D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape

[pemerton]

Why is lightning damage not fire damage or sonic damage? Some things are different. Fatigue is already factored in other ways.

Also, this has already been addressed by Celebrim (running up and down stairs).

<snip>

Ultimately, fatigue just isn't HP/tissue damage. For example, I'm getting tired of this conversation but it isn't touching my HP. They are unrelated things. One measures health one measures.. I don't know.. semi-endurance I guess? In 3e that would be closer to non-lethal (as I said back when we first started this merry-go-round).

I think you've misunderstood my point: if you think that it makes sense that a headache caused by failing to defend against a psionic attack is hit point loss, why isn't there hp loss for running up and down stairs? Or for other forms of fatigue?

Conversely, if you think that not all physical debilitation is modelled by hit point loss, but some is, then on what basis are you saying that it's OK for psionic damage to be modelled by hit point loss, but not OK for exhaustion in combat to be modelled by hp loss?

I think the answer is pretty clear: the rules make some forms of debilitaiton relevant to combat performance, and others not, for reasons to do with drama, pacing, verisimilitude and multiple other somewhat incommensurable factors.

There is no one-to-one correlation of physical states with hit point loss.

 

[Ratskinner]

I narrate the hits. It's the inability to provide consistent narration to the mechanic that is my principle reason for hating 'damage on a miss'. My dislike of it when wearing my gamist hat - that it ignores the fortune mechanic save to tell us degree of success - is only secondary. In both cases, I wouldn't mind the mechanic if it was 'damage on a glancing blow' or something of the sort.

That's perfectly legitimate, to me. However, IME, most DMs don't narrate the hits in any detail whatever. I believe that the system actively discourages it.

Missile weapons aren't problematic to narrate. They are narrated in the same manner as sword blows. The only problematic aspect of narrating missile weapons in a hit point system is the degree of improbability you can assign to such narration. Why can the hero dodge the arrow almost perfectly every time, but not so perfectly he doesn't take some sort of glancing blow or superficial wound? Oh well, movies work the same way - it's hero magic.

As I suspect you realize, that sort of limits the scope of the narrative.

No, hit points are partially meta/abstract. No, they don't define the wounds that occur. It is abstraction rather than process simulation. But they aren't 'entirely' abstract. They can be visualized as something.

I don't think they actually can be. Isn't that what this huge argument has boiled down to? I wouldn't think "can be visualized" is the same as "not entirely abstract." If so, there are some pretty wild systems (like Fiasco) that now count as only partially abstract. If "can be visualized" is okay for HP, why isn't it okay for "damage on a miss"...certainly a variety of narrations for a variety of circumstances have been presented in this thread. Obviously, "damage on a miss" can be visualized.

I mean, if they don't define the wounds, then they are abstract, no? I can visualize them as rather nebulous nicks and scratches (at least until that last HP), but then nobody should get a "Cure Critical Wounds" cast on them until they are below zero because they haven't suffered any critical wounds! So my visualization has to change from moment to moment depending on what mechanical things are happening in the game, not the narrative. Its also absolutely sensible to picture HP as nothing but a bar above the character's head that gets smaller and turns from green to yellow to red as the character gets hit. In fact, the cartoonish video world where everyone has a health bar is more narratively consistent with D&D's rules than any genre source narrative. I'm fairly sure that I can make the argument that any pre-4e cleric must be able to see that health bar in order to properly select what healing spells to use, since their titles and or descriptions do not actually reflect their typical use.

But that's not something particular to the hit point system. A wound track relies on the same abstraction, and the narration of the hit and resulting wound also doesn't define the mechanical outcome. Likewise, GURPS is more heavily into process simulation than D&D, but largely uses hit points in an abstract manner as well. Relatively few systems take the time to mark and define every wound that occurs to a character simply because this quickly becomes tedious, and highly realistic wounds tend to make for relatively un-fun games. Because in a social game, what you don't want is to put a player out of the game for an extended period.

Wait, that's not something particular to the hit point system...because these other hit point systems have it too? (A wound track being just a "chunky" hit point system.)

I think that that "un-fun" issue is only relevant in a game like D&D where every fight is expected to be "to the death" (or at least that's the practical implication of dungeon-crawling..) I'm not sure if FATE's consequences count as "highly realistic", but they are at least true to the narrative and consistent. They do not appear to limit FATE's appeal or applicability to diverse genres or narrative feels, either. They certainly aren't "tedious". I'd be surprised if there are not other systems that folks are familiar with that have similar functionality.

 

[Ratskinner]

Under the definition of "narrative" that you are working with, I agree. But that is not the only sense of narrative that can be in play, I think. (And this relates to your observation about pacing.)

<snip HQ description>

Does this undermine narration? It undermines knowledge of the details that would interest a trauma-unit physician! But I think it can support a sense of the emotional and dramatic state of the situation: who is pushing hard, who is being pushed hard, who is on the ropes, who is surging back, etc. That can be an important aspect of narrative, at least for some RPGers (eg me!).

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I'm agreeing with you that hit points are primarily "I'm still alive" tokens, but that this isn't an independent to a certain approach to narration.

If you approach the narrative of condition rather loosely, as D&D trains us to do, it kinda sort works, so long as you don't think too hard about it. I think it also depends on the surrounding mechanics as well. As I mentioned in another post, its when the abstract mechanic rubs up against the mechanics with tight narrative definitions that the stress points show up. A game which is abstract in all its mechanical aspects shouldn't have any functional trouble I think, see Fiasco (and Abstract Dungeon?).

EDIT: I guess the short answer is that the difference is whether we're talking about the narrative of how your game went vs. how the fight in the fiction went. And yes, that is a valid playstyle, IMO. It's not my preferred playstyle, but I've been there and had fun with it.

 

[Ratskinner]

Spell. Magic.

As long as it is, you have a built in explanation where one isn't given with a mundane/natural/non-magical one.

Saying "its magic" is a bit of a cop-out in a game that often explores the function of magic as part of its premise and certainly as part of some of its characters. Especially for the older editions where the verbal description of the spell's functioning is often vital to resolving what's going on.

Magic can heal exhaustion just as it can heal HP. In 3e at least, you healed one or the other, usually, but not both. You can make people feel physically better without actually heal how tired they feel.

err...I think you might have skimmed by post. I wasn't revisiting the "why don't your objections apply to saves?" line of reasoning. If that's not what you were getting at, I'm not sure what you mean. I was asking "How did you evade a fireball that hits 'the full space' without leaving that space?" Its one of those areas that D&D encourages us not to examine closely.

Magic can heal exhaustion just as it can heal HP. In 3e at least, you healed one or the other, usually, but not both. You can make people feel physically better without actually heal how tired they feel.

...that's not the problem. The problem is the cleric's motivation...why would you cast Cure Critical on a person who has no critical wounds? ...or a person who is merely a bit winded? Unless you can somehow tell that the princess you just rescued has only 5 HP, how do you know not to waste a Cure Crit on her when she is at -1? Why would you suspect that the girl who actually is critically wounded only needs a Cure Light Wounds. Its a version of Schrodinger's Wounds. Whether or not somebody is wounded can depend on why you are asking.

 

[Tovec]

I think you've misunderstood my point: if you think that it makes sense that a headache caused by failing to defend against a psionic attack is hit point loss, why isn't there hp loss for running up and down stairs? Or for other forms of fatigue?

What makes you think the psionic attack is headache?
Why wouldn't the psionic attack cause HP damage? If it hurts as much as taking, let's say a brick to the head, why wouldn't it cause (roughtly) as much damage as taking a brick to the head.

As far as "why isn't running up and down stairs"? I would immediately say that it shouldn't be because it isn't fun. But ignoring that, 3e would model that as non-lethal damage - exerting yourself to the point of causing strain.

Conversely, if you think that not all physical debilitation is modelled by hit point loss, but some is, then on what basis are you saying that it's OK for psionic damage to be modelled by hit point loss, but not OK for exhaustion in combat to be modelled by hp loss?

When it hits...
.. a sword swing is cutting into your skin, muscle and bone, causing damage.
.. a psoinic attack is cutting into your .. memories? I was never much good at psioncs.. but is presumably harming you in some sense. In any cause it is harming your brain in some way that your mind makes it real. It takes real time to heal from.

When it misses..
.. a sword ... does nothing. It doesn't cut into anything.
.. a psionic attack does nothing. It doesn't harm those memories.

This ability however says..
.. a sword ... does nothing, yet somehow tires you out.
.. a psionic attack... still does nothing, even if it somehow tires you out (resisting the effect).

Now, if that is all true, why would a mental attack which actually harms your brain (weakens, tires, whatever) be modeled the same way as an physical attack that totally "wiffs"? That is to say why would the fighter NOT hitting you hurt MORE than a psionic attack that misses or even as much as one that hits??

There is no one-to-one correlation of physical states with hit point loss.

Never said there was. I think you think I did. But nope.

I did say that SOME part of all attacks that damage are physical. Some part of them, any part (even a scratch), actually connects with something. That is why psionic attacks works, because it hurts the brain/mind. That is why magical fire hurts, because it burns your flesh. I however have NO premise that it is a literal 1 to 1 or else fighters should NEVER be able to survive falling out of the sky.

But my version, which as far as I can tell is in line with HP going back to Gygax's explanations which you seem to value, leaves no room for a TOTAL miss causing damage to "fate" HP only. It leaves no room for fiat. The player doesn't live because he fiats away the attack. He lives because he has enough health (with other factors added in accounting to extra HP) that allows him to survive in the fight. He doesn't get to play the token, it is part of his sheet - just like someone who plays monopoly isn't playing a fiat token when he asks for his rent from the rival player landing on his space.

Saying "its magic" is a bit of a cop-out in a game that often explores the function of magic as part of its premise and certainly as part of some of its characters. Especially for the older editions where the verbal description of the spell's functioning is often vital to resolving what's going on.

Is the fighter's damage on a miss a magical effect (by current description)? No.
Are the only comparable effects that grant damage on a "miss"* magic? Yes.
Does magic seem to be the defining aspect of why it can do so? Yes.

Doesn't really strike me as a cop out when it IS the explanation. Magic missile doesn't miss because it is magic that is designed to not miss. If the fighter ability was magic too, explicitly labeled as such, then it would make sense but then we would have new issues since the fighter shouldn't be using magic for his attacks. But it would at least explain what is happening in ways that the current explanation does not.

err...I think you might have skimmed by post. I wasn't revisiting the "why don't your objections apply to saves?" line of reasoning. If that's not what you were getting at, I'm not sure what you mean. I was asking "How did you evade a fireball that hits 'the full space' without leaving that space?" Its one of those areas that D&D encourages us not to examine closely.

I'm guessing it works if only because it would be too powerful if the spell forced the targets to be prone (the only way I can see to ensure only half of you gets burned - like two-face dark knight style). Either that or the game can't allow for everyone on masse to move out of the range of the effect? NOT having it save would make it HUGELY over powered in either case. So I think overall it hits you were you are standing, and you don't move because the game can't allow for that. I'm not sure honestly. If you want to argue that fireball should be an all or nothing damage state, go ahead I'm all for that conversation - but I doubt that is your intention either. So perhaps I have "skimmed" past what you were saying, again.

...that's not the problem. The problem is the cleric's motivation...why would you cast Cure Critical on a person who has no critical wounds? ...or a person who is merely a bit winded? Unless you can somehow tell that the princess you just rescued has only 5 HP, how do you know not to waste a Cure Crit on her when she is at -1? Why would you suspect that the girl who actually is critically wounded only needs a Cure Light Wounds. Its a version of Schrodinger's Wounds. Whether or not somebody is wounded can depend on why you are asking.

I don't your fascination with the wording of "Cure Crit" as if it were somehow significant. From the SRD:
[sblock]Cure Critical Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 5, Healing 4

This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures 4d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +20). [/sblock]

So, cure Light:
[sblock]Cure Light Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text

When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage. [/sblock]

No where in those descriptions does it mention the severity of the wounds. Indeed nowhere in the SRD do I find a description of what constitutes a "critical wound." No, instead it is probable to assume that critical is meant as a measure of intensity. It is meant to be greater than serious and serious greater than moderate and moderate greater than light. But at no point in those descriptions of the cure X spells is there a mention of what the wound looks like. Only in the title of the spell - nothing in the effect or description. So I'm a little confused.

Just like how Greater abilities are bigger/better than Improved, or where Lesser > Least. It is a tool to delineate powerfulness not meaning or effect.

But to answer the greater point I think you were trying to make - if the PCs don't know what condition or how many HP the princess has? They should probably use cure critical wounds. That is a metagame information and indeed there is no in-character reason NOT to use the spell. Out of character they might ask to be given the information, but that out of character to answer in character questions is not established in the rules. I believe in such cases they would need to succeed on a Heal check.

