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: 5714423" data-attributes="member: 11300">Or if you do allow an extended rest it is within almost a day and thus your "serious wound narrative" goes out the window. A harried group is obviously not going to be doing much healing in any edition of the game; and that is different to having a genuinely serious wound that will impact play for several days regardless of what the DM throws (or artificially throws) at the party. I appreciate that this is the only circumstance that gives you any mechanical inclination to "possibly" describe a serious wound but there is still obviously a problem here. Let's say that you have a PC go into the negatives with no surges left - the most perilous not immediately fatal situation the mechanics offer. And let's say you bust out the serious wound description as you would have done in 3e. And let's say you as DM are determined to harry the party for 3 days in advance so that you have your narratively perilous situation of "keep the seriously wounded PC alive" (a fun/challenging circumstance) so that the PC involved is kept in a "serious" condition. Except what happens then if the PCs execute a brilliant plan, get there extended rest and whoopsy, the serious wound becomes just the typical 4e insta-"recovered" flesh wound? The DMs description has been contradicted and I among others don't like the rules doing that to me so with that knowledge, even deep into the negatives with zero surges left, the mechanics encourage me to simply say something along the lines of, "you think he's not looking too good but if you can get him to a place of safety (read extended rest) then he should be up and at 'em by tomorrow. If you can't get that rest, his situation is not going to improve."I accept in 4e RAW this is the best you can do.Having to enforce a lack of extended rests is an uncertain way of getting a serious wound narrative that unfortunately can still be contradicted. It is still an issue for some. And yes with a few tweaks to the system that I think should have been there in the first place it is easily remedied but as RAW goes, as far as an expectation from WotC that this is the baseline of expectation for the game, there is a gaping big hole of narrative options for some (or a ledge for others <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=";)" />) that "should" be there.In essence, would it not have made more sense for the designers to be more inclusive of all playstyles than sticking to the "purity" of their gamist vision in regards to this issue? I think from Mearls' and Monte's articles, this is a lesson that at least they have learned.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification