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

[Rechan]

I don't recall how it worked in 4E.

4e doesn't have any ability damage/drain, nor level drain.

 

[Recidivism]

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.

I'm not sure I'm with you on that. I do like the idea of players suffering long-term injuries that they have to recover from.

In terms of your example, there's plenty of ways to handle the scenario without doing something you don't want to do. First off, if you're designing the scenario then clearly you don't want to front load it so that players can end up crippled on one of the earlier encounters. Earlier editions had a bit of a problem with this since luck played such a huge role, but hopefully 5E will take some cues from 4E in how to mitigate really bad luck scenarios.

If you play an action-movie style campaign, then there's plenty of precedent to handwave the effects of serious injuries until after the pressing adventure. Action movie heroes take beating after beating, only to get up in the next scene until the whole thing is over and they collapse of exhaustion in <love interest's> arms.

Last but not least, you can embrace the narrative that occurs even if it wasn't your plan. So the adventurers are wounded early on and can't complete the quest. What next? The PCs might have failed, BUT she was rescued by another group of adventurers, or the Gnolls bickered on what to do with her and she escaped, or even maybe (if its your style of game) that she dies and the PC brother now swears an oath to hunt down those Gnolls and take his vengeance.

Personally I like the idea that PCs can fail if they screw up, or have very bad luck. (Failing a single dice roll and thus failing, I can live without however.)

 

[the Jester]

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...

There are plenty of us to whom lack of "back to full by morning" is a feature, not a bug, and to whom "back to full by morning" is absolutely the most artificial-feeling element that D&D has ever incorporated.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

This is where it becomes incumbent on the participants to use their noodles.
What ever happened to the PCs hiring help to increase their numbers so they can face opposition and or carry loot, watch the horses, etc? Sure that one character is left behind to heal for a bit, but he player is still involved.

I have no insight on what if anything from the 5e system determined the down time for the Paladin or if it was a DM ruling for flavor. Currently I run an old-school game (Labyrinth Lord) and while I might tell players that a character needs some recovery time, it is their decision how to handle it, press on with or without hirelings, or wait for their companion to recover.

 

[Herschel]

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."

Hey, you should be playing a Wizard where you can stand way back from melee and rule the world.

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.

.....And while the second encounter should now be a bit harder, its not certain death.

Yes

 

[Shades of Green]

My favourite part:

That’s a real quote from one of the games I ran this past weekend. In the five games I played, every one of them packed a whole lot of story and a whole lot of action into the four hour game. We fought dozens of battles, navigated many traps and hazards, and engaged in all sorts of negotiations. Instead of calculating out the game by the number of battles (usually two to three), I added in an entire hour of the session to exploring a local town because I felt like I had the room.

As one of the chief reasons for me not adopting 4E was grind, these are GOOD NEWS indeed!

 

[LostSoul]

My bet on the healing time is that it's strongly tied to "back at the Keep." Which seems to tie into another playtester's idea of healing making you feel like adventuring is a "work day."

My wild guess is that there's some kind of resource that requires time spent back in town to recover. I'd further guess that you can still adventure without that resource, though it's probably tougher or more dangerous.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Sounds like ability damage recover to me.

 

[BryonD]

My favorite part maybe (though I played the latest editions this way too; still nice to see it may be 'official' again though)

"DM Empowerment

Here’s the overly broad and sweeping generalization I’ve made about the game: in AD&D 2e and before, many things just did not have rules, so the DM had to make them up. In 3e-4e, there were rules for many things. In this new edition, I feel like the presentation gives you the rules you most need, and then for rules that work by being the DM’s judgement call, it tells you specifically that it’s the DM’s judgment call. So for me it’s a nice balance between there being enough rules to guide me so it’s not consistently an arguing game, while still telling everyone that some rules are going to be based on what the DM says, no more, no less. If this was intentional, or even if this survives into the final version of the game, remains to be seen, but I like it so far."

I can't decide if I like this or not.

In short, I love it because this is how I already run 3E.
In short, it concerns me that they seem to think a change is needed to give me something I already have.

As with so much else: Wait and see.

 

[BryonD]

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."

This just blows my mind.
I have had PCs killed.
I once captured a PC inside a painting for MULTIPLE SESSIONS.

The players always stay engaged. There is still a cool story going on and they feel like they contribute.

(In fairness, for the multiple sessions in a painting thing I did let him run a "back up" support character.)

The point is that the game has the capacity to be so much more. And if having your character means you should go check e-mail then the game isn't the best it can be when the character was still involved.