Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I suppose there can never be a real "settlement" of the issue.
I do not like reliance on healing magic and magical items in a combat system (at least not in an action-heavy system like D&D). So I will always prefer a very abstract way of handling injury over a more realistic one. I also don't like to be bogged down in minutiae. (Oh dear, I just remember some optional Shadowrun rules for implanting cyberware and healing damage from 3E. Extra rolls and accounting for - what exactly? Making implanatation harder? As if magic wasn't already powerful...)
The 4E combat system still allows me to treat hit points as a resource - just in form of healing surges instead of hit points. It also allows me to treat your "max hit points" as a kind of encounter resource, making combat outcomes more predictable for the DM and the players if everyone starts at (nearly) full hit points.
I like that. I am not sure on the current GNS terms (I never will be, I suppose), but I think that is "Gamist" in that i want a mechanic that introduces a way to challenge me or measure my progress in a challenge. (Spend little healing surges, I did well, spend a lot, I didn't)
Overall, healing surges have a very similar effect to 3E hit points and reliance on magical items or casters to heal. 3E creates a world where every smart party buys Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal itself up. 4E creates a world where this doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us what happens at all. But I prefer this kind of "uncertainty" about the certainty that it are Curesticks the party uses to heal itself and that the party will have a Cleric to do the quick healing in combat.
I also do not play in a Sandbox where it might matter how long it takes to cure yourself out completely, or how I ensure that I feel faster.
And the point where I can just "give up" is that others just see this different, they have different priorities, they have their sandboxes where they need to know how long the party will rest after their last excursion.
They want the game to tell them what happens, it doesn't feel believable otherwise for them, or it might even ignore a potential aventue for a "challenge" (ensure that you get healed fast enough to go after the next plot hook before its too late or something.).
I could live with that if the result don't constrain my fluff too much. But the more precise such a game system is in saying what it does, the more precise is it in shaping the game world. And I do not expect this to happen with D&D. I like the flexibility to say that there are no Clerics or Curesticks in a campaign and still run through a lot of combat encounters.
What I think is that the 4E system can be modified a lot without breaking the entire system. You can introduce healing surges that regenerate slowly (Recharge Rolls, Rest Points, whatever.) You can change the "below 0" hp rules and introduce powers and rituals to deal with "seriously injured characters".
I do not like reliance on healing magic and magical items in a combat system (at least not in an action-heavy system like D&D). So I will always prefer a very abstract way of handling injury over a more realistic one. I also don't like to be bogged down in minutiae. (Oh dear, I just remember some optional Shadowrun rules for implanting cyberware and healing damage from 3E. Extra rolls and accounting for - what exactly? Making implanatation harder? As if magic wasn't already powerful...)
The 4E combat system still allows me to treat hit points as a resource - just in form of healing surges instead of hit points. It also allows me to treat your "max hit points" as a kind of encounter resource, making combat outcomes more predictable for the DM and the players if everyone starts at (nearly) full hit points.
I like that. I am not sure on the current GNS terms (I never will be, I suppose), but I think that is "Gamist" in that i want a mechanic that introduces a way to challenge me or measure my progress in a challenge. (Spend little healing surges, I did well, spend a lot, I didn't)
Overall, healing surges have a very similar effect to 3E hit points and reliance on magical items or casters to heal. 3E creates a world where every smart party buys Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal itself up. 4E creates a world where this doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us what happens at all. But I prefer this kind of "uncertainty" about the certainty that it are Curesticks the party uses to heal itself and that the party will have a Cleric to do the quick healing in combat.
I also do not play in a Sandbox where it might matter how long it takes to cure yourself out completely, or how I ensure that I feel faster.
And the point where I can just "give up" is that others just see this different, they have different priorities, they have their sandboxes where they need to know how long the party will rest after their last excursion.
They want the game to tell them what happens, it doesn't feel believable otherwise for them, or it might even ignore a potential aventue for a "challenge" (ensure that you get healed fast enough to go after the next plot hook before its too late or something.).
I could live with that if the result don't constrain my fluff too much. But the more precise such a game system is in saying what it does, the more precise is it in shaping the game world. And I do not expect this to happen with D&D. I like the flexibility to say that there are no Clerics or Curesticks in a campaign and still run through a lot of combat encounters.
What I think is that the 4E system can be modified a lot without breaking the entire system. You can introduce healing surges that regenerate slowly (Recharge Rolls, Rest Points, whatever.) You can change the "below 0" hp rules and introduce powers and rituals to deal with "seriously injured characters".
)
