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: 6088410" data-attributes="member: 2067">The point you're missing here is the subjectivity of a game mechanic.At Bob's table, he can insist that hit points are narrative. At Alice's table, she can insist that hit points are meat. To serve both of their tables, WotC needs to design mechanics that work in both situations. WotC can also design mechanics that work in only one or the other situation, but these mechanics should not be inflexible elements of a thing, because that would limit the reach of the mechanic (and the associated game element). A mechanic that depended on all HP being meat wouldn't fly at Bob's table, for instance, so the design for a class that, say, grew more powerful as blood coated it might not want to use a mechanic of escalating damage as their HP went down (or, at least, it might want to provide a few other options for how that mechanic works in a game with more narrative HP's...perhaps less of a scale, and more of a switch...). I was under the impression we already agreed that inspirational healing is fine as long as it is not hard-coded, which is probably a decent solution here. This is just me explaining some of the reason why you might not be able to tell what the designers are thinking just from their HP rules, or whether or not there is inspirational healing -- why you might not want to use inspirational healing as a litmus test for the whole play experience (of course, if you still do, like I said, everyone's got their thing). Currently, the playtest shows them explicitly defining HP as primarily narrative, but they also have no inspirational healing at the moment. It doesn't seem like that's putting your mind at ease, despite the explicit view of HP in the game being apparently in line with what you already would like it to be.</blockquote>

Verification