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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Discussion about a Primer on 4e terminology
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="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5777756" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>...sort of.</p><p></p><p>There's one paragraph in every edition of D&D that says this. If you were to black out that paragraph, however, <em>everything else</em> in the rulebooks pre-4E would imply that hit points represent raw physical toughness and high-level PCs are just made of iron.</p><p></p><p>All of the terminology supports this. Anything that gives you back hit points is described as "healing," anything that takes them away is "damage" which is usually caused by an "attack" that "hits," poison and other rider effects are triggered by loss of hit points, et cetera. Hit point recovery happens either through magical curing spells or through days or weeks of bed rest. Unconscious characters still have full hit points. And so on and so forth.</p><p></p><p>Take it from a software developer: When the manual tells the user to go one way, and the software pushes them the other way, the software almost always wins. The manual gets one crack at them, if you're lucky*. The software hits them every moment they're in front of the computer. Likewise, the "hit points are not toughness" paragraph gets read once, while the rest of the rules are nudging the players toward "hit points <em>are</em> toughness" every single game.</p><p></p><p>4E's designers decided that that one "hit points are not toughness" paragraph gave them carte blanche to turn hit points into "whatever is most convenient for our tactical minigame." They might have pulled it off if they had just had the good sense to overhaul the terminology. Instead, however, they left it all like it was; anything that gives you back hit points is healing, anything that takes them away is damage caused by an attack that hits, poison triggered by loss of hit points. The result was some nasty cognitive dissonance. The mechanics were now saying one thing while the flavor was saying something else.</p><p></p><p>Hence the outcry, and the complaints about warlord healing. If warlords triggered a "heroic surge" that gave you back "vitality," I doubt anyone would be complaining. In a role-playing game, the choice of what to call stuff is <em>really freaking important</em>.</p><p></p><p>[size=-2]*And if you think you can count on getting even that one crack in, better think again.[/size]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5777756, member: 58197"] ...sort of. There's one paragraph in every edition of D&D that says this. If you were to black out that paragraph, however, [i]everything else[/i] in the rulebooks pre-4E would imply that hit points represent raw physical toughness and high-level PCs are just made of iron. All of the terminology supports this. Anything that gives you back hit points is described as "healing," anything that takes them away is "damage" which is usually caused by an "attack" that "hits," poison and other rider effects are triggered by loss of hit points, et cetera. Hit point recovery happens either through magical curing spells or through days or weeks of bed rest. Unconscious characters still have full hit points. And so on and so forth. Take it from a software developer: When the manual tells the user to go one way, and the software pushes them the other way, the software almost always wins. The manual gets one crack at them, if you're lucky*. The software hits them every moment they're in front of the computer. Likewise, the "hit points are not toughness" paragraph gets read once, while the rest of the rules are nudging the players toward "hit points [i]are[/i] toughness" every single game. 4E's designers decided that that one "hit points are not toughness" paragraph gave them carte blanche to turn hit points into "whatever is most convenient for our tactical minigame." They might have pulled it off if they had just had the good sense to overhaul the terminology. Instead, however, they left it all like it was; anything that gives you back hit points is healing, anything that takes them away is damage caused by an attack that hits, poison triggered by loss of hit points. The result was some nasty cognitive dissonance. The mechanics were now saying one thing while the flavor was saying something else. Hence the outcry, and the complaints about warlord healing. If warlords triggered a "heroic surge" that gave you back "vitality," I doubt anyone would be complaining. In a role-playing game, the choice of what to call stuff is [i]really freaking important[/i]. [size=-2]*And if you think you can count on getting even that one crack in, better think again.[/size] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Discussion about a Primer on 4e terminology
Top