Long-Term Injury Fun?

Jeff Wilder said:
The part of this assertion that is bolded is untrue. D&D has had long-term injury in 1E, 2E, and -- if "days" is long-term enough -- 3E and 3.5. "Injury" is what was healing in the weeks or days needed to recover HP in the absence of magical healing. If it isn't injury that is "healing" (which is what that days or week-long recovery is called in the rules), then what is it?

I really don't understand why folks are so invested in continuing to incorrectly state the HP rules from earlier editions of D&D, but it really doesn't matter how often you incorrectly state them, or why you insist on ignoring the verbatim passages from the rules that KarinsDad has posted ... you remain incorrect.
They're not incorrectly stated. Sorry, but any injury that can be healed in a few days and neither inflicts absolutely any permanent effects nor imposes penalties on physical performance is *not* long-term injury. As you yourself said, in fact. (See the bolded part of your post.) It's not like I haven't read the hp flavor text from the 1e DMG umpteen times; it is correctly quoted both by KD *and* by those who disagree with him in the other thread.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oh, and here are the rules that KD correctly quoted in the other thread:
1st ed PHB said:
A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stand for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.
So, if this theory is to be followed, then damage taken once you drop below your 1st-level hp total should be debilitating long-term injury. (Long-term; you tell me that something that inflicts no performance penalties and heals up within a few days or even weeks with no aftereffects is long-term, I'll show you my g/f's broken ankle.) No D&D rules in any edition have ever involved such a set of effects.

Not disagreeing with that quote, or trying to re-argue the other thread for that point; I was responding to Celebrim's post. Let's get back on topic, please.
 

ruleslawyer said:
They're not incorrectly stated.
Sure they are.

Sorry, but any injury that can be healed in a few days and neither inflicts absolutely any permanent effects nor imposes penalties on physical performance is *not* long-term injury.
Sure it is, when it's the injury of a hero.

it is correctly quoted both by KD *and* by those who disagree with him in the other thread.
Yes, it is quoted correctly by KarinsDad, and it specifically talks about injury and wounds. When quoted by the incorrect people arguing against KarinsDad, they were very careful to bold the portions talking about the component of HP that is not physical, while conveniently overlooking the portions that discuss the physical component of HP.

Again, it's very puzzling. What's the motivation? We all agree on what 4E HPs represent ... so why is it so important (to those of you who continue to state the earlier edition rules incorrectly) to claim that HPs haven't changed? From everything we've read, they have, in fact, been quite deliberately changed.
 

ruleslawyer said:
So, if this theory is to be followed, then damage taken once you drop below your 1st-level hp total should be debilitating long-term injury.
Your insistence upon the bolded word (and concept) is what makes you wrong. In D&D, prior to 4E, most long-term injuries were not debilitating (except to the extent they meant it was more dangerous to get into combat). Why are you unable to accept that a sword-and-sorcery hero might have a long-term injury that isn't debilitating?

(Long-term; you tell me that something that inflicts no performance penalties and heals up within a few days or even weeks with no aftereffects is long-term, I'll show you my g/f's broken ankle.)
Okay, but first please demonstrate your GF's ability to slay a dragon in melee combat.

No D&D rules in any edition have ever involved such a set of effects.
Every edition prior to 4E has done so. It's called "HPs." A significant loss of HPs was an injury that required days or weeks of "healing."

Let's get back on topic, please.
No problem. Stop incorrectly stating the older edition rules, and I'll happily stop pointing out that you're doing so.
 

We're back at this again, are we?

Look, I'm on the side that believes that there's nothing wrong with the 4E version of HP, and I agree that every edition has suggested this model as a possible interpretation of HP.

However, it doesn't change the fact that KarensDad & Jeff Wilder are right that previous editons suggested the possibility of long term injury as evidenced by how long it bloody took to get your HP back. You were "Healing" just like the word used to describe "a gain in HP".

Now, said "long term injuries" had no appreciable effect on your character, apart from making them less able to defend themselves against certain death in combat. They could run the Boston Marathon, as long as they didn't trip and skin their knee. Then they'd die.

The trouble with this whole argument is that both sides seem to think that the way they view HP is the only way to view HP that has any realism (whatever that is.) Or in the very least that one is superior to the other.

The only "change" 4e has made to HP is to pick one way (a way in which you could play every edition, as I have) and make it their model of choice. They didn't "change" the way HP have always been played by EVERYONE, they chose one that some people didn't play.

Some people prefer to have their characters have wounds that take a while to heal and don't otherwise get the character down because of their heroic nature.

Others prefer to suggest that the heroic nature of the characters allow them to roll with hits well enough to turn deadly wounds into minor inconveniences that could easily heal in a night's rest.

Both are valid ways of interpreting the abstract nature of HP up to 3.5.
The second one is the only one that works well for 4E. (Unless the first group are willing to accept the concept of being wounded while at full HP, which I doubt, or if there is something else in the 4E rules that we don't know about, which I also doubt.)

That's all I have to say on this subject.

Fitz
 

FitzTheRuke said:
Both are valid ways of interpreting the abstract nature of HP up to 3.5.
In order for both to be valid, Fitz, the view that HP don't represent injury has to answer this:

"If not injury, what was healing -- that's an actual game-rules term -- in the days or weeks a hero had to wait, in the absence of healing magic, for his HPs to return?"

The "no injury" folks cannot answer this ... several have simply admitted as much. (Bafflingly, without it shaking their certainty in the least.) But that question must be adequately answered in order to discount long-term injury from the definition of pre-4E HPs, especially in light of the rules quotes specifically talking about HPs reflecting physical damage.

You know I appreciate your open-mindedness on this ... so can you answer that question?
 

