The (Non-)Playtest Experience, or How the Hit Die Mechanic was a Non-Starter

[Hussar]

Neither should HD or overnight heals be core, ground level ruleset. They are enormously divisive and at least half the fanbase appears to despise them. No need to re-work HP. Just use the standard healing and HP that appeared in the first several editions for those of us who were fine with how they worked. Add in HD and one night heals as an option for people who want it. I think people on this thread are seriously underestimating the negative reaction to one night heals.

Ummm, why not go the other way? Which is a heck of a lot simpler to assume. If you presume that there is natural healing, but, everyone will just use magic (the default of earlier editions), or you presume that HP restore overnight, the end result is the same.

Those groups which actually USE long term healing rules are the outlier. So, I suppose, it doesn't really matter either way. But, I'd prefer the baseline not to presume magical healing because I'd like to run lower magic D&D campaigns.

Overnight healing allows greater flexibility. Why wouldn't you make that the baseline?

I've read the friggin' books. I was probably reading them before you were born. Pre 4e hit point damage was damage, period. 4e and beyond, damage is mostly emotional. It needs to change. It was this way for 30 years, and worked fine. This new revisionist interpretation has to go or it's going to piss off a lot of would-be customers. But then, we have always been at war with Eastasia..

Again, Moldvay Basic Page 6 - No, you are wrong. You are flat out wrong. The AD&D 1e DMG says you are wrong. Moldvay Basic says you are wrong. Flat out says the opposite of what you are claiming. It's not until the 90's (or possibly 2e so that would be late 80's) that you would be correct in any edition of D&D.

Of course 4E attempted to redefine this aspect of the game, and was duly declared "not D&D" by a large segment of D&D's former audience.

Shout healing? 4E.
Schrodinger's damage? 4E.
"Healing surges"? 4E.
1 HP balloon animal monsters called "minions"? 4E.

And given that I cited the Rules Cyclopedia definition unthread from your post, you're hardly scoring points off of me by citing BECMI there. Fact is, 4E and now 5E muddy the HP waters in a way that does not match prior editions. If they're violating D&D assumptions and purporting to be D&D, then that's the designers' problem. I just see them walking again into the same trap as last time. And I understand that the 4E audience doesn't care about these details - they accepted 4E, after all.

Please stick to a single topic if you don't mind. You've brought in a bunch of other issues that aren't pertinent - such as minions and in-combat healing mechanics. Let's stick to the topic at hand shall we?

You claimed that 4e made a massive change in how HP were defined and then quoted a book published almost 20 years after D&D hit the scene to prove your point. The precursor to your quote actually disagrees with you. HP as injury was ADDED LATER. 4e is actually closer to the original definitions of Hit Points. Only problem is, people have internalized the changes to the point where they cannot actually remember when it was different.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Again, Moldvay Basic Page 6 - No, you are wrong. You are flat out wrong. The AD&D 1e DMG says you are wrong. Moldvay Basic says you are wrong. Flat out says the opposite of what you are claiming. It's not until the 90's (or possibly 2e so that would be late 80's) that you would be correct in any edition of D&D.

Really? DMG, page 82: "Each hit scored upon the character only does a small amount of actual physical harm..." Sounds to me like that's an actual physical wound. Luck, sixth sense, et al is a part of it, but however you slice it, you come away wounded. Wounds don't disappear overnight.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar, it is probably going to be harder to take out overnight healing than to layer it in.

I really dont think we are the outliers. I see lots and lots of posters who think overnight healing is a bad idea.

 

[Deadboy]

It isn't moot. We have had this discussion on other threads so no point going over it all over again. But healers die, get incapacitated,some groups dont have clerics, sometimes cleric magic isn't enough for everyone, etc. It comes up enough to bother people. If people on the other side of the debate cant fathom the "why" it doesn't really matters. What matters is enough people are bothered by it to impact sales.

Any group that doesn't have clerics are likely to have other healing resources available and if the cleric is dead will likely head back to town rather than camp in the woods for weeks. And I still don't see why the healing rule is that big a deal; it's so easily houseruled its ridiculous. Seriously, in 4e, everything was too tied together to alter it; in 5e, there's almost definitely going to be an easily-adjusted dial in place.

