D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[D'karr]

Combat accelerates pretty rapidly as you remove participants.

Agreed.

It only drags on if the TPK isn't a possibility, and you need to contrive some way for your fewer-remaining-PCs to somehow defeat a greater number of opponents.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a situation in practice where this is actually the case. If TPK is not a possibility it means that the monsters can't hit the PCs or they do so little damage that they can't really hurt the PCs. For this to work as you describe the monsters can't hurt the PCs and the PCs can't hurt the monsters. I would call that pretty bad encounter design.

And of course, if you can do that, then there's nothing stopping them from doing the same.

Forgive me but I really don't understand what this means within the context of what you said right before it. Would you mind explaining?

And yes, it's pretty much a given that both sides will be using the same healing rules, so any change to those rules would affect both sides evenly.

I understand what you are saying here but it does not apply, in general, to 4e. Monsters get 1 healing surge as a default, if it is ever needed. There are really no times in which I would consider it good practice to heal monsters, particularly from a pacing perspective. There are monsters that regenerate or even mitigate damage but as a general rule it is a waste of pacing time to heal monsters. That would definitely cause grind, and is probably why is not a practice much, if ever, used.

Instead leader type monsters might give temp HP, decrease damage, or debuff hits (attack penalties) essentially filling the same function of making monsters last longer.

IMO bad encounter design is a different issue altogether and should be addressed separately.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Forgive me but I really don't understand what this means within the context of what you said right before it. Would you mind explaining?

In a hypothetical game where the PCs don't have access to in-combat healing, you are likely to find yourself in a situation where one or more PCs have been removed from the fight before any of the enemies have. This creates an unstable equilibrium, where the remaining PCs are also likely to be overwhelmed, given the superior numbers of the opposition.

There are two ways to address this probable situation, as a game designer: 1) Let the PCs face the risk as-is, knowing that if the remaining characters do manage a comeback, it will make victory that much more satisfying; or 2) Create some sort of emergency button to use - like a Limit Break - in case of sudden overwhelming odds.

If you're strongly against the idea of allowing a TPK, so that (1) is off the table, then that leaves (2).

The problem with (2) is that, barring plot contrivance, there's no reason the enemies can't use it right back, which just tips the odds right back in their favor.

 

[D'karr]

In a hypothetical game where the PCs don't have access to in-combat healing, you are likely to find yourself in a situation where one or more PCs have been removed from the fight before any of the enemies have. This creates an unstable equilibrium, where the remaining PCs are also likely to be overwhelmed, given the superior numbers of the opposition.

There are two ways to address this probable situation, as a game designer: 1) Let the PCs face the risk as-is, knowing that if the remaining characters do manage a comeback, it will make victory that much more satisfying; or 2) Create some sort of emergency button to use - like a Limit Break - in case of sudden overwhelming odds.

If you're strongly against the idea of allowing a TPK, so that (1) is off the table, then that leaves (2).

The problem with (2) is that, barring plot contrivance, there's no reason the enemies can't use it right back, which just tips the odds right back in their favor.

Thanks for the clarification. How does the game designer do either 1 or 2? I'm thinking you are meaning the DM so I'll address the post from that perspective.

If some PCs have already been removed from play because of "injury". I'm not seeing how the TPK is not possible under these circumstances? Obviously the game allows for damage to bring the PCs down as has already happened to one or more PCs.

What you seem to be describing, I would still categorize as either poor encounter design, or poor GMing. In either case, I can see that possibility happening in any kind of game. I don't particularly see it as endemic or even more prevalent in 4e, which we were discussing. As a matter of fact with the encounter building guidelines as they are, I would think this scenario would be rather rare, or even non-existent for someone following the basic guidelines. Which leaves this case mostly as an example of poor GMing. Based on that, I can't make the inference that, poor GMing, is more prevalent for some reason in 4e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What you seem to be describing, I would still categorize as either poor encounter design, or poor GMing. In either case, I can see that possibility happening in any kind of game. I don't particularly see it as endemic or even more prevalent in 4e, which we were discussing.

