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

[GMforPowergamers]

As a tack-on module, or part of one, sure; we can all then choose to include or ignore it as we like and no harm done. But it has no place in the basic game where it can't be ignored without possible unforeseen knock-on effects elsewhere.

Lanefan

Ok, but, with Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin all having tricks that allow extra survivability what would you give a fighter that stacks up to Lay on hands, Cure spells, and Rages? Maybe some kind of DR in armor?

 

[DamageOnAHit]

I'm not sure how Nikosandros sees things, but when I think of "hp as meat" I think of a claim stronger than that each hit that deals damage deals some trivial physical harm like a graze or a scratch.

I think of posts I read which assert or imply that a hit for N hp to a given character always does the same amount of physical harm, whether those are the first or the last N hp taken; and hence that damage-dealing hits other than the last can still deal serious physical injury.

For me the model I've just described works fine for damage to objects, like chopping through a door or sawing a log, but it makes no sense at all for combat with a person.

Because in his universe, human beings obey different laws of physics than doors, or cars, or constructs, or monsters.

 

[Emerikol]

Pemerton I would just inform you that very few people equate the meat position with what you described. It's a bit of a strawman actually to even call it the meat position.

Here are the two predominant positions.
1. Hit points are a mixture of meat and overall ability at avoiding injury but all damage involves some physical effect even if minor. Recovery always requires physical recovery as the rest of it comes back automatically.

2. No damage at all occurs until the last hit point is lost and even then depending on circumstances even that might merely be a state of unconsciousness. If any physical injury occurs along the way it is very minor and it need not be healed at all for hit point recovery to occur.

Neither of these positions is perfect. I'm sure anyone can attack either easily I know I can. The important thing is what kind of feel the game has based upon the choice. The desire for one feel vs another is really just one of preference.

The mistake people make is thinking their own approach is impeachable when logically analyzed. It's not. I've seen both argued against effectively. I just prefer the concessions to reality I have to make for #1 more than those I have to make for #2.

 

[MechaPilot]

Pemerton I would just inform you that very few people equate the meat position with what you described. It's a bit of a strawman actually to even call it the meat position.

. . .

2. No damage at all occurs until the last hit point is lost and even then depending on circumstances even that might merely be a state of unconsciousness. If any physical injury occurs along the way it is very minor and it need not be healed at all for hit point recovery to occur.

To be entirely fair, what you describe as position #2 is often a strawman as well. What you describe as position #2 is the far end of the HPs can be not meat spectrum. It is an example that is often used by people who use HPs as not meat to illustrate how far they can go under the constraints of the system if they choose to. Consequently, some people have taken the notion that all people who use HPs as not meat go that far with it.

In all the games that I have DM'd and played in, it has been rare that all HPs except for the last blow are non-meat. It has happened, mind you, it's just not something that happens all the time. Usually, what I end up with (not just in my own narration as a DM but in my experiences as a player) is that some instances of HP loss will be described as veggie-damage (i.e. no meat) and other instances of HP loss will be described as both meat and veg in varying proportions.

It's also worth pointing out that the part that I bolded isn't entirely accurate because the severity of the injury doesn't need to be minor. I use a wound system based on 4e's disease tracks, and a character who falls and breaks her leg can recover all of those HPs and still have a broken leg. The modified disease track models the impairment of the broken bone instead of the HP loss modeling it because HP loss was never intended to model specific injury like that.

I also have an example from old-school D&D: losing a limb. Losing a hand or an arm is a pretty severe injury. And yet, your maximum HP total doesn't diminish when you lose the limb. You can recover all those HPs and still be missing that limb.

Now, I write this not to try to convince you to view HPs this way. How you do things is naturally your own business. I just wanted to provide a little clarity and a little additional perspective.

 

[DamageOnAHit]

To be entirely fair, what you describe as position #2 is often a strawman as well. What you describe as position #2 is the far end of the HPs can be not meat spectrum. It is an example that is often used by people who use HPs as not meat to illustrate how far they can go under the constraints of the system if they choose to. Consequently, some people have taken the notion that all people who use HPs as not meat go that far with it.

In all the games that I have DM'd and played in, it has been rare that all HPs except for the last blow are non-meat. It has happened, mind you, it's just not something that happens all the time. Usually, what I end up with (not just in my own narration as a DM but in my experiences as a player) is that some instances of HP loss will be described as veggie-damage (i.e. no meat) and other instances of HP loss will be described as both meat and veg in varying proportions.