Neither should HD or overnight heals be core, ground level ruleset. They are enormously divisive and at least half the fanbase appears to despise them. No need to re-work HP. Just use the standard healing and HP that appeared in the first several editions for those of us who were fine with how they worked. Add in HD and one night heals as an option for people who want it. I think people on this thread are seriously underestimating the negative reaction to one night heals.

All I hear from this is "the way I like it should be core and the way YOU like it should be a module!" It's amazing how much of this goes on with the whole talk of modules. All anyone seems to want is their own preferences to be the core, as if that somehow validates their style.

Really, the SIMPLEST version should be core. Anything else is a module. And what is simpler than getting all your resources back overnight?

Though in the end, I'm wondering if it really just make everyone happier and sell WotC more books if the rules variants were all proposed together without any preference attached to them; i.e.," healing can be handled in the following ways" and then naming them without any preference being given, rather than giving a core version and then proposing variants... Its obviously very important to people that THEIR version be "core."

 

[Argyle King]

Though in the end, I'm wondering if it really just make everyone happier and sell WotC more books if the rules variants were all proposed together without any preference attached to them; i.e.," healing can be handled in the following ways" and then naming them without any preference being given, rather than giving a core version and then proposing variants... Its obviously very important to people that THEIR version be "core."

For me personally, I've already accepted that most of my preferences probably will not be core. Some of the options I had the most anticipation for have already been said to be a long way down the road -according the the designers of the game. I'd like more things which suit my tastes to be in the game, but I'm at a point where it doesn't feel worth it to fight against the grain anymore.

 

[Deadboy]

Really? DMG, page 82: "Each hit scored upon the character only does a small amount of actual physical harm..." Sounds to me like that's an actual physical wound. Luck, sixth sense, et al is a part of it, but however you slice it, you come away wounded. Wounds don't disappear overnight.

Yes, but in that same section, Gary also writes "It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place." He further classifies the "actual physical harm" as "nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises," i.e., superficial hurts that would not seriously impact a character's ability to adventure. Such a character is not wounded, but is just a bit banged up. A night's rest is quite reasonable to get the character back into the thick of things.

 

[Siberys]

In 4e, if I wanted to show a survival situation, I would have PCs lose Healing Surges, and be unable to regain them until they were out of that survival situation. If I wanted a lasting wound, it would be set up more like a disease, which is I think a better medium for showing lasting harm than HP loss.

In the Playtest, if I wanted to show a survival situation, I would have PCs lose Hit Dice, and be unable to regain them until they were out of that survival situation. If I wanted a lasting wound, it would be set up more like a disease (however that's structured in DDN), which is I think a better medium for showing lasting harm than HP loss.

The player was totally being knee-jerky, especially in the light that this is a playtest, and that particular rule is among the easiest to change if it really is /that/ difficult to accept. Which I personally find hard to believe, but, eh, YMMV.

 

[n00bdragon]

Are you people seriously arguing about which idea came first? Why not argue about which idea is best? Because that's the actual aim of the game is to make the best game possible right? RIGHT?

 

[FireLance]

Really? DMG, page 82: "Each hit scored upon the character only does a small amount of actual physical harm..." Sounds to me like that's an actual physical wound. Luck, sixth sense, et al is a part of it, but however you slice it, you come away wounded. Wounds don't disappear overnight.

Right, and my point is that while hit point loss can create minor wounds, the presence of minor wounds does not mean hit points have to be lower than maximum. A PC who gets hit by a sword loses hit points to turn what would be a fatal blow to a normal man into a scratch on his arm. However, once it has scabbed over and stops hurting (which could happen after a night's rest) it doesn't hamper the PC any more. The scratch is still there, but because the wound is no longer fresh, it no longer hinders him or prevents him from avoiding any future attacks.

 

[rounser]

Please stick to a single topic if you don't mind. You've brought in a bunch of other issues that aren't pertinent - such as minions and in-combat healing mechanics. Let's stick to the topic at hand shall we?

They're directly pertinent. What does a hit point become if a 900 lb dragon, undamaged, has only one of them? What are they when someone can be drill sergeanted back to health? And what "in-combat healing mechanics"? All I see in "healing surges" is a lazily designed gamist contrivance that is so badly named that it draws attention to exactly what it isn't - a form of healing of wounds. These are 4E challenges to the nature of healing and hit points, and lack precedent in D&D. That's pertinent.