Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6296932" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is all completely bizarre to me.Everyone knows that a strike with a longsword might hit a character's plate armour, even though it is not counted as a hit by the PF rules, because it does not deal damage according to the game mechanical rules for armour class. The only people who get worked up by this are die-hard advocates of armour-as-damage-reduction, but even they are not confused by the terminology. They just don't like the mechanic.The 4e authors defined the word "regeneration". They defined it by reference to the meaning that word has conveyed for multiple editions of the game, namely, hit point restoration on a round-by-round basis.Furthermore, this is borne out by the dictionary definitions (as  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has pointed out).From <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regeneration" target="_blank">Random House, then Collins</a>:1. act of regenerating; state of being regenerated. . . 3. Biology . the restoration or new growth by an organism of organs, tissues, etc., that have been lost, removed, or injured. 1. the act or process of regenerating or the state of being regenerated; rebirth or renewal 2. the regrowth by an animal or plant of an organ, tissue, or part that has been lost or destroyedHere is the openeing of the Random House definition of "regenerate", from the same source:1. to effect a complete moral reform in. 2. to re-create, reconstitute, or make over, especially in a better form or condition. 3. to revive or produce anew; bring into existence again. 4. Biology . to renew or restore (a lost, removed, or injured part). In other words, the biological notion of regeneration that you referenced upthread is not treated as the primary definition in either dictionary. The general idea of restoration or renewal is primary. And regeneration in 4e is all about restoration and renewal: mechanically, the restoration and renewal of hit points; in the fiction, the restoration and renewal of endurance, verve and (perhaps) luck.It's not that complicated, has nothing in general to do with "knitting flesh and tissue back together" (although that may be how a troll restores its endurance and verve), and puts no strains on ordinary language.As I said, your claim that my argument has "devolved into saying that a power that gives you regeneration does not actually give you regeneration" is bizarre. The power gives you regeneration, namely, renewal and restoration, on a round-by-round basis, of your hit point pool."Damage" is explaind on p 276 of the PHB:When you hit with an attack, you normally deal damage to your target, reducing the target’s hit points.In other words, damage means the loss of hit points. There is nothing in the 4e ruleset equating hit point loss with wounding or injury. Furthermore, 4e is the same as PF in having no general death spiral/debilitation mechanics. That is to say, even if some hp loss were construed as wounding or injury, it has no debilitating effect on a character's performance (until all hp are lost). Hence, there is no reason to suppose that regaining hit points corresponds to the healing of injuries. The injury remains, but the character is nevertheless restoring his/her ability to go on unimpeded by the injury in question.As I've already mentioned, the fictional model I have in mind for all this is Tolkien's account of Boromir fighting on despite being feathered by orc arrows. If you and  [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] prefer, rather, to envisage Monty Python's black knight, then that's obviously your prerogative. I know which one I prefer for serious fantasy RPGing.</blockquote>

Verification