Also, because it can seem to cure up to critical wounds, whatever those may be, then it can certainly handle the scratches, light, or minor wounds as well. It isn't an either-or.

I just don't get your fascination with the word critical somehow informing how the ability works. Now if there WAS some concept of a critical wound, possibly tied to a critical hit?, then I could understand that this would come into play - but that is not a mechanic that already exists.


*Actually NO for actual miss, but I'm going to treat it as everyone else (especially on your side seems to use it where it can't not hit).

Also, are we accepting that wiff means to miss? I wasn't really familiar with the term before this thread.

 

[pemerton]

What makes you think the psionic attack is headache?
Why wouldn't the psionic attack cause HP damage? If it hurts as much as taking, let's say a brick to the head, why wouldn't it cause (roughtly) as much damage as taking a brick to the head.

Haven't you answered your own question?

A brick to the head will cause bruising, swelling, bleeding etc. It might concuss you. It could fairly easily kill you. (Though not if you have enough hp left! I'm not 100% sure what that means in your hit point model.) The headache is the least of your problems.

For better or worse, it never occurred to me that a psionic attack upon a psionic who has no points left, and hence takes hp damage instead, causes the bleeding, bruising and concussion that a blow to the head does.

When it hits...
.. a sword swing is cutting into your skin, muscle and bone, causing damage.
.. a psoinic attack is cutting into your .. memories? I was never much good at psioncs.. but is presumably harming you in some sense. In any cause it is harming your brain in some way that your mind makes it real. It takes real time to heal from.

If this is meant to be an example of the consistency that is being destroyed by damage on a miss, it's not really working for me.

No doubt psionics are harming you in some sense. So can a missed attack (eg it misses because you dodge it, but in dodging it you sprain your ankle, or bump into something and bruise yourself, or trip over and knock yourself out on a rock). The question I asked is "what is the tissue damage, such that losing hp to psionic attacks resembles being stabbed by a knife but doesn't resemble running up and down stairs". You haven't answered that question - which is fine; the question was partly rhetorical. And I think my point has been made.

why would a mental attack which actually harms your brain (weakens, tires, whatever) be modeled the same way as an physical attack that totally "wiffs"?

Because by definition the attack of a great weapon fighter with this ability doesn't "totally wiff", whatever exactly that means. I canvassed three possible narrations just above this paragraph. Rodney Thompson has given at least one more. Take your pick.

As far as "why isn't running up and down stairs"? I would immediately say that it shouldn't be because it isn't fun. But ignoring that, 3e would model that as non-lethal damage - exerting yourself to the point of causing strain.

Leaving aside the whole lethal/non-lethal thing - which makes it somewhat mysterious how someone might ever die from exertion - how come "fun" is a good enough reason to drop simulationionst hit points when it comes to stair climbing, but isn't a good enough reason when it comes to playing a dreadnought two weapon fighter? Whatever move you make to handle the stairs case, you can presumably make the same move to handle the auto-damage case.

I did say that SOME part of all attacks that damage are physical. Some part of them, any part (even a scratch), actually connects with something.

How, in your game, do you tell whether a person suffers injury because, when trying to avoid a blow, they stumble or bump themselves or twist their ankle or suffer a shock to their shoulder from parrying? Or do these things just never happen in your gameworld.?

No where in those descriptions does it mention the severity of the wounds. Indeed nowhere in the SRD do I find a description of what constitutes a "critical wound." No, instead it is probable to assume that critical is meant as a measure of intensity. It is meant to be greater than serious and serious greater than moderate and moderate greater than light.

I will restate [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s question. (And he can correct me if I've got it wrong.)

You seem to place great stock on the integrity and consistency of the fiction - that, after all, seems to be what you are objecting to in relation to damage-on-a-miss.

So, consider this scenario. My cleric PC is walking down the road and comes across an unconscious woman lying in a ditch. She is bleeding to death, and I decide to heal her. I decide to start with Cure Light Wounds. Now here are two possible ways this might unfold: she is a commoner, and Cure Light Wounds restores her to full health; or, she is a 10th level fighter and Cure Light Wounds retores her to between 5 ad 10% of her total hit points. How, in the fiction, do I as a wandering healer make sense of these differences of outcome? And for bonus marks, what is the physical condition of each character after receiving the healing?

I believe that there is no way of explaining this without reference to the metagame notion of hit points - hence Ratskinner's comment that it's as if everyone in the gameworld is walking around with a health bar over his/her head.

 

[urLordy]

You seem to place great stock on the integrity and consistency of the fiction - that, after all, seems to be what you are objecting to in relation to damage-on-a-miss.

So, consider this scenario. My cleric PC is walking down the road and comes across an unconscious woman lying in a ditch. She is bleeding to death, and I decide to heal her. I decide to start with Cure Light Wounds. Now here are two possible ways this might unfold: she is a commoner, and Cure Light Wounds restores her to full health; or, she is a 10th level fighter and Cure Light Wounds retores her to between 5 ad 10% of her total hit points. How, in the fiction, do I as a wandering healer make sense of these differences of outcome? And for bonus marks, what is the physical condition of each character after receiving the healing?

I believe that there is no way of explaining this without reference to the metagame notion of hit points - hence Ratskinner's comment that it's as if everyone in the gameworld is walking around with a health bar over his/her head.

There is a sort of health bar over his/her head at the moment when healing is required. This is a gamist construct that pops up as a necessary evil (a function of the crude process sim) if you will. Assume the player wants to roleplays the cleric with verisimilutide 1st person perspective as much as possible upon seeing the unconscious woman. For example, the player would choose a course of action as imagined thru the character's eyes ("who is this woman? shouldn't I help her? etc.") and not gamist or narrativist concerns ('Is this woman a Trap Encounter? Do we need to save her to get the side quest?'). Then, if healing is chosen, the gamist meta overlay pops up, and the player chooses Cure Light as a meta decision. Then pops back into the story. Consistency and integrity of the fiction remains cohesive enough. There are variations in viewing that narrative, but we know that about D&D anyway.

A key difference -- which should not be overlooked -- is that the the hit points and healing still enables/empowers the player to roleplay the cleric with behavior that seems natural/organic/believable to the story (ie,. save the woman, heal her). The cure spells (as unfortunately as they are designed for sim purposes) and hit points are a small tolerable obstacle from that immersion. I believe you really need to understand better how people are roleplaying D&D this way before you can fairly compare any of this to damage-on-a-miss.

 

[pemerton]

Assume the player wants to roleplays the cleric with verisimilutide 1st person perspective as much as possible upon seeing the unconscious woman. For example, the player would choose a course of action as imagined thru the character's eyes ("who is this woman? shouldn't I help her? etc.") and not gamist or narrativist concerns ('Is this woman a Trap Encounter? Do we need to save her to get the side quest?'). Then, if healing is chosen, the gamist meta overlay pops up, and the player chooses Cure Light as a meta decision. Then pops back into the story. Consistency and integrity of the fiction remains cohesive enough. There are variations in viewing that narrative, but we know that about D&D anyway.

So, playing a great weapon fighter, I encounter some goblins. I choose a course of action through my character's eyes ("Who are these goblins? Should I attack them?" etc). Then, if attackg is chosen, a "gamist meta overlay pops up" - I roll a d20 to see whether my damage is W+STR, or just STR. The result is ascertained and the appropriate notation made on the hit point totals. Then I pop back into the story - Am I beating the goblins, how many are left, what do they look like they're going to do, etc.

Consistency and integrity of the fiction remain cohesive enough.

Now, you might point out that I never fail to kill the goblins, and regard that as not very cohesive. But I can equally point out that whether your low-level cleric can heal the woman to full health depends on whether the woman is 0-level or 10th-level. In both cases, that is, possibilities in the fiction are opened up or closed off based on the "gamist meta overlay" of hit point totals and associated mechanics.

No doubt some players are happy with one of these approaches (the healing one) and not the other (the auto-damage one). But I do not have any sort of handle on any fundamental difference between them.

A key difference -- which should not be overlooked -- is that the the hit points and healing still enables/empowers the player to roleplay the cleric with behavior that seems natural/organic/believable to the story (ie,. save the woman, heal her).

Except if she's 10th level and I'm 1st level then I can't heal her. But I can heal her 1st level cousin who is in the ditch alongside her.

