Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 4101350" data-attributes="member: 59816">So how many times do I have to explain it to you before you accept that it is a valid way of describing HP in ANY editon of D&D, and the only one that works well for what we know of 4th?It is not supernatural or even fantastic to say that the skilled, heroic D&D combatant can roll with blows, take arrows to his armor, and scratches to his face, that do a certain amount of superficial damage, but nothing that won't be a scab, bruise, or minor puncture wound by the next day?It's not a matter of 4th being "fine & then dead" while others were "fine, but need to rest a few days, and then dead" You have the latter, and "fine, or bloodied (which is fine with a lightly wounded descriptor) and then maybe dying, or maybe just knocked down and winded"And it's not new. Some people chose to use this in ALL editions, and it simply still works for fourth, while you're version (which hinges on the recovery time) wasn't good enough because to describe a long-term injury, we felt that it should come with some kind of mechanical effect. (The same way you want injury to come with a mechanical effect - recovery time.)I've said it before, I think your method was very valid for previous editions, and we agree that it's not good for 4e. But why can you still not accept that the other method is valid for all editions? The closest you've come is to say something like "If you can handle it being unrealistic, fine, but I can't."It's not unrealistic, it follows abstact HP, and fully explains BOTH why you can be better after 6h, AND why you can fight perfectly fine while injured (you are NOT badly injured).Your way works better when the down-in HP guy rests until he's better, but seems a little off when he gets back up the next day (still down in HP, still injured) and decides he's "better enough" to keep adventuring.  Where is this injury? He sucks it up! Something that was going to take 11 days to heal?  Sure.  (I don't have a problem with this, I'm just pointing out that it's not foolproof either.)If you can accept that his injury does not slow him down in any way (other than his lowered ability to defend himself, not by lowered defenses, but by the next shot being more likely to kill him.) why is it a problem to describe him injured, if you like, at full HP? Future shots can STILL kill him, and you'd have the fun (as I plan on doing, if I feel a previous shot SHOULD have given him more that a simple scratch - like a shot that brought a guy down) of having the bloodied condition often "open yesterday's well-bound wound."  Because the 4E rules CAN model injury, if you want it to, it just leaves the recovery time abstract, but it doesn't have to.I've enjoyed this discussion, by the way, Jeff, and agree with the poster who complimented you.Fitz</blockquote>

Verification