Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5707923" data-attributes="member: 11300">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".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).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.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].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 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.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 RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification