L&L 5/21 - Hit Points, Our Old Friend

[DMKastmaria]

I think this hits the nail on the head, regarding compromise. Too many people state only what "they" want & "deal breakers", rather than if the new ideas are reasonable & workable. Some amount of compromise is required. Overall I am pleased with the article. Also that most gamers are staying open minded.

No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.

I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing.

Now, in spite of all this talk of "old school" design influences, I've seen precious little to make me think that 5e will be a good choice for "old school" play.

And that's quite allright! I already have more than enough options, when it comes to what games I want to run.

So, if I'm correct, then I hope those who like the game, have fun.

But, I'm not going to "compromise" and spend what little bit of gaming time I have, prepping and running an rpg that isn't suitable for my purposes. That I don't like, or like far less than other editions/rpg's.

No, Compromise isn't required of me, at all! WotC can either put out a game I want to run, or not.

 

[jbear]

No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.

I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing.

Now, in spite of all this talk of "old school" design influences, I've seen precious little to make me think that 5e will be a good choice for "old school" play.

And that's quite allright! I already have more than enough options, when it comes to what games I want to run.

So, if I'm correct, then I hope those who like the game, have fun.

But, I'm not going to "compromise" and spend what little bit of gaming time I have, prepping and running an rpg that isn't suitable for my purposes. That I don't like, or like far less than other editions/rpg's.

No, Compromise isn't required of me, at all! WotC can either put out a game I want to run, or not.

Err... skipped a few pages ... read the above ... rolled eyes. Fair enough I guess. It would also be fair not to care about an opinion so unbudging. Really, what can you bring to a discussion of any kind apart from "I want this, this and this and if I don't get it, then I'm not interested" ?

But I digress. I think it sounds like a very interesting and fun way of running HPs. That's just my wee opinion there. So for those who are saying that the random nature of HP recovery will be disliked by 4e fans ... well, here's a 4e fan that you'd be wrong about. And as others point out, it's a very simple matter to make the dice a static average.

All that said and done, to those that don't like it or how it sounds right off the bat, I'd say not to worry. The game is at a very early stage and the system won't make the final cut if the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. So, why not try it out and see how you feel about it after you've given it a whirl to see what you think? That's the point at least for me.

 

[pemerton]

I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling. Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount. Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount. +1 to attack rolls? Monster defenses go up the same. Leveling in 4E was pretty much about fooling people into thinking their numbers were getting better and allowing them to add on more option in terms of more encounter, utility and daily powers.

I've often said that levelling in 4e is very obviously not a reward mechanic (despite being labelled as such in the DMG) - for just the reasons you give!

It's a type of pacing mechanic, for supporting a steady change in the overall campaign situation (assuming the GM is using the published MMs/MVs, you start out fighting goblins and end up fighting Lolth), and for supporting the gradual increase in power complexity.

I think this is a big difference between 4e and by-the-Gygaxian-book AD&D. (I can't comment on 3E - I don't know it well enough in this respect. I think a lot of 2nd ed AD&D campaigns may have treated levelling a bit more like 4e does.)

L&L for D&DN: Physical capacity for punishment, which is measured through a combination of size, bulk, and durability. An elephant or a hill giant has plenty of hit points due to raw physical endurance and bulk. Big creatures can take a lot of punishment.​

This makes me very happy. It's much, much better than:

4E's general approach: Hit points of a normal monster should be roughly four times what a non-striker does on an average damage roll, regardless of the characteristics of the monster in question.​

Night and day.

Although Mearls also says that hit points reflect energy, experience, luck and cosmic significance. And I don't think any ratios were specified. In my 4e game, on the few occasions where I've used solos or elites that aren't especially big (some powerful wizards, some vampires) I've narrated their energy, experience and cosmic signficance along with their hit point loss.

I would be pretty surprised if D&dnext doesn't include plenty of high hp monsters of modest physical size (just as AD&D does, with its high level NPCs, its succubi with higher hit points than oxen, etc).

To put it another way - I think that there has always been an element of "assign hp first, supply ingame rationale later" in D&D monster design. 4e may have taken it to new heights, but I don't think it pioneered it.

The part, that bulk and mass equals hp was something lost in 4e. A creature beeing a solo, just because it is the only enemy right now makes no sense.

As I've said, Mearls indicates bulk and mass as only one component of hp. After all, high level PCs presumably get more hp, without necessarily putting on weight!

 

[pemerton]

I've read the Mearls piece, and this thread.

As far as I can tell, these "hit dice" are analogous to healing surges, but:

*the value from spending one is random rather than fixed;

*the total average value of a PC's HD will be approximately equal to half his/her total hp value (assuming a figter has 1 HD per level, a 1d10 HD giving an average of 5.5 hp per HD, and 10 hp per level);

*the rate of HD recovery may be less than "all per day";

*there will be no way to unlock HD in combat.​

Using only HD expenditure, it will therefore take about double a PC's HD total to fully replenish one's hp. Which, depending on the rate of HD recovery, will take more than a day and possibly several days. (If HD are recovered at the rate of 1 per day, we'll be back to the AD&D weirdness that lower level PCs recover their mojo more quickly than higher level PCs, although according to the fiction of the game higher level PCs are more cosmically significant than lower level ones.)

