April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Sunseeker]

No. No -1 at percentage of hp. No death spiral for me. If they would implement this, it was the first thing i ruled out.

Agreed, while I enjoyed Deadlands, wounds worked there because HP worked differently, even targeting worked differently. D&D can't simply add a wound system, it would need a complete revision to it's health system. And honestly, I don't think D&D needs to reinvent the wheel at this point.

 

[Dausuul]

Gygax himself described HP as largely intangible, with only a few being actual physical damage.

So you are proposing that some of your hit points represent physical state and nothing else, and others of your hit points represent intangibles and nothing else. In other words, a wound/vitality system. I'm perfectly fine with that, it's my preferred system in fact, but on the list of things that have been in D&D, it ain't one.

The way I've seen D&D narrated before 4E, each individual hit point has been a mix--some physical state, some defensive skill, some luck, some divine favor, and so forth. But that means every hit point incorporates an element of physical state. If you lose a hit point, you take a wound.

How big a wound is going to vary, since the mix is not the same for everybody. The hit point of a high-level fighter is maybe 90% intangibles and 10% physical, while the hit point of a low-level fighter is 10% intangibles and 90% physical. So when a high-level fighter loses 1 hit point, it's just a scrape, where a low-level fighter losing 1 hit point has taken a minor wound, and an elderly commoner losing 1 hit point is very possibly mortally injured (if that was the only hit point she had). But they've all been wounded.

Overall, it seems awfully nit-picky to let a little game jargon get in your way. Every game "rewrites the dictionary". That's how jargon works (and every game has jargon). You take words, and you assign new, specific meanings to them.

There's a difference between using "fire" to describe effects produced by heat (which might not always be a literal open flame), and using it to describe effects produced by sound. The former is a slightly abstracted, stylized version of the English meaning. The latter is rewriting the dictionary.

In 4E, what is described as "healing" is in the majority of cases not healing at all. This, I object to. If it were just a once-in-a-while corner case, that would be one thing, but in 4E it is more common for "healing" to be not-healing than for it to be actual healing:

Clerical powers: Healing.
Healing potion: Healing.
Second wind: Not healing.
Warlord powers: Not healing.
Use of healing surges in a short rest: Not healing.
Recovering all surges/hit points with an extended rest: Not healing.

If it's not healing, then Wizards should change the name to something that fairly approximates what it is. If it's "just game jargon," I don't see why anyone objects to this. Those of us who care, will be happy. Those who don't care, aren't affected either way.

 

[Estlor]

I don't really understand why there's such a displeasure/disconnect with the Healing Surge as a game mechanism. Really, it serves to perfectly viable, inherently "D&D" ends.

First, just as hit points are an abstraction of your ability to absorb, dodge, shrug off, or simply withstand physical punishment, a Healing Surge is the abstraction of your ability, be it through adrenaline, inspiration, or just pure force of will to regroup and keep going through punishment. A distance runner can dig down and push through, but only so many times. Likewise, an adventurer can grit and bear it, but only so often.

Second, it exists as a form of resource management to challenge players. Just like spell slots of arrows, the party has only so many Surges in their collective pool to use throughout the day. It incentivises them to 1) Know when to rest and 2) Make sure the fighter isn't the only one getting pounded on. And, honestly, anything that promotes the cleric, rogue, or wizard to take a little punishment from time to time is A Good Thing™.

Basically, a fighter with 27 hit points and 5 healing surges is only different than a fighter with 57 hit points and no surge mechanic by the fact that 30 of their 57 hit points need a special action to become available.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't really understand why there's such a displeasure/disconnect with the Healing Surge as a game mechanism. Really, it serves to perfectly viable, inherently "D&D" ends.

Replace "D&D" with "action hero"(preferably with 'last' preceeding it) and its closer to the mark.

When I think D&D it triggers impressions of smart gameplay leading to success and survival.

Surges help insure success and survival in cases where players do not wish to burden themselves with the albatross of thought.

Nonmagical healing has always existed, it just takes time. Enough time that deciding on combat as a course of action was a meaningful decision. Cheap plentiful healing (magical or otherwise) removes the impact of those decisions. After all why parley or negotiate when you can steamroll over your foes, stand around for a few minutes and surge right back to full effectiveness?

