Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[BryonD]

I really have to agree with you here: no matter the edition, hit points effectively measure the same thing: how much of a fight you have left in you. What seems to change in the game is the resource mechanic you have to use to get over a battle, and ready to go with the next one. Each edition is really only dealing with different ways to get to the same thing.

So why did other editions require actual healing of some sort? Why were they different there?

With 3X, the limit is either cure spells or the cost of wands, which you can purchase, and that has the effect of adding "gold" as the resource you have to track.

Right, a narrative connection of HOW you got from wounded to "not wounded" was required.

The thing is: hit points end up being the same thing in each edition, it's just a question of what you have to manage to deal with them. Each edition it's gotten easier to do more, and you've had more resources available to heal yourselves... but the hit points have been the same.

The hit points remain the same. The concept of surges have no prior equivalence.

Thinking that there's some realism factor over injuries in earlier edition is ... odd. The only thing that really has changed from a "realism" factor is how long it takes to recover, with each edition taking less time to replenish back to full. Are healing times from earlier editions "more realistic?" I sure don't think so, but then I'd argue that there's nothing in hit points that model real physical trauma or realism ... from 0E onward.

And it remains amusing how difficult it is for a surge defender to get through a post with going to the "realism" straw man.

 

[D'karr]

Can you be a little more specific here in regards to the discussion thus far on this thread? I fear that you might be making some generalisations here that don't quite match with the specifics that have been discussed - which if true is a shame because you do seem to have a deep interest in this topic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Sorry but no, I spoke in general terms for a specific reason.

Any "quote" that I make then has the tendency to be viewed as an attack on that person's position. This tends to derail conversations, which is not my purpose. If someone wants to discuss the general statement that "some seem to give the rules some aspects that they never possessed." Then I'm all for it.

I'm not interested in a pissing match. In addition, this thread has already been derailed enough. The OP of this thread was to give examples of recoverable combat injuries that can not be represented using the 4e rules. I'd now like to return you to your original thread... LOL

If someone wants to discuss why 4e does these things "differently" and ways that a DM can inject those things into their games, I'm game for that on a forked thread.

I've already exposed the context for my opinion somewhere else if someone is interested. That exposition starts here.

 

[BryonD]

Ladies and gentlemen. I don't need to know what 4e can't do. That's not the point of the thread. The issue at hand is that there is this huge narrative gulf where you can describe potentially fatal wounds that can believably be healed without magic in two weeks or less.

Actually, you can't have an intelligent discussion of the gulf between two sides without discussing BOTH sides of that gulf. You are trying to force the debate to focus on a seriously biased fraction of the topic.

I presented comparison of the two that answers your question.
And I realize you are ignoring me because you try to use the same tricks over and over and I started calling you on it over and over. And that is your right. But it doesn't make the points go away.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There have been several examples offered. My last example wad tgat 20 points of damage could easily be described as a deep slash or heavy blow without backtracking after the heal in 3e.

Byron also makes an excellent point damage in earlier editions is abstract but tgat abstraction includes physical damage as a component. For me that makes instand mundane healing a little hard to swallow.

 

[D'karr]

The fact that the TV shows do not ask you to sit through stretches of recover is irrelevant. If a character on a TV show was shot out in the woods and curled up to sleep under a tree at the end of one episode and woke up the next morning, at the start of the next episode, fully recovered, that would be stupid. The fact that it was "off-screen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem.

This is all a degree of selection. The game is "mute" about narrative in all editions. It has always been up to the DM and the players to make the "narrative" their own, if they so choose.

I'll give a 3.x example to illustrate:
You can have a DM that tells you, "Roguey McRouge that hit just knocked you on your ass. The gash left on your side is bleeding (take 10 points of damage and you're prone)." Or you could have the one that said, "Hit, take 10 points of damage and you're prone." Game effects are the same whether I describe them "narratively" or not.

After the fight ends, the rogue character has no healing potions, and he doesn't have a heal stick. So he decides to make camp. He curls up under a tree to rest. The next morning he wakes up and has full hit points. How is that? He had a bleeding gash and hit points damage, did his "wounds" all of a sudden close up? No, he's a 10th level character and after a rest he regains his level in hit points. Whether that "wound" was described as "physical" or not is irrelevant, after a nights rest he regains his level in hit points. No magic, no narrative connection to how his "wounds" are not there anymore.

According to your definition that would be stupid.

According to my definition it makes perfect sense and can be easily supported by the "narrative". "Off screen" the rogue binds his "wounds", stretches his muscles, and takes some food before curling up under the tree, the next morning he is still sore, but his "wounds" won't affect his main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."

The reason is that the "wounds", a term the DM is providing not that the mechanics are forcing on us, are part of a "pool" of resources called Hit Points. Hit Points represent all kinds of things that let you keep on fighting (physical and "metaphysical"). This has ALWAYS BEEN the definition of HP. In mechanical terms HP has never had much to do with "health" in the classical sense.

The disconnect I'm seeing when people complain about this issue is what I'll call selective reasoning. I can find a "reason" for magic to heal "wounds". I can find a "reason" for my level to heal "wounds". But it is a bridge too far finding a "reason" for SPENT healing surges to heal "wounds".

In 4e, if a character is "wounded" in battle, DM terms, and he spends his second wind, his "wounds" don't all of a sudden disappear. Just like the wounds of the 3.x rogue didn't miraculously disappear the next morning. That character is "narratively" digging deep and using reserves of "guts" to keep fighting. Mechanically he simply uses his second wind, SPENDS a healing surge, and keeps fighting. That healing surge is SPENT until an extended rest. His "reserves" are depleted for the rest of the day.

To take it one step further, "narratively" you have even more options in combat. When the cleric uses Healing Word you can describe it as actually closing wounds because it is "magic". When the warlord screams at you with Inspiring Word and tells you to, "stop sniveling, and get back in the fight", you can describe it as the shame of not measuring up. You dig into your reserves and keep fighting. At the end of the fight you take a short rest to bandage wounds, stretch your muscles, and catch you breath. You SPEND healing surges to do all those things. Then, you are ready for the next challenge. You've used up "reserves" during that short rest. Resources that are no longer available for the remainder of the day. You want to have "wounds", that is what SPENT healing surges can "narratively" represent. It is up to you, just like the "wound" was "narratively" up to you.

At the end of the day you settle to make camp, you treat your "wounds", clean out your bandages, take some food, get a well deserved rest. In the morning you are still sore, but it won't impede your main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."

After the adventure and as part of the campaign, the DM can "narratively" describe the long recuperation period if he so chooses. The game rules do not impede that, the same way that they do not impede the DM and players coming up with their own narrative for the "wounds" in the first place.

That is why I don't have a problem with the narrative at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That is one of the main reasons i dislike having levels being linked to healing. But to me that is less of a plausibility issue than presented by healing surges. At least tbe rogue has to rest to feel better and for the wound to scab over. It is definitely faster than reality (but we've all been clear we dont want a reality engine here just a sense of continuity and cause and effect). But a surge is instant. There isn't any real explanation. For it to work hp have to be entirely divorced from physical damage. So i see this as a matter of degree. Rogue healing 10 hp i. A single night slightly silly, but not as implausible to me as the healing surge. Also for what it is worth, the gm saying you take ten points without any flavor description, just doesn't work for me. I can see hs work for you and that is great. But personally i feel the digging deep explanation handwaved the physical component of hp too much.

 

[D'karr]

That is one of the main reasons i dislike having levels being linked to healing. But to me that is less of a plausibility issue than presented by healing surges. At least tbe rogue has to rest to feel better and for the wound to scab over. It is definitely faster than reality (but we've all been clear we dont want a reality engine here just a sense of continuity and cause and effect). But a surge is instant. There isn't any real explanation. For it to work hp have to be entirely divorced from physical damage. So i see this as a matter of degree. Rogue healing 10 hp i. A single night slightly silly, but not as implausible to me as the healing surge. Also for what it is worth, the gm saying you take ten points without any flavor description, just doesn't work for me. I can see hs work for you and that is great. But personally i feel the digging deep explanation handwaved the physical component of hp too much.

I understand this statement and I understand the sentiment. Before I decided to look at the intent of the "rules", I kind of felt the same way.

This statement is like closing one eye and then complaining that you don't have depth perception. You are purposely not opening the other eye and getting the complete picture. Just to clarify, when I say "you" I'm speaking in general terms though I've quoted your statement.

Saying that healing surges are instantaneous, misses the "other part of the picture", and the entire intent of the mechanic. The healing surge is SPENT. You don't have that resource for the remainder of the day. The "wound", if you prefer to look at it that way, is still there. Until you take an "EXTENDED REST" that "wound" will remain. The next day it's scabbed over, or still there and oozing puss, or "magically" gone. The mechanical effect is that you can resume your MAIN PURPOSE, adventuring.

 

[BryonD]

According to your definition that would be stupid.

No. All you have done is give a terrible straw man example and try to beat on that. A 10th level character can heal 10 HP overnight. Hit points for a 10th level fighter are typically on the order of 90 - 100. (10 +9*6 + 3 (for Con)*10 = 94)

If a DM described a 10 point wound to a 10th level character as a "serious gash" then THAT would be "stupid".

And the rest of your post really just builds on this totally flawed assessment of both 3E and my point.

According to my definition it makes perfect sense and can be easily supported by the "narrative". "Off screen" the rogue binds his "wounds", stretches his muscles, and takes some food before curling up under the tree, the next morning he is still sore, but his "wounds" won't affect his main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."

Ok, so first a question: Do you allow surges during battle?

The reason is that the "wounds", a term the DM is providing not that the mechanics are forcing on us, are part of a "pool" of resources called Hit Points. Hit Points represent all kinds of things that let you keep on fighting (physical and "metaphysical"). This has ALWAYS BEEN the definition of HP. In mechanical terms HP has never had much to do with "health" in the classical sense.

Yeah......

That's kinda been beat to death already.....

Though, of course, the surge defenders seem to be deeply trapped in overplaying that hand. As has been pointed out, even the 4E DMG advocates describing ACTUAL physical harm. And it has always been understood that it is BOTH physical and "metaphysical".

Where the surge defenders keep going wrong, as you have here, is trying to the quickly sidestep from "it is both" into "never had much to do with "health". It has absolutely had much to do with health ("physical") AND had much to with abstract ("metaphysical")

The disconnect I'm seeing when people complain about this issue is what I'll call selective reasoning. I can find a "reason" for magic to heal "wounds". I can find a "reason" for my level to heal "wounds". But it is a bridge too far finding a "reason" for SPENT healing surges to heal "wounds".

What is your reason for a fighter's surge to heal the PHYSICAL part of wounds?

Do you insist that no hit point damage may ever be described as a PHYSICAL wound?
Do you insist that fighters can make physical wounds vanish in mid combat?
Surges force you to select one or the other.

In 4e, if a character is "wounded" in battle, DM terms, and he spends his second wind, his "wounds" don't all of a sudden disappear. Just like the wounds of the 3.x rogue didn't miraculously disappear the next morning. That character is "narratively" digging deep and using reserves of "guts" to keep fighting. Mechanically he simply uses his second wind, SPENDS a healing surge, and keeps fighting.

Wrong. What you are describing is ALREADY captured by the very physical/metaphysical combination of hit points. A fighter who is seriously wounding keeps fighting just as you describe. But in 3E he still has wounds which, sooner or later WILL REQUIRE medical attention.
When the 4E character "digs deeper" his wounds NEVER require any further consideration. They have been in ALL WAY removed.

Again, looks at books and TV, characters get seriously wounded and fight on all the time. It is a total cliche. That is the "digging deeper" part and it has always worked well in every edition of D&D.

Then, in books and TV, after the drama is over, the character gets medical aid. Again, this has always worked in pre-4E D&D. But in 4E there is no reason whatsoever to get medical aid. "Digging deeper" which always existed as "ignoring wounds" has now transformed into "making wounds vanish".

That healing surge is SPENT until an extended rest. His "reserves" are depleted for the rest of the day.

Not relevant. The point that he may only be able to make 40% of his wounds vanish because he already made some wounds vanish earlier today, so now he has to wit until tomorrow to vanish the rest of hsi wounds does nothing whatsoever to resolve the breakdown that he is making wounds vanish.

To take it one step further, "narratively" you have even more options in combat. When the cleric uses Healing Word you can describe it as actually closing wounds because it is "magic". When the warlord screams at you with Inspiring Word and tells you to, "stop sniveling, and get back in the fight", you can describe it as the shame of not measuring up. You dig into your reserves and keep fighting. At the end of the fight you take a short rest to bandage wounds, stretch your muscles, and catch you breath. You SPEND healing surges to do all those things. Then, you are ready for the next challenge. You've used up "reserves" during that short rest. Resources that are no longer available for the remainder of the day. You want to have "wounds", that is what SPENT healing surges can "narratively" represent. It is put to you, just like the "wound" was "narratively" up to you.

Again, digging into reserves is already covered in the very concept of hit points. You are bait and switching the basis for hit points for the basis for hit point restoration.

And you are BADLY selling 3E short there when you suggest that any new doors have been opened up. As established, a seriously wounded 3E character can be told to "stop sniveling" if that is the way you want to go about it.

At the end of the day you settle to make camp, you treat your "wounds", clean out your bandages, take some food, get a well deserved rest. In the morning you are still sore, but it won't impede your main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."

After the adventure and as part of the campaign, the DM can "narratively" describe the long recuperation period if he so chooses. The game rules do not impede that, the same way that they do not impede the DM and players coming up with their own narrative for the "wounds" in the first place.

That is why I don't have a problem with the narrative at all.

Ok, if you are fine with a fighter alone in the woods making any and all combat damage go away, then by all means, play what you want.

But you have completely failed to even begin to show how surges fit the heroic fiction model I have described.

(Also, what if the fighter has no bandages or food? Do you deny surges?)

 

[BryonD]

And to boil that down: In fiction "digging deep" is cliche AND requiring follow up actual "healing" is the other half of the equation.

Show me where the second half exists with surges.

 

[BryonD]

The mechanical effect is that you can resume your MAIN PURPOSE, adventuring.

My main purpose is being in the story.
It really, truly is.

When you advocate skipping that to more expediently get back to killing orcs, you reinforce the "board game" label. I'm not saying that label is fair, but I am saying this aspect of the game contributes to why some see it that way.

The next day it's scabbed over, or still there and oozing puss, or "magically" gone.

(yes, I reversed the order)
I commonly describe wounds that won't just reduce to "oozing puss" if nothing better than bandaging is applied.

You seem to be rejecting the possibility that I actual describe some wounds which require actual healing.
Is that the bottom line?
Are you saying that no one in any addition of D&D has now or ever described wounds that an evening of bandaging isn't good enough to cover?

Because you can either accept that I do (as do others) and that therefore the *new to 4E* expectation that an evenings bandages are the cure for anything and everything is a very valid reason to not choose 4E, or you can proclaim me a liar.
(And even that puts a thumb on the scale in favor of surges since an evenings rest is in no way actually required by them)

But, seriously, are you saying that I'm lying? Or would you like to retract your claim that there is no meaningful difference.
For the record, I absolutely agree that there were ZERO restrictions on 3E that required you to play the way I do. If you wanted to run it the way you describe 4E, you could have. (In all the groups I ever played not one failed to describe real wounds, but that doesn't rule it out.) But all that says is that 3E supported both styles. Simply going from rules that supported both to rules that require one is right back to the conclusion: this is a fundamental change from the past.

Am I lying about my games?