Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5842562" data-attributes="member: 70707">If &quot;damage&quot; is shorthand for &quot;loss of HP&quot;, and doesn't necessarily mean &quot;receiving physical wounds&quot;, then why shouldn't &quot;healing&quot; be shorthand for &quot;gain of HP&quot;, and not necessarily mean &quot;removing physical wounds&quot;?What word should be used for recovering the component of HP that is not actual wounding?&nbsp; Why is it sufficient to have one word for the loss of HP (covering both wounds, and other factors), but we need two (or more) for the gain of HP?&nbsp; If we get a Warlord in 5E that can &quot;restore&quot; partymates' HP, but not &quot;heal&quot; them, is that OK?I can see the issue with the PC being good-as-new from being shouted at, but being able to get up and act again makes plenty of sense to me.&nbsp; Someone hearing the inspiring call of their allies as they flit in and out of consciousness on the ground, and being rallied by it, is highly evocative.&nbsp; The only issue is that getting dropped to zero is a pretty clear indication that at least some actual wounding occurred, which can be hard to justify being simply removed.&nbsp; But being able to, through grit and force of will, overcome that wounding, and acting again, perhaps at a limited capacity?&nbsp; I don't see why magic should be required for that.What did you think of my Wounds suggestion?&nbsp; If 5E had something like that, and Warlords could heal HP, but not Wounds, whereas Clerics could heal Wounds (and HP) with magic, would that fit your expectations for verisimilitude?&nbsp; What if Warlords had &quot;mind over matter&quot; style abilities that enabled partymates to ignore Wound penalties for a period of time?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5842562, member: 70707"] If "damage" is shorthand for "loss of HP", and doesn't necessarily mean "receiving physical wounds", then why shouldn't "healing" be shorthand for "gain of HP", and not necessarily mean "removing physical wounds"? What word should be used for recovering the component of HP that is not actual wounding? Why is it sufficient to have one word for the loss of HP (covering both wounds, and other factors), but we need two (or more) for the gain of HP? If we get a Warlord in 5E that can "restore" partymates' HP, but not "heal" them, is that OK? I can see the issue with the PC being good-as-new from being shouted at, but being able to get up and act again makes plenty of sense to me. Someone hearing the inspiring call of their allies as they flit in and out of consciousness on the ground, and being rallied by it, is highly evocative. The only issue is that getting dropped to zero is a pretty clear indication that at least [i]some[/i] actual wounding occurred, which can be hard to justify being simply removed. But being able to, through grit and force of will, overcome that wounding, and acting again, perhaps at a limited capacity? I don't see why magic should be required for that. What did you think of my Wounds suggestion? If 5E had something like that, and Warlords could heal HP, but not Wounds, whereas Clerics could heal Wounds (and HP) with magic, would that fit your expectations for verisimilitude? What if Warlords had "mind over matter" style abilities that enabled partymates to ignore Wound penalties for a period of time? [/QUOTE]

Verification