Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5710802" data-attributes="member: 11300">I thought I pretty clearly showed that the "into the hp negatives" in 3e was common enough not to be unfairly titled a corner case, particular also because of the significance of such a situation when it happened. If left untended, such injuries were serious enough to be practically fatal (or even at best long terms affairs). As such, they are not the type of injuries that one could insta-heal from and thus the DM was encouraged to treat negative-hp-causing wounds in such a way. This is of course using 3e mechanics and the narrative it generally provided.There are no similar mechanics in 4e and thus most likely why for many 4e players this does not come up and is simply not an issue and has never even been an issue when playing previous editions because their style of play didn't worry about such things anyway: DEFCON 1 as a prime example here. For others, it is an issue. Essentially thus it comes down to playstyle. You don't think it is an issue because it has zero effect on your gamestyle. Some do think it is an issue because it does impact their playstyle forcing them to change how they (not you) play the game (I look forward to hearing a multitude of complaints from you regarding Monte's 5e<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> and the effect such rules may or may not have on your game). It is not a case of them (or possibly you in the future) playing the game wrong. It is a case of 4e not fully supporting how they play the game (and possibly 5e for you in the future).This facet is obviously a crucial one of several that caused a large portion of players to feel that the new edition of D&D did not support their playstyle, while perhaps for an equal portion of players, they felt that finally D&D was actively supporting how they played the game (I'm thinking of you Pemerton<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=";)" />). Hussar, you too are obviously on the latter side of the fence while I'm getting splinters sitting on the fence by playing and supporting both editions. I'd also like to think that I'm equally critical of all editions, despite the focus on this one particular issue. My motives in discussing such things are mainly to try and bash whichever D&D ruleset I'm discussing into some semblance of form that most keenly supports the way I play.In truth, I think the majority of realisations in regards to this topic have been unearthed with hopefully some greater degree of clarity than what some might have had before entering the thread. Whatever the case, I think I've adequately explained my thoughts and thank you Hussar for the interesting discussion.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification