Gain vs Receive Temporary Hit Points

[ST]

Heh, I can relate to the disgust. It feels like most of the funky interpretations of 4e stem out of stuff like this. Interpreting synonyms to mean different things, or trying to leverage whether an attack roll is the same thing as an attack, etc. Reading the rules like they're a legal contract just doesn't lead to pretty results, especially since a "common sense" reading is 99% of the time what the designers were going for. 4e ruleslawyering isn't number-crunching; it's arguing about what the precise definition of "is" is.

I don't think the OP was doing that (I think it was a simple misunderstanding of the rules) but I understand why people were a bit icked by it.

 

[Terwox]

My understanding of temporary hitpoints is this:

• You gain/receive X temporary hitpoints.
  • If you currently have more than X temporary hitpoints, nothing happens.
  • Else, you now have X temporary hitpoints.

Agreed.

 

[Xorn]

I'm probably being an old sourpuss at this point, because this forum has really shifted gears from when DDXP and the rules scavenging and speculation was going on. It was actually pretty fun, and mostly constructive.

Feels like most of the threads are about reading around the rules (or reading everything after the commas, instead of the whole sentence) or other threads that just seem completely ridiculous to me. But EnWorld does not cater just to me, so I'm not suggesting those threads don't have the right to be here.

But I really hope this is just a phase with the new edition, and it will pass. (And mostly, I think it is.)

 

[moticon]

Geez...

first, I'm not trying to work the system. Apologies if it seemed that way. I prefer a balanced game that's not broken when I play.

Having said that, sometimes different words are used on purpose, even if they have close meanings so when it's not clear I don't think people should be piling on if someone asks a question.

Thanks for the input.

moticon

 

[Skyscraper]

... (or reading everything after the commas, instead of the whole sentence) ...

So... did you mean "i after i" in which case you are being self-centered? Or should we ignore the word "after" entirely?

The argument in favor of a typo in the code is unsupported by RAW.

Sky

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having said that, sometimes different words are used on purpose, even if they have close meanings so when it's not clear I don't think people should be piling on if someone asks a question.

If a word isn't given a precise mechanical definition, you can probably get away with interpreting synonyms the same way, rather than assuming they're meant to have distinct mechanical meanings that the designer has left undefined.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Wonder if moticon will ever post here again. I think we need to cut people a little slack sometimes.

On Topic: I agree with the answers about temporary hitpoints already given.