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

[Eejit]

It's what some players want. Whether it's a good thing depends entirely on personal preference.

 

[MoonSong]

All that Grimm & Gritty (and other slower Healing Rules) does, is to focus more on magical instead of natural healing. So Clerics, Bards, etc. are even more important .. is that really that a good thing?

If I'm the cleric player, of course. Feeling useful and needed for the team is good.

 

[Remathilis]

Not necessarily. "Grim & Gritty" makes me think of OD&D/1E sandbox play. Players who realized their limitations and avoided unnecessary conflict lived. Those who relied on the DM to modify the world to suit their brazen style of play died. The DM doesn't have to worry about "encounters per timespan" if his campaign is not encounter-based. The players are the ones that need to use caution not to overextend themselves.

Again, within reason. I don't care HOW good/skilled/lucky your players are, the game assumes that 6-8 encounters FACED before rest. A DM who assumes that 6-8 encounters per DAY and that recovery takes a WEEK is forcing 48-56 possible encounters, which is suicide. Tack on any but the most ginger of time-limits (as in; you have several months to clear out this dungeon, and no reinforcements are coming) your creating a meat-grinder of PCs and then blaming them for their incompetence.

Not saying YOU are doing this, just there can be a very easy way to misread this notion and create unplayable games in the name of "feel", I played in a few 2e games where healing was rare and magic was nonexistent but the DM felt no compulsion to modify how encounters worked. His game lasted two sessions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I played in a few 2e games where healing was rare and magic was nonexistent but the DM felt no compulsion to modify how encounters worked. His game lasted two sessions.

Sounds to me like the problem was quickly solved.

 

[Emerikol]

I took a gentler less aggressive tact on this thread due to feedback that perhaps the initial reviews of the DMG had been incomplete on available options. From what I see here it seems to be a fairly good thread without a lot of warring.

I think there are two things in play here and they are not really related. One dial is the rate of recovery regardless of the method (magic or natural). The other is whether non-magical alone can result in significant recovery. For example in 3e, there was sufficient magical healing that most groups (apparently mine didn't) healed up entirely between combats. So you have the same net result as 5e but you aren't using natural methods which is still exactly what some people want. In older editions you were down in between battles and had to manage hit points across the adventuring day as well as magic being the only quick resource. So the two are not linked necessarily.

I realize some of you are paraphrasing the DMG and that is cool. You've piqued my interest enough to at least go to the store and look at the DMG before I buy it.

Let me start at this point. I can write an entire game myself. I could take any old version of D&D and modify it to something usable by me. That includes 5e. I wouldn't try with 4e only because it would be a total rewrite for me. I feel that if the 5e design team did not provide any love whatsoever for my playstyle that I'd just houserule 3e. Honestly 3e is as close to what I want as 5e. Which is not super close but I can houserule it. The main reason to buy 5e is to just keep up with what is current and continue my longstanding tradition of buying the game. I've bought all versions since the red box series. If I feel they are deliberately ignoring my playstyle (and they only could intentionally) then I have to assume they want to excise it from D&D campaigns going forward. I just don't feel like paying money to end my own playstyle. I'll try and support someone else if that is the case.

In addition to older versions of D&D, I have all the retroclones out there. I'm not really that big a Pathfinder guy because to me they took everything about 3e I didn't like and put it on steroids.

I guess my style of game would be....
1. Old school danger and survival. Level drains, Turn to stone, Rust monsters, Treasure hunters and dungeon delvers. Serious traps. Some pixel bitching but most of the time it's automated.
2. I prefer Vancian casting for wizards though I was going to try 5e's take if I bought that game. I definitely think the high level limits was too great in 5e so I'd houserule those anyway.
3. I prefer 2e multiclassing. I hate level dipping. You decide your classes at the beginning.
4. I like 5e's take on movement and attacking so if I used 3e I'd keep that feature. It's a little like 2e but a bit better.
5. I prefer natural healing to be very low. I'd be okay with something approach level per day but that would be the max.
6. I prefer a moderate amount of healing overall. Not so much that you can heal up between battles completely without a second though but definitely enough that an extra day of rest would enable to casters to restore everyone.
7. 5e is still rife with dissociative mechanics so those would have to be removed. I'd have to remove second wind too. Neither of those tasks though is super onerous. In some cases like survivor it would just be me telling the group that they will never get that ability but I'll figure out what they get if we get close 17th level. I've had groups get that far but many don't.
8. I do prefer a bit slower advancement. After 50 4 hour sessions, I'm fine with being at 9th level. After another 50, I'd be fine to be 15th level. After that, it could get even slower.
9. If I had to write my own I'd probably compromise between 5e and 3e on bounded accuracy.
10. I love magic items not be built into the math so I'd definitely take 5e's approach on that.
11. I don't care about warlords and many of the new classes and races. The core 4 classes and races would likely satisfy my game. I might add Paladin who'd mostly be LG in my campaigns and worship a specific diety.

So you see I'm all over the place in my preferences. I do think there is a consistency though in what I like. It's a mixture of old school with some modern refinements.

I realize everyone likes what they like. I think a lot of people would like my approach that are new players if they tried it. Some wouldn't. I realize there are many playstyles in D&D. I'm not telling anyone they are doing it wrong. I am defensive of my own style though and feel it does not deserve to be attacked.

 

[Emerikol]

Morrus thanks for posting the update on healing. I appreciate it and I'm sure others do too.

At this point, while I'm not sure the devs really understand my playstyle, I can at least say there is no malicious intent. They are trying to provide for all playstyles based upon their own perceptions of the playerbase.

 

[Morrus]

I can at least say there is no malicious intent.

Nobody in the history of ever has ever designed a game with malicious intent.

People with malicious intent do malicious things.

 

[Remathilis]

So you see I'm all over the place in my preferences. I do think there is a consistency though in what I like. It's a mixture of old school with some modern refinements.

I realize everyone likes what they like. I think a lot of people would like my approach that are new players if they tried it. Some wouldn't. I realize there are many playstyles in D&D. I'm not telling anyone they are doing it wrong. I am defensive of my own style though and feel it does not deserve to be attacked.

WotC couldn't have designed a game to account for yours, mine, and everyone elses individual tastes. What they did do was design a decent system that can be a starting point for yours, mine, and everyone elses games. The cogs are not as tightly wound, things like rests and hp recovery can be tailored to a game like yours (slow healing) and mine (full hp, next door). Which is good. Rather than you and I playing two different iterations of D&D, we can play the same game, but differently.

Together, but not the same (as the Android commercials say).

 

[Remathilis]

Sounds to me like the problem was quickly solved.

I'd much rather the rules point out the drawbacks to a system rather than "shun the guy who did it and find a new DM".

 

[SilverfireSage]

At this point, while I'm not sure the devs really understand my playstyle, I can at least say there is no malicious intent.

Wait so before this you thought they were actually being malicious in designing 5e? I I can be pretty cynical about humanity sometimes, but going that far is kind of absurd.

They are trying to provide for all playstyles based upon their own perceptions of the playerbase.

Expecting them to cater to all play styles in one book written by a dozen people over a year is asking far too much.