Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9230044" data-attributes="member: 8461">Which is the game telling us that A) they're injured, and B) that they can still take action. It's not that hard to draw a line from one to the other and say that they're playing through the pain. Or at least, that's the most obvious explanation, since "it's just a bruise!" doesn't logically follow, nor does "they just feel kind of demoralized," let alone "hit points are a lifebar that represent nothing!"So your house rules are that a character taking a hundred points of fire damage are...what? Demoralized? Bruised? Or nothing at all happens? Because at different times you've floated all of those ideas, without ever committing to any of them, and they all represent a much wider cognitive gap (which is why they're just your house rules, and not what the game rules say).Because you assume that D&D characters are exactly like real-world people and take penalties when they're injured. At some point I'd like to hope that you realize you're playing a game about heroes and not ordinary people.Let's leave aside the fact that I already replied to Voadam; that regenerate didn't cure hit point damage in AD&D proves...what, exactly? Because it's explicitly stating that it recovers bodily damage in the form of restoring lost limbs. That it didn't restore hit points was an issue of it having a cognitive gap, which 3E fixed. Presumably you're bringing this up because you think it strengthens your point, but I don't think you've thought it through in that regard.Falling into the cognitive gap, which 3E later bridged by folding in hit point restoration into the spell. 4E isn't alone in having gaps, just that it widened a lot of them.They're really not, unless you think that fire doesn't burn...though given your answers above, you seem to actually think that, so I can understand why you don't find that convincing.Not so much, no. Given that you can't seem to decide if hit points are injury, or resilience, or nothing at all, you don't really seem to have any sort of case to make here at all, whereas mine is still unbroken. Which does explain why you're avoiding the subject of the debate rather than engaging with it, now that I think about it.Which are apparently the only ones you think D&D characters can take. Good news for people being pushed into lava, I guess!Well, there are no other spells that cure anything other than "light" wounds. Oh wait.So by your house rules, the fact that there's no cure serious burns spell means that no one is ever burned. That's an...interesting twist on the game. Not one that's in the rules, but certainly interesting.And again, this line of "logic" means that nothing cures electrical damage, acid damage, severe cold, etc.Ah, so now we're back to the "lifebar" argument, are we? You've been cycling between that, "just a scratch," and "resilience" for a little while now. Having hit points be three different things at once is one heck of a change to make from what's in the books!Other than all the times you have, sure.More importantly, pointing out that your "debunking" is just your house rules serves a purpose."Everyone else is wrong, 4E has no real flaws" is the largest zombie myth out there. It's notable that every time someone tries to critically analyze the ways 4E fell short of its design goals, there's a small cadre of posters who come in spewing all sorts of nonsense about "that's a strawman!" and "you just didn't understand it!" and "that's not a problem because we can fix it!" Literally every single time.Except for how, much to your inconvenience, my take on it matches what's in the books, unlike your own. And if you don't believe me, quote where Healing Word says that it's a "placebo effect."ROFLMAO!The only problem with this idea is that hit points represent injuries, rather than modeling them. No, they don't track hit wounds or locations; that doesn't mean you're not being hit.Calling you out on your contradiction is not misrepresenting your shifting positions. Having the same mechanical operation represent different things widens the cognitive gap, and 4E fell into that trap with its well-intentioned but tragically misguided attempt to have hit points be stamina and injury, showing why that's a bad idea.Ah, right, so the amount of hit point damage being dealt means nothing, then. 1 or 100 points of damage tells us exactly the same thing is happening from an in-character perpsective. Being hit by a red dragon's breath and failing your saving throw is exactly the same as burning your thumb on a candle!Really? Quote them on that.Except they clearly did fall into lava, and aren't taking penalties. Or are you saying that full immersion in lava only results in signed eyebrows and being "lightly scorched"?So your game world has characters never being damaged no matter what happens to them, and the rules tell us almost nothing about the state of the in-game scenario. That's one heck of a twist on what's written in the books.Except I'm not, whereas you've flat-out contradicted the text on the page.Except for where the book says they're not."By the book" says the guy who adds in a placebo effect.The game already does that, if you'd but read what's there.Except that you've already admitted they are. Sure, you said "cosmetic," but you still granted the central premse.Hence 4E's widening of the cognitive gap.You've added houserules and personal interpretations to the point of openly rewriting what Healing Word does, so it's kind of ironic that you'd say this.Right, so the fact that they call losing hit points "taking damage" so often is meaningless? Because that's kind of a hard point to make with a straight face.Except you can still move, as per what the game rules tell us. If you've eliminated the impossible, then whatever's left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.You've already been told that D&D isn't the real world. Stop holding fidelity to reality as the highest virtue.So they represent nothing? That's the widest possible interpretation of the cognitive gap.Says the squirrel.See ya!</blockquote>

Verification