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

[Cybit]

I've stayed out of all these discussions, but you've mentioned actual data a few times and I'm curious - where is this data? Did the Devs put out a bunch of info somewhere?

Publicly, there's at least one livestream where they talk about playtesters liking actual healing over temp HP far more w/r/t Second Wind; might be the same video that some folks are freaking out about. Alas, can't find it off the top of my head.

On a more basic note; ccooke's post pretty much nails it on the head; considering they had it originally as temp HP, logic would indicate that they got enough reaction from folks wanting it to be actual HP that they switched it.

 

[mechascorpio]

D&D Next is a game that is missing the toppings I like and it has toppings I can't stand. I think that's true for most people.

How do you know it is true for most people? The game hasn't even been released yet. Almost all of those who I spoke to or played with at Origins two weeks ago liked it a great deal. They weren't complaining about having to pull off anchovies or add pepperoni. I've been playing since 1978 and I think the game is awesome. So, please, point me to your evidence that a majority of players (who haven't played it) have already decided for certain that they don't like it.

 

[Emerikol]

There is a difference between having to house rule an off mechanic and no support for a playstyle.

I don't like the new wizard but it's not a fundamental playstyle difference. I have no idea how many people like or dislike it. I would houserule that and the job would easily be harder than second wind.

So my decision not to buy 5e has nothing to do with the difficulty of houserules. I could write an entire game if I wanted. So I am plenty creative.

In the past D&D supported many views of hit points. Since 4e they've rejected mine. I personally believe the people who hate martial healing are a big group. I wouldn't swear its over 50% but I believe it would be very safe to say 30% and I believe more.

They only had to provide one fighter and one rogue subclass both simple and without martial healing or dissociative mechanics and they could have done practically anything to the rest of the game. I could live with a warlord or a bunch of aedu classes. I just need the core 4.

So I agree they left the 4e people out in the cold too. They seemed to target pre 3e people but they embed a healing style that is anathema at the very core of the system.

So if it is wotc's intention to not support a playstyle very popular in the past at all when it would take very little effort. I see it is in my interest to support and sustain those companies still trying to support me.

So it really isn't just some offhand mechanic. I have houseruled plenty in every edition of D&D.

 

[Abraxas]

Publicly, there's at least one livestream where they talk about playtesters liking actual healing over temp HP far more w/r/t Second Wind; might be the same video that some folks are freaking out about. Alas, can't find it off the top of my head.

On a more basic note; ccooke's post pretty much nails it on the head; considering they had it originally as temp HP, logic would indicate that they got enough reaction from folks wanting it to be actual HP that they switched it.

Have you been privy to actual data that isn't out in the public - again just curious because of the comments you've made. As for cooke's post - it ignores the other possibility that there is no real consensus and the Devs just put in what the majority of the Devs like.

 

[Cybit]

Have you been privy to actual data that isn't out in the public - again just curious because of the comments you've made. As for cooke's post - it ignores the other possibility that there is no real consensus and the Devs just put in what the majority of the Devs like.

I hope WotC releases their playtest data to the public at some point.

 

[Chaltab]

In the past D&D supported many views of hit points. Since 4e they've rejected mine.

Oh hey that's completely not true. What hitpoints represent has not changed. How easily and frequently you can heal them has, but the cool thing about game rules is that they're based on numbers and numbers are a lot easier to work with than vague abstractions.

 

[Hussar]

In the past D&D supported many views of hit points. Since 4e they've rejected mine. I personally believe the people who hate martial healing are a big group. I wouldn't swear its over 50% but I believe it would be very safe to say 30% and I believe more.

What version of DnD ever supported hp as meat? AdnD specifically doesn't. It's right there in the DMG. Hp are not meat.

3e allows you to go from six seconds from death to fully healed in a day or two depending on class or level.

No version of DnD has ever expressly supported long term injury. I mean in terms of more than a month.

So what support in the rules in any edition have you ever had?

 

[Bluenose]

In terms of healing, new school (non-magical healing) is several orders of magnitude larger than old school (no non-magical healing). Per actual data. Not people whining on internet boards. Funny how data points out inconvenient truths.

Again, I think the point I'm making and that's being missed is that Old School and New School are not united within themselves. Unless you restrict it to one aspect of the game - healing, as you've done here - and say that anyone accepting non-magical inspirational healing is NS and anyone rejecting that is OS, then you can't use them as useful definitions.

Also, of course, Old School had non-magical healing. It was called Rest in those days. Instead of shouting a hand back on, as Mike Mearls made fun of, you could just sleep it back on. Which is one of the best arguments for hit point loss not representing much physical damage that you could have.

 

[ccooke]

Have you been privy to actual data that isn't out in the public - again just curious because of the comments you've made. As for cooke's post - it ignores the other possibility that there is no real consensus and the Devs just put in what the majority of the Devs like.

Not quite. What I said was I expect that most people fell on the positive side of apathy.

I really don't think this is an important point for most people (and the polls done here generally seem to reflect up). However, if most people were on the negative side of apathy then WotC would have taken SW out simply for good business reasons.

 

[Abraxas]

Not quite. What I said was I expect that most people fell on the positive side of apathy.

Well, previously you said "either a huge proportion of the playerbase fall on the positive side of the apathy line OR WotC are deliberately sabotaging themselves by alienating a big, important segment of their market" which reads differently than what you said above, but it still misses the possibility that there wasn't a great consensus either way and the Devs went with what they liked best.

I really don't think this is an important point for most people (and the polls done here generally seem to reflect up). However, if most people were on the negative side of apathy then WotC would have taken SW out simply for good business reasons.

That does make sense but I remember some info about the 4E playtest feedback that while the playtesters really liked certain options the general public didn't care for them at all.

Regardless of any of that - my whole reason for posting in this discussion is I'm just curious if Cybit has had access to actual data that isn't available to others in this discussion - if not he's just making assumptions like everyone else. At this time I'm guessing he hasn't.

Also I'm being entertained by watching people who have already indicated that they aren't going to switch to 5E tell other people that aren't going to switch because of this issue that there's something wrong with them