D&D 5E Healing Surges, Hit Dice, Martial Healing, and Overnight recovery: Which ones do you like?

[Dungeonman]

This has been covered upthread by @Balesir . The cleric's inspiration is not via the cleric's own charisma, but via the bestowing of divine grace. (Hence the divine keyword rather than the martial keyword, at least prior to the clunky Essentials errata.)

Cool. Where does it say that? Where does it say the power is inspirational and uses the god's charisma?

I would argue then, where does it say that it doesn't?

D'karr, I think that's the wrong argument, and pemerton's is the better one for appeasing the concerns I think were raised.

4e gives the DM and players tools, lots of them, and a very solid framework on which they can build. They can do with these tools and framework as they please. It doesn't require the DM to limit himself to "color within the lines."

If the divine keyword means the power is always god-sourced, then this is a good peg for world-building. If the divine keyword is simply structural with subjective or variable meaning, it actually feeds into the type of concerns that I think I share with Jester Canuck that would detract from the enjoying the game.

 

[Balesir]

But healing surges, as currently presented, prevent attrition so there is only the one form of dramatic pacing rather than two. There can only be drama in individual encounters and what happened in prior encounters is largely irrelevant so long as the PCs survived.

If you have all your surges, but 0hp, you are DYINGING. It doesn't matter how much reserve health you have. It's potential health. Theoretical. The only health that actually matters is the hp.
Surges *may* be used to represent overall fitness and general health but in practice they're there to heal people to full before each encounter independent of CLW wands.

In this, healing surges are irrelevant save as a means of reliably healing PCs to full independent of magic between each set piece battle. It makes the set pieces easier to reliably balance but, because healing is so accessible, hitpoint attrition cannot take place/.

(i) long-term resource management is only somewhat a "traditional aspect of D&D". It's there, but not for all classes/characters. And PCs would still have to manage daily powers, magic item powers, consumables, and action points. Plus any feats or features usable on a per/day basis. Plus manage encounter powers during fights. Removing healing surges barely touches the resource management of 4e.

You're right. It doesn't matter if the adventure included 2 fights that each really taxed the party and ended with them being spent or six fights that gradually wore down the party. The end result is the same, which makes healing surges artificial as they have no influence on how the party is at the start of the day or the end of the day. They only impact how healthy the party is at the start of each individual fight.

(ii) True, but if surges were replaced with healing in the power, the effect in-play is identical. It doesn't matter at all if second wind requires a surge or is an encounter power that heals 5hp/level.

You repeat and repeat this refrain: healing surges do not give any long term attrition; they are "only there" to allow characters to "fully heal" before each fight - in fact, they "prevent attrition"...

Where are you getting this from? What version of "4E" have you been playing that this is true? Did you miss the bit in the rules that makes it clear that, if a creature has no healing surges left, they do not heal when they try to (unless they can get some "magical" surgeless healing). And, if they get reduced to zero hit points with no surges, they are very likely to die - much more likely than if they have surges that can be called upon.

The reason surges are different from Second Wind simply as an encounter power is that you can run out of healing surges. It's fundamental to the system. Why are you ignoring/denying it?

Surges, just like hit points, only matter when you run out of them. It sounds like you consider this an impossible thing that never happens; that is far from my experience. Can you tell us why you think this?

But it's a very different design than earlier editions where there were a number of fights that individually would pose no threat but would wear down a party. That style of attrition doesn't work as well in 4e as PCs just use encounter powers and thus expend almost no resources, and actually gain Action Points so you're more powerful after the numerous mook fights.

4e takes the two different types of narrative drama and reduces it to one more effective type of drama. Which is excellent if you like that type of drama where every fight is meant to be a dramatic set piece battle. Less so if you just want a long series of mook fights.

No. The game itself is designed around encouraging one strong fight over two mook fights.

Another theme of your posts - again untrue. The "mook fights" in 4E can cost healing surges. Which is essentially exactly the same function they had in earlier editions - to run down total hit points. They also might cause action points to be used up - the "milestone" (at which extra APs are gained) happens only when encounters equivalent (roughly) to two at-level encounters have been completed. So, no, APs would not "build up" through multiple below-level fights; it would take about four encounters at L-3 to reach a milestone.

The narrative you describe is unrelated to "healing surges" and could be replicated with any healing in combat, be it proportional or not, static or random.

And I replied that I agreed that in-combat healing was valid, but was independent from healing surges.

I disagree. If surges were removed and replaced with, say dice, or a set number of hp (5/level) individual encounters would play almost identically. You'd still need to use those powers in combat, keeping use in check through action economy. And you'd still have to rest when low in Daily powers, consumables, magic item powers, and the like.

If the only purpose of Healing Surges was to facilitate in-combat healing, then you're right. But Healing Surges fulfill many design purposes in 4E, which is why they are designed the way they are.

If an encounter can be a narrative (which you claim above) then the series of connected events that is exploring a dungeon and looting its treasure is also a narrative. It'd be easy to treat D&D like a combat simulator, a dungeon delve, where you move from one combat to the next. But that's not the case. If you do just want to move from one combat to the next, then the game ceases to be D&D and you're playing a miniature combat game.

But I didn't say 4e is a tactical skirmish game and/or board game. It certainly leans more in that direction than other games, but it still has a couple mechanics that keep it in RPG territory. Like skill challenges and social skills.

Ah, the old saw that "combat isn't roleplaying, roleplaying is the talky-stuff". Look, play your game with as much or as little "talky-stuff" as you like - when I play RPGs there is shedloads of roleplaying going on in combat. Characters talk in combat, for a start, and when things get "sticky" is when real character shows through, not when gassing in a bar.

If you're not telling a story in D&D you're just playing a miniature combat game. Even games like "Clue" have an implied narrative. It doesn't have to be a story, but it has to be present.

Let me get this straight - I have to have plenty of "talking stuff" and have it all "tell a story" or I'm not roleplaying but I am, contrary to any appearances, "just playing a miniature combat game"? I'm pretty sure that's hogwash.

Stories will arise as a result of the action in play - sure. That applies to any human activity, because that's the way human brains are wired. But that doesn't really say anything about roleplaying games, or place any restrictions at all on the activities that give rise to the stories. I can go to the WC (bathroom) and tell a story about it. Actually, my character could go to the WC and I could tell a story about it. I'm not sure that has anything to do with it being "roleplaying", though.

Saying that "to play an RPG you have to tell a story", therefore, I assume to mean something more. I assume that it means that you have to play in order to tell a specific story. I don't accept that that is at all necessary in order to be playing a roleplaying game.

And I highlighted an interesting bit of text there. Interesting as the flavour text in 4th Edition has no impact at all, which is a pro and a con to the edition.

I'm pretty sure that, if you read what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] actually said, he was saying that in 4E the flavour text does impact upon the mechanics of play, not doesn't.

I've never argued about healing surges before. Hitpoints, yes, but not healing surges themselves. So I'm sorry if it's tiresome and irritating to you. But no one is making you participate.

You might not have personally trotted out these tired old arguments before, but throngs have, before you. You might profit from reading the myriad threads that spawned from their strident ruminations.

The positive aspect is the "necessary" part. But they undeniably have a problematic influence on the game given the continual thread wars and arguments over the nature of hp, which have been going on since, well, 1st edition. Hence the "evil" part. Hp work really well, but cause fights and require suspension of disbelief. Necessary evil.

If suspension of disbelief is such a big deal, use the wound system I outlined above. It would do almost as well for the style of play you seem to seek - D&D but with gritty realism added in a few key spots. At the very least, it shows that hit points are not actually "necessary".

In this edition, all fights are meant to have the risk of death. You could do that in other editions with fewer larger fights.

Actually, I doubt very much that you could. If the first encounter was nearly fatal, the second would be downright murderous. Doing this on any sustained basis would lead to TPK after TPK. Seriously: if the party leaves the first encounter with just a few hit points each (and presumably several spells used), and then have another tough encounter, what would their chances be?

People don't say "Imma gonna write and adventure and it's going to have 6 level+1 encounters." They write and adventure and then work in the encounters that make sense. The adventure, if written for 3e or 4e, likely wouldn't change that much in design. (Or shouldn't anyway. 4e really forced me to change how I wrote adventures.)

The only alteration I can think of that I would need to make to run most older edition modules in 4E would be to change or limit extended rests. I have already used some restrictions on extended rests in my home game, and it's really easy to do so. Other than that, it should work fine.

I was saying that, in its design, it leans more to Gamist logic and requires much, much more willing suspension of disbelief.

Healing surges are just a part of that overall design. They exist for that reason and that reason alone. Anything else is just tangential or a side effect.

I assume that these are simply your opinion, not implying that you have the capability to read the minds of the developers and know that these "facts" are indisputably true?

Cool. Where does it say that? Where does it say the power is inspirational and uses the god's charisma?

