D&D 5E Hit Point Recovery Too Generous

[iserith]

As I stated upthread, the disconnect with the head-smashing boulder and being at full hit points after a solid nap is because the DM narrated the boulder as having smashed someone's head. So the problem begins and ends with the DM's choice of narration. I can imagine and narrate that the boulder lands near the character, bounces, clips him hard enough to knock the wind out of him and cause him to fall unconscious as a result. Then an hour later (or whatever), he's up and about again. No disconnect there.

 

[Umbran]

So the problem begins and ends with the DM's choice of narration.

Yes, but let us remember that at the time the hit points are lost, and the narration made, we don't know the future - specifically, we don't know how, or if, that would will be healed - magic, hit dice, or long rest? We don't know. The result is that a GM can *never* narrate something as a particularly nasty wound, as all narration must be open to fast recovery.

It then might get a little weird when a character does shuffle off the mortal coil. This veteran of a hundred battles... dies form a bunch of minor bumps and scrapes?

My group just doesn't sweat the inconsistencies. But not all folks are open to that, and for them, the abstract approach taken by hit points can be a problem. It is not a problem that the designers are obligated to address - if, as a player, you need more realistic wounding, there are other games that serve that need - but we can admit that it isn't perfect for all players.

 

[Skyscraper]

In my campaign, PCs do not recuperate hit points during a night's sleep, only half their hit dice as per the normal rules. They can then use those hit dice to heal themselves as they see fit.

 

[iserith]

Yes, but let us remember that at the time the hit points are lost, and the narration made, we don't know the future - specifically, we don't know how, or if, that would will be healed - magic, hit dice, or long rest? We don't know. The result is that a GM can *never* narrate something as a particularly nasty wound, as all narration must be open to fast recovery.

It then might get a little weird when a character does shuffle off the mortal coil. This veteran of a hundred battles... dies form a bunch of minor bumps and scrapes?

"The wounds must have been more serious than they seemed in the heat of battle."

"When you remove Ragnar's dented helmet, you can see now that he suffered major head trauma."

"Blood slowly soaks through Lidda's studded leather armor - that mere scratch nicked an artery."

And so on. Any issues of narration are easily fixed "in post."

My group just doesn't sweat the inconsistencies. But not all folks are open to that, and for them, the abstract approach taken by hit points can be a problem. It is not a problem that the designers are obligated to address - if, as a player, you need more realistic wounding, there are other games that serve that need - but we can admit that it isn't perfect for all players.

My point is that there doesn't have to be any inconsistencies. I'm all for people changing the rules to whatever works for them, but I do take issue with assertions that there is something wrong with the game simply because a given DM wants to frequently narrate mortal injury.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As I stated upthread, the disconnect with the head-smashing boulder and being at full hit points after a solid nap is because the DM narrated the boulder as having smashed someone's head. So the problem begins and ends with the DM's choice of narration. I can imagine and narrate that the boulder lands near the character, bounces, clips him hard enough to knock the wind out of him and cause him to fall unconscious as a result. Then an hour later (or whatever), he's up and about again. No disconnect there.

Remember, the boulders were chosen illustrate a scenario of "taking death while at 0 HP." In this scenario he's already unconscious when the two boulders smash his head, they're not just something that knocks him down to zero.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Perhaps. Btu it also means that your game world has a problem supporting long-range exploration. Lewis and Clark would die for lack of a town.

Not as big as you'd expect.

For one, expeditions into the vast unknown often include helpful natives -- just as in Lewis & Clark's expedition. Find the town of deep gnomes in the underdark. Befriend the goliaths in the mountains. See if the lizardfolk will accept your offering in the swamps.

Indeed, this rule helps to make something like Lewis & Clark a little more viable in D&D than it usually is. A random encounter between point A and point B has no lasting effect on the party if everything is recovered with a night's rest, but if they can't take an extended rest before they hit civilization, suddenly that random band of hostile attackers is going to eat up resources that they need to be able to rely on a few days later.

For two, "mobile civilizations" are a thing that works well. "This boat is equipped with enough food and supplies and space that you can use it as a town."

For three, this highlights the importance of bringing along folks who can make effective camp - rangers who can turn wilderness into civilization with a Nature check, if only for a time.

For four, it's pretty level-limited. By the time the party gets teleportation, plane-shifting, even long-term flight and food creation spells, it's not hard to get along in the wilderness quite well.

In a hexcrawl game I joined, the DM wanted the characters to have incentives to go back to town so we worked out a house rule that hit die recovery only happened in a "safe haven," which is a settlement or any special place the DM designated. So there might be "safe havens" hidden in a hex somewhere which provides a nice reward for exploration. It also encourages the players to have their characters create safe havens, a decent gold-sink.

The game's just started, so we'll see how it works out in practice.

