Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Hussar]

Um, did you read it? I said, "Blood loss for unconsciousness (and potentially bleeding out), and an infection that keeps you down for a few days (unconscious, or conscious but delirious)." The shock of the wound, or blood loss from it, can take you out quickly. The infection keeps you down.

Yeah, I read it. That's the point, you stand up after a day or so of being in negative and the infection sets in. Ok, how do you model "infection"? Does Cure Disease remove it? How do I heal it?

/edit to add

Or maybe we're back in Heisenberg territory. We can only get infections if there is no cleric nearby to heal them? If there's a cleric in the party, we can never get infections, since that would interact with a new set of rules - the Cure Disease rules. And, how come I only get infections from wounds if I drop below 0 hp? That's some pretty specific infection mechanics right there.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Thank you Herremann for actually stepping up instead of just whining that the challenge is rigged. Apparently it's too difficult for other people to actually provide examples to back up their claims.

While I gave a specific example, what I was hoping you would garner is that 3e gives me (and you) more wriggle room for description that won't be contradicted by "what happens next".

/edit - missed the "pool of blood" part the first time around. Sigh, must learn to read more carefully.

The pool of blood is of course crucial in highlighting the difference between 3e and 4e and is again representative of a description that feels like it could be more serious than a momentary stunning blow. In other words, it is a serious blow that is going to keep a PC down for a while (unlike 4e).

I suppose it really depends on how big your pool is. The dead guy, sure, he's swimming in it. The guy who's not dead? Well, that pool has a pretty limited size no matter what, otherwise he'd just be dead.

You skirt the point. The "blood pooling" is meant to put the description in the now. It describes that pool of blood is increasing in size rather than specifying a size. The point of this is to elicit that the PC is in peril for their life (something which is true in both 3e and 4e) and that the wound is serious (true for 3e but not true for 4e). It is to demonstrate to the other players that one of the PCs is in mortal trouble if not seen to very soon.

Well, since your description is pretty vague, there's nothing saying that the character couldn't recover very quickly.

If travelling high in the mountains and Boris the fighter gets a nosebleed feints and starts bleeding then yes. Within the context of having been directly and forcefully struck by a troll in the skull, with an unmoving PC and blood pooling the result; this indicates something more serious than a nosebleed. Essentially I think you're stretching here and you know it. If I have to play by the rules of your context then I think you should have to as well. In 4e I would be more inclined to describe it as a glancing blow rather than as a serious blow. My confidence for describing it as serious is simply not there because I know there is no mechanical outcome for a serious but non-fatal wound in 4e RAW. [This 4e style of healing propagates a very video game style of healing that is central to the typically tired but not entirely invalid complaint of video-gaminess and 4e].

After all, head wounds do bleed rather a lot, even relatively minor ones. The Warlord shouts at the wounded character, he wakes up from being knocked unconcious and discovers that his wounds are not quite as bad as they looked. After all, there's nothing specifically saying that the character is seriously wounded, other than a lot of blood.

A lot of blood AND the context of being struck down by a very serious single blow by a bloody big troll that was NOT described as a "glancing blow". My very first character was a Warlord and this sort of thing happened quite often (to the point where the DM changed the rule so that if the PC was unconscious, healing word would not work). It was not because it was overpowered that we agreed on this; it was because it was completely farting up the narrative the DM was used to being able to flexibly give. It just felt like cheating to our group because the narrative did not match the mechanic.

I would say that this narration would work perfectly well in 3e or 4e.

I think I have clearly shown that no it would not. If I as DM describe a serious long term injury the 4e rules contradict my description if the PC survives. The 3e rules while not realistic do not contradict my description. Naturally healing from negatives takes time and can still be fatal, even once the PC has stabilised.

Now, as to the point whether the presence of magical healing makes for a wider narrative space, that I would likely agree with. It's not so much the healing surges or 4e hp mechanics, it's that in 3e, the only way you heal (by and large) is through magic. It's pretty rare for natural healing to play much of a role, so, go nuts. That's an argument I'll buy.

In practice yes. But please don't ignore the equal commentary on 4e and how it potentially restricts a DMs description even further with the Warlord's healing word power. With this in play, either my description has to be one such that a PC can get up the very next round acting at capacity AND it has to be one capable of describing a fatality. That's really tying the DMs hands behind the back. Seriously, in 4e it's just easier to say "that's 34 points of damage" and leave it at that - and that's not exactly how I like to play.

Again, I think your premise regarding equal narrative space in 3e/4e is wrong and I believe I have shown that with clarity. The fact that your group style is minimally affected by 4e healing surges is cool and the shame is that with a handful of constraints the idea of a "combat surge" makes a heap of sense and is a really fun mechanic in play. The by-product with the mechanic as written though is to make the DM play a very careful game so that their description is not contradicted by potential future events. If I was playing in your game, I would not be rude enough to call you out on it when such a "contradiction" for me arose; although I would bring it up after the game in discussion as a "facet" or "foible" of the 4e rules and how it does not jive that well with how my usual group plays.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spamming my thread. You want to talk about what you want to talk about, the Start Thread button is right there. Otherwise, step up to the plate. Let's see examples of these narrative wounds that I cannot narrate in 4e.

I don't think JC is spamming so much as getting a little frustrated that you won't accept his central premise (that is identical to mine) that there is no mechanical outcome for a serious "long term" wound in 4e where as in 3e there is. This affects narrative space.

Likewise, your point is that regardless of the description initially given, a clever DM can patch things up so that some groups don't have an issue. Such play relies on the difference between appearance and reality and that most of the time, a DM can wriggle out of getting "caught out". There is only a small period of time (up to three failed saves or until you make that "20") where a heal check and the subsequent description may be contradictory (and even this can be offset by the DM qualifying their description with "but things might turn bad; you don't know until you can fully inspect your buddy").

The problem that the "other" groups have is that when this repeatedly happens, the fact that PCs end up dead, or OK but never getting truly "injured" becomes a gaping black hole in the "overall narrative". Your mileage on this point obviously varies - and to each their own.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Sorry about that SK925, missed you on the first time through. Nice. I could totally buy that as something that would drop you, perhaps killing you with shock and blood loss later, or as something you could recover from reasonably quickly.

Like, perhaps, the next day.

Take into consideration that there is a major artery there (the Brachial artery to be exact) and if you cut that, not only will you most likely die, but if you do manage to survive you'll lose that arm.


Another one actually came about as a critical, however it was not what you were originally looking for so I left it out...here it goes.

"You swing your two-handed sword of your head, bringing the blade down with intense might (the critical hit, rolls for the 'what happens' on my crit tables, says it hits the arm, he rolls damage) and as you bring the blade down you find right behind his shield, the iron sinks into flesh, shatters bone and comes out the other side, the orc is on the floor reeling in pain, armless, shieldless, and bleeding."

 

[Hussar]

You skirt the point. The "blood pooling" is meant to put the description in the now. It describes that pool of blood is increasing in size rather than specifying a size. The point of this is to elicit that the PC is in peril for their life (something which is true in both 3e and 4e) and that the wound is serious (true for 3e but not true for 4e). It is to demonstrate to the other players that one of the PCs is in mortal trouble if not seen to very soon.

Hang on a second though. If I fail to get aid, my 4e character will die as often as the 3e character will. How is that not a serious wound in 4e?

I think I have clearly shown that no it would not. If I as DM describe a serious long term injury the 4e rules contradict my description if the PC survives. The 3e rules while not realistic do not contradict my description. Naturally healing from negatives takes time and can still be fatal, even once the PC has stabilised.

And therein lies the rub. Your idea of "takes time" is at most a few days instead of one day. Again, how can you have a consistent narrative - life threatening wound that we KNOW is life threatening - that is recovered from in at most a couple of weeks.

The fact that we KNOW, that there is no uncertainty, makes it inconsistent.

OTOH, the fact that the character in both 3e and 4e can survive this wound on his own, and, in 3e most likely will (he's got 5 chances to make his stabilization check) means that the wound actually cannot be that fatal.

