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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6335967" data-attributes="member: 42582">As I think you realise, one possible solution is to not describe wounds. But I don't think it's the only solution, which is good for you because you want to narrate wouds. I'll explain shortly.The DM's error, in your example, is in his/her second statement.Given that you like a game in which some hit point loss reflects wouding, and in which heroic characters can push on despite their wounds, why retcon the wound into a scratch? Why not narrate the warlord's healing along the following lines?:"Spurred on by your valiant comrade, you ignore the pain and the blood and hurl yourself back into the fray!"No retconning required. That's roughly how we handle it in my game. (I should add - I think we're on the same page that we're talking here about cuts and bruises, not evisceration or maiming.)(For a technical analysis: the hit point loss due to the orc's attack indicates a wound; but the hit points themselves aren't a wound tracker. They're a resilience/monentum tracker. When the warlord restores momentum with an inspiring wound, the hit points go back up, but that doesn't change the fact that a wound was suffered and is still there.)Thanks for the reply. The pacing bit I get, but not the mechanics bit. People use a variety of mecanics for social resolution (skill roll, skill challenge, free form = say yes/no, etc). Gygax in his DMG endorses multiple mechanics for finding secret doors (roll 1d6, describe twidding of knobs and manipulation of sconces, etc). But D&D has never really embraced multiple mechanic for resolving combat. I don't see why not - it solves so many problems! (4e comes close - minions and solos can be seen as variant combat resolution mechanics, but they are disguised as monster builds.)</blockquote>

Verification