You've missed the point. A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us. Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???
I could reply that nothing has changed, because abstract hit points have always been part of the game of D&D. I admit that Monte Cook held the opinion going into 3e that hit points represented "real physical resistance to injury." The absurdity of that was shown, paradoxically, by Andy Collins in the
Epic Level Handbook, where they talked about epic-level PCs
swimming through lava.
That view of hit points as physical resilience was, largely, confined to 3rd Edition. And even 3e waffled a fair bit (the
Epic Level Handbook aside). I've quoted Gygax's discussion of the subject from the 1e DMG many times. Gary was clearly of the opinion that hit points weren't purely physical. I admit he also argued (IMO, somewhat paradoxically) that it would take weeks of recovery for a PC to reach their "physical and metaphysical peak" without magical healing. But let's get real. If you're arguing that hit points do NOT represent physical injury (as Gygax did WAY back in 1e), then the amount of time it takes the PC to recover his "luck" is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, and "realism" doesn't enter into it in the slightest.
Yes, the Second Wind mechanic is cinematic, rather than realistic. Whether you like that or not is largely a matter of what kind of "feel" you want in your RPG. Obviously, not everyone likes the one that 4e uses, and again, that's okay.
Dannyalcatraz said:
IMO, its a strong critique of the game, but it isn't rude.
"Your game isn't D&D because it's not MY D&D" isn't rude? Didn't you agree earlier that the statement that your version was for "better" gamers was rude?
I find it amazing that you can believe that it's possible to brand a particular edition of the game as "not really D&D" without that critique being "my version is (objectively) BETTER than yours." How does that work, exactly? Technically, I suppose, it's "your version is inferior to all others," but still.
And you don't see the hypocrisy?