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

[billd91]

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?

It's part of the same conceit as gaining hit points by level in the first place. The higher level character is better at managing his combat effectiveness - he's not bigger, he's not more healthy, he's not getting the same mass and muscle as an ogre. He's just better at dealing with these things than he was when he was less experienced. They may take, by the numbers, the same damage. But that 10th level wizard benefits from being more experienced and is able to function at 100% sooner than the less experienced fighter. He may still have a visible injury if the players choose to narrate it as such. But it's not going to affect his combat readiness. And if that fighter had taken the same blow but as a 10th level fighter, he'd be as able as the wizard to operate at 100% in exactly the same amount of time.

You may think you're holding hit points, in this case, as constant. But the characters they're operating within are, in some ways, apples and oranges because of their level difference.

 

[Nikosandros]

As far as I know 4e is the only version of D&D to support proportional healing.

Unfortunately yes. With my group we did something similar (even though the implementation was clumsier) while playing 3.5.

I must say that the general hostility to healing surges still baffles me. I mean, I can totally understand (even though I disagree) the dislike for martial healing and for quick healing. But why are the majority of players so averse to the idea that healing is proportional to your maximum HP and that the number of time that you can be healed is limited? I would naively think that opponents of 'excessive healing' would appreciate at least the second feature.

Another somewhat puzzling thing for me is the question of where and when the notion of HP as 'meat' did gain such traction. They are explicitly described in a very different way in the 1e DMG.

 

[Emerikol]

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?

Not exactly though there is a tie to meat that doesn't fit a lot of the views of other people who used a mixed approach.

If you just started out with maybe your 1st or 2nd level hit points, and then just stopped. You never get more. That would be meat. Then instead of gaining hit points you just divided all incoming damage by your level then that would be the way I see the rest of hit points working. That way a hit is still always a hit. You always get burned a little by a fireball that did some damage. Most of it though is negated by your skill and luck which is represented by the divisional factor. Now playing the game that way would involve a ton of fractions and a lot of math. So instead, you just allow hit points and you take damage off the top. The same effect is achieved.

I have a blog that expresses a lot of my views on roleplaying. A lot of the posts are old Wotc blogs. A far more detailed version of my hit point there can be found there. http://emerikolsscroll.blogspot.com/

 

[billd91]

I must say that the general hostility to healing surges still baffles me. I mean, I can totally understand (even though I disagree) the dislike for martial healing and for quick healing. But why are the majority of players so averse to the idea that healing is proportional to your maximum HP and that the number of time that you can be healed is limited? I would naively think that opponents of 'excessive healing' would appreciate at least the second feature.

I have no problem with the healing being proportional. Nor do I have a problem with it being limited by some factor - generally, the availability of the healing resource. The problem was the choice of the resource - the internally tracked healing surge. When the cleric's primary healing feature and externally purchased potions run off the target's internal surge counter, I'm not buying in. The paladin was the character who got surge-based healing right - the cost being appropriately borne via the external resource - he burned his own surges to heal other PCs.

Another somewhat puzzling thing for me is the question of where and when the notion of HP as 'meat' did gain such traction. They are explicitly described in a very different way in the 1e DMG.

But even in the 1e DMG, hit point loss pretty much always implies that it includes meat, even if it's not 100% meat. "Each hit scored upon a character does only a small amount of actual physical harm...". That may say that only a small amount of physical harm is done per hit, but it does include physical harm being done. So I consider each and every hit point to be a mix of meat and luck, skill, savoir faire, derring-do, divine providence, whatever. So every hit = some physical harm.

 

[Emerikol]

Unfortunately yes. With my group we did something similar (even though the implementation was clumsier) while playing 3.5.

I must say that the general hostility to healing surges still baffles me. I mean, I can totally understand (even though I disagree) the dislike for martial healing and for quick healing. But why are the majority of players so averse to the idea that healing is proportional to your maximum HP and that the number of time that you can be healed is limited? I would naively think that opponents of 'excessive healing' would appreciate at least the second feature.

Another somewhat puzzling thing for me is the question of where and when the notion of HP as 'meat' did gain such traction. They are explicitly described in a very different way in the 1e DMG.

My own take on hit points fits the 1e approach exactly. You can check out my blog at: http://emerikolsscroll.blogspot.com and read my article about hit points to see my view.

My view is very much mixed but it has certain features that actually fit what was said in the 1e books exactly. It is definitely not a 1 hp = 1lb of meat view though by any means.


There really are a bunch of questions that depending on how you answer will reveal your approach. It's not two groups for sure.
1. How fast do hit points recover naturally?
2. Can a third party affect hit points using morale based approaches? If yes, are those hit points real or temp hit points?
3. What is the rate of daily recovery you want? This is independent of how you get that healing. So someone could say I want fast but only magic.
4. Should there be a limit to magical healing in any given day? If so what is the fluff for that limit?
5. Should recovery be proportional to max hit points?

Depending on how you answer each of those questions it will decide the kind of game and the kind of rules you can accept.

