• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I think the problem is that they made the default position into such an extreme of fast healing, that no amount of optional rules can bring it back. Literally, if you adopt the strictest options in the book, you can still go from 1hp to full over an eight hour short rest (by spending all of your Hit Dice). That places a hard limit on how badly someone can get hurt, as long as the possibility exists to heal it completely overnight.

The easy solution, here, is (like I said in a former post) don't use HD as healing. Then have a long rest grant only 1 hp. Boom You've got the old school healing back.

And because the default is so extreme, it makes the old default appear extreme to anyone used to the new method. You would need to have a pre-existing group of old players in order successfully sell them on 3E-style healing, because it would seem so Draconian to a mixed group of newer players.

Dem's da breaks. Selling it as hardcore old school play, I'm sure youll net a few players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Which is the reason that this thread exists: to address the vast disparity between 5E and older editions. The rules of 5E agree with the lies told about older editions, and no longer agree with the reality described by older editions.

Because D&D has always used HP, and people had been using those HP to create meaningful narratives for decades. And then suddenly 4E came along, and you see a huge backlash from people who can't use it to create meaningful narratives anymore; because the rules suddenly agreed with the propaganda that a "hit" is actually "abstract whatever"; rather than the rules saying that a "hit" is actually a "hit" in spite of the propaganda, as they had for decades. And then 5E came along, and copied that aspect from 4E, in spite of every traditional player who hated it.
It's up to the OP why the thread exists...

I'm not really buying your position. I played D&D since before Greyhawk. People always have had problems with the idea of HP you espouse. Scathing reviews of D&D were written in 1974 which made all the points touched on here today. Arduino Grimoire was largely, IMHO, partly an attempt to allow for a true heroic mode of play.
The main thing 2e tried to do was basically the same thing. TSR recognized that this was a desire the players had, but I would say they were not willing to break with earlier rules too much to get it.
In fact you could read the march of editions as a pendulum swing between heroic narrative and process/puzzle focus.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Which is the reason that this thread exists: to address the vast disparity between 5E and older editions. The rules of 5E agree with the lies told about older editions, and no longer agree with the reality described by older editions.

Because D&D has always used HP, and people had been using those HP to create meaningful narratives for decades. And then suddenly 4E came along, and you see a huge backlash from people who can't use it to create meaningful narratives anymore; because the rules suddenly agreed with the propaganda that a "hit" is actually "abstract whatever"; rather than the rules saying that a "hit" is actually a "hit" in spite of the propaganda, as they had for decades. And then 5E came along, and copied that aspect from 4E, in spite of every traditional player who hated it.

Okay, I had to look this up, because I thought that 3.5 had the same long rest healing as 4e.

So, in 3,5 you recovered your level in hp after a long rest. Now, 3.5 assumed you would roll instead of taking an average result, but I think their ability scores increased much faster, so I feel confident using the 5e numbers for some rough math.

A 10th level fighter would have about 104 hp max (give or take). With this rule, it takes 10 days to fully recover from a near-death battle (assuming they are only getting the night rest, it is doubled if you rest for a day and a night, so 5 days in town). So, this is much slower, but still highly unrealistic. But, then again, that was rarely how the game worked was it?

Most people didn't want to wait multiple days to recover, so they bought potions, and wands, and the cleric used all their spell slots to heal them. So, in practice, most players probably spent about a day or two "recovering" anyways.

So, we moved on, instead of requiring the cleric to spend all their slots, and having a magic item economy that allowed for purchasing vast quantities of healing, we just cut out the middle man. Heal to full after a long rest.

Now, I won't say it is a perfect solution for all games. It isn't. It has it's problems, but we are five years into the game by this point. Everyone who feels strongly about the issue has found a solution to it. And most of us have barely altered the RAW and are still perfectly capable of creating narratives.

I turned off recovering all hp on a long rest, and instead everyone has to use Hit Dice. I like the extra attrition, but actually the biggest reason was to increase the importance of Hit Dice and make people more likely to take short rests instead of long rests, because whenever anyone lost any amount of hp, they always wanted to take an 8 hour rest. Which bogged the game down. Now, they are looking for hour rests, because they provide the same benefit. But, I never had a problem with the narrative or was unable to make things dramatic. I did it more to make short rests more powerful than long rests weaker,

No, it's a role-playing game, which demands higher standards of integrity than something like Monopoly.

