Hit points & long rests: please consider?

[nnms]

This is my most hated sentence in all D&D discussions...
It is the excuse to not limit the power of magic, instead as the freedom to lower its power to achieve a balance between magical and non-magical characters. (I like gaming balance in games. Never destroyed the fun for me, made anyone a worse DM or reduced the role-playing possibilities.)

That's not at all what I'm talking about. You're totally reading things into what I am posting.

All I am saying is that given that magic is a bending of reality, I can accept a reality bent by magic where any wound is healed by a given spell (perhaps cure light wounds) from -10 or -5 or 0 back to 7 HP. I am not saying that magic healing should be unlimited power.

When it's a warlord using inspiring word and saying "it's not so bad! get up!" then I better not have described the attack that caused the dying state because it just got changed to "it's not so bad."

See what I'm getting at?

 

[Walking Dad]

Then stop describing you dying all the time

seriously, I can see your problem, but it isn't big enough for me to sacrifice play balance for it. Differing priorities.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's not at all what I'm talking about. You're totally reading things into what I am posting.

All I am saying is that given that magic is a bending of reality, I can accept a reality bent by magic where any wound is healed by a given spell (perhaps cure light wounds) from -10 or -5 or 0 back to 7 HP. I am not saying that magic healing should be unlimited power.

When it's a warlord using inspiring word and saying "it's not so bad! get up!" then I better not have described the attack that caused the dying state because it just got changed to "it's not so bad."

See what I'm getting at?

I understand completely! In 4th edition you actually needed to wait and describe how you went down until after you were either healed by the cleric or told to walk it off by the warlord. I sure as hell don't want that now.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Here is a way I think it should be handled.

I think everyone should have some sort of medical training or a PC can take a background to have this sort of training. By taking a standard action, they can help bandage or apply a non magical salve or potion to help the person regain a certain amount of HP during the fight. Now of course these methods shouldn't ever give you more healing than with magic. Make these non magic items of healing a part of the standard adventuring gear. I love this type of resource management, especially when it comes to equipment.

I like the idea of having to actually prepare to go out on an adventure. I don't like having everything built in.

 

[Lanefan]

Which system/edition? In most, your healer isn't doing his job right. Or is "not always" the same as "rarely"?

It's a modified 1e system. And the healers do what they can, but sometimes one of two factors rears its head: a) the healers don't have enough spells to get everyone all the way up to full, and-or b) one or more people in the party have recently been too badly hurt to be able to take cures for a while, above a fairly low threshold.

To explain: we use a body point-fatigue point system, and if you've recently been below 0 h.p. you cannot usually be cured above full b.p. (most people have 3-5 b.p., and f.p. are what you get as you level up) until some time has passed; the length of time depends on how far down you went and what was used to cure you.

??? don't understand your need to make healed characters unstable again? The first preference depend on your definition and use of HP (the time until the character expires or really blood lost and wounds continuing to open.

I think we all agree that below 0 is real actual damage, injury, etc. that will eventually be fatal if not treated. Patching someone up from -8 to -4 does not fully count as "treated", and said victim will still eventually die if not further helped out; only it'll take longer due to temporary stabilizing caused by the patching up.

0 h.p. is the tipping point. Above 0, you'll eventually recover on your own given enough time. Below 0 you'll die on your own given enough time. Right at 0 h.p. is saving throw territory.

How is a fixed healing time based on con and HD heal the wizard faster? Because he took less damage???

I didn't say Con bonus and HD, I said Con bonus and level; and was referring to any other system as well where the amount recovered overnight is a flat number.

To clarify:

Wizard and Fighter are both 5th level. They have the same Con bonus; let's say +1. So, each will rest back 6 h.p. per night. If no other healing is available, this happens:

Wizard goes to sleep at 7 h.p. out of 15.
Fighter goes to sleep at 18 h.p. out of 40.

Wizard wakes up at 13 of 15, pretty close to full.
Fighter wakes up at 24 of 40, still a fair way from peak condition.

After a second night the wizard will be fine while the fighter will still only be at 75%. Any time they both lose the same fraction of their h.p. (both are at 1/2, both are at 1/4, etc.) the wizard will always recover faster; and this doesn't make sense.

