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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5708230" data-attributes="member: 53980">Sure, a 15th level character in 1e with 5 hp remaining is injured.  If you'll look at the text you quoted, I said, "Loss of hit points in earlier editions didn't represent serious damage until the last few hp".  However, that same fighter, at 50 hp, was scratched up and metaphysically fatigued (not seriously injured).The equivalent in 4e, to the 5 hp character, is a character who's bloodied and out of surges.  Without magical healing (Cure X Wounds) this character is not likely to survive another encounter (just as with the 1e character).  The difference being, the 4e character had deeper reserves to draw upon.  He faltered and surged back several times that day, possibly without the aid of magical healing.  The 1e character's decline is much more linear (he has no internal reserves).  Since we're talking about the range within which a character's hp primarily represent metaphysical factors, I don't think that one is "more right than the other".In 2e, if a character took damage, we narrated it as a scratch or bruise.  A character who was low on hp was said to be fatigued or exhausted; perhaps covered in little cuts.  Characters above 0 hp never suffered broken bones, were never disemboweled, and in general didn't suffered hampering injuries.  To us, any other approach would have been silly as the consequences weren't reflected in the rules.In 4e, it isn't that damage doesn't inflict injuries because you can "wish them away".  4e has a bloodied value; bloodied means that you've received some injury, minor though it may be.  4e characters are heroic though, in the John McClane sense.  The hero of the Die Hard movies receives numerous cuts, scrapes and bruises throughout the movies.  Sometimes they even slow him down for a short time.  However, moments later, he's back to fighting form.  Given adrenaline and even just sheer mental fortitude it isn't unrealistic, even from a real world perspective.  I say this as someone who's studied martial arts for 10 years.All I'm saying is, that while you may have a preference on the matter, neither system is perfect.  4e's characters bounce back too fast to be realistic, but 1e characters arguably bounce back too slowly.  Why does it take a high level fighter 2 months of natural healing to recuperate fully from a few nicks and bruises on a metaphysical level?  That seems more like the rate of recovery you'd expect to see from the infirm, not a fighter with an 18 constitution!The reason I prefer the 4e method is that at least its non-realism supports not forcing characters to sit around for months if they're injured and without a priest.  Let's face it; D&D has never been hyper-realistic about damage; neither the 1e nor 4e characters are in any way penalized by their "serious injuries".  They aren't limping around.  They aren't denied their shield bonus because they're too busy keeping their guts from spilling out.  As long as they stay above 0 hp, both are effectively 100%.  IMO, a "seriously injured" character should not be able to effectively compete in the Olympics, but D&D characters have always been capable of this because they aren't penalized at low hp.That isn't to say that I'm an advocate of death spirals or hyper-realistic wound systems.  I'm not (although I think there's space to accommodate an optional system to allow it in "gritty" games).  D&D has traditionally been a game of heroic fantasy and the ruleset should reflect that (and a hit point system does this effectively).  We can debate the particulars all we like, but I think it's best to keep in mind that no hp system (to my knowledge) has ever done a better than passable job at modeling reality.  Your opinion is that the model from earlier editions is somewhat better; my opinion is that the 4e hp system works better.  I hope that we can both agree that neither is perfect.</blockquote>

Verification