Hit points & long rests: please consider?

[Gold Roger]

Some PORTION. Not, "OMG HE JUST HAD HIS HEAD CHOPPED OFF!"


Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

I'm defending the way it IS; I'm not the one here trying to argue how it SHOULD be. You're on the side of having ALTERNATE rules. And that's fine. That's how you want to play your game. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My issue is that I believe that the DEFAULT way of doing things, the very core of the system, should remain as it is and that modular options should be presented for people like yourself who want a grittier system.

Think about that, please. You're saying I'm arguing from a personal viewpoint and not objectively from how the game is written, and yet I'm trying to keep the mechanics UNCHANGED.

What's more is that what I'm asking gives everyone what they want. I get the core system to remain intact, and how it has always been (as Neonchameleon has pointed out), and you get your modular rules so that you can play the game the way you want. Why argue against that?

We are asked to say how we want things to be for the game to apeal to us.

That said, the full healing over night as default have cascading implications for the entire game and contradictions with other stated parts of the hp and healing system we where presented with. Notably a healing kit expendure is needed for the only non-magical healing possible outside of a long rest.

Also, I don't think I'm the only one for whom even recovering the non injury aspects of HP fully with one nights sleep just breaks suspension of disbelieve (and it's pretty hard to break for me). Having a mechanic as default that breaks suspension of disbelieve for a large portion of customers is not a good idea.

The current long rest option should be the optional piece. And I personally believe it will be and is in the playtest just because it isn't important for the elements the team actually focuses for this playtest.

 

[the Jester]

I'm defending the way it IS; I'm not the one here trying to argue how it SHOULD be.

Given that the game is somewhere around 10% finished according to Mearls and that the whole point of the playtest is to figure out how it should be, I'm not convinced that there's anything to this argument.

I do agree that the best approach is a dial system for speed/ease of healing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gary isn't arguing 50%/50%, sure. But he's arguing 35%/65% based on his own words there.

If hit points amongst other things represent fatigue and stamina (as The Little Raven has already shown) then the constitution is also at least part stamina. So no he isn't. He just says that "a certain amount of these hit points" and doesn't quantify.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by AD&D 1e PHB, page 34
Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points.

Rebolding mine. When a long distance runner undertakes a serious distance race they are advised to rest for one day per mile of race. It takes a lot of rest to restore stamina properly.

In the rare cases where damage is actually more than scratches (contrary to the DMG as quoted) resting does give the body a chance to heal - but this is only one case. Given the sheer endurance required for long term fighting, recovery of stamina up to full strength is not trivial.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by AD&D 1e DMG, page 81
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

You think exhaustion isn't physical punishment???


And the point about constitution bonusses does indicate that tougher characters can withstand more damage. This doesn't mean that the entire constitution bonus is of necessity physical damage.

Hit Points - The number of points of damage a creature can sustain before death (or optionally, coma), reflecting the creature’s physical endurance, fighting experience, skill, or luck.

Endurance reflects stamina at least as much as durability. You aren't helping your cause.

Just because you can cherry pick stuff doesn't make your case, because I can cherry pick stuff right back.

And when most of them appear to be based on misunderstandings and blowing individual words out of a list into huge cases as opposed to the plain meaning of an unambiguous paragraph, your cherry picking won't help you much. Your only even remotely clear point is that constitution bonusses indicate that tougher characters can withstand more damage. Of course they can.

Your self-admitted cherry picking just gives you things that are normally contradicted and certainly mitigated by the rest of the text you are quoting. My paragraph (or rather The Little Raven's paragraph) is clear and unambiguous.

And [MENTION=33904]Gold Roger[/MENTION], to emphasise something I said earlier in the thread, I hope that they will deliberately point out the length of rest as a dial you can control as DM. Instant overnight recovery of hit points leads to a Michael Bay type action movie. But then so does instant overnight recovery of spells - Gandalf cast maybe six spells in the whole of Lord of the Rings. Extend it to a week and it doesn't turn into Michael Bay on either count.

