D&D 5E new Critical Hits article about running DnD next

[Dragonblade]

What I find interesting is that the paladin got hurt bad enough that he was out-of-action for several weeks. A roleplay thing? Maybe. It does suggest that healing is a little tougher to come by.

I don't care for this at all, but as long as there is an option for encounter healing 4e style, I'm ok with it.

IMO, its basically telling the paladin player, "Sorry, we're going to keep playing D&D and having fun. But you're screwed and can't play anymore. Sucks to be you. So, why don't you go off and check your e-mail or something."

Another reason I don't like long term healing is it screws up adventure flow and can completely derail a story. Let's say you are rescuing a PC's kid sister from some gnolls, and you have to get to her before they sacrifice her to Yeenoghu.

Well, lets say the adventure goes poorly in the first encounter and the players are low on HP and other resources, but they survive. If there is limited post-encounter HP or resource recovery, then to press on would be certain death. Hmm, that kind of sucks. Talk about a crappy ending to the story. To go back and take your bedrest, means you can't save her. That kind of sucks too.

Sure, in an old school game, you could just say "them's the breaks" and let the gnolls kill her. Some players like that grim cruel world approach, but most of the people I have gamed with don't. They want to be challenged, but they want to ultimately have a reasonable chance to succeed and if they feel the game is stacked against them, they won't want to play anymore.

So, what usually happens is the DM handwaves it. You find a cache of potions, or the gods aid you by healing you. I personally find that kind of DM fiat unsatisfying. Its like the game has failed, so the DM has to cheat to make the game work.

So what I prefer is a game that provides PCs enough post-encounter healing and resource recovery that even if they roll horribly and just totally botch that first encounter, they still automatically recover enough HP and other resources automatically that they can reasonably press on. They are not back to full, but not totally screwed either. And while the second encounter should now be a bit harder, its not certain death.

 

[the Jester]

What I find interesting is that the paladin got hurt bad enough that he was out-of-action for several weeks. A roleplay thing? Maybe. It does suggest that healing is a little tougher to come by.

I, for one, welcome the end of the "1st to 30th level before you turn 18!" trope.

 

[Iosue]

"Almost died by blood loss" suggests two possibilities to me.

1. He was brought to negative hit points, and stabilized, but going negative means can't just pop back up and continue the adventure.

2. This is a particular effect used by stirges and other blood suckers. It's not just damage, but blood loss damage, and thus may require more powerful healing magic (or else, this particular group ran out of heal spells).

IMO, its basically telling the paladin player, "Sorry, we're going to keep playing D&D and having fun. But you're screwed and can't play anymore. Sucks to be you. So, why don't you go off and check your e-mail or something."

Not necessarily. I imagine the whole group stayed with the paladin until he recovered, and the weeks of game time were just glossed over. "Okay, two weeks later you're back at the dungeon."

This is a rather early D&D take on healing and recovery, and might be included for older edition players, but would be easy to work around if the group wants a more "cinematic" experience. Not to mention that even a player "out of action" may not be out of the game. I'm thinking of Edward the Spoony Bard in Final Fantasy II.

 

[Agamon]

I don't care for this at all, but as long as there is an option for encounter healing 4e style, I'm ok with it.

You're assuming that this was regular old healing. I don't think so, check my post above.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Another reason I don't like long term healing is it screws up adventure flow and can completely derail a story.

I am assuming the stirges did a different kind of damage. I think Con damage makes the most sense based on previous editions and the context. If I'm wrong, and they just did hit point damage, I agree with you.

If the stirges did, in fact, do Con damage (or something other than hit points), then I'm ok with a long healing period. The DM (or adventure designer) should take that into account when putting it together. If you put stirges in the first room of a cave, you should do it knowing the PCs are going to want to go lick their wounds afterward.

I can still see a place for doing that on a time sensitive mission, to add to the dramatic tension, but I would think there wouldn't be enough stirges (in this example) to cripple a character. Being down a point of Con or two, would ramp up the tension. Being down ten ramps up the frustration. It's about having an appropriate amount for the overall narrative to be positively impacted.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Also, why is the pally always getting smacked around like a lazy mule in these anecdotes?

Because they were all made with the 5e Playtest Report Generator?

 

[Agamon]

Because they were all made with the 5e Playtest Report Generator?

Hmmm, maybe that's actually obfuscating this apparent problem.

 

[Dragonblade]

You're assuming that this was regular old healing. I don't think so, check my post above.

Ahh, interesting.

I'm not normally a fan of ability damage, mostly because I don't like the cascading ripple effect it has across your whole sheet.

But, if 5e looks more like the stat as bonus method I theorized here, I might be ok with it because the numbers are transparent and easy to adjust.

 

[Glade Riven]

Besides, if a player insists on doing dumb things (not ignorent things, but outright stupid things), bad things happen to a character. Like taking on NPCs that, as DM, I have just described as "Sizing them up, it doesn't look like your character can take them." It's happened. And the PC woke up later face down in the gutter. This time it was nonlethal, but not always.

 

[Aehrlon]

Regardless of how much ability damage may have been sustained, the rate at which you recover them is in need of improvement. v3.5 you healed at a rate of 1 Ability point a day normally, twice that will full bed rest. I don't recall how it worked in 4E. Point being, how about healing a point every 4 hours. That way if you get drained 5-6 points, you'll be back up to snuff the next day (but will still suffer the penalties in the meantime). Either way, the adventuring party may wait it out but it would only take a day or two to recover without expensive clerical aid (if you don't have access to Restorations within the party). One thing is for sure, I prefer Ability Damage to Level Drain that we used to have to deal with back in 1E & 2E. Now THAT was rough...