Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5917608" data-attributes="member: 50987">I think everyone is getting wrapped around the axle here as far as hit points are concerned.  Let's take a step back and look at things objectively.There seems to be two opinions on the subject of hit points.Some would like hit points to more closely emulate the real-life aspects of a person's health and resilience in combat: a mix of endurance, durability, and luck.  Let's call this group the Simulation Camp, since they want hit points to simulate real life as much as possible.Others would like hit points to be as abstract as possible, a value in the game that has about as much to do with real life as skill ranks, save throw bonuses, or any other numerical value on the character sheet.  Let's call this group the Gamist Camp, since they want hit points to be an abstraction in a game.  (I'm in this camp.)There is a lot of "us vs. them" banter going on between the camps, and there are a few "evangelists" in here who are trying to "convert the nonbelievers," and that's wonderful.  But remember: while we are in here talking about what we think is best, the game designers are focusing on uniting the editions, and are trying to provide a game design that will appeal to everyone.  It's a tall order, especially on a topic as polarizing as "simulation vs. gamist."We should keep this in mind as we discuss the game mechanics, flavor elements, and play style.  WotC isn't trying to "fix 4th Edition."  They aren't trying to "beat Pathfinder."  They aren't trying to "go back to X Edition."  They are trying to bring us all together, that's all.  So as we discuss our favorites and preferences, we should also try to find ways to compromise. Here is what I propose:Pretend 4th Edition never happened.Just kidding!  Just kidding...jeez, put down the chainsaws and pitchforks...We present a few of the biggest elements of simulation (hit points aren't actual physical damage), but leave the rest to the imagination of the DM and the players.  The DM can narrate an attack with "You got hit by a sword and take 15 damage," or he can narrate it as "The sword blade strikes the side of your helmet, and the din of metal fills your ears.  You stagger back, your eyes blurry, and tighten your grip on your sword.  'Is that all you've got?' you growl, and lunge forward."  But either way, you subtract 15 from a number on your character sheet, and the game moves on.  The number doesn't care how much of that 15 was damage, or luck, or fatigue, or resilience.Healing can be the same way.  "The cleric heals you for 15 points of damage" can also be "Your comrade stands over you, gripping your shoulder.  'Courage, man!' he says, and the steely determination in his eyes strengthens your resolve.  You stand, ready for more."  But either way, you are going to add 15 to a number on your character sheet.  The number doesn't care how much of that 15 was magic, or adrenaline, or divine favor, or luck.This is what I want to see in 5th Edition: less emphasis on "look how different stuff is now!", and fewer attempts at forcing a particular play style.  It would be nice to have more of a "you can do anything you want!" feel to the rules than they have had in practically every edition since 1986.  After all, only the number really matters; everything else is just semantics.  I hope they leave hit points, healing, and other game mechanics as undefined and generic as they possibly can, and let the DM and the players fill in the gaps as needed to suit their own style.</blockquote>

Verification