April 3rd, Rule of 3

One thing the LOTR movies didn't impart well was the passage of time. There were no healers but Frodo took weeks to heal. There wasn't much need of miraculous recovery because there wasn't a whole lot of actual wounding.

I think I mentioned that earlier on. Even the books rather glossed over it. It gives the down and dirty on all the "cool" parts of the story, but then there's a rather casual mention that everyone has to sit around for a week while Frodo gets better. Realistically, this is what would happen in any game that had long-time recovery, the DM would mention that Bob is seriously injured, and that the party sat around and waited for him to heal, and then next adventure! It would probably take the same amount of time "Extended Rests" do in IRL time.

Unless of course your party wants to keep going while Bob sits around and does nothing. But then...sidelining players isn't a game-style that's going to fly very well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's true, no edition of D&D could posibly model this situation. Oh wait, except for this one. Or this one. Or bleeding damage. Or the diehard feat.
There is no modelling of being skewered by a lance in 3E. No permanent injury. No being slowed. No mortal wound mechanic (unless you count the Diehard feat, and then you are still dying in seconds - no recreation of the famous scene(s) from Reservoir Dogs).

I remind you of the sword of wounding.
Yes. Let's also mention vorpal swords and swords of sharpness. So in this verismilitudinous, physcial-injury-heavy world of AD&D, the only way to cause anyone any injury with a sword is to use one of the most powerful magic weapons in the game.

Can we please stop pretending that a crit from a lance from a charging knight on horseback only does damage by scaring you? It does not. You are frickin' skewered. There is a spear in your lungs.
So why can you still move, breathe, fight, drink a beer, etc?

If you still have 1 hp, then you are sufficiently Ramboed up enough to keep fighting with a spear through your lungs. This is why natural healing in any edition prior to 4th would take weeks to heal that wound.
Suppose I'm a 5th level fighter in 3E, with 42 hp. I take 32 hp from a lance crit. I'll heal that back up in a week. Not weeks. One week.

No one recovers from the sorts of wounds you're talking about in one week. (No one "Ramboes" through them, either - you can't manoeuvre properly with a spear through your body, apart from anything else - where is the penalty to AC or DEX?)

The only way to quickly fix a ruptured lung is Magic.
Naturally healing from the sort of injury you are describing is miraculous. Naturally healing from it in a week is beyond miraculous. It's absurd. That's why, in my view, hit point loss in D&D never corresponds to those sorts of injuries.

I certainly have no problem with others not assuming hp loss is primarily physical damage, but surely you can see why some of us ave trouble with this in our own games, and why it was less of an issue for us in previous editions (which had healing rules that appeared to support the notion that damage was largely physical).
In 3E a PC will recover all their hp in around one to two weeks (oddly enough, the higher your CON and bigger your hit die, the longer it takes).

I have suffered comparatively minor physical injuries - sprains, torn soft tissue, very minor breaks. They do not recover in one to two weeks. No one recovers from being (literally) skewered by a medieval weapon in one to two weeks.

The healing times in 3E don't add to any verismilitude or make room for physical injury. The difference between getting my mojo back overnight, and taking a week, is nothing more than a matter of taste. (And desired pacing.)
 

I could imagine a Lance from a charging knight maybe even critting having no problem doing damage above that treshold. Or a lance having an ability that does not do extra damage but forces a safe against beeing impaled when you attack someone with a mounted charge attack.
Games with rules for this already exist. Rolemaster. Runequest. Burning Wheel. And innumerable others.

Turning D&D into that sort of game would fundamentally change the dynamics of combat.

(And having played some of those games, I find it hard to understand where people are coming from who already think that D&D - or pre-4e D&D - is one of them.)
 

Games with rules for this already exist. Rolemaster. Runequest. Burning Wheel. And innumerable others.

Turning D&D into that sort of game would fundamentally change the dynamics of combat.

(And having played some of those games, I find it hard to understand where people are coming from who already think that D&D - or pre-4e D&D - is one of them.)
There was a damage treshold for massive damage in 3.x. Correct me if I am wrong.
I usually don´t want death spirals in the game. And if you hadn´t just read this one paragraph, you may have noticed.

A lance that does 20 damage does not impale the 10th level fighter. The 1st level one is dead. If you have some massive damage rule that says: a lance from a charging knight against a charging knight reduces the massive damage treshold to 20 will usually never occur. But those people wanting "realism" in their game are happy.
You could also rule that both knights are coup de cracing each other.
 

But whenever anyone mentions healing surges, the grognards go overboard and yell about how much they hate healing surges, and won't buy 5e if it has healing surges. I think there's a miscommunication here.

By the same token, whenever someone mentions getting rid of second wind/healing surges etc, the grogn4rds get all emo as well.

It is one of the fundamental disconnects between the two (or more) camps. One Wizards will have to find a way to bridge
 

One thing the LOTR movies didn't impart well was the passage of time. There were no healers but Frodo took weeks to heal. There wasn't much need of miraculous recovery because there wasn't a whole lot of actual wounding.

That is one thing.
The stereotypical D&D adventure segment is a handful of life threatening combat, exploration, and trap encounter withing a day or two.

Because of this, a character ends a one or two day adventure after facing 10 or more things that would kill a normal person. Did someone use magic to heal the wounds? Did he guzzle a healing potion? Is he standing up with arrowshafts and daggers in his torso? Did all those attacks and spells just graze him? Or did they all miss completely? Or was there a combination of all of the above?

And that point, someone has to provide the reason why the character is not dead. Then determine how long they would be sidelined getting back to 100%.
 


That is one thing.
The stereotypical D&D adventure segment is a handful of life threatening combat, exploration, and trap encounter withing a day or two.

Because of this, a character ends a one or two day adventure after facing 10 or more things that would kill a normal person. Did someone use magic to heal the wounds? Did he guzzle a healing potion? Is he standing up with arrowshafts and daggers in his torso? Did all those attacks and spells just graze him? Or did they all miss completely? Or was there a combination of all of the above?

And that point, someone has to provide the reason why the character is not dead. Then determine how long they would be sidelined getting back to 100%.

The character isn't dead because not enough damage was done to kill him. The magic/potions questions can easily be answered based on what happened in play.

Getting back to 100% depends on how wounded the character is and what healing rate the campaign is using.
 



Remove ads

Top