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

[TwoSix]

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

Sigh, I miss all the good stuff. Shame there's no infraction forum.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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.

I agree. On all counts. Except the "3rd-best D&D" part.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

This is a pretty good definition for your viewpoint. I admit when it's not my viewpoint I have a hard time explaining it clearly. I see the superior defensive fighting ability coming back with the healing of the wound.

In my own perspective, I do see every hit as a hit and at MINIMUM it is a cut or scratch. I don't think though a 100 hit point fighter who is now at 20 is just scratched. I believe he could be stabbed. He could have a gash on his head and blood be running into his eyes. I tend as hit points go down to narrate the damage more severely. 0 hit points is when you stop fighting and go down. In my heroic conception of the game, the heroes fight through their injuries and keep on waging battle.

Now I realize that that requires some suspension of disbelief. I find though it requires less for me than the inspiration camp's approach. That is a personal thing I'm sure. Some like it one way or the other and for the most part it probably is because of the feel of the game that results. I have a bloody game and I do generally imagine wounds closing when a cure wounds spell is cast.

I don't really care about natural recovery other than I want it to not be a significant factor in the game. I see D&D adventures advancing forward only because they can be magically healed. Without magical healing they would collapse from their wounds and never get to second level let alone twentieth. So if a DM had a houserule that basically you just don't get any natural healing at all, I could live with it. Because practically, I really don't care for it as a factor. I personally would allow more than zero but zero wouldn't affront me. I might ask if I go to town and spend months in bed will I ever recover and I'd expect the answer to be yes but practically a choice I'd never make.

Also as to the notion that you appear unaffected by hit point loss. If a giant does 50 hit points to a fighter with 100 then that fighter used his superior fighting skill to stave off what would normally be certain death. He though is wounded now. The second time the giant does 50 hit points the fighter goes down. Why didn't the fighter use the exact same superior fighting skill he used the first time to fend off the attack? Because he was wounded and was not defending as well.

Anyway. I am not trying to convince anyone to change how they play. I assume at least some people played their way throughout D&D. I would though say that the game should provide a way for each of these two large camps to play out of the box. It would not be that hard. It's important.

I've bought every edition of D&D all the way through 4e. I spent 300 dollars on 4e before realizing it wasn't for me. I will be selling most of my 4e collection at Gen Con for those interested. I did not convert to Pathfinder. Not because I hate Pathfinder at all and I love Paizo and the owners of Paizo. I just don't like Pathfinder that well. I'd play straight 3e if I was going to play a game from that era. So while I regret spending all that money trying to make 4e work, I do feel that I have been a loyal D&D customer. If I stop buying D&D, I am a dollar they have always had. I just feel that after the backlash against 4e that they should at least offer the old school players who didn't like 4e modernisms an option.

 

[Tony Semana]

At this point, it's obvious that a small lawful evil cabal of posters are artificially keeping this topic alive on the forums everywhere. The survey data, which was peer reviewed and published, showed absolutely no interest or need for alternative options to second wind and other like mechanics.

Interesting! Could you post a link to it or the write up? This is not intended to be argumentative; honestly interested in reviewing it.
Thanks!

 

[Cybit]

Interesting! Could you post a link to it or the write up? This is not intended to be argumentative; honestly interested in reviewing it.
Thanks!

Mearls mentioned it around the 46-47 minute mark on the Starter Set unboxing video on Twitch; that it went from Temp HP to real HP due to playtest feedback.

 

[Tony Semana]

Mearls mentioned it around the 46-47 minute mark on the Starter Set unboxing video on Twitch; that it went from Temp HP to real HP due to playtest feedback.

Ah! thanks, I saw that too. It sounded like (or I was hoping) that there was an actual analysis/copy of it floating around.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm not sure how [MENTION=7993]Nikosandros[/MENTION] sees things, but when I think of "hp as meat" I think of a claim stronger than that each hit that deals damage deals some trivial physical harm like a graze or a scratch.

I think of posts I read which assert or imply that a hit for N hp to a given character always does the same amount of physical harm, whether those are the first or the last N hp taken; and hence that damage-dealing hits other than the last can still deal serious physical injury.

For me the model I've just described works fine for damage to objects, like chopping through a door or sawing a log, but it makes no sense at all for combat with a person.

I substantially agree with you on both points.

 

[Cybit]

Ah! thanks, I saw that too. It sounded like (or I was hoping) that there was an actual analysis/copy of it floating around.

There is but it is not open to the public AFAIK.

 

[BryonD]

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.

This works for me, so long as it is not mandatory to the point that a character can never be beat up to the point that it takes some time to be beat up that same amount again. I want the narrative option of the character being beat up enough they need some true healing to be supported by the mechanics.

Obviously at some point anyone playing D&D must accept that there is some truth to your description because the "full effectiveness" at 1 HP left issue. A fully healed 100 HP fighter gets hit for 70 HP you can't call that a "serious" damage causing wound (ignoring "massive damage", if you go there) because the fighter's capabilities are in no way effected other than his ability to survive future attacks.

If HP are permitted to be a mix of "hurts" and abstract then both models work. If the 30 HP fighter is a 40 the next morning, I can describe it as still having notable bumps and bruises and you can describe him as being good as new (expect that his abstract ability to keeps serious wounds from being more than minor physical damage is less than it was the day before). Neither description of a 100 hp fighter at 40 current HP is "wrong". And we can obviously both choose any other blend of leftover minor damage and lost abstract potential.

The fact that it works for you from a narrative perspective obviously doesn't mean that produces the most satisfactory game experience for you. So you could want full healing every day for that reason.

For me, full healing every day means that the game becomes substandard in supporting the narrative result I desire.

So, a game designer needs to pick a side, or offer alternatives to cover both. No option is wrong except an option that leaves you without enough fans.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, I can totally understand and sympathize with the gameplay effects of fast healing. That's infinitely more persuasive than Quantum Hit Point Theory and meat vs. stuff.