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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4555521" data-attributes="member: 11300">Sorry to belabour the point but I think it has been generally accepted in previous editions that if a character gets "hit" into the negatives, it has been a physical injury that has done it. 4E clouds the definition of hit points but examples given in the 4E book use physical damage (otyugh slam) and continually express characters taking damage. As I said, it is fair enough conclusion still that it is physical damage that has forced a character into the negatives the majority of the time. As such is it just a problem of narration?I disagree. The rules guide you down the physical injury path as I showed above, but as you say, it is up to the player's and DM to narrate around this to avoid quantum wounding.From how I'm reading my 4E rules, the problem is caused by how the rules are explicitly and implicitly presented mixed with how groups have typically played in previous editions. You can either tepidly narrate against it or you can just use the neutral "you take x points of damage" and leave it at that; or you can describe the wound that has knocked a character unconscious and describe the character getting back up to unhindered health the next day (which bothers some) and introduces the Schroedinger's wounding conundrum. In the great scheme of things as Hypersmurf points out, it's most probably not that bigger issue. However for me, hit points and healing are most likely the biggest issue I have with 4E. I've never been satisfied with any treatment of hit points yet in D&D, but it certainly has not stopped me from enjoying D&D either - 4E included.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification