Where D&D differs from a more cinematic game is virtually everyone else has varying degrees of hero points in that form as well. If it were pure cinematic. It would probably reserve HP over 8-12 for major villains and npcs.
In 4e, this is achieved via the minions monster type.
if I were going to make D&D Cinematic edition I would probably emphasize HP as hero points (allowing you to spend them for tremendous feats and avoidance as well).
In 4e, this is achieved via combination of healing surges - hit point reserves that require actions to unlock - and encounter and daily powers - output spikes that require attention to resource management to use effectively, and that straddle a whole range of output metrics: damage, conditions, buffs, moves, action economy advantages, etc.
That's the advantage of doing it via powers rather than just hero points: you can increase the sophistication of the range of options without having to perfectly balance every option across every other one, because the power system puts a natural brake on spamming. (Psionics is different in this respect, and is a known source of issues in 4e.)
I would keep the HP scaling for pcs but drastically lower HP for most npcs and creatures (with exceptions for major npcs and threats who would come in a few varieties 1/4 HP, 1/2 and full ---others would just have one HP).
In 4e, this is achived via minion, standard, elite and solo monster types.
Seriously, the version of D&D with "bennies" and "hero points" to support cinematic action has been designed and is currently on sale!
If the PCs have say 4x the HP of the average monster, then in encounter one of the day they'll be in no danger at all, where the 4e PCs CAN certainly go down (and do often IME). Obviously HP will be a valuable resource and would dwindle as the day goes by and you'd be forced into management choices between using a 'hero point' and being able to keep taking damage, etc. The day would be more like one big 4e encounter though.
Frankly I think this is almost what Mike is thinking about when he talks about DDN adventures being "just built of a number of rounds" vs built up out of encounters. However DDN oddly lacks the key machinery, large hit point pools with HP used as a resource, or a hero point system that deflects blows, or something. In theory if you have a limiting resource like that and powers that (mostly) tap into that pool then you could do a fairly cinematic game, but it will feel VERY different from D&D. The PCs will start out plot armored to the gills and only towards the end of the 'day' (which could be one big encounter) will they start to feel worn down and really threatened.
I agree with your other post that this could have a bit of an AD&D vibe. I'm not sure the pacing is great from the cinematic point of view, though, because there's no crisis followed by resolution - it's just a straight line of escalation.
Second Wind contributes to emotional investment?....that seems a bit of stretch to me.
On it's own, no. But as part of a suite of features - player resources, action resolution mecahnics etc, that mean that combat brings the pressure up to the players and requires them to make active choices in order to respond and survive? In my view, yes. (It's "step on up" but strongly mediated through the PC archetype, thus satisfying other RPG sensibilities too. For me, that's part of the cleverness of 4e's design, and something that would be lost if you just went to AD&D or 3E plus hero points.)
These tweets were supposed to be evidence of anti-4E bias
Says who?
In post 99 upthread I said that "the reason
why D&Dnext has assymetric classes and a lack of mechanical enforcement of the adventuring day is obvious: it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e."
You queried this in post 118, describing it as "a massive assumption. . . backed up with absolutely no evidence".
In post 125 I replied that "the decision [stated in the tweets] not to include martial healing, in conjunction with a range of other information (like the way fighters and rogues are designed), counts as at least some evidence in favour of my contention". That is, the abandonment of martial healing is evidence of a desire, on the part of the D&Dnext designers, to avoid overtly metagame mechanics.
I don't care whether or not the tweets are evidence of anti-4e bias. I'm not even sure what that would mean - Mearls was a designer of many parts of 4e, after all! My point remains the one I made in post 99: there is ample evidence, the tweets just being the latest, that the designers of D&Dnext do not want overt metagame mechanics in the game. This is particularly so in the case of healing, as is shown by (what I regard as) the absurd figleaf of "healers' kits", which (in my view) completely destroys verismilitude in the pursuit of process simulation.
What difference does it make if the Hit Points are restored due to a healing trigger from the Warlord, or the loss of Hit Points are prevented or lessened by something the Warlord does. The end result is the same!
Not at all, for reasons discussed at length in one of the other healing/warlord threads: damage mitigation can't bring people back from the brink, is proactive rather than reactive (which risks waste) and lacks the "inspiration" motif.
