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

[pemerton]

if HP really are suppose to represent all those quasi-tangibles of the target (perserverance, skill, endurance, etc.) that go into keeping the target in the fight, then an effect should not be able to sidestep those HP any more than an arrow or swordblow should be able to decapitate or KO the target in the middle of the fight.

<snip>

The difference between paralyzing an enemy with 20 HP or pushing him 2 squares is a matter of degree, not quality. But that leaves you with a pretty straight-up ToTM attrition game that isn't very exciting at table for tactically minded players (I would think).

4e uses (I think) 3 "dimensions" of quasi-tangibles.

There is the "hit point" dimension, which is related to resolve, luck, endurance etc.

There is the "debuff" dimension (eg being dazed, slowed, -2 to all defences, etc) which basically occupies the same space in the fiction but via a different mechanical framework - primarily but not only toying with the action economy. In a typical skill challenge, which doesn't work with the same degree of detail, all this stuff disappears and is replaced by simple hp/healing surge depletion.

I think the reason for having this stuff in the game as mechanically distinct from hit points is the tactical fun reason that you canvass. I think the reason for making it mostly light touch (at least by D&D's traditional save-or-die standards) is to stop it from overwhelming the hit point dimension that is mechanically distinct but occupying the same space in the fiction.

The third dimension for 4e is positioning (including shift vs walk, prone vs standing, force movement and teleportation, immobilised, etc). This occupies a different space in the fiction (although in some cases one might imagine a degree of overlap - the combat advantage granted for being prone, for instance, looks like a type of debuff that could equally be represented by hit point loss that correlates to a character being put in a disadvantageous position). It is the closest 4e combat gets to simulationist resolution.

In my own experience, the existence of these three dimensions, all of which somewhat overlap and two of which highly overlap as far as the fiction is concerned, is not an impediment to "immersion" and a sense of how things are for the PCs in the fiction. Getting rid of them all would seem to require a move to abstract positioning and much more simple action economy - both big moves for D&D. (I'm thinking of something like Marvel Heroic RP. Does Dungeon World simplify in this sort of way also? TotM, at least in the traditional D&D approach, is not abstract positioning but just approximative concrete positioning.)

 

[Balesir]

I gave it some honest thought, but that water is too cold/hot but not just right for me. I appreciate the alternative viewpoint but D&D Next is my best bet. I'm interested in what-if?/world-building, and this approach wouldn't lead to the kind of internal consistency (or the illusion of internal consistency) I appreciate.

Fair enough - I wish you well with whatever system you prefer. I would note, though, that this is a matter of degree, not an "on/off" switch. There will always be aspects of the fiction that different players envisage in slightly different ways. What shade of red is (red) dragonscale armour, do dungeon dwellers defecate (despite the common lack of latrines) and what happens to the waste, and (often) what is the in-game weather like just now, might be examples of things that are "seen" in the players' minds' eyes in a variety of ways.

I think it's a question of focus; where do you (generic 'you', not you personally) want the focus of collective players' attention to be? Hmm - maybe there's an argument that the rules should have a focus at the same place? Perhaps.

There is the "hit point" dimension, which is related to resolve, luck, endurance etc.

There is the "debuff" dimension (eg being dazed, slowed, -2 to all defences, etc) which basically occupies the same space in the fiction but via a different mechanical framework - primarily but not only toying with the action economy. In a typical skill challenge, which doesn't work with the same degree of detail, all this stuff disappears and is replaced by simple hp/healing surge depletion.

I think the reason for having this stuff in the game as mechanically distinct from hit points is the tactical fun reason that you canvass. I think the reason for making it mostly light touch (at least by D&D's traditional save-or-die standards) is to stop it from overwhelming the hit point dimension that is mechanically distinct but occupying the same space in the fiction.

