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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5882083" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't see your point.Obviously a PC at full hp, and a PC down 14 hp, are not mechanically equivalent. They may or may not be fictionally equivalent, depending how the hp loss was narrated.But two PCs at full hp, but one down a surge and the other not, are not mechanically equivalent either. Besides corner cases where they would be different (eg surge-sucking monsters or surge-expenditure items/skill checks), there is the fact that one but not the other has the capacity to regain hp by being inpsired or taking a brief respite.The two PCs with different surges may or may not be fictionally equivalent, depending on how surge expenditure is narrated. (For example, if surges are narrated as heroic effort, one may look more haggard than the other. If the expenditure of the surge was treated as a purely metagame expenditure of a player (not PC) resource, then in the fiction the two may be indistinguishable.)Given that I'm putting forward stipulative definitions, there is no contradiction.As to your suggestion of misnomer: in AD&D an "attack" is in fact many attempts at attack over the course of a minute; in all versions of D&D, I can "save" against an effect and yet still be affected by it (half damage); in 4e, a "miss" can still deliver "damage"; many players of all versions of D&D think that at least some "damage" is mere weakening of resolve (and in 4e this is obvious, given the category of "psychic damage"); in pre-4e versions of D&D "cure light wounds" may be enough to restore a PC on death's door to full health, while "cure critical wounds" may fail to restore a barely injured PC to full health.These are all technical terms, not terms of ordinary English. Their names are established by tradition, allusive if not fully literal, and in my view at least not actively misleading to those familiar with the systems in question.The "solution" is fairly obvious: the only person who is insisting that a fully-healed fighter (in the sense of full hp and full surges) must be unwounded is you.On the "mojo" theory of hit point loss, damage may still include mild scrapes and bruises. And I am not obliged to say that a fighter who is fully healed has none of these.On the "it's not all mojo" theory of hit point loss, damage will include even serious cuts and injuries. But Hussar (or FireLance, or anyone else) is not obliged to say that a fighter who is fully healed has none of those.You keep saying this. But on what basis? Where in the rules does it say that a PC at full hit points and full healing surges is not suffering any wounds?All we can infer from a PC being at full hp and full surges is that there ability to press on despite wounds is as good as it can be.As far as I'm aware, no one is trying to tell you how to play your game. Nor that you're doing it wrong. Unless I've radically misunderstood you, you're the one trying to tell others that, because their game has healing surges that (i) may be expended to recover hp via inspiration or respite, and (ii) are themselves recovered after a night's sleep, they will have narrative confusion and a lack of cause and effect in their game unless they adopt a "fully mojo" theory of hp.But for the reasons that FireLance stated, this is not so. Nothing is stopping the participants at the table from describing the fighter, who (mechanically) is fully healed, as suffering various cuts, bruises and even sprains and broken ribs. All the mechanics tell us is that (i) none of those injuries is impeding the character's performance, and (ii) the character is in now way impeded in his/her ability to push on after inspiration or respite.</blockquote>

Verification