Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
We are not going to be able to arrive at a definition of wound or hp everyone here can agree on. That is clear from the multiple threads on the subject that just result in both sides attacking each other's assumptions. The only solution that will work is if D&D Next is able to support both ends of the spectrum. If you favor one, or try to meet half way, you will just displease a large number of players.
The secret to these debates is, instead of trying to get the upper hand through definitions and deconstructions (i.e. But if you think a wound is x, surely healing surges are not a problem because of y), people should just sincerely try to understand why the other side takes its position and hwy their assumptions matter to them (instead of trying to understand only with the intend of uprooting the assumption). I get that people who like one day heals or like 4e healing surges do so for a range of completely reasonable assumptions about what is more realistic and what works well in play. I could attack these assumptions, but there is no reason to. Everything fails under scrutiny, because we are dealing with abstractions, but that doesn't make them unreasonable to hold their position. Likewise people like me, who feel the physical component of hp is key and who feel longer natural healing times are better for realism and game play are holding an equally reasonable position. But there is little point in me trying to convince the other side of my point of view. The best thing we can do is say what our preferences are, say what we'd like to see in Next, and hope WOTC makes a hp/heaping system in next we can live with. But these discussions about the nature of hp, the nature of wounds, etc just muddy the waters. All that matters is how many people like hd and one day healing and how many don't. That is what wotc will base their decisions around, not arguments for why one approach is better than the other.
The secret to these debates is, instead of trying to get the upper hand through definitions and deconstructions (i.e. But if you think a wound is x, surely healing surges are not a problem because of y), people should just sincerely try to understand why the other side takes its position and hwy their assumptions matter to them (instead of trying to understand only with the intend of uprooting the assumption). I get that people who like one day heals or like 4e healing surges do so for a range of completely reasonable assumptions about what is more realistic and what works well in play. I could attack these assumptions, but there is no reason to. Everything fails under scrutiny, because we are dealing with abstractions, but that doesn't make them unreasonable to hold their position. Likewise people like me, who feel the physical component of hp is key and who feel longer natural healing times are better for realism and game play are holding an equally reasonable position. But there is little point in me trying to convince the other side of my point of view. The best thing we can do is say what our preferences are, say what we'd like to see in Next, and hope WOTC makes a hp/heaping system in next we can live with. But these discussions about the nature of hp, the nature of wounds, etc just muddy the waters. All that matters is how many people like hd and one day healing and how many don't. That is what wotc will base their decisions around, not arguments for why one approach is better than the other.