Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4e Healing was the best D&D healing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 8043788" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>I agree that slow healing only makes sense if every attack results in physical injury, but I disagree that it causes anything to fall apart. Rather, I posit that physical injury is the only way to make sense of it all, because any other model will create significantly more problems than it can solve.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Considering the language of the game, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch. If an orc "hits" you with an axe, it causes "damage"; and since you aren't "dead" that means the damage was non-fatal. This is literally just taking everything at face value. Absolutely zero rationalization is required here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That seems kinda nit-picky to me, but it's the perfect place to add a house rule, if you feel it's necessary. If there's one place I agree with Gygax, it's that it would be inefficient to spend too much detail in modeling things that aren't important.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course, if hit points represent factors that are easily recovered, then slow healing makes no sense. But as you say, some attacks definitely <em>do</em> make physical contact. If the giant scorpion's sting didn't actually pierce your flesh, then you wouldn't have to save against its effects, or take a lesser effect on a successful save. If you fall from a dragon, then you're going to hit the ground pretty hard, and knowing how to roll is not a sufficient explanation (and it's usually covered by a separate mechanic anyway, which just reduces the amount of damage).</p><p></p><p>So clearly, <em>some</em> damage is physical. And the rules don't distinguish between physical damage and non-physical damage in any way whatsoever; if you try to explain <em>this</em> 4 damage from a dagger as fatigue, but <em>that</em> 4 damage from a dagger as physical, then it's weird for them to both recover at the same rate; doubly so, if that recovery comes from a warlord's inspiration. Logically, it makes more sense if all damage has basically the same nature, since the rules treat it all the same regardless. If damage could express itself in such a wide variety of ways, such that inspirational recovery makes sense for healing some damage but not other damage, then you'd expect the rules to make that distinction at any point. And since we know that at least <em>some</em> damage is physical, the only logical interpretation is that <em>all</em> damage is physical.</p><p></p><p>It's impressive that it hasn't come up yet, but yes, the alternative possibility is that <em>no</em> HP damage is actually physical in nature. When you have something like warlord inspiration (or Healing Surges, or recovery Hit Dice) as a core aspect of the system, it does seem much more reasonable than the alternative, where all damage is physical. It does mean, however, that our model - which ostensibly exists to determine what happens when a bunch of people whack at each other with swords - doesn't have any way to express that anyone has actually been hit. Short of them bleeding out on the ground, which probably involved a physical hit, but which can nevertheless be recovered from using non-physical means. </p><p></p><p>And of course, you can still be stabbed by a giant scorpion, and the hole it leaves in you is left entirely to narrative rather than mechanics, since the rules don't concern themselves with the possibility of physical injury. In fact, you can be stabbed any number of times, and you'll be fine once the warlord inspires all of the poison out of your system.</p><p></p><p>I mean, I hope you can see why <em>that</em> is not a terribly satisfying narrative. If the difference between a "hit" and a "miss" is the amount of effort they had to expend while dodging, then why are we even rolling when the outcome is that they dodge either way? Why are we bothering with such a complex system for measuring intangibles, but <em>completely</em> ignoring substantial metrics such as bodily integrity? I mean, it may be a relatively more consistent approach than trying to walk the line with mostly-non-physical HP in earlier edition, but the end result doesn't really tell us what actually <em>happened</em>; which is the whole point of using a statistical model in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 8043788, member: 6775031"] I agree that slow healing only makes sense if every attack results in physical injury, but I disagree that it causes anything to fall apart. Rather, I posit that physical injury is the only way to make sense of it all, because any other model will create significantly more problems than it can solve. Considering the language of the game, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch. If an orc "hits" you with an axe, it causes "damage"; and since you aren't "dead" that means the damage was non-fatal. This is literally just taking everything at face value. Absolutely zero rationalization is required here. That seems kinda nit-picky to me, but it's the perfect place to add a house rule, if you feel it's necessary. If there's one place I agree with Gygax, it's that it would be inefficient to spend too much detail in modeling things that aren't important. Of course, if hit points represent factors that are easily recovered, then slow healing makes no sense. But as you say, some attacks definitely [I]do[/I] make physical contact. If the giant scorpion's sting didn't actually pierce your flesh, then you wouldn't have to save against its effects, or take a lesser effect on a successful save. If you fall from a dragon, then you're going to hit the ground pretty hard, and knowing how to roll is not a sufficient explanation (and it's usually covered by a separate mechanic anyway, which just reduces the amount of damage). So clearly, [I]some[/I] damage is physical. And the rules don't distinguish between physical damage and non-physical damage in any way whatsoever; if you try to explain [I]this[/I] 4 damage from a dagger as fatigue, but [I]that[/I] 4 damage from a dagger as physical, then it's weird for them to both recover at the same rate; doubly so, if that recovery comes from a warlord's inspiration. Logically, it makes more sense if all damage has basically the same nature, since the rules treat it all the same regardless. If damage could express itself in such a wide variety of ways, such that inspirational recovery makes sense for healing some damage but not other damage, then you'd expect the rules to make that distinction at any point. And since we know that at least [I]some[/I] damage is physical, the only logical interpretation is that [I]all[/I] damage is physical. It's impressive that it hasn't come up yet, but yes, the alternative possibility is that [I]no[/I] HP damage is actually physical in nature. When you have something like warlord inspiration (or Healing Surges, or recovery Hit Dice) as a core aspect of the system, it does seem much more reasonable than the alternative, where all damage is physical. It does mean, however, that our model - which ostensibly exists to determine what happens when a bunch of people whack at each other with swords - doesn't have any way to express that anyone has actually been hit. Short of them bleeding out on the ground, which probably involved a physical hit, but which can nevertheless be recovered from using non-physical means. And of course, you can still be stabbed by a giant scorpion, and the hole it leaves in you is left entirely to narrative rather than mechanics, since the rules don't concern themselves with the possibility of physical injury. In fact, you can be stabbed any number of times, and you'll be fine once the warlord inspires all of the poison out of your system. I mean, I hope you can see why [I]that[/I] is not a terribly satisfying narrative. If the difference between a "hit" and a "miss" is the amount of effort they had to expend while dodging, then why are we even rolling when the outcome is that they dodge either way? Why are we bothering with such a complex system for measuring intangibles, but [I]completely[/I] ignoring substantial metrics such as bodily integrity? I mean, it may be a relatively more consistent approach than trying to walk the line with mostly-non-physical HP in earlier edition, but the end result doesn't really tell us what actually [I]happened[/I]; which is the whole point of using a statistical model in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4e Healing was the best D&D healing
Top