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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5714410" data-attributes="member: 336">Just so we're clear I'm not declaring anything superior to another.  What I have already discussed is that one is better, for my purpose.Now let's talk apples to apples.  The "narrative" is in the control of the DM and players.  If we are going to "house rule" one thing in one game, then we can't really call shenanigans when someone demonstrates how to "house rule" the same in the other.If we say that altering the assumptions of one game, to "narrate" our story better, is perfectly fine.  We can't in the same breath say that altering the assumptions of another game, to "narrate" our story better, is not fine.In 3.x magical healing was casually common.  It was expected.  The wealth by level guidelines are there for a reason, to keep the characters "balanced" within the expectations of the base game world.  Healing Potions, Magical Healing from classes, and "heal sticks" are part of that base assumption.  They are ridiculously affordable at almost any level.If I want to make 3.x a world with low magic, with the purpose of making healing a slow process. I'm engaging in "house ruling."  Removing magical healing, or making it more rare than is actually supported by the rules, is "house ruling."  That is not the base assumption of the game.So when I decide to make healing in 4e slower than the base assumption of the game, I'm also engaging in "house ruling."  I'm changing the base assumption of the game.Honestly at least, you cannot look at one and say, "that is house ruling."  Then turn and look at the other one and say, "that is NOT house ruling."And that is what I explained as selective reasoning.  I choose to house rule so that healing is slower than the base assumption on X, but then someone shows me that they do the same in Y, and I say, "that is just a bridge too far."I understand that these are all personal preferences. I've explained why neither affects MY games.  But blaming the "rules" for one, and in the same breath lauding the "rules" for another, when we are "house ruling" both, is just a little silly. In 1e a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance.  If you had assistance it took at minimum a week to "heal" from. After 4 weeks you would recover all your capacities (full HP). BTW assistance was usually magical as, IIRC, you would not recover diddly on your own.  There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.In 3.x a hit that took you to 0 or lower was probably going to kill you, if you had no assistance.  The chance of stabilizing on your own was slim (10% to stabilize naturally and another 10% to even heal one point). If you had assistance that was not magical, it would take you at least a day to be back up on the + side of HP. If you had magical assistance going into negative HP was simply a speed bump.  The default assumption was speed bump. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.In 4e a hit that took you to 0 or lower is probably going to kill you, if you have no assistance. Three failed saves and you are dead, and you must have at least one healing surge to even recover into + HP territory. At the end of an Extended Rest you can recover all HP and adventuring resources. That is the base assumption. There are no "long term" injuries except the ones the DM wants to create for his game.  However, the game does support diseases right out of the box, and those can really screw up your day.All of the above is assuming that you have someone to at least protect your body from any creatures that might be hungry in the area.So when you mention "long term" wounds you are making several "house rulings".  There is no one to help you, and there is no magic.  Neither are base assumptions of the game.So if I decide to "house rule" the "long term" wounds in 4e I'm also stretching the base assumptions.Neither of those "house rulings" is wrong or superior to the other, but let's not pretend that they are not "house rules."  Both games support them.All of this I've already covered in other posts.  The "narrative" is completely in the control of the DM and players.I think that [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION] had a very good post about the responsibilites for the narrative.  I'm only going to quote the last part but reading the entire post would probably put things into perspective</blockquote>

Verification