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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9217324" data-attributes="member: 7026594">It's inherent in every edition of D&D.  It's implicit in fact that Cure Light Wounds can cure a peasant of a mortal wound.  It's implicit in the fact that a 10th level Fighter can be "hit" with a giant's club and sustain no actual injury, no fracture, not be slowed whatsoever or even knocked backwards.  We understand that, like an action movie hero, the PC has been just barely grazed or has deflected the blow, at worst having a little bruising or having some wind knocked from them.  No injury that will meaningfully impair their fighting prowess, other than to wear down their defenses (HP) and ability to ward off an eventual telling blow (HP).Gary explained the concept at multi-paragraph length in both the DMG and Player's Handbook.  These explanations ARE the reason why there's no concomitant loss of personal prowess.  Gary explained it to both players and DMs.The scaling nature of how many hit points characters have at different levels versus the absolute values of the damage dealt isn't off-putting to me.  It's not "unpleasant, disconcerting, or repellant" to me because I accept and embrace Gary's explanations of what hit points are and always have been.The only difference between how 4E treated HP and how every other edition treats HP is that 4E is arguably a little more clear and explicit about them.  That and the Healing Surge concept making healing proportionate to maximum HP, which eliminated or at least reduced one of the more off-putting aspects of D&D healing, "Cure Light Wounds" healing a 1st level character of a mortal wound.I am a bit tempted now to check the explanations of HP in other editions and quote them, though.  I suspect that they're pretty consistent across the board.</blockquote>

Verification