D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[WayOfTheFourElements]

A poisoned morningstar can graze you. A poison boulder is just silly, IMO.

The whole concept of HP is silly. But it makes for a good game. Any attempt to rationalize it falls flat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's unreasonable for anyone to die due to "fairly minor scratches". To me, that's an absurd outcome. A system that produces absurd outcomes regularly is not a good system, IMO.

If we define a minor scratch as one which can heal within three days, then allowing for the possibility that someone might die from such a minor scratch is still significantly less absurd than the vast majority of proposed alternatives. It isn't about finding the perfect model; it's about finding the best fit for the constraints we have.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The whole concept of HP is silly. But it makes for a good game. Any attempt to rationalize it falls flat.

YMMV

I think the non-wounding explanation works quite well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The whole concept of HP is silly. But it makes for a good game. Any attempt to rationalize it falls flat.

The concept of HP is actually fairly solid, within certain contexts. Once you account for the relevant variables, there's going to be a finite number of hits required to knock any person unconscious.

 

[Garthanos]

Is that really all that different from previous editions? Unless you go back to OD&D? It took more magic to get back to full in previous editions, but I don't remember hardly ever starting the day out not at or near full. YMMV of course.

The mythic party without a cleric oddly I only ever heard tell about that unicorn when people started complaining about inspired healing and how hit points must be REAL meat wounds.

 

[Garthanos]

YMMV

I think the non-wounding explanation works quite well.

Gygax put a metric ton of words into and spread them around including situations where you were physically disabled and still might have full hit points... shrug. I don't know why rules wise he didnt synchronise recoveries in some fashion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, someone with 1hp is very unlikely to complete any dangerous task, because they'll collapse before they succeed.

That depends on the task. Me, I'd call free-climbing up an overhang a dangerous task. But there's nothing in the mechanics that causes hit point loss. [Edit: Unless you fall of course. But that doesn't make you more likely to fall.]

Nobody said anything about broken bones. You don't need to break any bones in order to die from your injuries.

If you actually get hit by a morningstar and you're unarmoured it is likely to break bones. AD&D PCs if you treat wounds as actual damage appear to have adamantine bones that never break; there is no amount of bed rest in AD&D that even remotely corresponds to the time needed to recover from a broken bone. Or for that matter being seriously cut open.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That depends on the task. Me, I'd call free-climbing up an overhang a dangerous task. But there's nothing in the mechanics that causes hit point loss. [Edit: Unless you fall of course. But that doesn't make you more likely to fall.]

The rules never address such a situation in great detail, but any given DM is likely to ask for a climbing check at some point, and assign damage on a failure. Even without the situation having ever been addressed, it seems likely that the players would be disinclined to have someone attempt such a thing while in that condition, because the possibility of an unknown damage source is inherently obvious.

If you actually get hit by a morningstar and you're unarmoured it is likely to break bones.

That's an outside-context problem. The rules aren't intended to model such an unlikely situation. In any edition of D&D, combatants are assumed to either be armored or to be magic. The only reason I would break a bone when hit by a morningstar is because I'm not wearing armor and I'm not a wizard.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's an outside-context problem. The rules aren't intended to model such an unlikely situation. In any edition of D&D, combatants are assumed to either be armored or to be magic. The only reason I would break a bone when hit by a morningstar is because I'm not wearing armor and I'm not a wizard.

A thief/rogue in leather armor. Leather armor will NOT prevent a morningstar from shattering bone. The far more reasonable explanation, IMO, is a near miss or glancing blow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The rules never address such a situation in great detail, but any given DM is likely to ask for a climbing check at some point, and assign damage on a failure. Even without the situation having ever been addressed, it seems likely that the players would be disinclined to have someone attempt such a thing while in that condition, because the possibility of an unknown damage source is inherently obvious.

Damage on a failed skill check for climbing would be unusual IME (other than for falling off the wall and going splat) to the point that you appear to be saying that the DM would inflict hit point damage if and only if someone went climbing on 1hp. This would appear to be a house rule

That's an outside-context problem. The rules aren't intended to model such an unlikely situation. In any edition of D&D, combatants are assumed to either be armored or to be magic. The only reason I would break a bone when hit by a morningstar is because I'm not wearing armor and I'm not a wizard.

You mean that there is never a situation where a thief in leather armour will be hit by a morningstar. And wizards are the squishiest class in the game - it's pretty clear that they aren't meant to be supernaturally tough unless they have spells up. I'd call this a 100% in context situation, myself.