Games don't have to make internal sense as a narrative. Role-playing games do.

Higher standards of Integrity? What is that even supposed to mean? Monopoly can lie to you more than DnD can?

First of all, all games should be held to a high standard. Whether tic-tac-toe or something ultra modern and sleek. Secondly, board and card games can have an internal sense as a narrative. It isn't required, but it isn't required for RPGs either. "Hack and Slash" games can be run with zero narrative and entire focus on a series of challenges that have no greater plot than being the series of challenges the players are overcoming.

Perfectly fine, they have fun. You may hold them to a higher standard, but the game itself is under no obligation to meet your standards. And the fact that many of us still make narratives with internal sense with 5e, means it is doing exactly what you seem to think it cannot do.


I think the problem is that they made the default position into such an extreme of fast healing, that no amount of optional rules can bring it back. Literally, if you adopt the strictest options in the book, you can still go from 1hp to full over an eight hour short rest (by spending all of your Hit Dice). That places a hard limit on how badly someone can get hurt, as long as the possibility exists to heal it completely overnight.

And because the default is so extreme, it makes the old default appear extreme to anyone used to the new method. You would need to have a pre-existing group of old players in order successfully sell them on 3E-style healing, because it would seem so Draconian to a mixed group of newer players.


Yeah, selling an old-school style to a new-school player is going to be hard. I'd expect a lot of confusion if you tried to reintroduce THAC0 or negative levels, or any other old rule from an older edition into a new version of the game.

And... I don't have a problem with that. It is like saying you had to have people who played on the Gamecube to appreciate playing GoldenEye 007.

If you want an older style of game, you might have to work harder to find people who share your desire to go back to that older style of game. A lot of old school players on here seem to not look fondly back on 3.5's healing, so it certainly could not be an objectively better style. You just have to find people who like what you like, just as we all do.
 

Big J Money

Adventurer
OK. Lets look at it this way:

A PC faces a foe that does lay them out for a day or more.
How is the gameplay experience of the player improved by this?

1) I would assume realism would be one way.
2) Perhaps having to sit out the next couple of sessions of play increases the drama for the player, in that they want to avoid having to miss more sessions if they can help it? The unpleasantness of the experience heightens the enjoyment of when they aren't forced to sit out a session?
- That doesn't really work so well because (assuming the DM is doing their job) there is still drama and risk of loss in the normal rules. (Admittedly the risk is loss of character rather than playing time, which may or may not be viewed as worse.)

What else have we got?

1) Realism isn't important to me, but plausibility and internal consistency in a narrative are, and yes this can contribute to that.

2) Why would a player sit out sessions? That would be poor GMing, IMO. In my case, if one or more PCs were injured badly enough to rest for multiple days, it would be handled no differently than them having to rest 1 day. If you really can't imagine what that would look like, the play would go something like this (obviously details would be different for any given scenario):
a. The party decides how to safely retreat to a place where they'll be safe to rest
b. They make their journey there
c. The party goes into downtime for a few days (in character) while the wounded PCs rest. This is treated like any other downtime, maybe some of the healthy ones restock supplies, buy equipment, bank some treasure, get items inspected, etc.
d. Cut the camera to the scene where the party is recovered and ready to go back out on the trail again
In terms of table-time, not more time is spent on a weeklong rest than a night's rest, unless there is a good reason to explore that downtime more deeply (some plot event going on where it makes sense to).

3) Another benefit gained by this is time-pressure. After the party has retreated from the dungeon (or wherever) and rested for 4 days, what have the denizens of the dungeon been doing in that time? Or perhaps there is a timeline the players are acting under. Do they choose to rest all 4 days, or take the risk of only resting 2 of them?

4) Another benefit is tension. When a party realizes that all their character resources are reset every 24 hours, they take the same risk every day -- there is no variation. However, if they know that severe damage in a given battle risks them needing to rest for an extended period of time, they need to make strategic decisions. Maybe they decide attacking the troll is a bad idea at their level because they are under time-pressure to save some refugees and can't take that risk. But if they don't kill the troll it might leave and ravage the countryside. Decisions, decisions...

