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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercutio01" data-source="post: 5957905" data-attributes="member: 37277">Like I said in my XP comment, that's an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. Where that differs from what 4E did is what Minigiant pointed out. The FitM nature of hit points resolved during the same action/turn that they were interacted with. Each loss of hit points was narrated to a completion immediately after the Fortune determined what happened to them - regardless of their status as either meat or fate.I think 4E threw open the door some, and pushed out the resolution of what happens to those hit points to other actions/turns in the encounter (and even beyond, in the case of overnight healing). What each loss of hit points mean (meat/fate) is not resolved at the time they are lost, but rather when they are interacted with again later in the encounter. Take the Warlord's inspirational healing, for example. There is a loss of hit points, and what those hit points represent are "in the middle" until they are interacted with again by the inspirational healing. That leads either to, as I noted, simply not narrating what the loss of hit points represents until after the healing, or to retconning or otherwise glossing over the initial narration.Something related but not directly that occurred to me is that Ron Edwards was calling the typical D&D resolution as fortune at the end, but that doesn't take into account damage. In 3E and prior, the missed attack role is fortune at the end. A hit would be fortune in the middle because the damage roll, to some extent, changes the results of the successful attack. 4E pushed the missed attack into the middle because some of them also did damage on a miss.</blockquote>

Verification