D&D 5E Should the Fighter's "Second Wind" ability grant temporary HP instead of regular HP?

[jodyjohnson]

Jock straps and bras for everyone!

And a cup, unless they promise to stop kicking me in the junk.

 

[BryonD]

This does, OTOH, illuminate a rather glaring inconsistency in HP. A 10th level wizard has 30 HP. A 3rd level fighter has 30 HP. An Ogre can have 30 HP (29 by 3e MM, we'll give him a bonus one HP). All three characters are hit with exactly identical attacks. Let's say a really big axe hit with power attack and a critical that does 29 points of damage. The wizard, without help, is back to full HP in three days, one day with a heal check. The fighter takes 10 days to heal, 3 with a heal check, and the ogre takes a month to heal (he's only 1st level), 8 days with a heal check.

How do those who claim that HP are consistent rationalise this? How is it that my spindly, aged wizard is back on his feet in 1/3 the time the fighter takes and 1/10th the time the ogre takes?

I would consider "glaring" to be a rather substation overstatement being that you are putting a 10th level character alongside a 3rd level character and the difference depends entirely upon this contrast.

If you find someone who truly embraces the idea that HP = meat and nothing more nothing less then they are already doomed to have major issues. So you have added another nail to that welded shut coffin.

A sword through the gut is a sword through the gut. You probably die. ("probably" because we are in a world with magic)
As any character gains more and more HP representing higher and higher multiples of what would represent a "sword through the gut" to their total, the more this must represent some abstract portion.

Let's add a commoner 1 and a fighter 1 and a 3rd level wizard to your example. The Commoner 1 has 5 HP and the Fighter 1 has 12. The commoner is instantly brought to -24 HP. He dies, also instantly.
The fighter has that "PC Aura" granting him fantastic larger than life abilities to dodge, roll with, or otherwise luck himself out of taking to full impact of the blow. This fantastic PC Aura is mechanically represented by an extra 7 HP. He is instantly reduced to -17 HP. He dies, again instantly. Perhaps his corpse is slightly more intact. Your 10th level wizard had 30 HP, so lets say the 3rd level wizard has 10, (slightly more than proportional, but we do get max at L1). Obviously he is between the two other dead examples and likewise dead. His 5 "PC Aura" HP help, but it is a trivial and pointless degree of help.

So far, so good.

Now we look at your L3 fighter and L10 wizard. None of these 5 characters have different physiology. The 29 point blow is just as physically capable of killing them as it is of killing anyone else. It has taken the wizard ten levels of "PC Aura" to gain the same extra larger than life ability to avoid damage as the fighter has gained in just 3. I don't see any concern over that portion of their HP recovering in proportion to their mojo (aka "their level").

You could also look at a 100HP fighter 10. If he receives 29 points of damage they heal at the same pace. No problem. If, on the other hand, he has taken 99 damage, then both he and the wizard are at 1 HP. Yet the wizard, again, is back at 100% much faster. But now the wizard has survived roughly double the amount needed to slay a commoner in one blow. The fighter has survived roughly 7 times the amount.
I'm ok with all that physical + abstract taking more time for the fighter to recover. It is D&D after all, and they are both on their feet at full functional capacity the whole time. Perhaps the fighter has more physical cuts and bruises in the mix. Or, perhaps, the physical wounds of both are the same, and when the wizard is back to 100% a wandering barbarian would not notice that the "still healing" fighter is any more wounded than the wizard. They both look physically recovered, but the fighter is still "healing" the luck portion of his HP. I am not remotely stating that any of these examples are "the solution". I am certain each of us could invent specific narrative scenarios in which any given answer becomes inconsistent. The point is that this is the beauty of the HP system when allowed to be a case-by-case blend of physical and abstract. I have never yet found a case were it wasn't good enough to create a satisfactory representation of high fantasy. (When I don't want high fantasy, I don't play ANY version of D&D)


As I have stated before, to me it is critical that both physical and abstract damage be included in the analysis and any attempt to force any fixed quantification on the mix creates additional problems without benefit in return. HP have fundamental logic issues that have been well known and debated since long before anyone ever heard of 3E, much less 4E or 5E. So I think expecting rigorous logical perfection is unfair and unreasonable.

I think HP + instaheal has the same underlying HP issues. And, for me, instaheals adds the further complication of no lasting damage. It creates a new disconnect without adding new value. So I'm just as ok with the "works very good" HP system as I've ever been.

I can't recall ever really getting hung up on healing for monsters. If it ever was an issue I think you could look at HD and work the same consistency out of that. Though I'd offer that I've found HD to create more disconnects than HP. (Big dinosaurs have decent reflex saves... ??) This is an area of 5E improvement

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I could live with just saying that natural healing is impossible except at home in a real bed and it takes three months. If natural healing plays into your "strategy" in some significant way then it's likely too strong.

It must thus follow that you regard all HP as "meat points", given that you dictate that they should only be recovered very slowly and/or by bed rest. Is that correct?

 

[BryonD]

View attachment 62430

Is probably the referenced exchange.

I think there is room for interpretation. Specifically, I think they think of "modules" as bigger than any one ability. They don't have a "module" to add or remove any one ability--they have "modules" that impact suites of abilities.

Thaumaturge.

Thanks I hope this covers it and it is just a lost in translation issue.

There may be no section that says "this is an alternative for SW", but there could be an entire "module" within which SW is replaced, but only in the presumed context of other changes. Which is entirely reasonable. We will see and we will all play the game that works for us.

 

[SkidAce]

Covered for you. Should have added some of my own.

This is the thing that completely baffles me. AD&D, as written, is full of rules that are virtually incomprehensible. Initiative rules, I'm looking at you. Yet, fans of the system gloss over this, and talk about how the system is so friendly to being kit bashed and modified.

Fair enough. If that's a criteria for how good a game is for you, I can totally get behind that.

But, for some reason 5ed (and 4e before it) gets criticised even though modification is far, far easier. The system is so transparent that you can make all sorts of changes and it will still work. That's the point of having robust, transparent mechanics. You KNOW what the effect is of changing the healing rules. You KNOW what the effect will be if you futz about with the plusses on magic weapons. That's the whole point.

Making the changes that you want to the system are ludicrously easy and require a sentence, maybe two. BryonD outlined a perfectly viable change to the rules to make them do what he wants. Granted, where I disagree is why he cannot apply the same thing to 4e, but, hey, whatever, it's not a major deal.

Again, I have to ask, just how much hand holding are people expecting from the rules? If the rules don't specifically call out whatever option you want, but make making the changes easy and quick, isn't that enough? I mean, good grief, I bolted on 1e style morale rules onto 4e and it works like a charm. I will likely do the same in 5e because I like morale rules. But, I know that while I like morale rules, not everyone does and apparently they won't be supported out of the gate.

Fair enough. I'll add 'em back in. That's what running a game is all about - owning the rules. So, again, just how much hand holding do people need?

I don't always agree with Hussar, but when I do....

its well written posts like this. Well said...

 

[BryonD]

It must thus follow that you regard all HP as "meat points", given that you dictate that they should only be recovered very slowly and/or by bed rest. Is that correct?

Agreed. If I*did* see HP as all meat, then none of the healing options I'm aware of would work. (for me)

 

[BryonD]

BryonD outlined a perfectly viable change to the rules to make them do what he wants. Granted, where I disagree is why he cannot apply the same thing to 4e, but, hey, whatever, it's not a major deal.

Well, obviously when it is an isolated thing, I will happily house rule it. It *IS* close enough to apples to apples when comparing *5E healing* to *4E healing* and I can change either just as easily.

But you well know we have discussed a vast array of other issues I have with 4E. 4E was designed from the ground up with a philosophy that is contrary to my taste. No amount of house-ruling that system would ever make it viable as a top 10 option for me.

(And I'm really not looking to discuss 4E beyond where it explicitly applies to 5E conversation. Please respect that my opinion on the 4E system as a whole is not going to change)

 

[SkidAce]

How do those who claim that HP are consistent rationalise this? How is it that my spindly, aged wizard is back on his feet in 1/3 the time the fighter takes and 1/10th the time the ogre takes?

HERO!*







*I know that doesn't work for everybody and sometimes not even me...but I couldn't resist.

 

[billd91]

But, for some reason 5ed (and 4e before it) gets criticised even though modification is far, far easier. The system is so transparent that you can make all sorts of changes and it will still work. That's the point of having robust, transparent mechanics. You KNOW what the effect is of changing the healing rules. You KNOW what the effect will be if you futz about with the plusses on magic weapons. That's the whole point.

People made the same complaint about 3e and I found it as baffling then too.

 

[thunktanker]

Nope. I think after the initial surge of sales based on the name alone, 5E will tank and Ha$bro will sit on the IP for board/video game/novel/etc rights and we won't see a 6e for a long time.

I disagree with your prediction of 5E tanking, but I do agree that it will probably be a long time until 6e comes out. There was a lot of negative feedback when 5e was announced so soon after 4e released. I think they will try to avoid that. Plus, rumors have it that Hasbro criticized wotc for fragmenting its customers with too many editions. Releasing 6e certainly won't help with that problem. 5e is wotc's attempt to get off the new edition hamster wheel, and I doubt we will see 6e for a long long time.

If 5e has a good start and keeps going well, I would expect something closer to a base "vanilla" game that various tables augment with their chosen modules or collections of modules (mod packs) like happened with some video games like Civilization IV. Newbs will start playing vanilla 5e, but more experienced tables will play with their chosen combinations of mods, probably further tweaked by houserules. That way, every time wotc puts out a 5e product, the new product is at least relevant enough to look at for everybody, because everybody is playing a 5e variant. And any group that dislikes some issue in 5e (i.e, second wind) is an audience for a mod wotc can eventually release or a fan can share that addresses the concerns for that subset of the player base.