The question asked was about 3E in particular. If 3E is unrealistic, how did it not interfere with your interpretation of hit points and your narration of serious wounds?
The question asked was about 3E in particular. If 3E is unrealistic, how did it not interfere with your interpretation of hit points and your narration of serious wounds?
If you'd go back one page, you'd see my full answer. Since you appear to be ignoring it, you are either being deliberately obstinate, or simply seek to not listen to the answers you are provided.
But, in short, since magical healing is an deliberate assumption, the natural rate of healing only came into play if magical healing was missing, in which case the injured PC would hobble along at less than full HP until such time as magical healing was available. He didn't simply get up the next morning with all his HP.
You can call that invalid if you wish, but in every other edition of D&D, I was not forced to accept overnight natural healing.
Gary explained this one long ago - strike with the flat of the blade!
I'd say it's actually more problematic with a weapon like a mace.
I don't disagree, but 3E had you taking a penalty to attacks with lethal weapons being used counter to their stated purposes of killing humans. To wit, using the flat of your blade is not what it was designed for, and thus harder to execute properly. In particular, when I was deep in martial arts training, it took determined effort to pull punches or redirect focused blows so as to not cause damage, and thus the attacks themselves were not quite as properly aimed.
Now, even assuming that there is no penalty for non-lethal damage, would you not make your players declare that they are using weapons in a non-lethal manner before their attacks? If not, why not?