Why do we really need HP to represent things other than physical injuries?

[Hassassin]

It links healing to the person being healed, not just the healer.

Thus, (fixed) in the post you quoted. You can make CLW heal 10% of target's hit points or 25% or whatever. No need for either surges or wounds to do that.

I'm one of those some. However, it's not really that big a change from having a cleric heal you up in 3.x, in both cases you start all your fights at max HP, the difference is in what you run out of. (healing spells in 3.x, surges in 4e, ability to takes wounds under the wound system)

In low level 3e (and most levels of AD&D) that's not really the case, since going into fights with some damage is common. Anyway, the short term effect there is the opportunity cost of the Cleric's spells. He loses versatility in responding to coming challenges. Loss of surges (or wounds if they have no associated penalty) only kicks in at the end.

This is probably where some groups prefer one and some the other.

Temp HP have a lot of baggage, at least in 4e. They don't stack. They can take you above your max HP, and they're strictly temporary; losing THP doesn't actually fatigue you in any way.

Essentially, if a warlord could give enough THP to absorb the hits from a fight, the fight would have done absolutely nothing to the party's resources. Whereas with surges/wounds, every fight drains at least a small bit off their resilience.

Ok, so those issues could also be fixed. Make temp hp simpler (they are simple in 3e, I think). Make the Warlord's ability only work if the character became bloodied (that way there's always resource loss).

Alternatively, just remove in-combat healing (almost) completely. No need for the Warlord to shout anyone more hp, he can grant AC or attack bonuses instead, just like a Cleric. This is my favorite solution.

 

[Kingreaper]

Thus, (fixed) in the post you quoted. You can make CLW heal 10% of target's hit points or 25% or whatever. No need for either surges or wounds to do that.

I wasn't referring to linking it to their HP max; although that's also a good thing.

I meant it links it to their resources. Rather than the person who takes hits, then gets healed, using up the Cleric's resources, they're using up their own resources

In low level 3e (and most levels of AD&D) that's not really the case, since going into fights with some damage is common. Anyway, the short term effect there is the opportunity cost of the Cleric's spells. He loses versatility in responding to coming challenges. Loss of surges (or wounds if they have no associated penalty) only kicks in at the end.

This is probably where some groups prefer one and some the other.

Hmmm, I didn't really think of it like that, but you're right, the clerics ability to convert other, non-point based, resources to healing is actually a significant difference.

I don't think it's the main issue most people have, but it's certainly one worth looking at. Cheers

Ok, so those issues could also be fixed. Make temp hp simpler (they are simple in 3e, I think). Make the Warlord's ability only work if the character became bloodied (that way there's always resource loss).

Alternatively, just remove in-combat healing (almost) completely. No need for the Warlord to shout anyone more hp, he can grant AC or attack bonuses instead, just like a Cleric. This is my favorite solution.

I can't actually remember how THP work in 3e, they came up so rarely.
Having the warlord only heal while they're bloodied is an interesting solution.

Removing in-combat healing entirely is not something I'd like, although limiting it somewhat more than 4e did would probably be okay by me.


EDIT: Can't XP you, need to spread some around, but thank you for the productive responses

 

[Hussar]

I find it funny that the responses to my example are, "The player is playing possum" because, yeah, that happens ALL the time, or "Well, he maybe took cold damage earlier that somehow goes away despite the fact that he's stuck upside down in a freezer" LOL. How much do people really want to stretch things? Never minding of course, that you've had to get these results by actually ignoring the hp=physical damage thing and add in a second hit point track - non-lethal damage.

Sure, you can get the same results. It just requires you to stand on your head and squint REALLY hard, but, sure, you get the same results.

JamesonCourage, I'm not really sure how helpful it is to start bringing up your game into this conversation considering you're the only one who plays it. Sure, it's a great game and all, but, it's kinda like talking about how the 007 RPG handles wounding and how that's totally believable. Great and all, but, not too terribly enlightening on how D&D handles hit points.

Alternatively, just remove in-combat healing (almost) completely. No need for the Warlord to shout anyone more hp, he can grant AC or attack bonuses instead, just like a Cleric. This is my favorite solution.

This I could live with. Actually, to be honest, I'd get rid of healing almost entirely. A short rest restores all your hit points. You go into every combat with full hit points and, if you don't die, you are right as rain afterward. Fits with virtually every single genre work out there.

 

[Hassassin]

I meant it links it to their resources. Rather than the person who takes hits, then gets healed, using up the Cleric's resources, they're using up their own resources

Good point, I misunderstood. However, I'm not sure that's (purely) a good thing.

If healing uses up character resources, it means that there is a hard limit of one Cleric (or Warlord/whoever can heal). Having no Cleric is a Bad Thing, while having two is much less useful. If healing uses resources from a party pool of sorts, each healer makes the pool bigger.

It also may (mostly speculation here) result in a conflict between the individual and the party. If only one character is out of healing resources the party may still decide to push on, while if the party healer is out everyone is likely to support a retreat.

EDIT: Can't XP you, need to spread some around, but thank you for the productive responses

NP, and thank you. I have the same XP problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This I could live with. Actually, to be honest, I'd get rid of healing almost entirely. A short rest restores all your hit points. You go into every combat with full hit points and, if you don't die, you are right as rain afterward. Fits with virtually every single genre work out there.

I dont see how this works for every genre, and I really dont see it satisfying folks who didn't like healings surges.

 

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage, I'm not really sure how helpful it is to start bringing up your game into this conversation considering you're the only one who plays it. Sure, it's a great game and all, but, it's kinda like talking about how the 007 RPG handles wounding and how that's totally believable. Great and all, but, not too terribly enlightening on how D&D handles hit points.

Except you said that it won't work with HP representing physical wounds (what I replied to), here:

In LotR, when Frodo get's tagged by the Cave Troll (in the movie I'm talking about), you cannot do that scene with the HP=Physical Damage model.

HP in my game does represent physical wounds, and I have extensive experience with its development and actual execution. So, I feel as if it's particularly relevant to this discussion.

So, you said "it won't work this way," and I replied "in my experience with [anecdote], it can work this way." I don't see how you saying "but that's not relevant to D&D" is helpful, honestly. My point wasn't about it working in past D&D editions. My point was about the "HP=Physical Damage model" and it not working to represent that scene. And how, in turn, "HP=Physical Damage model" could be applied to D&D, theoretically (not that I think it will). As always, play what you like

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A couple of points about surges that might give someone an idea.

Surges consist of two parts, the surge value which is 1/4 of total hit points of the character, and number of surges per day, which is based on Con, class, and augmented by certain feats, abilities, etc. These work together in 4E, but there is no inherent reason why they cannot be used separately.

For example, if you want proportional healing, but not the surges per day, then you can still use the surge value to handle this easily--compared to figuring percentages every time healing happens. In such a system, the prompt for healing would still be potions, spells, etc., but the effectiveness of each bit of healing would be proportional to the characters' hit point total. You might want to use a smaller fraction than 1/4 for such a "healing value", since healing per day would no longer be limited by the character.

Surge value is a convenient way of handling proportional healing, and that is all it is.

Independent of the above, you can make number of surges more consequential in some kind of wound model by tying powerful abilities to the surges. This would presumably be done in some variant of renaming the surges as "heroic surges" or the like. Unchanged, this does introduce a bit of death spiral into the game, in that healing now takes away chances to do those powerful abilities. However, consider something like this below, where the two are mostly independent:

"Healing Value" - 1/5 of your hit points, represents the base healing that you get back from any heal or inspiration or anything else that effects hit points in the modules that you are currently using. There is no limit but access to these resources.

"Heroic Surge" - limited resource that you can use to activate key special abilities. Included in this list is the "Second Wind," which is the only common way that a character can "self heal", and can only be used once per fight (and still requiring a standard action).

Set the number of surges high enough that it consistently exceeds the expected number of fights per day, and having to "Second Wind" cuts down on other "heroic surge" use, but it not automatically crippling. Alternately, set "Heroic Surges" at an even greater number, but only allow them to recoup during full rest (i.e. not on an adventure, typically), and they become an operational resource. You can change them as much as you want, because most healing is independent.

Likewise, a warlord inspiring hit points back is something that you can swap in or out at preference. If you have a party where a warlord replaces the cleric, but your group doesn't like "warlord healing", then simply increase the supply of healiing magic like people have always done in a party without a cleric. Perhaps you let the warlord's inspiration do something else to compensate that player. But either way, this does not substantially affect the "heroic surge" economy, if you are otherwise happy with it.

BTW, this is an example of why "decoupling" in design provides flexibility in modules.

 

[billd91]

I find it funny that the responses to my example are, "The player is playing possum" because, yeah, that happens ALL the time, or "Well, he maybe took cold damage earlier that somehow goes away despite the fact that he's stuck upside down in a freezer" LOL. How much do people really want to stretch things? Never minding of course, that you've had to get these results by actually ignoring the hp=physical damage thing and add in a second hit point track - non-lethal damage.

Hey, you know you can address me directly rather than take a little passive aggressive swipe at me as the author of "the responses to my example". I can take it.

You've never seen a PC take a hit and realize he can't take another one? I have. They get pretty creative at staying out of the fight after that.

And you know what? Hanging upside down in a cave gets Luke out of the wind chill and in a somewhat closer area with a warm-blooded creature. On a planet like Hoth (notice the wind whipping around outside) those will both be a big deal. I would certainly consider the difference in effective temperature when dealing with cold dangers between being in shelter and being without.

And none of this is ignoring hp=physical damage. Nor do I consider a non-lethal damage track cheating since it is a part and parcel of the 3e system in general, I'd even say it's part of the 3e hit point system. It seems to me that it's pretty pointless to carve out an element of the 3e hit point system to say it's limited when you are avoiding looking at as a whole. Non-lethal damage, tracked by using hit points, is part of that system and is intended to fill a vital role.

That said, I don't hold that all hit point damage needs to be 100% physical damage. Never have. Rather, I see all hit point loss events as indicating some physical wearing down of the character (one reason I think some 4e bard's powers are so silly aside from very limited circumstances). It may be because of actual gashes, bruising, becoming increasingly tired from the energy expended to avoid the worst of all those attacks. I don't see hit point damage as being inseparable from having some physical effect that leaves the character more vulnerable to a sword thrust that lays him low. But though I don't see hit points and damage as being 100% physical, that doesn't mean I can't do some pretty flexible things with the 3e hit point system, the SWSE hit point system, or that I think healing surges are a good mechanic as implemented in 4e.

 

[Alzrius]

Hey, you know you can address me directly rather than take a little passive aggressive swipe at me as the author of "the responses to my example". I can take it.

EDIT: Removed for, upon reflection, being too snarky.

 

[Kingreaper]

If healing uses up character resources, it means that there is a hard limit of one Cleric (or Warlord/whoever can heal). Having no Cleric is a Bad Thing, while having two is much less useful. If healing uses resources from a party pool of sorts, each healer makes the pool bigger.

Yes and no. In 4e you get a lot of extra value from the first leader (having a healer makes your surges more efficient, although you can spend them with no leader) but the second one is still useful (even in hard fights you're sure to stay up if you have two leaders).

In a hypothetical system where surges/wounds where always worth the same amount, whether or not a healer was present, there'd be a lot less diminishing returns.

However, I do feel that having Healers bring extra resources to the pool is good.
I like the idea of combining surges/wounds with surgeless healing/healing of wounds that's only available through daily powers of healers: ie. combining the two resource systems.

If you want a fuller explanation, go here: by the definitions in that thread my preference is 3C, with somewhat more A than was in 4e.
(yes, I spend a lot of time thinking about HP and healing )

It also may (mostly speculation here) result in a conflict between the individual and the party. If only one character is out of healing resources the party may still decide to push on, while if the party healer is out everyone is likely to support a retreat.

I don't think that's a common problem. Much like with earlier editions where, when the wizard runs out, you're likely to go back, having one character out of surges is likely to result in camping down, or finding some way to replenish that character.

But I can see how it could become a problem in the wrong circumstances.