Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5828385" data-attributes="member: 17106">I voted yes, which is probably an overstatement, but it is a big issue.The definition and implementation of a health system impacts all kinds of things. The level of lethality affects balance between classes. The level of attrition ("death spiral") affects campaign balance. Healing is affected, including whether healing magic is "necessary" and whether healing surges are "appropriate". Most combat-related rules are affected by how hp are defined and implemented.Hit points have become to be treated more and more like a metagame resource, and less and less like an abstraction of health and injury. This is a bad thing.It follows to me that it's really hard to improve any of those aspects of the game that involve hp without making a clear and consistent definition of what it means to be hurt, and to have mechanics that support that.***To be fair, 3e does not fit my idea of a hit point system, but using UA and my own inspiration I have solved some of its issues. I would not play 3e with the hit point system as it is written. Of course, since I have my houserules, this is not a choice I have to make; so I'm sort of in the "I don't care" camp as well.If a 5e were really fantastic, I might buy it and port in some of my health stuff, but I have a hard time imagining it being fantastic without a better conception of health and injury underlying all the other rules and having more explicit options to reflect the variety of individual preferences and playstyles.</blockquote>

Verification