Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[D'karr]

Well in 3e you don't want the PC to go into the negatives because that implies a serious wound.

In 4e there is a situation that it works just the same. When you go into negatives and have no healing surges left.

As I said upthread, getting stunned in 3e and going into the negatives in 4e are quite similar if not quite identical.

Except when the 4e character has no healing surges left.

However, one place where 4e DOES have it over 3e is in recovering the abstract side of hit points. I love the warlord in this regard. I love that they inspire their allies as this is something that no previous edition of D&D had ever really attempted and it made sense with how HPs have been defined since the start. Should it work on a seriously wounded character though? I think not. Sometimes a PC might be so done that all they can do is nod at the warlord before collapsing in a heap.

Collapsing in a heap is usually what happens when you have no healing surges left. If the DM decides to "narratively" describe HP loss as "wounds", which the "rules" don't force. Then nothing prevents him from "narratively" describing the SPENT healing surges as the same "wounds", when the character "narratively" jumps back in the action. Which the rules don't force or prevent.

Even more significant in this matter is the fact that if you go into negative Hit Points and have no healing surges left your condition doesn't change when you successfully make your Death Save (roll a 20).

I've been saying it before, SPENT healing surges can be used to represent "wounds" if you choose that "narrative." Your "wounds" don't magically heal because the Warlord inspired you. Your wound is now represented as the SPENT healing surge.

Because Healing Surges are not recovered until an extended rest, as a DM you can even force the issue. Keep the opposition on your heroes. They get no rests because their current surroundings are dangerous, or they keep getting their rest interrupted.

In this way, 4e does have a neat "narrative ledge" over 3e, although I would still tweak it slightly so it meshes better with the overall mechanics of whichever ruleset is being used.

I remember fondly those days when DMs would "tweak" the "rules" to fit what they wanted. Those were truly happier days, for me. And tweak you definitely should. Sometimes the "slavish" devotion to the "rules" is what these discussions end up revolving around.

I'll give a super simple "tweak" that does not in any way "destroy" the internal consistency of 4e, if your purpose is to have "wounds". After an extended rest you recover all your healing surges, but not all your Hit Points. If you were in fact "injured" before you started your rest, you will have to spend Healing Surges after the extended rest to recover those hit points. If the DM has already "narratively" decided on "wounds" he now still has them the next day. "Narratively" the spent healing surges are the "wounds".

I have even more "tweaks" that deal with short term and long term injuries here.

 

[Hussar]

The troll rolls an attack roll using the Awesome Blow feat. Sir Billingsley fails his Reflex save, flies 10 feet, and lands prone.

The fight continues without Sir Billingsley standing, including a successful bull rush to push it back.

Narration to Sir Billingsley's player as it hits his turn.

Description to Sir Billingsley's player as he takes the situation into account (the troll continued to attack the party after hitting Sir Billingsley, which is represented in him continuing to attack after Sir Billingsley is knocked prone and out of reach).

Sir Billingsley stands as a move action (using the Heroic Surge feat), and makes a charge at the troll, hitting it.

Using the Pounce alternate class feature, Sir Billingsley makes a shield slam with his second attack, tacking on the Shield Slam feat to daze the troll.


Takes jumping through some hoops, but I think the end result is similar. It's not core, I'll give you that. But it is doable.


No, it's not

What if you could have the scene you described, but wounds healed slowly? Two different HP pools, one for physical and one for "other", and "physical" heals slowly? I think it'd allow for both (and, since my RPG works this way, I have some direct experience in narrative paths with this method). As always, play what you like

Sigh. I DID STATE THAT THIS WAS USING THE ORIGINAL EXAMPLE. THAT MEANS THE PC WENT INTO NEGATIVE HIT POINTS.

Sorry, yet again, you fail to answer the challenge. Try again.

 

[billd91]

Sigh. I DID STATE THAT THIS WAS USING THE ORIGINAL EXAMPLE. THAT MEANS THE PC WENT INTO NEGATIVE HIT POINTS.

Sorry, yet again, you fail to answer the challenge. Try again.

OK, then here's my response: It's impossible.

Why is it impossible? Because you're using mechanics unique to 4e so of course it's impossible to narrate anything to that sequence of events in any other edition of D&D.

I might ask you how do you narrate a wizard with a penchant for fire spells lobbing 3 fireballs in a single fight in 4e. I can do it in multiple editions prior to 4e, but I can't in 4e.

