Sacrosanct
Legend
With respect, this doesn't tell us anything until you also do a measure of how fast PCs are expected to *lose* hit points. If AD&D monsters generally did less damage, or an AD&D party dealt with far fewer monsters in a day, yes, it could be moot.
5e recovers not 3.5 times the hit points, but 3.5 time the ratio of hit points that are available. So in order to make that particular point moot (which again, doesn't account for additional healing such as healing kits, potions of healing being a common item, and more classes that can heal or class abilities that can heal), 5e monsters would have to inflict 3.5 times the ratio of damage compared to AD&D.
I.e., if a level 1 PC has 5 hp and the typical monster they face in AD&D does 1d6 points of damage, then the average damage (3.5) does 70% of damage to the available hit points. In 5e, with a level 1 PC having 8 hit points, that in order to hit the 3.5 times value in order to offset the 3.5 times increased healing rate, that same opponent a typical level 1 PC would face would inflict an average of 19.6 points of damage (3.5 times 70% of the 8 max hp: (.70% of 8 is 5.6, times 3.5 is 19.6). How many 5e monsters that level 1 PCs face do an average of 19.6 points of damage?
I would like to think that we can all agree even just from a cursory glance (no math needed), that the healing rate in 5e is way higher than in AD&D, right? Especially now with the math, even favoring 5e by not including things like healing kits, second wind, etc, it should be settled, correct?
Basically, with that example party I gave above, it would take the AD&D party 7 days to heal the same amount of damage that the 5e party did in one day. Going from 1 day to 7 days certainly isn't "moot" or inconsequential.