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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5809327" data-attributes="member: 2011">Not to get heavily into this discussion, which has been repeatedly hashed on many other threads, but 4E hit points are not about physical wounds at all until a PC dies. It's all luck, stamina, etc.A 4E PC can go from full hit points to a low number of them, heal himself up in a short rest without any magic, and he can do this over and over again until he runs out of healing surges. He can then take an extended rest and regain any remaining used hit points and regain the healing surges. He's not really wounded at all. He's merely exhausted. He never actually got hit for physical damage, he just got tired (or unlucky, or whatever).He falls off a 200 foot cliff, and he's just fatigued.The only time the PC is actually physically wounded is when he dies. He might die if he falls unconscious, but the game is set up so that this rarely happens (due to there being other PCs in a party). Even negative hit points are not a guarantee of any physical wounds.Gary's hit points did not limit hit points to physical wounds, but physical wounds were part of his system. Hit points required magic or a lengthy rest to recover.4E removed physical wounds from hit points completely. Hit points in 4E are some type of stamina point or stun point. They no longer represent physical damage at all unless the PC dies. That's the Pandora's Box. This is a factor that does bother many players of earlier editions and in order to get players of earlier editions and players of 4E comfortable, some type of middle ground needs to be found where physical damage does become part of the system again.I suspect that if the 5E designers go back to hit points as they were run in earlier editions, that will bother many of the current 4E players. Since the idea of 5E is to bring players of many different versions of the game back together, a compromise is probably required.</blockquote>

Verification