My answers are...
1. Slow.
2. No.
3. For me should vary by level. Low levels slow. High levels faster.
4. No.
5. Yes.

If I had answered no to question #5 then I would have been in perfect alignment with the old school rules. I am open to #5 though because I accept the proportional arguments. I could live with #5 being no in the game though. It's not a deal breaker for me.

 

[Remathilis]

For me, it's not just one issue. There's a plethora of things that add up to too many things to houserule. There's too many things that break immersion. Second wind is just one of many rules that each on it's own might not keep me away from 5e, but taken together, by the time I remove them all, there's not much left. Also, I don't always dm, it's not always up to me what rules to exclude.

Time will indeed tell. My money is on 5E lying in the dustbin of D&D history, buried not quite as deep as 4e.

Translation: I'd rather see D&D dead than in the arms of another player. Gotcha.

Since I know realize I'm arguing with someone irrational, I can ignore further posts. Good day.

 

[Umbran]

Translation: I'd rather see D&D dead than in the arms of another player. Gotcha.

Since I know realize I'm arguing with someone irrational, I can ignore further posts. Good day.

And, we see a demonstration that some folks have some issues keeping things civil.

The thread is 30+ pages long. It is likely that the subject has been beaten to death, for now.

If it doesn't generate some new and interesting points, it may get closed as an "attractive nuisance". You have been warned.

 

[pemerton]

But even in the 1e DMG, hit point loss pretty much always implies that it includes meat, even if it's not 100% meat. "Each hit scored upon a character does only a small amount of actual physical harm...". That may say that only a small amount of physical harm is done per hit, but it does include physical harm being done.

If you read on the part of that sentence that you elided (DMG p 82), it continues:

. . . the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the [10th level] fighter's exceptional skill, lukc and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 [of 95 total] hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.​

People don't die from grazes, nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises (not even lots of them) unless they get infected - which doesn't really happen to D&D-style fantasy heroes.

So it's not as if the hit point loss measures physical harm of the sort that might kill you. At worst, it's physical harm of the sort that might wear you down, or that might reduce your dodging speed because of associated pain (eg if an opponent is able to worry a particular bruise).

There is no suggestion, in Gygax's AD&D at least, of any genuinely serious injury until the final blow is actually struck. It's enough to knock you unconscious if it drops you to between 0 and -3, and to kill you otherwise.

4. Should there be a limit to magical healing in any given day? If so what is the fluff for that limit?

<snip>

My answers are...

<snip>

4. No.

Just for the sake of clarity, in 4e magical healing - eg the Cure Wounds and Heal line of spells - is not limited by the recipient. It is surgeless healing.

What is limited by the recipient is inspirational healing (be that from cleric, warlord, bard etc) and orc-draught and miruvor-style healing (ie potions), both of which, through quite different processes, trigger the character's inner reserves.

 

[billd91]

If you read on the part of that sentence that you elided (DMG p 82), it continues:

. . . the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the [10th level] fighter's exceptional skill, lukc and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 [of 95 total] hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.​

People don't die from grazes, nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises (not even lots of them) unless they get infected - which doesn't really happen to D&D-style fantasy heroes.

So it's not as if the hit point loss measures physical harm of the sort that might kill you. At worst, it's physical harm of the sort that might wear you down, or that might reduce your dodging speed because of associated pain (eg if an opponent is able to worry a particular bruise).

There is no suggestion, in Gygax's AD&D at least, of any genuinely serious injury until the final blow is actually struck. It's enough to knock you unconscious if it drops you to between 0 and -3, and to kill you otherwise.

Does this change anything about what I actually posted? I don't think so. That's still ample evidence that hit points have always (or at least since 1e) involved some modicum of physical harm (or "meat" as the term goes around here) - exactly what Nikosandros was asking about.

 

[Emerikol]

If you read on the part of that sentence that you elided (DMG p 82), it continues:

. . . the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the [10th level] fighter's exceptional skill, lukc and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 [of 95 total] hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.​

People don't die from grazes, nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises (not even lots of them) unless they get infected - which doesn't really happen to D&D-style fantasy heroes.

So it's not as if the hit point loss measures physical harm of the sort that might kill you. At worst, it's physical harm of the sort that might wear you down, or that might reduce your dodging speed because of associated pain (eg if an opponent is able to worry a particular bruise).

There is no suggestion, in Gygax's AD&D at least, of any genuinely serious injury until the final blow is actually struck. It's enough to knock you unconscious if it drops you to between 0 and -3, and to kill you otherwise.

Just for the sake of clarity, in 4e magical healing - eg the Cure Wounds and Heal line of spells - is not limited by the recipient. It is surgeless healing.

What is limited by the recipient is inspirational healing (be that from cleric, warlord, bard etc) and orc-draught and miruvor-style healing (ie potions), both of which, through quite different processes, trigger the character's inner reserves.

I can definitely see given the framework of 4e how that interpretation makes sense. It doesn't solve my issues otherwise with 4e healing but I get this point.

I guess I made the mistake of assuming all clerical was non-inspirational and all warlord was inspirational but that was probably an assumption that was unfounded.