Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Imaro]

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.

I think this may sum up why there seems to be a failure to communicate. I don't think it's anywhere as simple as "advantage 4e". The only way that 4e is superior is if it in fact is modeling the type of stories you want to convey with it's particular healing mechanics. As an example... for some, part of adventuring in a low-magic world means that healing is hard to come by and adventurer's should be cautious when choosing to enter a life or death battle. Now 4e totally fails to replicate this type of low-magic world.

Instead of trying to declare one superior maybe people should really try to understand the problems some may have with healing surges... of course more and more I get the impression many 4e fans are more concerned with proving something than understanding any PoV but their own concerning healing surges and the narrative/simulationist problems they cause for others.

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.

Again, I think you might have missed the point of my post. 3.x allows one to model long term wounds better (and for the record no one is claiming realistically, though I would argue 3.5's healing is definitely in the realm of much of the S&S fiction I have read) than 4e does.

My point was also to debunk the meme that there are no mechanical effects in 3.x until one goes below zero hp's. Not starting the next encounter, or the encounter after that at 100% staying capacity (which until you run out of surges is easy in 4e) can very much abstractly convey a more long term or serious wound... since it does in fact affect your performance and effectiveness in a battle.

Now what you've posted above seems to speak great to the gamist nature of 4e where the player as opposed to the character chooses whether to heal fully and waste a bit of his surge or to not heal all the way and enter the next encounter at less than full becomes a question of mechanical resource consideration. However this has nothing to do with the narrative except to again reinforce the fact that HP's in 4e are in a state of strange flux... I mean what if I don't heal all of my hit popints from encounter 1 but then get hurt in the next fight and then heal all of my damage totally in the 5 mins after that second battle... what just happened there narratively? Why am I at a higher functioning capacity for the last fight (after two battles and still being hurt when I rested after the first one) than I was for the second battle??

I understand that for those who enjoy those types of meta-mechanics it's great... but it in no way addresses the problem of the narrative around serious/longterm wounds on a PC.

 

[Imaro]

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.

And even then they aren't performing sub-optimally in any way until they have actually gotten down to zero healing surges and lost some hit points. So this could simulate serious or long term wounds... but then it might not if they never use too many healing surges they will always be in top shape for an encounter... no matter how many days of loss sleep they accumulate.

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.

The rules aren't silent... again as I said earlier, in 3.5 your capacity in a fight is diminished until you get magical aid or enough rest (abstract, definitely... no mechanical effect, that's just not true)... in 4e the damage and healing rules are silent because how they interact with each other tends to place the narrative in flux. Many of the things you could narrate during the fight will make no narrative sense 5 mins from the last sword swing of an encounter.

 

[Mallus]

I'm amused that the sticking point for some people here is the rate at which wounds heal (which is, admittedly, an important characteristic of real wounds) but not the level to which a wound impairs (which, if you're in the mood to be honest, is another important characteristic of real-world injury).

I can understand the cognitive dissonance involved in trying to imagine a world where almost any injury heals completely overnight.

Then again, when you put that in context of a world where bones never break, swords cuts never bleed (unless they're from a super-special magic-y sword), and burns all over your body don't slow you down one whit, nor scar, I'm back to not not understanding so well after all.

It seems so arbitrary... then again, I suppose all matters of taste are exactly that.

Here's a counter narrative challenge, assuming AD&D.

How do you describe the wounds a high-level fighter who's left with 1 HP out of 100, after a tussle with some giants?

A bite from a rat, for 1 HP, will knock him out (or kill him, if you're not allowing HP to drop into the negatives).

The same rat wouldn't kill an anemic 2 HP, 1st level magic-user.

Where, precisely, did the rat bite the fighter? Did it scamper into his exposed chest cavity and nibble a tiny but vital chunk out of his heart?

Kudos and various mad props to anyone who can give a good description of this!

 

[Bedrockgames]

In that example I would treat one point of damade as I always treat it, a very minor wound (in this case a rat bite). The issue is the fighter is practically dead already. Anytime a character drops to one hp in my games they a hair away from dropping (think Rocky at the very end of the first film).

Edit: i still think this scenario exposes a major problem in every edition I've played though ( i once ran a module where a splinter did 2hp damage--killing our mage when he knocked on a door). This is one reason I prefer static health that doesn't increase as you gain xp.

 

[billd91]

I'm amused that the sticking point for some people here is the rate at which wounds heal (which is, admittedly, an important characteristic of real wounds) but not the level to which a wound impairs (which, if you're in the mood to be honest, is another important characteristic of real-world injury).

I can understand the cognitive dissonance involved in trying to imagine a world where almost any injury heals completely overnight.

Then again, when you put that in context of a world where bones never break, swords cuts never bleed (unless they're from a super-special magic-y sword), and burns all over your body don't slow you down one whit, nor scar, I'm back to not not understanding so well after all.

It seems so arbitrary... then again, I suppose all matters of taste are exactly that.

I think one thing I'd like to point out is: we're not so sure how arbitrary this is from the standpoint of modeling reality. There are cases in which people have acted without any regard for the injuries they have sustained without any obvious impairment. That's probably thanks to adrenaline and it's usually only over a short period of time. But how do you operationalize that in a game? Particularly when players seem to have plenty of fun without a death spiral built in?

Here's a counter narrative challenge, assuming AD&D.

How do you describe the wounds a high-level fighter who's left with 1 HP out of 100, after a tussle with some giants?

A bite from a rat, for 1 HP, will knock him out (or kill him, if you're not allowing HP to drop into the negatives).

The same rat wouldn't kill an anemic 2 HP, 1st level magic-user.

Where, precisely, did the rat bite the fighter? Did it scamper into his exposed chest cavity and nibble a tiny but vital chunk out of his heart?

Kudos and various mad props to anyone who can give a good description of this!

Let's give this a try.

You're moving along, body aching. Your shield arm is mostly numb, your breath is ragged, you can barely see straight, there's a buzzing in your ears from when the last giant's elbow glanced off your helmet. You're able to keep moving largely through grit and effort of will. You feel the need to get help, serious help, and a lot of rest.

Suddenly, a figure darts out of a dark hole low to the ground. Your reactions slowed by your injuries and unable to avoid the creature's lunge, you feel a sharp pain in the ankle. As you topple to the ground, finally succumbing to the many injuries you've sustained, one thought crosses your mind, "Of course. That's how it would happen..." as all fades to black.

 

[D'karr]

I think this may sum up why there seems to be a failure to communicate. I don't think it's anywhere as simple as "advantage 4e". The only way that 4e is superior is if it in fact is modeling the type of stories you want to convey with it's particular healing mechanics. As an example... for some, part of adventuring in a low-magic world means that healing is hard to come by and adventurer's should be cautious when choosing to enter a life or death battle. Now 4e totally fails to replicate this type of low-magic world.

Just so we're clear I'm not declaring anything superior to another. What I have already discussed is that one is better, for my purpose.

Now let's talk apples to apples. The "narrative" is in the control of the DM and players. If we are going to "house rule" one thing in one game, then we can't really call shenanigans when someone demonstrates how to "house rule" the same in the other.

If we say that altering the assumptions of one game, to "narrate" our story better, is perfectly fine. We can't in the same breath say that altering the assumptions of another game, to "narrate" our story better, is not fine.

In 3.x magical healing was casually common. It was expected. The wealth by level guidelines are there for a reason, to keep the characters "balanced" within the expectations of the base game world. Healing Potions, Magical Healing from classes, and "heal sticks" are part of that base assumption. They are ridiculously affordable at almost any level.

If I want to make 3.x a world with low magic, with the purpose of making healing a slow process. I'm engaging in "house ruling." Removing magical healing, or making it more rare than is actually supported by the rules, is "house ruling." That is not the base assumption of the game.

So when I decide to make healing in 4e slower than the base assumption of the game, I'm also engaging in "house ruling." I'm changing the base assumption of the game.

