Grognards from the current edition have a hard time understanding that the words "damage" and "healing" and "attacks" with a sword have a plausible concept of injury associated with them.
You guys are playing the mechanics, but not the imagination. Sword swings really do serious damage in real life and in fantasy novels. If you are knocked unconscious and dying from a sword swing, guess what? You're seriously hurt and need medics. No Warlord cheerleaders going "Get up, get up, come on trooper, get up". From a plausibility standpoint, that's ludicrous. And you guys have no concept how stupid it sounds cause you bought the concept hook, line, and sinker.
The problem is, hitpoints
at their core are a terrible way to represent actual damage. You don't get impaired as you take damage. Your high level fighter can fall from orbit and survive, or let a commoner stab him in the face twenty times without a problem.
That
always bugged me. And then 4E came along and said that they didn't represent damage alone. (And of course, it turns out that had always been the case - but so many people insisted on it representing physical damage along, thus that was how the concept was portrayed.)
4E instead said it is about all sorts of things that tie into being an adventurer, and that it is as much about the story and the game as about how realistic it is. The warlord can get that soldier back on his feet and into the fray because
that's what happens in stories, and it makes for a good gaming experience, and since hitpoints were
never realistic to begin with, absolutely nothing is lost.
So now I actually have a view of hitpoints that both is believable, makes for good stories,
and works well within the game. That's a win on all counts.
You find it stupid. Ok, fine. I apparently have been suckered into buying something ludicrous, rather than having found a perspective that actually
solves my problems with hitpoints lack of realism. Sure.
You don't have to like it. Honestly, I do understand why it would bother you - at least, the lack of ways to represent lasting damage. I've seen some home-brew rules for lingering injuries (using disease tracks) that are pretty darn cool. I think there is plenty of room for such ideas in the game as optional rules that would allow for more 'gritty' games, though I wouldn't want such things to be the default.
So that part, I get. The concerns about martial healing and second wind?? That, I'm sorry, I just find hard to understand - in a game about heroic fantasy, someone getting back into the fight via determination and will seems absolutely in keeping with the genre. If this was a realistic game, the first solid hit from a sword would put someone on the ground and done for. We're not playing that game, and complaining about it...
...well, like I said. I don't get it. But it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and that's fine.
Less acceptable is insisting that everyone who disagrees with you are suckers who fell for a stupid explanation, of course. That's uncool, and poor form, and doesn't do your side of the argument any good.
