D&D 5E (2014) Should 5E have Healing Surges?

[Sirot]

I think the Healing Surge system introduced in 4e is an improvement over how things worked in 3e. It liberated the cleric (and similar classes) from having to fully devote themselves to healing the party and gave a hard limit of how much damage a character can soak up during the course of an adventuring day.

It has it problems though that everyone else has already described quite well.

Here are what I would change:

1) Health system completely revamped. A character's health is divided evenly between Temporary Hit Points and Hit Points. Temporary hit points go back to full after a short rest and each character has the ability to use second wind in combat as an encounter ability to restore their temporary hit points to their maximum value. As soon as player takes any hit point damage, they become bloodied and their maximum temporary hit points gets cut in half. It remains halved until the character is no longer bloodied.

2) Each character has fewer healing surges; a character would have between 1 (wizard) to 3 (fighter). A healing surge represents a character's ability to recover from a serious injury. When a cleric uses a ability that restore hit points or you drink a potion, you recover the appropriate number of hit points and you lose a healing surge. No healing surges means you can no longer gain back health points for the day. You are missing half of your temporary hit points and whatever chunk of health points is gone until you can find safety.

3) Something like Cure Light Wounds can either restore someone's Y amount of temporary hit points or heal their actual hit points for an Y amount.

This creates a lot more resource management for the players. A character can use second wind to recover all of temporary hit points, but they can only do that once per fight. One good hit makes you bloodied which means all future fights you have 1/4 less total health. Given the extremely limited amount of healing surges each character has, you may decide to tough it out and stay bloodied for a while to maximize the use of your own healing surge. A wizard would be a lot more tempted to use their second wind in a fight because they have only once to get their actual hit points back in a day. A fighter could be more risk taking given they have more healing surges to spend; if a party usually faces 4 encounters in a adventuring day, they can be in decent shape for 3 of them.

Finally, this gives a distinct and clear separation between morale/near-misses/fate injuries and actual ones.

 

[FireLance]

Here are what I would change:

1) Health system completely revamped. A character's health is divided evenly between Temporary Hit Points and Hit Points. Temporary hit points go back to full after a short rest and each character has the ability to use second wind in combat as an encounter ability to restore their temporary hit points to their maximum value. As soon as player takes any hit point damage, they become bloodied and their maximum temporary hit points gets cut in half. It remains halved until the character is no longer bloodied.

2) Each character has fewer healing surges; a character would have between 1 (wizard) to 3 (fighter). A healing surge represents a character's ability to recover from a serious injury. When a cleric uses a ability that restore hit points or you drink a potion, you recover the appropriate number of hit points and you lose a healing surge. No healing surges means you can no longer gain back health points for the day. You are missing half of your temporary hit points and whatever chunk of health points is gone until you can find safety.

3) Something like Cure Light Wounds can either restore someone's Y amount of temporary hit points or heal their actual hit points for an Y amount.

Frankly, I think if you make a distinction between non-physical and physical hit points, you don't really need healing surges any longer, unless you want to impose a limitation (fatigue, maybe) on how often you can restore non-physical hit points.

The idea of limitations to magical healing of physical hit points is what turns some people off the idea of healing surges in the first place.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, I think Kingreaper has the right of it. I know I've said that HP can't represent serious injury, but things like minor scratches and bruises, as well as the general sense of being battered and exhausted, works just fine in the context of the hit point and healing surge system.

Okay, say a person has taken HP damage (battered and a little tired). They are cured (Cleric, Warlord, whatever). They lose a healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

They take another wound, and are battered and a little tired. They are cured. They lose a second healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

They take a third wound, and, again, are battered and a little tired. They are cured. They lose a second healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

This happens until they are no longer able to be healed (no more healing surges), at which point, this "battered and tired" condition in the fiction sticks. My question is, why is that?

If, on the other hand, it's "they take HP damage, are battered and tired, and then are healed, making them less battered and tired", my question becomes why can magic only makes scrapes a little bit better, and why does a second casting not heal their wound completely?

That is, magic will never heal serious wounds (thanks to Schrodinger's wounds there's never a point when a creature is "dying" other than if it eventually dies). Magic will lessen scrapes and bruises. This means that serious wounds cannot occur. Light wounds cannot even be removed. Why is there such a restriction on the fiction?

That's what I don't want in 5e. I don't want one way for the fiction to always unfold. I want the game to have the ability to dish out light wounds or serious wounds. I want the story to unfold from that. Low HP dealt (heals overnight): light wound. High HP dealt: serious wound. THP-only dealt: dodged, but slightly winded you.

I want the fiction to be absolutely filled with options that can result from standard play. If I'm forced into "magic bandages scrapes and bruises, and no PC can ever truly be dying unless he winds up dead" then I'm going to object to 5e's HP system (just as I do for 4e and 3.Xe, to differing degrees).

I want the fiction to make sense in-game, and the relatively flimsy "only light wound occur, unless someone dies, but magic can make light wounds slightly more light, and nothing beyond that even with multiple castings" is going to strain my suspension of disbelief pretty profoundly.

But, again, that's me. I have a pretty simulationist viewpoint, and since I look at things from an angle of "how does this ability translate directly into the fiction?", it causes a disconnect from a certain healthy level of hand-waving.

Thanks for the reply, but I just can't buy into the healing surge and hit point system as described by you and Kingreaper. I know it's all subjective, so I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. It just doesn't click with me. It screams "this is here for balance, not to model the fiction" to me, where it seems it's not the case to you (or others in this thread). You're not wrong, we just disagree. As always, play what you like

Back to the story inspiration, I think healing that triggers internal reserves is great for low fantasy that is trying to ground fantasy with some gritty realism

It's a nice alternative for non-magical healing, but I don't like the arbitrary limit on healing. Also, the recovery system (where natural healing takes a six hour rest) is definitely not good for a gritty feel. A poster (I feel very bad for forgetting who at the moment) rightfully pointed out that healing surge recovery rate can be pushed back, which wound indeed slow down recovery time.

When I look to fantasy fiction, I like to look at Conan, Song of Ice and Fire, etc.Conan is often knocked unconscious, characters gain permanent wounds, characters take a while to recover (and are often mangled), infection can occur, etc. I'd much prefer this feel to my analysis of the above proposal by TwinBahamut, if we're looking to emulate gritty play.

Healing surges are a nice start on non-magical healing, but also have some major issues with it (as of 4e, if you include the rest and recovery and dying mechanics). It could be tweaked, but I still think magic should be an external source, or you wind up with arbitrary healing limits with flimsy reasoning at best (in my opinion... this is not an objective value judgement). As always, play what you like

Using a worldview that favors the game mechanics you want to use is simply a part of good game design. Story and mechanics should not be enemies, after all.

This is true, and I want to be able to experience nearly any story. Always healing overnight takes away stories (just as always healing slowly would). Healing being limited by healing surges takes away stories (just as healing without limits does).

This extends to long range teleportation, divination, and the like. It's hard to balance, but on the note of healing, the game would be dictating the fiction to me in a very narrow way (as I've described upthread). It's good for one style of play or one viewpoint, but it is not very inclusive, nor is it overwhelmingly popular (even if it is popular).

Story and game mechanics should not be enemies, but they should not hold me to a style of game that I don't like. People love 4e because it's so easy to reskin and reflavor, but when it comes to it's "HP works this way, and produces this story in the fiction, or it doesn't make sense"? I'd rather that not be the case.

Frankly, I think if you make a distinction between non-physical and physical hit points, you don't really need healing surges any longer, unless you want to impose a limitation (fatigue, maybe) on how often you can restore non-physical hit points.

The idea of limitations to magical healing of physical hit points is what turns some people off the idea of healing surges in the first place.

Exactly correct, which is why I'm advocating they separate HP into two pools. I could still see a "second wind" mechanic for restoring THP (the "other" pool), but it wouldn't need to be nearly as prevalent as 4e had it (something closer to Star Wars Saga, from what I can tell).

I have this split in my RPG, and characters actually regain THP equal to their Con bonus (not modifier) +1 every round, even in combat. It's a little more bookkeeping than many groups may want, so it could be "does not recover in combat" at base level in 5e. I also have a feat (which takes one-fifth of a level's worth of character points... point-buy game) that allows you to spend a move action to restore THP equal to your Con bonus once per turn. It's even called Second Wind.

I'm not opposed to a type of Healing Surge mechanic, but I do not like them as currently implemented. However, I can support there being support for a healing surge-like mechanic in 5e. But I do think there should be a separation in physical and nonphysical wounds. As always, play what you like

 

[Naszir]

The key answer then, is "it's not." Which is more realistic: a wounded soldier healing himself just by being awesome, or a wounded soldier being healed by unicorn dust? My distaste for healing surges has nothing to do with making the game more realistic.

I dislike them because they do not fit the style of game that I have grown to love. Hit points have always meant a certain thing to me, and I don't really feel the need to redefine them. That's all.

Don't you still run into the confusion that CLW causes? Why does the commoner that only had a max of 5hp and is down to 1hp get completely cured of all his wounds by CLW and the hero who had a max of 30hp and is down to 1hp only get a large scratch healed?

With them both at 1hp they are both physically in the same position but somehow the hero was able to take 25hp more physical damage than the commoner?

 

[Hassassin]

Don't you still run into the confusion that CLW causes? Why does the commoner that only had a max of 5hp and is down to 1hp get completely cured of all his wounds by CLW and the hero who had a max of 30hp and is down to 1hp only get a large scratch healed?

With them both at 1hp they are both physically in the same position but somehow the hero was able to take 25hp more physical damage than the commoner?

I'd like to see that fixed, but you don't need surges to fix it.

 

[Naszir]

But surges were an attempt to do just that. A cleric uses a power that allows you to spend a healing surge. A healing surge is 1/4 of your hit points. So in this case the cleric uses a power on the commoner and the 5hp commoner gets 1hp back in healing. The 30hp hero gets 5hps back in healing.

So the healing is defined both by the where the power is coming from and who it is being applied to.

So if the cleric is doing the healing then the damage being healed can be considered bruises and scratches. If the warlord is doing the healing then the damage being healed may be related to a boost in morale or an adreneline boost. I see the disconnect though. It seems that any class other than the cleric should have been giving out temporary hps rather than doing actual healing in 4e. That would have made more sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, say a person has taken HP damage (battered and a little tired). They are cured (Cleric, Warlord, whatever). They lose a healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

They take another wound, and are battered and a little tired. They are cured. They lose a second healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

They take a third wound, and, again, are battered and a little tired. They are cured. They lose a second healing surge. They are no longer battered and tired.

This happens until they are no longer able to be healed (no more healing surges), at which point, this "battered and tired" condition in the fiction sticks. My question is, why is that?

If, on the other hand, it's "they take HP damage, are battered and tired, and then are healed, making them less battered and tired", my question becomes why can magic only makes scrapes a little bit better, and why does a second casting not heal their wound completely?

That is, magic will never heal serious wounds (thanks to Schrodinger's wounds there's never a point when a creature is "dying" other than if it eventually dies). Magic will lessen scrapes and bruises. This means that serious wounds cannot occur. Light wounds cannot even be removed. Why is there such a restriction on the fiction?

That's what I don't want in 5e. I don't want one way for the fiction to always unfold. I want the game to have the ability to dish out light wounds or serious wounds. I want the story to unfold from that. Low HP dealt (heals overnight): light wound. High HP dealt: serious wound. THP-only dealt: dodged, but slightly winded you.

I want the fiction to be absolutely filled with options that can result from standard play. If I'm forced into "magic bandages scrapes and bruises, and no PC can ever truly be dying unless he winds up dead" then I'm going to object to 5e's HP system (just as I do for 4e and 3.Xe, to differing degrees).

I want the fiction to make sense in-game, and the relatively flimsy "only light wound occur, unless someone dies, but magic can make light wounds slightly more light, and nothing beyond that even with multiple castings" is going to strain my suspension of disbelief pretty profoundly.

So you must HATE the pre-4e version of hit points then. After all, nothing bad happens to the character no matter what the narrative says until that magical moment when the character hits 0 hit points, and then suddenly they die. You have no way to distinguish between fatigue and physical wounds at all. "Schroedinger's Wounds" is in full force. Resting for 5 minutes (or an hour etc) has no benefit whatsoever even though hit points clearly aren't wounds. The character that took 10 points of damage always has to rest for 10 days to 'heal' even though one character might have absolutely nothing wrong but a minor hit point loss (whatever that means) and another who is at death's door heals to full health in the same 10 days.

But, again, that's me. I have a pretty simulationist viewpoint, and since I look at things from an angle of "how does this ability translate directly into the fiction?", it causes a disconnect from a certain healthy level of hand-waving.

Thanks for the reply, but I just can't buy into the healing surge and hit point system as described by you and Kingreaper. I know it's all subjective, so I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. It just doesn't click with me. It screams "this is here for balance, not to model the fiction" to me, where it seems it's not the case to you (or others in this thread). You're not wrong, we just disagree. As always, play what you like

I agree, it is there for primarily gamist purposes, but in what way is it any less realistic than the pre-4e system? In either one most PCs can survive things that would kill any real human. There is in neither system any distinction between physical damage and anything else.

Why is it that magic must have no limits either? MOST minor healing magic in 4e simply draws on the internal reserves of the character that is healed. Look at the way it works. Your cleric (etc) can pretty much heal people with minor healing magic almost any time they want (every 2.5 minutes on the average). Not only that but even this minor healing magic draws from more than just the character's reserves. The average clerical Healing Word is going to be healing HS+1d6+WIS (usually +4), and on your average say 40 hit point fighter that means 10+7.5 HP average, so almost half of the healing is PURE magic. Then on top of that you can cast surgeless healing spells just as often as a 1e cleric ever could. Many other magics that are commonly available can transfer vitality between PCs as well.

It's a nice alternative for non-magical healing, but I don't like the arbitrary limit on healing. Also, the recovery system (where natural healing takes a six hour rest) is definitely not good for a gritty feel. A poster (I feel very bad for forgetting who at the moment) rightfully pointed out that healing surge recovery rate can be pushed back, which wound indeed slow down recovery time.

When I look to fantasy fiction, I like to look at Conan, Song of Ice and Fire, etc.Conan is often knocked unconscious, characters gain permanent wounds, characters take a while to recover (and are often mangled), infection can occur, etc. I'd much prefer this feel to my analysis of the above proposal by TwinBahamut, if we're looking to emulate gritty play.

Healing surges are a nice start on non-magical healing, but also have some major issues with it (as of 4e, if you include the rest and recovery and dying mechanics). It could be tweaked, but I still think magic should be an external source, or you wind up with arbitrary healing limits with flimsy reasoning at best (in my opinion... this is not an objective value judgement). As always, play what you like

I just don't think the limit on MINOR healing magic is 'arbitrary' (any more than any magic is). If you want to really fix people that should take some powerful magic, not dimestore stuff you find in every other chest. In fact really that whole cheap tawdry healing magic feel is a big thing that always drove me away from using D&D for anything beyond beer & pretzels dungeon delves for 20 years.

I think it would be fine to have automatic non-magical recovery slowed down. I think really it just won't change the game because as soon as you do that you have to do what AD&D did and lard in enough unlimited magical healing to make it relatively immaterial. Otherwise you end up with all your plots consisting of one fight every 3 weeks and the PCs holed up in some bolt hole licking their wounds the rest of the time. What starts out 'gritty' soon becomes cheapened healing magic.

This is true, and I want to be able to experience nearly any story. Always healing overnight takes away stories (just as always healing slowly would). Healing being limited by healing surges takes away stories (just as healing without limits does).

The problem is that you loose out on an equal number of stories with 'gritty' healing. The PCs can't take risks. Gone are all the fun stunts and things that PCs can risk in 4e because nobody is going to swing on a chandelier or leap off the balcony onto the table or whatever. Beyond that you have a much less interesting combat system inevitably. With only small numbers for hit points relative to damage you have to reduce chances to-hit by a good chunk (having a 15 to-hit in AD&D was pretty unremarkable but terribly boring). This means you also now need other conditions to be dire when they do happen, tactics are too unreliable to bother using, etc. It all devolves quickly back down towards the boring static combats and endless poking and prodding of AD&D era combat and exploration. Then on top of that either every encounter is the end of a day, or you have to drop in tons of cheap dimestore healing magic. Methinks your cure is worse than the disease.

This extends to long range teleportation, divination, and the like. It's hard to balance, but on the note of healing, the game would be dictating the fiction to me in a very narrow way (as I've described upthread). It's good for one style of play or one viewpoint, but it is not very inclusive, nor is it overwhelmingly popular (even if it is popular).

Story and game mechanics should not be enemies, but they should not hold me to a style of game that I don't like. People love 4e because it's so easy to reskin and reflavor, but when it comes to it's "HP works this way, and produces this story in the fiction, or it doesn't make sense"? I'd rather that not be the case.

Hit points don't make more sense your way than the 4e way though, that's the problem. Nor does teleport make more sense etc etc etc. Nor does the ability of PCs to teleport all over the place or detect evil or charm key NPCs with a wave of a hand add to the story telling ability of the system. In fact all of those things destroy at least as many story possibilities as they add (and I would argue it is a net loss).

Exactly correct, which is why I'm advocating they separate HP into two pools. I could still see a "second wind" mechanic for restoring THP (the "other" pool), but it wouldn't need to be nearly as prevalent as 4e had it (something closer to Star Wars Saga, from what I can tell).

I have this split in my RPG, and characters actually regain THP equal to their Con bonus (not modifier) +1 every round, even in combat. It's a little more bookkeeping than many groups may want, so it could be "does not recover in combat" at base level in 5e. I also have a feat (which takes one-fifth of a level's worth of character points... point-buy game) that allows you to spend a move action to restore THP equal to your Con bonus once per turn. It's even called Second Wind.

I'm not opposed to a type of Healing Surge mechanic, but I do not like them as currently implemented. However, I can support there being support for a healing surge-like mechanic in 5e. But I do think there should be a separation in physical and nonphysical wounds. As always, play what you like

This whole issue though will be the fault line on which 5e breaks. You cannot build a system at all without an assumption built in about what damage means. You can't write a fireball spell and decide how much damage it does unless you know what a hit point means and what the implication of doing hit points of damage is. Either 5e builds on your paradigm in which case it won't do what I want, or vice versa apparently. There's no 'module' you can simply graft on that will fix that because it would have to rewrite the damage expressions of every single thing that does damage and every thing that restores or grants healing. You can't simply write a monster stat block and certainly not an adventure without building on that basic assumption.

I know what I'm going to advocate for. Certainly would be great if you can get the game you want, but I'm going to press hard for the one I want and I don't see a whole lot of middle ground really. I can see a few ways to create something that is closer to the middle, but someone is going to get a game that doesn't play the way they'd like.

 

[Dornam]

One of the most intense "group moments" is when one character rescues another by healing him. 4e has largely taken that away with the introduction of healing surges.

Now it's "everyone surges for himself".

All that to "liberate" the Cleric so that he can now be just like the Wizard?!

Sorry, I don't get it. The class distinctions in 4e might make sense if you are out for a tabeltop battle game but not for an adventure game and healing surges play a big role in this.

So I just say NO to healing surges.

 

[CleverNickName]

Don't you still run into the confusion that CLW causes?

Honestly, no. Reading this thread was the first time I've ever heard of anyone being confused about the amount of damage the CLW spell can heal. But if it ever became such an issue that it started being a disruption, I would be more tempted to houserule it to cure a percentage of total hit points...maybe something like this:

Cure light wounds: restores up to 10% of target's max HP
Cure moderate wounds: as CLW, but 20%
Cure serious wounds: as CLW, but 30%
Cure critical wounds: as CLW, but 40%

I would not create an entirely new game mechanic, possibly redefining damage and hit points to support it. I would just change 4 spells and be done.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So you must HATE the pre-4e version of hit points then. After all, nothing bad happens to the character no matter what the narrative says until that magical moment when the character hits 0 hit points, and then suddenly they die. You have no way to distinguish between fatigue and physical wounds at all.

I called out that 3.X was also unsatisfying for me. It's why I changed HP in my game with my suggestions to fit my preferences (which also happen to line up with my group).

"Schroedinger's Wounds" is in full force.

This saying is a specific reference to the Death and Dying rules in 4e, not 3.X. In 4e, you don't know if someone was dying until they fail that third save, and are dead. Otherwise they wake up and "it wasn't that bad." In 3.X, if you're dying, you're going to bleed out, and your wound will take days to heal naturally, if at all.

Resting for 5 minutes (or an hour etc) has no benefit whatsoever even though hit points clearly aren't wounds. The character that took 10 points of damage always has to rest for 10 days to 'heal' even though one character might have absolutely nothing wrong but a minor hit point loss (whatever that means) and another who is at death's door heals to full health in the same 10 days.

This is indeed problematic. It's abstraction based purely on gamism. I moved it more towards simulationism. This will be helpful to some, and troublesome to others, much as a move towards gamism or narrativism would be troubling to me, but helpful to others.

I agree, it is there for primarily gamist purposes, but in what way is it any less realistic than the pre-4e system?

I called out 3.X. It's unsatisfactory in this department as well. That's why I've offered new solutions, instead of saying "4e sucks, 3.X rules" or "I dislike 4e, but 1e had it right!" That's not my point, nor is it what I think.

Why is it that magic must have no limits either?

Where do you think I indicated this? If you let me know, I can correct that misconception, instead of trying to guess at where I accidentally mislead you.

MOST minor healing magic in 4e simply draws on the internal reserves of the character that is healed. Look at the way it works. Your cleric (etc) can pretty much heal people with minor healing magic almost any time they want (every 2.5 minutes on the average). Not only that but even this minor healing magic draws from more than just the character's reserves. The average clerical Healing Word is going to be healing HS+1d6+WIS (usually +4), and on your average say 40 hit point fighter that means 10+7.5 HP average, so almost half of the healing is PURE magic. Then on top of that you can cast surgeless healing spells just as often as a 1e cleric ever could. Many other magics that are commonly available can transfer vitality between PCs as well.

I'm missing what you're trying to get at with this... I'm sorry. Does it have to due with 4e's limits on magical healing, or that magic somehow adds to healing?

I just don't think the limit on MINOR healing magic is 'arbitrary' (any more than any magic is).

Arbitrary from an in-game perspective, for sure. Magic works exactly the same as the Warlord's healing. I can only be healed this many times, no matter if it's all healing potions, someone inspiring me, or getting healed, and no matter what type of wound it is. Within the fiction, that's an incredibly weird, arbitrary line to draw.

If you want to really fix people that should take some powerful magic, not dimestore stuff you find in every other chest. In fact really that whole cheap tawdry healing magic feel is a big thing that always drove me away from using D&D for anything beyond beer & pretzels dungeon delves for 20 years.

This is obviously subjective on your part. Not that I totally disagree, mind you. In my RPG, it's easier to speed up natural healing than it is to instantly heal someone (which converts it to nonlethal and fatigues them). You can get rid of the nonlethal and fatigue, but that's even harder. It goes up in steps. I also made in-combat healing generally worse than just warding against the attacks (even reactively), so that protection magic is more important to fights than in-combat healing.

However, I'm not sure what people think on this issue at large.

I think it would be fine to have automatic non-magical recovery slowed down. I think really it just won't change the game because as soon as you do that you have to do what AD&D did and lard in enough unlimited magical healing to make it relatively immaterial. Otherwise you end up with all your plots consisting of one fight every 3 weeks and the PCs holed up in some bolt hole licking their wounds the rest of the time. What starts out 'gritty' soon becomes cheapened healing magic.

Or stays gritty? Give dials. Let there be gritty. Let there be some wounds that take a week or longer (preferably) to heal. Let there be wounds that are completely gone after the fight (my THP).

Your experience with gritty games with slow hit point recovery is valid. Mine is much different, however. My group loves slow hit point recovery, feeling the repercussions of combat afterwards sometimes, getting lucky hits in on a bad guy and giving him that skull fracture or punctured lung. It happens to them, too, but they love the possibility, and accept the consequences of adding that element of danger which heightens our mutual enjoyment of play.