Right here:

Yeah, because the clerics transmit inspiration that is based on their deity, not on their own charm. You are not inspired by the words of the cleric - you are inspired by the word of the god. How is that not understandable?

This was in a post written in reply to you; did you not read it? If you didn't, that might explain why it seems so hard to communicate with you.

 

[D'karr]

I know very well that PCs can make their powers their own.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20101208
That's both a huge pro and moderate con of the edition. But it's beside the points.

If the game doesn't say something, any explanation is just a fan justification. Fan wanking really.
Arguing that there's no narrative disparity between warlord's inspiring word or clerical healing word because you can describe the latter as being the god's divine inspiration is not a valid excuse.
It's not that different than, oh, a Superman fan arguing "of course he steered Zod into unoccupied buildings during the Metropolis fight. He wouldn't endanger people." Cool fan theory, but since the movie didn't show it, it's just speculation/ fan wanking.

I've never been accused of Fan Wanking but thanks. I'll note it for further non-conversation.

 

[Balesir]

D'karr, I think that's the wrong argument, and pemerton's is the better one for appeasing the concerns I think were raised.

I see what you are driving at, here, but I'm going to express an alternate view. I do not want a system to dictate to me exactly how a power or manoeuvre works, in general.

Partly, this is because I find it unnecessarily restrictive on how a home-game world works, but the more serious objection I have is actually a verisimilitude one. Very often I find that roleplaying systems state explicitly how a particular spell, manoeuvre or skill works and my brain simply rebels. Maybe I have some personal experience of the skill or technique being evoked that clashes with the description given, or maybe what is described simply clashes with my world-model assumptions. Either way, I find that, while I could happily believe a way of doing the described act, I simply can't imagine it being done as described. I'm in the crazy (it seems to me) position of having my "suspension of disbelief" broken by the fluff, but not the crunch.

From this point of view, I love 4E's method of describing the crunch/mechanics of what happens, maybe an example of how it might look in the game world, and some keywords that are at once mechanical "pegs" and in-game clues as to the general nature of the effect. With those, I can make up my own vision of how the effect works that works for me. And, I assume, everyone else can do likelwise.

Now, it's possible that my vision of what is happening is different to others' visions - but here's the thing: it doesn't matter, as long as we all accept that the rules are what the rules are. In other words, the rules are the "facts" that tie our different visions of what is happening together. Just like in real life, really...

 

[Dungeonman]

I see what you are driving at, here, but I'm going to express an alternate view. I do not want a system to dictate to me exactly how a power or manoeuvre works, in general.

Partly, this is because I find it unnecessarily restrictive on how a home-game world works, but the more serious objection I have is actually a verisimilitude one. Very often I find that roleplaying systems state explicitly how a particular spell, manoeuvre or skill works and my brain simply rebels. Maybe I have some personal experience of the skill or technique being evoked that clashes with the description given, or maybe what is described simply clashes with my world-model assumptions. Either way, I find that, while I could happily believe a way of doing the described act, I simply can't imagine it being done as described. I'm in the crazy (it seems to me) position of having my "suspension of disbelief" broken by the fluff, but not the crunch.

From this point of view, I love 4E's method of describing the crunch/mechanics of what happens, maybe an example of how it might look in the game world, and some keywords that are at once mechanical "pegs" and in-game clues as to the general nature of the effect. With those, I can make up my own vision of how the effect works that works for me. And, I assume, everyone else can do likelwise.

Now, it's possible that my vision of what is happening is different to others' visions - but here's the thing: it doesn't matter, as long as we all accept that the rules are what the rules are. In other words, the rules are the "facts" that tie our different visions of what is happening together.

I haven't played 4E myself, but your explanation jives with how I imagined it being played. Somehow it matters very much to me if there are signficantly different versions of visions in everyone's head. I'd worry that it sterilizes the story, that people would be walking on eggshells afraid that their vision would intrude on others, and that many people would not be imagining at all what was happening which leads to further blindspots in the fiction. Not sure how to better articulate that. Basically, what I'd fear is a different lighter quality of story than if everyone could somehow just "get along", unified by a more cohesive fiction.

Perhaps a strong D&D setting -- one that, for example, explained to mostly everyone's satisfaction what Vancian casting is exactly -- would help with that? Perhaps that was D&D's failure of imagination, as people's tastes in good fantasy fiction evolves and solidifies over time, having seen it done better in movies and rpg games.

Just like in real life, really...

Which part of real-life? In real-life, people can debate their subjective interpretations with each other, and they usually do so to establish if the facts are in fact what they seem. That's like the opposite of 4E requiring you to accept the rules and come up with interpretations (or not) which you don't get to share with each other in case they clash.