If the core mechanics of 5E feature thought as optional I won't be very interested.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The druid is on par with the cleric as a general combatant, or possibly even better; the cleric is a much better healer. The statement in the Rule of Three article that a pre-4e bard or druid was a capable substitute healer was absurd; they were not even close in healing ability in any edition of D&D except 4e (if you consider 4e shamans and Essentials Sentinel Druids as the heirs to pre-4e druids).

In 3e, anyone able to use a wand of cure light wound was a capable substitute healer. Even a rogue with a high charisma and a good Use Magic device would do in a pinch!

80% of healing occured between encounter anyway and nothing was more cost efficient than the wand of CLW.

 

[Janaxstrus]

In 3e, anyone able to use a wand of cure light wound was a capable substitute healer. Even a rogue with a high charisma and a good Use Magic device would do in a pinch!

80% of healing occured between encounter anyway and nothing was more cost efficient than the wand of CLW.

Wand of Lesser Vigor is the best, actually.

 

[avin]

Our priority is the core system, plus our four iconic classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) and four major races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling)

That's it! I'm out!!!

In all seriousness... boo, Wotc, boo...

 

[avin]

Compromise means willingly choosing less than the best.
That is off the table.

IMO there's no D&D edition that could earn "The Best", including Pathfinder. That's why I'm going to try DDN.

 

[dkyle]

So you are proposing that some of your hit points represent physical state and nothing else, and others of your hit points represent intangibles and nothing else. In other words, a wound/vitality system. I'm perfectly fine with that, it's my preferred system in fact, but on the list of things that have been in D&D, it ain't one.

I'm not proposing anything new there. I'm talking about what Gygax himself said about HP. There's no "set" number of "physical" hit points. It's just that they're abstract. It's fluid which HP represent intangibles, and which represent actual damage. As they've always been in D&D.

The way I've seen D&D narrated before 4E, each individual hit point has been a mix--some physical state, some defensive skill, some luck, some divine favor, and so forth. But that means every hit point incorporates an element of physical state. If you lose a hit point, you take a wound.

That may be how some prefer to narrate that, but as far as I know, none of that has ever been established by any rules.

To me, it's silly to say that every hit is an insignificant scrape or bruise, then suddenly a hit incapacitates someone. It's hard to make contact with someone's skin with a weapon, and not do real damage, even if you're trying to avoid hurting them. Having it happen constantly, by sheer luck or something, when the combatants are trying to kill each other, strikes me as incredibly unrealistic. Near misses, and non-physically-damaging glances off armor, that require extraordinary effort from the defender, make much more sense to me.

I also find it silly that a character can't get back the 90% of an HP that might represent non-physical damage non-magically simply because 10% of the HP represents a little scrape. Why is defensive skill, luck, and divine favor inextricably linked to, and limited by, superficial little scrapes and bruises?

If it's not healing, then Wizards should change the name to something that fairly approximates what it is. If it's "just game jargon," I don't see why anyone objects to this. Those of us who care, will be happy. Those who don't care, aren't affected either way.

"Heal" is a simple and evocative term, that has always referred to increasing HP, in some way. If we have to switch to "recover HP", then we are now using a more cumbersome, less evocative term. And it has to be applied to all HP recovery, and never using the term "Heal" for HP recovery. If a Cleric "Heals", while a Warlord "recovers HP", and both are doing the same thing, then you haven't actually gained anything, because "Heal" is still being used to refer to something that does not mean fixing physical damage, since the Warlord can do it too.

The only difference between 4E, and previous editions', use of the term "Heal" was making it consistently a true counter-part to the term "Damage". Just as "Damage" has always included lose of intangible things keeping us safe, "Heal" now also refers to regaining intangible things keeping us safe. And by the sounds of it, WotC is wisely keeping that consistency in 5E.

 

[dkyle]

No. No -1 at percentage of hp. No death spiral for me. If they would implement this, it was the first thing i ruled out.

Really, a -1 possibly up to -3 is a "death spiral"? Far more serious status effects get tossed left and right in 3.X and 4E.

I figured it was a little to flavor the Wound as being something physical, and be worth removing, but not enough to be a serious impediment.