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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6324454" data-attributes="member: 6698278">This is a pretty good definition for your viewpoint.  I admit when it's not my viewpoint I have a hard time explaining it clearly.  I see the superior defensive fighting ability coming back with the healing of the wound.  In my own perspective, I do see every hit as a hit and at MINIMUM it is a cut or scratch.  I don't think though a 100 hit point fighter who is now at 20 is just scratched.  I believe he could be stabbed.  He could have a gash on his head and blood be running into his eyes.   I tend as hit points go down to narrate the damage more severely.  0 hit points is when you stop fighting and go down.  In my heroic conception of the game, the heroes fight through their injuries and keep on waging battle.  Now I realize that that requires some suspension of disbelief.  I find though it requires less for me than the inspiration camp's approach.  That is a personal thing I'm sure.   Some like it one way or the other and for the most part it probably is because of the feel of the game that results.   I have a bloody game and I do generally imagine wounds closing when a cure wounds spell is cast.I don't really care about natural recovery other than I want it to not be a significant factor in the game.  I see D&D adventures advancing forward only because they can be magically healed.  Without magical healing they would collapse from their wounds and never get to second level let alone twentieth.  So if a DM had a houserule that basically you just don't get any natural healing at all, I could live with it.   Because practically, I really don't care for it as a factor.   I personally would allow more than zero but zero wouldn't affront me.   I might ask if I go to town and spend months in bed will I ever recover and I'd expect the answer to be yes but practically a choice I'd never make.Also as to the notion that you appear unaffected by hit point loss.  If a giant does 50 hit points to a fighter with 100 then that fighter used his superior fighting skill to stave off what would normally be certain death.  He though is wounded now.   The second time the giant does 50 hit points the fighter goes down.  Why didn't the fighter use the exact same superior fighting skill he used the first time to fend off the attack?  Because he was wounded and was not defending as well.Anyway.  I am not trying to convince anyone to change how they play.  I assume at least some people played their way throughout D&D.  I would though say that the game should provide a way for each of these two large camps to play out of the box.  It would not be that hard.  It's important.  I've bought every edition of D&D all the way through 4e.  I spent 300 dollars on 4e before realizing it wasn't for me.  I will be selling most of my 4e collection at Gen Con for those interested.  I did not convert to Pathfinder.  Not because I hate Pathfinder at all and I love Paizo and the owners of Paizo.  I just don't like Pathfinder that well.  I'd play straight 3e if I was going to play a game from that era.  So while I regret spending all that money trying to make 4e work, I do feel that I have been a loyal D&D customer.   If I stop buying D&D, I am a dollar they have always had.  I just feel that after the backlash against 4e that they should at least offer the old school players who didn't like 4e modernisms an option.</blockquote>

Verification