|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:28AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Probably because a warlord can heal an unconscious, dying, deaf and blind ally from across the room. Makes it hard to really see what they are doing as anything other than magical healing.
If their inspirational healing was limited to conscious targets who could actually benefit from being inspired it would make them more logical.
Carl
A General awakened a man from out of his coma in real life by reciting their companies battle cry/motto... we hear and interact with stuff when unconcious.
I have yet to see the supposed deaf and blind ally actually happen.... so we worry about extreme corner cases and make them an ewar battle cry.
With Carl the reasonable banging the drums.
But if he is deaf and blind - would the power work?
Carl
Very very rare situations blown out of all proportion are exactly corner cases the game has degrees of simplicity that are required ... you can paste on hundreds of little if then clauses and make the game utterly unmanageable to deal with it or accept that the game is broad brush strokes.
The General awakening the comatose companion is precisely the rare corner case;
Reality is unrealistic. Dont come back to me with your realism arguments if you are going to pull that hoo hah. It pretty much undermines the core of your jive. (simpler rules resulting from ignoring the real corner cases ... vs... more complex rules by chasing after another set of edge cases).
Don't tell me that the game is broad brush strokes and then cherry pick specific corner cases to support your interpretation of specific rules.
... Lets look out side of reality and see oh my maybe that is a corner case in reality but a trope of fantasy and fiction... the number of movies with somebody crying over somebody else or otherwise waking them from a seeming death or similarly inspiring them to keep on fighting is off the charts.
The blinded deaf unconcious dude ... is just a corner case ... and a pissy little example from an ewar handbook.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:30AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
... Lets look out side of reality and see oh my maybe that isnt a corner case the number of movies with somebody crying over somebody else or otherwise waking them from a seeming death or similarly inspiring them to keep on fighting is off the charts.
It happens, yes. But it happens rarely, not every few fights. It also doesn't heal them. It just wakes them up and then they still have a long painful recovery.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:33AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:33AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
It just wakes them up and then they still have a long painful recovery.
Which is often as not an off camera bit.
In fact we are actually discussing the affecting an unconcious subject with an inspiring word independent of its wound stitching efficatiousness.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:36AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I think the system does need a way for Frodo to have his long term injury, dont think using the same mechanism for short term progression of a fight works worth beans for it though.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:38AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
But in 5e, 50% of hit points deal physical damage on some level. Hit points in 5e are currently not as abstract as they once were. OP even stated that.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:44AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I think the system does need a way for Frodo to have his long term injury, dont think using the same mechanism for short term progression of a fight works worth beans for it though.
I agree. One of the things I have re-discovered since starting the 5N playtest is that I don't like the pacing of the game when players can heal up to full each day. In 4E we didn't play as much "day to day", especially when we were playing LFR - so I didn't notice it as much.
But what I found with the caves of chaos (and more importantly the stuff going on in the Keep on the Borderlands) was that I had plots percolating and developing in town - but the players heading out day after day into the caves moved things along too quickly for those plots to mature.
I would have rather had them be occasionally forced to spend a day or two in town to recover from their injuries just so some actual time could pass. Rather than have them completely eradicate the caves occupants over the course of a week or two, I would rather that had taken a month or more so that the events going on around them would have had time to develop and affect the game.
As it was I had to speed up the development of these plots just so things could happen on their time scale.
My current though is that most encounters should be easily healed with a spell or a short rest. Or a long rest if they were particularly unlucky. But there should always be the chance that something could happen which would force the group to take some time off to recover.
Maybe if a character is dropped negative by a critical hit, it means they sustained a real injury and need to go rest and recover or something like that.
Not all critical hits and not all instances where they fall negative - but maybe if both happen at once.
Something to introduce a bit of pacing and the passage of time into the game - short of simple DM fiat.
Sometimes Frodo does have to stop and rest a bit.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:45AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
But in 5e, 50% of hit points deal physical damage on some level. Hit points in 5e are currently not as abstract as they once were. OP even stated that.
Or is that 50 percent never do on any level ;p
The glass is half full ;p
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:50AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
But in 5e, 50% of hit points deal physical damage on some level. Hit points in 5e are currently not as abstract as they once were. OP even stated that.
Or is that 50 percent never do on any level ;p
The glass is half full ;p
That's they way 5e hit points read to me. First 50% are not physical. Last 50% have a physical component with that component getting more serious as you get closer to 0%. I have no issue with that, as it pretty much mirrors the way I've run hit points for years.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:56AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
But in 5e, 50% of hit points deal physical damage on some level. Hit points in 5e are currently not as abstract as they once were. OP even stated that.
You are correct. I identified the fallacy the OP was accused of. The OP did not actually state that fallacy so the accusation was misplaced. I should have gone back to the original post to validate the accusation rather than just identifying the particular fallacy in question.
Assuming that all injuries are physical in either 4E or 5E is a fallacy of equivocation. The original poster does not appear to be guilty of that.
Carl
|
|
|
