Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5873910" data-attributes="member: 1879">Or perhaps it follows that off screen wound care involves prayer based healing rituals that are too slow and disruptable to be used in combat, but which allow for the healing of grevious injuries. Or maybe everyone in D&D knows magical/psionic disciplines that allow flawless wound recovery. But again, not combat usable and therefore not mentioned by the system. Fluff can be written as desired. It does not require chucking out the concept of grevious but sub-lethal damage.D&D damage is, and always has been abstract. We don't track hit locations, blood loss, scaring, long term impairment or short term impairment.There are many game systems, as you note, that do. Almost all of us have tried them from time to time. And I can point out one universal truth about these systems. They are all massively less popular than D&D. By orders of magnitude. Gritty realism and medical detail are fine in theory but tend to bog down in play. Look at rolemaster with it's scores of healing spells. Bleh.For 5e they need to have a few dial settings for the damage/healing systems. Ideally to allow one to dial the resource management from tactical to strategic and the realism from gritty to cinematic. Then we can all complain about how our GMs are using the wrong options, instead of how the system failed us. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification