TheRPGSite

Pretty simple - Cut Hit Points in two and call half of them Stamina, call the rest Wounds.  Everytime you gain HPs, you put half into Stamina, half into Wounds, with the odd number going to Stamina.  So lets grab a guy from the Playtest Document, the Cleric of Moradin.

He has 17 HPs, so on his sheet you list.
Stamina: 9
Wounds: 8

He takes 6pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina: 3
Wounds: 8

He now takes 5pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina:0
Wounds:6

He takes a Short Rest.  Short Rest only heals Stamina, not Hit Points.  So he rolls a 1d8 for Short Rest and gets a 5.  Now it reads
Stamina:5
Wounds: 6 (note the actual Wounds section of the HPs hasn't been affected by the Short Rest).

He decides to cast Cure Light Wounds and rolls a 7, so now it reads
Stamina: 5
Wounds: 8 (note the stamina section was not raised by Curing the wounds)

So now

• I have an easily defined method to finally once and for all declare in D&D what is skill/luck/stamina and what is damage.
• I have a new stat (Stamina) I can use to power Fighter abilities (or other stuff) without resorting to AEDU
• I can have all kinds of "inspirational/leadership" abilities that can heal Stamina or even give temp Stamina.
• I can toss in optional rules that sneak attacks, critical hits, falling damage bypass Stamina if I want.
• I don't have D&D characters running around like superheros with no fear of death.

The problem I see with that is that you're ending up with the same issues as the Vitality/Wounds thing of Star Wars d20 et al. You are adding a double HP system to the game and an equal amount of book-keeping and confusion (what source of damage affects what part of the HP abstraction, etc) for no clear benefit in terms of enjoyment of the game. The HP abstraction, to me, only works if you don't break it down between wounds and the rest.

Quote from: Benoist;542427The problem I see with that is that you're ending up with the same issues as the Vitality/Wounds thing of Star Wars d20 et al. You are adding a double HP system to the game and an equal amount of book-keeping and confusion (what source of damage affects what part of the HP abstraction, etc) for no clear benefit in terms of enjoyment of the game. The HP abstraction, to me, only works if you don't break it down between wounds and the rest.

I don't enjoy a game where a good night's sleep get's rid of all combat damage.  Anything that fixes that is a clear benefit. Damage, you say, but it's not damage it's (insert bleah).

My fighter has more Hit Points then a Mammoth? - well no, that's fighting skill not all damage.
Then why does it take a high level fighter 8 weeks to naturally heal from 1hp to full?

I can fill the post with 30 year examples but they all prove that a single HP number representing two things has always been more confusing then helping, we've just been willingly suspending disbelief for so long we've forgotten we're doing it.

The "sources" I never bought either.  If it currently does damage in D&D, that's Stamina then Wounds.  It works just fine without having to do Stamina only or Wound only attacks.  However, I have been doing the difference between lethal and non-lethal damage in lots of systems for decades, that doesn't bother me.

Now, if you want to keep things simpler, then you're back to having one number quantify two things, the only way to really do that is by having a "breakpoint".

So that Dwarf with 17 hit points now has a Wounded/Bloodied/whatever state applied when he drops below 9hp.

When Wounded, Short Rests do not heal HPs, and Long Rests heal 1hp/day.

Cure Spells will not be affected and can be used whether Wounded or not.

We dumped Stamina, so my fighter is still AEDU-guy, but at least we got rid of healing all HPs in a good night's sleep.

Basically any fix for 5e HPs needs two do 2 things in my mind.
1. Define somehow the difference between damage and non-damage part of HPs.
2. Make it so the new HD mechanic (which is really quite good I think for non-damage/minor damage) doesn't apply to serious wounds.

How about, you recover (Hit Dice + Con modifier) of HP per hour of rest?

QuoteD&D Next Healing Fix

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6LvJ3MCnsFOuIcAzjVmStb0qI5m_Uz9RO6o3JgTf1M3aOcCjsxg)

Planet Algol wins.

oh, I actually like this system.  It adds about as much work or difficulty to the system compared to normal HP as adding capital letters to language.  It's  one more step, but when people are used to writing and reading novels and poems and such, I'd say it adds clarity and is only difficult for the under 6 year-old crowd.

Just one of many little systems that are similar.
(then again, I am not against using actual math in my games, so maybe I'm nuts)

Quote from: CRKrueger;542424Pretty simple - Cut Hit Points in two and call half of them Stamina, call the rest Wounds.  Everytime you gain HPs, you put half into Stamina, half into Wounds, with the odd number going to Stamina.  So lets grab a guy from the Playtest Document, the Cleric of Moradin.

He has 17 HPs, so on his sheet you list.
Stamina: 9
Wounds: 8

He takes 6pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina: 3
Wounds: 8

He now takes 5pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina:0
Wounds:6

He takes a Short Rest.  Short Rest only heals Stamina, not Hit Points.  So he rolls a 1d8 for Short Rest and gets a 5.  Now it reads
Stamina:5
Wounds: 6 (note the actual Wounds section of the HPs hasn't been affected by the Short Rest).

He decides to cast Cure Light Wounds and rolls a 7, so now it reads
Stamina: 5
Wounds: 8 (note the stamina section was not raised by Curing the wounds)

So now

• I have an easily defined method to finally once and for all declare in D&D what is skill/luck/stamina and what is damage.
• I have a new stat (Stamina) I can use to power Fighter abilities (or other stuff) without resorting to AEDU
• I can have all kinds of "inspirational/leadership" abilities that can heal Stamina or even give temp Stamina.
• I can toss in optional rules that sneak attacks, critical hits, falling damage bypass Stamina if I want.
• I don't have D&D characters running around like superheros with no fear of death.

Problem with this is . . .

. . . it's not D&D.

Going down the road of 4e again with all these novel mechanics.

We don't need 'em.

Might be a fine RPG, but, like 4e, it's not D&D and it will fail.

The more novelty WotC brings into 5e, the more it will fail to unite the clans, and just fail. Period.

Quote from: 1989;542465Problem with this is . . .

. . . it's not D&D.

Going down the road of 4e again with all these novel mechanics.

We don't need 'em.

Oh, Bullshit.
 I could say the same of the Monk and paladin and ranger, or for god's sake, of weapons doing different damages, or adding good and evil to the alignment system.  Every iteration has made changes that were viewed as heretical and as 'not D&D' by some when they were introduced.

These 'novel mechanics' are going down the road of EVERY EDITION.  Make arguments about what they do to gameplay, and your game, fine.  Act regressive and promote 'one way-ism', bullshit.

Quote from: 1989;542465Problem with this is . . .

. . . it's not D&D.

That's what everyone said about your favorite edition cupcake.  :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;542475That's what everyone said about your favorite edition cupcake.  :D

Yeah, in fact I VIVIDLY recall the numerous fights when 2e came out and there were no monks or assassins, and the art was toned down to rated G.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542468...or adding good and evil to the alignment system.

Holmes Basic (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html)

:)

You know what I'm talking about.

The cut-off line for easy reverse compatibility is 2e. 2e and everything before it can be interconverted easily, as anyone here will testify. Same system, basically.

Once you get to 3e . . . it's a different ball game.

D&D is anything before 2000.

3e and 4e are shit.

We do not need a fucking 2d20 system 40 years later.

We do not need a fucking stamina/wound/bullshit system, either.

Except as a module for those who want it. Then, it's okay.

Yeah, I don't mean to cut down your idea; it's fine. Just not as core D&D.

Quote from: 1989;542485Except as a module for those who want it. Then, it's okay.

Yeah, I don't mean to cut down your idea; it's fine. Just not as core D&D.

Well right there I'm with ya, I've been using HPs forever, can still use 'em.  But if the options are something like I was working on or what they currently have in 5e, then I'd rather they fix it then leave it as is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542424Wounds: 8 (note the stamina section was not raised by Curing the wounds)

I would allow the overflow to run into the Stamina section to (A) allow those spells do be useful when rest isn't available to recover Stamina and (B) so that it's not a waste to apply such spells to only slightly wounded characters.

I do, however, agree with the sentiment that this doesn't feel like traditional D&D for me.  

My solution to the desire some have for quick healing would be a section in the GM guide advising DMs how to make quick healing available, if desired, in the form of cheap and readily available healing potions (akin to the healing packs available in computer games) or perhaps a reasonably low-level Cleric spell that works, in conjunction with a night's sleep, to perform the quick one-day healing trick in a way that's easily included or removed from the game.

Quote from: John Morrow;542487My solution to the desire some have for quick healing would be a section in the GM guide advising DMs how to make quick healing available, if desired, in the form of cheap and readily available healing potions (akin to the healing packs available in computer games) or perhaps a reasonably low-level Cleric spell that works, in conjunction with a night's sleep, to perform the quick one-day healing trick in a way that's easily included or removed from the game.

I simply think that is just impossible at this point.  Trying to get the playtest more like earlier forms of D&D then it already is is a fool's errand in my opinion.  The only thing left is to try and make it as less like 4e as can be done.  If that means new mechanics, then so be it, I would rather have some form of new "non-D&D" mechanic that accomplishes the same thing then the 4e-style healing rules we got in the playtest.

Please no more HP subsystems.  Just give me HP.  Please.

Quote from: B.T.;542525Please no more HP subsystems.  Just give me HP.  Please.

Currently you're getting HPs that completely refresh every night and the ability to potentially regen most of them during the day as well, so you can do nearly double your HPs in non-magical healing by "resting".  There's your HPs, welcome to 5e.  :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;542486Well right there I'm with ya, I've been using HPs forever, can still use 'em.  But if the options are something like I was working on or what they currently have in 5e, then I'd rather they fix it then leave it as is.

I guess that has been my whole point in what I want with 5e.

the two things, from a meta-marketing position, that you want to do is create as little exclusion and as much inclusion as possible, and to avoid inter-game wars.  These things seem alike, but are different.

Also, from a gaming specific marketiing view, embrace the fact that gamers house-rule, and plan for it, enable it, and hell, maybe even make some money off it.

To do this, you create a nice little self contained base ruleset, and then create advanced rules in different areas to allow for the GM to customize the rulest to the type of game they want to play.

This is an example that the base ruleset would have straight HP, and CRKrueger's would show up in the first 'advanced combat' book.

And GMs can choose to use it if they want a game with less abstract HP and a game with more combat focus.  And no one is excluded, and there are more people under the bloody WotC tent.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542558Currently you're getting HPs that completely refresh every night and the ability to potentially regen most of them during the day as well, so you can do nearly double your HPs in non-magical healing by "resting".  There's your HPs, welcome to 5e.  :D

That is because they are a slave to sacred cows.  

You cannot increase HP without increasing healing spells ability to heal.  Keeping the cure spells at the(or nearly) same amount is moronic.

HP recuperation from natural healing should have been based upon percentages not a standard hp amount.  That way when both the Fighter and Wizard who are at half HP would be back on their feet around the same time, instead of the bullshit way it was done.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542488I simply think that is just impossible at this point.  Trying to get the playtest more like earlier forms of D&D then it already is is a fool's errand in my opinion.

The stated goal, which I think is a good one, was to allow people to select options so the game resembles the form of D&D they prefer the most.  My solution is to simply cut to the chase and acknowledge what they are trying to do using the sort of solution that's existed with D&D since the beginning, which is healing potions and healing spells.  Want to make healing cheap and easy, then the easiest solution within the context of the D&D paradigm is to simply making the existing forms of magical healing, potions and spells, cheap and easy.  Basically, admit that they are looking for the equivalent of healing packs in a game like Doom.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542488The only thing left is to try and make it as less like 4e as can be done.  If that means new mechanics, then so be it, I would rather have some form of new "non-D&D" mechanic that accomplishes the same thing then the 4e-style healing rules we got in the playtest.

One of the biggest problem that a lot of people have with 4e are the disassociated mechanics, so things like healing surges and having characters naturally heal overnight would mean embracing exactly what many hate most about D&D 4e, which is exactly what they shouldn't be doing.

Your solution isn't bad, but it adds more complexity, which a lot of people don't want.  The other potentially concern with your solutions is that it quantifies something that's long been problematic, which is exactly what hit points represent.  Once you separate Stamina damage and Wound damage in a clear way for healing, that leads to the idea that one should also divide damage the same way.  While the Hero System does this effectively, it also creates a lot of overhead.

Quote from: Sommerjon;542616You cannot increase HP without increasing healing spells ability to heal.

Make healing spells a d4 and multiply the die by the level of the recipient of the healing, perhaps maxing that at the level of the caster.  Do the same with healing over time.  Of course that still means that wizards will "heal" faster than fighters, which is counter-intuitive, but that's because hit points, themselves, are problematic because they are a non-representational abstraction that easily becomes disassociated outside of damage in combat.  But I wouldn't expect D&D to change that.

I've been doing (base spell healing, d8 or whatever) + (target's level) for some time, now.  Healing doesn't quite scale with level, your high-level fighters still suck up most of the healing, but it splits the difference a bit.  Works at my table, in any case.

If they do leave HPs exactly the way they are now in the playtest, it's pretty simple, but I think the overnight insta-heal is too far from D&D to be really "core".

It's saying something about how the game is played, (ie built around the 24 time slot).  It's a weird combo of the "15-min adventuring day" from 3e and the "always at full resources for the next encounter" from 4e. It's like they took 4e healing and just shoehorned it into a 24 window, thinking that would please Old Schoolers, without even having the concept of association in their minds.  It's like Ben was saying, they still don't "get it".

You guys have a point in that since the current HP rules are so simple, it is easy to houserule, and so off the chart easy that only the most rabid 4venger can complain.  I just think something this fundamental being so far from original D&D (like MM at-will) doesn't bode well for the final game since it is advancing from incorrect First Principles.

Talking about proportionate healing: the DCC RPG also heals using the idea of Dice.  When a Cleric magically heals, his spell roll generates a number of Healing Dice.  Certain critical effects take up dice (broken bone - 1 die, organ damage 2 -dice, etc) and dice applied to HPs use the Character's HD to heal, so the healing will be proportionate to HPs by class.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542653Talking about proportionate healing: the DCC RPG also heals using the idea of Dice.  When a Cleric magically heals, his spell roll generates a number of Healing Dice.  Certain critical effects take up dice (broken bone - 1 die, organ damage 2 -dice, etc) and dice applied to HPs use the Character's HD to heal, so the healing will be proportionate to HPs by class.

Dude that's awesome. I like this!

I'm excited. The game's been shipped to me today. :)

That is pretty clever.  I've been using HackMaster crits in most of my games - this may end up being my new method of removing the effects.

Quote from: Planet Algol;542445D&D Next Healing Fix
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6LvJ3MCnsFOuIcAzjVmStb0qI5m_Uz9RO6o3JgTf1M3aOcCjsxg)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;542461Planet Algol wins.

Yeah, Planet Algol had the right idea on the first page.

Why? Just look at how healing as presented will affect the monsters that you run away from in D&D Next. Take the Kobold Lair from the bastardized B2 in the playtest. Let's say that the PCs only get halfway and then retreat to regroup and come back later - every monster not killed will be back at full HP in the morning, and have extra traps set to nail the PCs.

In each adventure, unless the opponents are killed outright on the first pass this same pattern will happen again and again. Makes the sorry meme of "Always fighting orcs" come to life as "Always fighting the boss monsters".

Quote from: jeff37923;542806Yeah, Planet Algol had the right idea on the first page.

Why? Just look at how healing as presented will affect the monsters that you run away from in D&D Next. Take the Kobold Lair from the bastardized B2 in the playtest. Let's say that the PCs only get halfway and then retreat to regroup and come back later - every monster not killed will be back at full HP in the morning, and have extra traps set to nail the PCs.

In each adventure, unless the opponents are killed outright on the first pass this same pattern will happen again and again. Makes the sorry meme of "Always fighting orcs" come to life as "Always fighting the boss monsters".

so we should take one adventure written with a certain rule set in mind, and wonder why it would not do as well with a different ruleset?

99% of my games the PCs do not finish an adventure in the first pass.  But my adventures are written for my rules.  
Derp, de derp, what a surprise, they work fine.

might as well complain that a salt water fish is impossible and an abomination becasue it does not survice well in a fresh water ecosystem.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542807so we should take one adventure written with a certain rule set in mind, and wonder why it would not do as well with a different ruleset?

Well, dipshit, since this playtest is all the information we have to go on - then this is what we must extrapolate from, isn't it?

