Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5815086" data-attributes="member: 2011">This is probably exactly what you are going to get with 5E. A model that requires magic or long term rest to resolve. Why? Because that is the simple model of 1E through 3E. The 4E model will be an add on module at best if a compromise is not put into core.I view it more as 57% of the people like the concept as the majority, not the 40% who do not. A slightly different spin on the numbers than what you suggest. It's a bit of a stretch to equate the percentage that think that it needs tweaking to mean that it needs significant work.I'm willing to discuss valid criticism. So far, you haven't presented any. Present some numbers which support your POV and which actually use what I presented and we can discuss. Your disparity idea has some merit, but you based off of some false premises and then went on explaining how to fix it before you presented a solid illustration that it was even a problem.You need to base your idea off of more solid math of what can and will happen, not what you opine will happen. It wasn't that tough to disprove your idea that high hit point PCs will die before they go unconscious (unless of course they are seriously injured before even starting an encounter). So, your critique is more based on opinion than any reasonable fact, hence, I didn't put much stock in it.Write up a serious critique with some real math in it and we can discuss. Throw out another opinion which is easily disprovable and again, I'll mostly ignore your ideas. Be a scientist when discussing potential game mechanics, not a journalist, and people will take your ideas more seriously. Show and analyze how the mechanics will or will not work, do not opine how you think they will work. The former can be peer reviewed. The latter cannot.I'm not trying to move forward with this. I was actually trying to get people to understand the difficulties with a compromise. I think the 5E design team has their work cut out for them.This is only one potential model. Regardless of how things work out, it would seem that some major percentage of players think that either hit points should actually mean some portion of physical wounds, or that should be represented via a different mechanic like the model I've proposed.From what I see from the response here, 57% of people think that way to some extent as well and the 40% who do not might not necessarily disagree with the concept of some portion of physical damage, they just might not like it for a wide variety of unrelated reasons (e.g. an extra layer of complexity; it's not 4E; they think the math might fail; they don't like wound point systems; whatever). One would need to do a different poll to find out that answer.</blockquote>

Verification