If it's anything like real-life, I think it's more like a movie production. Movie producer wants a car chase scene. He doesn't care how or why, but that's Rule Car Chase. A lazy director may throw in a gratuitous car chase. A better director might set up a clever innovative car chase. Either way, that's subjective how good the car chase scene is. But nobody gets to tell the producer to NOT do the car chase scene in the 1st place because it's not cohesive to the plot.

 

[Manbearcat]

I see what you are driving at, here, but I'm going to express an alternate view. I do not want a system to dictate to me exactly how a power or manoeuvre works, in general.

Partly, this is because I find it unnecessarily restrictive on how a home-game world works, but the more serious objection I have is actually a verisimilitude one. Very often I find that roleplaying systems state explicitly how a particular spell, manoeuvre or skill works and my brain simply rebels. Maybe I have some personal experience of the skill or technique being evoked that clashes with the description given, or maybe what is described simply clashes with my world-model assumptions. Either way, I find that, while I could happily believe a way of doing the described act, I simply can't imagine it being done as described. I'm in the crazy (it seems to me) position of having my "suspension of disbelief" broken by the fluff, but not the crunch.

From this point of view, I love 4E's method of describing the crunch/mechanics of what happens, maybe an example of how it might look in the game world, and some keywords that are at once mechanical "pegs" and in-game clues as to the general nature of the effect. With those, I can make up my own vision of how the effect works that works for me. And, I assume, everyone else can do likelwise.

If you're crazy, I am too, as well are my players. I much, much prefer an open (or at least broad) descriptor system that opens up the conceptual narrative space. I'm confident that if the onus is on my group to come up with dynamic, coherent outcomes that those exact results will be delivered in spades.

What's more, I find that the physical model that many gamers have for martial exchanges doesn't remotely comport with my experience in, and understanding of, those matters. Sum total, if you couple deeply constrained outcomes (sapping relative, potential dynamism and imposing a narrative sterility in their place) with an incorrect model (which is the entire point for constraining outcomes it seems), it adds up to an entirely unsatisfactory experience for me.

 

[innerdude]

I'm not talking about these options - they are just hit points with mechanical twiddles on.

- Wounds/vitality: splits hps up into two pools, but it's still basically "hit points"

- Damage saves/soak: means everyone has the same number of hit points, but each time you lose one you make a save (which is easier for some than others) against really losing it.

- Avoidance: just increases AC/Defence instead of hit points.

I have to respectfully disagree that each of these are "still basically hit points." Even splitting hit points into wounds and vitality has a distinct effect on the "narrative fiction" of the game being played, especially if you're playing a system where wounds can be attacked directly via a critical hit, making the "standard" D&D-slow-HP-attrition-spiral into much different, more dangerous fights.

As far as damage saves / soaks, I'm a huge fan of Savage Worlds, but the "wound soaking" mechanic has always stood out to me like a sore thumb. Everything about Savage Worlds is so elegant and coherent, but this . . . this . . . wound thing . . . what to do about it?

As you say, it's the functional equivalent of a "saving throw" based on meta-game currency. Expend a resource ("bennies") for a chance to "save against wounding."

In Savage Worlds' case, to me it's the designers sort of waving a white flag, accepting that for their system to meet their aims of "fast and furious," they had to do something other than slow HP attrition across gobs of enemies / players. What does a "soak roll" mean in Savage Worlds, in terms of "verisimilitude"? Nothing. It's totally dissociated; there's no relationship between a player spending the "benny" meta-game currency, and the character being able to attribute that meta-game currency to in-game cause.

But in a sense, as much as it bothers me sometimes that it's clearly a "metagame / dissociated" mechanic, at the same time, it's almost like I can hear Shane Hensley in the background saying, "But what's the alternative??? D&D hitpoints? Long, drawn out whittling down of resistance until someone finally gets 'hurt'? Nope. Some intricate, simulationist attack / active defense / armor mechanic that takes way too long to resolve, like GURPS? Nope."

But at the very least, it makes clear what the actual effect of a true "wound" is --- it's "meat." There's no abstract, "Well, if a fighter has 100 HP, and a Wizard 40, what does a 25-point damage attack mean to either of them?" True, in Savage Worlds if a character's Vigor is higher than another, a 25-point attack may have a different effect, but generally it's the difference between, "Gee, I'm pretty screwed here and gonna get hurt," versus, "Gee, I'm SERIOUSLY, TOTALLY screwed here and gonna get hurt." A wound save / soak roll also gives players more meaningful narrative control, because he or she can CHOOSE to not make a soak attempt at all, saving the meta-game currency for later. (In a sense, this is more in line with "healing surges" in this regard, except that Savage Worlds at least mitigates the "heal up before every fight" dissociation by making wounds a serious, game-affecting problem).