Quote from: LordVreeg;54280799% of my games the PCs do not finish an adventure in the first pass.  But my adventures are written for my rules.  
Derp, de derp, what a surprise, they work fine.

Thank you for neatly killing your own rebuttal by pointing out that your adventures work fine with your homebrew rules. No shit.

How would they change with the DnD Next playtest rules?

I hate to point this out, but the OP is technically in violation of the playtest agreement (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DNDNextPlaytestingAgreement.pdf).  Posting derivative rules is pretty plainly forbidden.

It's also a sterling example of people yet again not bothering to actually read the damn rules for what they say.

The split described in the OP is already present in the rules.  Try again.

Quote from: jeff37923;542808Well, dipshit, since this playtest is all the information we have to go on - then this is what we must extrapolate from, isn't it?




Thank you for neatly killing your own rebuttal by pointing out that your adventures work fine with your homebrew rules. No shit.

How would they change with the DnD Next playtest rules?

um.  Jeff?  Hello?  That is my point.

This is a thread where someone is positing a homebrew/deriviative rule.   You dismissed the alternative rule solely with the logic that it did not work with playtest written for a different rule.  
My exact point was that you were saying that this rule would not work well...with an adventure written for a different rule set.  That being the playtest in question.
So...no, my logic actually held throughout.  
Dipshit.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542813um.  Jeff?  Hello?  That is my point.

This is a thread where someone is positing a homebrew/deriviative rule.   You dismissed the alternative rule solely with the logic that it did not work with playtest written for a different rule.  
My exact point was that you were saying that this rule would not work well...with an adventure written for a different rule set.  That being the playtest in question.
So...no, my logic actually held throughout.  
Dipshit.

Whatever you want to believe, cupcake.

You really need to read closer next time....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;542483Yeah, in fact I VIVIDLY recall the numerous fights when 2e came out and there were no monks or assassins, and the art was toned down to rated G.

No monks or assassins seems such a small thing these days.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;542817No monks or assassins seems such a small thing these days.

Well, the rules were largely the same, and hardly anything to really get pissy over re: the minor changes.  It was the removal of two core classes (and 1/2 orc) and the shift to be more politically correct that caused the most drama, if I recall.

D&D Next Healing Fix

• You recover your "hit dice" (healing dice?) after a night's rest.
• You do not get fully healed.

There, it has been fixed. We've got good old attrition back in the game. Now go forth and do good with it.

Quote from: J Arcane;542809I hate to point this out, but the OP is technically in violation of the playtest agreement (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DNDNextPlaytestingAgreement.pdf).  Posting derivative rules is pretty plainly forbidden.

It's also a sterling example of people yet again not bothering to actually read the damn rules for what they say.

The split described in the OP is already present in the rules.  Try again.

So I lose 60 Hps, then finally reach zero, and start dying.  I stabilize at -19.  2d6 hours later I gain 1 hp, which puts me at 1hp, not -18.  A Long Rest after that and I'm full as if it never happened, all of it potentially within less then 24 hours, none of it with any kind of magic.  Boy, I'm glad you came around to point out how different HPs are between above and below zero, otherwise I would have thought someone could heal back to full in one night after being mortally wounded.  Oh wait...

Quote from: Melan;542835D&D Next Healing Fix

• You recover your "hit dice" (healing dice?) after a night's rest.
• You do not get fully healed.

There, it has been fixed. We've got good old attrition back in the game. Now go forth and do good with it.

Yeah, we went over that one in the other thread (shhh don't tell Batman), it drops healing out of Wolverine mode, maybe into Capt America mode.

In the 30+ years I've been playing D&D, the ring of regeneration was one of the most highly prized items.

I guess with 5e, it doesn't really matter any more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542864Yeah, we went over that one in the other thread (shhh don't tell Batman), it drops healing out of Wolverine mode, maybe into Capt America mode.

If you think that's too fast, it's pretty easy to take it down a notch.  Just recover 1HD per extrended rest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542861So I lose 60 Hps, then finally reach zero, and start dying.  I stabilize at -19.  2d6 hours later I gain 1 hp, which puts me at 1hp, not -18.  A Long Rest after that and I'm full as if it never happened, all of it potentially within less then 24 hours, none of it with any kind of magic.  Boy, I'm glad you came around to point out how different HPs are between above and below zero, otherwise I would have thought someone could heal back to full in one night after being mortally wounded.  Oh wait...

Actually, you're right.  I had missed the line about the 2d6 hour recovery, or at least its consequences.  It does seem to suggest that you'd immediately be at 1hp after no more than 12 hours, when paired with the "any healing makes you at 1hp" rule, which is problematic.  I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, it reads like something that might not've been intended. IOW, it could be read as intending you to heal back up past 0 1hp at a time every 2d6 hours, or it could be read as meaning how you read it, thanks to the "instant 1hp" rule.  

Personally then, I think there's your culprit. There's no sense overcomplicating HP to double-down on the split, you just need to make the split that is there work properly.  1hp to full, you're fine, it's essentially just stamina + cuts and scrapes as defined, 0HP or less you're officially seriously wounded enough to knock you out and you'll need serious care.  You could even get into adding an injury table for any time a player drops to 0 or below.  

You just need to get rid of the 2d6 recovery rule, and require either magical healing, or extend the time needed to something more reasonable.

Quote from: John Morrow;542630One of the biggest problem that a lot of people have with 4e are the disassociated mechanics, so things like healing surges and having characters naturally heal overnight would mean embracing exactly what many hate most about D&D 4e, which is exactly what they shouldn't be doing.

I find it very strange with people here who have this abnormal fascination with AD&D HP recovery.  Both 4e and 1e describe HP with nearly the same verbiage, yet 4e(and now 5e) is poopooed on and 1e is praised, when both are disassociated mechanics.
What is the justification that 4e is bad and 1e is 'gold standard'?
1e ignores the skill, luck and/or magical factors with hp recovery solely focusing on hp being physical damage.  4e ignores the physical damage part and focuses on skill, luck and resolve.

Verbiage for 1e
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.  The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph  "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Verbiage for 4e
"Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

I do like how in 1e hp recovery in the phb is different from the dmg and from virtually everyone here
phb
"For each day of rest, 1 hit point of damage is restored. After 30 game days have passed, hit points accrue at the rate of 5 per day thereafter."
dmg
"For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days....poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing,....bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting....Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

I have no idea why WotC has this fascination with 'padded sumo'.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542468I could say the same of the Monk and paladin and ranger, or for god's sake, of weapons doing different damages, or adding good and evil to the alignment system.

I think there is a difference, though.

Monks, paladins, rangers, rating weapons for different damage dice, adding a new axis to the alignment system... These are all new things which were added onto the same underlying chassis.

And if you look at D&D from 1974 to 2008, that remains basically true: You occasionally see an edition drop or revise something that a previous edition had added to the game, but all of the different versions of the game were basically different sets of add-ons to the original 1974 rules (barring a few minor tweaks to the numbers on a table, the exact categorization of saving throws, and that sort of thing).

Some of the stuff that 1989 bitches about (like advantages/disadvantages in D&DNext) are actually just more additions. Like 'em or not, they're not fundamentally altering the core chassis of the game. But CRKrueger's Stamina/Wounds mechanic or D&DNext's revision of Hit Dice are actually altering that chassis in fundamental ways.

Quote from: Sommerjon;542912I find it very strange with people here who have this abnormal fascination with AD&D HP recovery.  Both 4e and 1e describe HP with nearly the same verbiage, yet 4e(and now 5e) is poopooed on and 1e is praised, when both are disassociated mechanics.

The hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

In all editions of D&D prior to 4E, hit points consistently work like this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points). The mechanic is mostly associated with a few exceptions (notably in that cure spells don't scale, but there are other problems unique to various editions).

In 4E, the dissociated non-scaling of cure spells is corrected. But this is ironic, because the mechanic dissociates everywhere else that you look: Wounds from poison blades healing up because somebody shouted at you. Overnight healing of mortal wounds. Yada, yada, yada.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936The hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

No it isn't.  You merely accept the way they defined how to do natural healing(whichever version you choose) even though it runs counter to how they describe HP.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936In all editions of D&D prior to 4E, hit points consistently work like this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1034/roleplaying-games/explaining-hit-points). The mechanic is mostly associated with a few exceptions (notably in that cure spells don't scale, but there are other problems unique to various editions).

