D&D 5E How should 5E handle healing?

Which of the following statements should be true for Healing in 5E?

  • It takes days, if not weeks to regain hit points by resting.

    Votes: 34 33.7%
  • The Heal skill is very effective, but only out of combat.

    Votes: 52 51.5%
  • The Heal skill is effective, even in combat.

    Votes: 28 27.7%
  • Non-spellcasters can grant temporary hp, but not heal in combat.

    Votes: 29 28.7%
  • Divine spellcasters are the best at healing.

    Votes: 67 66.3%
  • No healing spells for arcane casters.

    Votes: 34 33.7%
  • Healer / leader / support classes can be of all flavors, not just divine.

    Votes: 64 63.4%
  • Classes can have self-healing powers, regardless of flavor.

    Votes: 37 36.6%
  • Each character has an ability similar to Second Wind.

    Votes: 59 58.4%
  • 5E should use Healing Surges or a similar mechanic.

    Votes: 38 37.6%
  • Healing potions and similar items should be easy to obtain.

    Votes: 31 30.7%
  • None of the above / special snowflake.

    Votes: 7 6.9%

  • Poll closed .

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
Steel Dragons, perhaps I should have said "HP represent your ability to avoid debilitating wounds."

Well, that certainly would have played differently than, "
Hit points represent your vigor to avoid actual wounds."

I'm just trying to model 'action movie' combat, and even a bit of 'classic Tolkien Fellowship of the Ring' combat, where people only usually suffer one 'wound' per fight, and that's the wound that drops them.

I get that...I do...But why? In the fantasy, table-top, imagination, role-playing game of Dungeons & Dragons...why do we feel the need to model "action movie" combat?

Why do we feel the need to define everything that is going on in the game? Where's the imagination?!

Do we really need 12 types of damage to account for every permutation of what Hit Points COULD mean/represent?

Do we need 12 different ways to heal said damage? (yes, I know you didn't present 12...I'm prone to hyperbole ;) )

Is this what "fun" is in a fantasy role-playing game?

That's where I get lost in all of this 5e stuff...on any given topic, not just this one! More rules, does not = more fun, to my eyes/mind. More options, yes. More rules of how to do/account for every possible things
...no.

I'm sorry, just no.

--SD
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
BIG WORDS at the start of the Hit Points section:

Hit points represent your vigor to avoid actual wounds.

When an attack deals hit point damage, if you still have HP afterward that attack only grazed you, or it caused pain that can be overcome. When an attack reduces your HP to 0, it knocks you down and leaves you unable to keep fighting. You're disabled until you either regain hit points or you die. While disabled, you can take no actions but you are aware of your surroundings.

You cannot have negative hit points. When you're out of HP, further damage becomes critical damage. If you have any critical damage, you're wounded. If you have critical damage greater than one-quarter your normal maximum HP, you're severely wounded. Once you take more damage than half your maximum HP, you die.

Getting Back on Your Feet
Various effects can let you can regain HP, up to your original maximum. Most often this represents you getting your second wind and rallying your strength, or an ally inspiring you to keep fighting. Sometimes these are spells that physically heal minor injuries or infuse you with vigor. Once you have any HP you are no longer disabled.

When you take a short rest (5 minutes) you regain all your HP. When you take an extended rest, reduce your critical damage to 0. However, this does not remove the wounded or severely wounded conditions. Those have to heal on their own.

Wounds
When you are wounded, you take a -2 penalty to all d20 rolls and you grant combat advantage. While severely wounded, you take a -5 penalty to all d20 rolls, you grant combat advantage, and you can only take one action per turn.

If left to natural healing, make a DC xx {{Endurance/Constitution/whatever}} check each day to remove the wounded condition, or a DC yy check each week to remove the severely wounded condition.

The Heal skill can let an ally treat your wounds so you heal faster. Some magical effects can remove the wounded condition in just a few moments, or reduce the severely wounded condition to just wounded. The availability of magical healing depends on your setting. Classic D&D makes healing plentiful. Low Fantasy D&D requires long rituals to heal wounds. Grim D&D has no magical healing.