In Savage Worlds' case I'm willing to forgive this aspect of meta-gamey-ness for two reasons:

1) The wound / soak mechanic is largely the ONLY pure meta-game construct in the game. Nearly everything else operates from a very consistent, process-resolution basis.

2) It fully serves the purpose of the system to meet its designed mode of play.

For me, it communicates something about the hitpoint debate as a whole, which is that in general, most RPGs set up their "combat damage" mechanic to not model reality. Really it's just a question of how much "non-reality" you're willing to deal with. You want gritty, deadly, one-hit-and-you-die combat, don't look to D&D and Savage Worlds; go to GURPS and Runequest.

Now that said, I'm generally of the preference where I'm okay for combat damage to be modeled on "non-reality," but prefer most of the rest of the game world to operate at least somewhere in the "appropriate reality spectrum," tuned for genre, etc. Which is why I can largely deal with the wound mechanic in Savage Worlds, but totally balk at 4e's wide-and-varied dissociations across multiple gameplay spectra.

Last but not least, "Damage Avoidance" is by far the most "simulationist" way of treating combat. People who go into life-threatening combat do everything in their absolute power to avoid taking damage. It's why the whole "combat as war" motif is powerful---you play combat-as-war to give yourself every advantage possible, because in the real world, damage avoidance can only go so far. Having played GURPS some, damage avoidance is HUGE, HUGE part of the game's makeup, and it has a DEFINITIVE change on playstyle. It's "not just hitpoints."

Yes, hitpoints, soak / damage saves, and damage avoidance all serve the same general purpose, to model combat damage. But in play they're vastly, vastly different.

 

[Balesir]

I haven't played 4E myself, but your explanation jives with how I imagined it being played. Somehow it matters very much to me if there are signficantly different versions of visions in everyone's head. I'd worry that it sterilizes the story, that people would be walking on eggshells afraid that their vision would intrude on others, and that many people would not be imagining at all what was happening which leads to further blindspots in the fiction. Not sure how to better articulate that. Basically, what I'd fear is a different lighter quality of story than if everyone could somehow just "get along", unified by a more cohesive fiction.

I can only say that my experience, and the experience of the group (of seven) I DM for seems to indicate that this sterilisation, intrusion and lack of envisioning doesn't happen - or, at the very least, doesn't cause a problem. I think I understand the fear, vaguely, but all I can say is "come on in - the water's actually fine!"

Perhaps a strong D&D setting -- one that, for example, explained to mostly everyone's satisfaction what Vancian casting is exactly -- would help with that? Perhaps that was D&D's failure of imagination, as people's tastes in good fantasy fiction evolves and solidifies over time, having seen it done better in movies and rpg games.

Curiously (or perhaps not), it's not the fantsy elements that really give trouble. Vancian casting can be rationalised with a simple "well, it's magic". As [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] attests to in his response, it's matters of skill or science. Some roleplayers have a very strange vision of how physics might be able to work, and Hollywood has done utterly vile things to peoples' imagination of medieval fighting and Western Martial Arts, it seems.

Which part of real-life? In real-life, people can debate their subjective interpretations with each other, and they usually do so to establish if the facts are in fact what they seem. That's like the opposite of 4E requiring you to accept the rules and come up with interpretations (or not) which you don't get to share with each other in case they clash.

My experience - and this seems top be getting more strongly supported with time - is that many folks have remarkably disparate ideas about how the world works. What is actually seen and heard we generally agree on - those are the "facts established by the rules" - but the why and how of them happening is subject to the most weird opinions, I find.

As an example, some folk ascribe many happenings in the world to divine or spiritual agency, where I see them as the natural outcome of scientific processes (generally - I could go deeper than that but I don't generally think on that level). Once you get into psychology and the motivation of people or animals in events, things get totally crazy!

So, to answer your question, all or most of it (reality), in one way or another.

What's more, I find that the physical model that many gamers have for martial exchanges doesn't remotely comport with my experience in, and understanding of, those matters.

Oh, heavens, yes! Some of the "clever" moves with a sword and shield I hear described are just priceless! And so much fantasy art shows moves that would/should be just suicidal - no experienced warrior would even contemplate them, however "savage" or "berserk" they might be. Hyborean picts are technologically disadvantaged, not stupid...