It's also worth pointing out that the part that I bolded isn't entirely accurate because the severity of the injury doesn't need to be minor. I use a wound system based on 4e's disease tracks, and a character who falls and breaks her leg can recover all of those HPs and still have a broken leg. The modified disease track models the impairment of the broken bone instead of the HP loss modeling it because HP loss was never intended to model specific injury like that.

I also have an example from old-school D&D: losing a limb. Losing a hand or an arm is a pretty severe injury. And yet, your maximum HP total doesn't diminish when you lose the limb. You can recover all those HPs and still be missing that limb.

Now, I write this not to try to convince you to view HPs this way. How you do things is naturally your own business. I just wanted to provide a little clarity and a little additional perspective.

Mecha, have you played D&D since 2008?

 

[Emerikol]

Mecha if you assume as I do that magical healing can repair living tissue but not create then the whole chopping off of the hand argument goes away. Yes you can be at max hit points and be missing a hand. That is because your stump is fully healed.

Do you not agree though that for practical purposes that if you could get to one hit point and not be physically injured even once in your game that the argument applies in principle.

I will agree though that given either view a person could also take a different stance on inspiration. No matter how I defined hit points I would never go for inspirational healing. I do not believe a morale boost will make me defend my own life better. If anything it might make me more willing to risk my life. A rallying cry does not make it more likely you will live. It makes it more likely you won't run.

 

[MechaPilot]

Mecha, have you played D&D since 2008?

It has been a little while since I last played because my last gaming group disbanded after the death of a member (to Leukemia) who was my best friend, and two other members moving away (they were his brothers and the family moved after his passing). Since then, because of the time constraints of my college classes and the fact that most people where I live engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing instead of gaming, I have been without a group to game with.

However, between the time of my friend's passing and the time his family moved the group did play 4e which, if I recall correctly did come out in 2008.

Edit: Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

 

[MechaPilot]

Mecha if you assume as I do that magical healing can repair living tissue but not create then the whole chopping off of the hand argument goes away. Yes you can be at max hit points and be missing a hand. That is because your stump is fully healed.

Even without magical healing can't you get back to full HPs after losing a limb? Can't you sear the stump closed with a torch and then recover your HPs through resting (say, if the group had no magical healer or potions or anything like that)?

Do you not agree though that for practical purposes that if you could get to one hit point and not be physically injured even once in your game that the argument applies in principle.

I think that it can apply assuming that only the last blow has been physical damage has been applied in practice. However, as I said, it's not something that I've commonly seen. I know that I do it as a way to illustrate highly skilled combatants, like master swordsmen.

However, even the group that I used to play with, who I actually introduced to RPGs and taught them to play, would usually (when they took their turns DM'ing) narrate some instances as being at least partly physical and some others as non-physical. I wouldn't say that it fit the DDN mold of the top half of HPs are non-physical while the bottom half are physical because when it was physical or not depended upon DM narration.

 

[DamageOnAHit]

It has been a little while since I last played because my last gaming group disbanded after the death of a member (to Leukemia) who was my best friend, and two other members moving away (they were his brothers and the family moved after his passing). Since then, because of the time constraints of my college classes and the fact that most people where I live engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing instead of gaming, I have been without a group to game with.

However, between the time of my friend's passing and the time his family moved the group did play 4e which, if I recall correctly did come out in 2008.

Edit: Just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around posters such as evil eye, pemerton, and yourself, who do not play 5th edition and yet spend a huge amount of time arguing about the rules. Evil eye in the other thread even said that he hates dungeons and dragons, that it "burns us", and yet wants an 11th hour lightning strike for his opinions to wipe out the two years that countless others including myself and my group has invested in giving feedback to 5th edition.

If you're not a playtester, or even playing D&D, or even a fan of D&D, why should anyone listen to you or take your opinions seriously?

 

[Obryn]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around posters such as evil eye, pemerton, and yourself, who do not play 5th edition and yet spend a huge amount of time arguing about the rules. Evil eye in the other thread even said that he hates dungeons and dragons, that it "burns us", and yet wants an 11th hour lightning strike for his opinions to wipe out the two years that countless others including myself and my group has invested in giving feedback to 5th edition.

If you're not a playtester, or even playing D&D, or even a fan of D&D, why should anyone listen to you or take your opinions seriously?

Does that make a
Difference
Now?
Frankly, there's no problem with getting
a
new perspective.