Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6069273" data-attributes="member: 22424">This is largely how I view it. When a character takes damage, even if it is only a single hit point, that character has suffered some amount of 'real' damage - even if it's only a scratch. However...This isn't how I view it.IMC, losing a greater number of hit points does not imply that you're more seriously wounded, whether that's in absolute terms or as a percentage of the whole.(The exception to this is if an attack kills a character outright, in which case you can go to town on the graphic descriptions - since only very powerful magic can bring them back, it doesn't matter if they were impaled, beheaded, pulped, or whatever.)So those 2-3 hit points on the Wizard probably is not a deep cut, and nor is the 50-75 hit points on the Fighter. In both cases, it's just some measure of damage - and at worst, a wound that will heal by itself if left untended.Yes, there is a problem with the healing rules in pre-4e versions of the game. Ideally, each character should have a calculated &quot;healing value&quot; that stands at some percentage of their total hit points, and whenever they receive healing they then gain a number of hit points calculated from that &quot;healing value&quot;. Thus, if the Fighter has 100 hit points and the Wizard 20, a cure light wounds might restore 25 points of damage to the Fighter and 5 to the Wizard.Basically, that's part of the &quot;Healing Surge&quot; notion from 4e. And not one I really have a problem with - I didn't like the Surges themselves, but the notion of a &quot;Surge Value&quot; wasn't a bad one.(There is, however, a problem with this at low levels - suddenly the 1st level Cleric can no longer provide the 1st level Fighter with an almost-complete heal with a single CLW. That has a significant impact on how many encounters the party can get through in a day, which may well be undesirable.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6069273, member: 22424"] This is largely how I view it. When a character takes damage, even if it is only a single hit point, that character has suffered [i]some amount[/i] of 'real' damage - even if it's only a scratch. However... This isn't how I view it. IMC, losing a greater number of hit points does [i]not[/i] imply that you're more seriously wounded, whether that's in absolute terms or as a percentage of the whole. (The exception to this is if an attack kills a character [i]outright[/i], in which case you can go to town on the graphic descriptions - since only very powerful magic can bring them back, it doesn't matter if they were impaled, beheaded, pulped, or whatever.) So those 2-3 hit points on the Wizard probably [i]is not[/i] a deep cut, and nor is the 50-75 hit points on the Fighter. In both cases, it's just some measure of damage - and at worst, a wound that [i]will heal by itself if left untended[/i]. Yes, there is a problem with the healing rules in pre-4e versions of the game. Ideally, each character should have a calculated "healing value" that stands at some percentage of their total hit points, and whenever they receive healing they then gain a number of hit points calculated from that "healing value". Thus, if the Fighter has 100 hit points and the Wizard 20, a [i]cure light wounds[/i] might restore 25 points of damage to the Fighter and 5 to the Wizard. Basically, that's part of the "Healing Surge" notion from 4e. And not one I really have a problem with - I didn't like the Surges themselves, but the notion of a "Surge Value" wasn't a bad one. (There is, however, a problem with this at low levels - suddenly the 1st level Cleric can no longer provide the 1st level Fighter with an almost-complete heal with a single CLW. That has a significant impact on how many encounters the party can get through in a day, which may well be undesirable.) [/QUOTE]

Verification