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

[CapnZapp]

Changing what the length of time is for a "rest" just to tweak healing will have TONS of unintended side effects.
Let's go with that gritty thing for example where a short rest is 8 hours and a long rest is a week.

Dragonborn Breathweapon usable once per day.
Half Orc - Relentless Endurance once per week.

Barbarian - Rage uses only recharge after a week, and Relentless Rage doesn't reset it's DC until the next day.
Bard - Expended Spell slots & Bardic Inspiration regained only after a week. Font of Inspiration becomes a daily.
Cleric - Expended spell slots regained after a week. Channel Divinity is once a day. Divine Intervention takes a week before you can use it again, whether you succeeded or not.
Druid - Expended spell slots regained after a week. Wild Shape only recharges the next day.
Fighter - Second Wind & Action Surge both become once per day. Indomitable takes a week to recharge.
Monk - Ki recharges only after a day.
Paladin - Divine Sense & Lay On Hands, Cleansing Touch, and Expended spell slots only recharge after a week. Channel Divinity takes a day.
Ranger - Expended spell slots take a week to recharge.
Rogue - Stroke of Luck becomes a daily.
Sorcerer - Expended spell slots and Sorcery Points take a week to recharge.
Warlock - Expended Spell Slots & Mystic Arcanum & Eldritch Master recharge after a week.
Wizard - Expended spell slots regained after a week.

Now that was only with the base races and classes, though some specialties/traditions/whatever that class calls it have more things that get screwed over. If you want a really low magic and special ability campaign, that almost works, except there are plenty of amazing things some classes or races can do who's recharge times are not based on "rests" which get distinctly MORE powerful in that kind of setting.

If you want to change healing rates, do NOT redefine the lengths of "rests". Instead, just move healing off of the "rests" system and give them times (hours, days, etc). Doing it like that, you'll avoid screwing up everything else.

I realize you're trying to help, but...

Sigh.

The only balancing factor is number of encounters per short rest N, and number of short rests per long rest M.

Whether a short rest is five minutes, an hour or a year doesn't change the balance.

IF each adventure is given the freedom to set these values according to the pace of that particular adventure!

As long as WotC (or you) insist on tightly coupling each rest to a specific time interval, there will be stories whose pacing won't fit the system, and thus will benefit some classes more than others.

The solution: decouple rests from definitions given in minutes and hours!

Instead, say that the game engine expects 2-6 encounters per short rest, and 1-3 short rests between each long rest. (Just an example)

Then each adventure can either use the default given in the PHB (short = 1 hour, long = night) or redefine these values to fit that particular adventure's pacing.

And finally all will be well

 

[CapnZapp]

Even though it doesn't sound like it's in the DMG, this will probably be the default for games I run, although I'm unlikely to make the short/long rest periods any shorter than the PHB standards except in exceptional circumstances. I definitely like the idea of tying long rests to "turning the page", something that Legend already does (it's one of the few things I really like about the system).

You would be surprised how many DMs who hesitate adding "house rules" of their own devising to the game.

And how many DMs who feel empowered if the rule can be found in an official WotC product. Even if clearly labeled "optional" it still carries, for them, far greater "official" weight; enabling them to introduce the rule to the group without a lot of fuss and gripes.

But thanks

 

[fuindordm]

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.

I think most of these can be addressed with minor house rules that don't change the structure of the game significantly. You'd be playing 5e with a campaign packet a couple of pages long at most.

I also miss 1e/2e style multiclassing, but not enough to force it back in. I think this could be resolved by adopting 3e's XP table and dividing earned XP between the two classes, which would put 2-classed characters 1-3 levels behind single-classed characters for most of the game.

The 1e/2e style assumes that most healing is magical, and that magical healing is scarce, so that players are cautious about getting into fights. In practice, it never seemed to work out that way. 4E and 5E have a different philosophy which I really like: HP don't really represent damage at all, not even the last few HP. In 4e the real damage/exhaustion track was healing surges; in 5E it is hit dice.

So when I am going to run a 5E game with old school feel, I will be relatively generous with the short-term HP totals--magical healing, inspiration, second wind, and other effects will all be plentiful and your HP can vary wildly between [0,max] throughout a combat. But none of this represents health. In contrast, I plan to be stingy with HD. I suggest letting players recover only 1HD per long rest--that should make them cautious about burning through their reserves too quickly. That 1HD represents the amount of natural healing they get overnight. Their HP may be full again, but they're still a lot more tired than they were before the adventure started! And with that small change in perspective, I became much happier with the modern take on HP than I ever was with the 1e/2e approach.

Finally, I also appreciate the yearning for 1e-style spellcasting but keep in mind that these editions assumed that even first-level spells could end encounters if used at the right time. Sure there were a lot of stinkers, but the whole Vancian conceit is that if the MU casts a spell, it's going to be a big one (even at low levels). So it's not as simple as returning to 1e spell slots -- you also have to power up some of the low-level spells so that when the wizard uses their carefully hoarded spell then it is sure to have an impact.