 

[Imaro]

The thing is, 20 points of damage is equally easy to describe in 4e. How is that any different? Your "working hp" might be the same, but you're down two healing surges, meaning that you are actually functioning at a reduced capacity.

Since neither system actually includes any mechanical effects for the loss of hp before you go into negatives, any narrative you come up with, so long as its acceptable to the table, is identical.

Woah, what? I have to disagree with this, there is a big mechanical difference in how 3.x/PF and 4e approach 20 points of damage mechanically... especially when magical healing is taken out of the equation.

First let me address the fact that even though it keeps getting stated that there are no mechanical effects for the loss of hp before you go into negatives... this is untrue... again especially if magical healing is removed from 3.5/PF. In 3.5 if my Fighter has 100 max hp's and looses 20hp's in an encounter...without magical aid his ability to survive the next encounter is very much impacted mechanically... he is going into that encounter with 20% less of the staying capacity he would normally have... how is this not a mechanical effect (though I will admit it is abstract). If in that second combat he takes another 15 points of damage he is now at only 65% of his total staying capacity to survive the next encounter... and so on. Thus the character actually does have a mechanical disadvantage because he has taken damage.

In 4e however until I use my last healing surge and then loose HP's on top of it... my staying capacity in any and all combats will start at 100% whenever I've had a previous 5 mins of rest... regardless of the amount of damage my character has taken.

IMO, the reduced staying capacity is abstractly modelling you being wounded or hurt whether physical. moral or whatever (because you are at a mechanical disadvantage in combat when you're hp's start below max) without falling into the trap of a death spiral mechanic.

4e, on the other hand, takes this to an even more abstract level by making one only suffer a tangible mechanical disadvantage after you run completely out of HP's and then out of healing surges... IMO, there is a big difference here mechanically, so no... they aren't the same.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sigh. I DID STATE THAT THIS WAS USING THE ORIGINAL EXAMPLE. THAT MEANS THE PC WENT INTO NEGATIVE HIT POINTS.

Sorry, yet again, you fail to answer the challenge. Try again.

Haha, the caps made me smile

Hussar, let me ask you this: narratively, what's the difference between what I described and what you described? The fight played out exactly the same. A heroic warrior was knocked down by a troll, his friends fought the troll and pushed it back, and he pushed through a bad wound, got up, and charged the troll, shield bashing it.

No, you're trying to say, "since the mechanics are different, you can't duplicate the mechanics." Well, no kidding. However, speaking from a narrative position, you can just narrate both events just as easily. You're playing a semantic mechanic game rather than dealing with narrative space. You can say that the troll knocks the warrior prone and gives him a bloody wound, and he blacks out for a second before clearing his head, getting up, and charging the troll. The narrative is identical.

Trying to mask it under mechanics isn't going to fly. You can narrate the scene you described in both 3.X and in 4e. And that's good, because it's a cool scene.

Now, 3.X can handle a wound where a 1st level Cleric is knocked into the negatives and his friends fall back to help nurse him to help, thus taking them out of the action for 3 days in-game, allowing for the world to progress during this time. Plots, from both good and bay guys, move forward during this time. Time sensitive missions might fail. Help might arrive that might not otherwise be feasible (if, say, help was on its way, but was 2 days away). The point I was making was that 4e cannot handle this narrative space.

Both 3.X and 4e can handle the narrative you described. 4e cannot handle what I just wrote about. That's not to say 4e can't handle a lot of interesting narrative elements, because it can. It exceeds 3.X in certain areas in my opinion. However, on this issue, it doesn't. Trying to "prove" to me that 4e has more narrative space because 3.X cannot duplicate 4e's mechanics is just amusing at best. It's not convincing, and it's definitely missing the narrative space argument (which was originally about the evolving setting).

But, hey, if you want to think you've won, that's cool. You beat me, and all that. I "lost" your "challenge", and it was certainly "fair".

As always, play what you like

OK, then here's my response: It's impossible.

Why is it impossible? Because you're using mechanics unique to 4e so of course it's impossible to narrate anything to that sequence of events in any other edition of D&D.

I might ask you how do you narrate a wizard with a penchant for fire spells lobbing 3 fireballs in a single fight in 4e. I can do it in multiple editions prior to 4e, but I can't in 4e.

Haha, yep, this exactly. Should've finished the thread before replying. I would XP if I could, but public acknowledgement is the best I've got. You nailed it.

