Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[technoextreme]

Without magic though, the freedom of the DM to access the full spectrum of damage descriptions begins to dry up. Because 4e has hyper-boosted the probability that any PC can regularly get up from unconsciousness without any assistance let alone mundane assistance, and can be within "full capacity" within 6 hours, the DMs access to that spectrum becomes centralized around non-serious wounds; with the denying of anything more serious than could be completely bounced back from in a potential 6 hours.

No. Its not even close to being hyper boosted. You have a one in twenty chance of getting up on your own and a fifty fifty chance of striking out. Also, make sure you get the rules correct before you start criticizing them. Unconscious is not the state in which you drop under 0 hit points. Dying is the state in which you drop under 0 hit points.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

...

I have an open mind so if you can show me something that points to ways out of this that I have not thought of, I'm all ears.

Yeah, I tend to skim most of this forum for the aforementioned purpose.

I understand your context and I'm still failing to see why healing surges can't serve the same function of powerful healing magics in 3.x in your examples.

A second wind in this context is basically just the character pulling through their near death experience. The healing surge in this context, after the second wind, could easily be a magical narrative event. That's the beauty of their nondescript nature. I failed to see why that changes in negatives.

That it is... and then you have a cold day like today and forecasts of high 30's for next weekend. The weather just seems all over the place at the moment. (I live in Picnic Point and work in Ingleburn by the way so my weather experiences might be a little skewed compared to yours but heh).

Well, not by much. My time is split between East Hills and Randwick. I think it tends to be colder around here because of the wind coming off of the Georges. Especially in the morning, my god!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

No. Its not even close to being hyper boosted. You have a one in twenty chance of getting up on your own and a fifty fifty chance of striking out.

The mathematics here is not as simple as you present. Your mathematics is ignoring the 50% chance each round that you neither strike nor save (see below).

In 3e: the chance of an unassisted PC in the negatives surviving is generally less than 1% (with great variation depending upon how far in the negatives they are.) Most people don't realise there are three sets of hoops an unassisted character must jump through, each at 10% otherwise the character keeps losing hit points at varying time intervals, even after they are stabilised. This is the basis for my statements regarding 3e, negatives and the probability of dying (see upthread for greater details).

In 4e: You have a 45% chance of getting a strike (not fifty/fifty), you have a 50% chance of staying in the "dying" state or a 5% chance of saving. You are dead upon the third strike. What this produces is an interesting set of probabilities in terms of surviving.

*Chance of surviving with no strikes: 10%
*Chance of surviving with 1 strike: 9%
*Chance of surviving with 2 strikes: 8.1%
Therefore the chance of surviving unassisted in 4e is 27.1% [Which is slightly different to what I thought Hussar quoted earlier actually. I'll check and re-edit if there is a problem with my mathematics and excel fu]

Thus I stand by my comments that going from a probability of less than 1% to just over 27% is a hyper-boost in terms of survival without assistance.

*The first requires the summation of an infinite geometric series while the second two require a little understanding of binomial probability (senior high school mathematics) but that is certainly not everyone's cup of tea.

Also, make sure you get the rules correct before you start criticizing them. Unconscious is not the state in which you drop under 0 hit points. Dying is the state in which you drop under 0 hit points.

That's cool, sorry for not formally using the correct term in this regard. Still, the unconscious state is a dominant subset and feature of the dying state so I hope my informal use of it has caused no confusion.

If however, you are saying this because you have your 4e defender shields up rather than your EN World discussion goggles on, then please no friendly fire heh. I have been a 4e player/DM since it came out, and have been a DDI subscriber since they offered the subscription. I feel I am allowed to criticize elements of the ruleset as I am any previous ruleset. There is a difference between being critical of features of the ruleset and being critical of the people playing it or how they play it and the obvious enjoyment they derive from it. The latter ones I have zero interest in. The former is why I love discussing such things on EN World.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Yeah, I tend to skim most of this forum for the aforementioned purpose.

I understand your context and I'm still failing to see why healing surges can't serve the same function of powerful healing magics in 3.x in your examples.

A second wind in this context is basically just the character pulling through their near death experience. The healing surge in this context, after the second wind, could easily be a magical narrative event. That's the beauty of their nondescript nature. I failed to see why that changes in negatives.