1e phb
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."
Runs counter to your claims.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936In 4E, the dissociated non-scaling of cure spells is corrected. But this is ironic, because the mechanic dissociates everywhere else that you look: Wounds from poison blades healing up because somebody shouted at you. Overnight healing of mortal wounds. Yada, yada, yada.

Not really, in 1e, like I said, focuses on 'real damage' when you heal naturally even though they fully acknowledge that HP is not merely physical representation.  This dissociation you fully accept, for what seems like no other reason but sacred cowness.  4e focuses on the other side, and this is wrong because...it isn't 1e.

Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

Prove me wrong.

But you wont you would rather make snide comments.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation".

Neither do you.

It's fashionable on this site for posters to use "abstraction" to defend concepts they like and "dissociation" for those they do not.

It's weak sauce.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

Yeah, seriously, it's not hard. A dissociated mechanic is an abstracted mechanic that you don't like. Pretty simple really.

• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

Since virtually everything in RPGs is an abstraction based on real life, all mechanics are inherently abstract (some more than others).  However, not all mechanics are dissociated or metagame.

My thief using the Stealth skill to hide is an abstract mechanic.  My thief using the Shadow Blade power to stab his enemy and turn invisible for the round is a dissociated (not metagame) mechanic.  My thief using his Many Treasures ability to declare he has stolen the queen's brooch is a metagame (not dissociated) mechanic.

Quote from: Sommerjon;542947

QuoteThe hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

No it isn't.

Ah. You're trolling. Got it.

Quote from: Benoist;542953Sommerjon doesn't seem to understand the difference between words like "abstraction" and "dissociation". It's unfortunate, because it makes everything he says on the topic practically worthless.

His confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Quote from: B.T.;542986• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

B.T. nails this one.

Quote from: Fifth Element;542975Yeah, seriously, it's not hard. A dissociated mechanic is an abstracted mechanic that you don't like. Pretty simple really.

While I'm sure it sometimes gets used that way, that's not what I meant by it.  

Hit points are an abstraction of the idea that experience allows one to last longer in combat when they are more experienced.  Similarly, armor class is an abstraction of the idea that armor reduces how much damage an armored fighter takes in combat.  In the areas where they are designed to work best, the results of the abstraction would make sense in character, even if the particular mechanical representation would not.  

I do, however, consider both of those non-representational abstractions in that they way they produce the abstraction doesn't mirror how the effect really works (e.g., more skilled combatants take less damage because they get hit less and less severely rather than being able to take more damage, armor reduces the damage taken rather than making it less likely than the combatant will be hit).    As such, both of those abstractions easily become disassociated outside of the situation in which they were designed to work (melee combat) such that healing spells, falling damage, and so on don't naturally work as one would expect.  For that reason, I'm not a fan of non-representational abstractions and think it's no mistake that hit points, armor class, and levels, which are all non-representational abstractions likely to become disassociated in at least some cases, have been common points of complaint since the early days of D&D and most other game systems not consciously trying to imitate D&D generally take a different approach and do not increase hit points with experience, have armor that reduces damage taken, and base character abilities on more narrow skill levels rather than broad classes.

But the essence of what makes disassociated mechanics "disassociated" is that they don't make sense to the character.  If your character can't explain why they heal entirely after a full night's rest, then the mechanic is disassociated.  And a setting where everyone naturally does heal entirely overnight, no matter how badly wounded, is normal and expected would have a very different attitude toward injuries than our world does and it would change behavior in some pretty spectacular ways.

Or, to make this short and simple, very rapid healing without a legitimate in-game explanation for it is going to cause problems with players who expect their characters to be able to understand and explain what's happening in the game.

Quote from: B.T.;542986• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

An abstraction can be representational or non-representational.  By that, I mean that the abstraction can be designed to work roughly the way the thing works in the real world or it can be designed to reproduce the results in the real world but in a way that does no mirror the way things work in the real world.  Thus an abstraction can become a disassociated mechanic if it produces results that don't make sense in character.

Giving an experienced character more hit points is a way of abstracting an experienced character's ability to survive longer in combat, but it does so by letting the character take more damage, which is not why that happens in the real world, rather than making it more likely that they'll avoid taking damage in combat, which is closer to what really happens.  As a result, the abstraction breaks down once you combine those increased hit points with things that have nothing to do with experience, like healing or falling damage.

Making a character less likely to get hit (and thus take damage) with more armor is a way of abstracting the fact that an armored character takes less damage during combat than an unarmored character, but it does so by making a character in essence harder to hit, which is not what happens in the real world, rather than by absorbing damage, which is roughly what happens in the real world.  As a result, the abstraction breaks down once you combine  armor reducing the chance to hit with damage that has no to-hit roll (falling damage) or things like surprise attacks and touch attacks.  

To make those abstractions more representational, I would make hit points static, call armor class "defense class" and increase that based on level, and then have armor subtract damage.  But that's not what people expect in D&D.  The nice things about representational abstractions is that they tend to work a lot better when applied in other contexts, which is why my suggestions wouldn't suffer from the same problems that D&D's abstractions suffer from when it comes to healing, falling damage, touch attacks, surprise attacks, and so on.

Quote from: JA

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg}  
I could say the same of the Monk and paladin and ranger, or for god's sake, of weapons doing different damages, or adding good and evil to the alignment system. [/QUOTEI think there is a difference, though.

Monks, paladins, rangers, rating weapons for different damage dice, adding a new axis to the alignment system... These are all new things which were added onto the same underlying chassis.

And if you look at D&D from 1974 to 2008, that remains basically true: You occasionally see an edition drop or revise something that a previous edition had added to the game, but all of the different versions of the game were basically different sets of add-ons to the original 1974 rules (barring a few minor tweaks to the numbers on a table, the exact categorization of saving throws, and that sort of thing).

Some of the stuff that 1989 bitches about (like advantages/disadvantages in D&DNext) are actually just more additions. Like 'em or not, they're not fundamentally altering the core chassis of the game. But CRKrueger's Stamina/Wounds mechanic or D&DNext's revision of Hit Dice are actually altering that chassis in fundamental ways.

I disagree, respectfully.  But I think I disagree mechanically while agreeing with you philosophically, if that makes sense.
  CRKrueger's revision is still a revision, it does not remove HP so much as keeps it and adds more on; similar to what adding classes do and every other example I made, almost identical to the changes in weapon damage with differing damage, smal/medium vs large damage clasees, and hit vs armor type.  


And I do understand the philosophy of Hit Points and did so back in the 80's.  I undestand that CRKrueger's revision does make a large philosophical change in the level of abstraction and what HP (one of the basic ideas of the game) represents.  And changing that representation does make a major change to how the game works.

Quote from: Originally Posted by B.T.• Dissociated mechanic: A mechanic that I can't explain from an in-character perspective.

• Abstract mechanic: A mechanic that I can explain from an in-character perspective.

• Metagame mechanic: A mechanic that is not used from an in-character perspective.

Score.

Quote from: Spinachcat;542968Neither do you.

It's fashionable on this site for posters to use "abstraction" to defend concepts they like and "dissociation" for those they do not.

It's weak sauce.

Nice try, but I'm forced to conclude you don't understand the difference either.

An abstraction is the summary of a concept in the form of an idea. In an RPG context, all rules are abstractions, since they translate a concept, like say an element of the physics of the game world, like a fall, or burning, or character power into a set of rules, mathematical formulas and dice rolls, like say a fireball does damage, and the power of the blast is relative to the spellcaster's power, i.e. Xd6 of damage where X is the level of said spellcaster.

Now a dissociation is different, in that it indicates that one thing is divorced, separated, and unlinkable to the other. In RPG terms, it is said of a rule that cannot be explained from the perspective of the character (in character, such as fire burns = does damage, see fireball example above, which is associated). Marking mechanics, fighter daily powers are examples of dissociated mechanics.

Quote from: Benoist;543028Nice try, but I'm forced to conclude you don't understand the difference either.

An abstraction is the summary of a concept in the form of an idea. In an RPG context, all rules are abstractions, since they translate a concept, like say an element of the physics of the game world, like a fall, or burning, or character power into a set of rules, mathematical formulas and dice rolls, like say a fireball does damage, and the power of the blast is relative to the spellcaster's power, i.e. Xd6 of damage where X is the level of said spellcaster.

