D&D 5E How has 5e solved the Wand of CLW problem?

[RotGrub]

I find the "cure light wounds problem" to be the lesser of two evils.

When your hero suffers numerous grievous wounds from a tough battle and just barely pulls through at least it is fantasy world believable that magic is what healed them up and is letting them push on to the next encounter. Saying "We sit down to rest for an hour and now my broken bones and skewered kidney have healed up great" is a way bigger problem to me.

I totally agree with you. In previous editions we didn't need an lingering wound module because hit point damage lingered. In previous editions you certainly could use hit points to describe a real wound when needed. I really don't have an issue with magic healing the party to full. A wand of CWL is a magical item that the DM has allowed in the game. It's really his problem to deal with if it's causing too many issues. Of course, I don't know any DMs who get upset when the PCs heal themselves. Heck in my 2e game I often dropped lots of potions and a permanent healing item.

 

[RotGrub]

Ah yes, this canard.

The problem with this little scenario is you assume the maximum damage potential (damaged bones and organs, which the hp system does not represent) and minimum recuperation action (sit and wait). It ignores the obvious middle: wounds that a superficial or minor being treated with some form of first aid.

Hp is an abstraction that almost always falls apart and has since time unmentionable. (Remember: an AD&D pc can recover from a broken bone or pierced organ too, it's just measured in days rather than hours. )

It's a valid playstyle that shouldn't be called a canard.

I've often used the HP system alone to describe a serious injury. I've never had any problems describing a serious wound provided HP damage lingered and could only be restored quickly via magic. IMO, that makes hit points more abstract because they can be used to describe a wider narrative.

Removing physical wounds from the narrative is a bit jarring for my playstyle since I enjoy having clerics who can heal serious wounds. In other words, in my fantasy game clerics can walk into the trauma ward and heal everyone.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And that's ignoring the fallacy that "losing a fight" = "loss of hp". There are lots of ways to "lose" a fight. Miss your objective, get captured, get incapacitated, etc, etc.

The primary objective of most characters is to live. You cannot be captured by an enemy that would be incapable of defeating you in a fight-to-the-death, unless you choose to be.

Exceptions to this may exist, but are highly circumstantial.

 

[Remathilis]

It's a valid playstyle that shouldn't be called a canard.

I've often used the HP system alone to describe a serious injury. I've never had any problems describing a serious wound provided HP damage lingered and could only be restored quickly via magic. IMO, that makes hit points more abstract because they can be used to describe a wider narrative.

Removing physical wounds from the narrative is a bit jarring for my playstyle since I enjoy having clerics who can heal serious wounds. In other words, in my fantasy game clerics can walk into the trauma ward and heal everyone.

More power to you. I learned a long time ago that since hp =/= meat, that healing should be just as abstract. Perhaps the HD you used to heal up represents some minor injuries or such. I just grow weary of the same "People shouldn't be able to regenerate grievous injury" line used to disparage 5e healing while ignoring such classic HP issues like "my character just took 10 arrows to the chest and kept fighting" or "I just fell 60 feet off a cliff in metal armor and got up and climbed back up the rope" issues.

If you can accept the latter, there is little reason to no accept the former.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've often used the HP system alone to describe a serious injury. I've never had any problems describing a serious wound provided HP damage lingered and could only be restored quickly via magic.

Really. You had no problem describing a slashed Achilles tendon didn't slow the character's movement at all, or a punctured lung that didn't impact his ability to run a marathon, or a broken wrist that didn't prevent him from swinging his two-handed sword full force?

You're just dwelling on one inconsistency of the system, while ignoring another that is inextricably linked to the first, and at least as jarring.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If that is the case are you finding your PCs are going into combat wounded most of the time, or are your fights not dealing enough damage to be interesting? You're going to be stuck with either result if you're ending up with significantly less healing from the lack of wands.

The PCs are mostly going into combat while at less than full HP. That's kind of the point of the attrition model.

I wouldn't say that the fights are un-interesting, though. The players know that resting may be limited, and that goblins are dangerous over the course of multiple encounters. If they lose half of their HP during the first encounter, then that's them losing. They may have to cut the day short, because that rate is clearly unsustainable. Or maybe they'll do really well in the next encounter, and make it through untouched, so they can still win the day.

Not every battle has to risk death in order for it to be interesting, but every battle should matter.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Really. You had no problem describing a slashed Achilles tendon didn't slow the character's movement at all, or a punctured lung that didn't impact his ability to run a marathon, or a broken wrist that didn't prevent him from swinging his two-handed sword full force?

My current GM for Pathfinder once described a swinging blade trap that impaled someone through the torso, with gory sound effects and everything. It dealt over 60 points of damage - well enough to fell a polar bear (but not an elephant). She was 9th level, and tougher than that.

In practice, it didn't lead to any weird inconsistency because we burned ten charges on a wand and she was good as new.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The PCs are mostly going into combat while at less than full HP. That's kind of the point of the attrition model.

One possible aspect of it. Spell resources are really the main point of the attrition model. As long as you have plenty of healing spells, you don't need to worry about hps - even if it may not be worth it to use them to heal up to full. Hps matter mainly in each combat - they keep you alive. Taking hp damage is an issue because it forces you to use up spells, which are what really matters.

3.5 made that much /more/ true than other editions with the WoCLW by making between-combat healing a trivially cheap resource. Even in 4e & 5e, when you can heal between combats for 'free,' the resources you use to do so are actually limited.

... once described a swinging blade trap that impaled someone through the torso, with gory sound effects and everything. It dealt over 60 points of damage...In practice, it didn't lead to any weird inconsistency because we burned ten charges on a wand and she was good as new.

You were able to sweep the inconsistency under the rug, sure. So it didn't matter that such a devastating wound carried no penalties, nor would the prospect of it healing over night been a problem.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You were able to sweep the inconsistency under the rug, sure. So it didn't matter that such a devastating wound carried no penalties, nor would the prospect of it healing over night been a problem.

It's a matter of perspective, about what you can ignore. I've never been bothered by the lack of wound penalties, because heroic characters who can survive those kinds of hits are not the kind of people to let those injuries slow them down. These are mythic beings. And while I might accept that they can recover from a punctured lung with a week of bed rest, healing to full overnight would still be pushing it.

In retrospect, I only ever accepted week-long healing times because they never came up in practice. It should have seemed weird to me. My stance on Hit Points has changed considerably since coming to these boards, and while I no longer describe HP loss as my Pathfinder GM does, I still make sure that there's a physical component to every hit. It's the difference between a blow being deflected by your armor, or a blow battering you through your armor; a KO'd character may feel like she's just lost a boxing match, but I'm more cautious in not describing any wound as worse than what can be recovered under the system at hand (which means Pathfinder characters tend to get beaten up somewhat worse than 5E characters).

 

[Remathilis]

In practice, it didn't lead to any weird inconsistency because we burned ten charges on a wand and she was good as new.

And if the was no healing magic available, how would you describe his surviving the wound? Or if he didn't would he simply bleed out over the next couple of minutes?

I tend to run the style that "the grievous wound is the one that kills you." I don't describe attacks that can be taken as "you should be in triage" unless they are dropping you below 0. Again, personal preference, but it doesn't stress me to try to explain healing later.