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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5955511" data-attributes="member: 42582">At least in my case - that you quote - I wasn't talking about your system. I was replying to Crazy Jerome's suggestion that ability damage would make for a good wound system because it is not just another pool of points - and he agreed with me!Are you serious?I assume you've heard the phrase "His luck finally ran out". Do you interpret this as meaning that the man in question died from a luck deficiency? It's not in dispute that swords kill people. There is next to no disagreement between anyone that 0 hp means a potentially serious wound (the fortune-in-the-middle aspect of 4e healing is othogonal here - other editions have fortune-in-the-middle aspects too, like self-stabilisation and recovery in 3E, the odds are just lower). The disagreement is over what is happening in the fiction when a PC loses hp but does not drop to 0 or below.This doesn't make sense to me either. I run 4e, assuming fate/metagame/divine favour hp. What do you think my group envisages is happening in combat? Swords are beings swung, glancing blows struck, and occasionally - such as when the wizard was killed by the angel of battle's blades of vengeance - moral wounds are suffered.The fate interpretation of hp is not an add on to hp as a measure of being dead or alive. It's an interpretation of what is happening in the fiction when hit points are being whittled away but have not yet dropped to zero. That is what the differences in hit point interpretation are about.I mean "in the gameworld, that fictional sequence of events that the players of the game are jointly imagining". In the fiction, what is the difference - on your model - between losing fate, and losing hp but not being dropped to zero? Are hands being lopped off? Arteries severed? Minor grazes suffered? So why do we need a hp/fate point split to do this. You can do this with hit points, in B/X, AD&D, 3E, 4e etc.I mean, you're assuming people are happy to say that an arrow to the knee doesn't impede your physical mobility. So what is your objection if some groups also want to say that an inspriration speech from one's noble leader can actually let someone push on despite the tearing of soft tissue in the knee?In the absence of any tight fit between mechanic and narration, why do we need two pools of points. Or, to put it another way, how do you envisage someone narrating fate points lost to a hit from an arrow?But healing hp lets you fight on longer too. So why not just have the warlord heal hp?But then why bother with the two pools. No one (or almost no one) who like "hit points as meat" is going to use bardic psychic damage to fate. [MENTION=11300]Herremann the Wise[/MENTION] wants very liberal "fate" points, but his wound pool is going to behave like a traditional W/V system, not like your approach.Like a troll? Or does he just regen fate points? And if he only regens fate points, then how does he recover from unconsciousness?But then why does he swoon at all?Which means it's no longer a romance, but instead a procedural. I know this is sort-of the default D&D route, but at least since Dragonlance many people have been playing the game in a different way, and I don't see why the core mechanics need to be changed to push that alternative approach into the margins.I don't understand why you think that I (and CJ and others) are opposed to hp dials. Some of us - me, CJ, Hussar, at least - have been posting on these hp threads over the past weeks and months expressly advocating that hp needs to be flexible and able to sustain multiple approaches.If you're for a broad church on hit points - which you profess to be - I don't understand why you would insist that the fate interpretation is not a legitimate interpretation of the core rules. Why does the core mechanic have to express a definitive view at all? Why can't it say, for example, that different groups have different interpetations of what, in the fiction, is represented by hit point loss that doesn't reduce total hit points to zero (flesh wounds, dodging, fatigue, calling on skill, calling on luck/divine favour, etc)?My personal concern is simply to contend that inspirational healing and psychic damage are parts of the D&D tradition (ie 4e counts too) and that it is not an automatic disqualifier of a hp and healing system that it makes room for them. The most inclusive core mechanic is traditional D&D hp in a single pool - after all, that is what all these different interpretations have been using for years. Warlord healing and bardic psycic damage should be associated with those classes/monsters, which groups can then use in their game or not as they see fit (I don't use flumphs, nor bulettes, nor rust monsters, but it doesn't offend me that they're there in the MMs for others to use).The only place where the mechanics have to take a view that doesn't admit of flexible and varied interpretations is in relation to healing. And this clearly needs to be modular. I think nearly everyone agrees that healing should be proportional to total hp (ie that it's weird the Cure Light Wounds sometimes cures mortal wounds and sometimes barely heals a scratch). Beyond that point of uniformity, my own approach would be to have a natural healing rule that allows recovery of "healing values" at whatever rate the group sets (with some discussion of pacing implications of such a choice). 4e short and extended rests then become a complex variation on this - you can recover at a quick pace for a while, then have to slow down a bit.TL;DR  - there is nothing inclusive about a default interpretation of hp that excludes a fairly common reading of them for no mechanical benefit to anyone.</blockquote>

Verification