Assuming I haven't missed anything, rapid progression through combat encounters will require magical healing (as per some versions of pre-4e D&D), or alternatively combat encounters will do much less damage, so that healing to (near-)full between encounters won't be necessary (as per some other versions of pre-4e D&D).

This doesn't particularly enthuse me. It doesn't outrage me either. (Except for the possibility that recovery is quicker for the weak low-level types than for the buff high-level types. That's always been stupid, and will be stupid if part of D&Dnext.)

What struck me is that apparently there will be no more recovery from unconsciousness without magical intervention, and no more pushing through injury without magical intervention. The whole space for a type of romantic fanatsy that the warlord opened up (and that I see as epitomised by Aragorn's recovery-from-going-over-the-cliff scene in The Two Towers film) will be shut down again.

That strikes me as a pity.

 

[FireLance]

What struck me is that apparently there will be no more recovery from unconsciousness without magical intervention, and no more pushing through injury without magical intervention. The whole space for a type of romantic fanatsy that the warlord opened up (and that I see as epitomised by Aragorn's recovery-from-going-over-the-cliff scene in The Two Towers film) will be shut down again.

That strikes me as a pity.

Whatever the actual rules are, it's going to be pretty easy to implement. There already is a mechanism for non-magical hit point recovery. If the rules say that you need magical healing to get back up from 0, all you need to do is say, "Actually, you don't."

 

[FireLance]

Also, we're back at healing spells that if used on a 1st level fighter turn them from bloody mess of broken bones into examples of perfect health, but on 10th level fighters are barely able to heal a flea's bite.

Not necessarily. Hit Dice is for non-magical hit point recovery. It's been explicitly stated in the article that "Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice". Nothing has been said so far (that I'm aware of, anyway) about how healing spells work. It could be that cure light wounds restores 25% (or 20%, or 10%) of the target's full normal hit points, for example.

 

[underfoot007ct]

No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.

I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing.

Now, in spite of all this talk of "old school" design influences, I've seen precious little to make me think that 5e will be a good choice for "old school" play.

And that's quite allright! I already have more than enough options, when it comes to what games I want to run.

So, if I'm correct, then I hope those who like the game, have fun.

But, I'm not going to "compromise" and spend what little bit of gaming time I have, prepping and running an rpg that isn't suitable for my purposes. That I don't like, or like far less than other editions/rpg's.

No, Compromise isn't required of me, at all! WotC can either put out a game I want to run, or not.

No one is forcing you to try or even buy 5E, or force you agree with anyone. If you think whichever edition you now play is near perfect, then nothing probably will ever exceed that for yourself (& that's fine). No one from WOTC ever kidnapped your old edition books, so if that is what YOU want to play then please do so, good for you. Spend your precious time any way you see fit. Yet if you have so many options to play, why do you seem to care about 5E.

But for the majority of the gamers, who want to play the current version of D&D might want to play 1E or B/X. So for a 4E player to sit down with a 3e gamer and a few 1e guys, there MUST be compromise. 5E needs to appeal to as many gamers as possible to be a success, but does not need every gamer on enworld. I just do not believe it is in the best interest of D&D to create a game that appeals to broadest numbers of games.

I indeed hope you are wrong, then maybe 5E is a game you & most of the "old School" gamers may like 5E. In just a few short days we will know more when the playtest is open.

 

[pemerton]

Not necessarily. Hit Dice is for non-magical hit point recovery.

But if hit dice are recovered at 1 (or 2, etc) per day, rather than all at once, natural healing will exhibit the problem.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think there are two main options for hd recovery:

1. One hd per level per long rest.
2. Variable hd recovery dependable on main class.

Warder

 

[Mercutio01]

we'll be back to the AD&D weirdness that lower level PCs recover their mojo more quickly than higher level PCs, although according to the fiction of the game higher level PCs are more cosmically significant than lower level ones.

This doesn't bother me at all. A fat guy (me) can run about a mile and be completely winded for 30 minutes or so, and then might be able to run a mile again. A marathoner runs 26.2 miles and is exhausted and takes at least a day to recover to "normal" (but still probably is not up to another marathon again), and thus probably only runs a few marathons in a year, recovering for a month or so and beginning training for the next one.

Or take me vs Rocky Balboa. One hit and I'm out. I'll wake up in a short while, and be pretty much good to go. Now, pretend I'm Apollo Creed. I go 10 rounds, trading punch for punch with Rocky until we both fall to the mat. Rocky manages to force himself up at the last second to win, but the both of us spend the next month just recovering before we can even entertain the idea of another fight of that magnitude.

Of course we recover slower because we've taken more damage. That means Rocky can't fight Creed every day. But it doesn't mean he can't function while continuing to heal up, and if he stumbles across a streetpunk, even though he's still not full strength to fight Creed again, he could probably knock out the punk without too much of a problem.



----


On topic: I was vociferously against Healing Surges in that thread. But this doesn't sound all that bad. I think they may have threaded the needle on this one, getting me to accept a sort of Healing Surge-light mechanic that seems rather reasonable. I guess we'll know for sure after Thursday, but I think the Hit Point (clearly defined, for once!) and Hit Dice recovery mechanic might just be the way to do it.