The Healing Paradox

[JamesonCourage]

Meh, I think we're splitting hairs pretty fine here. A blow that is turned into a miss ("full plot protection") vs a blow that is turned into an inconsequential contact that causes no long term injury is a distinction that really doesn't matter at the end of the day, does it?

Except that the 3.5 passage didn't say "turned into an inconsequential contact" in its description. It can mean that, or it can mean "a bad flesh wound that's a few inches deep near your shoulder, but you're pressing through it." Think Inigo Montoya's wounds at the hands of the Six-Fingered Man in their final confrontation. On the other hand, it can be described as "merely a nick" on it fits the 3.5 description fine, too. It's got some versatility in it.

Inigo Montoya got stabbed three times (dagger to stomach, sword to shoulder, sword to arm), and not many people complain about getting pulled out of the movie. Getting flesh wounds in movie that heal in a week and a half (or are sore, but no longer a big deal) is passable in a lot of fantasy fiction, as is getting stabbed and pressing through it. People have said in the past "any mechanic that prevents this from happening [referencing the above scene] is something I don't support." Well, the 3.5 take can allow for it (especially with some sort of dazed or nauseated effect on the dagger throw).

Both are entirely recoverable in a very short period of time. It simply doesn't matter. And if HP are turning serious blows into minor bruises and whatnot, can a character not be at full hp, even if he's got a black eye and some knicks and bruises?

The 3.5 description is limiting in some areas, and can cause some verisimilitude issues (falling damage, getting shot by 10 guys in a firing squad and living, etc.). It has its problems. However, the description as presented can mean "you heal overnight" makes sense (you only got bruises or cuts), or "you don't heal overnight; it's going to take days" (you got stabbed three times, but powered through it). You can definitely prefer either one, and the description, as it stands, leaves room for either healing rate to make sense (based on the description of wounds given).

But, that just leads us back in circles again. To me, it's a campaign pacing issue as well, but this bleeds over to casting healing spells or teleportation access, etc. In the end, we're just talking about preference, and I prefer two split HP pools. I don't think it'll happen, but me saying "you parry the attack, but it was close" and still marking off some PC hit points definitely means that the 3.5 version of damage and HP wasn't perfect to me.

Does full HP HAVE to mean that I'm completely healed?

If you're significantly wounded (stabbed three times), then I prefer it. If that's not the case (the wounds were scratches and bruises), then I don't mind one way or the other, except when it comes to pacing. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Individually, sure. But all of those taken together? Not so much. Some of them can be shrugged off easier than others.

I think your definition of "short-term" and mine must be different. A bruise still hurts tomorrow. A small cut still hurts tomorrow. But they're not long-term injuries (deep gashes, broken bones). One or two short-term injuries (ie a few hit points) can be shrugged off and patched up enough to not bother me tomorrow. But a handful of those or more are still going to affect me tomorrow. Case in point the example I used with my wife and her bike a few weeks ago. Her nose is still sensitive. I'd say she's pretty much completely healed, but all it would take is to tweak her nose lightly and she'd scream bloody murder. And it's weeks later now, with most of the rest of the wounds healed up (except her knee, which opened up again a few days after the stitches came out and still hurts a lot when she knocks it lightly against a table leg or a child mistakenly grabs the wrong one.

So, she's still not back to full HP (at least as far as I'd call it) whereas under 4E she would have been back to full HP the next day, fully functional in all areas.

Again, it's not precise process simulation, but to me, the loss of hit points equals a loss of ability and is itself a definition of a wound because now fewer wounds can be taken before death.

So, yeah, I'd say full HP means completely healthy. I've got a cold and a sneeze and the beginnings of a cough today. My HP are lower than they were yesterday.

But, no version of D&D actually does what your example does. Weeks to heal something that isn't remotely life threatening? No version of D&D does that. In 3e, she'd be fully healed in a day, maybe three days. By your definition, any D&D healing rate is way too fast. If I have to be 100% recovered, no bruising or anything, no version of D&D should satisfy you.

And, sure, there might be a difference between one day and three, but, none of them are remotely close to weeks.

And, having a cold doesn't actually lower HP. What wound did you take? What bruising? Being sick as a dog bypasses HP and always has - disease and poison rules have nothing to do with HP.

 

[Zireael]

And, having a cold doesn't actually lower HP. What wound did you take? What bruising? Being sick as a dog bypasses HP and always has - disease and poison rules have nothing to do with HP.

What about being winded?

 

[pemerton]

Case in point the example I used with my wife and her bike a few weeks ago. Her nose is still sensitive. I'd say she's pretty much completely healed, but all it would take is to tweak her nose lightly and she'd scream bloody murder. And it's weeks later now, with most of the rest of the wounds healed up (except her knee, which opened up again a few days after the stitches came out and still hurts a lot when she knocks it lightly against a table leg or a child mistakenly grabs the wrong one.

So, she's still not back to full HP (at least as far as I'd call it) whereas under 4E she would have been back to full HP the next day, fully functional in all areas.