The main reason it doesn't happen in 4E is that it has a (fairly generous) mechanic that allows PCs (and mostly not NPCs) to come back during a tough fight, because healing is a minor action that you can do at range. That's not the scenario I'm describing.

And it is a design decision, although there's some overlap if the DM is tailoring encounters to the party. A good DM can make up for poor game design, to some extent, and the reverse is also true. When you're designing a game, though, it really is something that you should take into consideration.

 

[Riley37]

Since I have no personal experience with spellcasting, I can't say exactly how that relates to a good night's sleep, but I do have personal experience with healing scratches, bruises, broken bones, etc., and modern medicine recognizes that there's a kind of healing which happens during deep sleep.
8 hours is pretty much the time it takes for a human to get a good night's sleep. Getting that much rest in 5 minutes because the scenario is one hour total, and then in 5 days because the scenario is a month, makes JUST as much sense to me, as being able to run three times as many miles per hour outside as inside (RAW in 2E).

 

[D'karr]

The main reason it doesn't happen in 4E is that it has a (fairly generous) mechanic that allows PCs (and mostly not NPCs) to come back during a tough fight, because healing is a minor action that you can do at range. That's not the scenario I'm describing.

Ok, I'm just not seeing the relevance within the context of what you have explained up to now. It looks to me like you are speaking of some hypothetical game that doesn't currently exist, and from there drawing some theorycraft conclusions of its design that are currently eluding me.

And it is a design decision, although there's some overlap if the DM is tailoring encounters to the party. A good DM can make up for poor game design, to some extent, and the reverse is also true. When you're designing a game, though, it really is something that you should take into consideration.

I'm just not sure what you are trying to get at. I'm not trying to be pedantic, or obtuse so please don't take offense. I'm just not understanding the context that you are using for comparison of this hypothetical design.

In your post you started the conversation talking about 4e. Then in a separate post brought up the option of a TPK not being a possibility. Then mentioned a hypothetical game in which there is no in-combat healing in which attrition has already happened to the PC side.
On this hypothetical somehow the designer, not the DM, doesn't want the possibility of a TPK, and has designed some kind of "reset" mechanism that doesn't allow the PC side to lose by having them overcome the obstacle, but it is not earned. And if that mechanism is in place it should be on the opposition side also.

Honestly I'm not sure what this game you are talking about is. If it does exist would you please tell us what it is because I'm not getting the frame of reference in this at all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Honestly I'm not sure what this game you are talking about is. If it does exist would you please tell us what it is because I'm not getting the frame of reference in this at all.

According to this conversation, that game was apparently D&D pre-3E, since priests were primarily warriors and healing was generally an out-of-combat thing. When 3E made in-combat healing viable, it caused combat to slow down.

When an unlucky hit could kill a character outright - because the game design didn't care about whether a character lived or died - combat would progress very quickly. Because 4E has easy in-combat healing as a design feature, it causes combat to be slower than if it wasn't allowed; a situation which would have been a quick TPK in an older edition would turn into a long and drawn-out victory in 4E. Giving the healer the ability to attack and heal in the same turn doesn't make combat go more quickly, because it makes healing more prevalent, thus increasing the amount of time it takes to get through any fight.

 

[Hussar]

That's an interesting spin. Food for thought.

 

[Gimul]

Ok, I'm just not seeing the relevance within the context of what you have explained up to now. It looks to me like you are speaking of some hypothetical game that doesn't currently exist, and from there drawing some theorycraft conclusions of its design that are currently eluding me.



I'm just not sure what you are trying to get at. I'm not trying to be pedantic, or obtuse so please don't take offense. I'm just not understanding the context that you are using for comparison of this hypothetical design.