For the rest of your post - not much I can say except "I agree".

 

[D'karr]

D'karr, I think that's the wrong argument, and pemerton's is the better one for appeasing the concerns I think were raised.

I don't need the game books to spell everything out. Therefore, anything not specifically called out as prohibited is always implicitly available. My players and I can come up with our own justifications, if we want or need them. And they are usually more entertaining than what I've seen from the designers.

The mentality of "if not spelled out it didn't happen" is a very annoying, and actually crippling one. I first started seeing this with the rules-lawyering of 3.x. It was also one of the biggest problems I had with 3.x. Since it did attempt to spell everything out, it created this mentality that if it was not spelled out it could not happen (i.e., no rule, no effect). When a rule was absent it left DMs and players to wonder if it was even admissible. I understand that might not have been the intent, but it was very clearly the resulting effect. Constant threads in places like ENWorld about RAW and RAI pretty much cemented to me that a "spell everything out" game was not what I wanted or needed.

Therefore, I prefer a game that spells out the things that it absolutely needs to function, and leaves the rest open so the DM and players can decide what they want.

If the divine keyword means the power is always god-sourced, then this is a good peg for world-building. If the divine keyword is simply structural with subjective or variable meaning, it actually feeds into the type of concerns that I think I share with Jester Canuck that would detract from the enjoying the game.

Keywords in 4e are very useful because they do exactly what I mentioned above. They provide only the bare minimum to function and don't "force" anything else on the DM, or players. They allow the DM to tailor things to his tastes, instead of being forced into the RAW from a designer that knows nothing about the specific game group.

The divine keyword for example is defined as:

Divine
Divine magic comes from the gods. The gods grant power to their devotees, which clerics and paladins, for example, access through prayers and litanies. Divine magic excels at healing, protection, and smiting the enemies of the gods.​

So it explicitly states that it comes from the gods. Any other thing the DM wants to attribute to it is entirely up to him. I'll give another example to illustrate the point.

The fire keyword for example is defined in two sections as:

Fire

• A damage type. A creature that has this keyword is strongly connected to fire. See also damage type.
• Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.

So does a fireball spell set things on fire? The game does not specify. It does give the spell the fire keyword. So the DM and players are encouraged, but not forced, to use that keyword as they would like. If the DM wants the fireball spell to set things alight he can easily do that, and if he doesn't he is not forced by the rules to make houserules to change the basics.

Another thing that keywords help with is organization and rapid information retrieval. A power in 4e has a format that allows a DM, almost with a glance, to get the significant mechanical repercussions of the power. He does not have to read a lengthy section of "flavor" interspersed here and there with mechanical rules to get to the bottom of a rules adjudication. Particularly in combat where it counts the most. It is significant that rituals work in a different manner organizationally, specifically because they are not meant to be used in combat.

I'm not here to assuage concerns. The game does what it does. Some want to spend their time arguing how it doesn't do some things when for others it obviously does. I'm not saying you have [MENTION=6775975]Dungeonman[/MENTION], but others in this thread obviously have. I don't mind honest discussions and even good hearted disagreements. However I have very little tolerance left for the same tired arguments of "boardgame", "not an rpg", etc. None of which engender discussion but edition warring.

 

[Balesir]

I have to respectfully disagree that each of these are "still basically hit points."

Having read your post I have to say that I'll stick by my original statement that they are all "still basically hit points". Does that mean they are not substatntially different to each other? NO! Absolutely not. There are differences that clearly serve to give different feels and support different aesthetics in play.

But here's the key point - the crucial difference:

- All of the mechanics I label "hit points" have a deterministic "death" point. In other words, there exists some number of "hit points" or "wound levels" or "health levels" or whatever you can lose, and then you're dead.

- The wound system I outlined (which is short and simple, but should work fine with a d20/D&D system with just the rules I gave in my post) has no set level or number of wounds after which a creature will die. A character could theoretically have 100 Light wounds and 100 Serious wounds and still survive. It's unlikely - would be miraculous, even - but it's theoretically possible. It's possible because the system is stochastic rather than deterministic - each wound gives a chance of dying (small for Light wounds, big for Mortal wounds) rather than contributing to some set total at which death will occur.

I haven't tested the system I wrote out for balance, but it should basically function as given. Seriously, give it a read and try it out with a few trial combats (I'll do so myself if I get some time). It might have some balance issues, but I'll bet you'll see a different dynamic to that you get with hit points right from the start.