Alright, thanks for the clarifications. Here are a bunch of stray thoughts in response to the above and the lead post:
* My understanding of the lead post was that you were citing the history of D&D (context) to attempt to build the case that the historical precedent of that design/iteration leads you to the position
of a low passive (natural) HP recovery rate privileges activatable (consumables, spells, magic items) HP recovery while the inverse is also true (high passive HP recovery thwarts the impact of activatable HP recovery).
To which I reply,
4e's paradigm is a healthy line of evidence that pushes back against this conclusion.
To which you reply that
your conclusion/commentary (which draws evidence from the historical precedent of past D&D design and iteration) is 5e exclusive.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously draw from the historical precedent/context of D&D design and iteration as evidence for your conclusion while also saying your commentary/conclusion is 5e exclusive.
I agree that this conversation is about integrated design. I agree that examining the historical record of D&D (and other games) is productive to the conversation. It looked like that was your position in the lead post, but your quoted response to me is a confounder so I don't know where you're standing at this point.
* I agree that 5e is not meticulously balanced. I would say balance is a fairly minor input at the Adventuring Day level, at intraparty level, at the pillar level, at Team Monster threat level etc. And this multi-axis balance wobble only increases as levels pile on. As such, 5e GMs have to curate/manage play significantly (at the scenario design level, at the individual encounter level, at the broad pacing level) to work toward some semblance of a desired challenge level (and this is before even talking about meeting story imperatives/fun which is a big deal given the 5e GM's role as lead storyteller).
In my understanding of their design objectives, this is a feature for 5e design, not a bug; The Return of the GM Jedi. And they met that objective (part of the heterogenous/DIY/make-it-your-own objective). GMing 5e is a significant undertaking with play ebbing and flowing overwhelmingly on the GM's role (and capability within the dynamics of that role).
* In your lead post you conclude that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing, citing 4 features of 5e's design. I don't agree that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing generally (4e is basically this exactly; monster HP damage is designed to be roughly 1/4 PC HP which is the same value of Healing Surges). On the specifics of your 4 features of 5e's particular design that you use to substantiate your position, I don't agree on the first 3. In order:
1) 5e's Death and Dying rules are basically 4e's rules slightly iterated.
2) In 4e (just like in 5e), characters have tons of HPs and easily recharge them between combats.
3) To the degree that this is true in 5e (healing outside of combat is so generous that it mutes in-combat healing), its also true in 4e. Of course, in both games, there is significant variability here which is contingent upon (a) dynamics of the combat sans Team Monster and (b) the apex potency/broad capacity (in 5e, sheer numbers amplify this a lot due to BA) of Team Monster.
4) Ok, now here is definitely a thing. Control in 5e is certainly muted broadly. To a large degree, its been rolled back to the purview of primary spellcasters (particularly Wizards). Despite their being a specific Controller Role, Control in 4e was ubiquitous among Classes/builds etc. Coupled with the potency of terrain interaction/battlefield array, Control/movement was a huge part of 4e's engine. 5e has rolled all of that back:
- Extremely potent battle-dictating Control is no longer ubiquitous across Classes/Monsters (its back to being a primary spellcaster thing).
- Terrain interaction/battlefield array is back to being extremely muted in terms of creating synergies, obstacles, and complex decision-points.
- As a consequence of each of the above + their interaction + 5e's hugely capable ranged damage paradigm, we've decisively returned to a paradigm where action economy expenditure decision-points are routed through the "the best status effect is dead" axiom.
So, in my opinion, the real issue is the muted impact of Control + battlefield array (and 5e's huge ranged damage paradigm which can outright obviate spatial control). Those two things create a requirement for staying power to rally/overcome their individual dynamics and their synergies. You need to survive long enough to overcome the obstacle/advantage of Team Monster + battlefield array > reorient the battlefield array/fictional positioning to turn the tide.
So
the 2nd order effect of potent Control dynamics in combat is attendant importance of tactical recovery (when/where/how much/which resource); "Healing" in D&D lexicon.
So a few final thoughts. if I was looking to make Healing more consequential generally (as a feature of play) + more thematically potent + more engaging tactically, I would look at the following things:
* If its just about thematic potency/story relevance, find a GM that will curate play in such a way where healing features more prominently. Everything has a cost though, and this really just means the thematic potency/story relevance of your healing is not-so-much an expression of your own agency, but rather an expression of the GM's curation. BUT...table time on combats may not be appreciably increased (if you care about that).
* If I was
@FitzTheRuke or
@James Gasik or
@EzekielRaiden and its about consequentialness (as an expression of your own agency within your decision-points) + thematic potency + tactical engagement, then perhaps consider designing a module that increased how prolific Control is for at least Team Monster + battlefield array (terrain and hazard mechanics). As a downstream effect, that will make staying power/rallying (Healing) much more relevant. You can either design this yourself, or, better yet, project it with your GM/table!
Again, everything has a cost. With this route, your thematic expression/tactical relevance of your healing will absolutely be an expression of your own agency. But the baked-in cost is (a) you've got to put the time in to create this module (but...hey...this is 5e, isn't DYI the point?) and (b) table time on combats will surely be appreciably increased (if you care about that) but it should be increased in a stimulating way!