In your post you started the conversation talking about 4e. Then in a separate post brought up the option of a TPK not being a possibility. Then mentioned a hypothetical game in which there is no in-combat healing in which attrition has already happened to the PC side.
On this hypothetical somehow the designer, not the DM, doesn't want the possibility of a TPK, and has designed some kind of "reset" mechanism that doesn't allow the PC side to lose by having them overcome the obstacle, but it is not earned. And if that mechanism is in place it should be on the opposition side also.

Honestly I'm not sure what this game you are talking about is. If it does exist would you please tell us what it is because I'm not getting the frame of reference in this at all.

I believe the lack of clarity is because multiple editions and game situations are being discussed, in the same post, with a general lack of qualifiers.

The TPK not being possible statement, I believe, is being attributed to 4e; which to be fair, if the actual encounter building guidelines are used, is a reasonably fair characterization (assuming competent player tactics, though MM3 did greatly improve this) for certain (sometimes quite broad) level ranges.

The attrition portion seems to compare pre-3e (if a couple PC's drop the party may quickly arrive at a breaking point) and 4e (a competent healer is often capable of fulling healing a downed ally in one turn).

Although potentially too much blame is being placed on in combat healing for the (relative) slowness of 4e combat; stacking/daisy-chaining reactions, possible over emphasis of tactics, and a generous player resource pool are equal contributors; it is certainly a contributing factor.

 

[CapnZapp]

What is your opinion of the "healing surge" option that has been reported to be in the DMG?

Assuming the following is correct

2) Healing surges. As an action, a character can use up to half his HD (you start by rolling one, see the result and keep rolling up to the maximum). A character recovers the surge after a short rest and all HD after a long rest. A "super-heroic" option is offered in which healing surges are a bonus action.

I like:
1) how a character can self-heal by spending his own action.
Specifically I like how this loosens up the dependency on a dedicated healer (assuming the rule is optional, and geared towards groups where nobody particularly cares to play the healer).
Rather than forcing some other character to enter the healing role and use up actions, you take the consequences (of going low on hp) and sacrifice your own action.
2) how half of your Hit Dice makes for a nice Cure spell - nothing too powerful, but not insignificant either.
3) how there is no mention (in the quote, at least) of tying Hit Dice to all healing like in 4E. Specifically I like that this healing is completely in addition to all other sources of healing. Unlike in 4E, when you quaff a Potion of Healing, that does not expend any of your personal resources (your HD). Reason: in 4E, everybody had to contribute to the all-important party quality of "soaking damage". Even if you played a sharpshooting ranger, the economics of hit dice compelled you to place yourself in harm's way, so your HD came into play too. You couldn't just have the tank soak all the damage, which always felt completely alien to me.
4) how you regain your HD after a long rest. A natural recovery rate, I think. (Remember, I am looking at this from the perspective of enabling healer-role-less play as an optional rule)

What I don't particularly care for:
1) the notion that you have only one surge per short rest. I don't see what breaks by you spending all your Hit Dice during the same fight. I don't want a return to the arbitrary 4E feeling where you needed to drag out play over a short rest just to unlock your full potential. I will simply erase that restriction.


In short, characters can
a) spend an action on a surge of healing or whatever you want to call it, spending up to half their maximum number of Hit Dice to heal.
b) this they can do as often they like (as long as their HD lasts!)
c) each long rest, HD reset.

By the way, I will combine this with

3) Slow natural healing. No HP are recovered after a long rest. Characters need to expend HD to recover HP.

I want the focus to be on hit points. I didn't care for the 4E idea that the true measure of your wounds and tiredness was your HD.

So at the end of a day, if a character has only a few HD remaining, and spending those isn't enough to bring him or her up to max hp, then the party will have to decide between expending party resources (potions, visits to the local shrine etc) and personal (tomorrow's Hit Dice).

But is this enough? Compared to a life cleric, it's not much. But at least it is much better than the unaltered rules (for the intended type of campaign).

Zapp.

PS. Any replies regarding how any of this diminishes the role of healer, or how player pressure constitues bullying is strongly discouraged. I do not intend to discuss any of that - if you can't accept the topic: a wish for optional rules enabling healer-less play; do not reply.