D&D 5E Second Wind

[Connorsrpg]

Yep...I did open the can worms.

I can see both points of views. I do not like the rule as written (and it clearly is ambiguous). I do not like it.

And whilst [MENTION=6778085]Chocolategravy[/MENTION] 's frustrations may seem a little aggressive, I understand his point and it was one I was trying to make.

So resting a second hour does not trigger another 2nd Wind, but fighting your way through three pirate ships does if you rest again? So you can only recover lost hps from a fight earlier in the day by 'doing more activity'. Seems ridiculous to me too. (I refrain from using the bag of rats analogy, but I can see where it came from).

I too am sure this was not the 'intention' of the rule, BUT it is oddly written in my mind... by the byplay here it is clearly not clear!

I was going to count any rest (that is not extended) as a short rest, but again, that goes against the above situation? I don't think fighters should be banking healing (at all in my mind actually), but I was willing to give this thing a go...but it is so confusing.

I seriously think I might just limit this to Fighters above 1/2 hps. (And yes, there is a quote in the rules about under half you are showing physical signs - cuts and bruises - which don't just go away).

We generally play a grittier style and it will be unlikely we will be full-healing over night either. I don't mind the temp hp option either, but I think just restricting above 1/2 hps makes as much sense.

There are going to be SO MANY house rules on this one. Obviously everyone likes a different game style here and that is fine, I just wish the actual rule was clearer.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm interested in seeing what the DMG options for hp/vitality are like. That might take care of a lot of these issues.

 

[fanboy2000]

So resting a second hour does not trigger another 2nd Wind, but fighting your way through three pirate ships does if you rest again? So you can only recover lost hps from a fight earlier in the day by 'doing more activity'. Seems ridiculous to me too. (I refrain from using the bag of rats analogy, but I can see where it came from).

I too am sure this was not the 'intention' of the rule, BUT it is oddly written in my mind... by the byplay here it is clearly not clear!

I was going to count any rest (that is not extended) as a short rest, but again, that goes against the above situation? I don't think fighters should be banking healing (at all in my mind actually), but I was willing to give this thing a go...but it is so confusing.

Well, it's called Second Wind for a reason. In general parlance, getting your second wind is when you rally after becoming tired or exhausted for some reason. You probably already know that, but I find it helpful to sometimes take a step back and go "why did they give that ability that name?" If you just look at it as another healing option, it can be easy to get lost in the weeds.

Second Wind is supposed to be an in-combat healing option. After taking some damage, the fighter can regain some small amount of HP to keep them up and fighting. It's not intended to be banked. It's supposed to represent the kind of rallying someone might do after being smacked around in a fight.

The problem, and it's not really a problem, is that healing is a limited resource. It doubles as a pacing mechanic, unfortunately but perhaps unavoidably. So people want to chain short rests to avoid dipping into other limited resources like magical healing and spending HD. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, I just don't think it's going to work out that well even when the DM allows it.

We generally play a grittier style and it will be unlikely we will be full-healing over night either. I don't mind the temp hp option either, but I think just restricting above 1/2 hps makes as much sense.

FWIW, making Second Wind temp HP will likely just mean that fighters will wake up and spend their second wind to gain the temp HP at the outset of the day.

There are going to be SO MANY house rules on this one. Obviously everyone likes a different game style here and that is fine, I just wish the actual rule was clearer.

I don't think there is going to be a lot of house rules about it. I think it's a fairly straightforward mechanic, and I think spending HD, magic healing, and other things will minimize the number of people who want to exploit it.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks [MENTION=19998]fanboy2000[/MENTION]

I am with you on mist things. My group DO NOT play to exploit rules generally, I just feel (and given the varying views here) that this power could be worded better/clearer.

People are mentioning the 'intention' and even the feature's name, but that doesn't clear up the actual wording of it. I am playing this with a bunch of beginners very soon and I am not sure how I will answer any Q's on it. Perhaps there won't be any?

But, if you go by its name, you 'could' go further and say, well, this is not representative of wounds closing. As written, it can do that too.

I agree totally on the temp hps. Good observation and another reason I favour natural healing/shaking it off/etc to apply for those above 1/2 hps. I will not be using the temp hp option.

I do have to disagree on the House Rule part though. I bet there will be heaps. In fact, I bet there will be several options already in the DMG. And clearly, (see the completely conflicting reading of the rule above) it does not seem straightforward to many people.

 

[Blackwarder]

IMX, I usually use second wind during combat, we never felt that we really had the time to actually munchkin our way through several short rests for our fighters to heal to full during an adventure simply because we never felt secure enough, and when we did we just went to sleep.

Warder

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION]

I am sure that is what my regular group will do too, BUT, what you call the munchkin approach (I don't like to label people's playstyles) is there.

 

[fanboy2000]

The only confusion I see about is about chaining short rests, not second wind specifically. And the chaining short rests is really just a question of whether or not the group wants them and the DM lets them. The fact is, both interpretations are fine, it's just a matter of picking one.

I would like to point out that if you restrict using Second Wind to fighters with > 1/2 HP, then you'll prevent a lot of fighters from using an important class feature. Consider the 1st level fighter with 13 HP that takes seven points of damage before they even get a turn. Normally, they could second wind on their first turn, but per your house rule, they will either need to use magical healing or hope they survive the encounter and spend HD after a short rest.

In fact, it could yo-yo. They get magical healing putting them above 1/2 HP, but then take damage before their turn, never once getting the benefit of an important class feature.

 

[Blackwarder]

@Blackwarder

I am sure that is what my regular group will do too, BUT, what you call the munchkin approach (I don't like to label people's playstyles) is there.

Sure, don't think we won't be using it in the future, after all we are Munchkins! but right now we don't really have a good incentive to do so and when we do we can just take a long rest and get back to full.

Warder

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=19998]fanboy2000[/MENTION]

Fair point, but now you are going with gimping a PC when you were on the 'look at its name before'?

Nonetheless, I understand. My first timers won't know any better though . However, I have been thinking of a combo of ideas here.

I might stick to my idea, BUT I I am thinking of letting a fighter use it during a fight as a reaction (as someone esle mentioned). Meaning you use it at the time of the hit and therefore kind of nullify some of the hit. ie "It wasn't as bad as it looked". So the wounds don't actually occur. Like Soaking Wounds in Savage Worlds.

Then after combat, can only be used above 1/2 hp.

 

[fanboy2000]

Well, if you let the fighter use it as a reaction, then they won't have it after combat, at least, not until the end of a short rest.

I'm not entirely sure why I'm not allowed to consider multiple factors when analyzing game rules. The text of the rule, the text of rules in interacts with, it's intended purpose and the kinds of situations the rule comes up in are important elements in interpreting game rules.

Intended purpose often requires looking to meta-textual sources like designer columns and such. But the name can help when those meta-textual sources are unavailable. Also, I'm just giving you food for thought about your proposed house rules.