There's a lot of room in between "it connected and didn't kill you" and "it's inconsequential."

ESPECIALLY for fantasy hero badasses who might be holding their intestines in one hand and hewing apart the legions of devils with the other and be pretty fine once they've had a few days to let their digestive tract readjust itself.

So the distinction between a hit and a non-hit can be important for the feel of the world and the feel of the heroics, too.

This shows the narrative "space" that hit points have to cover. In Mercutio01's game, when you have a slight cold you're down hit points.

Whereas in KM's game when you're disembowelled you're still fully functional and better after a few days.

This is why, in my view, the core hp mechanics need to be utterly minimal, to make room for all these (and other variations). As soon as the core hp mechanics start telling us what sort of injury/debiliation/bad luck correlates to what sort of hp depletion, they will start to rule out some of these variatiosn that have grown up around the hp mechanic.

 

[Mercutio01]

This shows the narrative "space" that hit points have to cover. In Mercutio01's game, when you have a slight cold you're down hit points.

Not a lot of them, mind you. Maybe only 1 or 2. I was being sort of tongue-in-cheek about it, but my point really was that on any given day, for whatever reason, I won't necessarily be fighting at full strength. But that's real-world not game world. As for my wife being healed in three days in 3E, I did already say that I don't really like 3E's default healing either, so I really wish that crap would stop being bandied about like it's my bible on all things healing. It's not. Like I've said before, because 3E's healing rate was more than one day for full HP, I didn't really think about the actually mundane healing rate because it never really came into play. Characters would just seek out magical healing because mundane healing took longer than a day. And I'm fine with that, even if I think 3E's rates are still too high. It's still longer than one day complete heals, which means no one waits for mundane healing unless there's no other option, in which case there are serious other problems heading their way.

This is why, in my view, the core hp mechanics need to be utterly minimal, to make room for all these (and other variations). As soon as the core hp mechanics start telling us what sort of injury/debiliation/bad luck correlates to what sort of hp depletion, they will start to rule out some of these variatiosn that have grown up around the hp mechanic.

Despite our different views on what HP really means, I think we are in complete agreement over what we want to see from HP.

 

[SageMinerve]

Rolemaster has the same problem (edit: 15 min adventuring day) for the same reason.

Funnily enough, and exagerating a bit (but not that much), my problem with Rolemaster was to survive 15 minutes... seriously, how do you survive any severe critical? I remember one of my players having both ears taken out, each by an arrow critical hit; the first ear in the 1st fight of the adventure, and the last one in what turned out to be their last stand (there's only so many -25 (or whatever, don't remember the exact number) penalty to activity you can survive).

[/end thread sidetrack]

 

[pemerton]

seriously, how do you survive any severe critical?

Low levels depend on luck. At mid-to-high levels, using healing magic (especially self-healing).

 

[Hussar]

And, I think that this little aside about Rolemaster illustrates why some groups have a problem with very low level play where the PC's aren't very durable. Most of the time, the DM has to play with kid gloves at the outset simply because whacking 1st level PC's is too easy. And, sure, you can just roll up another one, but, that has all sorts of problems as well - detachment from the character/campaign being one - and it enforces a fairly specific playstyle - ie. the group probably shouldn't bother with much of a character until about 3rd level when a stray arrow won't kill your character outright.

There's nothing wrong with this playstyle, mind you. I've certainly enjoyed it. But, as D&D got more complex, particularly in the area of chargen, disposable characters becomes a bigger and bigger PITA. And, to be honest, I want to play my character right at the beginning. I don't want to wait ten or fifteen sessions before bothering to get attached to the character. Not anymore at any rate.

Sure, we could simply start at 3rd level. That's true. Then again, those who want weaker characters can simply roll hit points. It works either way. Your 4e character gets X hp, instead of X+Con. Done. There, now I've got my weak 1st level character again.

These are pretty minor issues to be honest. It's too easy to fix this to taste to really worry about IMO.

 

[pemerton]

Despite our different views on what HP really means, I think we are in complete agreement over what we want to see from HP.

I think so.

 

[pemerton]

And, I think that this little aside about Rolemaster illustrates why some groups have a problem with very low level play where the PC's aren't very durable. Most of the time, the DM has to play with kid gloves at the outset simply because whacking 1st level PC's is too easy. And, sure, you can just roll up another one, but, that has all sorts of problems as well

In Rolemaster it actually creates a deep incoherence in the game (and I say this from the experience of GMing it lovingly for nearly 20 years): PCs in Rolemaster are complex mechanical creations that are a beauty to behold, and beg for a background to explain how they got to be how they are, and for a rich campaign setting in which to fully express their manifold abilities.

And then the combat system treats them like so much wheat before the scythe!

The best defence that can be made, I think, is that RM's PCs and action resolution mechanics are rich enough that it is possible to create viable and interesting situations in which combat is not the main game. So the PCs (and players') luck isn't being put to a mortal test in every situation.