|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:07PM
#61
|
|
|
In my opinion, if Martial/Morale Healing doesn't work, then Divine Magic healing shouldn't work too, as it ruin my verisimilitude, i won't elaborate on why, because it would get controvertial.
You're just playing the devil's advocate. Divine healing is not faith healing. Whether you believe in god and faith healing is irrelevant in D&D. In D&D, gods exist and have magic. At least in the default settings. Clerics shouldn't have spellls at all in a settings where gods don't exist.
Scientific studies have been done and the mental component to healing is acually some where around 40% more effective than medicine. In some cases with anti-depressants its 100% as effective as medicine. Its known as the placebo effect...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:27PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2012
|
In my opinion, if Martial/Morale Healing doesn't work, then Divine Magic healing shouldn't work too, as it ruin my verisimilitude, i won't elaborate on why, because it would get controvertial.
You're just playing the devil's advocate. Divine healing is not faith healing. Whether you believe in god and faith healing is irrelevant in D&D. In D&D, gods exist and have magic. At least in the default settings. Clerics shouldn't have spellls at all in a settings where gods don't exist.
Scientific studies have been done and the mental component to healing is acually some where around 40% more effective than medicine. In some cases with anti-depressants its 100% as effective as medicine. Its known as the placebo effect...
You are right, there have been a few studies into it, and i think in america some doctors are allowed to give placeboes out as treatment, an amusing thing about the placebo effect is that i dont think it requires you to be unaware of the fact that its a placebo you just need to knw that even if it is a placebo it will help you recover.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:31PM
#63
|
|
|
I've played a few systems that have a fatigue mechanic sorta like what you're talking about and it's not bad. I think the brick wall we're hitting is we want it to feel like D&D and all that lovely stuff.
I personally never bought the whole "brighten your morale = more hp" thing. I thought it was stupid from day 1 of 4e and I still think it's stupid.
It originated in 1E and was used throughout 2E and 3.xE it did not start in 4E. The only thing that started in 4E was the ability for a martial character to improve morale and will power to affect healing. When DMing 5e, I totally ignored their attempt to abstract hp from bodily harm. I know it's unrealistic but it's expedient and I honestly think any attempt to make hp anything else is just creating work for the sake of having work. I've never struggled with describing hp loss as bodily harm and I really don't see what the fuss is about. Any published hp abstraction I will ignore and call whatever class that's doing the healing as some kind of magic that's invoked in whatever flavor suits.
That's fine, if you want to house rule go ahead, but don't expect us to listen to your complaints about the Warlord's martial healing seeming to be unrealistic because you are simply arguing against your own house ruling. But if I was to run with it, just for the sake of discussion, I'd probably just keep it a big pool and let the needs of the story dictate whether the damage is physical or not. I'd probably favour a solution that kept hp as a single expression because it's easier and just describe damage in ways that are appropriate to the situation.
The temp hp thing could work if that's your bent. It isn't mine but I could see that happening.
I've seen a split health system work and I know it could work here, but I'd not be happy if it was brought into D&D as anything but a house ruled variant.
Personally even with what I said I'm ok with some kind of half hit points being mental and half being physical. I'm even more ok with non-lethal damage counting up and hit points counting down and when they meet in the middle something happens (if a spell brings them even then the effect of the spell happens like sleep, paralyzation or whatever, if its physical attacks, it knocks them unconscious).
In fact that is the most elegant way to do it...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:39PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Hit Points, narratively, are whatever they need to be at the time. A hit doesn't always mean you always took a fatal stab to the chest that spilled most of your organs out for 10 damage out of your 100 HP(and people who flavor it that way should step back and reconsider), while a miss doesn't always mean they completely avoided the atatck(it could mean the attack plinked off their armor for instance).
Healing, as well, should also be what they need to be at the time. It could be a divine light covering you and sealing your wounds, it could be the Warlord's inspiring you to fight off that gash in your leg and fight through the pain and go to victory, it could be the Bard singing a mocking song at your enemies and their demoralization could be what gives you the confidence to fight on.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:46PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2012
|
I would prefer a system of hp and then serious wounds, but in general you have to think that it can be often one hit that brings a person down, and so i tend to look at ur hp as ur ability to avoid taking a hit, or atleast one that will cause you any more that minor discomfort. As your hp goes down your getting more and more warn, and then when you go below 0 is when i consider you to actually get hit and it is serious so takes you down, anything before was nothing more than a minor graze. However i do think thats once you are down you character should atleast require a short rest to get back up.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:55PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2012
|
OP, I had exactly the same idea when I started getting into D&D Next. And then I said "meh, they are never going to do this. I guess I will have to houserule it myself then"
Well, it wasn't exactly the same in that there was one difference: I decided that your maximum "Energy" hp would be the same as your "health" hp, unless some warlord or something pushed it higher.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 3:56PM
#67
|
|
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
It could be a Loaded Question Fallacy since they are starting from the assumption that hit points are equal to wounds when in fact this is a house rule and in all editions of D&D some component of hit points has always been, luck, endurance, or focus.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:02PM
#68
|
|
|
Warlords didn't close wounds. Loss of HP does not automatically mean physical injury, and regaining of HP does not mean physical injuries go away. How this fallacy continues, I have no idea.
Please quote me the name of the Logical Fallacy that he was guilty of with his suggestion on how to change hit points. I didn't know that one. Is it Argument from Abstraction? Reducto Hit Pointo?
Well - not all 'fallacies' need to be formal "Logical Fallacies". The term applies generally to any error in reasoning.
But in this case I suppose it would be Equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. Specifically - taking the loss of hit points which can mean either physical injury or the wearing down of the character and focusing on the physical aspect while ignoring the other aspect.
Carl
But in 5e, 50% of hit points deal physical damage on some level. Hit points in 5e are currently not as abstract as they once were. OP even stated that.
The top 50% of hit points is pure mental, will power, and fatigue, the bottom 50% are 'nicks', 'bruises' and 'scratches' until the fatal blow which is the first 'real' hit. Anything else is house ruling which is fine, but shouldn't be taken seriously when you then complain about martial healing.
Its the same thing if I house rule that magic missile deals fire damage and then complain when it kills creatures vulnerable to fire easier...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:14PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Hit Points, narratively, are whatever they need to be at the time.
This is the correct answer.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 4:16PM
#70
|
|
|
The rules are are clear about it.
Under 50hp, just few cuts and bruises.
The character at 1hp is basically unharmed, and doesn't feel enough pain to hinder him in any way.
Ar 1hp the foes start to strike directly at you if they hit.
If I have to think about hit points this way I think I'll just seek fun elsewhere. In the past hit points could be thought of in any way. You could think of them one way and someone else could think of them in a different way. They were abstract so it worked. In 4e, they forced a way of thinking on everyone that a lot of us didn't like. I'm for keeping hit points open ended and not forcing one way of thinking onto them.
If they keep the warlord isolated and the healing system modularized then all can be good. I can just ban the warlord from my games and adopt the healing system that suits my playstyle. If though they get arrogant and say my way is #badwrongfun then I'll find a game with designers that are not so judgmental.
Hit points were never deadly wounds in any edition. Any attempt to portray them as such were house rules...
|
|
|
