• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
 

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.
 

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".
 
Last edited:

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.
 

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.
 

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.)
 

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?
 

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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top