D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[pemerton]

And again, we are not speaking about the mechanics in this thread but about the fact the fiction.

You asserted that Shield must be declared before the attack is resolved. I posted the text that shows your wrong. Are you now conceding the point?

Moreover, in 5e (and actually in all editions), being "hit" is just mechanics, it does not mean that you have been physically hit, and even less physically wounded. If the Shield spell increases your AC so that you are technically not hit, it's even before the action has been resolved and even less described.

And how is this any different from what @AbdulAlhazred and I posted about resolving forced movement in 4e D&D?

And again, it does not mean healing them. Once more, I like Warlords, I just find that the martial powers should be confined to, well marital things, in particular not like closing wounds, because it does not match what the fiction of the genre shows.

4e is very clear that hit point recovery is not limited to "closing wounds". No one supposes that a warlord talking to a companion closes that person's wounds. It gives them the resolve to continue in spite of those wounds.

I'm also bemused by the fact that you conjure up a technical definition of "hit" to explain away the 5e Shield spell, while rely on a very literal meaning of "healing" that is expressly contradicted by the stipulative definitions found in the 4e rulebook.

These are completely different subjects.

No they're not. Paladins whose strength flows from their dedication (CHA) rather than their physical prowess (STR) are part of the same conception of the fantastic - a broadly romantic one, like LotR or Arthurian tales - as battle captains who rouse their companions with inspiring words.

There are reasonable bases on which to criticise this conception - eg it is sentimental, and doesn't really engage with the brutality of combat - but it's clearly coherent. And 4e D&D gives mechanical voice to it.

 

[Garthanos]

Once more, I like Warlords, I just find that the martial powers should be confined to, well marital things, in particular not like closing wounds, because it does not match what the fiction of the genre shows.

Yeh right ... "closing wounds" you are so completely deceiving yourself about accepting the definition of hit points.

 

[Lyxen]

In the second LotR film, Aragorn is unconscious having fallen over a cliff, and is returned to consciousness by the memory (or is it more than that? the film is a little ambiguous) of Arwen.

Or he is just dreaming and recovers his one hit point (and is in no fighting shape) naturally. In any case, are you suggesting that a vision of Arwen is more martial than magic ?

In the film Excalibur, Perceval is hanging unconscious from a tree and is revived by an encounter - purely in his mind - with the Holy Grail.

Isn't he revived by the crow ? And also, are you just suggesting that the Grail is more martial than divine in power ?

In LotR, when Frodo is stabbed by the Orcish captain in Moria, he falls and his friends worry that he is dead. He recovers when Aragorn picks him up and carries him out of the chamber.

There are a lot of potential explanations, but Aragorn had HEALING powers, I don't have to find the exact citation, by laying on hands, that does not seem very martial to me, and even less warlordy...

 

[Lyxen]

Right "Wounds" that never reduce any skills, wounds that never cause protracted slower movement, could it be its resolve and luck and relatively short term fatigue etc that is wearing down just like the description? (With scratches and minor bruises and things which show it visibly)

He was never ever functioning less never moving slower never attacking less, never taking penalties on skill rolls.

Ah but I agree with all this, never said the contrary. What causes me problem is Martial Power healing wounds.

Your leaders "words" of each archetype primarily include inspired continuance heroes digging deeper to go on hence healing surges from the subject of the effect ... sure the cleric may also stitch the superficial mostly cosmetic wounds which are already defined by D&D as not impairing at all.

And that is another problem with 4e, so concerned about avoiding discrepancies of power between classes that it made a horrible mish-mash of abilities so that every power can heal, and damage, etc.

Again, technically perfect, not so much for the fiction and the "beauty" of it (it then becomes a matter of taste, I'm respecting yours, please respect mine).

 

[Garthanos]

There are a lot of potential explanations, but Aragorn had HEALING powers, I don't have to find the exact citation, by laying on hands, that does not seem very martial to me, and even less warlordy...

There was an herb which for most was only a weed, but in the hands of kings it catalyzed to become an effective healing tool, subtle stuff, now Kings magically binding oaths allowing one to raise allies who betray your from the dead and subsequently free them, that was magic.

 

[Nefermandias]

Then why use hit points as an example you have done it multiple times so I think you arent being honest with yourself you are denying the fiction the game presented all the way back, about hit points to insist it "must" only be restored by magical effects.

My HP is restored by listening to Sabaton, unironically.

 

[Garthanos]

Ah but I agree with all this, never said the contrary. What causes me problem is Martial Power healing wounds.

Doesn't happen because D&D does not have heros suffering anything that is effectively like real "wounds" unimpairing scratches and minor bruises with no actual impact do not have to go away when hit points are restored.

AD&D did have explicit impairing wounds at sub zero hit points.... and hurray restoring a characters full hit points did not remove the impairment. (one would be out of action for at least a week even with full hit points)

Because even then Hit point loss did not represent wounds. But rather a threshold before wounds could be recieved.

People homebrewed lingering injuries in many editions including in 4e and it has re-appeared in 5e look to those if you want wounds.

The Bards healing in 5e is officially not considered a magical effect by the way but rather much like the 4e Warlord (but not having any representation of calling on the heroic reserves of the subject I guess)

 

[Lyxen]

You asserted that Shield must be declared before the attack is resolved. I posted the text that shows your wrong. Are you now conceding the point?

You are, on purpose, mixing things up between what an attack is and what an attack roll is (not even mentioning the description of the attack in fiction). Read the 5e rules completely and then you will concede the point, because there is certainly no retcon in the fiction.

And how is this any different from what @AbdulAlhazred and I posted about resolving forced movement in 4e D&D?

I can't find the post again, but from what I remember it has to do about movement having actually occurred previously and therefore being described. Saying later "that movement never happened, this other movement happened instead" is very different from actually resolving one attack (which includes attack rolls, its modifiers, then the damage roll, its modifiers, etc.) from beginning to end.

4e is very clear that hit point recovery is not limited to "closing wounds". No one supposes that a warlord talking to a companion closes that person's wounds. It gives them the resolve to continue in spite of those wounds.

And again, my problem is not with the technicality, but with the fact that this does not happen in fiction, because it would look silly on screen and in books and would break suspension of disbelief (which is my problem with 4e). The only cases that I can recall are humorous like "mostly dead".

I'm also bemused by the fact that you conjure up a technical definition of "hit" to explain away the 5e Shield spell, while rely on a very literal meaning of "healing" that is expressly contradicted by the stipulative definitions found in the 4e rulebook.

Because you are once more confusing the technical explanation and the narrative that goes around it. I will not narrate an attack and its consequences until it has been fully resolved. For example, and this is well after the hit roll (and the potential shield), suppose that the victim is immune to the type of damage dealt ? My description will completely change, which is why I do it only after the complete attack has been described, not only part of the "technically does it hit" section of resolving it technically.

No they're not. Paladins whose strength flows from their dedication (CHA) rather than their physical prowess (STR) are part of the same conception of the fantastic - a broadly romantic one, like LotR or Arthurian tales - as battle captains who rouse their companions with inspiring words.

And again no, you are totally wrong here. To which power are paladins linked, even in 4e ?

Power Source: Divine. You are a divine warrior, a crusader and protector of your faith.

It is therefore part of the paradigm for a paladin to lay his hands on wounds and heal them. Whereas I don't see in fiction (and again, except for humorous situations) "you are litteraly dying, but it's just a flesh wound, walk it off".

It might work for you, it does not work for me, and as far as I know, it does not work in fiction because even in a fantasy world, it breaks suspension of disbelief. People expect magical power to do this. Otherwise, why does it not work in our world ?

There are reasonable bases on which to criticise this conception - eg it is sentimental, and doesn't really engage with the brutality of combat - but it's clearly coherent. And 4e D&D gives mechanical voice to it.

The problem is that it only gives MECHANICAL voice to itself. You had to fetch in paladins, and these work, because the power source is clearly different.

 

[Lyxen]

My HP is restored by listening to Sabaton, unironically.

My personal energy can be restored by many things in particular my family and close friends, and I skied for a whole week with a broken wrist because it was with my daughters. But still, I needed actual healing (surgery) after flying back to Sydney, neither my daughters nor sabaton could have done anything about it.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against 4e in itself, I think it's the finest technical system that D&D has produced, it just does not cater as well for my personal tastes because it does not model as well the fantasy fiction and stories that I am used to tell in D&D and that I want to tell.

And I like the idea of Martial Power, I really do, it's just that the way they implemented it in 4e again does not suit my tastes, it behaves too much like magic why at the same time negating it, which I find detrimental to both magic and martial power in itself.

Martial Power is actually not too badly done in 5e with the battlemaster, unfortunately it's restricted to one subclass. If you look at Rally, it does everything that you say it should do, bolster your resolve and allow you to fight longer, but it does this through temporary hit points which model exactly this. It does not interfere back with magic and the healing of wounds.

 

[Lyxen]

Doesn't happen because D&D does not have heros suffering anything that is effectively like real "wounds" unimpairing scratches and minor bruises with no actual impact do not have to go away when hit points are restored.

It actually does, because you are suddenly dying when you lose your last hit point. Which is the summary of my problem with Martial Power, it would be really "you are dying, walk it off".

AD&D did have explicit impairing wounds at sub zero hit points.... and hurray restoring a characters full hit points did not remove the impairment. (one would be out of action for at least a week even with full hit points)

Because even then Hit point loss did not represent wounds. But rather a threshold before wounds could be recieved.

People homebrewed lingering injuries in many editions including in 4e and it has re-appeared in 5e look to those if you want wounds.

For me, all the above is not a problem, whatever the edition, because it's exactly what you see in movies and books, people fighting totally unimpaired until the final stroke gets them down, and often really dead.

The Bards healing in 5e is officially not considered a magical effect by the way but rather much like the 4e Warlord (but not having any representation of calling on the heroic reserves of the subject I guess)

I'm surprised by this, since the motto of the 5e bard is "Music and Magic", really the core of the class. They explicitely cast spells like cure wounds using magic, right ? And it is about the song of rest, it's indeed not magic, but it does not heal out of the blue, it just reinforces whatever other characters do to heal themselves (whether it's using innate magic, drawing on their inner strength, etc.).