D&D 5E Can mundane classes have a resource which powers abilities?

[The Crimson Binome]

The point is, Heal skill ISN'T MAGIC. It's the natural healing rate of people in the game.

It's the augmented healing rate of people who receive medical attention from a trained professional. There's nothing natural about it, unless you would also count dermal re-generators as "natural" just because they aren't explicitly "magic".

1. Please do not presume that this is somehow universal. There is absolutely no requirement to play this way.
2. Please do not presume that this is what the game intends. Again, there is no requirement to play this way.

Likewise. Although my best guess puts my side at more numerous than yours, I don't believe that either of us have access to any meaningful data on the subject.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Likewise. Although my best guess puts my side at more numerous than yours, I don't believe that either of us have access to any meaningful data on the subject.

Mine puts yours as a tiny minority that I've only ever run into on message boards. Although there must be more than I think or Gygax would never have bothered to point out explicitely and repeatedly in 1e that that wasn't actually how the game worked.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Many tables - and default 4e - assume that the function of the mechanics is to resolve salient conflicts during the course of play. They don't treat the mechanics as the "physics" of the gameworld that could be measured via controlled experiments.

I think that most people can agree that 4E was a significant departure from 3E on the subject - almost like they realized that they went too far with one edition, so they radically over-corrected for the next edition - but I will admit that 4E is intended to work as you say.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that most people can agree that 4E was a significant departure from 3E on the subject - almost like they realized that they went too far with one edition, so they radically over-corrected for the next edition - but I will admit that 4E is intended to work as you say.

The other point here is that AD&D, as is so often the case, conceptually works like 4e. You have one minute combat rounds that make any interpretation other than conflict resolution not work at all. You have saving throws that are abstract and reflect countermeasures and generic stuff rather than the procedural Fort/Ref/Will of 3.X

3.0 was a significant departure away from BD&D and AD&D. And a lot of the changes made in 4e that 3.X fans complain about, such as here, are because 4E returned to D&D's philosophical roots in terms of game design (although focussing more on dragons than the dungeons that had been the mainstay of oD&D).

 

[pemerton]

It's the augmented healing rate of people who receive medical attention from a trained professional. There's nothing natural about it, unless you would also count dermal re-generators as "natural" just because they aren't explicitly "magic".

What are you envisaging D&D healers doing, exactly?

What I take [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point to be is that no injury in 3E, no matter how close to fatal, can ever be such that it couldn't recover without magic in 8 days or less. That makes it unlike any earthly injury - I've never been injured very badly, yet have more than once suffered injuries that could not heal in 8 days even with treatment of a sophisticiation not available at D&D levels of technology.

There are two possible ways to go from this. One is to infer that hit point loss does not model injury. That is my way (and Hussar's and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s too, I think). The other is to infer that the gameworld differs from the real world in the physics and phsiology of its inhabitants. That seems to be your way.

A third way, I guess - and one I've taken in the past - is to not play D&D and to play games where the health mechanics actually approximate to the real world (in my case, that was Rolemaster).

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are two possible ways to go from this. One is to infer that hit point loss does not model injury. That is my way (and Hussar's and @Neonchameleon's and @Obryn's too, I think). The other is to infer that the gameworld differs from the real world in the physics and phsiology of its inhabitants. That seems to be your way.

A third way, I guess - and one I've taken in the past - is to not play D&D and to play games where the health mechanics actually approximate to the real world (in my case, that was Rolemaster).

Confirmed in my case. And to pitch in, even if you take the absolute slowest healing rates in any D&D edition (1e AD&D), any amount of hit point loss can be cured in a month. Or approximately the length of time it takes a real world marathon runner to recover from their big race. They also when on 1hp are not meaningfully less competent than when on full hit points (unlike any injury I've ever seen).

And in my case it was GURPS rather than Rolemaster

 

[The Crimson Binome]

3.0 was a significant departure away from BD&D and AD&D. And a lot of the changes made in 4e that 3.X fans complain about, such as here, are because 4E returned to D&D's philosophical roots in terms of game design (although focussing more on dragons than the dungeons that had been the mainstay of oD&D).

That's certainly one way of looking at it. From my perspective, though, the third editions merely added a lot of rules to clarify the things on which AD&D was silent, where 4E actually turned around and changed the rules.

Ignoring the matter of Hit Points for now, consider the AD&D model for commoners - they had a handful of hit points, maybe proficiency with a weapon, and that's pretty much it. If they advance at all, which they by-and-large did not, then they did so as PCs. A gish was a multi-class fighter/mage, and you had to consult the PHB to find out what "multi-class" and "mage" actually meant. The only rules for advancement were PC rules!

So, while NPCs were described as being different from PCs, they actually used the PC rules wherever possible. It's no surprise that 3E took that to its logical extent, and said that everyone used the PC rules, which they then proceeded to detail how you could have a level 17 multi-class noble 13 / expert 4. Then, 4E turned that around entirely, and took the original description in a completely different direction - now, NPCs were as different as they were originally made out to be, and avoided using PC rules whenever possible.

So I'm sure how you can see that both 3E and 4E have equal claim to tradition at this point - 3E is an extension of the traditional ruleset, in defiance of traditional fluff; while 4E is an extension of the traditional fluff, devoid of its traditional rules.

Or to put that another way, 3.5 was the most extreme form of everything that D&D had ever been, while 4E was the most extreme form of everything that D&D had ever claimed to be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's certainly one way of looking at it. From my perspective, though, the third editions merely added a lot of rules to clarify the things on which AD&D was silent, where 4E actually turned around and changed the rules.

Ignoring the matter of Hit Points for now, consider the AD&D model for commoners - they had a handful of hit points, maybe proficiency with a weapon, and that's pretty much it. If they advance at all, which they by-and-large did not, then they did so as PCs. A gish was a multi-class fighter/mage, and you had to consult the PHB to find out what "multi-class" and "mage" actually meant. The only rules for advancement were PC rules!

So, while NPCs were described as being different from PCs, they actually used the PC rules wherever possible. It's no surprise that 3E took that to its logical extent, and said that everyone used the PC rules, which they then proceeded to detail how you could have a level 17 multi-class noble 13 / expert 4. Then, 4E turned that around entirely, and took the original description in a completely different direction - now, NPCs were as different as they were originally made out to be, and avoided using PC rules whenever possible.

So I'm sure how you can see that both 3E and 4E have equal claim to tradition at this point - 3E is an extension of the traditional ruleset, in defiance of traditional fluff; while 4E is an extension of the traditional fluff, devoid of its traditional rules.

From mine calling 3E a simple extension of AD&D is risible. It was a ground up rewrite as a retroclone by people who did not understand why the parts of AD&D that worked worked. It's simpler to design a system where NPCs and PCs use the same rules - just as it's simpler to design a system with uniform stat bonusses, and it's simpler to design a system where there is uniform level progression rather than shifting into an endgame. It's certainly simpler to design a system where there are fewer restrictions on the wizard, and one in which the fighter doesn't get an army at level 10. 3.0 wasn't just an extension of 2E - it was also a reduction of AD&D in places such as removing almost all the balance mechanics.

3.0 was a from the ground up re-write of D&D focussing on making the rules look like a streamlined version of AD&D's, irrespective of how they worked in actual play or the purpose of the clunky looking rules (mostly balance mechanics). 4E is a d20 game written mostly from the ground up focussing on making the game play the way the fluff said it should. Both 3.X and 4E are every bit as much D&D as oD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopaedia, 1e, or 2e. But both of them are outliers in a lot of places (and in other places agree with each other but not with previous versions). However in places where they disagree with all other editions you can not claim that that's how D&D works without qualifications. And calling 3.5 the most extreme form of everything D&D had ever been is simply flat out wrong. Go to Dragonsfoot and make a claim like that and you will be laughed off the forum.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The other is to infer that the gameworld differs from the real world in the physics and phsiology of its inhabitants.

I'm pretty sure all of us are playing in a D&D world that does not conform to real scientific laws. The question you're positing is whether there is a distinct set of fantasy laws of physics that have nothing to do with the game mechanics but are also different from the ones we know in the real world.

And, I would add, if there are, where are those rules? I need to know certain basics that derive from things like the physics and physiology. If hit points don't describe what my character is experiencing, then what is my character experiencing while all this (apparently meaningless to him) hp ablation is happening?

A third way, I guess - and one I've taken in the past - is to not play D&D and to play games where the health mechanics actually approximate to the real world (in my case, that was Rolemaster).

There may be some games with more sophisticated health systems, but I think I can say with confidence that there are no medically accurate roleplaying games.

 

[Hussar]

It's the augmented healing rate of people who receive medical attention from a trained professional. There's nothing natural about it, unless you would also count dermal re-generators as "natural" just because they aren't explicitly "magic".

Likewise. Although my best guess puts my side at more numerous than yours, I don't believe that either of us have access to any meaningful data on the subject.

Alright, fair enough. I'll play by your rules.

I want you to describe the following wound: My fighter has 100 HP. He is critical hit by a fire giant with a very big great axe for 109 points of damage. He stabilises (possibly on his own, or possibly with the aid of another PC, doesn't really matter.)

Now, the wound you describe will heal, without any outside help, in six days. That is the absolute longest it will take this character to heal. So, what wound did that power attacking fire giant critting with a great axe inflict on my character?

See, the thing is, three days or six days, it doesn't really matter. Nothing you can describe will possibly be remotely believable. This is enough damage to drop an elephant (not kill it outright, true, but, leave it bleeding on the ground). But, it must be recoverable in six days.