Perhaps it is just a personal preference thing but I'm not sure. As DM I don't feel comfortable describing a serious injury (let's say a smashed chest [possible broken ribs/cartilage damage/coughing blood from bleeding lungs etc.]for example) if the PC can possibly show no ill effects from this within 6 hours through entirely mundane means. If magic is involved, I'm sweet. If magic isn't involved, then I would feel like I overdid my description (to the point where I was not doing a very good job interpreting the mechanics into the immediate and long term narrative of the game for my players). I would have been much better just describing a minor wound that they could reasonably recover from within a day (and indeed this is treating wounds in the negatives like ones in the positives - inconsequential in all but the short term). [Note the difference here between recover and heal. I don't think the wound would be anywhere near fully healed - this would takes days at least - but I do assume that it no longer has any meaningful impact on the character's survivability]

Is that shaping my concepts more fully?

Well, not by much. My time is split between East Hills and Randwick. I think it tends to be colder around here because of the wind coming off of the Georges. Especially in the morning, my god!

We've had one or two frosts this year. Really cold August too. Such is the weather.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Perhaps it is just a personal preference thing but I'm not sure. As DM I don't feel comfortable describing a serious injury (let's say a smashed chest [possible broken ribs/cartilage damage/coughing blood from bleeding lungs etc.]for example) if the PC can possibly show no ill effects from this within 6 hours through entirely mundane means. If magic is involved, I'm sweet. If magic isn't involved, then I would feel like I overdid my description (to the point where I was not doing a very good job interpreting the mechanics into the immediate and long term narrative of the game for my players). I would have been much better just describing a minor wound that they could reasonably recover from within a day (and indeed this is treating wounds in the negatives like ones in the positives - inconsequential in all but the short term). [Note the difference here between recover and heal. I don't think the wound would be anywhere near fully healed - this would takes days at least - but I do assume that it no longer has any meaningful impact on the character's survivability]

Is that shaping my concepts more fully?

Yeah, I understand but there is nothing stopping healing surges from performing the narrative purposes you propose. In my opinion, they are more dynamic than the mechanics you have previously stated.

If you are more comfortable with magical healing then why not attribute a magical narrative to the healing surge after the second wind?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If you are more comfortable with magical healing then why not attribute a magical narrative to the healing surge after the second wind?

Because I am an old (well older) player curmudgeonly with my magic. I suppose my concept of magic is one mysterious yet one that requires skill/ability as well as volition. In terms of magic, I suppose I still cling to the trope of those that can wield magic and those that cannot as defined by the rules traditionally set down and the fantasy literature I enjoy. Deep down, I suppose I like to exclude when it comes to magic in an attempt to make it more special and less commonplace. So yeah... I suppose it may come down to a style thing with a handful of deep-seated assumptions. Your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Darwinism]

Everything you post just indicates that you're incapable of imagination past your preferred edition.

So play it. Don't try and build idiotic scenarios to try and 'prove' your preference unless you want to defend that per 3E RAW it is literally impossible to die of starvation or exposure.

Every system has flaws because modelling reality makes for a horribly unfun game.

tl;dr: You like what you like, unless you want to take the it's-been-a-month-without-food-or-water-narrate-your-PC-surviving challenge, you shouldn't nitpick.


edit: Also, narrative wounds are not properly done via HP, anyway. Even in 3E, unless you want them to be narratively worthless as soon as they've got a healer, the best way to treat actual debilitating injuries is purely houseruled unless you want to imagine that enough magical liquid makes limbs reattach with no ill effects ever even if they've been severed for weeks.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Because I am an old (well older) player curmudgeonly with my magic. I suppose my concept of magic is one mysterious yet one that requires skill/ability as well as volition. In terms of magic, I suppose I still cling to the trope of those that can wield magic and those that cannot as defined by the rules traditionally set down and the fantasy literature I enjoy. Deep down, I suppose I like to exclude when it comes to magic in an attempt to make it more special and less commonplace. So yeah... I suppose it may come down to a style thing with a handful of deep-seated assumptions. Your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Well, from what I'm reading, I would agree in your case there are a lot of build up assumptions. I can see a very clear condtradiction to your description of magic which makes me think it's more of a viseral feeling you get from pre-4E mechanics?

What you are describing to me is perfectly possible with healing surges. The problem I seem to be running into over and over is that your perception of healing surges are based on an assumption that they are different some how from magical healing. The only difference you're offering is the visceral nature of surges.

