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: 5713844" data-attributes="member: 11300">Yes they do if you look at the probabilities of the mechanics. In 3e a wound that puts a PC a certain way into negative hps is almost certain to kill them. As such, I feel obligated and mechanically supported to describe such a wound as serious. In 4e this situation lacks clarity until the saves have been determined (and thus this results in death or OK).Yes they do. In all situations you have given above, the PCs are still acting at capacity. To describe anything more than superficial wounds (aside from ones forcing a massive damage fortitude save) would not be mechanically supported by the rules in 3e or 4e.If I have used selective reasoning at any point over the last few posts, please point it out, otherwise such claims are baseless.No you have not until you discuss the situation of what happens when a character goes into the negatives.Positive HP TotalIn 3e and 4e:If the PC has positive hit points almost all the "damage" is dealt with on a metaphysical level as the PC is still acting at capacity. Further however, 4e does encourage the bloodied condition which would seem to be a tipping point as to when to describe a cut, gash or something similarly bloody that may allow functional benefits/penalties. The only outlier here is in 3e if a massive damage fort save is required, in which case an impressive and perhaps fatal wound is narrowly avoided or made; such a narrative being mechanically supported by the 3e rules - even though functionally the PC if they survive is still at capacity and thus a narrow miss is perhaps best used.Negative HP TotalIn 3e:If tended, the PC is extremely likely to recover. If close to their -ve limit though, the situation gets more perilous. If tended do with non-magical healing, the PC is healed quickly back to capacity but not as quickly as in 4e. In 3e, the main issue here is the wonkiness of the mechanics of healing that can see a hale barbarian take significantly longer to heal than an unhealthy wizard (who can heal back to full capacity with a pace on par of that of 4e).If untended, the PC is almost certain to die unless they only just snuck into the negatives.As such in either case, the DM is mechanically supported to describe a more serious wound (except perhaps for the unhealthiest of wizards).In 4e:They are out of the action but may be non-magically surged back and "insta-healed" back into combat. As such any attempt to describe a serious wound is not mechanically supported. The difficulty here though is that the damage taken "could" be fatal, but we are not sure until a save has finally been successful. Three strikes though and the PC is gone. While mechanically exciting, it does cause issues for how the DM should describe the seriousness of the wound until the save/strike situation has been resolved. Thus, the DM is encouraged by the RAW to just describe a light wound or instead the hp damage and not to make it sound too bad in case the PC absurdly non-magically "insta-heals" compared to the narrative offered. And thus why the scope for seriousness of injury is limited in 4e compared to that of 3e disproving Hussar's original premise. [I am yet to see anyone on this thread refute this].And I have just clearly shown the mathematical, mechanical and statistical difference between the two. At this stage, I think my analysis is a little more conclusive.It is not necessarily the narrative that is at issue here, but the effects of that narrative and whether they mesh with the actual mechanics of the game. Personally I don't like 3e or 4e in regards to how they deal with healing although I find 3e in this regards a little more palatable to my group's style. Where it might become important is when a 3e party has to mechanically make some compromises or risk probable defeat because their resources are still depleted for longer than a like 4e party's single day. Small potatoes for some (such as you and others), bigger potatoes for others. To each their own and as JC says, 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=":)" />The more possible campaign outcomes a situation holds, the deeper and richer that campaign. I like adventures to have degrees of success as a rule. This means including serious injury that obstructs the adventure, and is not just dealt with away from the camera.But you see I prefer doing what is mechanically supported by the rules. For me, I prefer a ruleset where the mechanics and flavour mesh and are in synch. Where one informs the other rather than obfuscating or confusing the situation as I believe 4e does when hitting negative hps.I don't think this is applicable to my analysis. Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification