D&D 5E Is it worth taking damage in order to do your stuff?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lingering wounds after zero hit points is the way to go to address permanent, or long term damage.

I dislike that approach because it doesn't kick in until too late. Getting stabbed should be unpleasant even if you do have fifty HP left, or else every fighter would be twentieth level from constant fighting.

 

[ccs]

Like I said, it's hard to really figure out what's going on, based on the information at hand. I'm mostly inclined to say that, if you heal all of your HP overnight, then the centaur probably didn't gut you with his lance - being gutted with a lance isn't something that you can recover from overnight. There's no way of looking at it which is really more consistent than any other, because every way of looking at it is just loaded with obvious contradictions.

If I do give up on this edition - which is seeming more and more likely, of late - then this sort of thing is probably going to be the reason why. Trying to figure out the in-game reality that HP represent is bringing back memories of trying to figure out the in-game reality that a minion represented in 4E.

If what a hp represents factors into that decision then your just looking for an excuse.
Because hps in 5e represent exactly what they have for the past 40+ years. The only change is how fast you regain them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If what a hp represents factors into that decision then your just looking for an excuse.
Because hps in 5e represent exactly what they have for the past 40+ years. The only change is how fast you regain them.

They've always said that Hit Points represent similar things in each edition. What Hit Points actually represent in any given edition is evident by how they interact with the rest of the world, as expressed via the rules.

The actual in-game reality which Hit Points model in 5E is (almost) irreconcilably different from the in-game reality which they model in 2E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They've always said that Hit Points represent similar things in each edition. What Hit Points actually represent in any given edition is evident by how they interact with the rest of the world, as expressed via the rules.

The actual in-game reality which Hit Points model in 5E is (almost) irreconcilably different from the in-game reality which they model in 2E.

I use them to represent the exact same thing in both games. It's just that 5E characters all have some weird form of trollish regeneration built in. But HP still work the same way, as evidenced by spells such as Vampiric Touch which show that HP are fungible even between characters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

With regards to the original question, I wonder how the answers would vary if the PC's lost because of the rogue's decision to stay behind?

While I agree with an earlier assessment that there are too many variables for a one-size fits all answer, I also think a lot of this current discussion has been colored by the fact that the players won anyways, and seemingly with little harm done to them because of the rogue's absence.

Sometimes though, the pain is simply the price of admittance and you've got to pay the piper to see the show... Think I could fit a few more sayings in here

 

[Clancey]

Regarding the OP: A Rogue is usually a support character in my view. At least until my newest which is a SCAG Swashbuckler. Assassins Thieves and Arcane Tricksters usually have the criminal background, so they would not have risked the damage unless there was a really compelling reason to do so.

OTOH, I have a LG Ranger that was just in a situation where a "monster" had been talked into letting all the characters forge +1 weapons and armor (I'm sure most here know where I am talking about), but then the party got greedy and saw a couple of things they liked and started attacking the creature. My Ranger stepped out of the room thinking he would drag the bodies out and heal them if it was possible - he did have some potions and cure spells. Fortunately for the party, there were some incredible rolls made and the encounter was over after one and a half rounds. I felt bad as a player, but my Ranger left feeling good about himself. In the end there was an item that none of the others could/would use and he ended up with probably the most powerful magic item in the module - go figure. Not sure how the party will view his actions, as that ended our last session. He might pay a price down the line, but that's what Role playing is for me.

In the OP, a front line meat shield would've charged in with relish if I was playing them, but MUs and Rogues are the Artillery, not the grunts, and are generally very squishy.

 

[Azurewraith]

Could all ways try using the vitality rules from the UA article as a concern to HP and wound healing i have been running it in my off n on again campaign and its worked out pretty well people have dropped pretty low on max HP at times.

 

[Lanefan]

Like I said, it's hard to really figure out what's going on, based on the information at hand. I'm mostly inclined to say that, if you heal all of your HP overnight, then the centaur probably didn't gut you with his lance - being gutted with a lance isn't something that you can recover from overnight. There's no way of looking at it which is really more consistent than any other, because every way of looking at it is just loaded with obvious contradictions.

There's a really easy fix I can offer: instead of getting back all your h.p. overnight, make it a fixed %-age of your total. This puts it on a scale where the RAW default is 100%, and you can then scale it to suit your campaign. To slow recovery down a bit set it to 50% e.g. if your maximum total h.p. is 120 you get back 60 from a long rest. To really slow it down set it to 10%, or 12/120 out of a long rest.

You'll need to tone down short rests as well, in proportion.

Lan-"and ditch the HD resting mechanic for these purposes as it only gets in the way"-efan

 

[jodyjohnson]

Seems like a 1e, 2e, or 3e system should be workable.

Second Wind (and other non-magical HP recovery) is Temp HP, no HD healing on a short rest, and no heal to full overnight.

1e: 1 hit point recovered per day of full rest.
2e: 1 hit point recovered on a long rest, 2 per day of full rest, 3 with Healing skill care.
3e/PF: 1 hit point/level recovered on a long rest. Double with a full day of rest.

In actual play a Cure Wounds caster (magicial healing) or character with the Healer feat would be a great value. Which is how I remember it. Fight, cleric blows all his spells on recovery, rest. In 1e, we might spend several days iron spiked in a room waiting to recover.

I wouldn't switch to another edition just to get slow healing back.

 

[Blue]

Sounds like the spell did exactly what it was supposed to do - control the battlefield for the casting side. It's soft control - not a "you can't do this" but a "it will be bad if you do this".

In a solo game, it's about what you take vs. what you put out. But D&D isn't a solo game so that should only be part of your equation.

Let's take a balancing point. Say that the rogue entering combat would have taken the exact same amount of damage as they prevented by helping kill things quicker. At that point, it's already a win for the rogue to enter the fray. You spread spent HD, mass-curing has more targets, damage spread means less likely any particular PC went down.

If you would deal more than you'd take, it becomes an even better trade-off. Unless of course you drop (and others wouldn't) or you need to retreat or you now are in more area of effect attacks or countless other possibilities.

But in general, yes, it's worth it.

You don't know the sheer number of PCs in earlier editions I've stopped from being effective because they were afraid of triggering an attack of opportunity that may or may not hit and wasn't a great deal of damage even if it did.