D&D 5E Those who come from earlier editions, why are you okay with 5E healing (or are you)?

[CleverNickName]

So, this discussion like many others, leads me to a point of consideration.

Let us assume you are right, @CleverNickName and @Saelorn , let us assume that the hitpoint system is completely broken, unsalvageable, and ruins the game.

Now what?

Scrap Hp and go to a wound system? Con saves versus damage to soak? How far do we go in "fixing" the system?

And, frankly, I've played those systems. They are fun, but they aren't DnD, and I want DnD to have hp just like the games I played like Final Fantasy and Disgaea. So, any "fix" you propose isn't going to feel like the game I like to play. It will change how healing works, resting works, damage works, attacks, saves against spells.

So, you need to redesign the entire game, from the ground up, to fix what most of us don't see as a problem. And, I don't find it necessary

I mean, I won't speak for everyone but it doesn't quite ruin the game for me, it just makes the story clumsy and breaks my immersion. And not a whole lot, just enough to bother me. Like a loose tooth.

So the best way I know to "fix it" is to just ignore it. Let it be just one more number on my character sheet that has absolutely no bearing on the narrative, and describe things however they make sense depending on the ever-changing situations of the game. So I was beaten unconscious with a giant club last night and almost died, but by dawn I'm fit to run a marathon? Sure, whatever you say.

It's best not to think about "how" and "why," because you'll only end up disappointed (or arguing). So instead, I'll just change that number and go back to the story. I'll describe how I'm running that marathon while wincing and limping the whole time, beaten black-and-blue, possibly concussed and bleeding from the kidneys. For weeks (or until I'm healed with magic), I'll constantly moan about the bruises on my Everywhere, and describe how my performance is suffering and how weak I feel and how I get queasy and dizzy and need frequent breaks...but it's all just narrative. The Rules say I'm 100% fine and dandy because that mysterious number is maxed out, so there aren't any penalties to apply, but that's impossible. So I'll narrate it to my liking.

 

[Oofta]

Not really, at least, not with exactly those options, as presented, because the 3rd option really is no different from the 2nd in kind, just in degree. You change the meaning of hps and change the rules to reflect that change. Also, 3.1 and 3.2 prettymuch contradict eachother.

I might break down 1 & 2 more like this:

1. You don't change the hp system.
a. You ignore what hp mean or represent, describing or visualizing the results of combat however you see fit in the moment, and not worrying about possibly needing to revise or ret-con it mid-narrative to make sense of it.
b. You think about what hp mean or represent, and try to describe or visualize them consistently, and live with the fact you probably won't always succeed.
2. You change the system.
a. Tweak it slightly: change the length or timing of rests, change recovery of HD.
b. Add significantly: add exhaustion or lingering wounds for coming back from 0 or for crits or whatever.
c. Break it to fix it: radically change the rate of healing, but not other things recovered on a rest, do away with HD, etc.
d. Overhaul from the ground up: possibly choose something other than hps.

Personally, I'd go for (1.a), with a rule of thumb something like: anything that brings you closer to defeat could be modeled as losing hp, anything that brings you back from that precipice could be modeled as restoring them. Restoring hps needn't map to un-doing the source of hp loss, it could merely be compensating for it.

I don't see it that way. One way is coming up with a new set of rules, the other is coming up with a narrative justification for wounds healing quickly without changing a single rule.

I think it's either ignore it, come up with house rules or come up with an in-setting justification. YMMV.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's either ignore it, come up with house rules or come up with an in-setting justification. YMMV.

We're really just organizing the options a little differently. I see it as either change the rules or not, and under not there's "don't worry about it" and "rationalize it as best you can."
Presumably, if you're changing the rules to suit, you're not also rationalizing...? ..oh, I suppose it could be a matter of rationalizing, then changing the rules when the rationalization doesn't hold up...

 

[Oofta]

We're really just organizing the options a little differently. I see it as either change the rules or not, and under not there's "don't worry about it" and "rationalize it as best you can."

I guess you can add 'both,' of which you third choice was one possible example?