Now a dissociation is different, in that it indicates that one thing is divorced, separated, and unlinkable to the other. In RPG terms, it is said of a rule that cannot be explained from the perspective of the character (in character, such as fire burns = does damage, see fireball example above, which is associated). Marking mechanics, fighter daily powers are examples of dissociated mechanics.

Care to explain how 1e hit point recovery is 'abstracted' and 4e/5e is 'disassociated' when
DMG pg82
"Recovery of Hit Points:
When a character loses hit points in combat or to some other attack form (other than being drained of life energy levels), there are a number of different means by which such points can be restored. Clerics and paladins are able to restore such losses by means of spells or innate abilities.
Magical devices such as potions operate much the same way, and a ring of regeneration will cause automatic healing and revitalization in general of its wearer. Commonly it is necessary to resort to the passage of time, however, to restore many characters to full hit point strength.

For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a
character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7+4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution.  Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

How does one jump from 27 hitpoints regained to full in one measly day in this so-called 'abstracted' method

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542995Ah. You're trolling. Got it.

Good ol'Justin always fleeing to this refuge when someone starts poking holes in his 'facts'

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542995His confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Prove I'm wrong.
Oh that's right you can't.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543048

QuoteHis confusion of those terms pales in comparison to the scope of his general illiteracy. And his general illiteracy pales in comparison to the claim that none of the actual mechanics of how hit points work are part of the hit point system.

Prove I'm wrong.

Prove which one wrong? The one where you misuse a term that I coined and defined? Or the one where you claimed that the hit point system wasn't part of the hit point system?

Because I think you'll find that I've already proven you wrong on both of those.

(Or you would find that if you weren't illiterate.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;543046Care to explain how 1e hit point recovery is 'abstracted' and 4e/5e is 'disassociated' when
DMG pg82
"Recovery of Hit Points:
When a character loses hit points in combat or to some other attack form (other than being drained of life energy levels), there are a number of different means by which such points can be restored. Clerics and paladins are able to restore such losses by means of spells or innate abilities.
Magical devices such as potions operate much the same way, and a ring of regeneration will cause automatic healing and revitalization in general of its wearer. Commonly it is necessary to resort to the passage of time, however, to restore many characters to full hit point strength.

For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a
character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7+4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution.  Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

How does one jump from 27 hitpoints regained to full in one measly day in this so-called 'abstracted' method

I'm going to ignore 4e because it is not only a piece of trash of a D&D game, but it is an Obsolete piece of trash of a D&D game which nobody cares about but you on this thread since it failed miserably. Let's just leave it in the dumpster where it belongs, shall we? :D

The difference here is something you might have heard about called "actual play". In actual play, characters in AD&D which are out resting in their abode for weeks are not played. They are usually replaced by different player characters who adventure with the group in the meantime. When the player wants to switch back and take control of his resting character once more, either he has rested for less than a month, in which case you calculate the HP recuperation as indicated here, or he's rested more than a month, in which case he is back at full HPs. In either case, the mythical day in which a character would suddenly regain all his hit points does not happen in the game world. No dissociation.

In the 5e case, you can recuperate all your hit points from negative/wounds HPs in 36 hours. This is not a mythical scenario, but something that might occur right there in the game, fairly regularly. If health is part of the HP abstraction in 5e there is a problem, one of a mechanic failing to represent what happens in the world (it takes more than 36 hours to recuperate from sword blows that knocked you unconscious and wounded you), hence, dissociation. UNLESS you define HPs as just being skill and fatigue, in which case I have a problem because (1) actual health is not simulated at all in this game, and (2) this is such a change from the previous baseline of the game as to make this one "not D&D". When I play D&D, I want to play "D&D". Not the game people who hate D&D would like it to be.

Hope this was helpful.

Years ago, I knew a guy who ran an online PBEM (Play By Electronic Mail) game and at one point, while discussing the difficulty of the game, he said out of frustration from the feedback he'd get from players when things went badly for them that he was tempted to program the game to just tell everyone that things went well and that they got richer and more powerful each turn no matter what orders they submitted because that's what it seemed a lot of people wanted.

Quote from: Benoist;543063The difference here is something you might have heard about called "actual play". In actual play, characters in AD&D which are out resting in their abode for weeks are not played. They are usually replaced by different player characters who adventure with the group in the meantime. When the player wants to switch back and take control of his resting character once more, either he has rested for less than a month, in which case you calculate the HP recuperation as indicated here, or he's rested more than a month, in which case he is back at full HPs. In either case, the mythical day in which a character would suddenly regain all his hit points does not happen in the game world. No dissociation.

Isn't this "How we play" not 'actual play'?

Unfortunately, yes it does, and is a clear 'dissociation'.  Day 27 the PC has regained 27 +/- constitution modifiers, but on Day 28 the PC has miraculously regained the rest no matter if it is 1 more hp or 78 more.

Quote from: Benoist;543063In the 5e case, you can recuperate all your hit points from negative/wounds HPs in 36 hours. This is not a mythical scenario, but something that might occur right there in the game, fairly regularly. If health is part of the HP abstraction in 5e there is a problem, one of a mechanic failing to represent what happens in the world (it takes more than 36 hours to recuperate from sword blows that knocked you unconscious and wounded you), hence, dissociation. UNLESS you define HPs as just being skill and fatigue, in which case I have a problem because (1) actual health is not simulated at all in this game, and (2) this is such a change from the previous baseline of the game as to make this one "not D&D". When I play D&D, I want to play "D&D". Not the game people who hate D&D would like it to be.

Verbiage for 1e
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Verbiage for 4e
"Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

The difference between the two in recovery is 1e's emphasis is 'pseudo real'(up until day 28) and 4/5e's emphasis is not 'pseudo real' and day 28 happens on day 1.

We are behind you Osama Benoist Laden! The OSR Taliban stands ready to execute your will!


(Of course, you do know that you are dealing with an idiot in Sommerjon, right? )

Quote from: Justin Alexander;543062Prove which one wrong? The one where you misuse a term that I coined and defined? Or the one where you claimed that the hit point system wasn't part of the hit point system?

Because I think you'll find that I've already proven you wrong on both of those.

(Or you would find that if you weren't illiterate.)

Me

QuoteI find it very strange with people here who have this abnormal fascination with AD&D HP recovery. Both 4e and 1e describe HP with nearly the same verbiage, yet 4e(and now 5e) is poopooed on and 1e is praised, when both are disassociated mechanics.
What is the justification that 4e is bad and 1e is 'gold standard'?
1e ignores the skill, luck and/or magical factors with hp recovery solely focusing on hp being physical damage. 4e ignores the physical damage part and focuses on skill, luck and resolve.

Verbiage for 1e
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Verbiage for 4e
"Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

I do like how in 1e hp recovery in the phb is different from the dmg and from virtually everyone here
phb
"For each day of rest, 1 hit point of damage is restored. After 30 game days have passed, hit points accrue at the rate of 5 per day thereafter."
dmg
"For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days....poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing,....bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting....Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

I have no idea why WotC has this fascination with 'padded sumo'.

You

QuoteThe hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

In all editions of D&D prior to 4E, hit points consistently work like this. The mechanic is mostly associated with a few exceptions (notably in that cure spells don't scale, but there are other problems unique to various editions).

In 4E, the dissociated non-scaling of cure spells is corrected. But this is ironic, because the mechanic dissociates everywhere else that you look: Wounds from poison blades healing up because somebody shouted at you. Overnight healing of mortal wounds. Yada, yada, yada.

Now your 'link' says nothing but your 'opinion'
"The trick to understanding the hit point system is understand that a hit point is not equal to a hit point. In D&D, 1 hit point of damage always represents a physical wound. However, the severity of the wound represented varies depending on how many hit points the victim has."
Except the game doesn't say damage is a physical wound.  
Nice try.

Me

QuoteNo it isn't. You merely accept the way they defined how to do natural healing(whichever version you choose) even though it runs counter to how they describe HP.

1e phb
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."
Runs counter to your claims.

Not really, in 1e, like I said, focuses on 'real damage' when you heal naturally even though they fully acknowledge that HP is not merely physical representation. This dissociation you fully accept, for what seems like no other reason but sacred cowness. 4e focuses on the other side, and this is wrong because...it isn't 1e.

