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

[Ratskinner]

I having been "fixing" my problems with hit points (as a general system) for 20+ years now (Great Gygax, I just did the math and realized that's actually 30+ for a while now ). I can't see how it would bother me if the latest incarnation still had them.

 

[SageMinerve]

I find it a little ironic that the vast majority seems to not be bothered by the HP definition, yet a lot of those same people are up-in-arms regarding 4th edition "non-magic" healing, the bloodied condition and Second Wind.

IMO, either you don't care about HP being an abstraction (as it is now) and so shouldn't be bothered by the above health-related mechanics, or you would prefer a more "realistic" health tracking system. One or the other.

And for those who know about it, I really like how the new "The One Ring" game has dealt with that very topic. Their solution would be very easy to bring over in D&D.

 

[Arlough]

On topic, but slightly broader....
It seems to me that HP and Healing Surges (and Psionics, etc) are mostly a problem with nominclature. If they had instead been called energy or fatigue, and vitality or reserves (and chi or chakra, etc.), I believe they would be more readily accepted.
We just have to remember that, at the end of the day, this is our game. We can do with it as we please.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find it a little ironic that the vast majority seems to not be bothered by the HP definition, yet a lot of those same people are up-in-arms regarding 4th edition "non-magic" healing, the bloodied condition and Second Wind.

IMO, either you don't care about HP being an abstraction (as it is now) and so shouldn't be bothered by the above health-related mechanics, or you would prefer a more "realistic" health tracking system. One or the other.

I think the poll hasn't quite nailed the issue. Obviously, healing has been a significant point of contention.

I don't think it's the "abstractness" of hit points that is the problem, it's what they're abstracting. Hit points as a representation of physical resistance to assault and trauma is one thing (and given how complex the human body is, this is a really abstract take on it). Hit points as a combination of health, luck, skill, stamina, are something different. Hit points as a form of currency in gameplay are something different. There are plenty of people who were perfectly fine with the first take (the early editions and their abstract but gritty and unforgiving hp system) as compared to the later editions, which had gotten progressively more broad in their scope of hit points, and generous in their implementation even before the 4e paradigm shift.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

While I will end up playing 5e no matter what definition they use, I think for a large cross section of gamer it most definitely does matter, IMO. If you don't like warlords who heal by shouting, then I can't see how you could like hps being defined as fighting spirit or morale (things which a shout of encouragement from a charismatic speaker could restore). I think 5e has to be extremely clear as to what hps represent and has to clearly explain how the various forms of healing work.

 

[boredgremlin]

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.

 

[billd91]

I find it a little ironic that the vast majority seems to not be bothered by the HP definition, yet a lot of those same people are up-in-arms regarding 4th edition "non-magic" healing, the bloodied condition and Second Wind.

IMO, either you don't care about HP being an abstraction (as it is now) and so shouldn't be bothered by the above health-related mechanics, or you would prefer a more "realistic" health tracking system. One or the other.

They're not the same issue. I like abstract hit points, not too keen on the warlord shouting anyone healthy.

 

[SageMinerve]

They're not the same issue. I like abstract hit points, not too keen on the warlord shouting anyone healthy.

When I was talking about HP being an abstraction, I was referring specifically to the fact that it's not only a representation of a PC's actual health, but also of luck, skill, stamina, etc., as has been mentionned numerous times. Sorry if I wasn't clear aout that in my post.

If your preference is an abstract HP system that only represents physical health, than it's perfectly logical to not want a warlord-like mechanic for healing.

But if HP also represents other, non health factors, than I don't see what the problem is with non magical healing.

 

[billd91]

When I was talking about HP being an abstraction, I was referring specifically to the fact that it's not only a representation of a PC's actual health, but also of luck, skill, stamina, etc., as has been mentionned numerous times. Sorry if I wasn't clear aout that in my post.

If your preference is an abstract HP system that only represents physical health, than it's perfectly logical to not want a warlord-like mechanic for healing.

But if HP also represents other, non health factors, than I don't see what the problem is with non magical healing.

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

 

[CleverNickName]

I think the poll hasn't quite nailed the issue. Obviously, healing has been a significant point of contention.

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.