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

[Hussar]

Yeah, because your unending red herring questions trying to replace big picture issues with 5th decimal place issues establishes a reasonable assessment.

You can tell me up is down and I can never make you say otherwise. But it doesn't change that up is up and down is down.

Fifth decimal place? Dude, I'd be happy with anything approaching a number at all. Any number. Ballpark is fine. I'd be pretty content with a margin of error of about 30% in either direction.

The problem is, your opinion is based on about as much fact as is contained in the average Weekly World News. Hearsay, third hand anecdote and coincidence.

Ok, how about this one. Can you provide any evidence that prior edition gamers significantly out number 4e gamers? Because, if you can't, then losing a 4e gamer to gain a 2e gamer is a net loss. They HAVE the 4e gamer right now. They don't have to spend millions of dollars to get him. They are, however, spending millions of dollars on 5e in an attempt to make us both happy with a game flexible enough to satisfy both our tastes.

That doesn't mean that you get pandered to and anything else gets shoved off into the corner.

 

[Hussar]

This

And that's totally fair.

No one is saying that 5e should port in 4e's healing system 100% without any changes. Well, if anyone's saying that, I dunno. I know I'm not saying that.

But, can we change the 4e healing system to achieve what you want? I think yes, you can. If it's martial healing that tips your boat, well, eject the warlord. It's not like that matters. Or does having the warlord as a character option mean that the game is now broken and totally not to your taste?

If you want slower healing rates, that's also a very easy fix. You regain healing surges more slowly. There, done. Maybe go with Bill91's idea of SWSE's second wind mechanics to further reduce things. Whatever, it's fairly simple changes to achieve what you want.

Now, let's see you change the 3e HP recovery system to meet my needs. I can change my system to match yours pretty easily. But, if you want to keep your definition of HP, how can that system achieve what I want - faster recovery, martial healing, and the design space to use non-tangible effects as damage (Ie, scaring you deals damage)?

Because, that's what it comes down to. We want to design a system that is flexible enough to encompass both approaches. I think that the 4e system, because it's so abstract, is far easier to adapt. But, again, as I asked several pages ago, sell me on the earlier interpretation. How can I adapt that system to what I want?

If you can't, then that is a bad system. It only supports your playstyle and not mine. The 4e system can support both pretty easily and that's been shown multiple times in this thread. How do we both get what we want?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar, i said already, the easiest way is to have surges as an optional ad on. It is like i said before, i am not interested in 4e elements like HS (i dont want mundane heals like that in my game and like i said before my big concern is believability but i also dislike the mechanic itself). My hope is for 5e to fee more like D&D again to me. Stuff like HS and 4e powers dont achieve that IMO. If they decide to cater more to 4e fans by packing the core system with those things, i am fine with that--i have others games i am playing---but i am not interested in paying D&D if they continue on the path of 4E style innovation. From the beginning i have said i dont think you can bring 4e players and pre 4e players to the same table. You can bring them to the same system, provided there are enough options for each side to create the experience it wants.

 

[Hussar]

So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game. You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.

Ahh, ok. I have to wonder then, why bother discussing the game? I mean, you're not interested in any sort of mechanics other than what came before. I have to give you full credit for honesty though. It's not like you're even trying to be conciliatory or even bothering sugar coating it.

For you, it's "go back to older editions" full stop.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game. You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.

Ahh, ok. I have to wonder then, why bother discussing the game? I mean, you're not interested in any sort of mechanics other than what came before. I have to give you full credit for honesty though. It's not like you're even trying to be conciliatory or even bothering sugar coating it.

For you, it's "go back to older editions" full stop.

Now you are just putting words in my mouth

 

[Umbran]

So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game. You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.

You're making this personal. Are you sure that's the road you want to take?

Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Whether he has some specific motive doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

 

[Umbran]

The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part. It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage of damage greater than 0% is physical. That part cannot be explained by martial healing.

I have two questions (and I am sorry if these have been effectively answered):

1) In practice (not in theory, but in actual play) how often do you see martial healing powers healing someone up to full hit points? I have to admit that I, personally, don't find some problems worth worrying about if they *might* happen, but in practice isn't too common. I accept a design that has the occasional edge-case that I have to wave my hands over. Others, I know, are really bothered by theoretical issues.

2) Are you not open to the effect seen in all the major action heroes - "Yes, I still have physical damage, but I *don't care*, I'm pushing through anyway!" Martial healing may not fix the physical damage, but gives the character a boost in other areas that overrides those physical issues, especially given that the game doesn't have a "death spiral".

 

[nightwalker450]

I think the point is, classes will need to be defined how many healing surges they get. It's better to make this core, since it needs to be defined on a per class basis. For those that don't want it, it's simple to say all classes get 0 healing surges (or 1 if you feel generous).

For abilities, there's a strong line between surgeless healing and when a heal costs a surge. So we'll need this defined for spells and abilities. For you it's simple to say all healing is surgeless.

Little to say, there's grades of power in spells when surges are used. Whereas going without surges, just simplifies everything down to "heal". So with surges as optional, you'll need a rewrite of half the spells, abilities, and classes.... With surges as the standard, and having without being the option, you need a paragraph or two.

 

[Libramarian]

Time-based healing works for all interpretations of HP, because of course: "time heals all wounds".

Whether you're thinking of hitpoint loss as damage to bodily tissue or fatigue, or loss of morale/will/focus, it makes sense that resting over time will heal that.

Now obviously serious physical wounds take much longer to heal in reality than the other interpretations of damage, but that doesn't seem to bother many people. You just kind of split the difference, and have the time spent resting be a few days up to a few weeks, adjust to taste. Not so long that you can't imagine benefiting from that rest even if your damage is mostly physical/mental fatigue. Not so short that you can't imagine benefiting if your damage is mostly physical harm.

It's pretty simple -- we need healing mechanics that work for all the interpretations of hitpoint loss.

Healing with a morale-boosting peptalk is inflexible. It's just too pushy and specific with its interpretation of HP. I don't think it should be in the game, but I also don't think healing with an antibacterial poultice should be in D&D either, for the same reason. It's too specific about what sort of hitpoint loss has occurred.

It seems quite clear to me that the warlord peptalk should give his allies temporary hitpoints, like the barbarian rage.

 

[Derren]

But, to answer your question

You have not answered the question.
Is it a serious physical wound? You do not know how the wound will be healed or if the PC even dies from it.

At that point, what is the wound? And before you come with "it doesn't matter, simply don't tell the player what happened to his character", this answer won't cut it. To claim that 4E is more consistent than previous edition the DM has to know at this point what is going on.