Jeff Wilder said:
In order for both to be valid, Fitz, the view that HP don't represent injury has to answer this:

"If not injury, what was healing -- that's an actual game-rules term -- in the days or weeks a hero had to wait, in the absence of healing magic, for his HPs to return?"

The "no injury" folks cannot answer this ... several have simply admitted as much. (Bafflingly, without it shaking their certainty in the least.) But that question must be adequately answered in order to discount long-term injury from the definition of pre-4E HPs, especially in light of the rules quotes specifically talking about HPs reflecting physical damage.

Jeff, can you ever stop beating this dead horse?

Inconsistencies in the old system:

High level fighter taking twenty times the number of blows as a low level wizard, or whatever you want.

If part of it is skill/lesser wounds: magical healing. Why does a scratch at higher levels (since 8 HP is a scratch at high levels) take so much more healing to cure, as opposed to that gaping gut wound at level 1?

You can call HP "luck of the gods" and that explain the magical healing disconnect, but you could also do the same thing for 4E... I mean, if we want to use "magical" explanations, either camp can be explained.

Also: there's nothing wrong with one's view of HP changing between editions to better match mechanics.

Ultimately, I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult people who view HP differently than you (i.e. with your baffling comment.) At least, rather: I'm aware the "skill/dodge" model doesn't work completely, but then again, neither did the old "flesh and blood" model. You take a mix of the two, and occassionally accept some glitches.
 

Celebrim said:
Well, as far as that goes, I'm going to go with the Alex Ross/old school take that being a hero is more about being morally heroic than it is about being good at beating people up and capable of avenging insults against you.
I tend to use the "Higglytown Heroes" definition, which seems to boil down to: someone who has special skills, and uses them to help others. In my view, it is easier to achieve than the Alex Ross definition you mentioned (but does not rule it out), while still being able to prevent the game from becoming a "kill, loot, level up, rinse, repeat" treasure hunting or mercenary campaign.

Pretending to be, playing at being, and fantasizing about being a hero who is merely good at killing things and not moreover morally heroic is about the saddest, vainest, and least productive pursuit I can imagine. It is a certain amount of onanistic behavior. The phrase stroking ones ego comes to mind. If that is all we are doing, then we really are the pathetic losers popular culture makes us out to be.
While most of this is probably true, I don't see what this has to do with us, or with roleplaying. You don't need dice or rulebooks to do it. In fact, the dice and rulebooks sometimes get in the way because you can roll low, or the rules impose restrictions on what you can imagine yourself doing.

If we aren't actually tackling serious questions, creating worthwhile stories, learning history, math, cartography and anything else we can, improving social skills otherwise latent in typical nerds, and otherwise being productive, then we are greatly overindulging a childish pasttime and need to find something else to do with ourselves.
Well, I don't know about tackling serious questions, learning history and cartography, and improving social skills, but it looks like 4e will still support math, creative thinking, imagination and tactical decision-making, even if it does not support long-term injury or being crippled.

I'm reminded of the X-Files episode where they say they 'didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage'. That's either pathetic or wise, I've never been certain which. Maybe it's both. Sometimes irony can work on several levels. Let's just say that I would certainly hope that you couldn't play Dungeons and Dragons and not know what a hero was, even if you manifestly weren't one.
I'm not a big fan of the X-Files, so I don't feel the need to regard everything said by the scriptwriters as wisdom handed down from on high. I do think that you can learn about courage from D&D, but there's nothing in the game that requires you to learn about courage or heroism. It all depends on the DM, and based on the stories that I hear, the problem with some DMs is not so much that thay don't teach what heroism is, but that they teach that heroism is stupid at best, and suicidal at worst.

I'm not normally one to come down on the side of 'narrativism', but sheesh, if you are above the age of 15, either do something interesting with your game or go play something like Chess or Counterstrike. Spend your skill points on something for crying out loud.
I agree that you should go do something else if you don't find your game interesting. I would also like to point out that "interesting" should be based on your point of view, and not anyone else's. ;)
 

Pale Jackal said:
Jeff, can you ever stop beating this dead horse?
Not so long as some folks keep trying to mount it and have it carry them somewhere.

If part of it is skill/lesser wounds: magical healing. Why does a scratch at higher levels (since 8 HP is a scratch at high levels) take so much more healing to cure, as opposed to that gaping gut wound at level 1?
Because it's an abstraction. Because cure spells are really messed up, mechanically. (4E, in fact, fixed the cure spell analog.)

You can call HP "luck of the gods" and that explain the magical healing disconnect, but you could also do the same thing for 4E... I mean, if we want to use "magical" explanations, either camp can be explained.
See, this is odd. You (and many others) seem to think that because I recognize that 4E HPs are different, I have a problem with how HPs work in 4E. I don't.

You take a mix of the two, and occassionally accept some glitches.
I have never argued for anything but a mix of factors in earlier edition HPs. Nor has KarinsDad. Nor has either of us ever claimed there weren't bizarre artefacts of the system(s).

Apparently, you and I agree on how pre-4E HPs work. I'm not sure why you think we disagree.

Ultimately, I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult people who view HP differently than you (i.e. with your baffling comment.)
I sincerely mean no offense, but not even on EN World am I going to accept someone dictating to me how I can and can't feel about something. If you find it insulting that I'm baffled by something, well, I'm also baffled by that. And now we're risking an infinite loop.
 
Last edited:

I realized as I typed my reply that I was probably unnecessarily taking offense and that we did agree. But I'd typed it, so oh well.

Ultimately, I suppose my point is: if 4E is glitched, so was 3E, preferring one over the other doesn't make one a dumb butt.
 

Remove ads

Top