Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4102173" data-attributes="member: 5122">Well, honestly, I'll never accept that it's a rules-consistent way of describing damage in 1E, 2E, and 3E, since it's directly contradicted by those rules.&nbsp; I certainly accept that it's valid if by &quot;valid&quot; you mean &quot;it works perfectly, if you ignore what the rules say, and are okay with PCs never suffering actual injury.&quot;As far as whether it works in 4E ... I completely agree.&nbsp; That's how 4E HPs work.&nbsp; It's a change from previous editions, and it's a change that ends the possibility of &quot;injured, but not dead.&quot;&nbsp; Which is exactly what I hate about it.You really don't think it's &quot;fantastic&quot; that a 4E character can end up dead on the point of a sword, but can never end up with an injury that takes more than a day to heal?&nbsp; If so, okay ... we just have different definitions of &quot;fantastic.&quot;&nbsp; And my problem is that while it's certainly fantastic, it's (as far as we know) not an explanation.As have I, Fitz, to this point, and you're largely responsible for that.&nbsp; Thank you.But now that several posters have rejoined the fray who are content to ignore -- actually insistent upon ignoring -- the rules being quoted, and who can't accept that it's possible (since HP are abstracted) to be injured without suffering combat-math penalties, there's really no point in my continuing with it.&nbsp; KarinsDad has more patience (seriously, you have no idea how much my &quot;patience&quot; is a combination of acting and plunging a letter opener into my knee to avoid sharing my true feelings), and the willingness to dig out his 1E books to quote from, so I'm gonna wander off and leave him to cleave through the masses for as long as it continues to amuse him.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4102173, member: 5122"] Well, honestly, I'll never accept that it's a [i]rules-consistent[/i] way of describing damage in 1E, 2E, and 3E, since it's directly contradicted by those rules. I certainly accept that it's valid if by "valid" you mean "it works perfectly, if you ignore what the rules say, and are okay with PCs never suffering actual injury." As far as whether it works in 4E ... I completely agree. That's how 4E HPs work. It's a change from previous editions, and it's a change that ends the possibility of "injured, but not dead." Which is exactly what I hate about it. You really don't think it's "fantastic" that a 4E character can end up [i]dead[/i] on the point of a sword, but can [i]never[/i] end up with an injury that takes more than a day to heal? If so, okay ... we just have different definitions of "fantastic." And my problem is that while it's certainly fantastic, it's (as far as we know) not an [i]explanation[/i]. As have I, Fitz, to this point, and you're largely responsible for that. Thank you. But now that several posters have rejoined the fray who are content to ignore -- actually insistent upon ignoring -- the rules being quoted, and who can't accept that it's possible (since HP are abstracted) to be injured without suffering combat-math penalties, there's really no point in my continuing with it. KarinsDad has more patience (seriously, you have no idea how much my "patience" is a combination of acting and plunging a letter opener into my knee to avoid sharing my true feelings), and the willingness to dig out his 1E books to quote from, so I'm gonna wander off and leave him to cleave through the masses for as long as it continues to amuse him. [/QUOTE]

Verification