BUT if you use a percentage of full h.p. as the heal rate instead, watch what happens:

Let's set the heal rate dial at 20%. So, in the above example the wizard will get back 3 h.p. per night and the fighter will get 8; so after 3 rests they'll both be just nicely to full. They rest up at the same rate relative to each other and relative to how many h.p. they were short as a fraction of their maximum and - assuming no other interference either good or ill - will recover to full h.p. in the same amount of time*. If most h.p. are defined as something other than debilitating injury it only makes sense they'd be recovered at about the same relative rate by all involved.

* - or very close, depending on math-y things like rounding error.

Lanefan

 

[nnms]

I understand completely! In 4th edition you actually needed to wait and describe how you went down until after you were either healed by the cleric or told to walk it off by the warlord. I sure as hell don't want that now.

Me neither. In 4E, you really should avoid describing any hit of any kind in narrative terms because you don't know when a non-magical effect will undo your description and replace it with a "it wasn't so bad after all" retcon.

Then stop describing you dying all the time

I'm fairly certain "dying" is a game condition in 4E. It's the game itself that produces the divorce between the rules and the fiction.

seriously, I can see your problem, but it isn't big enough for me to sacrifice play balance for it. Differing priorities.

I don't think it's necessarily true that you need to sacrifice play balance to have consistent description in the game. I think that's a false dichotomy.

 

[Libramarian]

I think I've had an epiphany. I don't like the overnight full hp healing. But I think my issue with it is more fundamental than the specific mechanic or what HP represent. It goes to how D&D is expected to be played by WotC designers.

I want to have games without a cleric required, but I don't want mechanics to replace that cleric, I want to play games in a different way than if the party had a cleric or lots of mundane overnight healing.

I want to, sometimes, play a game of nothing but rogues instead of a balanced party BECAUSE I want to play that game differently than I would in a balanced party with a cleric or it's standin healing mechanic. I want adventures that support that flexibility and a game that does, not one that goes out of it's way to support that balanced party style of play.

In AD&D if you had a party of rogues those players played B2 differently than players of a balanced party. I think that WotC is still stuck with an idea of how people should play, and that play style requires either a cleric or this overnight healing mechanic. And that isn't what I want. It's part of the issue I had with 4e and early wotc 4e adventures. It was fun, but eventually not satisfying.

Agree!

I think the WotC designers have this deeply ingrained notion that the problem with D&D is the fun is too mercurial and unreliable. So they try to quantize everything and design the system to make sure it produces a "good D&D adventure". I think this is a mistake because to me the important thing is how the adventure feels, rather than how it "looks" (i.e. the transcript of events), and for the adventure to feel right, the outcome has to be in doubt during play. The more variety in how the adventure could turn out, the better. So for instance, I like the idea that the adventurers might not be able to save the princess tomorrow because their bodies just can't take the punishment. I like the idea of forcing them to choose between their own survival and saving the princess. That's awesome. Some people don't like that so they want the game system to make it impossible. I really think it's easier to houserule in the direction of making things easier for the players than harder though. The default game should skew hard, and then tell the DM to adjust to taste, not skew easy and tell the DM to make it hard. Too bad the designers don't see it that way.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that WotC is still stuck with an idea of how people should play, and that play style requires either a cleric or this overnight healing mechanic.

How they "should" play, or how most groups do play most of the time? If it's the latter, I can't see it as a problem. And I'm not cynical enough to believe the first.

I really think it's easier to houserule in the direction of making things easier for the players than harder though.

I don't think this makes any sense at all. It should be equally difficult/hard in either direction. For simplicity, say you have a set of easy rules and a set of hard rules. If the game is hard by default, the easy rules are the house rules. If the game is easy by default, the hard rules are the house rules. Why is switching from one to the other more difficult based on which direction you're going.

 

[Mercutio01]

If the game is hard by default, the easy rules are the house rules. If the game is easy by default, the hard rules are the house rules. Why is switching from one to the other more difficult based on which direction you're going.

Provided that the math works and is easy to change on the fly by the DM, it should be fine in either direction, but that first part is the tricky piece of the puzzle.

 

[Lanefan]

If the game is hard by default, the easy rules are the house rules. If the game is easy by default, the hard rules are the house rules. Why is switching from one to the other more difficult based on which direction you're going.

Simple: with very rare exceptions the path of least resistance is to make things easier.

The DM has to put up with more direct resistance than the designers, thus I'd like the designers to tighten the dials all the way up and then tell us DMs how to loosen them off, and what the outcome might be from doing so.

Lanefan