D&D 5E How has 5e solved the Wand of CLW problem?

[The Crimson Binome]

And if the was no healing magic available, how would you describe his surviving the wound? Or if he didn't would he simply bleed out over the next couple of minutes?

Like I said, these characters are mythic beings. The Fighter who can take that hit is in the same caliber as the Mage who can instantly teleport anywhere in the world and the Priest who can literally return dead people to life.

I tend to run the style that "the grievous wound is the one that kills you." I don't describe attacks that can be taken as "you should be in triage" unless they are dropping you below 0. Again, personal preference, but it doesn't stress me to try to explain healing later.

I particularly don't like that method because it seems unnecessarily harsh to people who hover around 0. If you get dropped by an attack, and then brought back up to 3, then the next hit will give you another grievous wound. Given that HP heal at a constant rate, regardless of how many you have left, I feel like it makes more sense to treat them all as equally lethal (or non-lethal, as the case may be).

My current 5E healing dials are just the default healing rate, but a critical hit causes a Lingering Wound rather than extra damage.

 

[SirAntoine]

I don't think we should overlook that one of the attractions of hit points is actually to run the game free of gore. I apply every hit point as part physical, and each hit can cut or bruise but I don't make it gorey. Healing to full HP is dependent on magic for the most part not just because some wounds are actually being healed but because the same cure spells are healing the intangible qualities of hit points. It's like a power, to take hits. Hits actually take place and reduce it, leaving the body vulnerable to death by injury. Even that, I prefer to play out with little to no gore.

 

[RotGrub]

More power to you. I learned a long time ago that since hp =/= meat, that healing should be just as abstract. Perhaps the HD you used to heal up represents some minor injuries or such. I just grow weary of the same "People shouldn't be able to regenerate grievous injury" line used to disparage 5e healing while ignoring such classic HP issues like "my character just took 10 arrows to the chest and kept fighting" or "I just fell 60 feet off a cliff in metal armor and got up and climbed back up the rope" issues.

If you can accept the latter, there is little reason to no accept the former.

Unless those arrows put the character down in critical condition, I think anyone using the 10 arrows in the chest narrative isn't being honest. You might want to use that narrative against a troll or a Golem, but against a PC without regeneration it would be jarring for him to continue fighting for more than few seconds longer. That doesn't mean that you can't ever narrate a serious wound, it just means that the sum of all the wounds has to remain believable. Of course, in my game the cleric would simply heal Boromir before he died.

As for falling, we've never had an issue with that either. Anytime someone brings that complaint up we simply open wiki and remind them of people who have fallen from thousands of feed and survived.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
As for falling, we've never had an issue with that either. Anytime someone brings that complaint up we simply open wiki and remind them of people who have fallen from thousands of feed and survived.

But how many of them did it twice? Because my D&D character can.

 

[RotGrub]

Really. You had no problem describing a slashed Achilles tendon didn't slow the character's movement at all, or a punctured lung that didn't impact his ability to run a marathon, or a broken wrist that didn't prevent him from swinging his two-handed sword full force?

You're just dwelling on one inconsistency of the system, while ignoring another that is inextricably linked to the first, and at least as jarring.

You're assuming I would describe such wounds without adding in an extra condition to make it more believable. There is no reason why I would ever be forced to cherry pick injuries that demand such conditions for my narrative.

I find that the loss in hit points is enough to reduce the character effectiveness in combat so it's never been a big deal. If I want something more, I have a set of rules for specific injuries, but I certainly don't need them all the time. Usually, a serious wound occurs when the character goes down and not while he is running a marathon anyway. Of course, movement in D&D combat is rather slow so it's not a problem to tell a player his leg has been slashed open.

In the end, I have a greater problem with magic not actually healing real wounds and the loss of my bloody narrative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're assuming I would describe such wounds without adding in an extra condition to make it more believable.

You're complaining about the rules getting in the way of your narrative. If you can't narrate wounds that would logically inflict penalties, then the rules fail you just as surely as if you can't narrate wounds that couldn't be overcome quickly.

 

[RotGrub]

But how many of them did it twice? Because my D&D character can.

Yeah, that's always been a problem. It's still a problem in 5e too. Some editions restricted HPs over 10th level, but I think it's always been a situation that calls for DM intervention. The death on massive damage rule is a start I guess.

Still, I'd have a hard time not describing that fall as a real injury. Magical healing can help to placate the narrative.

 

[RotGrub]

You're complaining about the rules getting in the way of your narrative. If you can't narrate wounds that would logically inflict penalties, then the rules fail you just as surely as if you can't narrate wounds that couldn't be overcome quickly.

I guess you think that a real physical wound must always inflict a penalty.

 

[RotGrub]

And if the was no healing magic available, how would you describe his surviving the wound? Or if he didn't would he simply bleed out over the next couple of minutes?

I tend to run the style that "the grievous wound is the one that kills you." I don't describe attacks that can be taken as "you should be in triage" unless they are dropping you below 0. Again, personal preference, but it doesn't stress me to try to explain healing later.

The healer feat in 5e will put you at 1 hp, you can second wind and/or hit dice yourself to full after that grievous wound. In other editions, the moment you go to 0 you're either dead or you're hovering on death's door bleeding out. In 2e you lose all your memorized spells and you're in need of bed rest.

I think everyone would be happy if 5e included some optional rules that were more similar to previous editions. At the moment, I'm not really sure what to do with the healing options in the DMG.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess you think that a real physical wound must always inflict a penalty.

Any wound not severe enough to inflict a penalty could be ignored easily enough to let the wounded party recover all hps with a long rest.