Physickers and mishaps

[Jeff Lord]

This is what I wrote on 12/31/18:

"I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind those advocating that the physicker is able to treat each "wound."

Let's say I've got a ST 11 archer. He takes four discrete "wounds" of three points each (3/3/3/3). This takes him down to -1 ST. But with a master physicker and 20 minutes, he would be doing cartwheels? And if (however unlikely) the same thing happened five more times that day he'd still be at his full ST 11?

I realize that each roll might simulate one wound in a one-second GURPS turn, but TFT has a more abstracted five-second turn, so a lot can happen. A roll of 8 points of damage from a two-handed sword could certainly be imagined to have come from a single blow, but the same 8 damage roll from a dagger in HTH might be three or more quick thrusts in a five second span. I think the notion that a single roll for damage equates to a single "wound," in this case, might be oversimplified."

So, with respect, I think we should consider carefully when using words such as "logical" and "illogical." From where I stand, a physicker treating each "wound" is "intolerably illogical" (see above example). I think Steve got it right with RAW and his stated intent. Treating each damage roll as a separate "mishap" can be a perfectly fine, but no more logical, house rule for those who prefer it.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lord

So, with respect, I think we should consider carefully when using words such as "logical" and "illogical." From where I stand, a physicker treating each "wound" is "intolerably illogical" (see above example). I think Steve got it right with RAW and his stated intent. Treating each damage roll as a separate "mishap" can be a perfectly fine, but no more logical, house rule for those who prefer it.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone by using the word "logic", but rather to say our ideas about healing logic were why we played it that way, and logic has always been my focus, and the reason I play SJ RPGs rather than almost all others - because they are logic-oriented and mostly make lots of sense.

This probably isn't the right forum to have a really detailed back-and-forth discussion about healing theory. And such discussions have been had on this forum a few times already.

I do see your points, but I see them as separate points that want separate consideration. But if you want to get into another discussion about it, I'd be happy to do so in the House Rules sub-forum.

[JimmyPlenty]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lord

This is what I wrote on 12/31/18:

"I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind those advocating that the physicker is able to treat each "wound."

Let's say I've got a ST 11 archer. He takes four discrete "wounds" of three points each (3/3/3/3). This takes him down to -1 ST. But with a master physicker and 20 minutes, he would be doing cartwheels? And if (however unlikely) the same thing happened five more times that day he'd still be at his full ST 11?

This is the idea of Hit Points being more of an abstraction than actual wounds. So, in your example, with RAW, be considered one fight were a lot of attacks happened, but only one or two really mattered (and loss of blood, shock...etc.) for 12 points. A Physicker saves them, but they are still pretty messed up.

[Jeff Lord]

@JimmyPlenty - Precisely; the example I gave was to show how the treatment per wound idea could be seen as (deeply) flawed. RAW yields the result you describe. The archer in question would indeed be pretty messed up with only 2 strength remaining (assuming a master physicker). With treatment per wound, he could be on death's door numerous times during the course of any given day and yet be at the peak of health come nightfall. This seems off to me.

@Skarg - I'm a huge fan of logic as well. I think the RAW are logical. You and your friends came to a certain conclusion about healing back in the day regarding the logic of the physicker rules. My friends and I came to another. So who's more logical? ;)

I've stated before (in previous threads) that this discussion was more suited to the House Rules sub-forum. I'd be more than happy to pick it up there.

[Skarg]

Ok, I started a new thread there.