To compare this to an action movie or comic, think about the risk of Daredevil deciding to take time to rest. Let's say he's the bodyguard for a very important and vulnerbale character. If he becomes severely injured, there is a tension. He can't rest because someone's safety depends on his vigilance. But he also can't not rest because things will only get worse if he doesn't heal; or if he gets injured more, he could be taken completely out of commission. He's between a rock and a hard place, and he's forced to make a call.

If Daredevil regenerated his injuries every night to the point where he was in perfect fighting form, this tension would not exist.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Legend
1) Realism isn't important to me, but plausibility and internal consistency in a narrative are, and yes this can contribute to that.

2) Why would a player sit out sessions? That would be poor GMing, IMO. In my case, if one or more PCs were injured badly enough to rest for multiple days, it would be handled no differently than them having to rest 1 day. If you really can't imagine what that would look like, the play would go something like this (obviously details would be different for any given scenario):
a. The party decides how to safely retreat to a place where they'll be safe to rest
b. They make their journey there
c. The party goes into downtime for a few days (in character) while the wounded PCs rest. This is treated like any other downtime, maybe some of the healthy ones restock supplies, buy equipment, bank some treasure, get items inspected, etc.
d. Cut the camera to the scene where the party is recovered and ready to go back out on the trail again
In terms of table-time, not more time is spent on a weeklong rest than a night's rest, unless there is a good reason to explore that downtime more deeply (some plot event going on where it makes sense to).

3) Another benefit gained by this is time-pressure. After the party has retreated from the dungeon (or wherever) and rested for 4 days, what have the denizens of the dungeon been doing in that time? Or perhaps there is a timeline the players are acting under. Do they choose to rest all 4 days, or take the risk of only resting 2 of them?

4) Another benefit is tension. When a party realizes that all their character resources are reset every 24 hours, they take the same risk every day -- there is no variation. However, if they know that severe damage in a given battle risks them needing to rest for an extended period of time, they need to make strategic decisions. Maybe they decide attacking the troll is a bad idea at their level because they are under time-pressure to save some refugees and can't take that risk. But if they don't kill the troll it might leave and ravage the countryside. Decisions, decisions...


You realize it is the tension between point #2 and point #3 that is why sometimes a player would be sitting out, right?

Sometimes, due to plot or moving threats, the party cannot take a week long rest to recover. They must press forward. But, taking the Barbarian who has 5 hp left is just a liability. They'll fall from the first successful attack, and dealing with their body is going to be a pain and a distraction the entire mission. So, they get left behind. They are too weak to go adventuring.

And so, the player has a choice. Make a new character with no current connections, only to be run as a back-up instead of the character they actually want to play. Or, sit out that adventure.

The more you press #3 and #4, the less and less likely #2 actually happens. Because the rest of the party can't wait, but the character in question is too injured. They can't participate.

And then, without full resources, the party gets even more injured, forcing even more downtime, and if you don't just end up giving them the time needed to recover, you can end up in an unwinnable death spiral.

I think it is also important to remember, not everyone is running West Marches or Sandboxes, where the players are the primary active force, and them choosing to take a break means little else happens in the world. Different styles of campaigns put different pressures on the characters and their resources.
 

Big J Money

Adventurer
The more you press #3 and #4, the less and less likely #2 actually happens. Because the rest of the party can't wait, but the character in question is too injured. They can't participate.

I agree GMing style plays a large factor in this. I would not put the party in a situation where they choose "yeah let's leave Arziel behind because we just can't wait for them to heal." You're putting forward a hypothetical problem that just doesn't happen in my games.

Also, it's very rare that after a series of combats, only one PC is injured and needs to recover. What's more likely to happen once one of the PCs is injured is that the party does not rest at all, but rather this party member hangs back and does not participate in combat as much, and tries to stay safe, and eventually other PCs take some hits, and now enough people are injured (and out of healing) that they decide to rest as a group.

And then, without full resources, the party gets even more injured, forcing even more downtime, and if you don't just end up giving them the time needed to recover, you can end up in an unwinnable death spiral.