Honestly at least, you cannot look at one and say, "that is house ruling." Then turn and look at the other one and say, "that is NOT house ruling."

And that is what I explained as selective reasoning. I choose to house rule so that healing is slower than the base assumption on X, but then someone shows me that they do the same in Y, and I say, "that is just a bridge too far."

I understand that these are all personal preferences. I've explained why neither affects MY games. But blaming the "rules" for one, and in the same breath lauding the "rules" for another, when we are "house ruling" both, is just a little silly.

Again, I think you might have missed the point of my post. 3.x allows one to model long term wounds better (and for the record no one is claiming realistically, though I would argue 3.5's healing is definitely in the realm of much of the S&S fiction I have read) than 4e does.

In 1e a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance. If you had assistance it took at minimum a week to "heal" from. After 4 weeks you would recover all your capacities (full HP). BTW assistance was usually magical as, IIRC, you would not recover diddly on your own. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.

In 3.x a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance. The chance of stabilizing on your own was slim (10% to stabilize naturally and another 10% to even heal one point). If you had assistance that was not magical, it would take you at least a day to be back up on the + side of HP. If you had magical assistance going into negative HP was simply a speed bump. The default assumption was speed bump. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.

In 4e a hit that took you to 0 or lower is probably going to kill you, if you have no assistance. Three failed saves and you are dead, and you must have at least one healing surge to even recover into + HP territory. At the end of an Extended Rest you can recover all HP and adventuring resources. That is the base assumption. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game. However, the game does support diseases right out of the box, and those can really screw up your day.

All of the above is assuming that you have someone to at least protect your body from any creatures that might be hungry in the area.

So when you mention "long term" wounds you are making several "house rulings". There is no one to help you, and there is no magic. Neither are base assumptions of the game.

So if I decide to "house rule" the "long term" wounds in 4e I'm also stretching the base assumptions.

Neither of those "house rulings" is wrong or superior to the other, but let's not pretend that they are not "house rules." Both games support them.

My point was also to debunk the meme that there are no mechanical effects in 3.x until one goes below zero hp's. Not starting the next encounter, or the encounter after that at 100% staying capacity (which until you run out of surges is easy in 4e) can very much abstractly convey a more long term or serious wound... since it does in fact affect your performance and effectiveness in a battle.

Now what you've posted above seems to speak great to the gamist nature of 4e where the player as opposed to the character chooses whether to heal fully and waste a bit of his surge or to not heal all the way and enter the next encounter at less than full becomes a question of mechanical resource consideration. However this has nothing to do with the narrative except to again reinforce the fact that HP's in 4e are in a state of strange flux... I mean what if I don't heal all of my hit popints from encounter 1 but then get hurt in the next fight and then heal all of my damage totally in the 5 mins after that second battle... what just happened there narratively? Why am I at a higher functioning capacity for the last fight (after two battles and still being hurt when I rested after the first one) than I was for the second battle??

I understand that for those who enjoy those types of meta-mechanics it's great... but it in no way addresses the problem of the narrative around serious/longterm wounds on a PC.

All of this I've already covered in other posts. The "narrative" is completely in the control of the DM and players.

I think that [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION] had a very good post about the responsibilites for the narrative. I'm only going to quote the last part but reading the entire post would probably put things into perspective

4e does not require you to limit narration to gashes on the arm any more than previous editions did. It does not require you to let your Fighters think their wounds closed any more than previous editions did. It requires you to handle your own narrative, even when you take it outside the rules, just like previous editions did.

EDIT: 1,000th post, woo!

 

[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.

Or if you do allow an extended rest it is within almost a day and thus your "serious wound narrative" goes out the window. A harried group is obviously not going to be doing much healing in any edition of the game; and that is different to having a genuinely serious wound that will impact play for several days regardless of what the DM throws (or artificially throws) at the party. I appreciate that this is the only circumstance that gives you any mechanical inclination to "possibly" describe a serious wound but there is still obviously a problem here.