Yeah, basically the same idea. I'd love to hear what experiences your group has, too. I've found it creates a different incentive - the party prepares for expeditions and wants to know how far apart things are and it's important to them to gather info about the place they're headed so they can make sure to get back. Getting lost might be a death sentence to a weary party, so exploration becomes emphasized.

 

[iserith]

Remember, in this scenario he's already unconscious when the two boulders smash his head.

It doesn't matter much though - the head-smashing narration is the issue that makes hit points and their recovery "video gamey." Mechanically, the two hits mean two failed death saving throws. If you don't want to create the disconnect, then narrate those boulder hits accordingly.

Of course, the mechanic of death saving throws only comes into play when the DM thinks that death remains uncertain after the boulders hit anyway. If he wants to say the giant kills the unconscious adventurer with the two boulders, then that's what happens. (Whether or not the player is okay with that ruling is another story.)

 

[TreChriron]

Due to the dissatisfaction with the Hit Point bloat of 5e and the forced High Magic Setting (Cantrips, Potions of Healing, so many Spellcasting Classes...etc) ...

I'm thinking it might provide that grittiness our group desires and that we have been missing with the last few editions.

You should check out Hackmaster 5e. It's gritty, low magic (still has spells), and the combat is a cool count up by second every person acts every second kind of thing. It reminds me of a polished 2e with new bells and whistles.

...

The solutions for more "realistic" (ha!) healing are in DMG: (i) slow healing (ie you dont get HP on a long rest, just half your HD back, which you can then spend for HP) and (ii) Injuries table activating off being reduced to zero hp. We have an expanded "Injuries and setbacks" table to specifically discourage the "yoyo" effect and make being reduced to zero hp more meaningful.

...

In my campaign, PCs do not recuperate hit points during a night's sleep, only half their hit dice as per the normal rules. They can then use those hit dice to heal themselves as they see fit.

I use the slow healing rules with one modification. You get back all your HD. I've found it's a nice balance to keep the players moving forward while creating the "stress" of managing HD.

I am also using some house-rules regarding lasting injury. You can check them out (and my fear rules) on this shared Google Drive.

----------

OP - There's a balance between the "realistic" feel of what we might consider a "real world" effect, and the practical need that the "show must go on!". I have run a menagerie of various systems from GURPS to every version of D&D to Unisystem to Hackmaster 5e to HARP to Hero and all kinds in between. They have a different feel certainly. One effect I noticed in "gritty" games is the trepidation of the players. They get cautious, overly so in my experience. I appreciate smart players! However, the game gets SUPER boring when people start debating how to assault the dungeon or how to sneak into the castle... Planning is good, but excessive planning bores most players. I feel that 5e strikes a good balance.

In my game, the characters have faced some disturbing and strong opposition in the tunnels below the capital city. Several NPCs died in the last conflict. The PCs all lived, but they were down some hit points. They have access to magical healing and few potions discovered along the way. They are STILL cautious and wary of going back down there to "clean up" any creatures left behind. The stats on those creatures do not make them especially difficult for the 3rd level party. They do have PLENTY of help with an attachment of fighters from the church. My descriptions, the chaos I introduce in the battle scenes, and the creepiness of the location have all supported the feel I was hoping for. The HP hardly matter. I painted a scary scene and the players felt like they were part of a scary scene!

As I'm running 5e I am reminded of the wonder I had in older editions while being impressed with the new design model. Things just work. It runs smoothly, quickly and most importantly we are all having fun. I came back to D&D after a long dance with more complicated systems looking for "that feeling" many of us system-wanderers are looking for. I grew very tired of all the tracking, fiddling and complexity in game play. It all got in the way! Now we just play, and frankly there is no substitute for it. Playing is the fun part of TTRPGs!!

My advice - don't sweat it. You can slow down HP recovery with the simple options in the DMG without seriously hampering play. The game is designed VERY WELL. I say this as a 33 year veteran in this hobby having played a wide variety of RPGs. Focus on the adventure. Let them explore and see where the dice fall. Adjust as you go along. Focus on the fun parts and you will find your players are having fun!

Just my two cents...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Of course, the mechanic of death saving throws only comes into play when the DM thinks that death remains uncertain after the boulders hit anyway. If he wants to say the giant kills the unconscious adventurer with the two boulders, then that's what happens. (Whether or not the player is okay with that ruling is another story.)

A DM who invokes Rule 0 to kill a character during play is not one I'm interested in playing with. I mean, it's one thing to houserule HP before play starts ("you die at -10 HP instead of the regular negative max HP") and another thing to do it ad hoc.

I mean, clearly some people do like that kind of thing or they wouldn't be doing it, but as a simulationist I'm not interested in that kind of game.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The result is that a GM can *never* narrate something as a particularly nasty wound, as all narration must be open to fast recovery.

Agree 100% within the realm of standard hit point recovery.

With the addition of a Lingering Wound check at our table we can add narration for wounds that aren't simply rested away because the 'Lingering Wound' option allows them to exist mechanically.