D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[herrozerro]

We are talking the same edition that gave us 1 to full heal in a non magical way with in 24 hours.

Look, people can BS all day long but the this mechanic was never meant to make sense. It was a resource mechanic and nothing else. People try and come up with all sorts of laughable reasons as to why it makes sense but it really never does.

It makes sense when you divorce HP from meat. When HP represents everything from meat to the will to keep fighting, the HP recovery in 4e makes sense.

 

[TwoSix]

Healing Surges are an aweful mechanic as well because you could be down to 3 hp and bloodied and be able to somehow get up, keep fighting and remain healed. You also had powers that described actually taking pure hits to the body and were still able to be healed using a Healing Surge. Healing Surges should have been temporary hp but they weren't. Damage on a miss and Healing Surges are two horrible mechanics that provide no in game consistency.

That's because 3 hit points isn't almost dead. It's being at that point where you've used up your mettle and resourcefulness and are now primed to be struck down. But taking a second to regroup yourself, or shouted encouragement from a trusted comrade, or the shiver of a divine prayer brushing over you, lets you regain your purpose and focus and keep going. It takes some of your endurance to push on like this, so you can't do it forever. That's what healing surges are, a counter for how many times you've pushed through and keep going.

I personally use a disease track that character roll against once they're down a few healing surges. They can gain various conditions whenever they use up a healing surge. There are Healing rituals that can counteract these penalties. Gives the idea of Healers using magic to drive off injury.

If you don't like it, that's cool. You made up your mind a long time ago, and I don't see any indication you desire to have more than one preference as to how to play D&D. But with a little finessing, it can even fit a more simulationist purpose. Honestly, I find it more realistic than the pure HP model, and it models the way I view magical healing to work much better.

 

[Weather Report]

I found, from the DM's screen, Healing Surges to be annoying.

 

[TwoSix]

We are talking the same edition that gave us 1 to full heal in a non magical way with in 24 hours.

Also, I only allow the recovery of 1 healing surge per extended rest, +1 with a successful Hard Endurance check or Moderate Heal check. The wound track also lowers your amount of max healing surges. Only a week's rest in civilization can bring you back up to full health.

 

[Halivar]

Look, people can BS all day long but the this mechanic was never meant to make sense. It was a resource mechanic and nothing else. People try and come up with all sorts of laughable reasons as to why it makes sense but it really never does.

Again, I have to ask, why did you start this as a poll? Was it your intention to invite opposing views to "discuss the poll" just to call them "bull-****ers" with "laughable" reasoning?

This is indecorous language that I'd hoped we'd left behind in 2008.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Again, I have to ask, why did you start this as a poll? Was it your intention to invite opposing views to "discuss the poll" just to call them "bull-****ers" with "laughable" reasoning?

This is indecorous language that I'd hoped we'd left behind in 2008.

What was supposedly left behind in 2008?

I'm seeing elements of an edition I despise going into the 'non-optional' design of the current edition being developed. The devs, and some posters, are coming up with crazy justifications for poor mechanics like it's common knowledge.

 

[Halivar]

What was supposedly left behind in 2008?

Casually insulting people who don't think the same as you. After you invite them into a discussion.

 

[Weather Report]

Casually insulting people who don't think the same as you.

What insult?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Casually insulting people who don't think the same as you. After you invite them into a discussion.

Who did I supposedly insult? I know I was talking bad about horrible mechanics, but I wasn't insulting anyone directly. I also stated that some people were giving absurd reasons as to why they make sense but I wasn't insulting anyone directly.

If you took it personally then you shouldn't have.

 

[Halivar]

Who did I supposedly insult? I know I was talking bad about horrible mechanics, but I wasn't insulting anyone directly. I also stated that some people were giving absurd reasons as to why they make sense but I wasn't insulting anyone directly.

If you took it personally then you shouldn't have.

When you call people BS'er's with laughable reasoning, there isn't really a non-insulting way to take that.