D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[Obryn]

Again, that's why it has to be postulated. Logic is built on what follows from unprovable basic assertions. You have to start somewhere.

However, in a game that involves creating a fictional world and characters, has hundreds of pages of rules, and an explicit focus on combat, the idea that wounds are worth representing somewhere in the rules is not exactly a radical one.

The contrary that you're implying, the idea that wounds are not relevant or don't exist in the game world is probably one that is held by some people. Not the kind of game I want to run though.

Where in all this is the assertion that wounds need to be tokenized 1:1 as hit points?

You're postulating your conclusions.

To me, it seems that each crowd has points in its favor and against it (further evidence, to my eyes, that HP are a generally poor mechanic). Mostly these points have to do with interactions with other rules (poison, healing, etc.), rather than anything inherent in HP as a mechanic itself. Neither interpretation seems to solve the "Schrodinger's Wounds" problem or the way traditional healing magic seems to be named in reverse order of typical application.

Anything beyond "hit points model hit points" inevitably runs into problems. As such, inventive ways to lose and/or restore them don't matter much to me, beyond "you lose hit points when bad things happen," and "you regain them through ways to ameliorate bad things."

-O

 

[urLordy]

***MAGIC!***

What is the purpose behind using multicolouring?

To me, it seems that each crowd has points in its favor and against it (further evidence, to my eyes, that HP are a generally poor mechanic).

Ya, hitpoints kinda sucks (but we're stuck with it). I find it ironic and probably true that in the Great Hit Point Debate, it is too easy to forget to question the hit point mechanic itself. [insert appropriate metaphor here] It's also interesting how the existence of a warlord class focuses attention on the hit point problem, whereas before it was easier to sweep that problem under a rug [or insert other applicable metaphor]

P.S. Does anyone remember a huge thread about hit points, started by Hussar IIRC? What was the conclusion of that?

 

[Ratskinner]

In other words, HP can be mostly meat without special rules that say they are. HP can be meat or mostly meat and every single thing about the game functions just peachy,

No. That requires about as much suspension of....reason... if not disbelief:

So, when I was first level, a Cleric cast Cure Light Wounds and brought me back from near death to full health. Just now, though (possibly only a few weeks later, depending on edition), I was feeling a little down after a fight and the Cleric cast Cure Critical Wounds on me and a slight bruise on my arm went away. This is a problem which should be well within a character's ability to notice. Certainly the Cleric should notice.

In no case do many of my Light, Serious, or Critical wounds actually affect me in any way, and I don't even know what kinds of wounds I did or didn't have until the Cleric gets around to healing me. (If that even clears it up, see above.) This seems to go against the natural definitions of words like "Critical" or "Serious". As a DM, I regularly observed how the end of a fight would suddenly change the severity of PC's conditions when the Cleric asked "who needs healing?"

 

[Obryn]

What is the purpose behind using multicolouring?

The point is that I'm sick to death of "magic" being a necessary and sufficient reason for doing awesome stuff.

P.S. Does anyone remember a huge thread about hit points, started by Hussar IIRC? What was the conclusion of that?

This is the internet. There are no conclusions.

-O

 

[Ratskinner]

Ya, hitpoints kinda sucks (but we're stuck with it). I find it ironic and probably true that in the Great Hit Point Debate, it is too easy to forget to question the hit point mechanic itself.

Not for me. I've played too many other games that handle injury better without significant mechanical overhead.

 

[urLordy]

The point is that I'm sick to death of "magic" being a necessary and sufficient reason for doing awesome stuff.

Sick to "death"? I'm not sure if melodrama helps in this case.

So I'm genuinely curious: what's with the magic hate? Has magic become uncool sometime with some segment of the fanbase? What caused that?

 

[urLordy]

Not for me. I've played too many other games that handle injury better without significant mechanical overhead.

Could it be used possibly as an optional rule in D&D to replace hit points, or would that require rewiring other D&D mechanics? Just curious.

 

[Obryn]

Sick to "death"? I'm not sure if melodrama helps in this case.

So I'm genuinely curious: what's with the magic hate? Has magic become uncool sometime with some segment of the fanbase? What caused that?

I don't hate magic. Magic is awesome.

Not all cool and useful things need to be explained by it, however.

Case in point - if a 4e Fighter's powers all had "because magic" listed for why they can only be used 1/rest or 1/day, there's suddenly no objection to encounter and daily abilities. I find this thought process deeply broken.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

So to be sure I'm getting this right ... ignoring broken bones, third degree burns, dislocated joints, and outright hits to a potentially unarmored person with swords and axes = okay because "big damn heroes." Restoring hit points from these clearly non-critical injuries quickly without ***MAGIC!*** = Right out! Got it. Shine on.

Had a game once where a barbarian plummeted at terminal velocity into magma, and swam out and killed a few salamanders while his skin peeled off. Superstitious, you know, so he didn't want magical healing. Fine in a week (high CON, 3e, mid-level, possibly involving a magic item re-fluffed as an inherent part of the character, IIRC). Heck yeah.

Any argument about hit points which hinges on any kind of realism issue is, in my book, dead from the start.

You think this is about realism for me? I invite you to read the paragraph above and then get back to me on that.

This is about psychology. It's the same thing that goes into SAN loss in a CoC game, or pulls from the Jenga tower in a Dread game. It is about the creeping presence of the reaper breathing down your throat at all times, the reminder that each kobold you fight is one little step closer to an impending demise.

Not up everyone's ally, but up mine, and certainly well within the spirit of a huge chunk of the history of D&D.

Sure! Add in an optional class which makes it its shtick and everyone's happy!

Only, like the first ~20 pages of the thread point out, you don't need a whole class if all you really want is the non-magical spike healing and the "inspiring leader" character type.

I don't know about you, but a broken bone healing completely in a month? That's meant to be believable, but, abstracted? Really?

I don't know about you, but I'm not a level 12 barbarian in a fantasy world of dragons and orcs. It's believable enough to me that a fantasy hero could.

but instead someone shouts a reminder that you are a "big dang hero" and you decide to suck it up and stop being a pansy until the battle is over and you can take a rest to cry about all of the horrible, nightmarish things you just experienced.

Call me a weirdo, but I don't like my character's status as a big dang hero contingent on some pushy jerk reminding me of it twice every five minutes. I also don't like my character to be deluded and panicky. So that don't work for me personally.

So let me get this strait, you can potentially double the amount of 'meat' you have by going from level 1 to 2, or level 2 to 4 (etc.) because characters are "Big Dang Heroes", but being inspired to carry on by a Warlord interferes with the 'willing suspension of disbelief'? Sounds like the selective suspension of disbelief to me, but Okay.

First, everyone's suspension of disbelief is selective. This shouldn't be news.

Second, you're being overly literal. HP is meat, but 1 hp doesn't represent a descrete poundage of bodyflesh or anything. This isn't some sort of strict simulation of mass. Rather, when you get HP when you level up, it represents turning a significant blow into a less significant blow. A hit that goes deep at level 1 goes less deep at level 2, and at level 20 it's more of a scratch or a knick or the tip of your ear coming off or something.

Works fine.

And by the way, don't we have quotes from both the AD&D 1e and 2e explaining that Hit Points are not mostly 'just meat'. The "hit points are not mostly meat" concept was hardly a something that was introduced to the game in 2008.

That would matter if I were appealing to some authority to insist that my version of HP is THE CORRECT VERSION, but I'm not. Or maybe if I gave half a baboon rump what kind of justification the authors gave. I'm just asserting that it's a way people play the game, and a way people have always played the game, with the partial exception of 4e, because 4e's mechanics worked against that playstyle, because 4e wanted to include non-magical spike healing, and non-magical spike healing only really works with HP-as-not-meat.

This isn't a controversial statement. Inspirational healing doesn't work with HP-as-meat, and HP-as-meat doesn't work with inspirational healing. Only one e of the game has had inspirational healing, so, aside from that, HP-as-meat has worked fine.

So, when I was first level, a Cleric cast Cure Light Wounds and brought me back from near death to full health. Just now, though (possibly only a few weeks later, depending on edition), I was feeling a little down after a fight and the Cleric cast Cure Critical Wounds on me and a slight bruise on my arm went away.This is a problem which should be well within a character's ability to notice. Certainly the Cleric should notice.

I don't really see much of a problem there. Perhaps if you want to be very specific about spell name semantics ("This wound isn't light, it's moderate! And this wound is critical! And why is curing my critical wounds getting rid of my light wounds?"), but my games haven't treated spells much like actual in-world objects as much as they are descriptions of events in the world. IE: the cleric doesn't cast cure moderate wounds, the cleric says a prayer of healing and channels her deity's energy into the wound. Possible partial exception of the wizard, there.

In no case do many of my Light, Serious, or Critical wounds actually affect me in any way,

Because you're a fantasy hero.

and I don't even know what kinds of wounds I did or didn't have

"Kinds of wounds" isn't a distinction the HP system makes. Vaguely, a hit that takes a bigger % of your HP is harder than a hit that takes a smaller %. Or, a hit that gets you closer to 0 is a bigger hit than a hit when you're at full. But specificity isn't something I'm interested in. And either way, when the cleric says a healing prayer over you, it actually removes some of your wounds of various kinds.

 

[Hussar]

That would matter if I were appealing to some authority to insist that my version of HP is THE CORRECT VERSION, but I'm not. Or maybe if I gave half a baboon rump what kind of justification the authors gave. I'm just asserting that it's a way people play the game, and a way people have always played the game, with the partial exception of 4e, because 4e's mechanics worked against that playstyle, because 4e wanted to include non-magical spike healing, and non-magical spike healing only really works with HP-as-not-meat.

This isn't a controversial statement. Inspirational healing doesn't work with HP-as-meat, and HP-as-meat doesn't work with inspirational healing. Only one e of the game has had inspirational healing, so, aside from that, HP-as-meat has worked fine.

But, that's the point. It never really did work. It got swept under the carpet because no one actually used natural healing for more than a minority of healing. HP came back by cleric, not by bedrest in most games. So, people could go on mislabeling HP=Meat all they liked, since it never mattered because the game forced you to have a healer in the group.

The only difference is that 4e didn't try to hide things. It didn't pretend to have these HP=Meat rules when in play they didn't. It flat out came down on the same side of the fence that EVERY SINGLE EDITION has come down on. The only difference is, it didn't hide it.

And, let's be honest, I think a great deal of the issue is simply edition warring in disguise. People didn't give a baboon's rump about HP and their definition for the most part because it never mattered. However, since 4e didn't try to hide anything and be coy about it, it because edition war fodder for those who wanted to try to claim that 4e isn't really D&D because it's so different from what came before.

Thing is, 4e is barely different in this case than what came before. There's virtually no difference. In 3e, your 12th level barbarian heals his broken leg IN THREE DAYS. And HP=Meat adherents try to claim that this is believable. This is no problem whatsoever. But, one day? Oh hell no. That's unpossible.