Healing

[Nightchilde-2]

While comparisons between game systems are not fool-proof, 4E is not the first system to use the idea of 'healing surges'. I know Earthdawn did, and they handled the 'healing potion' situation in both ways, actually.

And all things Earthdawn are awesome, of course.

 

[Grog]

"Taking a while to heal" is, at the very least, more representative of a grievous injury.

Again, any injury that does not impede your ability to fight or perform other extremely physically demanding tasks one bit is not a grievous injury.

D&D doesn't do grievous injuries (or "significant" injuries or whatever you want to call them). It never has. If you want that, you need to either house rule or find another game system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And all things Earthdawn are awesome, of course.

After the (Iron?)Heroization of D&D, we also have the Earthdawnisation of D&D!
I hope there will be a cyberware supplement, I'd like some Shadowrunization, too...

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Again, any injury that does not impede your ability to fight or perform other extremely physically demanding tasks one bit is not a grievous injury.

Sure it is. It's an abstract grievous injury, but HPs have always been abstract. Are you suggesting that having, say, only 20 HP instead of your full 70 HP is not "imped[ing] your ability to fight"?

D&D doesn't do grievous injuries (or "significant" injuries or whatever you want to call them). It never has.

Until 4E, D&D has always had significant injuries. You could tell an injury was significant because, in the absence of magical healing, it would take days to heal. (In early editions, sometimes weeks.) That's a significant injury, whether the abstraction includes combat penalties (aside from "it takes much less damage to kill you") or not.

4E no longer has that, so far as we are aware yet. In 4E, after six hours you are completely fine. Full stop. Why not just have clones, Paranoia-style? Or "lives" or "men," Donkey Kong style?

Now, I'm expecting (mostly) that there's something in the rules to model significant injuries, however abstractly. I think it would be amazingly stupid if there isn't. So I'm hopeful. On the other hand, "amazingly stupid" is a pretty fair description of the movement rules, so who knows?

 

[Kordeth]

4E no longer has that, so far as we are aware yet. In 4E, after six hours you are completely fine. Full stop. Why not just have clones, Paranoia-style? Or "lives" or "men," Donkey Kong style?

Now, I'm expecting (mostly) that there's something in the rules to model significant injuries, however abstractly. I think it would be amazingly stupid if there isn't. So I'm hopeful. On the other hand, "amazingly stupid" is a pretty fair description of the movement rules, so who knows?

Cross-posting this from the Camping thread because it appears to be equally relevant here:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest people look at it from a different angle. If we can accept, as I think we all can, that hit point damage does not necessarily equate to the presence of stab wounds, contusions, and other direct physical injuries, why must we assume that being at full hit points equates to being free of those injuries?

Consider the finest heroic action movie of the last 25 years, Die Hard. John McClane gets the ever-loving crap beaten out of him on several occasions, and yet he always manages to shake it off and get back into the fight. In 4E terms, he takes a "short rest," blows a few healing surges, and gets himself back up to full hit points. He's still battered all to hell and back, still suffering from cracked ribs, slashed-up feet, concussions and God knows what else, but he's such a big damn hero (and now I'm mixing metaphors) that he just refuses to let those injuries slow him down.

So yeah, that's my take on it. Heroes don't heal preternaturally fast in the D&D world. If your ranger gets knocked to 0 hp by an ogre's club that the DM describes as cracking his collarbone, your ranger still has that cracked collarbone, and it's going to take some months to properly heal. He's going to be carrying that injury for the rest of the adventure--it's there, and it hurts, and he probably really wants a good long recuperative period. But he's a hero, and that Cult of Gortholgax the Ravager isn't going to root itself out, so he mans up, soldiers on, and refuses to let that injury slow him down. Mechanically, he's at full hit points and in full fighting trim, but within the physics of the gameworld he's battered and busted up and running on pure guts.

(Obviously magical healing doesn't enter in to this--a paladin's lay on hands is magic, it can heal that broken bone in seconds--but as far as innate healing surges or healing from a martial leader, restoring hp doesn't mean wiping away actual, physical injury.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

f we can accept, as I think we all can, that hit point damage does not necessarily equate to the presence of stab wounds, contusions, and other direct physical injuries, why must we assume that being at full hit points equates to being free of those injuries?

This is kind of a tangent, but I'm curious.

If your DM describes a character (I'm not saying whether PC or NPC) as "severely bruised, limping from cuts on his feet, taking shallow breaths as if from cracked ribs, and covered in blood from myriad scratches and abrasions" ...

(1) Do you, the player, make any judgments as to whether the character in question is at full capability in a fight?

(2) Does your character?

(3) Does it matter whether the DM is describing a PC or an NPC?

(4) Does it matter which edition of D&D?

 

[Kordeth]

This is kind of a tangent, but I'm curious.

If your DM describes a character (I'm not saying whether PC or NPC) as "severely bruised, limping from cuts on his feet, taking shallow breaths as if from cracked ribs, and covered in blood from myriad scratches and abrasions" ...

(1) Do you, the player, make any judgments as to whether the character in question is at full capability in a fight?

(2) Does your character?

(3) Does it matter whether the DM is describing a PC or an NPC?

(4) Does it matter which edition of D&D?

If that was the only description I got, I'd assume the guy was pretty messed up, and so would my character. If, on the other hand, the description was more like "severely bruised, limping from cuts on his feet, taking shallow breaths as if from cracked ribs, and covered in blood from myriad scratches and abrasions--but there's a glint of steely determination in his eyes as he hefts his sword, grimacing with pain but holding the blade rock-steady," I'd probably think "okay--this is not a guy to screw around with."

As for PC vs. NPC, no, it doesn't matter, but my character's past experience with the character certainly would. I'm far more likely to assume my hated foe Lord Ecthroi of the Bloodied Sword is going to be capable of fighting on despite grievous wounds than "Roger the Tubercular Peasant."

 

[Jhulae]

And all things Earthdawn are awesome, of course.

Damn skippy! I love Earthdawn.

 

[The Little Raven]

On the other hand, "amazingly stupid" is a pretty fair description of the movement rules, so who knows?

Yeah, a fair description of 3.X's movement rules, where movement was penalized while ranged attacks were not, despite the fact that it was supposed to represent diagonals being greater distance (apparently, Euclidean geometry only applies to characters, but not projectiles).

"That guy is 30 feet away... or 20 feet, as the arrow flies."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"That guy is 30 feet away... or 20 feet, as the arrow flies."

Whu -- ? Uh, I think you've got a misunderstanding of how distance is counted in 3E and 3.5. Barring things like difficult terrain, a spot that is 30 feet away for movement is 30 feet away for ranged attacks. Diagonals or no.