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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6088400" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's not about what the designers think, though, it's about what individual tables want.Not everybody wants HP's to be 90% luck/divine favor/plot armor/whatever. 5e currently defines it that way, but it's not going to be something that everyone who enjoys a less narrative or more realistic game, and who have been narrating HP just fine as actual wounds (if not always grievous, life-threatening wounds) for 30+ years is just going to automatically accept as true. So the definition of hit points needs to be flexible. Different tables are going to define them and use them differently. One possible definition of hit points must include that they are mostly meat, and the things that a Warlord does needs to be able to work in that context, too. If regaining HP means erasing wounds, then inspirational healing at that table is a non-starter, and that has to be a valid way to play the game. It doesn't have to be the only valid way to play the game, but it needs to be one of the ways that it is possible to play the game, because that's how a lot of people are going to use them, and no amount of WotC inveighing that they shouldn't be or quoting 1e about how they never actually were is going to stop people from narrating a hit with a sword as an actual hit with a sword. Which is why a warlord that has that mechanic hard-coded into it is going to be problematic.Now, as one option among many (even a default option, given 5e's definition of hit points!), it's not a big deal. But if all tables must view HP all in the same way, that's gonna be a problem for WotC, because clearly, that's not how their game is actually played.</blockquote>

Verification