The Definition of Hit Points--is it really a deal-breaker?

[DEFCON 1]

I think 2e got the HP right. Somewhat heroic but still gritty enough to represent actual cuts, bruises, etc.

I dont know how many times I've described a hit as something like " you get your sword up to block most of the force of the blow but still take a hard shot to your helmet. Your ears are ringing, everything's a little blurry but your still in the fight. Your turn. "

You have to have a certain grittyness to HP for that feel right IMO. Otherwise its all, "you duck and it whistles by, again" which to me sounds just silly for something that clearly was a HIT according to the dice.

Thats my HP 2 cents anyway.

That's just a valid way of looking at things as any.

But the issue here is that there are quite a number of people here who agree with you on this... and therefore want (nay demand) that those concepts which go against this way of thinking, get shunted to a "rules module", or worse yet, removed completely from the game. Because they don't like warlords healing people without using magic, they think they shouldn't exist in the game at all because it "breaks immersion".

Look... I'm all for looking at hit points in whatever crazy-assed format you want... but I refuse to accept that some completely valid interpretations get removed from the game just because some people have a problem with it. There's absolutely no reason why you can't have both, have both be completely equal and valid options to each other, and just not use the parts you don't like.

This is why I advocate hit points being just hit points. A game mechanic. Something you can fluff in whatever manner you well please. And not force either side to have to 'concede'.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, the poll is performing nicely. If I could change anything about it, I would rephrase the second option to "No. The definition of hit points will not affect my decision to buy/play the 5th Edition." But aside from that, the poll is just how I like it. It tells me two things:

1. The people who are concerned about this issue are a vocal minority. Of the small percentage of gamers who follow this forum, only a small number of them read this thread. And among that few, even fewer bothered to vote. And of that tiny number, less than 10% say it would be a deal-breaker for them.

2. With rare exception...if given a choice between Option A, Option B, and Anything Else, at least half of all people polled will vote Anything Else.

Pass the lemon curry, please.

I see the results and they're interesting.

When I say "haven't really nailed it", I mean that there are likely quite a few people who would consider the consequences of hp definition (healing surges being only one example) as potential dealbreakers, which is the discussion above. I bet there are more than 10% of people who would answer yes if the poll were about healing surges (or warlords, or clerical healing, etc.).

 

[tuxgeo]

Again, they're different issues. Liking 4e's take on non-magical hit point recovery does not follow from liking abstract hit points.

(Emphasis on operative word "recovery" added.)

As long as the regaining of hit points is considered to be "recovery" and not "healing," I think non-magical hit-point recovery can be acceptable.

As long as hit-point loss doesn't have to represent anything (i.e. as long as the entire history of D&D), then martial hit-point loss can be reversed by martial hit-point recovery. (You don't have to attribute any of the lost hit points as being due to physical damage, after all.)

Along the same lines, if we call the surges "recovery surges" instead of "healing surges," that should eliminate another bone of contention.
(Of course, then the habitual contenders will find something else to contend about. . . .)

 

[boredgremlin]

That's just a valid way of looking at things as any.

But the issue here is that there are quite a number of people here who agree with you on this... and therefore want (nay demand) that those concepts which go against this way of thinking, get shunted to a "rules module", or worse yet, removed completely from the game. Because they don't like warlords healing people without using magic, they think they shouldn't exist in the game at all because it "breaks immersion".

Look... I'm all for looking at hit points in whatever crazy-assed format you want... but I refuse to accept that some completely valid interpretations get removed from the game just because some people have a problem with it. There's absolutely no reason why you can't have both, have both be completely equal and valid options to each other, and just not use the parts you don't like.

This is why I advocate hit points being just hit points. A game mechanic. Something you can fluff in whatever manner you well please. And not force either side to have to 'concede'.

Well Warlords suck for a lot of reasons but the healing option isnt high on my list of why.

I think the problem for a lot of us is that we dont like game mechanics that exist SOLELY to be a game mechanic. To a lot of us every rule in the game needs to either add to the flavor of dramatic storytelling adventure or not exist at all.

The idea of something thats there just to be there because its a game just doesnt sit right with us. To me the game should be modeled on collaborative, dramatic, storytelling adventure and tactical wargame rules like totally abstract HP should be an add on for people who want play that way.

I can see the gamist aspect, I like tactical games. I happen to think there are better ones then D&D to scratch that itch but theres nothing wrong with a good tactical fight in D&D. That shouldnt be the focus though.

I think thats where the 2 camps diverge.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Actually, the poll is performing nicely. If I could change anything about it, I would rephrase the second option to "No. The definition of hit points will not affect my decision to buy/play the 5th Edition." But aside from that, the poll is just how I like it. It tells me two things:

1. The people who are concerned about this issue are a vocal minority. Of the small percentage of gamers who follow this forum, only a small number of them read this thread. And among that few, even fewer bothered to vote. And of that tiny number, less than 10% say it would be a deal-breaker for them.

2. With rare exception...if given a choice between Option A, Option B, and Anything Else, at least half of all people polled will vote Anything Else.

Pass the lemon curry, please.

I like your poll & agree with your assessments. I do suggest you repost the poll, with you changes, after the "open play test" begins. Just to see if anything changes.

 

[CleverNickName]

I like your poll & agree with your assessments. I do suggest you repost the poll, with you changes, after the "open play test" begins. Just to see if anything changes.

I may do that. Judging from this poll, I doubt that 5E will try to change the definition very much...they stand very little to gain, and a lot to lose.

Still, it would be interesting to see how everyone else's opinions change over time. I know mine has.

 

[Dausuul]

(Emphasis on operative word "recovery" added.)

As long as the regaining of hit points is considered to be "recovery" and not "healing," I think non-magical hit-point recovery can be acceptable.

As long as hit-point loss doesn't have to represent anything (i.e. as long as the entire history of D&D), then martial hit-point loss can be reversed by martial hit-point recovery. (You don't have to attribute any of the lost hit points as being due to physical damage, after all.)

Along the same lines, if we call the surges "recovery surges" instead of "healing surges," that should eliminate another bone of contention.
(Of course, then the habitual contenders will find something else to contend about. . . .)

Fix the terminology and probably seventy percent of my beef with the 4E hit point system goes away. Add long-term consequences for going to zero hit points, such that you can't just bounce back to your feet next round and be 100% operational after five minutes' rest, and that brings it up to ninety-five. The remaining five percent mostly deals with hypothetical corner cases rather than actual gameplay, and I'm not going to fuss about it.

 

[El Mahdi]

Fix the terminology and probably seventy percent of my beef with the 4E hit point system goes away. Add long-term consequences for going to zero hit points, such that you can't just bounce back to your feet next round and be 100% operational after five minutes' rest, and that brings it up to ninety-five. The remaining five percent mostly deals with hypothetical corner cases rather than actual gameplay, and I'm not going to fuss about it.

Would you be cool with those aspects being part of modules and not part of the core?

 

[Libramarian]

I will buy the books regardless.

But if I see % of HP mechanics I will be disgruntled.

Disgruntled I say!

Which will lead me to be less effusive in my praise on and off line.

There's some lost value there.

 

[Dausuul]

Would you be cool with those aspects being part of modules and not part of the core?

I'm not sure how you make terminology fixes part of a module. As for the penalties for going to zero--sure, that's fine as an optional rule, although I hope the option is in the PHB.