This, what you said right there, is no different from what we are suggesting, as far as I can tell.
It's extremely different. You are talking about two pools, demarcated. I am talking about one pool, which can be narrated as fate, meat or lemon curry depending on whim and context when the action is actually resolved at the gaming table.
That is the point of [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s food analogy - your way locks everyone in in advance, whereas my core allows those who want to lock in to do so, but equally allows those who want to maintain what KM calls "narrative amibguity", and what I call "narrative flexibility", to do so.
exactly! What we should be shooting for isn't "My preferred idea" re: HPs, but a way to dial HPs such that it can appeal to broadest range of preferences. DIALING is the key.
In order to have a dial that works, you must first have a clear understanding of the settings that your dial is trying to adjust. Or, I guess, which settings it is willing to include and which ones it excludes. But you can't define out of existence some concerns, and then turn around and say you have them covered.
Just from the pattern of the dispute thus far, I can already tell that a dial is insufficient to resolve this dilemma. At the very minimum, it will require a switch and a dial (or maybe a switch and then two different dials based on the setting of the switch).
I fully agree with Crazy Jerome. This is what I've been trying to convey over my (long) series of posts on this thread.
Pretty good start on resolving the dilemma. So 2 Modules. What are they? What is the "Dial" space for each?
I've outlined some in a few posts upthread.
I think the core is:
* A single pool of hp that includes CON as a base;
* A uniform rate of recovery (and this itself is on a dial);
* Two states - either you have hp and so are up and good to go, or you have no hp and so are down and out (what down and out means is a switch with several options, from "dead" to "bleeding out" to "whatever incapacity the table feels like narrating at the moment, given whim and context").
The "down and out" switch is already looking pretty modular to me - and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] gave some ideas upthread about other interesting options that there could be on that switch.
One module is the gritty/wounds module. It has a series of options, which include things like:
* The CON component of hp is wound points - when you lose them, you suffer penalties;
* The CON component of hp is your back door - when you are into your CON hp, you're unconscious but not yet dead;
* The CON component of hp takes longer to heal than the rest of them.
There're plenty of other things that can be done in that space too, I think. And there are also options for inflicting wounds but not using the hp mechanic to measure them or recover from them (they might be handled like diseases, for example, which in AD&D and in 4e are handled separately from the damage mechancis).
Another suite of options might surroud inspirational healing:
* Don't allow it;
* Allow it, but only under certain constraints (eg it can't restore the CON component of hp);
* It is treated just like any other healing in the game.[/indent]
And another place where modules have work to do is in relation to changing the rate of healing. In particular, some people might want non-uniform rate of healing even without wounds. 4e is an example of this.
What I'm trying to make clear is that none of these options requires changing the base spine of the game: you don't need to restat any monsters, or any weapons, or any armour, or any spells, to make them work with these modules. I think that's important.
Why does it have to have a uniform recovery rate?
And which recovery rate would that be? Pre-4e style or 4e style?
A uniform recovery rate is the simplest and most traditional D&D approach (OD&D and B/X both use it, and so did 3E - though with a stabilisation mechanic stuck on top of it), and it is the easiest spine on which to hang various modules that would give non-uniform recovery rate (which is what 1st ed AD&D and 4e have, as well as Wound/Vitatility (Body/Fatigue) systems).
As to what the rate would be -
that I think can be put on a dial utterly trivially. If the dial Ito have a default setting I'd say 1/4 hp per day - because that seems to give a faster-than-AD&D but slower-than-3E rate - but I'd be happy for Mearls to put it to a vote!
<snip>
I wasn't implying that 4e has two rates of healing.
I may have said "second" meaning "third". Anyway, the important point is that 4e
does have two rates of healing. Whereas you presented it as having two pools - your commander can help you, but only so much - there is in fact no limit in 4e on how much your commander can help you (eg if you're swooned and in the mechanical dying state - you're losing your will to live - s/he can inspire you to get back on your feet and press on to victory).
But 4e does have two rates of healing. It's very quick (on a short rest cycle) until you've done a certain number of them, and then it slows down (extended rest cycle).
This way, you can have healing that has you heal fully between fights until your reserves are depleted and you have to rest longer/take a snooze to restore all of your reserves
As long as we're careful with the word "reserves" this is fine. But mechanically, "reserves" in 4e are not a separate pool of hp (like meat vs fate). Rather, they do two things: (i) they underlie the mechanical and pacing dynamics of in-combat healing, and (ii) they determine the break point from fast to slower healing.
In 5e, it is highly likely that these two functions will be broken apart. Although 4e elegantly merges them, as far as I can see there is nothing essential about that.
Function (i) - incombat healing and pacing - is orthogonal to this discussion, I think. But function (ii) is pretty central. To replicate the 4e experience in next you need a module (ie a rules option) that departs from the uniform healing rate. But that's
fine - because to do Lanefan's Body/Fatigue you need a module that likewise departs from a uniform healing rate. There's no reason why both modules can't happily exist side by side, although they will use different settings on the healing rate dial, and they will use different break points to measure the switch from faster to slower healing.
