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

[ForeverSlayer]

This is actually getting to be hilarious. Some people just will not admit when they are wrong.

 

[herrozerro]

This is actually getting to be hilarious. Some people just will not admit when they are wrong.

Pot meet kettle.

Have you got anything to contribute?

 

[technoextreme]

That's me to a "t" - oblivious to the use of language and devoid any understanding of game design. Quite perceptive of you.

Actually your entire argument is fundamentally based upon a completely bizarre notation on how the English language works. You can't just up and stamp your feet saying that the definition of the word is incorrect when the game designers correctly defined it within the context of the game. That is what jargon is.
PS:
That definition that you are using isn't even consistent with flesh stitching.

 

[Wicht]

Actually your entire argument is fundamentally based upon a completely bizarre notation on how the English language works. You can't just up and stamp your feet saying that the definition of the word is incorrect when the game designers correctly defined it within the context of the game. That is what jargon is.

I'm not sure why you are still trying to argue with me? Didn't I already admit you had me pegged? My antiquated idea of words conveying a meaning within a historical context of usage apparently has no place in the brave new world of innovative WotC designmanship and I conceded defeat before the stalwart fans and defenders of 4e, that game to end all games. Sadly, I will have to consign myself to a future of being passe: playing lesser, quainter games, games more appropriate to my stale, antedeluvian notions.

 

[Imaro]

Hit point loss in 4e is not defined in terms of injury at all. It is defined in terms of verve, skill and the capacity to endure and persevere (PHB p 293):

Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.​

Hmm, maybe we should look at the sentence preceding the snippet you decided to provide, here it is from the compendium...

HIT POINTS:
Over the course of a battle, adventurers and monsters take damage from attacks. Hit points measure the ability of a creature to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on its feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve - all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation...

Hit Points
Damage reduces hit points.

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... and thus that is also being healed with regeneration, as was asserted earlier in the thread.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm not sure why you are still trying to argue with me? Didn't I already admit you had me pegged? My antiquated idea of words conveying a meaning within a historical context of usage apparently has no place in the brave new world of innovative WotC designmanship and I conceded defeat before the stalwart fans and defenders of 4e, that game to end all games. Sadly, I will have to consign myself to a future of being passe: playing lesser, quainter games, games more appropriate to my stale, antedeluvian notions.

Please stop trying to hide behind edition warring because quite honestly this has nothing to do with it and more has to do with how stunningly inane your argument it. Care to explain to me why you conveniently ignored the definition of regeneration that includes growing limbs and organs back? Its an equally common and valid definition.

 

[Wicht]

Please stop trying to hide behind edition warring because quite honestly this has nothing to do with it and more has to do with how stunningly inane your argument it. Care to explain to me why you conveniently ignored the definition of regeneration that includes growing limbs and organs back? Its an equally common and valid definition.

Now this is a marvelous thing - I can praise a game effusively, whilst denigrating my own game of choice, and thus be accused of edition warring? Sadly, this is yet further evidence of my lack of understanding of the way in which language works. I have, it appears much to learn, and I am grateful to you for so effectively and non-contentiously pointing out my shortcomings to me. You have my gratitude and I shall in the future be far more careful lest I, in my ignorance and inane opinions, do give further offense.

I might humbly, however, if I may be pardoned the presumption of bespeaking my betters, point out that the definitions offered in post 619 might be construed as acknowledging that which I am accused of ignoring. I am sure that it is the merest of oversights on your part.

 

[technoextreme]

I might humbly, however, if I may be pardoned the presumption of bespeaking my betters, point out that the definitions offered in post 619 might be construed as acknowledging that which I am accused of ignoring. I am sure that it is the merest of oversights on your part.

Citing a dictionary when it comes to jargon is a clear cut case that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Wicht]

Citing a dictionary when it comes to jargon is a clear cut case that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Once more I concede to your wisdom. You are absolutely right and no doubt my english teachers would all be very ashamed of me.

 

[Manbearcat]

I might humbly, however, if I may be pardoned the presumption of bespeaking my betters, point out that the definitions offered in post 619 might be construed as acknowledging that which I am accused of ignoring. I am sure that it is the merest of oversights on your part.

Come on man. Your definitions in 619 are cherry picked to include only the usage of regeneration which includes tissue regeneration. That is not the only usage in common vernacular and certainly not the only usage that merriam webster has available. This is absolutely ridiculous that we're here, but of the 3 transitive verb usages for regenerate, the reference to physical tissue regeneration is but one:

1

a : to subject to spiritual regeneration
b : to change radically and for the better

2


a : to generate or produce anew; especially : to replace (a body part) by a new growth of tissue
b : to produce again chemically sometimes in a physically changed form



3
: to restore to original strength or properties

Regenerate and regeneration have plenty of common usage in various sciences and every day life that does not refer to actual tissue regeneration in a biological organism.

I thought I had been perfectly clear before.

Apparently you had been perfectly clear as my surmise was spot on. What you were doing was subbing your position of HP as meat and regeneration as tissue regeneration and then calling pemerton out for bad form (apparently gratuitously argumentative) for using the actual, explicit definitions within the ruleset (which do not comport with your own) and making inferences based on those actual definitions was correct. I was just hoping that you were doing something different. Calling someone gratuitously argumentative because they don't agree with your (misapplied) definitions, which also don't happen to be the only orthodox usages in common english, is hard to swallow.

If I personally was designing a game, and I included a power called regeneration and it applied in any fashion to a persons health, then I would most certainly be cognizant of the fact that "flesh knitting itself back together" is the basic idea the word conveys; it is the most natural understanding of the word in the context of the body.

That is well and good. However, again, you are:

1) Asserting your position of HP being "a person's health" or a proxy for their tissue/meat, etc.

and

2) Begging the question that any reference to regeneration must, in order to retain coherency, apply itself toward your position of HP as meat as outlined in 1 (which naturally needs to be soft tissue regeneration in a biological organism rather than a reference to a mushy game concept of HP).

Unfortunately for your position, 1 doesn't apply (as has been outlined). 2 also explicitly doesn't apply, either by itself (as it is defined) or as applicable to 1 (which is not meat or "a person's health"; soft tissue).

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.

You can state that you're giving 4e's designers (Heinsoo et al) the benefit of the doubt that they aren't incompetent all you'd like. Obviously, the implication here is that we who appreciate the ruleset can take the poison pill of either (i) choosing to call the designer's incompetent or (ii) wave the white flag against the (insufferable) onslaught against the ruleset that it is either partially (or wholly incoherent) or has little to no regard for the fiction (and is just a tactical skirmish game).

Not going to swallow it. The designers knew what they were doing. HPs does not need to be any specific portion (or any at all) of soft tissue/meat. They can be mostly or wholly (and the ruleset makes clear they are) a pool of plot protection or heroic staying power. Regeneration therefore does not interact with or apply to the soft tissue that HPs are not. Just as HP are open descriptor and left up to the table to justify what is happening in the fiction, regeneration is equally open descriptor. It is not soft tissue restoration on a regular schedule. It is the restoration of the pool of plot protection or heroic staying power for a PC, scheduled to occur at the start of the actor's turn. If the regeneration has the Divine, Primal, or Arcane Keyword, then a table may map the fiction to miraculous, magical troll regeneration of "shrodinger's wounds" at their discretion. Or they may not.

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.