supernatural element shows up. By definition 2 LotR could be low fantasy.

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Vyvyan Basterd

It is comments like these that add feul to the fire are are unnecessary.

One could more politely say:

I prefer low fantasy...where healing takes longer...etc.

Its not a matter or miracles that PCs heal in 4E, its just faster than your preference.

I'm sorry, but I do not see a problem with what I said.

miracle - noun. An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

I prefer low fantasy, where extraordinary events or effects in the physical world do not take place without the aid of magic.
Such as; healing from significant battle wounds over-night.

By comparison with the real world (and all previous editions), the speed at which characters heal in 4E is miraculous. Some players like this speed, others like the (marginally) more accurate modeling of the real world provided in other systems. I happen to be the latter, and I gather you're the former. I in no way indicated that either was better or 'badwrongfun'. I merely gave an indication of why I prefer other healing systems.

If anything I expected to be pulled up on the use of 'low fantasy' as in DnD low fantasy typically refers to the abundance of magic (and magic items), not the level of fantasizing required to make the story believable.
--Edit--
Like this in fact:

Originally Posted by Cadfan

How often does magic get involved in healing in your game?

If you're like most people, the answer is, "All the time, multiple times per day. Magic healing happens continuously."

Which is fine and all, but I don't think its compatible with "low fantasy." That's high fantasy. I think "low fantasy" is much more compatible with the idea of hit points representing not physical wounds, but simply how far you are from falling unconscious in a sort of nebulous sense.

Enjoy what you enjoy, I guess, but I don't think that making magical healing of sucking chest wounds into a multiple-times-per-day occurrence makes your game "low fantasy."

I'd respond but Andor beat me to it:

Originally Posted by Andor

For some low fantasy means that everything operates by real world physics unless magic is involved. By that standard a wand of CLW is perfectly acceptable, but a horse running all day is not. Others think low fantasy means there is almost no magic as if it were medieval europe, but cinematic action is just fine. (Never mind that in medieval europe priests held rituals to stop the advance of a glacier, hundreds were burned for witchcraft and some were succesfully prosecuted for being werewolves...)

I was referring to the former - fantasy as in people performing extraordinary actions without the aid of magic.

[Wolfwood2]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf

But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur. If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort? Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.

It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.

So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.

But don't you still run into the issue on the dying/not dying axis? Let's take this to the simplest possible position. A PC is fighting a goblin. The goblin hits him with a shortsword, and the PC drops below zero hitpoints. A couple of rounds go by, and the unlucky PC fails two death saving throws.

Now... has the PC been stabbed with a lethal wound, or not? If we were to freeze time in the game world, and move in and look at how badly the PC is hurt at this moment, are his guts slashed open and slowly bleeding out into the dirt, or is it just a shallow cut that he can potentially grit through?

We don't know. The DM can get away with vaguely describing the PC as having suffered "a cut", but if the player persists and asks, "No really, how badly is my PC hurt?" then the DM has to admit that he doesn't yet know.

If next round the PC fails a third death saving throw, then it was a lethal wound. If the PC rolls a 20 or is in some other way allowed to spend a healing surge, then it was only a shallow cut. It's a quantum wound.

Now I like 4E and I'm willing to live with this, but I have it admit that it's there.

[Christopher Robin]

Just say he was stabbed. If he fails the saving throw, he got hit in the lungs or something and died. If he rolled a 20, it missed anything vital and he manages to get up and struggle on. Or he took a blow to the head and passed out. Maybe he wakes up (a 20) or maybe he starts bleeding from his brain and dies (3 failed throws).

Of course you don't know if it's a lethal wound or not, you're rolling to determine that. That's what the death saving throw IS, the roll to find out how badly you were hurt.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

But don't you still run into the issue on the dying/not dying axis? Let's take this to the simplest possible position. A PC is fighting a goblin. The goblin hits him with a shortsword, and the PC drops below zero hitpoints. A couple of rounds go by, and the unlucky PC fails two death saving throws.

Now... has the PC been stabbed with a lethal wound, or not?

The same thing happens in 3e with the stabilization roll. Is it lethal, or not? We don't know until all the stabilization checks have been made.

4e is a little more... thematic. Words and will are more important in 4e. A possibly deadly wound can be recovered from with force of will.

We can narrate how bad his wounds are; what we can't yet narrate, because that has yet to be resolved, is whether or not the PC has the will to carry on.

Are his guts slashed open? Yes. Can he grit through that? Who knows?

edit: nevermind.

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

By comparison with the real world (and all previous editions), the speed at which characters heal in 4E is miraculous.

Technically, you're wrong. In 3e a character engaged in bed rest with a non magical doctor regained 4 hit points per level per day. That means that a barbarian who rolled straight 12s on his hit dice and who has an 18 in constitution is going to regain all his hit points from zero in four days flat. That's the example calculated to take the absolute maximum time I could make it take. A wizard is probably going to need only one day of bed rest to heal from zero.

I mean, yeah, "heal over night" is faster than "heal over the course of a full day or maybe two," but if your goal is realistic fantasy, you're splitting hairs at this point.

I always think its fun to bring this up in conversations about 4e healing, because inevitably there's this weird pause where everyone checks the rules and discovers that I'm right, but they didn't know because they never actually used non magical healing for long term care. They had a cleric who just magicked them back together every evening.

As for definitions of "low fantasy," I think you need a new phrase. Because, no matter how much you try to rationalize your definition of "low fantasy," if you define "low fantasy" to mean "fantasy where the constant, ongoing effects of magic use continuously negate normal physical laws," then you have just defined "low fantasy" to mean "high fantasy." And that's probably not good for the english language or for our brains.

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Christopher Robin

Just say he was stabbed. If he fails the saving throw, he got hit in the lungs or something and died.

So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?

Is the 'cat' dead or not?

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?

Who needs to know?

The character doesn't need to know - he's not in a condition to make use of the knowledge, since he can't take any actions.

The player doesn't need to know, because the player understands the death save mechanic.

The other characters might want to know, but they can't tell just by glancing at him. They need to get closer so they can determine what state he's in. DC 15 Heal check - if they fail, they can't tell, and if they succeed, they can tell that he's not in danger of immediate death (since a DC 15 Heal check stabilises the character, and he's no longer required to make Death Saves).

Just like in 3E, you don't describe a wound that's inevitably fatal... because it's not inevitable that someone will die (even without aid). But you can describe a wound that could be fatal.

-Hyp.

[firesnakearies]

All of these problems stem from the idea that real physical wounds "can't" be healing that quickly, or that only certain fantastic power effects in the game are "magical enough" to "really heal" an injury.

Why not do away with this prejudice, and watch the system work perfectly? Take the word FANTASY in "fantasy role-playing" to mean, well, FANTASY. Take the words POWER SOURCE in "Martial power source" to mean, well, POWER SOURCE.

Real wounds simply "can't" close that fast, and especially not in response to some Warlord yelling some pep talk? Probably true enough, in our real, non-fantastical, non-heroic, non-adventure, non-fictional world, the one in which we live and which our experience tells us is governed by certain nearly-indisputable scientific realities.

I'm confused, though, as to which part of the D&D published material led people to believe that this game is set in such a world. As far as I can tell, the assumed setting for D&D is vastly more magical, mystical, wondrous, unusual, epic, larger-than-life, and divorced from our typical expectations of the limitations of "reality" than that.

I'm confused as to which part of the D&D published material led people to believe that the protagonists in this world are essentially just like us normal folks here on mundane Earth, save for having a few neat tricks up their sleeves. Apparently, from my reading, the characters are HEROES, they're the best and the brightest, the ones who can do the things that other people can't do . . . and this, in a dramatically fantastical world!

Why can't everything they do be "magical" in some sense? Maybe not in the big, flashy, drawing-upon-external-forces-beyond-this-world sense, like Arcane and Divine magic. But a more subtle magic, a more personal, inner magic, that comes from their own heroic core. Why can't the Martial "power source" be, you know, a POWER SOURCE? Why do people almost universally insist that you've got Reality-Defying Wielders of the Arcane Power Source of Mighty Arcane MAGIC, and Reality-Defying Wielders of the Divine Power Source of Mighty Divine MAGIC . . . and oh yeah, some other guys who are basically just normal shmucks that happen to be decent with a weapon and foolish enough to brave the unknown.

Clerics and Wizards apparently get to partake in the magical, mystical, fantastical, epic, heroic, world-of-wonder awesomeness of the game and setting, they get to be and do things that no one in our world could ever hope to do. But Fighters and Warlords? Nah, they're not magical in any sense, they're basically no different than a regular skilled martial artist or athlete here on Earth!

Bollocks, I say.

I say that the Martial power source is a "power source" indeed, not merely the retarded cousin left over after Arcane and Divine got done dividing up the fantasy coolness pot between them. I say that it's not "unrealistic" for a HERO in a FANTASY world to recover from grievous wounds in "miraculous" time. Know why we think it's miraculous? Because we're judging from the perspective of our own non-heroic, non-fantastical lives in our own very, very mundane world!

The idea of some guy throwing fifteen-foot radius bursts of magical fire around all day long, out of the thin air, without ever breaking a sweat . . . that we can totally buy, because it's "fantasy" and "magic". But a hero on par with that level of power who . . . heals . . . more quickly than we do is apparently preposterous!

I think people have this idea that since Arcane power and Divine power are the big, overt, externally-derived sources of dramatic effects which are most often associated with "magic" that it must mean that anything else, no matter how heroic or how fantasy-based it is, must be NOT-MAGIC. At all. So no fast healing! I want Wizards and Clerics and real-life Jackie Chans only. If we can't do it in real life, I don't want our so-called heroes doing it in-game . . . unless it's a Fireball. If it didn't come out of a spellbook or a holy symbol, I'll be damned if anyone's gonna do anything "unrealistic" or "miraculous" in MY super-heroic epic fantasy game!

The game doesn't say that Warlord healing is somehow "less real" healing than Cleric healing. Know why? Because it isn't. Yes, a person here on Earth probably can't make wounds close by shouting encouragement. A person here on Earth can't fight liches and dragons with a hand axe, either. The Warlord isn't some Marine Corps sergeant who's listened to a few Anthony Robbins tapes and memorized a speech or two from Shakespeare's history plays. He's a FANTASY HERO, using not merely the mundane resources of the common folk, not merely the absence of Arcane or Divine power, but the equally potent and fantastical Martial POWER SOURCE. It may not be "magic" in some limited sense(s) of the word, but there's no reason to assume that it isn't magical in terms of how it can affect the world.

There is no disconnect, no Schrodinger's Wounding, no need to make up narrative contrivances either before or after the fact. Not if you simply take the game at face value. Fantasy world, heroes, these effects all "heal" in the same way, wherever the power came from. Done.

I daresay that if you deny this simple principle, you're making the cover of the PHB into a liar. According to the standard paradigm I've seen espoused in these threads, it SHOULD read: "Arcane and Divine Heroes, and also, Normal Folks Who Do Some Martial Stuff".


Yes, that Inspiring Word DID just cause my severed femoral artery to spontaneously fuse itself back together. Cool, huh? I guess that's why they call it a "power source", and why they call him a "hero".

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by firesnakearies

All of these problems stem from the idea that real physical wounds "can't" be healing that quickly, or that only certain fantastic power effects in the game are "magical enough" to "really heal" an injury.

Why not do away with this prejudice, and watch the system work perfectly? Take the word FANTASY in "fantasy role-playing" to mean, well, FANTASY. Take the words POWER SOURCE in "Martial power source" to mean, well, POWER SOURCE.

See my previous posts about high and low fantasy. This type of fantasy that you describe isn't the kind of game I want to play. And I think I could get away with saying that DnD didn't encourage that type of fantasy previously. Hence our collective objections.

To give an over-the-top example, I want to play wizards and warriors, not x-men.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Hmmm...the rate of healing in 4E does seem pretty miraculous;

4e healing is unrealistic? Well, yeah. Soooo . . . healing in BECMI, 1e, 2e, and/or 3e was realistic? The hit point system in 4e most definitely has some serious changes from previous editions to be sure, but to complain that it is just not that realistic . . .

I think the whole issue would have been lessened with one simple change. If WotC had not called the resource Second Wind pulls from "Healing Surges", and simply called them "Reserves" or something like that, people would have an easier time wrapping their heads around the concept.

I'm fine with the system as is, but I think (in my ignorance) I would have preferred the healing surge concept merged with the action point concept.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

So you agree that we cannot tell how badly wounded he actually is? There is no way to determine (and therefore narrate) his wounds because he may not in fact have any?

Is the 'cat' dead or not?

Hold on, I have to make my stabilization roll. 87. Dang, still bleeding out I guess. Maybe I can make it a non-lethal wound with a lucky roll next round.


08! Yes! I guess it's not life-threatening after all.


(To paraphrase: 4E fans do not claim that 4E wounds and healing are realistic. Just that unrealistic wounds and healing are not new to 4E.)

[Andor]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

As for definitions of "low fantasy," I think you need a new phrase. Because, no matter how much you try to rationalize your definition of "low fantasy," if you define "low fantasy" to mean "fantasy where the constant, ongoing effects of magic use continuously negate normal physical laws," then you have just defined "low fantasy" to mean "high fantasy." And that's probably not good for the english language or for our brains.

Did you not read my post? You are using definition 2 for low/high fantasy.

He is using definition 1.

Unless your name is Merriam-Webster you don't get to declare him wrong for using definition 1.

Now that we all understand how english (and courtesy) work do you actually have an arguement that doesn't hinge on insulting the other guy?

4e hitpoints and healing differ from hp in previous editions. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[Cadfan]

We should be able to agree that a definition invented in this very thread and which is the direct opposite of the previously accepted definition isn't a very good definition at all.

[firesnakearies]

I submit that Dungeons and Dragons has never, in any of its core incarnations, presented a "low fantasy" game.

Wikipedia has this to say about the term Low Fantasy:

Low fantasy is an umbrella term, describing various works within different sub-genres of fantasy, to contrast specific works with high fantasy. Though a very vague term, some features that may indicate low fantasy are: downplaying of epic or dramatic aspects, de-emphasising magic, real-world settings, realism, cynical storytelling and dark fantasy. An archetypal example of low fantasy might take place in a quasi-historical setting where the protagonists lack a clear moral initiative, are haunted by dark pasts or character flaws and where conventional fantasy elements (such as magic, elves, or dwarves) are lacking or absent.

That doesn't sound much like any version of core-rules D&D. Now, of course, a bit of lip service to the idea of using the D&D game to play campaigns of a low fantasy feel has always been given. And I'm certainly not claiming that you couldn't play D&D in a decidedly low fantasy manner. But to do so, you'd always have to ignore, change, reinterpret, or repackage various elements of the game.

Which, if you do the same thing to 4th edition, works just as well.