D&D 5E Should the Fighter's "Second Wind" ability grant temporary HP instead of regular HP?

[MechaPilot]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around posters such as evil eye, pemerton, and yourself, who do not play 5th edition and yet spend a huge amount of time arguing about the rules. Evil eye in the other thread even said that he hates dungeons and dragons, that it "burns us", and yet wants an 11th hour lightning strike for his opinions to wipe out the two years that me and my group have invested into 5th edition.

If you're not a playtester, or even playing D&D, or even a fan of D&D, why should anyone listen to you or take your opinions seriously?

I would ask that you please not group me together with other posters. Even people who share opinions on a given topic each have their own opinions and preferences.

Regarding why I post about DDN, I want to like it. Heck, I want to love it. I want it to be a game that enables my playstyle (though I don't expect to be specifically catered to), and I want to have that same wow moment that I had when I first started playing D&D.

DDN seems like a solid system to me, though I am still waiting for that thing that wows me before deciding whether or not to adopt it as my edition of choice. I think it's going to be the modularity aspect that wows me, so I expect to have to wait for the DMG to have that wow moment.

I know that I haven't posted here much, so I know most of the people here aren't familiar with me. However, I am the options for everyone gal. I love options. I even love that DDN will have options that I won't use; reading them may provide inspiration for homebrewing options.

In response to the last sentence of your post, I am a fan of D&D. I started with BECMI, played AD&D 2e, 3e, and 4e. I liked each of them, though each one had its own flaws (everything does).

 

[DamageOnAHit]

Does that make a
Difference
Now?
Frankly, there's no problem with getting
a
new perspective.

So long as that perspective coincides with yours.

Question, have you ever played 5th edition? What do you think of it? Are you going to buy it?

Or just post in every single thread about it because no one is discussing 4th edition right now. I'm seriously curious if you guys think people won't notice when you post that you have no interest in playing the game and yet take up over 50% of the word count in every thread discounting people's opinions who actually do like the game, and play it every week.

If you're not playing D&D Next or going to buy 5th edition, I humbly submit that there is a well known internet name for the type of activity that that entails. You know it's true. And so does every one else.

 

[Manbearcat]

Does that make a
Difference
Now?
Frankly, there's no problem with getting
a
new perspective.

Surely one could kill paper umbrellas pending pugnacious egg trout?

 

[SkidAce]

So long as that perspective coincides with yours.

Question, have you ever played 5th edition? What do you think of it? Are you going to buy it?

Or just post in every single thread about it because no one is discussing 4th edition right now. I'm seriously curious if you guys think people won't notice when you post that you have no interest in playing the game and yet take up over 50% of the word count in every thread discounting people's opinions who actually do like the game, and play it every week.

If you're not playing D&D Next or going to buy 5th edition, I humbly submit that there is a well known internet name for the type of activity that that entails. You know it's true. And so does every one else.

No.

I want everyone's opinion so I can see and consider things outside of my personal experiences. I don't care if they stopped playing DnD after 2nd ED (which includes some local folks I know), they are still a gamer.

If they cross the line then, I just don't pay attention. But using your criteria would leave a lot of valuable insights to the wayside.

 

[FireLance]

2. No damage at all occurs until the last hit point is lost and even then depending on circumstances even that might merely be a state of unconsciousness. If any physical injury occurs along the way it is very minor and it need not be healed at all for hit point recovery to occur.

I would re-word it as follows to more accurately reflect my views:

Some minor physical damage, such as a scratch, a burn or a bruise, typically (but not always) accompanies hit point loss. However, no serious damage at all occurs until the last hit point is lost. As hit point loss is mostly due to non-physical factors, hit point recovery does not need to be constrained by, or to the pace of, physical healing. Physical injuries need not be healed at all for hit point recovery to occur.

 

[Obryn]

So long as that perspective coincides with yours.

Question, have you ever played 5th edition? What do you think of it? Are you going to buy it?

Or just post in every single thread about it because no one is discussing 4th edition right now. I'm seriously curious if you guys think people won't notice when you post that you have no interest in playing the game and yet take up over 50% of the word count in every thread discounting people's opinions who actually do like the game, and play it every week.

If you're not playing D&D Next or going to buy 5th edition, I humbly submit that there is a well known internet name for the type of activity that that entails. You know it's true. And so does every one else.

I ran the first playtest, with Caves of Chaos. Didn't fly well with my group; it was just okay. Ran MurDer iN Baldur's Gate, Found the adventure not to my liking. Been following it closely, though, and I'm hoping it becomes a game I'll keep on my shelf and bring out on occasion. I have the pHB and Starter Kit pre-ordered. that good enough?

I think like everyone else I'm hoping it turns into a game I'll enjoy. Right now it's shaping up to be the third-best D&D, and I don't want to be left totally ignorant of how the game develops.

 

[Tovec]

I would re-word it as follows to more accurately reflect my views:

Some minor physical damage, such as a scratch, a burn or a bruise, typically (but not always) accompanies hit point loss. However, no serious damage at all occurs until the last hit point is lost. As hit point loss is mostly due to non-physical factors, hit point recovery does not need to be constrained by, or to the pace of, physical healing. Physical injuries need not be healed at all for hit point recovery to occur.

And I would re-word it as:

Some minor physical damage, such as a scratch, a burn or a bruise, ALWAYS accompanies hit point loss. However, no fatal damage occurs until the person is in negative HP suffering the dying penalty. As hit point loss is mostly due to physical factors, hit point recovery does need to be constrained by, or to the pace of, physical healing. Physical injuries do need to be healed for hit point recovery to occur - that is what hit point recovery is.

That isn't to say that some part of the hit isn't physical, it is. That non-physical make up factors in as well. But every hit is accompanied by physical damage (to me) and so spontaneous self regeneration (permanent HP through second wind), HP regeneration through encouraging words, and non-magical healing need not apply. Magical healing can certainly do wonders in the short term. Just like magical fire can set fires very quickly and from a large source. But without magical fire - from scratch as it were - I would expect the growth to be slow if set by a simple flint and steel. Same goes for magical healing. Long term healing through rest is an option too, and I don't mind accelerated versions of this so that my heroes aren't spending weeks-years recovering from a stab wound. But overnight healing doesn't work for me, it is far too fast. Even days is usually too fast for me but as already pointed out that requires many stacking circumstances to accomplish (in 3e) and so I find it much more acceptable. Or magic. Just make it magic and I'm all set. Even herbal/alchemical in the way of healing potions is acceptable to me. It is the non-magical stuff that rubs me the wrong way. I've spent almost a year getting over a relatively simple (but invasive) operation, I don't see how I would have been expected to bounce back over night and neither should heroes who had the ever loving crap beat out of them. (Beaten black and blue is kind of how I looked after my operation. Kind of how I felt too.)

 

[billd91]

I ran the first playtest, with Caves of Chaos. Didn't fly well with my group; it was just okay. Ran MurDer iN Baldur's Gate, Found the adventure not to my liking. Been following it closely, though, and I'm hoping it becomes a game I'll keep on my shelf and bring out on occasion. I have the pHB and Starter Kit pre-ordered. that good enough?

I think like everyone else I'm hoping it turns into a game I'll enjoy. Right now it's shaping up to be the third-best D&D, and I don't want to be left totally ignorant of how the game develops.

If you think he's a sock puppet, just flag the post and move on, already.

 

[FireLance]

That isn't to say that some part of the hit isn't physical, it is. That non-physical make up factors in as well. But every hit is accompanied by physical damage (to me) and so spontaneous self regeneration (permanent HP through second wind), HP regeneration through encouraging words, and non-magical healing need not apply. Magical healing can certainly do wonders in the short term. Just like magical fire can set fires very quickly and from a large source. But without magical fire - from scratch as it were - I would expect the growth to be slow if set by a simple flint and steel. Same goes for magical healing. Long term healing through rest is an option too, and I don't mind accelerated versions of this so that my heroes aren't spending weeks-years recovering from a stab wound. But overnight healing doesn't work for me, it is far too fast. Even days is usually too fast for me but as already pointed out that requires many stacking circumstances to accomplish (in 3e) and so I find it much more acceptable. Or magic. Just make it magic and I'm all set. Even herbal/alchemical in the way of healing potions is acceptable to me. It is the non-magical stuff that rubs me the wrong way. I've spent almost a year getting over a relatively simple (but invasive) operation, I don't see how I would have been expected to bounce back over night and neither should heroes who had the ever loving crap beat out of them. (Beaten black and blue is kind of how I looked after my operation. Kind of how I felt too.)

What makes my model work for me is that the recovery of non-meat hit points does not need to be tied to physical healing. In a way, from my perspective, a high-level fighter doesn't have 100 hit points; he has 100 points of "turn a fatal wound into a scratch". A sword thrust that deals 10 hp of damage takes away 10 of those points instead of killing him. So, when he gets back those 10 points through non-magical means, he isn't healing. The scratch is still there. Instead, he's regaining 10 points of "turn a fatal wound into a scratch", which allows him to keep dodging one more 10 hp sword thrust without dying.

So why continue to call them hit points? Because they pretty much work the same way, it's a familiar term, and it's shorter.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton I would just inform you that very few people equate the meat position with what you described. It's a bit of a strawman actually to even call it the meat position.

Well I was discussing in a thread recently (maybe with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] - I can't remember), and it was suggested that 8 hp is 8 hp whether it is the first or last hit taken.

The key feature of hp as meat, as I see it, is that healing must correlate to physical recovery, because the "meat" depletion is not the sort of thing that can be ignored with a strong will and a good friend telling you to buck up. (See eg [MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] just a bit upthread.)

Whereas is the physical element of hp loss is what I quoted upthread - nicks, scratches, grazes, bruises etc - then these are things that can be ignored with a strong will and a good friend telling you to buck up.
[MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] in two posts above this one outlines what, to me, is the key feature of "hp as non-meat": because the physical injury associated with hp loss is minor at best, the ability to press on in spite of it can be recovered without the injury itself recovering. I see it as an action-hero generalisation of "you can't die from a paper cut".

have you played D&D since 2008?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around posters such as evil eye, pemerton, and yourself, who do not play 5th edition and yet spend a huge amount of time arguing about the rules.

<snip>

If you're not a playtester, or even playing D&D, or even a fan of D&D, why should anyone listen to you or take your opinions seriously?

I probably shouldn't even respond to this, but feel an irrational urge to do so.

I've been playing D&D more-or-less continuously since 1982. Even when the system I was GMing was Rolemaster, I was playing D&D - my world books and maps were Greyhawk and Oriental Adventures; my modules included The Slavers, GDQ, the OA series, etc; my cosmology was adapted from DDG and MotP. And since 2009 I've been running D&D as my system, and have been putting up with every second thread in which I discuss my game being trashed by people who claim to be D&D fans but don't and won't buy product from WotC, want to tell me that I hate the game and have wrecked it for them, etc.

People who hate 4e, and hate gonzo high fantasy, and want some sort of quasi-sim ruleset, don't own D&D. And don't have a monopoly on commenting on the new edition.