Optional Rule - No Wounds
Some gamers prefer simpler rules. You still die when your critical damage is equal to half your normal maximum HP, but you never become wounded.

Optional Rule - Gruesome Wounds
When a critical hit causes you to become wounded, make a save (DC xx). If you fail, you suffer a gruesome wound appropriate to the attack. These wounds should be something that won't end your adventuring career. You might lose a hand or an eye, but not a whole limb.

If the crit caused you to become severely wounded, the wound should be even more gruesome, of the sort that renders you almost incapable of adventuring unless you can receive magical healing.


My suggestion for the negative HP system is close to this.

Hit point damage represents minor cuts, light bruises, loss of stamina, the drain of combat focus. Temporary hit point represent vigor and confidence that is on top of their normal skill.

A character is bloodied when they are hit with a critical hit, take massive damage, or drop to 0 HP. Characters can’t be reduced to negative hit points. 0 HP is the minimum. Instead, any character who takes damage that reduces his hit points to 0 must make a Constitution/Endurance save to avoid being disabled or dying.

Disabled characters are hurt badly but still able to function somewhat. Dying characters are so hurt badly they are unable to act. Disabled and dying characters are people with concussions, heavily bleeding wounds to the limbs, or minor broken bones to various degrees. A Con/Endurance check is needed to see if they get worse (after every action for the disabled, every round for the dying).

A Wisdom/Heal check can remove the disabled or dying states. Another check is used to remove the bloodied state. Long term rest allows the character a Con/Endurance check to remove the disabled or bloodied state.

Certain spells can remove the bloodied, disabled, or dying states.

Then each class can heal differently.

Clerics
would have the most powerful hit point damage heals, be able to remove bloodied, disabled, and dying states, and grant temporary HP.

Druids would be the same healing spells as Clerics but use a spell slot one level higher.

Bards can use some spells to heal damage and use songs to grant a lot of temporary HP.

Warlords grant a whole lot of temporary HP but not heal actual HP damage. Some are trained field medics and have a bonus to the heal skill.

Paladins can heal via Lay on wounds but can't grant temporary hp.

Rangers
and Paladins that choose to learn spells can heal HP.

Monks
can heal HP damage themselves outside of combat via meditation.

Wizards and Sorcerers can only grant themselves temporary HP.
 


steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
That's the kind of action I like, so I want the rules to emulate it. What do you want the game's rules to emulate?

Ok. Yes, "action movie combat" is cool.

I would like "Comic book" combat better...with Thundercats acrobatics but with Dungeons & Dragons (the cartoon) power weapons...Masters of the Universe punchin' Skeletor in the face (er...skull) with the Sorceress' magic kickin' arse from her tower on Castle Greyskull...while G.I.Joe laser rifles their way into C.O.B.R.A.'s secret ultra-hidden lair (only to have Serpentor kick their butts back to boot camp)...while the Smurfs were sippin' tea (magic potion tea, of course) with the Mon-Chi-Chis and Snorks...And the X-Men, Tarzan, Thundarr the Barbarian and the Silverhawks have a square-dancin' hoe-down...with Ookla playin' the fiddle and Orko on harmonica.

...all at the same time.

The "game's rules" don't need to "emulate" any of that for me.

I have the "rules" that I need: the cleric comes over and casts "Cure Light Wounds"...or the mage comes over and applies an herbal salve....or the thief comes over and bandages the slice and/or makes a splint ffor the broken bone...or all of the above...however you want to flavor/describe/fluff it!

Without x-teen different ways to heal people or account for damage or account for wounds...and vigor points and fortitude points and Strength but not really strength more like constitution but sorta temporary inspirational points...oh yeah, and HIT points...with what kinds of damage they have, they take from what kind of attack, but not this attack only that attack...this attack gets shrugged off by the "HEY!"...and that sortsa healing fixes which kindsa damage and which kindsa healing fixes THIS kind of damage but THAT damage is still floating around and...

Imaaaaaginaaaaation...that's wut I'm tawkin' about!
--SD
 

Cool. So fewer rules are, in general, better for you, because you'd rather adjudicate the results of a character's actions with a simple game system, than have to be beholden to complicated rules of a complex game system. Is that what you're saying?

In that case, I think a fairly simple system, with optional add-ons, would please us both. I mean, you're not just winging everything. Some rules help everyone grasp what's going on, and make it easier to tell a shared story. And for the type of stories you mentioned above, I think the following makes real smart sense.

You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.

Easy. That allows various narrative conceits to work. HP they a little of everything: wounds, luck, grit, plot immunity.

It works easily for a game, but for some people it's too abstract, because they want the rule mechanics to let them consistently parse game events into either narrative events or simulational events.

As Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: the Gathering, says, restrictions inspire creativity. If there are specific mechanics for wounds or for, say, special types of armor that are good against special types of weapons, some gamers will latch onto those and be inspired.

In a simpler system, a player might be content to just swing his sword against every monster and add whatever flavor to his description that he thinks up. But in a middle-complexity system a player might like the reward of being more successful if he uses the rules well. He might try out something even more creative, because seeing lots of options encourages him to try them out.

In 2e, one of my players made a fighter who hit things with his sword. In 3e, the same player saw the list of a lot of combat options, and he made a fighter who liked to grapple people and bite their ankles off. And there were actual mechanics so he could know what to expect -- the person would be immobilized, have X% chance of escaping, and, after his ankles were gnawed, he'd be prone, which would grant other benefits. He liked having the rules inspire him to try things.

Anyway, I'm rambling. It's late. I like rules with more granularity, because . . . well, I just do. It's the design philosophy I enjoy. But I recognize the value of a simple core system. So yeah:

You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
Cool. So fewer rules are, in general, better for you, because you'd rather adjudicate the results of a character's actions with a simple game system, than have to be beholden to complicated rules of a complex game system. Is that what you're saying?

That would appear to be...in much more eloquently put terms than my own...what I'm sayin', yes.

In that case, I think a fairly simple system, with optional add-ons, would please us both.

Could not agree more...and have been trying to advocate that at every turn I can in the 5e threads.

I mean, you're not just winging everything. Some rules help everyone grasp what's going on, and make it easier to tell a shared story. And for the type of stories you mentioned above, I think the following makes real smart sense.

You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.

Sounds about right. :)

Easy. That allows various narrative conceits to work. HP they a little of everything: wounds, luck, grit, plot immunity.

It works easily for a game, but for some people it's too abstract, because they want the rule mechanics to let them consistently parse game events into either narrative events or simulational events.

Seems like...I do feel sorry for those people. :(

As Mark Rosewater, lead designer of Magic: the Gathering, says, restrictions inspire creativity. If there are specific mechanics for wounds or for, say, special types of armor that are good against special types of weapons, some gamers will latch onto those and be inspired.

In certain cases, sure.

In a simpler system, a player might be content to just swing his sword against every monster and add whatever flavor to his description that he thinks up. But in a middle-complexity system a player might like the reward of being more successful if he uses the rules well.

"uses the rules well"? This sounds...suspiciously close to powergaming. Of which, I'll admit it, I do not approve.

He might try out something even more creative, because seeing lots of options encourages him to try them out.

Yeah, I see your point.

In 2e, one of my players made a fighter who hit things with his sword. In 3e, the same player saw the list of a lot of combat options, and he made a fighter who liked to grapple people and bite their ankles off. And there were actual mechanics so he could know what to expect -- the person would be immobilized, have X% chance of escaping, and, after his ankles were gnawed, he'd be prone, which would grant other benefits. He liked having the rules inspire him to try things.

Try things like nibbling off ankles while people were grappled? Hey..different strokes to move the world...What was he some stretch-armstrong cannibal rat?

Anyway, I'm rambling. It's late. I like rules with more granularity, because . . . well, I just do. It's the design philosophy I enjoy. But I recognize the value of a simple core system. So yeah:

You have hit points. When you take damage, you lose hit points. When you're out of hit points, you're out of the fight. If someone deals more damage to you, you die. You can regain hit points, too.

Sounds good to me, Ryan. Have a good night. Should be gettin' to bed myself...before the sun comes up. lol.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top