Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Herremann the Wise]

Huh? How did you describe a serious wound? You described someone bleeding from a head wound. How serious is that? It could be life threatening, it might not be. Without further inspection (ie actions by the characters), we won't know.

Again it is your context here. The character has been whacked into the negatives by a big troll, blood spurting everywhere and pooling under the character's unmoving skull. I think that qualifies as serious enough that the PC needs urgent attention otherwise they will die. If with that description, the character got up naturally at capacity, I think I'd feel entitled to feel a disconnect between what the DM is describing and what the mechanics are saying.

So, I can vaguely describe a wound in 3e and it's automatically a "serious" wound,

if the character goes into the negatives according to YOUR context

but, if I use the EXACT SAME description in 4e, it's never a serious wound? Really?

Yes really. What mechanical support does 4e give you for a wound that lasts longer than an insta-heal day (and thus a serious wound)? None. That's a pretty big hole in the overarching narrative wouldn't you say? Imagine your group of adventurers around the campfire discussing their careers. Isn't it funny when they all come to the consensus that after years of adventuring, the worst injury any of them have ever had is a flesh wound that was fully recovered from within a day! Except for you know... the ones that killed them.

As far as checking the Stabilization rules, well, I've got 5 checks at 10% to not die. I'm no mathematician, but that sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the standard 27% chance of surviving on my own in 4e.

It just so happens I am a mathematician and that equates to an initial 41% chance of stabilising. However why I said to read the rules was because without help, the character is still going to lose 1hp every hour that they remain unconscious (10% chance to gain consciousness), and even then, they have to make a further 10% chance to regain hit points naturally otherwise again, they are losing 1hp every day. As such, they will more than likely die if unaided. With aid, like in 4e, their long term health is almost guaranteed although nowhere near as speedily.

At -1, don't I have virtually a 90% survival chance? ((Yeah, I know it's less, but it's been way too long since I had to do that math)) No matter what, I've got a 27% survival chance in 4e.

But, apparently, that's too concrete for a vague description of a bleeding head wound.

It's completely uninformative until the rolls have been made or not made. Talking about something concrete when you are talking about a non-certain probability of 27% is pretty funny. It is death or a flesh wound - you just don't know yet. In 3e healing from a negative hp situation, recovery is slow (and if unaided particularly perilous). The 3e situation is far more concrete than the erratic 27% "chance" of death or flesh wound (with zero chance of anything in between).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think at worst, I'm sitting in a grey area.

I agree in terms of carving out the grey area - that's pretty much what I was saying by no official support in the RAW. Consistency though is an issue in that infection should affect any sort of damage (not just into the negative damage). A little too granular for my liking. The main difficulty here is the vagueness of hit points which gets back to my main beef of needing to split hit points from physical capacity for damage.

However, what I was alluding to was that Pathfinder has come up with some pretty funky diseases. Reskinning some of these mechanics would easily allow for an official "infection" rule. The only problem is it would make the game very deadly - which I would love but that's just my personal preferences surfacing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree in terms of carving out the grey area - that's pretty much what I was saying by no official support in the RAW. Consistency though is an issue in that infection should affect any sort of damage (not just into the negative damage). A little too granular for my liking. The main difficulty here is the vagueness of hit points which gets back to my main beef of needing to split hit points from physical capacity for damage.

Upon your clarification, I completely agree. Additionally, in the disease section, it says, "If he succeeds, the disease has no effect—his immune system fought off the infection." I can definitely see the argument that infection here is being used as though it means a "generic infection", though I think it might differ since it goes on to define "infection" as a type of delivery method.

Regardless, as I think you and I have been trying to point out, it's not the descriptive blow of the wound being questioned, it's the type of wound taken. In 4e, in regards to natural healing, you have a wound that kills you, or a wound that you shrug off overnight (even if it still plagues you, flavor-wise). In 3.X, you have both options, plus mechanical support for a more serious injury that you cannot shrug off overnight. To me, this means 3.X has more narrative options than 4e when it comes to healing naturally.

(As a side note, I want to make it very clear that I'm only speaking in terms of natural healing when I speak of narrative paths. I'm making no claim that there aren't as many total narrative options total in 4e as there is in 3.X.)

However, what I was alluding to was that Pathfinder has come up with some pretty funky diseases. Reskinning some of these mechanics would easily allow for an official "infection" rule. The only problem is it would make the game very deadly - which I would love but that's just my personal preferences surfacing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Same. Interesting about Pathfinder, though. I've never played it, so I did not know this.

Still, though, I'd like to see the next edition of D&D split HP pools into "physical" and "other". You don't need hit locations, either. It just makes the whole thing much easier to swallow, and people have been debating hit point abstraction for decades. Split it, and I think it'll help clearly define the narrative as events unfold.

Thanks for pointing out the Pathfinder thing. I have the fan SRD bookmarked, so I'll check it out. Also, thanks for the clarification from my response to you. As always, play what you like

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just so we're straight, the 3.5e rules give you a 10% chance per round to stabilize, followed by a 10% chance per hour to become disabled, which means you stand back up but move at half speed and can only take a single action each round, taking damage if they perform any strenuous action. Natural healing runs at 1 point per level per night of rest.