In any event, damage on a miss also empowers the player to roleplay the fighter with behaviour that seems natural/organic/believable tothe story - namely, fighting things quite effectively.

The cure spells (as unfortunately as they are designed for sim purposes) and hit points are a small tolerable obstacle from that immersion. I believe you really need to understand better how people are roleplaying D&D this way before you can fairly compare any of this to damage-on-a-miss.

I don't see why damage-on-a-miss can't be played in the same way. I can see issues of habit here, or of familiarity. But not deep issues of mechanical structure.

 

[urLordy]

So, playing a great weapon fighter, I encounter some goblins. I choose a course of action through my character's eyes ("Who are these goblins? Should I attack them?" etc). Then, if attackg is chosen, a "gamist meta overlay pops up" - I roll a d20 to see whether my damage is W+STR, or just STR. The result is ascertained and the appropriate notation made on the hit point totals. Then I pop back into the story - Am I beating the goblins, how many are left, what do they look like they're going to do, etc.

Consistency and integrity of the fiction remain cohesive enough.

Yes, I'm aware of this zoomed out perspective in combat, esp. in 4E. I believe that, based on all the input you've received while arguing things on Enworld is that the primary playstyle that has problems with damage-on-a-miss is not the one that's popping out for the entire duration of combat.

if fictional cohesiveness is maintained like blinking, then blinking only occasionally is ideal if you prefer to be in-character such that you only go into metagame mode between those half-second blinks.

If, however, combat is like one giant long blink (and then fill in all the blanks later) then that becomes incohesive to those people who don't want to blink for so long.

Hell, you could flip a coin and say "Heads, you win the adventure" or "Tails you lose the adventure" and I could argue this the fiction still has integrity. Well, that depends really on whether I want to be in-character for the duration of that adventure, whether I care or not that adventure has 50:50 odds of success, etc.

But now I'm meandering...

It's probably important to scale back yet again and ask what the context is here. When I brought up the cleric example, it was an easy straightforward point to make. I didn't appreciate the comparison to damage on a miss. If you're defending the cohesion of your game, then let's stop right here. I don't care about your game anymore than you care about mine. I care only about the believability (and other problems) of damage-on-a-miss when combat is not 'popped out' for the entire duration. If that's not the conversation we're having, then let's not continue.

Except if she's 10th level and I'm 1st level then I can't heal her. But I can heal her 1st level cousin who is in the ditch alongside her.

Ahh, I think I understand your point better. That could be divine agency. The healer wants to heal (organic behavior). The result is up to the gods (how much healing occurs). And/or since the healing is subjective and abstract, the healer doesn't necessarily know much the commoner or hero is healed. That's why in my games, the recipient of the healing implicitly or explicitly asks for healing. All of the above can lead to naturalistic behavior. Therefore, still not comparable to damage on a miss for me.

In any event, damage on a miss also empowers the player to roleplay the fighter with behaviour that seems natural/organic/believable tothe story - namely, fighting things quite effectively.

Well, you know that's not objectively true, because you've read all the people who described that it was not believable. If a person doesn't feel that GWF leads to believable behavior, then it's not empowering the player in that context. No matter what you state about it.

I don't see why damage-on-a-miss can't be played in the same way. I can see issues of habit here, or of familiarity. But not deep issues of mechanical structure.

I don't understand. If you bring a painting into the house, and your partner says "I don't like it -- it's too abstract" or "I don't like it -- it's too surreal", and you say "I don't see why it can't be accepted. I see issues of habit or familiarity with art appreciation, but not deep issues of neuroligical or aesthetical structure (insert more artspeak here)".

What matters is that your partner has to stare at this painting every evening and weekend. And if she doesn't like it, the situation isn't sustainable. Your rational undertstanding doesn't change any of that. Is that what we're arguing about? I don't even know. I know you didn't call this partner unreasonable or anything like that, but now you're saying you don't understand her preferences?

 

[Celebrim]

Ahh, I think I understand your point better. That could be divine agency. The healer wants to heal (organic behavior). The result is up to the gods (how much healing occurs). And/or since the healing is subjective and abstract, the healer doesn't necessarily know much the commoner or hero is healed. That's why in my games, the recipient of the healing implicitly or explicitly asks for healing. All of the above can lead to naturalistic behavior. Therefore, still not comparable to damage on a miss for me.

