D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Just FYI: discussing the nature of what hit points is is rabbit hole and will get you nowhere. My honest advice: just stop

We were discussing other stuff, remember...?

Yup. Which is why I proposed that no matter how one thinks hit points are, they are purely nonsense. They are simply a mechanic that leads to a satisfying game. They don't really represent anything tangible.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree to this.

Funny though: every edition since takes this and runs with it.

As if it wasn't a mistake, but some great design breakthrough, I mean.

Pathfinder 2, for example outright boasts it has solved the problem of you having to carry around all those CLW wands.

Not by restoring injury as something you would worry about and try to avoid - but literally making you not having to carry around the wands! (Just get a skill* and you have all the wands you need, as it were)

*) Again I'm talking about Medicine

Here I'd say that the paradigm of what combats and damage should be changed at some point between 1985 and 1990 in D&D (i.e. between Gygax being ousted and the launch of the Dragonlance saga and the start of 2e). In oD&D the dungeon delve is the unit of play, and hit points as attrition make sense with a dungeon delve being partly about testing your luck and whether you think you can push on (possibly losing more hp along the way) or whether it's time to turn back.

In 2e and onwards the encounter is the basic unit of play. 2e doesn't change the mechanics, but it shifts the focus over to the encounter. And if the encounter is the basic unit of play then going in to almost all encounters on full HP unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise just makes sense.

So yes I believe it was a game design mistake because it wasn't foreseen or what was intended - but what it did in practice was to move the hit point model to one more suitable for the game actually being played. Personally I prefer the 4e mechanics (shock!) because they provide a deep well of healing but it's not unlimited so you can mix things up and bring attrition into play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That feels like changing the subject.

You could always say that healing is expressed as a fraction of someone's maximum hit points, if that truly was your only concern.

I was pointing out a sizable flaw WRT healing in that approach to hp, which I see as being quite pertinent to the topic we're discussing. If you don't see the relevance, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yup. Which is why I proposed that no matter how one thinks hit points are, they are purely nonsense. They are simply a mechanic that leads to a satisfying game. They don't really represent anything tangible.

I wouldn't say they're nonsense.

I would simply say trying to nail down what they represent is a fools errand. Quixotic, you might say.

They're a construct that's sufficiently abstract to support the narrative, that's all. When the story calls for a blow to your morale, then that's what hp loss means. When the story allows you to become bruised and battered, then, why yes, they can represent that.

And when - in hindsight - you go down (semi) permanently, then and only then they can represent real physical injury.

Tldr Here's the definite answer after which I personally believe there isn't anything else to say on the topic of "what is a hit point":

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here I'd say that the paradigm of what combats and damage should be changed at some point between 1985 and 1990 in D&D (i.e. between Gygax being ousted and the launch of the Dragonlance saga and the start of 2e). In oD&D the dungeon delve is the unit of play, and hit points as attrition make sense with a dungeon delve being partly about testing your luck and whether you think you can push on (possibly losing more hp along the way) or whether it's time to turn back.

In 2e and onwards the encounter is the basic unit of play. 2e doesn't change the mechanics, but it shifts the focus over to the encounter. And if the encounter is the basic unit of play then going in to almost all encounters on full HP unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise just makes sense.

So yes I believe it was a game design mistake because it wasn't foreseen or what was intended - but what it did in practice was to move the hit point model to one more suitable for the game actually being played. Personally I prefer the 4e mechanics (shock!) because they provide a deep well of healing but it's not unlimited so you can mix things up and bring attrition into play.

I'm not sure if it changed in 2E, but definitely by 3E!

Either way, for myself this is a shift I didn't like. My point basically in my other thread about too much healing in 5E was if 90+% of encounters already have the party fully healed (or close to it), why not just remove healing between encounters and max out hp for each encounter. It is only when you have a series of encounters with no chance to rest that hp attrition comes back into D&D. IME that happens sometimes but not often.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was pointing out a sizable flaw WRT healing in that approach to hp, which I see as being quite pertinent to the topic we're discussing. If you don't see the relevance, I don't know what to tell you.

No I mean, that if your (or mine) only concern wrt cure wands is how they heal wizards faster than fighters, you should change them to healing, idk, 1/10th of your maximum hit points.

My point in showing you how that particular criticism can be easily solved without changing the paradigm is to make the greater point: that the criticism against CLW wands was much broader than merely "wizards heal faster than fighters".

Regards

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I wouldn't say they're nonsense.

I would simply say trying to nail down what they represent is a fools errand.

They're a construct that's sufficiently abstract to support the narrative, that's all. When the story calls for a blow to your morale, then that's what hp loss means. When the story allows you to become bruised and battered, then, why yes, they can represent that.

And when - in hindsight - you go down (semi) permanently, then and only then they can represent real physical injury.

Tldr Here's the definite answer after which I believe there isn't anything else to say:

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

You say construct. I say nonsense. Basically the same thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

You say construct. I say nonsense. Basically the same thing.

One is much more conducive to good faith discussion than the other.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

One is much more conducive to good faith discussion than the other.

I'm not sure. Calling something a "construct" gives the impression that it exists and can be defined. I prefer to stay clear of that word myself. I feel it causes confusion more often than not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No I mean, that if your (or mine) only concern wrt cure wands is how they heal wizards faster than fighters, you should change them to healing, idk, 1/10th of your maximum hit points.

My point in showing you how that particular criticism can be easily solved without changing the paradigm is to make the greater point: that the criticism against CLW wands was much broader than merely "wizards heal faster than fighters".

Regards

It seems as though you misconstrued what I was saying.

I was responding to the idea of slow natural healing that D&D used back in the day (recovering 1 HP after a long rest, or along those lines) rather than magical healing. (My first two paragraphs were regarding non-magical healing, whereas the third paragraph discussed how magical healing was typically used to circumvent natural healing IME.)

To reiterate, I feel that approach doesn't work particularly well because a low level character reduced to 1 hp will naturally heal to full in a few days, whereas the toughest person in the world will take months. Even allowing for the idea that the toughest guy at 1 hp is hurt far worse than the low level guy, it still doesn't produce sensible results. The high level guy's injuries are clearly not debilitating in any way (no penalties). It also makes no sense that a low level character cannot suffer a non-debilitating injury that takes more than a few days to heal. Overall, I just don't think that system produces reasonable outcomes.

Here is my post that you originally responded to, followed by the post it was in response to:

This approach had serious issues though. A seriously tough character with a high hit die and good Constitution who was reduced to 1 hp would take an absurd time to heal compared to a frail wizard who'd been reduced to 1.

Certainly the argument could be made that because the hearty character took more damage, that their wounds were more severe. However, given that those wounds didn't impair them, they couldn't be that bad. And it really didn't make much sense that the toughest man in the world would take weeks to recover from being near death (but never actually at or below 0 HP) while an incredibly frail character with 2 HP would be back to full the next day.

Ultimately though, I agree with @Oofta . We always had a cleric with us and relied on them to heal. We were never down for more than a day or three.

Back in my day, we routinely spent weeks to recover after a fight. It mostly worked out fine, because there was no expectation of combat every day, especially during travel. Of course, if you did get hit, you'd be much more cautious until you could recover; and everyone was careful to not take on any more risk than they knew they could handle.

Which is entirely a right and in-character way of thinking! Nobody should ever be indifferent to the possibility of being shot with an arrow, or stabbed with a sword.