Personally, I'm going to try out the 5e system even in old-school games. I like the idea of 6th-9th level spells being an order of magnitude better than the 1st-5th level spells ("high magic" vs "low magic") and keeping their spell slots rare and precious, while allowing wizards much more of the weaker magic to play with.

Anyway, good luck getting the feel you want. I think I can run a game with AD&D feel in this new system, and I'm sure you can too. But don't forget to listen to your players!

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

This.

This line of thinking is all good and well... in a fantasy ruleset with no easy access to super-healing! There are many such games, but D&D sure ain't one of them!

In D&D, all "grim & gritty" does is create two distinct types of parties:

a) the party with a healer
b) the party with no healer

And all official modules expect type A parties. So, unless you cook your own campaign, "grim & gritty" means type B parties are simply not welcome.

And so let me echo Baumi:

Is that really a good thing?

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Another sentiment is:

I sure would like to play a Cleric. Her combination of robust melee combined with cool magical powers sounds super neat.

But no. If I play a Cleric the game engine itself will expect, nay require, me to spend my actions on buffing and healing. Seldom will I be able to focus on doing cool stuff even though the class contains these toys.

So I'd better play a Wizard, signaling to the other players "I'm not the healer you're looking for".

Again. Sigh.




If everybody were given moderately generous self-healing, it would enable players to bring along a Cleric (or other healer), or skip that if nobody wanted to play support.

In my book, this would mean greater flexibility, and be good for the game.

 

[Emerikol]

I think some people here misunderstand my meaning when I say malicious. I don't think they are trying to kill me.

Maybe an example from the NFL would help.

In the past, some teams really punished receivers coming across the middle. They literally took their heads off. This caused many receivers when playing those teams to "hear footsteps" and drop passes. So it was a strategy that worked. Let's call that an NFL playstyle for the sake of this discussion.

The NFL since has passed rules to massively limit that approach. Perhaps for good reasons. Concussions are bad.

The passing of those rules though could be viewed by the teams using the above strategy as malicious. You are destroying our playstyle they might say. And they would be right. It is a deliberate attempt to suppress that playstyle.

In the case of D&D, getting rid of some rules or not providing others while good in their eyes could result in the suppression or ghetto-ization of a playstyle. So the people being suppressed would be right in viewing those changes as malicious. Malicious to their playstyle anyway.

We can debate what the current DMG has provided and I might be on your side but I think it would be fair to say that without any healing modules it would be clear that Wotc only cares about the rapid non-magical healing style. So those who prefer another style would be right in claiming their intentions are malicious. If all they'd provided were a few sentences on changing up the short and long rests I'd agree. I do believe additional information has came out though recently that leads me to believe they are offering more than that which is good and makes me think their intent was not malicious. Uninformed perhaps in some cases but not malicious. An attempt was made at least.

 

[wedgeski]

Oh goody, it's the gritty-vs-high-fantasy-arguments-over-non-magical healing phase of the new edition! At least it should be calmer water after this.

 

[Emerikol]

I think most of these can be addressed with minor house rules that don't change the structure of the game significantly. You'd be playing 5e with a campaign packet a couple of pages long at most.

I don't think I'd try to houserule 5e's magic system. If I play 5e that will mean I'm accepting the 5e spellcasting approach. That might be a concession from my perspective but hopefully the positives will make up for it.

Otherwise, I would of necessity fix all the dissociative mechanics. Most of them are on the fighter. I'd drop the battlemaster entirely and just go with the champion. Then I'd fix the places I needed to fix. I cannot enjoy a game with dissociative mechanics. It's a firm deal breaker for me. Still there aren't that many so perhaps that is a doable thing.

Ultimately it really is a cost/work comparison between 3e and 5e. At least 5e could be houseruled. I don't believe I could have houseruled 4e at all so 5e is a step in the right direction.

 

[MoonSong]

If everybody were given moderately generous self-healing, it would enable players to bring along a Cleric (or other healer), or skip that if nobody wanted to play support.

In my book, this would mean greater flexibility, and be good for the game.

No, unlike many other situations the healer needed/not needed is a discrete question. either the party needs a healer -in which case playing a healbot is superfun for players like me and super awful for players like the one you describe- or not needed -in which case playing a healbot is superfluous at best and actively hurting the party at worst-. Generous self healing clearly makes a healer not needed -of course you can benefit from a PC that sometimes heals, but that is not a healer, though it makes it less of a burden for people who don't want to play healers-, it doesn't bring this flexibility you claim. This is an issue each table has to handle and is an either/or issue. There is no true middle ground here.

 

[Joe Liker]

In the past, some teams really punished receivers coming across the middle. They literally took their heads off.

There have been actual beheadings in NFL football? I had no idea!