The healing surge after a second wind is wide open for narrative explanation, adrenaline being one. The subsequent surges to get a character even remotely functional for another encounter still has to come from a triggered mechanic and most of those surge triggering mechanics, that work outside an encounter, are magical in narrative.

As for fantasy literature, despite its renown conservative streak, the rules vary from book to book. In your preferential books, do they have near death experiences?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Everything you post just indicates that you're incapable of imagination past your preferred edition.

Maybe take a step back. I think you are making a snap judgment here that does not quite match with the tone of the thread. I think you'll find I'm not as bad as you're inferring.

So play it. Don't try and build idiotic scenarios to try and 'prove' your preference unless you want to defend that per 3E RAW it is literally impossible to die of starvation or exposure.

This entire thread is based upon the somewhat humourous premise of "proving" idiotic scenarios. Hussar is setting the challenges (and Mallus threw one in too - as did I but I guess you missed that one unfortunately) and it is all about exploring the options available, some surprising and some less so.

Every system has flaws because modelling reality makes for a horribly unfun game.

I suggest taking the 4e defender shields down and lightening up a little. There is always a careful balance of game versus the occasional nod to what would seem "real" when designing rules for an RPG. The balance achieved reflects the preference. Just please don't use the "unfun" word in a serious sentence. You'll give people the wrong idea.

tl;dr: You like what you like, unless you want to take the it's-been-a-month-without-food-or-water-narrate-your-PC-surviving challenge, you shouldn't nitpick.

Dude you really need to take a step back and chill. I think you are reading way too much in to this thread (and my contribution to it) based on reading a couple of posts. Read through the thread and you will see how it has developed. Nit-picking from the thread host down has been the rule of the day, but in a good-natured way. Read through it and you will (hopefully) agree.

edit: Also, narrative wounds are not properly done via HP, anyway. Even in 3E, unless you want them to be narratively worthless as soon as they've got a healer, the best way to treat actual debilitating injuries is purely houseruled unless you want to imagine that enough magical liquid makes limbs reattach with no ill effects ever even if they've been severed for weeks.

If you had have read all my posts (unimaginative as they may seem), you would understand my opinion on hit points. Thus what you write does not make sense.

Peace dude.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Darwinism]

If you had have read all my posts (unimaginative as they may seem), you would understand my opinion on hit points. Thus what you write does not make sense.

Except you seem to view HP as the only method of displaying physical harm to a character. Why? They're not a measure of people being hurt at all; never have been, never will be. If you want characters to have significant injuries a HP total makes it literally impossible to do so.

"You took 70/97 damage so your arm was cut off."
"Oh, okay, I just drink a bunch of CLW potions and now I'm at max HP so that means my arm is back on."

The entire premise of the thread is narration of something that's idiotic in any edition of D&D past AD&D 2E. If you narrate someone losing an arm to an attack, but they just get better because of ~*magic*~ it's silly. But, because that brand of silly has been around longer, somehow it's more believable for people that there HAS to be a cleric or other divine caster to reattach limbs than a scenario where wound levels aren't so incredibly over-the-top and people are better at getting their second wind. This amuses me to no end; you talk about hyper-fluency and other made-up terminology to try and draw attention from the fact that your argument comes from the basis of idiotic tradition rather than some sense of realism. "Well, you see, back when magic was the only method of healing we could describe injuries in gruesome detail! Nevermind that a Cure Light Wounds would heal a level 1 character from the brink of death itself to decent fighting shape, or that the same spell would do all for a tenth level character! It was magic! And because we were told that, we accept it! Healing surges what is that I cannot accept that because it's not what I learned initially!"

Your argument is based in what you learned to play with and you're forcing yourself to find fault in the new system because it's not what you learned first. Because, hey, magical healing of massively described injuries which is just effectively a houseruled depiction of HP, that's kosher. But, but, you can't apply surges to that houserule! Surges require more hyper-fluency or some term you coined to justify your dislike!

Mod Note: Ladies and gentlemen, our language filters are there as a last lien of defense. Their presence does not mean we encourage folks to post in states of mind in which the filters get invoked. If you're in the mood to spread around foul language and vitriol (over how to describe things in a game, really?) we suggest you don't post.

And, of course, we suggest you don't respond in kind. It isn't like Darwinism will be in the conversation any longer to hear you anyway. ~Umbran