Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4100182" data-attributes="member: 5122">That's simply incorrect.In 1E and 2E, after a tough fight (and absent healing magic) it could take weeks to be back to full strength.&nbsp; In 3E that was significantly shortened to days.&nbsp; If heroes aren't &quot;recovering from wounds&quot; during that time, following a fight with a dragon or whatever, what were they doing?&nbsp; And why was it called &quot;healing&quot;?&nbsp; And if heroes are &quot;never injured&quot; in earlier D&amp;D, then how is &quot;injury poison&quot; introduced?I'm not saying that earlier D&amp;D was a great model of injury ... there are literally dozens of problems with it.&nbsp; But I am saying that it does at least one thing better than 4E does: it modeled long-term injury.&nbsp; (As far as we know, 4E simply does not care about long-term injury, not even to the extent earlier versions do.&nbsp; And that's weak.)&nbsp; Any claim otherwise is simply wrong.I really don't understand how this doesn't bother people.&nbsp; I get the Hector versus Achilles fight, completely.&nbsp; The problem with 4E is that's the only kind of fight you can have.&nbsp; You are either perfectly fine in six hours -- even if you were literally a dagger-scratch from death -- or you are dead.&nbsp; There's nothing in the middle.In 1E and 2E, there was &quot;healing for quite a while or magic.&quot;&nbsp; In 3E, there was &quot;healing for a few days or magic.&quot;&nbsp; In 4E there's &quot;well, I'm not dead, so I'll be perfectly fine in six hours.&quot;Can someone house-rule it?&nbsp; Of course.&nbsp; There've been several good suggestions.&nbsp; But the fact that something as basic to combat as &quot;an injury that lasts longer than six hours&quot; has to be wholesale added to the game ... that's a weakness in the game.[EDIT: Could I have changed tenses more haphazardly in this post?&nbsp; I thought not.&nbsp; However, I was too lazy to have changed it, so now I would have been ignoring it, and will hope that everyone else has ignored it, too.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4100182, member: 5122"] That's simply incorrect. In 1E and 2E, after a tough fight (and absent healing magic) it could take [i]weeks[/i] to be back to full strength. In 3E that was significantly shortened to days. If heroes aren't "recovering from wounds" during that time, following a fight with a dragon or whatever, what were they doing? And why was it called "healing"? And if heroes are "never injured" in earlier D&D, then how is "injury poison" introduced? I'm not saying that earlier D&D was a great model of injury ... there are literally dozens of problems with it. But I am saying that it does at least one thing better than 4E does: it modeled long-term injury. (As far as we know, 4E simply does not care about long-term injury, not even to the extent earlier versions do. And that's weak.) Any claim otherwise is simply wrong. I really don't understand how this [i]doesn't[/i] bother people. I get the Hector versus Achilles fight, completely. The problem with 4E is that's the [i]only kind of fight you can have[/i]. You are either perfectly fine in six hours -- even if you were literally a dagger-scratch from death -- or you are dead. There's nothing in the middle. In 1E and 2E, there was "healing for quite a while or magic." In 3E, there was "healing for a few days or magic." In 4E there's "well, I'm not dead, so I'll be perfectly fine in six hours." Can someone house-rule it? Of course. There've been several good suggestions. But the fact that something as basic to combat as "an injury that lasts longer than six hours" has to be wholesale added to the game ... that's a weakness in the game. [EDIT: Could I have changed tenses more haphazardly in this post? I thought not. However, I was too lazy to have changed it, so now I would have been ignoring it, and will hope that everyone else has ignored it, too.] [/QUOTE]

Verification