D&D 4E 4e Hitpoints are modelled after quantum mechanics

[phloog]

If you don't understand physics, please don't expect this movie to teach you anything. It's new-age metaphysics dressed up as a science documentary.

Most of the actual scientists 'USED' in this movie (in many senses of the word 'used') have disavowed the way their quotes were used and the conclusions that were drawn - - basically the movie suggests that using TM will allow you to collapse waveforms favorably...It's just goofy.

However, the interpretation I hold to of SC involves the SUPERposition of states - the cat is both alive AND dead. So the damage is both a sword in your gullet AND a really depressing thought.

Taking it a bit further, we can employ the Many Worlds theory to great effect. When you are hit by a sword in combat, the universe splits into at least two separate universes. In one it was morale/emotional damage, in the other the blade stuck in your spleen. The two you's continue in their timelines...the problem is that you only know which timeline you are in when you are healed. "Oh, so that's what that annoying pointy sensation was"

The biggest problem with this is that the definition of 'observer' has to be strained to incredible levels. All those characters walking around with you have no idea what kind of damage you have - - so they don't count as observers.

The only true observer in this model is the healing effect itself. In addition, since some effects use your healing surges, and others can use those in possession of another character, this adds additional confusion. If you only have morale healers in the party, your group is typically missed by most weapons, which has led to a crippling malaise.

Can I design a new magic item for 4e?

Schroedinger's Handy Haversack: When Schroedinger's Handy Haversack is opened, you will see a motionless cat resting at the bottom, near a broken vial of some unknown liquid.

If you simply pull the cat out, it is dead from poison in the vial.

If you hit the cat with a healing effect that is based on wounds, the cat was near death, having cut itself badly on the glass shards, but you have healed it.

If you hit the cat with a healing effect based on morale, the cat was merely sulking because the vial contained merlot of inferior quality.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's my understanding that all things are not necessarily true until observed. Isn't it that all things are possible until observed? In the case of SC, the cat is either alive or dead. It is my understanding that there is a lot of confusion regarding the term "observer." We do not shoot beams of light from our eyes unless I'm horribly mistaken. Also, if we assume that all things are true, then we are assuming multiple worlds, yes? Isn't this like saying, "I have never seen your car. Therefore, you're car is (all colors)."

Hiesenburg's Uncertainty Principle dumbed down:

Basicly, in order to make any sort of observation about something, you need to detect it. Said object needs to affect you in some way, or affect an instrument that you then use to say 'AHA I DETECTED A THING!'

In physics, this is all done by forces. So if someone punches you in the face, the force of their mass affecting your face is what your body then detects. Make sense?

Forces work by firing out wave-particles and colliding it into things. The firing out of the wave-particle creates 'recoil' that causes the firer-outer to go on one direction, and something smacked by said bullet goes in the opposite direction. (Of course this doesn't explain attraction but it pretty much works the same way.)

Now, let's say you're looking at a wall. The wall doesn't seem to move much. But what is -really- happening is the wall is getting smacked by 'bullets of light' coming from your lightbulb, which it then fires in random directions, some of which hit your eyes. In order to see the wall, the wall must be constantly bombarded by photons.

At our level, all this does is heat the wall up a little bit, nothing major. This is because the bullets are really really really really really tiny.

However, what happens if you shoot at -bullet sized- objects with bullets?

Well, you ever play pool? Now imagine you're blind. You know where your cue-ball is at the start. You also know there might be some balls somewhere on the table (your drinking buddies might also be ing with ya.) The only way to know for sure is to take your cueball and shoot it where you think the balls are all lined up. Then, you can check the pockets to see if you sank any, as well as listen for the sound of colliding balls.

Now, tell me where the eightball is.

You can't! You are uncertain as to it's location because you have no way of observing the collisions involved without -colliding more stuff- into it. At most, you can say 'Well, I shot something at it here, and it must have been over here, so I'm pretty sure it got shot over here somewhere.'

On a quantum level, that converts to a simple equation, which says 'You can be really close to knowing where an object is, or you can be really close to knowing where an object is going. You can't have both.'

 

[MeMeMeMe]

While a joke, this rule is actually not that bad - on each hit (or whenever it takes damage), a minion makes a save. If it's a success, it survives, otherwise it dies. Combined with a "maximum damage" (where it always dies), I think I'll even try it in my home game ASAP.

Cheers, LT.

This is the rule I've been using for zombine rotter minions. Since they are so much worse than other minions, a save vs death makes them feel like zombies should.

 

[-Avalon-]

OMG, I normally read about 2 pages of a thread at most, then get the basic idea and move on... but this one pulled me and I had to read every single post...

My take is a different direction:
Ok, the cat is both alive and dead unless directly observed, then it becomes one or the other. So, in theory the reverse should also work. If something is unknown, but you observe it, it then becomes known.

Using this theory, it makes D&D WAY more dangerous. A Ranger wandering through the dark tunnels of a dungeon, uses his passive perception constantly. The shadows "may or may not" be containing an enemy. Therefore by using the reverse of the theory, the dm should roll for a random encounter monster, roll its stealth, and if the passive beats the stealth, then the ranger has in effect "created" the monster =)

This is due entirely to the fact that whether there is a monster there or not depends entirely upon the observer's roll hehe (there could be tons of monsters lurking all over the place! Especially if the Ranger in question is particularly adept at perception)

As for the morale issues:
Would this mean that Skirmishers and Brutes are more capable of hurting one's feelings than lurkers and soldiers? And are controllers more capable at hurting many peoples' feelings at once?

 

[DracoSuave]

OMG, I normally read about 2 pages of a thread at most, then get the basic idea and move on... but this one pulled me and I had to read every single post...

My take is a different direction:
Ok, the cat is both alive and dead unless directly observed, then it becomes one or the other. So, in theory the reverse should also work. If something is unknown, but you observe it, it then becomes known.

Using this theory, it makes D&D WAY more dangerous. A Ranger wandering through the dark tunnels of a dungeon, uses his passive perception constantly. The shadows "may or may not" be containing an enemy. Therefore by using the reverse of the theory, the dm should roll for a random encounter monster, roll its stealth, and if the passive beats the stealth, then the ranger has in effect "created" the monster =)

This is due entirely to the fact that whether there is a monster there or not depends entirely upon the observer's roll hehe (there could be tons of monsters lurking all over the place! Especially if the Ranger in question is particularly adept at perception)

As for the morale issues:
Would this mean that Skirmishers and Brutes are more capable of hurting one's feelings than lurkers and soldiers? And are controllers more capable at hurting many peoples' feelings at once?

The other thing is, the more you know about one specific thing, the less you must know about another. So you know if the cat is alive or dead at that instant, but you can't know in which direction it'll bolt as soon as you start trying to hug it saying 'OH MY SWEET CHAIRMAN ROFLMEOW YOU ARE ALIVE AND I LUFFLES YOU' which if you say it at a cat in the wrong voice, will likely either cause it to flee you or ignore you or scratch you.

Or all of the above.