Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[dnddays]

So. You couldn't have X, and therefore you said X was bad. And you assume that those who don't like 4e cannot have 4e, and therefore think 4e is bad.

Oooooookkkkkkakaaaayyyyyyyy.

Or, maybe this is like the Playstation 2 for you all over again, and you've discovered that 4e is a Dreamcast that you'd like us to believe is better than it is?



Keep telling youself that.



RC

I have and have played all of the D&D systems, so I don't need to convince myself of anything about D&D. I know it's better. You sound like the one who has to find something to nitpick to justify not playing under a new system.

 

[Lacyon]

Likewise, "There has always been an unrealistic element to healing/damage" doesn't mean it's a good idea to crank that element up to 11.

As long as we're willing to acknowledge that all 4E does is crank the dial up (and doesn't, in fact, use a totally different dial, with a different meaning attached), I'm pretty sure we almost totally agree .

(Turning it up to 11 is going to be better for some than others - and with practice, you can adjust the dial on any edition).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Probably not. But maybe he should at some point just say: "You know, I don't want that new edition with the 2d20 damage longswords. I have understood what the designers are attempting with this, but I still don't like their goals. I just have to do something else."
There is no need to open a new thread
"Longswords still deal 2d20. I still don't like it."
"Longswords should deal 1d6, but they deal 2d20. Explain this to me again."
"I think Longswords deal too much damage. That is terribly bad and this is no longer the type of game I want to play."

Agreed, but then I am not opening these threads. If there was a thread for folks to discuss "Longswords deal 2d20. I don't like it." without folks coming in to tell them that (a) longswords don't deal 2d20, (b) longswords always dealt 2d20, (c) they are fooling themselves; longswords should deal 2d20, and even (d) they really like longswords dealing 2d20; they just don't know it yet, I suppose there would be less of a problem.

Of course, I have noted that, with Schroedinger's Wounding, a number of threads have opened with no apparent purpose but to say that those who believe it is a feature of 4e are kinda stupid.

Overall, I guess what I am saying is that (1) there is a thread ignore tool on EN World, and (2) if you don't enjoy discussing moonpies, don't discuss moonpies. Again, have you seen me disrupting any pro-4e discussions since the game came out? Any? There is a reason for that.

I will also note that there are some great pro-4e folks who are, apparently, not at all threatened that some don't like their game of choice, and don't go around disrupting anti-4e discussions. Or maybe they are just really smart, and know that the fastest way to make anti-anything threads go away is to not post pro-same thing in them.

Oh, also you missed my point: "X has always had problem Y, Z just makes it worse" is not a very convincing pro-Z argument. Making Y worse isn't good game design, and if you had problem Y when it was less of a problem, Z is unlikely to fix it for you.


RC

 

[catsclaw227]

You don't die from a lack of will.

Try telling that to my Mom. Her mother was most assuredly healthy when her husband of 61 years died. She passed on 4 days later.

Some people simply don't want to play a game where they have to force themselves not to think in order to ignore all the holes the games has.

I suppose this is where our gaming groups differ. We think that this whole "Schroedinger's Wounding" thing is creating holes where none need exist.

Last night, I asked this of a tenured physics professor I know who enjoys some fantasy literature but has never played an RPG in her life. She paused and asked again with a straight face, "Now, you are talking about a fantasy game, right? How is a Schroedinger's effect even a legitimate conversation?"

I tried to explain things deeper, and it all kept going back to that fundamental question. After a bit, she smiled and said that I am taking my games more seriously than some of her colleagues take their work.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As long as we're willing to acknowledge that all 4E does is crank the dial up (and doesn't, in fact, use a totally different dial, with a different meaning attached), I'm pretty sure we almost totally agree .

Well, we don't agree on this. I was using an analogy.

OTOH, it probably doesn't matter that we don't agree. Except, perhaps, to WotC, because if I am right, they can claim their paradigm isn't derived from the SRD.


RC

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

So, what am I ignoring?
1. Someone got hit by 12 damage and goes down and is dying(I haven't said that this is the only hit he took)
2. Because this guy can recover by his own, can be shouted into action or can actually be healed by magic the nature of the hit he took can't be specified at this point.
3. Only after the the character got healed can you say how he was wounded based on the method of how he was healed. (But I wanted to use the sentence "can neither confirm nor deny" as joke).

Linking together "hit point damage" and "physical injury" as an automatic assumption is something that I can understand. It's fairly obvious and consistent with D&D throughout the editions.

However, linking together "regaining hit points" and "injuries disappearing" is an assumption that D&D players in this thread are making - it is not something that is in the rules. It doesn't matter if this assumption is referred to over and over again - it is not in the RAW, nor the RAI.

Therefore - when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word, all they are doing is the mechanical "regaining hit points" effect, not the "making injuries disappear" effect that is being added on. And as such, when a Warlord uses Inspiring Word they are helping a character continue with the fight, not fixing physical injuries.

As such, Schrodinger's Wounding disappears in a puff of logic.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

It's an issue if you assume that a decrease in hit points of X, followed by an increase in hit points of X, returns the character to the identical cinematic state he was in prior to the two events.

*snip*

But if you don't require an increase in hit points to cinematically reverse exactly the effects of the decrease in hit points, Quantum Wounding doesn't occur. If 6 damage can be a slice in the ribs, but then 6 points of healing can represent a reinvigoration of fighting effort? Then after the cycle, you are not returned to an identical cinematic state (you still have a slice in your ribs, but it's not impairing you); thus it's not necessary for you to know the form of the healing before cementing the form of the damage.

It's only when you assume that healing reverses not only the hit point loss, but exactly reverses the cinematic description of the effect of the hit point loss, that Quantum Wounding rears up.

So I don't make that assumption, and it's not a problem.

This is pretty much exactly what I was saying in the above post. Quantum Wounding is a problem created by a choice of the people sat round the table in the way in which they choose to narrate damage. It is not a function of the 4e rules.

 

[dnddays]

Me too.



Let's say Bob thought that 1d8 is too much damage for a longsword. Would it then make sense for Bob to promote an edition where longsword damage is 2d20?

Likewise, "There has always been an unrealistic element to healing/damage" doesn't mean it's a good idea to crank that element up to 11.


RC

In 4e hit points aren't about damage as much as about how long you can keep fighting in general.

From the 4e PH: "Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

So, healing surge is a misnomer; you're putting too much focus on the word healing and not enough or the word surge. Healing surges aren't closing your wounds; they give you a second wind.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Before 4E was released, I created a 3.5E Warlord class based on what was said of the 4E Warlord. I basically cobbled together class features of the Dragon Disciple, Marshall, and Crusader, and ramped up the healing a bit. The guy could heal as well as any 3E Cleric(if not better outside of combat), and we actually used the Warlord as our primary healer for the campaign(we also had a Shugenja).

The thing is, when describing what this Warlord does to people raised on 3E's magical healing assumptions, I described the Warlord's "Inspirational" healing as granting temporary HP that never go away, and instead work just like your "real" hp.

I find that description suffiencient to justify a 3E Warlord, and it applies just as well to 4E.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As such, Schrodinger's Wounding disappears in a puff of logic.

Leaving a worse problem in its wake........The characters are at full power the next day, and never need worry about wounds that now exist (narratively) and do not exist (mechanically).


RC