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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6672407" data-attributes="member: 996">They are both. The latter being the much more important point.  "'Shouting wounds closed" is both pejorative from it's over-use in the edition war, /and absolutely false/.  The power in question was "Inspiring Word" and nothing in it claimed to close wounds, let alone make them disappear.  The only reason it does get repeated is because it was one of those 'lies repeated so often it becomes your truth" memes from the edition war.   With the help of another such character, yes.  It's a common trope in heroic genres.  4e, intentionally or not, modeled it neatly with Healing Surges - which all PCs had and could use once/encounter via Second Wind, but which Monsters had at most one/tier (and non-heroic NPCs, very likely, none) and couldn't trigger at all - and Inspiring Word, which required the target have a surge.  The Warlord could Inspire a seasoned fighter (allied monster, mechanically) or an heroic PC to 'refuse to die' and 'keep going' in spite of having been wounded, triggering and enhancing an ally's surge.  If he was out of surges, though, no help, it'd take something like a Cure..Wounds utility or a Paladin laying on hands (since those prayers didn't requires surges of the subject).In essence, 5e has two kinds of active hp-boosting.  Healing and temp hps.  4e had 3:  temp hps, surges, and non-surge healing. Those scenes do not show characters who recover in an instant, they show characters who keep going regardless of the injuries that they still have. How is this dynamic not captured by (1) remaining conscious at zero, (2) recovering a small number of hit points like a second wind, and (3) having temporary hit points to reflect the grit and determination to stay in the fight? Yes.  Standing up a fallen ally, which that doesn't do.  It's not a degree of difference, but a difference in kind.  What's the gap between 11 eggs and a ham sandwich?  No number of eggs makes a ham sandwich.  I'm sorry. It's a perfectly valid reason, by itself, and the reason behind many class-design decisions in 5e.  For instance, there'd be no Vancian casting in D&D if 0D&D hadn't used Vancian casting.  But, no, it's not the only reason.  What you're describing, in spite of badly you're describing it, happens in heroic genres all the time.  A character is hit, goes down, another holds the character and talks to him or shouts from across the room, and, nice and dramatically, his eyes open and he re-joins the battle.  Heroes being beaten initially and then rallying to victory is downright a formula in all heroic genres, and particularly in fantasy - very rarely do they rally because some pious dude in armor chanted over them or they knocked back a round of Healing Potions.  Much more often, it's heroic determination, often helped along be a leader or hero giving a rousing speech, or just being the first to his feat and moving.  It's a trope, a cliche, even.   You are, you're saying it's "not D&D," which was, yes, another edition-war 'pejorative,' and /false/.    4e & 5e are both D&D.  They're both d20 games, every class in 5e was present and well-done in 4e, both games use hps, had overnight healing, and HD & surges are analogous.  There's no technical reason the 4e Warlord couldn't be /very/ closely ported to 5e.  The biggest practical impediment to doing so is that it would be strictly inferior to 5e casters, having far fewer and probably less powerful rest-recharge resources (4e classes topped out at 3 dailies at 10th level, 5e casters start with 3 daily spell slots at first and go up from there).Given that, and the different design philosophy and much more open design space of 5e, it'd make more sense to explore novel mechanics for the Warlord, that allow it to do everything it could in 4e, and enough more to make it competitive in 5e. I can empathize. <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=";)" /> Distinction without a difference, either way it's describing hp loss, and, thus, what hps represent. There is a very clear distinction between damage up to half your hp total, and damage beyond that.  The former involves "no signs of injury," while the latter involves actual, minor wounds, like cuts and bruises.Thus, the first half your hps are no-meat, and the second half, very little meat.  That flatly contradicts certain hp theories.  But, it doesn't matter, because it is, afterall, just a sidebar, and opens with:  "Dungeon Masters describe hp loss in different ways," clearly leaving the whole issue that hp theories try to paint as universal entirely in the hands of the DM. Sure, the guy taking psychic damage has a nose bleed or whatever.  (And I just have to note that 'trivial slashing damage' could be 40 hps, if he happens to have more than 80 total.  Nothing trivial about slashing damage that'd drop your warhorse.)So you're trying to say that there's 'no difference' between being 'hit' with an axe and having no injury of any kind, and being hit with an ax and suffering a bleeding gash a couple inches long.  Clearly, there's a difference.  In one case, maybe you're winded or not quite as sure you'll get through this fight.  In the latter, you have sustained an actual, albeit minor & totally un-impairing, physical, injury.  Or is your point that taking the injury is a sign that you were low on hps before you were hit, and the injury doesn't represent hp damage, in itself, at all? Because that'd actually make some sense.That is one of the elephant-in-the-room oddities of D&D that really effs up just about every theory about what hps supposedly represent, and, really, sets the bar for D&D 'realism' so low there's really no point in worrying about it. Nod.  It's the kind of thing that might be one of a large set of commands or maneuvers or something, rather than a feature, for instance.  If you have several healers in your party, for instance, you might choose more abilities in the tactical and buffing lines, and little or no healing, with something like this as a stopgap until the healers can do their job.  If there aren't healers in the party, you'd opt for more hp-restoration of your own.  Of course, that just emphasizes how the class needs to be flexible/versatile both in terms of chargen/level-up choices, and in play. That's softening your position enough, I guess.Letting characters spend HD in combat, for instance, is the kind of thing that could be done in a limited way (obvious limitations, like once between rests, for instance, but also in the sense of being one of many choices, so losing that mechanic under a radically different-from-Standard campaign doesn't mean re-writing the class, just dropping one option it presents), and phrased carefully enough to work smoothly when HD are merely modified, rather than done away with.  That's not compromise.  5e was meant to be an inclusive game.  That precludes issuing existential threats and offering to 'compromise' on them.  If you simply don't want a warlord, you have no reason to engage in discussions about it, and no position on it from which to 'compromise,' - if such an option is ever added to the game, you simply won't opt-into it.  If you actively want to deny anyone from every getting the option of an official Warlord in D&D - and that's the position you stake out when you say you're "willing to compromise on existence" - then you not only have no business participating in discussions of the warlord, your participation sinks to the level of active sabotage.  This is the only line in the post you replied to that mentioned HD:And, this is the only thing epiphet had suggested, himself, that he might have been referring to:Which is an example, though, not a great one, of triggering HD, not of creating a separate pool of HD.</blockquote>

Verification