Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[Wicht]

4th edition is a broad descriptor ruleset that intentionally, and transparently (just like 13th Age - also Heinsoo's ruleset) opens up the fiction by making the rules elements marriage to in-fiction elements less constrained (Regeneration being available thematic mechanics for the Rocky or John McClain archetypes rather than just for Wolverine). Clearly that is not your preference. That doesn't make it incomprehensible. It doesn't make the designers incompetent. And it doesn't make pemerton a contrarian or gratuitously argumentative.

Manbearcat, when you are right - you are right. Regeneration in 4th edition cannot be constrained by the bourgeois preconceptions of a bygone age. It must break the shackles and fully embrace all the possibilities open to it.

 

[pemerton]

if your argument devolves into saying that a power that gives you regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, you are simply being contrary and are, at that point, in my opinion, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Authors and designers tend to choose words because those words convey a certain meaning.

<snip>

To the immediate point, arguing that a power which grants regeneration does not actually give you regeneration, is simply being contentious. Moreover, it assumes the authors were somewhat incompetent in their use of words. I may not play 4e, but I will grant the designers the benefit of the doubt as to the fact they were not incompetent word-smiths.

This is all completely bizarre to me.

Everyone knows that a strike with a longsword might hit a character's plate armour, even though it is not counted as a hit by the PF rules, because it does not deal damage according to the game mechanical rules for armour class. The only people who get worked up by this are die-hard advocates of armour-as-damage-reduction, but even they are not confused by the terminology. They just don't like the mechanic.

The 4e authors defined the word "regeneration". They defined it by reference to the meaning that word has conveyed for multiple editions of the game, namely, hit point restoration on a round-by-round basis.

Furthermore, this is borne out by the dictionary definitions (as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has pointed out).

From Random House, then Collins:

1. act of regenerating; state of being regenerated. . .

3. Biology . the restoration or new growth by an organism of organs, tissues, etc., that have been lost, removed, or injured.


1. the act or process of regenerating or the state of being regenerated; rebirth or renewal

2. the regrowth by an animal or plant of an organ, tissue, or part that has been lost or destroyed​

Here is the openeing of the Random House definition of "regenerate", from the same source:

1. to effect a complete moral reform in.

2. to re-create, reconstitute, or make over, especially in a better form or condition.

3. to revive or produce anew; bring into existence again.

4. Biology . to renew or restore (a lost, removed, or injured part).​

In other words, the biological notion of regeneration that you referenced upthread is not treated as the primary definition in either dictionary. The general idea of restoration or renewal is primary. And regeneration in 4e is all about restoration and renewal: mechanically, the restoration and renewal of hit points; in the fiction, the restoration and renewal of endurance, verve and (perhaps) luck.

It's not that complicated, has nothing in general to do with "knitting flesh and tissue back together" (although that may be how a troll restores its endurance and verve), and puts no strains on ordinary language.

As I said, your claim that my argument has "devolved into saying that a power that gives you regeneration does not actually give you regeneration" is bizarre. The power gives you regeneration, namely, renewal and restoration, on a round-by-round basis, of your hit point pool.

So you take damage from attacks... and damage reduces hit points... Sooo contrary to your accidental or deliberate clipping of the hit point definition, it seems pretty clear at least some component of hit points is actual damage from attacks

"Damage" is explaind on p 276 of the PHB:

When you hit with an attack, you normally deal damage to your target, reducing the target’s hit points.​

In other words, damage means the loss of hit points. There is nothing in the 4e ruleset equating hit point loss with wounding or injury. Furthermore, 4e is the same as PF in having no general death spiral/debilitation mechanics. That is to say, even if some hp loss were construed as wounding or injury, it has no debilitating effect on a character's performance (until all hp are lost). Hence, there is no reason to suppose that regaining hit points corresponds to the healing of injuries. The injury remains, but the character is nevertheless restoring his/her ability to go on unimpeded by the injury in question.

As I've already mentioned, the fictional model I have in mind for all this is Tolkien's account of Boromir fighting on despite being feathered by orc arrows. If you and [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] prefer, rather, to envisage Monty Python's black knight, then that's obviously your prerogative. I know which one I prefer for serious fantasy RPGing.