Let's say that you have a PC go into the negatives with no surges left - the most perilous not immediately fatal situation the mechanics offer. And let's say you bust out the serious wound description as you would have done in 3e. And let's say you as DM are determined to harry the party for 3 days in advance so that you have your narratively perilous situation of "keep the seriously wounded PC alive" (a fun/challenging circumstance) so that the PC involved is kept in a "serious" condition. Except what happens then if the PCs execute a brilliant plan, get there extended rest and whoopsy, the serious wound becomes just the typical 4e insta-"recovered" flesh wound? The DMs description has been contradicted and I among others don't like the rules doing that to me so with that knowledge, even deep into the negatives with zero surges left, the mechanics encourage me to simply say something along the lines of, "you think he's not looking too good but if you can get him to a place of safety (read extended rest) then he should be up and at 'em by tomorrow. If you can't get that rest, his situation is not going to improve."
I accept in 4e RAW this is the best you can do.

Having to enforce a lack of extended rests is an uncertain way of getting a serious wound narrative that unfortunately can still be contradicted. It is still an issue for some. And yes with a few tweaks to the system that I think should have been there in the first place it is easily remedied but as RAW goes, as far as an expectation from WotC that this is the baseline of expectation for the game, there is a gaping big hole of narrative options for some (or a ledge for others ) that "should" be there.

In essence, would it not have made more sense for the designers to be more inclusive of all playstyles than sticking to the "purity" of their gamist vision in regards to this issue? I think from Mearls' and Monte's articles, this is a lesson that at least they have learned.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Imaro]

Just so we're clear I'm not declaring anything superior to another. What I have already discussed is that one is better, for my purpose.

Now let's talk apples to apples. The "narrative" is in the control of the DM and players. If we are going to "house rule" one thing in one game, then we can't really call shenanigans when someone demonstrates how to "house rule" the same in the other.

If we say that altering the assumptions of one game, to "narrate" our story better, is perfectly fine. We can't in the same breath say that altering the assumptions of another game, to "narrate" our story better, is not fine.

In 3.x magical healing was casually common. It was expected. The wealth by level guidelines are there for a reason, to keep the characters "balanced" within the expectations of the base game world. Healing Potions, Magical Healing from classes, and "heal sticks" are part of that base assumption. They are ridiculously affordable at almost any level.

If I want to make 3.x a world with low magic, with the purpose of making healing a slow process. I'm engaging in "house ruling." Removing magical healing, or making it more rare than is actually supported by the rules, is "house ruling." That is not the base assumption of the game.

So when I decide to make healing in 4e slower than the base assumption of the game, I'm also engaging in "house ruling." I'm changing the base assumption of the game.

Honestly at least, you cannot look at one and say, "that is house ruling." Then turn and look at the other one and say, "that is NOT house ruling."

And that is what I explained as selective reasoning. I choose to house rule so that healing is slower than the base assumption on X, but then someone shows me that they do the same in Y, and I say, "that is just a bridge too far."

I understand that these are all personal preferences. I've explained why neither affects MY games. But blaming the "rules" for one, and in the same breath lauding the "rules" for another, when we are "house ruling" both, is just a little silly.

I see a really big flaw in your logic here... you assume because the baseline of the game says that all things being equal and the game being in a perfect state of equilibrium...the party should own certain things, they will always have them, always make the by the book choice to carry them, always be around the rest of their party and so on... that my friend is not house rule territory it is playstyle territory.

You see in 3.5 and 4e it is possible for a Wizard to be ambushed and caught off-guard without accessible magical healing or a fighter to fall in battle and be dragged off from their party members, it is also possible for the Rogue or Ranger to go scouting and end up hurt, cut off from the rest of their party and magical healing. I have seen these and more happen in actual games and they didn't require a single houserule. The difference is in how they play out in the different editions... as long as any of those characters can escape for 5 mins in 4e they are back to tip top shape on their own... characters in 3.5 aren't. So please tell me how is this in any way houseruling the game?

In 1e a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance. If you had assistance it took at minimum a week to "heal" from. After 4 weeks you would recover all your capacities (full HP). BTW assistance was usually magical as, IIRC, you would not recover diddly on your own. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.