I'm not looking for realism. I'm looking for consistency. That's why I reject JamesonCourage's wound description. It's not consistent with 3e rules - disease and infection use the Disease rules, not the hit point rules. Your narration relies on interpreting "pooling blood" in such a way that it could be fatal, or it might not depending on whether or not the PC gets aid, but also relies on people refusing to allow that a wound such as this could look a lot worse than it is.

Guy gets clobbered by troll and falls down, blood coming from him. Ok, fine. That works in any edition. He gets shouted at by the Warlord, the wound wasn't actually that serious.

Since you don't actually describe the wound itself - just the visible effects - the wound remains vague enough that it works in any edition.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Jameson Courage. Hey, if you don't want to play, there's nothing forcing you to hit that submit button. You've repeatedly claimed that 4e narrows the narrative set. Either put your money where your mouth is or don't take the challenge. No skin off my nose.

Ha

That's okay, Hussar. I'll get to the infection momentarily. That's playing, isn't it?

(Side note: I said it narrows narrative paths in regards to healing. I want that to be clear.)

But, constantly whining about how the challenge is "rigged" is off topic and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop spamming my thread. You want to talk about what you want to talk about, the Start Thread button is right there. Otherwise, step up to the plate. Let's see examples of these narrative wounds that I cannot narrate in 4e.

Well, first, please don't call my input whining. It's incorrect, and insulting.

Secondly, I'm not spamming your thread, and I think what I'm talking about is on topic. However, if this were my thread, I'd like the ability to have some control over the topic, so if you want me to bow out, just let me know, and I'll leave.

Third, I've mentioned the types of wounds that can be modeled in in 3.X that can't be modeled in 4e... in this thread. The infection that disables you for days is one. I'll expand in a moment on that.

Yeah, I read it. That's the point, you stand up after a day or so of being in negative and the infection sets in. Ok, how do you model "infection"? Does Cure Disease remove it? How do I heal it?

No, infection sets in pretty much right away (obviously not with the sword swing, but soon afterwards).

0 hours: You move to your friend, the party Fighter, healing some of his wounds with your Cure spell. Things are hectic, and you're doing everything you can to stay out of the thick of it and keep your companions up. You're moving to your friend, the party Rogue, when you're hit by a troll, and pass out due to the shock of the wound and blood loss. You're now at -5, and bleeding out. You get stabilized (we'll say at -6); the party Wizard has patched you up. That night, your condition worsens, as infection has struck.

24 hours: However, the wound itself is healing. You go from -6 to -5 overnight, but the party isn't safe, and they keep you moving, slowly, on a makeshift gurney (no full bed rest for you). You're unconscious, body shut down to recover from the blood loss and wound, and down due to the infection. You have a high fever, and you won't do well if left to your own devices. You spend another night on the road.

48 hours: You continue to heal, and your companions continue to patch up your wounds. You're now at -4. The wound is patched, and it will heal with time. However, the party is still concerned: you haven't even come to consciousness yet. You've mumbled in your sleep, but it's incomprehensible. They continue to travel, hoping to get you to a town in time.

72 hours: They've traveled for three days with you now. You're at -3. The party is starting to worry more, because even though the wound is healing nicely, you don't seem to be getting much better. They've been doing what they can to treat your fever, but they want to get you into professional care. The party makes camp again, hoping to get to a town with healing magic soon.

96 hours: The party notices that you've gained consciousness, and hope springs to life. You're at -2. Hope is short-lived, however: you're calling out nonsense, asking for people who aren't there, and who the party doesn't know. You're drifting in and out of consciousness, consumed by the infection, completely oblivious to your surroundings. You're delirious, and you won't remember any of this later. Towards the end of the day, the party comes across a small town, about a day from a major village. They stop in town, and pay a surgeon to look over your wounds. He compliments your party on their vigilant care, and takes you in for the night, the party giving him some gold for his services.

120 hours: You wake up on and off throughout the day, still delirious, spending the entire day in bed, the surgeon and the party waiting on you hand and foot. With the surgeon's care, and a nice day off the road to rest, the infection begins to break. Your injury is healing nicely: the wound is tender and pink, but you'll definitely make a full recovery. You end the day at 0 hit points.

