Hit Points & Healing Surges Finally Explained!

[Raven Crowking]

Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
for his wound, which also never "fully" healed.

His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.

Certainly fantasy, but I am not certain that they are "sword & sorcery".

OTOH, most of REH's work was in the "short story" genre. I could, quite easily, pick up any of my REH collections and cull three stories with extended rest.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The thing is that when you're non-magically recovering from that 4 HP loss, it does mean the same thing - 4 days of rest. But when you're describing the damage as it occurs, it doesn't mean the same thing.

Again, I disagree. It takes the same amount of time, but it doesn't mean the same thing. A 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing might not even appear injured to the casual observer. That 4 hp represents far less than a single hp of the 8 hp fighter. When the 8 hp fighter is at full hp, he might still have the same injuries as the 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing. It is just that, in his case, the damage is below the "1 hp threshold".

This is not SW problem of 4e, although it is a mild form of the "disjoin hit points from injury" method of dealing with the 4e paradigm. The problem with adopting this to 4e (for those to whom it presents a problem) is the extreme degree to which it must be done. In 1e, one merely has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to an absolute scale. In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to anything within the framework of the gameworld.

That is, IMHO at least, a major difference.

Again, this was all parsed out on the SW thread.

Or if you're willing to mod the game.

On this we agree, and the SW thread included some excellent and elegant mods to the game that do away with this problem entirely.....or at least as entirely as in any other edition.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

Again, I disagree. It takes the same amount of time, but it doesn't mean the same thing. A 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing might not even appear injured to the casual observer. That 4 hp represents far less than a single hp of the 8 hp fighter. When the 8 hp fighter is at full hp, he might still have the same injuries as the 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing. It is just that, in his case, the damage is below the "1 hp threshold".

This is not SW problem of 4e, although it is a mild form of the "disjoin hit points from injury" method of dealing with the 4e paradigm. The problem with adopting this to 4e (for those to whom it presents a problem) is the extreme degree to which it must be done. In 1e, one merely has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to an absolute scale. In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to anything within the framework of the gameworld.

That is, IMHO at least, a major difference.

These two things do not mesh. Either the 4 hp in your first paragraph that are unnoticed don't track to anything within the framework of your world, or the 1 HP in your second paragraph can track to the same thing those 4 hp do, and 4E simply lets him recover from that tiny wound more quickly (discounting for the moment the possibility that he is Ash ).

 

[Roman]

I'm really hoping that the podcast goes some way towards changing people's mindset in regards to the hit point mechanic. I'm so tired of groups that think literally when it comes to hit points and can't seem to grasp the abstract nature of the mechanic.

It could not change my mind with respect to the hit point mechanics in 4E, because I understood them already. It is not that I don't understand them, it is that I dislike them. I would have liked to see the game making hit points a more concrete representation of damage in the move from 3.X edition to 4E, but instead they made them even more abstract, which is the exact opposite of what my desire would have been for the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

These two things do not mesh. Either the 4 hp in your first paragraph that are unnoticed don't track to anything within the framework of your world, or the 1 HP in your second paragraph can track to the same thing those 4 hp do

There is nothing illogical about using a scale of measurement that is non-absolute. Indeed, there is a good argument that all absolue measures are derived from non-absolute measurement. From a scientific viewpoint, non-absolute measurements are all we have to measure subjective criteria, such as emotions experienced due to stimulation of the brain or as drug side-effects.

An absolute model of hit points could, conceivable, be derived from the non-absolute model of hit points in pre-4e D&D, but the amount of benefit one would gain from doing so would be far, far less than desireable in light of the amount of work required.

A non-absolute scale of measurement doesn't mean that the thing being measured does not have absolute values. As a result, your argument doesn't wash. No violation of logic occurs in what you quoted.


RC

 

[Lacyon]

There is nothing illogical about using a scale of measurement that is non-absolute.

Um, precisely?

Indeed, there is a good argument that all absolue measures are derived from non-absolute measurement. From a scientific viewpoint, non-absolute measurements are all we have to measure subjective criteria, such as emotions experienced due to stimulation of the brain or as drug side-effects.

An absolute model of hit points could, conceivable, be derived from the non-absolute model of hit points in pre-4e D&D, but the amount of benefit one would gain from doing so would be far, far less than desireable in light of the amount of work required.

A non-absolute scale of measurement doesn't mean that the thing being measured does not have absolute values. As a result, your argument doesn't wash. No violation of logic occurs in what you quoted.

So... where's the demonstration that 4E hit points can't track to anything again? I think I missed it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So... where's the demonstration that 4E hit points can't track to anything again? I think I missed it.

Go to the SW thread, where (as previously mentioned) this has been parsed out fairly completely. IMHO, of course.

And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one. This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation. IMHO. YMMV.



RC

 

[Fifth Element]

And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one. This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation. IMHO. YMMV.

Isn't Lacyon's point that there is no real difference?

As for the other thread, as I recall you failed to convince a significant proportion of the posters in that thread.

 

[Lacyon]

Go to the SW thread, where (as previously mentioned) this has been parsed out fairly completely. IMHO, of course.

I was in that thread for a while. I don't recall anyone ever hashing out "In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to anything within the framework of the gameworld," to any degree of completeness.

"I don't like the ways in which 4E hit points best track within the framework of the gameworld, from god-blooded-regenerators to only-minor-damage-occurs-until-death" has been hashed-out to death, sure.

Disliking something doesn't make it impossible.

And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one. This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation. IMHO. YMMV.

Identifying the difference, such as it is, is worthwhile. The insistence that one cannot do what one clearly can do obfuscates the issue.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its pretty funny considering the subject matter, but this has become a thread of attrition.