You

Quoterandom bullshit about trolling

Where did you 'prove' anything?

The stupidity of your 'coined term' is it's sophistry.   Every edition D&D is riddled with your 'coined term'.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542424Pretty simple - Cut Hit Points in two and call half of them Stamina, call the rest Wounds.  Everytime you gain HPs, you put half into Stamina, half into Wounds, with the odd number going to Stamina.  So lets grab a guy from the Playtest Document, the Cleric of Moradin.

He has 17 HPs, so on his sheet you list.
Stamina: 9
Wounds: 8

He takes 6pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina: 3
Wounds: 8

He now takes 5pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina:0
Wounds:6

He takes a Short Rest.  Short Rest only heals Stamina, not Hit Points.  So he rolls a 1d8 for Short Rest and gets a 5.  Now it reads
Stamina:5
Wounds: 6 (note the actual Wounds section of the HPs hasn't been affected by the Short Rest).

He decides to cast Cure Light Wounds and rolls a 7, so now it reads
Stamina: 5
Wounds: 8 (note the stamina section was not raised by Curing the wounds)

So now

• I have an easily defined method to finally once and for all declare in D&D what is skill/luck/stamina and what is damage.
• I have a new stat (Stamina) I can use to power Fighter abilities (or other stuff) without resorting to AEDU
• I can have all kinds of "inspirational/leadership" abilities that can heal Stamina or even give temp Stamina.
• I can toss in optional rules that sneak attacks, critical hits, falling damage bypass Stamina if I want.
• I don't have D&D characters running around like superheros with no fear of death.

This is similar to the system I have been  using for years (see various threads) and all the arguements re HP are ones I have engaged with at length.

I would argue that 1/2 HP are too many as wounds as one you reach 50 hp you still have more wounds than a horse.

I have a possible suggestion that might satisfy all sides of the discussion.

Your 1st level HP are your wounds.
Everything else are HP.

You heal at the New D&D next rate so long as you haven't dropped below your wound level. If you do drop below your wound level you heal at the 'daily rate' now that rate can be set by the DM but in most circumstances will be 1hp per day. Until you reach the wound thresh hold after which you heal at the D&D next rate.

This represents the fact that after 1st level you don't grow increasingly immune to being cut and breaking bones you growing increasingly good at not being hit. So all those extra hit points are your ability to avoid damage.

When you do get damaged there is no in game penalty (no death spiral) except that you can no longer recover those HP becuase you are too injured to deflect a blow or duck etc .

Now personally to make 1st level a bit toughter I would actaully set the level as 6 + con bonus and then let PCs roll HP at first level as well . This makes 1st level characters about as tough as old second level characters from 2e days and implies that even at 1st level you have learnt how to duck and move a little which is why fighters get more HP than Wizards

.

Quote from: jeff37923;543096We are behind you Osama Benoist Laden! The OSR Taliban stands ready to execute your will!

(Of course, you do know that you are dealing with an idiot in Sommerjon, right? )

Well at least it deserved an intelligent response. The fact the guy is a total retard with his head up his ass (as demonstrated in his answer to said post clearly showing he did not understand a single word of what I was saying) doesn't phase me. The post wasn't really intended for him anyways.

Quote from: Benoist;543155Well at least it deserved an intelligent response. The fact the guy is a total retard with his head up his ass (as demonstrated in his answer to said post clearly showing he did not understand a single word of what I was saying) doesn't phase me. The post wasn't really intended for him anyways.

Then explain to this total retard what

QuoteThe difference here is something you might have heard about called "actual play". In actual play, characters in AD&D which are out resting in their abode for weeks are not played. They are usually replaced by different player characters who adventure with the group in the meantime. When the player wants to switch back and take control of his resting character once more, either he has rested for less than a month, in which case you calculate the HP recuperation as indicated here, or he's rested more than a month, in which case he is back at full HPs. In either case, the mythical day in which a character would suddenly regain all his hit points does not happen in the game world. No dissociation.

In the 5e case, you can recuperate all your hit points from negative/wounds HPs in 36 hours. This is not a mythical scenario, but something that might occur right there in the game, fairly regularly. If health is part of the HP abstraction in 5e there is a problem, one of a mechanic failing to represent what happens in the world (it takes more than 36 hours to recuperate from sword blows that knocked you unconscious and wounded you), hence, dissociation. UNLESS you define HPs as just being skill and fatigue, in which case I have a problem because (1) actual health is not simulated at all in this game, and (2) this is such a change from the previous baseline of the game as to make this one "not D&D". When I play D&D, I want to play "D&D". Not the game people who hate D&D would like it to be.

means.

Break it down for me Benny.  I'll even take my helmet off so you won't free weird trying to explain it to me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543167Break it down for me Benny.  I'll even take my helmet off so you won't free weird trying to explain it to me.

I think it's crystal clear for anyone who isn't hellbent on not seeing the reasoning. If you are not illiterate as Justin claims, you can understand what is written in those few lines of mine. Go ahead. Make me proud.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543046Care to explain how 1e hit point recovery is 'abstracted' and 4e/5e is 'disassociated' when
DMG pg82
"Recovery of Hit Points:
When a character loses hit points in combat or to some other attack form (other than being drained of life energy levels), there are a number of different means by which such points can be restored. Clerics and paladins are able to restore such losses by means of spells or innate abilities.
Magical devices such as potions operate much the same way, and a ring of regeneration will cause automatic healing and revitalization in general of its wearer. Commonly it is necessary to resort to the passage of time, however, to restore many characters to full hit point strength.

For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a
character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7+4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution.  Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

How does one jump from 27 hitpoints regained to full in one measly day in this so-called 'abstracted' method

I think the key distinction between pre 4e and post 4e, and why folks find the later more problematic boils down to 1-2 day heal times. There are certainly other believability issues with HP (afterall the price of their simplicity is they fail a reality check under scrutiny). But there is till a huge difference between getting dropped to zero, then sleeping for 8 hours and being right as rain the next day, and having to rest a week or more to heal up. I just cant envision the first one as anything but a cartoon. Yes HP have scaling issues. Wont deny that. But 24 hour natural healing means you will always keep running into this issue and it will stand out. Because no matter how shredded up my character is, a single night's rest restores him. For some styles of play, that is fine. For mine it is deeply problematic.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543170I think the key distinction between pre 4e and post 4e, and why folks find the later more problematic boils down to 1-2 day heal times. There are certainly other believability issues with HP (afterall the price of their simplicity is they fail a reality check under scrutiny). But there is till a huge difference between getting dropped to zero, then sleeping for 8 hours and being right as rain the next day, and having to rest a week or more to heal up. I just cant envision the first one as anything but a cartoon. Yes HP have scaling issues. Won't deny that. But 24 hour natural healing means you will always keep running into this issue and it will stand out. Because no matter how shredded up my character is, a single night's rest restores him. For some styles of play, that is fine. For mine it is deeply problematic.

As Black Vulmae pointed out to me in 1e if you hit 0 you were in a coma for a week. This was dropped from 2e annd in fact in 2e 0 hit points meant you were dead. "Hovering at Death's Door" was an optional rule, poorly explained, that seemed to hint you could only recover from 0  to -10 HP with magical healing, though the rule is very unclear. Of course few people played these RAW.

I think my suggested fix above rectifies all issues. Any HP above 1st level are skill. If you go down to less than your 1st level HP you are wounded and the D&D 5 healing mechanism is suspended until you recover. It's simple, you don't need to track any additional HP or anything, you represent additional HP as skill not bullet-proof-ness and there are no additional maluses to track for damage.
Should please everyone.

With role-playing games, I've always been a bit prejudiced concerning "instant healing" or healing surges.

If the damage is done and you can instantly remove it, it's not like there was really damage dealt in the first place, so it's more like an extra step, an extra record keeping chore that has been introduced into the game. Then I asked myself is healing surges necessary in order to allow the story to progress, or for the players to interact better.

... and the answer is yes, it is necessary, ...however there's more than one way to model this in a game. My preferred way is to have the players describe in detail the moves and combat maneuvers they are using when they are fighting. Then, I'll describe in detail the how those maneuvers play out during the course of combat.

Healing surges are an inescapable part of the video game experience, very necessary, to keep the video game interesting. Not so necessary for the tabletop though.

