D&D 5E Those who come from earlier editions, why are you okay with 5E healing (or are you)?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

Failed death saves only apply after you're unconscious.

Says who?

They can't possibly reflect catching an arrow in the back and then running away, which is a common enough occurrence that it demands representation.

Ok, then use a lingering injury.

Long-term injuries are not simple or easy to use. They aren't even in the PHB. If I wanted complexity in my model, I'd play GURPS instead.

Ok, then rule that the character can’t regain HP until they’ve successfully recovered from the injury via the downtime recuperating rules.

Exhaustion reflects exhaustion, (which is something else worthy of modeling, although not to the same extent as physical injury). To say that the exhaustion rules actually reflects physical injury would be disingenuous. There is very little overlap between the exhaustion rules, and the rules for what happens when you get hit by a weapon.

Exhaustion, like any other mechanic, reflects what it needs to reflect to serve the needs of the game. Sure, it can reflect exhaustion, and it typically does. But if you look at its effects, you find that it could also be a decent representation of injury.

If we want to make up entirely new rules to reflect physical injury, because the rules in the book are deficient, then that's fine. Anyone can do that. That's what I did. But you have to recognize that you aren't playing D&D anymore.

So anyone who uses optional rules or makes rulings isn’t playing D&D? Sorry, but I don’t think that’s consistent with 5e’s design philosophy.

That's the problem. You see this is a game, so you're trying to rationalize it into making some sort of sense.

It is a game.

Rationalization is not a useful tool here. Whatever answer it leads you to, it's not useful beyond the level of a mere game. It certainly can't generate a meaningful narrative, the way a traditional RPG would, because the ultimate answer for why anything happens, will always just be that "it's a game".

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is a thing that gets me as well. However, making it more "realistic" ended up not been as fun for my players.

In my group we have HP and BHP (meat points). Initially, the rule was when you crit you take damage to your BHP to indicate a real hit (typically you have to be at 0 HP before BHP comes into play). However, this resulted in too many player deaths and my players didn't like it. So we went back to RAW crits.

Another issue that comes up is from the DM side narrating combat. If every attack, even if it’s a critical, never actually does damage, narrating and describing the scene becomes incredibly boring and lack of drama. It becomes like the GI Joe cartoon of the 80s. So many attacks, no one ever gets hit.

I don’t think I need to adjust the rules. Simply treating a significant portion of HP as physical damage works fine. It’s only a verisimilitude issue when you’ve narrated this huge combat that went tooth and nail and the PCs barely survived, and suddenly they’re back to max after a nap. Thank goodness 5e has built in optional rules, or it might be too much.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, in my post above, I was tempted under the Direct Damage optional rule to suggest using crits to take away Vitality, but it's just so apparent that it will result in many unavoidable deaths at any level, in a way that doesn't match with D&D's play (in any edition). Actually, the irony is that it would result in more deaths at higher level, where damage dice are higher.

Yes, but I am starting to come up with an idea that might work. See below.

I still think there is some merit in the concept of criticals being real wounds that bypass defenses.

Me too. I've been thinking about this over the holiday and I am think about bringing back an old concept: the confirmed critical. So the thought is a critical hit works as RAW, but a confirmed critical also takes damage from your BHP (meat points, vitality, whatever you want to call it). This would reduce the number of crits that actually damage your vitality and you can modify the "vitality damage" as needed. It could be normal damage, or just modifier damage, are another roll all together, or different modifiers could apply etc. For my game i think we would keep it normal attack damage becomes vitality damage (but not hit point damage) is first reduced by your armors DR, so it is already less deadly.

 

[Charlaquin]

That being said, I do agree that part of the issue here is the abstraction of HP. I'm not going to go into that subject in any detail because it could be its own 100 page thread (and it has been, time and time again). However, I'll agree that because HP is such an abstraction, it's a challenge to have a healing system that pleases everyone. You have problems on both sides:

1) You can allow HP regen overnight, and you can argue that this works because the HP were never wounds in the first place. But what you sacrifice here is the capability for PCs to be able to suffer wounds. You also create the problem that healing magic isn't actually healing anything, it's simply restoring stamina, or mental fortitude, or whatever it is that you imagine is being expended when HP are used up. Essentially, the PCs never suffer any harm. I find this to be a very unsatisfying way to tell stories about heroes. It's more like a Saturday morning cartoon.

But you absolutely can have characters suffer wounds under abstract HP. First of all, the nature of abstract HP is that its loss can represent whatever it needs to in the moment. Sure, maybe that hit really did land and leave a nasty wound. By the default rules, a hit that knocks the character down to 0 HP is a meaningful wound (hence the death saving throws). If it bothers you that failed death saving throws are cleared when the character regains HP. could always rule that failed death saving throws can only be restored via magical healing or whatever amount of rest you feel is appropriate.

More importantly, if you let go of the idea that HP are the only or best way to represent physical injury, this ceases to be a problem. Use lingering injuries from the DMG, or rule that certain hits cause the character to be unable to regain hit points until they’ve recovered via downtime. These are both perfectly valid options for representing injury, and you can even tie it to damage if you want, by saying hits that do a certain amount of damage, or critical hits, or hits that leave the character below a certain threshold (such as half HP and/or 0 HP) cause these effects.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The concept of only being able to do so much magic within a given time is sound, if only because were magic to be unlimited in a setting that setting would quickly become unrecognizable from anything we can relate to - for the short time it existed before self-destructing, that is.

So, the question becomes how to quantify those limitations; and while neither slots nor spell points (I've used both) is a perfect answer by any means, they'll have to do until a better method comes along.

The other option, of course, would be to do away with spellcasting classes entirely; but somehow I don't think that idea's gonna fly very far.

There are plenty of other ways to do it. For example each use of magic could require specific materials, specific conditions, etc.
AD&D, by the book, HAS that. It works, but is obviously not very popular. .

 

[Oofta]

Just for grins, an article about how badly John McCane would have been hurt in just one movie here.

I mean, I get the whole "it's too easy to recover" thing. But movies and TV time and time again show someone with "a mere flesh wound" after being shot in the shoulder. The hero needs to get back in the action so they take off the sling, wince so you know they're still hurt and then act as if nothing's wrong.

Real world "flesh wound" can take months, years or forever to heal. It's one of the reasons I justify it with "magic".

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This has me scratching my head. In what movie about heroes do the heroes heal all of their wounds overnight without the aid of technology or magic? My experience reading and watching about heroes is that they must at some point suffer through adversity or pain (that which cannot be resolved automatically overnight) in order to prove that they are heroes within the story. What you are describing to me sounds more like superheroes when they are fighting normal criminals. And even superheroes, when faced with a real threat, suffer issues such as losing their powers, acquiring vulnerabilities that can be exploited, etc.

So, the explanation that automatic nightly regeneration of HP is because they're heroes doesn't adequately explain this for me.

It sounds like you are thinking of the trauma and fatigue reflected in HP loss as somehow fully disappearing, with bruises fading away completely, cuts turning into scars, or no mark at all, and fatigue recovered perfectly.

That is not how many of us who are talking about abstract HP view it.
After a long rest of sowing, bandaging, splinting and sleep, the character still has many of the physical injuries they sustained the day before.
However due to a combination of treating them, and the character being Just That Badass, the wounds are no longer bringing them closer to defeat (0 HP).
The character is suffering pain and adversity. However when they are called on to fight again, they prove that they are heroes by pushing through the pain, and not letting it slow them down.

So far, I don't think that anyone has honestly argued that the long rest healing mechanic actually involves wounds closing up and fully healing overnight.

Of course if you choose a variant viewpoint, there are variant rules that can help accommodate you in the DMG, or houserule your own.

Well, good for you, and for your rejection. I mean, "broad strokes." Who would ever do that? Like ... dualities? Binaries? Manichean worldviews?

My goodness, I must have invented these ideas out of whole cloth! I surely came up with this typology all on my lonesome, that has never, ever, been applied to anything in the world before ... and certainly never been applied to this specific concept in D&D. I mean ... grognard? Fantasy Vietnam? High fantasy v. swords and sorcery? Boy, I should get a pat on the back for how novel and amazing these concepts are.

You did however try to include teamwork for example, which is not part of this divide in opinion in your characterisation of the two sides.

I agree with this too, but I also think it's only natural for people to react to changes made by product designers. From my point of view, some shock comes from the fact that this rule makes an implied statement about D&D settings:

"Player characters are never injured for more than 24-hours."

To me this is a pretty extreme statement to make in a fantasy setting. Others are fine with it because they never explored that space to begin with. If a PC was down for a day or more it only impeded their fun, and did not add to their immersion.

Its also a bit of a misreading to insinuate that the rule implies that statement. Even if you ignore Exhaustion/Fatigue levels and choose to believe that PCs are somehow fully regenerating cuts and sprains, there are things like lingering injuries available.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Just for grins, an article about how badly John McCane would have been hurt in just one movie here.

I mean, I get the whole "it's too easy to recover" thing. But movies and TV time and time again show someone with "a mere flesh wound" after being shot in the shoulder. The hero needs to get back in the action so they take off the sling, wince so you know they're still hurt and then act as if nothing's wrong.

Real world "flesh wound" can take months, years or forever to heal. It's one of the reasons I justify it with "magic".

For the record, I often hate how movies do things. Ahem...infinite magazines...ahem.

 

[Big J Money]

But you absolutely can have characters suffer wounds under abstract HP.

Agreed; although this wasn't my claim. I said that in 5E, PCs don't suffer wounds that last longer than 24 hours. I'm not debating the merits or flaws of HP being abstract. For the record, I have no qualms with HP being abstract.

More importantly, if you let go of the idea that HP are the only or best way to represent physical injury, this ceases to be a problem. Use lingering injuries from the DMG, or[...]

In my OP I did mention that I'm aware that there are variant rules provided. I think that's a great thing. I'm certainly not someone who slavishly sticks to RAW.

In case there is any confusion about my posting, I'm really curious about two things:

1) Are people running this rule as written or have their own approach? Feel free to share any opinions or details.
2) What do you think about the fact that WotC decided to make this the default ruling in 5E? From my perspective it's awkward to have adventure stories where the protagonists are never injured for more than a day, and I'm curious what others' thoughts are on that (either way).

I don't have any significant complaints or qualms here. I have maybe a minor bit of distaste in WotC's sense of aesthetics over this rule, but that's par for the course; no set of RPG rules or setting material is going to be 100% perfect for everyone's tastes.