As always, play what you like

 

[D'karr]

especially when magical healing is taken out of the equation.

This should come as a surprise to no one.

Without magical healing, advantage 4e. I totally appreciate that, and as matter of fact prefer it. If I want to have a low magic world, I can finally do it without resorting to all sorts of weird contortions of the rules.

When you take into consideration Healing Surges a 4e character will have more available resources to continue adventuring, magic or no magic.

However each surge spent can mean more resources lost on average. Lets take a 5th level 4e fighter as an example. On average he'll have 50-60 Hit Points and between 9-12 Healing Surges. Each surge on average will restore 15 Hit Points. If he is hit for 20 points of damage he will have lost up to 33% of his resources, if he had 60 hit points. If at the end of the fight he decides to spend a healing surge he will regain 15 hit points. Using another surge is a waste of resources. So he goes into the next fight with only 55 hit points. If he gets hit for 20 more hit points, at the end of the fight does he spend 2 surges or just one. If he uses 1, he restores 15 and starts the next fight with 50 hit points. If he uses 2 he starts at full HP but "wasted" 5 hit points. So the usage of Healing Surges becomes a "tactical" consideration. The character can go into the fight already "down" HP, or full HP. But going full HP is not always the wisest option. If he decided to spend the 3 surges, it means that he has spent 25% (3 of 12) of his adventuring resources for the day.

If he is much higher level, then 20 hit points might be the value of only one surge. But if he had 100 HP to begin with, the value of each surge is 25 points. 5 HP restored are wasted on healing 20 HP damage, so the consideration still exists.

4e gives the character a choice to either conserve resources or "waste" them.

Is it mechanically different? Yes, but we already knew that the amount of hit points and perceived survivability of characters was modified in 4e. That is not a surprise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

D'karr it sounds to me like you've identified a key point here. For the style of play and feel you want 4e is perfect. It allows you to focus on adventure without getting derailed for lack of magical healing. That is cool. I can see how that would be fun and how it fits eith 4e. But I think Imaro and I(correct me Imaro if I am wrong) want a different kind of game, where lack of magical healing can really bog the party down at times. I want to have to deal with that sort of challenge (for me it keeps the pace a bit more "real time" and just sets the mood and tone I am after). I find prior editions accomodate my style nicely.

 

[D'karr]

D'karr it sounds to me like you've identified a key point here. For the style of play and feel you want 4e is perfect. It allows you to focus on adventure without getting derailed for lack of magical healing. That is cool. I can see how that would be fun and how it fits eith 4e. But I think Imaro and I(correct me Imaro if I am wrong) want a different kind of game, where lack of magical healing can really bog the party down at times. I want to have to deal with that sort of challenge (for me it keeps the pace a bit more "real time" and just sets the mood and tone I am after). I find prior editions accomodate my style nicely.

That's perfectly understandable.

What I've found is that 4e allows me to do both. If I want to slow down the pace, I can easily do it without "breaking" anything. If I want to have a fast paced game, I can do that too. My campaigns make use of both methods to great effect.

Having a running battle that takes days, with each day being more draining, is something that I did on one of my mid-heroic tier games. The characters simply had no opportunity to rest, the pace demanded it. At the end of that adventure they were absolutely glad to take a rest. In that one I even incorporated long term injuries. A character lost an arm. His new quest became getting a replacement arm, and that propelled the game for 2 more adventures.

I would have been very hard pressed to do that without the expandability of context that 4e provides.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

In 4e there is a situation that it works just the same. When you go into negatives and have no healing surges left.

But in 4e the character is back to full capacity within almost a day. How is that a serious wound?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[D'karr]

But in 4e the character is back to full capacity within almost a day. How is that a serious wound?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Not within a day, after an extended rest. I have had multiple scenarios that have gone on for 3+ days of adventuring without an extended rest because the circumstances did not allow it.

Try having your characters go for 3 days without rest, and see how serious those "wounds" start looking. BTW the rules also account for loss of sleep. If you have not slept for at least 6 hours in the last 24 an extended rest gives no benefits.

If I, as the DM, take the responsibility for creating a "serious wound" narratively, as I said before the rules are silent; I also have the responsibility of making that "wound" stick if that is what I want from the narrative. However, as a DM, this is not just my narrative. A much bigger part of the narrative are the characters handled by the players.