In all the years I've been a DM (I started in 2nd Edition) I have neither played nor DMed a game where this happened. If this kind of thing is happening, the DM should figure out how to fix it; this sounds like a real clusterf***.
 

Iry

Hero
The success of a game isn't necessarily measured by its market share. It can be measured in whether or not the people who play it are having fun. If you look at a smaller game, like Magical Fury, then you can consider it to be very successful as long as people use it to have fun while role-playing in the world that its rules describe; even if it might not make a ton of money, and most people have never heard of it.

There are a lot of games out there that I would consider to be very successful, because they accomplish what they set out to do, even if they never make much money. Most RPGs aren't created with the goal of making money.
I don't think that metric can be objectively judged. You can certainly send out polls asking "How much fun are you having?" and feel good about the results, but as a data point we can't say that Bob's fun is more valid than Jane's fun, ergo we are successful. What you are saying has value as a platitude, but not as a method to make product comparisons.
 

From Chaosmancer: "And then, without full resources, the party gets even more injured, forcing even more downtime, and if you don't just end up giving them the time needed to recover, you can end up in an unwinnable death spiral."

In all the years I've been a DM (I started in 2nd Edition) I have neither played nor DMed a game where this happened. If this kind of thing is happening, the DM should figure out how to fix it; this sounds like a real clusterf***.
Really? Maybe it's me but it happens quite often at my table. Choosing a safe place to rest, buying healing potions or the services of cleric (or any healer) is of paramount importance. If they ignore when to retreat, they start their own spiral of death. TPK is quite real and failure is sometimes better than death. The players must learn when to take a break, how to take it and where to take it in relative safety. As I said earlier, I use the no hp gained through resting option. So HD is a ressource that players learn to manage and to manage that ressource, they learn to use their brain in doing clever tactics. They use prepared actions, dodge maneuvers, spells to mitigate or negate damage and many other tactics that are the bread and butter of all RPGamers. New players soon learn that going headfirst in a dungeon is not necessarily a good idea. Preparing and thinking about a safe way to retreat is always a good thing. With healing overnight, the game is a bit more comic action style. A prefer a little blend of heroic fantasy and realism (but not too much, I want the players to feel like heroes, not like the monsters' punching bags...).
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
And then, without full resources, the party gets even more injured, forcing even more downtime, and if you don't just end up giving them the time needed to recover, you can end up in an unwinnable death spiral.
Also, it's very rare that after a series of combats, only one PC is injured and needs to recover.
It sounds like a larger problem might be the number of combat scenes per day...not the amount of recovery time between battles. If your adventures mainly consist of constant streams of battles, one leading into the other from sunrise to sunset with only a few hours in between, of course your characters are going to run short on resources quickly.

Maybe the solution to the theoretical "death spiral" problem, or characters having to sit out for the adventure to recover, lies in reducing the number of battles?
 

Look at it this way, faster recovery, and here I really like the HS/HD options of 4e/5e (4e more, but oh well) because they allow for an 'ebb and flow'. You can be REALLY HURT during a fight, even go down, but then hang on and win the day and then be in reasonable shape for the next fight (although you cannot simply keep foolishly doing that forever, you do have to be smart, eventually).
My point is, this is also a type of drama, just as valid as throwing people on the horns of the 'fight at half strength or something bad happens' dilemma. Plus, once in a while you can still do the other thing. In 4e it was pretty common parlance that the 'long rest recovers everything' rule was an OPTIMUM. Sleeping in a cold bivouac on the side of a mountain in a howling storm? I doubt you're getting back all your HS (or HD, whatever). Likewise maybe if all you can afford is a a couple hours of sleep, maybe that's good enough for a partial reset, calculated risk that the time saved is worth a few less resources. 'classic' D&D simply doesn't do those options, at all, or at best you have to arrange some very particular circumstance, usually some sort of oddball magical 'thing' to make it happen.
I prefer the newer way, and I've played every flavor of D&D there has ever been, a LOT. Modern D&D is just plain easier to run, more flexible, etc. and that includes in terms of healing options that are basically supplied in the core rules or trivially abstracted from what is there.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top