The problem is that you loose out on an equal number of stories with 'gritty' healing. The PCs can't take risks. Gone are all the fun stunts and things that PCs can risk in 4e because nobody is going to swing on a chandelier or leap off the balcony onto the table or whatever. Beyond that you have a much less interesting combat system inevitably. With only small numbers for hit points relative to damage you have to reduce chances to-hit by a good chunk (having a 15 to-hit in AD&D was pretty unremarkable but terribly boring). This means you also now need other conditions to be dire when they do happen, tactics are too unreliable to bother using, etc. It all devolves quickly back down towards the boring static combats and endless poking and prodding of AD&D era combat and exploration. Then on top of that either every encounter is the end of a day, or you have to drop in tons of cheap dimestore healing magic. Methinks your cure is worse than the disease.

Again, your experience in valid, but mine is wildly different. In my ongoing game (played yesterday... still haven't slept), the PCs tried sinking a ship, got captured, escaped, killed some of the sailors, and steered the sinking ship into another ship, rescued a prisoner and the cabin boy, and made their escape.

My rules can be pretty unforgiving. This does not stop the players from acting courageously. This does not stop them from climbing to the top of the crow's nest and getting into a pushing match with the bad guys, or finding out the location of a lich/ghost and charging into his crypt to kill him and his undead army.

I think your players (and many others) might react as you've described. They might be turned off by that style. On the flip side, my players definitely do not react the way you describe, and they most certainly are attached to their characters, and invested in the campaign world. They push to play multiple times per week (and we play 8-10 hour sessions). What you've described for your players isn't wrong, but it's absolutely individual to each table.

Hit points don't make more sense your way than the 4e way though, that's the problem. Nor does teleport make more sense etc etc etc. Nor does the ability of PCs to teleport all over the place or detect evil or charm key NPCs with a wave of a hand add to the story telling ability of the system. In fact all of those things destroy at least as many story possibilities as they add (and I would argue it is a net loss).

I'm interested in your arguments or thoughts as to why these claims are true (though I don't think I claimed that my thoughts on teleportation "makes more sense"? or some of the other things you've said).

This whole issue though will be the fault line on which 5e breaks. You cannot build a system at all without an assumption built in about what damage means. You can't write a fireball spell and decide how much damage it does unless you know what a hit point means and what the implication of doing hit points of damage is. Either 5e builds on your paradigm in which case it won't do what I want, or vice versa apparently. There's no 'module' you can simply graft on that will fix that because it would have to rewrite the damage expressions of every single thing that does damage and every thing that restores or grants healing. You can't simply write a monster stat block and certainly not an adventure without building on that basic assumption.

I know what I'm going to advocate for. Certainly would be great if you can get the game you want, but I'm going to press hard for the one I want and I don't see a whole lot of middle ground really. I can see a few ways to create something that is closer to the middle, but someone is going to get a game that doesn't play the way they'd like.

Hey, if it came down to you getting the game you want or me getting the game I want with 5e, you can have it. I literally wrote the 353-page book that's right for me. It's what I play. It's my ideal RPG at the moment. I look forward to 5e, but I don't plan on investing in it or playing it. That doesn't mean I won't, though. I'm looking forward to seeing the mechanics, and a few changes I've implemented in my game have already cropped up in 5e reports (flatter bonus curves for attacks, magic items being divorced from assumed character power, silver standard).

If it incorporates my ideal of hit points, all the more likely I'd pick it up. I used a Hit Chart in 3.X when I played it, and it's incredibly easy to port over to 5e if I decide I want to use it (which I would). However, that doesn't mean that a lot of 5e won't blow me away. It might, it might not.

In the meantime, I'm going to throw out there my suggestions, thoughts, and feedback on what makes for an interesting game. I expect you to do the same. We'll see what sticks, if anything. I'm already satisfied with my own creativity, and wouldn't feel loss at missing out on another edition. I stopped playing 3.X to make my own game, I skipped 4e because it made 3.X's problems worse much of the time (for my ideals, since I prefer simulation over gamist or narrativist games), and I can happily keep playing my RPG over 5e, too. I hold no ill will towards people that prefer something different, and hope they get a game in 5e that they can greatly enjoy. Because, as always, play what you like