D&D 5E Should the Fighter's "Second Wind" ability grant temporary HP instead of regular HP?

[Remathilis]

I think there is some confusion. I do not want non-magical healing period. That is true whether I'm playing a gritty game or a super high fantasy heroic game. I tend to play both anyway depending on the PCs level.

Second wind does not feel right ever. I agree that there is a real world concept of second wind. I'm not confusing what a dnd mechanic that happens to share a name with a real world concept.

First I am dubious of stamina as a hit point component. In real life it recovers way to fast as it relates to combats taking literally a minute or two. It would also be affected more by a full move than it would by any parrying away of a sword thrust.

I much prefer hit points composed of meat, defensive fighting skill, and perhaps a little divine favor or luck. So as you level up you get far better at minimizing the real damage. Healing could be proportional based on level and I'd be fine with that. CLW would do something like 5+targets level hit points of healing. Multiply that by spell level and you got it covered.

Now I speak for myself. But gritty is beside the point for me.

The DMG is only 320 pages. It CAN'T have dozens of re-writes for PHB things. Today, you want Second Wind replaced. Then someone wants a rageless Barbarian. Then someone else wants a nonmagical monk. And someone else wants a spellless ranger. Is the DMG going to accommodate all that?

JUST HOUSE RULE IT!

It seems like a cop-out, but why is everyone waiting for the OFFICIAL alternative? When the book comes out, tailor it to fit your style. Are we so conditioned to RAW that we can't see past it anymore? Mearls can't know that you want your average 10th level fighter to heal for 3 months from 1 hp to full (and I'm sure that is a minority playstyle). For the last year, we've been told "tinker with it, make it your own" and yet the moment we find something we don't like, we scream "BETRAYAL" and aren't buying it?

I have a feeling the people shouting loudest on Second Wind, Action Surge, Martial Advantage, and all these previews weren't going to buy or play it anyway...

 

[RotGrub]

It's not a case of just wanting gritty. It's a case of not wanting any non-magical healing besides a slow natural recovery.

Mike said that the DMG would have dials to turn the grittiness up or down. He also said second wind would have no replacements. They are basically acting as though the only motive is desire for gritty and not an aversion to non-magical healing.

So it's likely even HD won't have an option to be removed. They will just be adjusted for gritty results.

I think Mike Mearls is out of touch if he thinks there is not a significant contingent of players who hate all non-magical healing. I give up. I'm sure if the DMG proves me wrong I'll hear about it.

if what you want is in the DMG I'm sure you will be happy to admit you are wrong. Untill such time I do agree that there is cause to be concerned.

It should be very clear to Mearls that there are many people who do not appreciate inspirational non-magical healing. All you have to do is read any blog ranting about 4e and it's on the list of complaints.

 

[RotGrub]

The DMG is only 320 pages. It CAN'T have dozens of re-writes for PHB things. Today, you want Second Wind replaced. Then someone wants a rageless Barbarian. Then someone else wants a nonmagical monk. And someone else wants a spellless ranger. Is the DMG going to accommodate all that?

JUST HOUSE RULE IT!

It seems like a cop-out, but why is everyone waiting for the OFFICIAL alternative? When the book comes out, tailor it to fit your style. Are we so conditioned to RAW that we can't see past it anymore? Mearls can't know that you want your average 10th level fighter to heal for 3 months from 1 hp to full (and I'm sure that is a minority playstyle). For the last year, we've been told "tinker with it, make it your own" and yet the moment we find something we don't like, we scream "BETRAYAL" and aren't buying it?

I have a feeling the people shouting loudest on Second Wind, Action Surge, Martial Advantage, and all these previews weren't going to buy or play it anyway...

I think the playstyle that Emerikol is talking about is very easy to identify. It's not just a mater of one individual screaming in the wilderness.

 

[Remathilis]

if what you want is in the DMG I'm sure you will be happy to admit you are wrong. Until such time I do agree that there is cause to be concerned.

It should be very clear to Mearls that there are many people who do not appreciate inspirational non-magical healing. All you have to do is read any blog ranting about 4e and it's on the list of complaints.

See, I'm one of those people who thought a warlord's "inspirational word" was terrible, but I can live with second wind. Mostly, because I can live with the fiction.

A warlord using inspiring word has a defined cause/effect relationship: the fighter healed because the warlord talked to him. That was a stretch for me. His words triggering healing seemed a bridge too far because now I have to define the relationship between his words and my well-being, and I can't use the old-standby "its magic!" that I've used with bard songs (for example).

However, the second wind is purely mechanical. The fighter "in game" isn't doing anything except sucking it up. There is no "action" the fighter does, he just re-adjust his hp number to take back that last blow the hobgoblin. Its invisible, metagame, whatever. So second wind doesn't bother me since I don't define hp as anything more than a metagame construct that lets me know when the hobgoblin finally fells my fighter. (With a bit of flavor on nondescript strains, sprains, cuts and bruises).

 

[Cybit]

Just want to comment on the "wait til it's out meme.


Yeah, we went through that with 4e, no thanks.

You can't judge the game just on a few internet rumors.
So I waited.

You can't judge the game based on playtest material.
So I waited.

You can't judge the game until it's released.
I waited.

You can't judge the game until you've actually read it.
I waited some more.

Reading is not enough, you have to play the game.
I played it.

One game is not enough, you have to play a campaign.

At what point am I allowed to have an opinion on something? A year after it's out? 10 years?

Wait, wait, wait - just another way of saying if my opinion isn't positive about a game, it doesn't count and should be dismissed.

You can have an opinion whenever you want. I can point out that having an calcified opinion on something that isn't even released (and on what has been repeatedly pointed out is old data by those who are known to have more recent data) is probably not the most intellectually honest position to take.

If you read the actual game when it comes out, and decide you don't like it, I will be sad because I like 5E from what I've seen, but hey, you gave the actual product something of a chance. People like what they like, and people should play what they like, period.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the playstyle that Emerikol is talking about is very easy to identify. It's not just a mater of one individual screaming in the wilderness.

So is the number of people who demand rageless fighters, nonmagical martial artists, or spell-less rangers. So are people who want dragonborn, gnomes and tieflings removed. So are people who don't use alignment, or want paladin's LG only. So are people who demand intricate grid-based combat. So are people who want to play D&D IN SPACE!

The core books define easy healing. Its up to the DM to redefine it to suit their playstyle. This hasn't changed in 40 years.

 

[Cybit]

I think the playstyle that Emerikol is talking about is very easy to identify. It's not just a mater of one individual screaming in the wilderness.

Datawise the amount of people who have non-magical healing as a bugaboo was quite small, surprisingly. (Even bigger shocker; amount of newer players who said that NOT having non magical healing was a dealbreaker)

I can tell who grew up in 3E, because they're not used to a system that can be radically messed with and still work (which is 5Es best trait, IMO.) A DM could flat out remove major aspects of classes, and the class would still function at 90% effectiveness due to the sturdiness of the system itself. I mean, you pull second wind out completely, and the fighter is pretty much just fine.

Also, I think WotC has to be better about explaining the "look, freaking house rule your game!" aspect of 5E; they built a system that is robust for personalization over a system that has set rules for everything for a reason; they should do a better job of pushing the flexibility of the game IMO.

 

[Emerikol]

So is the number of people who demand rageless fighters, nonmagical martial artists, or spell-less rangers. So are people who want dragonborn, gnomes and tieflings removed. So are people who don't use alignment, or want paladin's LG only. So are people who demand intricate grid-based combat. So are people who want to play D&D IN SPACE!

The core books define easy healing. Its up to the DM to redefine it to suit their playstyle. This hasn't changed in 40 years.

Now this is just my opinion but I do believe it is based on a lot of experience and interaction with the gaming world. From forums, to cons, to fellow gamers. Still it is not absolute proof.

I believe that the martial healing issue is a big issue. I think Mike Mearls like you does not see Second Wind in the same light. He has said there will be modules in the DMG to dial down HD and he also went on almost a one man crusade to stop the Warlord class from being it's own class. Like dissociative mechanics, he probably doesn't fully understand. Maybe like you there are people on the fence on Second Wind. I think you could sum up the rest of those things you mentioned and not even be a blip on the martial healing radar as far as interest goes.

The reason I have hard feelings about it is that it is so easy to fix and offer an alternative. Already we have a lot of other things on the simple fighter that are objectionable. Both the fighter and rogue have issues. It would have been so easy to say - "Look we know we have a segment that is highly sensitive to some of these mechanics. Let's make sure that at minimum there is a fighter and a rogue subclass that supports them. They are of the types that you give them those two classes without any problems and they'll buy into the rest of it." It really would be that easy.

What is sad is that even a few thousand people like my stage of life not buying into the game is going to cost them half a million dollars in sales. People in their 40's and 50's have the money. I guarantee you I spent more than 90% of the people who loved 4e spent. I hated 4e. It just took me some time to realize what I hated about it. It would have taken a developer all of a week to provide the necessary options for our playstyle. Is a weeks time worth half a million dollars in sales? And to be honest, I would guess that the desire far exceeds a few thousand people. I am just not sure how many are as determined as I am about it. Some play buy the game holding their nose and still wish they had those options.

After the bitter fights over surges in 4e, if they can't realize that some people want old fashioned hit points and old fashioned recovery then they are lost. Honestly. Insane or evil or stupid, take your pick. I say "evil" in a "for bad reasons" way not as in "Hitler".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can have an opinion whenever you want. I can point out that having an calcified opinion on something that isn't even released (and on what has been repeatedly pointed out is old data by those who are known to have more recent data) is probably not the most intellectually honest position to take.

If you read the actual game when it comes out, and decide you don't like it, I will be sad because I like 5E from what I've seen, but hey, you gave the actual product something of a chance. People like what they like, and people should play what they like, period.

I can kind of see both sides here, myself.

The trouble is, whilst I'm assuming you're truthful, Cybit, because you have a truthful manner, anyone who has watched the development of enough RPGs tends to be a little skeptical about "That draft you saw sucks, the final draft is fine!", because we've all seen times when that wasn't true. Of course we've seen times when it was, too!

As for taking a position at what stage, I think it's always a tricky one. The more complex the RPG and it's rules, the less likely one is to get it right. 3E is a good example where a lot of people got it wrong, including, I believe, the designers. We've got the Monk as the ur-example of "OMG OP!", but we've also got the power of Wizards in 3E increasing by vastly more than I think anyone anticipated, because they were boosted by a multitude of small changes, rather than a couple of big ones.

Further, there can be really cool stuff that isn't mentioned, or is totally non-obvious until you play or run it.

4E was like this for me. For most of 4E's development, I was somewhat skeptical. Less than a year out, this increased to "Yeah this is going to suck...", because WotC was putting out a lot of previews of stuff that didn't actually make it in, and that stuff seemed dumb. Only within a month or so of release, going on more recent info, did I even get interested enough to go ahead and pre-order it, and I was still slightly skeptical. Then I actually ran it, and I was able to write an entire adventure, by myself, that worked and was full of cool stuff, in less time than it did to work up a single full NPC caster statblock in 3.XE. I was instantly sold as a DM, from that. My players got sold by a lot of stuff I didn't really expect them to - the guy who always plays a Rogue is literally still going on about how awesome it was (what, six years later?) when he played a Rogue in 4E and was actually a killing machine and a cool con-man, rather than the semi-useless guy of 2E and 3E.

Anyway, I sympathize with both your positions. It's painful to know stuff is fixed and be unable to really say, or to think it is, but as JRR illustrates very well, the whole "OH WAIT UNTIL YOU PLAY IT!" thing can be really overplayed.

 

[Emerikol]

Anyway, I sympathize with both your positions. It's painful to know stuff is fixed and be unable to really say, or to think it is, but as JRR illustrates very well, the whole "OH WAIT UNTIL YOU PLAY IT!" thing can be really overplayed.

I will be the first to admit my mistake if I have erred in judging 5e. I'm only saying that right now based on what Mike Mearls has said I'm not buying. I will likely look the game over when it comes out especially the free rules. I mean what is the risk in that.

I am kind of shocked at the tact they've taken with 5e but it is their game. I do think though that a person like me really needs to support those companies that are trying to support my playstyle. If I just jump on the D&D bandwagon and houserule it a bunch just to get it to work for me, I'm basically saying I shouldn't ever expect actual rules written to include me. I feel I have to vote with my wallet especially with D&D which is the market leader. I also have to keep D&D's competitors alive because they might be my only source of material soon.

I was talking back and forth with someone on the Wotc forums and they were certain right up till the day that the basic pdf would provide support. She has the opposite opinion on a ton of things from me and it wasn't even her concern. She knew though that a lot of people cared about what I cared about. That was her feeling anyway. So we were back and forth about when it would show up. None of use even dreamed that the DMG wouldn't handle what we wanted.

I think it would be funny if a third party developed a game that was nothing but a PHB. It would be essentially 5e but rewritten to address all the old school concerns. It would be totally compatible with the DMG and the MM. It's probably theoretically possible given the OGL but no one will do it. If I was a billionaire I'd do it just for kicks. .