As old issues disappear, new issues arise.
As someone who constantly tinkers with game design, this makes sense.
One is that any effect that can bypass the buffer of "fatigue" hit points and go directly to the "physical" hit points is vastly more powerful and desirable than ones that cannot.
Yep. This makes sense to me, and would be desirable.
If, as you suggest, falling damage bypasses the buffer, then any effect that can push an opponent off an edge, or even better lift them and drop them, becomes signficantly better than one that just deals damage.
That would be a feature, not a bug, to me and my players. I do know that mileage will vary.
If, as you suggest, fire damage bypasses the buffer, fire spells and flaming weapons become dramatically more powerful than even pushing or lifting/dropping, because you aren't limited by the local environment.
I didn't suggest that. I said being on fire. Two different things. Dodging a fire spell? The "other" pool applies. Been lit on fire? It doesn't. You didn't dodge, fate didn't intervene, you didn't get lucky.
A system where a torch is a better weapon than a sword has... issues.
I don't think that's an issue here.
Systems such as what you are proposing have been used before, even by WotC. One of their Star Wars RPG systems used Vitality Points and Wound Points.
I wonder if it's what I was proposing. Based on this post, it's not.
For their final take on the game (Saga Edition), they abandoned the system, and replaced it with a HP + Condition Track (death spiral) system instead.
Okay. That's mildly interesting. It's not something I would do for my game.
Why? Well, one of the reasons they gave is that they felt the system was far too lethal. They felt that moving away from it allowed them to better capture the heroic and cinematic flavour of the Star Wars films, which like D&D are occupied by swashbuckling adventurers, clever scoundrels, and beautiful princesses.
Makes sense. Then again, like I said, I'm okay with different feels for different genres. I like gritty in my fantasy. I like narrative play in my Mutants and Masterminds. I don't want gritty in M&M, or narrative play in my fantasy games.
Do some people want D&D to be grittier and more lethal than that? Certainly. I'm not one of them, though.
Right. Makes sense.
As soon as ways exist to bypass a large chunk of a character's health, then those methods become what the game is really about. Save or Die effects trump HP damage. "Physical" damage trumps "fatigue" damage.
Not what it's about if most effects are hard to implement. Yes, they're more effective and can be taken advantage of,
circumstances permitting. Pushing someone into lava or off of a cliff is a lot more lethal. That's a good thing in my eyes, even for different playstyles.
To simulationist players, this means that if you push a guy into lava, it doesn't matter if he's really skilled at deflecting attacks, he's going to start burning, and fast. This makes sense to them.
To narrative players, if the GM let them stumble across this circumstance, it's meant to be used. These players tend to be more willing to accept the GM using his control over the narrative to implement interesting settings and circumstances, so this is controlled in these groups by avoiding lava, cliffs, etc. Easy enough.
It mainly has upsides, in my view. You don't make bypassing the "other" pool easy. You make it make sense, and balance it. I think it's doable, as I feel I've done so for my game. But that's me. I understand you don't like it. That's fine. I don't agree with your reasoning. But, in my mind, it's much easier to implement a core optional rule that combines both HP pools into one than it is to separate both. But, as always, play what you like
