# L&L 5/21 - Hit Points, Our Old Friend



## Savage Wombat (May 21, 2012)

Well this ought to be an interesting discussion.

Legends & Lore 5/21


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 21, 2012)

*L&L hitpoints and HD*

So what does everyone think?
HIT DICE as a healing surge/second wind, and wizards with d6's

I hope we keep "Bloodied" i liked that.

Also a short survey is up


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

This could be a deal breaker for me depending on how things go.  Time to go read the article.

EDIT1: 
If mundane bandages are all the fighter's companions have on hand, it will take a couple of days for the fighter to return to action.​
Yay!  Big fan of this.  Also a big fan of the HP of a 1st level fighter could have being low like 10.  Not 25-30 at level 1 like 4E.

EDIT2: 
Your character gains Hit Dice just as he or she did in editions before 4E, though some classes use different dice now. Fighters gain a d10 Hit Die per level, clerics and rogues gain d8s, and wizards gain d6s. When a character rests, Hit Dice allow that character to regain hit points. Your character is bandaging wounds, applying healing herbs, having some food and water, and otherwise spending time to recover. You can roll one or more of your character's Hit Dice to determine how many hit points mundane treatment allows him or her to recover.​
This sounds alright.  It's not like having two or three times you HP total worth of healing surges you can spend at the end of every fight over the course of a day.  I wonder how often the HD refresh.  It looks like a day's rest will give them back to you.  Extended rests to get HD back, short rests to use them.  That works for me.

Given that non-magical healing will be a die roll equal to the die roll you rolled to determine your HP, you don't have the 4E issue of becoming instantly fine after a single night's rest.  You could be in negative HP and roll poorly for a day or two and not be 100% when the world needs you.  But you'll still recover fast enough that when supplemented with some magic, you can probably take a protracted beating and still be heroic.

So is it a deal breaker?

No.  I like it and look forward to testing it out.


----------



## Jacob Marley (May 21, 2012)

I think I actually like what he wrote here. Especially this:



			
				L&L said:
			
		

> First, it's worth noting why we want to reduce the party's reliance on healing magic. One of our goals for the next iteration is to add an unmatched level of flexibility. *We want to make a game where one DM and one player can play through an adventure without undue need for house rules or changes to the core system.* We'd prefer that if half the group misses a session, the DM can still run something without having to change the basic rules for the campaign.




Of course, I may be the only one.


----------



## CM (May 21, 2012)

The article in question:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Hit Points, Our Old Friend)

I'm happy that Mike Mearls and I are on the same page as far as HP. 

Edit: So... Hit Dice are the new healing surges? Here's the important part:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> It's important to note that Hit Dice come into play to represent mundane healing. Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice. If a character relies on natural healing, it takes quite a while to recover.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 21, 2012)

I wonder if the "shorter rests" and "longer rests" he's referring to are days vs. weeks, or 5min rest vs. full night's sleep. It seems like the latter.

Anyway, it's an interesting way to do mundane healing. It seems similar to healing surges, but it really isn't. It also makes hit dice a more relevant thing, which I always like.

Edit: 10 min / 1 night.

https://twitter.com/#!/mikemearls/status/204433027462463489


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 21, 2012)

So what we've got here seems to be that we're keeping healing surges, but not by name, and only as a limit on non-magical healing.  Other baggage of healing surges (like energy drain attacks) may also no longer apply.

Is this the way to make everyone happy, I wonder?

I also liked the spider description enough to wonder if certain attacks, like poison, aren't more effective against a bloodied or downed opponent.  That could just be reading too much into it.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 21, 2012)

Thoughts!

I still think making healing a ritual would solve most of the problems with healing. You could even have a non-magical surgery "ritual". 

I don't like the way the new HD mechanic is looking. It seems like it is a healing surge, but worse because of randomness.

I really want to see the condition track sneak it's way into 5e somehow, but that's not really related to hp.

Also, some form of ablative HP would be an interesting rule to test out. Characters can't go back up above bloodied until they rest, for example.


----------



## Savage Wombat (May 21, 2012)

Oh, and would this work better or worse with rolling HP vs. fixed HP?


----------



## keterys (May 21, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> So what we've got here seems to be that we're keeping healing surges, but not by name, and only as a limit on non-magical healing.  Other baggage of healing surges (like energy drain attacks) may also no longer apply.



I... didn't see any part of healing surges in there at all?

Let's say that 10th level dwarven fighter has 100 hp (30 hp was a glancing blow)... 10d10... plus 40-50 from somewhere (Con, theme, whatever). Sounds like he can naturally heal 10d10 per day.

If you're a 10th level elf fighter with 50 hp (you don't have that plus 40-50 the dwarf did)... you roll up to 10d10 sounds like.

Doesn't seem _that_ different from the 1-4 x level of 3e, just more rolling, and little easier. It certainly shies away from the 4e 1/4 of your hp, less rolling for healing system.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

double post, my bad


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

Hooray for having no real choice but to have a healer?


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 21, 2012)

Mearls clarified on Twitter: a short rest is 10 minutes, a long rest is a full night's sleep.

https://twitter.com/#!/mikemearls/status/204433027462463489


----------



## am181d (May 21, 2012)

So if I'm reading this correctly, you get X number of hit dice (with X presumably equaling your level?) and you can roll 1 (or more?) during each rest period and you recover N number per day (presumably NOT your level, cause that'd be all of them, but presumably NOT just 1 cause that'd make natural healing perpetually slower as you get more powerful).

My initial reaction is that this is overly fiddly. A clever idea that won't work in practice. But I am often wrong about these sorts of things...


----------



## Flobby (May 21, 2012)

Sorry for being dense but I don't get it... Does this mean you'll have hit points separate from hit dice in some way? Or will have to go back to rolling for hit points every level??


----------



## Herremann the Wise (May 21, 2012)

I'm not a fan of this but I'll wait for further details in the playtest. Hit Dice killing healing surges and taking their stuff _might _work depending upon the wrapping that goes around it. See how it playtests I suppose.

I like at least that they are intending to more rigidly define what a hit at a particular point on the hp loss spectrum means. Clarity here is very important.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## billd91 (May 21, 2012)

Sounds kind of quirky. It sounds a bit to me like they're just trying to find a place to use a pre-4e term - "hit dice" - rather than come up with the most agreeable solution to the problem. I suspect that the random element will not be favored by 4e fans and the people who reject using random hit points in the first place.

Frankly, I think it might just be easier to recover half the hit points lost in an encounter with a modest rest after a fight.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 21, 2012)

I'm still not buying what HP represents.  And yes, I know, its pretty much always been this way in D&D.

Their example...  A Fighter with 10 hit points gets bit by a spider for 3 damage.  Barely a hit, but just enough so he has to make a fort save vs the poison.  So what happens when that same spider hits that same fighter 10 levels later?  When the fighter has 60 hit points.  If 3 hit points off of 10 is a "near miss" then what is 3 hit points off of 60?  The fighter has to make a saving throw.

How about an arrow attack?  An arrow hits the Fighter for 3 damage.  Realistically, you get hit with an arrow, you're as good as dead.  But this is D&D, and not all is as it seems when hit points come into play.  According to how D&D views hit points, this might not be a hit at all.  Maybe you dodge out of the way, or luck came into play.  You exert some stamina for getting out of the way in time, and this is represented by taking off 3 hit points from your total.  But what if the arrow is poisoned?  Now you have to make a save.  So if the arrow missed you, it didn't really miss you.

What about falling 100 feet?  Using current D&D math, thats 10d6 damage or 30 damage on average.  The 10 hit point fighter goes splat (reasonable) but the 60 hit point fighter somehow 'bouces' off the ground with maybe a few bruises?

I know Hit Points is the best we have, but they really do not make sense in a lot of cases.  Its just one of those things I try not to think about too much.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 21, 2012)

As long as HD are only used for recovery and actual HP per level are fixed, then I'm cool with this. Of course, I never minded surges in the first place.


----------



## billd91 (May 21, 2012)

RigaMortus2 said:


> How about an arrow attack?  An arrow hits the Fighter for 3 damage.  Realistically, you get hit with an arrow, you're as good as dead.  But this is D&D, and not all is as it seems when hit points come into play.  According to how D&D views hit points, this might not be a hit at all.  Maybe you dodge out of the way, or luck came into play.  You exert some stamina for getting out of the way in time, and this is represented by taking off 3 hit points from your total.  But what if the arrow is poisoned?  Now you have to make a save.  So if the arrow missed you, it didn't really miss you.




As good as dead? That depends on where the arrow hits you and how. If they managed to avoid infection (and rarely has D&D delved into that level of realism), plenty of people have survived arrow wounds throughout history. Just because an arrow inflicts hit point damage doesn't mean it skewered you through the vitals. Maybe it nicked your arm or leg (maybe even your ear). Perhaps it was tumbling through the air as it hit, leaving a welt. Perhaps it shattered on some armor or other obstacle and bits of wood and fletching got in your eye.


----------



## keterys (May 21, 2012)

Merged the two threads on the same topic. Enjoy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 21, 2012)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I know Hit Points is the best we have, but they really do not make sense in a lot of cases.  Its just one of those things I try not to think about too much.



Just think of them as ablative "plot armor."  It's what they're there for, so characters can be other-than-posthumous heroes.


----------



## DMKastmaria (May 21, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Frankly, I think it might just be easier to recover half the hit points lost in an encounter with a modest rest after a fight.




Maybe a third. 

Minor injuries add up. Professional athletes often play at less than 100% throughout the season, due to wear and tear. Injuries that aren't too debilitating, but still drag down performance. I figure fighting your way through a dungeon, is bit harder on the body than professional football. 

A way of negating hp loss attributable to "fighting ability," stamina, and minor scrapes, after a single battle, is certainly called for. Maybe luck and divine favor belong in that category as well. 

A couple of days to get back into action after being taken down, is too quick. Feels like a cartoon, not a life and death struggle.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (May 21, 2012)

billd91 said:


> As good as dead? That depends on where the arrow hits you and how. If they managed to avoid infection (and rarely has D&D delved into that level of realism), plenty of people have survived arrow wounds throughout history. Just because an arrow inflicts hit point damage doesn't mean it skewered you through the vitals. Maybe it nicked your arm or leg (maybe even your ear). Perhaps it was tumbling through the air as it hit, leaving a welt. Perhaps it shattered on some armor or other obstacle and bits of wood and fletching got in your eye.




I think with the arrow and spider bit examples:

a) If the result is the character isn't bloodied, we're talking bouncing off of armor or dodging or near miss, "the arrow flies directly past your ear". Each of these covers the three areas identified: bulk, skill and cosmic luck or fluff.
I would prefer that the spider poison as talked about in the article example, doesn't even need to be saved against in this situation,

b) If the result is bloodied, we're talking about a flesh wound or maybe a little more. Arrow stuck somewhere it shouldn't be but nowhere vital. In terms of the spider poison, you need to start saving at this point.

c) If the result is zero or less, then you are talking the arrow stuck somewhere where it _really _shouldn't be. This should have an impact on play. I'd like it if the spider poison was real nasty - auto fail the save while at or below zero.

Just some thoughts.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 21, 2012)

The advantage of hit dice is following:

A healing spell now can say:

cure light wounds: recover 2 hit dice+your level. Much less clunky than 20% of hp. Also better than healing xd8 (which does not take into account that a barbarian with 3 damage is differently injured than a wizard with 3 damage).


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 21, 2012)

Flobby said:


> Sorry for being dense but I don't get it... Does this mean you'll have hit points separate from hit dice in some way? Or will have to go back to rolling for hit points every level??



Sounds like the pre-4e system where you roll your hit die each level and gain that many max HP. I think it's a given that there will be a non-random option.

I like the proposed system. It makes it more relevant how many HD a creature "has," rather than it being a strange thing that's important only once and can be safely ignored, until it randomly becomes incredibly important and seems arbitrary and stupid. 

Like what they did with ability scores.


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

At last, Mike Mearls tackles the Big One. Presumably because, with the playtest about to start, he couldn't avoid it any longer. 

I've posted elsewhere that I think the handling of hit points is make-or-break for D&DN. It's the one element that is both a major point of contention between the 3E and 4E bases, and impossible to finesse with a module. This looks like an approach that might succeed in threading the needle. I'll have to see it in play, but I think maybe I like it. It doesn't fill me with sparkles and joy, but it also doesn't make me groan, and that's all I ask from a hit point system.

One thing that _does_ fill me with sparkles and joy is the attention being given to the fiction. It's not that I'm ecstatic about the fiction underlying hit points (no one is ever going to make the fiction of hit points pretty), but if the designers are putting this much thought into it, it's a fair bet they're doing the same with the rest of D&DN. This is a Happy Thing.

Incidentally, anybody else notice that a 1st-level fighter has 10 hit points? Looks like hit points have been scaled back quite a lot. 10 hit points is less than half what a 4E fighter would have. It's lowish even for a 3E fighter, who could be expected to have a Con bonus. I'm curious to see what the advancement rate is. Just spitballing, I'd guess it's 5 hit points per level, with an option to roll a Hit Die instead if you like to do things old-school.

_Edit: And another thing. I just noticed Mearls said that when you take a night's rest, you get back Hit Dice--but he didn't say how many. All of them? Half of them? One of them? We wonders, precious, yes we wonders..._


----------



## The Shadow (May 21, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The advantage of hit dice is following:
> 
> A healing spell now can say:
> 
> cure light wounds: recover 2 hit dice+your level. Much less clunky than 20% of hp. Also better than healing xd8 (which does not take into account that a barbarian with 3 damage is differently injured than a wizard with 3 damage).




It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's what they have in mind.  Mearls explicitly says that HD represent non-magical healing, and that spells ignore them.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> So what we've got here seems to be that we're keeping healing surges, but not by name, and only as a limit on non-magical healing.  Other baggage of healing surges (like energy drain attacks) may also no longer apply.




I think it's definitely more than "not by name."  Hit Dice as non-magical healing mechanic has some commonalities to healing surges, but it will produce very, very different results.



Leatherhead said:


> I don't like the way the new HD mechanic is looking. It seems like it is a healing surge, but worse because of randomness.




Or better because of randomness.  It's the type of thing that can create story through emergent play.  You could finish a fight, us a HD, roll low and then the entire plot could change as the party changes their timeline, takes less risks or otherwise modifies their behaviour.

I've been playing Dark Dungeons that has a first aid roll after each fight to return people d3 HP.  If it goes great for everyone, then we make decisions very differently than if it goes poorly.  Though this is a system where a level 1 cleric has 1d6 HP rather than 20+.



> I really want to see the condition track sneak it's way into 5e somehow, but that's not really related to hp.




That would be kind of cool.  I already have that sort of itch scratched with Strands of Fate and its stress tracks and consequence aspects though.



Savage Wombat said:


> Oh, and would this work better or worse with rolling HP vs. fixed HP?




Fixed at what level?  If you roll randomly and get close to the average, you'll have a very different experience than if you fix HP at the max the die size can produce and then roll low consistently.



Incenjucar said:


> Hooray for having no real choice but to have a healer?




As I mentioned above, I'm playing a BECMI clone right now and in that version of D&D, no one can do magical healing at level 1.  Not even clerics.  Yet we're managing with Keep on the Borderlands just fine.  And this looks more forgiving than BECMI.



Flobby said:


> Sorry for being dense but I don't get it... Does this mean you'll have hit points separate from hit dice in some way? Or will have to go back to rolling for hit points every level??




I imagine there will be options, but it sounds like rolling for HD.  I know it's a common house rule for older versions to start level 1 with maximum HP and then roll for the rest.  Or to start with max and then choose to either roll or take the average.


----------



## Slander (May 21, 2012)

I kinda like it. Even if the default assumption is rolling for HP (though there isn't a hint in the article one way or the other whether this is actually the case), assigning static values to the hit dice isn't a whole lot of work. As far as Hit Dice for mundane recovery, it typically won't be more fiddly than carrying potions. Where it might be a problem is if multi-classing resembles 3E, and you have to keep track of which dice you've already rolled for the day. 

I do like that recovery HD are only useable outside of combat; it definitely helps differentiate it from magical healing, and while magical healing isn't required, a party will certainly appreciate the presence of a magical healer. And if mundane healing is too fast, tweaking the HD renewal time-frame is another dial DMs can adjust.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

RigaMortus2 said:


> If 3 hit points off of 10 is a "near miss" then what is 3 hit points off of 60?  The fighter has to make a saving throw.




Poinonous creatures don't necessarily have to mangle your flesh to inject their poison.  The best ones barely do any damage at all.

It's also probably best to remember than a fighter with that many more HP is probably also going to have a way, way higher save.



> How about an arrow attack?  An arrow hits the Fighter for 3 damage.  Realistically, you get hit with an arrow, you're as good as dead.




I'd recommend a documentary series called Weapons That Made Britain.  Lots of cool info about armour and arrows and shields and stuff.  You can get hit by an arrow and have it jam through your shield and into your arm, or bounce off your armour, or give you a hideous bruise.



> But what if the arrow is poisoned?  Now you have to make a save.  So if the arrow missed you, it didn't really miss you.




This goes back to OD&D.  Hit points are an abstraction.  You could simply add on another line.  You made your save, so it didn't really hit you.



> What about falling 100 feet?  Using current D&D math, thats 10d6 damage or 30 damage on average.  The 10 hit point fighter goes splat (reasonable) but the 60 hit point fighter somehow 'bouces' off the ground with maybe a few bruises?




Yes, HP that go up with level have never been an accurate method of tracking damage to the human body.  But they are going to stick around anyway because they're part of D&D tradition and are meat as an abstraction.



> Its just one of those things I try not to think about too much.




Good plan.  Though there are alternatives in other systems that go back decades that work just as well that don't create these issues.  But not in D&D.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> As I mentioned above, I'm playing a BECMI clone right now and in that version of D&D, no one can do magical healing at level 1.  Not even clerics.  Yet we're managing with Keep on the Borderlands just fine.  And this looks more forgiving than BECMI.




At level 1 you don't have that many HP to recover to begin with, so that's rather moot.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Slander said:


> I do like that recovery HD are only useable outside of combat;




I do as well and hope that it turns out this way.  I don't really want some guy to say "Hey, it's not that bad!" and that somehow is as good as actually tending to the injuries.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> At level 1 you don't have that many HP to recover to begin with, so that's rather moot.




We have one guy with, like, nine.  And if we level up, maybe he'll get 15 or so at second level.

And then the cleric will be level 2 and finally can cast "cure light wounds" once per* day* and heal what? 1d6+1 for *one person out of six*?

Seriously.  This D&DN HP scheme looks like easy mode compared to that.  Need a healer?  Hah!


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> We have one guy with, like, nine.  And if we level up, maybe he'll get 15 or so at second level.
> 
> And then the cleric can cast "cure light wounds" once per day and heal what? 1d6+1 for one person out of six?
> 
> Seriously.  This D&DN HP scheme looks like easy mode compared to that.  Need a healer?  Hah!




HP will come back fast enough for wizards, but fighters will be subject to a lot of chance. Rolling 1s and 2s on a d10 happens. Not to mention that human behavior is to avoid starting off with anything less than 100% full, so we can look forward to the 15 Minute Work WEEK instead of the 15 Minute Work Day.


----------



## Ichneumon (May 21, 2012)

This could be a pointer to where the warlord fits in - letting you spend your Hit Dice in combat, or even giving you bonus rolls.

It's obvious from the article that half hit points is still significant, though whether the condition is still called "bloodied" is yet to be known. I'd say it could be "injured".


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> It's obvious from the article that half hit points is still significant, though whether the condition is still called "bloodied" is yet to be known. I'd say it could be "injured".




I suspect the term "bloodied" is not going to make an appearance in D&DN. It's a pity, because it's quite a good term given how they're envisioning the fiction. But too many folks would be reminded of the stuff they hated in 4E.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> HP will come back fast enough for wizards, but fighters will be subject to a lot of chance. Rolling 1s and 2s on a d10 happens. Not to mention that human behavior is to avoid starting off with anything less than 100% full, so we can look forward to the 15 Minute Work WEEK instead of the 15 Minute Work Day.




And yet, playing BECMI with d3 HP per fight and then 1 HP per day as recovery, we don't have a 15 minute work week or even a 15 minute work day.

The 15 minute work day is more of a spell casting refresh issue than HP.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> And yet, playing BECMI with d3 HP per fight and then 1 HP per day as recovery, we don't have a 15 minute work week or even a 15 minute work day.
> 
> The 15 minute work day is more of a spell casting refresh issue than HP.




And yet you're still at a low level and so the point is still moot.


----------



## MortalPlague (May 21, 2012)

RigaMortus2 said:


> But what if the arrow is poisoned?  Now you have to make a save.  So if the arrow missed you, it didn't really miss you.




The way I see it, if you take any damage at all (even just 3 out of 60 hit points), you took at least a scratch or bruise.  So when the poisoned arrow scratches the fighter's forearm for a trifling amount of damage, he laughs and rolls a poison save.  How many notable warriors, both real and fictional have been brought low by a small scratch from a poisoned weapon?



RigaMortus2 said:


> What about falling 100 feet?  Using current D&D math, thats 10d6 damage or 30 damage on average.  The 10 hit point fighter goes splat (reasonable) but the 60 hit point fighter somehow 'bouces' off the ground with maybe a few bruises?




I picture it like this; the higher level character just has more fight, more skill, and more experience than the lower level one.  A 10th level character would claw and grab for outcroppings to slow his fall, would know better how to brace his body for impact, would be more capable of rolling with the fall.  A first level character would be panicking.

John MacLean and a rookie cop fall out of a window; who lives?


----------



## billd91 (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I suspect the term "bloodied" is not going to make an appearance in D&DN. It's a pity, because it's quite a good term given how they're envisioning the fiction. But too many folks would be reminded of the stuff they hated in 4E.




I don't know. I think bloodied is one of the least annoying new things in 4e. I use it in PF - mainly as a gauge that the creature they're fighting is actually badly hurt.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> And yet you're still at a low level and so the point is still moot.




The vast majority of D&D play is at low level.  How the game works then is more important than how it works at level 10+ (though it is still important for it to work well at such levels, just not as important).

You made the contention that having a dedicated healer is still necessary given what's been talked about in the article.

I say nonsense.  And actual play of a version of the game that is way, way more harsh backs that up.  Having access to the same dice you rolled to generate your hit points to restore them, each and every day, is very, very rapid healing.  It's not as fast as 4E reset to full though.  4E already restores HP at the fastest rate any system could if we are talking about the refresh rate of a night's sleep.  So if that's your standard, everything by definition must be slow in comparison.

And if you play 4E and need a healer, I can totally see how you might think that therefore you're going to need a healer even more with the system that's going to be in the playtest for 5E.

I'm saying, you don't.  And given that D&D Next is about looking back at the entire history of D&D for ideas, it probably shouldn't surprise you that there are modes of play that will be included in 5E that are not from 4E.


----------



## The Shadow (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> I suspect the term "bloodied" is not going to make an appearance in D&DN. It's a pity, because it's quite a good term given how they're envisioning the fiction. But too many folks would be reminded of the stuff they hated in 4E.




I would hope most people would be more able to compartmentalize than that.  I mean, I don't care for 4e really at all, but 'bloodied' is a perfectly serviceable English word that captures the desired concept.

Plus, is the 'bloodied' idea really something that people seriously dislike about 4e?


----------



## Szatany (May 21, 2012)

keterys said:


> Let's say that 10th level dwarven fighter has 100 hp (30 hp was a glancing blow)... 10d10... plus 40-50 from somewhere (Con, theme, whatever). Sounds like he can naturally heal 10d10 per day.



Not necessarily. Remember that the fighter has to spend his Hit Dice to heal. We don't know how quickly hit dice are recovered.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2012)

I am guessing your HP may well be not just the amount you get from class. I reckon everyone will start with con amount then x per level (average of class hit die maybe)?


----------



## erleni (May 21, 2012)

In principle it may work. I'll just run the playtest twice, once with a cleric and once without to see the differences.
Anyway I don't like to have so few HP on a 1st level character. But let's see, if yu have enough ways to spend your HD that may even be not that bad.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 21, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I would hope most people would be more able to compartmentalize than that. I mean, I don't care for 4e really at all, but 'bloodied' is a perfectly serviceable English word that captures the desired concept.
> 
> Plus, is the 'bloodied' idea really something that people seriously dislike about 4e?



 Some people complain about everything 4E, whether they actually know anything about it or not.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was a discussion somewhere expressing outright hatred of the bloodied condition, merely because it appeared in 4E.

One small problem I have had with Bloodied in the past was from a one-off comment I made about a villian who was struck in the nose by an attack.  Naturally, his nose started bleeding.  Thinking he was on the ropes, the heroes got cocky. TPK.  I kinda wish they would come up with a different term, like 'staggered'.  But that term also carries issues.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> The vast majority of D&D play is at low level.  How the game works then is more important than how it works at level 10+ (though it is still important for it to work well at such levels, just not as important).




We don't need to go back to having the game turn into rubbish half-way through, thanks.


----------



## Libramarian (May 21, 2012)

OK so hold on.

If you're above half your HP, you barely have a scratch. If you're below half, you're noticeably injured.

But what is the fictional meaning of the number of hit dice you have left?

What are you if you're above half HP but you've used up all your hit dice? You don't look injured but you're tired or something?

There needs to be some sort of fictional meaning that is consonant with the fact that it's going to feel a lot safer to take an axe blow when you have hit dice in your pocket than when you're out of them, at the same HP.


----------



## Ainamacar (May 21, 2012)

The designers had their work cut out for them, and I think they really took a good whack at it.  Whether it works, much less gains supports, is another matter.  As a synthesis with clear 4e and pre-4e influences, the risk is always that both groups come away unhappy.  My first impressions:


It addresses at least one huge thematic complaint about healing surges by positioning HD as mundane (and apparently out-of-combat?) resources which are largely independent of what spells can do.
It could potentially be used to run a campaign with mundane healing resources alone, hopefully treating combat (usually magical) healing from being an expected component of combat to a bonus. (Note that healing surges could have done the same thing, but 4e in fact went the opposite direction by baking a baseline of easily accessible combat healing into every single character and many classes.)
Could more easily support different adventure (as distinct from encounter) grittiness with modules compared to other editions of D&D.  Increasing or decreasing the number of HD regained during an extended rest could have a big impact over the long term without having a large impact at the per encounter basis.  Neither 4e or earlier editions could really claim that (although 4e came closer).  In 4e's case one could change the number of healing surges per day, but because they are so closely tied to combat they still have a clear impact on encounter outcomes.  In earlier editions there are only hit points, and changing the amount a character possesses directly changes the encounter balance.  This flexibility obviously isn't necessary for a fun D&D system, but if lots of ways to spend hit dice in combat show up the benefits are lost.  It would be a temptation for designers everywhere because designers love exploiting character resources in new ways.
Alternately, they could choose to emphasize the magic vs. mundane distinction as more important than the in-combat vs. out-of-combat distinction.  That would eliminate the previous point, but open up lots of interesting mechanics and interactions with distinct flavor.  This might be better than trying to emphasize the previous point anyway because most campaigns will probably stick close to the default and because the previous point is so easy to invalidate with future materials.  On the other hand, it would also mean the "quantum wound" criticism of healing surges would stick around.
In about a week we'll have  much more useful information, and in about a  month we'll start to see if people's first impressions (whether warm or cold)  turn out to be accurate.  I'm willing to give it a fair shake.

I also remember from the very earliest playtest reports that quite a number of people found the healing system wonky.  I wonder if this is basically what they had in January, or if this is a more recent attempt.

That also makes me think about multiclassing, since they will have hit dice of different size.  Does one use the hit die for each class, so a heavily multiclassed character might be able to spend 3d6 + 2d8 + 5d10?  Or will they use the highest or lowest die of any of their classes? (That would have very negative implications for multiclassing, and I dislike it.)  What if the character gains fewer than its level hit dice over an extended rest, can the character choose which dice to get first?  When spending can they choose which dice to spend first?  At least the latter two options will lead to predictable behavior, with characters always gaining and usualy choosing to expend the highest hit dice available first.  This part of the system could be wonky.



The Shadow said:


> It's an interesting idea [cure light wounds healing 2 hit dice + level damage], but I don't think it's what they have in mind.  Mearls explicitly says that HD represent non-magical healing, and that spells ignore them.




Notice that there is a distinction between "spending" HD while casting a healing spell versus referencing the size of the die itself.  For certain values of "ignore" the example spell might be an acceptable interpretation.  (Although referring to the size of the die and not spending a specific die could lead to problems in a multiclassing character.  There are several ways one might choose which size to use, but none of them are as nice as simply saying "2d8+level hit points.")


----------



## shamsael (May 21, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Sounds kind of quirky. It sounds a bit to me like they're just trying to find a place to use a pre-4e term - "hit dice" - rather than come up with the most agreeable solution to the problem. I suspect that the random element will not be favored by 4e fans and the people who reject using random hit points in the first place.
> 
> Frankly, I think it might just be easier to recover half the hit points lost in an encounter with a modest rest after a fight.




4e fans, like myself, can just turn a 1d10 hit die into a 5 point healing surge.  I long ago stopped rolling damage in my 4e campaigns anyway.  We just replace all references to dice with their average values, except for wild magic sorcerers who get to roll.


----------



## Haldrik (May 21, 2012)

Now “energy drain” can inflict “negative hit dice”.

In this way, a character must rest to replenish any deficit hit dice to mundanely recover from an energy drain - before any real healing can happen.

This will make energy drain somewhat scary (disturbing), knowing that they become unable to heal.


----------



## Lwaxy (May 21, 2012)

I love this article. We've partly handled it like this already, and not to have to house rule a mundane healing system would be very much appreciated.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

Wait a second...



			
				Da Article said:
			
		

> Hit Dice allow that character to regain hit points. Your character is  bandaging wounds, applying healing herbs, having some food and water,  and otherwise spending time to recover. You can roll one or more of your  character's Hit Dice to determine how many hit points mundane treatment  allows him or her to recover.   It's important to note that Hit Dice come into play to represent  mundane healing. Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit  Dice. If a character relies on natural healing, it takes quite a while  to recover.
> 
> When a character rests for an extended period of time, he or she regains  Hit Dice. In other words, a longer rest allows your character to regain  Hit Dice. Shorter rests allow you to spend those Hit Dice to regain  your character's hit points.




Does this say that magic, short rests, and long rest are 3 different mechanics?

Claire the level Cleric1/Figter1
Cure Light Wounds: Heal 5 HP per spell level prepared
Long Rest: Roll Hit Dice for Hit points. Gain 1 d8 HD and 1 d10 HD
Short rest: Spend Hit Dice and roll them for Hit points.

C'mon Thursday.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> OK so hold on.
> 
> If you're above half your HP, you barely have a scratch. If you're below half, you're noticeably injured.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much going to flavor it as fighting spirit and determination. If you're above half hp but have used up all your Hit Dice (assuming that is possible - there may be a rule that prevents you from using the last half of your Hit Dice unless you are at less than half hit points), your character is starting to feel nervous. He's had a lot of close calls in the last day or so, and he's starting to get worried that his luck will run out. When he's finally dropped to less than half his hit points, it takes all the willpower he has left just to keep going. He has none to spare for a last-ditch burst of effort.


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Wait a second...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it should be "regain" rather than "roll" for the long rest, but yes, I think that's how it should work.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 21, 2012)

I really like this article for several reasons.

A. The first part about how HP manifest in the world is extremely important and should be written in *CAPITAL BOLD LETTERS* in the PHB and DMG with the DMG version having a couple of pages with examples and "how to"s for DMs.

B. Divorcing mundane healing (HD healing) from magical healing is a big plus IMO, first of all the fact that each character don't have a base of 125% of its hp is a good step forward to combat hp bloat, both on the character side and more importantly in the monsters side.

Secondly, the HD mechanic is a great foundation for a 4e like module for those who like it, what to have 4e combat? Easy peasy, every character gains the second wind power that allows it you roll x HDs.

Third, the HD mechanic open the gates wide open for themes, equipment and classes that can heal outside of combat, like healing herbs and the means to get them, what if one of the ranger core abilities is to find healing herbs in the wilderness? Some of them will allow you to reroll any 1 on your HD roll some will add a flat +X to your roll and the more powerfull ones might be able to trigger an HD roll while in combat, suddenly you got a new mechanic that is tied to all three pillars of the game.

And forth, the HD mechanic is a great foundation to a stamina mechanic, from the paladin lay on hands ability that restore both hp and stamina (HD?) to penalties for exhausting your strength, it could also add HD damage to the mix, another thing to think about.

All in all I'm optimistic with this, now I need to see how it plays in the playtests.

Warder


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> John MacLean and a rookie cop fall out of a window; who lives?



Jon MacLean, mostly because the rookie broke his fall.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I think it should be "regain" rather than "roll" for the long rest, but yes, I think that's how it should work.




But what does the difference mean?

On a long rest does a level 1 fighter gain 1d10 HP, 10 HP, or 1 HD which requires another rest to gain HP?

Also..

*HEALING HERBS!!!!!*


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> A. The first part about how HP manifest in the world is extremely important and should be written in *CAPITAL BOLD LETTERS* in the PHB and DMG with the DMG version having a couple of pages with examples and "how to"s for DMs.



With any luck, the vast majority of gamers might even read it _*this*_ time.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> But what does the difference mean?
> 
> On a long rest does a level 1 fighter gain 1d10 HP, 10 HP, or 1 HD which requires another rest to gain HP?



I imagine it's like this:

Short rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP. 
Long rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP, then regain _X_ HD.

_X_ might be "Roll whatever type of die your HD is."


----------



## pemerton (May 21, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Just because an arrow inflicts hit point damage doesn't mean it skewered you through the vitals. Maybe it nicked your arm or leg (maybe even your ear). Perhaps it was tumbling through the air as it hit, leaving a welt. Perhaps it shattered on some armor or other obstacle and bits of wood and fletching got in your eye.



Schroedinger's obstacles?


----------



## FireLance (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> But what does the difference mean?
> 
> On a long rest does a level 1 fighter gain 1d10 HP, 10 HP, or 1 HD which requires another rest to gain HP?



This is just my guess from my reading of the article, but: after a long rest, a 1st-level fighter regains 1 Hit Dice. When he takes a short rest, he can expend that Hit Dice to regain 1d10 hit points.

At higher levels, it is not clear:

1. What is the maximum number of Hit Dice each character can have. A number equal to level seems likely (i.e. a 9th-level character can have a maximum of 9 Hit Dice), but any fraction or multiple of level (half level, twice level, etc.)  could also be possible.

2. How many Hit Dice are regained per long rest. Most likely, it will be a fraction of the maximum Hit Dice (one-third, half) so that it will take a character a few days to completely recover from being brought down to 0 hit points.

Another point that seems very likely at the moment is that the average number of hit points that can be regained from a character's maximum Hit Dice will be less than the character's full normal hit points. This means that a character's hit point reserve, in the form of Hit Dice, will be far shallower than in 4e. So over the course of an adventuring day, you might see a character expending all his Hit Dice to regain 50%, 75%, or (with a series of lucky rolls) 100% of his full normal hit points before he needs rest for at least a few days. That would address the criticism that 4e characters recover hit points too quickly, both in terms of a single adventuring day (where it is theoretically possible, though unlikely, to go from full hp to 0 hp and back to full hp two, three or more times per day) and from a day to day basis (because all hit points and healing surges are recovered after an extended rest).


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> I imagine it's like this:
> 
> Short rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP.
> Long rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP, then regain _X_ HD.
> ...




This is my guess.

Rob the 5th level rogue is with his party and fight some goblins and is now at 12. He takes a short rest, spends 2 d8 HD, and heals 7 HP. After another fight, the party rests for the night. Rob rolls his final d8 HD, gains 2 HP to go up to 21, and regains 6 d6 HDs.

It also sound like maximum HP is now your full values of your HD. So it might take several days to roll all the HD to go up to full.


----------



## Kzach (May 21, 2012)

I don't mind it. It's not speedy like 4e but it's not slow as molasses as other editions. It's a risk since it's a new mechanic, but on the whole I think it strikes a good balance between compromise towards all editions and workability.

The only downside now is that by trying to satisfy everyone they might end up pissing off everyone.

Wait, no, I take that back. They'll piss off everyone just on the basis that D&D fans seem to like being in a permanent state of pissed offedness.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 21, 2012)

Hit points are not *my* old friend.

Conceding that they are difficult to get rid of, it's still hard to see the positives in this implementation. At least it's not healing surges and it takes time to heal, but damage still doesn't really mean anything, and if they're still doing hit points by level, there's still a steep power curve.



Blackwarder said:


> A. The first part about how HP manifest in the world is extremely important and should be written in *CAPITAL BOLD LETTERS* in the PHB and DMG with the DMG version having a couple of pages with examples and "how to"s for DMs.



Well, they've clearly articulated why hit points are a bad mechanic. They've too vague, too abstract, represent too many things that many people probably don't want represented. But at least they wrote it down.

How long until we get a decent alternate health system?


----------



## Zireael (May 21, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *Blackwarder*
> 
> 
> _A. The first part about how HP manifest in the world is extremely important and should be written in *CAPITAL BOLD LETTERS* in the PHB and DMG with the DMG version having a couple of pages with examples and "how to"s for DMs._






FireLance said:


> With any luck, the vast majority of gamers might even read it _*this*_ time.




Agreed.

I like the HD separated from hitpoints and different rest forms having a different use.


----------



## mkill (May 21, 2012)

It's funny that Mearls' proposal is how 13th Age does it. I guess it's just a case of like-minded people coming to similar conclusions. Still makes me curious just how similar the two systems will end up.


----------



## Haldrik (May 21, 2012)

An interesting idea showed up in a thread over at Wizards.com.

During combat:

What if “nonmagical healing” especially like that of the Warlord only heals before a character becomes “bloodied”. These hitpoints represent alertness, morale, and the ability to avoid serious injury.

Oppositely, “magical healing” especially like that of the Cleric only heals after a character becomes “bloodied”. These hitpoints represent the miraculous healing of serious injuries. Wading into battle even after becoming bloodied also conveys a feeling of test-of-faith.


Such mechanics express the flavors well, adds interesting distinctions, and prevents healing from feeling “samey”.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

Haldrik said:


> An interesting idea showed up in a thread over at Wizards.com.
> 
> 
> What if “nonmagical healing” especially like that of the Warlord only heals before a character becomes “bloodied”. These hitpoints represent alertness, morale, and the ability to avoid serious injury.
> ...





Bad idea on the cleric side.

a d6 wizard could potentially have a very loow "bloodied" amount. Having to wait for 1/2 HP would have wizard always and constantly waiting in OHKO 2HPS mode before being topped over. 

Instead Clerics could be the best healer by being the most reliable healer as his heals always work. Only spell slots limits them.

The warlord could heals more often but only to the barely hurt and never the "lucky to be alive" or dying.

Drruids would have fewer resources than the cleric. Bards would have weaker heals the cleric.


----------



## Haldrik (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Bad idea on the cleric side.
> 
> a d6 wizard could potentially have a very loow "bloodied" amount. Having to wait for 1/2 HP would have wizard always and constantly waiting in OHKO 2HPS mode before being topped over.
> 
> ...




Heh, the Wizard should never be in combat to get bloodied in the first place.

On healers, I dont subscribe to the Cleric being the “best” healer. I prefer no class has a monopoly. I feel, a Bard who chooses options to specialize in healing should be as good as a Cleric who chooses options to specialize in healing.

Its possible for a Cleric to choose both abilities that heal “inspirationally” (before bloodied) and abilities that heal “miraculously” (after bloodied). Resource management makes the game more interesting for a healer.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 21, 2012)

Physical aspects, Size, Bulk, and Durability, Energy, Experience (XP), Luck (hit die roll?), Cosmic Significance (deific gifts or hindrances?) Are these all mechanical elements in the game you think?

How about all damage is noticeable? Some Damage, A lot of damage, and Dropped. Half damage appears to be a mechanical break point. Unnoticeable hits don't really help in selecting who to hit among multiple opponents.

I still disagree with Saving Throw Scores not be separate from Ability Scores, but I think that ship has sailed.

For me, solo play is a different beast and does require some re-balancing of the setting. I see the game as being set up where challenges are set up for a group, not a single opponent. Solo play at least means getting some NPCs to help you out. The default would be too difficult otherwise.

It sounds like healing surges are in, in a way. I'm not sure what the Hit Die healing mechanics will exactly be, but we'll see I guess. I can understand wanting to support play without a dedicated healer for combat-oriented classes.

If we must have healing surges, if there is any divisiveness, I'd suggest simply making them a core option. That probably doesn't sound very easy, especially if the game focused around combat.


----------



## Haldrik (May 21, 2012)

Just like there are a variety of ways to *deal* damage. I appreciate a variety of ways to *heal* damage. For me, it gives the game more traction. Even more realism sotospeak.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

Haldrik said:


> Heh, the Wizard should never be in combat to get bloodied in the first place.



Did the enemy forget their bows, javelins, and rocks?


> On healers, I dont subscribe to the Cleric being the “best” healer. I prefer no class has a monopoly. I feel, a Bard who chooses options to specialize in healing should be as good as a Cleric who chooses options to specialize in healing.
> 
> Its possible for a Cleric to choose both abilities that heal “inspirationally” (before bloodied) and abilities that heal “miraculously” (after bloodied). Resource management makes the game more interesting for a healer.




I am not saying clerics should have a monopoly on healing power but they should be great natural healers due to tradition. A heal focused cruise, bard, or warlord should be able to match or surpass a nonhealing focused cleric.

Instead the different healers should be different. 

Vancian magic heals should always work. The drawback is that these heals must be prepared in advance.

Warlord healing can constantly keep the party at top shape and always at high morale. But morale can't heal wounds and "bloodied" and dying allies can't be heal by the warlord.

Spontaneous or spell point healers are efficient as they can heal whenever they need to and don't have to tie up resources to preparation. The flaw could be lower total resources or lower power.

Energy and Morale healers could be better for multiple and easier fights. Cosmic and Physical healers are good for emergencies and tough battles.


----------



## Mattachine (May 21, 2012)

I love the explicit, clear return of hit points varied meaning. 
Also, I like the idea that PCs are "special". 

An optional rule would be little to no hit point increase with level. The d20 Call of Cthulhu game had that option--immediately switches a high-fantasy game to a very gritty one.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Not thrilled about this one.


----------



## avin (May 21, 2012)

As a guy who dislikes Healing Surges, as long it's tied to fluff (we are talking about recovering the scratches/fatigue/whatever) I'm fine with this concept.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (May 21, 2012)

Reading between the lines, I notice some things that might exist in the rules:



> The spider's first attack deals 3 damage, and the fighter must make a Constitution saving throw against its poison.




- Is it possible that there's a hit threshold for some effects? From the way this and the second hit are worded it implies there might not always be a saving throw required. I could be very wrong of course!



> At this point, there's a chance that the fighter will have a lasting scar, and he or she needs magic to get back into the fight in the short term.




- There may well be permanent injury associated with dropping to unconscious.
- It may not be possible to perform emergency First-Aid in combat (I hope not).


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not thrilled about this one.




Me either but I would like to see the fine print and see how it operates in actual play before making any decisions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Me either but I would like to see the fine print and see how it operates in actual play before making any decisions.




The details will be everything. For me it is just more of the "D&D was broken so we have to fix it" mentality rather than "D&D was good, so lets see what it got right". HP were not perfect but they were a nice simple solution. Tis is just a level of complexity I dont want in D&D. And I never had an issue with magical healing being important if you wanted fast recovery. This feels very much like a luke warm healing surge mechanic to me.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> The details will be everything. For me it is just more of the "D&D was broken so we have to fix it" mentality rather than "D&D was good, so lets see what it got right". HP were not perfect but they were a nice simple solution. Tis is just a level of complexity I dont want in D&D. And I never had an issue with magical healing being important if you wanted fast recovery. This feels very much like a luke warm healing surge mechanic to me.




But it's not healing surges because you don't use it in combat or as your sole healing mechanic.

Warder


----------



## Blackwarder (May 21, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> .
> 
> How long until we get a decent alternate health system?




Honestly, I've seen a bunch of different systems and they were cool and fine but they weren't D&D...

Warder


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> But it's not healing surges because you don't use it in combat or as your sole healing mechanic.
> 
> Warder




I am not saying it is mechanically identical to HS, but it looks like they are tweaking the concept and calling it hit dice


----------



## Zaukrie (May 21, 2012)

I would argue that if you do not like hitpoints, you should find a different game. They are part of d&d. I am pretty much cool with any method of recovery, as to me it just isn't the key part of the game.

Sent using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gold Roger (May 21, 2012)

I really like the sound of this.

It doesn't sound complex at all to me and seems like a mechanic a DM could play around with for all kinds of fun little effects. HD are just significant/insignificant to have magic items that eat HD to activate, for example.

I'm very curious to see how it goes in the playtest.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying it is mechanically identical to HS, but it looks like they are tweaking the concept and calling it hit dice




A lot of the complaints were from people who's imagination couldn't divorce HPs from physical wounds, so this seems to attempt to address it.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> The details will be everything. For me it is just more of the "D&D was broken so we have to fix it" mentality rather than "D&D was good, so lets see what it got right". HP were not perfect but they were a nice simple solution. Tis is just a level of complexity I dont want in D&D. And I never had an issue with magical healing being important if you wanted fast recovery. This feels very much like a luke warm healing surge mechanic to me.




The issue was never a problem with magical healing (for most people). It was that D&D was based on multiple encounters and the only way to do that was forcing someone to play a healer class or handing potions out like candy as multiple encounters needed faster healing.


----------



## erleni (May 21, 2012)

Scribble said:


> A lot of the complaints were from people who's imagination couldn't divorce HPs from physical wounds, so this seems to attempt to address it.




Yep. HD are healing surges, but with a better fluff.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 21, 2012)

erleni said:


> Yep. HD are healing surges, but with a better fluff.




Nope, they aren't...

Warder


----------



## Sadras (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> This is my guess.
> Rob the 5th level rogue is with his party and fight some goblins and is now at 12. He takes a short rest, spends 2 d6 HD, and heals 7 HP. After another fight, the party rests for the night. Rob rolls his final d6 HD, gains 2 HP to go up to 21, and regains 6 d6 HDs..




d8's for Rogues (they've been bumped up)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 21, 2012)

d8 for rogues and d6 for wizards is common in many clones now. d4 hp are no fun. d6 are not a lot of fun for melee characters either.

*speculation mode on* also don´t forget, that constitution modifier largely has an effect on hit dice. You add your con modifier to hit dice. *speculation mode off*

I certainly like hitdice as some form of power reserves. Maybe the difference in actual hitpoints won´t be that large (like in 4e), but a fighter recovers a lot faster from bruises, especially if his constitution is high.

I expect hp at level 1 at about constitution + maybe a little class bonus. Only maybe 3-5 hp per level. Which will bring the fighter to about 60 hp at level 10.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> The issue was never a problem with magical healing (for most people). It was that D&D was based on multiple encounters and the only way to do that was forcing someone to play a healer class or handing potions out like candy as multiple encounters needed faster healing.




I understand, and people who made the shift to 4e generally seem to be in that camp. My point is lots of people who didn't make the shift never saw any of this stuff as a problem in need of fixing. I think there is really gulf between the two camps over how to approach designing an edition of D&D, one is "what is wrong with D&D and how can we fix it." the other is "what is right about D&D and how can we make it even better". In my opinion the reason 4e seemed like such a break for many fans it it took the first approach. I am not saying the first approach is wrong, but taking it will naturally lead you to satisfy fans of the game who always had issues with some of its core elements, while possibly alienating those who liked it and just wanted some basic improvements.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Scribble said:


> A lot of the complaints were from people who's imagination couldn't divorce HPs from physical wounds, so this seems to attempt to address it.




That os definitely true. I myself registered that complaint. On reflection I think it is just the most glaring issue healing surges raised for me. But on a deeper level it is also about the mechanic itself and the added complexity. So there is the aesthetic level, where hs presented problems if you felt they mucked with physical healing. But there is also just a straight mechanical issue of hit points hit the sweet spot because of their simplicity. I thini this is why I didn't like earlier attempts to add stuff like wounds to the d20 system.


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> That os definitely true. I myself registered that complaint. On reflection I think it is just the most glaring issue healing surges raised for me. But on a deeper level it is also about the mechanic itself and the added complexity. So there is the aesthetic level, where hs presented problems if you felt they mucked with physical healing. But there is also just a straight mechanical issue of hit points hit the sweet spot because of their simplicity. I thini this is why I didn't like earlier attempts to add stuff like wounds to the d20 system.




I myself have never had a problem with HPs or their simplicity. I liked 4e's version because it added a new way to heal without always having to rely on magic. I've also never really looked at HPs as physical wounds though.


----------



## Kaodi (May 21, 2012)

FireLance is thinking what I am thinking, more or less: Total HP are going to have to be higher than your daily capacity for mundane healing. 

One other thing I do not remember seeing mentioned: if being knocked down below 0 HP is supposed to represent a horrible wound, is that going to affect how you use your HD?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 21, 2012)

I think there should probably be a way (via module or somesuch) to avoid having to use them -- this is probably just as simple as giving PC's a few extra buckets of HP and saying "go wild."  Especially possible given that healing magic isn't tied directly to the HD.

I don't mind them. Making the fiction of "bloodied" explicit is a big help in that. 

The other side of the coin will be in how many HD a character can spend and when. If a character is "bloodied," she shouldn't be able to recover to full HP with five minutes and some bandages. If a character is KO'd this is ESPECIALLY the case. But if a character isn't bloodied, five minutes and some salves are probably enough.

The warlord-style shouting-heals also play into this a bit. Getting you to ignore that you're severely damaged? Okay -- we can implement that by giving you a lower "bloodied" or "KO'd" thershold, maybe. But it isn't going to give you HP BACK. It doesn't heal your wounds, it lets you ignore them. 

There's a few ways this could still go a bit screwy, but it's not the clusterflock on the surface of it that 4e healing surges were, and that's largely thanks to a more explicit description of hit points and what they mean. Tie some mechanics into those descriptions, and we've got ourselves a halfway decent health system.


----------



## Minigiant (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand, and people who made the shift to 4e generally seem to be in that camp. My point is lots of people who didn't make the shift never saw any of this stuff as a problem in need of fixing. I think there is really gulf between the two camps over how to approach designing an edition of D&D, one is "what is wrong with D&D and how can we fix it." the other is "what is right about D&D and how can we make it even better". In my opinion the reason 4e seemed like such a break for many fans it it took the first approach. I am not saying the first approach is wrong, but taking it will naturally lead you to satisfy fans of the game who always had issues with some of its core elements, while possibly alienating those who liked it and just wanted some basic improvements.




I don't think it is one approach or the other. Only fixing the bad or cleaning the good are both recipes for disaster. 

The issue is which one has more focus and who chooses what is good and bad. It is what every good DM must do every game. Pleasing both groups with be a tough task for WotC. But for the most part, fixing the bad ks the better reason for a new edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> Nope, they aren't...
> 
> Warder




By itself, HD does not appear to be really surgelike. Needing 10 minutes to use HD recovery, no second wind during combat, etc.

I just hope the consequences for dropping to 0 HP are a bit nastier than 4E. Once someone drops it should take some time (more than a nights rest) to get back in fighting shape. 

If this yet another edition featuring combatants getting up from negative hp and fighting again instantly its gonna land on the do not want pile.


----------



## am181d (May 21, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> If this yet another edition featuring combatants getting up from negative hp and fighting again instantly its gonna land on the do not want pile.




I don't understand that kind of thinking. People wake up from being unconscious without bed rest all the time, both in real life and heroic fiction. (Particularly in heroic fiction.)

Why would you want a recovery system that is both unrealistic and undramatic?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 21, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> I just hope the consequences for dropping to 0 HP are a bit nastier than 4E. Once someone drops it should take some time (more than a nights rest) to get back in fighting shape.
> 
> If this yet another edition featuring combatants getting up from negative hp and fighting again instantly its gonna land on the do not want pile.




Do you mean without magical healing?


----------



## Sunseeker (May 21, 2012)

I do not like rolling HD.  It does little more than allow random generation to gimp an otherwise good design.  Where's the benefit to a fighter with 1 hp?  Even with a good con thats oh...3, 4?

While I do feel that 4e started off characters too high, I feel that a random HD+con at lvl1 is far too low.

But!  I can houserule this easily.

Rolling HD for mundane health recovery though, I like that.  Though I certainly hope a person trained in heal or maybe nature would be able to roll more/allow the person they're healing to roll more dice.

Even if the game says "it takes weeks for a person to heal to full" realistically this is going to be hand-waived to a few minutes when the DM says "your party rests for a week until they are healed."  Personally I prefer a much more fast-paced feeling to my games, so forcing my players to sit around for a week and twiddle their thumbs isn't going to last very long at the table.


----------



## grimslade (May 21, 2012)

I hope that HD healing becomes less effective the further down the Hp track you go. Maybe a lesser die at bloodied or lose some spendable HD, if you drop to 0.

It does seem a bit more complex to add in another resource to track. The benefit is a form of 'healing' that can keep a party rolling even without a healer class.

The specifics of 0 or lower HPs being a significant wound including profuse bleeding and broken bones, is an interesting design space. I wonder what will become of it. Not long now.


----------



## Serendipity (May 21, 2012)

Interesting compromise between 4e style healing surges and those who don't like those.  I'll have to see how this scales in actual play of course, but - thanks largely to a specific, non-jargon definition of what each 'stage' represents - I like it. 
At this point however, the spectacle that is fan response to anything said about the next edition might just prove more entertaining.


----------



## Trance-Zg (May 21, 2012)

We an optional rule for healing in 3.5e

Nights rest healed you for 10% of max HP(rnd down)

Whole days rest healed you for 20% of max HP

Heal check 15 doubled that amount, heal check 25 tripled it etc...


Also you can add that once per day you can get benefit from heal skill to regain HP equal to the bonus of the heal skill as a 5 min treatment.


----------



## Argyle King (May 21, 2012)

Maybe you have an amount of surges equal to your number of hit dice.  So, a level 1 fighter has enough experience and grit to shake off something that would fell a lesser man once per day; a level 10 fighter is so b.a. that he can do it 10 times.  Your surge could be equal to the die you roll for HP as well (adding the Con mod as normal.)  That way, while a level 2 wizard most certainly does have more experience than the level 1 fighter, the level 1 fighter with his d10 still stats up pretty well on the physical front compared to the level 2 wizard with his 2d4 or 2d6 (whichever the case may be.)


----------



## ren1999 (May 21, 2012)

The cleric will just announce that he prepared several steel vials of cure " " wounds and equip each party member with a bandoleer of them.

So why not just allow the cleric to heal 1/4th the max hp + 1d8+wis mod during an encounter, or allow a party member to drink a healing potion as their standard action and be done with it. Also allow the cleric to mass heal the party during an extended rest because everyone will just use the potions until fully healed anyway. 

High HP during character creation is important. Killing off several characters of a new player is a good way to get that player angry never to return and play again. 

Also, if the party has a static number of HP during every level-up, it is a lot easier for GMs to design monsters and traps that are challenging yet not overly lethal.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 21, 2012)

am181d said:


> I don't understand that kind of thinking. People wake up from being unconscious without bed rest all the time, both in real life and heroic fiction. (Particularly in heroic fiction.)
> 
> Why would you want a recovery system that is both unrealistic and undramatic?




Given how 0 HP is explained in the article as being much more serious than just being down some HP the answer is kind of self explanatory. Being awake is one thing. Being back on your feet fighting again the next round is different. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Do you mean without magical healing?




Yes. Magical healing is special and should provide benefits that are unobtainable from mundane means.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 21, 2012)

I am trying to be really optimistic about the new edition.  I like what they are doing with the themes and classes, for example, and the spellcasting mechanics look interesting.  I can't wait to test it out with my group.

But man.  This article really bummed me out.

There were many things that I liked about 4E, and many things that I didn't.  But the one thing that really damaged my opinion of it was the way they changed hit points.  I didn't like the way that healing surges worked, I didn't like the way the second wind ability worked, and I especially didn't like the way that they defined hit points.  "Hit points represent damage.  Except when they don't, in which case they represent fatigue.  Unless you aren't tired, in which case they represent luck.  Except..."  Blah.

I had hoped they would have gone a different direction in the new edition.  But, alas.

I'm still choosing to be optimistic, though.  I will continue to hold out hope that non-magical healing will be very slow, and that magical healing will be the standard battlefield healing mechanic, and that combat will focus less on "how do I get healed?" and more on "not getting hurt in the first place."  And who knows?  Maybe the other mechanics are so awesome that they will somehow overshadow the hit point mechanics, and I'll still play it anyway.  It's possible.

I'm just not looking forward to it as much as I was yesterday.  

That said, I like the natural healing mechanic.  I had houseruled this a long time ago into my 3.5E games: characters recover hit points at the rate of their Hit Dice + their Con mod per day (twice this amount if they are tended by a healer, or spend the whole day confined to bed.)


----------



## nightwalker450 (May 21, 2012)

I could see getting all hit dice back each day... But not necessarily all your hit points.

So taking an extended rest, you'd get your hit dice back, and might end up spending half or more of them just to wake up in decent condition the next day.

As for magic healing, I could see the level of spell easily affecting the healing (without taking hit dice away from someones pool).  3rd level spell, heals 3 hit dice... prepare in a higher level slot, 8th level spell, heals 8 hit dice.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I don't think it is one approach or the other. Only fixing the bad or cleaning the good are both recipes for disaster.
> 
> The issue is which one has more focus and who chooses what is good and bad. It is what every good DM must do every game. Pleasing both groups with be a tough task for WotC. But for the most part, fixing the bad ks the better reason for a new edition.




But the problem they face is they are trying to please both groups. A focused approach is unlikely to have the broad appeal needed to get as many into the fold as possible. So if they focus on fixing the bad, they must do so understanding that the things they are fixing were not problems for many people. Fixing them potentially removes things from the game these people like. I really think there is something to be said for the simplicity of the old HP mechanic. Adding HD as a recovery pool introduces another layer to the healing dynamic that may be just as offputting for some folk as healing surges. I do think whether this is or is not the case will come down to some ofthe specifics. But i guess I just dont see why they cant simply make it an optinal rule rather than a core assumption.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 21, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I do not like rolling HD.  It does little more than allow random generation to gimp an otherwise good design.  Where's the benefit to a fighter with 1 hp?  Even with a good con thats oh...3, 4?
> 
> While I do feel that 4e started off characters too high, I feel that a random HD+con at lvl1 is far too low.




I suspect (from a hodgepodge of things from various places) that we will see that you get max hp whenever you level up. The randomized recovery of HD during play will act to make it interesting. This would also fit with the idea that games wishing to start with competent/heroic PCs a la 4e would start at level 3 or so, rather than level 1.

I'm not sure how Con or Con bonus fit into the scheme (if at all.)


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> This feels very much like a luke warm healing surge mechanic to me.




That's exactly what it is. IMO, it's their attempt to... not so much "please everybody" as "avoid upsetting anyone too badly."

Like it or not, 4E happened. D&DN must appeal to 4E fans as well as those of earlier editions, and 4E fans have good and valid reasons for liking the healing surge mechanic. Any game that doesn't have some form of nonmagical hit point recovery is going to be a nonstarter for a lot of 4E players. At the same time, a game that lacks the possibility of long-term injury, or that makes the fiction of hit points messier than it already was, is going to be equally unappealing to players of 3E and Pathfinder.

So, we get this. It performs the mechanical function of healing surges, but tries to address the problems that made healing surges so disliked amid the 3E/PF fanbase. Judging by the reactions in this thread, nobody is thrilled about it, but most people are cautiously okay with it--I don't see many people saying "This is a dealbreaker." I'd say that means the designers got it right, though we still have to see how it plays out in practice.


----------



## triqui (May 21, 2012)

keterys said:


> I... didn't see any part of healing surges in there at all?
> 
> Let's say that 10th level dwarven fighter has 100 hp (30 hp was a glancing blow)... 10d10... plus 40-50 from somewhere (Con, theme, whatever). Sounds like he can naturally heal 10d10 per day.
> 
> ...



A important difference is when two characters are from different classes. A dwarf fighter will heal 10d10 (or whatever) with the new system, while an elven wizard will heal 10d6. In 1-3e, the wizard will heal faster, because he was weaker. That did not make a lot of sense. The new system is better in my opinion.

Let's see how it works in real gaming, but sounds as an improvement to both 3e style and 4e healing surges in my opinion.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (May 21, 2012)

What I hope to see is:

*HP are between half max and max* (I'll call it Winded): You can spend a turn catchign your breath to recover a Hit Die worth of Hit Points.

*HP are at half or less, but still positive* (I'll call it Wounded): You can treat & bandage your wounds with a 10 minute rest to recover a Hit Die worth of Hit Points. You may spend an additional 10 minutes if you are still Wounded to treat & bandage your wounds further.

*HP are at or below zero* (Dying or Unconscious): Only magical healing can restore your hit points in the short term and automatically changes your condition from Dying to Unconscious. Mundane healing must be used to first stabilize your condition from Dying to Unconscious. 12 hours of rest while attended or 24 hours of rest unattended allows you to regain one Hit Die worth of Hit Points. You may spend additional 12 or 24 hours rests to recover further if you are still Unconscious.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> That's exactly what it is. IMO, it's their attempt to... not so much "please everybody" as "avoid upsetting anyone too badly."
> 
> Like it or not, 4E happened. D&DN must appeal to 4E fans as well as those of earlier editions, and 4E fans have good and valid reasons for liking the healing surge mechanic. Any game that doesn't have some form of nonmagical hit point recovery is going to be a nonstarter for a lot of 4E players. At the same time, a game that lacks the possibility of long-term injury, or that makes the fiction of hit points messier than it already was, is going to be equally unappealing to players of 3E and Pathfinder.
> 
> So, we get this. It performs the mechanical function of healing surges, but tries to address the problems that made healing surges so disliked amid the 3E/PF fanbase. Judging by the reactions in this thread, nobody is thrilled about it, but most people are cautiously okay with it--I don't see many people saying "This is a dealbreaker." I'd say that means the designers got it right, though we still have to see how it plays out in practice.




Even though my initial response is "not thrilled" i do think you are right: this doesn't seem to be a dealbreaker for most people (though that will still be dependant on the specifics).


----------



## Tovec (May 21, 2012)

As of right now, I'm out. Not buying in and drinking the cool-aid. I'll try the playtest and see if this changes but I certainly DO NOT LIKE what I read on that page.


----------



## avin (May 21, 2012)

Tovec said:


> As of right now, I'm out. Not buying in and drinking the cool-aid. I'll try the playtest and see if this changes but I certainly DO NOT LIKE what I read on that page.




What part you dislike?

I see nothing that I can't easily houserule.


----------



## Remathilis (May 21, 2012)

I'm cautiously optimistic.

In theory, I like healing surges/second wind. I liked the idea of nonmagical healing. I actually used second wind/bloodied in a 3.5 game long ago (if you were below 1/2 hp, you got 2 hp/hd back during combat as a standard action 1/day) and it worked great.

My big complaint with 4e's surges were the fact that magical healing used them too. A paladin's lay on hands, a cleric's healing word, a potion of healing, and a second wind ALL used a healing surge, but did very different things with them. Divorcing them from magical healing makes potions better than "ripoff second winds" and could even potentially be removed for a really gritty game.


----------



## Szatany (May 21, 2012)

I don't get why is unconsciousness tied to HP? People can be unconscious and healthy, and they can be dying and lucid.
I know all (most?) older editions have this rule, but it never made sense to me.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (May 21, 2012)

Some thoughts:

I expect the default rules to be fixed hp/level with option to roll your HD. Probably modified by CON? 10 hp fighter sounds like 6 (fixed value of d10 HD) + 4 (14 CON mod)?

Hit Die recovery rates vary depending on preferred "grittiness":

Gritty game: recover 1 HD/extended rest
Default game: recovery half level (round up) HD/extended rest
Action hero game: recover all HD/extended rest


Healing magic is hopefully keyed to your HD instead of flat value based on the spell:
cure wounds spell: heals 1 HD/spell level slot (plus some modifier?) damage

heal (or true heal or something) spell: restore all expended HD and heal to full hp less one HD.


Non magical healing:
Warlord's insping word: target expends [some number] of HD and heals hp as if rolled max on the die. [some number] maybe a choice for the warlord and/or the target? A character may be the recipient of inspring word 1/day?


Second Wind (self healing in combatr) options:
1/encounter spend and roll 1 HD to recover hp
1/day spend and roll any number of HD to recover hp


----------



## mlund (May 21, 2012)

I'll be really enthused to see what a background in Healing Arts (first aid, herbs, alchemy, chakra manipulation, or whatever is germane to the setting) can do with relation to Hit Dice healing. Setting a hard minimum result per dice, a static bonus, or even allowing a check to recover a Hit Die - all of these things could finally make the non-caster healer a relevant contributor for a low-magic party without blatant house-rules.

I'm hoping to at least to see an optional injury mechanic that could accumulate with bloodied / down status changes and perhaps for things like poison, disease, or specialty attacks. Linking it into Hit Dice and needing Healing Skills or Magical Healing would add a layer of simulation that I'd enjoy.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Keldryn (May 21, 2012)

I've liked most of what I've heard about D&D Next so far, but I can't say I like the sound of this.  I'm not opposed to non-magical healing, and there were things that I liked about 4e's healing mechanics.

My main issue with this approach is that it sounds too fiddly and complicated for my liking.  Spending hit dice to heal means another figure to have to track, and I really hope that multi-classing as a fighter 3/wizard 3 (for example) doesn't give you 3d4 and 3d10 to spend.

One of my group's complaints about 4e was that you have to keep track of three different values (hit points, healing surges, temporary hit points) instead of just "hit points."  This doesn't really sound a whole lot better to me in terms of in-game tracking.

For the most part, I think that 4e is an amazingly well-designed, flexible, and streamlined game.  Unfortunately, I find it to be weighed down by such a mass of fiddly bits to keep track of that I don't enjoy playing it.  I'd hate to see the same happen with 5e.

We'll see how it works once the playtest materials are out.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 21, 2012)

In no edition of the game have hitpoints been only physical damage. I do not get it. I do not understand why people continue to be opposed to what was written in that article, since it is pretty much what gygax wrote many years ago.

Sent using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mallus (May 21, 2012)

"Hello Hit Points my old friend
I've come to talk about you again
Because an orc came up softly creeping
While I was passed out drunk and sleeping
And his battleaxe was left planted in my brain
But 3 HP remain
(So I'm still okay)
And not listening to the sounds of silence" -- apologies to Simon and Garfunkel. 

I'm fine with Hit Dice-as-the-new-surge-mechanic, so long as HP totals are kept closer to their OD&D/AD&D levels, and medium-term debilitation from HP loss in a part of the game.

Also... for all those people rhapsodizing about how, back in the day "PCs needed days to heal up, even with a cleric in the party", one question:

Did you ever express that sentiment at the table, during actual play?

I remember playing old-school D&D, too (and I run in now). I recall players wanting as much healing as could possibly be cajoled out of the DM (and being damn happy when they got it). 

Having our PCs laid up for a week or more was not a source of delight...


----------



## TerraDave (May 21, 2012)

Its old-schooled healing surges.

They _seem_ to have addressed:

-HP bloat
-Runaway in-combat healing
-Lack of risk in hp loss, including through the need to roll for recovery and slower mundane healing
-World consistency ("fluff") issues

They do not fully address

-extra fidlliness, including having to track them and HP.

But if the overall system is streamlined, the last might be ok.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Is tracking them really going to be that fiddly?  Here's the worst case scenario, a triple class Fighter/Cleric/Mage:

Hit Dice:
d10: 3  d8:  3  d6:  2

That's it.  That's what you need on your character sheet.  And if you don't have access to different die sizes, it'll look like this:

Hit Dice (d8): 8

So fiddly!


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

Szatany said:


> I don't get why is unconsciousness tied to HP? People can be unconscious and healthy, and they can be dying and lucid.
> I know all (most?) older editions have this rule, but it never made sense to me.




Originally, there was no unconsciousness threshold. There were only two states of being: Alive and fighting, or dead. If you hit zero hit points, you'd kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. You were an ex-adventurer.

This was fine when D&D was basically a wargame, and PCs were disposable game pieces. However, as people began to identify with their characters and want to keep them around for long periods, the idea that you weren't necessarily _all_ dead at zero hit points became popular. Unconsciousness served as a nice intermediate stage. A PC reduced to zero was still out of the fight, and would be a while recovering (in 2E you couldn't just drop a couple _cure_ spells on the mostly-dead, they were out for days at a minimum), but wasn't gone for good. To make things a little edgier, they added ongoing hit point loss and the need for stabilization.

For something that wasn't so much designed as evolved, it's a pretty good system. Once you're unconscious, there's no reason for the monsters to keep pounding you unless the DM is feeling exceptionally spiteful, so your main worry is stabilizing before you bleed out or fail your third death save. As long as your fellow party members are on the ball, they can save you. I think 3E and 4E made it too simple to get an unconscious PC back up, but that's mostly a matter of taste.

Fiction-wise, I agree that it's kind of weird you always end up unconscious before you die. But it's a useful cheat.


----------



## mlund (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Fiction-wise, I agree that it's kind of weird you always end up unconscious before you die. But it's a useful cheat.




Well, you aren't *always* unconscious before you die. In 3E you could get dropped to positive HP to -10 HP pretty easily, and you could always fail a massive damage save. There were also save-or-die effects.

In 4E you needed to go to - Bloodied. That basically never happens except by falling off a cliff into a super-massive black hole that happens to be on fire - or you got caught in the blast of one too many Area of Effect attacks while you were down.

The proposals I've seen so far for 5E interest me - especially HP thresholds for being turned to stone and whatnot. It kind of parlays the best of both worlds on save-or-die attacks and massive damage. I'll be interested to see how negative HP impacts magical and mundane healing as well as where the "sorry, you croaked" threshold comes into play.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Tovec (May 21, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> I imagine it's like this:
> 
> Short rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP.
> Long rest: Spend any number of HD to regain HP, then regain _X_ HD.
> ...



More like..

Short rest: Spend HD to regain HP.
Long rest: Regain HD. (You don't need to spend HD then regain them as you can just short rest before or after a long rest).



FireLance said:


> This is just my guess from my reading of the article, but: after a long rest, a 1st-level fighter regains 1 Hit Dice. When he takes a short rest, he can expend that Hit Dice to regain 1d10 hit points.
> 
> At higher levels, it is not clear:
> 
> ...



I hope, if anything, it looks like your first paragraph. I doubt it will (see below about "grittiness").

The only other question I have is what happens if 5e allows multiclassing resembling 3e's? With different classes with different HD values. How will they get HD then? Will they use the highest, or the lowest, or both. What order to they regenerate them? Level fist acquired, last acquired, lowest value first, highest first?

To me it is less about having HD to maintain and record, though that is certainly an issue, but what about the countless unanticipated questions that arise through this system. I don't see HD for non-magical healing to be intuitive enough to be able to resolve these questions any way other way than houseruling or asking the designers.



Minigiant said:


> But what does the difference mean?
> 
> On a long rest does a level 1 fighter gain 1d10 HP, 10 HP, or 1 HD which requires another rest to gain HP?
> 
> ...



I suspect the reference to healing herbs was the fluff associated with HOW they are regaining HP through HD. Not the actual mechanic itself.



Blackwarder said:


> B. Divorcing mundane healing (HD healing) from magical healing is a big plus IMO, first of all the fact that each character don't have a base of 125% of its hp is a good step forward to combat hp bloat, both on the character side and more importantly in the monsters side.




How are they divorced exactly? Now they have a base of 100%+HD instead of 100%+SW[mitigated by HS]



Minigiant said:


> Warlord healing can constantly keep the party at top shape and always at high morale. But morale can't heal wounds and "bloodied" and dying allies can't be heal by the warlord.



I agree on the "can't heal dying" part but not so sure about "bloodied", assuming they can still heal "non-blooded".

This is part of the reason I dislike HP as morale and don't use it that way.



Zaukrie said:


> I would argue that if you do not like hitpoints, you should find a different game. They are part of d&d. I am pretty much cool with any method of recovery, as to me it just isn't the key part of the game.
> 
> Sent using Tapatalk 2



What about Wound Points? I seem to recall countless people use that variant. I don't think the game should be about excluding people. People can excuse themselves if they don't like the game, but the game should never not like them.



Szatany said:


> I don't get why is unconsciousness tied to HP? People can be unconscious and healthy, and they can be dying and lucid.
> I know all (most?) older editions have this rule, but it never made sense to me.




This is actually a rather large gripe I have with HP as they currently exist and doubly so with this new system. I think a hard look should have been taken at HP, how they recovered, how damage is dealt, what counts towards it and of course looking at how non-lethal and unconsciousness works.



Brent_Nall said:


> Hit Die recovery rates vary depending on preferred "grittiness":
> 
> Gritty game: recover 1 HD/extended rest
> Default game: recovery half level (round up) HD/extended rest
> Action hero game: recover all HD/extended rest




Option 1 "Grittiness" is exactly what I want to see. I expect to see more along the lines of "Default" and "Action Hero" and that is what really disappoints me.



TerraDave said:


> Its old-schooled healing surges.
> 
> They _seem_ to have addressed:
> 
> ...



It doesn't address any of those.

- In character creation you can still get X number of HP. All this does is HEAL that HP total. Not manage it.
- It doesn't mention combat healing at all. In fact it is a method to not need a healer. Imagine what happens if you DO have one.
- Once again, it doesn't touch how HP are lost, only how they are recovered. The article was about HP RECOVERY not about loss. The scorpion will still deal 3 damage either way.
- How is it consistent that 3 HP on round one is a barely noticeable scratch but the same 3 HP damage in round two is "looking like you got into a fight"?


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 21, 2012)

Reactions to this article seem to be a tell-tale sign between those who care about compromise and those that want their thing and their thing only, come hell or high water.  

I'm not sure that it's the best way to handle it, but will be rather amusing, from a historical perspective, if the "hit die" cap out at "name level."


----------



## Blackwarder (May 21, 2012)

Tovec said:


> How are they divorced exactly? Now they have a base of 100%+HD instead of 100%+SW[mitigated by HS]




because you can't use it in combat, it's not like HS where everything was dependant on HSs from CLW to slapping a bandage.

Warder


----------



## Tovec (May 21, 2012)

avin said:


> What part you dislike?
> 
> I see nothing that I can't easily houserule.




I dislike HD to heal damage non-magically. I dislike the treatment of HP I have seen thus far, in general by 5e blog posts and specifically by this one.

I understand that 5e needs to bridge 4e and non-4e. But you must understand I am not going to buy in (again) to 4e.

I hoped that they would recognize that 4e isn't the only system, give a base system I would enjoy or at least one I could build up to, while giving people who liked 4e a base system they could enjoy or at least build up to. This does not do that. It gives 4e a 4e base system without any discussion about allowing me to make a system I'll enjoy.

Yes I COULD houserule things. But as I've said before, many times, it is VERY HARD to houserule OUT aspects of a game you do not enjoy. It is ALWAYS better to houserule those things in.

If you want specific comments from this article I'll have to re-examine it and post quotes later, just let me know. However, from what sticks in my mind, after reading the article, this thread and making my two previous posts, the thing that sticks out most is the probably the base assumptions.

We don't want DnD to _Need _a cleric or healer to function.
-- I can get behind this to an extent. But I would say the same thing about not needing a rogue to find traps, or a fighter to stand on the front lines and attack the enemy. I don't NEED these classes but I'm not going to completely remove the necessity of having them. I WANT non-magical healing to exist. If the party doesn't have a cleric I want them to court a relationship with a temple to get access to healing. I want them to buy copious amounts of healing potions, herbs or whatever is passed off for supernatural healing. I want non-magical healing to be painfully slow and unreliable. That way if they don't have a cleric that is fine, they can get by without one but not as easily as this blog post seems to allow them.
I don't want my party healing every 10 minutes after a fight, just because they can. I see no reason for it.

For me, it is just a slap in the face. They took the mechanic of second wind (which I have always hated even before 4e) and healing surges, examined them for what was essential, then rebranded them onto a new system while trying to convince me it was different. The essential qualities of HS were that they would limit healing, so you can't heal 1200% of your max HP all day every day, assuming you had a wand of CLW. But that was never a problem. Even if my party had a CLW wand they never got as much bang for the buck as people  (around here) seem to say they did. It wasn't a matter of healing even 200% of their damage in a day, it simply didn't happen.

The other aspect of course is second wind, which allowed them to use non-healing, a concept which I dislike, to instantly heal themselves by themselves whenever they wanted. Other actions allowed them to do this differently, more often or with frills and bonuses. That only compounded the problem.

It seems to me that what they tried to fix was completely missed by a lack of understanding of what people disliked about HS in the first place. It wasn't the limiting factor, it was the (perceived) healing factor.

Now ask me again, what do I dislike that I can't houserule? Once again, if you have any specific questions I'll be happy to answer those. For now just take it for granted I don't like what WotC is peddling but I will give the playtest a try.


----------



## fuindordm (May 21, 2012)

I'm pretty happy with these ideas.

I didn't like healing surges mainly because the player reserve was so large, their actual HP total was nearly irrelevant. Most monsters would do at least a surge's worth of damage anyway. Playing 4E was like playing with 9 HP at all levels, except that most hits do 1 HP damage and you can only have 4 HP at a time. My HP went up and down so much, they lost all meaning.

However, I can see this system working really well.  For one thing, your reserve is not fully predictable, which is nice for an atmosphere of risk and danger. For another, your reserve is significantly less than your maximum, so your base HP still have a lot of meaning. The reserve gives you back a trickle of healing, not a huge chunk all at once. Overall, the Hit Die mechanic feels a lot more natural.

It would be pretty cool for a gritty game if any hit while bloodied didn't just remove HP, but also took away one HD. Taking a wound doesn't get you into a death spiral, but the wound is harder to heal.  This would be very good motivation for players to approach combats with more tactics, favor ambushes, fight defensively where appropriate, and so on. 

Ben


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Reactions to this article seem to be a tell-tale sign between those who care about compromise and those that want their thing and their thing only, come hell or high water.




I think this may be a pretty solid insight.  And the tendency for people to fight about D&D so passionately might lead into a problem with the playtest where vocal complaints cause polarizing changes to the game text/rules.



> I'm not sure that it's the best way to handle it, but will be rather amusing, from a historical perspective, if the "hit die" cap out at "name level."




I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling.  Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount.  Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount.  +1 to attack rolls?  Monster defenses go up the same.  Leveling in 4E was pretty much about fooling people into thinking their numbers were getting better and allowing them to add on more option in terms of more encounter, utility and daily powers.

L&L for D&DN: Physical capacity for punishment, which is measured through a combination of size, bulk, and durability. An elephant or a hill giant has plenty of hit points due to raw physical endurance and bulk. Big creatures can take a lot of punishment.​This makes me very happy.  It's much, much better than:

4E's general approach: Hit points of a normal monster should be roughly four times what a non-striker does on an average damage roll, regardless of the characteristics of the monster in question.​
Night and day.

But I do still see the positives of having a "Design ultra balanced monsters and encounters like 4E" rules module for those who want it.


----------



## jodyjohnson (May 21, 2012)

Sounds like a decent core to build 2-3 pages of variants around in the DMG.

Add Con stat?

Roll hp?

Average HD healing?

No HD healing or tracking - magic only, or 1 hp recovered/day?

No HD tracking, heal to full between encounters unless bloodied?

Etc.


----------



## TerraDave (May 21, 2012)

Tovec said:


> It doesn't address any of those.
> 
> - In character creation you can still get X number of HP. All this does is HEAL that HP total. Not manage it.
> - It doesn't mention combat healing at all. In fact it is a method to not need a healer. Imagine what happens if you DO have one.
> ...




You know I used "seem". In italics. I didn't say does or would.

Now why would it _ seem_ like that?

HP bloat: We don't know how many HD a charecter gets...but surges are a contributor to this in a substantial way, along with max HP. The way it was written, with commentary on how long it would take to heal, made it _seem_ like less hp could be restored this way. 

Combat healing: Exactly, it doesn't mention it. The examples are all out of combat. I am glad we agree. 

Risk: Was the article about recovery? Thanks. With having to roll for the HP restored, it increases risk. You can't be sure you will just heal right back up. 

Consistency: I was referring to something else.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

Tovec said:


> I understand that 5e needs to bridge 4e and non-4e. But you must understand I am not going to buy in (again) to 4e.




Me neither.  Both 3.x and 4E caused me to stop playing in frustration/tedium before their product cycle was done.  I went back to BECMI and other non-D&D rpgs while I'm waiting for 5E.



> Yes I COULD houserule things. But as I've said before, many times, it is VERY HARD to houserule OUT aspects of a game you do not enjoy. It is ALWAYS better to houserule those things in.




I gutted 4E to give me the kind of play I wanted and while it worked, it rendered so many of the things players liked about 4E non-existent or useless (like the character builder).



> I don't want my party healing every 10 minutes after a fight, just because they can. I see no reason for it.




Please bear in mind that healing a bit after a fight is not a 4Eism.  It's present in older versions of the game as well.



> For me, it is just a slap in the face. They took the mechanic of second wind (which I have always hated even before 4e) and healing surges, examined them for what was essential, then rebranded them onto a new system while trying to convince me it was different.




So what part of the article led you to believe that you could do this healing inside of combat?  That is what the second wind is.



> The essential qualities of HS were that they would limit healing, so you can't heal 1200% of your max HP all day every day, assuming you had a wand of CLW. But that was never a problem. Even if my party had a CLW wand they never got as much bang for the buck as people  (around here) seem to say they did. It wasn't a matter of healing even 200% of their damage in a day, it simply didn't happen.




And with the separation of magic and non-magical healing, this won't be an issue in 5E either.  This is one area where the HP system is more like 3.x than 4E.



> It seems to me that what they tried to fix was completely missed by a lack of understanding of what people disliked about HS in the first place. It wasn't the limiting factor, it was the (perceived) healing factor.




And comparitively, this is a much, much slower rate of healing than 4E had.  As I mentioned earlier, 4E had full healing after a night's sleep (both HP & HS) and full healing after each encounter (HP).  This does not.


----------



## sheadunne (May 21, 2012)

I'm always grumpy about healing. I like my healing limited to a cleric. However, there are games where I would like a natural healing mechanic. This one seems fine as long as the rate of HD return is far less than the total number of HD available (perhaps 1/day) and that the healing does not make the Cleric simply a combat healer. 

*Natural Healing*
Level/day for 1 HD. 

*Rate of HD Return*
??/day

A potential issue I see is the creation of mechanics that effect HD. It's hard to resist the desire to tweak mechanics and if natural healing is a mechanic, I can see feats, monster abilities, magic items that impact this natural healing mechanic. This isn't necessarily bad, but it has the potential to be fiddled with too much.

It bugs me a little that they're looking at it being part of the core mechanic rather than a module.


----------



## Szatany (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Unconsciousness served as a nice intermediate stage. A PC reduced to zero was still out of the fight, and would be a while recovering (in 2E you couldn't just drop a couple _cure_ spells on the mostly-dead, they were out for days at a minimum), but wasn't gone for good. To make things a little edgier, they added ongoing hit point loss and the need for stabilization.
> 
> For something that wasn't so much designed as evolved, it's a pretty good system. Once you're unconscious, there's no reason for the monsters to keep pounding you unless the DM is feeling exceptionally spiteful, so your main worry is stabilizing before you bleed out or fail your third death save. As long as your fellow party members are on the ball, they can save you. I think 3E and 4E made it too simple to get an unconscious PC back up, but that's mostly a matter of taste.
> 
> Fiction-wise, I agree that it's kind of weird you always end up unconscious before you die. But it's a useful cheat.



To me, its a weak argument. Weak, because everything that is being accomplished by having characters at negative hp unconscious can albo be achieved by having them conscious. How? Simple: characters at negative hp are down, can do very little (maybe crawl? certainly not attack or cast spells). Worst case scenario, they can always _pretend that they are unconscious to avoid enemy attention_.
The more I think about it, the more I come to a conclusion that the rule was poorly thought out from the very beginning.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> I think this may be a pretty solid insight.  And the tendency for people to fight about D&D so passionately might lead into a problem with the playtest where vocal complaints cause polarizing changes to the game text/rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The part, that bulk and mass equals hp was something lost in 4e. A creature beeing a solo, just because it is the only enemy right now makes no sense.

A dragon, designed as a solo monster. Yes, everyday. But a goblin? In the game, I find it difficult to estimate the power of something in 4e. You have no clue, which level something is... when you don´t take into account, that you are expected to encounter similar level foes in general.

I really like the idea, that something has that AC, because of its hide, and this HP, because of its mass. And this way, dragon screams: solo monster. Without an arbitrary classification.

Even if this concept in 4e works well, it adds to the "rules are more important than enviroment" problem.

One thing I encountered yesterday: "You are squeezed... so -2 to attack rolls" No matter what weapon I use. I fully expect a crossbow to work better than a twohanded sword when I have no place to swing...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 21, 2012)

nnms said:


> I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling. Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount. Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount.
> 
> ...
> 
> But I do still see the positives of having a "Design ultra balanced monsters and encounters like 4E" rules module for those who want it.




Actually, once they made the decision to make the numbers generally flatter across the board, all kinds of possibilities open up here. "Bulk" can matter without elephants being "elephant demons" to 3rd level guards, because bulk adds to hit points but hit points are relatively flat. In the same way, this makes it possible to have balanced monsters without even needing much of a module. It's not foolproof, but there is definitely more room to maneuver.


