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: 6146862" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think the article I linked to mentioned a gritty injury module, which sounds like this. Which is keen. But certainly not required for HP to be meaty. Part of what's cool about 5e to me is the idea that people who find my style repellent can still have fun in their own way with the thing. I think this is cool because I'm under no real delusions that my preferences will hold over time, so it'll be awesome to be able to play 5e in different modes myself when I'm feeling less like The Last of Us is really cool. Nah, I just think some of the people who insist on a warlord class or feel that 4e is being disrespected and abandoned are getting hung up on terminology and presentation. Kind of like my buddy who decries 5e because it doesn't have a wizard that can run out of spells -- because he might have to use a magic module to get his swingy magic, 5e is obviously just some insincere attempt to win over the OSR crowd to him. I'm pretty sure he's working himself into a mild tizzy over something that won't ever really be a big concern for him in actual play, but he doesn't trust the designers, so he can't really believe that.I think 5e would be smart to embrace a light touch. The needs of a "classic, simple D&D" as the basic rules will be mean that HP doesn't need to be very solidly defined -- the healing is rest and from the cleric. How much is meat and how much is skill or whatever is fairly open -- mearls's definition of hit points upthread is probably just enough. On top of that simple, classic D&D basic rules chassis, you can go grittier and meatier (long-term injury modules) and you can go lighter and more meta (heroic fast-healing modules, non-magical healing modules). Because this is more of a table-wide decision, involving the "genre" of the game, and less of a relevant choice for any individual player to declare, a class is not the most appropriate place to put this decision point. The problem with this thesis is that it assumes there's some inherent problem with my style objectively -- that it is an impossible style. That I cannot have meaty HP and simultaneously not care about fast off-screen healing, because I cannot possibly have an enjoyable and internally consistent world where I don't model broken bones precisely but also have them regularly. That if I use meaty HP but don't have some gritty wound-sim or extended "realistic" convalescence, that I'm doing it wrong.That assumption is incorrect, and because of that, it forces a false choice between "you must have rules that account for detailed long-term injury!" and "you must use metafictional HP!"It's possible to use meaty HP and not use rules that account for detailed long-term injury and everybody has a fun time playing their big dang awesome heroes who recover from third-degree burns in a few days. It's less possible to use meaty HP and inspirational spike healing, because while injuries can disappear with some days'/weeks'/months' rest offscreen and no one cares, if those same injuries disappear because someone inspires you on the battlefield, that's not gonna work as well. But the mearls's definition of HP work fine with a 5e's day-or-two recovery period, for instance. I don't see any inherent contradiction there (though I personally prefer the recovery period to be significantly longer...yay downtime mechanics!).</blockquote>

Verification