In 3.x a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance. The chance of stabilizing on your own was slim (10% to stabilize naturally and another 10% to even heal one point). If you had assistance that was not magical, it would take you at least a day to be back up on the + side of HP. If you had magical assistance going into negative HP was simply a speed bump. The default assumption was speed bump. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.

In 4e a hit that took you to 0 or lower is probably going to kill you, if you have no assistance. Three failed saves and you are dead, and you must have at least one healing surge to even recover into + HP territory. At the end of an Extended Rest you can recover all HP and adventuring resources. That is the base assumption. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game. However, the game does support diseases right out of the box, and those can really screw up your day.

All of the above is assuming that you have someone to at least protect your body from any creatures that might be hungry in the area.

I'm no statistics major... but it seems like in 4e you have a much higher chance of surviving...

So when you mention "long term" wounds you are making several "house rulings". There is no one to help you, and there is no magic. Neither are base assumptions of the game.

So if I decide to "house rule" the "long term" wounds in 4e I'm also stretching the base assumptions.

Neither of those "house rulings" is wrong or superior to the other, but let's not pretend that they are not "house rules." Both games support them.

As shown above the assumptions of the world don't have to be changed... but even if they were I'm not convinced that's houseruling... am I houseruling anything when I play 4e in Eberron as opposed to the presumed PoL? You on the other hand are changing the actual rules of 4e... that my friend is houseruling.

All of this I've already covered in other posts. The "narrative" is completely in the control of the DM and players.

I think that @Pentius had a very good post about the responsibilites for the narrative. I'm only going to quote the last part but reading the entire post would probably put things into perspective

No, I disagree... the mechanics (not just the players and DM) have some effect on the narrative as well.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

It seems so arbitrary... then again, I suppose all matters of taste are exactly that.

Too true.

Here's a counter narrative challenge, assuming AD&D.

How do you describe the wounds a high-level fighter who's left with 1 HP out of 100, after a tussle with some giants?

A bite from a rat, for 1 HP, will knock him out (or kill him, if you're not allowing HP to drop into the negatives).

The same rat wouldn't kill an anemic 2 HP, 1st level magic-user.

Where, precisely, did the rat bite the fighter? Did it scamper into his exposed chest cavity and nibble a tiny but vital chunk out of his heart?

Kudos and various mad props to anyone who can give a good description of this!

There is an important difference here whether you allow negatives or not. If you don't then hit points have to take on more of the "physical damage" load where as if you have negatives, then you have a little more flexibility both mechanically and narratively speaking.

Let's take the most extreme case, 1hp left and he take the 1hp rat bite and dies. At 1hp, mechanically this guy can die to any sort of damage. As such, his condition is most likely one where his state is incredibly poor with his heart on the verge of arrest. As he rests against a wall, beaten bloody, sweating and with his heart palpitating, a rat sensing a fine meal bites deep into his ankle, the extreme pain instantly rips throughout his body causing his heart to rapidly spasm before finally arresting. His allies would never know that it was a hungry long-scurried-off rat that actually killed him.

And then afterword, the rat in it's adventure sees an anemic sleeping wizard, bites his ankle for 1hp of extreme pain and gets magic missiled for his trouble.

I think that description is fair, wouldn't you say?

I think it is also very fair to say that all editions have had significant issues with damage and healing and the complete lack of clarity the mechanics provide. I think what would be interesting is getting all the obviously intelligent and imaginative people on this thread together to create a damage/healing system that uses hit points (that is one D&D sacred cow that should never be killed) and makes sense to all of us here. It would be nice to see that such a thing is possible. Now there's a new challenge.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

Actually sorry, you seem to not want to appreciate the narrative difference between going into the negatives in 3e and going into the negatives in 4e. It seems a little unfair that you have been provided with two almost identical narratives to the situation you provided (and that IS what you asked for), but then claim that because the mechanics utilized are different (they are different editions you know) that it does not pass muster. I call you out good sir for foul play in this regard.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise