Bedrockgames said: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?
AngryMojo said: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.