 

[Wicht]

In other words, damage means the loss of hit points. There is nothing in the 4e ruleset equating hit point loss with wounding or injury. Furthermore, 4e is the same as PF in having no general death spiral/debilitation mechanics. That is to say, even if some hp loss were construed as wounding or injury, it has no debilitating effect on a character's performance (until all hp are lost). Hence, there is no reason to suppose that regaining hit points corresponds to the healing of injuries. The injury remains, but the character is nevertheless restoring his/her ability to go on unimpeded by the injury in question.

As I've already mentioned, the fictional model I have in mind for all this is Tolkien's account of Boromir fighting on despite being feathered by orc arrows.

Pemerton I apologize for the fact that when I suggested that ForeverEnglish was being contentious and argumentative way back in post 602 that I dragged you into this fight. It was wrong of me.

As for regeneration in 4th edition, clearly, your knowledge of that game is superior to mine and 4e regeneration has nothing to do with a character's flesh and blood. From now on, when I think of 4e regeneration, I shall call to mind the death of Borimir as he slumps slowly to the ground, pierced by many arrows and too weak to fight further. I have you to thank for enlightening me in this regard.

 

[pemerton]

From now on, when I think of 4e regeneration, I shall call to mind the death of Borimir as he slumps slowly to the ground, pierced by many arrows and too weak to fight further.

You may have missed the bit where, between the orcs attacking and Boromir dying, he fought on although feathered by orc arrows.

I have no idea whether or not Pathfinder aspires to the emulation of such fictional events, and the creation of corresponding dramatic pacing and emotional engagement by the players. 4e does. It uses a variety of mechanics to do so. One is in-combat hit point restoration, thereby creating more tension and drama than simple attrition.

This is what Boundless Endurance, together with similar powers, is for.

Suppose the 2nd level fighter with Boundless Endurane has CON 16, then s/he has regeneration 5 when bloodied. S/he also has 37 total hit points, so when bloodied has 18 or fewer remaining. The character is (let's say) wearing scale armour (+7) with a light shield (+1) for a total AC of 19 (including +1 level bonus).

Suppose s/he is fighting goblin sharpshooters, which attack with +9 to hit for 1d6+4, or 2d6+4 with combat advantage. They hit a little more than half the time, so expected damage per attack is around 4 hp, or around 6 hp with combat advantage. If only one is shooting, the character's boundless endurance will probably keep him/her alive. If two are shooting, it will be a close thing - it will depend upon the character killing one in two or three rounds before dropping to 0 hp. If three are shooting, the character will survive for perhaps two rounds before dropping to the many arrows.

The use of regeneration rather than a simple hit point pool introduces timing complexities - for instance, if the player of the fighter can delay the shots in some fashion, or even slow the rate of damage infliction (say by taking cover), then the number of rounds s/he can survive increases. In the fiction, this is the renewal of verve and endurance that takes place as the character takes cover and regains some sense of the momentum of battle running his/her way than against him/her.

(If I was fully modelling Boromir in 4e I would make him higher than 2nd level. I would also have his horn be a minor action that, when blown, (i) alerts allies even if they are out of sight or line of effect, and (ii) allows him to spend a healing surge to gain the equivalent value of temporary hit points - the reason for doing it this way, rather than as a healing effect, is it allows him to blow the horn to advantage even at the start of a combat.)

You may or may not care for it. Pathfinder may or may not have the capaibility to deliver this sort of play experience. But to suggest that I, or anyone else, is denying that "regeneration" in 4e means regeneration is just ridiculous.

 

[Wicht]

I have no idea whether or not Pathfinder aspires to the emulation of such fictional events, and the creation of corresponding dramatic pacing and emotional engagement by the players. 4e does. It uses a variety of mechanics to do so. One is in-combat hit point restoration, thereby creating more tension and drama than simple attrition.

In Pathfinder, the Diehard feat make you last longer, so much the same as 4e regeneration, excepting the whole getting better non-magically bit. No doubt you are correct in the drama this ability brings to the game and the emotional turmoil it wrests from 4e players.

 

[pemerton]

In Pathfinder, the Diehard feat make you last longer, so much the same as 4e regeneration, excepting the whole getting better non-magically bit.

In PF can characters not recover endurance and verve except with the help of magic?

 

[Wicht]

In PF can characters not recover endurance and verve except with the help of magic?

They can take a nap.

Barbarians do have a rage powers that gives them vigor and fast healing.

And bards make everybody feel more energetic.

 

[Campbell]

Ultimately I view this issue is something of a canard for actual play of 4e. Thematically there is not much of a difference between being so disciplined, skilled, and determined that you are performing an accidental sort of magic and Just Being That Good. It's not really a question that has any connection to the experience of playing a PC or that character's connection to the setting. There is no need for the martial equivalence of midichlorians. A fighter trains relentlessly, considers innumerable ways to control and harry his opponents, etc. They are what they are.

 

[Imaro]

"Damage" is explaind on p 276 of the PHB:

When you hit with an attack, you normally deal damage to your target, reducing the target’s hit points.​

This doesn't explain what damage is, it tells you how to resolve the mechanical effect of a hit with an attack.


​

In other words, damage means the loss of hit points. There is nothing in the 4e ruleset equating hit point loss with wounding or injury.

Again let's take a look at the compendium... Here's the first paragraph defining ongoing "damage"...

[h=1]Ongoing Damage[/h]Some powers deal damage on consecutive turns after the initial attack. Such damage is called ongoing damage. An efreet might hit a creature with a burst of fire that sets it alight, dealing ongoing fire damage. When a snake’s venom courses through a creature’s blood, it deals ongoing poison damage. A royal mummy’s plague chant deals ongoing necrotic damage.


every example of damage being dealt in this definition is physical injury... That makes it kind of hard to take seriously any claims that damage is purely the subtraction of hit points, especially since you yourself have claimed the fiction matters...
Here's another excerpt from the dying and death defintion of the compendium...

[h=1]Dying and Death[/h]Death: When an adventurer takes damage that reduces his or her current hit points to his or her bloodied value expressed as a negative number, the adventurer dies. Example: Fargrim is a 6th-level dwarf fighter and has a maximum hit point total of 61. He’s bloodied at 30 hit points, so he dies if his hit point total drops to -30. In a fight with an umber hulk, Fargrim has been reduced to 28 hit points and is grabbed by the monster; he is now bloodied. The umber hulk then hits him with rending claws, dealing 40 damage and reducing Fargrim’s current hit points to -12. He’s now unconscious and dying, and 18 more damage will kill him.

This is just to re-affirm the fact that your character actually dies... not stops fighting or looses the correct pacing or whatever from hit point loss... How is this possible if they are in no part a representation of physical injury to the character?

Furthermore, 4e is the same as PF in having no general death spiral/debilitation mechanics. That is to say, even if some hp loss were construed as wounding or injury, it has no debilitating effect on a character's performance (until all hp are lost). Hence, there is no reason to suppose that regaining hit points corresponds to the healing of injuries. The injury remains, but the character is nevertheless restoring his/her ability to go on unimpeded by the injury in question.

Strawman... no one argued any edition of D&D has general death spiral or debilitation mechanics and that fact has no bearing on whether damage and the resulting hit point loss is tied to physical injury.

Damage is described in 4e, at the very least in part, as physical injury (see the above examples)... so if one is physically injured then one takes damage and that physical injury is, again at least in part, represented by missing hit points...

Now, if you are able to heal hit points to the point that you are no longer missing any you are, for the third time...at least in part, healing physical injury.

As I've already mentioned, the fictional model I have in mind for all this is Tolkien's account of Boromir fighting on despite being feathered by orc arrows. If you and @Wicht prefer, rather, to envisage Monty Python's black knight, then that's obviously your prerogative. I know which one I prefer for serious fantasy RPGing.

Nope I envisage a non-traditional magic source that powers these abilities as I stated before but nice try at trying to paint my position with the absurd brush...

 

[Imaro]

Ultimately I view this issue is something of a canard for actual play of 4e. Thematically there is not much of a difference between being so disciplined, skilled, and determined that you are performing an accidental sort of magic and Just Being That Good. It's not really a question that has any connection to the experience of playing a PC or that character's connection to the setting. There is no need for the martial equivalence of midichlorians. A fighter trains relentlessly, considers innumerable ways to control and harry his opponents, etc. They are what they are.

Maybe... but at least one poster in this thread has stated outright that a rogue who describes his martial powers as a form of magic get's more leeway in the usage of said powers than one who describes them as just being that good...