144 hours: You're weak when you awake. You have aches all over, but you want to stand. The party is ecstatic to see their friend conscious, alive, and able to comprehend them. You throw a few good-natured insults their way so that they know you're okay, and to hide the weakness. You sit up, but they make you stay in bed today. You pray at noon, when the sun rules the sky, gathering your prayers, and garnering the blessing of the Shining One, whom you almost met in person. One hour after noon, you cast a spell upon yourself: Cure. You fill a gentle wave wash over your body, and your aches subside, and your fever is broken. You fill almost brand new again, and the party is all around joyful. You thank the surgeon, giving him some coin, and assisting him for the rest of the day in his duties. You promise to help him any way you can in the future; a promise you make to your party as well.

168 hours: You stand today, as good as new (well, one minor Cure later, at least). You set forth with your party, resolved to help them in any way you can for saving your life.

All told, it took about five days of recovery, including a day of complete bed rest, and a magical Cure spell. It would have lasted another eight days without the magic (no bed rest, as the party moved on, then you walked around rather than wait in bed), as you slowly recovered from the beating your body took, but with strength and reflexes returning each day.

The narrative difference between a long term wound and a short term wound is clear to me. It creates tension, and it creates a story.

/edit to add

Or maybe we're back in Heisenberg territory. We can only get infections if there is no cleric nearby to heal them? If there's a cleric in the party, we can never get infections, since that would interact with a new set of rules - the Cure Disease rules. And, how come I only get infections from wounds if I drop below 0 hp? That's some pretty specific infection mechanics right there.

You can get infected with a magical healer in the party if the wound isn't healed (natural healing). If you use a Cure spell, it also heals the infection (the infection represents HP damage, after all). And, you can always get an infection that isn't disabling from hit point damage. I have 50 hit points, I took 30 damage, and only heal 5 per day. You can say that this is a minor infection -enough to sap some strength, but not enough to disable you.

Plus, once again, you're getting into the realism range again. "Why does it only work like this?" Well, because the game works with abstract mechanics. What it does do, however, is allow a narrative range that allows death, serious wounds, and light wounds. I think to say otherwise is demonstrably untrue.

At that, go ahead and show me how the long term wound I've outlined is possible in 4e. If it's not, do you agree that the long term vs. short term healing disconnect between the editions means that 4e narrows narrative opportunities when it comes to wound recovery? If you don't think so, why not?

As always, play what you like

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hang on a second though. If I fail to get aid, my 4e character will die as often as the 3e character will. How is that not a serious wound in 4e?

It is beyond a serious wound: it is a fatal wound. Surely you can see that there are no mechanically supported serious wounds in 4e RAW? It is either fatal wounding or "flesh wounds". There is no effect that will last for more than a day.

And therein lies the rub. Your idea of "takes time" is at most a few days instead of one day.

Takes time to me is anywhere from several days to several weeks. Takes time to me is not insta-healed within a day.

Again, how can you have a consistent narrative - life threatening wound that we KNOW is life threatening - that is recovered from in at most a couple of weeks.

With greater facility than being insta-healed in a day. 3e is obviously not perfect in this regard. 4e is obviously less so. Bothers some (like me), not so much others (like you).

The fact that we KNOW, that there is no uncertainty, makes it inconsistent.

OTOH, the fact that the character in both 3e and 4e can survive this wound on his own, and, in 3e most likely will (he's got 5 chances to make his stabilization check) means that the wound actually cannot be that fatal.

You need to recheck the 3e rules. A character in the negatives trying to recover without help is most likely to die. If they don't receive aid, recovery from -5 is highly unlikely. (They don't regain hit points normally when in the negatives).

I'm not looking for realism. I'm looking for consistency. That's why I reject JamesonCourage's wound description. It's not consistent with 3e rules - disease and infection use the Disease rules, not the hit point rules. Your narration relies on interpreting "pooling blood" in such a way that it could be fatal, or it might not depending on whether or not the PC gets aid, but also relies on people refusing to allow that a wound such as this could look a lot worse than it is.