This is an interesting bit of cogitation. If hit points are a longer-term (full encounter) measure of resolve, luck, endurance and momentum, then the debuffs and so on are shorter-term "windows of opportunity" to advantageously push those factors (especially momentum) in your side's favour. As opportunities to seize the initiative/push the "momentum" pendulum in one direction, these effects lead to tension/drama in the scene. Save-or-Die/Sava-or-Suck, on the other hand, bypass the hit points as "momentum/victory tracker" function entirely, shortcutting the scene instead of adding tension to it.

This also suggests, perhaps,that what Skill Challenges (and the 5e equivalent) lack is something that has the same effect. Maybe some mechanical features that allow for the creation of short-term advantages and threats should be added to the non-combat "pillars" to get more tension and anticipation into the non-combat arena?

 

[pemerton]

This is an interesting bit of cogitation.

Thank you.

If hit points are a longer-term (full encounter) measure of resolve, luck, endurance and momentum, then the debuffs and so on are shorter-term "windows of opportunity" to advantageously push those factors (especially momentum) in your side's favour. As opportunities to seize the initiative/push the "momentum" pendulum in one direction, these effects lead to tension/drama in the scene. Save-or-Die/Sava-or-Suck, on the other hand, bypass the hit points as "momentum/victory tracker" function entirely, shortcutting the scene instead of adding tension to it.

That sounds right.

This also suggests, perhaps,that what Skill Challenges (and the 5e equivalent) lack is something that has the same effect. Maybe some mechanical features that allow for the creation of short-term advantages and threats should be added to the non-combat "pillars" to get more tension and anticipation into the non-combat arena?

Makes sense to me. In the way skill challenges work at my table, the closest we get to this is +2 bonuses to subsequent checks, and the use of action points to allow re-rolls, aid another (at interrupt speed) and/or failure cancellations.

 

[Ballbo Big'uns]

I like having encounter attrition (Hit Points) and adventure attrition (Healing Surges/Hit Dice) separate.

I also like healing surge-like mechanics because losing them, and adjusting refresh rates on them make a good mechanical consequence for wilderness exploration, or energy drain.

 

[Dungeonman]

I would note, though, that this is a matter of degree, not an "on/off" switch. There will always be aspects of the fiction that different players envisage in slightly different ways.

For sure. There is some line in the sand that we draw with these things.

What shade of red is (red) dragonscale armour, do dungeon dwellers defecate (despite the common lack of latrines) and what happens to the waste, and (often) what is the in-game weather like just now, might be examples of things that are "seen" in the players' minds' eyes in a variety of ways.

Personally, I'd like to see the bigger picture of that addressed in the following order of preference: 1) settings or adventures, 2) the DM, and 3) the players on-the-fly. (The more trivial the detail, the less it matters though) So now that you've mentioned latrines, then for example, in a high fantasy setting/adventure, you don't care about dungeon latrines because nobody does #2 like ever but maybe a piss as a plot device, and in some gonzo/gamist fantasy setting, the wizard commissions a whole dungeon sewage system run by a goblin corporation, and in a more grounded 'realistic' fantasy adventure/setting, it's mostly urban and wilderness with castle ruins, etc. instead of actual dungeon economies. That way, at least all participants have fictional expectations in line with the actual gaming play session.

I think that aligning expectations is often underrated, and so gamers understandably end up over-relying on the ruleset as a predictor of whether any one D&D session will produce the fiction they enjoy most. (Alternatively, they're playing D&D with a priority on crunch, so the fluff doesn't matter.)

I think it's a question of focus; where do you (generic 'you', not you personally) want the focus of collective players' attention to be? Hmm - maybe there's an argument that the rules should have a focus at the same place? Perhaps.

That's very pertinent to this thread. Obviously, latrinal logistics don't need to be part of a ruleset. But elements that are relevant and important to a player's concept of the PCs, like healing, overnight recovey, etc. -- I think the rules definitely have a role in focusing player's attention to different possible fictions.

 

[Ratskinner]

4e uses (I think) 3 "dimensions" of quasi-tangibles.

There is the "hit point" dimension, which is related to resolve, luck, endurance etc.

