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: 5708070" data-attributes="member: 11300">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.Takes time to me is anywhere from several days to several weeks. Takes time to me is not insta-healed within a day.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).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 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. 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.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 RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification