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: 5713817" data-attributes="member: 11300">I think there are two narratives going on here. There is the immediate and specific one in regards to rolling a result and describing it, but there is also the overall narrative that is garnered where the general statistics of the mechanics shine through (the relevant one being that a PC in 4e RAW will never take a serious but non-fatal wound when a PC looks back over there multi-level many-year career. The most they ever copped was healed by the next day).Because a 10hp wound is not enough to force a massive damage roll and from your description was not enough to put the character into negatives. As such, aside from being knocked prone, the character was still acting at capacity (and so describing anything more serious than a barely distracting flesh wound is not mechanically supported by the rules).As BryonD said before, hit points are part "damage" and part "abstract" so your analysis does not seem to disagree with his. My own way of narratively describing this is that the gash is starting to heal and causes the PC no further distraction or discomfort (but you are going to have a nice scar there in a week or so's time).This is true for a mechanically speaking superficial wound in both editions. What I suggest you do is mechanically revisit this exact same circumstance, except this time the 10hp wound takes the PC down to -5hp (as per Hussar's guidelines). This is where I believe several posters have shown that their is a significant difference between the resulting narrative in 3e and 4e. I would be interested by your analysis.Except that probability-wise, an untended PC knocked into the negatives will almost certainly die. This is significantly different in 4e under the same circumstances.Or to be more specific, you have magical healing and you have natural healing. Spending surges may be magical or it may be non-magical in nature. When it is non-magical in nature, you can get some weird (or technically I suppose the term is "absurd") results. This bothers some players while not others (as this thread HAS clearly demonstrated).Fine. In all examples, the character is acting at capacity. As such, even though the "bloodied" condition can be used as a springboard for certain powers and abilities, a character in 3e or 4e who has positive hit points is functionally at capacity regardless of the damage they have taken. To describe them in this case in either 3e or 4e as seriously wounded would not be backed up by the mechanics of the game. The only possible exception to this is a failed massive damage fortitude save resulting in instant death. But again there is a glaring hole here in your argument. What about damage that takes character's into the negatives and knocking them out? I don't think many would have any disagreement with the reasonableness of what you have described. Except that you have completely avoided the mechanical situation where people are saying there is a difference between 3e and 4e: when PCs go into the negatives.That's OK if all you want in adventuring is milk, cookies and appropriately spooned out treasure parcels but what if you want the depletion of certain resources to have a more significant impact on the adventure where the PCs have tough decisions over a period of days? 3e RAW can "sort of" support this style of play depending upon what magic the DM has handed out as well as the types of PCs involved. 4e RAW as you highlight actively doesn't support this (although it can be house-ruled).And good for you. When you discuss the negative hp situation further, you may see where some posters DO have an issue with the spectrum of possible resulting narratives.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification