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

[Sword of Spirit]

"Healing" has two meanings in D&D: the meaning it has in the real world (people - in the case of D&D, imaginary people - recover from their injuries); and its technical meaning (recovery of hit points).

The two events don't have to coincide. A fighter having his/her hit points restored to maximum is fully healed in the technical sense (no mor hp to regain). But nothing says that s/he has fully healed in the ordinary English sense - s/he may still have injuries. It's just that they aren't debilitating his/her performance.

"Slow natural heaing" is about recovery from injury. "Rapid hit point recovery" is about the technical issue of hit point restoration, especially for PCs. There is no reason why you can't mix the two. My 4e camaign certainly does.

I agree, there is no reason why you can't mix the two or treat them entirely differently. There is also is nothing wrong with putting them together. The way we have always done hit points is to bind the two concepts pretty tightly. Not 100%, but pretty close. It's easy to do that way as long as rules are present that support that style. The issue some people have is if there is a scenario where the rules preclude that style. I know people's experiences differ widely, but in my own D&D experience, I have never been in a campaign where there wasn't a strong correlation between hit points and injury. Being "hit" with a sword has always been described as being hit with a sword in my personal gaming experience. It seems an obvious and simple way of narrating the results of actions, which requires minimal mental overhead or additional complexity. All that is required is an understanding that the same number of hit points equals a smaller injury to someone with more hit points. It is fractional rather than absolute.

 

[MechaPilot]

If you're just going from those words, then X is as likely to be 1% as it is to be 99%. No number is more correct than any other.

In context, X is unlikely to be more than 90%, given that the remainder is "significant".

Which is to say that, while it certainly can be read in such a way that HP = mostly mojo, it is not inconsistent with a view that HP = mostly meat.

That's true that no number is more correct than any other.

It could be one HP. It could be one HP plus all the HP you get from your Con mod. It could be all your first level HPs, plus any future HPs from your Con mod. In 4e, it could be the HP that your Con score directly contributes to your HP total.

It's almost as if there were no right way to play D&D.

 

[pemerton]

It's amazing how you cherry pick your quotes

If you think there are relevant passages in Gygax's rulebooks that I haven't quoted, then by all means quote them.

There are three words that deatroy your argument completely.

"A certain amount."

I don't see how these destroy my reading at all.

Gygax says that "hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large" and also that "A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained." The "certain amount" is not the bulk of hit points which are, "by and large", not about physical punishment.

Gygax is particularly trying to deal with the issue of hit point increase with level. He is addressing the question, Do characters get meatier as they gain levels? And his answer is, No. Character don't get significantly meatier is they gain levels; rather, they become more skilled and luckier.

This has the logical consequence that the "nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises" that a high level fighter has suffered when 50 hit points have been lost must be much the same as the "nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises" that a 1st level fighter has suffered after taking 3 hp damage from falling down a pit. Which in turn means that it shouldn't take any longer for the high level fighter to heal those injuries than the 3 days that it takes the low level fighter. The rest of the healing must be "metaphysical" recovery, as Gygax himself alludes to ("physical and metaphysical peak").

In context, X is unlikely to be more than 90%, given that the remainder is "significant".

Which is to say that, while it certainly can be read in such a way that HP = mostly mojo, it is not inconsistent with a view that HP = mostly meat.

But that requires ignoring the reference to hit point loss, "by and large", not correlating to physical punishment.

It could be one HP plus all the HP you get from your Con mod.

Taken in isolation, yes. But Gygax had a preferred interpretation. As I quoted, he said that constitution includes "the immeasurabe areas which involve the sixth sense and luck".

Now, you show me where the percentages are written as to the breakdown of meat etc.." Looks to me like those words were used in a way to allow different DM's to interpret the ratio how they see fit. Show us any mechanics from that era that actually prove any different. You won't find any sort of healing surge mechanics, quick overnight healing through nonmagical means, nor will you find any kind of melee damage on a miss.

I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about the interpretation that Gygax suggested. I've quoted upthread (and requoted above) the passages where he says that the constitution bonus to hit points includes luck, and that hit point loss, by and large, does not correspond to physical punishment.

Anyone who wants to can interpret hit points in any version of D&D as "meat", ie physical integrity. And can embrace the absurdity that gaining levels layers on meat, so that it takes more chops of a sword to whittle away all of a high level fighter's flesh. If you find that verisimilitudinous, but find healing surges unverisimiitudinous, well there's no acounting for taste. Personally I find the whole picture absurd, and I have no sense as to why "meat gain with level" is deemed reasonable, but "meat recovery in hours rather than days" is deemed unreasonable. The whole picture makes no sense to me.

If you think that a 1st level fighter who drops takes 7 hp damage, dropping from 10 to 3 hp, has taken a major injury, which can then be recovered in a week's rest even without medical treatment, or (in 3E) with two day's rest with nursing care, again there's no accounting for taste. Once again, I find that absurd.

In no edition of D&D can a 1st level character sustain hit point loss that is both (i) not potentially fatal, and (ii) takes more than a week or so to heal, regardless of medical attention. My sense of verisimilitude therefore tells me that none of that hit point loss correlates to any very serious injuries. My sense of verisimiitude furthermore tells me that, as that character gains levels, the basic pattern doesn't change. Hit point loss that does not reduce someone to 0 hp or below does not correlate to serious injury.

As to whether it takes a day or a week to get back your verve after a near brush with death, that is a matter of pacing and genre preference. Verisimilitude has no work to do.

Guys, can't we agree to disagree and just accept that some use hit points as mostly a measure of the physical bodies capacity to withstand damage and some use it as being mostly skill, luck and other ways to avoid physical damage?

I agree that that's an obvious empirical truth! My issue is with the claim that AD&D supported a different approach from later editions.

 

[pemerton]

The way we have always done hit points is to bind the two concepts pretty tightly. Not 100%, but pretty close. It's easy to do that way as long as rules are present that support that style.

<snip>

in my own D&D experience, I have never been in a campaign where there wasn't a strong correlation between hit points and injury. Being "hit" with a sword has always been described as being hit with a sword in my personal gaming experience. It seems an obvious and simple way of narrating the results of actions, which requires minimal mental overhead or additional complexity. All that is required is an understanding that the same number of hit points equals a smaller injury to someone with more hit points. It is fractional rather than absolute.

My issue is that I can't see exactly how this correlates to healing rules.

Being "hit" with a sword does (say) 5 hit points of damage. A 1st level character will heal from that "injury" in 5 days, even unaided and with no medical or nursing assistance. Hence it is, in my view, not a very serious injury.

In AD&D, a 10th level character who takes that same amount of damage also takes 5 days to recover. On the "fractional" view that you suggest, that means the injury must be very minor (say, a scratch). Much more minor than the (also relatively minor) injury that the 1st level character needed 5 days to recover from. Hence most of that 5 days of healing must be recovery of "metaphysical" hit points.

In 3E, natural healing is proportionate to level, meaning that no injury that does not cause unconsicousness is any more severe than something that can be recovered in 1 or 2 days with nursing care. It is possible to have a completely healthy (say, 11 CON) 1st level wizard with 4 hit points, who can recover all of those hit points in a day of rest with a successful Heal check. Given that, it seems to me, fighters are not more prone to injury than magic-users, it seems that some of the extra hit points a fighter has on top of a magic-user must be metaphysical. Allowing that fighters, and higher CON characters, can take somewhat more severe punishment than an 11 CON magic-user, they may take up to 2 days to heal their injuries with nursing care.

None of these healing times - between a day and a week - indicates any sort of seriousness of injury. Even a scratch from a housecat won't fully heal in a week (at least in my case!) - the scab will still be there. My children suffer bruises from falls and scrapes in the playground that still linger a week on. So to my mind we must be talking, in these "healing" rates, about recovery of verve and "mojo". Whether that takes an hour, a night, or a week is about pacing and genre flavour. It's not an issue of physiological realism.

In 4e, one of the most common house rules I've heard of is chaning the rest periods, especially for extended rests. And the 5e DMG puts forward exactly this sort of option.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But that requires ignoring the reference to hit point loss, "by and large", not correlating to physical punishment.

The proportional camp would say that a loss of 10hp to a 100hp Fighter would be proportional to a 1hp injury on a 10hp Fighter. You don't gain more meat, but you do get better at dealing with injury, such that - through luck and skill and whatever else - your increased hp represent your ability to suffer a less-significant wound from an attack that would fell a lesser mortal. There can never be a loss of HP which does not correspond to a physical wound, no matter how small. (Even if sometimes the wound is psycho-somatic.)

At least, that is one entirely consistent interpretation. (For what it's worth, I do not belong to the proportional camp.)

If you think that a 1st level fighter who drops takes 7 hp damage, dropping from 10 to 3 hp, has taken a major injury, which can then be recovered in a week's rest even without medical treatment, or (in 3E) with two day's rest with nursing care, again there's no accounting for taste. Once again, I find that absurd.

Or you set the threshold of major injury at a much higher value, and just accept that non-heroic chumps will typically die from any wound bad enough to cause major injury. And accept that 3.5-style advanced medical care includes some quasi-magical shenanigans which allow it to be much more effective.

All of this has been discussed at length in other threads. There's no reason to resurrect the whole debate here, just because you are unwilling to see it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My issue is that I can't see exactly how this correlates to healing rules.

Being "hit" with a sword does (say) 5 hit points of damage. A 1st level character will heal from that "injury" in 5 days, even unaided and with no medical or nursing assistance. Hence it is, in my view, not a very serious injury.

In AD&D, a 10th level character who takes that same amount of damage also takes 5 days to recover. On the "fractional" view that you suggest, that means the injury must be very minor (say, a scratch). Much more minor than the (also relatively minor) injury that the 1st level character needed 5 days to recover from. Hence most of that 5 days of healing must be recovery of "metaphysical" hit points.

In 3E, natural healing is proportionate to level, meaning that no injury that does not cause unconsicousness is any more severe than something that can be recovered in 1 or 2 days with nursing care. It is possible to have a completely healthy (say, 11 CON) 1st level wizard with 4 hit points, who can recover all of those hit points in a day of rest with a successful Heal check. Given that, it seems to me, fighters are not more prone to injury than magic-users, it seems that some of the extra hit points a fighter has on top of a magic-user must be metaphysical. Allowing that fighters, and higher CON characters, can take somewhat more severe punishment than an 11 CON magic-user, they may take up to 2 days to heal their injuries with nursing care.

None of these healing times - between a day and a week - indicates any sort of seriousness of injury. Even a scratch from a housecat won't fully heal in a week (at least in my case!) - the scab will still be there. My children suffer bruises from falls and scrapes in the playground that still linger a week on. So to my mind we must be talking, in these "healing" rates, about recovery of verve and "mojo". Whether that takes an hour, a night, or a week is about pacing and genre flavour. It's not an issue of physiological realism.

In 4e, one of the most common house rules I've heard of is chaning the rest periods, especially for extended rests. And the 5e DMG puts forward exactly this sort of option.

How dare you respond to my thoughts with well-reasoned and non-inflammatory rationality!

I don't actually disagree with much of what you are saying. There are discrepancies no matter how you run your damage and healing in D&D. It is, in the final analysis, a poor system no matter how you interpret it.

My way of handling the sort of discrepancies you describe is to assume that non-magical healing includes an assumption that your injuries are treated and bandaged up so they aren't slowing you down, but not always fully healed over yet. The reason I prefer to run my style of damage and healing is that it provides easy connections between narration and things like damage types, and slows the pace of natural healing enough to allow multi-day attrition and make magical healing feel special.

 

[pemerton]

My way of handling the sort of discrepancies you describe is to assume that non-magical healing includes an assumption that your injuries are treated and bandaged up so they aren't slowing you down, but not always fully healed over yet.

In my 4e game we use the standard (5 minute) rule for short rests (and hence healing surge expenditure). I assume that the PCs gird their loins and steel their resolve, and hence their wounds, while not fully healed, aren't slowing them down!

 

[pemerton]

All of this has been discussed at length in other threads. There's no reason to resurrect the whole debate here, just because you are unwilling to see it.

I'm not unwilling to see it. I just don't think it has particular support from anything Gygax wrote (contrary to what [MENTION=6776331]Sailor Moon[/MENTION] asserted), and I don't think it is that hard to implement variant healing times in either 4e or 5e - 5e even spells out the options in the DMG.

Or you set the threshold of major injury at a much higher value, and just accept that non-heroic chumps will typically die from any wound bad enough to cause major injury. And accept that 3.5-style advanced medical care includes some quasi-magical shenanigans which allow it to be much more effective.

These are the sorts of things that don't work for me. The second, because a Heal check still works in an anti-magic field. The first, because I'm a non-heroic chump who has suffered some relatively major injuries (mostly soft tissue damage in the legs) which slowed me down a great deal, but would not have killed me even had I not received physiotherapy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not unwilling to see it. I just don't think it has particular support from anything Gygax wrote (contrary to what @Sailor Moon asserted), and I don't think it is that hard to implement variant healing times in either 4e or 5e - 5e even spells out the options in the DMG.

Healing Surges were hard-coded into 4E, and it was the same sort of logic which went into giant minions having 1HP. Fixing the mojo:meat ratio to something more palatable would take a lot of work.

And honestly, I couldn't care less about what Gygax said, except in its reflection upon the game rules. He may have thought he was painting a great picture of a horse, but I'd rather put it at a 90 degree angle so it forms a wicked sweet picture of a space ship. (I started playing in late 2E, and my preferences reflect such.)

These are the sorts of things that don't work for me. The second, because a Heal check still works in an anti-magic field. The first, because I'm a non-heroic chump who has suffered some relatively major injuries (mostly soft tissue damage in the legs) which slowed me down a great deal, but would not have killed me even had I not received physiotherapy.

Non-magical doesn't mean mundane; that's why we have the (Ex) tag, and the martial power source.

And your personal non-heroic injuries are not something which make for compelling gameplay, so there's no reason we'd need to model them in detail. If we modeled that as healing over the course of a week, rather than months or whatever, it doesn't make the injury any more or less abstract. If we had it heal overnight, then that would cement it as mostly non-physical.

 

[Hussar]

Healing Surges were hard-coded into 4E, and it was the same sort of logic which went into giant minions having 1HP. Fixing the mojo:meat ratio to something more palatable would take a lot of work.

And honestly, I couldn't care less about what Gygax said, except in its reflection upon the game rules. He may have thought he was painting a great picture of a horse, but I'd rather put it at a 90 degree angle so it forms a wicked sweet picture of a space ship. (I started playing in late 2E, and my preferences reflect such.)
/snip

You're missing the reason for this argument though. See, the HP=Meet crowd needs to show that the way they are doing things is the same as it's always been done and that 4e is the outlier. If they don't show that, then suddenly 4e's no longer the outlier and their interpretation is. If that's true, then there is no real need to support their interpretation, because their interpretation has never actually been supported. Their whole argument centers on the idea that 4e has radically changed the game and that they are simply trying to get back to the way it was before.

OTOH, when you actually look at the quotes in the rules, suddenly 4e is no longer the outlier. 3e healing rates were very fast, perhaps slightly slower than 4e, but, not by much. 1e and 2e interpreted HP as "mostly mojo" and rejected the idea that characters got "meatier" as they gained levels. Suddenly, their entire line of reasoning for criticising every aspect of HP is in question because, if HP are "mostly mojo" in every edition of D&D, then things like Damage on a Miss isn't such a huge leap, dealing damage with non-physical attacks becomes perfectly plausible, minions make a fair bit of sense, and healing rates similar to 3e or 4e aren't out of line at all.

So, it does hinge very strongly on what Gygax said. The whole argument hinges on reinterpreting HP to be something that they never were - mostly meat with a believable healing pace.