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

Szatany said:


> To me, its a weak argument. Weak, because everything that is being accomplished by having characters at negative hp unconscious can albo be achieved by having them conscious. How? Simple: characters at negative hp are down, can do very little (maybe crawl? certainly not attack or cast spells). Worst case scenario, they can always _pretend that they are unconscious to avoid enemy attention_.




From my DMing experience, they can, but they hardly ever will. If a PC has been dropped into the negatives, the situation is usually tense to say the least. That means everyone feels a strong pressure to do whatever they can to contribute. Faking unconsciousness is not going to happen. If all that a PC can do is crawl, she will crawl at a monster and try to headbutt it over a cliff. 

While this is exciting, it also means that the fictional logic of unconsciousness protecting you ceases to work. An enemy who is crawling is an enemy who could still be a threat. So it's logical that the monster would deliver that one final blow to put the PC down for good. Instead of a saving grace that gives you a chance to survive being "killed," negative hit points become a death spiral mechanic.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 21, 2012)

The reason that big monsters don't get more HP in 4E is because buckets of HP are boring. This is also why 4E solo monsters got their HP reduced later on because even when they're the whole encounter buckets of HP are still boring.


----------



## nnms (May 21, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really like the idea, that something has that AC, because of its hide, and this HP, because of its mass. And this way, dragon screams: solo monster. Without an arbitrary classification.




I like the idea of roles (both PC and monster) being emergent properties rather than defined in advance.



Crazy Jerome said:


> Actually, once they made the decision to make the numbers generally flatter across the boards, all kinds of possibilities open up here.  "Bulk" can matter without elephants being "elephant demons" to 3rd level guards, because bulk adds to hit points but hit points are relatively flat.  In the same way, this makes it possible to have balanced monsters without even needing much of a module.  It's not foolproof, but there is definitely more room to maneuver.




That's a good point.  Perhaps there doesn't need to be a monster building system where their hit points equals four times the average damage of PCs of the same level, where defenses aren't designed to produce the same hit rate regardless of level, etc.,.

I'd like to give you guys both XP, but it says I need to spread it around some more.  Great posts.


----------



## Szatany (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> From my DMing experience, they can, but they hardly ever will. If a PC has been dropped into the negatives, the situation is usually tense to say the least. That means everyone feels a strong pressure to do whatever they can to contribute. Faking unconsciousness is not going to happen. If all that a PC can do is crawl, she will crawl at a monster and try to headbutt it over a cliff.
> 
> While this is exciting, it also means that the fictional logic of unconsciousness protecting you ceases to work. An enemy who is crawling is an enemy who could still be a threat. So it's logical that the monster would deliver that one final blow to put the PC down for good. Instead of a saving grace that gives you a chance to survive being "killed," negative hit points become a death spiral mechanic.




Well, in this case the player made a choice and should live with the consequences. No one forced him to crawl at enemy (it makes no sense anyway if he can't make attacks or cast spells). At least the system is giving players a choice right? They wanna be stupid about it, it's fine by me.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 21, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand, and people who made the shift to 4e generally seem to be in that camp. My point is lots of people who didn't make the shift never saw any of this stuff as a problem in need of fixing. I think there is really gulf between the two camps over how to approach designing an edition of D&D, one is "what is wrong with D&D and how can we fix it." the other is "what is right about D&D and how can we make it even better". In my opinion the reason 4e seemed like such a break for many fans it it took the first approach. I am not saying the first approach is wrong, but taking it will naturally lead you to satisfy fans of the game who always had issues with some of its core elements, while possibly alienating those who liked it and just wanted some basic improvements.




It is not 4e players versus non-4e players issue.  There is a fundamental design problem in 1e/2e/3e that a party without a cleric plays so differently from a party with a cleric.  It is quite possible to trudge through dungeons without a Wizard, but the staying power of the party without a Cleric was too problematic.

You may not have had a problem but I can promise you this is a common complaint, one that makes life harder on the DM because otherwise good adventures could just come apart at the seams.

Most old time playing groups just conceded that they needed an NPC cleric along, when no one wanted to play the cleric.  Well, that kinda of works.  But it also kinda sucks.

Removing the necessity for a cleric means that players get to play the PCs they want play, rather than someone playing a class they do not enjoy a player or DM running a tagalong NPC when they have plenty on their plate already.  Is that not a worthwhile design goal?


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

Szatany said:


> Well, in this case the player made a choice and should live with the consequences. No one forced him to crawl at enemy (it makes no sense anyway if he can't make attacks or cast spells). At least the system is giving players a choice right? They wanna be stupid about it, it's fine by me.




Then we should just go back to death at zero, and put the responsibility on players to fall over and play dead when they're almost out of hit points. They wanna be stupid and keep on fighting, so be it.


----------



## Szatany (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Then we should just go back to death at zero, and put the responsibility on players to fall over and play dead when they're almost out of hit points. They wanna be stupid and keep on fighting, so be it.



No, the negative hp cusion is useful. It just doesn't need the unconciousness component.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> From my DMing experience, they can, but they hardly ever will. If a PC has been dropped into the negatives, the situation is usually tense to say the least. That means everyone feels a strong pressure to do whatever they can to contribute. Faking unconsciousness is not going to happen. If all that a PC can do is crawl, she will crawl at a monster and try to headbutt it over a cliff.
> 
> While this is exciting, it also means that the fictional logic of unconsciousness protecting you ceases to work. An enemy who is crawling is an enemy who could still be a threat. So it's logical that the monster would deliver that one final blow to put the PC down for good. Instead of a saving grace that gives you a chance to survive being "killed," negative hit points become a death spiral mechanic.



There were times, when players actually though about feigning death, or running away... long long time ago...


----------



## Phaezen (May 21, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> There were times, when players actually though about feigning death, or running away... long long time ago...




Not so long ago, my group made an inglorious retreat on Friday evening.  We had those Kobolds at our mercy, till it turned out their dragon master was real, in the area, not so pleased about us thinning the ranks of his worshipers.


----------



## am181d (May 21, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> Fiction-wise, I agree that it's kind of weird you always end up unconscious before you die. But it's a useful cheat.




Well, not ALWAYS, right? You just need to do 10 extra points of damage. I've fudged plenty of rolls for my players over the years so that the ogre would "only" take them down to -7 or -8...


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2012)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> Removing the necessity for a cleric means that players get to play the PCs they want play, rather than someone playing a class they do not enjoy a player or DM running a tagalong NPC when they have plenty on their plate already.  Is that not a worthwhile design goal?




It is a fine design goal. But achieving the goal is going to have its own cost. I agree that some people saw the importance of clerics as a problem, but others just accepted it as a reality of the game's physics (if you didn't have a cleric the game played differently but that was a feature, not a bug). So my point isn't that you don't have a right to argue this was a problem and it should be fixed. It is simply that they might lose some of the people they are trying to win back if this fix is a core part of the game (but maybe not depending on how it is done).


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 21, 2012)

am181d said:


> I've fudged plenty of rolls for my players over the years so that the ogre would "only" take them down to -7 or -8...



Why not change the rule to death at minus 20 or something?


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 21, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Why not change the rule to death at minus 20 or something?




Minus Bloodied, mayhaps?


----------



## Thraug (May 21, 2012)

A couple of important aspects of healing that haven't been addressed by WOTC are resource recharge rates, and the huge difference between 
parties with and without a healer. The article didn't mention the recharge rate of hit dice. A fast hit die recovery rate means characters 
will almost always be fully healed, just as they have been when healing characters are in the party. Both a fast hit die recovery rate and 
healers in the party make lasting injuries non-existent without house rules. Many, including me, do not like this. Having lasting 
injuries/wounds/low-HP allows for great narrative. WOTC needs to allow for this style of play.

I'm in favor of slower recovery of HP with and without the presence of healing classes. I don't mind party's being able to handle multiple 
combat encounters per day, but they shouldn't always pop right back up the next day after having having several encounters the previous day, 
where their HP and resource were taxed. It's just goofy to me and lessons the impact of a sequence of tough combat encounters.

Next is resource recharging. Having resource recharge on a daily cycle makes for resource management (HP/spells/powers/etc) in overland 
adventure campaigns meaningless. Infrequent combat encounters, typical in these types of campaigns, become trivialized unless they are 
extremely hard on the party. It's not always desirable to have very hard single encounters just to challenge the party during overland 
travels, or in campaigns with infrequent encounters. WOTC needs to address this as well.

The above go hand in hand, both of these related to resource recharge rates. I hope resources in DNDN at least have an option for, as 
another poster wonderfully put, "gritty" options for recharge rates, allowing for lasting injuries and resource wear for campaigns that don't 
always have multiple combat encounters per day.


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2012)

am181d said:


> Well, not ALWAYS, right? You just need to do 10 extra points of damage. I've fudged plenty of rolls for my players over the years so that the ogre would "only" take them down to -7 or -8...




So they always end up unconscious, don't they?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 21, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> There were times, when players actually though about feigning death, or running away... long long time ago...



That's because rpgers are a lot manlier now than they were in the 70s. I blame long hair, glam rock, disco and arcade games.


----------



## Falling Icicle (May 21, 2012)

I'm not at all happy with this article. First off, I really, really hope that we're not going back to rolling for hit points. Worst. Mechanic. _Ever_. It also seems that we're back to HP scaling multiplicatively, which leads to the stupidity of low level characters having single digit HPs and massive HP bloat at higher levels. It also leads to many things becoming obsolete at high levels like alchemist fire, which really shouldn't. Why should an experienced hero laugh at having a jar of napalm thrown in his face? And that's what he will do, when some poor fool wastes his turn on a piddly 1d6 damage attack at that level. Likewise, the 5d6 fireball is now more pathetic than ever. Sure, you can prepare that fireball in a higher level slot to do more damage, but why should you have to? If orcs and other low level monsters are supposed to remain credible threats throughout the game, then so should alchemist's fire and 3rd level fireballs.

I was really hoping they were going to dramatically scale the rate of HP gain back in this edition, as their early comments indicated. If they did, we wouldn't really need to have to jump through so many hoops to explain away the blatant unrealistic nature of HPs. Sure, they're going to be an "abstraction" either way, but they're a heck of alot more believable if characters don't have 20 _times_ the number of HP at 20th level that they had at level 1.

As for non-magical healing, I don't really have a problem with that. I agree that being able to have an effective party without a cleric is a highly desirable goal. But this HD system just comes across as contrived and overly crunchy. Just let munane characters restore a % of their HP with each rest or something similary simple.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 22, 2012)

Whether it ultimately survives the playtest or not, WOTC has put a lot of thought into this mechanic. Lets take a look at some of the simple beauty:

1) Its modular. Because it is not tied to magical healing or combat healing, DMs can modify it without having too large an impact on the game.

Don't like the mechanic, then drop it. You need your clerics or buckets of healing potion, but the game moves on no problem.

Not enough, bump it up. Combat healing remains the same, but your party can take on more encounters without running out of juice.


2) Provides randomness without being too random. People love to roll, but overall hitpoints are too important to leave to chance. However, recovery is more granular, and particular good/bad rolls don't have the same measured impact.

On the other hand, players can use average values to regain the consistency of healing surges should they choose to.


3) Better flavor. I never minded surges myself, but I understand the concern with those that do. By separating this mechanic from in combat healing we can separate the mundane and magical flavor. 

A person can now recover from their wounds in part by resting, but in the short rest way that dnd adventurers typically assume. However, this mundane healing has its limitations (and seems to provide 1.5 - 2x the pcs normal longevity, as opposed to 3-4x for a 4e character).

Overall it seems like a good compromise to me, but again the key is by making the mechanic modular enough, DMs do it with as they please. While they could do the same with healing surges, it affected a lot more.



One thing I am confused about though. The article went into a lot of detail about how 1/2 HP means true wounds and the like, but I didn't see any  mechanics to support that. For example, this Hit Dice healing doesn't seem impacted by whether I'm healing at 90% full or 10%.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 22, 2012)

Sorry to come in at the last second, but does this mean that if you're a 5th level Fighter with 5 d10 HD, after a night's rest you roll 5d10 HP healing?


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I was really hoping they were going to dramatically scale the rate of HP gain back in this edition, as their early comments indicated. If they did, we wouldn't really need to have to jump through so many hoops to explain away the *blatant unrealistic nature* of HPs. Sure, they're going to be an "abstraction" either way, but they're a heck of alot more believable if characters don't have 20 _times_ the number of HP at 20th level that they had at level 1.




Perhaps we should spend more time trying to explain away the blatantly unrealistic nature of extra-dimensional tentacle monsters.  Or giant magic-casting, fire-breathing lizards.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> I suspect (from a hodgepodge of things from various places) that we will see that you get max hp whenever you level up. The randomized recovery of HD during play will act to make it interesting. This would also fit with the idea that games wishing to start with competent/heroic PCs a la 4e would start at level 3 or so, rather than level 1.
> 
> I'm not sure how Con or Con bonus fit into the scheme (if at all.)




Max HP+con per level, or some other fixed form of HP generation, with mundane healing using level-based HD rolls would be fine with me.  Assigning HD by level also does leave room for folks to roll them, so presenting rolled, half, half+1, or maxed would all be equally valid options.


----------



## Dausuul (May 22, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Sorry to come in at the last second, but does this mean that if you're a 5th level Fighter with 5 d10 HD, after a night's rest you roll 5d10 HP healing?




As far as I can tell, it means that you have a stash of five d10s for nonmagical healing (via first aid, healing herbs, and such). At any time, you can spend 10 minutes bandaging yourself, roll any or all of those d10s, and add the results to your hit point total.

When your stash runs out, you can gain no more benefit from nonmagical healing that day. You can recover _some_ of those d10s with a night's rest. We do not currently know how many "some" is. It might be all five, it might be three, it might be only one. Or it might be one of those dials that the DM can adjust based on taste.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 22, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I was really hoping they were going to dramatically scale the rate of HP gain back in this edition, as their early comments indicated. If they did, we wouldn't really need to have to jump through so many hoops to explain away the blatant unrealistic nature of HPs. Sure, they're going to be an "abstraction" either way, but they're a heck of alot more believable if characters don't have 20 _times_ the number of HP at 20th level that they had at level 1.




We don't know that they will. Hit dice used to cap at name level for most classes with only a couple of HP (and no CON bonus) gained per level after that. Perhaps hit dice will stop or slow way down after a certain level to keep hit points in the sane realm?


----------



## YRUSirius (May 22, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> We don't know that they will. Hit dice used to cap at name level for most classes with only a couple of HP (and no CON bonus) gained per level after that. Perhaps hit dice will stop or slow way down after a certain level to keep hit points in the sane realm?




That's why I love rolled max hp. To keep the hit points in the sane realm. A level 20 fighter has in average 100 hp from his class.

EDIT: That's enough for a level 20 fighter to fight 10 orcs on his own, non?

-YRUSirius


----------



## FireLance (May 22, 2012)

Incidentally, even if you don't like non-magical healing, there are a number of ways that you can choose to make use of the 5e concept of Hit Dice which would not require you to flavor them as healing. I should add that most of these ideas were actually raised by various people over the course of several discussions on the nature of healing surges, hit points and non-magical healing in 4e, so I can't claim credit for them. The fact that Hit Dice are more granular than 4e healing surges actually makes these ideas more viable, IMO.

1. Temporary Hit Points: At the start of each combat, you may choose to spend one or more Hit Dice (capped at the number of Hit Dice you can spend in a short rest, if any) as a free action to gain temporary hit points equal to the hit points you would normally regain by spending the Hit Dice.

2. Damage Avoidance: When you take damage in combat, you may expend one Hit Dice to reduce the amount of damage you take by an amount equal to the number of hit points you would normally regain by spending the Hit Dice (you always take a minimum of 1 hit point of damage). (If the number of Hit Dice you may spend in a short rest is capped, the number of times per combat that you may do this has the same cap.)

3. It's All Hit Points: Just ignore the fiddly bits, and convert whatever Hit Dice you have directly to hit points. Your fighter has 10 hp and 1 Hit Dice? Roll that 1d10 and add it to your hit points. Your character now has 11 to 20 hit points. Next level, you gain 10 hp and another Hit Dice? You now have 22 to 40 hit points. You regain 2 Hit Dice after a night's rest? You just regain 2d10 hp per night. You now have random hit points and a single hit point total to track, just like in the old days.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 22, 2012)

This use of "hit dice" is so close to what I came up with for my own games it's a little disturbing.  One of the few things I thought had merit from 4E was the approach to healing.  They just didn't quite implement it in a way I cared for and what they CALLED it... "Surges."  Where the heck did they EVER come up with that word - and then decide that it was better than any other word they might have come up with?  Really, just calling them "surges" blinded me for a long time to the value of the concept itself.

I've been working on adapting newer ideas to 1E rules for my own purposes and wanted to strongly disassociate healing from clerics - and minor (indeed, trivial) differences aside this was what I came up with.  I'm still dubious about the new versions overall success but I see this one as a check in the "win" column.


----------



## Libramarian (May 22, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I'm pretty much going to flavor it as fighting spirit and determination. If you're above half hp but have used up all your Hit Dice (assuming that is possible - there may be a rule that prevents you from using the last half of your Hit Dice unless you are at less than half hit points), your character is starting to feel nervous. He's had a lot of close calls in the last day or so, and he's starting to get worried that his luck will run out. When he's finally dropped to less than half his hit points, it takes all the willpower he has left just to keep going. He has none to spare for a last-ditch burst of effort.



You don't spend them in battle though, only during a rest, so it's not going to feel like a "burst of effort".

It's like catching your breath, except that you get to choose how much of your breath you catch and at some point you run out of the capacity to catch your breath.

Idk I'm not going to worry too much about it; I'll see if it feels odd or gamey in play. But it's weird how they're paying such close attention to what hitpoints mean fictionally but not what hit dice and the act of spending hit dice means fictionally.


----------



## underfoot007ct (May 22, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Reactions to this article seem to be a tell-tale sign between those who care about compromise and those that want their thing and their thing only, come hell or high water.
> 
> I'm not sure that it's the best way to handle it, but will be rather amusing, from a historical perspective, if the "hit die" cap out at "name level."




I think this hits the nail on the head, regarding compromise. Too many people state only what "they" want & "deal breakers", rather than if the new ideas are reasonable & workable. Some amount of compromise is required. Overall I am pleased with the article. Also that most gamers are staying open minded.


----------



## Someone (May 22, 2012)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I'm still not buying what HP represents.  And yes, I know, its pretty much always been this way in D&D.
> 
> Their example...  A Fighter with 10 hit points gets bit by a spider for 3 damage.  Barely a hit, but just enough so he has to make a fort save vs the poison.  So what happens when that same spider hits that same fighter 10 levels later?  When the fighter has 60 hit points.  If 3 hit points off of 10 is a "near miss" then what is 3 hit points off of 60?  The fighter has to make a saving throw.
> 
> ...




Also, we're back at healing spells that if used on a 1st level fighter turn them from bloody mess of broken bones into examples of perfect health, but on 10th level fighters are barely able to heal a flea's bite.


----------



## DMKastmaria (May 22, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> I think this hits the nail on the head, regarding compromise. Too many people state only what "they" want & "deal breakers", rather than if the new ideas are reasonable & workable. Some amount of compromise is required. Overall I am pleased with the article. Also that most gamers are staying open minded.




No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.

I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing. 

Now, in spite of all this talk of "old school" design influences, I've seen precious little to make me think that 5e will be a good choice for "old school" play. 

And that's quite allright! I already have more than enough options, when it comes to what games I want to run.

So, if I'm correct, then I hope those who like the game, have fun.

But, I'm not going to "compromise" and spend what little bit of gaming time I have, prepping and running an rpg that isn't suitable for my purposes. That I don't like, or like far less than other editions/rpg's.

No, Compromise isn't required of me, at all! WotC can either put out a game I want to run, or not.


----------



## jbear (May 22, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.
> 
> I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing.
> 
> ...



Err... skipped a few pages ... read the above ... rolled eyes. Fair enough I guess. It would also be fair not to care about an opinion so unbudging. Really, what can you bring to a discussion of any kind apart from "I want this, this and this and if I don't get it, then I'm not interested" ? 

But I digress. I think it sounds like a very interesting and fun way of running HPs. That's just my wee opinion there. So for those who are saying that the random nature of HP recovery will be disliked by 4e fans ... well, here's a 4e fan that you'd be wrong about. And as others point out, it's a very simple matter to make the dice a static average.

All that said and done, to those that don't like it or how it sounds right off the bat, I'd say not  to worry. The game is at a very early stage and the system won't make the final cut if the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. So, why not try it out and see how you feel about it after you've given it a whirl to see what you think? That's the point at least for me.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

nnms said:


> I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling.  Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount.  Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount.  +1 to attack rolls?  Monster defenses go up the same.  Leveling in 4E was pretty much about fooling people into thinking their numbers were getting better and allowing them to add on more option in terms of more encounter, utility and daily powers.



I've often said that levelling in 4e is very obviously not a reward mechanic (despite being labelled as such in the DMG) - for just the reasons you give!

It's a type of pacing mechanic, for supporting a steady change in the overall campaign situation (assuming the GM is using the published MMs/MVs, you start out fighting goblins and end up fighting Lolth), and for supporting the gradual increase in power complexity.

I think this is a big difference between 4e and by-the-Gygaxian-book AD&D. (I can't comment on 3E - I don't know it well enough in this respect. I think a lot of 2nd ed AD&D campaigns may have treated levelling a bit more like 4e does.)



nnms said:


> L&L for D&DN: Physical capacity for punishment, which is measured through a combination of size, bulk, and durability. An elephant or a hill giant has plenty of hit points due to raw physical endurance and bulk. Big creatures can take a lot of punishment.​This makes me very happy.  It's much, much better than:
> 
> 4E's general approach: Hit points of a normal monster should be roughly four times what a non-striker does on an average damage roll, regardless of the characteristics of the monster in question.​
> Night and day.



Although Mearls also says that hit points reflect energy, experience, luck and cosmic significance. And I don't think any ratios were specified. In my 4e game, on the few occasions where I've used solos or elites that aren't especially big (some powerful wizards, some vampires) I've narrated their energy, experience and cosmic signficance along with their hit point loss.

I would be pretty surprised if D&dnext doesn't include plenty of high hp monsters of modest physical size (just as AD&D does, with its high level NPCs, its succubi with higher hit points than oxen, etc).

To put it another way - I think that there has always been an element of "assign hp first, supply ingame rationale later" in D&D monster design. 4e may have taken it to new heights, but I don't think it pioneered it.



UngeheuerLich said:


> The part, that bulk and mass equals hp was something lost in 4e. A creature beeing a solo, just because it is the only enemy right now makes no sense.



As I've said, Mearls indicates bulk and mass as only one component of hp. After all, high level PCs presumably get more hp, without necessarily putting on weight!


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

I've read the Mearls piece, and this thread.

As far as I can tell, these "hit dice" are analogous to healing surges, but:

*the value from spending one is random rather than fixed;

*the total average value of a PC's HD will be approximately equal to half his/her total hp value (assuming a figter has 1 HD per level, a 1d10 HD giving an average of 5.5 hp per HD, and 10 hp per level);

*the rate of HD recovery may be less than "all per day";

*there will be no way to unlock HD in combat.​
Using only HD expenditure, it will therefore take about double a PC's HD total to fully replenish one's hp. Which, depending on the rate of HD recovery, will take more than a day and possibly several days. (If HD are recovered at the rate of 1 per day, we'll be back to the AD&D weirdness that lower level PCs recover their mojo more quickly than higher level PCs, although according to the fiction of the game higher level PCs are more cosmically significant than lower level ones.)

Assuming I haven't missed anything, rapid progression through combat encounters will require magical healing (as per some versions of pre-4e D&D), or alternatively combat encounters will do much less damage, so that healing to (near-)full between encounters won't be necessary (as per some other versions of pre-4e D&D).

This doesn't particularly enthuse me. It doesn't outrage me either. (Except for the possibility that recovery is quicker for the weak low-level types than for the buff high-level types. That's always been stupid, and will be stupid if part of D&Dnext.)

What struck me is that apparently there will be no more recovery from unconsciousness without magical intervention, and no more pushing through injury without magical intervention. The whole space for a type of romantic fanatsy that the warlord opened up (and that I see as epitomised by Aragorn's recovery-from-going-over-the-cliff scene in The Two Towers film) will be shut down again.

That strikes me as a pity.


----------



## FireLance (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> What struck me is that apparently there will be no more recovery from unconsciousness without magical intervention, and no more pushing through injury without magical intervention. The whole space for a type of romantic fanatsy that the warlord opened up (and that I see as epitomised by Aragorn's recovery-from-going-over-the-cliff scene in The Two Towers film) will be shut down again.
> 
> That strikes me as a pity.



Whatever the actual rules are, it's going to be pretty easy to implement. There already is a mechanism for non-magical hit point recovery. If the rules say that you need magical healing to get back up from 0, all you need to do is say, "Actually, you don't."


----------



## FireLance (May 22, 2012)

Someone said:


> Also, we're back at healing spells that if used on a 1st level fighter turn them from bloody mess of broken bones into examples of perfect health, but on 10th level fighters are barely able to heal a flea's bite.



Not necessarily. Hit Dice is for non-magical hit point recovery.  It's been explicitly stated in the article that "Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice". Nothing has been said so far (that I'm aware of, anyway) about how healing spells work. It could be that _cure light wounds_ restores 25% (or 20%, or 10%) of the target's full normal hit points, for example.


----------



## underfoot007ct (May 22, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> No. It doesn't hit the nail on the head. If there are too many things about 5e that I don't like, then I won't run 5e.
> 
> I owe you common courtesy and respect. I don't owe it to you, to like 5e, play 5e, or to agree with the WotC designers on any given thing.
> 
> ...




No one is forcing you to try or even buy 5E, or force you agree with anyone. If you think whichever edition you now play is near perfect, then nothing probably will ever exceed that for yourself (& that's fine). No one from WOTC ever kidnapped your old edition books, so if that is what YOU want to play then please do so, good for you. Spend your precious time any way you see fit. Yet if you have so many options to play, why do you seem to care about 5E.  

But for the majority of the gamers, who want to play the current version of D&D might want to play 1E or B/X. So for a 4E player to sit down with a 3e gamer and a few 1e guys, there MUST be compromise. 5E needs to appeal to as many gamers as possible to be a success, but does not need every gamer on enworld. I just do not believe it is in the best interest of D&D to create a game that appeals to broadest numbers of games.

I indeed hope you are wrong, then maybe 5E is a game you & most of the "old School" gamers may like 5E. In just a few short days we will know more when the playtest is open.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Not necessarily. Hit Dice is for non-magical hit point recovery.



But if hit dice are recovered at 1 (or 2, etc) per day, rather than all at once, natural healing will exhibit the problem.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 22, 2012)

I think there are two main options for hd recovery:

1. One hd per level per long rest.
2. Variable hd recovery dependable on main class.

Warder


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> we'll be back to the AD&D weirdness that lower level PCs recover their mojo more quickly than higher level PCs, although according to the fiction of the game higher level PCs are more cosmically significant than lower level ones.



This doesn't bother me at all. A fat guy (me) can run about a mile and be completely winded for 30 minutes or so, and then might be able to run a mile again. A marathoner runs 26.2 miles and is exhausted and takes at least a day to recover to "normal" (but still probably is not up to another marathon again), and thus probably only runs a few marathons in a year, recovering for a month or so and beginning training for the next one.

Or take me vs Rocky Balboa. One hit and I'm out. I'll wake up in a short while, and be pretty much good to go. Now, pretend I'm Apollo Creed. I go 10 rounds, trading punch for punch with Rocky until we both fall to the mat. Rocky manages to force himself up at the last second to win, but the both of us spend the next month just recovering before we can even entertain the idea of another fight of that magnitude.

Of course we recover slower because we've taken more damage. That means Rocky can't fight Creed every day. But it doesn't mean he can't function while continuing to heal up, and if he stumbles across a streetpunk, even though he's still not full strength to fight Creed again, he could probably knock out the punk without too much of a problem.



----


On topic: I was vociferously against Healing Surges in that thread. But this doesn't sound all that bad. I think they may have threaded the needle on this one, getting me to accept a sort of Healing Surge-light mechanic that seems rather reasonable. I guess we'll know for sure after Thursday, but I think the Hit Point (clearly defined, for once!) and Hit Dice recovery mechanic might just be the way to do it.


----------



## DMKastmaria (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I guess we'll know for sure after Thursday, but I think the Hit Point (clearly defined, for once!) and Hit Dice recovery mechanic might just be the way to do it.




It's been clearly defined, before:

AD&D PH by Gary Gygax page 34:

_"These Hit Points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. 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."_

_"Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."_

_"Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and  regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points."_

AD&D DMG by Gary Gygax page 82:

_"Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."_


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As I've said, Mearls indicates bulk and mass as only one component of hp. After all, high level PCs presumably get more hp, without necessarily putting on weight!




Of course it is only one component.

Fighters always had hp calues equal to those of dragons, when they were higher level.

But goblins did not. 4e monster design works fine, and if you bother to look at Monster Vault monsters and early articles, you will notice, that the solo template was meant to be used with big creatures. Elite templates were more or less used for classed oponents etc.
The problem is that the solo template was used for some creatures that should either be higher level and elite or even, in the worst applications for creatures that happened to be encountered alone.

Also it was problematic, that an enemy that should have just been higher level was instead made an elite... easier to hit, but beeing able to take more punishment. For a tactical fight that seems reasonable, but the same result could have been achieved with combat maneuvers against weaker creatures (double attack as an option for monsters by default, if you encounter foes of much lower level accompanied with a -x to attacks and defenses... add in damage reduction against lower level foes and it should work out ok)

But hitting a goblin for 100 damage or so and it still stands feels just wrong.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> It's been clearly defined, before:
> 
> AD&D PH by Gary Gygax page 34: <snip>
> AD&D DMG by Gary Gygax page 82: <snip>



That's not clear the way Mearls made it clear. There's no delineation, and it's left up to a mushy glop to determine what THIS particular "hit" means in terms of HP. Is THIS hit just a lucky turn avoiding a cut, or is THAT hit actually a puncture wound?

He says "a certain portion" and then leaves it completely muddy. The hit points in D&D have until now been a bowl of mashed potatoes. (The metaphor also works with gruel or other comestibles made into a mush.) You scoop some out, and it's up to the narrator to describe whether a hit is actually a hit or not, which leads to "If it's a miss, then how did I get poisoned?" or "If it's a wound, you can't shout it closed." And then you fill up the mashed potatoes and did you close a wound, or just catch a quick breath?

Mearls actually defines that portion. The top half of your hit points are luck, exhaustion, etc. The bottom half are physical damage. This is more like a shepherd's pie. To get to the meat, you have to get through the mashed potato crust. If you're hit in the mashed potato layer, it's a near-miss. If you're hit in the meat layer, you got cut. If you're healed in the mashed potato layer, you catch a breath. If you're healed in the meat layer, your wound stops bleeding.

Gygax's hit points definition is as clear as a bowl of mashed potatoes. Every hit could be narrated in any way possible, which leads to one person on the internet narrating a hit as actual damage, and someone else on the internet telling him he's wrong and that it's not damage, just exhaustion. Mearls' hit points definition says that any hit before first blood is near-misses, and any hit after the first blood is actual damage.

[sblock]Gygax - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]
[sblock]Mearls - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 22, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The part, that bulk and mass equals hp was something lost in 4e. A creature beeing a solo, just because it is the only enemy right now makes no sense.
> 
> A dragon, designed as a solo monster. Yes, everyday. But a goblin? In the game, I find it difficult to estimate the power of something in 4e. You have no clue, which level something is... when you don´t take into account, that you are expected to encounter similar level foes in general.




I'm trying to work out who and why someone would stat a monster as a solo just because he was the only monster around.  Certainly doesn't fit any of the monster manuals I own.



UngeheuerLich said:


> There were times, when players actually though about feigning death, or running away... long long time ago...




Four sessions ago for my PCs was the last time they ran away.  And they've had one combat since - with one of their allies being an Invoker on home ground.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Of course it is only one component.
> 
> Fighters always had hp calues equal to those of dragons, when they were higher level.
> 
> ...




Can I have some examples please?  (I've generally avoided 4e modules - was Irontooth one?)



> But hitting a goblin for 100 damage or so and it still stands feels just wrong.




I don't think I've ever seen a goblin that could take that much damage.  And you've illustrated why.  I think I've once seen a kobold take that much damage - but in this case the kobold was a PC and it took the entire party's healing to keep him on his feet.


----------



## DMKastmaria (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Gygax's hit points definition is as clear as a bowl of mashed potatoes. Every hit could be narrated in any way possible, which leads to one person on the internet narrating a hit as actual damage, and someone else on the internet telling him he's wrong and that it's not damage, just exhaustion. Mearls' hit points definition says that any hit before first blood is near-misses, and any hit after the first blood is actual damage.




See the AD&D DMG by GG page 82. The section titled Hit Points. Second and third paragraph.

Too long to type and I'm not sure how much "Fair Use" the EnWorld mods are comfortable with.

Mr. Gygax gives a formula for determining the amount of "physical hit points," which allows for creative narration. *And which is obviously the Source of Mr. Mearls' article! * Notice how Mr. Gygax also describes a Fighter down to about Half his Hit Points as having sustained appreciable physical damage. 

DM's certainly have some leeway, there, but that's by design. GG's definition and intent are crystal clear.


----------



## Libramarian (May 22, 2012)

nnms said:


> I just don't want to see the illusion of leveling.  Like in 4E where you gain 10% more HP, but monster damage mysteriously goes up by the exact same amount.  Where you gain +1 to your skills every second level, but DCs mysteriously go up the exact same amount.  +1 to attack rolls?  Monster defenses go up the same.  Leveling in 4E was pretty much about fooling people into thinking their numbers were getting better and allowing them to add on more option in terms of more encounter, utility and daily powers.



Agreed. This is much more important to me than the particular way the game handles hitpoints.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> See the AD&D DMG by GG page 82. The section titled Hit Points. Second and third paragraph.
> 
> Too long to type and I'm not sure how much "Fair Use" the EnWorld mods are comfortable with.
> 
> ...



My copy is in storage (with most of my gaming books), so I'll have to take you at your word. I don't remember it ever being that granular before. If it is, that's excellent. I'm glad we're moving back in that direction rather than the slop of mashed potatoes that hit points have traditionally been.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 22, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Can I have some examples please?  (I've generally avoided 4e modules - was Irontooth one?)
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen a goblin that could take that much damage.  And you've illustrated why.  I think I've once seen a kobold take that much damage - but in this case the kobold was a PC and it took the entire party's healing to keep him on his feet.




*Krayd the Butcher
Medium natural humanoid, orc
Level 1 Solo Brute XP 500*



*Sinruth, Hobgoblin Chieftain
Medium natural humanoid , goblin
Level 2 Solo Soldier XP 625*


as I and you said: in the Monsterous manuals, there were no such unflavourful solos. But in Modules, there were those things, where 4e haters rightfully objected...

Solo status and size should not be divorced in 5e and hopefully solo as a status is not needed anymore.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2012)

During my 4e game yesterday, I had another thought:

Crits need to work differently in this system.

You can describe > 1/2 hp as scuffs and fleshwounds, but a CRIT shouldn't just be a scuff or a fleshwound.


----------



## DMKastmaria (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> My copy is in storage (with most of my gaming books), so I'll have to take you at your word. I don't remember it ever being that granular before. If it is, that's excellent. I'm glad we're moving back in that direction rather than the slop of mashed potatoes that hit points have traditionally been.




Don't take me at my word! When you get a chance, I urge you to get the book and re-read the whole thing!


----------



## slobster (May 22, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Solo status and size should not be divorced in 5e and hopefully solo as a status is not needed anymore.




They shouldn't be too tightly linked, either. I'd like a demi-lich to be a credible threat to the entire party, even though it's all of a cubic foot in volume!

I don't really care much about the hp as an in-game concept debate. It's torturous to try and come up with a description that applies to the PCs, nobody will agree even if you do, and when all is said and done it will all break down anyway once you try to apply it to monsters and other in-game entities that aren't as standardized and relatable to reality as player characters are.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 22, 2012)

No, a Lich is a supernatural creature. No prolems with high hp here. But look at my examples... that just does not fit.


----------



## slobster (May 22, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, a Lich is a supernatural creature. No prolems with high hp here. But look at my examples... that just does not fit.




Yeah, that's fine. I personally don't have a problem with humanoid solos. I don't have a problem with high level humanoids, and a say 10th level orc shaman would wipe the floor with a low level party far more convincingly than a solo enemy of their same level.

So it's not a matter of comparative power that's the problem, so what is it?

Hmmm . . . really not on the thread topic. Sorry OP! Maybe we can take this elsewhere if it's something you still want to discuss?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 22, 2012)

Headed to work, but wanted to get my thoughts in before. I've ready about 2/3rds of the thread.

I don't think hit dice are Healing Surges light - I think they are reserve points like in the 3.x Unearthed Arcana or Iron Heroes. A pool of hit points you can use outside of combat to heal yourself without magic.

Healing surges put a cap on healing period - spells and potions and such took them. This is not true of Hit Dice.

Healing surges could be used in combat, or triggered by healer types - this doesn't look to be the case in Hit Dice.

And the thing I really didn't like about surges was the cap on magical healing - so that is gone. Happy for me.


As to the HP definition - I think some of the wording was lifted directly from AD&D 1st (thought I don't have to check) so that is fine with me. Having each level set explicit is great - that allows people that have the "He shouts and you heal?!?" problem to be able to be more comfortable with the class - as someone mentioned above - perhaps the Warlords curative effects only work on non-bloodied. That would really help immersion for those that have a problem with the 4E approach, but still keep the Warlord as a viable character. 

Personally I liked everything I saw in this one.


----------



## Dragoslav (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> During my 4e game yesterday, I had another thought:
> 
> Crits need to work differently in this system.
> 
> You can describe > 1/2 hp as scuffs and fleshwounds, but a CRIT shouldn't just be a scuff or a fleshwound.



It's just a very skillful or powerful blow. If you have >1/2 HP afterwards, you deflected the blow, but doing so really exhausted you (maybe you had to deflect a giant's club, or you had to weave and parry against a swordsman's flurry of strikes). If you have <1/2 HP, you were completely caught off guard or were unable to deflect the blow, so you took a nasty hit. If you're under 0 HP, you were too exhausted/distracted to get out of the way in time, or you were beaten up so badly already that this blow knocked you unconscious or otherwise incapacitated you.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But if hit dice are recovered at 1 (or 2, etc) per day, rather than all at once, natural healing will exhibit the problem.




I agree with that, but this one of those things were my appreciation for tight, predictiable mechanics and natural sympathy for the old-school "wearing down of the party over time" are at war. 

A rather interesting side effect of this mechanic, if I read it correctly, is that early in an "adventure" the party will function a bit more like a 4E party.  They are topped out, healed up, ready to go.  However, as they adventure continues, hit dice are used, and not fully recovered, the party moves more and more into functioning a bit like an AD&D party.  Magical healing becomes more and more critical to keep going.  Of course, this is relative, as when I say "bit" I mean that shift will be as extreme as straight 4E or AD&D.

That, in turn, has rather interesting implications for house rules and/or modules.  If you want something more like 4E, you can be generous with the restoration of "hit dice" explicitly, use short "adventures," or arbitrarily make a bigger "adventure" into a several shorter ones.  It all ends up the same, as people get chances to heal up fully.

OTOH, if you want something more like AD&D, you can be rather strict with "hit dice" restoration, deliberately define "adventure" as somewhat longer than normal, or even set up environmental factors.  (For example, you could put the "adventure" out in the wilderness, a week from civilization, and then knock off a few "hit dice" for fatigue before the adventure technically starts--whether you play that out with skill checks, wandering monsters, or start the party at the dungeon door with fewer "hit dice" as an abstraction.)

Heh, this brings to mind the Dragon Quest "fatigue" mechanic where the game master is specifically instructed (with some detailed rules) on how to adjust starting fatigue based on the circumstances.  You are in better shape when jumped in the tavern in town, after resting for a few days, than you are the end of a long day travel in the wilderness.


----------



## technoextreme (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Or take me vs Rocky Balboa. One hit and I'm out. I'll wake up in a short while, and be pretty much good to go. Now, pretend I'm Apollo Creed. I go 10 rounds, trading punch for punch with Rocky until we both fall to the mat. Rocky manages to force himself up at the last second to win, but the both of us spend the next month just recovering before we can even entertain the idea of another fight of that magnitude.



Are you dumb? Are you ing insane!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds anyone who knows how medicine works? One solid hit in the right spot from a professional boxer and you are out for monthes on end with the distinct possibility of long lasting damage and cognitive problems.  Though thank you for providing the perfect example of why trying to tie in hit points with physical damage is still an abstraction the likes of which is still idiotic and stupid on the level that most people tend to complain about 4th edition.

*Mod Note:* Please see my note below  ~Umbran



> In 4E you needed to go to - Bloodied. That basically never happens except by falling off a cliff into a super-massive black hole that happens to be on fire - or you got caught in the blast of one too many Area of Effect attacks while you were down.



No it definately does happen. In fact I think I've seen it happen double digit times. I've also seen the three saves or die happen too.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Of course it is only one component.
> 
> Fighters always had hp calues equal to those of dragons, when they were higher level.
> 
> But goblins did not.



I thought that in 3E they could, if they had levels.

And in AD&D it would be possible to have an ad hoc high level goblin, even if there was no systematic rule for it (and that's ignoring the Complete Book of Humanoids).



UngeheuerLich said:


> The problem is that the solo template was used for some creatures that should either be higher level and elite or even, in the worst applications for creatures that happened to be encountered alone.
> 
> Also it was problematic, that an enemy that should have just been higher level was instead made an elite... easier to hit, but beeing able to take more punishment. For a tactical fight that seems reasonable, but the same result could have been achieved with combat maneuvers against weaker creatures (double attack as an option for monsters by default, if you encounter foes of much lower level accompanied with a -x to attacks and defenses... add in damage reduction against lower level foes and it should work out ok)
> 
> But hitting a goblin for 100 damage or so and it still stands feels just wrong.



I used a solo approach to make a powerful MU a suitable opponent for my 13th level PCs. It worked fine. The narration wasn't wonky - I narrated this guy parrying blows with his staff, holding off attacks through his magical power, and letting fly with an array of spells the likes of which the PCs had never before seen.



UngeheuerLich said:


> No, a Lich is a supernatural creature. No prolems with high hp here. But look at my examples... that just does not fit.



But a goblin with 100s of hit points _is_ a supernatural creature, or something similar - given that its hp aren't meat, they represent luck, divine favour, cosmic significance etc.

If a group can't stomach narrating a goblin in that fashion, then don't give it so many hp! Conversely, if a group is using goblins with that many hp, then get the narration right!


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Are you dumb? Are you ing insane!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds anyone who knows how medicine works? One solid hit in the right spot from a professional boxer and you are out for monthes on end with the distinct possibility of long lasting damage and cognitive problems.
> 
> No it definately does happen.  In fact I think I've seen it happen double digit times.  I've also seen the three saves or die happen too.




Well i dont think we should be calling people names for speculating on what would happen if rocky balboa slugged them. 

I think you guys are both kind of right. It all depends. One knock out punch and he would probably be up and about (seemingly okay) within 1-10 minutes (really most knock outs tend to be under a minute). However if he cracked his head on the way down, which is easy to do, he could be in serious trouble. Generally speaking when boxers die or take serious damage in the ring, it is from repeated, unreturned, blows to the head. Not usually from a single heavy blow (same thing for getting knocked, combos are usually what does it). The chances of him going into a monthlong coma though from a single blow by mr. Stallone, is very, very slim. 

One knock out blow couod give you a concussion, and those can have effects that last up to a month (you would be very easy to knock out again within that period).

I aggree that D&D isn't really equioed to model this stuff.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> One knock out punch and he would probably be up and about (seemingly okay) within 1-10 minutes (really most knock outs tend to be under a minute).



That's pretty much what I was getting at. Barring something unforeseen, and just taking the hit into account, that's exactly what would happen.



> However if he cracked his head on the way down, which is easy to do, he could be in serious trouble.



And that I would call a critical hit.



> One knock out blow couod give you a concussion, and those can have effects that last up to a month (you would be very easy to knock out again within that period).



Lasting damage is a quite different thing. And that is something D&D definitely does not model well, at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> That's pretty much what I was getting at. Barring something unforeseen, and just taking the hit into account, that's exactly what would happen.
> 
> And that I would call a critical hit.
> 
> Lasting damage is a quite different thing. And that is something D&D definitely does not model well, at all.




I agree and felt the post was reasonable. d&d doesn't really handle this stuff. And when it tries (i am looking at you 2E KO chart) it gets weird.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2012)

Dragonslav said:
			
		

> It's just a very skillful or powerful blow.




As opposed to all the other rolls that were hits but not crits? Those were sloppy and weak? Even a non-crit that deals 3 damage when the fighter is at 2 hp is apparently strong enough to kill a fighter.

Nah, rolling a natural 20 should be a WOO-HOO moment, not a moment where the result is: "Your enemy is badly scratched by your amazing attack." 

It's an easy enough problem to solve (especially with modules), but a crit really needs to be something that creates some substantial injury on your enemy, or else it's YAWN. 

(While we're at it, we should ditch 4e-style "crits are max damage," since that's a big yawn, too)


----------



## john112364 (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree and felt the post was reasonable. d&d doesn't really handle this stuff. And when it tries (i am looking at you 2E KO chart) it gets weird.




Lmao. I had forgotten all about that insane chart. I remember the first time i saw it my reaction was WTF!?  Then I proceeded to ignore it and bury the memory deep in my brain. 

Everyone should keep in mind that DnD has always had abstract hp and that shouldn't change. 

But that doesn't mean that an alternate module can't be introduced later on. I'm thinking Star Wars (d20 version) with their wound points and vitality points (as an example). It wouldn't be difficult to introduce later and making it core instead of abstract hp would cause nerd rage on an epic scale.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As opposed to all the other rolls that were hits but not crits? Those were sloppy and weak? Even a non-crit that deals 3 damage when the fighter is at 2 hp is apparently strong enough to kill a fighter.
> 
> Nah, rolling a natural 20 should be a WOO-HOO moment, not a moment where the result is: "Your enemy is badly scratched by your amazing attack."
> 
> ...




Well, at high levels where your example is meaningful, what is a crit with a longsword against a dragon anyway?  Running the length of the blade through his foot maybe?  I mean you're trying to hit a 60ft-long magical monster with a 3-foot long metal stick.

Sure, when you crit on a goblin you're going to impale the little bugger, lift him off the ground while he's still on your blade, and then pitch the poor thing half-way across the room, or wipe him around on the floor like a mop.

A 5% base chance to crit really isn't that far out there.  If we were rolling D% and we had to get 100, now that's a good reason for your longsword to fly from your hands and run itsself headlong through that one soft spot in the dragon, fragment on a rib and explode into metal shrapnel in it's body, instantly killing the dragon.

And critting gets even more meaningless when(using Pathfinder here) a Fighter can crit on a 10 or less.

One thing I feel that 4e did right was that instead of scaling the melee's attack bonus, they scaled the melee's damage.  This can easily be accomplished without powers using the same system 3.X used for BAB.  Every 4, 5, 6 or whatever increment levels, give every attack made by a guy with a sword do more damage.  This makes crits at higher levels more meaningful.  When I crit with 1d8+3 str, big deal.  When I crit and my attack does 5d8+3str, that's a big deal!


----------



## john112364 (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As opposed to all the other rolls that were hits but not crits? Those were sloppy and weak? Even a non-crit that deals 3 damage when the fighter is at 2 hp is apparently strong enough to kill a fighter.
> 
> Nah, rolling a natural 20 should be a WOO-HOO moment, not a moment where the result is: "Your enemy is badly scratched by your amazing attack."
> 
> ...




Personally I don't see why we couldn't introduce a mechanic where the victim of a crit is dazed or some such effect. 

And I agree with the "Crits are max damage" yawner. I would prefer you normal damage get maxed plus another die roll of that type. (For instance a 1d8 weapons does 8 hp plus 1d8. And you're dazed.)


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As opposed to all the other rolls that were hits but not crits? Those were sloppy and weak? Even a non-crit that deals 3 damage when the fighter is at 2 hp is apparently strong enough to kill a fighter.
> 
> Nah, rolling a natural 20 should be a WOO-HOO moment, not a moment where the result is: "Your enemy is badly scratched by your amazing attack."
> 
> ...




Meh. 

I love colorful crits (and fumbles!), but mechanically it should be super-simple. Max-damage is fine. Then give some examples of adding in color on a case-by-case basis, depending on the narrative. 

(Of course, obligatory "solve it with Modular Magic", yaddayadda.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

john112364 said:


> Lmao. I had forgotten all about that insane chart. I remember the first time i saw it my reaction was WTF!?  Then I proceeded to ignore it and bury the memory deep in my brain.




The chart was rooted in a good idea (modeling getting knocked out in a fist fight). Having a small chance of getting knocked out by a punch makes a certain amount of sense, until you ask why a mace to the head doesn't also have that chance (or even a bladed weapon).



> Everyone should keep in mind that DnD has always had abstract hp and that shouldn't change.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that an alternate module can't be introduced later on. I'm thinking Star Wars (d20 version) with their wound points and vitality points (as an example). It wouldn't be difficult to introduce later and making it core instead of abstract hp would cause nerd rage on an epic scale.




Yeah, adding it after the fact as a module is better IMO becuase it should satisfy both sides of the debate. Star Wars is an excellent example. I wasn't a big fan of adding the wounds into the d20 system. I think you are better off sticking with straight hp or shifting to a more standard wound system. For me classic HP work best for D&D.


----------



## technoextreme (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> The chances of him going into a monthlong coma though from a single blow by mr. Stallone, is very, very slim.



You are in the same boat that he is in terms of ignorance.  I'm talking about concussions.  Seriously, how could you not know about that one when it was the plot line to a Rocky movie and has been all over the news.


> _One knock out punch and he would  probably be up and about (seemingly okay) within 1-10 minutes (really  most knock outs tend to be under a minute)._



_
I've knocked myself out before in the most direct manner possible.  You won't be ok._


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Who said anything about comas?  I'm talking about concussions.  Seriously, how could you not know about that one when it was the plot line to a Rocky movie and has been all over the news.  Unless you have been living in an underground cave without television you would have at least known about that one.




I mentioned concussions in my post, and explained how they can last a month.  His point and mine is d&d doesn't deal very well with concussions. 

I have had several concussions myself and symptoms vary widely depending on severity and (i believe) the location.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Are you dumb? Are you ing insane!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds anyone who knows how medicine works? One solid hit in the right spot from a professional boxer and you are out for monthes on end with the distinct possibility of long lasting damage and cognitive problems.  Though thank you for providing the perfect example of why trying to tie in hit points with physical damage is still an abstraction the likes of which is still idiotic and stupid on the level that most people tend to complain about 4th edition.
> 
> No it definately does happen. In fact I think I've seen it happen double digit times. I've also seen the three saves or die happen too.



You really need to switch to decaf, bro.  And you need to ease up on the name-calling.

Some of us have studied medicine at a collegiate level (some of us happen to be working on our residencies, even), and we still don't like the way healing works in 4th Edition.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> You are in the same boat that he is in terms of ignorance. .




I have a lot of direct experience with concussions actually. But it wasn't clear to me from your original post that they were what you had in mind. And even so, I don't think it warrants name calling on either side.


----------



## mlund (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As opposed to all the other rolls that were hits but not crits? Those were sloppy and weak? Even a non-crit that deals 3 damage when the fighter is at 2 hp is apparently strong enough to kill a fighter.




Damage and HP are game score devices translating danger to players, not a scale of medical severity for characters.

The biggest problem with hit points (ie - "points for tracking hits") is that people naturally infer that the biggest damage roll against a character = biggest wound. I'm not sure there's any fixing that inclination to conflate player-reality and character-reality.

The 20-point hit that brought you to 2 HP over bloodied is more game damage. The 3-point hit that brought you below bloodied is the one that actually busted you open. It did more *physical damage* to the character than the attack that did more Hit Points in damage - because Hit Points represent the ability to avoid or mitigate physical damage. That's the difference between the game-world reality of the characters and the game-system reality of the players. I guess the confusion comes from the word "damage," really.



> Nah, rolling a natural 20 should be a WOO-HOO moment, not a moment where the result is: "Your enemy is badly scratched by your amazing attack."




The problem is the Crit cuts both ways. Have you ever seen the d30 critical hits table from the old Armoury book that went with the d30? It looks awesome - until you realize that monsters are disposable so the enemy team can just ignore having their teeth bashed out and losing 1d6 Charisma permanently, while the players lack that luxury with their characters.

I'm very much in favor of critical hits having remarkable impact - some sort of lasting damage (maybe just for the length of the encounter, since that hits PCs and Enemies equally) beyond HP would be nice. Compromising their defenses or attacks for the encounter by destroying someone's shield, shattering their armored carapace, or impaling the shoulder on their sword arm all work quite nicely.

But, as you say, that's something fixed by a module - and rightly so! That's a layer of complexity added onto the game.

Even if they are just damage and it doesn't reduce a monster to the bloodied / injured state the dramatic narrative doesn't need to be spiked by talk of "scratches" and the like. A barely parried blow that drive an opponent to its knees or leaves them reeling and gasping for breath as death begins to circle them like a vulture works pretty well too.

Also, there's no rule requiring that monsters with a 1-encounter lifespan follow the same HP narrative path that PCs do. If that 20-foot tall spider takes a crit, feel free to have one of her 8 legs come off - no module or rules adjustment necessary.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> _
> I've knocked myself out before in the most direct manner possible.  You won't be ok.__
> _




i have been knocked out as well. The longest I ever was out for was (max) two minutes. I have seen people knocked longer than that, but from a single punch that is hard to do to someone. 

How okay you are varies greatly depending on lots of things (how many punches were thrown, whether you saw the knock out punch coming, your weight, the opponent's weight, skill, experience, etc). i am happy to talk about how mechanics could better model the variation of real life knock out blows (and how potentially damaging they are). I just think this doesn't need to itself become a street fight.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yeah, adding it after the fact as a module is better IMO becuase it should satisfy both sides of the debate. Star Wars is an excellent example. I wasn't a big fan of adding the wounds into the d20 system. I think you are better off sticking with straight hp or shifting to a more standard wound system. For me classic HP work best for D&D.




My biggest complaint with SWSE's wound system was the ability to inflict wounds without damage.  Which is why I enjoyed the Deadlands wound system, if damage overcame your size modifier, you took a wound.  

Granted, D&D would need a different system than using a size modifier since it lacks target locations like Deadlands has.  

But that's the trick about wounds, it implies SO MUCH more when it's included in a system.  Personally I'd love to see a module that gives me a way to target specific body parts with my attacks.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

shidaku said:


> My biggest complaint with SWSE's wound system was the ability to inflict wounds without damage.  Which is why I enjoyed the Deadlands wound system, if damage overcame your size modifier, you took a wound.
> 
> Granted, D&D would need a different system than using a size modifier since it lacks target locations like Deadlands has.
> 
> But that's the trick about wounds, it implies SO MUCH more when it's included in a system.  Personally I'd love to see a module that gives me a way to target specific body parts with my attacks.




I agree. I like wounding systems personally, but dont think they are something you just want to tack on top of D&D. I think one of the reasons D&D was so succesful is it stayed pretty simple on this matter. A lot of its early competition tried to be more realistic with wounds and stuff, but not sure that is what most people want in a fantasy game.


----------



## Umbran (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> Are you dumb? Are you ing insane!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds anyone who knows how medicine works?






technoextreme said:


> You are in the same boat that he is in terms of ignorance.





And I'm talking about civility.

Folks, EN World requests and requires a modicum of civility and respect from posters.  However ignorant or misguided a post may seem to you, we expect you to treat the person who wrote it well.

Because, really, in terms of trying to educate someone, this approach is unlikely to serve you.  What you're doing is engaging heir egos, rather than their brains, and that won't end well.

So, from this point on, I expect *EVERYONE* in the thread to treat each other kindly.  "Nice matters," so to speak.  

Thanks all.  If there's any further questions, take them to PM or e-mail to the moderator of your choice.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

My wife fell off her bike on Saturday (literally, just this past weekend). Knocked herself out. Has bruises and cuts on her face, and big bags under her eyes. Landed face first on the concrete. No concussion (went to the doctor to make sure). Other than the bruises, you'd never know. Arguably, a face-first fall into concrete at 10mph from 5 ft up is similar to the damage from one hit from a boxer.

And when I say this is a true story, I mean it literally.

No moping about in bed for days. No magical healing potions (just a few ibuprofen), and she's up and moving about and working, and way more worried about her appearance than she is about anything else.


EDIT - And if she was a higher level fighter, or had some martial arts training, she could maybe have rolled with it, and minimized that damage a lot further (perhaps even having no damage at all).


EDIT 2 - All this, just to note that lower-level characters bouncing back to full HP faster than trained warriors makes a sort of sense. Less damage is required to hurt them, so there's less damage that needs to be healed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2012)

shidaku said:
			
		

> A 5% base chance to crit really isn't that far out there. If we were rolling D% and we had to get 100, now that's a good reason for your longsword to fly from your hands and run itsself headlong through that one soft spot in the dragon, fragment on a rib and explode into metal shrapnel in it's body, instantly killing the dragon.




That's kind of a strawman. I'm saying crits need to be significant, and that part of that significance is that they should probably cause actual lasting damage, not scratches and dings. That doesn't mean a one-hit kill, that means that the dragon you just critted isn't just scratched and nicked, he *felt* that hit. An HP system that sets the threshold for actual injury at half HP easily results in crits that the enemies don't really feel (fighting a solo, for instance), but a natural 20 should always be a big deal in a way that is something special. 

Bypassing the HP is one way to ensure that, and not a bad one. It opens up some customization options, too: different characters might do different things on a crit, different monsters might have different reactions.

A crit that deals extra damage + some extra effect (force advantage? ongoing damage? whatever) helps out with that plenty. It's not a perfect solution, but I am not sure much really would be.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's kind of a strawman. I'm saying crits need to be significant, and that part of that significance is that they should probably cause actual lasting damage, not scratches and dings. That doesn't mean a one-hit kill, that means that the dragon you just critted isn't just scratched and nicked, he *felt* that hit. An HP system that sets the threshold for actual injury at half HP easily results in crits that the enemies don't really feel (fighting a solo, for instance), but a natural 20 should always be a big deal in a way that is something special.
> 
> Bypassing the HP is one way to ensure that, and not a bad one. It opens up some customization options, too: different characters might do different things on a crit, different monsters might have different reactions.
> 
> A crit that deals extra damage + some extra effect (force advantage? ongoing damage? whatever) helps out with that plenty. It's not a perfect solution, but I am not sure much really would be.




But unless you're going to turn D&D into a crash course medical doctorate, attempting to model _actual_ damage on humanoids would be amazingly complex.  Not to mention, how do we model damage for non-humanoids?  For creatures that don't even have BONES?  Magical creatures that don't really even have physical forms?  

Crits dealing additional effects is IMO, a good thing, but attempting to model those realistically beyond the encounter is probably not going to be any more realistic than saying "magic fixes everything".


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2012)

shidaku said:
			
		

> But unless you're going to turn D&D into a crash course medical doctorate, attempting to model actual damage on humanoids would be amazingly complex.






			
				mlund said:
			
		

> Damage and HP are game score devices translating danger to players, not a scale of medical severity for characters.




Who's proposing anything like that?



			
				mlund said:
			
		

> I'm very much in favor of critical hits having remarkable impact - some sort of lasting damage (maybe just for the length of the encounter, since that hits PCs and Enemies equally) beyond HP would be nice. Compromising their defenses or attacks for the encounter by destroying someone's shield, shattering their armored carapace, or impaling the shoulder on their sword arm all work quite nicely.






			
				shidaku said:
			
		

> Crits dealing additional effects is IMO, a good thing,




Glad to see wide agreement on my actual point, anyway.


----------



## technoextreme (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have a lot of direct experience with concussions actually. But it wasn't clear to me from your original post that they were what you had in mind. And even so, I don't think it warrants name calling on either side.



There were multiple injuries that I was thinking of.  Concussions were the obvious one though if one were incredibly unlucky you can just flat out die from cardiac arrhythmia from such an event which has been documented to happen and is actually a pretty common way for young kids who play sports to die.  That is particularly why it was such an insane example.


----------



## GSHamster (May 22, 2012)

I wonder what this says about cleric healing.  

1. This Hit Dice stuff is entirely outside combat.
2. Mearls said they want parties without Clerics to be viable.

Do you think that means that Cleric combat healing will be weaker than previous editions? I'm not really sure that those two ideas can be reconciled with strong combat healing.


----------



## Tovec (May 22, 2012)

*Just random thoughts.*



Mercutio01 said:


> Lasting damage is a quite different thing. And that is something D&D definitely does not model well, at all.



This is kind of the point I was making about non-lethal a little earlier on, but it applies to HP as well. I think with the dawn of a new edition they COULD and more importantly SHOULD define HP well for once. I'm not saying they should radically change how HP work or anything, or use alternate systems. But they could use different methods of how HP are gained, recovered and spent based on a deeper understanding of what they are, if they bothered putting the time into it.

Part of this is defining the issues with previous editions; why something worked or didn't work. This inspection should go beyond the mechanic but delve into the idea and concept and why those things worked or didn't work. It needs to look at the other mechanics that go along with it and why they work or don't work.

I'm currently working on my own system and I decided early on that I didn't want HP bloat of 3e and 4e. Having 100 HP and surviving falling off cliffs didn't interest me. How did I remedy this? I took a look at how characters got HP in the first place, what the parts of HP represented toward the total and then how to scale them to achieve the numbers I wanted.
I decided in the end to go with a very very different approach to classic 3e (and I assume from what we'll end up with in 5e). I'm using HP total to be full HD + CON mod + Level. That is it. Weapons, variants, crits, optional rules and most importantly damage all reflect this shift. I could institute what is being suggested by Mike Mearls, and give my fighters their HD (or HD*LVL) every day to heal up for free, but I don't find it necessary. The 3.5 version (for which I am using the OGL) specifies that characters get their level or HD per day works fine for natural healing and for my games it makes much more sense.

I think that if they did something similar, and re-examined the root concepts, that they would end up with a superior system instead of giving us the same assumed stats (to gain HP) as before with a new natural healing system.



shidaku said:


> And critting gets even more meaningless when(using Pathfinder here) a Fighter can crit on a 10 or less.



How do you crit on a 10 in PF?



Mercutio01 said:


> No moping about in bed for days. No magical healing potions (just a few ibuprofen), and she's up and moving about and working, and way more worried about her appearance than she is about anything else.
> 
> 
> EDIT - And if she was a higher level fighter, or had some martial arts training, she could maybe have rolled with it, and minimized that damage a lot further (perhaps even having no damage at all).
> ...




First, ibuprofen effectively IS healing potions, at least for "pain" damage.
Second, your first edit talks about reducing damage, not changing the meaning of damage. It is a mechanic related to damage reduction instead of HP.
Third, for your second edit, I've always understood HP to be less about "bouncing back" to normal and more about bouncing back to a healthy. On the first count, yes full HP would be important. On the second count "back to normal" one could assume 1 HP, or 10, or bloodied or full or anywhere in between to be "healthy". Only with Bloodied do you have the distinction that someone is unhealthy below 1/2 HP.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> There were multiple injuries that I was thinking of.  Concussions were the obvious one though if one were incredibly unlucky you can just flat out die from cardiac arrhythmia from such an event which has been documented to happen and is actually a pretty common way for young kids who play sports to die.  That is particularly why it was such an insane example.




And none of those is the norm.

Look, if your ONLY grievance with what I said was the pro-boxer, then take that particular piece out of the pie. Imagine little level 1 Joe Schmoe just getting knocked out by Jim Jerk. Compare how quickly Joe recovers to how quickly Rocky Balboa recovers after ten rounds with Apollo Creed. First, Joe's fight is over in 10 seconds or so when he was actually knocked unconscious. But he gets up in a few minutes and then goes about his day a little dazed. He's probably fully recovered by tomorrow. Second, imagine big level 10 Rocky Balboa whose fight lasted 10 rounds of 3 minutes each (30 minutes of fighting!), but who was not knocked out. He is rather loopy and takes a lot longer to get back to even normal life.

Who took more punishment and who recovered faster? Not the same guy.



Tovec said:


> Second, your first edit talks about reducing damage, not changing the meaning of damage. It is a mechanic related to damage reduction instead of HP.



We could argue about that, especially considering how HP could mean physical damage or luck. A martial artist (higher level human), can't really take more damage, but he's more nimble, and thus doesn't take damage. So it could be damage reduction, or it could just be that he's a higher level, and therefore 10 damage to my wife means something very different than 10 damage to a karateka.

The ibuprofen wasn't for pain. It was for reducing the swelling. Again, her concern was more cosmetic ("I look like a Klingon") than it was pain or healing.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> My wife fell off her bike on Saturday (literally, just this past weekend). Knocked herself out. Has bruises and cuts on her face, and big bags under her eyes. Landed face first on the concrete. No concussion (went to the doctor to make sure). Other than the bruises, you'd never know. Arguably, a face-first fall into concrete at 10mph from 5 ft up is similar to the damage from one hit from a boxer.
> 
> And when I say this is a true story, I mean it literally.
> 
> ...



Congrats, your wife is extremely, extremely lucky. I have had people fall off barstools or fall in the bathtub that have fractured cervical vertebrae and given themselves subdural hematomas or subarachnoid hemorrhages. I recently took care of someone that was in a fight that was knocked out. Massive subdural, epidural, and subarachnoid hemorrhages that put him nearly on his deathbed if not for the quick intervention of a neurosurgeon. Your wife suffered soft tissue damage (a boxer would have too) from her collision. She probably didn't black out for very long, perhaps a second or two, which can cause damage, but probably did not. Boxers have to be knocked out for ten for a knockout (or hit the mat three times, but they don't actually have to be unconscious). Being a fighter doesn't make you immune to damage. Honestly, the better fighters are the ones that avoid the big hits, not the ones standing after taking them.

A loss of consciousness is always a bad thing. Just it does not result in permanent damage in some cases does not mean it isn't dangerous. Look at the number of boxers, hockey players, football players, and professional wrestlers with frequent concussions and blows that suffer permanent debilitation years after their injuries. There is a direct correlation between blows to the head and dementia later in life. Don't even get me started on the effects of severe alcohol intoxication (which results in LOC) and permanent brain effects.

And D&D LOCs are frequently the result blood loss, blunt force trauma, or exposure to excessive heat and fire. LOC by any one of these can result in hypovolemic shock, organ failure and death. The neat thing about 4E's death saving throws was that you had to fail three. There are four classes of hypovolemic shock. Preceeding the first failed saving throw, you are in class one shock. Failing that saving, you progress into class two shock. Failing a second save, you progress into class three shock. Finally, after failing a third save you progress into class four shock, which is referred to as irreversible shock, which often progresses to death. Just a little tidbit I always found neat. Of course, a person can't generally stabilize out of class two, three, or four shock without intervention.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 22, 2012)

The more pure you make a hit point system, the more problematic any kind of critical is.  It's a bit of specifics in an otherwise abstract system.  We tend to get them anyway, because people like the idea of criticals.  But there is only so far you can go, before you are fundamentally messing up what makes hit points work in the first place.  You've got more room than you do with something like, say, called shots, but not infinite room

Having an attack roll and then a separate damage roll is *already* a huge concession.  If you hit with a long sword, and you roll a 7 or 8 on the damage die, you "hit hard".  A pure system would define maximum roll as "critical" and perhaps throw a modest rider effect on that, instead of making it dependent upon the accuracy of the hit.  Or if you want to move away from an abstract hit point system towards something where criticals make more sense, the damage would be nigh constant as a base, but move up according to accuracy, with "critical" being defined as the upper end.  

All of the above is, of course, ignoring any aesthetic preference for occasional spikes in damage that are signficantly felt.  However, if that is all you want, you can probably work out something better with open ended dice or a "damage multiplier" roll applied to a base accuracy from the attack roll, instead of a separate damage roll.

People want different things, but arguments that "criticals" ought to be X because "that's what criticals should feel like," aren't really arguments at all, but a back hand appeal to shared preference.


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> <snip>




Right. If you're going to recover, you will likely recover faster when there is less damage than when there is more damage.

And repeated injuries take longer to heal.

It all goes to bolster my argument that natural healing should take longer to heal a higher level character fully than it would take to heal a lower level character. That's all I was trying to argue with the boxer metaphor. It wasn't really meant to get into all the crap it has become. It was just an example of a low HP character bouncing back from 0 HP to full health in comparison to a high HP character bouncing back from 0 HP to full health - all assuming only natural healing and not magic.


----------



## nnms (May 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> It's a type of pacing mechanic, for supporting a steady change in the overall campaign situation (assuming the GM is using the published MMs/MVs, you start out fighting goblins and end up fighting Lolth), and for supporting the gradual increase in power complexity.




Absolutely.  And I don't want that in 5E.  Or at the very least, I'd want a module that talks about designing monsters and challenges based on their characteristics rather than the PC's current abilities (as well as optional rules to explain the best way to excise the pacing mechanic bonuses from the PCs).  I'd settle for that.



> Although Mearls also says that hit points reflect energy, experience, luck and cosmic significance. And I don't think any ratios were specified.




Yep.  What I'm happy about is that he didn't talk about hit points being a reflection of the average damage output of the PCs or a mathematical formula that doesn't take the monster's characteristics into account beyond picking one of six monster roles.



> I would be pretty surprised if D&dnext doesn't include plenty of high hp monsters of modest physical size (just as AD&D does, with its high level NPCs, its succubi with higher hit points than oxen, etc).




I need to take another look at the AD&D/2E monster manual, but I think high HP non large monsters were largely those of a more mythological or supernatural bent.



pemerton said:


> *the total average value of a PC's HD will be approximately equal to half his/her total hp value (assuming a figter has 1 HD per level, a 1d10 HD giving an average of 5.5 hp per HD, and 10 hp per level);




Part of me hopes that it is not just full HP of your hit die each level.  I'd like to see the power level much flatter both in terms of character HP and monster HP & defenses.  I really wouldn't mind HP being max and first level and roll after that.  But it just really sucks getting a 1 on that very important roll.



> Assuming I haven't missed anything, rapid progression through combat encounters will require magical healing (as per some versions of pre-4e D&D), or alternatively combat encounters will do much less damage, so that healing to (near-)full between encounters won't be necessary (as per some other versions of pre-4e D&D).




Pre-3e D&D had early access to great AC.  With a decent money roll or the ability to survive a good solid delve, any fighter could get their hands on good armour relatively quickly.  And if you use the terrain to block people getting to your squishies, you could have entire combats where the PCs don't take any damage.  In the BECMI game I'm playing in, it's a regular event that combat involves all the monsters dead and maybe one hero damaged.  But we do have more than half the party in plate & shield.



> This doesn't particularly enthuse me. It doesn't outrage me either. (Except for the possibility that recovery is quicker for the weak low-level types than for the buff high-level types. That's always been stupid, and will be stupid if part of D&Dnext.)




If you get back all your HD with a sleep, then the rate of non magical recovery will be the same for everyone (barring low rolls representing more serious injuries).



> What struck me is that apparently there will be no more recovery from unconsciousness without magical intervention,




Where was this addressed?  I think you may be making an assumption.

As for the second part, D&D has always had "push through injury" in that you fight at 100% ouput if you are at 10 HP or at 1 HP.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Right. If you're going to recover, you will likely recover faster when there is less damage than when there is more damage.
> 
> And repeated injuries take longer to heal.
> 
> It all goes to bolster my argument that natural healing should take longer to heal a higher level character fully than it would take to heal a lower level character. That's all I was trying to argue with the boxer metaphor. It wasn't really meant to get into all the crap it has become. It was just an example of a low HP character bouncing back from 0 HP to full health in comparison to a high HP character bouncing back from 0 HP to full health - all assuming only natural healing and not magic.



 Well, that all depends.  They are talking about flattening out hit points and what not, so potentially, 10 hp of damage could be a mortal wound no matter what level you are.  It also is possible that what constitutes 10 hp of damage for a first level character might not be the same as what constitutes 10 hp for a tenth level character.

Honestly, I have never cared for HP as a unit measure of how much damage a character has suffered.  It was video gamey before there were video games.  What does losing half your HP mean?  Did you get stabbed in the gut, because pretty sure you are going to die from that (especially if you keep fighting).  Arrow to the chest?  Dead.  Hammer blow to the head?  Deadsies.  I like HP as more of a measure of fatigue.  You dodged that blow, or your armor kept you from being stabbed, but you can't keep rolling or jumping out of the way of stuff forever.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 22, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> And D&D LOCs are frequently the result blood loss, blunt force trauma, or exposure to excessive heat and fire. LOC by any one of these can result in hypovolemic shock, organ failure and death. The neat thing about 4E's death saving throws was that you had to fail three. There are four classes of hypovolemic shock. Preceeding the first failed saving throw, you are in class one shock. Failing that saving, you progress into class two shock. Failing a second save, you progress into class three shock. Finally, after failing a third save you progress into class four shock, which is referred to as irreversible shock, which often progresses to death. Just a little tidbit I always found neat. Of course, a person can't generally stabilize out of class two, three, or four shock without intervention.




Awsome... I will never look at death saves again.


And this whole thread now reminds me of archer "going unconscious is really bad"


----------



## YRUSirius (May 22, 2012)

And that's why I roleplay: To escape the bloody reality.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Mercutio01 (May 22, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Honestly, I have never cared for HP as a unit measure of how much damage a character has suffered.  It was video gamey before there were video games.  What does losing half your HP mean?  Did you get stabbed in the gut, because pretty sure you are going to die from that (especially if you keep fighting).  Arrow to the chest?  Dead.  Hammer blow to the head?  Deadsies.  I like HP as more of a measure of fatigue.  You dodged that blow, or your armor kept you from being stabbed, but you can't keep rolling or jumping out of the way of stuff forever.



There are a few problems with the whole "hits are actually near-misses." First is the terminology. It's called a "hit" which means actual contact. Second is things like poisons. If every hit is a near miss, then poisons just don't work. Third is that for every person that says a hit is a hit, there's someone who insists that it isn't, and no one is technically wrong.

It just feels and sounds really weird to narrate a hit, which makes contact past a dexterity bonus and around the armor, as a near miss, or a parried blow. I mean, armor class means that the armor is preventing some hits from actually touching your skin. I find that I narrate misses that are close to the to-hit threshhold as hits that just don't penetrate the armor, because that's what makes the most sense when you bring what "armor class" means into the HP discussion.

Anyway, that's all personal preference stuff, and not germane to this discussion.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 22, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Awsome... I will never look at death saves again.
> 
> 
> And this whole thread now reminds me of archer "going unconscious is really bad"



 Because it won't let me XP you to say this, I will give you this.

"I have an appointment with my neurologist." 

I have even described failed saves with the hallmarks of the different classes of hypovolemic shock.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> i have been knocked out as well...






Mercutio01 said:


> Arguably, a face-first fall into concrete at 10mph from 5 ft up is similar to the damage from one hit from a boxer. (snip) And if she was a higher level fighter, or had some martial arts training, she could maybe have rolled with it...






technoextreme said:


> Concussions were the obvious one though if one were incredibly unlucky you can just flat out die from cardiac arrhythmia from such an event which has been documented to happen and is actually a pretty common way for young kids who play sports to die.






Tovec said:


> Third, for your second edit, I've always understood HP to be less about "bouncing back" to normal and more about bouncing back to a healthy. On the first count, yes full HP would be important. On the second count "back to normal" one could assume...






Mercutio01 said:


> We could argue about that, especially considering how HP could mean physical damage or luck. A martial artist (higher level human), can't really take more damage, but he's more nimble, and thus doesn't take damage. So it could be damage reduction, or it could just be that he's a higher level, and therefore 10 damage to my wife means something very different than 10 damage to a karateka...



I think everyone is getting wrapped around the axle here as far as hit points are concerned.  Let's take a step back and look at things objectively.

There seems to be two opinions on the subject of hit points.

Some would like hit points to more closely emulate the real-life aspects of a person's health and resilience in combat: a mix of endurance, durability, and luck.  Let's call this group the Simulation Camp, since they want hit points to simulate real life as much as possible.

Others would like hit points to be as abstract as possible, a value in the game that has about as much to do with real life as skill ranks, save throw bonuses, or any other numerical value on the character sheet.  Let's call this group the Gamist Camp, since they want hit points to be an abstraction in a game.  (I'm in this camp.)

There is a lot of "us vs. them" banter going on between the camps, and there are a few "evangelists" in here who are trying to "convert the nonbelievers," and that's wonderful.  But remember: while we are in here talking about what we think is best, the game designers are focusing on uniting the editions, and are trying to provide a game design that will appeal to everyone.  It's a tall order, especially on a topic as polarizing as "simulation vs. gamist."

We should keep this in mind as we discuss the game mechanics, flavor elements, and play style.  WotC isn't trying to "fix 4th Edition."  They aren't trying to "beat Pathfinder."  They aren't trying to "go back to X Edition."  They are trying to bring us all together, that's all.  So as we discuss our favorites and preferences, we should also try to find ways to compromise. Here is what I propose:

Pretend 4th Edition never happened.

Just kidding!  Just kidding...jeez, put down the chainsaws and pitchforks...

We present a few of the biggest elements of simulation (hit points aren't actual physical damage), but leave the rest to the imagination of the DM and the players.  The DM can narrate an attack with "You got hit by a sword and take 15 damage," or he can narrate it as "The sword blade strikes the side of your helmet, and the din of metal fills your ears.  You stagger back, your eyes blurry, and tighten your grip on your sword.  'Is that all you've got?' you growl, and lunge forward."  But either way, you subtract 15 from a number on your character sheet, and the game moves on.  The number doesn't care how much of that 15 was damage, or luck, or fatigue, or resilience.

Healing can be the same way.  "The cleric heals you for 15 points of damage" can also be "Your comrade stands over you, gripping your shoulder.  'Courage, man!' he says, and the steely determination in his eyes strengthens your resolve.  You stand, ready for more."  But either way, you are going to add 15 to a number on your character sheet.  The number doesn't care how much of that 15 was magic, or adrenaline, or divine favor, or luck.

This is what I want to see in 5th Edition: less emphasis on "look how different stuff is now!", and fewer attempts at forcing a particular play style.  It would be nice to have more of a "you can do anything you want!" feel to the rules than they have had in practically every edition since 1986.  After all, only the number _really_ matters; everything else is just semantics.  I hope they leave hit points, healing, and other game mechanics as undefined and generic as they possibly can, and let the DM and the players fill in the gaps as needed to suit their own style.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> There were multiple injuries that I was thinking of.  Concussions were the obvious one though if one were incredibly unlucky you can just flat out die from cardiac arrhythmia from such an event which has been documented to happen and is actually a pretty common way for young kids who play sports to die.  That is particularly why it was such an insane example.




Sure. A blow to the head can kill you. Head blows are dangerous things so I am not trying to minimize that. It is just that the worst injuries are usually from more substantial blows the head, or from taking multiple hits to the head (in the case of punches). The poster's example was being punched once by rocky and getting knocked out. I personally think he is going to be a bit rattled after such a blow, but his scenario isn't unreasonable. Nine times out of ten, a single blow knock out is something where you get up moments later.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 22, 2012)

The like idea of maybe having a pool of Hit Die to heal overnight, so a 10th level Fighter would have 10d10 to play with, a potential healing of 10 to 100 HP (a sort of bridge between 3rd and 4th Ed, 3rd Ed rolling a 1 on every roll).


----------



## technoextreme (May 22, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> My wife fell off her bike on Saturday (literally, just this past weekend). Knocked herself out. Has bruises and cuts on her face, and big bags under her eyes. Landed face first on the concrete. No concussion (went to the doctor to make sure). Other than the bruises, you'd never know. Arguably, a face-first fall into concrete at 10mph from 5 ft up is similar to the damage from one hit from a boxer.



I'm not entirely sure because I'm basing the criteria that a boxer can do worst than what I've self inflicted on myself.  I've cold cocked myself in a manner that actually cracked my nose and started draining fluids out of it in a manner that I never actually knew was physically possible.  No weapons.  Nothing in hand.  I literally cracked my nose with my own body.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2012)

technoextreme said:


> I'm not entirely sure because I'm basing the criteria that a boxer can do worst than what I've self inflicted on myself.  I've cold cocked myself in a manner that actually cracked my nose and started draining fluids out of it in a manner that I never actually knew was physically possible.




I have to ask; why were you punching yourself in the face?


----------



## technoextreme (May 22, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to ask; why were you punching yourself in the face?



Actually it was a knee to the face.  Its apparently a rather common injury when one does acrobatic like stunts that I didn't know of until years later.  For me I took a Judo throw really horribly and ended up basing my nose right into the knee cap.  Kind of makes the whole experience versus inexperience debate kind of hilarious because if I was more experienced I wouldn't have broke my nose in that manner.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 22, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Who's proposing anything like that?
> 
> Glad to see wide agreement on my actual point, anyway.




After a while it gets kinda confusing to track who's proposing what or even what some points are.


----------



## nnms (May 22, 2012)

From Mike Mearls' interview with Wired:
Where Is D&D Headed Next? An Update with Mike Mearls ... And the Public Playtest Begins | GeekDad | Wired.com

For instance, monsters still need some work, and the starting character hit points are a bit inflated to account for that.​and

For instance, we just talked today about a rule that lets DMs hand out bonus hit points at first level. The DM gets to determine if adventurers in the campaign are lucky, blessed by the gods, or otherwise destined for greatness.​We could infer a lot from this.  Here are some possibilities (that may contradict one another).

- Hit Point progression will be flatter than previous editions which allows for a wider range of monsters and threats to be level appropriate.
- Monster design will be relative to PC abilities like 4E
- Level 1 survivability might be a dial that gets turned to where you want it
- Monsters use the same framework as PCs and are a bit too lethal as a result.

Despite loving 4E's departure from the 3.x reference-to-zero framework in favor of relative-to-PC-level game-centric concerns, I have since fallen out of love with it and desire a system where the mechanics represent the narrative and its internal consistency.  So I'm hoping monster math is not merely tied to the capabilities of the PC without connecting it to the characteristics of the monsters in the fiction.

AD&D added more flexibility to characters, 3e created a logical framework of rules, and 4e created a math framework for the game. All of those things are steps forward for D&D and every edition has contributed to this new iteration.​I think 4E's math framework can work for a more exploration based game (in contrast with a tactical encounter based game) as long as something is done about encounter and daily refresh cycles.


----------



## Libramarian (May 22, 2012)

CleverNickName said:


> Some would like hit points to more closely emulate the real-life aspects of a person's health and resilience in combat: a mix of endurance, durability, and luck.  Let's call this group the Simulation Camp, since they want hit points to simulate real life as much as possible.
> 
> Others would like hit points to be as abstract as possible, a value in the game that has about as much to do with real life as skill ranks, save throw bonuses, or any other numerical value on the character sheet.  Let's call this group the Gamist Camp, since they want hit points to be an abstraction in a game.  (I'm in this camp.)



Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.

The abstraction itself is not the point.

AFAICT the only reason to like abstraction in itself is if you think it's some kind of impressive cognitive feat to mentally separate meta number crunching from in-game reality, but this is not impressive at all. I think we start performing mathematical operations without relating the numbers to physical objects in like first grade.

There may be an amazonian tribe incapable of doing this. Their limited language and/or generations of incestuous breeding makes it difficult. I believe I read that once, but I didn't really look into it so it may be apocryphal.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that for people in our culture it is not a difficult thing to do, so explicitly abstract hp is not in any way cool.

In fact insofar as the indie/forgie dudes are the arbiters of RPG design coolness, I'm pretty sure lazily abstract mechanics are now seriously uncool. At least the Vincent Baker circle considers them to be so.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

mlund said:


> Damage and HP are game score devices translating danger to players, not a scale of medical severity for characters.
> 
> The biggest problem with hit points (ie - "points for tracking hits") is that people naturally infer that the biggest damage roll against a character = biggest wound. I'm not sure there's any fixing that inclination to conflate player-reality and character-reality.
> 
> ...



Great post - can't XP you, sorry. I especially agree with your last para - disposable enemies lend themselves well to over-the-top crit narration!


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2012)

nnms said:


> I need to take another look at the AD&D/2E monster manual, but I think high HP non large monsters were largely those of a more mythological or supernatural bent.



Devils, demons, rakshasas, mind flayers. But also pirate kings, bandit princes, etc. As well as big things, obviously.



nnms said:


> Pre-3e D&D had early access to great AC.  With a decent money roll or the ability to survive a good solid delve, any fighter could get their hands on good armour relatively quickly.  And if you use the terrain to block people getting to your squishies, you could have entire combats where the PCs don't take any damage.



I can't remember how frequent damage to PCs was in my B/X and AD&D games - too long ago!

Frequent hits vs PCs are important in 4e - management of PC hp recovery in combat, and of conditions inflicted on PCs, is part of what makes the combat interesting. I came over to 4e from RM, and these features of 4e combat (which are different from my memories of B/X and AD&D) occupy the same "mechanical space" as management of active defences, stuns etc in RM.



nnms said:


> If you get back all your HD with a sleep, then the rate of non magical recovery will be the same for everyone (barring low rolls representing more serious injuries).



Yes, but a lot of posters in this thread were speculating that slower recovery would be part of making non-magical healing take longer.



nnms said:


> Where was this addressed?  I think you may be making an assumption.



I was extrapolating from this:

It's important to note that Hit Dice come into play to represent mundane healing. Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice. If a character relies on natural healing, it takes quite a while to recover.​
Warlords aren't potions or spells. Admittedly, they may not be entirely mundane either.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 22, 2012)

My, what big words you use.



Libramarian said:


> Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.



So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games?  I think we agree.



Libramarian said:


> AFAICT the only reason to like abstraction in itself is if you think it's some kind of impressive cognitive feat to mentally separate meta number crunching from in-game reality, but this is not impressive at all. I think we start performing mathematical operations without relating the numbers to physical objects in like first grade.
> 
> There may be an amazonian tribe incapable of doing this. Their limited language and/or generations of incestuous breeding makes it difficult. I believe I read that once, but I didn't really look into it so it may be apocryphal.



So in other words, only a primitive, genetically-damaged mind would like abstract expressions for physical things?  Pollock disagrees.



Libramarian said:


> But that's neither here nor there. The point is that for people in our culture it is not a difficult thing to do, so explicitly abstract hp is not in any way cool.
> 
> In fact insofar as the indie/forgie dudes are the arbiters of RPG design coolness, I'm pretty sure lazily abstract mechanics are now seriously uncool.



So abstract ideals are undesirable for our culture?  Now, the entire Renaissance Movement disagrees with you.

But in the immortal words of You Just Now, "that's neither here nor there."  The point, I think, is that you don't think abstract ideals are cool.  And here is my response:  Whatever, dude.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 22, 2012)

nnms said:


> Or at the very least, I'd want a module that talks about designing monsters and challenges based on their characteristics rather than the PC's current abilities (as well as optional rules to explain the best way to excise the pacing mechanic bonuses from the PCs).  I'd settle for that.



D&D has some very non-simulationist monsters in its murky past. Rust monsters exist because the PCs have too many magic items. And ear seekers because they listen at doors.

But it did get more sim in the 2e-3e period, to be fair.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 22, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Abstract hitpoints are only a Gamist design technique if by their abstraction they better facilitate Step on Up -- the metagame interpersonal agenda of challenging and judging the players' game skill and risk tolerance.






CleverNickName said:


> So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games?




I think I can sort this out. Gamist has two separate meanings on ENWorld. Libramarian is using one, the Forge sense, which as he says means challenging the players. CleverNickName is using the other meaning - a non-simulationist mechanic, either abstract or not representing anything in the game-world.


----------



## nnms (May 22, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D has some very non-simulationist monsters in its murky past. Rust monsters exist because the PCs have too many magic items. And ear seekers because they listen at doors.
> 
> But it did get more sim in the 2e-3e period, to be fair.




It's not just about monster design as simulation though.  Even these meta-game level designs of treasure control and giving a "screw you" to people listening at doors, the monster stats themselves were still based relatively on their fictional description.  Rust monsters have the HP and AC they do because they have tough hides (but not too tough) rather than because the PCs happen to be level 7 or something when they finally fight one.



pemerton said:


> Devils, demons, rakshasas, mind flayers. But also pirate kings, bandit princes, etc. As well as big things, obviously.




Right, there were pirate kings and the like that were higher HD than other humans much like PCs can be.  The older games also talked about PC leveled NPCs being present based on town sizes and whatnot.



> Frequent hits vs PCs are important in 4e - management of PC hp recovery in combat, and of conditions inflicted on PCs, is part of what makes the combat interesting.




It can create problems when you don't have tactical combat as a discrete game mode that you enter and exit.  Replaying through Keep on the Borderlands with BECMI has definitely been an eye opener.  Between wandering monsters and staying the exploration game mode for much of the build up to combat means managing HP across multiple encounters becomes the focus rather than within the individual tactical combats.

Before I switched to playing BECMI, I had done some serious rules hacking of 4E to get it to produce the type of play I was looking for.  Given the difficulty of excising the pacing mechanic and revamping the refresh rates based on encounter or daily power usage, healing surges, etc., I'm not sure D&D Next can support both a OD&D/BECMI/1E style approach to resources and a 4E one, even with modules added or removed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 22, 2012)

nms said:
			
		

> Despite loving 4E's departure from the 3.x reference-to-zero framework in favor of relative-to-PC-level game-centric concerns, I have since fallen out of love with it and desire a system where the mechanics represent the narrative and its internal consistency. So I'm hoping monster math is not merely tied to the capabilities of the PC without connecting it to the characteristics of the monsters in the fiction.




Y'know, I think we can split this hair. 

Monster math is tied to PC numbers. A LV 13 beastie is an adequate challenge for a LV 13 party. But, there are not really LV 13 goblins. If you come up against some goblins when you're LV 13, you mop the floor with them -- they are LV 1 monsters, and they don't magically get better because the party does. Similarly, the critters your fighting at LV 13 may or may not be LV 13 themselves, but if they are, you couldn't face them at LV 1, and by LV 20, they'll be cakewalks. 

So monster math is tied to PC numbers, but a monster's level is something that is assumed to be a *specific* number. 

FWIW, this is the way my experience with 4e has gone, and I'm pretty content with it.

The rougher hair to split is if you want PCs to increase in power _against creatures of their own level_ (so that a LV 13 monster fought by a LV 13 party is an easier (or harder) challenge than a LV 1 monster fought by a LV 1 party), but I am not sure people really want that as much as they want things in the world to stay consistent.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 23, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Y'know, I think we can split this hair.
> 
> Monster math is tied to PC numbers. A LV 13 beastie is an adequate challenge for a LV 13 party. But, there are not really LV 13 goblins. If you come up against some goblins when you're LV 13, you mop the floor with them -- they are LV 1 monsters, and they don't magically get better because the party does. Similarly, the critters your fighting at LV 13 may or may not be LV 13 themselves, but if they are, you couldn't face them at LV 1, and by LV 20, they'll be cakewalks.
> 
> ...




And I think it's reasonably fair to consider that not all creatures will be a specific level.  Depending on the world populations of the creature there could be very high variances, like with dragons in that you could fight whelplings or elders, or with oozes of which there may be few, and they could only be +/-2 their expected level.

Personally I find it reasonable that there could be a sampling of any creature at any level.  Perhaps there is an elder gnoll shaman who utilizes their ties to the world to extend their life and end up with 20 class levels.

I think all creatures should be given a level range of X to Y, with Y being their maximum expected potential.  The monster that you actually encounter would then be somewhere within that range.  Even the CR9 Drider had to presumably start out as a fledgling drider just getting a feel for their spidery limbs after their transformation and would at best be a CR2 creature.  CR12 Gelatinous Cube would likely have had to start out somewhere as a CR 1/2 jello pudding.

I think part of what bothers me about much of monster math is that the obvious progression that a creature must have undergone to get to their current state is entirely disregarded with the exception of a few monsters(such as dragons).  In order to have big, mean beasties, they must have at one time been small, squishy beasties, yet we never see any of those even though rationally, they must exist.



---certainly there's probably a few exceptions just as evil souls that manifest into demonic entities such as Maraliths, but I'd imagine even if a Maralith is a CR17, when it first formed it may have only been a CR13.  A powerful entity to be sure, but perhaps not so powerful as her more experienced sisters.


----------



## nnms (May 23, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So monster math is tied to PC numbers, but a monster's level is something that is assumed to be a *specific* number.




I'm not really satisfied with this approach as long as the stats of a monster are a function of it's level and role/type rather than it's fictional description.  At a given level, everything about a monster can be only one of a handful of different stat blocks, then differentiated only by its powers.  It doesn't matter if a goblin is naked or wearing full plate armour.  It's AC is determined by it's level and role, fiction be damned.



> FWIW, this is the way my experience with 4e has gone, and I'm pretty content with it.




The way 4E does it causes it to break down for me.  Here's the MM3 math:







It forces you to make a monster fit into one of the categories/roles to produce stats at a given level.  And the presumed rate that PC bonuses go up is absolutely identical to the monster progression.

Try this with 4E:  Everyone stays at level 1.  Use the monster math to level down all the monsters to within a few levels of 0.  Play as usual and every ten encounters, give people the feats, powers and class features unlocked by level up, but non of the other bonuses.

4E has the illusion of an actual leveling system, but the % of HP you do with an average attack, the to-hit number needed, the die roll needed to meet a DC, none of it actually changes.  It's all a farce.

Older versions of the game had monster HD as a rough guide to monster strength combined with dungeon level wandering monster charts and the assumption that a given monster may or may not be an appropriate challenge and that the response sometimes should be avoidance.

The other issue I have is the tactical encounter rather than a continual exploration-description mode of play.


----------



## mlund (May 23, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But, there are not really LV 13 goblins. If you come up against some goblins when you're LV 13, you mop the floor with them -- they are LV 1 monsters, and they don't magically get better because the party does. Similarly, the critters your fighting at LV 13 may or may not be LV 13 themselves, but if they are, you couldn't face them at LV 1, and by LV 20, they'll be cakewalks.




Well, in 4E the same NPC/monster could be designed as an Elite Level 4 Goblin and come back up in the same campaign as a Standard Level 8 Goblin with minimal modifications (and the same XP budget). Surviving that he might even come back again as a Level 16 Minion Goblin later on. It's actually pretty elegant.

Meanwhile in 3E sentient races with individuals could gain class levels just like PCs. Random Goblin could have 5HP, escape the slaughter of adventurers, and start living on his own, seeking his revenge while leveling in rogue - maybe even getting an Assassin prestige class later.

Heck, even in 1st Ed AD&D Monstrous humanoids in large enough communities automatically produced a random number of chieftains, sub-chiefs, etc. with advanced hit dice and in the case of intelligent ones that even has Magic-Users and Clerics rolled for in there.

And then there are mobs / swarms. That's a great feature of 3E and 4E that allows the component parts that would've been low-level challenges overcome their original stat-line limitations to create a collective threat that doesn't automatically get cake-walked by PCs due to bad standard HP, AC, and Attack roll modifiers for the individual of the race.

Flexibility in presentation for the DM is the key. I love systems that give you mechanics to help support that sort of thing.

- Marty Lund


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2012)

nnms said:


> Even these meta-game level designs of treasure control and giving a "screw you" to people listening at doors, the monster stats themselves were still based relatively on their fictional description.  Rust monsters have the HP and AC they do because they have tough hides (but not too tough) rather than because the PCs happen to be level 7 or something when they finally fight one.





nnms said:


> I'm not really satisfied with this approach as long as the stats of a monster are a function of it's level and role/type rather than it's fictional description.  At a given level, everything about a monster can be only one of a handful of different stat blocks, then differentiated only by its powers.



I agree with you about the relationship between a rust monster, its hide and its AC in classic D&D compared to 4e. What this means in AD&D and B/X is that at low levels there is a fairly low hit rate by the PCs (many things have ACs in a range of 4 to 7, and that's somewhat hard for a low level PC to hit - 13+ on a d20 before mods), while at high levels there is a pretty high hit rate.

This is obviously very different from 4e, which is designed around a more-or-less constant hit rate, and has a whole condition-infliction sub-game going on which only works and makes sense with that more-or-less constant hit rate.

On this design issue, my personally least favourite edition is 3E, which invented the "natural armour bonus" to get scaling defences something akin to 4e (although I gather not quite as smooth), while pretending to have the tough-hide simulation of classic D&D. (I mean, when natural armour is tougher than a mithral breastplate, what the heck am I meant to be envisioning in the fiction?)



nnms said:


> It doesn't matter if a goblin is naked or wearing full plate armour.  It's AC is determined by it's level and role, fiction be damned.



But this I don't agree with - taking off its armour should cost it a level or two. (It's attack bonus drops as it has to fight more defensively to make up for it's lack of armour, and its hp drop because it's less resilient without full plate.)

Or, if you don't want to bother with the maths of this, then if its full plate is lost you have to narrate something else in to plug the gap (of course this raises issues about railroading, but that's another issue).

The 4e DMG says a bit about this (pp 174-75):

You can add equipment to a monster to make it a little more challenging . . .

Remember that a monster’s game statistics are set to be appropriate for its level. Thus, altering a monster’s attack, defense, or damage values is a lot like changing its level (see above). Avoid the temptation simply to give all your monsters better armor and weapons. . .

If you want to give a monster equipment that changes its attack, defense, or damage values by more than a point or so, consider also making those alterations as part of changing its level.​
More advice, and examples of this sort of thing in published adventures, would help.



nnms said:


> 4E has the illusion of an actual leveling system, but the % of HP you do with an average attack, the to-hit number needed, the die roll needed to meet a DC, none of it actually changes.  It's all a farce.



Like I said above, I think this is a little harsh. The _fiction_ changes. And in a game of shared exploration of an imaginary setting, that's far from irrelevant. (4e is something like a more byzantine version of HeroQuest revised's pass/fail cycle.)

The rulebooks - both PHB and DMG - even talk about this, in their discussion of the different tiers. Again, though, I think more could have been done to bring out the ways in which these changes in the fiction matter. And more could have been done to explain how paragon paths and epic destinies, which are key points of expressing these fictional developments on the character sheet, feed into skill challenge framing and resolution (eg in persuading the duke, surely it makes a difference whether you're a Questing Knight, a Battlefield Archer or a Demonskin Adept - just to point to 3 of the PCs in my own game).

My own impression - and it's really nothing more than a gut feel based on reading these boards for a few years - is that a lot of people play 4e _without_ treating the fiction as anything but colour. WotC's 4e modules tend to give this vibe. When the fiction becomes mere colour, and levelling is not a reward (for the reasons you give), and so action resolution becomes an end in itself, then accusations of "tactical skirmish game", "boardgame" and of being farcical do have some force, in my view.



nnms said:


> It can create problems when you don't have tactical combat as a discrete game mode that you enter and exit.  Replaying through Keep on the Borderlands with BECMI has definitely been an eye opener.  Between wandering monsters and staying the exploration game mode for much of the build up to combat means managing HP across multiple encounters becomes the focus rather than within the individual tactical combats.
> 
> Before I switched to playing BECMI, I had done some serious rules hacking of 4E to get it to produce the type of play I was looking for.  Given the difficulty of excising the pacing mechanic and revamping the refresh rates based on encounter or daily power usage, healing surges, etc., I'm not sure D&D Next can support both a OD&D/BECMI/1E style approach to resources and a 4E one, even with modules added or removed.





nnms said:


> The other issue I have is the tactical encounter rather than a continual exploration-description mode of play.



At least in my view, 4e is pretty clearly designed for a "scene framing" approach, rather than a continuous exploration approach, to play. And on that I think we're in agreement. (Although I think it doesn't have to be tactical encounter. There are also skill challenges. And even semi-free-form exploration can be done in a scene-frame-y sort of way, in my experience. But these minor quibbles don't detract from the broader point.)

I think we also agree that the features of 4e that make it support its approach - like the constant hit rate in combat, the condition-infliction subgame, encounter powers, healing surges, no long duration effects, etc - are all at odds with continuous exploration, precisely because they confine the significance of events to the scenes in which they are framed, or their implications for newly-framed scenes. 

Can D&Dnext somehow support both? I agree it's tricky. But look at Burning Wheel. Take out Let it Ride, take out the Intent and Task guidelines, and you've got something that looks a bit like a dice pool variant of Runequest. That might still be a pretty playable game.

Now I think that 4e and classic D&D are even more different than BW and this imaginary BW variant - but I still think this shows that the task isn't necessarily hopeless, provided the designers can find just the right points in the design where a subtle nudge, the doesn't change any of the raw numbers too much, can make a big difference in the way those numbers feed into action resolution and its consequences.


----------



## nnms (May 23, 2012)

pemerton said:


> On this design issue, my personally least favourite edition is 3E, which invented the "natural armour bonus" to get scaling defences something akin to 4e (although I gather not quite as smooth), while pretending to have the tough-hide simulation of classic D&D. (I mean, when natural armour is tougher than a mithral breastplate, what the heck am I meant to be envisioning in the fiction?)




I definitely agree with this.  3.x frustrated me to the point of quitting D&D for about 8 years (fortunately, that freed up time for games like My Life With Master, DitV, Nine Worlds, Fudge/FATE, etc.,).



> The 4e DMG says a bit about this (pp 174-75):
> 
> You can add equipment to a monster to make it a little more challenging . . .
> 
> ...




My point in bringing this issue up is that while it may be somewhat talked about in the DMG, the published monster statblocks completely disregarded the equipment the creature had, what it was wearing, what it was using etc.,.



> My own impression - and it's really nothing more than a gut feel based on reading these boards for a few years - is that a lot of people play 4e _without_ treating the fiction as anything but colour. WotC's 4e modules tend to give this vibe. When the fiction becomes mere colour, and levelling is not a reward (for the reasons you give), and so action resolution becomes an end in itself, then accusations of "tactical skirmish game", "boardgame" and of being farcical do have some force, in my view.




The main problem with fiction in combat is that it rarely has an input into the mechanics.  So all it really does is add time to each person's combat turn why they describe what a given at-will or encounter attack power looked like.

When i ran 4E, it was with explicit scene framing and no DM made plot.  It was all improv off of player character goals.  Even then, we still found that the combat mode made fiction descriptions unnecessary at best and a time waster at worst.  We found it far better to have someone make a specific colour description at the end of each combat.  Sort of using 4E combat to produce "story after."



> At least in my view, 4e is pretty clearly designed for a "scene framing" approach, rather than a continuous exploration approach, to play. And on that I think we're in agreement. (Although I think it doesn't have to be tactical encounter. There are also skill challenges. And even semi-free-form exploration can be done in a scene-frame-y sort of way, in my experience. But these minor quibbles don't detract from the broader point.)




I do agree.  My issue is that I'm just so tired of it.  And how I found the tactical encounter based combat system doesn't produce meaningful outputs.  It basically does 1) everyone expends some healing surges and maybe a daily power, 2) a PC dies, or 3) TPK.  I managed to get a bit more out of it, but I found it took a lot of work to avoid the "everything is contained in the encounter area & time frame" approach of 4E combat.



> I think we also agree that the features of 4e that make it support its approach ... are all at odds with continuous exploration, precisely because they confine the significance of events to the scenes in which they are framed, or their implications for newly-framed scenes.




This is exactly what I'm talking about.



> Now I think that 4e and classic D&D are even more different than BW and this imaginary BW variant - but I still think this shows that the task isn't necessarily hopeless, provided the designers can find just the right points in the design where a subtle nudge, the doesn't change any of the raw numbers too much, can make a big difference in the way those numbers feed into action resolution and its consequences.




The key to making 4E work for continuous exploration type games was butchering the refresh rates, getting rid of the short rest and drastically changing healing, surges, etc.,.  Oh, and dumping the XP budget, the pacing mechanic and the guidelines for encounter and monster design.

Pretty much the rest of the system could stay intact , but it was a big change from the players' perspective.  Enough that we ended up just switching to basic D&D.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 23, 2012)

What I got from the article (my quick stream of consciousness):

"It's important to note that Hit Dice come into play to represent mundane healing. Potions and spells restore hit points and ignore Hit Dice. If a character relies on natural healing, it takes quite a while to recover.

"When a character rests for an extended period of time, he or she regains Hit Dice. In other words, a longer rest allows your character to regain Hit Dice. Shorter rests allow you to spend those Hit Dice to regain your character's hit points.

Character state:

Hit Point (HP) Normal Maximum
Hit Point Current (varies from the maximum to 0; special conditions apply at 0 and below)

Hit Dice Maximum (presumed to be equal to the character level)
Hit Dice Current (varies from the maximum to 0; never below 0)

Hit points are proportional to hit dice with a multiplier (perhaps varying, for example, a fighter using a scaling factor of 10 and gaining 1D10 + Con Bonus per level; lots of room to adjust for higher or lower power levels)

Hit points are lost due to stress, exertion, or injury.
Hit points cannot be regained through normal means without rest.
Hit points may be recovered during rests of 10 minutes or more, using a similar scaling factor as for hit points, by expending hit dice.

Hit dice are lost (spent) during short rests to recover hit points.
A short rest is, say, ten (10) minutes or more.

Hit dice may be recovered during extended rests.  Extended rests are, say, four (4) hours or more, or perhaps over night.

Unknown details:

Do players have the same number of hit dice as their character level?

The scaling factor varies per character class, but the exact factor per class is not known.

If the maximum hit dice were spent, what proportion of the maximum
hit points would be recovered?

How many hit dice are recovered during an extended rest?  The text suggests that several extended rests are required to recover all hit dice; that suggests a low number, perhaps just one (1).

Additional questions:

Does this capture enough of the "feel" of D&D?  How well does it capture
the style of the several editions?

How are hit points and hit dice narrated?

Is hit dice management "fun" for players?  (Does it mean that all players have to micromanage their dice, where-as, that was more the cleric's role, and as a result something that could be relegated to a player who enjoyed the task?)

How significant is the loss if in-combat non-magical recover / healing?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2012)

nnms said:


> My point in bringing this issue up is that while it may be somewhat talked about in the DMG, the published monster statblocks completely disregarded the equipment the creature had, what it was wearing, what it was using etc.,.



Obviously I don't find this sort of problem to be as widespread or jarring as you. But even I agree in respect of some monsters - especially some of the epic-tier humanoids introduced in MM3 (the Weavers and the like) which don't really seem to have the fictional context to warrant their extraordinary stats. (They remind me a bit of the Watchers and the like from the Marvel Universe.)

And I definitely agree that published material doesn't pay enough attention to things like delevelling strategies by depriving foes of equipment.



nnms said:


> The main problem with fiction in combat is that it rarely has an input into the mechanics.  So all it really does is add time to each person's combat turn why they describe what a given at-will or encounter attack power looked like.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the combat mode made fiction descriptions unnecessary at best and a time waster at worst.  We found it far better to have someone make a specific colour description at the end of each combat.  Sort of using 4E combat to produce "story after."



I agree that fictional positioning has limited points of input.

I think the published rules tend to overlook or underemphasise some key ones, though - keywords in particular (eg fireball sets things alight because it's a [fire] power).

And geography is another thing that matters, obviously - and the way I use geography in encounters has really changed in 4e.

But the other, and more important way, that I try and use fiction is at the motivational/"framing" level - ie there are no relationship mechanics or augments, but you can get something like the same effect if you set up situations in which the fighter PC has a fictional, contextual reason to go one-on-one against his nemesis, the imp has a reason to single the sorcerer PC out for taunting and attack, etc. (To use another comics comparison, it becomes a bit like a group supers fight.)

In a sense this can be done in any system, but I find 4e especially good because it puts more of the action and tension into the fight itself rather than the prep (as in buff-style play, which I've had a lot of in Rolemaster), and also because I find it pretty forgiving of a certain degree of party looseness (we haven't experienced any strong focus-fire imperative in our game). And its PC build rules inject a decent amount of baseline fictional context (I'm a dwarf, so a former slave of the giants, so an enemy of the primordials and beloved by Moradin, etc) which this sort of context for conflict can then be hung on.


I don't know if that makes any sense.



nnms said:


> I found the tactical encounter based combat system doesn't produce meaningful outputs.



Again, for my group the meaning has to be found in the broader context - both the story significance of what happened during the combat, and then the consequences of it afterwards. One upshot of this is "no filler encounters" - which is already a bit of a departure from traditional exploratory D&D.



nnms said:


> Pretty much the rest of the system could stay intact



Like your smiley says, they're going to have to find an approach more robust than this to make D&Dnext work across the styles!


----------



## nnms (May 23, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And I definitely agree that published material doesn't pay enough attention to things like delevelling strategies by depriving foes of equipment.




It's more than that.  if you take a look at the monster math, a 1st level monster has 15 AC.  Based on what?  The armour it's wearing?  The dexterity bonus it has?  A half level bonus to defenses? What if I have one soldier with a dex of 10 in chain and another in plate & shield?  They both have 17.

But I guess I've probably harped on about the design method being divorced from the fictional characteristics of the monster enough.  4E monster design is about producing results that fit into the whole encounter design/tactical combat system.  It doesn't prioritize representing the fictional characteristics of the monsters.



> I think the published rules tend to overlook or underemphasise some key ones, though - keywords in particular (eg fireball sets things alight because it's a [fire] power).




That sounds like a great declaration to make after invoking an aspect of the fireball. That'll cost me a Fate point though, won't it? 



> And geography is another thing that matters, obviously - and the way I use geography in encounters has really changed in 4e.




With everything being so improv based in my campaigns, I did my best to come up with cool battlefields on the fly, but I probably didn't do anything truly innovative.



> In a sense this can be done in any system, but I find 4e especially good because it puts more of the action and tension into the fight itself rather than the prep (as in buff-style play, which I've had a lot of in Rolemaster),




I found the players cared about the combats because they only happened when they tried to go after their goals and got violent (or met violent opposition).  The times that bored me to tears was when I played and it was either a module or a set of tactical encounters loosely connected with other game modes that was only really designed to justify the next tactical encounter.  But that can happen in any RPG.



> and also because I find it pretty forgiving of a certain degree of party looseness (we haven't experienced any strong focus-fire imperative in our game).




All of the players I played with are also miniature wargamers and quickly found the best tactics to dispatch foes quickly (like concentrating fire).  I had to level up encounters quite a bit from the recommended distribution around their level.



> And its PC build rules inject a decent amount of baseline fictional context (I'm a dwarf, so a former slave of the giants, so an enemy of the primordials and beloved by Moradin, etc) which this sort of context for conflict can then be hung on.




We always wanted different content for player buy in.  If a player had a human cleric of some civilization/order based god, they'd often have goals like "start a central bank" or "take down the organized crime boss/thieves guild" or "drive the orc horde away in a lasting manner."  We never played in the implied setting/Nentir Vale, so the default setting elements got chucked pretty fast.



> Again, for my group the meaning has to be found in the broader context - both the story significance of what happened during the combat, and then the consequences of it afterwards. One upshot of this is "no filler encounters" - which is already a bit of a departure from traditional exploratory D&D.




From going from a 4E game where the players initiate all goals and quests to a exploratory playing of Keep On The Borderlands in Mentzer basic D&D, I know what you mean.  Though I've started to appreciate "filler encounters" as being part of the process of being in a dangerous environment.  And given that a combat can be over in five minutes rather than the length of a 4E encounter, it's not the same was wasting a big part of a session on a 4E filler encounter.  Encounter length is another area where appealing both to 4E and pre-3.x style play with D&DN will be difficult.



> Like your smiley says, they're going to have to find an approach more robust than this to make D&Dnext work across the styles!




I think the worst case would be a mishmash hybrid that doesn't do either the scene framing friendly approach or the exploratory approach particularly well.

Despite 4E's strengths, something about it as a product isn't working for WotC.  So I think it's probably a fair bet that things that are iconic 4E elements might have a higher chance of not being around than staying.  So my guess is that they'll start with the exploration focus and add more 4E style combat rules and refresh mechanics as modules than go the other way around.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 23, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> If every hit is a near miss, then poisons just don't work.




An interesting idea, make poisons much stronger than they are now, but they only affect someone who is at half hp or less....to indicate a hit that is in fact a hit.


----------



## FireLance (May 23, 2012)

nnms said:


> It's more than that.  if you take a look at the monster math, a 1st level monster has 15 AC.  Based on what?  The armour it's wearing?  The dexterity bonus it has?  A half level bonus to defenses? What if I have one soldier with a dex of 10 in chain and another in plate & shield?  They both have 17.



A bit of an aside, but lately, I've been thinking that the relationship between AC and level ought to be reversed. A monster shouldn't have AC 15 because it's level 1. Rather, it should be level 1 because it has AC 15. 

I'm picking on AC because it should be the most commonly attacked defence, and (IMO) probably the most important factor that determines the PCs' ability to overcome the monster is how easily they are able to hit it (let's set aside the ability to damage it for now). Factors like hit points influence how long the PCs will take to defeat it, and factors like the monster's attacks (type, bonus, damage) affect how long the PCs can take before the monster kills them, but (again IMO) the best single number on which to base an assessment of encounter difficulty is how easily the PCs are able to hit the monster.

What this means is, if you dress up a level 1 goblin that normally has AC 15 in plate mail and shield so that its AC is now 20, you've turned it into a level 6 monster. It might have the same hit points, attack bonus and damage (and this should be accounted for by adjusting the "standard" experience award for defeating a level 6 monster downwards) but calling it a level 6 monster makes the answer to questions like, "Why do my level 1 PCs have difficulty defeating level 1 goblins in plate mail?" pretty darn obvious.


----------



## nnms (May 23, 2012)

FireLance said:


> A bit of an aside, but lately, I've been thinking that the relationship between AC and level ought to be reversed. A monster shouldn't have AC 15 because it's level 1. Rather, it should be level 1 because it has AC 15.




Yes! 

This is a great approach for both having a monster built based on its fictional characteristics and neatly codified into a level for encounter building.



> I'm picking on AC because it should be the most commonly attacked defence, and (IMO) probably the most important factor that determines the PCs' ability to overcome the monster is how easily they are able to hit it (let's set aside the ability to damage it for now). Factors like hit points influence how long the PCs will take to defeat it, and factors like the monster's attacks (type, bonus, damage) affect how long the PCs can take before the monster kills them, but (again IMO) the best single number on which to base an assessment of encounter difficulty is how easily the PCs are able to hit the monster.




It could probably be a weighted assessment.  I think how dangerous a monster is to the PCs matters quite a lot as well.



> What this means is, if you dress up a level 1 goblin that normally has AC 15 in plate mail and shield so that its AC is now 20, you've turned it into a level 6 monster. It might have the same hit points, attack bonus and damage (and this should be accounted for by adjusting the "standard" experience award for defeating a level 6 monster downwards) but calling it a level 6 monster makes the answer to questions like, "Why do my level 1 PCs have difficulty defeating level 1 goblins in plate mail?" pretty darn obvious.




I think some of the vagaries could be made precise for such a system, but in general I like this approach.

This is actually a lot like the HD plus that older versions of D&D used.  If something was 2 HD, but it had a lot of special abilities, it would both be worth more xp and be marked as more than just a 2 HD creature.  I think some versions had a star beside the HD, others had a +X.  Others had a note that it counted as a higher HD.

Combine this with a flattened power curve where you don't have monsters with massive numbers in their defenses, attack rolls, hp, etc., and we could have the basis for a system that could support both a tactical encounter and scene framing style of play alongside a continuous exploration approach.


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2012)

nnms said:


> It's more than that.  if you take a look at the monster math, a 1st level monster has 15 AC.  Based on what?  The armour it's wearing?  The dexterity bonus it has?  A half level bonus to defenses? What if I have one soldier with a dex of 10 in chain and another in plate & shield?  They both have 17.





FireLance said:


> A bit of an aside, but lately, I've been thinking that the relationship between AC and level ought to be reversed. A monster shouldn't have AC 15 because it's level 1. Rather, it should be level 1 because it has AC 15.



That's sort-of what I was trying to get at above in talking about delevelling a goblin by taking off its plate armour.



nnms said:


> The times that bored me to tears was when I played and it was either a module or a set of tactical encounters loosely connected with other game modes that was only really designed to justify the next tactical encounter.  But that can happen in any RPG.



I think it's plausible that 4e is especially prone to it.



nnms said:


> Despite 4E's strengths, something about it as a product isn't working for WotC.  So I think it's probably a fair bet that things that are iconic 4E elements might have a higher chance of not being around than staying.  So my guess is that they'll start with the exploration focus and add more 4E style combat rules and refresh mechanics as modules than go the other way around.



I think this is right.


----------



## Balesir (May 23, 2012)

FireLance said:


> A bit of an aside, but lately, I've been thinking that the relationship between AC and level ought to be reversed. A monster shouldn't have AC 15 because it's level 1. Rather, it should be level 1 because it has AC 15.
> 
> I'm picking on AC because it should be the most commonly attacked defence, and (IMO) probably the most important factor that determines the PCs' ability to overcome the monster is how easily they are able to hit it (let's set aside the ability to damage it for now). Factors like hit points influence how long the PCs will take to defeat it, and factors like the monster's attacks (type, bonus, damage) affect how long the PCs can take before the monster kills them, but (again IMO) the best single number on which to base an assessment of encounter difficulty is how easily the PCs are able to hit the monster.
> 
> What this means is, if you dress up a level 1 goblin that normally has AC 15 in plate mail and shield so that its AC is now 20, you've turned it into a level 6 monster. It might have the same hit points, attack bonus and damage (and this should be accounted for by adjusting the "standard" experience award for defeating a level 6 monster downwards) but calling it a level 6 monster makes the answer to questions like, "Why do my level 1 PCs have difficulty defeating level 1 goblins in plate mail?" pretty darn obvious.



Maybe I'm just wired differently in the brain to others, but it seems to me that this and the 4e "monster design matrix" are just different sides of the same coin. The only difference is that, when I'm designing monsters (or, more usually, modifying them) for an adventure the 4e way around is slightly more useful. Could I generate the monster descriptions, assess a rough AC, hp, Dmg and so on from that and then convert that to a level? Sure; but then I could end up futzing around designing several creatures until I got one of the level I'm looking for to fit the adventure and party level. Alternatively, I can set an AC based on the level of monster I want and then ask myself "what armour does that mean it has?"

The basics are sound, as long as "monster level" is there to give an accurate idea of how dangerous this monster is, though. The answer to "what happens if this (level 1) goblin gets maille armour and a greatsword?" is "it becomes a level 3 goblin".


----------



## Blackwarder (May 23, 2012)

FireLance said:


> A bit of an aside, but lately, I've been thinking that the relationship between AC and level ought to be reversed. A monster shouldn't have AC 15 because it's level 1. Rather, it should be level 1 because it has AC 15.
> 
> I'm picking on AC because it should be the most commonly attacked defence, and (IMO) probably the most important factor that determines the PCs' ability to overcome the monster is how easily they are able to hit it (let's set aside the ability to damage it for now). Factors like hit points influence how long the PCs will take to defeat it, and factors like the monster's attacks (type, bonus, damage) affect how long the PCs can take before the monster kills them, but (again IMO) the best single number on which to base an assessment of encounter difficulty is how easily the PCs are able to hit the monster.
> 
> What this means is, if you dress up a level 1 goblin that normally has AC 15 in plate mail and shield so that its AC is now 20, you've turned it into a level 6 monster. It might have the same hit points, attack bonus and damage (and this should be accounted for by adjusting the "standard" experience award for defeating a level 6 monster downwards) but calling it a level 6 monster makes the answer to questions like, "Why do my level 1 PCs have difficulty defeating level 1 goblins in plate mail?" pretty darn obvious.




Woot? A goblin is a goblin, regardless if he is wearing plate armor or stark naked, it doesn't make him a level 6 monster (what ever the hell that means) it's just make him tougher and harder to hit.

Warder


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 23, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> Woot? A goblin is a goblin, regardless if he is wearing plate armor or stark naked, it doesn't make him a level 6 monster (what ever the hell that means) it's just make him tougher and harder to hit.
> 
> Warder




You answered your own question: He's a 6th level monster because he's tougher and harder to hit.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 23, 2012)

Viking Bastard said:


> You answered your own question: He's a 6th level monster because he's tougher and harder to hit.




I'm not trying to be offensive but I'm sorry but that's a load of crap, if the wizard in my group cast sleep on that goblin and than the player strip it of its armor and slash his throat is it still a 6 level monster? And what about a goblin shaman? Do we have to make sure that it's AC is 20 to make sure he is a high enough monster? Fact is that monster design does not start and ends with AC, I'll go further and say that I completely dislike 4e way of monster design where monsters where forced into a small encounter nish while not changing the actual challenge of the encounter (and I used to love it in the first year until I realized that the game doesn't change over the sessions).

I had a lot of games where my players encountered goblin/Orc/giant tribes where there were several variant of said monster so there could be normal goblins, bodyguards with one more hd, +1 to hit, with better saves and maybe wearing better armor, shamans with more hd and spells and better saves, etc...
So they were higher level monsters because they were more lethal and capable than their lesser cousins, not because they had better armor.

Warder


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 23, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> I'm not trying to be offensive but I'm sorry but that's a load of crap...




As has been thoroughly discussed in this thread, no that's not a load of crap. I get where you're coming from and it's a legitimate criticism of the 4e system and it's assumptions.

But that's still what a level 6 goblin means in 4e terms.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 23, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Maybe I'm just wired differently in the brain to others, but it seems to me that this and the 4e "monster design matrix" are just different sides of the same coin. The only difference is that, when I'm designing monsters (or, more usually, modifying them) for an adventure the 4e way around is slightly more useful. Could I generate the monster descriptions, assess a rough AC, hp, Dmg and so on from that and then convert that to a level? Sure; but then I could end up futzing around designing several creatures until I got one of the level I'm looking for to fit the adventure and party level. Alternatively, I can set an AC based on the level of monster I want and then ask myself "what armour does that mean it has?"
> 
> The basics are sound, as long as "monster level" is there to give an accurate idea of how dangerous this monster is, though. The answer to "what happens if this (level 1) goblin gets maille armour and a greatsword?" is "it becomes a level 3 goblin".



Yeah, this is how I build monsters in 4e.

But I go a step further:

I also look up, what Weapons and which PC class could resemble my NPC.

So I say: I want a level 3 lurker:

An assassin, executioner.
17 AC: dex 18 + Leather armor + 1/2 level MAke it 20 dex and don´t have him wear armor and a secondary weapon instead. (he can later be encountered with armor and is a bit more beefier than)
Attack bonus of 8: longsword + dex bonus. Check!
Damage: 1d8+1d8+5. maybe a bit too high. 2 daggers instead. Reasonable. (Longsword for the times when he wears the leather armor)
Lurkerness:
assassins strike +2d10
death attack (unconscious attack against PCs)
sneak attack 1/encounter? why not.
and a rechargeable hide in shadows ability. And the ability to hide with partial cover.

5 mins, moster done. This is what works great in 4e. If you take the time to make up some reasonable dressing. However HP and such is rather inflexible.
You can play around with brute and soldier and artillery... but it makes the system rather inflexible.

If you would reverse the process, you would have:

Assassin PC class level 3.
longsword and leather and 2 weapons. Great AC and high damage. And abilities to attack from surprise! HP are not that high.

-> Makes him a Lurker. Challenge level 4, if he can play to his advantage. Otherwise only 3. If the players catch him off guard they still get full xp.

So maybe a PC class in general is about one CR higher than a normal monster in 4e. Defining challenge rating right in 5e, (measuring in PC class level, a monster with a PC class minus some fiddly bits) is CR equal to PC level, and in a 1 on 1 fight the PC, because of those fiddly bits like Theme feats or magic items will let the PC win most of the time, but usually only barely.


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Maybe I'm just wired differently in the brain to others, but it seems to me that this and the 4e "monster design matrix" are just different sides of the same coin. T
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The basics are sound, as long as "monster level" is there to give an accurate idea of how dangerous this monster is, though. The answer to "what happens if this (level 1) goblin gets maille armour and a greatsword?" is "it becomes a level 3 goblin".



Yes. I thought this is what I was saying a page or so upthread.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 23, 2012)

Back on topic:

Would you object an orison spell or the application of the heal skill, that is called "quick recovery" that reduces the time needed to recover from hp loss by spending hit dice to 1min instead of 10?

I know, if you reduce it to 1 combat round or instantly you are more or less back to healing surges. But if the application takes a complete combat round for the cleric it would still not be in the "expected twice every combat" section.

Such spells would make for a fin 4e module, and as long as this is not called healing and does not allow you to get from wounded to not wounded, I could see it not offending too many people.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 23, 2012)

tomBitonti said:


> How many hit dice are recovered during an extended rest?  The text suggests that several extended rests are required to recover all hit dice; that suggests a low number, perhaps just one (1).




Nice overview.

As to this question I really feel that one will be a dial. Wahoo games will have a higher refresh rate, and gritty will be lower. Or a discussion of where best to set it for different types of play - want to avoid magic healing at all in your game? Set this to X amount.


----------



## SkidAce (May 23, 2012)

nnms said:


> It's more than that.  if you take a look at the monster math, a 1st level monster has 15 AC.  Based on what?  The armour it's wearing?  The dexterity bonus it has?  A half level bonus to defenses? What if I have one soldier with a dex of 10 in chain and another in plate & shield?  They both have 17.




Just to address this part.  Your point about 4th not taking this into account is accurate.

However, nobody I knew of ever bothered rolling the stats for the soldiers (unless it was a special, named, etc etc.).

"All" the ones in plate mail had plate mail AC, all the ones in chain had chain AC.  And they all had 5 hit points per level (AD&D) on average.

So your point is valid, the grunts had chain, the elite had plate, and they were differentiated by AC.  And by weapon, grunts short sword, elites longsword. 

BL:  I agree with this weakness in 4th, but I think it was a shortcut intended to help the DM, similar to ones we already used, that went to far.


----------



## FireLance (May 23, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> Woot? A goblin is a goblin, regardless if he is wearing plate armor or stark naked, it doesn't make him a level 6 monster (what ever the hell that means) it's just make him tougher and harder to hit.



The difference is, I'm using level as a measure of how tough the monster is to defeat, so a monster that is "tougher and harder to hit" is, _by definition_, higher level. You seem to be equating level with Hit Dice.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 23, 2012)

The whole business of scaling AC by level, without typing it, seemed off to me.

The problem appears in 3/3.5E, and goes back to 1E, with the scaling of AC by HD.

Using demons as an example, the table goes:

Hit Dice, Challenge Rating, Natural Armor Bonus

HD  2 CR  2 NAB  5
HD  7 CR  6 NAB  8
HD 12 CR 10 NAB 13
HD 12 CR 13 NAB 19
HD 17 CR 17 NAB 16
HD 20 CR 20 NAB 19

With full plate providing an armor bonus of 8, that gives the higher level demons the equivalent of 2 to 2.5 the value of full plate.

(There was a similar effect with drow and their very high armor plus values, +5 bucklers, +5 armor, and +5 rings of protection adding up to +15 to AC.)

The reasoning is given (I believe) as their otherworldly nature, which I can accept for a while, but the very high values begin to seem absurd.

That the game has bared progressions (+1 level give +1 attack bonus, +1 level gives +1 AC, or some multiple there-of) seems to degrade the narrative of the game.  This is a residue of the original game design which was fun for a little while, but now seems thin.

From:
Demon :: d20srd.org

Dretch 
Size/Type:		Small Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		2d8+4 (13 hp)
Armor Class:		16 (+1 size, +5 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 16
Challenge Rating:	2

Babau 
Size/Type:		Medium Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		7d8+35 (66 hp)
Armor Class:		19 (+1 Dex, +8 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 18
Challenge Rating:	6

Bebilith 
Size/Type:		Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		12d8+96 (150 hp)
Armor Class:		22 (-2 size, +1 Dex, +13 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 21
Challenge Rating:	10

Glabrezu 
Size/Type:		Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		12d8+120 (174 hp)
Armor Class:		27 (-2 size, +19 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 27
Challenge Rating:	13

Marilith 
Size/Type:		Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		16d8+144 (216 hp)
Armor Class:		29 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +16 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 25
Challenge Rating:	17

Balor 
Size/Type:		Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice:		20d8+200 (290 hp)
Armor Class:		35 (-1 size, +7 Dex, +19 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 28
Challenge Rating:	20

TomB


----------



## Libramarian (May 23, 2012)

CleverNickName said:


> My, what big words you use.
> 
> So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games?  I think we agree.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I grabbed part of your quote and went off on a pet peeve of mine without adequately explaining it and it seemed more directed at you personally than I meant.

Basically the use of Gamism to mean "non-simulationism" rankles me, because I feel that it makes this idea appear more substantial than it is. It's not grounded in any sort of theory about what makes games more fun, it's just like a superficial suspicion of simulationist mechanics.

However if you truly feel like abstract mechanics have some sort of aesthetic value, analogous to Abstract Expressionist art, then that would be something different. That's pretty funky but OK. You should come up with a name other than Gamism for this line of thought though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 23, 2012)

Another possibility of somewhat limited Hit Die use in a "short rest" is making food and rest conditions more important.

If you only have time to pop down a dirty corridor and silently catch your breathe while the orcs fan out searching for you, remaining alert the whole time, you might only get to use 1 die (and even then, assuming you manage to "rest" for 10 minutes).  This is a time when a tense, 1 minute "chase sequence" round might be a lot of fun.

Kill all the orcs in the vicinity, hole up in a secret chamber you found, and rest with only the rogue listening at the door on the off chance you are discovered, you eat some rations, mostly relax, and get access to an extra die or two.

I doubt something like that will be the default, as it is very simulationist.  But the base system makes such a variant rule easy to include.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 23, 2012)

*A question of scaling*

Musing, I'm wondering how many hit dice a player should have, how quickly they should recharge, and how the numbers scale.

For example, if hit dice represent a limited ability to recover, then, should you get more if you have a higher con?  Say, +1 HD per CON bonus.

That narrates well, but doesn't scale, and is much to large at low level.  Maybe recovery should be 1DX + CON per hit dice?

Having 1 HD per level seems to be the plan, but I'm having trouble linking that to hit points, since rolling 1DX per hit dice for recover with a pool of DX hit points gives a result of rolling all hit dice would let you recover (on average) all of your hit points.

EDIT: Maybe, a fix would be to limit the number of short rests which are possible per day.  A possible fix, but breaking the elegant symmetry of the model.

TomB


----------



## Blackwarder (May 23, 2012)

FireLance said:


> The difference is, I'm using level as a measure of how tough the monster is to defeat, so a monster that is "tougher and harder to hit" is, _by definition_, higher level. You seem to be equating level with Hit Dice.




Sorry, I skipped two pages of the thread and didn't realized that you where comming from 4e POV. That being said higher AC with no correlation to attack bonus or saves or anything else just make a very boring monster, what dio I care if that Orc got 9999 AC if he can't hit the side of a barn? Not to mention any of the other characters?

Warder


----------



## nnms (May 23, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> Sorry, I skipped two pages of the thread and didn't realized that you where comming from 4e POV. That being said higher AC with no correlation to attack bonus or saves or anything else just make a very boring monster, what dio I care if that Orc got 9999 AC if he can't hit the side of a barn? Not to mention any of the other characters?




I generally agree, however I also see the strength in having all the various stats, abilities and special stuff contribute to the level assessment of a given monster.  I want the system to be able to handle regular humans in the best equipment money can buy (custom full plate for example) and also regular humans in roughspun jerkins.  I think going from AC 10 to AC 20 should probably merit some sort of change in level or XP value or whatever.  And I shouldn't have to also increase their hit points, attack bonus etc., if, in the fiction, they are equal in ability to the guys without armour.

I want to be able to ask "What is this opponent the PCs will be facing?  What's it like?  How armoured is it?  How fast?  How tough?  How deadly?  What else can it do?" without the answer of one question limiting (or even predefining) the answers to other questions.  Right now 4E has a system that fails in this regard.  If I pick an AC for a creature and am using the normal monster math, I'm locked into some sort of combination of level and role which will then give me the stats for all the other questions, even if the actual description of the things in the fiction is nothing like that.

I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats.  And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.


----------



## tlantl (May 24, 2012)

nnms said:


> I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats.  And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.




There was just a system in the 1e dungeon master's guide that did just this. At least the first part. the experience point value of monster's table on pg 85 allow for dm's to add xp to creatures for higher than average abilities gear and defenses. 

A similar chart could be just the thing. I may just use the one I have since it is pretty comprehensive. the numerical bonuses might need some tweaking though.


----------



## tlantl (May 24, 2012)

nnms said:


> I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats.  And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.




There was just a system in the 1e dungeon master's guide that did just this. At least the first part. The experience point value of monster's table on pg 85 allow for dm's to add xp to creatures for higher than average abilities gear and defenses. 

A similar chart could be just the thing. I may just use the one I have since it is pretty comprehensive. The numerical bonuses might need some tweaking though.


----------



## darjr (May 24, 2012)

Healing surges didn't bother me initially. The meta of it eventually started to annoy me.

For example, when a player couldn't be healed because they were out of surges. This idea seems to lead to that same kind of 'breaking immersion' meta gaming that I didn't like about healing surges. Isn't it a goal of 5e to try to not break immersion with meta gaming?

I also think naming them Hit Dice is a minor misapplication of the term.

I would rather have the heal skill provide some small measure of hit point recovery and let other classes have access to minor magical healing.

Something like a fighter with a very devout religious background getting a minor lay on hands ability or a magic user with a religious ritual that takes several minutes to cast or a barbarian brew that grows hair on your chest but leaves you a little tipsy for a few minutes or will get you stinking fall down drunk if you imbibe to much.

If the issue is that there needs to be some kind of cap on this so that players couldn't spam them, then put those limits on the minor magical healing abilities and limit the heal skill. After all isn't it a trope where a healer has done all that they can and must let nature take it's course?


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Another possibility of somewhat limited Hit Die use in a "short rest" is making food and rest conditions more important.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I doubt something like that will be the default, as it is very simulationist.  But the base system makes such a variant rule easy to include.



I quite like the idea that recovery is easier, or greater, if the conditions are more propitious. Linking it to the number of HD that may be expended - unless that is expressed as a ratio - will still produce the "low levels heal more" thing that is pre-3E mundane healing (and pre-4e magical healing).



nnms said:


> II want the system to be able to handle regular humans in the best equipment money can buy (custom full plate for example) and also regular humans in roughspun jerkins.  I think going from AC 10 to AC 20 should probably merit some sort of change in level or XP value or whatever.  And I shouldn't have to also increase their hit points, attack bonus etc., if, in the fiction, they are equal in ability to the guys without armour.
> 
> I want to be able to ask "What is this opponent the PCs will be facing?  What's it like?  How armoured is it?  How fast?  How tough?  How deadly?  What else can it do?" without the answer of one question limiting (or even predefining) the answers to other questions.



What you describe here works for me in Runequest or Rolemaster. As in, I can see how the game gives me the resources to answer those questions, and then render those answers in mechanical terms.

I find it harder to do for D&D, because to hit bonuses, saving throw bonuses and hit points all seem to have a meta-element (and I think the degree of meta-element increases as one runs through that list). How much meta should a given opponent have? 4e answers, in effect, "Enough to provide a numerically satisfying encounter, within such-and-such a tolerance range". I've got nothing in principle against a different answer, but what is that different answer going to be?


----------



## nnms (May 24, 2012)

pemerton said:


> What you describe here works for me in Runequest or Rolemaster. As in, I can see how the game gives me the resources to answer those questions, and then render those answers in mechanical terms.
> 
> I find it harder to do for D&D, because to hit bonuses, saving throw bonuses and hit points all seem to have a meta-element (and I think the degree of meta-element increases as one runs through that list). How much meta should a given opponent have? 4e answers, in effect, "Enough to provide a numerically satisfying encounter, within such-and-such a tolerance range". I've got nothing in principle against a different answer, but what is that different answer going to be?




I'm not quite catching the difference you are seeing between D&D and Runequest or Rolemaster in regards to the meta element.  I'm quite familiar with Runequest in most of its editions, but have no familiarity with Rolemaster.

Perhaps if you gave what you believe the answer to the "How much meta should a given opponent have?" question from 3.x, 2E, AD&D, Basic or OD&D, I'd understand why "D&D" (rather than just a subset of D&D known as 4E) has to have such a difference in terms of degrees of meta in the stats of a creature than, say, Runequest.


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2012)

nnms said:


> I'm not quite catching the difference you are seeing between D&D and Runequest or Rolemaster in regards to the meta element.



Well, in RQ there really is _no_ meta-element. Hit points are CON (END? I'm forgetting my RQ stat names) + SIZ. Damage is STR + SIZ. Damage reduction is purely simulationist - if I know how tough a creature's hide is, I can assign it damage reduction by comparison to the armour rules and the other creatures in the rulebook.

To hit numbers, also, are just a reflection of raw ability (stat mods) plus skill (the rest). I assign this as fits my conception of the monster.

The closes to a meta-element in RQ is POW, but I can assign that as I see fit. And there is no way of using POW as a luck stat to affect my to hit, or hit points, or damage avoidance. I can assign it on something like the same rationale that I would assign CHA in D&D, and it won't spill through into other elements of action resolution.



nnms said:


> Perhaps if you gave what you believe the answer to the "How much meta should a given opponent have?" question from 3.x, 2E, AD&D, Basic or OD&D, I'd understand why "D&D" (rather than just a subset of D&D known as 4E) has to have such a difference in terms of degrees of meta in the stats of a creature than, say, Runequest.



Well, I don't know the answer. That's my puzzle.

So, in AD&D, hit points have a meta-element (as explained by Gygax, and as recently recapitulated by Mearls). So do saving throws, per Gygax in the AD&D DMG - unlike in 3E, where I think saving throws are pure process simulation, in AD&D saving throws also reflect luck, divine favour etc. To hit numbers have the least meta-element, but the way they are abstracted into a one minute round suggests that they may not be entirely devoid of it (ie a high level fighter having such an easy time hitting a rust monster perhaps reflects not only increased skill, but perhaps increased luck, divine favour etc).

So in AD&D, suppose I'm statting up a pirate king. How much meta should he have? If I give him 3 HD, does this think I mean he has quite a bit of meta compared to a commoner? Or just that he's really big and muscly? Maybe if I give him an 18 STR and 16 CON that suggests the latter, but perhaps he's strong, healthy, untrained but meta-rich.

Or, to flip it around: I consider the questions you stated upthread:

What is this opponent the PCs will be facing? What's it like? How armoured is it? How fast? How tough? How deadly? What else can it do?​
In RQ, once I've answered those questions, I have the creature's stats and percentiles.

But in AD&D, once I've answered those question, I can't stat up the creature yet, because until I know how much meta it's going to have, I can't finish the job. Perhaps its size puts a floor under its HD (if it's as big as an elephant, it better have at least 8 or 10 HD), and its armour puts a floor under its AC. But setting a floor isn't the same as telling me what the value is.

Like I said, 4e answers the question about how much meta by saying "OK, give it enough meta to be a mechanically adequate challenge for its level". The meta is treated simply as a device for achieving a certain type of challenge level and pacing.

But how does, or should, AD&D answer the question? If it answers it in the same way, then it turns out that AD&D monster design isn't that different from 4e after all - except maybe the meta-elements that 4e distributes across AC and hp, in AD&D get shoved all into hp, with AC being treated in a purely simulationist fashion.

But maybe AD&D can go a different way. For example, you could say, give it enough meta to make it seem about as tough as it does in fairy stories, or mythology, or popular fantasy fiction. I think classic D&D took this route with undead - but then in B/X you can see it breaking down, as a whole lot of crappier made-up undead are slotted in above the vampire and the lich because we needed higher level undead to challenge Companion and Masters level PCs. (That is, they resorted to a 4e-style answer to the question, How much meta?).

And relying on the fantasy tradition also makes it hard to work out how much meta to give your new inventions.

A game like Burning Wheel shows a different sort of solution here. It emphasises very much building monsters in the way you describe - assign the stats that give the correct answers to those questions - but then it allows an appropriate number of Fate Points to be given to the monster, completely orthogonal to answering those questions, in order to give it the right amount of meta for it to do its job in the game.

But D&D can't go this way, because with to hit numbers, saving throws and hit points it bundles its meta into its non-meta in an inseperable combination.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## Mattachine (May 24, 2012)

Yes, I think you are making a lot of sense.

Still, I do don't put luck and divine favor exactly into the metagame. In my game, such elements are simulationist. Characters in my fantasy games are aware of those touched by fate, favored by the gods, and so forth. They are actual qualities.

The metagame, for me, is simply the math. That includes skill, size, raw talent, and the rest.


----------



## Balesir (May 24, 2012)

tlantl said:


> There was just a system in the 1e dungeon master's guide that did just this. At least the first part. The experience point value of monster's table on pg 85 allow for dm's to add xp to creatures for higher than average abilities gear and defenses.
> 
> A similar chart could be just the thing. I may just use the one I have since it is pretty comprehensive. The numerical bonuses might need some tweaking though.



If it comes to that 4e has guidelines (I haven't read them in the DMG for a while, but they are coded into the Monster Builder which I use all the time) for adjusting HPs, AC, NADs and so on up and down - but you have to use judgement as to how many go up and how many go down before you have really changed the critter's level...

I agree with nnms that more detailed breakdowns here would be useful, but in AD&D and 4e both you essentially have the guideline plus the examples in the monster manual(s) to give you the steer you need. I find the approach and guidelines given in 4e the best so far, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be better.


----------



## pemerton (May 25, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> Yes, I think you are making a lot of sense.



Thanks.



Mattachine said:


> I do don't put luck and divine favor exactly into the metagame. In my game, such elements are simulationist. Characters in my fantasy games are aware of those touched by fate, favored by the gods, and so forth. They are actual qualities.



Cool, that's one way to go. When I've GMed Rolemaster it has been like this - to the extent that divine favour and luck are bestowed by particular categories of spell casting.

But it does raise questions - like, if I cut a PC off from the gods (say by trapping him/her in a DoMT Donjon or a 4e-style Abyssal oubliette) does that drop his/her hit points and saving throws?

It's because, at least on a conventional reading of the rules, these qualities of a creature can't be affected ingame by cutting off the ingame sources of luck and favour, that I think of them as meta.

But I agree there is a lot of straddling and nuance here. I see it as a very distinctive feature of D&D, and a potential strength provided that some thought is given to it by the designers. (Personally, I like best the way 4e has handled it. I can see the case for AD&D, too. I personally find the 3E treatment the least satisfactory.)


----------