I think you have the cart before the horse here. Shouldn't the mechanics inform the style of damage. 3e assumes that if you go into the negatives, you have taken a serious wound. Could the wound look worse than what it is mechanically? Yes, if the PC makes their stabilisation check, then their consciousness check and then their healing naturally check, I think it fair to say that the wound was not quite as bad as first appeared. Otherwise, appearance (and thus description) matches and is directly supported by the mechanic.

Jameson Courage's ideas are interesting but not immediately supported by the 3.x RAW although the basic mechanics are there in Pathfinder to directly support his ideas. Likewise in 4e Ari Marmell did some interesting stuff in regards to using the disease track that I mentioned earlier. This is obviously not 4e RAW though.

Guy gets clobbered by troll and falls down, blood coming from him. Ok, fine. That works in any edition. He gets shouted at by the Warlord, the wound wasn't actually that serious.

And the problem here is that the mortality of the wound is determined not by the wound, or the PC or the monster inflicting it... but the action or not of a warlord. I prefer a more stable system that informs the DM of what is going on, rather than 4e's less-focused reactionary direction. If I as DM describe a "serious" sounding wound but the PC gets up the next round thanks to the warlord, and if this keeps happening, pretty soon there is going to start to be a serious disconnect between what the DM is saying (appearance) and what the Game is actually informing the players of (reality). Pretty soon, the DM is forced to moderate their descriptions otherwise their descriptions will just be ignored as the players wait for the game reality to inform them in retrospect what must have happened. In either case, the DM in my opinion has had their narrative options curtailed denying your premise.

Since you don't actually describe the wound itself - just the visible effects - the wound remains vague enough that it works in any edition.

And thus you disprove your own premise. What you say works if you narratively restrict yourself to vague descriptions. IF however, you wish to describe a more serious wound in 3e, the mechanics will at least partially support your narrative, rather than in 4e that can possibly contradict it (and thus restrict the DM's narrative options).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

You can get infected with a magical healer in the party if the wound isn't healed (natural healing). If you use a Cure spell, it also heals the infection (the infection represents HP damage, after all). And, you can always get an infection that isn't disabling from hit point damage. I have 50 hit points, I took 30 damage, and only heal 5 per day. You can say that this is a minor infection -enough to sap some strength, but not enough to disable you.

So, if I get bitten by a snake and poisoned, I can get a cure light wounds and it will cure me of the poison if it heals the wound? After all, there is no difference between a poison and an infection, both are the introduction of toxic substances into the body.

Sorry, but no. In no edition of D&D is an infection covered under the hit point rules. It's covered under the disease rules which don't use hit points. Thus, Cure (various wounds) spells don't heal infection and Cure Disease doesn't give you back hit points.

And thus you disprove your own premise. What you say works if you narratively restrict yourself to vague descriptions. IF however, you wish to describe a more serious wound in 3e, the mechanics will at least partially support your narrative, rather than in 4e that can possibly contradict it (and thus restrict the DM's narrative options).

Huh? How did you describe a serious wound? You described someone bleeding from a head wound. How serious is that? It could be life threatening, it might not be. Without further inspection (ie actions by the characters), we won't know.

So, I can vaguely describe a wound in 3e and it's automatically a "serious" wound, but, if I use the EXACT SAME description in 4e, it's never a serious wound? Really?

As far as checking the Stabilization rules, well, I've got 5 checks at 10% to not die. I'm no mathematician, but that sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the standard 27% chance of surviving on my own in 4e. At -1, don't I have virtually a 90% survival chance? ((Yeah, I know it's less, but it's been way too long since I had to do that math)) No matter what, I've got a 27% survival chance in 4e.

But, apparently, that's too concrete for a vague description of a bleeding head wound.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It is beyond a serious wound: it is a fatal wound. Surely you can see that there are no mechanically supported serious wounds in 4e RAW? It is either fatal wounding or "flesh wounds". There is no effect that will last for more than a day.

Just so you know, I'm totally on board with most of what you're saying.

Jameson Courage's ideas are interesting but not immediately supported by the 3.x RAW although the basic mechanics are there in Pathfinder to directly support his ideas.

