Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 6164692" data-attributes="member: 3987">Except D&amp;D has never modeled lasting injuries, even with slower hit point recovery, injuries never impair you. Thus hit points can't be modeling significant lasting injuries.That's been true of every version of D&amp;D, unless something like a Vorpal sword was involved in inflicting the injury.Agreed but it has never been so grave a wound as to cause any impairment. The worst the rules have ever effectively modeled is a scratch or bruise.&nbsp; The rules have never really supported the GM's descriptions of dire wounds, except when they actually lead to death.Considering hit point rules have never made no sense for modeling grave, impairing or lasting injuries, if anything previous editions where hit point damage remain for extensive periods of time unless cured by magic makes even less sense than the newer rule.I can see what you want and even agree with it, but logically it isn't justified by the rules of earlier editions, these rules make more sense, they just don't &quot;feel&quot; right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bagpuss, post: 6164692, member: 3987"] Except D&D has never modeled lasting injuries, even with slower hit point recovery, injuries never impair you. Thus hit points can't be modeling significant lasting injuries. That's been true of every version of D&D, unless something like a Vorpal sword was involved in inflicting the injury. Agreed but it has never been so grave a wound as to cause any impairment. The worst the rules have ever effectively modeled is a scratch or bruise. The rules have never really supported the GM's descriptions of dire wounds, except when they actually lead to death. Considering hit point rules have never made no sense for modeling grave, impairing or lasting injuries, if anything previous editions where hit point damage remain for extensive periods of time unless cured by magic makes even less sense than the newer rule. I can see what you want and even agree with it, but logically it isn't justified by the rules of earlier editions, these rules make more sense, they just don't "feel" right. [/QUOTE]

Verification