Community

Aug 15, 2012 -- 7:32PM, Tectuktitlay wrote:

I'd like to see it roughly broken down like this:

1) Warlords are kings of pulling people in the heat of battle from the brink. They are easily the best healers within combat, so long as the target is conscious. You're almost out of it? The warlord gives you that morale boost, that kick in the arse, that push to fight through the pain and finish what needs to be finished.

... Martial = in-combat healing on conscious allies...

I see zero reasons, as have been previously pointed out, to NOW, after 4+ iterations of D&D previously, change what hit points have ALWAYS represented, just to please some people who want it to represent something it actually never has. @ Valdark, I simply disagree. Unless you propose a way to in-game separate all that hit points have represented, the morale, the endurance, the overextension, the raw will to go on, etc, hit points can and must remain as they always have. 

In your example, above, you still have an enormous problem with your model of hit points. `10 hit points on a character at level 1, right? A goblin hits him with a sword for 5 hit points. Two hits like that is all his body can take, and he's down. Because hit points now represent just physical capabilities. 100 hps on that same character at level 10, right? That same goblin hits him for 5 hit points. It now takes twenty hits to knock the same human, with the same physical capabilties sans some training and experience. Remember, you've now made hit points represent actual physical capability. No matter how amazing your training and working out, you cannot sustain ten times the amount of identical actual physical damage before succumbing. You are still the same humanoid being, with the same organs, the same overall strength and power and endurance. 

Now THIS is a great example of compromise.

I can handle "Warlords can't heal from zero" because I accept that the blow that puts you down... THAT blow WAS physical.

Now I'd want to see options for "heal skill actions" so the Warlord can IF HE WANTS TO spend an action to actually bandage those physical wounds.

But I utterly reject the "agreeing to temp HP is in fact a very large compromise for my side" argument. 

It's not.

No more than rejecting Vancian out of hand but claiming that spell points were a "compromise" would have been.




If we are creating an "iconic" version of D&D drawing on the "best parts" of every edition and that means a Vancian Wizard then it CERTAINLY also means a Warlord who can actually heal HP.

Because everyone who doesn't accept that needs to realise that THEY are the ones trying to change what HP mean.




Now... purely physical HP as a module... I'll get in behind that action.

But we'd better be fixing HP at lvl 1, scratching inflating HP over level, implementing wound penalties and real consequences for severe damage.

I'd LOVE a truly gritty and ACTUALLY realistic option for play.

But don't pretend that it's how HP work now and try to force us to build a class around that assumption.

Because that's flat out false.                 

Aug 15, 2012 -- 8:06PM, Mithrus wrote:

Straight from the d20 SRD:
---
What Hit Points Represent

Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
---
This has been the same definition in every PHB, with little variance. I honestly do no understand how anyone can disagree that the "HP is physical only" POV is and has always been a houseruled change in definition. In that case, I'm all for letting folks play the way they want, so long as I get to play the way I want.

Simple.  In order to caricature us, they claim we say ALL hp are physical, then only speak to that accusation.  You know...classic strawman 101.  They rephrase our argument then attack it.

Aug 15, 2012 -- 8:07PM, anjelika wrote:

Simple.  In order to caricature us, they claim we say ALL hp are physical, then only speak to that accusation.  You know...classic strawman 101.  They rephrase our argument then attack it.

Who is the us, they, and we in that sentence?