Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
This might also cut a bit into the D&D 4 discussion, but I think it can be applied more generally.
The question I wonder about is: Are hitpoints (at least in D&D 3.x) a encounter based resource due the way the game is actually played?
Our group has played D&D 3.x pretty much since the beginning, and we have a lot of experience with it, and build out a certain play style. Our group is probably a bit heavy on the powergaming side, and we play combat pretty tactically. We have several ongoing campaigns (each player is also the DM or GM for his own campaign, usually based on bought adventure path and modules, but sometimes also homebrew. Not all games are D&D or D20 based, but most of them are.), and we tried out a lot of different character types and group compositions, learning to adapt the group and its tactics to become pretty "efficient" with what we have (though we somethings struggle a bit longer, and sometimes character losses will reshape the group to compensate missing character archetypes)
One of our standard tactics has definitely become stacking up Wands of Cure Light Wounds (once the level and party wealth is high enough to do so, naturally). I think that is not an unusual observation, most groups seem to do this, too. Even if there is no real dedicated healer (= Cleric or Druid) in the group, we always have at least one person that can do the "after-combat" healing. In essence, this means we will always go into a fight with full hit points, and especially the melee warriors usually leave it with nearly zero hit points (assuming a dangerous fight at least.)
In effect, this means that hitpoints are not what they seem to be at first: A resource only available "per day". After each encounter, they are fully replenished (even if it costs some resources).
Aside from spells spent (and charges expended for after healing), a combat rarely has an "after-effect". (Exceptions are poisons, energy drain, diseases or actual character death).
Was this the original intent of the D&D 3 rules? (Did this work the same way in earlier editions?) Is this a good thing (regardless wether it was planned or not)?
If it is a good thing, wouldn't it be a lot easier to just remove the wand of cure light wounds wands from the game and say that it takes only minutes instead of days to replenish hit points? If this is a bad thing, how could we change it?
My view on this:
Encounter based abilities have the big advantage that it's a lot of easier to predict one's capability per encounter (making it easier to balance any encounter in the first place). If an important character ability is based on daily uses, this easily leads to character's feeling the need to get the rest time required to replenish the resources before they go into their next encounter (spells are a pretty obvious example. But a Fighter would rarely dare to enter a new combat if he has only 10 of 80 hit points left...)
On the other hand, it means that resource management is also only encounter based. For spells this could mean "Do I cast the devestating fireball now or in 3 rounds? For Hitpoints is means when to replenish hit points in combat, and when trying to rely on defensive tactis and when it is prudent to forego defense for offense. But in both cases the decision is most likely going with the "heaviest" solution first. Which means encounter based abilities must be designed differently than daily abilities - there must be cost involved that is "paid" during the encounter, not in a later one. (Currently the system isn't good at this one, though maybe the Saga Edition might indicate a few ways how to do this.)
If all resources are encounter-based, this also means it is a lot harder to use time pressure - the character's are always fully capable and don't need a lot of rest. (But this also means that you can run a time-critical adventure easier, as the characters can run at the speed of the plot and won't need any rest without you having to adapt each encounter for a group becoming progressively weaker...)
Ultimately, I think in D&D, hit points have definitely become an encounter-based resource (even if we actually need to spend some otherwise limited resources like wands to make it so.). Most adventures seem also to be designed this way (though it's difficult to say whether the adventure designes reacted to de-facto standards or if they were the major contributor to them). If you enter a new encounter without full hit points (and possibly most "buff spells" up), they will get a lot harder. And I know our group played in a lot of hard (deadly) encounters, that were hard even though the were at full health (and fully buffed).
I see also no way to change this within the current rules, unless you effectively remove the Cure spell Wands & Staffs from the game (either by banning them or considerably limited the availability on the "market".) If you do so, you have to adapt adventures to this fact (provided you want to stay fair
), and plan in enough rest times for the group to recover hit points.
The question I wonder about is: Are hitpoints (at least in D&D 3.x) a encounter based resource due the way the game is actually played?
Our group has played D&D 3.x pretty much since the beginning, and we have a lot of experience with it, and build out a certain play style. Our group is probably a bit heavy on the powergaming side, and we play combat pretty tactically. We have several ongoing campaigns (each player is also the DM or GM for his own campaign, usually based on bought adventure path and modules, but sometimes also homebrew. Not all games are D&D or D20 based, but most of them are.), and we tried out a lot of different character types and group compositions, learning to adapt the group and its tactics to become pretty "efficient" with what we have (though we somethings struggle a bit longer, and sometimes character losses will reshape the group to compensate missing character archetypes)
One of our standard tactics has definitely become stacking up Wands of Cure Light Wounds (once the level and party wealth is high enough to do so, naturally). I think that is not an unusual observation, most groups seem to do this, too. Even if there is no real dedicated healer (= Cleric or Druid) in the group, we always have at least one person that can do the "after-combat" healing. In essence, this means we will always go into a fight with full hit points, and especially the melee warriors usually leave it with nearly zero hit points (assuming a dangerous fight at least.)
In effect, this means that hitpoints are not what they seem to be at first: A resource only available "per day". After each encounter, they are fully replenished (even if it costs some resources).
Aside from spells spent (and charges expended for after healing), a combat rarely has an "after-effect". (Exceptions are poisons, energy drain, diseases or actual character death).
Was this the original intent of the D&D 3 rules? (Did this work the same way in earlier editions?) Is this a good thing (regardless wether it was planned or not)?
If it is a good thing, wouldn't it be a lot easier to just remove the wand of cure light wounds wands from the game and say that it takes only minutes instead of days to replenish hit points? If this is a bad thing, how could we change it?
My view on this:
Encounter based abilities have the big advantage that it's a lot of easier to predict one's capability per encounter (making it easier to balance any encounter in the first place). If an important character ability is based on daily uses, this easily leads to character's feeling the need to get the rest time required to replenish the resources before they go into their next encounter (spells are a pretty obvious example. But a Fighter would rarely dare to enter a new combat if he has only 10 of 80 hit points left...)
On the other hand, it means that resource management is also only encounter based. For spells this could mean "Do I cast the devestating fireball now or in 3 rounds? For Hitpoints is means when to replenish hit points in combat, and when trying to rely on defensive tactis and when it is prudent to forego defense for offense. But in both cases the decision is most likely going with the "heaviest" solution first. Which means encounter based abilities must be designed differently than daily abilities - there must be cost involved that is "paid" during the encounter, not in a later one. (Currently the system isn't good at this one, though maybe the Saga Edition might indicate a few ways how to do this.)
If all resources are encounter-based, this also means it is a lot harder to use time pressure - the character's are always fully capable and don't need a lot of rest. (But this also means that you can run a time-critical adventure easier, as the characters can run at the speed of the plot and won't need any rest without you having to adapt each encounter for a group becoming progressively weaker...)
Ultimately, I think in D&D, hit points have definitely become an encounter-based resource (even if we actually need to spend some otherwise limited resources like wands to make it so.). Most adventures seem also to be designed this way (though it's difficult to say whether the adventure designes reacted to de-facto standards or if they were the major contributor to them). If you enter a new encounter without full hit points (and possibly most "buff spells" up), they will get a lot harder. And I know our group played in a lot of hard (deadly) encounters, that were hard even though the were at full health (and fully buffed).
I see also no way to change this within the current rules, unless you effectively remove the Cure spell Wands & Staffs from the game (either by banning them or considerably limited the availability on the "market".) If you do so, you have to adapt adventures to this fact (provided you want to stay fair
), and plan in enough rest times for the group to recover hit points.