Quote from: jibbajibba;543172I think my suggested fix above rectifies all issues. Any HP above 1st level are skill. If you go down to less than your 1st level HP you are wounded and the D&D 5 healing mechanism is suspended until you recover. It's simple, you don't need to track any additional HP or anything, you represent additional HP as skill not bullet-proof-ness and there are no additional maluses to track for damage.
Should please everyone.

The problem with this solution is that it has it's own verisimilitude problems and places where it becomes disassociated.  It implies that you need to whittle down someone's "skill" before you can actually do any real damage to them which makes it impossible to draw blood on a first blow for a high-level character.  And when it comes to things like falling damage, it makes no sense to take damage to your "skill" and recover it in a few hours if you got that damage falling into a pit with sharp metal spikes on the bottom.  Sure, the rapid healing and thing like healing surges just make the disassociation problem worse, but even earlier editions ran into disassociation problems because of how the abstraction worked.  You can only expect so much verisimilitude from a system for melee combat adapted from a game called Ironclads (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html).

Quote from: John Morrow;543175The problem with this solution is that it has it's own verisimilitude problems and places where it becomes disassociated.  It implies that you need to whittle down someone's "skill" before you can actually do any real damage to them which makes it impossible to draw blood on a first blow for a high-level character.  And when it comes to things like falling damage, it makes no sense to take damage to your "skill" and recover it in a few hours if you got that damage falling into a pit with sharp metal spikes on the bottom.  Sure, the rapid healing and thing like healing surges just make the disassociation problem worse, but even earlier editions ran into disassociation problems because of how the abstraction worked.  You can only expect so much verisimilitude from a system for melee combat adapted from a game called Ironclads (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html).

I agree with all you say. Except I think its better than just straight HP. With straight HP all you say is true as well. If you fall into a trap in D&D and fall 50 feet onto metal spikes and have 3 hp left you are after all totally fine, apart from having less hit points. Is it better to say 'You are badly hurt but it has absolutley no effect on you' or 'Through your skill and training you managed not to get badly hurt so can carry on'.
Draw blood isn't a wound anyway so maybe you can cut someone a nick a scratch a cut that will heal in a few hours and that is HP damage. Same with poisoned weapons and touch attacks.

Now if we are willing to step out of the standard D&D HP paradigm then then are better options of course. I use a system very close to the OP and have done for 20 + years. Core number wounds and you can absorb so much damage of your HP until you take wounds. Falling does wound damage not HP damage etc.... but its a buit complex and cumbersome and its probably not D&D.

But if we stick within the D&D HP paradigm then setting the last bit of HP as the physical portion of damage and you don't take physical damage until you are  out of luck, skill, etc seems like a workable compromise.

Frankly, i just want to be able to do what I have done for years with D&D which is treat large chunks of HP as wounds. For D&D i dont need anything beyond being low on HP to reflect the wound ( i use wounding systems in other games, but dont feel they fit my style in D&D). As I said it has problems, but that a product of its simplicity (which is also its advantage). For me traditional Hp and a somewhat slower natural recovery rate work just fine. Stuff like healing surges or attempts to rework the hp system, just are not what I am looking for with a game like D&D

Quote from: Benoist;543168I think it's crystal clear for anyone who isn't hellbent on not seeing the reasoning. If you are not illiterate as Justin claims, you can understand what is written in those few lines of mine. Go ahead. Make me proud.

According to you it's crystal clear, yet I'm missing something.

It is why I asked you to break it down for me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543285According to you it's crystal clear, yet I'm missing something.

Yes, a brain, and more than an ounce of objectivity.

Quote from: Benoist;543289Yes, a brain, and more than an ounce of objectivity.

So you actually won't explain it?

Quote from: Sommerjon;543297So you actually won't explain it?

I feel like I already did. I believe in encouraging people to reach beyond what they think is their ultimate potential. Maybe if you read it slowly enough, you will finally get it? Come on, now. Don't disappoint me. I believe in you.

Quote from: Benoist;543306I feel like I already did. I believe in encouraging people to reach beyond what they think is their ultimate potential. Maybe if you read it slowly enough, you will finally get it? Come on, now. Don't disappoint me. I believe in you.

What I get from your 'explanation' is you work around hp recovery by playing a rolodex stable of characters.

Quote from: Sommerjon;543308What I get from your 'explanation' is you work around hp recovery by playing a rolodex stable of characters.

Hm not quite there yet. But you're trying. That's great. Keep at it.

Quote from: Benoist;543306I feel like I already did. I believe in encouraging people to reach beyond what they think is their ultimate potential. Maybe if you read it slowly enough, you will finally get it? Come on, now. Don't disappoint me. I believe in you.

Ben I think one of the issues is that your defense relies on the idea that you don't only play 1 PC in a game you play multiple PCs in a campaign and switch between them.
That might be how D&D was played by some, a lot or all of the people in a certain place at a certain time but it doesn't affect the way the world works on an individual PC.
Just becuase I am now playing Dave the Elf doesn't mean that Jack the MU should now heal faster or slower.
I am an absolute beliver in The World in Motion but for that to work all elements need to be running at a similar pace. The NPCs concont their plans, the dwarves slowly dig their tunnels under the castle walls and A character should heal at a consistent rate.
I know it doesn't really matter if I can have fun with another PC (I don't actually like troupe play by the way never have but that is an aside) but in the same way it is hand waving. The Time Heals all Wounds position.

But the current stance doesn't come across as very reasonable.

Like I said either the rules are a physics engine or they are a game. All rules sit somewhere on that spectrum 4e was a GAME, Aftermath was far more like a Physics Engine.
Now Gygax clearly states that D&D is a GAME that was his intent. So in the context of a game for game reasons to do with how they wanted the world to work healing naturally took ages. Perhaps that was to force PCs to spend gold on healing, perhaps it was to promote the Cleric class, perhaps it was just a side effect of a rule designed for levels 1-3 that survived until PCs routinely reached 12th or 13th so suddenly a fighter could have 80 HP. Perhaps it was all those things and discussing those reasons why the heal mechnism worked that way might be less of a pain point for folks. I know that your go off and play your other PC was along those lines but its a little less pursuasive because its not the assumed style of play from the 1e books and its counter intuitive for the Roleplaying crowd for whom playing Dave the Elf was kind of the point of coming to the game session each week.
Sorry I am waffling a bit as its late. Does that make any sense?

Quote from: jibbajibba;543327Ben I think one of the issues is that your defense relies on the idea that you don't only play 1 PC in a game you play multiple PCs in a campaign and switch between them.

Actually, not necessarily, because the same reasoning goes for periods of downtime in actual play. The group retreats from the dungeon and takes a guy down with them. During downtime, said character is resting.

Next session, the group will pick up after said downtime (whether it is uneventful, or something interrupts their downtime like some event going on in town or whatnot is up for grabs, world in motion, and so on). The DM then just looks at the time spent until the game starts again for the characters. Less than a month? Calculate the actual recuperation of the wounded PC. More than a month? The wounded PC is back at full hit points. In either case, there is no dissociation.

Quote from: Benoist;543329Actually, not necessarily, because the same reasoning goes for periods of downtime in actual play. The group retreats from the dungeon and takes a guy down with them. During downtime, said character is resting.

Next session, the group will pick up after said downtime (whether it is uneventful, or something interrupts their downtime like some event going on in town or whatnot is up for grabs, world in motion, and so on). The DM then just looks at the time spent until the game starts again for the characters. Less than a month? Calculate the actual recuperation of the wounded PC. More than a month? The wounded PC is back at full hit points. In either case, there is no dissociation.

I can see a wavy hand logic to it.
Uncle Gary: Okay you train in town it takes um... 5 weeks and costs you 14 trillion gp. Okay what you doing then.
Dave the Elf: how many HP I am I on now
UG: um ... you're fully healed
Dte: Cool right back to it.

It's unnecessary though. You could just say heal 1hp per day and 2 for complete bed rest. The hand wavy bit is just a hand wavy bit that had no need to be codified anywhere.
I suspect in real Old School play it never ever happened. An Old school party would have a healer or go to the local church and pray they weren't going to wait that log to heal. It only makes a difference after about 10th level so they were so dragged down by magic was probably never a concern.

