Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

[Bedrockgames]

Seeing as how the terms "leader" and "healer" have entirely unwanted connotations and implications, I declare henceforth that all classes which can serve in a primary HP-restoring capacity, whether that ability is gained through invigorating and inspiring allies, stitching wounds via arcane magic, regenerating flesh through primal magic, or channeling divine might, be known not as healers or leaders, but rather as "Freshmakers."

Freshmakers shall carry in their possession at all times a paper-wrapped stick of chewable mints, and shall upon expenditure of any HP-restoring power, gesture towards the subject of such with said stick of candies in the form of a "thumbs-up" and grin knowingly.

I am certain that this move will immediately calm the great majority of tensions and assist in the settling of many disputes regarding the verisimilitude of HP restoration.

If mentos cannot unite us we are doomed.

 

[Hussar]

Never said that. I just said I am not interested in having 4e forced on me and having to completely alter those elements to suit my tastes. It is much easier to have those 4e fixes as optional ad ons than have to take them out.

Please don't try to read my mind Hussar. You have been pressuring me and other posters to embrace 4e forever now. When we say we dont like it, you ask why. When we give a reason, you deconstruct it and try to tell us that really isn't our problem. Ultimatley your solution is what we need is a dose of 4e. This is getting very old.

And BRG doesn't make D&D, it makes gritty modern, horror and historical games

And I'm not interested in having 3e foisted on me either. So, again, why is your taste better than mine? I'm perfectly willing to accept 4e style healing being a module. Fine, I won't be dancing in the streets, but, I'll adapt and overcome.

OTOH, you've repeatedly stated that unless we follow your style of HP as the default, you won't buy the game.

I'm not saying you need a dose of 4e. What I'm saying is that your tastes in no way are better than mine.

I'd rather a bias toward quality than no bias.

Again, quality for you. Going back to 3e and earlier style healing would be a huge step backward for me. You keep insisting that your taste has some sort of objective value. Sorry, like BRG, your tastes in no way are superior to mine.

 

[Hussar]

Wrong.

Go grab a 1E PH. Psionics are right there.

Psionics were presented as an optional rule in the 1e PHB, so, no, he's not wrong.

 

[Libramarian]

I think the other element to consider here is transparency, which is what I think 4e favoured over simulation and opaqueness. Some people have said they don't like transparency, which is weird to me as I vastly prefer it.

Basically separating effect from flavour for abilities makes it more likely that the ability will work as written all the time, and not be randomly nerfed or buffed by scenario specifics or the referee thinking Power A shoudn't work on a Tuesday.

The more opaque and subjective rules mechanics are, the more likely there will be genuine disagreements amongst the players and the referee as to how particular rules elements work, and particularly how they interact with each other.

The more subjective the rules are, the more I feel I have to play the referee not the game, and I hate it. I'm not good at it, and I want to play the game, not constantly find out my impression of the rules and setting is at odds with the referee or other players.

I don't like opaque rules which need interpretation and could be read in multiple ways , often with significant differences in outcome - I prefer transparent ones which do just what it says on the tin, to minimise the amount of special pleading with the referee that needs to be made to affect the game world.

I don't think abilities should be arbitrarily made useless or negated, something that happened in some D&D editions, to some classes more than others. I can see a place for weakening abilities somewhat in rare encounters, but too many global immunities and random nerfing can make lots of valid character concepts very unfun to play.

Obviously tastes differ, and if they differ too much maybe players won't collaborate well together. But the idea of the next edition is to be flexible enough to allow most players to coexist and mostly enjoy a game together.

I completely disagree with you here, although your language is sort of vague and philosophical as it were, which likely is exaggerating our actual difference in taste when it comes to D&D play at the table.

 

[FireLance]

I'm a numbers guy, and looking at the numbers, I think that we can have the simplicity of tracking one hp total (no need for a VP/WP split) and have non-magical restoration of hit points in the same system, with the following assumptions:

1. Hit points are composed of physical hit points and intangible hit points (vigor, morale, luck, divine favor, etc.).

2. Physical hit points can only be recovered through magic or time. Intangible hit points can be recovered quickly, through a short rest, being inspired by a warlord, etc.

3. A 1st-level character has only physical hit points (based on Constitution). From 2nd level onward, a character's increases in hit points are solely due to intangible factors.

4. When a character loses hit points, he loses physical and intangible hit points roughly in proportion to his current physical and intangible hit point values, with a bias in favor of losing intangible hit points. For example, if a character has 10 physical hit points and 20 intangible hit points, and he loses 9 hp, he loses 3 physical hp and 6 intangible hp. If he loses 11 hp instead, he loses 3 physical hp and 8 intangible hp.

Now, assuming a typical character has a Constitution of 12 and gains 5 hit points per level after 1st, a character's intangible hit points would have overtaken his physical hit points around level 4 (12 physical, 15 intangible). So, a 4th-level character who has been reduced to less than half his hit points ("bloodied" in 4e) would have lost at least half his intangible hit points, and since his intangible hit points are more than half his total hit points, the intangible hit points lost would be more than one-quarter his total hit points. This means that when a 4th-level character has lost half his total hit points, we can restore one-quarter of his total hit points and quite safely attribute it entirely to the recovery of intangible hit points.

