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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GM Lent" data-source="post: 7271031" data-attributes="member: 6798775">I understand why you want to implement the slower healing. As I mentioned, I am a 2e veteran myself; the gonzo healing was a big chunk of why I passed on 4e, and I had originally planned to slow healing down in my 5e games as well.But I am mainly a DM, not a player. What I found as a player was that the standard 5e healing speed meant one less thing I had to keep track of and worry about. As a DM, it means as many less things I need to keep track of as I have players. And it helps facilitate the kinds of stories I like to be involved with, specifically  sword-and-sorcery type stuff like Conan and Fafhrd + Grey Mouser. None of whom spent time holed up in a hospital room or wearing a cast on their leg slowly recovering from injuries.Now, I also don't allow any full casters except warlocks in my campaigns, so there's that. But mostly, I'm curious as to whether your players were interested in an exponentially more challenging game, with far more accounting involved. One thing I love about 5th edition is how nobody agrees on which classes are "overpowered." The fact that you can make a case for the melee types to be too strong says a lot about the quality of the overall design. And it's your game; there's no wrong way to play it. Do what works for your table. I've just never seen a group of players who were as interested in going back to the "bad old days" of weeks-long recovery from combat as the DMs were.</blockquote>

Verification