It only gets to be an issue if you want to create a coherent system that is internally logical both in play and in camera. If that is the aim then this rule doesn't work but as D&D is supposed to be a GAME and not a Phys Engine we can let it go. But it does then get harder to try to explain why another rule or a change in a rule that promotes the GAME can't happen because its dissassociative or not immersive. Like Per Encounter martial powers for example (to cross fertilize threads)

Whether the rule needs to be there or you like it or not is neither here nor there. The contension is that this bit here is actually not a dissociation in actual play, whereas the recuperation of all your HPs from negative in 24-36 hours in the 5e Public Playtest is.

Quote from: Benoist;543338Whether the rule needs to be there or you like it or not is neither here nor there. The contension is that this bit here is actually not a dissociation in actual play, whereas the recuperation of all your HPs from negative in 24-36 hours in the 5e Public Playtest is.

Depending on what HPs represent right?

I would agree with you by the way I think some of those HP need to be physical I would just carve them out more descretely so that it was obvious.

Quote from: jibbajibba;543342Depending on what HPs represent right?

Absolutely, and this is where you start wondering if HPs in 5e represent wounds at all. In either case, there's a problem, because if they do, then this recuperation scheme doesn't make any sense, and if they don't, then actual health is not simulated at all in this game, for one thing, and it represents such a change from the previous editions of the game in this regard, on the other, as to make 5e "not D&D" to me.

Quote from: Benoist;543344Absolutely, and this is where you start wondering if HPs in 5e represent wounds at all. In either case, there's a problem, because if they do, then this recuperation scheme doesn't make any sense, and if they don't, then actual health is not simulated at all in this game, for one thing, and it represents such a change from the previous editions of the game in this regard, on the other, as to make 5e "not D&D" to me.

Well not a big leap from 4e but point taken.

Your desire to keep the physical bit of HP and the luck/skill/stamina bit of HP jumbled together does that come from an ease of playability position or a 'its D&D' position. I am curious because leap to defend the traditional method but don;t really discuss your opinions on the other suggested options in any great detail.
Are Old school HP and heal rates just a deal breaker for you? Or would you consider the Level HP per day option from 3e as a workable compromise?

Quote from: jibbajibba;543347Your desire to keep the physical bit of HP and the luck/skill/stamina bit of HP jumbled together does that come from an ease of playability position or a 'its D&D' position.

I think both and more. It's both because I feel the abstraction works when all these concepts are indeed bundled together and that you can, on a case by case basis in actual play, describe this hit as exhausting, or this other one as actually wounding, according to specific circumstances in the game rather than theoretical concerns over the matter, and because there is a problem of what D&D feels like to me and the different moving parts it involves, one of them being resource management on the mid-long term, that you need to strategize to not die, to freeze that water around the medusa to see her reflection on the floor and not look at her eyes or die, that just going straight for the fight expecting to recuperate all your hit points in the next few hours should not always be the right answer to all tactical problems, and so on so forth. So the HP mechanics, save or die, all these things to me participate in the feel of the D&D game and the more you take them apart, the more you risk to end up with just an husk, a pastiche of a game that was once great, but got gimped for completely theoretical reasons bandied about by a bunch of douchebags who've actually never played the game or misremember the original material they've read decades ago as children, IF they actually read it.

That is an understandable position.

My dislike of pure HP stems from two things. Playing games with no magical healing, Lankhmar thief type games really, and Villains and Vigilantes.

The first because, as I posted previously, when you remove magical healing you expose some of the issues with HP. The second because V&V's Power mechanic was a much more grokable implmentation of hit points. You have a Power number made up from a mix of stats (if HP are skill and the ability to dogde and duck then why does only CON improve your HP?) and when you were hit you could absorb some of that damage from your Power. If the hit was light or your power high you could absorb all of it otherwise you got tagged.

To me that elegant and simple mechanic just made my 13 year old self go "Oh that makes sense".

I know that HP work because they are simple. I find it ironic that people that support HP due to less bookkeeping are often the same people that track encumberance, the number of sling stones used and spells that last x rounds rather than for the combat :)
I think that even within the context of simplicity Hit points can be improved to both reflect the Physics of the world and to improve Game play but I guess it's moot.

Quote from: 1989;542485We do not need a fucking 2d20 system 40 years later.

We do not need a fucking stamina/wound/bullshit system, either.

With "we" you mean "you" and...?

Quote from: CRKrueger;542424Pretty simple - Cut Hit Points in two and call half of them Stamina, call the rest Wounds.  Everytime you gain HPs, you put half into Stamina, half into Wounds, with the odd number going to Stamina.  So lets grab a guy from the Playtest Document, the Cleric of Moradin.

He has 17 HPs, so on his sheet you list.
Stamina: 9
Wounds: 8

He takes 6pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina: 3
Wounds: 8

He now takes 5pts of damage, now it reads
Stamina:0
Wounds:6

He takes a Short Rest.  Short Rest only heals Stamina, not Hit Points.  So he rolls a 1d8 for Short Rest and gets a 5.  Now it reads
Stamina:5
Wounds: 6 (note the actual Wounds section of the HPs hasn't been affected by the Short Rest).

He decides to cast Cure Light Wounds and rolls a 7, so now it reads
Stamina: 5
Wounds: 8 (note the stamina section was not raised by Curing the wounds)

So now

• I have an easily defined method to finally once and for all declare in D&D what is skill/luck/stamina and what is damage.
• I have a new stat (Stamina) I can use to power Fighter abilities (or other stuff) without resorting to AEDU
• I can have all kinds of "inspirational/leadership" abilities that can heal Stamina or even give temp Stamina.
• I can toss in optional rules that sneak attacks, critical hits, falling damage bypass Stamina if I want.
• I don't have D&D characters running around like superheros with no fear of death.

This is not what I'd call simple. Anytime you have to do division, and do rounding off, that's not simplicity.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;543662This is not what I'd call simple. Anytime you have to do division, and do rounding off, that's not simplicity.

RPGPundit

yep.  hard for most 3rd graders, pretty easy by 4th.

I can understand you complaining that there are more steps, or that it is more complicated (less simple), but it is still pretty damn simple.

I think JibJab's right, even cutting it in half would leave a high level fighter with more wounds then a horse.  Something like a Base of Con would be better.

I agree there are simpler ways to fix the healing and do less messing with the system.  I was thinking of fixing healing and getting rid of the AEDU at the same time.  For houserules I would consider...
 
1.) Just drop the "all HPs after a long rest".
2.) Don't have the first HP autoheal all negative HP damage

...to be the bare minimum I could live with.

I'd probably also take any Fighter's X/day and have it use HD to power.

Quote from: jibbajibba;543342Depending on what HPs represent right?

I would agree with you by the way I think some of those HP need to be physical I would just carve them out more descretely so that it was obvious.

They are all meat-points (http://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/roland.html).

Quote from: CRKrueger;543683I think JibJab's right, even cutting it in half would leave a high level fighter with more wounds then a horse.  Something like a Base of Con would be better.

I agree there are simpler ways to fix the healing and do less messing with the system.  I was thinking of fixing healing and getting rid of the AEDU at the same time.  For houserules I would consider...
 
1.) Just drop the "all HPs after a long rest".
2.) Don't have the first HP autoheal all negative HP damage

...to be the bare minimum I could live with.

I'd probably also take any Fighter's X/day and have it use HD to power.

Try the method I suggested. 1st level HP are your wounds, run the game just straight but if you get down below that threshold the healing mechanism is suspended until you heal 'naturally'.

We tried it out with 3rd level characters, and the effect is that (once players suss the HD heal mechanism) they are pretty gung ho but once they get close to that threshold they back right the fuck off. Not being able to restore HP becomes a HUGE effect and suddenly the PCs realise that the HP buffer needs to be preserved at all costs.
The effect on game play actually becoems they try to avoid direct combat and short heal after every combat.

The next iteration I will try it with a base wound threshold of 6+Con Bonus and add HP at first level. Because obviously this system is very harsh at first level :)
I might also try to stat us some 10th level characters and and see how that plays out.

The advantage of course is that there is no additional bookkeeping and you keep all the benefits of the simplicity of HP.

I am fairly certain that there will be a Campaign set up for Old School Play that will reset the healing mechnism to a Short rest giving you a HP recovery and a Long Rest giving you a HD. You could very easily do it yourself and set the Long rest recovery from 1HD all the way up level HD or any point in between. I think the flexibility is embedded in the rule set to be honest.