NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RotGrub" data-source="post: 6869504" data-attributes="member: 6777078">For my style of play, there are two reasons for this. 1. Soldiering on means you do it without healing. 2. The only way to recover hit points is via a long rest (weeks) or magic.Also, Soldiering on should be risky. Exactly the point. Well that's not part of 2e.  But what page is this information on? I'd like to read it.Still, I don't think that makes much sense.  What if the PC is a tiny creature, undead, or the PCs is a golem /mechanical like race?  Obviously, the description for hit point loss can change.   In some cases, greater wounds can be described and others not so much.My entire point is that HPs loss should be defined how you see fit for the situation at hand.  If you want to describe a physical wound you have the freedom to do so.  The problem is that with powers like Second Wind and 5e insta-healing your previous narrative might make no sense at all..   You are therefore limited in how you can describe a wound.   To fix this issue, some adopt the 50% rule,  others claim the only real wound is the one that puts you at or below 0, and others limit hit point loss to anything but an actual wound.    Now, I'm not claiming that you can't adopt these definitions or that people who do so are wrong.  I'm simply trying to explain that I have a different definition of HP loss and recovery that IS supported out of the box with 2e.  I'm sure Tony and others here would roll their eyes at my descriptions of damage just as much as my group rolls their eyes at 4e and 5e Insta-healing.</blockquote>

Verification