So basically in the situation where no other magical healing is available, you're low level and you have to keep moving during the day for some reason, this 'serious wound' scenario exists. You're unlikely to be bedridden if you're tended to, and once you're 5th level, you'll be at full capabilities with a day of recuperation from any injury (overnight if someone administers care).

 

[Hussar]

Again it is your context here. The character has been whacked into the negatives by a big troll, blood spurting everywhere and pooling under the character's unmoving skull. I think that qualifies as serious enough that the PC needs urgent attention otherwise they will die. If with that description, the character got up naturally at capacity, I think I'd feel entitled to feel a disconnect between what the DM is describing and what the mechanics are saying.

Umm, no? That interpretation isn't supported by the 3e mechanics. The character has a pretty darn good chance of not dying, all on his own. If you describe the wound as being fatal unless this guy gets help, then you've gone beyond the mechanics until such time as he actually dies because no wound in 3e is automatically fatal unless you get help.

So, you can describe this as a potentially fatal wound, but, that's as far as you can go. After all, this guy can get better all on his own. And, in fact, has even odds of doing so.

But, y'know what? I'm breaking my own rules. The point of all of this wasn't to critique every example. Herreman, you've given a pretty reasonable example, so, score one there.

JC, I'm sorry, but your example is not supported by RAW. Trying to say that an infection is somehow not a disease is not accepted. Please try again.

So far we have one example where the narrative space in 3e is larger than in 4e. Fair enough. The point of this exercise is to bury me in examples. if the narrative space is that much larger, then I should be getting tons of examples. We've got one pretty clear one. Let's get some more.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umm, no? That interpretation isn't supported by the 3e mechanics. The character has a pretty darn good chance of not dying, all on his own. If you describe the wound as being fatal unless this guy gets help, then you've gone beyond the mechanics until such time as he actually dies because no wound in 3e is automatically fatal unless you get help.

I may have missed a detail here, but this largely depends on how far into negative HP a characters goes. Even then, multiple 10% rolls aren't that high a chance. If we assume best case scenario (-1 HP) and give the character 9 10% rolls, he still has something like a 38% chance of dying.

Here is the problem with the above description, I wouldn't never say a wound IS fatal, until it kills the character. I may say it is deep and serious. I might even say you think this character will die without help. This is where healing surges become a problem for me. In 3E at least stabalizing doesn't wreck that narrative. The character still took a deep wound but has simply stabalized. healing Surges force me to say, oops, no it wasn't a deep wound in the first place.

I can see how this might not bother some people, or how their style of narration might not come into conflict with it. But for my style and the style of many others posting here, healing surges are presenting a real problem that we just didn't encounter in 3E.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) never say a wound IS fatal, until it kills the character.

Yup. That's just sloppy reporting. "Regdar has recovered from yet another fatal wound today when he cut himself shaving but avoided infection and managed to surge to the styptic pencil in the "nick" of time . . ."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yup. That's just sloppy reporting. "Regdar has recovered from yet another fatal wound today when he cut himself shaving but avoided infection and managed to surge to the styptic pencil in the "nick" of time . . ."

To be fair I think the poster who used that example was just speaking casually. I can see a GM saying you have a fatal wound; where he is technically meaning to say you have a potentially fatal wound.

 

[NewJeffCT]

In 3E at least stabalizing doesn't wreck that narrative. The character still took a deep wound but has simply stabalized. healing Surges force me to say, oops, no it wasn't a deep wound in the first place.

I can see how this might not bother some people, or how their style of narration might not come into conflict with it. But for my style and the style of many others posting here, healing surges are presenting a real problem that we just didn't encounter in 3E.

If I'm not mistaken, if a PC is stabilized in 3E, he can be magically healed & back up on his feet in no time. PC is knocked down to -5 hit points by troll, cleric casts Cure Moderate Wounds and heals him of 15 points of damage, PC gets back up with 10 hit points and attacks troll.

In 4E, PC gets knocked down to -5 hit points by troll. Party Leader uses power to allow PC to spend a healing surge. However, since 4E works a bit differently, the 15 point healing surge goes from 0, so the PC gets back up with 15 hit points and attacks troll.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I'm not mistaken, if a PC is stabilized in 3E, he can be magically healed & back up on his feet in no time. PC is knocked down to -5 hit points by troll, cleric casts Cure Moderate Wounds and heals him of 15 points of damage, PC gets back up with 10 hit points and attacks troll.

Sure, but the key word here is magic. No one has a problem with magical intervention making someone 100% in a few seconds. There is a believable explanation for why that has happened. So he can go from having a serious wound to being fine because of magic. But to heal naturally it takes more time.

In 4E, PC gets knocked down to -5 hit points by troll. Party Leader uses power to allow PC to spend a healing surge. However, since 4E works a bit differently, the 15 point healing surge goes from 0, so the PC gets back up with 15 hit points and attacks troll.

The problem here is two-fold. If the healing surge is magical in nature; you get around the narrative problem, but suddenly the nature of the world is much different (characters all have this wierd innate magical healing power). If the healing surge is mundane (which is my take on most healing surges in 4E) then the character goes from having a serious wound to being instantly better because his leader said some reasurring words and he dug deep. This isn't a problem if your narrative is pretty abstract. But if you are like me and like to describe what the 15 points of damage means in terms of the PC getting cut it creates problems.