I don't accept that healing is entirely subjective and abstract, and I think that the criticisms leveled against magical healing are largely fair. I am not happy with the ambiguities of the current 'cure' spells. However, I don't accept the argument, "Since X is broke, it's ok to break Y too." Pointing out the problems with something is an excuse to fix those problems (if we can), and not an excuse to make more problems.

Still, I think Gygax anticipated this line of reasoning in his description of hit points as well, and his answer would be ultimately, "A 10th level character is just tougher than a 1st level character, and can bear more and more serious wounds." Recall that he suggests that though the majority of a high level characters hit points are not 'meat', it's nonetheless that very tough characters do have tougher 'meat' than ordinary characters. He sites the example of Rasputin as evidence that real people can sustain injuries that would kill any four other people, and yet survive. So he's not entirely deprecating the idea that your 10th level character can resist shock and trauma to an extraordinary - heroic - degree.

There is currently no perfect solution to the healing problem (at least that I have found), and though I can mechanically device one that solves the particular problem in question, you run the risk of healing magic becoming too weak at low levels and too powerful at high levels when you reduce the abstraction in the current spells. It's possible that the whole 'light', 'moderate', 'serious' progression needs to be rethought. It is an option I'm actively exploring.

But, for the purposes of the current game, if you encounter two women lying in a ditch mortally wounded, one of which is 1st level and one of which is 10th level, I would narrate the situation accordingly:

DM: "You see two women lying on the side of the road. From their resemblance to each other and similar age, it's possible that they could be sisters. There clothes are rent and they are clearly badly injured. From their injuries, it looks like they were robbed, possibly abused, and then left here to die. There is a lot of blood."
Player: I use my Heal skill to ascertain if they are still alive.
DM: At a distance or close inspection?
Player: Close inspection. I'm not afraid to get dirty.
DM: Trivially easy for a physician of your skills. As you kneel down in the blood and mud, one of the women stirs swatting at you, before collapsing back. The other appears unconscious. Though its likely neither woman will survive the night in their current condition, one woman is clearly far more injured than the other. Had she not stirred at your arrival, you would have thought her dead. She apparently put up more of a fight with her attacker, or angered them in some way, because she's been absolutely brutalized. She shows multiple stab wounds, and even signs someone tried to slit her throat. Nonetheles, she mutters something incoherent and starts thrashing as you inspect her"
Player: I try to soothe her, "Peace, goodwoman..." etc.

With this narration, it should be clear to the players that one character's injuries are more severe than the others and the expectation would be that the more injured woman requires more healing. The metagame information - the health bar as it were - is vaguely visible in the narration but certainly not as important as the concrete fiction.

At a metagame level, probably the player if they thought about it could divine that both NPCs are at 0 hit points or less, and possibly the more injured NPC was higher level. However, they also might assume one NPC is at say 0 hit points, and the other at -9, and that might also be true especially if in fact both characters had similar maximum hit points. For now, let's assume both characters are at -6. The greater injuries in the higher level character (per the fictional positioning) are consistent with the expectation that high level characters are just harder to kill, surviving injuries that others succumb to by sheer grit if nothing else.

Suppose the cleric decides to treat the more injured character with the (we agree) badly named Cure Serious wounds, healing for 21 points, and restoring her to 15 hit points (of her normal maximum of say 50). I can now narrate:

DM: The healing power of Showna flows through your hands, suffusing your patient with a soft golden glow. When the glow dissipates, many of the woman's wounds have closed leaving scabs and new pink flesh and color has returned to her face. She still looks like she's in a pretty bad way, but she tries to struggle up to her feet anyway, coughing, "Sister."

Now if the PC tries heal the sister with say the (we agree) badly named 'Cure Light Wounds' and cures 9 points, restoring the sister to 3 hit points (of say her maximum 10, humans having slightly more hit points in my game), the PC is going to achieve very nearly the same effect. But, from the fiction, that's not completely surprising because I've already narrated that the first woman was the more badly hurt. And if the sister was a small child, and really only had maximum 3 hit points, then the fact that her wounds were smaller but proportionally as grave isn't surprising either - there is less 'meat' here.

I don't claim it is perfect, but in play it's not that glaring of a problem or I would have felt a more urgent need to fix it.

What I deny is that the existence of problems in the mechanics here excuses us from introducing problems elsewhere. Bad design isn't the excuse for more bad design.