After we have done so, the character now has proportionately more intangible hit points and so will lose proportionately more intangible hit points each time he loses hit points. The next time he drops to half his total normal hit points, we can again restore one-quarter of his total hit points and quite safely attribute it to the recovery of intangible hit points.

This allows you to set the following relatively simple rule:
At 4th level, a character who is below half his total normal hit points may take a short rest to recover one-quarter his total normal hit points. In combat, he may do the same by spending a standard action to take a second wind (and a warlord or other non-magical "healer" may allow a character to take a second wind without the need to spend any actions). He may do so a total of X times per day (where X is some number which may be dependent on class or Constitution, or may be set by the DM depending on his preferred game style).

Under this system, an extended rest (or a day's rest) restores 1 hit point (assumed to be physical) and resets the number of times the character can take short rests and second wind actions. This means that while the character is on an adventure, he will normally be operating between 50% and 75% of his full normal hit points without magical healing. He can only recover all his hit points (non-magically) by taking a full rest, which is defined as a week (or more, at the DM's preference) of rest (no strenuous activity, so no adventuring!) in a comfortable environment.

What happens to characters who drop below 0 hit points and who do not have access to magical healing will depend on the DM and the style of campaign he wishes to run. A DM who wants to run a more realistic campaign may require the character to have a full rest before he can regain any hit points. One who wants to run a more heroic campaign may allow the character to continue adventuring without penalty. A more middle of the road approach could be to allow the character to continue adventuring, but at a penalty to indicate that he is operating at 0 physical hit points. This penalty disappears after he has taken a full rest.

This system effectively treads a middle ground between the 4e approach of non-magical healing being almost as good as magical healing, and the approach in previous editions of non-magical healing being almost ineffective in the short term. A party that only has access to non-magical healing will have to operate on a narrower hit point buffer, but can still recover some hit points fairly quickly when wounded, and push on.

 

[howandwhy99]

Kudos to the OP. Believability over realism a great point. And you didn't even bring up the V-word [Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness)]

 

[Hussar]

There is another way to view it, kinda along the way that Firelance talks about. Every HP is vitality/luck/mojo except for your last one.

Would fit how HP's are described rather well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And I'm not interested in having 3e foisted on me either. So, again, why is your taste better than mine? I'm perfectly willing to accept 4e style healing being a module. Fine, I won't be dancing in the streets, but, I'll adapt and overcome.

OTOH, you've repeatedly stated that unless we follow your style of HP as the default, you won't buy the game.

I'm not saying you need a dose of 4e. What I'm saying is that your tastes in no way are better than mine.



Again, quality for you. Going back to 3e and earlier style healing would be a huge step backward for me. You keep insisting that your taste has some sort of objective value. Sorry, like BRG, your tastes in no way are superior to mine.

we aren't arguing that our tastes are superior (i have tried to be that thesse are merely subjective preferences). But since 4e healing is built on pre 4e healing (i am actually arguing for the 2e approach to much of this stuff--not 3e), it just makes so much more sense to use standard HP as the core and allow 4e healing to be added in as a module. The issue is they are trying to unite the fans of four editions and the core needs to be basic enough to that. If the core is set up like 4E, they will attract fansof 4e but not the others. Lets remember this arose mostly because of the splintering in the wake of 4E's release. So many of the 4e elements (powers, surges, etc) are going to be dealbreakees for many pre 4e and pathfinder fans (because those are the reasons they left the edition in the first place). So no one is saying our preferences are better than yours, just that there are some basic realities the designers need to confront. You jave alread stated you can handle surges as an ad on (and that is a solution that i am fine with), so clearly there is something to that approach.

I am not trying to be mean or attack your preferences when i say i am uninterested n a D&D that uses surges and 4e powers as core. It is just that my time is important to me and i want to spend it playing rpgsthat don't disrupt my immerssion andthat have mechanics that make the game fun for me----and i dont want to have to surgically remove components that do the opposite. I am find adding in many of my preferences to a neutral core system, i just dont want to have to take stuff out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Doubtful. The problem with hitpoints is that the people who don't have a problem with them don't have a problem with them because they don't really think about them. This is key to not having a problem with hitpoints. Of course, the people who do have a problem with them won't accept that for an answer, so they constantly poke and prod until we have to make up elaborate justifications which are mostly baloney. Like Gary Gygax's in the 1e DMG.

And that's the problem with classic hit points. They make absolutely no sense when you look at them closely but are simple enough to use that many people don't. 4e instead of simply saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attempts to justify them - which makes them stand out much more. So people who don't care about the curtain now see it drawn back.

I would probably have to see thisin action but most likely no, because my issue isn't just the rate of recovery. The other issue healing surges create for me is their ability to undo something Inhave just described in a given combat.

Then don't describe the things they can undo.

The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid.

I really, really dislike this idea. The inspiring leader telling someone to get back to his feet is a cinematic staple and works well for a reason. The combat medic would just be another incarnation of the healbot - thanks but no thanks.

Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?

Oh, I agree the names are all wrong. I think that the term "Hit point" is used in exactly the wrong place in 4e - and that your hit point total should actually be the number of healing surges you have. This is your total physical damage. What are called hit points in 4e would be much better off called something like "Shock value".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then don't describe the things they can undo.
".

That isn't how I like to play. I like describing Hp loss as physical damage. I dont want to have to work around healing surges to accomodate my style.