Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5756086" data-attributes="member: 3424">I think it's reflective of the &quot;intuitiveness&quot; issue that was raised earlier in the thread. In many cases, terminology was retained and it generally works, but in the (usually new) cases where it does not, it becomes non-intuitive and jarring.&quot;Healing&quot; is a good example. Prior to 4E, &quot;healing&quot; usually only occurs through time or magic. Hence, &quot;healing&quot; as a term works perfectly fine when the healer is a cleric, paladin, druid, shaman, bard or ardent. Supernatural forces are at work, and whatever wounds the target might have had close instantly. Exactly the same game effect (hit point recovery) occurs when a warlord uses inspiring word, or a character uses his second wind, or a character spends healing surges during a short rest. However, the use of the same term, &quot;healing&quot;, becomes jarring in these cases because the imagery that has historically been associated with &quot;healing&quot; - the immediate closure of physical wounds - can no longer apply. Hence, this can result in extra work for players who care about &quot;realism&quot; in this sense - a new in-game rationale has to be developed for how non-magical &quot;healing&quot; works (e.g. restoration of vigor or fighting spirit) and narration of hit point loss has to be more carefully monitored to ensure that it does not include the description of &quot;wounds&quot; that would impair the character in ways that could not be realistically reversed or mitigated by non-magical &quot;healing&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 5756086, member: 3424"] I think it's reflective of the "intuitiveness" issue that was raised earlier in the thread. In many cases, terminology was retained and it generally works, but in the (usually new) cases where it does not, it becomes non-intuitive and jarring. "Healing" is a good example. Prior to 4E, "healing" usually only occurs through time or magic. Hence, "healing" as a term works perfectly fine when the healer is a cleric, paladin, druid, shaman, bard or ardent. Supernatural forces are at work, and whatever wounds the target might have had close instantly. Exactly the same [I]game[/I] effect (hit point recovery) occurs when a warlord uses [I]inspiring word[/I], or a character uses his second wind, or a character spends healing surges during a short rest. However, the use of the same term, "healing", becomes jarring in these cases because the imagery that has historically been associated with "healing" - the immediate closure of physical wounds - can no longer apply. Hence, this can result in extra work for players who care about "realism" in this sense - a new in-game rationale has to be developed for how non-magical "healing" works (e.g. restoration of vigor or fighting spirit) and narration of hit point loss has to be more carefully monitored to ensure that it does not include the description of "wounds" that would impair the character in ways that could not be realistically reversed or mitigated by non-magical "healing". [/QUOTE]

Verification