From the pages of 1e

[Raven Crowking]

Then I guess, you've never read any of the numerous threads about 4e healing surges and/or warlords with their martial healing powers.

He wasn't necessarily talking about a thread here. I've heard that argument several times over the years (in person), including (IIRC) in Dragon forum letters?

I have participated in a number of threads on the topic of 4e healing surges; no one has ever put forth the claim that "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more" in any of them AFAICT. Without a link, I suspect that this is either misremembering (which, certainly, I am guilty of from time to time as well) or misreading.

The argument has always been, AFIACT and IMHO and IME, that pre-4e hit points always contain some element of damage (not "*always* about pure damage, and nothing more"), whereas 4e hit points may or may not contain some element of damage, which is the case being determined at the time those hit points are healed, rather than at the time those hit points are taken.

(And I don't mean to reopen the entire can of worms, because it has been hashed to death, and there are some creative answers to this "problem" [for those who see it as such] out there already.)


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I have participated in a number of threads on the topic of 4e healing surges; no one has ever put forth the claim that "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more" in any of them AFAICT. Without a link, I suspect that this is either misremembering (which, certainly, I am guilty of from time to time as well) or misreading.

There's a difference between arguing something "IME" (from your perspective), and arguing that someone else's experience didn't happen because you haven't had the same experience.

I have, in person, been met with the argument that hit points are purely physical damage. Please don't assume I'm misremembering just because it's never happened to you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's a difference between arguing something "IME" (from your perspective), and arguing that someone else's experience didn't happen because you haven't had the same experience.

I have, in person, been met with the argument that hit points are purely physical damage. Please don't assume I'm misremembering just because it's never happened to you.

I said, "I suspect" not "I assume". I am skeptical of the claim; that is not the same as assuming that I am right.

The threads I participated in had a lot of:

Poster 1: Pre-4e hit points always contain some element of damage, whereas 4e hit points may or may not contain some element of damage, which is the case being determined at the time those hit points are healed, rather than at the time those hit points are taken.

Poster 2: How can you say that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more?

Poster 1: Erm....that isn't what I am saying. I said "some element of damage".

(discussion continues for three pages)

Poster 2: How can you say that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more?

Poster 1: Erm....​

This is such a common model for InterWeb discussion that, barring evidence to the contrary, when someone says "X makes crazy claim Y", there is always a part of me that thinks "Are we sure that X is really making that claim"?

Of course, it is a common model for InterWeb discussion that X really does make crazy claim Y, so I don't assume that the claim wasn't made.

I just don't assume that it was.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I said, "I suspect" not "I assume". I am skeptical of the claim; that is not the same as assuming that I am right.

Regardless of which word you chose to use, it's a rather disrespectful thing to say. Rather than addressing the comment itself you put forth the idea that the person making the comment is probably mistaken about their own experiences.

I have told you twice that this has happened to me personally. If all you're going to do is suggest that I'm wrong about my own personal experiences, I'll ask you not to respond to me at all.

 

[billd91]

There were most definitely people arguing that hit points not only should include actual physical injury but that was pretty much entirely what they were. And for them, it may have made sense, particularly if they started with 3e rather than 1e/2e. From the 3.5 Player's Handboodk glossary:

hit points (hp): A measure of a character’s health or an object’s
integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points
return with healing or natural recovery. A character’s hit point total
increases permanently with additional experience and/or permanent
increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of
various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see
temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).

Hit Points
Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before
falling unconscious or dying.

Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Regardless of which word you chose to use, it's a rather disrespectful thing to say. Rather than addressing the comment itself you put forth the idea that the person making the comment is probably mistaken about their own experiences.

I have told you twice that this has happened to me personally. If all you're going to do is suggest that I'm wrong about my own personal experiences, I'll ask you not to respond to me at all.

I would say that a rational response for a request for evidence would be depend upon (A) if you care whether or not the other person is convinced, and (B) how much effort is required to produce the evidence. If you care, and the evidence is easy to produce, it is sensible to produce it. It you care, but the evidence is difficult to produce, simply pointing the other person in the right direction is all that can be expected. If you do not care, no further response is really necessary.

It is hardly disrespectful to ask for a link, or to suggest that someone might be mistaken. "How dare you suggest that I may be wrong!" is, OTOH, fairly arrogant. The claim that it is disrespectful to ask for evidence, IME, is usually related to the lack thereof.

If I claimed that I had seen Bigfoot on more than one occasion, you would be well advised to consider that I might be wrong about my own experiences.

People misremember things all the time. It is an extremely common, and well documented, occurance. Moreover, even if your memory is spot-on, your conclusions from reading the materials may be mistaken. I know that this has happened to me, more than once, both from the position of misreading and from the position of being misread.

Suggesting that one might misremember or have misunderstood is suggesting that the person is human; nothing more, nothing less. I misremember exactly how many times I have misunderstood! But I will certainly admit that, over the course of my life, there has been a considerable amount of misremembering and misunderstanding. Modern psychology would suggest that this is not unusual.

If you have a great desire to discuss standards of evidence, standards of etiquette, etc., I will be happy to do so in a forked thread.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Note that there isn't the expansive description of what hit points are that you saw from the 1e quote. I would submit that for a player who started with 3e, their view of what a hit point is was a lot narrower than those of us who started with earlier editions.

Thank you, bill91. Those quotes make the claim that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more, far more likely to have occurred, and render anecdote meaningful (to me at least) in terms of evidence.

XP to you!


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

It is hardly disrespectful to ask for a link, or to suggest that someone might be mistaken. "How dare you suggest that I may be wrong!" is, OTOH, fairly arrogant.

I disagree, obviously. It's not disrespectful to ask for a link, in the sense of "I don't remember that, can you show me that?" But framing it in terms of "you're wrong about your experiences" is disrespectful. I would suggest "His experiences don't match mine, therefore his probably didn't happen" is arrogant.

Skepticism is often warranted in life. But in the discussion of a game that thousands upon thousands of people play in thousands of locales in thousands of different ways, it should be unsurprising that some people have had different experiences with the game than you have. If your first step is to question their veracity, very little productive discussion will arise.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are misreading what I am saying.

"You're wrong about your experiences" is your own creation.

Nor did my request relate to other people's game experiences, except tangentially.

Perhaps you can understand why I might suspect that you have also misread other things, at other times?


RC

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid. It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...

Until 4e, it WAS always about damage. At first level, an 8 point hit from a long sword, is a sword through the belly. Only the hardiest of warriors survives that. At 10th level, the same 8 point hit, is only a scratch - the warrior is more skilled, and manages to - almost - turn the sword thrust away, it's merely a painful, but superficial wound - but it's still damage. This is why the 4e mechanics bother me. I can't help but visualize any hit point loss as physical damage, so, healing surges and martial healing powers ruin the entire game for me.