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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5708598" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Um, he doesn't have the odds of recovering on his own. According to Herremann, if you're at -5 and you've got five shots at stabilizing before death, then you've got a 41% chance of stabilizing. Okay, that's a sizable chunk. So, we'll be generous and say that you stabilize every three rolls (fail, fail, succeed). You've stabilized at -7. Yay, right?According to RAW, this is what it looks like without help:So, you roll each hour, with a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. I said every two rolls, so you wake up at -9. However, you're still at -9, and you still don't recover wounds naturally, you've still got to roll 10% chances. Which means, yes, you lose another hit point and die at -10.So, yeah, it's supported by 3.X mechanics. Without help, that character will almost certainly die.Yay!I never saw that coming <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />No, nothing I've said has broken RAW. It's a grey area, and I can see your argument, but I'm also okay being wrong on it. And the reason why is because you're making the issue about descriptions of wounds, and not narrative paths from the wounds received. Substitute recovering from any serious wound with my infection in my example and you can see the difference.Instead of an infection, substitute it with a club blow to the base of the skull and neck, or an axe that digs into the meat of their shoulder before the head it flat-bladed across their face, or a spear piercing your leg above the knee, and shock taking over while blood pools.Yeah, you can have these descriptions in 4e, but you can't have the long term effects, which is what I've been saying in the thread that spawned this one. Go ahead and replace the "infection" I used in my example with nearly any other serious-sounding wound. It's not whether or not the description can be used in 4e that's in question, it's whether or not the wound can change the story like it could in 3.X.In my example, you have a serious wound that takes five days to heal before magic (and about another eight without it), a party drops everything to care for that one character, moving each day to get him to safety and to a town. If he had stayed up, the story would have been them continuing on their quest. That long term wound changed the story, and that's where I'm saying 3.X has more narrative opportunities than 4e when it comes to wounds taken. If the wound would have healed overnight, the party picks it back up the next day and continues, in 3.X or in 4e. If he dies, they leave either way. If he's injured for a few days, they pack up, take off for a town, and come back when he's healed, and that's not possible with natural healing rules by RAW in 4e. Thus, 3.X offers more narrative paths than 4e when it comes to natural healing.You're hunting for the wrong thing. You're saying, "there should be more narrative space, you said so!" I've clarified, saying that it's not about description, it's about how the long term wound can change the story. And, once again, it's "then why aren't I hearing tons of examples of descriptions available in 3.X that aren't in 4e?" Well, because that's not where I said 3.X had more narrative paths, that's why.Name me as many different wound descriptions as you can that sound like they could be serious. You seem to think there are a lot that would work in 3.X or in 4e, so it shouldn't be hard. Plug the serious injury ones into my example, strip out the infection stuff, and track the story. If it differs from what 4e is able to offer by RAW on natural healing because it opens up a new path for the story to take, then I think 3.X offers more narrative paths in that context.It keeps coming back to specifics of the wound, and that's sidestepping what we were talking about in the other thread (which, according to you, is what caused this spin-off). If you want to keep the topic the same, it's only fair that you don't sidestep what we were talking about, then somehow try to prove us wrong by pointing at stuff we never said as some sort of "gotcha".I've mentioned it's not about realism, and it's not about specific wounds. It's about the effects the wounds (purely HP damage) have on the story. In this regard, I think 3.X has more narrative paths (healed overnight, dead, and healed in a couple days to a couple weeks) than 4e (healed overnight, dead). That's all I'm trying to say.I'm not saying 4e is a bad system. I'd never say that about any system. I'm all for playing in a type of game you enjoy. It's not meant to be a value judgment, since some people like the feel of it, obviously. I was just pointing out that, for me and my group, we dislike the feel of it, and I'd like to see narrative paths open up. There was a debate on whether or not past editions allowed more narrative paths, and here we are.Do you at least understand what I'm trying to communicate? I'm trying to civilly discuss what caused this entire thing. I'm trying to let you know -with clarity and civility- what I've been trying to say. I just feel like you're ignoring that to "win" something in this thread, and that's not something I'm very interested in. You're trying to "win" in regards to description, which isn't something I even commented on in the first place. As of yet, you haven't really acknowledged that you even know what I think myself or Herremann are trying to point out. I hope I'm not muddling it up somehow. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification