What is a Wound? An attempt to bridge the divide.

[I'm A Banana]

The point is both are optional. There is no base system. It makes no assumptions about how most groups will heal instead (for lack of better terms) offers pre-4e style healing (long natural heals, no non magical healing) and 4e style healing (one day heals, HD or healing surges). This way neither side feels stepped on. It is a somewhat clumsy solution but it seems like the only one that wont result in year of debate. That way, both you and pemerton can run games you like.

Okay, I'll bite.

How do you do this? How do you talk about rests? How do you talk about healing magic? What do you do for the Warlord class? What about the rules for death and dying?

I think this winds up being the main problem with designing a "big tent" type game. No matter what you call the core, you alienate people. Canonizing the abstract HP with everything that can reduce your longevity in combat called "damage" while everything that prolongs it is "healing" turns off people who prefer the approach of "damage is always some sort of physical wound, no matter how small." At the same time, removing the concept of morale-healing (I greatly prefer this term to "shout healing" as it's far less derisive towards a given style of play) and having the more straightforward HP as physical wounds at all time approach being the core you turn off the people who prefer the abstract.

I don't get how "If you prefer a more cinematic experience, you can allow the party to take a short rest at the end of each encounter, an extended rest at the end of each day, and use the following "Inspirational Healer" theme (which includes inspirational hp recovery)" wouldn't be enough for people who like it.

Meanwhile, if the game is built with those assumptions, it's going to turn off a lot of people who DON'T like it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The point is both are optional. There is no base system. It makes no assumptions about how most groups will heal instead (for lack of better terms) offers pre-4e style healing (long natural heals, no non magical healing) and 4e style healing (one day heals, HD or healing surges). This way neither side feels stepped on. It is a somewhat clumsy solution but it seems like the only one that wont result in year of debate. That way, both you and pemerton can run games you like.

The problem lies in adventure modules. A module will play different depending on the type of healing used. It simply can't support both styles. A module based on the assumption that characters will have access to hit die healing surges and healing overnight to full will have tougher encounters than one with AD&D style healing. Parties without access to those resources will struggle. The inverse will make it a cakewalk for parties with 5es current healing rules. I don't see any way to reconcile the two without a whole lot of modification by the dm.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, I'll bite.

How do you do this? How do you talk about rests? How do you talk about healing magic? What do you do for the Warlord class? What about the rules for death and dying?
.

You talk about these things in each of the optional entries. Each entry covers hp allotment, natural healing rates, healing methods. dying, death can easily fit smoothly with one method on top of any of these.

Warlord should be a optional class since it is built around martial healing and only useable if you are taking te option with hd or healing surges.

Mind you, my preference is to have old fashioned hp and slow healing as default. But it is becoming clear neither side will budge. We either have two-three solid options to choose from or we get stuck with a mushy middle default. Mushy middle can work for other parts of the game. But here people are too divided.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The problem lies in adventure modules. A module will play different with both types of healing. It simply can't support both styles. A module based on the assumption that characters will have access to hit die healing surges and healing overnight to full will have tougher encounters than one with AD&D style healing. Parties without access to those resources will struggle. The inverse will make it a cakewalk for parties with 5es current healing rules. I don't see any way to reconcile the two without a whole lot of modification by the dm.

This is going to be a problem no matter what though. They have already commited to the modular design approach. Tis is going to be the biggest problem they face when putting out adventures and setting material.

But the problem of making modules more or less challenging is probably the easiest to solve. All they have to do is for each encounter offer alternate numbers of foes or more/less encounters depending on the healing method chosen (or weaker foes). We already know half the base will ignore the HD mechanic and half will use it anyways, so even if they dont have two official approaches, there will in practice and this will be a problem when Gms try to run modules.

 

[AngryMojo]

Meanwhile, if the game is built with those assumptions, it's going to turn off a lot of people who DON'T like it.

Which is where you face the problem that it's just as easy to make a module for a grittier system, there's a group out there where the HP as wounds is just as much a non-starter for those who want a cinematic experience. In short, your statement can be applied to either camp with equal result.

In the true compromise, the extremists on both ends will walk away unhappy. There is no base assumption, only modular ones. No rest mechanics are given as the core, instead placing two basic modules in front of you right from the start: are you looking for cinematic or gritty? If you're going cinematic, full HP after a long rest. If you're going gritty, recover your hit dice after a long rest, but that's it. Or however they choose to design it. By having a DM choose the style at the very beginning, no default assumptions are required.

A default assumption either way can alienate people. If the goal is to prevent alienation, minimize the default assumptions made. I'm sure there are people who believe in the cinematic style so much that they won't play the game if it's not in there. And there are also the hardliners who are so wrapped up in that particular mode of play that the game holds no appeal to them unless their method of thinking is core.

Saying "If you prefer a more cinematic experience, you can allow the party to take a short rest at the end of each encounter, an extended rest at the end of each day, and use the following "Inspirational Healer" theme" is just as valid as "If you prefer a gritter experience, only allow hit dice to be returned during an extended rest rather than hit points. Don't allow the Inspirational Healer theme." Both are equally easy to say, both effect the game in roughly equivalent ways. Having either of them as core is a non-starter to people.