 

[Mercutio01]

IAnd when most of them appear to be based on misunderstandings and blowing individual words out of a list into huge cases as opposed to the plain meaning of an unambiguous paragraph, your cherry picking won't help you much. Your only even remotely clear point is that constitution bonusses indicate that tougher characters can withstand more damage. Of course they can.

Now I know you're full of crap. You're blowing individual words out of a list and changing an ambiguous paragraph to phrase your personal opinion to pretend it is somehow unambiguous.

Your self-admitted cherry picking just gives you things that are normally contradicted and certainly mitigated by the rest of the text you are quoting. My paragraph (or rather The Little Raven's paragraph) is clear and unambiguous.

That's garbage. Your own cherry picking does exactly the same thing. You want all hit points to never represent damage, so you pick phrases that support your cause while simultaneously ignoring the ones that say damage = physical damage.

Here are some more cherry-picked definitions from other editions (AD&D, RC, 2E) -

AD&D PHB Pg 105 Damage - If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead.

AD&D PHB Pg 105 Healing - There are numerous ways to restore lost hit points. The most mundane is by resting and allowing time to do the job. For each day of rest, 1 hit point of damage is restored.

Rules Cyclopedia Pg 7 Roll for Hit Points - Your character's hit point score represents his ability to survive injury.

Rules Cyclopedia Pg 16 Third column - In battle itself, fighters have a better chance at surviving physical damage, since they have more hit points than most other classes.

AD&D 2E Hit Points defintion - Hit points-a number representing: 1. How much damage a character can suffer before being killed, determined by hit Dice. The hit points lost to injury can usually be regained by rest of healing.

You want to talk about undercutting your own arguments, you keep insisting that hit points don't represent actually being hit, and yet you have not even addressed the actual terms we use. To wit: Hit points (points from being hit), damage (physical evidence of being hit), and healing (the act of the body being repaired from physical damage).

Once again your preference is not more valid than mine, and we can go back and forth with quoted bits that support each of our own preferences until kingdom come, so stop trying to convince me that you are by cherry picking pieces and deliberately ignoring information even in the same sentences that contradict you.

 

[Kzach]

Reductio ad absurdum much? No one narrates a head being chopped off unless that is literal death to the character. But a wound that drops a character below 0 is absolutely a hit that does real damage.

Yah, 'cause you're not doing the same.

A wound that drops a character to 0 or below, as I've said several times now, is POTENTIALLY life-threatening. The situation, however, is fluid. If he fails the rolls and doesn't stabilise, then guess what? It really was a life-threatening injury. But if he passes then guess what? It wasn't as bad as it looked.

So far your ONLY argument has been that I must change the way I've played D&D since I started gaming, a way that is backed up by the rules (some portion of hit points are physical damage, after all).

Then you fail at reading comprehension.

I've advocated, again several times now and quite clearly, that how you want to play the game is just fine by me, do it however you want. What I'm asking is that you accept the core system unchanged and use whatever modular rules that come out later on, or your own house rules for all I care.

 

[triqui]

I'd rather have an extended rest giving back your hit dice. So if you have hit dice "left", you can spend them right before the extended rest. If you don't, you just recover them.

 

[Mercutio01]

I've advocated, again several times now and quite clearly, that how you want to play the game is just fine by me, do it however you want. What I'm asking is that you accept the core system unchanged and use whatever modular rules that come out later on, or your own house rules for all I care.

Why? Why should I accept the core system unchanged? How come you can't accept the core system that has slower mundane healing with a modular rule to speed up healing? What gives you the right to determine what the rules look like or to tell me that I should just suck it up? How come you can't suck it up and accept my viewpoint?

That crap goes both ways, you know. Only 1 edition in almost 40 years of game history has had mundane healing the way you like it. 34 years of previous history did it my way, so what makes your preference the right one and mine the wrong one?