Yeah, I'm not too worried about how it gets categorized. It really boils down to the same things. Maybe.

• Don't think too hard about it and/or ignore it. Much like AC or any number of other simplifications D&D does. Like how a 6 ft tall person and a 4 ft tall dwarf both fit neatly in a 5 ft cube.
• Change the rules (there are a lot of variations with this).
• Come up with an in-world justification of why wounds/healing work like they do in action movies so that you don't need to change any rules.

HP work well enough for it's intended purpose. I don't ask much more of it.

 

[Iry]

So, here's an interesting point - to me, whether I use a smaller healing spell or my combat cantrip this round is a tactical decision. What you're talking about (to me) lean into being a strategic decision, about overall status of the group, and having significant impact well outside the next few rounds of combat..

Yes. Sounds like heaven to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me a game where you did everything possible to avoid any chance of damage would be boring. Some of my most fun and engaging encounters have been when the party is barely hanging on, and the threat of a TPK is hanging over the heads of the party like the sword of Damocles. It wouldn't want every fight to be like that but I want to keep the option open, especially if the party does something stupid.

The thing is, sometimes it does all go south, and the threat of a TPK looms on the horizon. That can happen, even if you try as hard as possible to avoid danger, and most people get through most encounters without losing HP. Sometimes, your margin of error is barely sufficient, no matter how cautious you're being. (And sometimes everyone dies, even if you do everything to avoid it.)

It's just that, going into an encounter with an expectation of being hit, seems like an incredibly reckless course of action. It's like you're begging for a TPK, at that point.

 

[Iry]

It's just that, going into an encounter with an expectation of being hit, seems like an incredibly reckless course of action. It's like you're begging for a TPK, at that point.

Is your word choice an intentional allusion to Reckless Attack?

 

[Fanaelialae]

The thing is, sometimes it does all go south, and the threat of a TPK looms on the horizon. That can happen, even if you try as hard as possible to avoid danger, and most people get through most encounters without losing HP. Sometimes, your margin of error is barely sufficient, no matter how cautious you're being. (And sometimes everyone dies, even if you do everything to avoid it.)

It's just that, going into an encounter with an expectation of being hit, seems like an incredibly reckless course of action. It's like you're begging for a TPK, at that point.

Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do. The PCs can ignore the dragon who is burning whole villages, to go chase kobolds because the latter is the safe option. It's not a particularly heroic or exciting choice though, IMO.

Besides, from a realistic standpoint, if you go into a fight expecting not to get hit, you're likely deluded (which, somewhat ironically, would make you more likely to get hit than someone with a proper sense of caution). While a character might certainly hope not to get hit and endeavor not to get hit, a character who expects not to get hit should give up adventuring for a safer profession.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

It's just that, going into an encounter with an expectation of being hit, seems like an incredibly reckless course of action. It's like you're begging for a TPK, at that point.

Often in self defense training, this is one of the first things that you learn... If you get into a self defense situation, you ARE going to get hurt. You simply have to accept that, so that when it happens, you don't panic.

This seems like it is equally true for people who are going into adventuring. You have to accept that terrible things ARE going to happen to you. It is probably also related to why adventurer types brag and share stories about their scars.

 

[Oofta]

The thing is, sometimes it does all go south, and the threat of a TPK looms on the horizon. That can happen, even if you try as hard as possible to avoid danger, and most people get through most encounters without losing HP. Sometimes, your margin of error is barely sufficient, no matter how cautious you're being. (And sometimes everyone dies, even if you do everything to avoid it.)

It's just that, going into an encounter with an expectation of being hit, seems like an incredibly reckless course of action. It's like you're begging for a TPK, at that point.

Everyone runs their games differently but I've played in and run hundreds (thousands?) of games and don't remember ever encountering this attitude in real life. Sometimes you can achieve your goal without a fight. But when you do get into fights, you are going to be attacked. If the opponent is a threat you are going to get hit. An adventurer not wanting to be hit would be like a boxer never expecting to be punched. It would be boring.

But if that's what you want, more power to you. It just doesn't sound like D&D to me. I don't get it, but then again I don't have to.