If one needs to be core, the proper determination can only be made after serious research as to which appeals most to the customer base. With the playtest I think WotC is getting real, codified data on this regard, and it's very possible we'll see an assumption in the core.

This is going to be a problem no matter what though. They have already commited to the modular design approach. Tis is going to be the biggest problem they face when putting out adventures and setting material.

I think it's possible, it'll just require some rather creative adventure design. If nothing else, having DM's choose the baseline assumptions as either "cinematic" or "gritty" and explaining how they'll change the module should nip many of the problems in the bud. Go ahead and put it in the beginning of the adventure, similar to the sections on how to run it in different settings or at different levels.

 

[HeinorNY]

If you start with Schrodinger's HP via shouty-healing and full overnight rests, you automagically alienate a lot of people who can't accept it. If you allow people to add it, those who like the gameplay elements it opens up can get into that without making those who can't accept it find another game.

You won't have Schrodinger's HP at all with shouty-healings and full overnight rests, or any other non-magical healing, if you disassociate damage from wound.
HP loss represents damage, not wounds.
HP gain represents the mitigation of damage, not the undoing of injuries.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You won't have Schrodinger's HP at all with shouty-healings and full overnight rests, or any other non-magical healing, if you disassociate damage from wound.
HP loss represents damage, not wounds.
HP gain represents the mitigation of damage, not the undoing of injuries.

We understand that, but that isn't how we want to interpet HP loss. Obviously none of this is a problem if you begin with the assumption that HP damage doesn't represent physical harm to your character. But lots of us see it as being linked to physical harm. I want the mechanics to work for me, rather than being forced to work for the mechanics.

 

[Dragoslav]

I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet.

What do you do with psychic damage? How does psychic damage play into all of this?

Mechanically, psychic damage works just like any other type of damage, but it doesn't make any sense. Psychic damage takes you to 0 HP, you fall on the ground and start bleeding out the same way as if a sword goes through your gut.

It certainly doesn't work with the HP as physical damage assumption. If you take only psychic damage in a battle and go unconscious, why do have to wait the same amount of time for natural healing of wounds? Not all psychic damage is brutal mental invasion by mind flayers; a lot of psychic attacks are fear-based or just something like "You feel really crappy about yourself. Take 1d6 psychic damage." It shouldn't be able to kill you, but it can.

So what, we eliminate anything that does psychic damage? Psychic damage can't be lethal?

You could say, "Maybe you need a week to recover from the depression or the unspeakable nightmares that gave you the psychic damage." But then you're acknowledging that HP isn't necessarily physical damage, and that resting/healing doesn't necessarily involve the mending of wounds but also the recovery of morale or fighting spirit.

And I haven't even touched on the lunacy of healing psychic damage with a "cure light wounds" or healing potion.

You have to completely rework the HP mechanics to get psychic damage to make sense. But why bother? Here's all we need for the core: A successful attack reduces your HP. Healing makes you recover it. All of the blank spaces in between can be filled by one of several options available from day one.

 

[HeinorNY]

We understand that, but that isn't how we want to interpet HP loss. Obviously none of this is a problem if you begin with the assumption that HP damage doesn't represent physical harm to your character. But lots of us see it as being linked to physical harm. I want the mechanics to work for me, rather than being forced to work for the mechanics.

Ok. Well, I do interpret that all damage is caused exclusively by some physical harm, but not all damage is a physical harm.
I think the combat system feels a little more "realistic" that way, and also easier to handle.

 

[Herschel]

I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet.

What do you do with psychic damage? How does psychic damage play into all of this?

Mechanically, psychic damage works just like any other type of damage, but it doesn't make any sense. Psychic damage takes you to 0 HP, you fall on the ground and start bleeding out the same way as if a sword goes through your gut.

It certainly doesn't work with the HP as physical damage assumption. If you take only psychic damage in a battle and go unconscious, why do have to wait the same amount of time for natural healing of wounds? Not all psychic damage is brutal mental invasion by mind flayers; a lot of psychic attacks are fear-based or just something like "You feel really crappy about yourself. Take 1d6 psychic damage." It shouldn't be able to kill you, but it can.

So what, we eliminate anything that does psychic damage? Psychic damage can't be lethal?

You could say, "Maybe you need a week to recover from the depression or the unspeakable nightmares that gave you the psychic damage." But then you're acknowledging that HP isn't necessarily physical damage, and that resting/healing doesn't necessarily involve the mending of wounds but also the recovery of morale or fighting spirit.

And I haven't even touched on the lunacy of healing psychic damage with a "cure light wounds" or healing potion.

You have to completely rework the HP mechanics to get psychic damage to make sense. But why bother? Here's all we need for the core: A successful attack reduces your HP. Healing makes you recover it. All of the blank spaces in between can be filled by one of several options available from day one.

It's just another example in the long line of why HP =/= wounds.