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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5698094" data-attributes="member: 59082">Wow, this thread got out of hand (in terms of size). I can't possibly take the hour or two to read through every post, but I tried to skim through. Forgive me if I'm repeating a view already expressed.The idea that Hit Points represent the capacity to withstand physical damage is, quite frankly, erroneous. It just doesn't make sense--the curve in every edition is too great (4E is a bit better because of higher starting HP, but still). In pretty much every edition, the designers have clearly stated that HP is *not* only the capacity to withstand physical damage, that it is a combination of factors including skill, endurance, vitality, etc. Healing surges are based upon that assumption, and therefore make sense in the context of the rules as they are written. The only way they don't make sense and are "videogamey" is if HP represent physical damage capacity only, and the only way that HP represent physical damage capacity only is if a given DM and group decide to change the rules, or at least interpret it in a way that the rules were not intended. There is nothing wrong with that, but you end up in a pick-up-sticks situation: move one stick and everything else is impacted (or, in this case, doesn't make sense). Yes, if HP are physical damage capacity only, then healing surges don't make sense and/or are videogamey, but then also high HP totals don't make sense either, so I would suggest a reduction of HP altogether with some kind of size multiplier.But the problem with this interpretation is that it is essentially a kind of category error, like saying "Mozart is crappy heavy metal." Mozart isn't heavy metal, wasn't intended to be heavy metal. Everyone has the right to categorize Mozart as he or she chooses, and certainly if one thinks of Mozart as heavy metal than his music will be rather crappy, but it is taking interpretation a bit far. Of course that is a bit extreme, but its the same general idea. [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm sorry that you were offended by my suggestions 1E and 2E were imperfect games, but I am not interested in the semantic game of "You're putting forth your personal opinion as if it is fact." That must be the most out-worn, over-used debate on the internet. Not interested in rehashing that for the umpteenth time.[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION] - First of all, I haven't been participating on EN World much over the last couple months, except the last week or so. But admittedly, yes, I like controversial topics. They tend to be interesting. I didn't start this to get people riled up; I was honestly curious as to why people don't like healing surges. I'm getting the sense that the dislike is largely based upon an idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules which leads to the category error I described above.Now there are other reasons that some have stated for disliking healing surges that, imo, have more validity (because they don't "liberally interpret" HP)--for example, the fact that they contribute to the The Grind. That makes sense to me. But again, not liking healing surges because one interprets HP as physical damage capacity only is based upon an interpretation of the rules that isn't how the rules were written or intended.</blockquote>

Verification