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

[MechaPilot]

In my personal view, 4 points of damage is a wound that is fatal to someone. The average peasant, when hit with a sword or arrow, will be unconscious and bleeding to death. That's not to say that 4 damage is "an arrow through you" or "impaled on a broadsword", but more that the average peasant is related to Glass Joe. (My personal rule of thumb is that "run through with a sword" is equal to the maximum damage a sword can deal - 8hp in 2E, or 16hp in 3E.)

A level 10 fighter might have 100 hit points. She won't die, even with 4 arrows (4 x 24 = 96 damage) in her back. She is more akin to Brock Samson. This makes sense, because she hangs out with the guy who can instantly teleport anywhere in the world, and another friend who can literally raise the dead. They're all practically demi-gods by this point.

I like Brock Samson, but the things he does only works for me because the Venture Bros. is a comedy. In a comedy-focused campaign, I could see that working for me as well. However, in a heroic fantasy campaign it's much easier for me to rationalize HP as a resource to spend to turn lethal harm into either non-lethal harm or outright misses/deflections than it is to rationalize an arrow through the forearm not impairing one's fighting ability.

 

[pemerton]

it's not that I think my way is right; I've always said options for all, and that there's no right/wrong way to play as long as your having fun doing it. I just think that the argument about the lack of HP consistency in 4e and 5e glosses over the inconsistencies with 3e.

This is my view also.

I don't care who plays hit points how; it is the claim that the system "used to be consistent" up until 4e that I am responding too.

My view remains that, if you want to play "hp as meat" using 4e or 5e, it is as simple as changing the recovery times. Even though this wasn't an expressly stated option in 4e, implementing it is about as challenging as deciding that the Heal skill in 3E is an EX magical ability that speeds recovery to non-earthly levels (ie not very challenging).

that's quite a stretch to suggest that losing 18 of 28 Hit Points is merely some cuts and bruises, but losing 28 of 28 Hit Points is beaten nearly to death.

This is in fact exactly how the hit point system was intended, when it was incorporated into AD&D, to be used. The bulk of hit point loss is metaphysical rather than physical until the last handful is lost: "a mere nick or scratch" (DMG p 61), "nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises" (DMG p 82).

Narrating the hit point loss in accordance with its author's intentions is not "quite a stretch".

Even if you accept that, then there's only a problem if you interpret the same amount of damage to vary in severity based on who receives it

<snip>

If you take 18hp of damage to be a fixed amount of injury, regardless of who receives it, then you have both individuals healing the same wound in the same amount of time

4 points of damage is a wound that is fatal to someone. The average peasant, when hit with a sword or arrow, will be unconscious and bleeding to death.

<snip>

A level 10 fighter might have 100 hit points. She won't die, even with 4 arrows (4 x 24 = 96 damage) in her back.

My problem with this is that injury is not someting that comes in quantities, like pouring liquid into or out of a vessel. 4 litres of water is a quantity that is excessive for some vessels, but other vessels have a larger capacity. But having an arrow lodge in one's back is not like that. Injury works by destroying tissue and disrupting physiological processes, and the fundamental processes are the same in a peasant and a 10th level fighter. Both will die if an arrow pierces the heart, or does sufficient damage to the lung such that it fills with blood, or does sufficient damage to the chest cavity such that it fills with blood and/or air, causing the lung to collapse.

If a 10th level fighter has 4 arrows sticking from he back, that means that they have not cause any of these sorts of injuries - perhaps they are lodged in the rings of her mail, or they struck a rib or a should blade and hence didn't penetrate any further. In which case they are not the same sort of injury as was suffered by the peasant, even though - at the table - the damage rolls may have all been 4s.

That's not to say that 4 damage is "an arrow through you" or "impaled on a broadsword", but more that the average peasant is related to Glass Joe

And my problem with this is that it turns the game into comedy - either grim or inane, depending on taste. Peasants fall down dead when they get into bar fights, suffer injuries on the farm, stub their toes etc. Whereas in the real world peasants are often quite strong and resilient in their physique, and have life expectancies determined by vulnerability to infection and disease, or the availabiity of food, rather than an inability to withstand a sharp blow from a stick.

In which case words lack meaning, we get no information out of the model, and the game is entirely worthless to anyone who wants to use it as such. It is better that the game lack verisimilitude than that it lack meaning. It is a fantasy game, after all.

It's not a model, but the game provides information. It tells us who is winning and who is losing. If my hit points are approaching zero at a more rapid (proportional) rate than my opponent's, I am losing the fight, and vice versa.

That is a game that has meaning.

The detailed information as to why I am losing the fight is provided, if not obvious (eg a dragon is trying to eat me as I defend myself rather hopelessly with a dagger), by referee narration and player imagination.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My view remains that, if you want to play "hp as meat" using 4e or 5e, it is as simple as changing the recovery times. Even though this wasn't an expressly stated option in 4e, implementing it is about as challenging as deciding that the Heal skill in 3E is an EX magical ability that speeds recovery to non-earthly levels (ie not very challenging).

Exercising this option in 4E required altering every instance of non-magical healing, down to the healing surge. It is no trivial task. It is significantly easier in 5E.

This is in fact exactly how the hit point system was intended, when it was incorporated into AD&D, to be used. The bulk of hit point loss is metaphysical rather than physical until the last handful is lost: "a mere nick or scratch" (DMG p 61), "nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises" (DMG p 82).

There's a huge difference between the bulk of hit points (as a collective) being metaphysical, and the top X% being metaphysical while the last one is always pure meat. Saying that someone can be at half, and yet barely show any signs of injury, requires substantial interpretation to which many others may not agree. It was codified in 4E that above-half is purely meta-physical and below-half was nicks and scratches, but that was not the case in 2E or 3E.

My problem with this is that injury is not someting that comes in quantities, like pouring liquid into or out of a vessel. 4 litres of water is a quantity that is excessive for some vessels, but other vessels have a larger capacity. But having an arrow lodge in one's back is not like that. Injury works by destroying tissue and disrupting physiological processes, and the fundamental processes are the same in a peasant and a 10th level fighter. Both will die if an arrow pierces the heart, or does sufficient damage to the lung such that it fills with blood, or does sufficient damage to the chest cavity such that it fills with blood and/or air, causing the lung to collapse.

In real life, perhaps, but that's not the fictional world in which these stories take place. A fictional warrior might be shot six times, and keep coming at you, while someone else will get shot once and go down. Brock Samson, that one guy from Lord of the Rings, or any number of other fictional heroes will keep fighting even when it should be biologically unlikely. Some random chump might die even from a wound that should not otherwise be fatal, and who is to say that some sort of hero might not survive something that should be fatal?

To put it another way, there's nothing inconsistent with the view that those metaphysical parts of your HP total are the things that allow someone to survive a wound that would have killed someone else. Inconsistent with reality, possibly, but not inconsistent within the rules of the game world.

And my problem with this is that it turns the game into comedy - either grim or inane, depending on taste. Peasants fall down dead when they get into bar fights, suffer injuries on the farm, stub their toes etc. Whereas in the real world peasants are often quite strong and resilient in their physique, and have life expectancies determined by vulnerability to infection and disease, or the availabiity of food, rather than an inability to withstand a sharp blow from a stick.

And that speaks only of your own perspective, and your own inability to compromise verisimilitude in the name of gameplay. No model is perfect, and a perfect model would be too complex for actual use.

Neither edition of which I speak has had a bar fight be inherently lethal, because unarmed attacks used different rules (with a complex chart in 2E, and non-lethal damage in 3E). Nor has a stubbed toe ever been suggested as causing even 1 point of damage. Nor has 1 point of damage been a lethal amount to the majority of the population, prior to 4E. Believe it or not, by and large, the rules do work out for people who play HP as mostly meat. At least, they did prior to 4E. And in 5E, we're still adjusting.

 

[MechaPilot]

My view remains that, if you want to play "hp as meat" using 4e or 5e, it is as simple as changing the recovery times. Even though this wasn't an expressly stated option in 4e, implementing it is about as challenging as deciding that the Heal skill in 3E is an EX magical ability that speeds recovery to non-earthly levels (ie not very challenging).

Exercising this option in 4E required altering every instance of non-magical healing, down to the healing surge. It is no trivial task. It is significantly easier in 5E.

Exercising the option in 4e is trivial in the amount of work that is required by the DM, as I will illustrate.

Item #1: Declare that the second wind action and martial powers that use the "healing" keyword don't exist.
Item #2: Remove the ability to spend healing surges during a short and long rest.
Item #3: Replace the full healing of the long rest with an amount that is more to your group's liking.

That removes all the martial healing, sets the natural recovery rate to what is desired, and doesn't require replacement of surges (since only magic would allow you to activate them) or the surge value.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I can't believe you people are still going on about this. I'm going to discuss a few things and hopefully will bring this argument to an end.

First of all, Gary Gygax is no longer with us so we will never ever know exactly what he meant in those earlier editions with regards to HP.

Now, some of you have been banging on about 4th edition and how it supposedly better represented HP. Well I'm afraid it is actually the worst edition to handle HP and I will tell you why.

1st: Let's look at what the PHB says about Hit Points.

Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

Hmmmm looks to me like we have a bit of vague wording here when it says "Hit points represent more than just physical endurance". As you can see there is no ratio here as to what the physical part is and what the rest is. Okay let's move on.

Healing Surges: Well the book doesn't actually tell you in game what they represent but they allow you to heal injuries and even powers that would actually heal physical injuries, cause the character to act as if they spent a healing surge even though you don't spend the surge. This would lead one to believe that the healing surges take care of "all" types of injury etc.... Also the fact that you can go from negatives and unconscious to back to full health by using them. Clearly HP is more than just luck and dodging and that healing surges are in fact, magical in nature.

There is no point in actually having armour if we look at other mechanics such as damage on a miss. I though missing was where the character actually dodged, or managed to deflect the hit, or the armour stops it. But then we have HP loss that can be described as missing but somehow the person was winded etc... See how the inconsistencies start to emerge?

Different damage for different weapons: What's the point in this if weapons aren't really actually hitting anyone? If we go by the logic then most damage would be the same number. Why would a "hit" but described as not really making contact but making the person winded from a greatsword cause more damage than a dagger if neither weapon is actually hitting? Again, more and more inconsistencies emerge.

Using strength to do more damage: Again, what is the point in this? Strength has to do with physical power and if most HP is not meat then this is pointless and makes no sense.

Let's look at a few powers:

Steel Serpent Strike Fighter Attack 1
You stab viciously at your foe’s knee or foot to slow him down. No
matter how tough he is, he’s going to favor that leg for a time.
Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is
slowed and cannot shift until end of your next turn.

Obviously it's a physical blow according to the description and yet you can fully heal it using Healing Surges.

Armor-Piercing Thrust Fighter Attack 3
You drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s
defenses.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Again, another example of the weapon making contact and doing physical damage.

Piercing Strike Rogue Attack 1
A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.

Need I say more?

Blinding Barrage Rogue Attack 1
A rapid barrage of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the
blood from their eyes.
Daily ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close blast 3
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light
thrown weapon, or a sling.
Target: Each enemy in blast you can see
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target is
blinded until the end of your next turn.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not blinded.

You draw blood so it's obviously a physical hit.

So there we have it. 4th edition is a numbers game where the numbers work well together, but when you start adding in the narrative and description of the mechanics it becomes an absolute mess of inconsistencies.

One of the reasons I didn't enjoy the game and that edition doesn't do HP well at all.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is no point in actually having armour if we look at other mechanics such as damage on a miss. I though missing was where the character actually dodged, or managed to deflect the hit, or the armour stops it. But then we have HP loss that can be described as missing but somehow the person was winded etc... See how the inconsistencies start to emerge?

Different damage for different weapons: What's the point in this if weapons aren't really actually hitting anyone? If we go by the logic then most damage would be the same number. Why would a "hit" but described as not really making contact but making the person winded from a greatsword cause more damage than a dagger if neither weapon is actually hitting? Again, more and more inconsistencies emerge.

Using strength to do more damage: Again, what is the point in this? Strength has to do with physical power and if most HP is not meat then this is pointless and makes no sense.

Those "inconsistencies" are design decisions in the chassis of the system. That you are only now noticing them does not prove that DoaM is wrong, only that thinking about DoaM makes them more obvious... to you.

I am not a fan of DoaM, mostly for flavor reasons. But I do not think your argument says anything important.

There is nothing illogical about expending energy to stave off the brunt of an attack. There are RPGs systems that are designed around that assumption, with resources that are expended to buttress defense or ongoing fatigue rules.

What is a PC doing who barely survives a Fireball by rolling high enough to make that Reflex save? Expending energy to stave off the brunt of an attack.

So maybe it is "inconsistent". But your "inconsistent" is arguably someone else's "less illogical".

 

[MechaPilot]

Healing Surges: Well the book doesn't actually tell you in game what they represent but they allow you to heal injuries and even powers that would actually heal physical injuries, cause the character to act as if they spent a healing surge even though you don't spend the surge. This would lead one to believe that the healing surges take care of "all" types of injury etc.... Also the fact that you can go from negatives and unconscious to back to full health by using them. Clearly HP is more than just luck and dodging and that healing surges are in fact, magical in nature.

Healing Surges are no more magical than a character's attribute modifier is; they are merely a mechanical construct that dictates how much access a character has to her total pool of HPs over the course of a day.

There is no point in actually having armour if we look at other mechanics such as damage on a miss. I though missing was where the character actually dodged, or managed to deflect the hit, or the armour stops it. But then we have HP loss that can be described as missing but somehow the person was winded etc... See how the inconsistencies start to emerge?

Wearing plate armor doesn't make you magically able to dodge better, or enemies magically worse at swinging their weapons. However, it does raise your AC. If failing to beat a target's AC means a literal and narrative miss, then you are ascribing magical properties to everything that raises AC. Unless you want to say that all non-magical armors magically give PCs the ability to dodge better or turn enemy strikes into complete misses, the inconsistency you mentioned is already present in the way that AC works in 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e.

Different damage for different weapons: What's the point in this if weapons aren't really actually hitting anyone? If we go by the logic then most damage would be the same number. Why would a "hit" but described as not really making contact but making the person winded from a greatsword cause more damage than a dagger if neither weapon is actually hitting? Again, more and more inconsistencies emerge.

What really is the point of different weapons having different damage values when skill at arms is in real life a far greater determining factor? Yet, in D&D, a 12 Str fighter with a decade of combat experience does the same damage with a longsword as a 12 Str blacksmith who has never fought a battle in her life.

What really is the point of different weapons having different damage values when all it does is encourage people to pick the handful of weapons with the highest damage values? Shortbow or Longbow, I can use both, but which one should I choose? D6 vs D8 makes that a no-brainer.

So there we have it. 4th edition is a numbers game where the numbers work well together, but when you start adding in the narrative and description of the mechanics it becomes an absolute mess of inconsistencies.

Not at all.

So a character gets a physical wound when she is attacked. She takes a short rest, bandages or stitches the wound, and regains HPs so she can continue to fight on. Do those bandages/stitches immediately sink in and become virgin flesh? No, they are still there.

The same is true with inspirational healing. Sure, you gain the ability to fight on a little longer (i.e. HP recovery), but any injuries that you have sustained don't magically go away.

 

[doctorhook]

I feel like a ton of the debate up thread from this post could be resolved by remembering that hit points are actually a fraction.

Go math!

 

[MechaPilot]

I feel like a ton of the debate up thread from this post could be resolved by remembering that hit points are actually a fraction.

Go math!

As I see it, the key thing is that HPs can be whatever the DM needs them to be. This can be all one thing in one case, fractional of all things in another case, and fractions of only some things in yet another case.

Go narrative-enabling mechanics!

 

[mouselim]

Any of the above. Poison can certainly make you fatigued. The stress of fighting through the pain of the poison. Winded in a sense that you are not physically at your peak, or even literally because your airway is swelling shut. Even luck, as they are certainly the most abstract view of hit points, could be "damaged" by how unlucky it is to get poisoned. And certainly meat is, as you seem to infer, a fine answer. Plus any other answer that satisfies an individual as to what causes the hit point loss. But your answer is not the answer.

Which is why, even as a full-gaming-career advocate of hp=mojo, I see where the hp=meat crowd is coming from. They have their individual view and want rules that support that. I believe 5E gives them that, but I'm not the one that needs to be satisfied by the rules presented.

Problem is, to get poison that causes fatigue etc needs to prick the skin which equates to meat.

Wait, to state my stand, I'm also of the camp that hit point isn't totally meat. It's a mash-up of everything including meat (that's why I house-ruled the hit point system of D&D 5e with bloodied status).

Yet, I felt what the other camp is considering and the anguish and inconsistency of what the WOTC designers are taking this. Yes, it's an abstraction but after toying with it for 5 versions, they still cannot convincingly do something about it.

If an attack hits, there are other repercussions (e.g. poison, paralysis, drain, etc) yet if this attack that hits isn't meat, how do we account for these side-effects? (e.g. level drain because of fatigue? Loss of luck? Winded?)