There is the "debuff" dimension (eg being dazed, slowed, -2 to all defences, etc) which basically occupies the same space in the fiction but via a different mechanical framework - primarily but not only toying with the action economy. In a typical skill challenge, which doesn't work with the same degree of detail, all this stuff disappears and is replaced by simple hp/healing surge depletion.

[snip]

The third dimension for 4e is positioning (including shift vs walk, prone vs standing, force movement and teleportation, immobilised, etc). This occupies a different space in the fiction (although in some cases one might imagine a degree of overlap - the combat advantage granted for being prone, for instance, looks like a type of debuff that could equally be represented by hit point loss that correlates to a character being put in a disadvantageous position). It is the closest 4e combat gets to simulationist resolution.

[snip]

I very much concur. The way I see it, the amount of overlap between HP and the positioning dimension is dependent on the scale of the combat. The more you "zoom out", the more they overlap. TBH, the more I've thought about it this way, the more I've thought that 4e (with a little tweaking) could drop HP entirely, relying on surges instead. (I even seem to recall reading an article where someone did something very similar.) Since I also concur with...

I think the reason for having this stuff in the game as mechanically distinct from hit points is the tactical fun reason that you canvass. I think the reason for making it mostly light touch (at least by D&D's traditional save-or-die standards) is to stop it from overwhelming the hit point dimension that is mechanically distinct but occupying the same space in the fiction.

[snip]

In my own experience, the existence of these three dimensions, all of which somewhat overlap and two of which highly overlap as far as the fiction is concerned, is not an impediment to "immersion" and a sense of how things are for the PCs in the fiction.

I wouldn't expect it would impede immersion. In fact, I would suspect that, of the three dimensions, the HP dimension would be the most trying to immersion for all the reasons people have griped about it for 30 years or so.

Getting rid of them all would seem to require a move to abstract positioning and much more simple action economy - both big moves for D&D. (I'm thinking of something like Marvel Heroic RP. Does Dungeon World simplify in this sort of way also?

That would be a very big move for D&D, and its probably obvious that I'd prefer to keep the others and drop/modify the HP.

Dungeon World is an odd beast, IME. Dungeon World doesn't do much specifying as to what exactly HP are supposed to represent, leaving it to whatever folks narrate into the fiction. In many ways its much more responsive to the fiction, and in other ways...a little incoherent. I ran a game for a while and the Fighter had picked up a Barbarian ability that read:

Smash!
When you hack and slash, on a 12+ deal your damage and choose something physical your target has (a weapon, their position, a limb): they lose it.

Which sounded great until he was fighting the big bad, rolls 12+ and deals minimum damage (which otherwise would have left the baddie still fighting)....and then the player said; "I choose his head." Sorta bypassing the few actual meta-mechanical constructs in the game (i.e. HP).

Another instance that occurred several times during my game, and that I've seen other complain about is that sometimes some of the options for a partial success (rolling a 7-9), can be very difficult, if not nonsensical under some circumstances. Which I've seen players use to their advantage: "hmm...let's see what the DM can come up with to put me in danger here." Almost worse, the results occasionally put you in the odd position of success being indistinguishable from failure, and its not clear (to me anyway) how the GM should handle it.

The glory and weakness of DW is that the moves are all tied closely with the fictional positioning, and are often relatively specific. It can lead to situation where issues in the game are small, scattered, and hidden within the individual moves, making them very hard to anticipate and respond to. All in all, though, I liked the DW experience, and these issues seemed less problematic than they might appear from this post.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't expect it would impede immersion. In fact, I would suspect that, of the three dimensions, the HP dimension would be the most trying to immersion for all the reasons people have griped about it for 30 years or so.

Thanks for the reply. Just on the hp/immersion issue, I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] captured my experience fairly well in his time-scale differentiation of hit point loss and other debuffs. So getting debuffed makes it feel like the other side has an opportunity to swing the momentum their way; the subsequent hit point loss actually marks that swinging of momentum.

Or something like that.