This doesn't answer Jameson's question, though (which I thought was a perfectly reasonable one) - it's an attempt to undercut the validity of the question in the first place.
I think that performing triage during a battle is entirely reasonable, particularly if you've got limited healing resources (to say nothing of enemies that are still an immediate threat). There's nothing "silly" about it.
I apologize if it seemed that I was being dismissive of [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] 's question. That wasn't my intent. What I was trying to point out was that in a game where a heal check can be made in 6 seconds, spending an action to examine someone's wound is wasteful. It's a D&Dism that you can stabilize someone in less time than it might take to examine them in the real world.
I mean, zero hp means that that character is potentially in a lot of trouble. In 3e, it meant you'd probably die in 6-54 seconds, with that time being quite predictable. In 4e, it means you could die in 18-??? seconds, with 30 seconds being around the average time. Real world triage deals with wounds that can take anywhere from minutes to even days to kill. You can't really relate real world triage to D&D, because virtually everyone will either stabilize or die on their own in less than a minute. This, in turn, leads to the 6 second heal check. It's pointless to make a heal check take 5 minutes if your patient is going to be dead inside a minute. Even if you make it temporarily stabilize the target while attempting the check, no one wants to spend 50 rounds during combat stabilizing someone. The opportunity cost wouldn't be balanced.
As such, I don't think that battlefield triage makes much sense in D&D. If a character is unconscious, you already know he's in danger of dying (unless knocked unconscious by subdual). The degree of difference between two dying character is literally a few seconds. You show me a real world doctor who can say, "That guy's probably gonna die in 12 seconds, but this guy is good for at least 30 seconds" and I'll do a 180 on my opinion. That's what D&D triage would be like, and as it stands, that is even more unrealistic (IMO) than the 6 second heal check. At least there I can describe the healer as hastily wrapping a bandage around the victim's cut.
Which is why I say that the issue is with the death and dying rules. If, for example, you had every character make a check upon being reduced to 0 hp, the result of which determined the frequency you have to make further death saves, this issue would disappear.
For example (roll a 1d6 upon being reduced to 0 hp):
Roll-Result
1-Instant death
2-Death save every round
3-Death save every minute
4-Death save every hour
5-Death save every 12 hours
6-Death save every 24 hours
That's really not a proposed system, just a rough sketch of what one could look like. A real system might want to factor in Con modifier, how deep into negative hp you are, and whatnot. However, I want to point out that you could easily use this with 3e or 4e hp, and allow healers to examine their patients with ease, in order to determine how much time they have. Someone who rolls a 4 is quite clearly less critically injured than someone who rolls a 2. Problem solved although, admittedly, it might create new ones.
I strongly disagree.
I think you could get a good idea. You used a bruise in your example. Is there a ton of blood obvious? Does he look stunned, or does he look completely unconscious? Because if I'm a Warlord, I'm going to being yelling at someone who is merely dazed, not someone who is out cold. And as a Cleric, I'm rushing to heal someone who is unconscious, not merely dazed.
And, if you can make that Heal check in 6 seconds to heal him, why not assess him?
How do they help in 6 seconds normally? Why allow one to treat a wound as a use of Heal and not merely assess the wound, when assessing the wound is probably the first step in treating it?
So, I can tell if someone is bleeding out in front of me, then? Because that's a large step away from the Schrodinger's wounds issue noted above. I know that the guy needs help or he'll die.
Not if he's merely stunned (bruised and dazed). I'd like to know the difference in combat, so I can tell my players when they ask. If they're merely dazed and stunned, combat rages on because he'll be fine. If he's bleeding out, he'll get help.
Unfortunately, that question seems hard to answer, because it hasn't been decided yet (death saving throws haven't resolved yet). Thus my question to you about ways to resolve the Schrodinger's wounds issue.
I address some of these, above, in my response to Alzrius.
As to whether the character is unconscious or dazed, I don't think it really matters. A character who seems unconscious might be struggling at the edge of consciousness. At zero hp, you're never just stunned. That's why stunned is a separate condition.
Besides, if it really bothers people that much, the warlord's heal could be revised to being unable to affect unconscious targets. Problem solved. Clerics get to keep their edge as the best healers because they can bring a target back to consciousness. Warlords, on the other hand, have to keep their allies above zero. There are a lot of possibilities to work with. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater (which is what I think they'll be doing if they get rid of non-physical damage).
ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: In order to counterbalance the warlord's lack of healing for unconscious targets, perhaps allow him a unique ability to heal creatures more than a 100%. In other words, a warlord could heal their target to roughly 125% of their total hp. (The extra hp vanish after the encounter.) In this way, magical and non-magical healers are distinctive. Clerics wait for creatures to go unconscious before healing them, while warlords heal as soon as they can identify which targets will likely suffer the most damage (because this way he minimizes the risk that those targets will become unconscious). Reactive v. proactive. Each has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other.
Agreed, but it pops up somewhat in other areas. For example, if I get hit by a goblin, is that HP? Did I lose HP by fatiguing myself during the dodge? Am I bleeding, or battered? We need to make sure that whatever we go with, both Cure Light Wounds and the Warlord can heal me.
As I've stated before, describe it however you like. The idea of fluid hp is that you don't need to necessarily refill your "hp tank" to the same mixture of hp as you started with. You might start the day with 50% meat and 50% bluster, but end the day with 25% meat and 75% bluster. Are you injured? Sure you are! But the warlord's used his motivational tricks to make it so that you don't really notice it. After all, whining about a couple little booboos would be unmanly, and you want to make Sarge proud.
Yeah... I have quite a few issues with the current implementation, if that's correct (I read the linked thread). Thanks for pointing that out, though. As always, play what you like
No prob.