Frankly, I think Stalker0 has the only legitimate way to address both of us. ALL hit point rules are covered by optional dials.

 

[Kzach]

Why should I accept the core system unchanged?

Because that's how it's always been. Perhaps there's a disconnect here and it's my fault for listing the 'long rest' aspect in the title, but I'm not arguing about fast healing, I'm arguing about not altering hit points to represent physical wounds in the core system. Long rests are part of that because they assume the fundamentals of hit points have always been represented by more than physical injury.

How come you can't accept the core system that has slower mundane healing with a modular rule to speed up healing?

Because that goes against the notion that hit points aren't always physical injury. Slow healing only serves to slow down play which is unfun for most people and not something I want to see new players subjected to. With an optional/modular rule to slow down healing, new players can later choose to enforce suffering on themselves but don't have to endure it when they first start.

I should also point out that this will be my last post in this thread. I'm repeating myself almost every post and after 12 pages, I think that we're only going in circles at this point.

 

[Mercutio01]

Because that's how it's always been. Perhaps there's a disconnect here and it's my fault for listing the 'long rest' aspect in the title, but I'm not arguing about fast healing, I'm arguing about not altering hit points to represent physical wounds in the core system. Long rests are part of that because they assume the fundamentals of hit points have always been represented by more than physical injury.

The argument is that hit points do represent physical wounds in the core system, at least some portion of those hit points. That's all I've been arguing all along. That's where we get terms like hit points, damage, bloodied, and healing. There is some measure of those things that are physical wounds. And that's how it's actually always been. Even if we only accept a 35% of HP are physical (since Gygax suggested that the Con mod portion of HP was actual physical embodiment), that's at least the last ~5/~10/~15 hit points (depending on total HP) that are actual wounds.

Because that goes against the notion that hit points aren't always physical injury. Slow healing only serves to slow down play which is unfun for most people and not something I want to see new players subjected to. With an optional/modular rule to slow down healing, new players can later choose to enforce suffering on themselves but don't have to endure it when they first start.

Slow healing was status quo for every edition until 4E. I'd argue that most people do not find slow healing to be unfun, since other editions of D&D, in aggregate, are more popular than the current edition.

The argument about new players, though? That I totally understand. I'm totally onboard with introducing new players with a faster mechanic. I hope there's a red box edition which does everything the easiest most basic level possible.

Which is exactly why I think Stalker0's idea of listing everything as an option and a style of game associated with that option.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The situation, however, is fluid. If he fails the rolls and doesn't stabilise, then guess what? It really was a life-threatening injury. But if he passes then guess what? It wasn't as bad as it looked.

I don't think that's acceptable for a lot of people. The reason is psychological more than anything.

See, the DM is in a position of trust at the table. "What the DM says goes," "The DM is god," "The DM can kill you if he wants," etc. So when the DM describes an injury, the description they give should be a fairly accurate portrayal of the actual injury. To, at some later date, take it back, to say that's not what really happened, to say, "Yep! The DM gave you false information," is violating that position of trust.

It's sort of like, if the DM said at one point that the shopkeeper in town hates your PC, and then later says, "Well, he didn't REALLY hate you, I guess all those times he called you a piker, you were just hearing things."

Or if the DM says at one point that the bridge over the chasm is out, and then later says, "Well, it wasn't REALLY out, it just looked like it from your vantage point."

Now, a player's ability can act on the reality presented by the DM and change it -- that wound is a deadly wound, but the player can still not die from a deadly wound, through luck, skill, toughness, and general awesome-sauce. But that's not something that changes the wound, it's something that changes the character.

A character knocked to 0 hp doesn't suffer the mechanical results of that state because they are deluded (unless, I guess, it's an illusion), they suffer the mechanical results of that state because that is the effect. If they can get back up it is because they are adventurer-tough, not because they were wrong about their information.

In a game that operates so much on the mechanism of trust, you can't have "takebacks" be a core rule element.