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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 4640357" data-attributes="member: 11821">I think that's a little spurious.You have plenty of narration space in 4e combat.  Said narration will not have a 1:1 correspondence with actual mechanical impairment, but in my mind this is nothing new.  Injuries haven't had effects other than HP loss in the history of the game.  It's only recovery from the injuries - in time and methods - that have changed.There's nothing inherent in magical-or-long-term-healing that is more realistic than a quick recovery system.I'm not saying it's insane to prefer one way or the other.  I'm saying that is a decision that can only be made from preferred playstyles, not arguments to realism.  If you think it crucial that the rules support long recovery times, then obviously 4e's healing system won't work for your game without heavy modification.Again, I think you're making HPs out to be something they don't have to be.  More on this in a sec.Quite simply - how?In what ways did - let's say - 1e support sprained ankles, severed arms, and cracked ribs better than 4e does?  IMHO, it doesn't.  HPs are too flimsy a mechanic to hold everything you want to hang on them.If you want to model long-term injuries, you need a system to support long-term injuries.  Arguably, 3e's ability score damage can handle a lot of this heavy lifting.  Arguably, 4e's disease track mechanisms can do similar.  Regardless, it's not an out-of-the-box assumption of the game that a certain number of HPs mean anything other than ... well that number of HPs.I think the crucial problem here is that it's senseless to argue about what HP's are.  I think it's a lot more useful to debate what HP's do.-O</blockquote>

Verification