Here, though, I'd like to hear if a wound being infected was mentioned anywhere in the RAW of 3.5 (I change 3.X to 3.5 because that's what I mostly played). Here's the SRD on diseases:

Disease
When a character is injured by a contaminated attack, touches an item smeared with diseased matter, or consumes disease-tainted food or drink, he must make an immediate Fortitude saving throw. If he succeeds, the disease has no effect—his immune system fought off the infection. If he fails, he takes damage after an incubation period. Once per day afterward, he must make a successful Fortitude saving throw to avoid repeated damage. Two successful saving throws in a row indicate that he has fought off the disease and recovers, taking no more damage.

It goes on to mention "infection" within the context of diseases:

Infection
The disease’s method of delivery—ingested, inhaled, via injury, or contact. Keep in mind that some injury diseases may be transmitted by as small an injury as a flea bite and that most inhaled diseases can also be ingested (and vice versa).

This is obviously not referencing disease from poor healing. In this case, they're using "infection" as a term for "delivery method" in regards to various diseases.

The RAW, as far as I know, is never clear on a wound that becomes infected, only diseased. Yes, it can become infected with a disease, but I don't think a generic "infected" state is anywhere in the core RAW. It only lists the following diseases: Blinding sickness, Cackle fever, Demon fever, Devil chills, Filth fever, Mindfire, Mummy rot, Red ache, Shakes, and Slimy doom.

So, to the best of my knowledge, a generic wound infection is at best a grey area. If a generic wound infection can be narrated as hit point damage, then a Cure spell would certainly heal it:

Cure Light Wounds
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

There's no direct description on what the Cure spell is doing. It's not necessarily only closing wounds. We know that a Cure spell lets you recover hit point damage. According to page 145 of the 3.5 PHB:

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

With that context, hit points being lost to an infection might represent "taking physical punishment" and, if they do, I'm within the RAW on this, as far as I know.

I think at worst, I'm sitting in a grey area. But, even if I'm wrong (which is okay with me), the point stands about the narrative difference between editions on wounds: in 4e, you have the narrative options of dying, or healing overnight. In 3.X, you have the narrative options of dying, healing overnight, or healing over a few days to a couple weeks.

Framing it as realism, or as a quality of wound issue is missing the point. It's not that I want to be able to be infected in all editions, it's that I want the possibility of death, long term injury, and short term injury in all editions. Framing it as anything else is missing the point. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, if I get bitten by a snake and poisoned, I can get a cure light wounds and it will cure me of the poison if it heals the wound? After all, there is no difference between a poison and an infection, both are the introduction of toxic substances into the body.

If the poison does hit point damage, yes. If not, then no.

Sorry, but no. In no edition of D&D is an infection covered under the hit point rules. It's covered under the disease rules which don't use hit points. Thus, Cure (various wounds) spells don't heal infection and Cure Disease doesn't give you back hit points.

I just covered this in my previous post (which came after you wrote this, to be fair). I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by RAW. Let me know if you disagree.

Again, keep in mind that it's not about being infected or not, it's about the narrative range being restricted between editions when it comes to length of healing.

Huh? How did you describe a serious wound? You described someone bleeding from a head wound. How serious is that? It could be life threatening, it might not be. Without further inspection (ie actions by the characters), we won't know.

So, I can vaguely describe a wound in 3e and it's automatically a "serious" wound, but, if I use the EXACT SAME description in 4e, it's never a serious wound? Really?

I think we're using "serious wound" within the context of "takes a while to heal". Because, if the wound knocks you out but you're fine 12 hours later and after an extended rest, it wasn't that serious.

As far as checking the Stabilization rules, well, I've got 5 checks at 10% to not die. I'm no mathematician, but that sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the standard 27% chance of surviving on my own in 4e. At -1, don't I have virtually a 90% survival chance? ((Yeah, I know it's less, but it's been way too long since I had to do that math)) No matter what, I've got a 27% survival chance in 4e.

But, apparently, that's too concrete for a vague description of a bleeding head wound.

You either die, which means it's actually a fatal wound, or you live and shake it off, which means it was a minor wound. This is where I believe Herremann and I are saying it's not a "serious" wound. You have "dead" and you have "minor", but you don't have "serious" in the sense it's being used in.